Jump to content

Talk:Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by J Beake (talk | contribs) at 20:01, 3 July 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Population estimates

I find the first paragraph of the current section #Estimating continental migrants' numbers rather confusing.

Apparently we start by estimating the population of Roman Britain. From this an estimate is given of the population of Southern and Eastern England. (How? It doesn't say). Is the number of Britons at the time of the Adventus just allocated pro-rata from the total; or does it assume that the economic catastrophe in late 4th/early 5th century Britain went hand-in-hand with a population catastrophe? (eg according to Michael Wood [1] the British population may have fallen from 4 million to 1 million, though a quick read of our article suggests we may be treating it as constant.) The article doesn't explain, just that apparently this then helps estimate the number of migrants -- but why it should help seems completely obscure.

Then, from a completely different direction, one estimates the number of settlements 200 years later. (200 years after what? AD 410? AD 449? AD 520? The article doesn't say). From this one estimates an Anglo-Saxon population of 250,000. (Can one similarly count British settlements? Were there 4 times as many? Or were they invisible? Or had the British culturally assimilated by this point, to be archaeologically no longer distinguishable? Again the article is silent).

One then introduces a population growth rate of 1% p.a, and compounds this over 200 years to produce a growth factor of 7.3x; or alternatively, from 2% p.a. one gets a growth factor of just over 50x. Where these growth rates are presumed to come from is not made clear -- nor how they are supposed to be compatible with a total population that was still only 1.7 million in 1086. Replacement rates per generation might be a more transparent way of presenting the hypotheses -- eg 2% p.a. corresponds to a replacement rate of 1.65 for each person, for a generation length of 25 years. But perhaps all that these numbers are meant to show is that if there was some differential population growth, which then saturated, then this would make it even harder to estimate the number of migrants from any final figure, or any final DNA proportion?

Then there's a number based on cemeteries, but as noted here: [2], "what proportion of the actual historical total of burials is represented by the modern finds is really anyone's guess".

All in all, it seems to me that the writing of this section could use another look, to make the overall logic and the different assumptions a lot more apparent. Jheald (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

cf also various numbers at Anglo-Saxons#Early_Anglo-Saxon_history_.28410.E2.80.93660.29.
The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of ASE pretty much ducks the whole question of population estimates: [3] Jheald (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and overhaul the section, the whole population size estimation thing seems to consist of various people who claim some arcane insight just waving their arms about. Other than to say the natives must have hugely outnumbered any people rowing over the North Sea in glorified boats, I don't see the numbers game as being all that important. Urselius (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would feel happier to rewrite it if I had more of an idea what to rewrite it to; and what the original editors were trying to say. Jheald (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to genetic and archaeological evidence, only five percent of the British today have Anglo-Saxon ancestry. Is this helpful in contriving population estimates? Or should we ignore genetic evidence altogether in discussing population in the 5th through 7th centuries? Supposing the Anglo-Saxons constituted only five percent of the population at the time, how did so few of them dominate and/or conquer so many of the native Britons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.47.192.105 (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

38% according to the most recent genetics article. There is a huge range of opinion, a huge range of estimates concerning percentages of incoming DNA in the modern population. Do some reading, become informed. Urselius (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Everybody: How does "Knowing the number of migrants who came from the continent provide[s] a context from which scholars can build an interpretation framework and understanding of the events of the 5th and 6th centuries"? Why is population so important for this article? What are we trying to prove? Gordon410 (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: Revision

This is a discussion for a revision of the lead.

Second Paragraph

First sentence: "The assumption that the Anglo-Saxon settlement developed from the invasion or migration of people from the Germanic coastlands, largely displacing the native people, has been challenged by those suggesting that the changes in material culture and language were caused primarily by a process of acculturation that followed the movement of a relatively small number of people." People do not assume that the Anglo-Saxons "largely displac[ed] the native people." That is a traditional view and can be discarded. Why is this "assumption" mentioned at all? The end of the sentence is unclear to who the "relatively small number of people" are who are doing the moving. Are they the natives, Anglo-Saxons, Romans, etc.? Gordon410 (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third sentence: "The view that the Anglo-Saxons arose from insular changes and developments, rather than as a result of mass migration and displacement, is now widely accepted." Why are we using the word "arose"? It would be more clear to say "the Anglo-Saxons arrived in Britain". Are the "changes and developments" human, climatic, political, or a combination? This needs to be clarified; it is currently too obscure to be practical information. Again, it is unclear who is doing the "mass migration." The Anglo-Saxons are not implied. This sentence is swamped with obscurity. Gordon410 (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth sentence: "However, the extent to which incomers displaced or supplanted the existing inhabitants and the extent to which mutual acculturation occurred is still the subject of ongoing debate." Forgive me if I am wrong, but as far as I know, this debate is over. Archaeological and genetic research has given substantial evidence that the natives were not displaced except for the natives who fled to the mountains of Wales and Scotland. The majority of the native Britons remained in their homeland and were subdued by the Anglo-Saxons. Gordon410 (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth sentence: "The sources that do exist are open to a variety of interpretations, as is the more recently available evidence largely derived from archaeology and genetic research." Why are we talking about a variety of interpretations? There does not seem to be a whole lot of variety that is worth mentioning. Again, forgive me if I am wrong, but most of the major discrepancies about the Anglo-Saxon Settlement have been cleared up through archaeological and genetic evidence. Anything that has not been cleared up is marginal and should not be mentioned. Otherwise the reader will get the feeling that there is a legitimate debate going on which there is not! Somebody please tell me what the debate is, because I do not see it. Gordon410 (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the whole article. You will then see that there is an active academic debate. To characterise that population genetics or ancient DNA work has entirely clarified the situation is incorrect. Virtually every new publication in this field raises more questions than it answers. All the research produced so far is open to challenge on legitimate scientific grounds to a greater or lesser degree, in regard to assumptions made, processes of mathematical modelling, experimental design and the interpretations of data. Urselius (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC) Take the latest ancient DNA/population genetics paper on the subject - it claims that 38% of the genetics of the English are from the population of the 'Germanic coastlands' of Europe. This seems fine, until you read that they also give the same origins to 30% of the Welsh and 30% of the Scottish population. There is obviously something wrong here. If you posit that the people arriving in Wales from England were only 38% 'Germanic' then the numbers of English immigrants into to Wales and Scotland must have been huge, over half of the ancestry of the Welsh and Scots must be English as neither country had any direct influx of Continental proto-Anglo-Saxons.Urselius (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Urselius: Please specify how "every new publication in this field raises more questions than it answers" and what these specific questions are. All you did was show how genetic research is unreliable. Also, I have no idea how this genetic evidence conflict is actually relevant to the Settlement of Britain. Regardless of the differences of the genetic sources, the majority of the the population are natives (Britons). This genetic conflict does not raise any questions about the Ango-Saxon settlement, and for this page, that is all that is relevant. As a fact, the majority of natives were not displaced by the Anglo-Saxons but were merely subdued. This concept aligns both with genetics and archaeology and really is not up for a legitimate debate. We can talk genetics all we want, but really, the differences in genetic research is marginal and doesn't change the way we think the Anglo-Saxon settlement happened. Does it change the way you think? I know am sounding like a broken record, but I just want to stress my point of view because I very much hold it as the truth. Gordon410 (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to agree with your point of view - in broad terms. However, my opinion and your opinion count for nothing here on Wikipedia, all articles must reflect the scholarship available. There is demonstrably a range of views on the subject of this article and this must be reflected in the article, especially in the lead. I think that this article is one of the best and most thorough of its kind on Wikipedia. I would assert that the prose of the lead is limpid in its clarity. The differences in population genetics research are very far from marginal. The differences between the conclusions of, say, Sykes and Weale are huge. I personally think Weale's idea of an apartheid between natives and incomers is laughable considering that the British arrival in India produced the Anglo-Indian community, when the physical, cultural and religious differences between 18th century British and Indians was vastly greater than between post-Roman Britons and continental Germans. However, Weale's work and opinions must be included in the article. Your suggestion of a link to the article on material culture was well made, and I have done so. Urselius (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that there is still some unknown and debate about genetics and apartheid, and I agree it should be on this page. But again, how is that relevant to the lead? The lead hardly says what we do know. The first two paragraphs slightly inform about the settlement, but suddenly shrouds the entire event in mystery and doubt. It confuses the reader. I am trying to form substantial information to put in the lead. Afterwards, we can bring up the debates that are irrelevant to what we know. I have written a paragraph that informs the reader of what we do know (Anglo-Saxon Settlement of Britain - what really happened). Gordon410 (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, if the contents of the article do not impress you with the fact that there is no definitive knowledge concerning "what really happened" then anything I say here will be wasted. If the reader is not fed pap that knowledge is definite then this is to the good, as the subject itself is complex and not straightforward. Urselius (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Urselius: But I do think the article never concisely informs the reader of the settlement of the Anglo-Saxons. If we just tell them what I wrote in "what really happened" section (below) we can can clear up a lot of misunderstanding. Telling people the problem with history is a bad way of introducing something. And currently that is what this article is doing in the second paragraph. That is what I am trying to change. Gordon410 (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lead says, "The Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain was the process, from the mid 5th to early 7th centuries, by which the coastal lowlands of Britain developed from a Romano-British to a Germanic culture following the Roman withdrawal in the early 5th century". This is essentially all that can be said with cast-iron certainty, all else is open to variations in interpretation and in emphasis. Even what might be imagined to be factual can often be balanced by other 'facts' indicating the opposite. Dumbing down the lead by using one person's viewpoint or one version of history cannot be an improvement. There is no "what really happened" within our present-day knowledge - it does not exist beyond your personal viewpoint, which is nothing but 'own research' and therefore disallowed by Wikipedia policy. I will not engage in any more discussion here, outside a possible formal arbitration process, but I will reverse any edits that I think are not constructive or that break policy on own research. Urselius (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with "what really happened"? What is wrong with discussing it? I believe I know what really happened and I have evidence to back it up. Until someone shows me what is wrong with it, I will continue to push it. Gordon410 (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make things perfectly clear. What you are describing as "what really happened" is equivalent to "what Gildas said happened". Gildas' account is included at length in the body of the article, it is there already. The subject of this article is not "what Gildas said happened", it is an analysis of all the evidence concerning how most of Roman Britain became Anglo-Saxon England. This is why Gildas and what he said is not included in the lead, as it forms only a small part of the evidence. Gildas is our closest written account to the time of the Adventus, this makes it important. However, there are reasons why his account cannot be regarded as "what really happened". Gildas was not writing a history, his primary interest was not historical accuracy. In effect he was writing a very long religious sermon on the subject of sin and its divine punishment. His was a politically driven moral crusade, he wanted the leaders of the British to co-operate rather than fight each other, this was to be obtained through a general 'return' to Christian values and morality. The actual nuggets of historical fact in his narrative are few and often worded ambiguously. Even when he is being unambiguous there is reason to doubt his veracity. He claims that the Saxons spread fire and destruction right across Britain 'from sea to sea'. If this were literally true then there should be evidence of a destruction layer in many if not all towns and villas in the former Roman province, all datable to one time. Archaeology has shown no evidence whatsoever of such a destruction horizon. Gildas does not go into the lead because it is a very small part of the evidence and is demonstrably not entirely reliable. Urselius (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Urselius: I will respond after you answer my questions. Gordon410 (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do a lot of reading, do a really large amount of reading, concerning the subject of this article. When you have an informed opinion get back in touch. Urselius (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Urselius: I have devoted over 50 hours of research already. Every one of these books corroborate my account: The Anglo-Saxon Age, Fisher; The Oxford Illustrated History of Britain; The Mother Tongue, Bryson; The Celts, Kruta et al; The Adventure of English, Bragg. What more do you expect me to read and study before I have an informed opinion? And why have you refused to answer my questions? Gordon410 (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend, as a beginning: Pryor, Francis (2004), Britain AD, London: Harper Perennial (published 2005), ISBN 0-00-718187-6 Hills, Catherine (2003), Origins of the English, London: Duckworth, ISBN 0-7156-3191-8 Richard Hodges (1 January 1989), The Anglo-Saxon Achievement: Archaeology & the Beginnings of English Society, Duckworth, ISBN 978-0-7156-2130-1.
I will not individually answer all of your questions, as your questions come from a very narrowly informed and simplistic view of a very complex subject, and you are wasting my time. Read the whole of the article if you do nothing else, it is a good analysis of the current state of knowledge. Urselius (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Urselius: Although you did not answer my questions, I will still respond to your comment. You are wrong. What I say happened is not equivalent to what Gildas said happened. We agree on parts of the account. However I don't currently claim all of his account to be true. It is irrelevant that Bildas said there was "fire and destruction" because I do not claim that. Thank you for the suggestions. I will check the books out. I am sorry that you have wasted your time reading my posts. Obviously we disagree, hopefully respectfully; we will try to come to a satisfactory result and then Bob's your uncle. Gordon410 (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if not Gildas then who? Either: 1) it is your personal synthesis, and it is disallowed anywhere in the article because it is 'own research' and therefore against basic Wikipedia policy, or 2) it is a view of one or a few scholars, and it is disbarred from the lead because it is far from being a consensus view of all reputable scholars. If it were a consensus then the whole of this article would be about two paragraphs long as it would be a cut and dried situation. Either way, your "what really happened" is not going into the lead. Urselius (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Urselius: I have already told you who I have taken the information from. I told you five books I read. I have still yet to cite these sources properly, however, but will do it soon. I have some literary proof that there is a consensus:

"...the sequence of events is highly conjectural, but there is a fair measure of agreement about their outline." (Fisher, pg.1) Fisher, D.J.V. The Anglo-Saxon Age. London: Longman Group Limited, 1973.c http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/780471.D_J_V_Fisher

Therefore, I am pushing to create that "outline" of events so that the general public and I will have a more clear understanding of the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. Gordon410 (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are old and weak. Fisher was published in 1973. Oxford Illustrated History was published in 1984, and written by a specialist in modern British and Welsh history. Bill Bryson is not a scholar, but a (very good) general non-fiction writer. I don't know anything about Kruta, but I don't see that he's been referenced in this discussion or in the article. Bragg is a journalist. --Macrakis (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Macrakis: Old and weak it may be, but still a beginning it is. I will look into contemporary sources in due course. Gordon410 (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again a narrative of 'events' is not admissible to the lead, because there is no available historical evidence that is unequivocally accurate. The clue is in the name "Dark Ages", they are dark because the written evidence is so sparse, or indeed entirely missing . Some historians have created narratives for the political history of the period and these are mentioned in the body of the article. However, the historians, if they are respectable scholars, always hedge their syntheses with qualifications concerning the very great uncertainties. What you imagine are facts are merely theories. You seem to think that you are on some sort of crusade, but you are not. Please drop your ambitions for the inclusion of your delusion of the existence of an accurate historical narrative into the article. If necessary administrators can be called in to regulate this dispute and the outcome is inevitable. Urselius (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Urselius: Nothing here is needed to be regulated. I am trying to be helpful. If there is any policy I have breached, please let me know. My account is accurate. What isn't clear in this article is what is accurate. It is just a group of theories. If you group all the theories together like I have done you will see that there really is no conflict. The only conflict is between the people who think there is a conflict going on somewhere and those who are in agreement, like me. Gordon410 (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I'm glad that you are in agreement with yourself. I have tried to explain why your approach is wrong, but to no avail. Do not add your simplistic analysis/synthesis to the lead. Urselius (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Urselius: No, you have helped me to some avail. I will not add my "analysis" to the lead until I'm allowed to. Thank you. 45.47.192.105 (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People do not assume that the Anglo-Saxons "largely displac[ed] the native people." People do not say that there was a large displacement. If you live in Britain, ask anybody what their assumptions are? Why is this "assumption" mentioned at all? What evidence is there to support the view to make it relevant to the lead? Gordon410 (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gordon, as someone who made a large contribution to this page in the past I understand the question you are pursuing. Unfortunately, there are a lot of assumptions made in this area. However these are based on the historical narratives that present a view that is challenged. The archaeological and linguistic have been hampered by questions of interpretation. Since I last wrote on this page there has been some important breakthroughs in chronology and the study of early english laws. These suggest that we can see this period in terms of three era. One is a period between 370-470 of great economic change and the breakdown of the Diocletian/Constantian laws binding people to the land. Population is thought to decrease and a new 'middleman' migrant community came to Britain with furnished cemeteries. This era had its center point between 470-570. In 536 a world wide climatic event led to poor harvests and the decline of the separate Germanic and Britonnic cultures living side by side. Furnishing of graves became florid, the breaching of mund (security) through raids increased, the power of women decrease and people started to look to local leader many of whom were of Brittonic heritage but who now spoke from Anglo-Frisian. From 570-670 the adoption of older symbolism as found in graves, the election of kings and the creation of tribes (see tribal hidage) created 'new' social boundaries but the need to hark back for authority continued. This led to the adoption of Christianity by Old Irish speaking monks in the north (this was the main language of the people) and Frankish influence from the south. In 736 Bede creates a telelogical account which is still taught in schools. The most important research is: Hines look here Martin Books https://www.amazon.co.uk/Textus-Roffensis-Language-Libraries-Medieval/dp/2503542336 Language Contact and the Origins of the Germanic Languages Cruciform Brooch and Anglo-Saxon England see figure 50 --J Beake (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain - What Really Happened

I believe that the debate about the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain is over. The following account is difficult to disagree with:

Early in the 5th century AD, the Romans left Britain because of the fall of the Roman Empire. Plagued by Pict and Scott invasion and famine, Britain weakened. The tyrant of Briton (possibly Vortigern) resorted to asking the Anglo-Saxons to help defend Britain against the Picts. The Anglo-Saxons already occupied parts of Britain during the latter parts of Roman rule, and they were continuing to arrive from the continent onto the East Coast of Britain. Although the Anglo-Saxons claimed to be the protectors of Britain, the Briton civilians, natives of Britain, were suspicious of the Anglo-Saxons' true intent of protection. Likely, many of the Britons saw the protection as an Anglo-Saxon decoy to seize power of the land. Eventually, the Anglo-Saxons demanded more and more of the Britons' supplies and food. The Britons and Anglo-Saxons scuffled over the wages for defense, and the Anglo-Saxons refused to assist the Britons anymore but remained in Britain anyway. The Britons resisted the Anglo-Saxon settlement for some time. However, the much stronger Anglo-Saxon army rose to prominence, built kingdoms, and established the law and government of the land. Thus, the Britons were subjects of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom and were treated as the low social class. The Anglo-Saxon language became dominant according to the Contact and transfer principles of language.

Please let me know of any discrepancies or contradictions this account raises. Gordon410 (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just one of the many holes in your argument is Vortigern, there is no absolute proof of his existence, like Arthur he is mentioned in the writings of much later chroniclers, and we are talking many centuries later, and by monks writing digests of oral legend. Gildas mentions a 'Superbus tyrannus' (proud usurper), but the identification of this person with the name Vortigern is mere conjecture. Where is your fixed and accurate historical narrative? The answer is it does not exist. Urselius (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Britons seem to have fairly effectively resisted Anglo-Saxon expansion from c. 450 to c.570, when Ceawlin (the possessor of an apparently Celtic name) led the destruction of British polities in Lowland Britan, this is not a "little while". Urselius (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Urselius: Thank you for your input. The mistake has been corrected. I will say, however, that the Anglo-Saxons eventually were victorious, as we can all see by their language. This is why I included the contact and transfer of languages sentence to show that the Anglo-Saxons ultimately won the power struggle. There is really not much to argue about there. Gordon410 (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's terrible. What evidence is there for these views among the Britons? Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: Why is it terrible? Evidence: Gildas, The Ruin of Britain, Part II, Chapters 23-24. Gildas writes, "[The Saxons] sailed out...as men intending to fight for the country, but more truly to assail it." (Bildas, Chapter 23) The Anglo-Saxons moved onto the East Coast of Britain claiming to be protectors against danger. "They complain, again, that their monthly supplies were not copiously contributed to them, intentionally colouring their opportunities, and declare that, if larger munificence were not piled upon them, they would break the treaty and lay waste the whole of the island. They made no delay to follow up their threats with deeds." (Bildas, Chapter 23) Eventually, the Anglo-Saxons demanded more and more of the Britons supplies and food. Is this adequate evidence? Gordon410 (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gildas was writing over 100 years later, and your text goes well beyond what he says. You'll be channelling Bede next. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: I do not understand you. Please rephrase your last statements. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me or simply making random statements? Gordon410 (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that this is terrible and largely meaningless. What is meant by "civil war", and what evidence is there for it? What evidence is there for famine? What does it mean that the A-Ss "occupied" Britain? How can we know that the Britons were "suspicious" of the ASs? etc. etc. Gildas was preaching, not writing history. Using him uncritically is like writing the history of WWI based on Osama bin Laden's writings. --Macrakis (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, take a look at WP policy about the use of primary sources. --Macrakis (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Macrakis: I suppose civil war is not an accurate term. I will leave that out. Gildas is evidence for famine. I expanded on the "occupation" above. Just because Gildas was preaching does not make him unreliable. That is a faulty notion. Gordon410 (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Urselius: Concerning Vortigern, I have edited it. My account has evidence. Possibly overwhelming evidence. How much evidence do we need? Gordon410 (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gildas is a primary source. Primary sources need interpretation by competent, modern scholars (see our policy at WP:PRIMARY). We do not use primary sources as "evidence" in Wikipedia. --Macrakis (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Macrakis: I'm not concerned. Bildas is reliable. Nearly every secondary source acknowledges him to some degree and usually positively. I see nothing wrong with the man, vehement though he may be, and neither do scholars. 45.47.192.105 (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion about the "reliability" of Gildas is irrelevant. He is a primary source and thus not accepted by Wikipedia as a reliable source. If you are unwilling to follow Wikipedia policy on sourcing, you shouldn't be editing articles. --Macrakis (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Macrakis: This is my discussion thread; my opinion is very relevant. I am also aware of Wikipedia policy. Thank you. If I understand correctly, Wikipedia source policy applies to making changes in the article itself and not to the examination of edits as I am doing now. Gordon410 (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion thread on the article. It does not belong to any individual editor. And I repeat: your opinion (and mine for that matter) aren't the issue. Finally, I don't know what you mean about "examination of edits". The article needs to be well-sourced from reliable, modern, secondary sources. Of course, modern scholars "acknowledge" Gildas, and Nennius, and Bede, and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. But they certainly aren't so naive as to take them at face value. --Macrakis (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Gordon410, I think it's pretty clear at this point that you have not convinced any other editors of your position. If you incorporate your material into the article, you will be editing against consensus and may be considered to be editing disruptively. I suggest you tread lightly. --Macrakis (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will tread heavily. Nobody can stop me. Gordon410 (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. Whilst you have not, to my knowledge, acted in a disruptive way, you have not shown much evidence of the collegiality and willingness to abide by consensus that Wikipedia demands of active editors. There are things that administrators can do to police editing. Anyone's account can be blocked from editing temporarily or, after some due process, permanently. The same can also be done to any IP address. Urselius (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Urselius: I know how Wikipedia works and I am doing nothing against policy. Let's try to stay on topic. Gordon410 (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely correcting an erroneous comment, you said "Nobody can stop me", this is incorrect. If your knowledge of Wikipedia policy was extensive, you would have been aware of this. As far as I can see the topic is exhausted. You have asserted a desire to alter the article in a particular direction, three editors have told you, at some length and in considerable detail, that your intention is misconceived and would be detrimental to the article and you have ignored them. What more is there to explore? Urselius (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Urselius: I know Wikipedia policy, the topic is not exhausted, my intention is not misconceived, I have added nothing detrimental to the article, I have not ignored any editors, there is still more to explore as I have demonstrated, I will continue to explore this subject, nobody can stop me, and I appreciate any help. Please keep on topic. Gordon410 (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Macrakis: "Examining edits" refers to talking about the article critically. Gordon410 (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have evidence for the final two sentences in my original account. ("However...principles of language.") http://www.hildegard.tristram.de/media/tristram_manchester_30-07-07.pdf " The members of the evolving elite were originally speakers of prestigious varieties of Germanic (Frisian, Saxon, Anglian, Jutish, Frankish), while the bulk of the population is likely to have consisted of low prestige speakers of Late British and/or British Latin in the Lowlands and Late British in the Uplands." (pg. 194) Thus, the Anglo-Saxons were clearly dominant over the native Britons. This is difficult to argue with. Gordon410 (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems likely, at least at certain times and in certain areas. The linguistic facets of the subject are covered at some considerable length in the article, but it is not suitable for inclusion in the lead. The lead is for generalisations, specific details are for the body of the article. Please read the entire article it is quite exhaustive. Urselius (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Urselius: I am not suggesting putting linguistics into the lead. However, I am not saying putting linguistics into the lead is a bad idea necessarily. I choose to be inexpressive. The problem with your earlier argument, Urselius, "There is demonstrably a range of views on the subject of this article and this must be reflected in the article, especially in the lead.": There may very well be many that have different views on the subject. However, a view/opinion needs to be vetted with some valid argument in order to be considered in the conversation. I am suggesting that for whatever reason, this vetting process has been neglected. Gordon410 (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When User:Jheald, and to a much lesser extent myself, took this article in hand it might have been written in the 1950s. It had no real incorporation of any modern historical re-examination, archaeological, linguistic or molecular evidence and research. I think it is one of the best articles of its kind on Wikipedia. Have you read the linguistic section of the article? It is extensive and does include superstrate/substrate language contact (supertstrate = high prestige, substrate = low prestige languages) and their possible effects on each other. As to scholarly validity, look at the number and range of citations (179!). Urselius (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not me. I have contributed very little. I think it's User:J Beake you're thinking of, who (according to X!'s tools) is identified as the contributor of 51% of the current text. I agree that he's given the article much better shape and balance and scope. A problem though is that the bulk of his text has been jigsawed together from sentences (and sometimes multiple sentences) lifted verbatim from sources, undigested citations included. As a result we really can't call it "one of the best articles of its kind on WP": on WP:COPYVIO grounds most of the prose should be reviewed and rewritten. There are also a few cases I've seen where, by changing the context of a borrowed sentence, he substantially changed its meaning. Jheald (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, I mixed you two up - probably because of the initial 'J'. I have no great interest in anything other than content, and from a content point of view the article is good and reasonably comprehensive. My own edits are, excepting when quoting, in my own words. As a scientist I'm very aware of plagiarism issues in reviews and suchlike.Urselius (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Urselius: I am inexpressive about the quality of the writing for the contents of this article. The second paragraph in the lead is written poorly, and I have given valid reasons and suggestions for revision which have been neglected for unknown reasons. I urge you to look at that.

@Jheald: Thank you for your input. My goal is to make this article better. Gordon410 (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I have previously stated, people do not assume that the Anglo-Saxons "largely displac[ed] the native people." That is a traditional view and can be discarded. Why is this "assumption" mentioned at all in the second paragraph? It is about as needless to say as the linguistics part I was talking about. Urselius, I know you do not care about grammatical edits or good writing, so I hope someone who does care will respond. Thank you for your participation. Gordon410 (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

6.3 'Romano-Brittonic' peoples' fate in the south-east: Revision

This is a discussion for a revision of 'Romano-Brittonic' peoples' fate in the south-east.

First paragraph

Third sentence: “Whilst the developments were rather complicated, there are two competing theories.” Absolutely not. Both theories agree with each other, and they are not competing. I do not see how these theories are in competition with each other. One theory says the natives were victims of invasion, slavery, and genocide. This theory is Edward Augustus Freeman's claim that "the Anglo-Saxons defeated the Britons and consequently their culture and language prevailed." The other theory is Grant Allen's claim that the natives had a "strong Celtic contribution to Englishness." Invasion, slavery, genocide, prevalence of Anglo-Saxon culture and language, and a strong Celtic Contribution all could have still happened. I don't see a competition of theories here because they both could have happened. Both theories are true since the Celtic contribution is genetic and the Anglo-Saxon contribution is cultural and lingual. Since Freeman's theory is consistent with Allen's theory, how are they "competing theories"?

The description of Freeman's theory includes the word "genocide", in this scenario the A-S not only defeated the Britons, they wiped them out. Therefore, there is a huge distinction from Allen, who considers that no genocide took place and many A-Ss were of British descent.

To whoever wrote the above comment: You have incorrectly stated that "in this scenario the A-S not only defeated the Britons, they wiped them out." In this scenario the A-S defeated the Britons but did not wipe them out. Furthermore, you have incorrectly stated that Allen "considers that no genocide took place." Because Allen never claimed to disagree with the genocide theory, you are incorrectly assuming that he did. Thus you have made two false claims, a seriously flawed comment, and an illegitimate case to why this article should not be revised. Gordon410 (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology of genocide: genos = race, -cide = an act of killing; the meaning of the word is encompassed unambiguously by the elements that the word is composed of. The article is a form of dialogue: a theory, an opposing theory then an attempt at rationalising which is more likely from the available evidence. Deciding that one theory is more likely than another does not mean that you can just ignore the less likely theory and dismiss it. I grow very weary of pointing out the obvious. Urselius (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Urselius: I agree that the etymology of genocide is "race" and "act of killing." Allen's theory of Celtic contribution could still be true even with a genocide of some of the population. I do not understand your first sentence. Please rephrase your comment. From the parts of your comment that I understand, you have made an illegitimate case to why this article should not be revised. Genocide has been incorrectly defined as "wiping out." According to the United Nations Genocide Convention, genocide is "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". The key words are "in part". That definition of genocide does not mean a "wiping out." No theory claims a "wiping out" of the natives because genocide does not mean "to wipe out." Also you have incorrectly stated that there is "an opposing theory." Please explain how the theory opposes the other. To reiterate my previous statement, all theories agree with genocide, and therefore, agree completely. If they agree completely, there cannot be a competition, and the article has made a false statement. Therefore, the article must be revised. What is so obvious that you are weary of pointing out? Gordon410 (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph

First sentence: "One theory, first set out by Edward Augustus Freeman, suggests that the Anglo-Saxons and the Britons were competing cultures, and that through invasion, slavery and genocide the Anglo-Saxons defeated the Britons and consequently their culture and language prevailed." This sentence is incorrectly cited and must be edited. This sentence incorrectly states what Freeman wrote in Old English History for Children on page two as the citation (142) says. Invasion, slavery and genocide are not mentioned on page two; they are mentioned on pages twenty-seven and twenty-eight. Therefore, the citation is incorrect and the citation should read Freeman, Old English History for Children, p. 27-28

Fourth sentence: "However, Freeman's ideas did not go unchallenged, even as they were being propounded." The use of a singular idea of genocide should replace ideas since genocide is the only "idea" being challenged. Gordon410 (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth sentence: "In particular, the essayist Grant Allen believed in a strong Celtic contribution to Englishness." The word in italic is misspelled. I suggest replacing this sentence with the following: "In particular, the essayist Grant Allen believed that the native Celts were not destroyed but instead strongly contributed to Englishness."

No it isn't, the Wikipedia spell-checker is wrong, 'Englishness' is correct.

Third paragraph

First sentence: "Another theory has challenged this view and started to examine evidence that the majority of Anglo Saxons were Brittonnic in origin." This is basically the same issue raised in the first paragraph, third sentence revision discussion above. How has this theory of Brittonnic origin challenged the original view by Freeman that Anglo-Saxon culture and language prevailed? Again, these two views are not in disagreement but rather in agreement. Freeman's view is correct in that the Anglo-Saxon culture and language prevailed while this new theory of Britonnic origin is also correct. Both theories are correct and are therefore not being challenged. The word "Brittonnic" (in italic) is misspelled. Gordon410 (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my first comment. Genocide is a very particular method of ensuring that your 'culture and language prevail', by killing off the people with a different culture and language. I have corrected the spelling.

To whoever wrote the above comment: Your first comment is factually incorrect as I explain more in depth in my second comment. I do not understand the second sentence of this comment. Please rephrase your comment. Gordon410 (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So why are we refusing to get rid of the word "compete"? Can you show me one good reason why Freeman and Allen's theories are competing? I believe I have made myself very clear. Nothing in this article shows how these theories compete! If editors refuse to take action, I will myself. Gordon410 (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain Wikipedia Article Revision

Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain Wikipedia Article Revision

Gordon410

Have you ever argued with a friend about something, only to realize that both of your views were equally valid? Afterwards, the competition was over and you likely walked away in agreement. If this ever happened to you, you may relate to the following historical debate. The section ‘Romano-Brittonic’ peoples’ fate in the south-east in the Wikipedia article, Anglo-Saxon Settlement of Britain, claims that there are two competing theories: (1) the natives were invaded, enslaved, and genocided and (2) the natives had “a strong Celtic contribution to Englishness.” The first theory was proposed by Edward Augustus Freeman, and the second was held by Grant Allen, an essayist. From the information given in the Wikipedia article, the theories of Freeman and Allen appear simultaneously valid.

The article appears to introduce two valid theories. Despite this, the theories are claimed to be in competition with each other. In order for the theories to compete, only one theory can win – this is what makes two theories compete. However, from the information given in the article, one cannot claim that one theory is definitely correct and the other theory is definitely incorrect. By making the claim that the theories compete, Wikipedia is making a generalization. In fact, according to the information given in this particular Wikipedia article, both theories may be correct. Keep in mind, only information in the article itself will be used here. It will be shown that the information given in the article concerning invasion, slavery, and genocide are not in competition with a Celtic contribution to Englishness. It seems fair that I only need to look at this particular article to see if the theories truly are simultaneously valid. If there is information somewhere else that demands the two theories must be opposing, by all means, we should not ignore it. However, this Wikipedia article ought also to include any information that demonstrates that the two theories are opposing. Yet, this is not the case. There is no demonstration in the article explaining how one theory opposes the other theory.

It is possible that the theories are in competition with each other. However, the article does not explain why the two theories are opposing. Therefore, by the information given in the article, the two theories appear equally and simultaneously valid. One must not mistake validity of a theory for truth of a theory. I am not advocating that the theories are absolutely both true. I am only saying that both theories can be true.

To go about proving that both theories appear simultaneously valid, I will expose the vagueness of each theory, and I will show how one theory is compatible with the other. First, it is important to understand the events of the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain before one can understand the validity of either theory. I would highly recommend reading the Wikipedia article first before continuing. The following account is not necessarily historically accurate, but it is my best attempt at relating the event. The information I state has been inspired by several sources; however, one should understand it is mere conjecture – not fact.

The Roman Empire controlled Britain until the Roman Empire lost control of Britain to outside forces early in the 5th century AD. Plagued by Pict and Scott invasion and famine , Britain weakened. The tyrant of Briton (possibly Vortigern ) resorted to asking the Anglo-Saxons to help defend Britain against the Picts. The Anglo-Saxons already occupied parts of Britain during the latter parts of Roman rule, and they were continuing to arrive from the continent onto the East Coast of Britain. Although the Anglo-Saxons claimed to be the protectors of Britain , the Briton civilians, natives of Britain, were suspicious of the Anglo-Saxons' true intent of protection. Likely, many of the Britons saw the protection as an Anglo-Saxon decoy to seize power of the land. Eventually, the Anglo-Saxons demanded more and more of the Britons' supplies and food. [Why are footnotes on wrong pages?] The Britons and Anglo-Saxons scuffled over the wages for defense, and the Anglo-Saxons refused to assist the Britons anymore, but the Anglo-Saxons remained in Britain anyway. The Britons resisted the Anglo-Saxon settlement for some time. However, the much stronger Anglo-Saxon army rose to prominence, built kingdoms, and established the law and government of the land. Thus, the Britons were subjects of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom and were treated as the low social class. The Anglo-Saxon language became dominant according to the contact and transfer principles of language. This is an examination to see if the theory that the Anglo-Saxons invaded Britain works alongside the theory that the natives contributed heavily to Englishness. If one finds no fault in the two theories occurring simultaneously, he can conclude that both theories are simultaneously and equally valid theories. According to the Wikipedia article, at a high estimate of Anglo-Saxon population and a low estimate of native population, the “Britons are likely to have outnumbered Anglo-Saxons by at least four to one.” The possibility for a successful Anglo-Saxon invasion of the natives with a ratio of one to four is the matter of discussion. Until a possibility of invasion under the given population estimates is determined to be either high or low, any truth of one theory is independent from the truth of the other. However, if it is shown that an invasion could not have occurred with a minority force of invaders, the Celtic contribution may be shown to invalidate the invasion theory and vice versa. But it has not been shown to be so. Thus, the possibility of both/either theories being correct/incorrect with the given population estimates is not determined. From this, we conclude that both theories are equally and simultaneously valid.

If the Anglo-Saxons invaded, given with all research and evidence of population estimates, a strong genetic contribution of the natives is quite likely. If the two populations were split in half, two to three, three to seven, or a ratio near those ranges, the Celts would continue contributing through their genes. The words “strong contribution” do not imply a majority of contribution from the Celts. One half is equally strong as another half. If the text said “stronger”, it would imply something different. However, it merely says strong. Nevertheless, as it stands, the Celts seemed to fairly outnumber the Anglo-Saxons. If the Celts were invaded and furthermore defeated, they still remained in the land. Perhaps they lived alongside the Anglo-Saxons as slaves or as a poor social group.

The exact meaning of invasion is rather vague. Only some of the Anglo-Saxons may have invaded and it might have been a combination between invasion and strategic settlement. Who knows to what extent the Anglo-Saxons invaded Britain? The number of men could have been as low as a thousand or as high as ten thousand men. The exact figures and the extent they were successful are unknown. Even through a peaceful migration, some new Anglo-Saxons may have arrived on the shores to put down rebellious natives. And who is to say that the invasion was so successful? It may have contributed to the weakening of the native forces, but by no means must it be the only way they attacked. As they may have attacked through deception as well. Two scenarios are possible: we ignore population estimates and look at the two theories blindly. Or we can look at population estimates and compare each theory to the estimates. First, let us ignore population estimates. In that case, it is scenario one. The Anglo-Saxons invade the native’s land. The Anglo-Saxons succeed and win whatever struggle ensues against the natives. The Celts remain in the land as a conquered people or perhaps even slaves. But, of course, their genes are carried on, and their strong contribution is genetic.

Including population estimates, scenario two arises. The Anglo-Saxons, outnumbered four to one, invade the native’s land. The Anglo-Saxons succeed, and they win whatever struggle ensues against the natives. The Celts remain in the land and become a conquered people. But, of course, their genes are carried on, and their strong contribution is genetic.

Now, scenario one seems the more likely to happen with no other knowledge of events. Considering the Anglo-Saxons were far outnumbered, it seems less likely that scenario two could have happened. Regardless, one cannot reject that possibility. After all, the possibility for the natives to outnumber the invaders at those numbers and the invasion to still be successful is not yet determined. Is the possibility greater than 50 percent or less than 50 percent? One just cannot say. That would be entirely based on speculation and interpretation, but not fact. Wikipedia should not be based on one’s speculation or interpretation. Therefore, both theories are equally valid until the possibility can be told by a reasonable scholar. Enslavement and Celtic contribution being combined into one working theory is easy to construct. No matter what the population was, one can pretty much conclude that the Anglo-Saxons became dominant. This can be seen through language and culture. Also, we can pretty easily conclude that enslavement was somewhat alive in Britain, at least with the Welsh, whose name is derived from the word Wealas, which came to mean “slaves.”

Now, similarly to the first section, one must wonder how so many natives were enslaved by so many. But my argument is similar. We just don’t know to what extent slavery ensued. We know the natives were the poor and subservient society. Does that make them slaves? Well to some it depends on your interpretation on slavery. Perhaps, some natives may have been so desperate for food and shelter they were forced to give up their freedom and subjected themselves to slavery. The probability the slavery did or did not happen is unknown.

This is an examination to see if the theory that the Anglo-Saxons at one time committed acts of genocide against the natives of Britain works alongside the theory that the natives contributed heavily to Englishness. According to the United Nations Genocide Convention, genocide is "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". The key words are "in part". That definition of genocide does not mean a complete destruction of a people. The Anglo-Saxons may have killed off several groups or clans of the natives yet still not enough to completely wipe them out. Therefore, even with a strong Celtic contribution, genocide of perhaps maybe 10 percent of the native people would not change the fact that the Celts outnumbered the Anglo-Saxons just a little less than four to one. It may turn to 3.5 to 1, or even as low as 1 percent of the population was killed systematically which would still be considered genocide. Even though the Anglo-Saxons were largely outnumbered, who is to say that the natives outnumbered the Anglo-Saxons in all places? In certain areas, such as Anglo-Saxon settlements, some surrounding natives may have been clutched into the wrong hands as a result of the dispute of land. To teach the natives a lesson, the Anglo-Saxons may have raised a hand against the natives. Whether this was a result of possible hundreds of years of war between the natives and Anglo-Saxons or whether it was not, who is to say that no genocide ever was committed against the natives? Once again, we don’t know how likely or unlikely genocide is when in view of a Celtic contribution which would be in this case, once again, genetic.

Now, it would only be fair to put all three of Freeman’s theories, invasion, slavery, and genocide together and combine them with Allen’s theory of Celtic contribution to Englishness to see that if they all can work together in agreement and demonstrate the validity of each theory at the same time. The Anglo-Saxons, out-numbered four to one, invade the native’s land. Through acts of deception and perhaps some genocide in places, the Anglo-Saxons succeed and win whatever struggle ensues against the natives. The Celts remain in the land and become a conquered people. Thus, the Britons were subjects of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom and were treated as the low social class, even possibly so low they had to resort to becoming slaves just to survive. But, of course, their genes are carried on, and their strong contribution is genetic.

One doesn’t know the likelihood or unlikelihood of all these theories working together and therefore we cannot form a foundation to say they are in disagreement or that they agree completely. One just doesn’t know. He can even form a logical conclusion, but it does not change the fact that we cannot say the probability of one theory working while another theory is not working at the same time. Therefore, both theories are valid together and both theories are equally valid simultaneously until a substantial evidence shows that one theory is incompatible with the other. Each theory holds its own validity within recognition of the other. These theories are too diverse to draw any conclusions either that they completely disagree or that they completely agree. See, in order for two theories to be in competition, one theory must pose threats to the other theory. Yet they are just too different for the two of them to be competing. I have shown the methods to validate each theory to be accurate simultaneously to some extent. Therefore, a competition of the two theories is not shown to be existent in this Wikipedia article. Since both theories are equally valid, the claim that there are two competing theories is false.  

Bibliography

Wikipedia contributors, "Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain&oldid=722397103 (accessed June 1, 2016).

Going, Chris, and Boast Robin. "BRITAIN AND ROME: A LASTING AFFAIR?" Cambridge Anthropology 17, no. 2 (1994): 103-18. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23820417.

Gildas, and J. A. Giles. De Excidio Britanniae. Willits, CA: British American Books, 1900. (Gildas, The Ruin of Britain)

Ward, John H. "Vortigern and the End of Roman Britain." Britannia 3 (1972): 277-89.

Ward-Perkins, Bryan. "Why Did the Anglo-Saxons Not Become More British?" The English Historical Review 115, no. 462 (2000): 513-33. http://www.jstor.org/stable/579665.

Higham, N. (2004), From sub-Roman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England: Debating the Insular Dark Ages. History Compass, 2: **. doi: 10.1111/j.1478-0542.2004.00085.x Page Three.

De Excidio XXI, 1, Winterbottom, Gildas, p. 24.

http://www.un.org/ar/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_analysis_framework.pdf

General Assembly of the United Nations. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 1949.


Gordon410 (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a short comment as I'm not an expert on this subject. My understanding is that the traditional notion is that the Anglo-Saxon immigrants almost completely eradicated the native Celtic population or perhaps also partly pushed them further into the north and west of Britain. There were various reasons for this, one of which being that philologists found very few Celtic loanwords in Old English, much fewer than they would have expected under Celtic continuity.
However, especially since J. R. R. Tolkien's famous lecture "English and Welsh", scholars have begun to re-assess the evidence and it is increasingly thought that the native Britons did remain as a class of serfs under the Anglo-Saxons, who formed the élites, and via a process of élite dominance caused the Britons to gradually assimilate to Old English. Possible reasons for the dearth of Celtic loanwords in Old English include sociolinguistic reasons (according to Thomason & Kaufman 1988, when a population undergoes a language shift towards a more prestigious language, the lexical contribution of the substratum language to the new language is often virtually nonexistent, apart from names), and the likely possibility that the Celts of the southeast of Britain first shifted to British Romance before shifting again to Old English. Also, there may have little incentive or need for the Anglo-Saxons to borrow words from Celtic because the environment was so similar climatically to continental Europe, so that there were few or no unfamiliar animals and plants (for example), whose native names one might wish to borrow. (Contrast the numerous Nahuatl borrowings in Mexican Spanish, for example.) Moreover, the substratum influence on English may have been overlooked or underestimated, and may be more in the realm of grammar, compare Brittonicisms in English. In the north and southwest of England, where Celtic was spoken longer, Celtic influence is more palpable than in the southeast.
But the main reason why the eradication narrative has increasingly been rejected is the genetic evidence, which indicates that the Anglo-Saxon contribution changed the genetic makeup of Britain very little. Archaeology similarly suggests much more continuity than traditionally assumed, and in fact, historical documents also attest to indigenous Britons living in the Anglo-Saxon domain, mainly as slaves or serfs (wealhas). Famously, however, even an Anglo-Saxon writer such as Cædmon bears a name of British Celtic origin. Therefore, the notion that a mass extermination (i. e., genocide) of native Celts took place in Anglo-Saxon England is now outdated (see Pattison 2008). I don't think anyone seriously assumes a genocide anymore in light of newer findings. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain&oldid=728183753"