Talk:Anglo-Saxons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anglo-Saxons article.
Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities.If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:
Archive
Archives
Archive 1: 11 April 2005 to 10 August 2006
Archive 2

Contents

[edit] Germans in Britain pre-collapse

There were almost certainly significant numbers of Germanic-speaking or Germanic-descended people living in Roman Britain well before the end of the Roman Empire's control of the province. Many Germanic people had been moving inside the borders of the Empire for many generations before the collapse of the Empire, and not just as soldiers: many were farmers and tradespeople too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kozushi (talk • contribs). 10:01, 22 August 2006

[edit] Migration debate

I wonder if the migration stuff should be on a separate page, it rather takes the main page over and could even do with more detail to expound it properly.MarkThomas 19:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The migration stuff should be on Sub-Roman Britain, there should be a brief discussion here, with the main information in the other article. At the moment it is the other way around. The problem is that many editors tend to hold firm convictions one way or the other, it seems a matter of faith to some, like ID or something, so often important information is removed or unreliable sources are used to support one point of view over another. At the moment it's quite ballanced, with all major POVs given, and it would be a shame to upset that equilibrium. Alun 05:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This page seems to be a popular target for vandals.

An obversation: People love to vandalize this page. Is it a serious enough problem for the page to be lockedd, or is it fine as is? Lordofallkobuns 18:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major new genetic study 2006 Oxford

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1393742006 "A MAJOR genetic study of the population of Britain appears to have put an end to the idea of the "Celtic fringe" of Scotland, Ireland and Wales. Instead, a research team at Oxford University has found the majority of Britons are Celts descended from Spanish tribes who began arriving about 7,000 years ago." --Stbalbach 14:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Lovely, about what most other studies show, that any germanic invasion was quite small and that we're all descended from the same source population, the same one that re-populated the region during the mesolithic (it wasn't even an island then). We'll have to find the original paper online, but it might not be available yet, the Anglo-Saxon apartheid paper wasn't available online for a month or so after the press reported it. Alun 15:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A bit more in The Indy [1]. Apparently it's from a book, but surely there will be a peer reviewed article. Alun 17:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look like this is a new study, it's a book written by a geneticist. I am assuming he has used already available research, most academics will write peer reviewed papers for any new research conducted, but books are not peer reviewed, this doesn't look like an academic publication, more a popular science work. It's not a criticism on my part, popular science is important, but it's not aimed at an academic audience and it's not new research. At least he is making an attempt to correct many of the distortions of this work that have occured in the press. It'll probably be a good source for verifiability in the article as well. He may have combined much of the work from previous studies in order to draw better conclusions, the more samples one works with the better the analysis will be. Alun 17:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I must say that you're more optimistic that me Alun. Sykes Seven Daughters of Eve got mixed reviews, this one (British Archaeology, Aug. 2002) isn't exactly glowing. Most worrying from our perspective this remark.

Finally there are no references, bibliography or index to this book. Each statement of fact is unsupported, and for readers who want to find out more, Sykes provides little idea where to begin.

Not very good news at all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


Well I had originally though that it was a new genetic study, which I was looking forward to reading. But this looks like little more than hype for a book. When it's called a major genetic study it's a bit misleading, this doesn't seem to be a study at all. I did a few internet searches looking for the paper for the study but came up empty, then I found the Indy article and realised this was a book they were talking about. When I looked for this bloke online he seems not to have great academic credentials, he seems to be more associated with a company that will tell you your origins if you give them a DNA sample (what a waste of money). Can't find any recent articles by this bloke in scientific peer reviewed journals, so I don't think he is even involved in research at the moment. It may well be that this book doesn't even constitute a reliable source as you say. Oh well, never mind. Alun 08:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

One of the most interesting things that I find in Wiki is how some users seem to think that they have more credibility and credentials than Oxford University Professors and their teams, for example. So, it seems now that Sykes is a charlatan, and Oxford a nest of charlatans, according to some people here. Maybe the people behind this article are also charlatans. It shows the genetic relationship between Iberia and the British Isles. IberiaS is Spain and IberiaP Portugal.

See: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/T03

That paper, that takes into account up to 8 different genetic loci, does not speak very much in favour of the traditional Anglo Saxon theory either. But of course, since it is very much in line with Sykes' book, they must also be charlatans. So forget about it and forget also that Sykes is considered one of the leading and best Population Geneticists in the World. Veritas et Severitas 23:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


The paper you quote has been used and cited in wikipedia, I have told you this at least three times before. Your complaint holds no water, the paper Estimating the Impact of Prehistoric Admixture on the Genome of Europeans is not written by Sykes or any of his team. It is not even produced by Oxford University. I really can't see how this paper supports Sykes academic credentials. Why are you attacking other editors who are acting in good faith? No one here has called Sykes a charlatan, we have merely made several observations. Firstly that this book doesn't seem to be based on any new research, it simply uses already available data. Secondly that his previous book got some poor reviews from other academics. Thirdly that Sykes seems to be more involved with a private company Oxford Ancestors than with any academic research. Do you think that we should all accept what someone says just because they are a professor at a prestigious university? You do not seem to understand that no one is disputing the origin of western Europeans, why should we it's clear that western Europeans are mainly descended from the indigenous paleolithic population that expanded out of the Iberian human enclave after the last major glaciation. I don't understand why you keep saying that wikipedia hasn't acknowledged this when it is clearly stated on the Welsh people page, for example. This observation is not the only, or even the most important thing we can say about any ethnic group. Whay constitutes an ethnic group is social/cultural/political/linguistic, and of course there is an element of race in there, but it is not exclusively about race. What do Welsh, English or Anglo-Saxon languages and culture have in common with Iberian languages and culture, not a great deal. The Iberian and British populations would have diverged millenia ago, everything that has happened in the mean time has produced two very different populations with very different histories etc. To claim they are the same people is not correct. Please try to remember that genetics and race do not define us and are not the main indicators of ethnicity, otherwise we would all be speaking spanish and practicing Roman catholicism. Can you not keep your comments to one talk page, rather than spreading them about, it is impossibly to discuss this subject properly when every reply to a post needs to be made on s different talk page. Alun 04:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Those new findings obsvioulsy have a place in a lot of different articles. I think that you are misinterpreting me. You have a response in the English people's page. Veritas et Severitas 13:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The big picture

I think we may be in danger of missing the big picture here. The genetic evidence that has been coming thick and fast in the last few years is very complex and very interesting, but I think it is vital to ask what it all means in the context of the study of the Anglo-Saxons. In terms of migration, the arguments against a mass-migration/invasion were already stacking up prior to all of this recent work, and there aren't many early medievalists around now who would support the early interpretation. On this basis, I'm not sure we really need say more than "genetic evidence gives further credence to the argument that there was not a mass migration in the fifth and sixth centuries."

In wider terms of cultural identity, it is possible to take the genetic argument and reduce it ad absurdum in that (most would agree) all human cultures share some common heritage if you go back far enough. Cultural identity is a product of human thought, and is not inscribed on strands of DNA. So although the people living in south and east Britain in the early medieval period may have been genetically descended from a much earlier population, they may still have thought of themselves as "Anglo-Saxon" (or West Saxon, Mercian, Christian etc. - people can have multiple and multi-layered identities). This is not to say that people did not define their culture by historical criteria (indeed the written evidence e.g. Bede would suggest that they did), but a whole host of other factors affect it.

A considerable amount of academic research has been done in recent years on just what it meant to be "Anglo-Saxon": I'd like to see this page focus much more on that rather than become overly focussed on genetics. Harthacanute 18:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are absolutely right. The genetic research need a mention, certainly, but as you say it can never define a group of people, many archaeologists had been moving away from invasionist theories for some time before the genetic evidence came to light, the genetic work merely adds weight to the cultural diffusion model, nothing more. Alun 06:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The genetic research obviously also adds weight to the invasionist models which are still equally held by archaeologistis and other academics with cultural diffusion (if not more so). The cultural diffusionist theory itself has also come under increased scrutiny, especially within the past few years, and this makes sense when you look at all the discrepancies in the theory with regards to numerous populatons, the English being only one example. I most importantly need to point out there that although these early genetics studies mainly focus on the biological aspect of descent, you need to remember the obvious importance of socio-cultural and other traits which are passed down through each generation. Harthacanute is correct in saying that all human cultures share some common heritage if you go back far enough, but you are talking about thousands and thousands of years here, and there has been much divergence, separation and isolation of various groups of peoples since then. You need to remember that for the vast majority of our history, transportation and migration was quite difficult and non-existent between many parts of the world. Distinct biological and cultural aspects developed between different peoples, and these continue to be passed down through each generation, but not just simply to what is (attached to strands of DNA). In our modern, materialistic and globalizing world, traditions may not be passed down as much (although there is a movement opposite to this, with people connecting more so with their roots), but in pre-20th century societies, these traditions would regularly be passsed down through each family and each person from our ancestors and many non-physical traits (psycho-behavioural) are even still passed down, even if some people are unaware of such trait(s). The strong importance of descent in ethnic or cultural identification, around the world, needs to be stressed here and not simply in biological aspects, but also in the socio-cultural.

In terms of ethnographic studies, I feel I need to elaborate more on how many academics (if not most), whether they be historians, archaeologists, etc. still hold a great degree of credence in the invasionist and migrationist models. Again, although there has been evidence stacked up against it in many cases, the same goes to be said about the cultural diffusionist theory. The early studies in population genetics can (and have) added weight to both views, but many of the findings are being interpreted in various (and many incorrect) manners by some, usally with political leanings. Much of the "findings" by some early Y-chromosomal work in the British Isels for example is nothing new when you read up on work of 20th century physical anthropolgists (Carleton Coon for example knew about the strong existence of celtic and pre-celtic elements in the English population, especially in western England, in the 1930's). However, alot of such work has been too easily discredited by academics, especially with those of some assimilationist, anti-"racial", ethnic nihilist ideologies and this is also the case with many of the early population genetics studies. Migrationist and cultural diffusionist theories are both widely held by many and its difficult to say (with the absence of many polls on the subject anyway) which is held over the other as it varies from department to department, institution to institution, and from country to country. Ciao, Epf 23:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • genetic research obviously also adds weight to the invasionist models- I have seen none. Invasionist models stress the complete displacement of one population by another. It is clear that in the British Isles there is no evidence, either biological or archaeological that this has happened anywhere. The most elaborate attempt to use genetics as the basis for an invasionist model is Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration, but this paper suffers from some important systemic problems, mainly that it's sample area was subsequently shown to be that with the largest amount of germanic input of anywhere in England, was small (only covering East Anglia and the midlands), and their inability to differentiate between Danish and Anglo-Saxon genes. Even with this paper they only claim a 50-100% replacement of Y chromosomes, and also state that they cannot distinguish between an event that merely suplemented pre existing genes from one where there was displacement. Alun 07:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
good point made Alun, but invasionist and migrationist models don't necessarily stress the compelte dislacement of a population by another. Some may hold this view, but they are a minority in the case of the English, and have been so for some time now. Invasionist and migrationist models strictly point out that there have been significant migrations of people into other areas that were already inhabited by other peoples. Whether they assmilated and mixed with the earlier population or remained distinct groups (more common in Asia and Eastern Europe) is another matter, but again the theory doesn't imply the migrating population compeltely displaced the earlier population, at least demographically. As for that study and the other Y-chrom. studies in the British Isles, they're not able to fully conclude much on the origins of the British population for reasons we have already discussed in previous discussions. What I did intend to say was that both Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration and "A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles" (pdf) give some info. which adds some support to aspects of cultural diffusion and migration/invasionist theories since they give some "evidence" for both some degree of Germanic migrations and for continuing existence of strong pre-Germanic elements in the population of England. Epf 02:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Well invasionist theories certainly did stress the complete displacement of one population by another, in England anyway. One might even argue that it was the purpose of invasionist theories to do this, these are derived partly from a desire by English/Anglo-Saxon people to have a creation myth. As you say it's about identity, creation myths or myths of descent (and often a common descent is more percieved than real) are a good way to do this, suddenly Angles/Saxons/Frisians et al. can become one people that are different to Welsh or Scots, they created their nation de Novo from several closely related ethnic groups, but in order to do this they needed a bond to identify with each other, so an exageration of the invasion that means that the whole population is descended from the invaders produces the desired effect (I'm not trying to imply a deliberate deception here). If their creation myth had been assimilatory, then it wouldn't have been much cop at producing a common identity. Certainly there was migration from the continent by people speaking German languages, but no one has ever claimed that there wasn't, the only debate has been about the extent of migration. In any cultural diffusion model there has always been an element of migration, or how else would the culture be diffused? It seems likely that in all mass migrations what has really happened is a limited movement of people, spreading their culture and technology, this is what a cultural diffusion is. It probably explains why the neolithic expansion (another example of a population supposedly completely replacing another that has been shown to be wrong) only appears to have had a large impact in the east of Europe. Alun 05:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Invasionist and migratoinist theories also implied merely that were a significant movement of people that may or may not have largely replaced the earlier populations. I agree with most of your other points here except again that a common descent can also be in many cases more real than perceived. In terms of the mass migrations, in many cases the culture develops much more gradually implying a smaller movement of people that intermingles with and is absorbed into the original population. However, there are many cases where there is an almost complete change in culture that is quite sudden, implying a much larger population movement which has a higher demographic impact when intermingling with the original population. Such stark changes also usually imply a larger migration when the original culture being replaced usually isnt any less developed/advanced. Ciao, Epf 07:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • remember that for the vast majority of our history, transportation and migration was quite difficult- Quite, it's one of the reasons why migrationist models are less popular now. Alun 07:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
True, but I was speaking specifically about certain instanes and periods of time. Before the development of organized farming and more sophisticated cultures, groups would remain far more isolated and be fairly restricted from making such migrations. However, by the time of the Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age, etc. this became less and less the case (especially in Europe) as technology developed with particular advancements in both sea (eg. the Galley) and land travel (eg. the Wheel and Husbandry). Epf 02:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • academics (if not most), whether they be historians, archaeologists, etc. still hold a great degree of credence in the invasionist and migrationist models.- Certainly not most, but invasionist theories do seem to ignore the difficulties in mobilising the mass movement of peoples in the absence of any transportation network, arround a continent that was very heavily forrested, as per your comment just above above. Alun 07:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
As per my previous comment, these difficulties began to change by the time of the Neolithic and especially the Bronze Age. Epf 02:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • easily discredited by academics, especially with those of some assimilationist, anti-"racial", ethnic nihilist ideologies- I would claim the opposite, those people that are convinced that migrations must have occured are closed minded individuals who seem to hold to the invasionist theories as a matter of faith, they are not really interested in truth so much as propagating theories that really are being shown to be old fashioned and just plan wrong. Alun 07:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes Alun, some of those who see the migrationist model as completely removing earlier populations would follow your description and themselves have some controversial and ideological leanings. Basically, it can be said that there are people supporting both theories with their own ideological goals rather than searching for the facts. Epf 02:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • these traditions would regularly be passsed down through each family and each person from our ancestors and many non-physical traits (psycho-behavioural) are even still passed down- Quite, ethnicity is about society/culture/language, most importantly a sense that our group is different to the group in the next valley, it's about a the sense of identity, not about biology. You have hit the nail firmly on the head. In this sense the Anglo-Saxons were not an ethnic group, so much as several ethnic groups that over time merged into a nation. This reinforces Harthacnut's original point I think. Alun 07:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't see how it reinforces his point but the Anglo-Saxons were a group of culturally and ethnically (to a degree) related peoples and they all did share varying aspects of culture and descent, especially the Frisians, Saxons and Angles, and less so the Jutes (all speakers of the proto-Anglo-Frisian or Ingvaeonic language). You are right that it is about that sense of identity, and that sense involves descent as well as socio-cultural traits and language which may or may not develop/be related to a groups common descent. Ciao, Epf 02:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, identity certainly involves a percieved common descent, and to any ancient population percieved common descent is the same as descent. Sometimes a percieved common descent will be a real common descent, sometimes it will be due to a myth, but the population would not know the difference. Untill recently most people, myself included, would have considered English people not to be descended at all from the pre-Roman inhabitants of Great Britain, because that's what we were taught, that English people were all descended from invaders (except for Cornish people, who were not English, but happened to live in England). The way I think it pans out is that Anglo-Saxons are the descendants of several seperate ethnic groups. Angles, Saxons, Jutes etc. must have reproduced with the indigenous populations when they settled, and we can have no idea how the indigenous/immigrating populations contributed to these respective cultures. Over time these ethnic groups developed into several nations, eventually due to the Viking attacks there was pressure for them to unify into a single nation, the Anglo-Saxons, under Alfred and his descendants. Ultimately this formed the nucleus of the English nation, which also included other assimilated groups, Danes amongst others. Alun 05:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Perception is far more important than reality. Early medieval kings across western Europe loved drawing up geneologies to prove their ancestry, but as David Dumville et al have shown through textual analysis, these geneologies tell us far more about the politics of the time than they do about true ancestry. Ancestry wasn't some passive trait, but was actively used in the formation of identities across the period. That's why migration myths were so important to people living at the time (cf. Bede/Anglo-Saxon Chronicle etc.). To move things on: how can we summarise all these arguments effectively in the article? Harthacanute 06:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the vast majority of cases, that percieved common descent is in fact actual but that it is where this common descent ends/begins that which is where the common identification is outlined. The population does in most cases know that their descent is real based on shared traits generally associated with such and the ability to trace aspects such as surnames to ones ancestors. Although many of us were long taught that English people were all descended, in full, from the Anglo-Saxons or other invaders is definitely more of an exagearrated or altered creation of history, but the common descent does not have to mean that we are all descended mainly or compeltely from these people. Common descent means that there exists some degree of common genealogy between all members of the group and in this case, all English can trace some degree of ancestry to the Anglo Saxons as well as the pre-celtic/celtic inhabitants of England. Some English in can trace ancestry to other groups as well, such as Danish-Vikings for many in Eastern England, or to (a very small degree) the Normans in families who have such "aristocratic" lineage. So although presumed descent may not be actual complete descent from the same original group, it does in most cases mean some degree of actual descent to that group (or groups). Just because someone from Plymouth may have more significant pre-celtic ancestry than someone from Norwich who has more Anglo-Saxon ancestry, doesn't mean they don't both still have these elements in their genealogy. Agree with rest of your points made Alun. Epf 08:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, it's the descent from pre-Anglo-Saxon times that has in the past been neglected, but it is for sure that common descent doesn't necessarily signify exclusive descent from a single ancient group. But it is apparent that this is presicelly what most people do mean by common descent, and it is something you have argued for in the past. It's also not apparent that there wasn't a considerable degree of ethnic diversity within the pre-Roman brythonic tribes of Great Britain, well it says it all that they formed different tribes, and therefore different ethnic groups. Likewise there was ethnic diversity within the Anglo-Saxon world, different groups certainly recognised each other as distinct, Angles weren't Saxons, and Jutes were different again, and of course they formed different states, Mercians were different from Wessexians (eh? did I just make that word up?). Maybe it's just my POV but it seems to me more accurate to think of (at least early Anglo-Saxons) as different ethnic groups that were related, rather than a single group. So the converse can also be true, that peoples that are somewhat homogeneous biologically can identify as ethnically distinct, especially if they have different dialects and/or religious practices. Alun 12:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that exclusive common descetn is what people mean in some cases and you seem to be mistaking me for someone else because I have never argued for exclusive descent to the Anglo-Saxons or any other group. There was ethnic diversity in pre-Anglo-Saxon Britain, notably between the Brythons and the Scots and the Picts, but there was also a great degree of variation between the Brythons themselves (notably, even at that time, evidenced from physical anthropology the tribes of Wales and South-West England differened in numerous aspects from the tribes of the eastern parts of Britain; this can still be seen today with the higher frequency of somewhat darker complexions in Cornwall, Devon, West Midlands and parts of Wales). The early Anglo-Saxons did each have their own ethnic groups (Angles: Mercia and Northumbria, Saxons: Wessex, Jutes: Kent) with their own common descent an cultures, but they also shared elements of such with each other and could all trace heritage back to the Ingaevones. They were disinct but were also related, and in time became even more so until they coalescedin to Anglo-Saxons and subsequently (along with Britons and Danes) into English. Epf 06:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

all English can trace some degree of ancestry to the Anglo Saxons as well as the pre-celtic/celtic inhabitants of England

This is irrelevant, we are not talking about English, we are talking about Anglo-Saxons. Where your reasoning is flawed is that you are talking about the English having a percieved common descent that is real. Well it is a matter of interpretation as to whether it is real. It is quite correct that one can look at it from the point of view that Germanic people are the ancestors of nearly all of the populations of England, as are the Brythonic people and that the relative contributions of these groups are irrelevant. This is a reasonable statement from a modern perspective, taking into account the perception of common descent of English people. But it's just a way of distorting the past so that it better fits the picture of a common descent you already have. It ignores the view that the common descent is more percieved than real. What I mean is this, West Saxons did not see themselves as East Anglians, to a West Saxon his idea of common descent was that he shared it with other West Saxons and not with East Anglians. Likewise with the Brythonic people, the Iceni would not have percieved themselves as having a common descent with the Dumnonians. Indeed one can look at it from the point of view that the West Saxons were mainly descended from Brythonic people, with bit of Saxon thrown in, whereas the East Anglians were largelly descended from Angles with a bit of Iceni thrown in. None of the Brythonic and Teutonic source populations for both of these two de Novo Anglo-Saxon ethnic groups would necessarily have recognised common descent outside of their groups, neither would the new groups have recognised a common descent with each other. Neither do we know how different the two groups may have been from each other, they may have been very different indeed, given the far greater indigenous input into the West Saxon group than into the East Anglian one. If one wants to use genetic data to proove common descent, then it's easy, especially in Europe, one only has to go back far enough untill one finds a place where there is common descent, all human populations share common descent. I may be wrong, but I think you are placing too much emphasis on how people today identify and how the past proves that English people have common origins. But this goes back to a comment I made to you several weeks ago, which is that given these various peoples have lived on the same bit of world for well over a millenium they are bound to have a common biological descent, there can be no way of their not reproducing with each other quite a lot over the course of 60 odd generations. Even so there is quite significant genetic heterogeneity within England, this can be interpreted in the opposite way to your interpretation, that there was a lot of ethnic heterogeneity within the early medeaeval English world. I can't help but feel that you are trying to interpret all of these data to make then fit in with what you already have decided is the truth. At least you now accept that there is a significant Brythonic contribution in England, in the past you have claimed that English people are demonstrably physically different from Welsh people because they are of Germanic descent and the Welsh are of Brythonic descent. Alun 05:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Alun, the perceived common descent of ethnic English is actual and you are simiply incorrect if you claim otherwise. As for the West Saxons, they did identify a more closer common descent with other West Saxons, but they also obviously identified a common descent with the East Anglians and other "Anglo-Saxon groups" to either the native Britons they had all intermigled with already or their shared Germanic lineage originally traced back to the Ingaevones. You are making some really unfoudned claims in your discourse here. The Germanic peoples who came here could all trace a common descent with each other that is closer than with any other groups at that time. The level of indigenous component into the West Saxons is likely to have been higher as based on various sources but it is hardly belived to be just "a little but" of Saxon thrown in, but it currently can not be said with conclusive accuracy. In any case, the Angles and the Saxons could trace and did recognize a common descent and this was reinforced as both groups intermingled with native Britons when they settled in their various regions in Britain. You are correct that all human populations share a common descent for the most part (there are theories which state that some groups can claim descent to sub-species not shared with other human groups, see Multiregional hypothesis), but we are speaking over thousands and thousands of years with populations varying and further dividing into more and more sub-groups and populations. The ethnic identifcation and recognition of Kinship and Descent details where the construct is or where line is actually drawn on this. I don't know what you mean by "placing to much emphasis" on how people identify with this since it is emphasized by most people as one of the main factors in ethnic identifcation. The past is obviously there to represent the common descent of a people, including the English since it shows what groups that we can all recognize a common descent from. You are rigth that these popualtions had lived in a close and somewhat isolated geographic proximity for quite sometime and obviously would develop a more distinct common descent (as I've repeatedly explained, the descent is not just based on biological factors, its also in other elements passed down familially). There is a fair degree of genetic heterogeneity in England with different groups settling in different regions but there is also a homogenous descent to ancient Britons and the Anglo-Saxons that all ethnic Enligsh retain (obviously descent is more important and homogenous with some ethnic groups than others, the Irish probably being the most homogenous ethnic group out of the peoples in the Isles, in part due tot the Gaelic, kinship-based clan-system). In the early middle ages in England, the heterogeneity obviously was significantly greater since the populations had not intermingled nowhere near as much due to the relatively recent amount of time in contact with each other and the existence of disinct political and cultural entities. I find it funny you say I am interpreting all these data to fit in with what I consider "the truth" since the same can be said about you and many other people who may be interpreting it in way that supports some ideological goals or opinions. I am merely interpreting the data in a correct historical context based on other historical, archaeological and especially anthropolgical evidence that has provided some evidence which is very reliable in most aspects. Also, I never questioned that there was a very significant Brythonic and pre-Brythonic component in England, I only emphasized that he Anglo-Saxon element in turn also remained a very significant element within the population. The majority of ethnic English do have a higher amount of Germanic descent than Welsh people who in contrast still trace practically all their heritage to pre-celtic/celtic Britons. The English are a mix of predominantly ancient British with Germanic elements while the Welsh are even more predominantly descended from (certain tribes of) the anicent British. Ciao Epf 06:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • the perceived common descent of ethnic English is actual and you are simiply incorrect if you claim otherwise.
This is irrelevant, the article is not about English people, it's about Anglo-Saxons, Anglo-Saxons were not English people. English people have a descent from the ancient populations of Europe, but their descent is mixed. I never claimed that their descent is not common, but it's common only in that they are descended from the population that lived in the same geographical area in antiquity. Think about what you are saying, all you are saying is English people have a common descent because they are descended from their own ancestors. This is little more than a statement of the bleeding obvious. Is a person from Devon descended from the same people that a person from Yorkshire is? Would their ancestors in the sub-Roman period have recognised each other as belonging to the same ethnic group? Did they even speak mutually comprehensible dialects? did they have the same cultural practices? were social practices the same? did they owe allegience to the same nobles? I really don't think you can claim with any certainty that they were. The question is this, did their ancestors in various different regions of what is now England recognise each other as belonging to the same ethnic group. You are using modern concepts of the nation and applying them to populations that lived in much smaller groups, call them tribes if you will, but there is no evidence that these tribes were a unified ethnic group or identified as such, either during pre-Roman or early Anglo-Saxon times. Alun 10:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I can't be bothered to reply to the rest of your post, it doesn't address my post at all, and misrepresents what I have said. I will say this though, multiregionalism makes no evolutionary sense. The only people that could believe this bunk are those with little or no understanding of biology or evolution. Humans are a single species, the evolution of populations independently in different continents from pre-existing races (to a biologist the terms sub-species and race are more or less synonymous, any classification below the species level is arbitrary and amounts to little more than geographically distributed polymorphism) would have lead to us being seperate species, there are far too many fixed alleles on the human genome for us to have had such a diverse origin as a species. Alun 10:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
This discussion seems to be serving no purpose with regard to improving the article, if we mean to continue it we should do so on our user talk pages.
  • same can be said about you and many other people who may be interpreting it in way that supports some ideological goals or opinions
Not really, I have not made any claims to truth or fact, I have simply pointed out that your analysis is not a concrete fact and that many people hold different points of view, much of the data you use to support your position can equaly be interpreted in other ways to support different positions. I suspect that this is because you think you know the facts and want to massage the evidence to support what you know. For example you have, in the past, repeatedly tried to dismiss the genetic data that show that there is no exclusive descent from Germanic tribes in England, now you appear to accept these data, but are trying to pass them off as a common descent, conveniently ignoring the regional heterogeneity within the English gene pool. This heterogeneity, I might add, ammounts to the sort of geographically distributed polymorphism that could be used to define different races, though I think the concept of race is nonsensical from a biological point of view. Indeed claiming that English people have a common descent because they are all descended from different peoples known to have settled in, well England, in antiquity ammounts to little more than sophistry. I have a healthy scepticism towards all points of view, and am perfectly happy to accept that your interpretation is a valid point of view, I have said as much above, it is not a point of view I share, but I have no firm convictions one way or the other, I tend to the view that new evidence will undoubtedly cause me to modify my interpretations, and that there are many ways to view and interpret history. I have said before, and I'll say it again, Simon James's An Alternative History of the Celticness applies here, he may be talking about Celts but many of his observations apply equally to Anglo-Saxons. In many ways your blind faith in many things reminds me of the sort of arguments I have had with creationists. Whatever, we should continue this on my talk page. Alun 06:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Nor have I ever claimed that my analysis is concrete "fact" and I acknowledge people interpret the data from different perspectives. However, I am claiming what is in accordance with other historical and anthropological evidence, epsecially from physical anthropology. I have again, never in the past tried to completely dismiss data that happens to show the English are not exclusively descended from Anglo-Saxons, and have ALWAYS stressed the descent of English to a mix of ancient Britons (pre-celtic/Celtic Brythons) and Germanic Anglo-Saxons (and knew such from sources before any of these limited studies were published). You really have a terrible time understanding my discourses for some reason and I am by no means "dismissing" anything as common descent, I am only pointing out that all ethnic English trace a common descent to the Brythons and to the Anglo-Saxons. There is regional variation within the English gene pool, but it is by no means as heterogenous as you think (or would like to think) and the population is in fact fairly homogenous (despite some differences, all tracing a degree of common ancestry to Brythonic peoples and Anglo-Saxons). I'm not going to get into discussing "race" since it is an attempted classification of strictly biological features. I am by no means claiming that the English people claim a common descent only to peoples that "simply settled in England" and the descent is an actual one to the Brythons and Anglo-Saxon peoples who intermingled with each other to form the demographic basis for the English people. I obviously also have a "healthy" criticism and skepticism to many points of view, including your own ridiculous viewpoints on some matters. I however am very confident with what I belive as "fact" on some of these matters based on the correlations I have made from various historical, genetic and especially anthropological data. New evidence ultimately causes one to analyze his/her opinons and what is currently perceived as fact, but such evidence needs to be thoroughly analyzed before being seen as reliable and also put into comparison with previous studies as well as other sources of information. In many ways, you make amusing claims in your discourses which really displays how little value I put into your opinons on ethnic group or anthropology related subjects. Your comment above claiming some "blind faith" I supposedly have in my arguments as being similar to those used by creationalists is one prime example, especially when considering someone as skeptical as me. You are the one who has consistently put so much faith in new, limited and unreliable studies without having much knowledge on other evidence involved in such topics. I am an empiricist (i.e. how all scientists are supposed to analyze) in these matters and I value all types of evidence that I have come across (some more reliable than others) and use such evidence to easily debunk conclusions or misinterpretations from some sources (especially newer studies) which some people immediately accept as so conclusive. My arguments are obviously about as far away from "blind faith" as you can get and I do not see how you would make such an amusing correlation. This is what your arguments have resorted to ? Ciao, Epf 12:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You are the one who has consistently put so much faith in new, limited and unreliable studies
I have only ever tried to include molecular biological observations based on what the original authors claim. I have no view one way or the other regarding the biological origins of the British population, I simply do not know and do not claim to know, I have simply tried to include information from science. I do not think it matters one way or another if English/British people are all biologically related or not, but if there is evidence that shows that they are, then it needs to be included, just as evidence that shows that they are not needs to be included. Why do you state that the studies are unreliable? These are reputable academics with no axe to grind that have produced work of sufficient quality for t to be published in a peer reviewed journal. It may be in it's infancy, and there may be many more surprises in the future, but it's not unreliable. It's certainly a great deal more reliable than measuring a few bones!!! Alun 13:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • your own ridiculous viewpoints on some matters.
Thanks very much. Love you too. Alun 13:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • how little value I put into your opinons
Wikipedia is collaborative, we should all value each other's contributions. I do not agree with your POV, but I have never stated that your opinions have no value, just that I disagree with them. You are being very charming today. Alun 13:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • such evidence needs to be thoroughly analyzed before being seen as reliable
The evidence is published in peer reviewed journals, obviously we cannot analyse it here, wikipedia does not publish original thought. We state what the scientists conclusions are, plain and simple. If other scientists dispute the findings we include that as well, we do not include our own opinions of the work, this would be original research and/or point of view.Alun 13:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There is regional variation within the English gene pool, but it is by no means as heterogenous as you think (or would like to think)
I have nowhere made any case that the heterogeneity is great or small, I have simply stated that it exists. Why do you assume that I have any opinion at all regarding the extent of heterogeneity? But it does exist, as you agree. Indeed from what I understand of the genetic work the whole of the British Isles are all very closely biologically related. You can't have it both ways, that English people are biologically distinct to non-English people in the British Isles, while still having a substantial Brythonic component to their gene pool. Indeed it is me who has been saying that the data imply that most British people are very similar from a genetic point of view. The difference between the English and the non-English is therefore primarily cultural/social/linguistic rather than biological (as it would be if mass migration followed by displacement had occured), which is where we came in I think. Alun 13:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


Harthacanute, although many kings liked to draw up genealogies to prove their ancestry, in most caes they were able to prove actual lines of descent. Ancestry was used in the formation of identities in that period and others but it was based from the identification of a common ancestry within a group of people, in the case of the English to the Anglo-Saxons (as well as to Brythonic celts and pre-celts, even if this may have been distored by early historians). Those migrations were hardly "myths" of any sort and although they were obviously exaggerated in their details by some of those ancient historians, they were drawing upon the reality in at least some aspects, including a common descent of people to those migrating groups. I do not understand your point that these "historical" accounts were so important "to move things on", especially since they were written during times of numerous battles and conflicts between the Anglo-Saxons, Britons, Scots, Picts, etc. Whatever reason for their completion, it seems to me they only tried to record the reasons for some of the differences in origins between the peoples of Britain at that time. Epf 08:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


We seem to be going round in circles. My line is simply that of the majority of early medievalists (Catherine Hills "Origins of the English" provides a good short summary) which seeks to balance the various types of evidence - textual, archaeological, linguistic, onomastic, genetic and so on. Perhaps, Epf, you could summarise the points you wish to make on this page and then we can move towards creating some kind of synthesis. Harthacanute 09:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm waiting on my copy of Catherine Hills book, amazon are being a bit slow, can't imagine why they are finding it so difficult to get me a copy. Alun 05:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the main idea

hey. this article tends to go off track in some genetic tangent or whatever. lets try to get across what they did, like who conquered them, who tried to, etc. my high school english text book had more clarity when talking about the anglo saxons than this article does. so in the meantime ill be using that.

Your school book is probably wrong. Alun 14:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/g/Talk%7EAnglo-Saxons_11dd.html"