Talk:Sub-Roman Britain

message: In an attempt to tidy up, the information from Anglo-Saxons on the Anglo-Saxon migration has been moved to this page. It needs tidying up, but I think it firmly belongs in this page. Harthacanute 11:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'm not sure I'm too happy with with  "Anglo-Saxon Invasion" Invasion!  This article has suddenly bulged enormously.  I think the recent A-S section needs to be trimmed and the removed material moved back to some A-S related article, or made into a new article or something.  It's just a bit too A-S heavy.  If there's no other place for it, I guess it will do for now, but this just seem kind of haphazard...  --Smccandlish 05:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In particular, I think about 90% of the genetics blather needs to get axed from this article (though I think it might make a fine article by itself.  It's a very distracting and disruptive insertion here!)  --Smccandlish 05:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  PS: Compare how similar genetic information is presented in Early history of Ireland; much better - just two short, informative paragraphs that don't go on and on about study methologies and other excruciating detailia.  --SMcCandlish 00:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the genetic section, originally in Anglo-Saxons and moved here, because the original section was misinformed, misunderstood and had deliberatelly  distorted the original findings of the genetic studies . The original sources were exclusively journalistic, and had sensationalised the findings of the original academic papers. I used the original papers as a source for the edit as per wikipedia policy on reliable sources,  these papers were more considered, and didn't make claims of genocide or mass expulsions, as the journalistic sources had claimed. I am sorry if accuracy and detail bore you. I shall, in future allow inacuracies, misinterpretations and down right lies to creep into articles, for fear that their correction will offend or bore you. Alun 13:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You needn't take it personally.  I didn't say it was poorly written, or incorrect, nor am I questioning your motives.  I'm saying only that it is a distracting and disruptive insertion.  It has swelled the size of the article to impart nitpicky details that the typical reader will not be interested in and which don't actually have anything salient to do with Sub-Roman Britain.  This is not an article about the methodolgy of genetic studies.  If the study itself warrants that much information being written about it, then it should have its own article (and maybe it should - you say that journalists, et al., have been misinterpreting it, after all).  Again, see how the same sort of information was handled in Early history of Ireland.   — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 04:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can I not take it personally when you refer to my edit as blather and nitpicky. It is all very well to express your opinion on the talk page, but you shuld be aware that this is your opinion (and is not necessarily shared by others), and talk pages should be used in a constructive way to get consensus about article content, rather than used to make offensive remarks. Maybe this isn't the right place for the edit I made, but I did not put it here, I put it in the Anglo-Saxons article, it was subsequently moved here. The edit does go into some detail about methodology, but without a clear understanding of how the data were compiled, what assumptions were made, and how the data were subsequently manipulated, a proper understanding of  the conclusions cannot be reached. I do not necessarily disagree with you that the content may not be appropriate to this article, but you could have expressed this opinion without being offensive. Alun 05:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I can take full responsibility for moving the genetic stuff from Anglo-Saxons, so any criticism for that should be sent my way. However, we now have a situation where a detailed methodology of the genetic evidence doesn't appear on either page (which I think is appropriate). I think I've suggested before and I'll suggest again that genetic analysis could do with its own article, as I'm sure a wide range of matters (beyond the Anglo-Saxon - e.g. Vikings) can be used as examples. I lack the expertise to write on it, though, so if people want that I'll leave it in the hands of others. Harthacanute 11:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A split seems reasonable. As well as Cavalli-Sforza's books & stuff, the Weale & Capelli studies, plus the assorted Irish ones, there's a study by Topf et al on Neolithic & later emigration, which I haven't seen. The abstract is findable with Google, but it's not on Pubmed or any of the free access sites as yet. But there should be enough in those for article on "Genetic evidence for historic migration to Britain and Ireland" (or something, that's not a very exciting title). Angus McLellan  (Talk) 12:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been thinking this is a good idea for some time. I could have a crack at some point in the future, but at present I'm a bit strapped for time. Been doing a major rewrite of Rosalind Franklin and have sent it for peer review. If anyone's interested in reviewing this article, comments are always appreciated. Also plan to do a fact and reference check over at English people. Alun 07:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi, Without wanting to get in the middle of a debate, just a small point. How can it be an Anglo-Saxon invasion when surely it was the Saxons who invaded (or migrated, depending on which theory you subscribe to) and became Anglicised, thus leading to the term Anglo-Saxon? fluoronaut 11:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fluoronaut, what they mean is that the Angles were also Germanic arrivals (like the Saxons). Before that, the population of what we now call England (ie Angleland) was Celtic (ie Britons) who had adopted many Roman customs (hence Romano-British). Jameswilson 23:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers James - this makes it much clearer. I was under the impression that this term was applied to the Germanic group only after they invaded/migrated to Britain since they are alleged to have settled in fairly discrete areas of southern Britain. Hope this is not muddying the waters unnecessarily. fluoronaut 17:50, 10 July 2007 (UT
going back to the original discussion on this page I note that Weales - on which much of the sensationalist reporting and strange statistical speculation about population replacement (Haerke etc) is based - work is flawed as the line they take through Britain is no way representative of typical settlement patterns over the country, due to the viking eruption being focussed in that are and also only having a sample of seven towns. pehaps Haerkes work in the article should be balanced not just by further analysis of Weales work but by looking for other counts of Y and mitochondria and of autosomal types.talk 14:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Anglo-Saxon migration

message: I do not understand the meaning of the following phrase in this article: " This is the era of Arthur and of Patrick, upholders of a civilized tradition at the limits of its frontier. Could someone please explain it to me?--Heathcliff 02:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely you could just give them a more telling and accurate joint characterization yourself. --Wetman 03:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply do not know what the phrase is being used to mean and would like to know. Does the question bother you? I'm sorry, but so much of a statement is lost without the voice inflection and the body language that I can't tell if you mean to sound annoyed. I see that you wrote the phrase in question. Is there a reason you won't tell me what you were getting at.--Heathcliff 03:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

text: If it were a High School essay question, might it go like this? Patrick and Arthur: Compare and Contrast: The historical Patrick and the perhaps-historical Arthur: in what senses did they both operate at the edges of their respective cultural sphere?  (Use your definition of Marches in your answer.) What episodes in their legend or career would suggest that this is so? Which aspects of the two men were the most "Romanized"?  Violence is constant in their milieu: how did their reactions to violence differ? (10 minutes: 10 points)
 (;>p) Wetman 19:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't know how to take this response. Is there a reason why you will not explain to me what you mean when you say they were "upholders of a civilized tradition at the limits of its frontier"?--Heathcliff 22:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Britain was the limit of the Roman frontier. Patrick and Arthur fought to maintain Roman culture. It can't get much simpler than that.Kuralyov 00:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Since no one has offered an opinion that the statement is accurate, I'm going to go ahead and take it out. It can always be put back in if someone feels that it is correct.--Heathcliff 21:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Upholders of a civilized tradition"

message: This seems one area of history where the definitive dates that a timeline necessarily implies are too arbitrary not to be misleading and a source of largely irrelevant contention. Can't we work all the elements in the "timeline" into more nuanced discourse in the main text? --Wetman 05:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A timeline?

message: This article gives way more space to the theories of Francis Pryor than to the consensus view. Whatever that is. The article doesn't bother to tell.
:In light of some of the comments here I've done a pretty serious re-write of this page. The previous version seemed to concentrate far too much on a small number of issues and interpretations (such as genetic evidence and Francis Pryor's theories). I've tried to give a balanced account of the main evidence and debates for this period. There's some pretty big gaps, especially on North Britain, but I don't have the expertise to write on that. There's a lot to cover and so I've made each bit fairly short; the page could easily be three times this length with each issue handled satisfactorily. I'm sure there'll be plenty of criticism, but hopefully this is a move in the right direction. Harthacanute 18:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the rewrite. It's much better now. (I wrote the comment two paragraphs up - hadn't learnt how to sign yet) Jon kare 22:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of balance

message: I just reverted a deletion of a passage about genetic evidence.  This isn't meant to be editwarring; I'd just like to discuss what to do with such material in general first.  More than half-a-year or so ago I objected to the addition of a very, very wordy (and science-geeky) paragraph on this topic to the article myself.  But I do think the material has value.  What I'd like to suggest is that all of that material be summarized, without reference to this chromosome or alelle or that, and just get to the conclusions (and arguments against them, if they are strong and sourceable).  I think it IS of value to the article to discuss the post-Roman genepool, but we needn't get tumid or overly technical about it in this article.  Yes?  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  the modern english people speak a west germanic language, technically, because its basic grammar and most of its basic lexicon derives from the language of jutland/frisia in pre roman times. but its grammar has evolved and as for lexicon the input from old welsh, french, latin and greek mean that that is a historical rather than current relationship. there is almost no mutual intelligibility between english and the other germanic langs. just because the people adopted the language of the anglo-saxon settlers, does not make them a germanic people, it was probably economically advantageous, as romano british landlords dealt with anglian chiefs, for british people to speak english, and politically easier for british aristocrats to cluster to the courts of the leading anglo-saxon kings, and call themselves english. we remain i think a people of the british ethnic group, related more to the celts, but still closer to the belgians and most welsh, than to germans or danes, and therefore not a germanic people.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.120.242 (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Eh? There are about five sources for genetics here. The genetic data do not contradict each other. Indeed the genetic data are remarkably consistent. It seems to me that you have not actually read any of the genetic papers if you make this claim. What is true is that the genetic data can be interpreted in different ways. Oppenheimer is as good a source as any other, he doesn't actually say anything that different to any of the other sources. The most important work is that done by Capelli so far, and they show only limited "Anglo-Saxon" migration. Besides which this has got bugger all to do with genetics, archaeologists have been casting doubt on migrationist theories for the last thirty years, so I don't understand why people get all upset when genetics just supports what archaeologists have been saying for years anyway. It's not "pro-Celtic" to say that academics from two different  disciplines reject a mass Anglo-Saxon invasion, it is simply citing sources. If you have a problem take it up with the people who publish the papers. Besides which claiming that there was a limited invasion rather than a mass migration is not the same as claiming that the the "Anglo-Saxons" were not a Germanic people. Germanic in this sense is surely a social/cultural/linguistic term, and indeed no one is claiming that the "Anglo-Saxons" did not speak a Germanic language or have  a Germanic culture/society. There is evidence that there were indeed regions where "Anglo-Saxons" lived where non-Anglo-Saxons also lived. There is also evidence that Germanic languages may have been spoken in parts of England since before the Roman occupation. Indeed if you had actually  bothered to read Oppenheimer you would know that the main thrust of his argument is that the Germanic nature of eastern England is very ancient, and that there were contacts between the various peoples of the North Sea for millenia. So his argument is that there doesn't need to have been a mass migration, the nature of North Sea Britain was already Germanic. This is a very similar idea to Barry Cunliffe's idea of an "Atlantic zone", a "central zone" and a "North Sea zone" of prehistoric contacts for the British Isles. So rejecting an "Anglo-Saxon" mass migration is not the same as claiming that the "Anglo-Saxons" were not Germanic, and it is facile to equate migration with cultural change. I'd like to see the "many and numerous studies" that criticize Oppenheimer, I note that you don't actually provide any sources, presumably these are archaeologists who also disagree with people like Catherine Hills, Barry Cunliffe and Francis Pryor? Alun 05:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetic evidence

message: Can Gildas really be called contemporary? He covers a lot of ground, and was clearly not alive when much of his historical narrative took place (Dumville especially in his 1977 article points out the lack of reliable contemporary sources). St Patrick appears to be in similar doubt. The dating just doesn't seem to be secure enough to assert that they were contemporary with sub-Roman Britain. fluoronaut 16:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever his credibility and precise dates, Gildas' book is De Excidio Britanniae or "On the Ruin of Britain"; the sub-Roman cultural point-of-view is virtually defined by Gildas' sermon.--Wetman 05:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contemporary?

message: Wikipedia should refer to migration or invasion consistently.  For their own reasons, brits like to refer to Roman/Norman invasions but refer to Saxon migration.  Wikipedia should be harmonised and use one of the two terms consistently.
Not all things are amenable to regularisation.  The Roman and Norman invasions were just that, and they were extensively recorded by contemporary historians.  The way that large parts of Sub-Roman Britain became Anglo-Saxon England is rather more obscure.  There doesn't seem to have been a single invasion, but even the multiple small invasions by Germanic war-bands described in the sources were recorded long after the events and some accounts may have more than a little legendary, rather than factual, content.
The changes of culture and language in lowland Britain were profound but the idea that a mass-migration of people from North Germany caused these changes has been challenged by both archaeological and genetic evidence in the past few decades.  Therefore appropriateness the use of the word "migration" is also moot.  Perhaps the term "Anglicisation" is the best catch-all title for the process.
Urselius 11:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Migration/Invasion

message: The reference to Cunliffe, Iron Age Britain 1995:7 that read "in the same English regions 69% of male lines are still of aboriginal, pre-Celtic origin" has been edited to delete "pre-Celtic" by User:Zburh. Was this a correction to better reflect Cunliffe's assertion, or just a manipulation of the information?--Wetman 19:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Cunliffe ref is for "the eastern and south eastern coasts of Great Britain do not belong to this zone". That's a reasonable summary of what he says and what map 2 shows. The bit Zburh changed appears to be referenced to something by Oppenheimer. Absent an explanation or a reference, I'd revert the change, but that's just me. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 22:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Aboriginal" or "aboriginal pre-Celtic"?

message: The reference in Bede, writing well over two centuries after the supposed time of Hengest, is based on Anglo-Saxon origin myths. The dates used by Bede are his rationalisation of an existing oral myth. These is no contemporary (fifth-century) evidence for the existence of Hengest. As an essentially legendary character from Anglo-Saxon myth, perhaps a section on Hengest would be better placed in a section on Anglo-Saxon beliefs and culture.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.157.20 (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of section on Hengest

message: Should this article be retitled Post-Roman Britain?  There are two reasons to consider this change - that the term "sub" is derogatory and that Post-Roman is more widely used. The former comes from the days when the cultural characteristics of the Roman period were seen as ideal but a more appreciative view is now often taken of the cultural characteristics of the following period. Comparing the number of search engine hits on the web for the two terms reveals that Post-Roman is used nearly 40 times as often as Sub-Britain. The latter is mainly used in archaeological contexts. I know that this is a poor measure of its relative importance but is indicative. Adresia (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression that the wide use of the term 'sub-Roman Britain' stems from the important article by Dumville ('Sub-Roman Britain: History and Legend' in History 62, 173-92, 1993) and which has been generally adopted by scholars in this field. One argument for not using the term post-Roman would be that a number of historians believe that the Roman empire continued to strongly influence British life for many years after the withdrawal of soldiers and the fall of Rome itself. As far as being derogatory goes, well, evidence suggests that there was a decline in quality of life in Britain at this time, which can plausibly be seen as a decrease in 'civilised' habits (eg. rapid decline quality of pottery, increase in disorder, increase in invasions etc etc). fluoronaut (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There just is no derogatory implication in "sub-Roman Britain": it is an archaeological descriptor of provincial Roman culture quite far from style centers, that was thrown on its own after the breakdown of long-distance trade: thus pottery becomes locally-made and cruder. I wouldn't insist on changes to quite familiar designations unless I were a leader in the field, in which case I'd begin with a resounding article in a major publication. --Wetman (talk) 10:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 'Sub-Roman' seems to falling out of favour in the newer literature. Its retention is becoming controversial. I agree we should drop the usage in favour of 'post-Roman', or at least note that some authorities now find it objectionable. For example, Francis Pryor, in Britain AD (2005), p. 132, prefers 'post-Roman'; he writes of the 'so-called "sub-Roman" period', and notes: 'The term “sub-Roman”, has a pejorative ring which recalls "sub-human". It is still sometimes used to describe the period 410-500.' Lachrie (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-Roman Britain?

message: Does anyone know of evidence for its existence in the post-Roman period? It was certainly an important entity in the pre-Roman period. It is shown on the British kingdoms map but on what basis? Adresia (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The main settlement of the Celtic federation of Britons called the Durotriges was Durnovaria (modern Dorchester, Dorset); do any of the relevant articles help you with the archaeology? --Wetman (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your reference for Durotrigia before the Roman period (or during/after it)? I know of no written material that has survived from Britain before the Roman period, and I know of no source that talks about a "Celtic federation of Britons".  Can you outline your source for this so I can investigate?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.24.1 (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: My source should be familiar to all, as it's been in print in various revisions since 1974: it's Barry Cunliffe, Iron Age Communities in Britain: An Account of England, Scotland and Wales from the Seventh Century BC Until the Roman Conquest, 4th ed. 2005: Part II.8 "The tribes of the periphery: Durotriges, Dobunni, Iceni and Corieltauvi" (pp 178-201). "The Durotriges were a close-knit confederacy of smaller units centred on modern Dorset," he begins (p. 178). Anyone with more than the slenderest desultory interest in the Durotriges needs to see this book. --Wetman (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Durotrigia

message: This article is supposed to be about the History of Sub Roman Britain, NOT the History of academic squabbles concerning the history of Sub Roman Britain. This article would be great for a history student who want to find about academic disputes, but it is useless as a reference for a layman who wants a general idea of what happened between 400 and 700 AD in the UK.
To take only one glaring example of bad writing.
“Writing in Latin perhaps about AD 540, Gildas gives a preliminary account of the History of Britain but the earlier part is in error.” HOW, ABOUT WHAT “He castigates five rulers in western Britain - Constantine of Dumnonia, Aurelius Caninus, Vortipor of the Demetae, Cuneglassus and Maglocunus - for their sins.” WHICH SINS! “He also attacks the British clergy.” FOR WHAT! “He gives information on the British diet, dress and entertainment.” WHAT DOES HE SAY THEY ARE? “He writes that Britons were killed, emigrated or were enslaved but gives no idea of numbers of each type.” THIS IS THE BEST SENTENCE IN THE PARAGRAPH BUT IT IS AT LEAST HALF A WHINE THAT DILDAS GIVES NO NUMBERS.
Granted that the sources for this period are weak, but you have to say something. The whole article can’t be academic criticism. You NEED a narrative based one something then you can go into criticisms of the narrative, but with out that you don’t have shit.   96.26.177.229 (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, there is some bad writing, but that isn't your main complaint, right?  The problem is that there are conflicting ideas about the history of sub-Roman Britain, so there is absolutely no way that a straightforward narrative 'this is the history' can be written.  We can't choose one writer and use their ideas, we have to represent all significant views of this period. It would be nice if what you want could be provided, and it can be for most periods of British history, but not this one. Of course, if you can show how it can be done, I have most of the important books on this period and would be glad to help you rewrite it. Doug Weller (talk) 08:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NEED FOR NARRATIVE

message: Looking through this page I am shocked by the lack of historical rigour applied to it. All of the narrative is based on incredibly weak evidence, much of which is mythical and written several centuries later, even though it is here presented as fact. The so-called nations on the map have little foundation in evidence - the sad fact is that the peoples who lived in Britain in this period did not draw lines on maps in neat ways that we like in the 21st century. Please please remember that Gildas may be our main source but he is limited on so many levels. Writers on this page have not realised that "what we know" and "what we would like to know" and "what people think would be a good idea to know" are all quite different things. Anyone who comes along claiming to have "the story" of Britain in the 5th and 6th centuries should pay serious attention to what has been said about the topic in the last 20 years, and not be attempting to cast Arthurian legend and pre-1990 Dark Age romanticism as unquestionable fact.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.133.16 (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough. More text written as reports of published material will improve the article. The fanciful list of "kingdoms" needs to be confined to the sub-Roman period ending with Anglo-Saxon control, and rewritten as sourced text not an undifferentiated bulletted list.--Wetman (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some bad sources also, eg other Wikis. Doug Weller (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Large parts of this page are now unwarranted and without any historical grounding

message: I think that the end of Roman Britain was caused by the Huns. It's logical. :-) --Mazarin07 (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Huns 

message: May I propose a list is created on this page listing the names of the principal settlements of the time in their Brythonic / Old Welsh names. I know there has been some controversy regarding the attribution of an alternate Welsh name to places presently within the bounds of England and this page would be a place where such a list could sit. What do Wikipædians think about this proposal? James Frankcom (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Many are already listed at Welsh exonyms.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Towns and Cities of sub-Roman Britain 

message: May I draw your attention to the article King of the Britons and the discussion started on its talk page? This stems partly from my recent move to edit out and prepare for deletion what I regard as a very misleading and inappropriate template - Template:Kings of the Britons - which had been added to the articles on Owain Glyndŵr, the two Llywelyns and other medieval Welsh kings and princes, as well as the giant Idris Gawr (!) and various early and sub-Roman leaders. The title "King of the Britons" had also been added to the info boxes and lead text. Your comments and, hopefully, support would be welcome. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  King of the Britons 

message: Do we have to use the word 'culture'? I suggest that the word 'society' has a place in an article like this.Keith-264 (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Culture vs Society

message: The following paragraph is out of place under "End of Roman Britain":
  "Others may have lived in separate communities from those of the Anglo-Saxons, but under Anglo-Saxon rule. The laws of King Ethelbert of Kent, probably written in the early seventh century, make reference to a legal underclass known as laets who might represent British communities. There definitely is a British (wealh) underclass referred to in Ine of Wessex’s law code, written in the late seventh or early eighth centuries."
Under "Archeological Evidence":
"In the Sub-Roman period there seems to have been a preference for using less durable materials than in the Roman period." sounds like PC thinking.  Perhaps the inhabitants of Rio's favelas have a preference for living in shacks instead of houses with indoor plumbing and running water...  If you don't want to say, or don't agree, that they had lost the ability to build in brick and stone, then perhaps "Buildings were constructed of less-durable materials than in the Roman period", or something similar.
Under "Population changes"
"According to a new study, an apartheid-like system existed in early Anglo-Saxon England, which prevented the native British genes getting into the Anglo-Saxon population by restricting intermarriage and wiped out a majority of original British genes in favour of Germanic ones"
Although I admit I haven't read the book "Saxons, Vikings, and Celts", does this agree with Sykes?
161.11.121.245 (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and have moved the anachronism to History of Anglo-Saxon England. I've edited in your suggestion on the construction methods. On your last point, the  at the end was a challenge asking for a reliable source to be stated. As it had been there for more than a year without any response, I've deleted that passage. Moonraker2 (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: Paper at  Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Investigating population movement by stable isotope analysis: a report from Britain 

message: I have tagged the article, as the first half is severely lacking in sources to substantiate the text.
I removed the insertion after the citation for 'Age of Arthur', as this refers to the usage of that term, rather than the subject of the article.  I am sure that something could be said about Arthur, but not this way, and not much - as there is an article devoted to the legendary figure, and this sort of material would be better off dealt with there.
It is not uncommon for a text about post-Roman / pre-Norman Britain to have half-a-dozen pages about Arthur - if only to point out most of what we know is based on the the fiction of Geoffrey of Monmouth and Norman historical revisionism of Henry II.  Whilst I am sure that some information has since been superceded, Lloyd Laing's "Celtic Britain" (Palladin, 1979) gives a concise account of what we know and how the legend developed.  I have this text, as well as Geoffrey's book, the Anglo Saxon Chronicles, and numerous other books (although nothing that recent), and Patrick's account - if there is anything specific needing looking up, let me know. Mish (talk) 09:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources and Arthur 

message: "Studies of Old English, P- and Q-Celtic and Latin have provided evidence for contact between the Britons, the Gaels, and the Anglo-Saxons. The general consensus is that Old English has little evidence of linguistic contact." Is there contact evidence or not? 
"England (except Cornwall and Cumbria) shows little evidence now of Celtic in its placenames. There are scattered Celtic placenames throughout, increasing towards the west. There are also Celtic river names and topographical names." How does the two last sentences fit the first? 
Can someone who knows the subject sort this out? DeCausa (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on linguistic evidence of migrations (5.1) contains contradictions

message: "The withdrawal of Roman legions did not put an end to the Roman culture of the "lost province", which still remained part of the Roman cultural world, as Britons self-identified as Roman."
This is drivel. It makes my eyes bleed JF42 (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self identifying Britons 

message: The Gewisse region has important historical information regarding this area. Does anyone have additional information on this?
Twillisjr (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gewisse 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sub-Roman Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090917180311/http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/rhagor/article/1939/ to http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/rhagor/article/1939/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Sub-Roman Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.worcester.ac.uk/8805.html
*Added  tag to http://www.worcester.ac.uk/8816.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227035640/http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/history/Anglo-Saxon/Anglo-SaxonInvasion.html to http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/history/Anglo-Saxon/Anglo-SaxonInvasion.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012132623/http://www.lavozdegalicia.es/monograficos/dumio/noticia.jsp?TEXTO=100000112193 to http://www.lavozdegalicia.es/monograficos/dumio/noticia.jsp?TEXTO=100000112193
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130221093141/http://www.british-history.net/sub-roman-britain-timeline/ to http://www.british-history.net/sub-roman-britain-timeline/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If I didn't know anything about the subject, I would assume that "sub-Roman Britain" meant Britain immediately before the Romans came (i.e. stratigraphically below it), rather than immediately after they left.  According to the lede, it is derived from the inferior-relative-to-Roman pottery of the era, but this is unsourced and isn't expanded on in the rest of the article. Iapetus (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If you take a look at the sources, further reading and external links, you'll see that a number of them use the term. That's why we do. Having said that, a lot of sources call it "post-Roman", and there's a case for changing the title. Not sure how good it is though. Doug Weller talk 11:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why "sub" Roman? 

message: Huge chunks of this have been tagged for 'citation needed' and 'disputed' because no sources are listed and the statements are often controversial among the historical circles who study the period.  Case in point - the plague victims' numbers. 50.111.63.192 (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: article badly needs references

message: This is unsourced, and I think is based on a misunderstanding somewhere along the line.  St Tathan, also known as Tatheus, is credited with founding a church at the former Roman town of Caerwent, about 5 miles from Chepstow - but was unconnected with St Thaddaeus.  Can anyone clarify this statement (added by a long-departed editor back in 2007), or should it simply be deleted?   Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this Victorian Book of Saints references St “Tathai’s” (or “Tathaeus”) feast day  “at Chepstow”. One of the name variants given for this saint is “Thaddaeus”. That seems to be St Tathan that’s being referenced - the name variant might be the basis of the confusion. It’s obviously not St. Thaddeus i.e. Jude the Apostle. It’s probably best to delete that sentence - not sure what it’s adding to a section that’s about sources anyway. DeCausa (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Stumbled across this more modern source that explicitly mentions “St Tatheus” visting the Chepstow villa. It also references Cuthbert’s visit to Carlisle. Could be used as a citation for examples of how saints lives texts provided insights on sub-Roman Britain - in afact I’ve gone ahead and added it and updated the text. DeCausa (talk) 09:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - though the modern source states "near" Chepstow, rather than "at" Chepstow.  "Near" could refer to Venta Silurum at Caerwent.  There is no firm archaeological evidence of a Roman villa "at" Chepstow - though of course it is possible that one or more existed.  It would be good to find the origin of the "tale", apparently cited in Morris's Age of Arthur.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The only primary source on Tatheus I’ve seen referenced is a 12th century Vita. But if the ‘tale’ came from that it’s a little dubious and late for modern scholars to use as a source for Sub-Roman Britain. Perhaps there’s something else. Maybe someone has access to Age of Arthur (it’s not on Google Books.) DeCausa (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've ordered it - but I don't think it's now seen as a very reliable source, is it?   Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It’s a bit out of date I think -  but I would have thought a straightforward recounting of a story from a ms. would be ok though. In the Tathan article there’s a link to a 19th century translation of the Life of St Tathan but I couldn’t see anything about the visit in it. DeCausa (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Morris' The Age of Arthur refers to this place as "probably Portskewett" - which makes perfect sense, as Portskewett (4 miles from Chepstow, 2 miles from Caerwent) was a Roman and post-Roman settlement and port of some significance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, good find. Does Morris give a source for the story? The whole article needs quite a bit of improvement - little bit at a time I suppose… DeCausa (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Vita Tathei.  That's the sum total of my knowledge on this!   Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I would only use Morris to find a source we can check. That book got torn apart. John Morris (historian). Doug Weller talk 15:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It’s actually sourced to Nowell Myres  who cites Morris. I actually had a look at a translation of the Vita previously and couldn’t find the story in it.  I could well have missed it but maybe the whole thing is all a bit…weak. DeCausa (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's useless then. I don't trust Morris. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I didn’t realise it was as bad as that. He wouldn’t even be trusted to accurately quote a story from a manuscript (Vita Tathei)? DeCausa (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I can send you a Jstor review if you don't have access. Doug Weller talk 16:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That’s ok. I’m sure you’re right. DeCausa (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

text: You can see this online.. Doug Weller talk 16:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Here is the original story in translation, pp.17-18.  "[They came] unto Britain, to wit to the Severn. At the last, being come through all the length of the strait they drew nigh unto Gwent and put in at a haven called after the name of the people ["i.e. some such name as portus Guentonie, the haven of Gwent"] ....Now a certain rich man who dwelt in that region, having a bath made ready for him (for such was his wont every Saturday), saw them drawing nigh, weary by reason of their journeying by land and sea.....".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We use the book at lot as a source. At least sometimes with criticism. Doug Weller talk 16:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Ghmyrtle. But it does leave a question mark for this article. On what basis is this “a dilapidated Roman villa”? And on what basis is this evidence of continuation of a late Roman life-style into the sub-Roman period? All it says is there was a rich man who had a bath every Saturday. It doesn’t mention plumbing, a bath-house or a villa built in the Roman period whether dilapidated or not. (It could have been water warmed in a bucket over an open fire.) Is having a weekly bath a notable insight into sub-Roman Britain? Not sure. I don’t know, but it does look like Thomas over-reached wth this. Also, how does Thomas locate it to Portskewett? DeCausa (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sub-Roman Britain includes the text we’ve been discussing here. The historical context section at History of Anglo-Saxon England looks problematic. Doug Weller talk 20:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Venta Silurum says he founded a monastery there. Doug Weller talk 20:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Most of the text in that sentence (including the "dilapidated Roman villa") is sourced to Myers here. He in turn cites Morris, who only refers (in the context of the 6th century) to "the owner of another estate, near Chepstow, [who] kept the baths of his villa in repair...".  (Who is "Thomas" by the way?)  There are other sources providing information (and speculation) about post-Roman settlement at Caerwent and nearby Portskewett - my initial interest was about what was meant by "near Chepstow", but I surmise that that was written by someone who does not live in the area ("near" is a very subjective term).  Almost all of this article lacks reliable sources - at least that sentence now has citations.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, by Thomas I meant Morris! Not sure how i confused myself there. Yes, the citation is to Myers who in turn relies on Morris. Doug Weller points out that Morris (and any citation to Morris) is “useless” because his reputation has collapsed, unless one can check Morris’s source. Morris’s source is the Vita which you linked to. But that text doesn't reference any Roman villa at all. Morris appears to have misused his source, which seems consistent with his reputation. Based on that there’s a good case for taking it out of the article, even if much of the article is unsourced anyway. DeCausa (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This says Caradog gave Tathan Caerwent. I'm not convinced it's an rs. Tathan's article says he was an abbot of Caerwent based on a book by Fred Hando which seems a dubious source. As does the major source for the article, William Jenkins Rees about whom the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says "y. The preparation of the society's edition of the ‘Liber Landavensis,’ at first entrusted to his nephew, Rice Rees [q. v.], was placed in his hands in 1839, and the book appeared in 1840. In 1853 Rees also edited for the society their collection of ‘Lives of the Cambro-British Saints’ (text and English translation). In neither case was the work, in the judgment of modern scholars, executed with due care and intelligence".. What a mess. Doug Weller talk 08:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an expert in any sense.  But it occurs to me that a great deal of what sources - all sources - say about this period is based on interpretation of ancient writings that are capable of multiple explanations.  Without completely rewriting articles like this one, or completely excluding all sources that some academics claim to be of dubious reliability, is anyone willing to highlight what is known to be true based on the most reliable modern analysis, and differentiate it by flagging up more contentious statements by contested writers?   Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "St. Thaddaeus is described as visiting a Roman villa at Chepstow..."