Talk:Anglo-Saxons/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Germans in Britain pre-Romancollapse (Pre 410 AD) 2 Migration debate AD 410 to AD 449 3 The Migration debate - Adventus Saxonum AD 449 4 Major new genetic study 2006 Oxford 5 The big picture 6 the main idea 7 Anglo Saxon warfare 7.1 Anglo-Saxon Warfare 8 "New" study 9 Oppenheimer 10 Fair use rationale for Image:Alfred jewel.JPG 11 Recent Vandalism by 69.137.79.18 12 England/Great Britain 13 Neutrality/Accuracy 14 This page seems to be a popular target for vandals. 15 Vandalism by 84.13.253.172 16 Removal of content vandalism by Nebulousity 17 Contemporary meanings 18 Removal of the Y Choromosome 'evidence' 19 Removal of text about Britons.

Germans in Britain pre-Romancollapse (Pre 410 AD)

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

Where is the evidence that there were 'significant numbers' of Saxons in Britain before the end od the Roman era?

Tacitus describes the Germanic mercenaries (who were used all over the Roman Empire,) in the Romano-Brythonic areas of Pre Roman Collapse Britain as the 'foderati'. The Romans never truly won over the 80 or so Germanic tribes on the continent and it suited them better to use them as mercenaries. Germanic 'foederati' were used in the Legions and possibly ironically to man the Saxon Shore Forts along the East coast of what is now modern England. They were there to prevent Saxon sea raids from the Elbe / Wesser / Rhine areas of what is now modern Germany Hartram 10:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Migration debate AD 410 to AD 449

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)

The Migration debate - Adventus Saxonum AD 449

It does seem that people are trying to cut out any debate on 'what is known' in this section so here is my studied contribution.

ADVENTUS SAXONUM

('The Coming of the Saxons')

Picture a land, which for 400 years had been settled by a combination of old Roman soldiers, their myriad of mercenaries, and Celts. The Romans had gone, leaving this people collectively known as the Britons or Brythons. Not all was peaceful. The Brythons fought with the Picts from Scotland and the Irish. In 447 AD the Brythons inflicted a massacre on the Picts and Irish under their King Vortigern. But he was under pressure. He knew they would be back. We know this because St Germanus had arrived from the continent and recorded it.

Only a short sail away - across the North Sea - in and around what is now Denmark (Jutland,) lived three formidable Germanic tribes. They in turn may have had connections with the East. Collectively they can be called the Saxons. The Northern most tribe were the Jutes in an area where people are still known by that name. Below them geographically were the Angles who lived by the Baltic in an area known as Angeln – which itself means, "hook", as in ‘angling’ for fish. To the South of them were the Saxons, regarded by Charlemagne (himself a renowed warrior,) as ‘ferocious’. The word 'Saxon' is believed to be derived from the word ‘Seax,’ their formidable fighting knife. All three tribes were excellent sailors long before the Vikings. They used Keel Boats – similar to Long Boats. These tribes would be very familiar with the North Sea. These three tribes would have got to hear about Vortigerns troubles. The Saxons in particular were no strangers to raiding and acting as mercenaries for others. The Brythons called these mercenaries ‘foederati’.

Comsequently in about 450 AD the great Jutish warrior leader Hengest arrived on the shores of Britain with "3 keels" of warriors, at the place called Ypwinesfleot and was welcomed by King Vortigern. In Latin this was termed the "adventus Saxonum" or ‘the coming of the Saxons.’ Two years later, Hengest invited his son Octha from Germany with "16 keels" of warriors, to occupy northern coastal areas and provide a defence against the Picts. It was a long time before the Picts troubled the country again. They had probably never encountered anything like a Saxon war band before.

Yet they were not just here to act as mercenaries and by 453 AD they were getting restless. They knew their business as warriors, and were more homogenous than the remnants of Roman Briton. They would have looked different to the various tribes of Brythons, who called the Anglo-Saxons ‘‘pale faces.’’ Their incredible stamina and fighting ethos reflected this. They could move very fast, and to understand how they would defeat weak Romano-British tribes, one should appreciate that they would be in an area before the tribe knew it. Once there they had tactics and cohesion and yes, at times, a merciless nature.

Things moved fast. Like the Anglo-Saxon war bands themselves. And around 456 AD there was a massacre of 300 leading Britons by the Saxons. In the following year, Vortigern was burnt to death by the Saxons. This growing imbalance caused a panic migration, c.458-60 AD, Romano-British aristocrats and city-dwellers to North-western France. It became known as Brittany (Little Britain,) thereafter. It was a sign of the stampede that was to come. At one point it is recorded that the Briton appealed to a Roman commander Aetius for help, ‘’the barbarians (Saxons,) push us back to the sea, the sea pushes us back to the barbarians; between these two kinds of death, we are either drowned or slaughtered.’’ Rome could not help.

In 473 AD the same Saxon warrior leader Hengest, leading his Saxon warriors, now known as The Men of Kent, moved Westward, driving the Britons before them ‘’as one flees fire.’’

In 477 AD the Saxon chieftain Ælla landed on Sussex coast with his sons at Selsey Bill. The Britons attacked him, but his Shield Wall tactics drove them into the forest (now known as the Sussex Weald.) Over the following decade the Saxons expanded their coastal occupation in Sussex (land of the South Saxons.) Towns like Brighton (Bright Helm,) would have seen much sea traffic with ‘Old Saxony.’ In 486 AD Ælla and his sons met the Britons in battle at Mercredesburne. The battle was bloody, but indecisive, and ended with a truce. Hengest died around 493 AD, leaving his territory to be ruled by his son Aesc for the next 34 years. In 495 AD, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that Cerdic and his son Cynric, landed on the South Coast possibly at Calshot (Cerdic Shore,) near Southampton. Another great Saxon warrior, he was to form the land of the West Saxons - Wessex.

They were soon joined by more Jutes, and the Angles, whose land was becoming increasingly flooded by the sea. In fact Angeln is still poorly populated now. Many burial sites show that the Angles and Saxons lived side by side. Paul The Deacon called them the Angli Saxones. They called themselves the Anglecynn (‘cynn’ = folk,) From the word Angle we get England and English.

Several hundred years of fighting culminated in 937 AD at the battle of Brananburgh, or the 'Battle of the Five Armies' possibly near Burnley in Lancashire. Athelstan, King of Wessex and of all Anglo-Saxons, grandson of Alfred the Great, delivered a final and crushing defeat on a combined force of Picts, Irish, and Britons. The battle turned into a 30 mile wide retreat with the Anglo-Saxon army inflicting huge slaughter. England was born. The Jutes occupied Kent and the Isle of Wight. The Saxons formed Wessex (West Saxons,) Essex (East Saxons,) Sussex (South Saxons,) Middlesex (Middle Saxons.) The North Angles formed Northumbria (people North of the River Humber.) Middle Angles formed Mercia, and East Angles formed East Anglia.

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)

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)

The debate on DNA seems to have some sort of twist as to whether the English are Iberian Celts or Anglo-Saxon, a debate which seems to centre on a Scots Welsh desire to consider themselves Celtic. Unfortunate even here the Celt argument falls foul of the fact that most Scots for example, are Anglo-Norse. Most of the UK is Anglo-Norse. The only true people who pre-date the Roman invasion are the Gaels of Ireland. In reality Celts looked quite different to all who live in the UK. Quite simply because they looked like Basques from Southern France. We in the UK are more homegenous that we realise. That is - Anglo-Norse - in particular - Anglo-Saxon. That is why the archeaology, DNA, language, and culture including place names are Anglo-Saxon. Take Edinburgh in Scotland. It is named after Edwin a Saxon. Edwins Burgh. Edwins town {unsigned}

There was a programme on channel recently (arguing against homogeneity)in which the tabloid journalist Gary Bushel was seemingly shocked to discover that in the last hundred years, one of his ancestors was black:}, the argument being that more people are of "mixed race than realise (perhaps especially in the Roamn founded city of London which would have had Syrians and Italians etc who became Roamano-Britons) Also, you do notice people with darker hair and skin pigmentation in some parts of Britain (Tom Jones is not a typical of some Welsh valleys and possibly this is not due to recent admixture of differnt populations on the "original" group). In fact I remember reading that a Roman author (possibly Agricola but Id have to search it out) claimed that the Britons of what is now Wales were "Iberian" in appearance, and not red haired. Also in a paper that I think is linked on this page somewhere, the evidence points to the "Scots" in fact being mostly "britons" (ie P Celtic and neither Anglo Norse or Irish Celtic, and the same for England (though I bet there are differences between the West and the East of Britain, with the East being more Germanic,. and the West more Celtic:}}82.41.4.66 21:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a student of Celtic studies and the more I have studied the more worried I have got about interpretations of 'Celtic'influence on modern UK. Although I am not studying in the UK I know enough through a friend from North Wales that the Brythons (as the term Celt was never used by Brythons or Romans,)were in fact dark skinned as my friend is, as you state. The Brythons called the Saxon tribes 'Pale Skins'. My friend insists that he looks like a Brython. And I am afraid that Tom Jones is not a good one to quote as a sign of authority. For the simple reason that he is 1/4 Black Afro-Caribbean. As for Gary Bushell - well the DNA study is badly done because all people\in the UK have Black Genes as do alot of Irish people. 1 in 20 landowners in the UK was Black post the Slave Trade. The light skin of people in the UK comes from the fact that they are Anglo-Norse - as a predominant DNA trait that has come through. A recent study by UCL shows this clearly

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/capelli-CB-03.pdf

As I have said elsewhere - I am only interested in what is known and written. And it does not favour a Celtic Briton. 'Celts' being a modern term and the fact that just by appearance most people in the Uk are Anglo-Norse. Basques are probably the only real 'Celts' now. Probably due not just to the initial Saxon migration - but because of subsequent mixing. WPCobbett 01 Feb 06

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)

No. Your school book, if it was written by an expert and peer-reviewed, is probably right. A lot of the participants in this discussion might benefit from picking up a book occasionally. . . .LinguisticDemographer 08:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Anglo Saxon warfare

I'm sorry you don't like my writing style, as I am not an encyclopedia writer by trade. I am a high school history teacher right now, with an M.A. in classical studies. I researched ancient sports and war particularly. I felt I could contribute to this page because this is my field of study. I will be happy to debate any points of it with any of you, and I have no doubt there is always room for improvement, particularly when discussing points with other scholars who have done graduate research in this area.

Sincerely,

Chris Miller (a.k.a. KozushiKozushi 04:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC))

Hi Chris, thanks for the reply. We get a lot of people who just cut and paste material from other sources and never hear from them again. One of the problems is the point of view and tone.. things like "We are lucky" .. "of use to us" .. these kinds of casual statements which appeal to an authority and audience are appropriate in a work with a signed author, but in an anonymous encyclopedia that anyone can edit, they come across as confusing - who is "we"? Who is "us"? Who is this person writing this?

I guess if you could re-phrase those things, and now you have verified this is an original work, if you have any sources to recommend - either used in writing this and/or further reading - that would help; I can re-add it to the article or feel free to do so, I'll help with the technical formating of the quotes. -- Stbalbach 15:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon Warfare

In regards to the section below, moved here. I'm not real happy with this section as it reads poorly. I suspect it was not written originally for Wikipedia based on the tone and perspective, making it suspect as a copyvio. It's also not clear how accurate or trustworthy it is as a scholarly source. I suspect it can be salvaged with a lot of re-writing. Any comments or ideas what to do with it? -- Stbalbach 15:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

---

We are lucky to have extant nearly play-by-play contemporary descriptions of some Anglo-Saxon battles. Of particular use to us are the poems recounting the battles of Brunanburh, fought in 937 C.E. and Maldon, fought in 991 C.E. In the literature, most of the references to weapons and fighting concern the use of the thrown spear.

The typical battle-development involved both sides forming shield walls to protect against the launching of missiles, and standing slightly out of range of each other. Then, individual warriors would run forward from the ranks to gain velocity for their spear throws. This made them vulnerable due to their being exposed, having left the protection of the shield wall, and there was a chance of being killed by a counter throw from the other side. This is epitomized in the following excerpt:

    So then did Aethelgar's child enbolden them all,
    Godric to battle.  Often he sent forth spears,
    deadly shaft sped away onto the Vikings;
    thus he on this people went out in front of battle,
    cutting down and smiting, until he too on the battlefield
                        perished.

(Battle of Maldon. 320-4.)

If killed in the 'no man's land', someone from the other side might rush out to retrieve the valuable armour and weapons, such as extra throwing spears, sword, shield and so on from the corpse.

The one best positioned to retrieve the body was the often the thrower of the fatal spear as he had run forward of his shield wall too in order to make his throw. Exposing himself like this, and even more so during his attempt to retrieve the slain's gear, was a great mark of bravery and could result in much valuable personal gain, not only in terms of his professional career as a retainer, but also in material wealth if the equipment were worth a lot.

Due to the very visible and exposed nature of these spear-throwing duels, we have some detailed descriptions which have survived, such as the following passage. The first part describes thrown spear duels, and the latter part describes fighting over the corpses' belongings. Keep in mind here that the word 'thrust' is equivalent to writing 'throw':

    Advanced again to fierce battle, weapons raised up,
    shields to defense, and towards these warriors they stepped.
    Resolute they approached Earl to the lowest Yeoman:
    each of them intent on harm for the enemy.
    Sent then a sea-warrior a spear of southern make
    that wounded the warrior lord.
    He thrust then with his shield such that the spear shaft
                        burst,
    and that spear-head shattered as it sprang in reply.
    Enraged became that warrior: with anger he stabbed
    that proud Viking who had given him that wound.
    Experienced was that warrior; he thrust his spear forward
    through the warrior's neck, his hand guiding
    so that he this ravager's life would fatally pierce.
         Then he with another stab speedily pierced the ravager
    so that the chainmail coat broke: this man had a breast wound
    cut through the linked rings; through his heart stuck
    a deadly spear.  The Earl was the better pleased:
    laughed then this great man of spirit, thanking the Creator
                        for
    the day's work which the Lord had given him.
    And so then another warrior a spear from the other side
    flew out of hand, which deeply struck
    through the noble Aethelred's retainer.
    To him by his side stood a young man not fully grown,
    a youth on the battlefield, who valiantly
    pulled out of this warrior the bloody spear,
    Wulfstan's child, Wulfmaer the younger;
    and so with blinding speed came the shaft in reply.
    The spear penetrated, for that who on the Earth now lay
    among his people, the one who had sorely pierced.
    Went then armed a man to this Earl;
    he desirous of this warrior's belongings to take off with,
    booty and rings and an ornamental sword.
         Then Byrhtnoth drew his sword from its sheath
    broad and bright of blade, and then struck the man's coat of
                        mail.
    But too soon he was prevented by a certain sea-scavenger,
    and then the Earl's arm was wounded.
    Fall then to the ground with his gold-hilted sword:
    his grip unable to hold  the heavy sword,
    or wield the weapon.

(Battle of Maldon. 130-58.)

Sometimes individuals or groups fighting over bodies might come to sword blows between the two shield walls. At close quarters, swords and shields were preferred over thrusting spears. Ideally, however, enough damage would be done to the enemy through the launching of missiles, so that any shield-to-shield fighting would be a mopping-up operation rather than an exhausting and risky push back and forth at close quarters.

However, when there were less spears handy to throw or to throw back at the enemy, and no side had yet turned and fled, the battle could come to close order combat with sword and shield. The shield was used as much for offense as the sword was, to unbalance and push the opponent down, making him vulnerable to being stabbed, kicked and cut, and to thereby open a breach in the shield wall exposing those of his mates on either side of him to unprotected death. Hacking through shields was often a sound tactic, so having a strong sword arm and a sturdy sword were of great benefit for the fight. At the initial rushing together of the ranks, jumping forward into the enemy with the shield held in front was a preferred tactic, as was leaping up, resting a foot on the opponent's shield boss, and striking or stabbing the enemy's unprotected back with one's sword.

Understanding how battles were fought also helps us to understand why excelling in certain sports was considered the mark of a valuable retainer or war leader. Sports like running, jumping, throwing spears, and unbalancing people (i.e. wrestling) were all critical skills for combat.

"New" study

Moved this here, recently added to the WP:LEAD section:

Yet a new study by University College London has shown that the Y Chromosome of most people in the UK has been very much affected by the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons. UCL Study This is probably due to the nature of the Anglo-Saxon invasion - the Saxons being 'ferocious' as Charlemagne (a renowned Warrior King,) noted. But also due to subsequent mixing. Whatever the DNA argument - what is clear is that the Anglo-Saxon invasion of what was Romano-Britain led to the formation of England by the 10th Century with its unrivalled language and global impact. The legacy of the Anglo-Saxons is truly global.

It is somewhat POV, but more so it is not a new study it is from 2003, and it is only 6 pages long so the conclusions that "The legacy of the Anglo-Saxons is truly global." seems a stretch. It would be better if this was incorporated into other parts of Wikipedia where this is already discussed such as Sub-Roman_Britain and added as supporting evidence to later and more important studies. Also the lead section of an article is supposed to be a summary of the article, repeating in summary format what is covered in detail in the main body - for some reason this articles lead section has become an original section with footnotes and stuff. See WP:LEAD. -- Stbalbach 16:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppenheimer

Since Prof. Oppenheimer's views contradict the research of most other experts, you can hardly use him as your sole authority. His strange and controversial ideas are rejected by most scholars.--dunnhaupt 22:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppenheimer's studies are contradicted by the studies of most geneticists, however, the majority of wikipedians ever have a anti-Germanic stance, if Germanic they have a hatred of the English and thus a denial of a Germanic ancestry, a pro-Celtic stance or are English people who thinks that 'Germanic' refers to Deutschlanders and doesn't want to ancklowledge a biological link with 'the Nazis' (anti-Deutschlandic is sadly common in the world). Also wikipedians are a distinct breed of people who want to agree more with views that are not commonly agreed upon by people outside of a select group of internet-goers.

Anyway, the English are culturally Germanic and thus ARE a Germanic people. Do people think that all other Germanic people have 'pure' Germanic blood?

King Óðinn The Aesir 15:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I moved your addition to Anglo-Saxon_migration#The_Anglo-Saxon_migration which has more detail on the genetics debate. -- Stbalbach 15:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Alfred jewel.JPG

Image:Alfred jewel.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism by 69.137.79.18

There is a huge flood of closely-spaced edits by 69.137.79.18, making review and possibly revision difficult. Parts of the article seem rewritten. I appreciate use of the genetic material. However, I suspect a credible source cannot be found to state that the “Basques,” as such, migrated in large numbers to what are today the British Isles. Yes, there are some common haplogroups among the Welsh and the Basques, but this does not mean that “the Basques” colonized Britain. For one thing, the migration could have been in the other direction. (Most likely the Pays-Basques and the British Isles were both colonized by similar peoples from somewhere else...) For another thing, the Basques are a modern people. They have a very long history and lineage, to be sure, but it is the ancestors of the Basques and the ancestors of the pre-Celtic populations of the British Isles that we're talking about here. Not the Basques themselves. On top of that, as another user has mentioned, the most common haplotypes of Britain are the "hunter-gatherer" neolithic haplotypes widely shared around Europe. Last, this material is simply overdone in an article on the Anglo-Saxons. Anglo-Saxon history picks up at the point at which there are Anglo-Saxons, and whether they have many ancestors in common with the Basques or few is really a minor point. If your point is that the present-day population of Britain has ancestry from many different lines, the point is well taken. If it's that the Anglo-Saxons were not the only denizens of their areas, then we can talk about what "Anglo-Saxons" were in the face of a continuum of related language across southern and eastern Britain. But I think that too much is being made of the genetic material here, especially in an article ostensibly on the Anglo-Saxons. Xenophon777 03:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If 69.137.79.18 has a lot of outside material to cite, then cite it for the changes being made. The established policy, however, is not to make Wikipedia the platform for publishing new research. Could others address the changes made by 69.137.79.18? Xenophon777 15:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs to be completely re-written, using only statements with citations of reliable, peer-reviewed sources. That should slim it down to stub-size. . . .LinguisticDemographer 21:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC

To try and claim that Anglo-Saxons or anyone esle in England has anything to do with Basues is unfounded. Even the theory that 'Celts' came from Basques does not stand up. For example - Celts are supposed to include Irish. But there is NO connection between Gaels and Irish. The English are Anglo-Saxon - get over it. And that is an American student of history telling you. Get over it.

The vandalism by 69.137.79.18 is substantail and completely POV. So I have revised back alot of what the vandal has done. If he / she wants to live in times of 2000 years ago - then take a hike.

England/Great Britain

The reference is to the southern and eastern sections of the Island of Great Britain, which is, in modern parlance, England. The fact that the southern and easten part of Great Britain is England is a point of common knowledge, and so does not require a reference. However, consultation of any atlas will confirm this. . . .LinguisticDemographer 13:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality/Accuracy

I've added this tag to the article. All mention of any recent genetic studies that show that the Celtic population were not displaced in England has been removed again. Also, I think the article puts too much weight on the theories of Oppenheimer. Is there are any evidence that these ideas are widely believed among scholars? Because the article gives the impression that they are. (84.13.243.156 08:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC))

Please take the genetic wars elsewhere, it is not covered in this article, it is discussed in other articles to avoid repetition and POV-creep. -- 71.191.36.194 21:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree - take your POV somwhere else and fight genetic wars eslwehere. So you have a POV. Leave it out of here.Hartram 08:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not how wikipedia works. The neutrality and accuracy of this article is being disputed so why are you removing the tag? (89.241.239.32 08:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

Eh? It's just about citing a recent genetic study that sheds new light on the subject. This article is about the Anglo-Saxons which is a term that eventually encompassed all the populations, i.e Celtic, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, Franks etc in Anglo-Saxon England, so it's very relevant to this article. It may be mentioned in other articles, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned here as well or at least the findings of the survey. Also, what about my other point? (84.13.253.172 08:18, 19 August 2007

The reason why there is so much contention here is that there is confusion about whether terms such as "Anglo-Saxon" or "Celtic" are cultural designations or genetic (i.e. racial) designations. Language is the central feature of any culture, and the one (and only) thing we can say for sure is that, in the 4th-9th centuries, the Celts spoke Celtic languages, and the Anglo-Saxons spoke Anglo-Saxon. Armed with these definitions, we can go on to say "people who originally spoke Anglo-Saxon came from such and such a place, had weapons, pottery, graves, settlements, kingdoms of such and such a design, and thus an article on the subject emerges.

Geneticists (I think) had yet to identify a gene that differentiates a Mandarin-speaker from a Xhosa-speaker, so genetic evidence is entirely silent on cultural identification, and can only be used in that way by making correlations between movements of genes and pre-conceived models of cultural movements. If we treat terms like "Anglo-Saxon" or "Celtic" as if they were races, then people misinterpreting genetic data end up making stupid statements like "the Celts are actually Basques": stupid because the Basques don't speak (and never did speak) a Celtic language. In the British Isles (come and see with your own eyes - you don't need DNA tests), even on the east coast, tall, fair Nordic types are a small minority of the population. If the English are the descendents of a group who entirely displaced the pre-Anglo-Saxon population, then the Anglo-Saxons must have been just as genetically-mixed a bunch as were their predecessors. The suggestion that a particular group of invaders spread Anglo-Saxon culture by driving out or killing all the "Celts" is pure Wagnerian fantasy. Even apparently-sensible geneticists seem to be susceptible to this.

The theories of Oppenheimer are relevant (although challengeable) here because he suggests that Germanic-speakers were present in eastern Britain long before the Roman invasion. The main body of genetic evidence he provides is interesting, but not applicable in the context of an article on a particular culture.

The essence of the article should say of the people we call Anglo-Saxon:

• that they were a racially-mixed cultural group
• that their culture arrived from across the North Sea
• that their culture arrived over a period from ?pre-Roman times until the 6th century
• that their culture displaced a Celtic-speaking culture which previously occupied most of Britain south of the Scottish Highlands
• that they achieved most of that displacement between 420 and 600 AD
• that all the above statements are hedged around with uncertainty and controversy.

All the above can be supplied with reliable citations. Will any of this happen? Or will the democracy of ignorance triumph? . . . .LinguisticDemographer 09:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is pure and utter POV. you want to put onto countless others who have contributed to this solid artcle some sort of POV which belongs in another part of wiki. So the answer to all the above is No.78.147.111.31 06:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Why exactly don't you want any mention of the 2003 genetic survey here? As I said before it sheds a lot of new light on the subject. The survey was a proper scientific study, not a pov or debate, and the findings could be interpreted in different ways, but I don't see the problem here in covering it in the article. Unless you have an agenda to push. (Nebulousity 21:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

There's a lot of crap around, but I have adjusted tohhe text. The 2003 genetic study cited says little or nothing about Anglo-Saxons, since it is unable to distinguish Anglo-Saxon and Danish genetic markers, and its main focus is on the lack of Norwegian influence. Myopic Bookworm 11:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

To quote you There's a lot of crap around - number one - keep civil - number two keep your POV genetic arguments off this article on Anglo Saxon peoples. Hartram 12:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism report on Myopic Bookworm Again the same POV genetic war mentality as shown by (Nebulousity and others.Hartram 12:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I take strong exception to the item "Vadalism to Anglo-Saxon Artcle" [sic] placed on my user page. I have not vandalized this page: I have attempted in good faith to restructure in a more appropriate wording a factual section added by another editor, on the basis of my own reading of the scientific article cited. This article is a historical article about the Anglo-Saxons. It is a common and long-standing perception that the Anglo-Saxon settlement displaced a "Celtic" population, and it is entirely relevant to report, accurately and neutrally, in this context, recent scientific studies suggesting that the shift to Anglo-Saxon culture in Britain was not acompanied by a wholesale change in the nature of the population, as was traditionally supposed. The present genetic make-up of Britain is relevant only insofar as it provides evidence for the historical facts of this article. I am not interested in "genetic wars", or in nationalist bigotry by English or "Celtic" enthusiasts: I am interested in reporting an anthropological fact relevant to this article. To attempt to silence anyone who tries to report this aspect of the subject is itself vandalism. Myopic Bookworm 16:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

PS And I have not blanked or deleted content as stated, though I think the current templates on the page are inappropriate. And I actually have a user page, which many of the most outspoken people on this Talk page seem not to. Myopic Bookworm 16:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Vandalism by 84.13.253.172

PLEASE KEEP GENETIC DEBATE FROM THIS ARTCLE AND STOP PUTTING 'ARTICLE DISPUTED' VANDALISM ON THIS TOP OF THE ARTCLE.

This artcle on a known and accepted group about has been around a long time. It is NOT disputed. Stop your POV vandalism or get reported. 89.243.227.190 10:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandals who try and impose thier Genetic War POV on artivles like this should kindly undertsand that this is juts an artcle on the Anglo-Saxons. have agenetic debate somehwre else. Hartram 10:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

89.241.239.32 has followed this with more POV vandalism which I have undone. Clearly a POV that is trying to 'understate' Anglo-Saxon influence on English history. Kindly disist from these poor attempts at trying to alter the basic structure of an ariticle on Anglo-Saxon people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.243.227.190 (talk) {{{Time|14:09, August 20, 2007 (UTC 89.243.227.190 14:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

More POV vandalism by 89.243.227.190 - warnings have been placed on this IP address and 89.241.239.32 - IP addresses which are being used to put some sort of wierd Genetic POV on to the article. Quite possibly Sock Puppets of [User:LinguisticDemographer|LinguisticDemographer]] Hartram 14:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one vandalising this page. I tried to add some reasonable, neutral pov changes, addressing the issues I brought up, but they were removed, so the article remains disputed. (Nebulousity 15:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

Sounds like this is easily fixed by closing the article to non-account editing. I don't mind people knowing who I am. What is a sock puppet? I'd look it up, but life's too short. . . .LinguisticDemographer 08:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of content vandalism by Nebulousity

Clear unjustified removal of content by the above. Undone. More unwelcome POV creep. 78.147.111.31 06:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Where are the citations? There are no footnotes. This does not meet standard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.53.247.176 (talk) 22:35, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

More content on genetic POV by Nebulousity. Probbaly a sock puppet of Mypoic Book worm . Both come on to this artcle about the same time and come up with the same POV. 86.27.172.138 09:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

More by User:Jmlk17. - same genetic POV war type stuff. Not wanted. Thanks. Hartram 17:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jmlk17 is a Wikipedia:Administrator, and is in no way pushing any viewpoint. I suggest that rather than jumping to incorrect conclusions, you review WP:CIVIL and request politely, his reasons why the edit was reverted, as I am more than sure he would be willing to explain why he reverted your changes, and I'm also equally sure it had nothing to do with any Point of View he may have. ^Ariel♥Gold 21:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary meanings

The contemporary meanings of the term "Anglo-Saxon" have more or less nothing to do with the Anglo-Saxons. I propose that this entire section should be moved to the disambiguation page on Anglo-Saxon. Myopic Bookworm 16:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

How can this ossibly be. Go away from this article wich you and your sock puppets have not a clue on. More evidence of POV from Myopic Bookworm - answer is NO. 86.27.172.138 10:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop trying to put POV and remove content.

My point was that this article is supposed to be about the Anglo-Saxons, not about what the French mean by the term "Anglo-Saxon". The section on the use of "Anglo-Saxon" in historical studies, on the other hand, is relevant to this article. Content which is not relevant to an article should be removed. But if it is good content, it should be moved to a more relevant article.

When several literate and reasonably well-informed editors make changes in the same direction, they are usually not sockpuppets, but independent editors reflecting a general consensus, otherwise known as NPOV.

As a single contributor, you are not in a position to answer "NO". This article does not belong to you: it belongs to Wikipedia. Myopic Bookworm 12:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Back again NO means No because you back nothing with citations. So it means NO. Don't be so Myopic. Back it all up please! Hartram 20:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the Y Choromosome 'evidence'

Mypoic Book worm claims that a Y Chromosome markers show that somehow the Brythonic Peple were not largely displaced by the Anglo-Saxons. But the UCL study of 2003 the Male Y Chromosome indicating a 50-100% change across the whole of England, plus alot of Scotland and Wales. With alot of Viking in Ireland too. UCL study here. [[2]] But - if you read the study correctly - because the ENGLES (Angles as I am sure you know,) were originally Viking peoples - they cannot tell the latter Vikings from the realier Anglo-Saxons. This has been discussed before above. Please read the discussions above. On top of which this article is not about genetics it is about the Anglo Saxons. Their culture laws etc. This is clearly difficult for Myopic Bookworm to undertstand. Please do so. Tnanks. Removal of the poorly interpreted citation of the Capelli study. Please go to the Migration debate to talk about it there. Hartram 20:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC) REmoval of: It was until recently supposed that the Anglo-Saxons completely displaced the indigenous population in the south and east of Britain (modern day England), probably mainly on the grounds that the English language totally displaced Welsh in these regions. However, a genetic survey of the British Isles undertaken in 2003 found that the genetic characteristics of continental Germanic peoples were predominant only in Central England and East Anglia ^[1], in the areas thought to have been heavily settled by Danish Vikings during the 9th-11th centuries AD. The part of southern England traditionally regarded as the heartland of Anglo-Saxon settlement has a lower proportion of continental Germanic genetic markers, suggesting that the indigenous people in these regions (who are believed to have spoken a Insular Celtic language) were largely not displaced, but were assimilated into the developing Anglo-Saxon society.Hartram 20:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim anything: I just read the paper. I have no axe to grind: I just think the topic should at least be mentioned in this article. It is not appropriate to cover the full detail in this context, but it is relevant. By the way, it is specifically the Danish Vikings that are hard to distinguish genetically from Anglo-Saxons: the markers for the Norwegian Vikings can be distinguished. The term "Viking" has not historically been used for the Anglo-Saxon invaders. Myopic Bookworm 13:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You have just shown the limit of your knowledge on this subject. The Angles / Anglii (Latin for Engle) were a Viking type Germanic tribe. Connected with the viking cultures in Sweden. The Angles occupied areas extensively through the North / Central / East of England right up to the Solway Firth. They came to England as part of a confederation with the Jutes and Saxons. A confederation that had been identified by Ptolemy in AD 150. You see - more is know about this than alot of you POV types realise. Study real history for what it is. More is in text that you are aware. Hartram 17:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of text about Britons.

Removal of :: Recent genetic studies suggest that the number of Anglo-Saxons migrants in Britain may have been more limited than previously supposed, contradicting the widespread assumption that the earlier Romano-British population were either killed or driven back into Wales and Cornwall by an invading people. ^[1]

More genetic stuff from Myopic Bookworm who by an admission above does not know anything about Anglo-Saxons nor Anglo-Saxon history but is merely trying by various means to continually insert a POV in the article. I wil come back with more on quote to show the extent of text supporting various migration indicators on the correct migration page. This article is not about the Romano Brythons. Simple really. Hartram 17:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Removal of reference from 'The Scotsman'. No newspaper artcles please. Solid reference on Anglo-Saxons such as Stenton and others.Hartram 17:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please remember you do not own this article, so if other editors disagree with some of your edits, discuss it first. WP:OWN.
→ jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 17:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

REmoval of yet again genetic war POV reinstated by Novustabula. Study Anglo-Sxon history and put it on here - not genetic POV. Thanks kindly. Hartram 08:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. What do you think is pov? Have you read the 2003 Capelli et. al study? (NovusTabula 08:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC))

My POV is Nil POV just history. Look up above at the Removal of Y Chromosome evidence and the Capelli study. You are talking to a historian. I try and stick to known texts. Look up above. I do not go along with lengthy debate on genetics that try and dilute an srticle into a modern argument.Hartram 09:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)