Talk:Anglo-Saxons/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Early Comments

i'm under the impression that in the context of "anglo-saxon", "anglo-" means "angle (and something else)". the "something else" in this case being saxons. then the question brought up is: are anglo-saxons a people of mixed angle and saxon descend, the angles and saxons considered as a single people, or both? in other contexts, "anglo-" means "english (and something else)", but from what i've read from many sources the words angle and english are linguistically related.

Like the article says, three principal Germanic tribes—primarily the Angles and the Saxons, but also the Jutes—settled/conquered (a matter of perspective) England in the period after the Roman withdrawal. By the time of Alfred the Great, several centuries later, these tribes had lost their original distinct identities—at least partly through their political unification under Alfred and his predecessors—to consider themselves a single people, the Anglo-Saxons. From this derives the word England, or Angle-Land.

Hope that helpes. Incidentally, you can sign your messages by typing ~~~~. Binabik80 14:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

testingGringo300 09:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) success!Gringo300 09:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Here is a link to the story which prompted my addition to the article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2076470.stm

Fire Star 03:15, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is a rather good discussion, with interesting comments, into a later study about the genetic origins of the current British population at Gene Expression. This newer study questions the strength of the "ethnic cleansing" reported by the earlier study.

Jason Kirk 27 April 2005

---

I couldn't make head nor tail of this paragraph, So I've removed it to here.

Irregular verbs in English, which indicate Anglo-Saxon origins by either a shift in vowels (e.g. for past tenses) or inflected suffixes into Anglo-Saxon forms (for irregular verbs, not "-ed" as used as a suffix for regular verb's past tense), are generally derived from Anglo-Saxon. Over time many irregular verbs have morphed to regular forms – for example, "hung" is now "hanged" (in the sense of a criminal) and "broken", the classic OE form (although linguistically "correct"), is now often incorrectly altered to the simpler "broke".

The Language section should be split from this page. Zeimusu 01:52, 2004 Jul 9 (UTC)

---

Who are these Revisionist historians? And how are their views different from the current scholarly consensus as expressed in the paragraph immediately before ths section? I'm not disputing that there are many POVs on the matter of the Anglo-Saxon invasions, but I would find this section useful if their views were explained in fuller detail. -- llywrch 17:57, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Fethanleag

The article says that the Celts won. What is the source of this information? The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says for year 584:-

Here Ceawlin and Cutha fought against the Britons at the place which is named Fethanleag (= "Battle Wood="), and Cutha was killed; and Ceawlin took many towns amd countless war-loot, and in anger he turned back to his own [territory].

Anthony Appleyard 18:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Use of Saxon, Angle or Anglo-Saxon

There are pages for Anglo-Saxon, Angles and Saxons. There is some confusion, as there is in history. But lets make an effort to differentiate. I would like to suggest that Anglo-Saxon is used as the default case, unless there is a good reason to refer solely to Saxons or Angles. Perhaps this deserves a discussion. --Dumbo1 00:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From my understanding of accepted practice, when one writes about Angles, Saxons, or Jutes, one is writing about specific Germanic tribes -- who may, in some cases, not even be located in Britain. The noun Anglo-Saxon refers only to the Germanic tribes that migrated to Britain. The adjective in terms of time refers to the inhabitants of Britain who spoke Old English between c.450 (after their arrival in Britain), & 1066; in terms of ethnicity or culture, it refers to the non-Celtic inhabitants of Britain. (And in US usage, "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant" implies the upper-class culture of the decendants of immigrants from Britain; since my British ancestors were dirt farmers from the Midlands who worked for a living, I prefer to think of myself as "Anglo-American".) -- llywrch 17:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One more use of Anglo-Saxon as a term is to refer to what is also known as "earthy language", ie rude words. Although it should be noted that many of the crude terms used are not actual Anglo-saxon words but generally later English. Also in the same vein - apologising after an expletive with the phrase "pardon my french" GDL

Synod of Whitby

A misunderstanding of what was settled at the Synod of Whitby has crept into the text. --Wetman 09:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article needs an introduction

I found this article frustrating, but I found trying to reshape it even more frustrating so I eventually gave up. I'll try to outline my concerns here in the hopes that they may prove useful to later contributors. I think there needs to be a clear separation between the account of the classical Antiquarian version of early Anglo-Saxon history (i.e taking Bede, Gildas, et al at face value) and a discussion of the archeology which, while showing a definite cultural change (burial practices, clothing, building style, etc) amongst the inhabitants of southern britain, is unable to convincingly support the traditional notion of large numbers of germanic invaders who "ethnically cleansed" the incumbant british population.

My problem with Early Anglo-Saxon History is that most of it is, to be frank, cobblers. A nodge podge of folk legends, myth, and delibrate fiction created by a succession of writers from Gildas and Bede onwards to justify and legitimize the origins of the English people. There is evidence to suggest that even those early texts that have survived have been edited by later authors to better suit their own notions of where the English race came from.

I got as far as a bit of context:

The origins of the Anglo-Saxon Culture are poorly defined and are obfuscated by sparse and unreliable (by modern standard) historical accounts. What is not in doubt is that by the end of Roman occupation the population of southern Britain was differentiated between the western and eastern cultures. The western british are traditionally believed to have retained significant elements of their pre-Roman culture and are considered to be the ancestors of the modern Welsh and Cornish. By comparison the eastern british were more heavily Romanised.

The withdrawl of the Roman Legions in the 5th century does not appear to have significantly affected the day to day life of eastern britian. The withdrawl also meant an end of Roman coinage and the collapse of the large scale economy. It has been suggested that this did not necessarily mean large scale hardship for the majority of the agrarian population who would have reverted to a simpler barter economy. Without a currency based economy the towns fell into disuse.

What I then wanted to state was something like

By the 7th century the eastern british had evolved into a culture that retrospecitvely came to called itself Anglo-Saxon.

and to shuffle the rest of the article into:

• A discussion of what Anglo-Saxon culture was, specifically with regard, social organisation, art, and language.
• "Origin of the Anglo-Saxons" including the traditional account of Early Anglo-Saxon History from Bede et al (e.g the Saxon Conquest section) and an expanded controversy section pointing out the lack of archeological evidence for ethnic cleansing, the genetic debate and the uncertaincy about exactly where these tribes came from.
• Anglo-Saxon archeology - there is a wealth of amazing artifacts, e.g. Sutton Hoo
• Late Anglo-Saxon History - i.e. the Birth of England, the coming of Papal authority (as differentiated from the coming of Christianity) to Britian, relations with the Danelaw
• Post-Norman Identity - How did the Norman Conquest affect the Anglo-Saxon elite and culture? The backlash against the Anglo-Saxon culture created by the Norman Kings to ligitmise their own claim (e.g. to connect themselves with Arthur and therefore the pre-Saxon culture). Later reassurgance in Victorian times when, like the manufactured modern Welsh identity, Anglo-Saxon heritage is invoked to create a link with the "rational" germanic peoples (who happen to consitiute the then Royal Family) against the "emotional" Normal French (who the Victorians happened to be at war with). Then in the 20th century Anglo-Saxon identity falls out of favour because the same "rational" germanic people fall out of favour (e.g. WWII, Hitler, etc) and people don't want to associate themselves with that.

However, those ideas quickly outpaced my ability to write them (at least without spending weeks on them) so I leave them here just in case their useful to anybody else.

--Jason Kirk 05:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is all fascinating and certainly merits a look. Do you have any specific sources you'd recommend for users interested in trying to give the article a rewrite.

(I do think it's worth briefly noting that at no point was Victorian Britain ever at war with France.) Binabik80 13:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pryor, Francis (2004). Britain AD. HarperCollins. ISBN HarperCollins. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

It's book that promoted my post (not to be confused with Britain BC by the same author). By trade the author is Bronze and Iron Age expert - where there are no historical records - and the thrust of the book is that if you just read the archeology there is no case for a large scale violent invasion/migration. I was obviously persuaded, unfortunately I don't know enough about counter arguement to be able to hit Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view.

Okay, the Victorians may never have actually gone to war with France, but they were still considered "The Enemy" in a cold war sort of way (e.g Palmerston's Follies).

--Jason Kirk 20:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment on the above: Britain and France fought the Crimean War (1854-56) as ALLIES against Russia. During the second half of the 19th century the main concern of Palmerston and other British politicians (and indeed those of all the European Powers - Prussia/Germany, France, Great Britain, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire) was to maintain the 'Concert of Europe' and the 'balance of power', which endured, via the Treaty of Berlin (1878), until 1914, apart from the episode of the Franco-Prussian War and the fall of Napoleon III.

I have read both of Pryor's books, 'Britain BC' and 'Britain AD', and have seen parts of the BBC series linked with them: he is very authorative, as remarked above, on the periods in which he specialises, the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Ages. However, he is primarily an archaeologist, with superficial linguistic knowledge, and probably little knowledge of population genetics.

The work of the Venerable Bede is key in this debate, as the foundation of our 'knowledge' of Anglo-Saxon origins. However, it is not my understanding that Bede's writings have been tampered with overmuch over the course of the Late Saxon period and the Middle Ages. Although Bede lived more or less continuously in the monastery at Jarrow once he had entered it, it is known that he had an extensive network of contacts in Britain and abroad, both ecclesiastical and lay, who informed his writing. I found that Pryor's dismissal of Bede's work as some sort of 'cooked-up' national mythology rather simplistic and uncritical coming from a leading academic.

While I would not dismiss lightly Pryor's tenet that the bulk of the British and 'English' population has its roots in the Upper Palaeolithic/Mesolithic Periods (like the Somerset schoolteacher - and one of his pupils - who lived just down the road from the 9000 year old skeleton found in Cheddar caves, with whom both were found to be genetically closely related!), it seems to me (as a Germanist) that a Germanic language cannot be transferred to the east coast of Britain from the European mainland without substantial numbers of Gemanic-speaking people being involved. [Try, as an exercise, if you are any sort of linguist, comparing a page of Old English (Anglo-Saxon) with Continental Old Saxon (Old Low German) (7th -11th cents. AD/CE), and you will see what I mean. (You can do this online if you find the right sites.) We are dealing here with two very closely related languages.]

We know that NW Germans (Saxons and Frisians probably) were invited as mercenaries by rulers of sub-Roman Britain to tackle the raiding of the Picts and others in the mid-4th century, a century before the recorded 'invasion' by 'Hengist' and 'Horsa'. A lot of these mercenaries became 'turncoats' and fought on their own account against the Celtic British who had invited them in, and many must have 'stayed over' rather than returning to the continent. The main 'invasion'/colonisation after 450 AD/CE was, in the first instance, almost certainly a primarily MALE affair, with wives and children following after - if at all. Or perhaps these more recent immigrants were merely joining those already established in 'Britannia' from an earlier generation? A more probable scenario is that the 'invading'/colonising Angles and Saxons, once arrived in Britain, found themselves good Celtic British women as mates and settled down to farm the land, fish, etc. Pryor and his colleagues have found much continuity in the way that the land was farmed 500 BC - 500 AD, with no marked break in cultivation patterns. It is evident also that there was much to-ing and fro-ing with the European mainland (Frankish Empire) for reasons of trade (and from Europe to Britain), also raiding and piracy, in the succeeding centuries. Contact with erstwhile compatriots in NW Germany did not cease overnight: boat-building technologies were very sophisticated, with clinker-built vessels which reached their pinnacle in the beautiful ships that have been recovered from Scandinavian sites (Gokstad and Oseberg ships, etc.).

I'm not a geneticist, but a generous sampling of mitochondrial DNA (females) and Y-chromosome(males) should show this picture to be broadly the case. Unfortunately, there has to date been insufficient geographically wide-ranging genetic sampling of the British, and particularly the 'English', population, and what we do have seems rather patchy: we appear to know more about the genetic effects of the Viking invasions (Prof. David Goldstein, University College, London) than we do about the Anglo-Saxon 'event'. Since both of these involved genetically closely related Germanic peoples, it seems to me that it will inevitably be difficult to distinguish the Anglo-Saxon genetic 'trace' from what is Dano-Norwegian.

It is reasonably clear to me that a pattern of 'elite dominance' (ref: Prof. Lord (Colin) Renfrew et al.) became established in the east of England, which moved progressively westwards over the next 2-3 centuries, without any ethnic cleansing or mass exterminations of Celtic people (though this may well have happened in particular localities). [I will make no reference here to the Battle of Mons Badonicus and the corpus of Arthurian legends and quasi-history!] For example, it is recorded in a number of references that members of the West Saxon royal house exhibited all of the physical features that one associates with NW Germans, Dutch, etc., viz. fair complexion, blond/light brown hair, blue eyes, and generally tall stature. But these physical characteristics would probably have been no more common among the general population than they are today.

I think the jury is out on this case, so let's await the genetic evidence. In the meantime may I refer you all to 'Anglo-Saxon England' by Sir Frank Stenton (paperback)(publ. Oxford) Price: £11.99 - This book was first published in the 1940s, and revised and updated by Stenton and his wife in 1971. Some may wish to argue that Stenton's work is now rather dated, but it is excellent for the historical and cultural background, setting the 'Anglo-Saxon period in its wider European context. 86.137.147.142 geoffpowers | Geoff Powers 20:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Viking and Danish contributions

I'm under the impression that both sources helped form Anglo-Saxon into Ol;d English: is this current text good? I'm not competent to assess it: "the especially large addition of Old Danish (eastern England), Old Norwegian (from Vikings of the Viken who settled on the West Coast of England)" --Wetman 16:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon vs. Danish

The article reads :

In contemporary usage, the term "Anglo-Saxon" (expected to subsume Jute by implication) is occasionally used to refer to the English as an ethnic group within the United Kingdom, as opposed to "Danish", "Norman", "Celtic", "Scottish", "Irish", "Welsh" and "Cornish".

I was under the impression that both Angles and Jutes came from Denmark, making the opposition to "Danish" a little surprising. Am I mistaken?

A bit. Although the Angles and Jutes came from the area that is now Denmark they were not Danes. It is important to distinguish between the Anglo Saxons and the Danes because, starting in about AD 800, there was a new wave of invasions out of the North, the famous Vikings. They managed to establish an independent area in the North of England, known as the Danelaw. So the Anglo-Saxons were the guys that starting showing up in the 5th century, while the Danes were the guys who showed up about 300 years later. Dsmdgold 17:55, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Important in historical politics. Largely irrelevant in historical genetics. Wouldn't that be about right? Knut had a very good right to the throne of England. "Viking" is not a good cultural term for early medieval Scandinavians in general: whether "pirate adventurers" or not, they came from Norway and Denmark, both Norse and Danes. --Wetman 21:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are many Swedish runestones talking of expeditions to England, but the Swedes are too insignificant to be mentioned, I guess.--Wiglaf 28 June 2005 08:44 (UTC)

There is a project underway to examine the genetic links that may be due to Viking invasion IIRC. Rich Farmbrough 20:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah ye, see article #The "Anglo-Saxon invasion" and genetic history Rich Farmbrough 20:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Use of Anglo-Saxon

The section on the use of Anglo-Saxon betrays a bias that I happen to share so I'm not going to change it. But, I will note there is a growing enthusiasm among techies for the so-called Anglosphere, and it is reasonable because our worldview of ration and reason (physics, evolution, computer science, markets, democracy) is distinctly Anglo in origin. Still, it does seem as if we want to see a stronger global Anglo alliance so we're writing articles stating that it already exists, and unfortunately I don't think it really does though I wish it would. -- anonymous 1 Aug 2005

Anglo-Saxon vs Danish

I'm English. In the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, ancestors of mine emigrated to Australia for various reasons - voluntarily or otherwise. When I lived in Australia I met some of their descendants. When, if ever, did they cease to be Anglo-Saxon? They were certainly Australian - spoke with a different accent, dressed slightly differently - but were they from a different tribe to me? I ask this in the context of later Danish invaders being separated from their Anglian cousins in the North and East of England because of a couple of centuries delay in departure time. By the way, has anyone noticed that the 'Danelaw' seems to be contiguous with the areas of England supposedly settled by Anglians as opposed to Saxons or Jutes? Is this purely a coincidence?

NPOV

"It is a matter of debate as to whether the term Anglo-Saxon can be used as a synonym for English. On one hand there is the argument that says that there were further influxes of people in to England such as the Danes and Normans, as well as the Celts who migrated to England from the other parts of the British Isles, so the term is no longer valid. This is very much the view of the far-left, who particularly like to denigrate everything to do with England at every opportunity. The other side of this argument is to say these people were relatively small in number and, particularly in the case of Danes and the Normans, were of similar ethnic origins as the Anglo-Saxons themselves, and so became immersed into the Anglo-Saxon "tribe"."

I took out the bit in bold since it seemed insulting and didn't logically link to anything else in the paragraph. --Cherry blossom tree 09:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

New text by anon user

Anon user added this new text:

However, contrary to the information presented above, the majority of genetic studies indicate that the Anglo-Saxon mass migration did in fact occur. As stated in one study, “It suggests that between 50% and 100% of the indigenous population of what was to become England was wiped out, with Offa's Dyke acting as a "genetic barrier" protecting those on the Welsh side.” [1] It has been found that the genes that comprise the English people are almost identical to that of the genes of the Germanic peoples of continental Europe, “The English and Frisians studied had almost identical genetic make-up but the English and Welsh were very different.” [2] In fact not only are the English descendents of these invaders, the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings, but the Scottish and Cornish gene pools also show a high percentage of Germanic genes, "The Cornish are in effect Anglo-Saxons who for a time used a language that was hanging around. The genes of Scottish males also betrayed considerable inter-mixing with outsiders." [3] It seems that only the Welsh escaped the onslaught from the Anglo-Saxon invaders, thus creating a genetic barrier in the British Isles. Through these genetic studies it has been shown that the Welsh are closely related to the Irish (not including Ulster), Highland Scots and the Basques. Some of these studies can be viewed in the links below.

This needs to be integrated into the article without lines like this: "However, contrary to the information presented above, the majority of studies..". The whole issue is very controversial with multiple POVs and should be presented as such. Stbalbach 22:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Re-added with some minor rewording to put in context with rest of the article, thank you for the contribution. Stbalbach 03:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that the cited media articles (Western Mail and BBC) may not constitute reliable sources, see Science and medicine, Cite peer-reviewed scientific journals and check community consensus and Beware false authority headings in this page, and see my posts about genetics below. Alun 18:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

New Text

Hello,

Sorry for causing a fuss, I did not mean too. This was my first major edit of an article and I have never really noticed the discussion boards before. I will fix up what I wrote and put it here next time. I am not a very good writer when I try to be terse, so it will definitely be of better quality in the future. I felt that the section I wanted to add to was rather one sided in that it only presented the results of only one particular genetic study. In college I took a great interest in military history and the history of the Germanic tribes, so I have read through a considerable amount of historical and genetic data that refute the one study mentioned in the current article. I was just trying to make things a bit more balanced. Again sorry for any trouble, it was not intentionally. Thanks.

No it was fine its a good edit and is needed. Sorry if I over-reacted at first, normally you dont need to discuss first, it just seems this is a very controversial/debated subject so anyway they are usually the hardest ones to write about on Wikipedia.Stbalbach 15:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that the cited media articles (Western Mail and BBC) may not constitute reliable sources, see the Science and medicine, Cite peer-reviewed scientific journals and check community consensus and Beware false authority headings in this page, and see my posts about genetics below. Alun 18:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon history pages

I'm trying to straighten out all the main Anglo-Saxon history pages, which are currently somewhat of a miscellany. I've linked Anglo-Saxon England as the main history page from British History. This page seems to essentially contain information about the Anglo-Saxons as a people, and has good cultural stuff. Are people okay with me making 'Anglo-Saxon England' the main history page?

It's a good idea. Which pages contain Anglo-Saxon history? Perhaps we can make a list and figure out which can be merged or not. So far I can think of:

• Anglo-Saxons
• Anglo-Saxon England
• Sub-Roman Britain
• Britain in the Middle Ages

Theres a lot of overlap and duplication of the same events written by different authors making it somewhat confusing for the reader. Stbalbach 19:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

There's quite a few pages on specific topics; they're linked from the bottom of Anglo-Saxons. What would work well would be a main 'Anglo-Saxon History' page (linked from things like 'British History' and 'History of England'), which would contain a simple narrative from Rome's departure up to the Norman Conquest. Specific articles (e.g. Anglo-Saxon Law, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, et al) could be linked from that main narrative. Harthacanute 20:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah specifics are easy modularize with "Main article" tags, thats a good plan. An "Anglo-Saxon History" article is justifiable, but there still is a lot of exisiting overlap in Britain in the Middle Ages, Sub-Roman Britain and Anglo-Saxons articles, which also cover Anglo-Saxon history. Similar to "British History" and "History of England", these articles should also be edited to reflect there is a single "Main article" on Anglo-Saxon history. Other than that I think we should be carefull, are we consolidating the mess, or just adding one more piece to the mess.. Stbalbach 23:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Part of the root problem is expressed in the "History of Britain" series in its box. It follows Sub-Roman Britain with Medieval Britain, which is a redirect to Britain in the Middle Ages, an awkward concept rather like "France and Spain in the Middle Ages". This present article Anglo-Saxons doesn't belong in the "Britain" sequence: it constitutes the first section of the independent History of England, a parallel to History of Wales, not to the broader History of Britain, where there should be a section "Anglo-Saxons in England" with a Main article heading referring here. We shouldn't be trying to force this article into the wrong sequence. --Wetman 11:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

To simplfy: the overlap is between Anglo-Saxons and History of Anglo-Saxon England, which latter strikes me as the natural trunk article with paragraphs that offer concise versions of Anglo-Saxons, Heptarchy, Anglo-Saxon literature etc etc.--Wetman 11:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree; Anglo-Saxons should really be about the people, which it pretty much already is. History of Anglo-Saxon England should be the trunk article, linked from History of England, with links to the excellent array of more specific articles.

I think History of Britain is okay as it is, with links to relevant histories of England, Wales and Scotland. The only problem would be ensuring that these independant histories are not considered as completely separate, so cross-referencing between the histories would be needed. Similarly, it is important to place the history of Britain in the context of Europe. I've tried to start doing this with History of Anglo-Saxon England. Harthacanute 21:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Writing before literacy?

I'm confused by this passage:

Before literacy, the Runic alphabet, called the futhorc (also known as futhark), was used for inscriptions.

This seems to assert that the use of the runic alphabet was preliterate. But the word "literacy" is usually taken to mean "ability to read and write" -- in any writing-system, not just the Roman! So what can it mean to claim that Anglo-Saxons read and wrote in runic before they were literate? --FOo 20:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Alfred

The term "Anglo-Saxon" is from Latin writings going back to the time of King Alfred the Great, who seems to have frequently used the title rex Anglorum Saxonum or rex Angul-Saxonum. The origin of this title is not quite clear. It is generally believed to have arisen from the final union of the various kingdoms under Alfred in 886.
What is the source of this information? I think this information is incorrect. Alfred the Great did not unite the English. Alfred united various kingdoms, and his Kingdom of the Anglo-Saxons included all of the land south of the Thames (basically Wessex and Kent) and much of the rump of Mercia that was not in the Danelaw. It is possible to think of Alfred's Kingdom of the Anglo-Saxons as comprising the land south and west of a line running from London to Chester. Alfred's son Edward the Elder conquered East Anglia and his daughter Æthelflæd Lady of the Mercians much of the five boroughs of the Danelaw. It was for Edwards son Athelstan to unify the whole of England in 937 after the Battle of Brunanburh. This information is from The Age of Athelstan by Paul Hill (ISBN 0752425668). Alun 02:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Genetic analysis

Other genetics studies support the traditional story that a Saxon conquest and genocide did in fact occur. As stated in one study, the evidence ..suggests that between 50% and 100% of the indigenous population of what was to become England was wiped out, with Offa's Dyke acting as a "genetic barrier" protecting those on the Welsh side. [3] It has been found that the genes that comprise the English people are almost identical to that of the genes of the Germanic peoples of continental Europe, The English and Frisians studied had almost identical genetic make-up but the English and Welsh were very different. In fact not only are the English descendents of these invaders, the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings, but the Scottish and Cornish gene pools also show a high percentage of Germanic genes, The Cornish are in effect Anglo-Saxons who for a time used a language that was hanging around. The genes of Scottish males also betrayed considerable inter-mixing with outsiders.[4] According to these studies it seems that only the Welsh escaped the onslaught from the Anglo-Saxon invaders, thus creating a genetic barrier in the British Isles. Through these genetic studies it has been shown that the Welsh are closely related to the Irish (not including Ulster), Highland Scots and the Basques.
I think that this is basically wrong. The BBC article cited seems to be based on this paper [here] which doesn't actually support the what the BBC article is saying. I have had a problem with this BBC article before over at Briton, it seems that the journalist that wrote the article didn't understand the findings at all, or simply sensationalised them to make a good story. I do not think that this counts as a reliable source. Cite the original paper if it supports what you have written, in this case I do not think it does. What the paper says is that there seems to have been Anglo-Saxon migration into England but not into Wales. This is far from supporting a genocide, and, because it is a Y-chromosome analysis it pays no attention to women at all. This work is also much more specific in how it can be interpreted than the Y-chromosome census work also mentioned. I am increasingly tired of people trying to use science they do not understand as evidence of something, when it is clear that it does not provide the evidence at all. Alun 14:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• The abstract of the scientific report linked by User:Wobble above concludes "that these striking patterns are best explained by a substantial migration of Anglo-Saxon Y chromosomes into Central England (contributing 50%–100% to the gene pool at that time) but not into North Wales.' I have added the science to External Links and tagged the journalistic responses. I have not edited the article. --Wetman 02:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Quite, there is a big difference between stating:

suggests that between 50% and 100% of the indigenous population of what was to become England was wiped out

as it does in the article. And saying:

these striking patterns are best explained by a substantial migration of Anglo-Saxon Y chromosomes into Central England (contributing 50%-100% to the gene pool at that time) but not into North Wales

as it does in the original paper. This analysis only applies to men. It provides no evidence that 50-100% of women have not contributed to the gene pool. So the statement that 50-100% of the population was wiped out is not supported by the citation. The paper states simply that Anglo-Saxon men contributed between 50-100% of the Y-chromosomes. This does not prove any sort of genocide of Brythonic men. Brythonic men could have migrated, or been taken into captivity as slaves (most likely case). In fact it only implies any sort of violence if one assumes replacing as opposed to supplementing. For example the east coast of England was settled by Danes at the end of the 9th-beginning of the 10th centuries, their genetic Y-chromosome legacy has been documented in the Y-chromosome census paper, but there is no documentary evidence of any expulsions or genocides. They simply settled there and mixed with the local population. The fact that Brythonic men have contributed to as much as 50% to the gene pool post-invasion seems to confirm that there was a general biological mixing of the Germanic and Brythonic peoples. This is confirmed by the later and more thorough Y-chromosome census of the British Isles. These sort of papers are very specific in what they tell us, and it is dangerous to try to use them to make generalised points. They can never tell us if there was a genocide or not. Y-Chromosomes are unique in that a man inherits it intact from his father, it tells us nothing about where the rest of our genes come from. I can give you a good example from my own family. My paternal grandfather is Welsh (my father's father), so I might have a Welsh Y-chromosome, but all of my other three grandparents are English, so I have three quarters (75%) English genes and a quarter (25%) Welsh genes, but any Y-chromosome analysis would conclude that I am Welsh. Further, my wife is Finnish, so my three sons have Finnish (50%) English (37.5%) and Welsh (12.5%), but any Y-chromosome analysis would still categorise them as Welsh (furthermore any mitochondrial DNA analysis would categorise them as Finnish). It seems to me that not only does this paper not support a mass genocide or ethnic cleansing of Brythonic people, but that even if there was one, then a considerable number of Brythonic men seem to have remained and contributed to the gene pool, and it is possible (if not likely) that a greater proportion of Brythonic women remained. It seems to me that every person in Great Britain who is of British extraction is (with the possible exception of the aristocracy) a direct descendant of an ancient Briton, it may be true that some modern British people (especially in Wales) are not descended from Germanic people (though I would think this also unlikely). I think that a brief look at modern history will confirm that it is virtually impossible to obliterate a whole ethnic group completely from a land. I would conclude that what these studies show is that when the Anglo-Saxons invaded they, displaced some people while assimilating others, and supplemented the existing population, increasing it's size. I can't help but think that some people misunderstand (or want to deliberately distort) these sort of findings, and then use them to support discredited racial ideas . Alun 07:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Biological tests on the population of Britain have found that the indigenous population of England remains predomiantely pre-Celtic/ancient Briton. Why is this article seeing people state that the English are ethnic Germans or Anglo-Saxons? Enzedbrit 20:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the English are NOT ethnic Germans. I made a mistake not knowing that the term "ethnic" has a different meaning in the English language.

• First of all, again, the limited population genetics tests that have been carried out are controversial and contradictory with each other. Also, the tests have largely been on the least significant Y-chromosome and have been admitted by the researchers themselves that they are in no way conclusive, especially to make such a presumptuous claim that English "are predominantly pre-celtic/ancient Briton". The test you (Enzedbrit) are referring to was only carried out on the Y-chromosome. Reliable analysis from MtDNA, autosomal DNA, and the currently impossible to study yet most important X-chromosome lineage, has not been carried out regarding indigenous English populations. The limited MtDNA test [4] carried out on peoples of Western Europe and (unsuccessfully)the "Celts" is also largely inconclusive as they only showed that peoples in the Western fringes of Europe showed varying degrees of Upper Paleolthic ancestry from the end of the last Ice Age. Even when one looks at each of the British Y-chromosome studies [5] [6], there is a very significant amount of Germanic markers within English populations, especially in the east and nowhere is it implied that the Germanic Y-chromosome markers are insignificant or absent in the west of the country or in the more historically Celtic areas such as Cumbria and Cornwall. Epf 21:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

But Epf, you give no reason as to why the article states that the English are ethnic Germans, which was after all the question. You have simply stated that the Y chromosome analysis is not definitive. You are assuming that because the Y chromosome analysis isn't conclusive, then the default is to assume that it is wrong. You have no evidence to support this.

Even when one looks at each of the British Y-chromosome studies, there is a very significant amount of Germanic markers within English populations, especially in the east and nowhere is it implied that the Germanic Y-chromosome markers are insignificant or absent in the west of the country or in the more historically Celtic areas such as Cumbria and Cornwall.

Actually when you look at the Y chromosome studies you will see that even in York ( the place with the largest concentration of Germanic Y chromosomes in the whole of the British Isles) there are about 60% Germanic Y chromosome maerkers to 40% indiginous. Given that this only applies to men, the proportion of genes derived form germanic ancestors in the whole community of York may be as little as 30%, depending on the volume of female Danish-Viking immigration to the area. This brings me to my other point, which is that Capelli et al seem to have produced convincing evidence that the majority of Germanic genetic markers may in actual fact be from Danish-Viking sources and not from Anglo-Saxon sources as they are concentrated in areas known to have been settiled by Danes (basically the Danelaw). There is nothing wrong with the Y chromosome data, they can, and do, conclude that all modern Britons are all, at least in part, descended from the paleolithic inhabitants of the Brittain. The fact that some are also descended from germanic invaders (both Anglo-Saxons as well as Danes) is not in dispute. I do not understand what you mean by a significant amount of German markers. If you mean statistically significant, then it simply means that they're occurence is not by chance, but could still represent only a small proportion of the whole. The Y chromosome analysis data are interesting because they dispell the myth of an Anglo-Saxon 'genocide of the indigenous inhabitants once and for all. They show that the invaders intermarried with the indigenous population, and more importantly (and this is the usefull part of using Y chromosomes) show that the majority of modern British men have non-Anglo-Saxon (indigenous) Y chromosome markers, which demonstrates that the invaders didn't simply murder all the men and take the indigenous women. The truth of the matter is (hard as it is to stomach for those obsessed with race) that British people are probably all descended from both germanic invaders and indigenous people, but that the indigenous population almost certainly comprises the larger portion, simple numbers should make this obvious. Alun

PS it is also important to point out that ethnicity is not the same as race. Or if you like, Anglo-Saxons were ethnically German, but were biologically a mixture of indigenous (ancient britons) and invading (Anglo-Saxon) peoples.Alun

• I don't understand your point Alun, you basically have just went into greater detail into what I had been trying to say. I in no way said anywhere that the tests are "wrong", but in no way can they be relied upon as to be conclusive or correct. The tests were limited and only two were carried out on limited and questionable samples. What I meant by the section of my earlier discourse, which you cited in your response above, was that the study nowhere shows that the Germanic Y-chrom. markers are absent or insignificant statistically (as a percentage of the sampled population) in the western or more "celtic" parts of England. What it did say was that the markers obviously had a higher prevalence in the east of the country. All of the areas with the highest Germanic markers (east, south-east, north-east) were historically settled by Anglo-Saxons as well as Danes. I also nowhere intend to say that the English are solely descended from Germanic settlers, of course not. What I am saying is that the extent of Germanic settlement and the source of it can not be concluded from these limited genetic studies on only a very small fraction of our DNA. The fact is that other DNA lineage besides the Y-chromosome is passed down paternally as well and the absence of other genetic studies (MtDNA, X-chromosome, autosomal, etc.) on these populations means that no solid or proven conclusions on the ancestors of the English can be drawn from these studies.

In what way were the samples studdied questionable. Do you have some proof that there has been some accademic fraud involved? No one has ever claimed that there is an absence of germanic genetic markers in the west of England, so I don't understand why you think any one ever has. No one is claiming that these data are definitive in determining the ancestry of Anglo-Saxons, so I do not entirelly understand your reasoning. But it is incorrect to state that no solid or proven conclusions on the ancestors of the English can be drawn from these studies. Certainly solid conclusions can be drawn, but one has to be careful when one draws these conclusions as they are very specific. One of the conclusions is very important, and indisputable, it is that there is now no doubt that, not only was there a large biological contribution by non-Anglo-Saxon indigenous people into the modern English gene pool, but that that contribution is much greater than previously thought. Tghis dispells the myth of an Anglo-Saxon extermination of the indigenous population. There is no consensus in the archaeological world as to whether the Anglo-Saxon invasion was a mass migration and total displacement/genocide, or whether it was a cultural diffusion, with only a small invasion by a military elite. These data provide some support for the latter theory, with the proviso that these findings are not definative. Alun 06:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• As for your comments from the sampled populations of York, 60% had Germanic Y-chrom. markers, but that doesnt mean only 60% of the men there had Germanic paternal lineage. Also, one can't make a claim that only 30% of both men and women in that sample area could have Germanic lineage when again testing on other, larger and more significant sections of our DNA have not been studied. The men and women may both turn out to have more or less Germanic lineage when tests on genetic lineages passed down maternally (inherited from BOTH the father and the mother) are carried out. As to the idea that the Danish Vikings may have had more of a genetic impact than the Anglo-Saxons, this is impossible to tell from this study considering they weren't able to disintguish between Frisian Y-chromosomes and those from Schleswig-Holstein (heavily Danish influenced) and Southern Denmark. Until other, more significant lineages are tested as well in which more of a distinction can be made between Frisian and Danish samples, it wouldnt be practical to say the Danish Vikings had a larger influence than the Anglo-Saxons. In my opinion, as well as many others, the reason for the highest Germanic Y-chrom. markers in historically Viking settled/raided areas may be the combining factor of both large numbers of Anglo-Saxon settlers AND numbers of Danish Vikings. This would make obvious sense as to the higher percentage of men with Germanic Y-chromosomes and would easily dispell such an unfounded idea that Danish Vikings had a larger genetic impact than the Anglo-Saxons. Besides, when one takes into account historical, cultural, geographical (place names) and linguistic factors, it can be shown that the Anglo-Saxon settlement was probably larger and more influential than that of Danish Vikings. Epf 05:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you will find that if 60% of men have germanic paternal Y chromosome markers then it certainly does indicate that these men have a germanic patrilineal descent, where else do you suppose the markers come from if not from their male ancestors? Also, one can't make a claim that only 30% of both men and women in that sample area could have Germanic lineage, why not? This statement does not claim anything as fact (could not do), it merely points out that if one assumes that 60% of men have patrilineal descent, then the figure does not necessarily apply to the population as a whole, and that the minimum genetic input by germanic peoples could be as little as 30%, depending on the volume of female germanic immigration. This is a proviso, not a statement of fact. It is there in order to clarify that the 60% figure only applies to men, and not to the population as a whole.

Until other, more significant lineages are tested as well in which more of a distinction can be made between Frisian and Danish samples, it wouldnt be practical to say the Danish Vikings had a larger influence than the Anglo-Saxons. In my opinion, as well as many others, the reason for the highest Germanic Y-chrom. markers in historically Viking settled/raided areas may be the combining factor of both large numbers of Anglo-Saxon settlers AND numbers of Danish Vikings.This would make obvious sense as to the higher percentage of men with Germanic Y-chromosomes and would easily dispell such an unfounded idea that Danish Vikings had a larger genetic impact than the Anglo-Saxons.

In fact this is speculation drawn from the Capelli et al paper. As it is derived from a published source it is perfectly acceptable to use it in Wikipedia, see WP:V and WP:NOR. In fact you say the same thing, that the high level of germanic markers in the Danelaw is due to a double dose, both Anglo-Saxon and Danish-Viking. The fact that levels of germanic markers are so much higher in the Danelaw is unlikelly to be due to chance, and indicates lower rates of germanic settlement outside of this area, possibly because these areas did not get the double dose, but also possibly because there were higher rates of Anglo-Saxon settlement in the east. Capelli et al do speculate that the genetic contribution of the Danish-Vikings to the Danelaw was greater than that of the Anglo-Saxons, it is not entirelly unfounded, their data (which you seem not to accept) do imply this. I stress that these data are not definitive, but as this speculation has been made in a published and reputable source (see WP:RS) there is no reason not to include it here. Wikipedia relies on using published information, it is a policy, you may dissagree with the conclusions of the source, in which case you need to find another published source which contradicts these data and also include this information. See WP:NPOV, this would provide neutrallity, by including both points of view. I stress this cannot be included if it is just your opinion, you need a published source. Alun

By the way Epf, my contribution on Y chromosome analysis has been moved from here to Sub-Roman Britain if you want to take a look and edit it. I would be grateful if you did this as you clearly know about the subject and I don't think it has been edited by anyone else with a knowledge of genetics Thanks.Alun

Genetic analysis and good sources

I have just read, Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration, A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles (both of which are from the same group in UCL), Y-chromosome variation and Irish origins and both citations given in the article in support of genocide, English and Welsh are races apart (3) and Genetics make Welsh distinct (4), it seems that both of the citations are articles written by journalists, and not published scientific research.
Indeed the BBC article (English and Welsh are races apart) seems to be entirely based on the Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration article, but it misquotes and misunderstands it, and the journalist that wrote it seems not to have read the actual original paper at all. This is evident in the quote:

suggests that between 50% and 100% of the indigenous population of what was to
become England was wiped out

which seems to be a misunderstanding/sensationalisation of this from the abstract of the original article:

these striking patterns are best explained by a substantial migration of
Anglo-Saxon Y chromosomes into Central England (contributing 50%-100% to the gene 
pool at that time) but not into North Wales

not only is the abstract misquoted and it's meaning completely changed, but an actual reading of the paper itself will reveal this statement:

We note, however, that our data do not allow us to distinguish an event that
simply added to the indiginous Central English male gene pool from one where
indigenous males were displaced elsewhere or one where indigenous males were
reduced in number

The main conclusion of the paper makes no mention of massacres or genocides:

This study shows that the Welsh border was more of a genetic barrier to 
Anglo-Saxon Y chromosome gene flow than the North Sea.....
These results indicate that a political boundary can be more important than a
geophysical one in population genetic structuring....

The second cited source Genetics make Welsh distinct is more extreme in it's language, and also seems not to be related to any actual published genetic studies. These quotes by Steve Jones in the article:

This shows that in the Dark Ages, when the Anglo-Saxons turned up, there was the
most horrible massacre on the English side. They killed everybody and replaced
them

and

The Cornish are in effect Anglo-Saxons who for a time used a language that was
hanging around.

do not seem to come from either of the UCL papers,even though he is a professor at UCL. In fact the data in the more recent of the two papers A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles seems directly to contradict these two statements. There is a clearly defined increase in Germanic influence (the paper refers to this as North Germany/Denmark and cannot distinguish between (Viking) Danish and Anglo-Saxon Y-chromosomes) the farther east and north of England the samples are taken from. York and Norfolk have the strongest bias in favour of Germanic Y-chromosomes, most of the English samples are skewed somewhat towards the Germanic, with Scottish samples tending to be less Germanic than the English ones, the Cornish samples come closer to the Basque/Welsh/Irish samples than any other English (and most Scots) samples. The Basque, Welsh (with the exception of Llanidloes) and central Irish samples all cluster together. On the whole English and mainland Scots samples tend to have a greater or lesser bias towards the Germanic samples based on location, though none cluster close to them. Samples from Orkney and Shetland show no Germanic bias, but do show a strong bias towards the Norwegian samples, similarly samples from Dublin show a slight bias towards the Norwegian:

The sites with the highest degree of German/Danish input are York and Norfolk,
followed by Southwell and Llanidloes. All of these except Llanidloes are
historically in regions where the Danes are known to have had a significant
presence. The remaining samples are closer to the indigenous group; for these
populations, this finding suggests a lower demographic impact by North European
populations. This can be seen by the frequency of AMH+1, which is always above
33% in British populations but remains below 26% in the continental source
populations; these data are consistent with the presence of some indigenous
component in all British regions

This analysis then went on to compare the Frisian samples used in the Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration study and concluded:

We therefore compared Frisians to our North German/Danish sample and found
that the two sets are not significantly different (p=0.3, data not shown). When
included in the PC analysis, the Frisians were more "continental" than any of the
British samples, although they were somewhat closer to the British ones than the
North German/Denmark sample. For example, the part of mainland Britain that has
the most continental input is Central England, but even here the AMH+1 frequency,
not below 44% (Southwell), is higher than the 35% observed in the Frisians. These
results demonstrate that even with the choice of Frisians as a source for the
Anglo-Saxons, there is a clear indication of a continuing indigenous component
in the English paternal genetic makeup.

I think that these papers have been misunderstood and/or deliberately distorted by journalists in order to produce a good story. As for Steve Jones's comments, well they don't seem to reflect the actual science produced at UCL. I can only assume that Professor Jones's comments themselves have been misunderstood, misquoted or taken out of context. Given all this I think the whole section on Genetic Y-chromosome analysis needs to be re-written with proper science used to support any claims made, rather than journalistic interpretation. Alun 13:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Thinking about verifiability, I think that the cited media articles (Western Mail and BBC) may not constitute reliable sources, see Science and medicine, Cite peer-reviewed scientific journals and check community consensus and Beware false authority. Alun 15:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal of misleading map

I have cut the following misleading map from the article:

A map showing the general locations of the major Anglo-Saxon kingdoms

While I have no doubt that if readers possessed a microscope, they would be able to discern that Cornwall, Wales nor Strathclyde-Cumbria are actually presented by the map's author as being "Anglo-Saxon", without the possession of a microscope you are left with that distinct impression (the only clue is that all three are green). Can anyone please draw up a much clearer map that can actually be read?--Mais oui! 11:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This one

Britain, peoples circa 600

is used in the article Heptarchy. If it's good enough, and it looks ok to me, why not reuse it ? Angus McLellan 12:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I have restored the map and altered the caption 9without making it unwieldy) unitl a better one turns up. If the reader follows the link first to the image page then to the high-res version they can check the detail there. GraemeLeggett 12:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mais oui!, I've often though that it's not a very good map. What's wrong with the map used in the Heptarchy article? Alun 17:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I have replaced the old map with the Heptarchy map. What is the consensus on this? Alun 18:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite of Anglo-Saxon Migration

I felt that the article here on Anglo-Saxon migration was too long, focussed too much on controversial research, and would be likely to confuse the general reader. I've shortened it down to take in the main historical, archaeological, linguistic, place-name and genetic arguments, essentially having one paragraph on 'violent invasion' and another on 'more peaceful settlement'. This is a more general page on 'Anglo-Saxons', and so if anyone wants to go into massive detail on any of these accounts I think a new page should be made dedicated to the matter. Harthacanute 14:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point, there is enough material in the Y-chromosome papers for a full, shortish article. I wonder if there is any call for one? The reason I wrote the Y chromosome section so thoroughly (I hope!) was because there was so much incorrect information based on false premises and a general lack of understanding of the results of the research. Much of the misinformation was from the use of journalistic sources from newspapers and magazines, where the journalists themselves had either not understood the work, or had deliberately misrepresented it for sensationalism. I have no problems with the current wording, though I hope the incorrect assertions that were there previously don't start to creep back in again. Maybe this would be reason enough to create a genetic analysis article. Maybe the way to go would be to create a general article on the use of genetics to try to illuminate ancient migrations, there's plenty of stuff out there, even for the neolithic for example. What do you think? By the way you don't seem to have referenced your edit of the genetic analysis. Alun 14:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph of article

The Anglo-Saxons indeed were the basis for the modern English nation and the language. They were not the basis for English culture nor English ethnicity. One user in particular seems greatly offended to have any reference to Celtic culture in the make-up or history of England and this does a great disservice to English history and Celtic culture which still survives. Even stating that Celtic culture has nothing to do with modern English culture is absurd. The people of England have a legitimate claim to be direct descendents from the first people of Britain just as the Welsh and Scottish have. Also as England is so vast and varies regionally so greatly it cannot be seen as a collective which is Anglo-Saxon and not pre-Anglo-Saxon. Pre-Teuton culture is very clear in many aspects of daily English life especially with ritual, mythology and custom - one only need to know how to differentiate it.Enzedbrit 09:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Anon added this to the lead section:

Therefore, isn`t it somehow ironic that nowadays many English people do foster a - partly almost aggressive - aversion against Germany obviously not knowing (respectively ruling out) that they are ethnic Germans themselves?

It is original research. -- Stbalbach 16:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It's also codswallop. The English are not ethnic Germans. As for aversion against Germany, that is a mistrust and genuine fear which has strong historic basis, especially for those who lived through the wars.Enzedbrit 01:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

ad Enzedbrit)

1) I am not a narrow-minded ignorant but had rather informed myself fairly well about the scientific basis of the statement before I posted it. (e.g. please refer to http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Weale-MBE-02-AS.pdf). If there are other serious academic studies which come to another result, great! But just to allege the report by UCL is "codswallop" appears a bit too easy to me.

I myself have not labelled you narrow-minded, whoever you are, but the English are not ethnic Germans, so you are, if you are the one who posted that comment, very ignorant.Enzedbrit 20:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC);

Maybe it is simply a misunderstanding concerning the notion "ethnic" but does (eg) the article by UCL, Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration, not come to the result that the genetical informations of people living in the south of England are very similar to those of people living in the north of Germany (Friesen) compared with people from Wales?

I refer you to the Y chromosome analysis in the Sub-Roman Britain article (it used to be in this article). In fact the work at UCL does not come to the conclusion that the genetical informations of people living in the south of England are very similar to those of people living in the north of Germany (Friesen) compared with people from Wales. You have misunderstood the paper. I urge you to read the information above on this talk page here and here. Alun 17:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I read the article again and have to correct my statement in so far as the genetic similarities between people living in CENTRAL England and people living in Friesland are very high ("no significant differences in haplotype frequencies exist between Friesland and any of the Central English towns", "our results indicate ... the absence of a (genetic) barrier between Central England and Friesland", "a mass migration from the continent ... would explain ... the high Central English Frisian affinity").

2) WW II ended 1945, ie more than 60 years ago. Hence, presumably more than 90 % of England`s current population did not consciously experience the war at all. Furthermore, the French-German, Russian-German or American-German relations are far better although these nations had been counterparts in the WWs as well. I lived and studied in England from 2001 to 2002 (LL.M. programme, University of London) and my personnel impression was that, for what reason ever, anti-German feelings are deliberately and systematically heated and fostered by British media (sorry, but that is what I experienced).

Yeah, that doesn't actually contradict what I said though does it.Enzedbrit 20:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it does as you say the aversion arises from the bad historic experience made in the two WW, especially for the people who lived in that era. My argument is that, firstly, other nations who experienced the same (and when I think of Russia & France far more intensive) do not still have such a strong aversion after 60/90 years and, secondly, there are only very few people left who consciously experienced WW I and WW II. Therefore, your thesis (wars & veterans) can - at least - not be the only explanation for this broad and vital antipathy. I am not a fan of conspiracy theories but is it remarkable how British media fosters anti-German feelings and this is what I wanted to stress with the statement (and less whether the English and the Germans do belong to the same ethnic group or do not).

I think I'd generally agree with that. Studies into ethnicity have not been particularly historically helpful - as an example, "the range of genetic variation within an ethnic group is larger than the net genetic difference between ethnic groups." (Evison, 2000) It is more helpful to think about identities - these may have followed perceived ethnic lines; they may have not.

As for the media, I'm sure that some papers do stir anti-German feeling, but I'd say it's stirred far less than, for instance, anti-immigrant feeling. I don't think it's a conspiracy; media and popular attitudes tend to play off one another quite well. Also, although there are relatively few people alive in Britain who lived during the wars, both World Wars still loom large in social memory, not least due to the coverage they get in schools and the media. Further, war veterans often tend to punch above their weight in social memory - good examples can be found in Australia in the inter-war period. Harthacanute 15:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Please understand that ethnicity is not the same as race. Modern British people are ethnically British (and English and Welsh and Scottish, one can have multiple ethnic identities), they are not ethnically German. One could argue that the Angles, Saxons, Jutes etc. that first settled Britain were ethnically German, in that they would have been identical ethnically from the populations from which they derived, but that is a different proposition, and modern German ethnicity is different from prehistoric Germanic ethnicity (if that makes sense). As for British anti-German sentiment, well there's no denying that it exists, and in my perception seems to be growing. I'll not try to rationalise it or make excuses for it, it's bigotry plain and simple.Alun 17:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I see, thanks! We obviously had a misunderstanding due to a different interpretation of the notion "ethnic" (greek: ethnos = the people/nation; in Germany, the term "ethnic" is used to distinguish between citizens and natives [i.e. you could be a citizen of Germany without being an ethnic German and the other way around] whereas in England, the word "ethnic" is used to descripe cultural similarities and traditions [source: please refer to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnisch]). Maybe we can put it this way: There were ethnic Germans [Angles, Saxons, Jutes] who went to England and - over centuries - built out an individual English ethnicity whereas a typical today`s feature of such ethnicity is not to like Germans. However I am sure that there remains at least a little bit of irony while contemplating early English history and growing anti-German sentiments in England.

As for prehistoric Germanic ethnicity, if at all, we should compare early-mediaeval German ethnicity with modern English/German ethnicity as the migration did not take place in prehistory but in the early middle ages which is "just" 1,200 years / 40 generations ago.

The relatively small numbers of people, compared to the far larger native population of Britain, who came from north western Germany over several centuries during the early dark ages, would have started blending their blood-lines with the British from day one. These people were from a region of Germany that was no doubt as ethnically distinct from other parts of Germany as they were from the peoples whose island they were to settle. We British also received more recently a lot of input from the French and we certainly retain a lot of prejudice against France, which, like in the case of Germany, is highly reciprocal, a fact that hasn't been hereto mentioned I presume because this is an English language article with a British subject. There is no irony I see in this feeling, no more than there was in the fact both countries were at war twice in the 20th century. If not liking Germans is a key feature of English 'ethnicity', then we could banter about some key features of German ethnicity as well. If we want to go back 40 generations to the Teutonic migrations into Britain, let's go back a thousand years earlier to the Celtic migration, or 10,000 years to the first human migration. We all know that we're one people, all humans, all men, but these days English just ain't German.

ad enzedbrit:

1) These days English are NOT (ethnic) Germans but some of their ancestors had obviously been Germans (I have in so far already corrected my earlier statement, please see above);

2) Therefore, there is indeed some irony but maybe your feelings about the whole subject are simply to serious to discover that (however it had never been my aim to violate your nor anyone elses feelings. Actually I do not realy care whether the English are German, Celtic or Equatorial Guinean I rather wanted to call attention to strong anti-German feelings in England);

3) As for the bad experiences gained in the WWs, I have already shown that this could hardly be the only reason for this vital and broad antiphaty (please see above).

4) As for mutual antipathies, no (!), it is simply not true that Germans do not like the English/British what is easily to be proved by comparing the relevant reporting of British and German media or interviewing German citizens.

5) Please feel free to "banter" about key features of modern German "ethnicity" (a term which I have adopted from Alun as it does not exist in the German language). But if such statement will be merely another stereotype reduction of German (or how Queen Mum [obviously not knowing about the very strong links between English monarchy and German nobility] would have said Hun`s) history to a period of 12 years: please leave it as in that case I could just as well watch English television.

6) As for a lot of input from French, for your information: The Normans (, as well as the Vikings and other ancient tribes from the north of Europe) were of (to be understood as a generic ethnological term) Germanic origin. Coming from Scandinavia, they established a norman reign (inter alia) in the Normandie, adopted the local Roman language and then conquered England. In so far, one should not mix up the "French" of AD 1066 under William the Conqueror and France as we know it today. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:213.70.74.164 (talk • contribs).

This is what my original comments were in response to Enzedbrits comments prior to the numberd list above. Enzedbrit removed and cut it apart in his discussion below:

• First of all Enzedbrit, what evidence is there that the migration of Anglo-Saxons was "relatively small numbers of people" or that the native population of Britain was "far larger" ?. I noted in my discourse in a section far above just how unreliable, limited and controversial the two or three population genetics studies on certain sample populations of the English are. It is not in question that the native Britons intermingled and mixed with the Anglo-Saxons, but it is quite unfounded to claim that the Anglo-Saxon migrations were "small numbers of people". These Germanic settlers created the nation, identity, language, and culture that would make the people essentially "English" and practically all historical sources refer to a significant migration of these peoples from their original lands into Britain. Considering the proven widespread migration of several Germanic peoples during this period, its again just laughable to make some unfounded claim that the people arrived in "small numbers". Also, what is this "large input" of French that you speak of ? Relatively insignificant (in terms of numbers and influence) of French huguenots arrived during the 17th century that were largely absorbed in to the population. Although there are obvious Norman-French influences in English identity, especially in language, any "French" input has been inexistant or very minimal since the days of England's Angevin claims in France. In regards to your last point, no one here is claiming that the English are Germans or have the same roots as ethnic Germans, but the English are very much a Germanic ethnic group in terms of its culture, language, identity and much of its lineage. Besides the most integral Anglo-Saxons, the Danish Vikings and Normans (descended from Vikings) also were Germanic groups who had significant cultural and other influence on the English. The Swedes, Danes, Dutch, Frisians, English are indeed all Germanic, but obviously they not German in terms of the peoples and culture of Germany. Epf 03:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• First of all Enzedbrit, what evidence is there that the migration of Anglo-Saxons was "relatively small numbers of people" or that the native population of Britain was "far larger" ?.

What evidence is there that they weren't? Your view seems to be based on Victorian ideals, whereas modern historians are very much agreed that the far larger British population (1.5 to 6 million people depending on estimates) which was fragmented at the time of the Roman withdrawal by tribal warfare saw the arrival of Teutonic peoples over a peak of about 2 centuries arriving, the first waves of whom warrior class (men). In long boats. You do the math. They have. It will take a lot of boats and a lot of time to supplant a population and even in modern times this is a great undertaking.Enzedbrit 04:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I noted in my discourse in a section far above just how unreliable, limited and controversial the two or three population genetics studies on certain sample populations of the English are. It is not in question that the native Britons intermingled and mixed with the Anglo-Saxons, but it is quite unfounded to claim that the Anglo-Saxon migrations were "small numbers of people".

Now THAT is utter rubbish. Is is very much founded, believed, accepted and logical. What is not logical is that a great wave of Teutons came over and pushed millions of Celts into Wales.Enzedbrit 04:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

These Germanic settlers created the nation, identity, language, and culture that would make the people essentially "English" and practically all historical sources refer to a significant migration of these peoples from their original lands into Britain.

T: hey gave England its language, started the cultural systems we know today. England RETAINS so much of the pre-Anglo-Saxon culture and the identity also stems from that. Your biggest fault here is you are looking at England by its borders and making a false judgement as though it were a whole, a one. Historical records too as you should know cannot be taken at face value - they require investigation, ergo, modern historian opinionEnzedbrit 04:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Considering the proven widespread migration of several Germanic peoples during this period, its again just laughable to make some unfounded claim that the people arrived in "small numbers".

Huh?Enzedbrit 04:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, what is this "large input" of French that you speak of ? Relatively insignificant (in terms of numbers and influence) of French huguenots arrived during the 17th century that were largely absorbed in to the population. Although there are obvious Norman-French influences in English identity, especially in language, any "French" input has been inexistant or very minimal since the days of England's Angevin claims in France. 

The Norman invasion started the next phase of the English language, supplanted Anglo-Saxon English overlordship with Norman and changed the living system of the country. It also brought Ireland under British control, united England with Wales and lead to the eventual union of England with Scotland.Enzedbrit 04:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

In regards to your last point, no one here is claiming that the English are Germans or have the same roots as ethnic Germans, but the English are very much a Germanic ethnic group in terms of its culture, language, identity and much of its lineage.

Actually, no, someone is claiming that the English are ethnic GermansEnzedbrit 04:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Enzedbrit, you are not up to date: I had misunderstood the interpretation of the term "ethnic" and therefore amended my statement in that effect that I do NOT longer allege that the modern English are ethnic Germans (please see above)!!!!!

Besides the most integral Anglo-Saxons, the Danish Vikings and Normans (descended from Vikings) also were Germanic groups who had significant cultural and other influence on the English. The Swedes, Danes, Dutch, Frisians, English are indeed all Germanic, but obviously they not German in terms of the peoples and culture of Germany. Epf 03:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

another point about your posts which continually irks me is your insistance in the difference between the English, Scottish and Welsh. It appears you have no understanding that the migrations into England also affected Scotland and Wales, nor do you seem to understand the areas in England settled by Teutons and that remained dominated by Romano-British Celts. You are far too generic, black/white in your approach. You're a pitiful historianEnzedbrit 04:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed mention of modern England from the lead section. Per Wikipedia:Lead section the lead section is a summary of the article. I see nothing in the article body that discusses this. It's highly controversial as the above discussion shows. Work out the details in the article body, take as much space as you need to include verifiable sources and citations. Then go back and add a summary to the lead section, based on the contents of the article. -- Stbalbach 03:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to say that Enzedbrit's POV is pointless in many aspects and is the most unfounded I've ever seen in this subject area. Normally I choose not to debate with him because of his extreme views and prejudices, but his rude comments and ignorant POV on this subject require something to be said. Despite his claims on my "Vicotrian" ideas, my information IS obviously well founded and based on long studied historical and anthropolgical research. Enzedbrit seems to have this incessant POV that any Germanic immigration to the Isles was so small and that the modern peoples of Britain are all the same except for cultural differences. This is just complete nonsense. He also goes on to make claims that England remained to be "dominated by Romano-British" Celts which is just ignorance to the fact that no Brythonic elements remain in English culture. You claim that there is some retained elements, but other than very very few place names, what else is there ? English surnames are all of either Anglo-Saxon, Norman or Scandinavian in origin. The language retains no Brythonic elements and most Celtic loanwords were borrowed from modern Welsh or Gaelic. The whole culture itself is predominantly Anglo-Saxon with obvious Norman/Scandinavian influences. One could go on for hours about the predominant Anlgo-Saxon elements of English culture and identity. The easiest flaw to point out in your argument Enzedbrit is your response here to the genetic studies you so obsessively live by:

"Now THAT is utter rubbish. Is is very much founded, believed, accepted and logical. What is not logical is that a great wave of Teutons came over and pushed millions of Celts into Wales."

The studies themselves were said by the researchers to be in no way fully conclusive or reliable in any way with use in ethnography, anthropology or historical research. You are basing your whole "English are all native Britons" POV on one or two very controversial genetic studies on a very small portion of human DNA. Most historical records and research point to a significant Germanic migration and my POV is the most widely accepted modern view among historians and other researchers on the subject. Even if one goes by those Y-chromosome studies, it is evident that there was very significant migration of Germanic Y-chromosomes into the British Isles. Now, as for the migration itself, you really need to research your history:

"Your view seems to be based on Victorian ideals, whereas modern historians are very much agreed that the far larger British population (1.5 to 6 million people depending on estimates) which was fragmented at the time of the Roman withdrawal by tribal warfare saw the arrival of Teutonic peoples over a peak of about 2 centuries arriving, the first waves of whom warrior class (men). In long boats. You do the math. They have. It will take a lot of boats and a lot of time to supplant a population and even in modern times this is a great undertaking."

No one is debating that there was a significant Brythonic population in the British Isles or that Germanic raiders arrived in small numbers at first following the Roman withdrawal. However, most historians (despite your ignorant opinion) do acknowledge the fact that the Anglo-Saxon migrations and settlement lasted nearly two centuries, largely based on historical research. Your own POV is hardly widespread amongst historians and other researchers and is in fact, quite in the minority. You response of "Huh ?" to my statement on Germanic migrations clearly goes to show your limited knowledge on the massive dark ages migration of Germanic peoples or on the Migrations period itself. The Anglo-Saxon migration occured at a time when the majortiy of all Germanic peoples were migrating over vast areas throughout Europe. With the historical evidence of the migrations combined with the fact that the English culture, language, identity and nation are derived from the Anglo-Saxons and other Germanic groups, it is ridiculous for one to disregard the Germanic settlement as minimal and claim that the modern British people are predominantly descended from native Britons. These Germanic settlers didnt supplant the population, but they arrived in very large numbers, intermingled with the natives, and asserted total cultural and linguistic dominance, while the the native cultural elements survived in remote areas such as Wales and Cornwall.

"The Norman invasion started the next phase of the English language, supplanted Anglo-Saxon English overlordship with Norman and changed the living system of the country. It also brought Ireland under British control, united England with Wales and lead to the eventual union of England with Scotland."

The Norman invasion did "start the next phase" of English language, as it did significantly alter many aspects of it. The Norman overlordship also heavily intermixed with the English to become Anglo-Normans as the Normans themselves were absorbed and arrived in very few numbers. The Normans indeed also made territorial gains in Wales and Scotland, but until the time of Edward I, they were largely independent from England. Ireland was hardly brought under "British control" as only the area in and around Dublin was firmly under English (Anglo-Norman) administration. Basically, there is no arguing the very significant cultural influence of the Normans, but the people, culture, lanugage and identity very much remained to be Anglo-Saxon and "Germanic". I never disagreed with this anyway so I dont understand your point. What was meant was that French influence was limited to aspects of language and the feudal system brought by the Normans coudly hardly be declared to be a "French" element as it was widespread across continental Europe.

"another point about your posts which continually irks me is your insistance in the difference between the English, Scottish and Welsh. It appears you have no understanding that the migrations into England also affected Scotland and Wales.."

This is the one of Enzedbrits biggest flaws in his ignorant and confusing approach to this arugment. In no way have I ever denied that the migrations into England also affected Scotland and Wales. Obviously most people knowledgable in this area know such a basic fact. Anglo-Saxon settlement extended all the way to the border with the Picts up in Scotland and the south east of Scotland has long been Anglo-Saxon in especially culture and language. Wales however did not see very much (if any) Anglo-Saxon settlement whatsoever and was only conquered by England in the 13th century. Welsh culture and language persisted and today remains strong. The Welsh in many ways are indeed the closest ancestors of the native Britons as it was the least Germanic-influenced region of Britain. The Scottish are in many ways a very diverse group and quite distinct from the English in several ways. The Picts were a native Caledonian people that were separate from the Brythonic peoples which inhabitd the large majority of the island of Britain. As well as the Picts, Scotland encountered separate migrations that did not affect the English on the same scale, most notably the Gaels of Dal Riada who would form the basis for Scottish national and cultural identity. Furthermore, most of the Vikings who raided and settled in Scotland were from western Norway compared to primarily Danish Vikings that invaded and settled in England. From this evidence alone, it is clear how there are distinct origins of the Welsh, English and Scottish as well as some commonalities.

This ends my response to Enzedbrits disruptive comments. Please note that it isnt acceptable on Wikipedia to delete portions of peoples comments on here just because they disagree with your POV. Enzedbrit, I think you need to learn some etiquette and do not denegrate people any further in this duscussion or you'll be referred to the admin. Epf 23:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, there is a lot for me to read here eventually. It appears that EPF and I have an on-going debate and neither of us are going to back down. EPF, you have deleted almost every comment I have made on Wikipedia and replaced them with your own which is an agenda of really flat-out criticising any assocation of England retaining anything Celtic - very sad. You are guilty of everything and more of what you have levelled upon me. Maybe on the weekend, I'll read through your comments and reply to them.Enzedbrit 22:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether it is my timezone, I do not know, but some of the comments above by me are listed as coming after EPFs comments or have been moved, I don't know, to make it look like I was replying after his comments in sequence. I don't trust this discussion board any more than I trust EPF's 'Braveheart' version of British history.Enzedbrit 22:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• HaHa, wow. "Braveheart" version ? Are you even an an academic ? Whenever your POV and comments are shown to be ignorant and unsupported, you resort to insults. As for replacing your comments ? No, I dont have some "agenda", lol, though I'm sure you think so in whatever fantasy world you think you live in. I mainly seek historical truths and dont like to see your overwhelmingly biased and unsupported POV always being entered into articles. Whatever level of interest you have in history or anthropology, you need to learn to be far more skeptical about what you have come to believe and to not take everything at face value, especially when your view is only based on limited evidence. Epf 23:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Also, Enzedbrit, none of your entries above have been removed, although obviously you completely altered and removed parts of an original discussion of mine. When responding to your discourse, I actually took the time to copy and paste each section of yours and then adding my responses rather than just altering and removing parts of yours. Epf 23:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

EPF you are now flat out lying. I have not removed any of your discussion from this page. I have responded to each point to which I have cared respond and your discussion has continued after my insertion.Enzedbrit 23:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• umm, no, I had to re-enter my one earlier shorter discourse, as I mention far above, since part of it was removed while by you while the rest you altered and entered into your own response. Epf 00:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This is how I know that I actually telling the truth. If you check the history of this page, you will see that I broke up your discourse into sections and then in between these added my own piece, leaving yours not deleted, but in tact. If you look at my edits, you will see that this backs up my case. I am no computer whiz, and even if I were, I think it would be pretty hard for me to forge this. So again, I have not deleted ANY of your comments. Enzedbrit 02:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Proven by checking here Revision as of 04:21, 10 March 2006 - curiously this came before the dozens of edits made to your speech by the unidentified IP user. Enzedbrit 02:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• As you can see from that though, you did not leave my discussion as it is. It is fine to take the pieces of it and put it in your own discourse, but leave the original version as it was. Also, you can see a section of it (even tho very small) wasnt used in yours. Whatever though, this is silly. I dont know whats goin with this anon editing everyones comments, but it seems like hes edited everything I, you and others have posted on here. As u can see, my IP address would be some sort of 69 #. Epf 03:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 03:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems with this debate is that everyone seems to be presenting conflicting theories as facts. It is absurd to condemn people for comments they have not made. Epf claims that You are basing your whole "English are all native Britons" POV on one or two very controversial genetic studies on a very small portion of human DNA. But I don't think anyone has ever made the claim that English people are all native Britons, the controversy is the extent of Anglo-Saxon immigration, not wheather it occured at all. There is not point in accusing someone of something they havent said. The plain truth of the matter is that No one really knows. If you were to be honest, rather than just opinion peddling then you must admit that the extent of Anglo-Saxon migration during the Dark Ages is uncertain, and at present unknowable. The Y chromosome analyses do give some indication that immigration may not have been as great as some theories suggest. These data are not conclusive, but that is not to say that they are wrong or unreliable, they just don't tell us the full story. The fact that they have been published in reputable journals means that their content is perfectly acceptable as a source for wikipedia articles. You may not like this, but wikipedia is not here for the sole purpose of providing a platform for your opinions. Please refrain from trying to discredit this POV, it has every right to be expressed. There is some conflict as to the extent of Anglo-Saxon migration, but the correct way to express this in a wikipedia article is to address both points of view. It is totally counter productive to just take entrenched positions and pointlessly contradict each other, you are not conducting an argument, as you seem to be unable to accept the validity of any theory that does not conform to your opinion. The purpose of this page is for editors to come to a consensus about how to express these different theories. I urge you both to think of ways of expressing your different POVs in a neutral way, while allowing both to be expressed. I would point out that cultural diffusion is a well accepted theory and it is incorrect for Epf to imply that most archaeologists do not accept it (Your own POV is hardly widespread amongst historians and other researchers and is in fact, quite in the minority). In conclusion, don't wast space arguing points when there is no consensus even in the academic world, rather concentrate on finding good sources to support your POV and include both POVs in as neutral a way as possible. Oh, and please stop expressing theories as if they were proven facts.Alun 07:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Very level headed Alun, diolchEnzedbrit 05:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed, it was Alun, Enzedbrit should take a hint. 69.156.88.98 23:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Very puerile EPF. Enzedbrit 14:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really, but I guess it only follows your callow insults.

Regardless of the incompleteness of our knowledge, invasionist ideas are not as popular as they were in days gone by. Continuity is emphasised, and rightly so. The continental migrations, to which Epf has referred, are quite unhelpful here, and the English case does not correspond. Frankish, Gothic, Lombard and Burgundian disappear, but "Old English" replaces Brythonic. This is exceptional in western Europe at the time, so an exceptional explanation is wanted, and the arrival of some Germans seems quite inadequate as the entire explanation. The case of the Picts seems to be altogether more relevant to the replacement of Brythonic languages by Germanic ones than any continental example. An invasion and conquest model was once de rigeur there too. Now it's quite abandoned in favour of language spread and the fabrication of a new Albannach identity (cf. Origins of the Kingdom of Alba). Analogy is not explanation, but it does at least offer models which can be tested against the facts. So, is there a consensus answer to the question "How did England become English" ? No, as Alun says, there is not, but the parameters, and the middle ground, of the debate have shifted a good deal since the 1980s, and enormously since Stenton's time. Angus McLellan 13:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see how the continental migrations are unhelpful as the Burgundians, Goths, Franks and Lombards are only a a few examples of the Germanic migrations. The migration of peoples such as the Franks into northern Germany is in fact possibly (according to current historical therory) part of the reason why the Angles and Saxons migrated from their original lands in the first place. I do agree that invasionist ideas are not as popular as they once were, but they have obviously in no way been disregarded. I agree that the idea of the large scale Anglo-Saxon migration is contrasted with the movements of other Germanic groups, but look how much stronger Anglo-Saxon language, culture and other elements took hold and remain dominant in England compared to the continental areas invaded by other Germanic groups. Even so, not all of the Germanic tribes who migrated on the continent disappeared either and they remain the defining cultural element in the Low countries, areas which were Celtic (Belgae) prior the migrations period. I have never supported the idea of "replacement" of Brythonic peoples by Anglo-Saxons, and obviously there was significant intermarriage, but it is agreed by most academics in the debate that the Anglo-Saxons did arrive in significant numbers (e.g. compared to the very small numbers of Normans who invaded the country centuries later). This has long been supported by several examples of historical and other evidence. Genetics and physical anthropology can also point out to some level of significant Anglo-Saxon settlement. Epf 00:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• This page is for discussing how to improve the article, not for having pointless academic debates. All POVs should be included as long as they are properly verified from good sources. Neither side of this argument has the right to prevent the other POV from being presented. This is the fundemental principal of wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. So stop arguing about what should go in, because it should all go in. Start talking about how to include it in a neutral way. No one is being at all constructive here. Alun 05:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Angus McLellan is right to an extent that the view has shifted somewhat towards continuity; arguments for cataclysm have moved away from the 'Germanist' point of view of Stenton et al, though there are still highly relevant points to be made. Alun's point about the unknowable is spot on. I'd add that there is likely to be a considerable geographic element to this; the extent of migration/settlement/invasion must have differed to quite an extent across Britain. What we need to do, I think, is to give the varying arguments for continuity and cataclysm, state that we don't know which one is more valid, and then move on. I'll do this myself if I get chance in the next few days - it might encourage me to write an essay I need to do on the subject!

It is perhaps worth noting that the 'Anglo-Saxons' living at the time recognised a considerable difference between themselves and other 'ethnic' peoples, especially the Welsh. Ine's law code gives different stipulations for Welshmen; the 10th-century Ordinance of the Dunsaete clearly shows that divisions could be perceived in ethnic terms; the Welsh poem Armes Prydein makes a definite divide between the English and the others. Harthacanute 00:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

EPF, I believe it might just be you who has indeed stated that the English are ethnic Germans, but am willing to accept it's not. An IP user has made what looks to be over 100 editing corrections to EPF's discourse with me over the course of several hours. This is the same user that added the comments about English being ethnic Germans if you look on the history of this article. Whether or not it is EPF, it is quite scaryEnzedbrit 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Where did I anywhere state the English are ethnic Germans ? Here you go again misinterpreting things and making ingnorant and false accusations. As for the anon you speak of, I dont know who it is, but whoever it is has also vandalised my user page several times in the past until I contacted the admin. Cheers, Epf 00:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that you cannot read or don't understand what you read. I believe it might just be you who has indeed stated that the English are ethnic Germans, but am willing to accept it's not is what I have clearly said, right before your Here you go again misinterpreting things and making ingnorant and false accusations. What part of 'willing to accept it's not' is unclear? Enzedbrit 03:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Next Steps...

Right, I've fleshed out the section on migration a bit and made it a main heading, which I think it appropiate as it's quite important in thinking about who the Anglo-Saxons were. I've tried to make the rest of the page less POV, toning down the language in some places. I'm not sure about some of the arguments and they can be clarified by those who know better. Also, the sub-sections under Anglo-Saxon Culture could do with being expanded/reorganised/deleted as necessary. I've moved Anglo-Saxon Language to its own section as I think it deserves greater focus; literature remains under culture. I've also added some nice pictures, drawing heavily on the Norse version of the page. Should liven it up a little! Comments? Harthacanute 23:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice balanced rewrite of the migration section. Good work. Alun

Sections are organized logically by topic, not according to what individual Wikipedia editors personally think readers should focus on. Your suggesting anything in the Culture section is second-rate, and even ready for outright deletion! --Stbalbach 07:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I would of course not deem to push my views, such as they exist, on how Wikipedia pages should be laid out :-) But as I've started... I'd personally be in favour of removing the Anglo-Saxon culture section (because culture is too much of a catch-all term) and making each sub-section a section in its own right. I entirely agree that the page should be organised logically by topic, but it doesn't seem too logical at the moment. Not sure if that's very clear, but I've just woken up. And am now late. Harthacanute 09:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

How many Germanies

I've no problem with getting rid of so many "Germanic/Germanic/Germanic tribes" which were scattered through the article, but seriously we do need these two particular references. Its the first mention in the article, and so it needs to be stated exactly where Old Saxony is. How many people know it's even in Germany, let alone whereabouts? 5% of the English-speaking population? Ditto Jutland - recognition will be a bit higher because of the battle maybe, but not with any geographical certainty. Jameswilson 23:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I may be channelling Ted Nelson, but when I see a link and I don't understand what it means, I click the link. I'm fairly sure that's the whole point of hypertext. Old Saxony may not tell readers much, but clicking the link will make everything clear. Less is more. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I cant agree. User-friendliness is all. Hyperlinks are there for if you want more detailed info, not just a simple fact such as a location or a date. I cant see any reason for editing those out. Its good information and basic to understanding the paragraph.

And anyway, as things stand, why is it OK to specify the location of where the Angles came from (not deleted), and then object to the same thing for the Saxons and Jutes (both deleted)? Jameswilson 00:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The article's quite long as it is, I see no reason for unnecessarily lengthening it, as Angusmclellan says, if you need to know more, click the link. It's what I usually do. If you are going to include every fact (and some argue that the Anglo-Saxons were in fact mainly descended from the indigenous people of Great Britain, so there's no real academic consensus regarding their origins) in this article, then we should delete the seperate Angle, Saxon and Jute articles, or else what are they for? Alun 06:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The philosophy of wikipedia is that it is link and media independent - ie. a printed version will be made, and articles will stand on their own (it should not be assumed that the reader is on a computer). With that said, facts should be relevant to the article, not trivia. Hope that helps. -- Stbalbach 12:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it, how can it be edited by people without a computer? Alun 14:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

We are writing this for other people to use, it's not an end unto its self. -- Stbalbach 02:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well in a print encyclopedia the article would have to be much smaller than it is now. Print encycopedias are much more limited by their size than a web based one, how large do you think a printed version of just the english wikipedia would be at present? How many people could fit the thing into their houses? Anyway it's somewhat irrelevant as link independent doesn't really mean anything. When I say above that you can click on the link to find out what it means, it's just another way of saying I looked it up in another part of the encyclopedia, so it is link independent, links are just convenient. Alun 05:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to be independent units, that stand on their own. How the end user uses it is hard to conjecture - it could be print, CD or DVD ROM, or some future media. We are building content, not a web site. The other article may or may not be available to look at, as you say, a "complete" printed copy is impossible (the current CD version of Wikipedia is only a few thousand articles). Granted, this is all theoretical and in practice %99 will read this through some online media so it's probably irrelevant, pragmatically speaking. -- Stbalbach 13:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What WP:TPA says is "nearly self-contained" and "comprehensible by itself". The introduction says that the Angles, Jutes and Saxons were Germanic, and it isn't expecting much of the reader to make the connection between Germanic and Germany. This is not, after all, the Simple English version. What more is needed ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we don't need to go into massive detail, it's what the other articles are for. Alun 14:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• I believe that proper noun or not, if you have a word that ends in consonant + y, you pluralise it to 'ies'. TharkunColl believes that you don't do this with proper nouns. If anyone can prove this to be correct, I will admit defeat and glory in that I've leart another lesson about my language! Enzedbrit 22:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you care? TharkunColl 22:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that it's important to speak well, even on forums such as this. Enzedbrit 01:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)