Talk:Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

One is similar to culture changes observed

Currently the article states

Two processes leading to Anglo-Saxonisation have been proposed. One is similar to culture changes observed in Russia, North Africa and parts of the Islamic world; where a politically and socially powerful minority culture becomes, over a rather short period, adopted by a settled majority. A process usually termed 'elite dominance'.

Despite some of the arguments put forwards that the Dark Ages did not exist, it is the dearth of historical records that make the "Anglo-Saxonisation" such a complicated subject.

The people who came (particularly the Jutes) were neighbours of the Danish tribes who were known as Vikings and if we had historical records of the period then a prayer such as "From the fury of the Jutes, O Lord deliver us" would probably exist.

It seems to me that two obvious groups to compare the Saxon settlements for which we have historical records are the invasion that created Danelaw and the Norman invasion. Indeed there is crossover on this issue with the brutal campaign that William was forced to carry out in the North of England (the Harrying of the North) but not in the south.

Has there been much academic work done on an analysis of "Anglo-Saxonisation" using Danelaw and early Norman rule in England as it seems to me that they represent comparison between two possible models of "Anglo-Saxonisation"? One of which seems to have been quite successful Danelaw (Military victory followed by colonisation, intermarriage etc) and the other not (the Normans won militarily but their descendants ended up speaking English).

-- PBS (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, PBS! Yes, historians have been mindful of possible comparisons between Anglo-Saxon settlements, on the one hand, and Viking raids and the eleventh-century Danish and Norman conquests of England on the other, for at least a couple of centuries. The main reasons why processes are thought to have been different are (a) that the linguistic outcomes are different and (b) that the context is different. In terms of language, Old English replaced Latin and Brittonic in England, whereas the Old Norse of the Vikings and the Norman French of the Normans did not replace Old English. That suggests that quite different social processes were at work in the fifth to seventh centuries from the tenth and eleventh. In terms of context, by the eleventh century, England had perhaps the most centralised beaurocracy in Europe, so conquest of the whole country could to quite a large extent be achieved by taking control of government. By contrast, it looks from the archaeological evidence like centralised Roman administration in Britannia had collapsed before Anglo-Saxon settlement really got underway. Alarichall (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It is the language that is one of the effects not a cause. The "centralised bureaucracy" seems to have been more effective in the south than the north (hence the need to harry it). The "centralised bureaucracy" did not exist when the Great Heathen Army was on the move. Also why did north and central Wales remain independent for so long. Was it just defensible territory if so then that is a pointer that "powerful minority culture" is not a full explanation for the differences. The Celts of western Ireland and northern Scotland had to be coerced to start to use English. So how is the argument for "a 'powerful minority culture' being adopted by a subservient population without coercion" constructed without looking examples where the "context is different" -- contextual differences argument would mean that no such inferences could ever be derived.

Although it would be fun to discuss this further on the talk page, that was not what why I initiated this section. Rather my thoughts were that the quote I gave at the start of this section and the analysis around it can be replaced with papers based on research done on the similarities and differences between the three events in England, because if the "context is different" between those three events involving a similar geographic area and related players, then the contextual differences will be greater using differences from elsewhere. Most people reading this article are more likely to be familiar with English history than the histories of "Russia, North Africa and parts of the Islamic world" so analysis based on events within an English historical framework are more likely to be easily understood. -- PBS (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of the merit of these particular comparisons. In some ways, at least linguistically, the collapse of vernacular Gaelic and its replacement by English in the period 1850-1900 in Ireland is more cogent. The sub-Roman society of Britain suffered a systems collapse in the same way that Gaelic-speaking, rural subsistence-farming societies in Ireland collapsed after the potato blight and consequent Irish Famine, with its emigration and internal migration. South-eastern Roman Britain was a farming-surplus based society, reliant on income from exporting foodstuffs to the Roman army on the Rhine frontier. After the Barbarian breakthrough over the Rhine in the first decade of the 5th century and the subsequent breakaway of Britain from central authority this market must have been increasingly weak and disrupted. The knock-on from the loss of a vital export market seems to have quickly led to the abandonment of more marginal farmland. The lack of profits and cash coming into Britain also dislocated the industrialised economy, with large-scale pottery, metal working and Romanised building disappearing. The Romanised parts of Britain, used to the protection of a professional army, a partly cash-based economy, and large-scale specialised production of the basic materials of life were suddenly plunged into a subsistence economy. They were uniquely vulnerable to incomers who were warlike and self-sufficient in pottery, metal work, building skills etc. I don't think that Anglo-Saxon society in either the 9th or 11th century was remotely as vulnerable. Urselius (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Procopius

Please see talk section at related page regarding this quotation: Talk:Anglo-Saxons#Procopius. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

And now resolved. Thanks.-- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

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

As I understand it, there is a lot of evidence for early lending from Latin into Old English. However, in the lead we have Moreover, there is little clear evidence for the influence of British Celtic or British Latin on Old English. and we have a section called "Linguistic evidence" which I think needs some more work in future. I presume there is some kind of point being made about about the Latin in English having not been loaned in Britain or something, but instead we are implying there is no Latin in Old English, and that only an elite spoke Latin. More generally, we are not reporting the increasingly common proposal that most of England no longer spoke Celtic in late Roman times. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

As a point of interest the linguistic section was overhauled by Alaric Hall, who is a published academic whose research speciality this subject is - look up his publications. Urselius (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: We should discuss the "Linguistic evidence" section first and then adapt the lead accordingly. British Latin and Vulgar Latin explain the difference between Colloquial Latin and Classical Latin, but this could be further clarified in the article. Could you provide some of the evidence for "early lending from Latin into Old English" and "that most of England no longer spoke Celtic in late Roman times"? Latin influence in English#Early Middle Ages mentions "Continental or Zero Period" loans from Latin and "Latin religious terms" in Old English, neither of which need to be explained by borrowing from British Latin speakers. TSventon (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to spend some time on it, though I have been saying that for a few topics on this article so I'll already put some notes on record to help anyone else (including anyone who wants to point out mistakes in my thinking of course):

• I am not saying it is sure that England was Romance speaking before English speaking, only that is now pointed out that it seems likely and the mere possibility changes how historians should think (and consequently, presumably how we reporters should write). The old assumption that Romano British people all/mostly spoke Celtic, even in the heavily Romanized areas with many villas, was never really backed up by much evidence, and it was never controversial to say Latin and Vulgar Latin must have been relatively widely used. It seems at a certain point historians realized how important the Celtic assumption was becoming in discussions about English settlement, given that many other assumptions had been given up.
• The main sources which I can think of reading without thinking harder are Halsall and Oosthuizen. We have mentioned both on the Anglo Saxons article. I think both are historians with a more archaeological bent who cite others for the latest in this linguistic point.
• The continental and religious loaning you mention does indeed sound like the old assumption that loanwords in English must have in effect come into "pre English". So another way of defining what we are talking about is that this assumption is now questioned. The argumentation required for trying to say when some Latin words entered various West Germanic languages can be quite complex. A good book to get a feel for such things is the one by Dennis H. Green: Language and history in the early Germanic world. (A marvelous book.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oosthuizen, Susan (2019), The Emergence of the English, ISBN 9781641891271
• Halsall, Guy (2013), Worlds of Arthur: Facts and Fictions of the Dark Ages, ISBN 9780199658176

From Ooshuizen, taking snippets which shorten a longer discussion

• p.41 The most lasting achievement attributed to fifth- and sixth-century migrants from north-west Europe is the emergence of English ...
• pp.42-43 Why the laws [of Aethelberht] recorded in the vernacular rather than in Latin? [...] The process is opaque. Those who arrived spoke different languages and came in England in small numbers over at least two centuries. They cannot collectively have imposed English [...] In response to those difficulties, scholars have adopted the model of elite replacement. [...] The second language status of Brittonic is held to explain the distinctive influence it appears to have had on English syntax.[161] [...] The relative paucity of Celtic loanwords is explained in terms of the low status to which it is believed Brittonic was relegated. That conclusion may be revised, though, since recent research suggests that Brittonic place-names survived, or were incorporated into Old English place-names, more often than has previously been recognized.[163] [para] That explanation, and the elite replacement model itself, is problematic for at least two reasons. The first, is that the use of English (or any other language) as a second language does not necessarily imply imigration. conquest, or elite dominance. [...] [para] The second is in the assumption that late Romano-British communities were monolingual, predominantly speaking British Celtic.[165] Hall, however, has argued that, at least in lowland England, bi- or multi-lingualism in British Celtic, Late Spoken Latin, and/or Old English was widespread and may account for the unusually close relationship between English syntax and that of Romance languages.[166]
• p.44 The larger-scale survival of Latin compared with Celtic elements in lowland English place-names bears Bede's evidence out, suggesting that Late Spoken Latin was at least as commonly, if not more often, spoken that Brittonic in the late antique and early medieval lowlands.[169] There are more Latin loanwords in English than from any other source, many already in use from the earliest period in which the language was developing.
• p.44 There must be a possibility that the principal language of late antique England was not Brittonic but Late Spoken Latin and, in that case, that the emergence of Old English may not necessarily reflect the oppression of Brittonic speakers.
• [161] Coates, Richard (2007) Invisible Britons: the view from linguistics. In: Higham, NJ (ed.) Britons in Anglo-Saxon England. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 172-91.
• [163 and 166] Hall, A gente Anglorum appellatur, https://www.academia.edu/821750/A_gente_Anglorum_appellatur_The_Evidence_of_Bedes_Historia_ecclesiastica_gentis_Anglorum_for_the_Replacement_of_Roman_Names_by_English_Ones_During_the_Early_Anglo-Saxon_Period
• [165] 2 Examples given:

• Tristram, H. (2007). Why Don't the English Speak Welsh? In N. Higham (Ed.), Britons in Anglo-Saxon England (pp. 192-214). Boydell & Brewer.
• Philip Durkin, Borrowed Words, A History of Loanwords in English https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278326588_Philip_Durkin_2014_Borrowed_Words_A_History_of_Loanwords_in_English

• [169] Peter Schrijver "The rise and fall of British Latin"

So there is a start.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the references, in reply to your points, having looked at the online sources:

• My view is that both Latin and Brittonic were spoken in Roman Britain: conclusive evidence is lacking for how much and where, so scholars have to decide how much weight to give to the evidence available and Wikipedia should follow the scholarship.
• I have a couple of questions.

Guy Halsall: where should I be looking in the Google link?

Susan Oosthuizen: in your abstract she questions "immigration, conquest, or elite dominance" as explanations for the spread of English. Does she propose alternative explanations?

• Latin influence in English#Early Middle Ages seems to be oversimplified and probably should be expanded. However as you say the issue is complex.

Other points

• Oosthuizen cites Hall on "bi- or multi-lingualism in British Celtic, Late Spoken Latin, and/or Old English" in "lowland England", but that doesn't imply that the "principal language of late antique England was not Brittonic but Late Spoken Latin".
• Alaric Hall refers to the "lack of clear contact influence from Brittonic and Latin on our attested Old English" (p220), which is similar to what the lead of the article says.
• Philip Durkin explains the difficulty of distinguishing continental loans and loans in Britain pre conversion
• I also found a book by Thomas Charles-Edwards, who argues that the influence of Latin on British implies that "Latin may well have been the most widely spoken language in much of south-eastern Britain." TSventon (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Andrew Lancaster: TSventon (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@TSventon:

• Halsall. Yes, I also haven't found any publication yet where he goes into this. I have read about his interest somewhere which is not on the internet or perhaps not in print. But in general I suggest googling around a bit, which you are clearly doing.
• As a general point, I think the additional information I have brought shows that there is no certainty, at the very least, that English simply replaced Celtic in the Romanized south east. That now being clear, I think that implies a few things about how we should write.
• Oosthuizen is influenced by Patrick Geary as far as I can interpret it, and also generally sceptical of some proposals which she finds too simplistic and based upon too little evidence. So she is saying the elite did not have to be replaced, and there did not have to be a conscious interest in building ethnicity, and she is saying there is no evidence for these assertions. I think she is deliberately careful about providing any detailed alternative with the same level of seeming certainty. However...
• p.81 The alternative possibility that existing cultural and political traditions could be adapted to changing circumstance provides a rich new seam for research. As an example she uses the Repton stone (do we have an image in Wikimedia?), which has an image believed to represent Aethelbald, King of Mercia, who died in 757, and offers a rare opportunity to see the "Anglo-Saxon" elite as they wished to be perceived in life since it preserves details of hair, grooming, and posture that are lost after death. She sees Byzantine, North Sea and British elements.
• Geary, who she quotes p.83, also influenced Halsall in his emphasis upon the way in which peoples and their leaders in this period identified with traditions connected to military service rather "than on biological descent, culture, language or geographical origin". (In this period, as I understand it, the concept of being a barbarian, and being in the military, were strongly connected in the old imperial countries.)
• Oosthuizen (p.83) explicitly states that she is not arguing that there was no turmoil or no change, nor that ethnicity "was not an influence". Her question is what can best explain "the emergence of the English".
• Concerning the term Anglo-Saxon, BTW (also discussed here) she cites p.83 Reynolds We might do well to remember that the early medieval English did not call themselves Anglo-Saxons. If we want to call them that, we ought to think hard about what we mean, and what others might think we mean, by the name that we have chosen to use.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Geary, Patrick J. (2002). The Myth of Nations: The Medieval Origins of Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-69109-054-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Susan Reynolds https://books.google.be/books?id=d1qfAAAAMAAJ or https://www.jstor.org/stable/175473 (I think the original article: What Do We Mean by "Anglo-Saxon" and "Anglo-Saxons"? Susan Reynolds Journal of British Studies Vol. 24, No. 4 (Oct., 1985), pp. 395-414)

The latter seems like an important source to use for our article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: How do you think the Linguistic evidence section of this article should be updated or is it fine as it is? It does mention "British Celtic and/or British Latin" rather than just Celtic. Have you read the "main article" Celtic language decline in England, which seems to have been mainly written by Alaric Hall? I will have a look at your suggested reading shortly, but it seems to be mostly relevant to the main article. TSventon (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@TSventon: I've deliberately been trying to play more of a talk page role for a whole on the Anglo-Saxon articles. Division of labour and all that. I'll try to have a look.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Quick review of the section:

• Old English then continued spreading westwards and northwards in the ensuing centuries. This push from the coast model is disputed by Halsall.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Old English shows little obvious influence from [...] spoken Latin We have seen how this is disputed. Maybe one of the sources is making a point about "spoken", but what? If we make a detailed scholarly point, then we need to go the whole hog.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Moreover, except in Cornwall, the vast majority of place-names in England are easily etymologised as Old English (or Old Norse, due to later Viking influence), demonstrating the dominance of English across post-Roman England.[45] Intensive research in recent decades on Celtic toponymy has shown that more names in England and southern Scotland have Brittonic, or occasionally Latin, etymologies than was once thought,[46] but even so, it is clear that Brittonic and Latin place-names in the eastern half of England are extremely rare, and although they are noticeably more common in the western half, they are still a tiny minority─2% in Cheshire, for example.[47] Seems like the sources are pushing and shoving us here, but if there is no consensus we should NOT report two consensus.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Into the later twentieth century, scholars' usual explanation for the lack of Celtic influence on English, supported by uncritical readings of the accounts of Gildas and Bede, was that Old English became dominant primarily because Germanic-speaking invaders killed, chased away, and/or enslaved the previous inhabitants of the areas that they settled. In recent decades, a few specialists have continued to support this interpretation,[48][49][50] and Peter Schrijver has said that 'to a large extent, it is linguistics that is responsible for thinking in terms of drastic scenarios' about demographic change in late Roman Britain.[51] Wordy, and what is it really saying?

I will leave it there for now--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Place-names may not be a particularly good method of looking at ethnolinguistic history as there seems to have been a general high background of place-name change. The extent of name change in Wales from Roman times to the present is about the same as for England, though the new names are obviously largely Celtic in origin. Place-name change in England from Latinised Celtic to Germanic may just be the passive result of a tendency for names to change over time, not the result of active re-naming. Urselius (talk) 07:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is how I understand that the scholarly published discussions have gone. It is not that placenames are not looked at anymore, but the old certainties have been questioned by published people like Oosthuizen and the many sources she cites. (Of course our personal opinions on this may or may not be in line with what is published.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster:, a response to three of your points:

• 1 Do you have a reference for "This push from the coast model is disputed by Halsall"?
• 2 "Old English shows little obvious influence from [...] spoken Latin" I am still not looking into this.
• 3 The place names paragraph is not presented as a consensus: there is another paragraph in the The debate section. Likewise, scholars have posited various mechanisms other than massive demographic change by which pre-migration Celtic place-names could have been lost. Scholars have stressed that Welsh and Cornish place-names from the Roman period seem no more likely to survive than English ones: 'clearly name loss was a Romano-British phenomenon, not just one associated with Anglo-Saxon incomers'.[61][62] Other explanations for the replacement of Roman period place-names include adaptation of Celtic names such that they now seem to come from Old English;[63][64][65][66][67] a more gradual loss of Celtic names than was once assumed;[68][69][70] and new names being coined (in the newly dominant English language) because instability of settlements and land-tenure.[69][70]
• 4 I think the quote is sufficiently clear, however the detail about "killed, chased away, and/or enslaved" is probably in the wrong section. "a few specialists have continued to support this interpretation" is probably not needed either. TSventon (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Halsall goes into the most detail about this, I think, in his book about the Dark Ages. He comes back to the "east to west" theme throughout the book.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Halsall, Guy (2014), Worlds of Arthur. Facts and Fictions of the Dark Ages, ISBN 978–0–19–965817–6 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

This may be of great relevance to spoken Latin in Britain in the time of Bede: Alaric Hall et al. Interlinguistic Communication in Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum [1] Urselius (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster:, thanks, that explains why I couldn't find "push from the coast" online. I could only see individual pages of Halsall's book, but I saw he (rightly) disputes the credibility fifth and sixth century narratives in Historia Brittonum and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, whereas the sentence in the article relates to the situation after the eighth century. TSventon (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Some aspects of the page

Hello! A couple of weeks ago I made a bunch of edits on the page that got deleted because I should have run them by on here first (I'm admittedly more used to editing smaller pages). The reason I was making these edits was that I believe some aspects of the page overall do not reflect current scholarship.

One criticism I have is about the linguistics section, as it seems to push strongly in favor of the "warrior elite" model, stating that there is a "consensus" that a small-number of Anglo-Saxons could have affected such a change in language and toponymy when many linguists have either discounted this as a possibility or do not take it into serious consideration. David Crystal, for example, describes a process by which a large folk migration occurs, and the migrants interact with the local population, but for whatever reason completely destroy any presence of the native language. Crystal particularly compares the totality of the English replacement of Brittonic with the Vikings and the Normans (the latter of whom were a genuine elite), who did not manage to effect such change. (Crystal, David, The Stories of English, New York: Overlook Press, 2004). In A History of the English Language (fifth ed. 2002), Albert C. Baugh and Thomas Cable also speak of a large-scale migration, some of which was peaceful, but in other cases "many of the Celts were undoubtedly driven to the west and sought refuge in Wales and Cornwall, and some emigrated across the channel to Brittany." Richard Coates, writing in 2017, cites studies of downturns of population in post-Roman Britain by Mike Baillie and Ken Dark to explain how the Anglo-Saxons could have taken over areas without a forceful extermination, and states unequivocally, "I know of no case where a political ascendancy has imposed its own language on a conquered people without an easily discernible impact from the language of the conquered, even if the conquered had little to offer the newcomers materially or culturally." (Richard Coates, “Celtic whispers: revisiting the problems of the relation between Brittonic and Old English,” 2017). In his book Inventing English (2007), Seth Lerer unambiguously maintains the traditional hypothesis in describing the Anglo-Saxon takeover of southern Britain, as do Fred Robinson (Fred C. Robinson, “Old English,” in Early Germanic Literature and Culture, 2004, p. 205) and Jeremy Smith (J. J. Smith, Old English: A Linguistic Introduction, 2009, p. 5). Richard Hogg and Rhona Alcorn also describe a large-scale migration of Germanic peoples into eastern Britain, whose descendants then spread into the western regions as well. (Richard Hogg, Rhona Alcorn, An Introduction to Old English, 2012, pp. 3-4) Haruko Momma and Michael Matto state that “the idea of English as ‘the language of England’ goes back to the fifth and sixth centuries when a large number of people migrated from the North Sea region to Britain ... by the time Bede completed the Ecclesiastical History of the English People in 731 ... the descendants of these settlers could be identified as gens Anglorum (‘English people’), a group unified through their common language.” (Haruko Momma, Michael Matto, A Companion to the History of the English Language, 2011, p. 154)

Oliver J. Padel argues that the data indicates an "American model" of Anglo-Saxon settlement, in which "a major replacement of population, language, and place names occurred over a comparable time scale...[the model] provides easily the best match for the degree of linguistic and toponymic replacement that occurred in England, while still leaving room for the borrowing of some native place names, as occurred in both Anglo-Saxon England and North America." Padel also notes that "probably most, if not all, of the indicators which have been claimed to demonstrate British continuity in England can also be observed in North America, even though the net result has been an effective replacement of the native population." (Oliver J. Padel, "Place Names and the Saxon Conquest of Devon and Cornwall," in Britons in Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Nick Higham, Boydell and Brewer, 2007, pp. 215-230) Donka Minkova asserts that while “the demographic balance after the Germanic invasion was originally in favor of the indigenous Celts who outnumbered the conquerors by a considerable measure ... [they] had limited military experience and lacked the organization to resist the incursions for more than half a century and by c. 550 larger and larger groups of Germanic-speaking people moved in, pushing the Celts away--those whom they did not kill or enslave--from the central part of the country west and south towards Cornwall and Wales, and north to the Lothian region.” (Donka Minkova, A Historical Phonology of English, 2014, p. 3)

While I understand that some of these are indeed mentioned, and cited, it seems that they have been tossed away in favor of a longer paragraph about those supporting the “elite migrant” model. Moreover, Nick Higham and Francis Pryor, who are cited multiple times each in support of this notion, are not even linguists! In light of this, would I be allowed to make the views of the linguists who do support a sizable migration more than just a footnote in the linguistics section?

As far as non-linguists are concerned, Ken Dark states that the strongest case for cultural replacement in the traditionally Anglian parts of eastern England is a "large-scale migration" by which "the Romano-British cultural tradition is replaced by an intrusive Germanic one," while also arguing that slower changes in areas described by Bede as Saxon or Jutish may have been a result of "conquest, gradual drift through intermarriage, or ... the arrival of new migrants." Dark concludes by arguing in favor of a mass migration of Britons from the east to the west of the island possibly coinciding with a mass migration of Germanic-speakers into the eastern part. (Ken R. Dark, "Large-scale population movement into and from Britain south of Hadrian's Wall in the fourth to sixth centuries A.D.") Toby Martin believes that “large-scale migration seems highly likely for at least East Anglia and parts of Lincolnshire,” and that this “rules out the elite dominance model in its strictest interpretation,” while also noting that “it seems dubious that these people migrated as part of a coherent Anglian group.” (Toby F. Martin, The Cruciform Brooch and Anglo-Saxon England, Boydell and Brewer press, 2015, pp. 174-178)

Catherine Hills agrees with Martin that obvious mass migration from the continent is present in East Anglia and Lincolnshire, but notes that in other areas the expansion took longer and might have involved some degree of acculturation, for example in the West Midlands where “some Germanic people must have arrived, together with their ideas about burial, dress, and weaponry, but it does not seem that they completely displaced and replaced the local people.” Hills concludes that “one explanation does not fit all of England.” (Catherine Hills, “The Anglo-Saxon Migration: An Archaeological Case Study of Disruption,” in Migrations and Disruptions, ed. Brenda J. Baker and Takeyuki Tsuda, 2015, pp. 45-48) Caitlin Green also agrees that “the most credible scenario is that there was both large-scale Anglo-Saxon immigration from the continent and large-scale British survival,” (Caitlin Green, writing as Thomas Green, A Re-Evaluation of the Evidence of Anglian-British Interaction in the Lincoln Region, 2011, p. 99) and states categorically that “most commentators now accept that there were large numbers of both Anglo-Saxons and Britons present in eastern Britain in the post-Roman centuries ...” (Green, p. 244) Johan Nicolay writes that “although it is generally assumed that a quite substantial part of the original population still inhabited south-eastern England, the widespread adoption of ‘Anglo-Saxon’ fashions is clear evidence of the arrival of new people in this area as well.” (Johan Nicolay, “Power and Identity in the Southern North Sea Area: The Migration and Merovingian Periods,” in Frisians and their North Sea Neighbors, Boydell and Brewer, 2017, p. 87)

Writing about the Anglo-Saxon settlement in western England, Bruce Eagles notes that “the widespread adoption of ‘Saxon’ material culture and burial practice and, most probably, language across much of Wiltshire by the middle of the sixth century most likely implies the local presence and influence there of immigrant English speakers in some numbers.” (Bruce Eagles, From Roman Civitas to Anglo-Saxon Shire, Oxbow Books, 2018, p. 139) Eagles generally rejects the notion of the Anglo-Saxon settlement being merely an elite replacement: “... It has been suggested that a key element in the formation of a new English identity [in Wessex] in this period was the adoption of the English language by large numbers of Britons, many of whom were Latin-speaking, who after a couple of generations or so were thereby accepted by the dominant incomers, intermarried with them, took on their styles of dress and their burial and other customs and joined their armies. To accept such a scenario it seems reasonable to consider that there must have been sufficient numbers of widely dispersed immigrants to bring about this situation in a relatively short space of time.” (Eagles 74) Duncan Wright says that “the combined archaeological and documentary evidence for ‘Early Saxon’ Wiltshire, whilst fragmentary, does therefore suggest some migration of new peoples into Wiltshire during the fifth and sixth centuries, although it is extremely difficult to discern the nature of interaction between native and incoming groups ...” (Duncan Wright, ‘Middle Saxon’ Settlement and Society: The Changing Rural Communities of Central and Eastern England, 2015, p. 79) Kate Mees has criticized Nick Higham’s theory of elite acculturation, stating that “[Anglo-Saxon] cemeteries were not necessarily ‘elite,’ and we cannot assume that weapons and dress accessories were the preserve of the rich. Furthermore, there is little evidence for sharp social stratification in these cemeteries, but rather a form of quasi-egalitarianism.” (Kate Mees, Burial, Landscape and Identity in Early Medieval Wessex, 2019, p. 104)

In 2015, Hills summed up the general trends of the debate: “In the nineteenth century some historians suggested that the English were a superior race, peculiarly fitted to rule an empire, including controlling the Celtic peoples of Britain. Alternatively, more recently, the dissolution of the United Kingdom and the separation of Scotland, Wales, and England can be justified in terms of the differences among those nations. Both arguments start from a maximalist version of the Anglo-Saxon migration: there was substantial population change that made the English different. From the 1960s to the 1980s, another view prevailed. We were all British, all one people, and since we had not been invaded by Germany in the 1940s, maybe that had not happened in the 440s either. Invading war bands, of varied ancestry, may have taken over some territories, imposing their culture but not replacing the main population. In this version, English, Scots, and Welsh were differentiated by later history and politics, not by ancestry. Now the pendulum has swung back to argue for more migrants in the past, maybe because we see so many migrants today. It is important to take into account the context of the debate along with the substance of it. I am willing to see more immigrants now than I was 30 years ago partly because I cannot escape from current trends of thought, although I would like to think that it is because the weight of new evidence is moving in that direction and forcing me to modify my views.” (Hills, Migrations and Disruptions p. 37)

Since there isn’t much agreement about this period in general, and, as Hills puts it, “the pendulum has swung” against the elite acculturation theory, I think that the intro paragraph about the warrior elite being the most accepted view in the 21st century is somewhat misleading. I propose adding a third paragraph to the introduction of the page discussing the theory that while there was survival of the previous population, there was also a large folk migration of Germanic peoples, which seems to be a view around which a lot of current (archaeological) scholarship is coalescing.

CelticBrain (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)CelticBrain

I could not disagree more. Of the linguistic aspect I have little relevant knowledge, but this section was overhauled relatively recently by Alaric Hall who is an academic who has published on this subject quite extensively. I would also add that the turnover of placenames in Wales since Roman times is at the same level as is found in England. Replacement of Latinised Celtic placenames by Germanic ones was therefore just a passive process. It cannot be used as evidence of an active extirpation or displacement of pre-Anglo-Saxon populations.

I disagree with your assertion that there has been an overwhelming or even a notably substantial move away from the 'elite dominance' view within archaeological circles. That there is evidence of a more than minimal immigration of people from the Germanic North Sea coast is found throughout the text and in the introduction. Advances in genetics and in particular ancient DNA techniques will give more clarity in the future, perhaps even definitive answers to the migration numbers question, but for the moment there is a level of disagreement between investigations and sample-sizes are pitifully small. I think that the text and introduction are reasonably balanced, I also think that your proposed emendations will add bias, and a bias based on your personal convictions. Urselius (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Urselius is right that I did a lot of work on this, but I also don't mind trying to capture diversity in recent, scholarly work that I might have missed. It's a huge topic. I wonder, CelticBrain, if we could start by working out how your points might (or might not) fit into the main article on this subject, Celtic language decline in England -- which is better structured for representing complex debate on this issue? (We could focus, for example, on Celtic language decline in England#Debate: why is there so little Brittonic influence on English?) And then once we think we've got the issue right in the main article, we could see about feeding that up to Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain? Alarichall (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much User:Alarichall! That sounds like a great idea. CelticBrain (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)CelticBrain

CelticBrain I think your changes to Brittonicisms in English need further discussion too, though I agree the article should be improved. TSventon (talk) 10:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

User:TSventon Thanks a lot for your response. I agree that some of those edits I made could be a lot better, and am in the process of correlating more sources for citation. CelticBrain (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)CelticBrain

• CelticBrain, I'm going to leave this to those with more specialist knowledge than me, but thanks for taking the trouble to set out your arguments so fully. Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• CelticBrain that's a long post, but the main theme seems uncontroversial: if the field has no consensus we should not write as if there is a simple consensus. Furthermore, I think basically all models which are proposed among scholars do accept there was probably significant migration. So the questions are going to be with the details of the edits. One theme I have doubts about, but it is maybe a minor thing, is that you divide scholars into only two camps. I think there are more. See some of the discussions above. Anyway, I strongly suggest proposing a specific, concrete edit proposals.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, User:Andrew Lancaster, that is definitely a fair point. Thank you for the suggestion. CelticBrain (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)CelticBrain

CelticBrain I would also recommend fully referenced edit proposals, leaving any changes to the lead until last. I will be interested to see detailed criticism of the model of substrate Celtic influence on English. As the subject is academically controversial, I think WP:RS/AC is relevant: "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." TSventon (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The most important thing that editors of this article need to bear in mind is that the text is not made to present a viewpoint based on a single novel paper, trend or academic fad as being definitive. The subject is always in a process of change. When another editor and myself started to rewrite this article a few years ago it could have been written in the 1950s, with all the misinformation that that implies. Not that long ago, brooch and ceramic typology was considered proof positive of ethnic distinctness and the settlements in Britain were linked to specific Continental geographical origins on this basis alone. Ancient DNA has definitively shown that some of the people buried with early Anglo-Saxon grave goods were of local British origins, making brooch and ceramic typology redundant as an indicator of ethnicity. Until recently all human remains found with weapons were unquestionably accepted as male, but since sex-typing using ancient DNA technology was introduced we now know that a significant proportion were female. However, though there are now definitive answers to certain very specific questions certainties related to wider issues are few and far between. We also need to be aware that the opinion of one or a group of academics should not be taken as definitive due to its novelty, because academics are encouraged to make a name for themselves by challenging consensuses, that is how they garner their bread-and-butter and get promotion. Just because one or more academics can pick holes in an idea does ñõț automatically invalidate the idea. Balance is everything. Urselius (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Missing word? "Just because one or more academics can pick holes in an idea does NOT automatically invalidate the idea"? Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes - I have been trying to photograph bumblebees all day and my syntax is not what it could be

Hello, Urselius, I actually agree with you 100 percent. But on that point, the paragraph below looks kind of like Nick Higham wrote it himself:

"However, another view, the most widely accepted among 21st century scholars, is that the migrants were fewer, possibly centred on a warrior elite. This hypothesis suggests that the incomers, having achieved a position of political and social dominance, initiated a process of acculturation by the natives to their language and material culture, and intermarried with them to a significant degree. Archaeologists have found that settlement patterns and land use show no clear break with the Romano-British past, though there were marked changes in material culture. This view predicts that the ancestry of the people of Anglo-Saxon and modern England would be largely derived from the native Romano-British. The uncertain results of genetic studies have tended to support both a predominant amount of native British Celtic ancestry and a significant continental contribution resulting from Germanic immigration."

I'd change it to something like this:

"However, another view, the most widely accepted among 21st century scholars, is that such an extermination did not happen. This view posits that large numbers of incomers settled alongside the natives, intermarried with them to a significant degree, and ended up achieving a position of political and social dominance. Archaeologists have found that settlement patterns and land use show no clear break with the Romano-British past, though there were marked changes in material culture. This view predicts that the ancestry of the people of Anglo-Saxon and modern England would be derived both from a significant amount of British Celtic ancestry as well as a substantial contribution from the Germanic immigrants. The results of genetic studies, though uncertain, have tentatively supported this conclusion."

I would argue that I provided a significant number of sources, most of which were written in the last fifteen years, that back up this interpretation, and that these sources are not arguing against the Higham theory just for the sake of being difficult/getting a promotion. Moreover, you have said that you have not seen a move away from this view, but Hills literally says that this is exactly what is happening. I'm not an archaeologist by any means (I'm just a college student), but she seems to be fairly well-respected in the field, so I'll have to defer to her on this one. CelticBrain (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)CelticBrain

CelticBrain the lead is supposed to be a summary of referenced content in the main article, so in my view you need to propose referenced changes to the main article before changing the lead. And I would suggest a new section for "Proposed changes" (or similar). TSventon (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Apartheid

Apartheid says "Apartheid (South African English: /əˈpɑːrteɪd/; Afrikaans: [aˈpartɦɛit], segregation; lit. "aparthood") was a system of institutionalised racial segregation that existed in South Africa and South West Africa (now Namibia) from 1948 until the early 1990s." This article has no relevance to a page about Britain a millennia before then.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: According to the article, some scholars see South African Apartheid as relevant to early Anglo-Saxon England, so the link is useful and meets the requirements of MOS:UNDERLINK. TSventon (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

References

It was one article, and for obvious reasons it got attention with that title. But it was not well-received by my memory [not just for idealistic reasons, also methodological/technical]. Consider this policy [2]: primary sources describing genetic or genomic research into human ancestry, ancient populations, ethnicity, race, and the like, should not be used to generate content about those subjects, which are controversial. High quality secondary sources as described above should be used instead.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I should have added this is an OLD article for this field and thoroughly superseded by newer and bigger studies.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Just because a theory is 'old' or has been challenged does not mean that it should not be discussed in an encyclopaedic overview - quite the contrary. "Brugmann, B. Migration and Endogenous Change in The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology (2011), Hamerow, H., Hinton, D.A. and Crawford, S. (eds.), OUP Oxford, pp. 30–45" is included as it is effectively a review of the subject, i.e. it is secondary - that is why it is referenced. Urselius (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the policy I referred to even allows us to use one-off results, if we do it carefully and their is good consensus, mentioning criticism and newer results and secondary review of the field.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

According to which article? Apartheid? Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain? If "some scholars see South African Apartheid as relevant to early Anglo-Saxon England", then say that in this article, and go ahead and link apartheid. But I clicked on apartheid not because I didn't know about South African apartheid, but because "the so-called apartheid theory" is not clear even with that knowledge. The link doesn't clarify what's being linked, which is not consistent with MOS:UNDERLINK, which talks about links that "are needed to aid understanding of the article".--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this the ten minute argument or the full half-hour? Urselius (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Potentially you could link to the Wiktionary entry if you just want to help readers understand what the word means. But I think even better is explaining the context (and the criticisms) for the reader, here in this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The text of the article includes this quite heavily reference-laden section on the theory and its reception: "Historical evidence suggests that following the Anglo-Saxon transition, people of indigenous ethnicity were at an economic and legal disadvantage compared to those having Anglo-Saxon ethnicity. This has led to the development of the "apartheid-like social structure" theory to explain this high contribution to the modern gene pool, where the proportion of settlers would be smaller.[153] This view has been challenged by JE Pattison, who suggested that the Y-chromosome evidence could still support the idea of a small settlement of people without the apartheid-like structures.[154] In addition, there is no reliable method for dating the influx of genetic material into Britain from the Continent; and the genetic similarities between people on either side of the North Sea may reflect a cumulative process of population movement, possibly beginning well before the historically attested formation of the Anglo-Saxons or the invasions of the Vikings.[155] The 'apartheid theory' has received a considerable body of critical comment, especially the genetic studies from which it derives its rationale. Problems with the design of Weale's study and the level of historical naïvete evidenced by some population genetics studies have been particularly highlighted.[156][157][158][159][160]" Urselius (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

To be honest I don't feel completely comfortable with this. The first sentence (Historical evidence suggests) is un-sourced and vaguely but strongly worded. It means we are setting up a conclusion, which needs an explanation, and then giving only one. I think in fact it is disputed whether "indigenous people" were treated worse, or even whether this is a useful designation in the highly Romanized parts of the late Roman empire. So the structure of this presentation makes the Thomas article a kind of standard theory in the field, with criticism existing. I don't believe it is. I think put simply it was rejected, and there are newer studies now. I accept that the study got a lot of attention (largely negative, and gained by using controversial words) but I am not sure we even have to mention it in this article. By setting up the simple idea of "indigenous people" being invaded as central it also could become difficult to discuss more complex ideas which are probably more popular among scholars. (To repeat, this does not mean scholars argue against significant movements of people.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The first-stated concept is entirely established and completely uncontroversial, there are no doubts at all that 'Welshmen' were at a considerable legal disadvantage to 'Englishmen' - it is stated in the legal code of Ine, King of the West Saxons. I believe that the laws of Ine are mentioned in the text. To dismiss entirely a published theory would be 'own research' in a big way! A complete NO-NO. We can comment - and this is already in the text - that the 'apartheid theory' has been challenged in scholarly circles, and did not garner general approval, but we cannot remove it from an encyclopaedic treatment of the subject. The article has to reflect relevant scholarship and not take a partisan stance on any theory, even the most recent or the most widely accepted. Urselius (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

But Thomas is not defining current scholarship even in genetics, and certainly not in history. In this article, at least how we are using him, he was in effect being an historian. We've already discussed before how historians do not see the written evidence such as laws quite so simply as you mention, and they are the ones who are specialized in that, not Thomas. (You are defining "Welsh" as a term stretching back in time and defining all natives of Roman Britain, and the others as straightforward invaders?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thomas is only one of 3 authors on the paper. The paper was addressing a perceived problem - Weale suggested that a huge proportion of the English derive their ancestors from continental migrants, but to swamp lowland Britain, with it's population of at least 1 million, by people being rowed across the North Sea in small open boats seems unfeasible. The apartheid theory was an attempt at solving a very real, or at least apparently real from Weale's genetics work, problem of logistics. I think that there are at least 7 works cited in the text that were commenting on the theory. The theory, whatever its merits, is not marginal, is not capable of being ignored, if it has garnered this level of scholarly comment. The Laws of Ine have been compared to evidence from other times and other areas of Britain, for example the origins and status of the class of laets in Kent. Please note that 'Welshmen' and 'Englishmen' were in quotation marks. Though Wylisc' 'Wealas' and 'Englisc are terms used in Ine's text. Back-projection from Ine's laws of a relative low-status for people recognised as 'British' or 'Welsh' seems to be widely accepted as valid in the literature. In short the apartheid theory is relevant to this article and I think it is not given any undue weight or endorsement in the text. Urselius (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The gorilla in the room is that among real historians a lot of the "scholarly comment", perhaps more-or-less all, is negative. We shouldn't ignore that. In fact, we don't normally need to report anything about theories which are mainly known for being disagreed with. In other words, by this reasoning we should make theories involving King Arthur a major player in this article, because there is more literature about such theories than perhaps any other type. In terms of genetics, we should at the very least start with the most recent paper(s) which also used far better data that the earlier papers did not have. Do not forget how quickly this particular field is moving. Something from 10 years ago can be completely out of date.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that it is well established that historians, 'real' or otherwise are not the only scholars whose work is relevant. There are few incontrovertible facts in this subject and those that do exist tend to be limited in scope. The problem with population genetics and to some extent the interpretation of ancient DNA, is that data handling is dependant on mathematical modelling. Application of different models to the same data could produce radically different interpretations, and groups use various models. The models are all dependant on certain assumptions and these assumptions and weightings, though often difficult to recognise, often have large-scale effects on results. This is why there is no consensus as yet on the precise ancestry of the modern English. In an actively developing field where there is no consensus recording the history of investigation is vital. Urselius (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't really follow what you saying, but perhaps it is important to say that I think there IS now a consensus about a more detailed genetic picture of Britain. The big study we are calling Leslie superseded all previous work. So to base our article on older superseded genetic papers seems odd to me. Concerning non-genetic discussions, which appears to be what this is partly about, I have no problem with the idea of explaining multiple ideas of course. But are we doing that in the bit under discussion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh no, Leslie is far from definitive. His study is as bedevilled by the potential of modelling artefacts and underlying debatable assumptions as any other similar study. It is more useful for highlighting regional differences within Britain than connecting those differences to historic events or to Continental populations. In particular timing of arrival of markers in Britain is based on the 'molecular clock', which has difficulties particularly if any sections of DNA investigated have been subject to any direct or indirect selection (say by disease, such as Bubonic Plague). I have particular difficulties with the idea that the distinctive West Yorkshire population was due to the persistence of British independence in the Kingdom of Elmet, which lasted only a single generation longer than many areas of South/Central England that showed no genetic distinctness. Urselius (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

To quote Martiniano (20016): "Projections from modern data to the past are, however, subject to considerable uncertainties and may be compounded by unknown complexities, which do not feature in their underlying models. Prehistorians point out that the Germanic affinity of eastern Britain could also be a result of earlier communications with the northwest European mainland. For example, there may have been ‘Belgic’ peoples in Britain at the time of the Claudian conquest in AD43 ... Recently Leslie et al.4 have used haplotype-based statistical methods applied to modern genome-wide SNP genotypes to infer several distinct ancestral influences from migratory events into Britain. This included a major 35% contribution to modern Central and Southern English populations from a German source, which, they surmise, occurred in the century after AD 800, some 200 years or more after archaeological evidence for initial Anglo-Saxon influence. Evidence from direct observations of ancient genomes is required, however, if we are to draw conclusions about genetic exchange that distinguish between closely dated events." His critique of back projection from modern population data and the use of molecular clocks is cogent. Urselius (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

None of these points address the question of whether Thomas has been superseded, let alone the question of whether any part of our article should be built around the position of that one position as if it were the standard position, let alone whether it should be used for non genetic conclusions. I would think my concern is clear enough now and the main way forward is to look at the text, trying to make sure my concerns are either unjustified or else resolvable?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The apartheid theory is important. It needs to be retained. Its treatment in the article is appropriate. Urselius (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll look at our handling again but do you have any example of an RS citing it as positively as we do?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Each mention of the theory in the text, excepting very minor passing references to its existence, is accompanied by a comment as to its poor reception by the scholarly community. The main coverage in the body of the text is in two paragraphs, the criticism taking up about twice the word count of the description of the theory itself. If this is 'positive treatment' my conception of the meaning of the word 'positive' is very faulty indeed. Urselius (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

As discussed above my concern is that way it, or something like it, structures the article (and lead). In particular, the idea that the part of Roman Britain which became England was made up of "Welsh" people who were NOT migrants, and then a completely distinct migrating group arrived, who had to at least become the new bosses of the others. It seems from this that historians think there are only two alternatives: take over by a small number of completely distinct newcomers, or a large number. But the range of options is much bigger, because it is highly unlikely that there were two "pure" old continuous peoples like this, and historians don't write so simply anymore. This might be a bigger issue than just the way this genetics article is being used.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster I think your problem might be Gildas, not the apartheid theory. TSventon (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it is more complicated than just historians read Gildas, and I also think that for example the way the lead has a special paragraph based on the idea that it was either apartheid or a massive migration is a specific manifestation of a bigger "due weight" concern. I think that paragraph, presented as a way of presenting what options the field sees, is at least arguably OR.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The subject is complex, hence the very long article. However, nuances are difficult to squeeze into a relatively short lead. The lead contains the two major theories that have been produced - blood and slaughter and mass migration, or 'elite dominance' and a smaller influx of people. These are the major theories, and the 'apartheid theory' is added as it is the only other overarching theory that attempts to answer the central questions, though it has had a lesser impact. There are a number of works cited that discuss the major theories, they are not a creation of editors they are not OR or anything like it. The body of the text does attempt to explore variation, not all areas of what became England had the same history, Wessex seems to have had its origins in a British dynasty that became anglicised - this is mentioned. Ancient DNA is simplifying some archaeological and historical debates, the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze age saw a huge influx of people from the Yamnaya Culture of the Pontic Steppes - so large that most modern European populations have about one third of this ancestry, the Beaker People seem to have been an ethnicity (outside of Iberia), rather than merely a material culture, and one that undertook a major immigration into Britain. This discussion is going nowhere, everything you raise I have attempted to answer, then you tend not to engage with the replies, you just move the goalposts. Urselius (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

...or it might be said I've been changing my mind and refining my definition of what might eventually need to be done. I was never actually pushing for any particular goal post or proposal. I think the discussion is useful even if we have not got a way forward out of the discussion. The article and the field will continue to evolve.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the problem is that "Historical evidence suggests that following the Anglo-Saxon transition, people of indigenous ethnicity were at an economic and legal disadvantage compared to those having Anglo-Saxon ethnicity." is an unattributed quote from the abstract of Thomas' paper so it needs to be replaced as a WP:COPYVIO. TSventon (talk) 08:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, but that is easy to fix by turning into a quote. I am still concerned about whether we aren't leaning too much one this one controversial study. Of course I'm sure we can aim to add counter-balancing material, but the approach seems to set-up a difficult job for future editors by structuring everything around a simplified invasion model.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I would delete the quote and say something like "Thomas et al developed an "apartheid-like social structure" theory to explain how a small proportion of settlers could have made a larger contribution to the modern gene pool.[153]" I would also delete the paragraph in the lead as it gives undue weight to the Thomas paper. TSventon (talk) 09:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Urselius, do you think we need a paragraph in the lead on the apartheid theory (and no detail on any other genetic related studies)? And do we want to quote "Historical evidence suggests that following the Anglo-Saxon transition, people of indigenous ethnicity were at an economic and legal disadvantage compared to those having Anglo-Saxon ethnicity." from the paper's abstract? TSventon (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

FWIW I would tend to agree that the paragraph in the lead could/should be removed. I think it is creating an impression which goes beyond the intentions discussed above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the copied sentence as I felt it was not sufficiently important to highlight as a quotation. TSventon (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Unused citations in References section

This article has many entries in its "References" section, but few are actually used as references. Since they are not actually references, they be removed from the References section so the active referencing of the article is clear. They can be removed completely from the article, or moved to a new "Further reading" section. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it might be a bit more involved than that. Let's look at the Hamerow references:

• Hamerow, et al ("The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology", 2011). Appears in the "General" references section and the "Archaeology" section, but isn't linked with a footnote. Four references could be converted to linked footnotes. Should only appear in "References" section once.
• Hamerow ("Buildings and rural settlement", 1993). Referenced once, could be converted to a footnote.
• Hamerow ("Early Medieval Settlements...", 2002). Referenced once, could be converted to a footnote.
• Hamerow ("Rural Settlements and Society ...", 2012). Referenced once, could be converted to a footnote.

Other references are a mixed:

• Suzuki (2000). Footnote once, unlinked once. Should be consistently linked with a footnote.
• Brugman (2011). No footnote usage, referenced in two very different ways but apparently intending the same material.
• Wood (1984). Referenced without footnote.

Some aren't referenced:

• Millett (1992). Never used, should be removed or placed in a new "Further reading" section.
• Laing, Laing (1990). Never used, should be removed or placed.
• McGrail (1988). Never used, should be removed or placed.
• Wood (1988). Never used, should be removed or placed.

Certainly, this inconsistency can't be desired ... can it? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The trouble with this is that you don't actually know whether they were "actually used as references" in writing the text, or not. Especially in the early days, which you ought to remember, few people did proper citations. You should not do this (especially without careful checking through early versions). It might be a bunch were added at some point by an editor who added no text, as often happens. In that case, yes they can be removed (to FR if wanted). Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It's easy to see, by inspection, when a title is not actually used as a reference because it doesn't have a relevant citation. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Noooo - a fundamental mistake! References are what was referred to in writing the text. They should all be cited precisely at the point(s) they were used, but it is very common that they are not. They are still "references" even if not properly cited. They should not just be removed. A very disturbing pattern is emerging here - are you going around doing this stuff all the time? All those "Referenced once, could be converted to a footnote" are also dubious in terms of WP:CITEVAR. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually all or most of the uncited 4 were added in this complicated bit of rewriting in 2013. Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

CITEVAR says nothing of not using footnotes at all. It does say that we shouldn't change an established citation style, but this article has no single established style ... and that's the problem. -- Mikeblas (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

An alleged lack of a consistent style doesn't give passing citation-fiddlers carte blanche to impose their personal preference without discussion, though many of them imagine it does. Most old and rather heavily-edited articles develop some admixture of styles over the years (which as article problems go, is a pretty tiny one). This does not amount to not having an established style. If you really think there isn't an established style, I suggest you set out what you see as the inconsistencies and propose a style for discussion. The preferences of the editors who actually write and maintain the article (a group not including either you or me, though I see my 45 posts here on talk stretch back 9 years) should dominate this discussion. Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

There's no issue of personal preference here. See WP:UNSOURCED and WP:CS, among others. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course there are! There are three different issues here. The first is your completely removing all trace of some valid references because something minor was wrong in the templating. That is not justified by ANY policy, certainly not those two. You haven't conceded this at all, but I hope the point is taken. Then there is removing references not cited at all, but which may well have been used to write the text; this is also not justified by any policy. The third is you, as a drive-by fiddler, claiming "this article has no single established style" and starting/proposing to fix it up, using one of the myriad of styles permitted by WP:CS, selected by you, as your personal preference. After which you would no doubt ride off into the sunset, never to be seen again. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course, the references I removed were not viable. <ref name= Olalde/> didn't refer to anything, since the name "Olalde" wasn't previously defined in the article. The name "Olalde" didn't appear in the article in any usage.

Similarly, the references {{harvnb|Novembre|Johnson|Bryc|Kutalik|2008}} and {{harvnb|Lao|Lu|Nothnagel|Junge|2008}} didn't refer to any biographic source in the article. Maybe these are a list of authors, maybe not. We don't know if the reference is to a book, an academic paper, or some other source.

Sounds like you've misunderstood my proposal -- the idea is to move unreferenced sources to a "further reading" section, not to remove them.

Once you read WP:UNSOURCED and WP:CS, you'll understand the policis in play. I'd also encourage you to read WP:OWN, which explains that there's no ownership of articles. If any other editor wants to make one or a thousand contributions to an article, the project welcomes the contribution. No particular level of tenancy or commitment must be demonstrated, least of all to you personally. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Fixing references

This article has several referencing problems, which I've attempted to fix. The references were reverted without a constructive comment:

• These references: {{harvnb|Novembre|Johnson|Bryc|Kutalik|2008}}; {{harvnb|Lao|Lu|Nothnagel|Junge|2008}} are both undefined in the bibliography of the article. I replaced them with {{fact}} tags.
• References to the Jones "Atlas of Roman Britain" book were incorrectly tagged with footnotes, leaving red error messages in the references section. The messages say "Harv error: link from CITEREFJones1990 doesn't point to any citation." I repaird these messages by altering the anchor for the footnote so it would match the places it was referenced.
• References to the Brown book had a similar problem with a similar resolution.
• A reference was added named "Olalde", as <ref name="Olalde"/>. No reference is defined elsewhere in the article, so this results in a red error message reading "Cite error: The named reference Olalde was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." I've replaced this reference with a {{fact}} tag.
• A reference intended to be for one of the Halsall books misspelled "Haslsall", so I corrected that spelling.

I think these improvements draw attention to errors in referencing the article, and also repair issues which can be immediately and effectively addressed. Why revert them? Is a better fix available? -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@CelticBrain:, please could you check the {{harvnb|Novembre|Johnson|Bryc|Kutalik|2008}}; {{harvnb|Lao|Lu|Nothnagel|Junge|2008}} and <ref name="Olalde"/> references which seem to have been added in your Revision as of 05:51, 10 July 2020? TSventon (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@TSventon:, here you go:

• Olalde: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5973796/
• Novembre: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2735096/
• Lao: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.07.049

I can add these in. CelticBrain (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)CelticBrain

Thanks for the updates, CelticBrain! That looks a lot better.

The other fixes I made are still reverted, and I actually thought them to be uncontroversial. sfn- and harvb-based references must point at a specific source in the bibliography of the article, but those don't. After I fixed them, they did -- but Johnbod still reverted them. Shall we re-introduce those fixes to the article? What is the plan for repairing them, otherwise? -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

If you think just removing all trace of references & replacing them with a cn tag is "uncontroversial", you are badly out of touch with WP norms. At the very least you could just hide them with a tag., and better tags are available. No doubt fixing them would have been easy enough. You don't just obliterate them & leave a tag. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod, do you object to Mikeblas bullet points 2, 3 and 5, which did not involve deleting references? Mikeblas is suggesting they are uncontroversial. TSventon (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't object in principle to anything that doesn't just remove information because the template isn't fully correct! I haven't looked at any WP:CITEVAR issue, though in my experience editors with this sort of cavalier attitude tend not to respect that. People who do edits like that must expect some babies to be reverted with the bathwater. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, you've made it apparent that you haven't actually examined the issue and instead reverted and accused first. It's not a productive way forward, and I suggest you review Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks pretty productive to me, so far, and will be more so if it results in a dent in your misplaced confidence in doing such edits! See below also. Are you one of these COVID Rip van Winkle editors? Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to encourage you to re-write your previous comment with a more civil and constructive tone. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Meandering logic

"Some were indeed warriors who were buried equipped with their weapons, but we should not assume that all of these were invited guests who were to guard Romano-British communities." Is there too much assumed knowledge here? Why would anyone assume such people to be mercenaries. Even if that was a known thing (doubtful) then why in such proportions? Why would people think that would be the main thing such newcomer Anglo-Saxon warriors were doing? I think this particular passage quite daft. And quite fey.- Adam37 Talk 17:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

There was a time, not so long ago, when every burial in Britain equipped with a cingulum militare or weapon from c. 350 to c. 450 was viewed as a "Germanic mercenary". I think it is now thought that some were native troops who were perhaps still pagan or even may have been Roman bureaucrats, who often aped military styles, or non-mercenary settlers. There was quite a penchant for looking at 'warrior burials' and relating them to Roman settlements or the boundaries of Roman civitates, and many flights of fancy as to their being placed to defend them were confected. Urselius (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

And South East Scotland

Shouldn't the last sentence in paragraph one read:

The settlement was followed by the establishment of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the south and east of Britain, later followed by the rest of modern England AND SOUTH EAST SCOTLAND

According to the Wiki page on Lothian:

Lothian was settled by Angles at an early stage and formed part of the Kingdom of Bernicia, which extended south into present-day Northumberland. Many place names in the Lothians and Scottish Borders demonstrate that the English language became firmly established in the region from the sixth century onwards.

Indeed, done Johnbod (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

This was already covered by a note/citation.

Capelli et al 2003

Hi @CelticBrain: and @Urselius:, I have read Capelli et al's paper at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982203003737 and am a bit confused by the "Admixture Proportions for North Germany/Denmark". The paper says that "the mainland Scots are somewhat closer to the indigenous type than any English sets, except Cornwall", but the paper's Supplementary data pdf, gives Admixture Proportions for North Germany/Denmark for Scotland of 0.478 and England of 0.375 (quoted in the wiki article as 37%).

Then Thomas et al say that in Capelli, C. et al. 2003 "the mean southern Danish/north German contribution to the English gene pool was estimated to be 54 per cent" (54% is quoted in the wiki article).

So Capelli has a surprisingly low figure of 37% and Thomas quotes Capelli with 54% which I can't find in the paper. Please could either of you explain? I admit I am not a geneticist. TSventon (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Sykes in his book says that the Capelli paper gives an average for England of 'North Sea Germanic' markers to be 37%, as one of the Capelli authors had been his postdoc at Oxford (a friend of mine) I would imagine that he would have given an accurate number. Urselius (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@TSventon:, I can't really speak to the 37% figure; however, averaging all the estimated admixture proportions of North German/Danish DNA in the specified English towns gives a figure of 0.5403333...., which is what I assume Thomas etc. were quoting. What's weird is none of this actually matches with the sentence you quoted in the paper since, according to the tables, Cornwall actually had a higher admixture proportion than, Faversham, Midhurst and some of the Scottish towns. CelticBrain (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)CelticBrain

Depends on the sampling method: there's been a lot of migration to Cornwall from the South East of England (and from Scotland) over the past 100 years or so, especially by retired people. Deipnosophista (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Deipnosophista:, The paper says "Individuals were, with the exception of one location [Midhurst], then selected if their paternal grandfather's birthplace was within a 20-mile radius of the selected center" so most of the effect of migration over the last 100 years should have been excluded. TSventon (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

DNA

The section on DNA evidence is important and undigested. It probably deserves its own article. Deipnosophista (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Deipnosophista can you suggest any specific improvements? Then other people might be encouraged to contribute their ideas as well. There is an overlapping article at Genetic history of the British Isles. TSventon (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice this comment previously. I do think that Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain is vast -- very few people will read most of it -- and that it makes sense to make sub-articles for most issues. (For better or worse, I did this for the linguistic section by creating Celtic language decline in England to enable the streamlining of Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain#Linguistic evidence.) So a sub-article on the genetic history of Britain in the early Middle Ages, or genetic evidence for the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, or something like that, which could enable us to streamline Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain#Molecular evidence could be very helpful. The science is so new, so quickly changing, and so disputed, that I think it would be quite a challenge to write though! Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

Recently, a significant change was made to the lead, which seems to essentially attack the concept of using genetic studies to provide any insight onto the topic of this page. I did not see any discussion about this change on here, so I wanted to start one. It strikes me that the changes, aside from being (in my opinion) overly preachy in tone, are of little value in the lead, as the topic they discuss is virtually unaddressed in the body of the article itself. Furthermore, the Jobling article that is cited dates from 2012, which is to say several years before ancient DNA began to be utilised in a major way, and thus many of the points he made are outdated (Schiffels et. al. and Martiniano et. al. have demonstrated quite clearly that there is a small but distinct difference in the genetic makeup of native Britons and Anglo-Saxon settlers). Meanwhile, the Nature editorial doesn't really attack the concept of such studies in general; rather, it is mainly an exhortation to scientists to make sure their work is interpreted accurately by the public.

Overall, though, ancient DNA seems to have been embraced by most historians and archaeologists as a useful tool; therefore in my opinion this change to the lead is unnecessary, and could easily lead to confusion for new readers. The changes also interrupt the flow and make the final paragraph seem awkward and disjointed. However, some of the points made could be put into the "molecular evidence" section, and I think the "Germanic element" phrase in the lead could be restated as something like "a predominant amount of native British ancestry as well as a significant contribution from the Germanic-speaking settlers." CelticBrain (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)CelticBrain

I think that the text added to the lead on 16 November should be moved to a "Criticism" section at the end of the "Molecular evidence" section as the lead is the wrong place for detail not included in the body of the article (MOS:LEAD). The final sentence, questioning Germanic-speaking peoples' sense of cultural affinity in general does not contradict the idea, mentioned earlier in the lead, that "Germanic-speakers in Britain ... eventually developed a common cultural identity". TSventon (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The function of the lead should be a summary of the contents, not the venue for rather granular criticism. The recent additions also seem, at least to me, to be far too POV inspired for inclusion in the lead. Urselius (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it should be moved down (but not I think removed). Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for calling attention to this, CelticBrain (and apologies for not being more useful about place-names back in the summer -- did you make changes on that to your satisfaction?). I agree that the additional material should be kept somehow: it's citing important new research. I think the changes made do arise from deep problems in the previous lead text: 'This view predicts that the ancestry of the people of Anglo-Saxon and modern England would be largely derived from the native Romano-British. Uncertain results of genetic studies have tended to support a predominant amount of native British Celtic ancestry and a significant Germanic element'. There are too many problematic terms and assumptions here: 'native Romano-British' sets up a native/colonist binary which in the long view is pretty meaningless (Roman identity was a relative newcomer before Anglo-Saxon identity, the Celtic languages a fairly new arrival before that, etc.); 'native British Celtic ancestry' is similarly problematic; genes can provide useful evidence of migration and demographic change, but no gene can usefully be labelled a 'Germanic element'. Could we rephrase to something more objectively defensible, like 'This view predicts that the ancestry of the people of early medieval England would be largely derived from the pre-fifth-century population. Ongoing genetic studies are still debating whether there is evidence for significant migration from the Continent around the fifth century, amidst a generally stable population'? Alarichall (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I think one of the problems is nomenclature. We talk about native versus incomer, Romano-British versus North Sea Germanic, Celtic versus Anglo-Saxon, but all of these terms are challengeable for one reason or another, are not appropriate for all time periods, or are not inclusive enough. The problem is that inclusive, all embracing nomenclature - 'natives of Britain descended from pre-Roman and Roman-era populations' and 'people from the North Sea littoral, with an Iron Age Germanic culture and probably language' are far too clunky to be used at all. Urselius (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Alarichall, thanks for the response. My only disagreement with that would be that the intro as it stands does represent the genetic research pretty well. There have been a number of studies, mostly based on ancient DNA, in the last five years or so, which generally report an "Anglo-Saxon" component of somewhere between 30-50% in the average English person, though this varies regionally, and that basically lines up with what the intro says. The general consensus amongst said studies does seem to be that there was significant migration but not ethnic cleansing, so the question would be how to properly define the terms. We could say something like "Genetic studies have tentatively supported the conclusion that the Germanic-speaking incomers, while contributing substantially to the current English gene pool, did not replace the pre-existing British population." This seems uncontroversial but if you think otherwise, let me know.CelticBrain (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)CelticBrain

The archaeogenetic research you mention is based on very small samples and there are a lot of methodological problems to iron out; the meaningfulness of that '30-50%' figure is questionable. A lot more research needs to be done before we can really tell a story from archaeogenetic evidence (and the story that we tell from it may not turn out correlate much with linguistic change). But I agree that we could move some of the new anonymous additions to the lead to another section and that your phrasing 'genetic studies have tentatively supported the conclusion that the Germanic-speaking incomers, while contributing substantially to the current English gene pool, did not replace the pre-existing British population' would be a significant improvement on the previous wording, so I wouldn't object to it :-) Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth I recently read the preliminary findings of an upcoming study published in the abstract book of the 2020 conference of the European Association of Archaeologists, that uses much larger sample sizes from grave sites in the relevant period (as well as lots of Iron Age and Roman samples from the same areas). This one is concluding that 80% of the pre-existing population in southeastern England was replaced by the newcomers! Go figure, I guess. CelticBrain (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)CelticBrain

I can't help thinking that results that go against common sense are the result of flawed methodology. The British and North Sea Germanic peoples were at much the same cultural level, with the people on both sides exposed to similar diseases; where such wholesale replacement has happened in recent times (North American natives, Australian aboriginals), there has been a huge difference in technology and the introduction of deadly diseases to previously unexposed populations. We know that Iron Age burials are scarce, much, much more so than Bronze Age burials, but the population numbers were presumably similar, is the British element in the burials of the post-Roman period similarly hidden? Urselius (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Uncritical readings of Gildas and Bede (notice)

I have been discussing the wording of the first two sentences of the The debate section with Srnec at Talk:Celtic language decline in England#Uncritical readings of Gildas and Bede as the sentences were copied into Celtic language decline in England#Debate: why is there so little Brittonic influence on English (and subsequently expanded). Any suggestions for improvement are welcome. TSventon (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Short description

An editor changed the short description to something so vague as to be entirely inappropriate. However, the short description, though accurate is probably a bit on the long-side. I would propose something more concise, such as, 'Earliest stage in the ethnogenesis of the English people (c.450-c.650 AD)'. Urselius (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. I'm currently trying to clear a category of over 6000 short descriptions that are far too long. It affects every subject field on Wikipedia and sometimes my best effort may not cover the topic correctly. Sorry.

Short descriptions really do need to live up to their name and be short. They need to be the topic of the article in a 40 character long nutshell because they get truncated after 30 to 70 characters (dependant on the viewing device used). Also, technical or complex terms are to be avoided because short descriptions need to be accessible for people with no knowledge of the subject.

Short descriptions are not a summary of the article. My one suggestion is be brutal, start with really pared down suggestions like "The emergence of a new people", "Cultural change in the British Isles" etc and then work forwards from there. - X201 (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I've changed to "Cultural and population changes in England c. 450 to 630 AD" (chars not counted out). I wasn't wild about the old one. You need the dates, since young college-uneducated Americans tend to see "Anglo-Saxon" & think you are talking about the 21st century. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)