Talk:Anglo-Saxons/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Nobility post 1066

"Following the conquest, the Anglo-Saxon nobility were either exiled or joined the ranks of the peasantry" is factually incorrect. Estimates vary between 10-20% of the nobility after 1066 being traceable to Anglo-Saxon nobility. There are quite a few books on the survival of Anglo-Saxon names in the nobility into the 13th century, especially in Northern England. Sources include:

The English and the Normans: Ethnic Hostility, Assimilation, and Identity 1066-c.1220, Hugh M. Thomas The Norman Conquest of the North: The Region and Its Transformation, 1000-1135, William E. Kapelle

And the actual Domesday Book and Carte Baronum. There are families with Saxon names that remained prominent well into the late Middle Ages, especially along the Scottish border. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.213.138.185 (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this statement really cannot stand. There is a difference between holding land directly from the king, and indeed Colswein of Lincoln and Thurkell of Arden were the only English nobles who held land in his way after the rebellions, and holding land from someone else. Plenty of English thegns and drengs merely converted their landholdings to knight's fees. William the Conqueror had his life saved at the Battle of Gerberoi by an Anglo-Danish knight called Toki. The Doomsday Book records many manors still being held by men with English names. Also many Norman and Breton incomers gained lands by marrying English heiresses, so the next generation of many noble houses were half English by ancestry. Urselius (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that this statement is based on a quote from Bartlett (England Under the Norman and Angevin kings 1075-1225 :Introduction) however it is incomplete. The full text says "England in 1075 was a conquered country. Many of those who had been its recent rulers the Anglo-Saxon landed class , were dead, exiled, or pressed down into the ranks of the peasantry." The phrase many of those changes the context closer to what it should be.Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Völkerwanderung

@Vallee01: The German term is quite widespread and relating to the period in question. The term “Ganggeteld Dægmælscéawere” isn’t used in th this context anywhere. Please explain why we should use an obscure term, apparently sourced to a translator app instead of a widely used term. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, Anglo Saxons didn't speak German, they spoke Old English, why on earth would you use an Modern German source? Wikipedia only uses Foreign names to state what Native what called them as an example Kristallnacht is used because it gives more context to the Article. You can not use German, and especially not Modern German, because the Saxons never spoke German, to put it in short is unacceptable. Imagine a Page of Old Norse and to describe a Name of an object it uses Dutch name, instead of the Old Norse name. It would be ridiculous, more importantl it betrays the whole point for adding native translations. Whats even the point at that point if you are going to use some unrelated language. It does not fit with how Wikipedia deals with names. Vallee01 (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

We live in the 21st century, not in Saxon times and we’re trying to write an encyclopedia in modern English, accessible to non-native speakers, using the appropriate nomenclature. The term is used, in bold in Migration period, the lemma Völkerwanderung redirects there. That’s why we use that term, not a phrase from a translation app. If you are convinced that “does not fit with how Wikipedia deals with names“, please point out the relevant policy. Kleuske (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I have done some research and, Völkerwanderung is only used for German Speakers, the results for Völkerwanderung are in German, the only results for Völkerwanderung is German Websites meaning English Sites doesn't use them as a name. I have found some scholarly articles on Old English pronunciation and am changing it soon. Of course there are going to be no results for Old English there are 90,000,000 people who speak German as a native language, there are 0 people who speak Old English as a Native language, and there are at most maybe 0 people who search things in Old English, do you think there is an Old English Internet Community, there will almost no Old English results because no one speaks Old English. Also your point about "accessible to non-native speakers" what on earth does this have anything, that's not even true. English Wikipedia is made for English speakers if your not a Native English speaker there is German Wikipedia which is written in German, French Wikipedia, Arabic Wikipedia. for staters putting single German doesn't make anyone be able to understand things clearly, thats not why people put specific word translations.Vallee01 (talk) 10:49, 23 ’August 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure how you did that research but Völkerwanderung is a very commonly used term in English history writing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems your “research” wasn’t very thorough. Here’s what ten minutes of digging revealed:

• Merriam-Webster
• Collins Dictionary
• Wileys online library
• The end of Roman Britain
• Reassessing Anglosaxon Britain

That’s only scratching the surface and I would not call it research. Kleuske (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Also here see page 15 for an "English" definition. Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vallee01: Why are you editing agains a clear consensus, here? Kleuske (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, Migration period is all we need, but Völkerwanderung is an acceptable secondary term. Not this made-up OE term. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Foreign words can't be used useless they have some relation to the subject matter, the best Example is Kristallnacht, which in German means Night of the Broken Glass, fitting as the victims spoke German. The same principle is true with any matter. As an example The Great Patriotic War has a Russian translation as Russians call it that, you can't put a Norwegian, Spanish or Bantu translation for name, even if a common name for the Great Patriotic War was in Spanish. Modern German has no relation this, its like having a page of Chinese revolution having Spanish translations. Proto Germanic could be used as the Anglo-Saxons spoke it, but not Modern German. The Saxons split off in the 4th to 6th century about 1,300 to 1,500 years. If German can be used for a connection over a thousands year ago, then Flemish is actually a better choice as it is more closely related the Saxons. So if you would state Flemish is completely unrelated to Anglo-Saxons, you thereby need to accept the fact that German is to as Flemish is more closely related to English then German is to English. Wikipedia Policy on using Foreign words is to if the group used the term, I don't think I need to say think the Anglo-Saxons never spoke German, as Modern German would not start to be solidifying until the 11th century, long, long after the Anglo-Saxon Migration. The Saxons spoke a language completely different from Modern German, so its unrelated to the Anglo Saxons. As to use of the Word the majority of the sources are German, there are some German uses in English but this is because the word has seeped into English Vocabulary, but with that in mind the majority of uses are in German. I see the rational behind adding, the issue is German can't be used because German is unrelated to German. I don't think there should be the German translation but if there is has to be a Translation of all other Germanic Languages.

Your insistence that “foreign words can't be used” has no basis in policy. It has also been pointed out to you, citing quite a few examples, that the term is a common one, even in English scientific literature on the period. Am I to understand you refuse to get the point? Kleuske (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to repeat myself over and over. You are having difficulties understanding what I am saying, so I will try to make it clear as possible. No where did I say Foreign Words can't be used, in fact I said very clearly that Words which the Native group are good on Wikipedia and have just reason. "Foreign words can't be used useless they have some relation to the subject matter", German has as much relation to the Anglo-Saxons. I will just state what I stated before "its like having a page of Chinese revolution having Spanish translations words" and "Foreign words can't be used useless they have some relation to the subject matter". Vallee01 (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

And on what policy, exactly, is this based? Just to be clear, your personal preferences are not a policy. Sadly, I must conclude you refuse to get the point.Kleuske (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I am having to repeat myself over and over again, these are not my Opinions this is Wikipedia's official policy on Translation of words. A translation needs to have some relationship to the Subject matter, as an example Stephen I of Hungary has a translation of his Hungarian name (Ishtvan). This needs to be there as nobody called Stephen "Stephen" he was always called Ishtvan during his reign, it gives more context to the reader and if the reader ever hears someone say "Ishtvan I Magyarországon" means "Stephen I of Hungary" this is why there is translations. Let me be as clear as possible: You can not use a Spanish Translation of Ishtvan, a Mongolian Translation of Ishtvan or a Finnish translation of Ishtvan because they have no relation to Ishtvan. So tell me what relationship does Modern German have to Anglo-Saxons. Vallee01 (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vallee01: This discussion has become somewhat circular, perhaps you should take it to the dispute resolution noticeboard to get a definitive answer? Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

When a "foreign" word is commonly used by scholars writing in English then the Wikipedia article SHOULD at least mention the term. I'd say FWIW that calling such words foreign is just being argumentative. It does not matter where a word came from.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

“The Anglo-Saxons are the direct ancestors of the majority of the modern British people.”

I’ve deleted this for a few reasons:

1. It appears to be unrelated to the section it’s in “Contemporary Meaning”, in fact it’s the opening sentence. It seems out of place.
2. It was first introduced in January and a citation needed tag added since April - but no one has come up with a source.
3. In one sense, taking the article definition of Anglo-Saxon to mean those having/adopting Anglo-Saxon culture in the early Middle Ages, it does seem quite likely that the majority of the current U.K. population is descended from them. Nevertheless, it does appear somewhat WP:ORish - it may be a closer run thing than might be thought if one includes a thousand years of migration from non-Anglo Saxon parts of the British Isles into England. It really does feel like something that needs a source.
4. I’ve tried to find a source, and failed. I suspect that it’s impossible for sources to make an authoritative statement on it. To the extent that there are DNA sources, Anglo-Saxon tends to be used in the popular/older meaning of exclusively the Germanic migrants/settlers themselves (and their early medieval descendants), which is not relevant (and, incidentally, tends to suggest that their descendants are in the minority.)
5. A casual reader of the article might assume that Anglo-Saxon Is used in the above mentioned popular/older meaning. In which case, that becomes an extremely problematic statement. I accept that that conclusion shouldn’t be reached because of the rest of the article, nevertheless I think it’s safer out than in pending someone finding a properly sourced statement.

DeCausa (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with all parts except the last one. Obviously, the title is right by meaning, if you intend to enlighten someone in something with the help of demagoguery, this isn't the best option. In a rough example: comparisons of the phenotype of the average Englisman with the average Dutch / German (where the Anglo-Saxons came from), as well as a cursory study of the structure of the English language - will remove all questions.Gikkee (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Angles and Saxons in distinction

The article about Angles indicates that the Angles and Saxons had adjacent but distinct origins in what is now Denmark and Germany, settled distinct regions in Britain, and presumably remained distinct from one another in Britain for at least a time. But this article seems to treat "Anglo-Saxons" as a singular entity, and even seems to suggest an origin for the term that presupposes that all Germanic British were considered "Saxons" at one point. It would be nice if this discrepancy could be resolved or at least addressed.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Angeln was a very small area, and presumably it was not host to a very populous people. Such small tribal groups were prone to absorption by surrounding peoples, the Jutes by the Danes, the Geats by the Sviar etc., or to losing their identity by incorporation into confederations. I think that there is a consensus that the ethnogenesis of the Anglo-Saxons was an insular phenomenon, not merely the result of the transplantation of identities from across the North Sea. As such, the relevance of Anglian distinctness from Saxon is probably moot. Urselius (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not arguing for any position. I am relatively uninformed on this topic, I have read both articles and now I am confused as to such basic points such as whether they spoke mutually intelligible languages from before they emigrated, from early on in Britain, or only after considerable time had passed.Sylvain1972 (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The Continental ancestors of the Anglo-Saxons spoke related dialects, now usually referred to as North Sea Germanic. They would have been mutually intelligible. If Franks were involved, there is some evidence for this, then their dialects may have been a little less intelligible to the others. Urselius (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but of course the other way of saying it is that we just don't know what happened. To add to our ignorance of what happened in England, we also don't really understand the details of how West Germanic languages generally inter-acted in this early period, and English is also called a West Germanic language (as well being a North Sea Germanic language). Like other West Germanic languages it contains a lot of specific innovative vocabulary which is connected to Roman culture. A big potential complication is the effect of participation in the Roman military on many generations of West Germanic speakers, at the same time as Rome was smashing up the old tribes and proudly noting how they were disappearing and merging into each other. In other words I think there is a good case to be made for West Germanic dialects having moved back towards each other until late antiquity. Indeed, maybe some Germanic peoples such as the ancestors of the Franks did not speak Germanic at all until they learned it during imperial times. My point is just that we don't know. By the way, another people are were mentioned in other classical sources as being present were the Frisians, and theirs is the closest language to English.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

"this article seems to treat "Anglo-Saxons" as a singular entity" - yes it does, after a very early date, and that is deliberate, correct, and follows modern historians. There was an earlier (pre-WW2 say) habit of distinguishing between the two up to far later dates, even to the Norman Conquest - essentially, Angles in the north, Saxons in the south, but this is now very much deprecated, though it may linger in some popular writing. The article could do with a small section explaining this. Not sure quite what your second point refers to. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I am referring to the lines in the article that read Paul the Deacon uses it to distinguish the English Saxons from the continental Saxons (Ealdseaxe, literally, 'old Saxons').[12] The name therefore seemed to mean "English" Saxons. To me this seems to imply that the Saxon identity endured much longer than the Angle identity, if "Angle" became merely the source of a prefix by which different Saxon groups could be distinguished and not a distinct people.Sylvain1972 (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the point is that post-migration Angles, Saxons, and other Germanic immigrants mostly just became intertwined into a new identity, the Angel/Saxon/other reduced to an etymological issue.--Chuka Chief (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

That is what I was wondering - if so that could be made more clear.

Another way to say it: historians (reliable sources) are NOT confident that there were really two (or three) distinct peoples in England, settled in different areas, and kept separate. Those stories are medieval stories from later which are not trusted. The story is likely based upon facts but historians are far more careful today about simply accepting the details.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this. This point, if so, could stand a mention in article.Sylvain1972 (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes I think most watchers of this article would agree that this seems a reasonable suggestion, but the devil is in the details of getting the balance right. Bit by bit, and when editors have the time and energy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Bede (672/3 – 735) makes the distinction strongly, and is the main source on this (Paul the Deacon never set foot in Britain, and relies on him); essentially modern historians think he overstated and/or oversimplified things. He is not that much later - obviously the whole subject is "medieval". So no, I don't think I do agree. Book 1, Ch XV (Wikisource): "Those who came over were of the three most powerful nations of Germany—Saxons, Angles, and Jutes. From the Jutes are descended the people of Kent, and of the Isle of Wight, and those also in the province of the West Saxons who are to this day called Jutes, seated opposite to the Isle of Wight. From the Saxons, that is, the country which is now called Old Saxony, came the East-Saxons, the South-Saxons, and the West Saxons. From the Angles, that is, the country which is called Anglia, and which is said, from that time, to remain desert to this day, between the provinces of the Jutes and the Saxons, are descended the East-Angles, the Midland-Angles, Mercians, all the race of the Northumbrians, that is, of those nations that dwell on the north side of the river Humber, and the other nations of the English." Obviously some of the regional names remain in use today. Many modern historians think the set-up Bede describes was really only about the ruling dynasties, and below that level the picture was much more mixed and complex from early on. I think this article covers the subject adequately; the main article is really Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Bede is the main source for the "school book" version. Of course Bede is a respected medieval source, but I think no specialist historians accept this particular passage in a simple way any more. But I also think they don't agree in precisely how much to agree or disagree with. A starting point is that historians seem to agree to be more cautious about such passages than they used to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think Sylvain1972 raises an excellent point. They describe themselves as "relatively uniformed on this topic" i.e. pretty much the typical audience for this article. There's one line in the lead that references the issue: "The history of the Anglo-Saxons is the history of a cultural identity. It developed from divergent groups in association with the people's adoption of Christianity and was integral to the establishment of various kingdoms." That line isn't really explicitly unpacked in the article - it's all rather implied/assumed to be understood. Having just re-read the whole article for the first time in a while, I can see why someone with no prior knowledge could get rather confused. There should probably be a specific section on it. DeCausa (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Does anybody have an idea why the tribe name of the Angles was more dominant and displaced the tribe name of the Saxons? Why is England not called "Saxonland" (or in former times, Seaxnecynn)? Especially, since a Saxon kingdom, Wessex, dominated England from the nineth century on? The dialect of Alfred the Great's Wessex, Late West Saxon, became the standard written language in England between the era of Alfred the Great until the Norman conquest. Why did Wessex not become the name giver for the whole country in a similar way? (User: Carsten) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:55DE:F500:5C75:1245:E5F8:56AA (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

To the Scots, Welsh, & Irish, we are of course still all "Saxons", despite the Angles supposedly being the closer neighbours to the first. Possibly some interplay of reactions? Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

While the West Saxons were central to the political unification of England, they can be viewed as being quite peripheral to the ethnogenesis of the English people. By the time of Bede there was a recognisable people called Englisc with a recognisable common language of the same name. From 616 to 829 all of the Bretwaldas (kings with a major level of recognised overlordship over other kings) were Anglian in origin, this covers most of the conversion period and, arguably, the effective era of English ethnogenesis. With Christianity came literacy and increased self-knowledge, inter-kingdom communication and the desire to codify and record relationships. In the same period the English as a whole had a much greater amount of contact with their new co-religionists - with many recorded pilgrimages to Rome by English nobles, Frankish and other continental clergy entering the country, English clergy helping in the Carolingian Renaissance and, indeed, converting heathen Germans. All of these factors tended to make a common name for the English a necessity. Urselius (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Genetics?

I am quite curious as to why there is no discussion of the genetics of the Anglo-Saxons on this page, much less a section covering this. This is a glaring omission and a rather gaping hole on the topic, all the more so given the volumes of knowledge on the well-studied subject. Every page covering an ethnic group has a discussion of the group's genetics. 021120x (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

There is considerable coverage of genetics in the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain article, where it has the most relevance. Urselius (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

A routine caution. A lot of genetics sections in Wikipedia have been, and sometimes continue to be, controversial. Many of them are almost entirely based on some of the ideas from the earliest years of trying to associate Y DNA and mitochondrial haplogroups to ethnicity, which is extremely difficult to do, and treated with scepticism by experts. Furthermore, there is very little secondary literature, and so most of the sources we can use are basically just short reports of specific bits of research, i.e. primary sources, many from relatively unknown researchers. We should therefore try to use sources with a secondary character, i.e. which review the literature, which are recent, and which come from demonstrably well-known researchers or teams.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. As to other articles, many are less well-policed than this one, and the genetics content often very dubious. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Though sometimes genetics discoveries have huge socio-political impact and should be impartially reported in Wikipedia for that reason alone, if for no other. Providing caveats as to their less than cast-iron certainty in method and interpretation, are given. Urselius (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead

I have just reread the lead and don't agree with the final paragraph that "Use of the term Anglo-Saxon assumes that the words Angles, Saxons or Anglo-Saxon have the same meaning in all the sources." Should I remove this or can the sentence be amended so it makes more sense?

Also, does anyone have Origins of the English as surely "more contingent on contemporary political and religious theology as on any kind of evidence" should read more ... than or as... as rather than more ... as. TSventon (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The sentence runs: "The changes in perspective are clearly as much, or more, contingent on contemporary political and religious ideology as on any kind of evidence." Not the most concise or lucid sentence. Urselius (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Anglo-Frisian?

Not surprised to see so much discussion at this page. I did not read it all so please excuse me if someone else asked the same thing. As far as I know the English language is closest to the Frisian and form together one group by linguestic historians. This could be a important indication that things were different from what is told on the main page here. I would think there are are two possibilities: The Angles from Denmark were Frisian speaking. The Saxons were not because there language is still spoken (Plat Deutsch) or (the other possibility) the Anglo-Saxons were a lot more Frisian then we think. I see no other way to explain the linguistic connection between English and Frisian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.90.39 (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Current thought is that 'North Sea Germanic' was ancestral to Old English, Frisian and possibly some other varieties of Low German. There were early sound shifts that affected only the Germanic dialects spoken in Britain, which led to a differentiation of Old English from all Continental Germanic dialects, including Frisian. The closeness is only relative, it does not indicate identity. Urselius (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that what you say is correct. However looking at the Anglo-Saxon language there were four different dialects namely Mercian, Northumbrian, West Saxon and Kentish. According to the historical texts (ie: Bede) the people who settled in Kent and parts of southern England were Jutes. Modern historians and linguists have been discussing who they actually were and where they came from. It is thought that the dialect they spoke was similar if not the same as Frisian. The hypothesis is that although they originated in the Jutland peninsula, after the Danes invaded Jutland, the Jutes migrated through Frisia before settling in England. There is a discussion on the dialect, essentially was it a Scandinavian language that had been heavily influence by Frisian or was it part of the German dialectal continuum? I think that discussion continues. (Have a look at Braunmüller "How Middle Low German entered the Mainland Scandinavian languages" in Guilds, Towns, and Cultural Transmission in the North 1300–1500 also Derolez “Cross-Channel Language Ties.” Anglo-Saxon England, vol. 3, 1974, available at JSTOR.) Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The Jutes settled Kent, a small enclave in a part of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight; their small numbers and fleeting political importance would tend to minimise the possibility of them having a significant impact on Old English as a whole. Urselius (talk) 09:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Politically you are right. But the Kentish were culturally big players and also great traders. Bede talks about a Northumbrian slave being sold to Frisian trader (HE IV.22) Deiran cemeteries have yielded archeological material similar to that from Kentish and Frisian graves. The Sutton Hoo treasure contained a purse of gold Frankish coins of the seventh century. The first legendary leaders of Northumbria were related to Hengist of Kent. Then of course St Augustine started in Kent with the See at Canterbury. The way they cultivated the land in Kent went as far north as the Wash (though not in Wessex). According to Bede the East Anglian King Sigeberht ‘set up a school in which boys should be instructed in letters, with the help of of bishop Felix of Kent. He appointed masters and teachers after the manner of the men of Kent(HE III.18). Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Celts? Anglo Saxons? DNA Evidence Ignored?

Very curious as to why there is no inclusion of evidence like this in the narrative:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31905764?fb_ref=Default

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14230

This Wikipedia article is very curious indeed and seems to merely perpetuate the Celtic myth and the (largely) accepted 'facts' about incomers prior to recent DNA discoveries. The fact is, the Romans left barely (if) any DNA here and Anglo Saxon DNA is in a minority in old English bloodlines. And as for the Celts? Well, that term wasn't even applied until the 1700s - and DNA tells a very different story - although historians are terrified of enraging those who cling to this myth. I do have concerns that racist adherents to the white Celtic myth (we were here first/we are victims) have subverted this article. Looking at the modern UK, one finds a system which, via the Barnett Formula and asymmetric national devolution, discriminates against the largest and most ethnically mixed UK nation - England - while allowing the white Celtic myth free reign.

https://britishcelticnations.blogspot.com/

(81.129.126.37 (talk) 11:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC))

What the hell is "white Celtic myth"? The Ancient Greeks used the term Keltoi, so it isn't a novel or even 18th century term. Celt, primarily denotes a speaker of a Celtic language, cultural, ethnic and genetic aspects are secondary, and I don't think any serious linguist doubts that the pre-Roman inhabitants of the British Isles uniformly spoke Celtic languages. Also you and the journalists whose articles you have quoted, have misinterpreted the 'Fine Structure" paper. The clue is in the title, the differences in genetic markers is for vanishingly small variation. The people of the British Isles are more similar to each other than to any outside group. What the paper actually represents is less about functional differences in ancestry, than it is of the relative mixing of people within Britain over time. The undifferentiated nature of the bulk of the populations of Southern and Eastern England is due to large amounts of mixing between people within this area. If you notice, the populations that come out as differentiated are all in highland zones: Pennine West Yorkshire, Cumbria, North and South Wales, the Devon-Cornwall peninsula. These are precisely the zones where topography means they were historically isolated by natural barriers from the bulk of the the thoroughly mixed-up English, and each other. That there was not a single homogenous population in Britain before the Anglo-Saxon adventus does not mean that ancient DNA studies cannot differentiate locals from Germanic incomers. Urselius (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The word Celts is mentioned 3 times only on the article, in contrast to British which is used 30 times. The old migration story is questioned now from the start, and although balancing the various opinions is not easy, a good attempt has certainly been made the way I read it. Is is difficult at first sight to see any particular part of the article you are referring to, and how it should be changed. Do you have any concrete suggestions? Perhaps have a look at footnotes 58, 59, 60, and the sentence they are attached to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Citation and clarification tags to lead

User:Asarlaí I have reverted the tags you added to the lead. The lead does not need citations where it summarises cited content in the main article.

"Use of the term Anglo-Saxon assumes that the words Angles, Saxons or Anglo-Saxon have the same meaning in all the sources" is untrue, so I will reword it.

Can you explain why you think the quotation from Catherine Hills is unclear? TSventon (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• 1 The history of the Anglo-Saxons is the history of a cultural identity. - I couldn't find this referenced in the main body. Anglo-Saxon history is also surely the history of a people and their kingdoms and culture, rather than merely the history of their identity?
• 2 The elite declared themselves as kings who developed burhs, and identified their roles and peoples in Biblical terms. - I couldn't find a reference to Anglo-Saxon kings "identifying their roles and peoples in Biblical terms", and it's not clear what exactly this means. Also, surely most kings were chosen or inherited their kingship, rather than merely declaring themselves king?
• 3 attitudes towards Anglo-Saxons, and hence the interpretation of their culture and history, have been "more contingent on contemporary political and religious theology as on any kind of evidence." - This doesn't make clear whose attitude and interpretation is being referred to. It's also a bit vague. Is it saying that our views of the Anglo-Saxons have been skewed by modern politics and religion? If so, in what ways? ~Asarlaí 18:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Asarlaí, I have numbered your points for convenience, other editors may have different interpretations.

• 1 The history of a cultural identity means the history of people with Anglo-Saxon/ English identity, including their kingdoms and culture, rather than the history of people descended from Germanic speaking migrants. The body talks about the development of identity in various places, mostly with references.

• 2 "The elite declared themselves as kings" refers to the development of Anglo-Saxon kingship as described in the Kingship and kingdoms section. Later kings would have inherited their kingship or been chosen. The article says the Anglo-Saxons "interpreted the fate of the kingdom of England with Biblical and Carolingian ideology, with parallels, between the Israelites, the great European empires and the Anglo-Saxons", which is similar to the phrase you queried.

• 3 The legacy section describes how views of the Anglo-Saxons have been skewed by politics and religion in different periods since 1066. The Anglo-Saxon view of themselves was also skewed by politics and religion as discussed under point 2. TSventon (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Wordiness in the lead

I think there's a bit too much wordiness and unclear wording in the lead, so I trimmed and re-worded some of it to make things more concise and straightforward, while trying not to remove or change any important detail. This was reverted by TSventon, who asked me to discuss the changes per WP:BRD. So I'll lay out my changes here and the reasoning behind them.

• The Anglo-Saxons were a cultural group who inhabited England. → The Anglo-Saxons were a cultural group who inhabited England in the Middle Ages.

I felt it was important to note the period of history the Anglo-Saxons belong to.

I feel medieval is not needed as 5th century is mentioned in the next sentence. TSventon (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• They traced their origins to the 5th century settlement of incomers to Britain, who migrated to the island → They traced their origins to Germanic tribes who migrated to Britain in the 5th century

"Settlement of incomers to Britain, who migrated to the island" is saying the same thing twice. I also think it's important to note they were Germanic tribes at the outset, rather than calling them "incomers" at first and only later saying they were Germanic.

"who migrated to the island" is probably not needed, Germanic tribes is problematic as discussed below. TSventon (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

IMHO "they traced their origins" is a claim that we know these people identified themselves according to specific ancestors. I don't think we know that. I'm also not sure that we know people identified themselves according to which language they used, at least not in the earliest period and in the southeastern areas where Anglosaxons were first prominent.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Both phrases were already in the lead before my re-wording, which has now highlighted the issue. I've made some proposals below. ~Asarlaí 10:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• The development of an Anglo-Saxon identity arose from the interaction between incoming groups of people from a number of Germanic tribes... → Anglo-Saxon identity arose from interaction amongst the Germanic tribes...

"The development of an Anglo-Saxon identity arose from" can be shortened to "Anglo-Saxon identity arose from". There's no need to mention migration a third time. And "groups of people from a number of Germanic tribes" can be shortened to "Germanic tribes" because "tribes" already means "groups of people" (plural).

"Groups from Germanic tribes", is more precise and accurate. This is because, unlike the settlements of the Franks, Burgundians, Visigoths etc. in the Roman Empire, which were migrations of whole tribes or tribal confederations, the Germanic settlement of Britain was carried out by groups of limited size derived from Continental tribes. The migrants to Britain seem to have been 'small enterprises' of warbands and/or kinship groups. Urselius (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think historians have a clear consensus, or any certainty about the details. (Many of the early Germanic speakers probably came as military recruits.) But I would for one thing try to avoid the word "tribe".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure that all historians would agree that essentially all the Visigoths left Eastern Europe and ended up in Spain and Gaul, and that the Angles, Saxons and Jutes did not all migrate en-bloc to Britain, which is the basis of my advocacy of 'groups'. Urselius (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Sounds right, so how should it read? Something like this? Anglo-saxon identity arose from the interaction of Germanic speakers of various continental backgrounds. But then I wonder if we are all comfortable with saying this was a new club, only for speakers of Germanic. Isn't that implying the controversial "apartheid" model? Just because a certain language ended up being the club language, does that mean it was originally seen as the membership condition?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The whole sentence reads The development of an Anglo-Saxon identity arose from the interaction between incoming groups of people from a number of Germanic tribes, both amongst themselves, and with indigenous British groups. I think one mention of tribes in the lead is reasonable and would be happy to remove "of people". TSventon (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed replies Urselius and Andrew Lancaster. I suggest the following: They traced their origins to Germanic-speaking groups who migrated to Britain in the 5th century [...] Anglo-Saxon identity arose from interaction amongst the Germanic groups and with the indigenous Celtic Britons.. Britons is already in the sentence, but I think we should include the word 'Celtic' (the article is Celtic Britons) to make it clear they were culturally different (altho I don’t feel that strongly about it). ~Asarlaí 10:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks TSventon. @Asarlaí: in the background there has been some movement in academia (and thus also here) towards being a bit more careful about some of the traditional assumptions, and this is giving us things to think about in cases like this. "Britons" is arguably a more cautious word than "Celtic" which is a term with several implications. The most obvious implication of using it here would be that the two main languages being used were a local Celtic (British) one, and a Germanic one (no Romance for example). The word "indigenous" suggests that we know that there were exactly these two groups (indigenous=Celtic and migrant=Germanic), and no one else. Furthermore, you are implying that we know that the Germanic-speakers all identified as "migrants" from specific places (rather than for example people whose recent ancestry was in Britain, didn't care about further back, and whose language was just what was being used in military communities of mixed background, just to take one scenario). I don't think all scholars are comfortable with those assumptions any more. So my suggestion is to avoid some of those words which imply a bit more certainty than we should, and if necessary, work them out in the body.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for your detailed reply Andrew. I'm fine with leaving out the word 'Celtic', as it may exclude Romano-Britons and others. The phrase "they traced their origins to..." was not added by myself, but I understand how it may be problematic. Maybe we could use some of the old (pre-January) wording and meld it with the new wording. How about this: They derive from Germanic groups who migrated to Britain from mainland Europe in the 5th century, as well as from British groups who adopted an Anglo-Saxon culture. The ethnogenesis of the Anglo-Saxons happened within Britain, resulting from interaction between the various Germanic groups and the Britons. ? ~Asarlaí 12:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I see some of my concerns relate to words which were already in the text. I suppose it depends what the sentence is trying to say. If I try to make the original wording more cautious, it looks a bit meaningless, and raises a question about what the sentence is this. For example: The development of an Anglo-Saxon identity arose from the interaction between groups of people living in Britain. Maybe the sentence intends to emphasize that a key group in the mix must have identified themselves as recent migrants, or maybe the idea was a bit more cautious, and it is emphasizing that there is no need to presume that this was only to do with recent migrants. (The second makes more sense to me personally.) Turning to your new proposal I have similar "big issue" concerns, but here are some text-specific comments: Don't the two sentences now repeat each other a bit? "Derive" is a bit unclear - is it meant to imply "descend from"? I would prefer "Germanic speaking" to "Germanic", just in order to confirm which one of the meanings of "Germanic" we intend (and presuming I've understood that correctly); I know there is some academic discussion possible about the word "ethnogenesis" (but also for "identity"); I would avoid "the" in "Britons" because it could imply all of them. But the bigger issues, such as the presumption of two simple categories of people, remain. I think at least some serious academics are pointing our that we really don't such details. Imagine for example that there were lots of people identifying themselves as Alans but speaking Germanic, or lots of people identifying themselves as Gauls or Franks, but speaking Romance. We know so little.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a case for arguing that incorporating all the nuances of uncertainty in all branches of scholarship into a lead, which should be accurate but also general, leaves us saying nothing useful. Just ladling out a soup of caveats. I thought the 'Germanic soldiers or federates' viewpoint was a little out of date, deriving from the idea that any burial containing a cingulum military belt was a Germanic mercenary. We know that military belts and other equipment were worn by Roman provincial recruits and even bureaucrats, and might be buried with them if they were pagan, or just not very observant Christians. Urselius (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Andrew, I agree with most of your points about making the wording more concise and precise. I also agree with Urselius that we shouldn't end up with something vague by being over-careful. The lead should summarize the main points of the article. Currently the article takes the mainstream view that Anglo-Saxons derive from both Germanic migrants/descendants of migrants, and native Britons. If the article begins to discuss other views in more detail then we can talk about weaving those into the lead. How about this for now: The Anglo-Saxons were a cultural group who inhabited England from the 5th century. Anglo-Saxons resulted from interaction between Germanic-speaking settlers from mainland Europe, and native British groups who adopted an Anglo-Saxon culture. ? ~Asarlaí 10:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

"Anglo-Saxons resulted from" is a bit strange? Presumably the missing noun has to be something like ethnicity or culture. And this in turn means the "an Anglo-Saxon culture" at the end also, and should probably be something like "this Anglo-Saxon culture". Secondly, I continue to have concerns about the over-simplification, or over-confidence, that there were only two groups, and that migrants=Germanic-speakers and natives=British. My own thinking is more like this "The Anglo-Saxon ethnicity resulted from interaction between various groups living in southern and eastern Britain, although the language which came to dominate the region had its roots in continental Germanic languages." I suspect that the prehistory of all known West Germanic languages were all strongly influenced by their use in the Roman military, and some parts of the Roman military effectively became new ethnic groups. In regards to England, I believe the likely parallel with the Franks in northern Gaul is often remarked upon.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. But I don't think we could use that wording in the lead unless/until that theory is discussed in the body. If it is added to the body, we may then need to mention more than one theory in the lead. Currently the article takes the mainstream view that Anglo-Saxons derive from Germanic groups (who were either settlers or descendants of settlers), and also Romano-Britons who adopted the Germanic language etc. We could add "ethnicity" or "culture" to "Anglo-Saxons resulted from", but I'm not sure which is best. ~Asarlaí 12:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

What about "Anglo-Saxon culture developed from"? I also think resulted sounds odd. TSventon (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Asarlaí: I agree with the principle. My aim to avoid locking the article into one specific theory in the lead.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• there was a flowering of literature and language → there was a flowering of literature.

I removed "language" because, as far as I'm aware, this term is usually only used when talking about writing and culture. It doesn't seem right to say a "flowering of (spoken) language".

I think language is justified because the development of literature required the development of the language it was written in. Old English was also used for non-literary work such as law codes. TSventon (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Anglo-Saxons in England and eastern Scotland → Anglo-Saxons in England and southeastern Scotland

I changed this because, as far as I'm aware, Old English was not spoken north of the Forth.

Agreed. TSventon (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• extended Danish invasions and military occupation of eastern England → Danish Viking invasions and occupation of eastern England

I added a link to Viking because it's more fitting than Danes. I removed "extended" because I didn't see a need for it, and removed "military" because it was more than that, it was also settlement.

I think either Viking or Danes is fine. Extended is justified as Viking raids happened from 793 to 1066. Military occupation is justified as that is how the Danelaw began. TSventon (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• The visible Anglo-Saxon culture can be seen in the material culture of buildings... → Anglo-Saxon material culture can be seen in architecture...

"Visible Anglo-Saxon culture" and "material culture" seems to be saying the same thing twice. Also "material culture of buildings" doesn't sound right to me.

Agreed, perhaps say "can still be seen". TSventon (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• effects persist in the 21st century as, according to a study published in March 2015, the genetic makeup of British populations today shows divisions of the tribal political units of the early Anglo-Saxon period → effects persist, as a 2015 study found the genetic makeup of today's English population shows divisions matching the early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms

This is just making the sentence more concise without changing what's being said.

I think this sentence is misleading and it is not explained in the main article. Leslie’s study, referenced in Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, found divisions in highland areas like Devon and Cornwall, not between early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, which were in relatively homogeneous lowland Britain. TSventon (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

References

The rest of the changes were just trimming unneeded words. Overall this looks like a very good article, but I think the lead needs some re-wording, and I see that this has been raised here a couple of other times since March last year. ~Asarlaí 21:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You have some points here, but others are not improvements - eg on the first it should be Early Middle Ages. On the 2nd "tribes" is best avoided. And so on. But I don't like the last two words in "The visible Anglo-Saxon culture can be seen in the material culture of buildings, dress styles, illuminated texts and grave goods" - these become insignificant after Christianization. Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod, thanks for your input. If I'm not mistaken, the Anglo-Saxons existed in both the Early Middle Ages (5th–10th century) and High Middle Ages (10th–13th century), so would Middle Ages not be better? As for "tribes" and "grave goods", those were already in the lead and were not changes of mine. Are there any other of my changes you see issues with? ~Asarlaí 10:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a clear end date for when we call people AS at 1066. The end of the EMA is usually taken to be 1000 in Europe generally, but often 1066 in England. Per above (and others have made this point there) you did introduce "tribes": you said "*They traced their origins to the 5th century settlement of incomers to Britain, who migrated to the island → They traced their origins to Germanic tribes who migrated to Britain in the 5th century". Grave goods was not you, sure. I'll let others make the running on other issues for now. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod, the article has a section on Anglo-Saxons after 1066, which suggests Anglo-Saxon identity continued for a while after the Norman conquest. But if there's a consensus for Early Middle Ages that's fine, as it's better than having nothing. And I didn't introduce the term "Germanic tribes". It was already in first paragraph of the lead before I edited it, as can be seen here in the last version before mine. I only melded two sentences into one to remove repetition. ~Asarlaí 14:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

There's a difference between "incoming groups of people from a number of Germanic tribes" and "They traced their origins to Germanic tribes who migrated to Britain". It isn't thought that whole tribes migrated, as rather earlier in Migration Period Europe. And btw, many were probably in Britain by 400, and others very likely came after 500, so "in the 5th century" isn't right either. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

My feelings are, that this is a subject that requires precision in wording in order to avoid ambiguity in meaning. I would much rather have prolix and precise wording than concise and ambiguous wording. Urselius (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Asarlaí, I have commented on the lines without specific comments. In general I agree with Urselius precise wording is preferable over concise and ambiguous wording. TSventon (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Completely Baffled

The Anglo-Saxons were a specific ethnic group of people who can very easily be identified genetically. Why is this being censored in the article? 021120x (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

No and no. Your edits were incorrect and were removed for that reason, not as a result of censorship. The people who became Anglo-Saxons were diverse, we only have a single source, Bede, concerning the Continental groups that the English people of his time claimed to be descended from. His list seems to be incomplete, as Frisian and possibly Frankish involvement in the Germanic settlement of Britain is a distinct probability. The genetic make-up of people who can be identified as 'Englisc' changed over time and included an acculturated native British element and the products of intermarriage from very early on - ancient DNA evidence shows evidence of intermarriage occurring in the earliest stages of Germanic settlement. Though ancient DNA can discriminate between native Britons and Germanic incomers, this does not mean that either group was a homogenous 'ethnic group'. As the modern English show a mix of native British and Germanic incomer genetic markers (and some of the latter will be Danish Viking in origin) the idea that every Anglo-Saxon person throughout the period c. 600 to 1066 was ethnically or genetically identifiable to a homogenous group is untenable. Urselius (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon heritage can be isolated as distinct from Danish, Norwegian, or continental Germanic DNA on a genetic level. Those diverse groups became a single ethnic group. Regarding the Britons, DNA evidence of intermarriage only indicates that intermarriage is known to have occurred (which was historically already attested to. We've known for quite some time that female Celtic slaves were used as concubines); that does not mean that the Britons became "Anglo-Saxons". There is no vestige of Celtic Briton influence in England. Genetic samples from the middle Anglo-Saxon period still show completely unmixed Anglo-Saxons living in England 300–500 years after their arrival. 021120x (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have access to information unavailable to me, and one of my friends is a professor of population genetics, plus I have personally helped out on an ancient DNA project (6th century AD) from human samples. I suspect that you have misinterpreted the 2015 paper by Leslie et al., this shows the majority of people in Lowland England as being genetically homogenous, but that is derived from modern population data. It does not show that the Anglo-Saxons were always a homogenous people, it just shows that the people in that region have intermixed a huge amount through time and other, typically highland, regions have not mixed to the same extent (because of topographic barriers). The paper also concluded that the people in Lowland England were of 10%–40% Continental Germanic origins, meaning that they were also of 60%-90% of native British genetic origin. The remains associated with the highest level of prestige grave goods in one early Anglo-Saxon cemetery was a Native British woman, obviously not a slave. The king list for the West Saxons includes native Celtic names from c.480 to 689, including Cerdic, Ceawlin and Caedwalla. The Mercian kings Pybba, Penda and Peada also seem to have had Brythonic-derived names. I think that your views are both ill-informed and obviously extremist. Further discourse seems pointless. Urselius (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for validating that a discussion on the genetics of the Anglo-Saxons is in fact being kept out of the article. Schiffels identified several samples from the middle Anglo-Saxon period that showed no Celtic admixture. Leslie estimated a range of 10%-40% Anglo-Saxon admixture for modern English people living in the region (the remainder of which is composed of other groups, including Scandinavians, in addition to the ancient Britons – Celtic admixture does not range above 20% in the modern English); this article is focused on the ancient Anglo-Saxons, not the contemporary English. Furthermore, Leslie found that the admixture identified only became widely present in the general population multiple centuries after the known dates of migration, showing that there was in fact a large degree of social separation between the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons (which, again, has already been attested to by historical sources). What may have occurred early on with a handful of nobles is not representative of the general population. 021120x (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

That some individual burial sites might not show admixture is not particularly surprising, but it is known that obvious, and therefore excavated, early Anglo-Saxon burial grounds are not representative of the whole population, being very sparse in low-status and child burials. Therefore extrapolating from these burials to the whole contemporaneous population is unsafe. Leslie's dating is only as good as his mathematical model, and these are seldom as robust as the authors claim, dependant as they are on assumptions. Schiffels does not claim to be able to differentiate later Danish influx from earlier Germanic incomers but dismisses it by a little sophistry. Schiffels says that no more than 40% of English ancestry is 'Anglo=Saxon' in origin, According to you, Danish and Norwegian Viking ancestry must make up another 40% of English ancestry, a ridiculous assertion, given that the Romano=British population was at least a million strong and all the incomers had to cross a broad stretch of water in open boats. It is unsafe to make definite unmoderated assertions, as you did, based on only one or two studies in a field that is constantly evolving and - for ancient DNA - is bedevilled by small sample sizes. Urselius (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

021120x, have you read Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain#Molecular evidence, where more detail on the genetics of the Anglo-Saxons is to be found. TSventon (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain is where we put all this. Imo, the whole subject remains too uncertain for the moment to cover in great depth or with much confidence. As with similar historical genetics questions elsewhere, successive studies have wildly divergent conclusions, no doubt for good reasons such as sampling, and a reasonable overall conclusion is very slow to emerge. Plus the whole area is a magnet for POV extremists. Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but, as an aside, I have wondered about the use of “cultural group” in the opening sentence. Ethnic group doesn’t mean a genetic/DNA group necessarily and can be a cultural identity. Given that “cultural group” is not particularly widely used, why do we use it here? DeCausa (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that a definite use of 'ethnic group', as a self-identified people who consider themselves as 'we' and others as 'them', just does not fit the whole period from c.450 to 1066, especially the earlier periods. Urselius (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence is wikilinked to an article the lead of which says “Cultural identity is the identity of belonging to a group. It is part of a person's self-conception and self-perception ... culturally identical group of members sharing the same cultural identity or upbringing”. The point you make seems undermined by the wikilink. I’m not sure it comes out through using the term “cultural group” in any case. DeCausa (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

'Cultural group' is a less baggage-laden term than 'ethnic group', I suspect this is why it is used. It also covers the many people who would have self-identified first with a kin-group, then a 'tribe', then a kingdom, and perhaps not as English at all. We also know that not all people buried with Germanic grave goods were of Continental origins or ancestry. These people could be legitimately claimed to be culturally Anglo-Saxon, whilst being ethnically native British. Urselius (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Breaking Out (a) Women (or Biological Sex), (b) Children (or Age), and (c) Slaves Into Separate Sections

I would suggest breaking these into separate sections, because they are such different categories.

Amalgamating them confuses the discussion of each.

You could label the "women" category "Biological Sex" and then discuss the positions of both Women and Men, individually and in relation to one another?

Also with the "children" category, you could label it "age" and then include children and adults and their positions, individually and in relation to one another. You could also include a discussion of elderly adults?

98.43.176.194 (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon pound

I have wp:nuked the article Anglo-Saxon pound because it was an irredeemable mess of OR and post-Conquest material copied blindly from other articles. It was easy to see what should not have been in the article but difficult to add what should. If there is an editor in the house with some expertise on A-S money, would they either (a) spend some time making the article useful or (b and probably more sensibly) merge it into this article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Following discussion at talk:Anglo-Saxon pound, the article has been changed so that it redirects to Pound sterling#Anglo-Saxon, c 800 CE. ----John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

International Society of Anglo-Saxonists name change

User:Faust.TSFL thank you for your edit today, do you know of any reliable sources apart from the society which have discussed the name change, or the controversy about the term Anglo-Saxon more generally? A recent discussion on the topic was archived at Talk:Anglo-Saxons/Archive 5#Removing the term “Anglo-Saxon?”. TSventon (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

It would appear that the controversy is almost wholly to be found within North America and within international organisations with influential American membership. It seems to be a little like the concept of a 'Hispanic race', an entirely parochial concept in and of the USA. Urselius (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The Times have written an article about it here (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/drop-the-term-anglo-saxon-as-it-is-bound-up-with-white-supremacy-say-academics-d66dlztfj), and the Historian Rambaran-Olm provides resources here (https://mrambaranolm.medium.com/history-bites-resources-on-the-problematic-term-anglo-saxon-part-1-9320b6a09eb7) which is widely accepted to be the best starting point. The argument is very controversial yes, and you are correct to suggest it stems primarily from America, but it appears it will only get larger and represent THE biggest point of debate in the coming decade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faust.TSFL (talk • contribs) 11:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Faust.TSFL, thank you. Rambaran-Olm's links look interesting, but unfortunately I cant see the Times article. Wikipedia tries to avoid making predictions in articles, see Wikipedia:Not a crystal ball. TSventon (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it pretty much exclusively to the US, where the various "modern" usages of "Anglo-Saxon" (WASP etc) are current, which they are not in the UK. Fiddling with the terms seems a sort of cultural appropriation to me, and Wikipedia should not be moving in this direction. Meanwhile, the zombie army of Victorian vicars still erupts every now and then. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the concept of the term 'Anglo-Saxon' being elitist, oligarchic, or politically loaded would be very difficult in to apply in England, where the homeless and destitute fractions of society are often, or usually, more Anglo-Saxon than the highest of high society. Urselius (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, the only modern context in which one is likely to encounter A-S in British discourse is "Anglo-Saxon language" as a dainty euphemism for four-letter word swearing - in that sense "Old English language" has yet to catch on. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if there is a popular underlying implication to “Anglo-Saxon” in the UK it’s more likely to be (unfairly) about crudeness or primitiveness - certainly not “white supremacy”. I think that would leave most Brits quite puzzled. If one were looking for elitism a Norman heritage would be a much more favoured reference! DeCausa (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Music

In this article about Anglo-Saxon culture and society there is not a single mention of the word "music". There's a nice "Culture" section but it's not there either, nor is it mentioned in the linked articles on art or literature. I am not a specialist in this era nor its music but I get the impression that it is known that it existed and there is some evidence. Is it just me, or is it weird that there is no mention at all here – not even "little is known" etc etc? I'd be interested to hear from editors with an interest in the field. Best to all DBaK (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The remains of Anglo-Saxon lyres have been found and reconstuctions made, and there are illustrations of figures playing lyres. A horn found in Ireland is paralelled by A-S illustrations. It is presumed(?) that the poetic performances of the scop were accompanied by music. Other than that I'm not sure that there is a great deal else known. Religious services were accompanied by singing and some manuscrips with musical notation survive. Benedict Biscop imported a musical organ of some kind, possibly a descedant of the Roman 'water organ'. Urselius (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2022

Comes from LATIN AGLII SAXONII and Was fauls... 2001:171B:227D:B3A0:713A:4C4B:DD08:7AE9 (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2022 (2)

King Æthelred the Unready Or oVER readay? 2001:171B:227D:B3A0:FD16:B535:2CB8:418A (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Meonwara and Wihtwara

Wilfridselsey and I have been trying to advise Ovid99, a new editor who has been editing numerous articles relating to the Anglo Saxons. Would any pagewatchers be able to take a look at Meonwara (since 6 May 2021‎) and Wihtwara (since 20 April 2022) and advise them further? TSventon (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that Ovid99 has an interest in the Jutes. There was an IP editor, that I think was probably Ovid99, as they were adding similar content to the Jutes article plus towns and villages that would have been part of Jutish territory. Wilfridselsey (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Wilfridselsey, my problem is that Ovid99 is adding a lot of material and a lot of what they are adding is Wikipedia:Original research, loosely based on older sources. I have tried to explain that to them on their talk page, without much success. For example the history section of Meonwara begins "The Meonwara appear to have been part of the defence of the Sub-Roman polity of Cair Guinntguic",, added here The source wikisource:la:Historia Brittonum just lists Cair Guinntguic as one of the cities of Britain, it doesn't say that the Meonwara were part of its defences. Also, the reliability of Historia Brittonum is debatable. TSventon (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

References

TSventon thank you for your remarks. Ovid99 is very enthusiastic, but as we know there are few absolutes in Anglo Saxon studies. More of 'if,possibly, maybe' etc is the usual favoured vocabulary rather than absolutes. As you say they seem to have used some old texts and embellished these with OR removing some newer solid citations for stuff that has been binned years ago, or is from flaky sources. It is then trumpeted as the absolute truth. I think that Ovid99 is also 2603:6010:de3d:3ff6:8c5e:f8c6:adac:6194. If you check their contribution list, their edits are subject to being reverted a lot. Wilfridselsey (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

A couple of comments: (1) this discussion should really be taking place at the relevant article talk pages or maybe the WikiProject, not here. (2) I had a quick look at Meonwara and don’t understand why you guys aren’t just reverting him per WP:BRD. What’s been done is clearly a mixture of OR/SYNTH, misuse of WP:PRIMARY and WP:OLDSOURCES. For example, the etymology section is egregious. WP:OR etymologies cited to Wiktionary translations of claimed root words in Greek, plus Bede (to the extent that it creates garbled nonsense by directly quoting a latin genitive plural as a proper noun “the Anglorum”)! DeCausa (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Wilfridselsey and DeCausa Thank you for your comments. The 2603:6010:DE3D:3FF6:* IP range and then Ovid99 have made about a thousand edits across 49 articles and as far as I can tell the content added is largely original research. (1) I have been discussing the issue of original research on Ovid99's talk page and didn't see any point in posting to largely unwatched talk pages for the articles or Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. Meonwara is a recent example, rather than a particularly bad one. I came here because I know there are several well informed page watchers. (2) I haven't been reverting Ovid99's content, partly because there is a lot of it and partly to avoid an edit war. TSventon (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

As DeCausa has suggested, I have copied the discussion thus far to the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms project page. I think that there are some editors there who will have encountered this problem who do not necessarily look at this page.Wilfridselsey (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Anglosaxon as Anglophone in Polish

The right adjective is "anglosaski" (not "anglosaksoński"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:11BF:4201:2B00:84D6:6135:FDD4:7DF8 (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Ethnicity and Culture are Not Exclusive Concepts

Mention of ethnicity does not need to be omitted in order to discuss culture. There's no reason to censor ethnic discussions from this article. 021120x (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@021120x Fortunately the article doesn't do that. Doug Weller talk 09:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no mention of ethnicity in this article at all. While it was formerly present, it has now been replaced at all instances with "cultural group". 021120x (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@021120x How about reading the article? It's in the third sentence of the lead and in the section on symbolism. Doug Weller talk 13:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

How about if you read the article? The focus of the section on symbolism is entirely on culture.

The Anglo-Saxons were an ethnic group. Nowhere is this clearly stated in the article.

And the Anglo-Saxons were ethnically distinct from the Celtic Britons. The article does not address this at all. However, even if it did, something as fundamental to the article as Anglo-Saxon ethnicity should not be hidden and only passively-mentioned in one minor section. 021120x (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

It's discussed in the first paragraph of the lead. Read the link to Ethnogenesis. Also "Throughout this article Anglo-Saxon is used for Saxon, Angles, Jute, or Frisian unless it is specific to a point being made; "Anglo-Saxon" is used when specifically the culture is meant rather than any ethnicity. However, all these terms are interchangeably used by scholars." Third para of lead says "The history of the Anglo-Saxons is the history of a cultural identity." Then there's "The migrants were Germanic tribes such as the Goths, Vandals, Angles, Saxons, Lombards, Suebi, Frisii, and Franks; " These were all different ethnic groups. Culture does not imply ethnicity. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Race and Manifest Destiny : The Origins of American Racial Anglo-Saxonism

@Generalrelative, Here is the entire text of page 173 of the source:

...of Caucasian racial supremacy, he also helped to accelerate the process by which even the Caucasian race was divided into superior and inferior divisions - to Lieber the Anglican race" exhibited special traits that give it the right to control and lead the world. For the most part, by the 1840s the main southern literary periodicals were unwilling to accept the warnings given by Francis Lieber. While on the one hand they constantly discussed and disseminated the new scientific racism exalting the Caucasians, on the other they accepted in practical form the more general defenses of an aggressive racial mission of the American AngloSaxons. Also, as the scientific arguments for racial differences became better known in the late 1840s, these arguments increasingly were used to bolster the more impressionistic views of the destiny of the American Anglo-Saxon race. When in 1843 the American edition of Friedrich von Schlegel's Philosophy of History was reviewed in the Southern Quarterly Review, the author took the opportunity to challenge the eighteenth-century environmentalist view of racial differences. Rather than climate, he said, the decisive factor was the innate character of the race. The Anglo-Saxon race retained much of its energy and activity in areas of the world where the aborigines were enervated: The characteristics of particular races remain ineradicable, they undergo slight changes and modifications, according to the admixture of foreign blood, but the original type remains." The characteristics of the Anglo-Saxons at the present day, the reviewer argued, could be seen in the Germanic tribes as described by Tacitus. A similar conclusion was reached in a review of Guizot's works: the Germanic tribes had an ineradicable spirit of liberty, and the Germanic race revivified a worn-out Roman Empire. Where the Germanic tribes had penetrated least - in Greece and Italy - there had been a long sterility. The only vigor in Italy was in the north, where there had been an infusion of German blood. Similar speculations were inspired when Arnold's Introductory Lectures on Modern History was reviewed. Arnold's views of the revivifying power of the Germanic peoples fell on ground that had been well prepared, and the...

The word racist appears nowhere on the page. 021120x (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Er, I see "Caucasian racial supremacy", "the Anglican race exhibited special traits that give it the right to control and lead the world", "...the innate character of the race. The Anglo-Saxon race retained much of its energy and activity...". What would be a good way of summarising that and avoiding WP:Close paraphrasing? I know...."racist". DeCausa (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa Houston, we have a problem. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedic source. Injecting WP:POV is not permitted. Do not put words in the author's mouth. 021120x (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

That's an empty comment. No one's doing that. DeCausa (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You did that by calling the author's description of history "racist" and adding a perspective that he himself did not use in the text. 021120x (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Tbh, you're making little sense. The text you quoted describes a number of historic racist views. To refer to those historic racist views as "racist" is entirely accurate and appropriate and is what the article does. I fail to see any issue. DeCausa (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

So is Tacitus "racist"? Was Friedrich Schlegel "racist"? Were all 18th century environmentalists "racist"? Much of what modern people demonize as "racist" was normal thought during the time periods under consideration. We need to avoid projecting modern biases onto the past. 021120x (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you know what "racist" means? It has a objective meaning. We even have an article on it. I really have no idea what you are trying to say. It seems you just don't like the word. DeCausa (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Tacitus, no. Schlegel, maybe (it has been credibly argued by e.g. Edward Said). Racism is a modern ideology. "Modern" in the sense of post-1453 or so. But in any case it would probably make sense for you to respond to my comment below before getting bogged down in theoretical debate. Generalrelative (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to this part: While on the one hand they constantly discussed and disseminated the new scientific racism exalting the Caucasians, on the other they accepted in practical form the more general defenses of an aggressive racial mission of the American Angelo-Saxons. 021120x: is your argument that "racism" is not "racist", or did you just miss that sentence? Generalrelative (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The term "scientific racism" is a modern pejorative that the people labeled as "scientific racists" did not use to describe themselves.

The phrasing detracts from the neutral point of view of the article, but I am not going to debate this any further. 021120x (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad you're willing to leave off debating, though you didn't answer my question. In any case, Wikipedia will continue to follow what the reliable sources say. Generalrelative (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It would be fantastic if editors actually did that rather than using source material to support an already-held position. 021120x (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You started this thread to complain that "racist" wasn't on the cited page. I pointed out that it is. Now you're stomping your feet and pretending that others are at fault. No. You were incorrect, and you have been gently corrected. Now please drop the stick and back away from the dead horse. Generalrelative (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Changes to lead January 2023

Rosenborg BK Fan, I have reverted your recent changes to the lead section of the article, which should be a summary of the remainder of the article (MOS:LEAD). The body of the article should be changed first, with references, then the lead can be changed. Some examples

• adding "Angles, Saxons, and Jutes", which are not listed in the body of the article. The list derives from Bede and is mentioned in Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain#Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum.
• a sentence on the heptarchy, which the body of the article says is not a term used in current scholarship
• adding Irish influence on literature and Norse influence on law
• "traditional thatched-roof houses", rather than churches, as an example of surviving architecture
• "illuminated medieval manuscripts" as an example of literature rather than art.

TSventon (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

That is fine. I just wanted to add some more relevant historical information to the best of my knowledge, understanding, and writing capabilities. I tried as much as I could in good faith. If I understand you correctly, shall I change the body of the article with the aforementioned informations in a well-referenced and structured manner? Would that be better and afterwards the lead could be changed accordingly? Thank you very much for your subsequent response! All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I think information about Irish influence on art and Norse influence on law could be added. I believe that the word law is of Norse origin. Ideally recent scholarly sources should be used rather than older sources or popular works. I didn't think the other changes were helpful. For example the lead doesn't have detail about Angles, Saxons, and Jutes as that comes from Bede, who was writing in the eighth century, three centuries later. TSventon (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I have added back an explanation of burh as many readers will not be familiar with it. TSventon (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

That is very good indeed. The burhs were very powerful Anglo-Saxon strongholds which stood well agains the Norse invaders for example. Well done. Thank you! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxons <> Swedes

The lede seems to trip over its own definition of AS, and I think most discerning readers will find it confusing.

Consider this concrete questions: (1) did the AS exist before 'they' came to Britain? (2) Is AS identity defined by inheritance?

The intro describes the AS as "a cultural group", and speaks about it like an identity that was man-made and created in Britain and that it is not defined by ancestry. The answer to (1) and (2) would seem to be No. The phrase cultural group sounds like it is a cultural phenomenon that "happened" in Britain.

But the article talks about "their settlement" of Britain. This suggests that the AS existed before they came to Britain, after all, how can anyone who does not exist move anywhere?

The article seems to toggle back and forth, referring sometimes to the AS as an ethnic group defined by ancestry, and sometimes as a cultural phenomenon.

Compare to the "Swedes". It can mean different things: someone with Swedish citizenship, someone living in Sweden and part of the culture, or someone ethnically Sweden. Can acknowledge in the lede that "AS" is a term that has multiple related uses? Sometimes it refers to a cultural phenomenon, sometimes it refers to an ethnicity. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is difficult to get right in many Wikipedia articles and as you probably realize it also reflects the situation in many of the sources we use. One complication which makes things sound illogical when they actually aren't is that the same term continues to be used over centuries, but the way it is defined evolves and if you take a complex region like Europe, it is doubtful that any two people living at the same time will understand the web of "identity" words and concepts being used around them in exactly the same way. How should we handle it? To some extent our articles have to explain how these terms evolved over time. The use of broader terms like "cultural group" allow for the possibility of evolution. If our article would say that being an Anglo Saxon is genetic (ancestry based) that would not be correct.

Does this approach make sense? In this case terms like Angle and Saxon tend to be used for continental groups, or groups that are being described as continental migrants to England. (It is actually not certain that there were Saxons on the continent before there were Saxon sea marauders. The term may have even begun meaning something like vikings.) The term Anglo-Saxon should never be used to refer to the original continental peoples, but always used to refer to the new culture which developed in Britain and was certainly also partly Roman and British. So I suggest that when we talk about peoples arriving in England we should pick our terms carefully.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

DNA

Rather than opine about the origins of the English as the article does maybe introduce DNA analysis to give the extent of Germanic settlement (25-40%) as per https://www.earlham.ac.uk/articles/anglo-saxon-british-human-ancestry-starts-east-anglia?fbclid=IwAR1FUNPhuCZgxuwijvOVh2eu_ri8DxyuIiTuqEnJLQ18rJb26L89Fm3zk4Q Science is a better judge than theorists Kingbird1 (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Well it might be in 20 years time, when the scientists come to some sort of consensus on what their findings (usually based on very small datasets and often contradicting other results) mean, which is a good distance away. DNA studies can inform about the amount of Germanic DNA knocking around, if there is consensus on how that is defined, but it can't tell you "the extent of Germanic settlement" in the post-Roman period, if only because the wide genetic mix of the Roman period population is becoming clearer. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

That study is based on just ten skeletons, & much of the write-up is dubious. In particular "a finding which surprised the archaeologists was that one of the Anglo-Saxon humans was an admixed individual between the indigenous people and recent immigrants. It has been thought that the Anglo-Saxons kept to themselves and did not mix with the native populations" is complete nonsense. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I think another issue with such studies so far, just looking at it from the perspective of our challenge here, is that while no one is shocked to hear that English people are genetically related to people from northern Germany to some extent, the details are what would really be important. Just to give an example, we do not even really know where the continental Angles and Saxons lived. Everyone likes to write as if this is obvious and well-known but we only have vague ideas.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I should add that the long section at Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain#Molecular_evidence is where the scientists are given their head. Johnbod (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

revert

Alssa1 concerning this revert as a small first point, you really should mention it when an edit is a revert. As a second point the edit summary you did give seems to be an attempt at sarcasm or light-heartedness, I suppose, and that is why I now post here. I think there is a chance of a misunderstanding. Your edsum was this: It seems strange that lots of edits are being made without explicit referencing. However, there have not been lots of edits, and when it comes to wording choices in a lead, edits without specific referencing explanations would be quite unremarkable anyway. The passage already has sourcing. The lead should summarize the article, and its sources. We do not normally source our edits as such. Looking at your edits I am guessing that you are close to an edit war concerning a similar passage in English people, with the same editor who I reverted here in my preceding edit, 021120x. Maybe when you write about "lots of edits" you are connecting the two articles? Anyway, it would be nice to have a better explanation for reverting my second edit which I see as a wording improvement to try to avoid problems. On this type of article it can be difficult to find the right wordings for the leads. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)