Talk:Anglo-Saxons

So many myths

Only perhaps 10,000 to 25,000 Angles and Saxons crossed over during the centuries of migration. These migrants settled in among the millions of people who were already there, ruling over parts of the island until the eleventh century Norman invasion.

The Anglo-Saxon cultural influence declined with the 1066 conquest by Normandy, today a region of France. The new Norman rulers transformed England and ejected the old Anglo-Saxon elite, many of whom fled the country entirely. And so the Anglo-Saxon era ended, four or five centuries of rule that ended a thousand years ago and did not appear to make a lasting or substantial impact on British genes.

At their height, the Anglo-Saxons made up less than 1% of the British population. It may have left a cultural heritage, but no genetic heritage to speak of. 89.253.73.146 (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

To quote Queen Bess: I have the body of a week and feeble Western European; but I have the brains and expertise of a historian and linguist, and one specialised in this period, too, and think foul scorn that anyone should write "at their height, the Anglo-Saxons made up less than 1% of the British population" and think it holds water in any sort of way. Where did you read that? And 10-25,000 settlers over centuries? We simply do not have any sort of reliable source to estimate absolute numbers, so let's do away with flinging those about. What we can tell from our few written sources and from archaeology should make us wary of minimalist migration scenarios.

Funnily enough, this minimalist position you've endorsed is the one that dominated most of the later 20th century, as a sort of pendulum counter swing to the "völkisch" and "racial" obsession of earlier research which had stressed a direct correlation between archaeological culture and genetic descent. In other words: "People travelled! (I'm a filthy little fascist at heart.)" - "No, pots travelled! (I'm an enlightened pot-loving Hippie.)"

Over the past ten, fifteen years or so we've experienced a more nuanced levelling out of these extreme models, mainly thanks to the relatively hard evidence of Y and mtDNA research originally, and palaeogenetics more recently. Palaeogenetics regarding Anglo-Saxon migration is still very much in its infancy. Even with the facts we can hope for from that field in future, the blur of which genetic markers we identify as "Anglo-Saxon" enough to qualify will remain significant. There are a few hints that we can see, however: At the present state of error, research does not seem to agree with your position especially well, with Northern England showing up at about 3/4 "Continental North Sea" ancestry (mumbled: whatever that means) after the Migration Period. You can look up that recent study here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05247-2. So, off of that high horse, and down into the research rabbit hole with you. It's great fun! We all float down here. Trigaranus (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I was going to reply, but Trigaranus put it better than I ever could. Saying less than one percent of the British Population was Anglo Saxon is a curious position to take, disavowed by all modern research, and a position that only really exists as a VERY unscientific way to try to refute any connotations of people taking pride in Anglo Saxon ancestry (because admittedly, a lot of racist groups do use its imagery, but that absolutely doesn't make it OK to lie and pretend they had minimal impact).

As was said, off the high horse. There is a LOT of Anglo-Saxon DNA in the English. I honestly do not know where you deign to get those figures anon. Alooulla (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes clearly arguing against the weakest and most extreme types of statements won't help us much. I think that no one seriously doubts there was one or more movements of people from the other side of the north sea. The devil is in the detail. Some of the first Saxons probably came as Roman recruits for example, very early. Their language, and something of their culture, might have been established quite early within the Roman military. That barbarians ran the military and kept (and modified) their barbarian style to their position is known from other countries. But other groups apparently came to England later, if we believe the few medieval sources. None of these things disagree with each other. The genetics confirms things in a rough way only for now. People came from northern Europe. Extreme positions which claim that there was a genocide, or that there were hardly any immigrants, are both pretty unpopular but that does not mean we have a clear vision of what happened yet.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

"Arguing against the weakest and most extreme types of statements won't help us much".

What Alooulla is arguing against is not an "extreme" position, but was considered mainstream less than a decade ago. It was only in retrospect, and with hard genetic evidence, that the field realized that they had fallen into a political ideology, sometimes explicitly stated, to downplay or deny the existence of an AS people.

From a synopsis: "Historian Wolf Liebeschuetz and archaeologist Sebastian Brather, to pick on just two, have both firmly insisted that archaeology must not, and cannot, be used to trace migrations or identify different ethnic groups in prehistory." DenverCoder19 (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

"Two medieval scholars tackle the misuse of a phrase that was rarely used by its supposed namesakes"

[1] One of the authors is Mary Rambaran-Olm, the other looks like someone as notable. So this is a reliable source for anyone interested. Doug Weller talk 08:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Related discussions

• Talk:Anglo-Saxons/Archive 5#Removing the term “Anglo-Saxon?” in 2020
• Talk:Anglo-Saxons/Archive 6#International Society of Anglo-Saxonists name change in 2021. TSventon (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a very stringent argument to be had there: "ethnic" naming conventions are and always have been nothing more than that, and our modern ones very rarely reflect historic usage. If you had asked a Greek scholar of the Early Middle Ages, he would have divided all northern peoples into Scythians and Galatians, regardless of their ethnic affiliations, and would have called himself a Roman, even if he spoke not a shred of Latin. There is nothing to suggest that there ever was an idea of "Celts" in the heads of the historic Celts, nor one of "Germans" in the minds of the historic Germanic peoples. So no surprise there. Not even the modern Germans in the sense of Germany had a concept to describe themselves, and the association of the term "Teutonic" with the HRE (and its conflation with thuidisc) was originally negative propaganda by the popes during the time of their rivalry with the emperors. So it's absolutely no skin off anyone's rosy nose that nowadays we have both a historic and a modern convention for using Anglo-Saxon in a more or less blurry sense. Anglo-Saxons back in the day: people who spoke Old English. Anglo-Saxons around now: white-ish "English" and "American" people (give or take) who speak Modern English. It's not scientific taxonomy but conventional usage. Trigaranus (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

It's the "conventional usage" as a racialist concept that's being pushed back against. That's the main motivator for these and other scholars to shift to using other terminology.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

A purely American issue; I notice no solution is offered. Resist American cultural imperialism! Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree there is not much we can do with it here. The way the article presents it, this is not one issue at all but several different ones anyway:

• Should we avoid using a term for an historic cultural group, because it is sometimes seen as a race? This question implies that when we refer to the whole Old English speaking culture we can better call them English, ignoring the other term Saxon, and potentially confusing them with the later English. I suppose anyone interested in avoiding misconceptions about cultures being continuous races, might also need to consider whether this is a good solution. In any case I think that the term Anglo-Saxon is not particularly common as a racial concept in modern contexts. I think Winston Churchill is the main inspiration for recent use and despite what the authors make out he was connecting the term to a common cultural tradition, and he was doing it in order to inspire an alliance during a war. So when people use the term these days they tend to be referring to things like "legal traditions".
• Should we avoid modern terms for historical peoples if they were not widely used by the historical people involved? I think the main reason to be concerned about such cases would be because of some other factor, for example a question about whether the ancient people involved actually existed as a cultural group that anyone at the time would have recognized. That's not a problem here, but see the next point.
• The article seems to imply that the term is also bad because it represses understanding of the different nations who had their own names for themselves. It sounds like they dispute whether there should be a generic term at all, but then in other places they seem to accept that there should be. Apart from being an unclear point, I think it also doesn't make much sense. I think the simple idea of the English having been several clearly defined peoples who transferred over from different homelands is questionable, whereas it is very clear that there was an overall group. The only term we can connect easily to a homeland on the continent is "English". We don't really know the origin of the term Saxon. The idea that the Saxons appear on Ptolemy's map is widespread but experts can't really agree about it. And this implies that the term initially came into a use in coastal France and England, apparently meaning something like viking. The term did not start being used for North Germans until much later. There was no Frisian kingdom in England, and no Mercian kingdom on the continent.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the biggest issue is that it's not yet a scholarly consensus, although things might be moving to that point. It's also the term most entrenched among the populous. Wikipedia still uses "Genghis Khan" even though most scholars now use the more accurate Anglicization "Chinggis Khan".--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest the trend is going in the other direction in this case. I'd also say that beyond the consensus problem another problem here is just working out what the point being made is when you try to boil it down to its essence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

generally used in a racist context per the linked article is quite a Ameri-centric perspective, as discussed before. That statement wouldn't be true for (at least) the UK. The whole thing is reminiscent of the Byzantine Empire nomenclature obsession of some. It's just a useful short-hand for something. DeCausa (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem for me that for me the term Anglo-Saxon, in England is not elitist, it tends to be disparaging. For example if someone swears they would apologise for using "the Anglo-Saxon ". In 1066 England was conquered by the Normans, if you read Kevin Cahill's book "Who Owns Britain" you will see that a large percentage of land in England is still owned by people who's ancestors came over with William the Conqueror. They would be insulted if you accused them of being Anglo-Saxon!! The top private schools and universities were set up by people who's ancestry were largely from Norman or Plantagenet backgrounds. We still have a higher house of Parliament full of aristocrats. Check out our hereditary peers, you will see that the majority of them have Norman/ French names hidden behind their titles eg: Duke of Norfolk. That is not to say that Anglo-Saxons have not moved in the upper circles of society. There is a whole range of different terms for such folk. Example, "he made it to the top even though he was a commoner" (ie: Anglo-Saxon). "He is no blue blood!" in other words not an aristocrat (ie:Anglo-Saxon). In the last hundred years or so progress has been made. You don't have to be a major land owner or male to vote for example. So I am not sure the "Genghis Khan" / "Chinggis Khan" analogy is a good one. Outside England the Anglo-Saxon term has a bit of an elitist ring to it however in England the attitude is somewhat different. I think that most people in multi-ethnic England would not identify with being Anglo-Saxon these days. It is just regarded as a reference to people who settled these islands in medieval times (How many and for what reason is a much more interesting discussion). As long as Wikipedia includes a nomenclature in their articles, clarifying the term, I see no reason to change the terminology. Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you considerably overstating the case there. Much-diluted Norman bloodlines may own a lot of grouse moors, but only a lucky few, like Hugh Grosvenor, 7th Duke of Westminster (whose ancestor snapped up a commoner heiress to a farm that is now Mayfair and Belgravia) have really valuable urban land. On being "insulted if you accused them of being Anglo-Saxon", I remember a hilarious tv episode (probably Who Do You Think You Are? (British TV series)) with the late Robert Shirley, 13th Earl Ferrers, who treasured the idea of being properly Anglo-Saxon, based on an 11th-century female ancestor. They wheeled on a historian who told him very bluntly that her name was as Norman as they come (rather implying he ought to go around wearing a beret with onions around his neck). He was visibly discomforted. I suspect this is a more typical attitude. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod Thanks for that!! I was making a general point. I think that DNA testing has unraveled a lot of misconceptions. The Normans tended to intermarry with the Anglo-Saxon women anyway, and I think that over the centuries it wasn't just the men of the house that were sleeping with servants etc! I didn't include the Scandinavian settlement in large parts of Northern England either. My point was that the use of Anglo-Saxon is much more nuanced in England then the US. I guess where it works is where it belongs, namely as a term of convenience for all the Germanic tribes who arrived in England after Rome(possibly some during) and before the Norman Conquest. BTW - We used to get a Breton onion seller round regularly here on his bike. They seem to have disappeared. Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, in the UK "Anglo-Saxon" in a contemporary context used to mainly mean "four-letter words", but I think this is less common now. Our charming onion seller, straight out of Central Casting, stopped in the late 1960s I think. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Wilfridselsey I think you make a small-seeming jump of logic that is also apparently in the article when you say "all the Germanic tribes who arrived in England". I'd say that a quite early stage pretty much everyone in the rolling hills and flat country of SE England was "Anglo Saxon", no matter what their ancestry (Frisian, Italian, French, Welsh etc). Once again I'd like to point out that the old idea of identifiable tribes from different parts of Europe, who continued to see themselves as distinct in England, is not really based upon much. The only clear case of a name which had staying power was the one which also became generic, the Angles. (I think the evidence is against the term Saxon originally referring to a small Germanic people.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster I also said that Anglo-Saxon is a "term of convenience" for all the tribes. I don't believe it to be particularly representative or accurate. But we at least know or think we know what it means when use it in the Medieval England context. You say that the name Angles has staying power however in the Welsh language and Scottish Gaelic they call the English "Saxons" ( Saesneg/ Sassenach). Anyway I thought this discussion was more about the historic term Anglo Saxon vs. modern (mis)use? Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but as I said, I don't think that we can be confident that "Saxon" was originally a term for a "Germanic tribe who arrived in England". Angle and Frisian were, but there was no part of England which was seen as a Frisian kingdom.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster There is a body of evidence that suggest that the Jutes came from Frisia, whether they were Frisian or originated in Jutland and travelled via Frisia, is a point of debate. The Jutes set up several kingdoms in SE England. Also, Saxon was a loan word from Latin and the annals were written in Latin, so it is understandable how its use leaked into English. As far as I know the earliest use was by George (bishop of Ostia and Amiens) in 786, when after a visit to England he wrote a report to the pope describing his trip to Angul Saxnia. Wilfridselsey (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you should double check that body of evidence. The question here is whether there is any strong academic consensus about these things. There isn't. There is was a much later claim that Kent was settled first by Jutes, but modern historians treat that with caution and in any case there is no evidence that people there saw themselves as Jutes. The etymology of Saxon is uncertain and they were first definitely mentioned as raiders in the 4th century. The term Angles was given for later settlers on different coasts, and it clearly does imply a connection to a specific region.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that you are out of date, there has been a lot of recent scholarship on this. They have linked the archaeology of Frisia with the so called Jutish areas in England, but not to Jutland. Have a look at these books "The Land of the English Kin. Studies in Wessex and Anglo-Saxon England in Honour of Professor Barbara Yorke (2020) - this is open source, "The Archaeology of Kent to AD 600 (2007)", "The Early Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms of Southern Britain AD 450-650 (2014)" or this paper "Saxons in the Meon Valley: A Place-Name Survey (2014)".Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you are changing subject, or maybe you've forgotten what my original remark was. I pointed out that there is very little evidence for there having been multiple Germanic tribes who arrived in England and continued to be seen as members of those specific continental "arrived" groups, and distinct from other Old English speakers. Archaeology can only give vague hints about such things. Anyway, I certainly don't see anything justifying your implied claim that there is an academic consensus for the existence of a Frisian kingdom in England. No one denies that there was movement of people and material goods though, and that is not what I was talking about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes we have moved off subject but I was just addressing your point about no Frisian kingdoms? Anyway, we can agree on one thing there is very little consensus when talking about Anglo-Saxon history. I did not mean that the Jutes were Frisian I said there is a growing body of evidence to support a link. In other words there is evidence to support the hypothesis. Not that it is a fact.Wilfridselsey (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Sometimes worth having a side discussion to see where we all are. (I think so anyway.) If you are interested in reports of Frisians I suppose you know about the strange report of Procopius. Sorry to Mr Sunak but I don't think anyone has ever succeeded in closing the English channel. There were Bretons and Saxons on both sides of the Romanised channel for a long times, but further north there is no doubt of contact with Frisians, Angles and Jutes (and later Flemings). My point was that the Angles are a little special in the sense that we can connect a specific sub-group in England with a specific sub-group in Europe.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Folks, this entire discussion frankly boggles my continental European mind. I'm a historian (and Anglicist) specialised in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, and I've yet to meet a scholar who took any form of umbrage at the term "Anglo-Saxons" in historical contexts. Historians constantly use terms of convenience and convention. As do humans in general: A large part of the "English" are more Saxon than Anglish, most of the "French" are decidedly un-Frankish, and the "Russians" tend no longer to arrive in Eastern Europe in Scandinavian boats. Hell, even my own country's name is silly (I'm Swiss, but I'm definitely not "from Schwyz" -- that place is a shitshow.).

When readers *not* from the US see the term "Anglo-Saxons", they will -- provided they have some interest in history -- immediately think of stuff like Beowulf, King Arthur's wars, Alfred and his burnt cookies, guys unironically named Offa offing people, and a rather odd type of Phrygian hat. Jokes aside: if you're not American, "Anglo-Saxon" is a conventional name for a historical cultural complex. It has the benefit of having been used by contemporary scholars (Paul the Deacon) and even as a self-descriptive ethnonym in a king's titles (Aethelstan)! So what if people with idiotic mindsets also use it? The notion that we should give up its use because modern-day doofuses eat at the same lexical buffet as everyone else is, frankly or frenchly, daft. Trigaranus (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Trigaranus, I'm a bit late seeing this; please let me note that--well, if you'd like to meet a scholar who took any form of umbrage etc., here I am. Pleased to meet you. Surely you are familiar with the organization formerly known as ISAS, now called ISSEME; this is five years old already. Johnbod, I'm surprised this rather important name change wasn't discussed here at all, only mentioned. And yes, Trigaranus, this A-S shit hit the fan just as I was making the next-to-final copy edits on a book I was editing, with Brill, and my co-editor and I acted on it. So please don't think that this is not an important matter to many of us in the field. I think that in a few years someone in our business (my business) will look at this discussion and laugh. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, as you say, it's been 5 years, & I see no signs at all of UK usage shifting. I suspect UK academics see this as something their American colleagues have to do, but they don't. The case of "Celtic" is perhaps similar - academics all understandably dislike the term for a whole range of reasons, but recognise that it has an unshakeable grip on public awareness, as well as a political dimension, and are not attempting to dislodge it. British Museum books and display texts over recent decades show this pretty clearly. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to note, as an American, when I hear "Anglo-Saxon" I also think of Beowulf, Arthur, Alfred, and Sutton Hoo. But I'm a history buff. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The whole, 'Let's look for words that people might find offensive and insist that they are not used' approach is futile; because the people who want to use words in an offensive way will just convert the new replacements into being offensive. Urselius (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Urselius, your characterization of the (justified) move to shift the name of the field to an a. more appropriate and b. less racially charged one is silly and insulting. No one was "looking for words". Drmies (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Drmies For a sub-continent sized country the USA is incredibly insular and parochial. Your reply is "silly and insulting". There is nothing racially charged about the term 'Anglo-Saxon' outside the USA, so for US citizens to impose their local concerns on international scholarship is unforgivable. I am old enough to remember when the term 'coloured' was polite usage and 'black' was insulting, when used as descriptors of people, so I think that my comment on the mutability of the offensive use of words was entirely accurate. Urselius (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Urselius, what a remarkably shortsighted set of comments. I'm surprised you didn't pull the old "woke leftist" on me. In short, "There is nothing racially charged about the term 'Anglo-Saxon' outside the USA" is just totally wrong (but then, this field is not your specialty, is it--it is mine), and whether it was US citizens who proposed these name changes is pretty immaterial. Who the hell knows, maybe there were Canadians among them. You could look at ISSEME's program for their 2025 conference in Dusseldorf, which as you may know is in Germany. The present conversation could fall under the second bullet point, but this is already old news. Oh, I don't know if you think that I am a US citizen: I am not. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Drmies I happen to be clinically myopic, but I can recognise bullshit when I see or smell it. From your 'woke' comment you seem to be under the misapprehension that I am some flavour of Right Winger. Nothing could be further from the truth, I am a Socialist and Trades Unionist, I have been on many a picket line in the wind and snow, and, indeed, been on anti-racism marches. I even possess a small bust of Lenin, which sits next to my small bust of Charles Darwin. As a Socialist, I resent this expression of American imperialism. You being, or not being, American is irrelevant, the whole 'Anglo-Saxon' is a racist term farrago had its origins in the US and it is solely a reflection of US mores and society. Outside of the USA 'Anglo-Saxon' does not possess any racist or elitist, or 'you can't join this golf club', connotations. In the UK 'Anglo-Saxon' has quite the opposite meaning, with connotations of things that are basic, of the common people, down to earth, even boorish. I suspect that American sentiment has strong-armed some academic opinion outside of the US, but it has also engendered fierce opposition in the same circles. The sensibilities of people from a country that relatively recently officially considered the Portuguese and Spanish people from Spain to be of different races should rightly be ignored with some contempt. BTW I have drunk altbier in Düsseldorf. Urselius (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I also resent your condescending tone. I have an interest in Late Antiquity and Early Medieval history dating back many decades, I have an extensive library of books on these periods. A cursory look at my editing history will confirm my expertise. I am also not a professional historian of the Napoleonic era, but that did not prevent me getting 6 articles on Napoleonic topics published, one of which won an international prize, the judges for which were professional Napoleonic scholars. I have also provided technical expertise for an ancient DNA project, so have some professional knowledge that is quite applicable. Urselius (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we focus on this group of articles. I don't see how any of this leads to any practical proposal we can use. Historians and other academics, American or non-American are welcome to express concerns about confusions caused by current word usage, but that does not mean they have given us a new term to use in the period which is relevant here. I see no concrete move proposal above? I presume we can't just switch to "English". That would surely be worse. (There is hardly any term for topics like this which can not be used in a controversial way.) "Anglo-Saxon" still seems to be the only clear available term, and it is still a commonly used term for academics studying this period. I can of course see that we should write our articles about this period using clear explanations about the terminology, good disambiguations etc. Honestly I think that can cover most potential confusions? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

An American student recently, without discussion, tried to convert an article (I forget which) to use "Old English" instead of AS - I suppose that could work, if it were generally accepted, but I've never seen it elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I may have to chime in by opening with the compulsory listing of my leftist credentials (can supply pictures of my party donations, of my alienation from the fruits of my labour, or of guilloutines for extra credit). With that out of the way: What annoys me almost the most about this is how in PC language cosmetics, people always fiddle around with the signifiant, as if the undesirable notions weren't attached to the signifié. And it's as if some scholars (and Brill) were now shifting around to argue that "Anglo-Saxon" only had one signifié, with no acknowledgement of the fact that it took quite a while to get to the 19th century from the 9th.

From where I stand, this is just becoming ever more pointless. We're literally engaging in a nontroversy, regardless of the editorial virtue signalling done by publishing houses like Brill. We're having a debate about an established name with fairly clear semantics for the mediaeval period. The term is useful for the first millennium because it contrasts with "Roman", "Celtic", "British", "Scandinavian", and to some much lesser degree even the later "English". As historians, we use it for the people who established the heptarchy, not for those who did Cape Cod. It frankly doesn't matter in the least whether in the modern day it touches on modern-day sensibilities due to modern-day post-colonial issues or some bullshit pseudo-ethnic narrative trumpeted about by the KKK.

There is a fairly simple comparison to be made to illustrate what lies at the heart of the issue:

Let's take a geographically adjacent example. There is unquestionably a tremendous amount of modern-day controversy as to who should be regarded as "Celtic" these days and by what standards. There is clearly a good helping of strident anti-English and post-colonial political sentiments thrown into the bargain. (I'm neither English nor "Celtic", whatever that means today, so again, this is no skin off my rosy nose.) In the case of "Celts", there was entirely no usage of the term whasoever by any populations in the British Isles, so the term is even less of an endonym for anyone in Antiquity or the Early Middle Ages. If I remember correctly, it was only ever first applied to Insular Celts in the 16th century. But nevertheless, there is (a) absolutely no doubt that the Celtic-speaking peoples of Ireland and Great Britain were Celts by conventional usage of the term (with increasing consensus even regarding the Picts), and (b) absolutely no impetus to retcon an established linguistic and cultural label due to modern-day touchiness or misplaced political correctness.

If we're behing honest, we can probably agree that there is no inherent difference between the two examples -- except for this: "Celtic" even today still describes an "underdog" cultural complex that had long suffered from English colonialism, while "Anglo-Saxon" in modern times is connected to 19th and 20th century English colonialism, imperialism, and racism. This is the whole extent of the difference. It allows for displays of public pride in "Celtic" culture, and casts the mark of jingo on any pride in "Anglo-Saxon" culture. This difference in the prestige of modern-day "Celtic" vs. "Anglo-Saxon" identities has absolutely nothing to do with what Nad Froich mac Cuirc or Coel Hen did or did not do back in the day; nothing to do with what Ælfric or Leofgifu were up to in the Anglo-Saxon period. But everything to do with what Charles Parnell didn't but Nathan Bedford Forrest or Cecil Rhodes did do (i.e. oppress people). Thanks to this, in a weird projection of these modern virtues and vices into the past, the term "Celtic" is still deemed acceptable usage for Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, but "Anglo-Saxon" is supposed to be taboo for the same period -- because some readers today might "be offended" by it? Although these terms describe different entities separated by more than a millennium? I'm sorry, but what does one have to do with the other besides the name? Names can mean two things. I'm literally holding a mouse, and you know which kind. This type of defensive rebranding is pandering to those with the least capacity for contrast and the least interest in context. And in that, it is only marginally less of a non sequitur than accusing a professor of Sinology of racism for teaching his students to say "nèi ge" because it sounds like the N-word. But acting as if "the A-S word" was anywhere on a par with a justifiedly suppressed racist slur, and therefore needed to be retired from usage due to the pain and suffering it allegedly causes poor widows and orphans, is peak performative actionism. Trigaranus (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

"Anglo-Saxons aren’t real"

In other news, "Anglo-Saxons aren’t real, Cambridge tells students" according to a Telegraph article (archived copy here). TSventon (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Clearly a bit twisted in that story but reading between the lines it seems to be about the Anglo-Saxon race idea (not their existence as such) and that idea does exist, and did get a bit of a boost in the early days of genetic studies, when there were claims that genetics could prove that there had been Apartheid and genocide. These things were much discussed among American genealogists for example. But as more data came in things settled down.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, reading between the lines is necessary. It is interesting, but not surprising, that Cambridge is trying to "address recent concerns over use of the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ and its perceived connection to ethnic/racial English identity". There is some criticism of the article at https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/142k7ed/anglosaxons_arent_real_is_this_true/ . TSventon (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

"Were"? Are we Anglo-Saxons/Saxons/English being denied our identity? We still exist. We are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:B008:2500:C86B:8A8B:F283:333A (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Critical review of a book in further reading

One of the "further reading" suggestions: Haywood, John (1999), Dark Age Naval Power: Frankish & Anglo-Saxon Seafaring Activity (revised ed.), Frithgarth: Anglo-Saxon Books, ISBN 1-898281-43-2 has been criticised in this review[2]. The reviewer challenges some of the conclusions made by Hayward about the superior nautical activity discussed in the book. I suggest that this means this source should be used with caution, as it is clear that contrary opinions exist on many points made by Hayward. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

John Haywood (British historian) is a fellow of the Royal Historical Society and a former university lecturer, which makes him a reliable source under Wikipedia rules, but he has published so many books on so many different subjects that I would be doubtful of citing him as an authority. However, many books we cite by experts are criticised by other experts, so I do not think we can mark out one book as to be used with caution on the basis of a review.

BTW the further reading section is a mess which combines sources and books not cited. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I would encourage you to read the review cited, as it gives reasoned arguments as to why his opinions are questioned. The criticisms, if accepted, are quite damning. Looking at WP:HISTRW, I am reminded that the guidance is that we need to bear in mind whether an academic consensus exists on any view put forward. This review is strong evidence that, at a minimum, Hayward's ideas are challenged by those working in the field. Further study might reveal any support or other criticism. The original post was just a case of an initial alert. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Similar arguments apply to other books, and if I cited it a source in the article then I would also need to cite the criticism. As the book is not a source, I suggest that you add the review to Further reading. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

If the book is dubious, why not just remove it? I can only read one page of the review so I don't know how critical the following pages are. The essay Wikipedia:Further reading includes reliability as a criterion for inclusion in the section. Wikipedia further reading lists are crowd sourced so they should always be used with caution. TSventon (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the whole "further reading" section just needs to go. It's completely arbitrary and this is not some niche topic. If it's relevant, it'll be cited in the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes that should indeed be the eventual aim. The only short term practical concern I have is that several parts of this article need trimming and focusing, and so some of these sources could become handy. I suggest we work through it bit by bit. In any case if we do major deletions then we should perhaps consider posting potentially recyclable deleted material here (or at least links to the deletion edits).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, that is a reasonable approach. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Should we re-name this article to e.g. Anglo-Saxon culture and society

Having noticed that this article gets a lot of hit-and-run edits I've been looking at it more and already making some more systematic changes. However it is awkward. I notice that editors can't help themselves from making this into the "B" version of History of Anglo-Saxon England. It seems remarks about culture and history are pasted together haphazardly in almost any section, so that as a reader I am constantly struggling to see the connections between sentences in the same paragraph. The HAT note says the article is about culture and society. Could we focus ourselves better by making that the article title? What the article needs is a lot of trimming and rebuilding with a real structure based around something which is not already covered in another article. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It is notable that this article gets nearly 3000 hits a day compared with 800 for the history article. This is probably partly because people searching for the history will search on the term Anglo-Saxon rather than the term history. The currect title is contradicted by the hatnote about its scope, and as you say much of it duplicates the history article. I think Anglo-Saxons should be a disambig listing the articles in the field. Working on the history article is on my to do list, although I have not got very far. It would be good if you can work on the culture and society. Johnbod has considerable expertise on the culture. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes good disambiguation, from a reader's point of view, is another reason to re-name. I was thinking more from the point of view of getting us, the editors, focused. I think the other article is closer to what people expect as a main article. By the way, both articles can be improved. This thread is not meant to be about specific issues, but I just get the impression we could do with a bit of a "mission statement" so to speak.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Dudley. I certainly agree the history is far too long for here- indeed it seems longer than History of Anglo-Saxon England. It should be drastically shortened, probably with bits taken elsewhere, including history. I don't like the idea of a disam page or rename to Anglo-Saxon culture and society, both sure ways to greatly reduce views imo. Of course whether it would reduce reading of the sections below the lead is a difficult question. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not think that it makes sense for the Anglo-Saxons article to be on one aspect of them, and it would be good to have a separate article on Anglo-Saxon culture and society. I think that the question is whether Anglo-Saxons should be a summary article pointing to the separate articles for detailed information, or whether it should be a disambig page. Is anyone prepared to undertake the work to create a summary article? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

You're being rather contradictory here; which "one aspect of them" do you think the article is currently about? We have many long articles on specific aspects of "culture and society", mostly treated as "mains" here, & I can't see any point in "a separate article on Anglo-Saxon culture and society" as a sub-summary of them. If the history is shortened (to say a quarter of its current length), and perhaps moved lower down, I think we are left with a reasonably balanced overall article, though with (I think) next to nothing on the economy and demographics, which don't seem to have any specific articles, except on the coinage. Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

My comment was about the hatnote, which says that this article is about Anglo-Saxon culture and society. I was arguing that an article with the title Anglo-Saxons should not be about one specific aspect. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but it certainly isn't now, so the hatnote should be adjusted. Johnbod (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

If the article is not about the culture and society then what is it about? We need to have some clarity on this because we don't just need to shorten but also focus IMHO. Personally I don't see the problem with this article being about something like culture and society?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm very clear! To repeat myself, why would we need a sub-main article when each aspect has a decent article of its own? What other culture takes this approach on WP? If this was to be Anglo-Saxon culture and society, then almost all the history bits - say 90% of the current stuff - should go. Instead, this should be, as was always intended, the main general article on the AS, with a summary of all the various aspects, including the history. I strongly oppose not having a main article - what other culture takes this approach? It is a sure way to reduce views by quite a lot. By the way, the original version of the hatnote was introduced here in 2020 (during discussions very similar -both in subject and cast- to this one - see archive 5). Maybe we should remove it and work the same links into the lead? Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2024 (UT

The problem is that it now seems like we never had a clear consensus about what this article here is for, and the article is not working out well. I think the article split is having an impact on editing quality. Maybe you have a clear idea, but please help us see it? What is this article about, and what should not be in it? You mention other culture articles by which I think you mean the ones about modern populations like "Belgians", but these are not generally about historical peoples. The main articles for historical peoples typically focus on history, and so the split here is unusual. (We have three articles which look like main articles.) Without looking I guess the main article about the ancient Persians is not going to exclude discussion of their historical politics? For topics like this their history, with politics, migrations etc, is normally a much better known topic than other cultural aspects like architecture or folklore.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The article should be about the Anglo-Saxons, in all aspects. People (including you and me) have been complaining for several years that there is too much history here (more than in the actual History article apparently). You are completely wrong to guess that I meant modern population articles, and to think that I want to "exclude discussion of their historical politics" when I've clearly said I want to greatly reduce it several times. It is true that many other big historic articles have too large overlaps with their "history" articles, for example Byzantine Empire and Sasanian Empire - Achaemenid Empire perhaps less so. If they get near FAC, this overlap will generally be considerably reduced. I think your "The main articles for historical peoples typically focus on history, and so the split here is unusual" is totally untrue - all such articles have separate "History of ..." articles. What is "unusual", and wrong, is that here the history section in the main article is longer than the "History of..." article. Partly I think this because people over the years keep adding to the wrong article. What are we supposed to make of "For topics like this their history, with politics, migrations etc, is normally a much better known topic than other cultural aspects like architecture or folklore"? I'm now mystified as to what you think the article should be like - please explain. Johnbod (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I don't see myself as having a proposal right now, and certainly not any kind of disagreement. I want to understand what agreed framework we can use, and if I had a vision of that I seem to have lost it. I am finding it difficult to visualize what the three articles should contain and not contain but I am open to different approaches. I understand your description in "theory" but find it difficult to put this split into practice with this particular topic. As you say though, people have apparently been adding to the "wrong" articles, which in other words means that it probably isn't just me struggling with this. Parts of the articles have a very jumbled up feeling as if we have collected notes but not yet worked out how to use them. Could you give examples of other groups of articles which we can look at for inspiration? One thing at least which seems clear is that I may at least keep trying to trim the history section of this article. Concerning the hatnote, do you have any proposal about how to adjust it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Certainly keep trimming the history, which I thought we all agreed was too long. Much of it seems of decent quality, & could probably be moved/merged to the History of article. As I've said above, it should certainly be shorter than the supposed "main" History of article - I think perhaps 50% to 25% of its current length. I take it the 3rd article you mean is the "Settlement" one. I personally don't have a problem with that being the main article for the earliest period, or mainly focussing on historians' debates, though this is an unusual arrangement perhaps. It's not that we have a lot of facts to go on. Lots of long, popular, articles get bitty over the years, & de-jumbling is just a case of slogging through & rewriting, or removing to the History of article. I think the hatnote should probably just be removed, except for a link to the disam page. I think we all agree it doesn't accurately represent the article as it is now, & really as it ever was. Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I've added the useful { {section size} } template to the three big articles - see bottom of the stuff at the top here, which I think makes talking about their respective sizes and internal balances easier. Actually the History sections here and the "History of.." articles are about the same size, and the Settlement one twice as long as the History of.... Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

OK for me for now at least. For now I intend to focus on the settlement period, on all 3 articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

For the big parallel parts of the two articles which I am NOT currently working on, I have set up a drafting page which might help others pick, choose, and meld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_Lancaster/Anglo-Saxon_drafting --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Adjusting hatnote and lead

In the light of the discussion just above, I'd propose changes as follows:

NOW

This article is about Anglo-Saxon culture and society. For historical events in Anglo-Saxon England, see Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain and History of Anglo-Saxon England. For the language, see Old English. For other uses, see Anglo-Saxon (disambiguation).

The Anglo-Saxons, the English or Saxons of Britain, were a cultural group who spoke Old English and inhabited much of what is now England, which is named after them, and south-eastern Scotland in the Early Middle Ages. They traced their origins to Germanic settlers who became one of the dominant cultural groups in Britain during the 5th century. Although the details of early settlement and political development are not clear, a new English cultural identity developed out of the interaction of these settlers with the pre-existing Romano-British culture. Over time, most of the people of what is now southern, central, northern and eastern England came to identify as Anglo-Saxon and speak Old English.

PROPOSED

This article is about Anglo-Saxon England. For other uses, see Anglo-Saxon (disambiguation).

The Anglo-Saxons, the English or Saxons of Britain, were a cultural group who spoke Old English and inhabited much of what is now England, which is named after them, and south-eastern Scotland in the Early Middle Ages. They traced their origins to Germanic settlers who became one of the dominant cultural groups in Britain during the 5th century. Although the details of their early settlement and political development are not clear, a new English cultural identity developed out of the interaction of these settlers with the pre-existing Romano-British culture. Over time, most of the people of what is now southern, central, northern and eastern England came to identify as Anglo-Saxon and speak Old English.

Thoughts? Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Perfectly fine in my book. Trigaranus (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it if we look at only this article in isolation, but how should readers and editors understand the difference between this and the History article? For example, how would we understand the difference between an article about the History of the Roman Republic (an entity which ended a long time ago, and is "historical") and an article about the Roman Republic (which must also be about the history of that same entity)? Sorry if I am being thick here, but I have been struggling to see the difference and I was thinking the hatnote should be more specific, and not less. I am not saying your solution is wrong, but only that I don't yet get it very well.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add a few remarks to try to give more food for thought:

• I think I know what the theoretical suggested answer is Johnbod. I think the idea is that both of the articles will be about historical events, but the main one will be less focussed upon them, and also contain broader discussions about things like culture and society. That is the basis of how I've been trying to work, but at least until now it has led to a very substantial overlap. We have more or less got parallel articles, and I get the impression that ongoing edits have not been heading the articles into two different directions. So part of what I am wondering here is whether this distinction is going to become clearer to readers and editors if we make this change.
• Perhaps another question to ask is whether we should keep the History article as it is, or perhaps respecify its aims a bit.
• OTOH, perhaps the overlap is simply caused by a lack of systematic attention as opposed to edits about specific bits and pieces. Maybe things will head in the right directions once the articles (especially the history sections) are given a bit of a push, to make them more appropriately distinct. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's keep it simple - review both history versions, with a view to shortening one and lengthening the other, sometimes by simple transfer. I made some comments on the Viking raid bits of your useful draft page (on talk). Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• I am not clear what other editors think, but I am happy with the article briefly covering each aspect of the Anglo-Saxons with a 'main' for more details. I think there is room for a culture article similar to Culture of ancient Rome and Culture of ancient Illyria. There do not seem to be separate articles on society so far as I can see and the case is less clear. With regard to Johnbod's proposal, I think the hatnote needs to say that the disambig covers specific aspects as well as other uses. On the last sentence "Over time, most of the people of what is now southern, central, northern and eastern England came to identify as Anglo-Saxon and speak Old English.", I think it would be better to say England apart from the south-west and north-west (the latter then part of Strathclyde). Dudley Miles (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• I must admit I was completely unaware of Culture of ancient Rome, which seems a neglected and little-read article - for some reason its views fell off a cliff about 5 years ago. The 4 or 5 sentences on ancient Roman art are frankly pathetic - the section at Ancient Rome is a good deal longer & better, and that in Roman Empire better still. I'd be loath to take that as a model. They have a different overlap & confusion issue, with various "main" articles: Ancient Rome, Roman Empire and Roman Republic, not to mention other articles like Late antiquity & so on. I think (with policy behind me, I think) that the old hatnote was just much too long, & would prefer to keep it very short and sweet. There is an added link to the history article a line or two in. Your last point, on the geography, relates to text I did not change, & probably should be taken separately - personally I think it would be nice to work in "Anglo-Saxon Scotland" if we can, & if we are trying to explain why people speak English. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• So far as I know you are the only person qualified to write and article on Anglo-Saxon culture so if you disagree with the idea it will not happen. I agree on keeping the hatnote simple. I would delete 'About Anglo-Saxon England' as too restrictive and just have a hatnote {{For|specific aspects and other uses|Anglo-Saxon (disambiguation)}}. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Johnbod yes I am happy to keep working on the principle of shortening/lengthening the history sections, which is what got me worried. Perhaps everything will then look clear (and perhaps I am just looking at it from the point of view of that task). I am not opposed to a shorter hatnote. That might help make it clear that this is the main article, with other articles supporting it. We probably should eventually make more use of "main article" and "see also" template on the sections.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Dudley Miles I've made a slightly different edit based on what you and Johnbod have written. I think the note needs to mention that we are talking about a medieval people (in order not to have any confusion with certain modern concepts).

I am fine with the medieval part, but I think the hatnote should make clear that the disambig does not only deal with different uses, but also aspects of the article's use. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this says a bit more than we actually need, but am fine with it. Cartainly an improvement. I'll add the new links in the text from my proposal "... Although the details of their early settlement and political development are not clear..." Johnbod (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

deleted section

I did a bold edit and deleted a small section which was called Development of an Anglo-Saxon society. [3] It mixes up information found in better discussions in other sections. Aspects of it seem wrong or misleading, such as the emphasis upon Irish and Scottish Christianity, the implication that the Tribal Hideage is from the 6th century, and so on. Perhaps some of this material should be used elsewhere but I did not see any obvious way to do that. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I happened to be reading it just as you deleted it (!) and noticing that it's sourcing was quite ropey...lack of page numbers, Bede and a Channel 4 documentary. DeCausa (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

4690 bytes - not so small. Where do you find the stuff on farms "in better discussions in other sections"? Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Good point. I did not look closely for that particular bit, but now that you mention it the sourcing is better on that little paragraph. The other question in that case is where it should go. This article has sections Settlements and working life, Women, children and slaves, etc, down below. This section here was in a chronological sequence which seemed to imply it was specifically about the 6th century.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you want to have a go recovering that? I'll hold off a bit.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks - had a go, but plse adjust as you like. Shouldn't we have links for some terms? Johnbod (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure which ones you are looking at, but linking is a good idea for terms people aren't familiar with.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon tribe

Only once is the word "tribe" mentioned in this article, and then not even linked. Is there some sort of woke filter being applied? Clearly the Angles and Saxons were each "tribes"? Thus surely the combination was also a "tribe"? This contrasts with the article Bantu peoples which starts: "The Bantu peoples are an ethnolinguistic grouping of approximately 400 distinct native African ethnic groups who speak Bantu languages". Why are people living today in the UK who identify as "Anglo-Saxon" by "ethnolinguistic grouping" not afforded the same courtesy of being recognised as such by Wikipedia? According to this article "Anglo-Saxon" is merely a culture, not a tribe nor an "ethnolinguistic grouping". Assuming that everyone living today belongs to some "ethnolinguistic grouping", maybe to several, to which one would belong a white English person today? It appears that by Wikipedia's definition he would have none at all. Is that a form of intellectual genocide? 2A00:23C6:C42F:3701:F50B:D120:E52B:F0DE (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, you again! The general view among scholars in recent decades is that both the Angles and Saxons were very mixed groups, with members originating from many continental groups that could be called tribes, with the titles Angles and Saxons essentially taken from the tribes of the ruling families. Thus Anglo-Saxons and Bantu peoples are somewhat similar terms, but the AS tribes pretty much got put through the blender in the migration and settlement process. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

And nobody ever calls the Bantu peoples a single "tribe" - "Thus surely the combination was also a "tribe"?" is not how that term (increasingly regarded as unhelpful anyway) is used. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

We've recently gone back to using the term "tribe" on Germanic peoples, but there is and should be some care about the word, and every context is different. First reason is that we are supposed to reflect what experts publish, and they tend to avoid it. Second reason, which probably also explains the first, is that the word is easy to misunderstand. It conjures up many different types of thing, and is not really a term with any single clear definition. The context is important. I think in Germanic peoples the meaning of tribes in such a Roman context was clear enough. (Note that the term tends to always get its meaning from what it is being contrasted with.) But when we talk about Angles and Saxons the context is different, and a lot of what we think we know about the social structures in that period are just guesses which academics don't fully agree about. The contrast being implied between tribal and non-tribal is presumably between Anglo-Saxons and Romano-Britons. Both were cut off from the empire which had once given their society direction, but both had lived within that complex structure for many generations. Both were presumably aiming to build something Roman-like back up again, and they probably worked together on that project to a large extent. Coming back to your rhetorical question, I do not think that people either today or in the past all see themselves as belonging to one, or even several "ethnolinguistic groupings". It seems possible to discuss whether this would be a better term than "cultural group" in this particular case, given that this particular group was eventually apparently defined to some extent by language. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Genetics and Primary Sources

We seem to be rapidly acquiring multiple paragraphs about genetics where we had no such mention before. The first edit was by Andrew Lancaster, here [4], and today a further two paragraphs were added from the same primary source here [5]. I am concerned on a couple of fronts:

1. Information is being duplicated in Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, and there are questions if this page is really the right place for these population genetics. Why do we have two pages if we are putting the same information on both?
2. All three paragraphs use the same single source. The citations don't make this clear as they duplicate rather than reference the first, but they are all the same source. That would not be such in issue, except that this is a primary source, a single study. We should not be doing that.
3. A secondary source on population genetics has been removed for being out of date.

I note, however, that Andrew Lancaster quite rightly removed some summary of genetics in the lead sourced to a newspaper, so what we have is an improvement on that. However, we should really be using secondary sources and not primary studies where we do talk about genetics. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

All reasonable questions. This is just a first thoughtless answer.

• Overlap is a challenge on our Anglo-Saxon articles IMHO. I think anyone who tries to work a bit on them will quickly see what I mean. It feels a bit like we have too many articles sometimes, but I also understand the history and was involved in discussions to get to where we are on that. Perhaps it will get easier as we get the articles more truly separated. In any case this is not just a DNA question, but also involves other sub-sections. See previous discussions on talk pages. In any case of course I agree that there should be one article where the main discussion is, and that would presumably be the settlement one, meaning that this article should get only a short version.
• My fuzzy memory is that summaries of the Gretzinger article involved were starting to populate WP articles and at first we resisted that. Once I spent time on it though I felt that this was one of those articles which is objectively a breakthrough, and is going to keep coming back. It is definitely better than having discussions about Y DNA and so on, and just because of the nature of the study this one is unlikely to be found wrong any time soon. So it seemed better to try using a controlled approach, with short careful summaries of the attributed conclusions which are most obviously relevant. I think we have to do that some times with DNA articles. The field seems to hardly publish anything truly secondary.

Anyway, in practice any big expansions of that material remains a concern to me also. I think that needs to be looked at carefully. Whether I went to far already is also something which can be discussed. I was hesitant and I tried to be careful.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit for now. To explain my reasoning a little more concerning the short summary: If you look above that paragraph you will see a quick summarizing of the obviously important debate over the last generation or so about how many people actually moved. One thing we can say about this article is that the most extreme positions are wrong (which is not unexpected I think). Some aspects of that debate are now superseded speculation, and only interesting in order to see the background. So to hold these simplest conclusions out of WP would therefore feel quite odd, because they so obviously changed the state of the art. OTOH I tried not to go beyond that -at least in this article. The settlement article OTOH probably should have some more DNA discussion but at the moment I feel it still needs more pruning in many sections -not just DNA- in order to make it more clearly focussed, and easier to read and edit.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I did think of reverting as it replaces an overall view with one aspect, but I decided against it. I found the statement about unadmixed immigrants on p. 118 of the Gretzinger paper, but I could not find the percentages in the original version. If the original version is to be retained, then it needs thorough checking against the source. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

That rings a bell. I think there was already a discussion and adjustment on the settlement article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree secondary sources are hard to find on subjects like this. Also yes, way better than all those Y DNA studies on small numbers of individuals. I'm happy with a very cautious approach. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)