Talk:Anglo-Saxons

"Cultural group" vs. "people"

The article employs the term "cultural group", when the Anglo-Saxons were quite plainly a people, an ethnicity if you'd like. My edit applying the latter was reverted. I welcome further comment from more editors. AddMore-III (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

There's a vast amount of scholarly discussion on this, much reflected in earlier discussions here. At least in the earlier periods, "quite plainly a people" is just wrong. Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

It is far from clear that the Anglo-Saxons saw themselves as a single people in the early period. They had mixed origins that included Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Britons, Frisians and others. If you believe Bede, even Huns were in the mix, which could be supported by Caitlin Green's work on the origin of the place name Tealby in Lincolnshire. These groups coalesced in different ratios and in different ways in different places, and their elites created origin legends that used ethnic markers to differentiate them from other groups, so calling them an ethnicity is a bit of a stretch at this point. From the 9th century it's all a little clearer, as an English/Anglo-Saxon identity starts to be opposed to the Norse "gentiles" who were settling in England, and the Welsh speakers in Anglo-Saxon controlled regions had mostly adopted English.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:29, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

"even Huns were in the mix" Not surprising. The short-lived nomadic empire of the Huns is thought to have consisted of a "Hunnic ruling body" and a large number of "vassalized Germanic peoples". Per the main article, the empire (and probably its army) included Goths, Gepids, Sarmatians, Heruli, Alans, Rugii, Suevi, and Sciri", alongside groups with only temporary affiliation to the Hunnic leaders. The Roman sources of the era had trouble telling them apart. Dimadick (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I have done a DNA test. I am, as my known genealogy suggests, an English-Irish mix, and, while my ancient DNA matches are mostly to Viking Age Scandinavians (9 Swedes, 2 Icelanders and a probable Dane) and include a Neolithic man buried in Ireland and an Iron Age Briton buried in Dorset, I am, surprisingly, very distantly related to a woman buried in Central Asia in the 4th century, in a Hunnic cultural context. Urselius (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Whatever they saw themselves as in the 'early period', Alfred the Great was King 'of the Anglo-Saxons'. Noting that Anglo-Saxon ethnogenesis involved the mixing of various Germanic and Celtic peoples is not proof of their non-existence as an ethnicity, elsewise the Somali should be classed a Cushitic 'cultural group' rather than 'ethnicity' DakiniSlayer (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

It should be a pretty trivial point we're not proving the non-existence of ethnicity or anything else, but rather questioning why sterling evidence for its existence emerging from a notoriously poorly documented period should be assumed to exist. Remsense 🌈 论 03:32, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Because all the evidence commonly used in place of official documentation (e.g., mythology, archaeology, linguistic clues, genetic studies) aligns with our assumption, inference based on this is the accepted standard of proof; any instance of comprehensive, reliable, written documentation from the distant past is the exception, not the norm. DakiniSlayer (talk) 04:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with everyone above! I have struggled to find the best term. "Cultural group" is a cautious term which seems appropriate for describing the early period before Bede, which many of us are interested in. However, we also have the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain article, which covers this earlier phase. As I understand it, while we should be cautious with terms like "nation" or "ethnic group," this article ultimately focuses on the period when the Anglo-Saxons clearly identified as a "people"? It’s true that terms like "ethnic group" or "nation" can be problematic, as the internet (including Wikipedia) sometimes push simplistic, 19th-century ideas about overimportant, mutually-exclusive ethnic/national identities. We don't want to be dragged into that. Practically speaking, the word "people" feels awkward and flat, while "nation" could imply more than it should. "Germanic people" is a term to be cautious about in some cases, as it's mostly a linguistic category in modern scholarship, but not always seen that way. However, in this particular case that misunderstanding is not too worrying. At least by Bede's time there does seem to have been not only a national feeling and a language, which distinguished itself routinely (sometimes violently) from neighbouring ones, and even a narrative of ancestry in "Germania". So should we use "Germanic people"? There is a part of me which still worries that this term (but perhaps nearly any clear term) might be taken too easily to mean that being English or British was like a category on an ID card, which could be filled in only two ways. But this is arguably a problem we can't fix. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Anglo Saxons?

This is fascinating, but why do you keep referring to 'Anglo Saxon people' when they didn't call themselves that, and there is plenty of evidence of the newcomers marrying into and mixing with the existing population, such as at Oakington? Modern DNA evidence has revealed much we did not know - and still do not know. But this rigid 'Anglo Saxon' adherence seems very misleading. we also know that 'Celtic' is a linguistic term in the UK, not an ethnicity, created by Edward Lhuyd in 1707. ~2025-41608-80 (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any concrete proposals for improving the article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Scholars often use terms for convenience for peoples who did not call themselves that, but "Anglo-Saxon" was used at the time. Alfred the Great used the title "King of the Anglo-Saxons". The term Celtic is as you say controversial except in a linguistic context. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

The article begins "The Anglo-Saxons, in some contexts simply called Saxons or the English, were a cultural group who spoke Old English and inhabited..." - stick with that and don't worry about DNA/ethnicity etc. Johnbod (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

As another commenter pointed out, the term Anglo-Saxon is very old (although the average commoner at the time called themselves "English" rather than "Anglo-Saxon"). However, the term Celtic is more analogous to Germanic than it is to English as historically there was never really a unified Celtic identity, but rather Welsh, Scottish, Irish, etc. identities. However, I saw your other comments and I disagree with your implications that because there was mixing between these local tribes that it somehow justifies mass migration of people from far-off lands who have no historical, genetic or cultural connection to Europe (and in many cases are actively hostile towards European/Christian culture, though I acknowledge this doesn't apply to all individuals).

In conclusion, I think the Anglo-Saxon label is appropriate both as a synonym for English in modern times and to refer to the population of pre-Norman England, even though this wasn't a label universally used by the people of the region at the time. Also I think that labels like Celtic and Germanic are appropriate since even though historically there were never unified groups that used these labels, there are still clear historical, linguistic and genetic connections between the nations/ethnicities in these groups (which deserve to be acknowledged and celebrated).

(As an aside, there are far more egregious examples of questionable/inaccurate labels being applied by early scholars that survived purely through inertia and a lack of a better term. An example is the Tocharians, who have absolutely no connection to the ancient Tokharoi but were named after them in the 20th century.) ~2025-31340-95 (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with most of that but I am not really sure that we know what everyday people called themselves. We know that Bede had switched to using the word English. But in certain contexts he called the language and the earliest settlers Saxons. In short he used several terms, but he was of course also a scholar who made thoughtful remarks on terminology.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes you're right that the label "Saxon" was also commonly used (especially in the earliest period), I wanted to include that but my comment was already getting pretty long as it is and I was worried it would be a burden to read if I continued adding details. ~2025-31340-95 (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Well said. Quantum Mechanical Engineer (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

There's no doubt that the term is already a misnomer, even before we talk about the current use of the term in the context of white supremacy. Where's the Frisians and the Jutes? Drmies (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

That seems to be stretching things a bit, and not very constructive. We have to call them something, and what we've done so far is very much based on using the most common and clear term. The only other alternative is to call them English. I don't think this was done thoughtlessly (and I don't think it was done by White Supremists). But how can we use your remark in any way? For example, Bede gave a whole list of peoples he thought were likely ancestors . But what do any of those have to do with the common name that was used to describe the whole people in the new culture in Britain, either in the languages of that time, or now? Does anyone ever call them all Frisians or Jutes (or Danes or Huns)? Where are we going with this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

There's quite a few editors here who like to describe churches etc in the North as built by the Angles, and a bit of similar using Jutes for the appropriate area. What Drmies calls "the current use of the term in the context of white supremacy" is I think 100% an American phenomenon (mainly I think because of the term WASP), leading to American pressure to call the people, not just the language. "Old English". Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

It is an unwanted exportation of US parochialism. The American default is to imagine that the rest of the world is like the US, and if it isn't it should be. Not very long ago the US officially classified the Portuguese and Spanish as different races, just because they had invented a 'race' called 'Hispanic', which spoke Spanish as a defining feature. Just because some US scholars have confused a peculiar and local usage of 'Anglo-Saxon' in their own vernacular culture with the well-established and innocuous primary meaning, it does not mean that the rest of the world has to, or should, kowtow to their wishes. It is a form of cultural imperialism. Urselius (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree, but I think the pressure mainly comes to the scholars from "below". Because of WASP, it is firmly entrenched in the American student & liberal mind that 'Anglo-Saxon' = BAAAD, and they find courses harder to fill & are uncomfortable at parties explaining what their speciality is. Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I think that DrMies' question about the Frisians and the Jutes is humorous. TSventon (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

That may be, but OTOH WP editors don't always ignore such "local" political sensitivities, and I think on this article the editors have really thought about it. Sometimes we can dodge terms easily, by using an alternative term, but sometimes we really don't have any other term to use. Calling these people the "Old English people", for example, or just the English, would be a bit weird to say the least. We could for example call them English (pre-1066) but that seems silly. So I think it is important that we don't just come to a talk page to say that a term has baggage, but as usual we should have constructive proposals about better options. I don't think we have any? So any concerns we have are a bit moot.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

English in this context, when referring specifically to the Anglo-Saxon period, sometimes refers specifically to the Angles. This is mainly true of older sources, rather than modern, but it still make the article unnecessarily even more confusing. Quantum Mechanical Engineer (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

JRR Tolkien was a professor of Anglo-Saxon. Scholarship has used the term for several hundred years, in a precise way, for an identifiable people, living in a defined historical era. It is the scholarly use that trumps everything else in any encyclopaedic article. It really does not matter what the people we call Anglo-Saxon called themselves. Indeed, the first recorded use of the term was by Continental scholars describing some of the people living in Britain, and they consciously used it to distinguish these islanders from similarly named people still living in the European mainland. Urselius (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Whether true or not, "they didn't call themselves that" is irrelevant; what matters is how the word is used and understood in modern English. German people don't call themselves "German", nor do Chines people call themselves "Chinese", but English speaking people do, which is why the English language Wikipedia calls them that; there's no good reason to apply different principles to "Anglo-Saxons". JBW (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

How the word is understood in modern English is to consider it ridiculous and unrecognisable. It’s virtually an ethnic or racist slur. The laughable idea that we have to call them something so let’s call them something that is both incorrect and insulting. Well done wikidemia. Again. No wonder Wikipedia has very little respect for. ~2026-13940-43 (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Another American cultural imperialist! See above for why you are wrong. Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree. I rarely hear or read the word being used in an insulting way, and when it is this very obviously comes from the meaning distortions of the American-based "culture war" word games (which do influence other countries though). Just about every word connected to any type of people will eventually be used as an insult in that continuous ugly word game. Eventually words become useless for anyone trying to take it seriously, because their meanings are quite deliberately forgotten. We can't take account of every term it twists, because this would create utter confusion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

If you don't think the word is used as an insult then maybe consider tidying up the part of the main article where it suggest that it is derogatory. ~2026-27382-58 (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

If you wish to make a a serious point I would suggest mastering English syntax. "No wonder Wikipedia has very little respect for", makes no sense. I am guessing that you meant, 'No wonder Wikipedia garners very little respect', but I could be wrong. Urselius (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Well done @Urselius. Go for the typo error instead of the subject under discussion. DHery.

@Johnbod, I am not American. I already read the dross written above, that's why I responded. Try again.

@Andrew you want to find a collective racist term, you go ahead and group people together under a name of convenience even though it is clearly wrong. Now we can go to Quebec and refer to the population there as Galls. ~2026-27382-58 (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

That is not a typo or multiple typos, possibly you were rushed and inaccurate as a result. Or your outrage pushed syntax out of the window. The rest of your first message is hardly a model of clarity, for that matter. You can call me Anglo-Saxon 'til the cows come home, I will feel zero insult. Some of my ancestors were undoubtedly Anglo-Saxons, as I am English and my surname is Anglo-Saxon (specifically West Saxon, spelling-wise). Urselius (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2026

Hengist and Horsa chronicles

Hengist and Horsa are commonly attributed to be the legendary Anglo-Saxon brothers said to have led the first Germanic settlers to Britain in the 5th century AD.

Accounts state

After the Romans left Britain, a king named Vortigern invited them to help defend the land from invaders. The brothers arrived with warriors, defeated the enemies, and were given land in Kent as payment.

Later, conflict broke out between the Britons and the Saxons. Horsa was killed in battle, but Hengest survived and became ruler of Kent, helping establish one of the first Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in England.

Historical sources which mention the story of Hengist and Horsa include Historia Brittonum and accounts by the Venerable Bede. Haroldvilla1 (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The article already mentions "Hengist and Horsa" and links to the relevant article on Hengist and Horsa with more details. – NJD-DE (talk) 11:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hengist and Horsa literally mean 'stallion' and 'horse'. Their existence as historical figures, rather than mythical folk heroes, is very far from being certain. Urselius (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Broken link: Pope Gregory I's Famous quotes and anecdotes

I'd like to ask for some clarification and guidance.

The phrase "sanctified by the Church" is hyperlinked to the Pope Gregory I#Famous quotes and anecdotes but that section no longer exists in the Pope Gregory I article.

I believe the original reference was to the Non Angli, sed angeli quote, which was moved to the Wikiquote sister project. Although the contents guidelines (on external links) do mention that the article body shouldn't contain external links with rare exceptions (like for some sister projects), sister-project links are encouraged to be placed under external links... except that, if I'm reading things right, the quote is being paraphrased and should become a citation. Please advise.

Note: During the process of researching the quote itself, I discovered that the quote is probably from (not sure if one should attribute the author of an InMvBook --- multi-volume book ---, or the editors)...:

• Thomas Hodgkin, The Political History of England, Vol. 1 (Longmans, Green & Co., 1905), p. 115

... and not from:

• William Hunt; Reginald Lane Poole, The Political History of England, Vol. 2 (Longmans, Green & Co., 1905), p. 115

rolandog (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

It would be better to find a more recent secondary source, and also to find the primary source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

As Wikiquote says, it's the Venerable Bede or nearly so. The actual Latin phrasing is certainly older than 1905 - here it is as the title of a painting of 1877, being already proverbial. Johnbod (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Indeed! (Also, thanks for sharing a link to the painting!) Perhaps an explanatory footnote and a reference to the following translation need to be added?:

• A. M. Sellar, transl. Bede's Ecclesiastical History of England, Book II, Ch. I (George Bell & Sons, 1907), p. 82

And something like:

{{efn|The story originates with [[Venerable Bede|Bede the Venerable]]: {{lang|la|Non ::::Angli, sed angeli}} ("Not Angles, but Angels"). When Gregory encountered slave boys from the island of Britain in Rome, he declared: "Right," said he, "for they have an angelic face, and it is meet that such should be co-heirs with the Angels in heaven." A. M. Sellar, transl. ''Ecclesiastical History of England'', Book II, Ch. I, (George Bell & Sons, 1907), p. 82.}} rolandog (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Unclear distinction between "Life and Society" and "Culture" sections

I noticed that there are certain subjects in the said sections that the placement of which into one or the other seems arbitrary. For example, information relevant to the section "Women, children, and slaves", such as inheritance, is discussed below under "Kinship". And the topic of food seems to belong as much, if not more, to "Life and society" than "Culture". I think a more systematic distinction could be made between the sections, and they could be reorganized accordingly. Social structure, Language, and Material culture makes the most sense to me. Literature would be discussed under Language in this scheme, so maybe the section could be Language and writing.

On a related note, this article is lacking an Economy section, which should address trade, agriculture, coinage, and industries such as cloth production. Does anyone have any comments about the addition of these topics?

Feel free to correct any misconceptions that you see here; I'm not experienced with typical practices for longer history articles such as this one. Procyon14 (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Procyon14: The several Anglo Saxon articles have had a wave of work in recent years but they still need more work, and I think this is useful feedback.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Overlap with History of Anglo-Saxon England

There is an excessive overlap between this article and History of Anglo-Saxon England. How about renaming it Anglo-Saxon society and culture and deleting the history sections? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Definitely an idea worth serious consideration. On the one hand clear names can often help to reduce overlap problems, and that can in turn make it much easier for both readers to find what they are looking for and editors to work effectively to maintain and improve articles. At first sight your name idea seems logical, although I am personally open to different ideas. Secondly, concerning the idea of deleting the history sections as opposed to just making sure they are summary redirecting to main articles it is a radical fix, but given the large number of articles which are all trying to cover this, and the practical problems we've had to align all of them, radical ideas might be necessary. For example some of the relevant articles with large Anglo Saxon history sections are hardly ever edited. Who is going to do lots of work on them?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Problem with Map

I have a question about this map in the header to the history section.

My question is, what do the areas represent on the map that are not clearly delineated or specified? Specifically, the dark shaded area around kent that extends west with the little purple squares in it, as well as the similar areas in east anglia, east midlands, and southwest england which are dark shaded with little orange squares in them? Do these represent anything, such as mixed population groups etc? If so, I believe it should be clearly marked, at least in the caption below the image. Quantum Mechanical Engineer (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I personally don't like this map. It seems to be suggesting various things, but it isn't necessarily clear or consistent with recent thinking. Maybe we should remove it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

What specifically would you say is not clear or consistent with recent thinking? Also, do you believe it would be useful to include Frankish(to Kent) and Frisian immigration on the map? Quantum Mechanical Engineer (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Depends on the caption we want. However: Frankish influence did not have to represent migration; Concerning Frisians there is the problem of the term not even existing in the 5th century. Archaeologists in the Netherlands tend to describe the inhabitants of Frisia in that period as Anglo Saxons (which is maybe also a bit simplistic, and indeed they often attach warnings).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

In regard to the Frankish influence, it did not have to represent migration, but there was still definitely migration from northern France to Britain(including, and perhaps especially, to Kent), as a coastal "Saxon" group, whatever they would have been. I do not know if this would represent the Frankish archeological evidence in Kent, or if that is through later trade and political connections. But I still think this should be more clearly shown in a map somehow(it does show Saxon migration to Britain from northern France, but not to the area of Kent, just to primarily the areas said to be Saxon by Bede).

As far as Frisia goes and its connection to Anglo Saxons, I believe it was John Hines who pointed out that there is evidence of reverse migration of Anglo Saxons to Frisia based on linguistic evidence. If I remember his theory correctly, the Frisian language contains elements of insular Celtic which cannot be readily explained by trade and are more explainable through migration, which is assumed to have been from Anglo-Saxons returning to the continent.

Edit: I'm not for certain if John Hines actually wrote the article, it may have been written by another author and published in the book "Frisians and their North Sea Neighbors", which was edited by John Hines and Nelleke IJssennagger, but also contained articles written by other authors. However, the point remains the same. Quantum Mechanical Engineer (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

There are indeed proposals of movements from England to Frisia, but like with the early Norse idea, this is a quite specific proposal with no general consensus. Whether we need maps for such proposals also of course depends on whether we discuss them in the article. The Bede story of the three nations is not necessarily representing any modern scholarly consensus at all, and so if we depict it, then I don't think it should be combined with modern scholarly ideas, but rather depicted as the story of Bede.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Quantum Mechanical Engineer, I think the "dark shaded area around kent" is the Weald, which meant woodland. The "areas in east anglia, east midlands, and southwest england" appear to be marshland. I agree a caption would be useful.

Andrew Lancaster, I think some kind of map showing Jutland, Schleswig and Lower Saxony is useful, but not necessarily this one. TSventon (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

That's useful to know, is there any reason these would need to be included in the map though? Quantum Mechanical Engineer (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

@Quantum Mechanical Engineer: I don't quite get the question. What is it here?

@TSventon: yes indeed a vaguer and less ambitious one would do nicely for us. Can anyone find one? The exact looking borders are in themselves an issue IMHO. In reality, even if we say that we just reporting the simple version of the Bede story (which we can't with this map), then what should we do with the Frisians? (I think in the real settlement period it is quite possible that many or most "Saxons" were coastal peoples who would later become "Frisian". Bede's understanding of the Saxons is really based on the contemporary Frankish understanding of the inland Saxons who they were fighting, and who had by then become distinct from "Frisians" on the coast. In the 5th century there were no Frisians or Angles mentioned anywhere, the "Saxons" were the coastal ones, and the inland future Saxony was mysterious but possibly the site of a Warini kingdom which ended in the 6th century.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I am a bit confused as to your question about my question. If you're referring to my question of "is there any reason these would need to be included in the map though?" My question was in reply to user:TSventon's post about the areas being marshland and forested area, and I was asking if we really need to include it in the map. I understand it would influence where people settled, but the way the map is done itself it wouldn't necessitate it in my opinion, as the author of the map already put the settlements into pockets anyway, and just makes the map have unexplained details that would confuse readers, as one could come to all sorts of conclusions what the colors mean. (I.e. if the purple area could be a mixed area between red and blue etc.) Quantum Mechanical Engineer (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Additional to your point about the Saxons just being generically seen as coastal Germanic peoples/raiders in this period, which would have included groups such as the Frisians or Angles, this grouping of Saxons also included the Germanic peoples along the coast of modern France(in the Pas-de-Calais and Normandy areas). We don't know what identity they would have had applied to them in the time of Bede(could they have had any connection to Bede's Jutes? Etc.) Quantum Mechanical Engineer (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Concerning the ones in France, the term Saxon seems to have stuck around at least until Gregory of Tours in the 6th century. I don't think they were called anything else later. Anyway it sounds like the 3 of us all think the map goes a bit overboard in unexplained details. One we haven't mentioned yet is an uncommon proposal of very early Norse migration. (Maybe that is what the original map was used to explain?) A potentially useful map is just one saying "here is the description of Bede in that famous passage". We could potentially also give a hint about his other passage which mentioned Germania by putting a bigger outline on the map of classical Germania. (Perhaps not.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

If you look through the map history it does have older revisions showing possible early norse migration(maybe you have already seen that since you mentioned it).

In terms of the early norse migration specifically are you referring to examples such as the Sutton Hoo helmet, which has connections to the Vendel period? I would say this should be seen in the same light as the Frankish archeology, not necessarily showing settlement, but possibly just showing connections, such as trade or political. The previous revision of the map shows the norse settlement as uncertain, so I would not have a problem with something like that. Quantum Mechanical Engineer (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what the map intended, but it might have been something like that speculation. For our purposes I don't think that's what we need in the map though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Quantum Mechanical Engineer:, Geographical features such as rivers, high land, woodland or marshes influenced where ancient and medieval people chose to settle, so they are relevant to a map of early medieval settled areas. However too much information can make a map confusing. It is noticeable that the higher land to the north and west of Britain is labelled "Britons". TSventon (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I am a bit confused as to where the edit conflict lies in this regard, what posts? Quantum Mechanical Engineer (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I started writing my post of 17:05 before Andrew Lancaster's post at 17:00, so I tagged my post with edit conflict. TSventon (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2026 (UTC) .

FWIW on Jutes and Anglii this map is used. I don't think it is perfect either, but perhaps it would be a marginal improvement?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Britain 400–500: Anglo-Saxon Homelands and Settlements

The Gretzinger et al. paper (Nature 2022) found a substantial 'Iron Age French-like' component in English genetics. They put this down to post-Roman immigration - though I trust genetic dating far less than I do the existence of genetic connections - under a rather woolly heading of 'Frankish sponsorship'. If Bede had not called the Cantware Jutes, they would, on archaeological evidence, have been classed as Franks. Also, did the Jutes inhabit all of the Jutland Peninsula in this period? I think that Danes or proto-Danes were already there, at least partially. I do not see how a single map can cover the levels of uncertainty that are evident in a readily understandable manner. Should it be attempted? Urselius (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I think your last two sentences are the key ones. I think no one is saying we can't talk about various types of evidence concerning Frisians, Franks, Danes (other than Jutes), Scandinavians, the Saxons in France and so on, but each of these has its own story, and if it is not yet in our article I don't see that we should be worrying to much about how to illustrate those points. A detail: I haven't pulled the text up to check this but memory says that the Frankish influence was more like a constant stream which was difficult to pin on a particular period? In the end when it comes to these studies it is worth remembering that there has been constant movement of people between neighbouring areas in Europe, and so no actual "migration" is needed to explain such constant movement.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I believe the Danes settled Jutland shortly after the Anglo-Saxon migrations to Britain, rather than during or prior, coming from further east in the Danish isles and southern Sweden.

As for the Jutes in Kent, could they have been from the Saxon groups in France? So therefore not Frankish in terms of tribal grouping, but maybe culturally Frankish? I understand this would be speculative, but I am asking if this would fit dates etc. Quantum Mechanical Engineer (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I think there are lots of possibilities, and some have been published. But are we are a bit off track? I think we were looking at a text to fit in the Bede section.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I am going to switch to this other map as at least a marginal improvement. I think it is more clear.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Quantum Mechanical Engineer (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit off track, and since we are choosing a map to fit the Bede section I believe the change to the other map to be a good choice. The one thing that I did prefer more about the original map though is showing the Saxon groups migrating from northern France, so perhaps this map could be included somewhere else on the page, maybe somewhere in regard to possible early Norse and French coastal Saxon migration, and maybe with just more descriptions added so there is less confusion. Quantum Mechanical Engineer (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Such a map would also be interesting for the Saxons article, but I am wondering what the evidence is being referred to for all those little spots. The famous settlement was around Bayeux I think, and undoubtedly there were more, but I don't remember reading any source with a big list.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure as to the evidence of the blotches on the map, both in France as well as in England, or why it was done that way specifically. I just think it would be good to include something similar as such. Also, if I remember correctly, there is evidence of Saxon settlement from this period around Bayeux, Pas-De-Calais, and the Loire River valley. Quantum Mechanical Engineer (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I thought that using an older map might work, as we could say where it came from and it wouldn't imply complete accuracy. For example this 1923 map by William R. Shepherd.

I wouldn't mind the "little spots" on the first map, if I (and other readers) knew exactly which reliable source they had come from and what they were intended to mean, which of course I don't. The map lists five sources, so I had a look.

• the first is An Atlas of Roman Britain by Barri Jones, which has maps of the "Distribution of main Saxon settlements and cemeteries" in the early and later fifth-century. It is available at https://archive.org/details/atlasofromanbrit0000jone/page/316/mode/2up and could be a source of the English spots.
• the third is The Northern Seas (fifth to eighth centuries) in The New Cambridge Medieval History, Vol I, page 643. The chapter is available through the Wikipedia library and the page is also included in the Google books preview. It could be the source of the French spots. TSventon (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, Andrew Lancaster do you have any idea what EF means in the second (current) map? The colour suggests "English Franks" (citation needed). TSventon (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I see EJ? (Maybe J=Jutes?) In the end I can make a much simpler map if called for.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

EJ is in Kent, EF is near Wales and also to the west of English Angles, in the same color as the Franks in France/Belgium. I agree with TSventon that it suggests English Franks. Quantum Mechanical Engineer (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, yes I see it, and yes this is a similar problem of the map apparently showing theories we aren't explaining. (In this case it really rings no bell for me at all.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:17, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Britain 400–500: Anglo-Saxon Homelands and Settlements jpg

@Andrew Lancaster and Quantum Mechanical Engineer: I have checked an earlier version of the Britain 400–500 map and, if you expand it, the "EF" areas are outlined and not labelled. I think they may be the Forest of Arden in the West Midlands and Wentwood in South Wales. The Weald is also outlined. TSventon (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Interesting, do you think EF could stand for English forests then? Also, could we use this earlier version since the EF is confusing? Quantum Mechanical Engineer (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Any thoughts or updates on changes to the map? I personally do not really like the one with EF because I also assumed it meant English Franks for the longest time when it was used on the other page. I think the 1923 map by William R. Shepherd would be better. Quantum Mechanical Engineer (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

My only idea so far is just to make a simpler map, depicting the passage in Bede in a rough way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2026 (UTC)