Talk:Anglo-Saxons/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Social differentiation

I have been reading Robin Fleming (2010), Britain after Rome, and I am struck by how she emphasises the apparent lack of social differentiation in the Anglo-Saxons of the early migration period -- settlements and graves of the 5th century early migration period often showing a hotch-potch of different cultural influences even in the same cemetery, apparently relating to a multitude of different continental heritages all thrown together; but apparently "modest social differences" only, "no very rich households and no very poor ones", "no aristocracy in such hamlets, no warrior class" (pp. 43-44). According to Fleming it is only in the sixth century that social stratification and organisation start to become more evident; and only towards the late sixth century that regiones start to appear, with tributes being brought to elite leaders; which in turn fall like dominoes as the most successful emerging leaders use them as building blocks to establish larger and larger kingdoms.

Here's a similar account in the Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology (Hamerow et al, 2011) pp. 157–160.

Also p. 147 onwards of Härke (2003), "Early Anglo-Saxon Social Structure" in J. Hines (ed), The Anglo-Saxons from the Migration Period to the Eighth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective. (Whole paper also on Scribd).

It seems to me that this is something we should probably discuss more in our "Early Anglo-Saxon history" sections on "Migration" and then "Development of an Anglo-Saxon society".

In particular, it's not clear to me how this apparently quite slow development of a social organisation and hierarchical structure able to project force -- really not until the end of the 500s -- relates to the kind of military force invoked by e.g. Gildas. The two models don't really seem to be compatible.

Later on, under "Kingship and kingdoms", we write

Anglo-Saxon kingship had its origins in war-leadership. Anglo-Saxon leaders, some of whom may well have had forefathers who had been brought to Britain to provide military protection for the Romano-British, were able to seize the initiative and to establish kingdoms for themselves and their successors. Anglo-Saxon leaders, unable to tax and coerce followers instead extracted surplus by raiding and collecting food renders and 'prestige goods'. The later sixth century saw the end of a 'prestige goods' economy, as evidenced by the decline of accompanied burial, and the appearance of the first princely graves and high-status settlements.

I should check the cited chapter -- Hamerow (2005) in Paul Fouracre (ed), The New Cambridge Medieval History, I, c. 500-c. 700. -- to see how much of this that source actually states in so many words, precisely what time-frame this is intended to relate to, and to find out what actual evidence there may be, beyond the literary sources, of early leaders going "raiding and collecting food renders and 'prestige goods'", and/or when they are supposed to have "established kingdoms for themselves and their successors". Jheald (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio issues

It's not very well credited, but the first two sentences are actually lifted directly from Barbara Yorke (2002), Kings and Kingdoms of Anglo-Saxon England, p. 157, opening a chapter on "The Development of Kingship, c.600 - c.900", while the final two sentences are lifted directly from the start of the Conclusion section of Helena Hamerow's chapter in Fouracre (ed) (2005), p. 263. (more to come). Jheald (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

All too typical! We need to either summarize/paraphrase, or just make plain these are quotes, which may be better. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The content was added as part of an impressive expansion of the article by J Beake in February 2015 (diff) -- we shouldn't really be using direct quotes like these without marking them as such, but it does make it easier to track down the sources! Jheald (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

:-( It goes on and on like this, with sentence after sentence being lifted verbatim -- a lot from Yorke, not even cited; even a sentence from Britannica (on the Witan) -- lifted verbatim and then all patched together, like a Medieval chronicler. Even some of the references have been lifted in their entirety. The sad thing is the choice of materials and assembly is not too bad. But I guess it's all going to have to be done again. Over to you, Johnbod, if you can face it. Jheald (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, and I don't have the right sort of books. Fortunately, this and Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain are about the only article he ever worked on. But they should probably be entirely redone. He engaged in discussions above in Feb 2014 btw, but no one mentioned copyvio. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The plagiarism was spotted and called out on the other article in May 2014, at Talk:Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain/Archive_2#Plagiarism, relating to this content added by J Beake in January 2014, but it seems it was never followed up. Jheald (talk) 10:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I have started a thread at the wikiproject, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anglo-Saxon_Kingdoms#COPYVIO_problem, and also notified J Beake on his talk page -- but he has not been active for a few months, so he may or may not see it. Jheald (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

He last edited in June 2014, so must be regarded as gone. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

PS: a brief return in mid-2016 then nothing since. Johnbod (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Social differentiation (continued)

Getting back to the question of the social differentiation, and just when a ruling elite arose, Yorke (2002, loc. cit.) writes

The breakdown of centralized authority during the subRoman period allowed power to pass into the hands of those who had military forces at their disposal, and various Anglo-Saxon leaders ... were able to seize the initiative and establish kingdoms for themselves and their successors

Elsewhere (don't have the reference to hand, possibly one of her ODNB pieces), Yorke writes that she finds the mercenaries rebelling in the way described by Gildas very plausible. But does this fit with the model of differentiation as something that took time to emerge quite slowly from an initially somewhat inchoate coming together of households from a multitude of different ancestral locations, with little apparent initial organisation above the level of the household?

Hamerow's chapter is interesting, because up until the start of the conclusion cited above, her focus in the preceding pages is very much on this latter process of evolving differentiation and emerging structure over several generations. The idea of leaders collecting (and distributing) food renders and 'prestige goods', and presumably also raiding, per Hamerow's conclusion paragraph, is certainly true to the later sixth century, when central places for the yielding up and processing of such renders start appearing. But can the model be projected further back? On page 283, Hamerow merely states, crediting Yorke for the suggestion, that "the possibility exists... that some rulers of the later sixth century 'evolved' from such opportunistic raiders [rebellious Saxon federates in sub-Roman Britain] who began to take control of particular territories that they had been exploiting".

But if such raiding leaderships did exist, are there traces one would have expected them to have left behind? And would one have expected to find such traces? Was similar behaviour current in Germany before the migration? Has that left any tell-tale traces? (I think I read a quote from Tacitus being alluded to, describing their war leaders as "kings -- at least to the extent that the Germans have kings", in connection with and apparent lack of social differentiation and pronounced hierarchy in the German tribes. Does that suggest an initial lack of much social differentiation, eg at or just before the period of peak migration c. AD 500, could still nevertheless be compatible with effective force projection? The Saxons did win an ascendancy, which drove a complete cultural shift, after all). I still feel very much in the dark here. What are the models currently being suggested for the early period, when Anglo-Saxon culture became so dominant, before the period of the kingdoms? (And have things moved on again since 2005, not to mention 1990 ?) Jheald (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Historians have also been somewhat bemused by the regnal line of the West Saxons. Yorke amongst others ( Kings and kingdoms of early AS England pp. 138-139) explores this. The early West Saxons (or strictly speaking the Gewisse) had Anglisised Brythonic names. Was this because they were British or were they Saxons adopting British ways? Also the West Saxon Ine in his law code legislates for British subjects as well as his AS ones and the Chronicle was partly conceived to construct an ancestry of the West Saxons for the benefit Alfred the Great. Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible small errors

I am no native english speaker, but these sentences sound wrong

"The Anglo-Saxons had always been defined very closely to the language" .. maybe "by"?

"one of the only named poets in Anglo-Saxon" ... is there only named poet or more?

78.42.244.34 (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

jutes

Dozens of generations of English schoolchildren have been taught that post-roman Britain was invaded by the Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes, but the latter seem to get no mention here. Has history been revised ? Lathamibird (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Not really, but almost nothing solid is known about their contribution, beyond slightly different styles of brooch etc imputed to them. If it wasn't for Bede the term would never be used in English history. As you'll see at Jutes, their history on the continent is remarkably murky. The strong tendency in recent decades is to regard the AS as a more-or-less unified group from pretty early on. And these A/S/J labels very likely mainly referred to the top families rather than the rank & file. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

"Brythonic"

"Brythonic" is mentioned seven times in the article but not wikilinked. Brythonic redirects to Brittonic, a dab page. I am not sure which meaning is intended by each of the seven instances, but each one should probably be changed to something less ambiguous.--Pontificalibus 14:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Language

The text at present states, "the modern English language owes over half its words – including the most common words of everyday speech – to the language of the Anglo-Saxons". There is no reference for this, and it contradicts widely-spread linguistic analysis, which show a majority of modern English vocabulary originating in the Romance languages, especially French and Latin. It is not supported by the Wikipedia entry on Old English, which states, "Perhaps around 85 per cent of Old English words are no longer in use, but those that survived are basic elements of Modern English vocabulary.[3]". 2A01:E0A:E:9050:2965:B509:F37B:1426 (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Severe Contradiction of this article

"The indigenous British people, who wrote in both Latin and Welsh, referred to these invaders as Saxones or Saeson - the latter is still used today in the Welsh word for 'English' people.[7]" This is extremely incorrect. There are no historical records of who would be the first English people as records of such were wiped out from a prolonged period of ancient war. Anglo is English and the English people are of a Germanic tribe racially. There are no "British People". If they wrote latin it was most likely because they were Latin which would surely make them not of England. There were many Latin invaders of England and time of rule under the non-English Latin invaders. If anything England should be thought of as a minor territory of Germania. Some leaders spoke in Latin but it was because they were leaders not because that is the language of the English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealvan (talk • contribs) 16:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry man but that doesn't make sense at all . . . there was most definitely a Romano-British people separate from the Germanic tribes, and they did indeed write pretty much exclusively in Latin and Welsh - though of course the ones outside of Wales and Cornwall spoke Brythonic, it's just not written anywhere. Take Nennius for example: "...in ea sunt quattuor gentes: scotti, picti, saxones atque brittones" (In britain there are four peoples: the Scots, Picts, Saxons and Britons). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.4.254.120 (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Does this contributor have any knowledge of the subject? What does he mean by 'There are no "British People"'? Does he mean that there were no people in Britain before the Roman invasion? Or does he accept that they existed, but for some reason object to the conventional use of the word "British" to refer to them? If the latter, then what word would he prefer, and why does he prefer it to "British"? As for his comments about Latin, is he under the impression that all of the Latin written across much of Europe in the middle ages was written by ethnically Latin people? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly the original poster has no knowledge on the subject. I have just watched Britain AD - such an interesting programme. How fascinating to see an even more updated theory which is that the English began to speak English due to picking up a continental culture, likewise with jewellery, clothing and social systems, and minimising the evidence of there ever being a Teutonic invasion. It also explains the rise of the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic difference in literature and historical "accuracies". If anything, this evidence - be it true - completely nullifies any future argument for English being "Germanic" by race or blood and questions the need for such profound English, Welsh and Scottish nationalism today. It is not at all absurd that a new dominating culture can arise from within a nation without the need of migration, invasion or conquest, as it has happened in many parts of the world and is still happening today with popular culture from America or Japan, for example, causing peoples to change to what's hip, new and seen as better. (Enzedbrit (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC))

The thing is, they could never accept that, they enjoy the oppression. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above points, this page (which is blocked from editing) seriously contradicts most other Wikipedia pages touching on the topic. IE Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, Romano-British culture, or Sub-Roman Britain. Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain states that the 'most widely held view' today is "...the ancestry of the people of Anglo-Saxon and Modern England would be largely derived from the native Romano-British". This article makes no reference to Romano-British, but discusses during the section on 410-660 a "Brythonic" majority outnumbering the Anglo-Saxon invaders and does not mention a Roman or "Romano-British" population at all. There is no wikipedia page for "Brythonic" (perhaps from elsewhere we can infer it means Briton). These need not be contradictory (the "Brythonic" population may have been the same as the Romano-British) but if this local population was in fact Romanized, this would be of interest to anyone who has chosen to read this wikipedia entry. The way this is worded, one would have almost no impression of a Roman culture being subsumed by the Anglo-Saxon invasion. There is a reference in passing to "sub-Roman' but it does not even bother to link to the wikipedia page on sub-Roman. The impression one would get from reading this page (without any access to other related wikipedia pages on the time period which are not linked to in this article) is that there was an indigenous population in Britain that was relatively "primitive" in terms of cultural/technological advancement, and the truth could have been quite different if the Roman influence remained strong as is implied by every other wikipedia page touching on the topic. While conflicting theories and views are presented on the related wikipedia pages (Again none linked to this text) that is not the case here. IT makes the reader wonder if the page has been locked at the behest of someone who has an academic agenda on portraying this topic a certain way while cutting out any academic debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.200.173 (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

"If anything, this evidence - be it true - completely nullifies any future argument for English being "Germanic" by race or blood and questions the need for such profound English, Welsh and Scottish nationalism today"

First of all, Germanic has never been a genetic or racial term in the sense people seem to obsess over. It's literally meant, since its earliest use, speakers of Germanic languages. For people to act as if the English need to be of 100% pure Germanic blood (what exactly even is that, even the people within the proto-Germanic homelands were not genetically uniform to begin with!) to trace their origins from the Anglo-Saxons is pure nonsense. Both the Anglo-Saxons and the Celtic peoples of the British Isles (and indeed the later Norse) would all have been remarkably similar, and descended from the same recent population groups. Christ even the Celtic languages themselves also originated in Germany, just the southern part and happened to spread 1000 or so years before.

As native speakers of English, everyone in the British Isles today traces ethnolinguistic descent from the Anglo-Saxons (and to some extent the Norse), not the Celts (with the obvious exception of remaining Welsh and Gaelic speakers). Celtic languages in fact no doubt spread to the British Isles in a remarkably similar manner, through small elites conquering territories in phases and spreading their language and culture to the natives over centuries. If the people of the British Isles are not today English and Germanic, then they were never Celtic in the first place. As if you don't change ethnoliniguistic groups when you change native language then it's impossible to even categorize humans into ethnolinguistic groups in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Huns

The migrants to Britain might also have included the Huns and Rugini.

Is there any evidence that the Huns were mariners or was there any hun remnance found? A single Hun dealer or mercenary as an evidence for a population?--2003:F2:83D0:5301:D415:581B:32AC:2AB (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

That’s supported by a citation from a reliable source (James Campbell (historian)). There’s a summary here. DeCausa (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

“Map of Britain in 802”

This map, used in the article, is hopelessly misleading and should be got rid of. The colour scheme dividing into Jutes, Saxons and Angles (what modern historian refers to these as “states”?) doesn’t accord with modern scholarship and misleads as to what we understand to be the actual realities. At this date, it would make much more sense to have Mercia, Essex and Kent in one colour (the Mercian supremacy at that point) with Northumbria and Wessex in different colours. It just looks like something out of an Edwardian school history. DeCausa (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed - you probably saw my attempt to mitigate, but replacement would be better. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, having now looked, Commons seems to be short of decent maps covering this. DeCausa (talk) 09:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Lead improvement

I think I will not be shocking anyone if I say the lead looks like a truce, rather than a final version? I would like to propose the following analysis, and then work towards actually making some changes:

The Anglo-Saxons were a cultural group who inhabited Great Britain from the 5th century. They comprised people from Germanic tribes who migrated to the island from continental Europe, their descendants, and indigenous British groups who adopted many aspects of Anglo-Saxon culture and language; the cultural foundations laid by the Anglo-Saxons are the foundation of the modern English legal system[citation needed] and of many aspects of English society; the modern English language owes over half its words – including the most common words of everyday speech – to the language of the Anglo-Saxons.

• First sentence is being careful by calling them a "cultural group" instead of a people or ethnic group. That because the beginnings of the English people, which is what we are talking about, is pretty mysterious, and it seems uncontroversial to say that at least in the first centuries English was spoken within a multilingual and complex community that probably also saw itself as Roman and British.
• Notably, the first sentence is however in stark contrast to the subsequent lines which seem to be struggling to insist that actually this is all about race and ancestry. And I guess it is inevitable that readers and editors will want to have it say something about who the English descended from.
• We also seem to be avoiding, understandably in my opinion, jumping into talking about Germanic language or immigration as defining characteristics. Nevertheless, it is difficult to avoid mentioning them.

A first attempt, trying to discern what editors wanted and how to achieve as much as possible in a readable way:

The Anglo-Saxons were the precursors of the English people, beginning as Old English speaking cultural groups who coexisted with Brittonic and Romance speaking inhabitants of what is now southern and eastern England from at least the 5th century. Their culture and language became dominant, and over several centuries it spread to cover all of England and southern Scotland.

The English language itself and many elements of the Anglo-Saxon material culture came from what is now Northern Germany and Scandinavia, apparently brought by soldiers recruited there, and other immigrants from those regions. However, the exact details of these migrations and cultural integrations are now difficult to define with certainty, and likely to have been complex. Aspects of Anglo-Saxon language and culture were also derived from local and Roman precursors.

Despite the eleventh century conquests of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms by Norse and French speakers, many aspects of their administration methods were adapted by the new rulers, and the English language, though much affected by Norse and French, eventually recovered its dominant position. The modern English language owes over half its words, including the most common words of everyday speech, to the language of the Anglo-Saxons.

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

That orange is very hard to read, for me anyway. Can it be changed to something else? I can see a problem straight away with "The English language itself ....came from what is now Northern Germany and Scandinavia", and "beginning as Old English speaking cultural groups..." (hyphen needed, surely?). Nobody spoke anythying that can be called "Old Englsh" for a good while after the first arrivals, not that we know exactly how their language(s) sounded. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I oppose any change to the lead that is not a summary of a fuller discussion in the main. The main says nothing about Romance speakers, and the speed of change of language is arguably quicker than this new summary. Also the use of the term "Old English", while perhaps generally better than "Anglo Saxon", nevertheless introduces its own complexities. I agree with Johnbod's caution over where the language came from, and if the lead has to say that the details are difficult to define, that information definitely needs more discussion in the main, as does any clause introduced by "apparently". I suggest that we work on expanding the main first and only update the lead where we can summarise the main. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod and Sirfurboy: (1) I changed to green. Hope that is better. (2) I think it would be easy to simply get rid of the specificity about the geographical source of the language, though I actually thought I was being broad enough to avoid controversy? Before I write a tweak, perhaps clarify? I might be misunderstanding. (3) I like caution. We can say "Germanic speaking" instead of old English speaking? (4) If something is missing in the body that can be added, but concerning the lead above proposal the main point about the Romance speakers is that there is no consensus for a genocide: there was significant continuity. (The English are also first found only in the most Romanized parts of Britain, and the old assumption that everyone still spoke Brittonic is no longer a consensus either, but this complication can also be side-stepped in the lead.)

We perhaps just need to say beginning as Germanic speaking speaking groups who coexisted with other inhabitants?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Green is much better, thanks, also that change. The problem was not the German source of OE, but the implied suggestion that it arrived pre-formed from the Continent. Not sure how to handle the Romance issue, but it is probably better to fix the body first, then the lead, as User:Sirfurboy suggests. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

No rush. I would suggest anyone with comments please keep posting on this point. IMHO though, the current lead is not perfect?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree the lead is not perfect. I do not object to the lead being changed - just that the main body should change first. An example: "the old assumption that everyone still spoke Brittonic is no longer a consensus either." But this is not discussed in the main, so should not be in the lead (yet). -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

We have an article at British Latin. There is no bright line between late vulgar Latin and proto-Romance, but is there any reason to think there was a true British Romance language? Srnec (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

”Romance” is a misleading concept for early medieval Britain - there’s no (hardly any) evidence for going beyond the late Vulgar Latin continuum. Romance implies the next “phase”. It’s best to use “late Vulgar Latin” albeit pipelinked to British Latin. DeCausa (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not claiming expertise myself, but indeed I understand there was a relatively homogeneous Vulgar Latin which took some time to split up. Concerning evidence for what happened in England, again this is not from me but for example pointed out by Oosthuizen and I think also Halsall, with citations to others. I think the main point for us is that there had been an argument for something brutal: population replacement, genocide, enslavement etc, based on the lack of Brittonic loanwords in English, but this assumed, on the contrary, that we know that Roman Britons in their most Romanized areas were speaking something like Welsh. If we can not assume that, the argument goes, then there is no linguistic argument for something like genocide. Of course there will be more to it than that. There is of course a lot of Latin in Old English. But to say it again, this is just me reciting what I understand to be an argument now in the field. I have written it without looking up pages etc. In general I can agree with the idea that this can be looked into more before including it in any lead or body adaptations. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the body should be fixed before the lead. Currently I prefer the old version, although it is not perfect. I don't think the lead needs so much detail about the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, which has its own article. TSventon (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The long second sentence is really not a good clear sentence though? And I find it strange that we are distracted away from basic defining aspects that an unfamiliar reader would need in order to start reading. For example, you would expect words like England and English to appear somewhere?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the second sentence is not perfect. A full stop rather than a semi colon would simplify the sentence and the second half of the statement mentions English law, which could be changed to the Kingdom of England, and the English language. At this stage can we agree to look at the main first? You have only queried the first half paragraph, do you intend to move onto the remaining paragraphs later?

I'll try to look at more of course, but on WP everyone works irregularly, which is why it is often an idea to do any edit which is a marginal improvement, and not rely on the future. Perhaps if you see some way to make those opening lines more legible...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone object to some interim tidying up of the lead as follows?

The Anglo-Saxons were a cultural group who inhabited Great Britain from the 5th century. They comprised people from Germanic tribes who migrated to the island from continental Europe, their descendants, and indigenous British groups who adopted many aspects of Anglo-Saxon culture and language. The Anglo-Saxons established the Kingdom of England and the modern English language owes almost half of its words – including the most common words of everyday speech – to their language.

I have replaced "the foundation of the modern English legal system" with "established the Kingdom of England", which is mentioned in the text, removed "many aspects of English society" and changed the modern English language owes "over half its words" to "almost half its words" in line with English language#Word origins. Andrew Lancaster take your time, there are more important things in the world than Wikipedia, especially at present. TSventon (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hereby supporting a massive cut down per WP:LEDE. Template added. -Applefall (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

TSventon, I support this edit, which is an improvement. I think you could boldly make that now. Edits that stick to the principle that the lead summarises the main probably do not require consensus beforehand. The worst that can happen is someone reverts something and we go into WP:BRD. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@TSventon: thanks for working on it. For consideration:

The Anglo-Saxons were a dominant cultural group inhabiting England from the 5th century. They spoke Germanic languages, which arrived in Roman Britain with migrants from continental Europe, and became widely adopted. The Anglo-Saxons established the Kingdom of England, and the modern English language owes almost half of its words – including the most common words of everyday speech – to their language.

In other words, in the spirit of keeping things in the opening lines as unconnected as possible to any specific theories for the body, I am suggesting for example: England might be better than Britain as the first geographical definition, both because more specific and because it is a key concept to link to; that I think it is speculative and controversial to speak of "migrating tribes"; that it could be confusing to NOT refer to Britain's Roman character at the time; that in this Roman context, when the SE of England was very multiculturally Roman, it seems odd to simply call that region "Celtic".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I presumed we had "Great Britain" instead of England as Northumbria spread northwards into what is now southern Scotland (Lothian in particular). Also Great Britain refers to the island whereas England refers to a political entity, which did not exist when they arrived and did not arise until much later. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

We could say "what is now England". (I think Scotland is not a big issue if we are talking about where the language started.) Great Britain raises a concern in the opposite direction, anachronistically implying that we are talking about one much larger homogeneous region where the same thing happened? Another option is maybe "southeastern Britain" or something like that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy:, @Andrew Lancaster:, @Applefall:, thanks for your feedback, I have posted my update. I wanted to minimise confusion by producing an uncontroversial improvement and posting it in this discussion first. Andrew Lancaster, I think the history of Britain from 400 to 600 is inevitably speculative and controversial due to the fewness of the written sources. The article speaks of "people from Germanic tribes who migrated", which is lees controversial than "migrating tribes". "Indigenous British groups" is hyperlinked to the article Celtic Britons so the use of "Celtic" is a question for the linked article, not this one. The lead mentions a period from 450 to 1066, so Anglo-Saxons lived in most of Britain for parts of the period. TSventon (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Applefall: seems fine. I would still prefer to avoid the word tribes. One reason is that implies whole tribes moved as tribes. This may have happened, but for example there are proposals that the initial foothold was created by Germanic speaking Roman soldiers who were actually fairly well integrated into society (e.g. Halsall thinks this). Another reason is that it implies a certain judgement about the culture (or lack of it) of the Germanic speaking people in late antiquity. It also seems easy to avoid?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster:, "people from Germanic tribes who migrated" is not "Germanic tribes which migrated", which would imply whole tribes. I suggest that it will be more productive to look at the main. Does anyone else have a view on this? TSventon (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@TSventon: yes I can see your thinking and that's fine. It is just a proposal based on how I think some people will be predisposed to read it, given the typical folk wisdoms that surround this subject. I am only suggesting that if it is easy to avoid the implication then it is better.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Editing the lede

It doesn't yet adhere to WP:LEDE. Needs to cut down massively and sweeping statements removed, e.g. "The history of the Anglo-Saxons is the history of a cultural identity." which appears to be hyperbole representing academic POV and is uncited. -Applefall (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Applefall: I might as well answer in this section. I noticed this remark but did not think about it before. Actually, looking at the article today the ARTICLE is very long, but the lead is not really extraordinarily long?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly not too long, & I have removed the tag - splitting (pro tem) the first para to get to WP:LEAD's 4. Actually it probably doesn't meet that by not summarizing much of the stuff below. It is rather discursive & some might be better lower down. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)g

Grievous divorce with the barbarians

Does anyone know what Nick Higham said about this? The Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain articles seem to source opposite statements to the same 2004 paper. (The second seems unlikely.)

From Anglo-Saxons#Migration_(410–560) "The Saxons go back to "their eastern home". Gildas calls the peace a "grievous divorce with the barbarians". The price of peace, Nick Higham argues, is a better treaty for the Saxons, giving them the ability to receive tribute from people across the lowlands of Britain."

From Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain#Gildas'_De_Excidio_et_Conquestu_Britanniae "A peace existed with the Saxons, who returned to their eastern home, which Gildas called a lugubre divortium barbarorum—a grievous divorce from the barbarians. The "divorce settlement", Higham in particular has argued, was an improved treaty from the British viewpoint. This included the ability to extract tribute from the people in the east (i.e. the Saxons), who were under the leadership of the person Gildas called pater diabolus." TSventon (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I have now found Higham's paper and I can't see any reference to Saxon or British receiving tribute following the "grievous divorce", so the solution is probably to remove both. TSventon (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I see there is a journalist and a mathematician with WP articles, but there is also a a historian. Confusingly, both the mathematician and the historian are at Manchester. I find misreadings of sources very common on WP for the early Middle Ages. Here is one of the articles: https://www.academia.edu/4107516/From_sub-Roman_Britain_to_Anglo-Saxon_England_Debating_the_Insular_Dark_Ages . If I understand correctly, Higham is saying that Gilas portrayed it as better for the Saxons, but Higham discusses whether Gildas was exaggerating. He seems to take issue with a trend he perceives to argue that the opposite was true, but I did not yet find a passage where he takes a strong position for Gildas and goes beyond saying that Gildas might have had a point and not been entirely exaggerating. Nevertheless, on the whole he is defending Gildas and a sort of adjusted invasion model.

The war between Britons and Saxons, therefore, seems to have ended in some sort of compromise, which conceded a very considerable sphere of influence within Britain to the incomers. This was highly unsatisfactory from Gildas’s perspective and he was both extremely hostile towards, and fearful of, the Saxons. He was arguably expressing his own contemporary attitudes when he described them as ‘an abomination’, and, in the context of their initial arrival, as ‘a people whom they [the Britons] feared worse than death’. However, this vision of the [Anglo-]Saxons exercising extensive political and military power at an early date remains highly contested. By the way, you can see in this article an example of the common argument I mentioned before, based on the lack of loan words, reminding us of why quite recently the possibility of a Vulgar Latin has become so important to discussion. That "lack of loan words" argument was being heavily leaned upon to settle all uncertainties.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I have now found a 1995 Higham reference which supports the text of this article so I have added it and moved the Higham 2004 reference to a sentence which it does support. TSventon (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there a risk Higham changed his mind? (You are going to older source.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

BTW here is a paper by Halsall which updates his thoughts a bit compared to his book: https://www.academia.edu/3827370/Northern_Britain_and_the_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It is obviously always possible that a scholar has changed their mind since writing a book referenced on Wikipedia, but I think a reference which supports the text is an improvement over one from the same author that doesn't. TSventon (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

In Higham 2004 there is no mention of tribute either way. Instead he claims that the divortio (divorce) is a rhetorical reference by Gildas, to an earlier phrase describing Britain as a "chosen bride". What he also claims is that Gildas was saying that the Church was tributary, as access to shrines, such as that of St. Alban were in the control of the Saxons. The minimalist interpretation of what Gildas was saying is not that the British political entities were paying tribute to the Saxons, or indeed the opposite, but that the Church in areas under Saxon control had to pay to their new pagan overlords and possibly that pilgrims had to pay to access particular shrines. Urselius (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Very importantly the 1995 work by Higham where British tribute to the Anglo-Saxons is mentioned is not Higham's opinion. He is referring to a 'thesis' raised in a book published in 1994 called 'The English Conquest'; this thesis must not be presented as being that of Higham himself, he is merely commenting on it. Urselius (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@TSventon: I'm thinking whenever there is confusion about what an author said in a few sources, it is better to be careful and really work out the details of the latest thoughts. I think you've done a good job pointing to a concern though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Urselius:, I did search for the earlier book before editing and page 1 of "An English Empire" shows it is The English Conquest: Gildas and Britain in the Fifth Century (N. J. Higham - 1994) so the thesis is Higham's. @Andrew Lancaster:, I think this was an interesting example of poor referencing as mentioned by Johnbod and my correction was uncontroversial as a first step, but that we all agree that the article needs further improvement. Wikipedia articles are works in progress so I wouldn't expect an editor to have access to all an academic's books before using one of them. TSventon (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

References

@TSventon: all true and reasonable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

There is a paper, Gildas and the ‘grievous divorce from the barbarians’, Michael Garcia, 14 June 2013 [2], that proposes that the 'divorce' mentioned by Gildas did not mean a territorial partition at all but referred to the original Saxon revolt. Gildas uses a number of precise Latin terms regarding the relationship between the Saxon warriors and the British regime that hired them, and argues that the term 'divortium' in Roman legal terminology is more apt for the breaking by the Saxons of their contract with their employers. Therefore, the whole argument based on a formal ceding of territory may be questionable. Urselius (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Urselius: Thanks for finding that. I would suggest removing the sentence about the "grievous divorce with the barbarians" from this article and possibly noting that Higham's reading of divortio is disputed in the Anglo-Saxon settlement article. TSventon (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

British Latin and "spoken Latin" - intended to contrast with Latin?

Please see talk section at related page regarding this quotation: Talk:Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain#British Latin and "spoken Latin" - intended to contrast with Latin?. TSventon (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Migration period quotes

It might be worth collecting a few quotes. Here is one to start with.

• Oosthuizen, Susan (2019), The Emergence of the English

p.122: Moving away from what Gildas and Bede and the court singers wanted us to think, and what unfounded preconceptions and premises might direct us to believe, the emergence of the English should be sought among the prehistoric communities and territories that had developed through the period of Roman control and into the post-imperial decades and centuries that followed. Almost all the fifth-century men and women who used these new forms of material culture, and who spoke English as a second (or third) language, traced their ancestry into the prehistoric and Romano-British past and made their livings in much the same way as their predecessors.

Oosthuizen argues that evidence about land-usage institutions (her speciality it seems) shows continuity, and that material culture and language can spread for many reasons.

Against the argument that large-scale migration is needed to explain the lack of Brittonic vocabulary in English, she argues that evidence tends towards the conclusion that Brittonic was already replaced by a form of vulgar Latin in the area which became English.

Against the ethnogenesis approach, she argues that it always seeks evidence of "Germanic" traditions and gives a good example: the story of the arrival of Cerdic and Cynric in Hampshire fits the ethnogenesis model of a tradition carrying elite, but in fact Cerdic and Cynric have British names, showing us that the story was wrong. The histories of dynasties written down much later were clearly creatively constructed. But even then, language clearly was not seen as a defining issue.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

If other editors are not familiar with Susan Oosthuizen's latest book, I recommend this BBC History podcast. TSventon (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I started with a quote which represents a position that might be considered controversial. This seems worth doing because our article currently uses fairly literal acceptance of primary sources, and is therefore controversial in the other direction. Furthermore, just in terms of best WP practice we should be (1) looking more at what secondary sources say about the primary sources and (2) looking at debates and how to handle those.

In any case, my feeling from reading around is that Oosthuizen's position, though it goes further than many scholars, does fit in with a general tendency among scholars and is not a sudden shocking new criticism of the old approaches. Guy Halsall for example has described himself a moderate between extreme sceptics of the concept of ethnicity, and extreme conservatives like Peter Heather who are becoming harder to find.

It is probably important that I also post some of Halsall's ideas.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: I have been reflecting on your comments (for a week) and don't think the quote is ideal for use in the article as it is quite long and the style is convoluted (of course I support "Moving away from ... what unfounded preconceptions and premises might direct us to believe").

The second sentence says that almost all speakers of English as a second or other language in Britain had Romano-British ancestry, not what the ancestry of speakers of English as a first language might have been. Does Oosthuizen argue in the book that there is no conclusive archaeological evidence for migration, so we should say migration didn't happen, which is my recollection of what she said the podcast?

The section already makes it clear that current scholarship views Germanic speaking immigrants as a minority or a small minority, but surely some migrants would be needed to introduce a new language.

I don't think ethnogenesis always needs a tradition carrying elite. ~The wikipedia article defines ethnogenesis as "the formation and development of an ethnic group." The article refers to Cerdic's British name and does not use the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as evidence for the Migration section. Can you explain "But even then, language clearly was not seen as a defining issue?"

I support reducing the size of the history section of this article by about half, which would involve a lot of work. In depth coverage of "(1) ... what secondary sources say about the primary sources and (2) .. debates" should be in the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain article. In general, my view of the history of Great Britain from 400 to 600 is that it is highly speculative and that should be reflected by describing the evidence and the various conclusions drawn by scholars. The views of scholars are shaped by their "preconceptions and premises" so the newest work is not necessarily more correct than slightly older work. TSventon (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Thanks for taking the time. Now I have to remind myself!

• No one I know of denies that in the case of Anglo Saxons there were significant movements of people involved from the continent. Her point is that it was probably happening at a small rate over a long period, or in any case that the real evidence is a lot more "opaque" than many people think it is.
• You might be right about ethnogenesis. At least the way Oosthuizen sees it, she is criticizing, under that category, the idea that an ethnicity was deliberately created, by some type of class of people who carried and translated traditions into the new place. (pp.79-81) You are right that this does not need to be done by an elite, but can for example be done by a whole class of free men (and idea she cites Halsall for; but which I think Heather has also argued for, at least in a Gothic context?)
• She indeed distinguishes this from a slightly different/overlapping idea of "elite replacement" although the two ideas are similar. In this case though she argues that the evidence is against it because even though early English kings had British names, and clearly mixed with British people, there is no sign of an "apartheid" double culture. The English royalties to some extent presented themselves as a continuity from Roman order.(pp.75-78)
• Concerning language not being the defining issue, this was my hasty summary of a bigger point. She mentions that the English language is the clearest evidence of a Germanic influence on the Anglo-Saxons, but then argues that a language can become dominant for many reasons. In other words she is saying it is not a simple proof of any particular model. She also argues under ethnogenesis that "ethnicity" definitions are not necessarily what people in this post Roman people were most concerned about - and that means such things as language and ancestry were perhaps also not important. Following Patrick Geary (and I think Halsall) she suggests that in this period in other parts of Europe, serving in the military class often became a key to fitting in, and the military class were seen as "barbarian". If this is not clear, perhaps compare to the Franks in Gaul, which is indeed how Halsall writes about England.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that all makes more sense. (Parts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle seem to be the work of a tradition inventing elite.) Not surprisingly current politics influences how history is written. (Ian N. Wood's The Modern Origins of the Early Middle Ages shows that was true in the nineteenth century as well: my favourite section is Beowulf and the Schleswig-Holstein Question.) TSventon (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the Anglo Saxon chronicle is from a much later period. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Procopius

UnderEducatedGeezer (talk · contribs) added some wikilinks (thanks for this), but that caused me to look at the source against the sentence being linked, and I came across a problem. The sentence reads:

Procopius states that Britain was settled by three races: the Angiloi, Frisones, and Britons.

The source is given as Procopius, History of the Wars, III.2.38. Now Wikiquote has the full text of book 3 of History of the Wars, and no such quote exists in it. Britain does get a mention, but this is not found. So then I started searching Google on the reference and found that this material appears to come from Saxon Paganism for Today by Robert Sass. I am not sure where Sass gets the quote from, but it does not appear to be Procopius, and this book is not a reliable source. Sass "quotes" Procopius thus:

The island of Brittan is inhabited by three very populous nations, each ruled by a king. And the names of these nations are Angiloi, Frisians and, after the island, Britons.

A possible source for the quote is here, but remains problematic - it is not clear what is being translated here.

So, question: Does anyone know where this really comes from? If not, it cannot stand, but what should we replace it with? -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Procopius. Book VIII, chapter 20 sections 6 and 7, of the History of the Wars: the English version of this passage which appears in the Loeb edition of Procopius reads: ‘The island of Brittia is inhabited by three very numerous nations, each having one king over it. And the names of these nations are Angili, Frissones, and Brittones, the last being named from the island itself’. I have seen the original Greek, but cannot cut and paste it for some reason, and it accords with the translation. It would appear that the book number attribution is wrong. Urselius (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Urselius (talk · contribs). That book is scanned only and not searchable which is why I did not find it by searching, and if you found the same source, it is why you could not copy it. I have now updated the refs and also cited that book in particular, and used Dewing's translation too. He does indeed transliterate the Greek exactly as above, so I adjusted the text to match. The word translated in the old WP version as "race" is ἔθνος in Greek and translated as nation by Dewing. That is a better translation than race,[3] and as it is in the source, I adjusted the text to match that too. Thanks again. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• I must object. Wikipedia should not use 1,500 year old sources directly. If no modern scholarship quotes Procopius in this manner then nor should Wikipedia. I remove this sentence.[4]--Chuka Chief (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • and I put it back. The quote is attributed and linked. Historical sources are relevant to the understanding of the topic. Kindly refer to the policy that puts a time limit on sources. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Procopius is not a WP:RS, and does not meet basic scientific or publishing standards. He is reliable for what he says. Quoting Procopius directly is a misuse of a WP:PRIMARY source. The connection of Procopius' quote to this article is WP:OR, as no reliable source has been presented connecting Procopius use of "Angili" (linked to Angles in text) to the modern conception of Angles.--Chuka Chief (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
      • He is only quoted, not interpreted and the quote is properly attributed. Hence there is no misuse of a WP:PRIMARY source here. Moreover, there is nothing in WP:RS that prevents quoting contemporary sources. I much suspect the policy you mean is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also, please do not edit war. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Firstly, the quotation is not from Procopius now, it is from Dewing, (1962). Of course that is just a translation of Procopius, so the question is whether it is ever relevant to quote the words of an ancient source, or should we only quote those who quote them? Yet the sentence is cast to tell us this is what Pocopius says, so in that sense the citation is perfectly permissible and there are examples of this all over Wikipedia. I have put back the sentence you boldly deleted until we can agree on what to do with it.

I think the better question is not whether we can quote Procopius, but whether we need an additional source to tell us that Procopius is the first person to say this. I would welcome any such additional material. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

A translation (Dewing) is the same as Procopius, who does not meet any scientific standard. The relevance of the quote to the subject of the article is pure WP:OR. Furthermore, absent reliable secondary sources referring to this quote, the inclusion is WP:UNDUE as this is just a random quote from a random source. The assertion that this quote is a "first" is also original research. If you think this should be included, then you should produce secondary sources quoting Procopius in this manner and calling him "first".--Chuka Chief (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as I just said, a source demonstrating the importance of the Procopius quote is in order, and I would not object to you placing a citation request next to "The earliest historical references using this term are from outside Britain", which is where the claim is made that can be interpreted as OR. I don't see the benefit of deleting the Procopius quote in the meantime. It looks to me that it is likely to be true that it is the first or one of the first such references, and there is a policy or essay somewhere that says something like "don't delete unsourced information that you believe to be true just because it is unsourced". As regards the citation to Procopius: all quotations must be sourced. This reference here is correct. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the text with the reference is better than without the reference. However neither version establishes grounds for inclusion of this random quote nor the analysis of this be "first" or one of the "first".--Chuka Chief (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chuka Chief: technically you have a point. There should be a secondary source added. I will try to find time soon, which should be no problem, but I think it is best to keep the primary source in the meantime. I think on many WP articles covering historical topics it is common that it can take time to develop the article, so often there are some periods where primary sources sit there for a while, easier to trace than good commentary. In practice I suppose your concern is that we should not be adding too much commentary yet, just sticking to the basics. Right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Andrew, it's fine, Doug Weller (talk · contribs) already added one. Thanks Doug. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Citing Michael Jones fixes this.--Chuka Chief (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Procopius on Brittia and Britannia, E. A. Thompson, The Classical Quarterly Vol. 30, No. 2 (1980), pp. 498-507.Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association https://www.jstor.org/stable/638518 - I think that this is secondary enough for anyone. There are plenty more out there. The quotation is extremely important as it is one of very few - a handful - of references to the British Isles in what used to be known as the Dark Ages. For Wikipedia to excise it for mere procedural quibbling would be a grave disservice to the readership. Urselius (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

OK... er... one more thing :) We now lost the actual ref to Procopius I put in earlier. Do we need that too? Or would it be WP:OVERCITE to put it back? Or (after edit conflict), perhaps we should recast in the light of Urselius (talk · contribs)' source.-- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

No need to directly cite Procopius now that we have modern scholars quoting and analysing him.--Chuka Chief (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps, but just to be clear, if there is a secondary source, then citing a primary source might not be needed, but should also not be a problem in terms of any policy concerns?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: @Urselius: @Chuka Chief: @Kleuske: @Andrew Lancaster:, I don't think the paragraph containing Procopius belongs in the Ethnonym section as it does not mention the word Anglo-Saxon or cognate terms. Also, the Michael Jones explains that the Procopius sentence is unreliable. I would recommend moving the Michael Jones sentence to Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain#Early_sources and deleting the remainder of the paragraph. Any thoughts? TSventon (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I am guessing the original reason it was put there was to show one of the earliest uses of one of the two component parts of "Anglo-Saxons". There are also other parts of that sections about the word Saxons etc. So maybe the section needs to be a bit re-organized and a "flow of logic" made more clear. On the other hand, maybe the section deserves shortening more generally (not just Procopius) though at first sight the article is not too big or too complicated to handle a bit of detail.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster:, I have removed the Procopius sentences, which I think helps the flow of the section. TSventon (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@TSventon: it has been hard to understand the concern about the citation for me. A lot of the old sources are hard to interpret, so they all need secondary support of course, and also there is the question of which part of which article such things need to be discussed in. (Opacity about that type of thing is a big issue on these overlapping articles, which makes it hard to edit, or to judge edits.) But putting those issues aside, it seems like this particular old record is being removed completely? Or is it now somewhere else?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster:, a fuller quote is at Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain#Early_sources and I have moved the sentence about the secondary source there as well. Procopius also mentions the souls of the dead being rowed from Gaul to Britain, which must be one of the "subsequent details in the chapter [which] undermine its credibility". That section also covers the Chronica Gallica of 452, written around a century earlier, which also mentions the Saxons in Britain. Procopius could be added to the Migration (410–560) section, but I don't think it needs to be. Having said that, I am happy to put it back if you prefer. TSventon (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@TSventon: no I was just wondering if it had been completely removed, and it was also another reminder of the issue I feel we have with knowing how these articles should overlap.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Some sentences for discussion

The article's main body is now way above recommended length for any article, but as you read it you get the impression that this is an article that has gained weight over time that should be trimmed. Old articles often get a build-up of non-controversial-looking, but not exactly to-the-point stuff. No one dares remove it. Here are some possible examples:

• Also, the use of Anglo-Saxon disguises the extent to which people identified as Anglo-Scandinavian after the Viking age, or as Anglo-Norman after the Norman conquest in 1066.[11] Cited to Holman, Katherine. The Northern Conquest: Vikings in Britain and Ireland, which is here. However I do not immediately find anything like this sentence and I am not sure why this sentence is needed. Indeed, the preceding sentences said that no-one probably identified as Anglo-Saxons, so this sentence is comparing apples and pears, saying that the scholarly use of the term today, somehow hides from us whether people in historical times thought of themselves using OTHER modern scholarly terms? I don't get it anyway.
• The earliest historical references using this term are from outside Britain The examples then given are NOT examples of uses of the term Anglo-Saxon. That is not discussed until the NEXT paragraph.
• Anglo-Saxon in linguistics is still used as a term for the original West Germanic component of the modern English language,. If I understand correctly this is saying that we use the term "Anglo Saxon" to refer to a certain part of modern English vocabulary. I can think of one famous example, which is the remark often made that Winston Churchill tended to use words of Anglo Saxon derivation. Will our readers really get that this is the intention? Does it need to be said? If so, does it really fit here in the opening sections? Personally I think opening sections should be very focused so that they set up readers to handle the rest of the article. This is why they often have sections about names, definitions etc.
• "Contemporary meanings" section. This is about modern uses and abuses of the TERM "Anglo Saxon" to refer to law, religion, culture etc. To me this does NOT seem related to the topic of our article except in a "legacy" sense. Legacy sections are generally placed at the bottom of articles, and when articles starting looking too big, they are often considered for chopping or shortening or splitting out.

This is actually quite a long section too.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The political history is supposed to be at History of Anglo-Saxon England (76K raw bytes, vs 189 K here), but I'm not sure that for some periods there is actually more here. Stuff could be migrated there and summarized here. Btw, that used to have a hatnote (when it was Anglo-Saxon England), & probably should again. In the same way, the architecture section looks to be longer than Anglo-Saxon architecture, & should be shuffled. Maybe art too, although Anglo-Saxon art is longer, but somewhat different. There may well be other examples. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Good point, and in a way good news that this article has quite a few children, although that can get difficult to coordinate. Another child which was mentioned already above is Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

That was mostly written by the same guy (let's guess) who wrote most of this, about 5 years ago. He obviously knows what he is talking about, but can be sloppy, & tends to reference very general points to individual papers in a way I don't wholly trust (see my edit just now for both points). Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: I agree that all four sentences could be improved (or removed).

• "people identified as Anglo-Scandinavian" I don't think this sentence is needed.
• "The earliest historical references" may have been intended to mean references to Angles and Saxons in Britain. I think the whole paragraph could be removed or merged into the Early Anglo-Saxon history section.
• "Anglo-Saxon in linguistics is still used": I think this means that, in linguistics, Anglo Saxon is used rather than Old English. I don't believe that this is correct and it is not sourced so I think the paragraph could be deleted. Old English has a footnote explaining that using Anglo-Saxon is an alternative name for the language, but since 1900 Old English has been the usual name.
• "Contemporary meanings" could be moved to "Legacy" and will probably need to be updated as discussed in "Removing the term “Anglo-Saxon?”" above. TSventon (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Sounds like at least two of us are seeing these similarly. On the 3rd bullet, you are reading it differently which shows the problem. Indeed if the intention was like you say, it is just wrong. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I have added a hatnote to History of Anglo-Saxon England. @Andrew Lancaster: Agreed. TSventon (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Interesting proposal. If had to think of a hat note like this I think I would not have thought of this one, though I am not sure what I could have come up with. The article has a "leftovers" feel in places. Probably the right one though. In any case the idea of such a hatnote seems particularly useful on this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, I thought that as we are discussing content covered in both this article and the history one, it would be helpful to have a prominent link. I then adapted the hatnote from the history article. The disambiguation page probably needs rewording as well. Which article has a "leftovers" feel? TSventon (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

This one, although that feeling is probably common on all Wikipedia articles that get long. I had myself not really been comparing this article to others for overlap yet, so I did not realize how many closely related ones there were. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: Thanks for starting a discussion. This seems to be a long article mostly written by one editor and the length means rewriting it takes a lot of work. I have now moved "Contemporary meanings" to "Legacy" and suggested removal of "The earliest historical references" paragraph. TSventon (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Should it be moved somewhere else in the article? (The question keeps coming up of what belongs in this article. Some of these discussions make me wonder if this article should exist, or should be merged into one of the closely related articles such as Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: I think I missed your last post until now. Did you see that Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain (152kB) is almost as big as Anglo-Saxons (187kB)? TSventon (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@TSventon: exact same point now in same discussion with Johnbod below. I am not saying they need to be merged, but just because they are large does not necessarily prove they should not be, given that they might be very much overlapping. In any case I find it difficult both as an editor and reader to see what should go in which article. Will a reader coming to any of these articles be quickly directed to the right one?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Should the history sections be reduced or removed

There are no less than two other articles which cover the history, and yet this article is perhaps 25% or more only about that same history. Most readers will never get to the sections about the culture. Also, for editors it is hard to maintain quality if there are several duplications of topic around.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that Anglo-Saxons, History of Anglo-Saxon England, Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain should be parent, child, grandchild articles (there are other grandchild articles). So the history sections of Anglo Saxons should be reduced and content moved to child or grandchild as appropriate: currently the history sections (65kB) are almost as large as the history article (76kB). I think Johnbod suggested this earlier. TSventon (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much, or "settlement" (not much shorter than this) and "history" can both be seen as children. Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

OK. Makes sense to me then. Overlapping articles are one of the least discussed problems on English WP in my opinion, because the problems they cause are not sudden or dramatic. So I honestly believe it is worth always thinking twice about whether there are overlap problems that are going to start building up. If there are any problems, they will nearly always get worse.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Articles are meant to overlap as part of WP:SUMMARY, but sometimes the balance does need righting. Some time I'll rebalance the art & architecture sections & their main articles, as mentioned above. Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

In practice what I think happens a lot more than people realize are POVforks and "Walled Gardens". Even when you are watching a dozen articles you can often miss the fact that there are overlapping ones which are not even linked well. The result of this is that the less watched articles often disagree with the others, and it becomes impossible to get together enough editors and enough energy to maintain quality on any of them. When there are good parent-child connections there should be lots of linking and use of templates to show both readers and editors main articles, other uses, etc etc. And the scope differences need to be really easy for everyone to understand the SAME way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

This 2015 discussion at "history" is relevant. That has a different main author to the other two & doesn't seem to have changed, or anyway grown, much since 2010. Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: should any of these articles be merged perhaps?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so, especially as we don't want this one any larger. It's more a case of transferring content to and sometimes fro. I've made a start with Anglo-Saxon architecture, so far bulking that up by copying without reducing the section here much. Later I may ask how long people think the section here should be, & cut more brutally. Or, since neither is well-referenced (though both essentially agree on just about everything) just rewrite. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Size is one thing, but I have not really looked closely at how much overlap or duplication there is. In any case the sizes imply that we should be at least looking for overlap and duplication and anything which can help focus the articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: In reply to your post in "Some sentences for discussion", I mostly agree with what Johnbod has said here. I also agree with your point that there should be more linking between articles. Template:Anglo-Saxon_society might be another way to link related articles. TSventon (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Removing the term “Anglo-Saxon?”

Moved from Talk:Old English

 – Discussion is more relevant to the Anglo-Saxons article than the Old English article. TSventon (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The term “Anglo-Saxon” is a problematic one and it has recently fallen out of use by scholars for its adoption by racist and nationalist groups. While the term was in use during the time period, it was not used to refer to a specific ethnic group, and modern assignations are suspect, if not downright incorrect. I’ll leave the decision to those who edit the page, but a dialogue needs to be had, especially since scholars and scholarship are dropping it. I recommend referring to the language as only “Old English.” When referring to people or kingdoms, I recommend “early English,” “early Medieval English,” or “Medieval English,” and etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:2183:9900:8C6F:D873:E2C8:77C6 (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The debate continues according to an article in BBC History Extra. TSventon (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The term is very well-established, and it will be a very long time, if ever, before it becomes appropriate for us to remove it, especially as the alternatives are unattractive and little understood outside academe (and Early English is already taken for something else). Since there may be a divergence between UK & American usage developing, as Wood's article suggests, it should be remembered that our articles on A-S topics are inevitably written in British English. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I agree that the term does not need to be removed, but alternative terms could be added if they become widely used. The name change of the "International Society of Anglo-Saxonists" (ISAS) to the "International Society for the Study of Early Medieval England" (ISSEME) (see statement) could be noted. Anglo-Saxons#Contemporary meanings could be expanded, perhaps into something like the Vikings#Legacy section, which covers perceptions and misconceptions of the vikings since the middle ages. This discussion should probably be moved to the Anglo-Saxons article, as it is less relevant to this one (or to Talk:Eärendil and Elwing where a similar suggestion was posted from the same IP account). TSventon (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I note the President of the ISSEME has not yet purged his faculty profile of the dreaded term! Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

At the very least, I do think that the problematic nature of ethnonym should be discussed within that section, as well as current criticism of the term and why scholars have come to view it as problematic. Noting the current and developing British and American attitudes to the term would help give this article more clarity while making it more inclusive to readers, particularly non-White American readers who may have come to view the term as oppressive or exclusive in nature. Also, I am curious as to why you'd say that any articles on this topic would be written primarily in British English? Old English is studied globally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.73.151.188 (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

British English presumably because strong national ties exist. Old English developed entirely within Britain. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Of course - see WP:ENGVAR. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's push this to its logical conclusion, the Germans were the ethnic group overwhelmingly responsible for the Holocaust, the most extreme and horrific expression of racism ever, so perhaps we should change their name as well? Afrikaners were largely responsible for the hateful and racist apartheid regime, perhaps their name should be suppressed? The Anglo-Saxons mostly called themselves Englisc, but these is a problem using this as the English still exist, and how would you easily differentiate pre-conquest English from the people since then? Anglo-Saxon is a useful term. This attitude appears to be an export of American parochialism, like the hilarious concept that 'Hispanic' is a real ethnic group, as if Spaniards were racially distinct from other Europeans. Urselius (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there is much support for the name change. I also don't see a need for it. But OTOH, I don't think the original concern raised was because of the reasons brought up by our IP poster.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The modern white supremacist use of the term is a grotesque appropriation and a blatant example of toxic "invented tradition". This is far and away IRRELEVENT to an article that overwhelmingly deals with a historic people that existed in the Early Middle Ages. This whole argument was f*cking ridiculous and futile from start to finish, imho. We are not going to bow down to the demands of "woke" lecturers, nor should we give yet another reason for white supremacist clowns to feel oppressed.--2A00:23C4:3E0F:4400:8198:78E5:ACD4:838C (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Well we have to bow down to what happens in publications. OTOH, none of us seem to be seeing an major reason to change, so there is no problem here. Having said, that I think this strongly worded comment is not really a helpful bit of advice concerning how to work on Wikipedia. If the scholars all go "woke" then we will need to bow down and follow them, but I do not believe terminology concerns like this are all because of people being "woke". Terminology is a mental tool for scholars, determining which things we distinguish and which things we lump together, and the choice of tools can have an effect on the result. It is completely normal for them to be constantly questioning their terms, and their ways categorizing. Of course only occasionally does such questioning lead to a general change that we have to consider following, like when Pluto stopped being a planet. So I do not see such discussions as ridiculous or futile.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree in principle the term English should simply be used for Anglo-Saxons, as there's no real break between the Anglo-Saxons and the English of the 1500s or 2000s. It mostly just seems to revolve around the fact that the language changed considerably between Old English to Middle English, but such evolutions in languages have happened elsewhere (a particularly similar example would be Japanese). It also wasn't a sudden break, it was a gradual, stuttered change in the language (or at least SOME dialects of the language that went on to become the English standard) that happened due to centuries of domination by French (or at the very least French-speaking) ruling elite. However the standard in scholarship and sources seems to overwhelmingly favor labeling the English of the 400s to the 1000s as Anglo-Saxons, so I don't see the justification for the change until a change in scholarship/academia happens. What you COULD perhaps do is change the lead to "the Anglo Saxons, or English, were a..." or something like "the Anglo-Saxons, known in their time simply as the English, were a..." or just improve the lead to read something like "Anglo-Saxon is a scholarly term used to refer to the period of English history where the English people..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, if I'm not mistaken, didn't most of the change to the English language actually happen between Middle English and Modern English? Wasn't that when the Latin loanword count ballooned in the early 1600s to 1800s and the Great Vowel Shift occurred? Why don't we likewise refer to the English of the 1500s onwards as English and the English of the Medieval era as Anglo-Normans or Franco-Saxons (since Anglo-Normans is already used for the Normans in England post-conquest) or some other silly, odd term people coin for these things (here's looking at you Scoto-Norman)? Again though, it's a matter for scholarship/academia and the public consciousness to change, not Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

the Anglo-Saxons are a 'Cultural Group' but the Normans were an Ethnic Group?

Can you explain this one for me, please? What exactly is the reason for referring to the Anglo-Saxons by the highly irregular 'cultural group' term? The Norman article very clearly points out the group was of mixed genetic stock while still acknowledging they were clearly an ethnic group in the opening sentence. The English people article also acknowledges the English ethnic group is of mixed genetic stock (like practically every single ethnic group in Europe or the world is, let's be honest. What is the justification for referring to Anglo-Saxons as a 'cultural group'? I've literally never seen this term used anywhere for anyone. The Anglo-Saxons clearly considered themselves an ethnic group historically (using terms such as people, race, nation frequently in their writings), as did others. They clearly did not seem to discriminate between those directly descended from Germanic settlers and the Celtic Britons or others who merely assimilated into Anglo-Saxon culture. I do not understand this use of words. They were a people or an ethnic group. Cultural group is a bizarre term with absolutely no justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

While I think you are exaggerating about how unusual "cultural group" is given that it is just a normal adjective and a normal noun, and I personally find the use of "ethnic group" for the Normans to be questionable, it is indeed sometimes tricky to find the right words. You seem to be proposing that Anglo Saxons should simply always be referred to as an ethnic group? But the way you justify this is by effectively seeing it as the same thing as "English people". I think one of the difficulties about the Anglo Saxons is that on WP we want to be as neutral as possible, and not take a side in various debates about this. So while the later "Anglo Saxons", whose writings you mention, are not too difficult to equate the an early version of "English people" and refer to as an ethnic group. But then why do we, and many sources, not just call them English then? Why do they distinguish "Anglo Saxons" from the English? Well, not everyone agrees on the wisdom of it. However it appears that this traditional distinction is partly intended to imply that the Anglo Saxons were not yet necessarily seen as an ethnicity? Older scholars seem to have seen this phase as a phase where smaller ethnic groups still had not united into one. More recently authors like Oosthuizen (and quite a few others) see it a bit differently, speculating that when English became a common language it was within circles who did not necessarily distinguish themselves from being Roman Britons. So as a general remark, the term Anglo-Saxon seems intended to imply some questioning about whether they were yet an ethnicity, at least in the earliest phases this article deals with. I would be interested to hear what others think. Obviously some recent historians had things like this in mind when they have suggested that the Anglo-Saxons simply be called English.

(People from Normandy were just called French or Frankish by their contemporaries, unless the reference was to geography or the Duchy. The word Norman in an ethnic sense referred to non-French people such as Danes. By 1066 such terminology was being used to refer to some of the settlers many generations ago, but not to what we would call Normans today.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Well I'd agree with just calling them English from whenever Old English starts to be spoken and we see English names appearing. As it's very unlikely people who spoke English and had English names wouldn't have considered themselves English in that period of time (granted, far from impossible, but usually a safe assumption). I've always found the Anglo-Saxon term rather pointless. They did refer to themselves as that, along with many other names, but they also commonly used English for their tongue and themselves (which seems to further the idea language is sort of inseparable from ethnicity, at least historically speaking. And by the way, this is supported by Medieval Welsh writings quite clearly remarking upon Welsh people being assimilated into English culture in southern Wales, thus no longer being Welsh and being English simply due to losing their ability to converse in Welsh). And I would happily acknowledge the Normans were French, but they were definitely a distinct subgroup of French (along with several others). The problem with ethnic groups is that a lot of people seem to think they must be extremely uniform and monolithic, whereas the vast majority of ethnic groups tend to have subgroups and divisions within them (such as Bavarian, Normans etc. etc.)

I genuinely don't think I'm exaggerating at all. Can you find me a single other article that lists an ethnic group as a cultural group? I've never seen it for any other group on Wikipedia and I've been using it for 10+ years, specifically for these kinds of articles. Would a better term not be a collection of Germanic ethnic groups or something to that effect? Cultural group just sounds completely unnatural and off. And I think that would be the case for Normans as well. But you are right in that Normans blatantly, painfully obviously saw themselves as French and were seen as this by others too, regardless of whether they were a distinct regional kind of French people.

I think the English pre-unification of England are very equatable with the Welsh and Irish before there was ever any united Irish or Welsh polity or identity. We still refer to Irish tribes as Irish when they were broken into dozens of different tribes who warred among each other and LITERALLY did not see one another as the one ethnic group (there's some old Irish text that makes not of the fact that the Laigain, Cruithin, Eiarann and Milesians are all separate ethnic groups, of different descent etc. but united by their Irish tongue and habitation of the same island, I'll try and track it down if you like). And we know of course the Welsh tribes had no sense of unity historically.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2020

The line: "Threatened by extended Danish invasions and military occupation of eastern England, this identity was re-established; it dominated until after the Norman Conquest." make the Norman Conquest link to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest_of_England Halkettw (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done, the page is already linked in the second paragraph. See MOS:REPEATLINK. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)