This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
2 of the citation purporting to challenge the Celtic effect on (Old) English, Roberts(1992) and Hickey(1995), are before the significant research programs 'The Celtic Roots of English'(Joensu) and 'The Celtic Englishes'(Potsdam). The Diglossia model of the Anglo-Saxon period is now widely countinenced(that while Old English was the written language of the period, the general population spoke a Celtic influenced version). For instance, the Hickey previously mentioned is a diglossia advocate, "...'delayed effect contact' may well be the source of synthetic features in English which the latter has in common with Celtic" and "Given that written Old English was dominated by the West Saxon standard, it is only in the Middle English period that the syntactic influence of Celtic becomes apparent in the written form"(both pg 8 The Handbook of Language Change,Raymond Hickey,2010,John Wiley and Sons). The also cited van Gelderen in the book given, commenting on the changes from OE to ME writes "(the loss of word endings are) possibly the result of contact with Scandinavian and Celtic languages during the Old English period"-pg 91, "Celtic may be more important to the syntax"-pg 107, "(Celtic) possibly influenced different regions on grammar and pronounciation"-pg 9.van Gelderen doesnt challenge the diglossia approach.
The final reference (Sampson) doesnt really address the linguistic innovation that researchers claim show Celtic contact during the AngloSaxon period.
Hildegard Tristram and Markku Filppula are prominent names amoung the proponents of Celtic influence in the period.
Having been convinced by the recent research, John McWhorter writes that dismissing Celtic influence because of lack of occurance in Old English text "qualifies as unscientific".(He gives a proof depending largely on the English dependence on the word DO in 'What else happened to English?:A brief for the Celtic Hypothesis'.) David L White(published in 'The Celtic Englishes IV') claims proof for Celtic influence based on mathematical probability. The probability of coincidence being the cause of innovations claimed by scholars to have Celtic origin decreases exponentially with each new coincidence. (92 coincidents - estimated prob. 1 over 10 to the 100th).
There is alot of research and "Study of Old English has shown no evidence of a Celtic language substratum" is misleading. I'll try to edit the article. It would be nice if there were a page devoted to Celtic influence on English.
Are there any serious comtemporary academic objectors to the diglossia/Celtic hypothesis?
Fodbynnag (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
My expertise is limited to the results of five minutes on Google, but I get the flavour of a newish set of ideas which is making its way, without, so far, serious opposition. Edit boldly, a mwynhewch eich hun. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
"no evidence of a Celtic language substratum" may be misleading, but this is very easily overstated.
The way I see it, it is easy to explain the entire history of English assuming minimal contact with Celtic (except on the very fringes, in Wales and the Scottish Highlands, of course). People who set out to look really hard for a Celtic substratum will still find some traces. This isn't a yes-or-no question, it is one of putting things in proper perspective. I suppose it is uncontroversial to assume there has been "diglossia" in the Dark Ages, say in the 5th and 6th centuries. People who want to focus on this may find traces, I suppose. But trying to imply that people chatted away in Celtic all over the place as soon as the scribe put down the pen is at least as misleading as saying "no substratum".
What people should look at are levels of substratum influence in comparable situations, such as the Dravidian substratum in Sanskrit. Unfortunately, very few people with sufficient knowledge of Welsh and English will also have sufficient knowledge of Dravidian and Sanskrit. But I am prepared to bet that Welsh influence on English is at least an order of magnitude weaker than Dravidian influence on Sanskrit. --dab(𒁳) 08:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
"assuming minimal contact with Celtic" would seem to wilfully ignore the preponderance of archeological evidence for the very widespread and intimate contact that the two languages must have had. Revcasy (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I am not aware of any such "preponderance", nor am I familiar with any recognized way to reconstruct languages from archaeological remains other than epigraphy.
This is simply a question of WP:RS then. --dab(𒁳) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, let's see. hanging bowls including the one at Sutton Hoo (see refs on those two articles), then there is Wasperton (I can cite more scholarly sources for Wasperton if you wish, for example Cleary, Esmonde 1989 pg. 201), or how about National Geographic (apartheid is certainly still "contact" yes?). I can go on with the parade of reliable sources. Maybe you are arguing that all the Sub-Roman inhabitants of England spoke vulgar Latin, not Bythronic? This seems patently absurd to me, but I can cite sources for that too. Your awareness of the archeology (or genetics) or lack thereof is not the question, as you say WP:RS. Revcasy (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
you are shooting strawmen, sir. I am talking about language contact, you are talking about grave goods. Please discuss grave goods as grave goods and language contact as language contact.
the way I see it is this: Considering the evidence for cultural contact based on historiography or archaeology (for which you have kindly provided evidence), there is surprisingly little evidence of linguistic contact. You will note that the more evidence for contact you can reference in terms of archaeology, the more the statement that the linguistic record has "surprisingly" little to show will stand out as true. Perhaps cultural contact in terms of "apartheid" is not so far fetched: You will probably be likely to find Zulu spears or shields in many Boer living-rooms, but you will discover surprisingly few Zulu loanwords in Afrikaans. --dab(𒁳) 17:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
oh please! One of the main difficulties in coming to a sober assessment of the question is that people for some reason will insist on bringing up Theo Vennemann sooner or later. You, sir, have just "Vennemanned" this topic. --dab(𒁳) 17:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I thought that this was a serious discussion. You obviously just enjoy the age old sport of ridicule, with out adding anything to the table. Surely the purpose is to try and improve the article, just shooting down everything people say will not do that. Vennemann argues his case perhaps you should do the same? I don't see any evidence of you doing it so far. Wilfridselsey (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough Dab. According to the rules you formulate, there is almost no evidence for contact between Brythonic and Old English other than the sudden grammatical shifts to Middle English after the Norman conquest. Since Tristram's theory of diglossia was formulated explicitly to explain this sudden shift (no other explanations being satisfactory in her opinion), I suppose that is to be expected. Strictly speaking, I cannot prove to you that there was intimate and prolonged contact between speakers of the two languages, nor can you prove that such contact did not take place. I believe you will have to resort to logical arguments, perhaps an appeal to Occam, but as I have just said the essential problem is to explain the suddenness of the shift between the use of written Old English and written Middle English. It requires some explanation, does it not? If so, Tristram's theory is at least as valid as any other explanation. Perhaps the best way to deal with this in the article would be to simply state the problem (sudden shift in grammar), and then offer the various explanations for it, including diglossia. NPOV? Revcasy (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Ancestors
The article used to read: "A Genetic Detective Story, and new DNA sampling (Y-chromosome and mtDNA) by Bryan Sykes for his book Blood of the Isles suggest that the contribution to the British gene pool from Anglo-Saxons and other late invaders may have been very limited, and that the majority of English people (about two-thirds) and British people (about three-quarters) descend from palæolithic settlers who migrated from the western European Ice Age refuge."
This is inaccurate. "2/3rds of English people descend from..." is not what is stated in the book aand makes little sense genetically. The point is that palaeolithic settlers contribute 2/3rds of tthe genes of English people. Or put another way 2/3rds of the descendants of English people were ppalaeolithic settlers who migrated...."
We have references to ogham in the article although I am not entirely convinced of its relevance, interesting though it is.
Ogham is believed to have originated in Ireland after the arrival of Christianity, and ogham, like Latin is an alphabetic script.
The Picts are thought to have spoken P-Celtic language similar to modern day Welsh or Breton. The Irish a Q-Celtic. There are differences between the Irish ogham and Pictish ogham too, in that the Picts seemed to prefer inscribing ogham on lines across the face of the relevant stones whereas the Irish ogham always appears on the edge.
Most of the Irish ogham have been translated but so far the Pictish ogham have not. However, it seems that Rob Lee and a team from Exeter University have made a breakthrough in understanding of the Pictish ogham. They have by a mathematical process worked out that it is a written language rather than just random heraldic pictures etc. More info from the Royal Society [2] . Wilfridselsey (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
No, the study you link did not even look at Pictish ogham. What they did in fact examine was the images in Pictish stones. --dab(𒁳) 17:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
dab(𒁳) as usual with these things you are right!
Ogham is a form of alphabet, and there has been a lot of success in translating both the Irish and Pictish versions. The original editor in the settlement article, talked about "Ogham and an unknown language", I think, the unknown language, they were referring to is now generally regarded as Pictish symbols. The paper is about those Pictish symbols, and thus far they are still largely undecipherable, but the paper suggests that it is a form of written language rather than random characters. I think that they are hoping for a Celtic version of the Rosetta Stone to turn up. Wilfridselsey (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this is particularly noteworthy, just one of many attempts by scholars who aren't Pictish specialists to get in on something exotic [as it is widely believed by non-specialists that Pictish is non-Indo-European]. Pictish symbols tend to occur in pairs ... and there are no occurrences of symbols in numbers large enough to suggest an alphabetic writing system [unless the function of the writing system is to record animal noises like "Bah" or "Ruf"]. The Picts did use the ogham and Latin alphabets though. I believe ogham is used more, often down the sides of Christian stones, and many have been translated. Ogham though is unreliable for relating differences between insular Celtic dialects of this era ... you can never know if an ogham inscription is in "Welsh" "Irish" or "Pictish" (though this is usually ignored in the scholarship). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't comment on the worthiness or not. But it does seem a bit strange a mathematics department working on ancient languages. I rather think that they have confirmed what a lot of experts in the field already deduced about the Pictish symbols. Today Pictish tomorrow dolphins? See bottom of NS article. [3]Wilfridselsey (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Funny thing, the dolphin was probably the chief symbol of the Picts. Some people think this is debatable, but the area between Chanonry point and Burghead, the heartland of the Pictish kingdom, is one of the best dolphin spotting zones in Europe. And of course it looks like a dolphin from its swimming profile. As a side-note, the name Innse Orc (whence Orkney) may mean "islands of the dolphins"! Maybe they were recording the language of dolphins? [I joke ;)] Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Personally I do not think these people know what they are doing, but I also think it is noteworthy enough for a section at Pictish stones. In any case it has nothing to do with the topic of "Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain". --dab(𒁳) 09:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Archeological evidence
The article currently has major subsections on "Genetic evidence" and "Linguistic evidence". It seems obvious to me that the big missing component is archeology. I will try to contribute something in this line. However, this is an exceptionally broad topic, and I invite collaboration/feedback from interested editors. What are the main points this subsection should cover? What is the latest evidence? What, if any, are the major conflicts in interpretation (specifically regarding the archeology, not the overarching disagreements about the settlement/invasion)? Revcasy (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Here's a few ideas
Burial Practices is probably one of the most important I would think, as the size, status, religion and origin of the body can be determined. The chronology of a cemetery can also be ascertained.
Buildings and Settlements although there is not very many AS buildings still standing, there is a lot of well preserved foundations about, the buildings and what they contain give an indication to how the people lived and a clue to their social patterns and diet.
Manufacture and Trade Saxon goods have turned up all over Europe and the jewellery they produced contained semi precious stones that possibly came from as far as India.
I think that the most contentious bit of the archaeology is the overlap period between the leaving of the Romans and the arrival of the Anglo Saxons, there were quite few early AS cemetries near Roman towns, so were they graves of mercenaries in the Roman army or were they invaders/ migrants??
May I recommend reading Robin Fleming's Britain after Rome (Penguin History of Britain, v. 2)? It is out in the UK and will soon come out in the US. It is a history of Britain from 400-1070 based largely on archaeological evidence. I don't want to add it to the article bibliography myself because Robin is a friend (WP:COI). --Macrakis (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm just coming back from a break and have development under way and almost complete; I should have a version up shortly (for the whole article), which can then be edited mercilessly to communal satisfaction. My objective is to make this a credible "history" article, which is needed as a sound basis for improving articles on later historical eras (eg, sub-Roman Britain). At any rate, it's an effort for an honest telling of history. By the way, re Wilfredselsey's question ... AS cemeteries near towns are included, with THIS as an accompanying illustration. It should all be available very soon. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Northumberland needs to be changed to Cumbria.
In the article it states (as a fact when it is a theory) that Cumbric was spoken in Northumberland until the 12th Century when in fact the source mentioned that it is Kenneth Jackson's theory that this is the case (not that it is the case in itself) and to make matters worse this is a mistake by Filppula et al, as Kenneth Jackson did not claim that at all. In the book in question 'Angles and Britons in Cumberland and Northumberland' (in 'Angles and Britons', Cardiff, 1963) as well as 'Language and History in Early Britain, Edinburgh' (Edinburgh University Press, 1954) and 'The Britons In Southern Scotland' ('Antinquity 29', 1955) and he clearly speaks of the region west of the pennines and describes the range (in 'Language and History in Early Britain, Edinburgh') as "Cumberland, Westmorland, northern Lancashire, and south-west Scotland...". He also states that the language died out in the region of Cumbria sometime before the 10th century but was re-introduced after the conquests of the region by the Kingdom of Strathclyde before, at last, dying out possibly as late as the 12th century.
Either the reference in 'English and Celtic in Contact' is a mistake (most likely, many confuse the terms Cumberland, Cumbria, Northumberland and Northumbria) or a distortion (not unbelievable in this field but I believe the former).
Incidentally we do have evidence of Cumbric survival in Cumbria for a long time (though it isn't certain when it died out) unlike in the east in which we have no new place-names of Brythonic origin, no writings, no references to anything being spoken other than a form of English. Kenneth Jackson is an important scholar though he shouldn't be given undue prominence as the field has moved on since his time though most do agree that Cumbric died out completely (though some consider it to have only been weakened) prier to the North West's incorporation into the aforementioned Strathclyde and many do also agree that Cumbria had some Cumbric speakers until the 11th or 12th Century. I am going to be bold and link that reference to a first hand source (one of Jackson's writings) and correct it. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Invasion or settlement?
Initial Discussion
There should be a section about evidence against an invasion of Britain by Anglo Saxons.. Francis Pryor puts a convincing case together for this here: [4] It would seem there are others who somewhat agree with him in the video... Fonesurj (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE. You'll need better sources than that. They put up a strawman caricature of an "invasion" and shoot that down. This is either bad journalism, or bad scholarship, or both. If there was no invasion, why isn't Pryor presenting his views in Welsh? What is this, a British version of the "Indigenous Aryans" hilarity in India? The main problem appears to be that people don't understand the term "invasion", and take the term to refer to something like a modern military operation like the Normandy landing. Then they "debunk" that no D-Day style invasion has taken place and figure they have done away with some long-standing misconception, while they are simply stating the obvious. --dab(𒁳) 08:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Should this article be renamed Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain? There was a discussion here, which resulted in that article being renamed. I suggest that a consistent approach should be adopted, and also some more thought should be given to linking the two articles. In the meantime, I'll add hatnotes to both articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm all for a consistent approach. I too don't like 'invasion' in a title unless it's talking about something like the D-Day invasion, because dab's right, people don't understand the term. Dougweller (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
well, WP:NAME just demands that the most common term be used as a title. We can check, but I expect "AS invasion" to be far more common than "AS migration". Because it was an "invasion", in the meaning of the term in the context of migrating tribal societies, not, of course, of modern military operations. I mean, this should simply go without saying and I don't see why people keep making such a fuss about it. "invadere" simply means "to enter". So he Anglo-Saxons "entered" Great Britain. Big deal.
Ok, so the balance is less clear than I expected. I would still argue that "invasion" is the most common term, but a move to either Anglo-Saxon migration or Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain would probably be arguable. --dab(𒁳) 10:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
"Invasion" does seem to be the more common term, but there's also the matter of confusing our readers. I personally think it's fine, but the word certainly has its connotations. Consensus at the timeline page was pretty clear-cut in favor of using "settlement" instead, though granted the discussion was 10 months ago and well before this page was written. We need another discussion her. While we're at it we can talk about whether or not we really need two pages on the same topic.--Cúchullaint/c 18:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain is the clearest & most specific. Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The WP policy of using the most common term for some event is very sensible, if that event in fact exists. In this case, as well documented by the article, there was no invasion. The OED defines an invasion as 'The action of invading a country or territory as an enemy; an entrance or incursion with armed force; a hostile inroad.' The migration of people from one side of the North Sea to the other is not an 'invasion' by any reasonable definition. --macrakis (talk) 03:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I do not agree that "there was no invasion". I agree that there was no single big invasion. We are more likely looking at a few centuries of gradual migration, including the occasional "invasion" in the narrow sense here and there. Be that as it may, I have no objection to moving the article. --dab(𒁳) 15:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Moved. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
[Moved to bottom of page to continue discussion.] — LlywelynII 22:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Wth... Hold on a second
A discussion on a page about the gradual expansion of Anglo-Saxon settlement into the interior (well and good) leads to a renaming of the page about the actual forcible invasions? We go from starting out as WP:FRINGE to moving the page without any further documentation provided, and an editor's comment about other people's poor grasp of English – which they should simply improve – becomes taken as support for a move?
Nuhhh...
Correcting User:Dbachmann's links above to exclude Wiki, we get
It's not even close. Page needs forking between discussion of the invasion of the coast and the more gradual subsequent settlement or a return to the more important (WP:NAME) and common (WP:COMMONNAME) title for the entire process. — LlywelynII 22:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Restored to original namespace and will correct article in a second. Now, those in support of moving the page can provide their reasons the above should not be dispositive. — LlywelynII 22:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, you took your time (a second.... !!). Two years ago there was a discussion, in which you did not take part (in fact, it seems that you have never previously edited this article at all), that led to 5 agreeing the article name should change from "invasion" to "settlement", with 0 opposed. It was not a "bold" move, it was a consensus move. What has changed? I very much doubt, by the way, that it would be either possible or desirable to differentiate between an "invasion" of the coast, and "settlement" elsewhere, or to split the article accordingly - the records are simply not that clear so far as I am aware. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:OWNERSHIP doesn't count for a thing [and dab calling the move FRINGE does not count as an endorsement]. See the actual evidence and argument above, regarding facts about how this is discussed in common and scholarly English and the relevant Wikipedia policies. — LlywelynII 00:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
As for "possible or desirable", you're right that the records are quite clear that it was an invasion the entire way. If modern scholarship would like to differentiate the peaceable settlement of some regions, the onus is on them to establish that (And some have, probably enough for a separate article if we choose to spin them off from this one).
Surely it's not desirable that in a history article we have next to no discussion of the historical events and about 25kb of repeatedly self-contradictory text about the historians discussing why the traditional accounts may or may not be wrong (Not that the later is of no account, but we should be more wp:relevant, something the neologismy "settlement" obscures). — LlywelynII 00:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: clearly no consensus for the new title; moved back per request. Kotniski (talk) 10:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain → Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain – Page has been unilaterally moved from "settlement" to "invasion", without discussion, and against previous (2009) consensus. Sources differ as to whether the overall process is better described as "invasion" or "settlement" as there were clearly elements of both, but the majority of editors at this article, and at the linked article Timeline of Anglo-Saxon settlement in Britain, prefer the more balanced term "settlement". Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment 1) there was neither consensus nor process. Dab called it a FRINGE point. But thanks for doing it right this time around. — LlywelynII 00:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:MOVE says: '"In several cases, you should list pages that you want to have renamed/moved at Wikipedia:Requested moves, especially..... if you believe the move might be controversial..." In 2009, no editors in the discussion dissented from the proposal, and there was no suggestion that the move might at some future date be deemed controversial by anyone; no other editors have objected to the "settlement" title in the two years since then. Dab's comment referred to the input by Fonesurj, not the move suggestion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment 2) [edited] took a more detailed look at the timeline article you mention here and above and in fact you completely misrepresent the discussion there. On the timeline page, Enaidmawr, Jza84, Llywelyn2000 [no relation], Anthony Appleyard, Ben all argued or supported the precise opposite point that there was an invasion. The only dispute there was raised by one editor, Angus. That article title achieved consensus because it was felt to be the best name to describe the Anglo-Saxons for the entire AD 400 – 800 period, long after the initial invasions, which has no bearing on this article unless its scope radically changes. — LlywelynII 00:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Support per previous discussion. Looking more closely at a google books search with the filters for "20th/21st century" on shows clearly that modern academic works are more likely to use "settlement", when not talking about foundation myths etc. Even so sneaky reprints of C19 material skew the stats, so I won't quote them. Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment you don't have to. I already listed them above, and they absolutely disprove against your claim, even at modern-day Scholar. — LlywelynII 00:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per Commonname (6710243 to 77 at Google Books; 73 to 30 at Scholar) and simple English: the invasion was the aggressive movement into existing peoples (which is the current WP:RELEVANT topic), settlement was the slower erection of cities in vacant areas (which is neither interesting nor much touched-upon). They didn't happen to win a game of musical chairs: lack of genocide or no, they came in warbands and dispossessed the native rulers. It was an invasion and is called as such by the vast majority of existing scholarship. — LlywelynII 00:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment Your figures are incorrect. The "about" results are not accurate - You need to click through to the last page of results to get the real number (Invasion: 257 results, Settlement: 86). As noted above, these numbers are skewed by 19th century sources, so this isn't very useful anyway. Rettens2 (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Emended. Thanks for that: Amazed the "about" results were that far off (wth?). Still, while less lopsided, 4 times as many references is still four times as many references. I've seen snarky asides twice now, but haven't seen any actual evidence that "settlement" meets wp:commonname among modern researchers even if you are intent on ignoring historic, popular, and semantic usage. The "since 2000" filters at Scholar reduce "invasion" to 30 cites... and "settlement" to 16. Meanwhile, reading through them, they're not sneaky 19th century quotes. They're simple usage. I'm not sure where the resistance comes from (invasions are no less invasions for being prolonged), but I still don't see any actual argument for the three supports here. — LlywelynII 04:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Support Google searches are notoriously unreliable. In this case I would expect almost every academic source arguing against the invasion concept to mention the concept, so such a count is fatally flawed. Dougweller (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Check out this [paper] Anglo-Saxon cemeteries in the 5th century. All towns are Romano-British apart from Canterbury.and have a look at the local context section near the end, I think it adds some interesting background to the debate. Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I did. Your point was that the necessity of hiring mercenaries points out that Anglo-Saxon "settlement" was a hostile and violent take over of a previously British region and nothing like a movement into abandonned and virgin territory? Why not add an oppose vote? — LlywelynII 04:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Because I don't like either terms as they are both too simplistic so as long as the article itself covers the relevant points, don't care. Invasion is some what Anglo Saxon Chronicle centric, not much archaeolgy to support it. It also means that it should be a shorter article ending after the formation of the kingdoms. Settlement does not reflect the violence that probably took place at least in the early years. Historians and scholars are squabbling about what happened, particularly in the early years and so do we on Wikipedia. I think in general terms most now agree that after the Roman empire collapsed the Romanized aristocracy lost their power. Then according to Gildas, the Saxons were invited in to protect the country from the Picts and the Scotti. The Germans were recruited as mercenaries but double crossed their masters and moved into the power vacuum seizing control of the land. There is evidence that the Britons were not necessarily killed or driven out. It is possible that some of the British aristocracy may have become Germanized for example several rulers of the West Saxons had British derived names. British enclaves survive in place-names such as Walton in the east of the country, (meaning settlement of the British) and also there have been archaelogical finds in places like Silchester and Patching. This is general stuff so hopefully not contentious? Point is that both Invasion and Settlement are rather punchy aren't they, anything else would be too wordy?Wilfridselsey (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I have absolutely no issue over the violence of the events or phase, but I do think "invasion" inevitably suggests a single mass landing like 1066 or 1944, whereas we are actually talking about a multiplicity of mainly local events over many decades or longer. Plus the evidence suggests that the earliest events may have been initiated by AS already living in Britain before the Romans left. Johnbod (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes and people like White who wrote the [paper] previously mentioned, suggests in another paper that based on the archaeology, there were many years when the two cultures co-existed before the AS became dominant.Wilfridselsey (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Support because the trend in scholarship seems to be moving away from using "invasion" unless it is an event limited to a short number of years. This period of history doesn't seem to have been a "short period of years" such that invasion would qualify. Settlement isn't much better, but it is used more often in current scholarship. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Support. There were invasions, sure, but there was not an "Anglo-Saxon invasion". There was Anglo-Saxon settlement, and that is why that term is preferred in most cases. Like Johnbod and Ealdgyth said. Srnec (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
How about migrations ? —Tamfang (talk) 07:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
AARGH a new title all together!! However, I think that Tamfang has made a pretty good observation. The article is essentially a discussion on various theories/ hypotheses on the nature and number of the the immigrants, emigrants and residents during the AS period. Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I tend to associate the term "migrations" with a wider overview of longer term events, but if others agree I've no problem with it - except to query whether "migration to..." would cover the process once they arrived (t)here. Would it be "migrations" (plural) though, or Anglo-Saxon migration to Britain (which I see already redirects here)? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Support move to settlement as proposed. The article is about a period of many years, some of fits the normal English meaning of invasion but most of it does not. This move is a distinct improvement on the current title, whatever the merits of other proposals. Andrewa (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Support: whatever the Google hits may be argued as meaning, "settlement" is plainly a more accurate description of the subject. The word "invasion" suggests a single event, which we know this was not. Moonraker (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Please can we have the page move protected so we don't have to go through this again?? Wilfridselsey (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
You (or someone) will need to file a request at WP:RFPP, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll have a go. Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
That's overkill - now the redirect is there only an admin can move it to the "Invasion" title again, & it would be clearly out of process to do so without a debate, & could be just be squashed. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I guess that we are in agreement that we don't want the page unilaterally hijacked. I have already put in the request, so see how it goes! There are a few other suggestions for names I could think of, that could use to get round the inability to use Invasion but best not give people ideas!! Regards. Wilfridselsey (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Britlish
Oops... was off a bit: User:Dbachmann established the page with centre, so I'll restore the Britishisms in a sec. — LlywelynII 00:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
It may be worth adding to the historical section that the A-S Chronicle when describing the arrival of various founding groups of the A-S kingdoms in Britain speaks of very small numbers of ships. A few dozen open rowing boats of the Sutton Hoo type could not have transported a mass migration.Urselius (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Two-thirds or three-quarters, English or British
We have an unsourced (the source is for something else) sentence saying "They claim that about two-thirds of English people's ancestors are Paleolithic settlers who migrated from the western European Ice Age refuge[52] in Paleolithic Iberia, comprising three-quarters of British people's ancestors." It's been tagged as a contradiction. I can't make sense of it. I know Oppenheimer's said three-quarters "of our ancestors" in an article here], but that doesn't help a lot. Anyone want to fix this? Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
To me that is very badly expressed, whatever it means, but the broad sense of it lies in the not-very-surprising notion that "English" people have rather fewer Paleolithic settlers in their ancestry than "British" people, the second term presumably including the Celtic fringes and the second not. The broad-brush distinction may be between the non-immigrant population of England and that of Great Britain, at some unstated point in time, but for the passage to be worth including permanently its terms would need to be defined. For now, we should at least add [citation needed]. Moonraker (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
If you review Oppenheimer's sources I think the sentence can be decoded somewhat. If you look at say Weale et al and Forster they essentially say that most English DNA originates from Frisia rather than from the northwest German, Angles and Saxon areas. Interestingly Forster suggests minimal immigration and Weale mass immigration.Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Yep Oppenheimer, in his "A reanalysis of multiple prehistoric immigrations to Britain and Ireland aimed at identifying the Celtic contributions" contribution in Celtic from the West explicitly postulates a 73% "Palaeolithic" genetic origin of modern Brits Slovenski Volk (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
"Were there Saxons in England (sic) before the Romans left?"
Has anyone read Chapter 9 of Stephen Oppenheimer's "The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story"? He has some interesting ideas best expressed by the above title, ones which are shared by Francis Pryor. Essentially both believe that the English (and the Jutes) were the 5th-century invaders, while the Saxons were already long settled in south-west Roman Britain, along the Saxon Shore. Any thoughts, anyone? Fergananim (talk) 05:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
There is general agreement that there were Anglo Saxons mercenaries in the Roman army, there is archaeology to support this. See JNL Myers. The English Settlements. Particularly Ch.4/ 5 for example. It is not entirely clear what happened to them when the Roman army left. It is known that the sub Roman British recruited Anglo Saxon mercenaries to help protect against raiding Picts and Scots. Whether any were recruited from 'settled' Anglo Saxons is open to conjecture.Wilfridselsey (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
full article replacement
A full article replacement is a bit extreme, but the previous incarnation seemed woefully uninformative as to the actual history, so I tried to put things on a more solid foundation using reliable and credible sources. There are some good sources in the replaced article, but I couldn't see a feasible way to revise it. The "History" sections were either tangential or irrelevant, the "Historiology" sections were (I think) off-topic, and the "Invasion period kings" were actually post-settlement.
Then again, perhaps the new incarnation is equally objectionable to others. That's to find out. Criticism and improvement welcome. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
On a quick look it seems better. I think it needs a 2nd para in the lead with a longer look forward at the A-S, & so why the settlement was important. Not all will know. I don't like talk of the "A-S" before they came over - i changed one instance but others remain. I added one bit, with no refs, but not I think controversial. Generally, well done! Johnbod (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that the full replacement works and the article is a lot better structured now. The previous incarnation was somewhat rambling! Notuncurious thanks for your hard work! Rgds. Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I also prefer not to have a rather full background on the original homelands and the seafaring info, but it's why they came and explains their capabilities at the time, which is highly relevant (I certainly didn't want to use myths about three small ships, and that sort of thing; or simply assert that they were capable seafarers on a large scale, when there are still stories extant that Saxons rowed instead of sailed). Perhaps, re-edit this article when the information is in other articles and we can reference it in a short paragraph?
As for including paragraph(s) in the lead about significance, perhaps we might leave it understated: the arrival and settlement is the seminal event in the creation-story of the English nation. I was thinking that this is "intuitively obvious to the most casual observer", as they say. But I can live with it either way. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I just meant that they are being referred to as "Anglo-Saxon" before they have even left the continent. The idea that anything is "intuitively obvious to the most casual observer" won't I think survive reading much of the new feedback comments on articles that have them. We are an encyclopedia & should refer briefly even to the most obvious things. Johnbod (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Last sentence of lead: Cymru, non-Romanised Britons etc
The sentence I removed/refactored there has been reinserted, with a citation now. Just to explain in more detail what I see as the problems with that sentence, citation or not:
The opening "It should be noted .." language, which is horrible and deprecated per WP:WTA.
The closing "not known to have played a significant role of this era of Anglo-Saxon history". Grammar/typo apart, it's at best redundant and at worst a conclusion beyond simply saying "largely unaffected by the Anglo-Saxon settlement", the phrase that my edit retained. If we simply mean – assuming it's true anyway – that Britons in the north and west of the island didn't interact much with Anglo-Saxons, we've already said just that in that immediately previous sentence; if we mean that what happened in those areas during this era wasn't significant, that's a step beyond that and pretty dismissive to boot.
The reference to Cymry. As I have understood it, this term would usually be taken to refer to Britons in modern-day Wales and northern England/Strathclyde etc, which the citation seems to confirm. However, the lead as worded applies it to all non-Romanised Britons, including Picts (if included as a subset of "Britons") and other groups in northern Scotland as well as those in the southwest of modern-day England, when it says "living to the west and north of the Romano-Britons" – who, AFAIK, would not usually be referred to as, or recorded as referring to themselves as, "Cymry".
The reduced/redacted wording left by my edit seemed to me to cover the issue of Anglo-Saxon influence and interaction with native Britons in a pretty clear and succinct sentence but without being too definitive about certain things and without including the above problems. N-HHtalk/edits 10:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, got it. Please improve my phrasing and wording when and where you see the need, including here. If I wrote it, you can safely assume that it bears improvement. My concern was with content. There is a general and generally mistaken impression about the extent of Romanisation in Britain, and about the peoples involved. I was trying to state the actual circumstances in as few words as possible, for the sake of clarity and accuracy. I think that it's relevant to both this era of Anglo-Saxon history and the next era as well, though it should not detract from the present article's topic.
For some additional information on particulars that are mentioned but not emphasised here, see the Wales article under "Etymology of Cymru"; and the Wales in the Roman era article under "Romanisation", particularly this map. The End of Roman rule in Britain article may also be useful, particularly this map and this map. Both the content and the maps are referenced to reliable and credible sources, if you want to check them out. If you then still have concerns as to content accuracy and applicability, please mention them again here (and when all is said and done, perhaps these two sentences should not be in the lead, nor in the article). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, point 1 has now been addressed but you haven't really answered the queries about my points 2 & 3. And, for example, the section of the Wales article you pointed me to explicitly says "the term was not applied to the Cornish .. peoples", which of course, assuming it is correct, adds further weight to my point. As for clarity about the extent of prior Roman (to the extent that it is relevant) and early Anglo-Saxon influence, as I argued, we have it in the shortened version that I tried to switch to. N-HHtalk/edits 11:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The lead section of an article is characteristically short of extensive citations and explanatory verbiage while trying to include sufficient information. It can be a tricky proposition at times. The statement seemed non-controversial to me as it was originally written, but reasonable people may disagree.
Your original edit simply threw away content for the sole reason that you weren't sure that a characterisation of "non-Romanised" was accurate. There are now 3 citations in the lead section for this passing but relevant statement, and the objection has changed from "non-Romanised" to a nuanced definition of "Cymry". A changing topic can be hard to follow. Perhaps, would you draft a paragraph that satisfies your concerns while conveying the important information, and place it here? I'd be happy to help revise it and add citations. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Well no, I never said that I wasn't sure about the characterisation "non-Romanised". My edit summary referred to the content about non-Romanised Britons. Nor did I make any comment about the phrase in my first post here. My actual questions remain as pretty clearly set out at points 1-3 in that original post and as subsequently clarified. We seem to be talking past each other a little here, not least because you still have addressed the specific points made at 2 and 3. I have also said that the wording as I left it had clarity, accuracy and covered the issue concisely, hence that is the wording that I would suggest. My whole point is that the edit did not "throw away" any information that was not potentially inaccurate or duplicated. N-HHtalk/edits 22:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
To-do list
The article has been stable for a couple of weeks now, and here is a possible starting point for its improvement (add/modify as you see fit); and perhaps this is a good time to archive this talk page, to include everything above this note?
It is suggested that the lead have a paragraph with a longer look forward at the A-S, & so why the settlement was important. Perhaps someone will try it out.
Build on the description of early 5th century AS society at their arrival to cover most of the 6th century: how AS society evolved and was built into the society of c. 600 ... that gets the article to a point where AS history becomes better known, and which is already covered in other articles. Some reorganisation and rewriting is likely needed in order to do this.
I think the "Numbers" section (which I wrote) needs serious revision for balance. The old view of near-complete ethnic replacement need not return, and it's now accurate regarding the authorities cited, but it creates a tacit conclusion bordering on Anglo-Saxon irrelevancy to the gene pool, which it should not do. (ps - there are technical assumptions made in developing genetic analyses for interacting populations and these mitigate against using low-level data to make high-level conclusions, not least because those technical assumptions must be valid if they are to support a conclusion, and we don't know whether or not that is so. Genetics are relevant and useful, but their application should be qualified, and they are not the final word unless assumptions are proven valid, at least not IMHO)
Some material really belongs elsewhere, and distracts from the article topic, particularly the "background" section. I put it here because it's relevant and I couldn't fit it in where it belongs (eg, look at the Saxons and Franks articles and see if you can find a way to move information from this article to those; and where to put the info that contradicts the traditional story of the Anglo-Saxons destroying British towns?). Perhaps someone has a good suggestion, or can go ahead and just do it ...
Tried to address all of these issues. Also removed the high project rating in the banner (it should be re-rated due to all the changes). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Source of latest edits shares perspective.
While I enjoyed reading this, the article strikes me as scholarly, rather than encyclopedic. For this critique, I did not have time to read the whole carefully, but focused on the Peoples section, noting through skimming that the tenor and style of the remainder of the article was very much the same.
That section periodically states things in a manner of scholarly opinion, without citation, such as one might find in a primary historical publication. Flags of this are use of limiters and superlatives (Bede as "only reliable and useful textual source", trachts as "among the most reliable", etc.), and in the expressed judgments regarding primary sources, rather than report of others' judgments on the sources (Bede, again, and non-authoritative Procopius).
Moreover, I found that section, as the tag states, to be a scholarly synthesis, rather than reflecting scholarly syntheses of others. That it is more in the vein of original scholarly work follows from its citing dissertation work (a conclusion from which I tone down in an earlier edit), as well as the primary sources themselves. As well, any arguments and analyses made based on selected academic histories are, in themselves, scholarly work, and the decision-making between academic sources and arguments—the selection between non-consensus views—cannot but help to bring in a particular POV.
Rather, somehow, in encyclopedic manner—in this academics view—the article needs to state the current consensus of historians on matters, or when such is lacking, present a balanced summary of prevailing views of the field. Bottom line, an analysis that gets this much into evaluating specific evidences and sources, with decisions made between them, is scholarly and not encyclopedic. Needed is summary of views based on information over which others have already sat in critical judgment. For readers, even trained ones such as I, cannot be expected to evaluate such complex archeological and textual matters on the fly (or to entrust critical judgment between them to wikipedia).
On the up side, I would say that I hope the primary contributors to this article are en route to a career or careers in this field. The effort is significant, and the writers clearly are working hard and digging deep, in the right places. Good work, just "mis-pitched" here. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.9.222 (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
A suggestion
What this , otherwise great, article is sorely missing is some of the post modern discussions on factors other than usual discourse on numbers and 'tribal' invasions. Ie the cultural and political reasons why Britain was "Anglo-saxonized". Because migrations are always occurring and people are often being moved and re-settled; yet in the 5th century the result was obviously drastic. This is especially so given the recent trend by British scholars , at least, to see the movement of north Europeans into britain as a "trickle". Moreover, a greater critique on the DNA "evidence" is required as well as addenda on stable isotope analyses. Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
731 and Muslim battle
I've deleted the note that read " .<ref>The traditional date is 731, which Bede gives himself. However, a Muslim defeat in Gaul that took place in 732 appears to be mentioned, which gives some fuzziness to the ending date.</ref><ref>Bede, Saint. The Ecclesiastical History of the English People: The Greater Chronicle; Bede's Letter to Egbert. Oxford University Press, 1994.</ref>. This refers to a passage that reads "remained for almost a fortnight. At this time* a terrible plague of Saracens ravaged Gaul with cruel bloodshed and not long afterwards* they received the due reward of their treachery* in the same kingdom. In the same year the holy man of God".
The note on this in The Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Oxford World's Classics) by Bede, Judith McClure, Roger Collins and Bertram Colgrave says "not long afterwards: the only events this can refer to are the defeat of the first Arab attack on Gaul at Toulouse in 721 or that of another Arab raid at the battle of Poitiers in October (?) of 732 or 733. If it were the latter, this would represent a late revision or posthumous editorial addition to the text of Book V. Bede's lack of contemporary information about Arab attacks on Gaul is also apparent in the Chronicle."[5] This does not suggest a problem with the dating of 731. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Stenton and Procopius
We should mention Procopius if only because of his comment about the Frisians, but we shouldn't be using Stenton. There are better and more recent sources. This source[6] take a more skeptical look at Procopius. [7] is less skeptical but points out he was getting his information from Frankish Ambassadors to the Imperial court. This is Stenton[8]. Procopius and the Sixth Century By Averil Cameron looks important. Look at pages 213 onward[9] - he was obviously very confused, writing about "Brittia" and "Bretannia" without realising they are both Britain. And finally, Thompson, E.A. (1980): "Procopius on Brittia and Britannia", in: Classical Quarterly 30, pp. 498-507.*. With all these good sources, why use Stenton on Procopius, especially as he is more or less ignored by modern writers. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Section is still bare
From Jutes...onwards to the end of that section this article reads rather barely. All the examples come from Yorke 2006 only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J Beake (talk • contribs) 19:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Structure
The more I read of this article the less I like its structure. It mostly reads as if it had been written in 1950, or earlier. It uses more recent sources, but these overwhelmingly are taken from academics with rather conservative views. Even some of the books I have read which are more progressive (eg. Higham) seem to have been selectively fished for their relatively few conservative remarks.
This article needs to state at the beginning that the academic community is deeply divided over the nature of the Anglicisation of lowland Britain. It should then be structured to clearly separate conservative mass migration hypothesis matter from the more radical ideas on cultural and linguistic shift without mass migration. The 'elite dominance model' of acculturation should also be included somewhere. Also there are far too many disputable assertions presented as though they were facts.
Is anyone going to debate this, and my earlier input, with me? Urselius (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know enough about the detail of the topic to be able to debate or suggest too much myself, but I agree that the article should highlight the differing mainstream views on the issue. However, this is currently referred to fairly early on. The second para of the lead refers to the traditional characterisation of an invasion (implying there has been some revision or dispute about that thesis). The third para explicitly opens by explicitly saying: "There is ongoing debate ... as to how and why the Anglo-Saxon settlements were successful and as to the full nature of the relationships between the Anglo-Saxons and Romano-Britons, including to what extent the incomers displaced or supplanted the existing inhabitants". Admittedly it then, in the main body itself, kind of loses track of the issue until the final "Number of migrants" section. As you say that could arguably be better integrated across the page as a whole. N-HHtalk/edits 11:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. The problem is that the article pays lip-service to the debate, but then presents various aspects as though there was no doubt about them. Some academics in the field credit the initial Anglicisation of parts of Britain to cultural exchange between elites across the North Sea, involving little in the way of population movement. In this context, to then present the distrubution of brooch types etc. as indicating mass tribal immigration to certain regions as an established fact is not useful, and is confusing to the reader. I think that the lead needs to be accurately reflected in the rest of the article. The most logical lay-out, I would submit, is to follow the lead with a section on the historical sources - which are not particularly numerous - then explore the evidence for a traditional mass migration model, followed by sections on the evidence for alternative models not reliant on mass migration. Urselius (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I think it probably needs to be borne in mind that some of those who created and developed this article are no longer active editors (as with many other articles); and many of those who are still active are less well informed (in terms of being able to access sources) than you seem to be. If you were to re-edit and improve the article, based on reliable sources, in the way you suggest, many of us may well see it as an improvement. Worth a try? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Looking over it, the article is well referenced, but commentaries have been added in a less than ordered way. There are some gaps in coverage, but in essence it is the structure, or lack of structure, that is the main problem. I may cut and paste it to my sandbox and see if it can be rearranged to better advantage. Urselius (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
And references can be deployed however anyone wants to deploy them. Many WP pages have impressive footnotes but in fact are pushing fringe ideas or giving them equal weight with mainstream ideas. Too many WP editors have an overly simplistic view of sourcing policy and believe that if you can "source" a statement to a seeming authority, in it goes, without regard for overall balance, presentation or structure. Often that can lead to content that's as flawed and misleading as someone writing it all off the top of their head without any sources or footnotes. With this sort of topic in particular, where there's a lack of definitive evidence and a lot of disagreement among academics, it's incredibly difficult of course to ensure a balanced write-up. Anyway, good luck with trying; it would be good if someone else with a bit of knowledge could have a look too. As you'll note I tweaked some of the recent additions to make it more dull and appear a bit less judgmental. N-HHtalk/edits 12:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I have tried to rewrite the lead in the hope that it is an improvement. Urselius (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Capelli genetics paper - wrong interpretation
"Research in 2003 on Y-chromosome variation suggested that a considerably high contribution to the modern English gene pool (50–100%) which suggested a large settlement of people. Capelli, C. et al. 2003 A Y chromosome census of the British Isles. Curr. Biol. 13, 979–984. (doi:10.1016/S0960-9822(03)00373-7)."
This is wrong, I have read the paper and one of the authors is a personal friend of mine, the paper does not give any outright percentages but presents two graphs. One shows the positions of the sample points relative to three fixed points - an Irish Basque Welsh point taken as indigenous, a Norwegian point and a North German/Denmark point. The second graph is of a simulation with projected % inputs of non-indigenous genepools. The reader then has to transcribe the positions of the sample points (eg York or Faversham or Orkneys) from the first graph into the second graph to estimate the percentages (and the error circles are quite large). Most English sample points fall in the range 20% to 40% Germano-Danish input with York an outlier at about 60% - and Orkney and Shetland as outliers with about 60% Norwegian.
I think the editor mixed up the conclusions of Weale et al. and Capelli et al. The Capelli paper used more sample points and a larger number of individual samples - so has greater authority than the Weale paper. Urselius (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree, including my mistake, maybe this section is now better though and we can work towards a clearer style Lets make some constructive changes then ...before I started my imperfect suggested changes this page was a mess ... it is getting better but we probably need a way forward. Personally i am very happy with how you changed my attempt. No edit wars here. J Beake (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Recent and forthcoming changes
I think that I am responsible for most/all of the criticisms recently mentioned. I replaced an article that I saw as dated and ideological with something more informative and historically relevant, the success of which is of course debatable. It was quickly updated credibly and creditably by N-HH et al, but these changes were not received with appropriate collegiality, a fact that surely hindered further improvement until now.
I encourage Urselius et. al. to continue their good efforts to create an article that gives an accurate telling of the history and presents material in a way that can stand up to competent criticism ... the process is evolutionary in the best possible way. I look forward to reading your work.
The article I inserted was never intended to be a finished product, and there is much to be added (aside from the perceived corrections in what is there now) to push uncertain ancient history into the light. The early 5th century chiefdoms/kingdoms aren't covered, nor the evolution of trading centers that became towns, etc. I figured that these would emerge with the creation of "background" articles that address them (eg, perhaps based on recent publications like the Lincolnshire-supported work of Thomas Green; and on Helena Hammerow's book on the evolution of towns in Denmark and the Netherlands and Norway, which seem to be the precursors to modern towns, which do not seem to owe a legacy to Roman-era towns). New "background" articles that contributed to this one include the Frisii, Chauci, Roman departure from Britain, Roman-era Wales, and others, as well as several substantial contributions to other articles. More are needed.
Again, please proceed with the improvements, and if there is something that looks too POV, or looks to have been cherry-picked, then simply improve it with an edit note, without any concern that it needs to be extensively justified on the talk page so as to allay push-back. If I can be of any help, or if you have any questions, please leave a note on my talk page ... I check it from time to time. (I'm back to my extended break) Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Suggested Improvements
Maybe we can have here a list of the improvements we would like to see?
For me the key to this is to capture the crux of issue with the settlement.
1. My view is the new section on movement of people vs culture is the great fulcrum to the article. This still needs to be clearer in its style but I hope it brings the debate out of the 1950s as people hoped.
2. Now I think it needs a more direct and shortened introduction and maybe a section on background. The settlement needs to be contextualised for people who will still be coming to this topic with primary school invasion theory in their minds (which is still taught). To them this page is confusing. So I propose a clear Invasion vs Settlement section where we can just give a roadmap towards the importance of the next sections. For example: If settlement, is it movement of actual people? If people came not to grab land - why did they come and why didn't they meet resistance (I love Harke's joke to Pryor that this is a Farmer's view)? If it isn't an imposed culture how did the culture develop? If people came - how many?
Then we could have other questions explored: Why didnt the Anglo-Saxons become Britons? What continued? Was their some sort of apartheid between communities in some places? Not to mention the biggy not yet written: What did the Anglo-Saxon Settlement do for us? I mean, place names, continental genre of literature, etc.
J Beake (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The major choice, in my opinion, is how to lay out the article; as you say the two main theories (or their most extreme versions) should be directly contrasted. One way of doing so is to have separate sections on each viewpoint, or alternatively, there might be sections based on topics, such as historical sources, language/linguistics, archaeology and genetics each with the interpretations placed on the available evidence by the various scholarly "camps". Urselius (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree, these are the choices. At first, I was worried by the latter approach you describe because people like to use an interdisciplinary approach. However I warming to it. I feel that the problematic issues need to be tackled and worry that these can be lost unless they are set in context. The task would be to outline the sections as you describe and to ensure that journey is described taking the reader from the assumptions to the "camps". I feel these camps are not as far apart from each other, as popular belief is from them. (To show the stuff being taught in primary schools as fact you maybe interested to see http://www.primaryhomeworkhelp.co.uk/saxons/when.htm ) J Beake (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The day we base articles on primary school webpages, rather than on up-to-date scholarly sources, is the day I finally abandon all hope here.....! Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
"Angle and Saxon came up over the sea's broad brim, seeking Britain,
Wise warsmiths, they overcame the Welsh,
Noble warriors, they took the land."
That was the view in the 10th century - from the end of the poem The Battle of Brunnanburh (my rather loose translation) - it is a pity that so many modern viewpoins are just as simplistic. Urselius (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
You might want to look at the middle section of the Migration and the formation of kingdoms (400–600) section in the Anglo-Saxon England article, as the basis for a Background section for this article, as it discusses the evolving invasion/ migration model. It would need to be developed to include some of the latest DNA studies. Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Earliest Anglo-Saxon Society
The final section I feel needs an overhaul is the Anglo-Saxon society section. My suggestion is for a complete overhaul with sections not on the earliest Anglo-Saxon society, but Early Anglo-Saxon Culture. The sub-sections could be: Language, Religion, Clothing, Political forms, Rural life, Food, Metalwork. J Beake (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it isn't very well structured. There is also the hole in Pryor's argument - he sees influences from the Continent affecting a society which had lost much of its social differentiation - but he doesn't expain how a bunch of farmers, reduced to subsistence or near-subsistence agriculture, interact across the North Sea to gain these cultural and linguistic infuences. Therefore, there is a big gap from the point of view of both the 'Victorian-style' traditionalists viewing the early Anglo-Saxons as egalitarian "farmers with spears" and the people in Pryor's camp on the one side, and the supporters of "elite dominance" on the other. Without elites (and Gildas, Bede and the A-S Chronicle mention nothing but elites and their deeds) there can be no elite dominance. Personally, I cannot see any Continental influences entering Britain without the involvement of chieftains and their retinues - given that in one Anglo-Saxon law-code an army was any group of armed men numbering more than 30 - it isn't surprising that these early elites have left little archaeological trace of themselves. Urselius (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Another thing, I think that all the DNA evidence would be better placed together rather than in two sections. Urselius (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I am glad we have an agreed way forward for this section. I also agree about the DNA. Tightening this section, including other DNA studies, mentioning the few other studies that have conducted Strontium analysis, etc., would require a change of name from "Y-Chromosome evidence" to "Molecular evidence".J Beake (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I was worried about how to introduce the tooth enamel stuff, useful but not DNA. There was a study on early Anglo-Saxon period burials in, I think, NE England, where there were incomers amongst the locals, but they came from western Britain not northern Germany! I haven't seen the paper itself though. Urselius (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I have had a go at this - as far as I can see there are only three studies of note, of which only two give any relevant information. I think it is useful extra evidence, but my view is a snapshot in one or two cemetaries is just that a snapshot.J Beake (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Table of possibilities
This appears to be pure original research - see WP:NOR. Unless it can be sourced it should be deleted. Sorry about that. Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
It may appear like this at the moment but I can assure you isnt research - all the possibilities come from research. I am adding extra citations. The calculations are just simple mathematics. My task is to help bring this whole article into the present - I have outlined some of the things I have done, and with the help of one other editor we have increased the quality rating. I have been referencing and tidying but the whole article will need more citations and cohesion. Please either contact me directly if you are unsure about something or talk here. Thanks J Beake (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
"The table below summarises some of the evidence and shows the numbers that are attained when a different starting dates, population rates, migration numbers are used based on the work of Helena Hamerow and Robert Hedges." It needs to be made explicit in the article what this means. If it means that you are using their figures and results, then please give page numbers. If it means you are using their methods, then it is WP:NOR. I don't mean to be rude and there is some good work being done here, but it's easy to pass the boundary between actually reflecting what our sources clearly say and interpreting or using what they say to make an argument. Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Well I appreciate the comment i would hope you would be patient till I have finished working. I am not using the methods the pages of hodges is 81-83. All I have added is simple mathematics which is like Paris is the capital of France. Please don't try and see things that are not there but I apologise if i have upset your sensitives. I have added a few thousands words to the article and painstakingly ordering the references. I would love to think that you are not just deleting and giving me a lecture. J Beake (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
If you prefer i will take this section into my sandbox till its complete.
Thanks very much for the offer. You haven't upset my sensitivities, but the edit sent my OR antenna quivering. I guess given the fact that you've responded here to explain what you are doing will show anyone else who comes along that you are trying to reference everything you do. Thanks for your fast response. Dougweller (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that we are just trying to unravel a subject that many scholars tackle ... I would hope I could encourage people to tackle things as well, or be supportive when I or others are not quite there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J Beake (talk • contribs) 21:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Taken back into sandbox ... "be bold" we are told .. why did I bother. Wouldn't life be better if people just tried not to sound so patronising.J Beake (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I am really really sorry you feel this way, and I did say there was no need to sandbox it. I don't know what else I can say to convince you I'm not being patronising. Dougweller (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Wikipedia often raises problems that inhibit the freedom to edit as we might desire to do, even for the obvious betterment of an article. Development of a thick skin or a sinuous, nay serpentine, ability in diplomacy is often advantageous. Urselius (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Skin thickened, I realise of the two ways I could have read the issue, I read it the wrong way. I am sorry, I think it was too crude a table - and for the readers help it needs good grounding, which is best sorted in sandbox. I will make this section better and help the article get to grips with how the numbers have been understood .... it is one of the trickiest bits because but I feel in understanding the methodology and then getting to grips with how scholars have understood the numbers, this will help the article understand the tricky nature of the figures.
By the way for those interested I am rereading Malcolm Gladwell's book The Tipping Point, it remains me how the sociological element in the Anglo-Saxon settlement is the missing link. For those who are interested he outlines the phenomenon of how large scale sociological events can be changed by little things.
He points out three aspects needed in what he calls a social epidemic.
The power of a few - which remains me of the "elite" in this article, but maybe also the role of Irish/british monks not covered especially in the North, or the possible impact of the individuals that put their name to areas in the Tribal Hideage.
The Stickiness Factor - The specific content of a message that renders its impact memorable. For me this is the message of vows and loyalty - as opposed to the broken vows spoken of by Gildas.
The Power of Context - "Social Epidemics" are sensitive to the conditions and circumstances of the times and places in which they occur - the time was right for those in rural britain to have a change from the high social inequality between the detached rural elite and local people... to an environment of the loyalty and relative freedom of the Coerl.... purple patch. J Beake (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The article is hugely improved, hardly the same beast. I read "stickiness factor" as 'sickness factor' and had visions of the 'Yellow Plague' and Maelgwn Gwynnedd's rather comical death! Urselius (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Vastly improved, and thank you. I envy you. I've spent the last couple of editing hours going through an article tediously to make sure I've identified all of a large amount of copyvio. Not at all constructive but necessary - but also certainly not as rewarding as improving an article as much as J Beake has. Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
-> What is also missing is a clear chronological 'development'- ie from the earliest ppossible presence of Saxon mercenaries, to a discussion of the earliest clear evidence for acutal Anglo-Saxon settlement (ie north of the Thames), its contrast to that of the south of the Thames where "Roman' artefatcs continue longer, as well as the differences between lowland and highland England in the 5th century. 152.76.1.244 (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Good point ... I have been thinking about what to do about regionalism ... there is room in the settlement section for "regional differences" I think it needs to explain Dorcester question.. as well as the differences you outline. Maybe even outline some of Laycock's ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J Beake (talk • contribs) 20:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, this is impressive work and a useful and informative replacement for the article's previous incarnation. The highest compliments to J Beake's ongoing effort, which is taking us to where we need to be. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd also like to express my support for J Beake's recent work, and congratulate him/her on growing a more tortoise-like carapace. It is essential for any kind of sustained happiness as a truly productive editor. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Numbers section
I have been thinking about this section and I have a proposal:
Should we change this into a section on 'Migration & aculturation theories'.
What I mean is there are maybe 4 prominent theories that bring together all the evidence and suggest a synthesis; answering the main questions of, how many and when. These are (in my opinion - please feel free to comment):
Two regarding numbers
Harke & Thomas: near equal ratio & apartheid
Lucy, Hodges et al: Small elite replacement, continuity
Two regarding acculturation
Higham: early dominance - quick acculturation but continuity
Dark: longer Briton - one of gradual change and cultural mixing
What do think?
J Beake (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The question of numbers is just one aspect of "Movement of peoples or movement of culture" (incidentally, I think a question mark is needed at the end of this heading) and both could be placed in a 'Migration & aculturation theories' section. Urselius (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean take out the short introduction of "Movement of peoples or movement of culture" and place it in a new 'Migration & aculturation theories' section with numbers, letting all the evidence sections stand alone by promoting them up a level? If so I think this is a great solution.
In short - yep :) Urselius (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok I will give that a go, I think. As it makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J Beake (talk • contribs) 16:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Questions in section headings
Can we please change these? See MOS:HEADINGS - "Headings should not contain questions." Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Done, the phrasing might not be optimal, however. Urselius (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Native names in Anglo-Saxon dynasties
What might be a useful addition is mention that Celtic personal names are found early in some Anglo-Saxon dynasties - Cerdic, Ceawlin and Caedwalla in the West Saxon dynasty and Caedbaed in the Lindissi (Catherine Hills (2003) Origins of the English, Duckworth, pp. 55, 105). This argues for the partial survival of British elites as well as peasants. Also the small numbers of ships described in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as bringing early chieftains to Britain, obviously containing war bands and not peasants.
The argument about numbers, ie. you need a large population to enable raiding, is not very convincing. All the evidence points to large populations of unwarlike peasants ruled by small groups of elite warriors - the gesithcund. Peasants ploughed and reaped, they provided a surplus to support the warrior elite, they didn't take up arms themselves. It did not matter what ethnicity the peasants were or what language they spoke, as long as they paid their renders to the elites. A large population of British peasants could support an Anglo-Saxon warband and enable it to make war-like raids.
There is also a central problem with the title and intro. of the article, which both presuppose that there was an "Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain", when some sources used later in the article challenge this as an event. The title may be unavoidable, but some mention of scepticism amongst some archaeologists (in particular) about this as an event/process should be prominently introduced in the lead section. Urselius (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The archaeological evidence points to agricultural layers in the east of the island being abandoned during a period which corresponds to the early anglo-saxon period in these regions. The skepticism amongst archaeologists is overstated. A small illiterate warrior elite doesn't assimilate a large settled population with writing, especially not when said warrior elite adopted the religion of the natives. Unless you want to argue that english is linguistic fairy dust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.74.122 (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Recent pollen analysis work shows that there was no widescale reversion of any area of Britain to secondary forestation following the end of Roman rule. Some wetlands that had been drained, presumably to produce grain for the Roman troops on the Rhine frontier, were abandoned. However, this was agriculturally marginal land only made profitable by the demand of the Roman army for grain. Once this demand had ceased there was no profit in working this expensive agriculture. Urselius (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppenheimer
The article is too willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Stephen Oppenheimer, whose studies are generally poorly received by population geneticists (blood of the pacific got several bad reviews), and both linguists and archaeologists have panned his british material for questionable conclusions (he obviously doesn't know what material culture means). He's also gotten conclusions which are at odds with those of other population geneticists (although on the whole population genetics of the kind done are of questionable interest and accuracy for any group that's not very isolated especially for tracing millenia old roots). Being fair I'll pretend that the interest in him is because he's a vulgarizer, and not because he tends to make english and flemish nationalists happy with his linguistic absurdities. However if people insist on him staying (and removing all references to him is really fucking easy), pick a book that doesn't insist english was identifiably separate from german a thousand years before the well documented actual split. If he's even acknowledged in the literature, which is rarely, it tends to be negative; most of the interest in him comes from outside the sciences he mangles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.74.122 (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure swearing helps your argument. I am not convinced by Oppenheimer's argument. Note that the following is stated - "However Y chromosome evidence relies on the archaeological and historical evidence for interpretation, and there is a danger of creating a circular argument. Therefore scenarios that are not justified by other evidence or are created to account for the historical evidence have not been universally accepted."
Oppenheimer he has been picked up by J.E. Pattison and others as providing an alternative to Weale and Capelli, and as such should be noted. Thanks for proving that I was balanced in my use of all sides of the argument.
The real issue was picked up by Catherine Hills (see Origins of the English). All geneticist need to give a convincing case of why they are convinced that the Y chromosome evidence is relates so much to one mass migration. I think Catherine Hills knows "what material culture is". Bottom line yes he does appear because he gives an extreme view and as stated there is a need in this subject to understand the range of views, although I think a concensus is beginning to form of this question around the middle to lower numbers. J Beake (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Done — LlywelynII 02:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
