Wikipedia

Talk:Anglo-Saxons: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,552,853 edits
 
(34 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 7:
{{WikiProject Scotland|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|European=yes|Medieval=yes|British=yes|Classical=yes| B1 = y| B2 = y| B3 = y| B4 = y| B5 = y}}
{{WikiProject Ancient Germanic studiesHistory|importance=mid}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(360d)
| archive = Talk:Anglo-Saxons/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 67
| maxarchivesize = 100K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
Line 93:
:Clearly a bit twisted in that story but reading between the lines it seems to be about the Anglo-Saxon race idea (not their existence as such) and that idea does exist, and did get a bit of a boost in the early days of genetic studies, when there were claims that genetics could prove that there had been Apartheid and genocide. These things were much discussed among American genealogists for example. But as more data came in things settled down.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 21:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
::Yes, reading between the lines is necessary. It is interesting, but not surprising, that Cambridge is trying to "address recent concerns over use of the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ and its perceived connection to ethnic/racial English identity". There is some criticism of the article at https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/142k7ed/anglosaxons_arent_real_is_this_true/ . [[User:TSventon|TSventon]] ([[User talk:TSventon|talk]]) 08:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
"Were"? Are we Anglo-Saxons/Saxons/English being denied our identity? We still exist. We are. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:B008:2500:C86B:8A8B:F283:333A|2A02:C7C:B008:2500:C86B:8A8B:F283:333A]] ([[User talk:2A02:C7C:B008:2500:C86B:8A8B:F283:333A#top|talk]]) 21:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 
== History section length ==▼
 
The history section seems quite large and detailed given that we already have an article dedicated to the history at [[History of Anglo-Saxon England]]. Would it be prudent to merge most or all of the history here into that article in order to let this article focus on the socio-cultural aspects of Anglo-Saxon life? [[User:Ltwin|Ltwin]] ([[User talk:Ltwin|talk]]) 02:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
:Yes, this article is just too big, and, especially for the later periods, the history coverage here seems more detailed than that at [[History of Anglo-Saxon England]]. Perhaps some straight swopping of sections should be done. I do think there should be a substantial history sections here. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 03:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
::I agree that the article is much too big. It is over 18,000 words. The history coverage in both articles seems sometimes random in what is covered. I will try to work on the [[History of Anglo-Saxon England]] article once I have finished the projects I am working on, but this will be very long term. So far as this article is concerned, I suggest deleting the history and changing the title to [[Anglo-Saxon culture and society]]. [[User:Dudley Miles|Dudley Miles]] ([[User talk:Dudley Miles|talk]]) 12:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
:::Oh, I'd be very strongly against that! Much of the history here seems at least as good quality, and bigger in quantity, as the equivalent parts in the "history" article. We need an article just called "Anglo-Saxons", and this will get ''far'' higher views than anything titled "History of ..." or "... culture and society". [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 14:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::I do agree that the coverage and takes of the two articles are often rather different, with more cultural material here than the "history" article. This would seem to make a merge rather easier. For example there is a large section on the aftermath and "legacy" of 1066 here, and nothing there. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 15:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::The [[History of Anglo-Saxon England]] is pretty much the Political History of Anglo-Saxon England. I am not sure that Christianisation, the Heptarchy, Danegeld and language sit particularly well there! They should probably be trimmed a bit or moved here. I think that the History section here goes into a lot more detail and covers more subjects. If the political history is moved out leaving just the cultural history will that shrink the History section enough? [[User:Wilfridselsey|Wilfridselsey]] ([[User talk:Wilfridselsey|talk]]) 16:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I'm rather puzzled by this, frankly. You say "The [[History of Anglo-Saxon England]] is pretty much the Political History of Anglo-Saxon England", then seem to complain that it isn't as it has other stuff, & some of that should be moved here. Why on earth don't "Christianisation, the Heptarchy, Danegeld and language sit particularly well there"? That seems an indefensibly narrow conception of "history", against all contemporary trends. I agree that "the History section here goes into a lot more detail and covers more subjects", but I don't think "de-politicizing" the "history" here is an answer. Nor do I think anything much can be moved here, as it is so much too long already. This is the main article for the topic, and following our normal editorial practices should summarize all the significant sub-articles, which certainly includes the political history. It should not just "focus on the socio-cultural aspects of Anglo-Saxon life". [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I take Johnbod's argument that an overarching article is useful, but I doubt whether this can be done satisfactorily within Wikipedia's size limit. There are many different articles on aspects of the Anglo-Saxons, and [[Anglo-Saxons]] would be more helpful to readers as a disambig pointing readers to the particular aspect they are interested in. The history section in this article could be merged into the history of ASE article. [[User:Dudley Miles|Dudley Miles]] ([[User talk:Dudley Miles|talk]]) 17:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::"Christianisation, the Heptarchy, Danegeld and language" are more cultural whereas most of ASE is political. I was not suggesting that we lose them, just move them here. In return move the political history the other way. But as Dudley says that will not shrink the AS article enough. [[User:Wilfridselsey|Wilfridselsey]] ([[User talk:Wilfridselsey|talk]]) 17:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::(ec) I don't see how the Heptarchy could be more political! And the largely top-down (at least at the start) Christianisation was highly political. I'm not sure what was "cultural" about Danegeld. Both articles cover the full political history, in different fashions, so either a careful merge or swops are needed. But I reject this narrow conception of "history", as I'm sure historians would. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 04:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::: [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] I probably used too much brevity trying to simplify my point? Anyway the ASE is mainly about battles and political succession. The entire [[History of Anglo-Saxon England]] (excluding references) is actually smaller than the history section here, around 900 words by my calculation! I do not have fixed views on this, I just want the best solution. It is a large body of work to fix this, we therefore we need a few ideas how best to do it. It seems to me the same is true of most people contributing to this discussion. [[User:Wilfridselsey|Wilfridselsey]] ([[User talk:Wilfridselsey|talk]]) 08:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps the best thing to do for now would be to [[Wikipedia:Summary style]] the History section. Each of the current sections (Early, Middle, Late, and Post-Conquest) should shortened to include only the most important information with the more detailed information incorporated into the History of ASE article. So, for this article we would have 1 History section with 4 subsections. [[User:Ltwin|Ltwin]] ([[User talk:Ltwin|talk]]) 04:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
::That's actually a considerably job, if done properly. And we ciurrently don't seem to have much agreement about what "the most important information" is. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 04:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Maybe the way we've split these articles was a bit unclear from the beginning. Basically, this is a history topic, so the "History of" sub article does not really distinguish a separate topic. Perhaps it was someone's idea that the history article should be something like a chronological account of specific events and turning points? In terms of practical ways forward one possible approach is to merge (or merge in an experimental sandbox) and then see which chunks don't fit easily? It could be that we need one main article and several spin offs.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 07:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 
== Anglo-Saxons (slur) ==▼
 
In case anyone is interested, there is a new article at [[Anglo-Saxons (slur)]], with a background section sourced to current affairs sources. [[User:TSventon|TSventon]] ([[User talk:TSventon|talk]]) 13:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 
== Critical review of a book in further reading ==
Line 165 ⟶ 145:
 
:Perfectly fine in my book. [[User:Trigaranus|Trigaranus]] ([[User talk:Trigaranus|talk]]) 15:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 
::I don't have a problem with it if we look at only this article in isolation, but how should readers and editors understand the difference between this and the History article? For example, how would we understand the difference between an article about the History of the Roman Republic (an entity which ended a long time ago, and is "historical") and an article about the Roman Republic (which must also be about the history of that same entity)? Sorry if I am being thick here, but I have been struggling to see the difference and I was thinking the hatnote should be more specific, and not less. I am not saying your solution is wrong, but only that I don't yet get it very well.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 23:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
::Perhaps I should add a few remarks to try to give more food for thought:
::*I ''think'' I know what the theoretical suggested answer is {{u|Johnbod}}. I think the idea is that ''both'' of the articles will be about historical events, ''but'' the main one will be less focussed upon them, and also contain broader discussions about things like culture and society. That is the basis of how I've been trying to work, but at least until now it has led to a very substantial overlap. We have more or less got parallel articles, and I get the impression that ongoing edits have not been heading the articles into two different directions. So part of what I am wondering here is whether this distinction is going to become clearer to readers and editors if we make this change.
::*Perhaps another question to ask is whether we should keep the History article as it is, or perhaps respecify its aims a bit.
::*OTOH, perhaps the overlap is simply caused by a lack of systematic attention as opposed to edits about specific bits and pieces. Maybe things will head in the right directions once the articles (especially the history sections) are given a bit of a push, to make them more appropriately distinct. --[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 06:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::Let's keep it simple - review both history versions, with a view to shortening one and lengthening the other, sometimes by simple transfer. I made some comments on the Viking raid bits of your useful draft page (on talk). [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 14:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
:::*I am not clear what other editors think, but I am happy with the article briefly covering each aspect of the Anglo-Saxons with a 'main' for more details. I think there is room for a culture article similar to [[Culture of ancient Rome]] and [[Culture of ancient Illyria]]. There do not seem to be separate articles on society so far as I can see and the case is less clear. With regard to Johnbod's proposal, I think the hatnote needs to say that the disambig covers specific aspects as well as other uses. On the last sentence "Over time, most of the people of what is now southern, central, northern and eastern England came to identify as Anglo-Saxon and speak Old English.", I think it would be better to say England apart from the south-west and north-west (the latter then part of Strathclyde). [[User:Dudley Miles|Dudley Miles]] ([[User talk:Dudley Miles|talk]]) 08:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
::::*I must admit I was completely unaware of [[Culture of ancient Rome]], which seems a neglected and little-read article - for some reason its views [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=all-time&pages=Culture_of_ancient_Rome fell off a cliff about 5 years ago]. The 4 or 5 sentences on ancient Roman art are frankly pathetic - the section at [[Ancient Rome]] is a good deal longer & better, and that in [[Roman Empire]] better still. I'd be loath to take that as a model. They have a different overlap & confusion issue, with various "main" articles: [[Ancient Rome]], [[Roman Empire]] and [[Roman Republic]], not to mention other articles like [[Late antiquity]] & so on. I think (with policy behind me, I think) that the old hatnote was just ''much too long'', & would prefer to keep it very short and sweet. There is an added link to the history article a line or two in. Your last point, on the geography, relates to text I did not change, & probably should be taken separately - personally I think it would be nice to work in "Anglo-Saxon Scotland" if we can, & if we are trying to explain why people speak English. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 14:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::*So far as I know you are the only person qualified to write and article on Anglo-Saxon culture so if you disagree with the idea it will not happen. I agree on keeping the hatnote simple. I would delete 'About Anglo-Saxon England' as too restrictive and just have a hatnote <nowiki>{{For|specific aspects and other uses|Anglo-Saxon (disambiguation)}}</nowiki>. [[User:Dudley Miles|Dudley Miles]] ([[User talk:Dudley Miles|talk]]) 15:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::{{u|Johnbod}} yes I am happy to keep working on the principle of shortening/lengthening the history sections, which is what got me worried. Perhaps everything will then look clear (and perhaps I am just looking at it from the point of view of that task). I am not opposed to a shorter hatnote. That might help make it clear that this is the main article, with other articles supporting it. We probably should eventually make more use of "main article" and "see also" template on the sections.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 16:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 16:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::{{u|Dudley Miles}} I've made a slightly different edit based on what you and Johnbod have written. I think the note needs to mention that we are talking about a medieval people (in order not to have any confusion with certain modern concepts).
:::::::::I am fine with the medieval part, but I think the hatnote should make clear that the disambig does not only deal with different uses, but also aspects of the article's use. [[User:Dudley Miles|Dudley Miles]] ([[User talk:Dudley Miles|talk]]) 16:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I think this says a bit more than we actually need, but am fine with it. Cartainly an improvement. I'll add the new links in the text from my proposal "... Although the details of [[Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain|their early settlement]] and [[History of Anglo-Saxon England|political development]] are not clear..." [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 23:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 
▲== Historydeleted section length ==
 
I did a bold edit and deleted a small section which was called ''Development of an Anglo-Saxon society''. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anglo-Saxons&diff=prev&oldid=1230743247] It mixes up information found in better discussions in other sections. Aspects of it seem wrong or misleading, such as the emphasis upon Irish and Scottish Christianity, the implication that the Tribal Hideage is from the 6th century, and so on. Perhaps some of this material should be used elsewhere but I did not see any obvious way to do that. [[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 13:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:I happened to be reading it just as you deleted it (!) and noticing that it's sourcing was quite ropey...lack of page numbers, Bede and a Channel 4 documentary. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 13:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:4690 bytes - not ''so'' small. Where do you find the stuff on farms "in better discussions in other sections"? [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 13:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
::Good point. I did not look closely for that particular bit, but now that you mention it the sourcing is better on that little paragraph. The other question in that case is where it should go. This article has sections Settlements and working life, Women, children and slaves, etc, down below. This section here was in a chronological sequence which seemed to imply it was specifically about the 6th century.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 13:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Do you want to have a go recovering that? I'll hold off a bit.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 15:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Ok, thanks - had a go, but plse adjust as you like. Shouldn't we have links for some terms? [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 22:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::Not sure which ones you are looking at, but linking is a good idea for terms people aren't familiar with.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 08:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 
▲== Anglo-SaxonsSaxon (slur)tribe ==
 
Only once is the word "tribe" mentioned in this article, and then not even linked. Is there some sort of woke filter being applied? Clearly the Angles and Saxons were each "tribes"? Thus surely the combination was also a "tribe"? This contrasts with the article [[:Bantu peoples]] which starts: "The Bantu peoples are an ethnolinguistic grouping of approximately 400 distinct native African ethnic groups who speak Bantu languages". Why are people living today in the UK who identify as "Anglo-Saxon" by "ethnolinguistic grouping" not afforded the same courtesy of being recognised as such by Wikipedia? According to this article "Anglo-Saxon" is merely a culture, not a tribe nor an "ethnolinguistic grouping". Assuming that everyone living today belongs to some "ethnolinguistic grouping", maybe to several, to which one would belong a white English person today? It appears that by Wikipedia's definition he would have none at all. Is that a form of intellectual genocide? [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C6:C42F:3701:F50B:D120:E52B:F0DE|2A00:23C6:C42F:3701:F50B:D120:E52B:F0DE]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C6:C42F:3701:F50B:D120:E52B:F0DE|talk]]) 12:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
:Oh, you again! The general view among scholars in recent decades is that both the Angles and Saxons were very mixed groups, with members originating from many continental groups that could be called tribes, with the titles Angles and Saxons essentially taken from the tribes of the ruling families. Thus Anglo-Saxons and Bantu peoples are somewhat similar terms, but the AS tribes pretty much got put through the blender in the migration and settlement process. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 14:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
::And nobody ever calls the Bantu peoples a single "tribe" - "Thus surely the combination was also a "tribe"?" is not how that term (increasingly regarded as unhelpful anyway) is used. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 18:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
::We've recently gone back to using the term "tribe" on [[Germanic peoples]], but there is and should be some care about the word, and every context is different. First reason is that we are supposed to reflect what experts publish, and they tend to avoid it. Second reason, which probably also explains the first, is that the word is easy to misunderstand. It conjures up many different types of thing, and is not really a term with any single clear definition. The context is important. I think in Germanic peoples the meaning of tribes in such a Roman context was clear enough. '''(Note that the term tends to always get its meaning from what it is being contrasted with.)''' But when we talk about Angles and Saxons the context is different, and a lot of what we think we know about the social structures in that period are just guesses which academics don't fully agree about. The contrast being implied between tribal and non-tribal is presumably between Anglo-Saxons and Romano-Britons. Both were cut off from the empire which had once given their society direction, but both had lived within that complex structure for many generations. Both were presumably aiming to build something Roman-like back up again, and they probably worked together on that project to a large extent. Coming back to your rhetorical question, I do not think that people either today or in the past all see themselves as belonging to one, or even several "ethnolinguistic groupings". It seems possible to discuss whether this would be a better term than "cultural group" in this particular case, given that this particular group was eventually apparently defined to some extent by language. --[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 18:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
 
== Genetics and Primary Sources ==
 
We seem to be rapidly acquiring multiple paragraphs about genetics where we had no such mention before. The first edit was by Andrew Lancaster, here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anglo-Saxons&diff=1230901779&oldid=1230900618], and today a further two paragraphs were added from the same primary source here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anglo-Saxons&diff=1242237309&oldid=1238894951]. I am concerned on a couple of fronts:
# Information is being duplicated in [[Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain]], and there are questions if this page is really the right place for these population genetics. Why do we have two pages if we are putting the same information on both?
# All three paragraphs use the same single source. The citations don't make this clear as they duplicate rather than reference the first, but they are all the same source. That would not be such in issue, except that this is a primary source, a single study. We should not be doing that.
# A secondary source on population genetics has been removed for being out of date.
I note, however, that Andrew Lancaster quite rightly removed some summary of genetics in the lead sourced to a newspaper, so what we have is an improvement on that. However, we should really be using secondary sources and not primary studies where we do talk about genetics. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 20:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
 
:All reasonable questions. This is just a first thoughtless answer.
:*Overlap is a challenge on our Anglo-Saxon articles IMHO. I think anyone who tries to work a bit on them will quickly see what I mean. It feels a bit like we have too many articles sometimes, but I also understand the history and was involved in discussions to get to where we are on that. Perhaps it will get easier as we get the articles more truly separated. In any case this is not just a DNA question, but also involves other sub-sections. See previous discussions on talk pages. In any case of course I agree that there should be one article where the main discussion is, and that would presumably be the settlement one, meaning that this article should get only a short version.
:*My fuzzy memory is that summaries of the Gretzinger article involved were starting to populate WP articles and at first we resisted that. Once I spent time on it though I felt that this was one of those articles which is objectively a breakthrough, and is going to keep coming back. It is definitely better than having discussions about Y DNA and so on, and just because of the nature of the study this one is unlikely to be found wrong any time soon. So it seemed better to try using a controlled approach, with short careful summaries of the attributed conclusions which are most obviously relevant. I think we have to do that some times with DNA articles. The field seems to hardly publish anything truly secondary.
:Anyway, in practice any big expansions of that material remains a concern to me also. I think that needs to be looked at carefully. Whether I went to far already is also something which can be discussed. I was hesitant and I tried to be careful.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 20:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
 
:::I have reverted the edit for now. To explain my reasoning a little more concerning the short summary: If you look above that paragraph you will see a quick summarizing of the obviously important debate over the last generation or so about how many people actually moved. One thing we can say about this article is that the most extreme positions are wrong (which is not unexpected I think). Some aspects of that debate are now superseded speculation, and only interesting in order to see the background. So to hold these simplest conclusions out of WP would therefore feel quite odd, because they so obviously changed the state of the art. OTOH I tried not to go beyond that -at least in this article. The settlement article OTOH probably should have some more DNA discussion but at the moment I feel it still needs more pruning in many sections -not just DNA- in order to make it more clearly focussed, and easier to read and edit.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 21:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
::::I did think of reverting as it replaces an overall view with one aspect, but I decided against it. I found the statement about unadmixed immigrants on p. 118 of the Gretzinger paper, but I could not find the percentages in the original version. If the original version is to be retained, then it needs thorough checking against the source. [[User:Dudley Miles|Dudley Miles]] ([[User talk:Dudley Miles|talk]]) 21:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::That rings a bell. I think there was already a discussion and adjustment on the settlement article.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 21:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thanks. I agree secondary sources are hard to find on subjects like this. Also yes, way better than all those Y DNA studies on small numbers of individuals. I'm happy with a very cautious approach. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 08:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anglo-Saxons"