User:Mike Christie/Anglo-Saxon articles

Use of a historical context section
Use of a sources section
Merge of multiple non-notable kings into individual articles
No use of typographic convention for unidentified location names
Article or AS history section on "sources for AS history 410-8oo"? That avoids the "contemporary" ASC info, but includes Bede, some charters, Saint's lives, some contemporary histories.
Use of a map in early articles to show places mentioned in text
- Use of modern place names for reference on the map
- Use of modern counties
- Evolution of boundaries of AS states; difficult to show when boundaries are imprecisely known anyway
- Use of maps without boundaries
- Maps of "states" vs. maps of peoples
Orthography -- use of aesc, but not eth or thorn.
Coverage of older historical texts -- outdated theories, ideologically motivated arguments (e.g. Stenton's teleology).
Use of "Anglo-Saxon" vs. "Old English" for the language
Chronology -- use Dumville's chronology for Wessex kings
Use of 580x590 to indicate "somewhere in the range 580 to 590"; e.g. "d. 624x627".
Use "Church" or "church".

Terminology for peoples and places edit

Suggested rules:

Geography: use modern terms if convenient, including county names and modern names for towns. E.g. England, Wales, Hertfordshire, Wroughton (instead of Ellendun), and so on. Use qualifying phrases such as "what is now" to avoid the implication that a name was contemporary: e.g. "kingdoms in what is now Wales".
Anglo-Saxon peoples: for the overall set of invaders, use "Anglo-Saxon"; this is now completely standard in the secondary sources. Use "Saxon" and Angle" where useful to distinguish the southern from the northern groups; Kirby has an explanation of this and argues for using these names for the early period. Use of "Jute" for the Kentish group needs to be done carefully as it is plausible but not universally accepted as definitive.
Native peoples: the ASC and other sources used "Welsh" to mean "British"; neither term is unambiguous today. "British" is marginally better for the early period, because at a later time "Welsh" comes to be synonymous with the inhabitants of what is now Wales. If "British" is used in this sense, it is best to include a parenthetical comment or a footnote explaining its meaning. "Celtic" is also accurate, but not really specific, since it applies to a much larger group, so it should only be used in the context of overall culture. "Romano-British" is appropriate when talking about the early period in particular, and if the context is administrative unit; there is so little known about the transmission of culture or of early post-Roman demographics that it seems dangerous to use this term much.

It is difficult, because modern shires may not be the Anglo-Saxon shires. For example, with Berkshire, one assumes that means old Berkshire, which included the Berkshire Downs. Two fifths of Berkshire was cut off about 25 (?) years ago and lumped into Oxfordshire. My reading is that the border between Wessex and Mercia was often the Berkshire Downs, so that major modern change creates difficulty. (I'd note here that the "beorc" origin of Berkshire means "hill" (German: berg): yet the hills which gave Berkshire its name are now in Oxfordshire.) "Surrey" was a difficulty in the Ine article because it was being mentioned along with Essex and Sussex; but those were clearly kingdoms, whereas, though it seems that Surrey was a sub-kingdom of sorts, one tends to think of the modern county of Surrey. My suggestion would be to only list equivalents together. So if you group Berkshire and Essex, that for me creates problems—the latter being a kingdom or sub-kingdom, the former not. When it comes to individual places, I would use the name in the document, followed by the name of the modern place, if known: this can only be helpful.qp10qp 17:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should use British, Welsh and Cornish. "British" need not offend anyone if it is used only for peoples within the current boundaries of England. I would not mention "Romano-British" after about 500. I would avoid "Celtic", as much as possible. The term is to some extent a back-formation, given that certain nations now regard themselves as Celtic. In fact, it is a somewhat numinous term historically, which could apply all across Europe to very different peoples to those in the British Isles. All the same, I would use it for "Celtic church", as that seems a helpful and uncontroversial name for it.qp10qp 17:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm slightly bewildered by this. You seem to be suggesting that we refer to the Saxons as British and the British as Welsh? --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 08:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting that we call the Anglo-Saxons Anglo-Saxons, the British within present-day England the British (or Britons; but historians do use British), the inhabitants of present-day Wales the Welsh and the inhabitants of present-day Cornwall, after the days of the Dumnoni, the Cornish. Before 700, we can be messier, perhaps. Of course, all names are revisionist and probably not how people saw themselves at the time. The names emerged as a reaction against otherness. So the concept of Britishness first emerged as a reaction against the Romans. When the Anglo-Saxons came, they were the other, and the British tribes were often called the Welsh. They held out in the area that is now called Wales.qp10qp 11:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I don't see any advantage in distinguishing between "English"-Britons, "Welsh"-Britons and "Cornish"-Britons. For a start, it implies that the Welsh and Cornish aren't British. Incidentally, the Anglo-Saxons pushed the existing settlers west to Cambria and the South-West AND north to Cumbria.--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 11:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to distinguish between them until they are geographically distinguished. Once the Anglo-Saxons have taken over present-day England (bar Cornwall), it makes sense to start talking about the Welsh and the Cornish. This is revisionist, certainly; but don't forget that the chronicles themselves were revisionist, since the Anglo-Saxon chronicles and the Welsh chronicles were written long after the earlier events of those they they chronicle. qp10qp 12:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely you mean "English" in that case instead of "British" for the period after the Wessex Reconquest (say 880-ish onwards). Subsequently, Cnut and William took over the English kingdom. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 12:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

We can call the Anglo-Saxons Anglo-Saxons or English, certainly. But that's not the difficulty. The difficulty is what to call the British. And it's the period before 880 that is tricky, because of the presence of British peoples within the Anglo-Saxon states. For example, after Ine of Wessex conquered parts of the southwest in the early 700s, it is clear from church sources that bringing the conquered British and their church in line with Roman church practices was a challenge. Ine's laws distinguished between his Anglo-Saxon and his British subjects. As the British were assimilated, this distinction faded away.qp10qp 11:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think we're talking about the same thing but from slightly different angles (if you'll forgive the expression). Prior to 880, native people living wherever are "British". Post 880, split by nation, English or Welsh. Make sense? --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 12:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit more complex than that. For example, Bede was ethnically British but identified culturally as Anglo-Saxon and he reframed the British historian Gildas to his own cultural and religious agenda. And then we have the problem of revisionism by the Historia Brittonum and the Annales Cambriae and the overlap between the two. However, I don't see any of this as a great problem, as one should simply be guided by the terms used in the secondary works that source our articles. Where historians differ in terminology (as they sometimes do), I suggest going with the most common usage and the most respected historians.qp10qp 12:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Everything's ALWAYS a bit more complex than that :) --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 15:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Geography - no problems with modern names though I still prefer Western Britain and Southern Britain because they don't come with national baggage; that said, the "what is now" formula is a reasonable workaround.

People & Native Peoples - No real disagreement there either though for simplicity, I prefer Anglo-Saxon for settled/integrated (ie 2nd or 3rd generation) Saxons, and Britons (not British) for the indigenous races (per its primary meaning in the OED)--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 08:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've thinking about what Qp10qp mentioned earlier. I suppose that the tipping point from which the terms "English" and "Welsh" should be used is after political unity had been achieved. This would be about the same time (870-ish) for both England (completion of the Wessex Reconquest and a united Anglo-Saxon kingdom under Alfred) and Wales (consolidation of the nearly all the separate kingdoms under Rhodri Mawr). Cornwall seems to have be absorbed in a series of later bites.

Does this make sense? --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 22:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the helpful discussion. Sorry I've been unable to post much while you worked on this for me.

I think it would be useful for me to work up a real standard and propose it at the Medieval WikiProject. I will base it on this discussion, and rework it here first, so if y'all watch this page I'd be glad of further input as I tweak it.

For now I think I'm going to work on the Wiglaf article with these comments in mind; Roger, I'll post a note at the FAC when I've done and we can talk about individual cases. Once that's done I'll come back to this. Thanks again for the comments. Mike Christie (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but please note that I'm by no means an expert, merely interested in the period. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 07:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)