Talk:Offa of Mercia

Second opinion

Looking for a second opinion regarding this paragraph: "In his authoritative history, Anglo-Saxon England, Sir Frank M. Stenton argued that Offa was perhaps the greatest king of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, the proof of his ability obscured by the lack of a historian to describe his achievements. "No other Anglo-Saxon king ever regarded the world at large with so secular a mind or so acute a political sense," wrote Stenton."

A) Should it even be in the article,

B) And if so, should it be at the very end, or second to last as it is now? Everyking 14:00, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mixed feelings, it's somebody's opinion and is a bit meaningless to tell the truth, but it does state that it's an opinion in the text. I don't think Offa was the greatest of the AS kingdoms but then this isn't about my opinion is it? -- Graham  :) | Talk 14:03, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually Frank Stenton is usually right about these things (in my opinion anyway) and reads Dark Ages history with a very shrewd eye. I will have a read of what else he has to say on the subject and see if I can add a little more of substance to this notion and maybe clarify it a bit. user:sjc

Ah yes. He has a fair bit to say about the significance of Offa quite early on, and makes the salient point that it is only at the point at which Offa comes to power that there is a transition to centralised governance: [..] the endorsement represents a real distinction between the primitive government of the local kingdoms and the beginnings of administrative routine in a court which had become the political centre of England south of the Humber. He establishes his ideological primacy by changing the style by which he designates himself mid reign from rex Merciorum to rex Anglorum and rex totus Angliorum patriae (he wasn't since he only controlled some of them but he is making a sophisticated political point). Stenton goes on to make some play of the scale and significance of Offa's Dyke, a major boundary defining earthwork which must have consumed fabulous amounts of manhours and resources to construct. etc. Stenton also makes the point that his international relationships were firmly established with a concordat with Charlemagne, and he makes great play of the fact that he does not allow Charlemagne to push him around. Frankly i think Frank makes his point very well having read into it, and it is a valid and sensible opinion to have in the article. user:sjc

Stenton is definitely an authoritative source, and I can see justification for keeping the paragraph, but in the intro it already says: "Prior to the rise of Wessex in the 9th century, he was arguably the most powerful and successful of the Anglo-Saxon kings." I just don't want the article to sound as though it's nothing but the assessments made in a 1940s book. I would want to keep the paragraph if there was a different opinion from some other historian, and then we could group them together as "Historical assessments of Offa's reign". Everyking 17:01, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, if anything its the weakness of the first paragraph which concerns me also; it introduces surmise unnecessarily. It doesn't really set the scene for what is to follow. Let me sleep on it and see whether we can't do better than this. user:sjc

As the person who wrote the original passage (& provided the quote from Sir Frank), I added the qualification in order to pre-empt the objection, "But what about Alfred the Great?" Offa's contributions aren't better known because he had no Bede or Asser to document his deeds; his reign is recorded in the acts of a few charters, some letters with Charlemagne & the Pope, & about a dozen entries in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Adding that opinion helps to indicate this imbalance exists. -- llywrch 18:05, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree, but I wish we come up with some way of saying this without leaning so heavily on Stenton. We could say something like: "The record of Offa's deeds suggests that he was one of the greatest of the Anglo-Saxon kings, and possibly the greatest (as was argued by the mid-20th century historian Frank Stenton), but his importance has sometimes been neglected by history due to the lack of a contemporary historian to properly chronicle his reign." Everyking 18:36, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I was under the impression that by reporting what Stenton says, we follow the guidelines for NPOV. That way, we don't fall into endless arguments over who was the most important king of the period in England or Britain. And as Stenton is considered an authority on Anglo-Saxon history, his opinion carries far more weight than, say mine. -- llywrch 21:19, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Certainly we do, I just don't like the way it sounds. My alternative still reports what Stenton says, just in summarized form, instead of as the focus of an entire paragraph. Everyking 21:28, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Try Keynes on England, 700-900 in New Cambridge Mediaeval History, or Brown and Farr, Mercia: an Anglo-Saxon kingdom in Europe if you're looking for a more recent perspective. But they do pretty much agree with Stenton; and, quite honestly, if you're looking to assess an AS king, Stenton's the place to go.

Stenton's work is very important, but it is not the be all and end all. I would certainly recommend Keynes in NCMH. This article seems to have inherited some of the teleolgy of Stenton. He was always looking towards the creation of "England", and cast Offa as a "statesman". I'm going to have a think about this article and see if I can work these things out. Harthacanute 12:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I now think the info on Stenton's perspective definitely needs to be in the article, but it should also be balanced out by other perspectives, of course. Everyking 12:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've rearranged a lot of this in the hope that it's now more usable. I think something on Keynes' view needs including as that is the most recent understanding. I've left Stenton's view in several places, but I agree that it's important that this is a balanced page about Offa rather than "Stenton's view of Offa". Harthacanute 13:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Offa and Islam

I hesitate to ask this, because I'm worried that, as so often happens on Wikipedia, it might result in the issue coming to occupy a far more prominent place in the article than it deserves, but—do we really want the theory that Offa was Moslem and its opposing viewpoint being given such equal weight when they're mentioned? My understanding (and I'm far from an expert on the Anglo-Saxon period) is that this theory is given pretty short shrift by specialists of the period; if this is so, the article should say so. If I'm mistaken and it's not so, then it needs to be backed up better than the article, as the external link on the subject leads only to a vaguely crackpot-sounding essay that provides no references for its assertions other than having "asked several Englishmen (male and female alike)" for their opinions (I'm very curious as to a female Englishman's opinion!), and whose spelling and punctuation do not do anything to shore up its credibility. Binabik80 16:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. I'm working on a PhD on eighth- and ninth-century Anglo-Saxon coinage, and no serious scholar of the period would take this theory seriously for a second. The one piece of pertinent evidence belongs to a completely different but no less fascinating tradition of monetary and economic interaction, and should be taken on those terms. For all that this case illustrates how people can (mis)interpret the evidence to suit their own ends, it would definitely be safer to remove any reference to Offa's 'conversion'. Arichis 10:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Coin images

These rather obstruct the article's contents at the moment. I'd suggest that, if they are to be kept, that only one side is displayed, with a link to the reverse in the image caption. I'll be bold and change them in a day or so if there's no objections. --Whamilton42 18:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The Arabic text on the coin

i just want to make a correction regarding a piece of information that was mentioned in the article , the author said "Offa Rex is centred, though the moneyer clearly had no understanding of Arabic as the Arabic text is upside down" . My mother language is Arabic and surely anyone who knows Arabic can easily notice that this is not true, the Arabic text on the back of the coin is not upside down. Arabic language didn't undergo dramatic changes over the centuries and anyone who knows Arabic can understand the meaning of the words written. I am here not implying that offa was Muslim or anything else, I am just correcting a piece of information for the sake of accuracy fellowhuman november 2006

Fair point: I hadn't noticed that. But the Latin text is upside down in relation to the surrounding Arabic. User:Arichis 19:34, 23 November 2006

Etymology

What does the name OFFA actually MEAN?? Thankx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.143.68.244 (talk) 23:02, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Editing for FA

Just a note to say I'm hoping to take this article to FA, and plan to make some edits over the next few days or weeks to bring it up to the FA criteria. I'll try to keep the edit summaries informative but if anyone thinks I'm making a hash of the article, let's talk before I go too far off track. Mike Christie (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Uncited material

I can't find a cite for this quote I just removed from the section on Wessex: "The border or Wessex and Mercia in this period seems to have been peaceful; recent archaeological excavations at Oxford have revealed an important Middle Saxon bridge, but no fortifications comparable to those at Hereford." It was added by an anon, some time ago. If anyone has a cite for it, please re-add it. Mike Christie (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No idea myself, but I wonder if it might be from Haslam's "Market and Fortress in England in the Reign of Offa" World Archaeology, Vol. 19, No. 1. I didn't check Vince's article in Brown & Farr's Mercia. This page on Bristol might be worth a look. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything in Vince; I don't have access to JSTOR so I can't check Haslam, though I agree it looks possible. I quickly scanned the Bristol page, which looks interesting: I don't see a direct source there but there is other possibly usable material. Thanks for the pointers. Mike Christie (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Another source question, this time for the material about the Welsh conflicts. Here's the bit from the article: "There was a battle between the Mercians and the Welsh at Hereford in 760, and Offa is recorded as campaigning against the Welsh in 778, 784 and 796 in the Annales Cambriae." All four of these dates come from the Annales Cambriae, I believe, but the only copy of those annals I have access to is here, and the 796 entry refers to some chap named Rheinwg, son of Offa. He doesn't appear to be mentioned in PASE as far as I can tell. Is there some gloss on this entry that clarifies this? I can't find it explicitly discussed in Kirby, Stenton, Yorke, or any of the usual suspects. Mike Christie (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The version of the Annales Cambriae in Morris's Nennius shows that the "Devastation by Rheinwg son of Offa" is not in the oldest manuscript, Harleian 3859. Rheinwg is seemingly the kingdom of Dyfed (or perhaps Brycheiniog) (try Google books for Rheinwg+Offa and Rheinwg). I must find a decent book on early medieval Wales. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you do, let me know what you find. I think I'll just remove the 796 date until I can understand that entry better; it really doesn't have much impact on the force of the comment and I hate to put it in without knowing what's going on there. Mike Christie (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

…and as soon as I cut it I find it in Stenton. He says it's a raid into Dyfed; I've re-added it just as a date without mentioning the location. Mike Christie (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced comment from Wormald

I removed this: "Wormald argues that they may reflect Offa's lost law codes, referred to by Alfred the Great" in reference to the records of the legatine mission. I can't find this in his "The Age of Offa and Alcuin", in Campbell et al., eds., The Anglo-Saxons. If anyone has a source, please let me know, as I'd like to use this. Mike Christie (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I found this in the Penguin Asser and have reffed it from that. Mike Christie (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Offa and Aethelheard

Yorke, Kings and Kingdoms, p. 117, says "When Jaenbert died in 792 Offa was careful to have a more compliant individual installed as his successor." I'd like to include some reference to this, but I'm not sure what the evidence is Yorke is basing this on. All I know of is subsequent evidence in charters that Aethelheard was indeed more compliant. Does anyone know if there is more than that? Mike Christie (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The F Chronicle says that Æethelheard was "of the monastery of Louth". The location does make it likely he would be more compliant and that Offa had some influence on the appointment. It reminds me of Æthelbald and Tatwin, who had been abbot of Breedon-on-the-Hill. This is all I can think of to explain Yorke's wording. qp10qp (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Cut passage

I cut the following:

Other substantial construction projects of a similar date do exist, however, such as Wat's Dyke and the Danevirke, in what is now Denmark, as well as such sites as Stonehenge from millennia earlier. The dyke can be regarded in the light of these counterparts as the largest and most recent great construction of the preliterate inhabitants of Britain.

It's awkwardly written (trying to kill two different birds—size and age—with one stone) in my opinion, but copyediting it does not seem to me worth it. The article already said that we do not know if Wat's Dyke was built before or after Offa's Dyke, which contradicts the "most recent" part here. Referenced or not, the claim that OD was a larger construction than Stonehenge seems to me arguable (and rather irrelevant), especially as it is known that Stonehenge was part of a larger site and related to a network of other monuments. Also, since there were literate monks in Mercia at this time, and since charters were written, maybe we shouldn't talk of Offa's as a preliterate age, even if the literate were few in number. All in all, I feel such claims are inessential to the article. qp10qp (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. The quote is taken from a piece by Wormald in which he talks about how historians are astounded at such feats of engineering from a pre-literate society, but "the prehistorian is quite used to such things". I might be inclined to defend introducing a comment like that in an article on Offa's Dyke; for an article on Offa I agree it's quite peripheral and can just go. Mike Christie (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Coinage

I was looking for stuff on Cano mac Gartnáin earlier on and I came across a comment about Offa in the New History of Ireland [Francis John Byrne, "The Viking Age" in Dáibhí Ó Cróinín (ed) Prehistoric and Early Ireland], p. 614, fn 11: "[Coenwulf]'s predecessor, the great Offa, received a more curious tribute from the Irish: not merely do the annals style him 'Offa rex bonus Anglorum' (A.U. 796), but his coinage was remembered in the Old Irish word affaing 'a penny', attested in the saga of Cano mac Gartnait, as well as in Cormac's Glossary (where the Bodl[eian]. copy has the older form ofing); Cormac actually regarded it as a native Irish unit, 'the scripulus of the Gaels'!; see D. A. Binchy (ed.), Scéla Cano meic Gartnáin (Dublin, 1963), pp 22 ff." Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that tidbit, Angus; I'll try to work it in once I'm caught up on FAC comments. Mike Christie (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello! As far as I know this is pretty fishy: there's an alternative derivation from Latin officina put forward in L. Bieler and J. Carney, 'The Lambeth Commentary', Eriu 23 (1972), 1-55, at 52. The latest discussion of the subject I know of is very sceptical about the Offa link (F. Kelly, Early Irish Farming, Early Irish Law Series 4 (Dublin, 1997), p. 595). Only some half a dozen or so coins of Offa have ever been found in Ireland. Arichis (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright of newly added coin image

I like the coin image that's just been added, but per this response I got from the "Can I use . . . " page I think it's not actually PD. I thought I'd seen a coin-specific PD tag on something but I can't find that either. Without knowing more I'm tempted to remove the image because of the above response. I'll put it in the infobox for now, as it would look great there if we can use it. Mike Christie (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I agree that this is probably not strictly allowed. We don't know when the photograph was taken, since there is no source given. There is no chance of being called on this (the coin has probably often been photographed, back into the nineteenth century), but that's the way I interpret the rules. qp10qp (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, if we can't find a photograph of this coin which we can be confident is in the public domain, but an image would be desirable, then we can either claim an image of a coin as fair use - as the only contemporary images of Offa are on coins of which free images do not exist (or at least, that we cannot be confident that the images are free). Or, we could use a later description which is definitely freely available. For example, what about using a mediaeval depiction? Either this, from Matthew Paris' tract on St Alban, or this, from the Cottonian Nero D VIII. Either should be fine to place under {{PD-art}}, as they are purely mechanical copies of two-dimensional originals, showing no originality in lighting etc. Warofdreams talk 01:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There is at least one image, not very large it's true, of an Offa penny in Grueber's Handbook (plate I), it's available here. The images can go on commons as {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. There's no photographer credited in the book, just The Clarendon Press. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The coin images in Grueber are quite a find, but if Warofdreams is right about the ability to claim fair use then I suppose there's no reason not to use the coin image he added in the first place. Not sure quite what the right way to handle it is -- would it be sensible to put a fair use rationale for this article on the image, along with a note that I'm not sure the PD license is correct so the rationale is just in case?

Warofdreams, thanks for those images. I will work them into the article later; I'm going to try to get a FAC review done tonight for an article teetering on the brink so I will put them on the to-do list. They're great finds! Mike Christie (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added the coin. I'll put the other images in later this week when I get a chance. Mike Christie (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I believe that the original message you received was correct on the coin - they are a grey area as they are not strictly 2D. The artwork being 2D is an important condition; English copyright law apparently grants copyright even to photographs taken of a painting (as there is a choice of angles, lighting, etc), but not to direct scans showing no originality. I seem to remember hearing that the law was untested on the question of coins, but, particularly as we now have a PD image, it probably is best left out. Warofdreams talk 12:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I misunderstood you -- weren't you saying that even if the coin is not PD I can claim fair use? I am no fair use expert so I wasn't sure. If fair use does not apply then I guess we have to drop it though I feel sure I saw a different licence on a coin recently that did make a PD claim based on a different law. Anyway, does fair use not apply here? Mike Christie (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. If an image is in the PD, there is no need to claim fair use. I was under the impression that there were no free contemporary images of Offa, but as we now have one, I think that we are unlikely to be able to claim fair use on an alternative. Warofdreams talk 14:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the image in the infobox to use a clipped head of Offa from the Matthew Paris image. I looked again at the coins Angus found and decided that it's not as good as this head for the infobox; pity. I'd like to use the whole Matthew Paris image for the "Stature" section, but to do that I'd like to be able to quote the MS shelfmark and the date, and I couldn't figure those out from the link. I assume it's contemporary with Matthew, so I put thirteenth century in the infobox caption, but a bit more would be nice to put it in the article. Anyone know? Mike Christie (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)