Talk:Ceawlin of Wessex/Archive 1

Wimbledon 567
While the pronunciation of the name given in the article is correct, when I was brought up in the place in the 1940s and 50s, many if not most of the children around me called it "Wibbadn". Is it possible that the academics have followed a false lead in not allowing it to be the site of the Battle of Wibbandun. Am I mistaken in thinking that 567 was in a period when idea of the difference between the Men of Kent and the Kentish Men was born? That the newer settlers were found on the east and north coasts of Kent. Were they not likely to be attempting to extend their influence further along the south side of the Thames? In these circumstances, it seems that the gravel terrace at Wimbledon ?"Wibba's hill", with its scarp facing the East, might be just the place for a battle. (RJP 20:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC))

Separate references section suggestion
I recommend adding a separate "References" section to store all the bibliographical info. The references section could be kept in alphabetical order to make it easier to see the sources that were used. This would also eliminate a lot of the redundant info, since the Notes entries could then just be shortened to things like "Stenton, p.22". nadav (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea on the refs section: I went ahead and did that. I'd prefer not to use the shorter footnotes approach myself, though; I like to have all the context in each note.  But the refs is definitely an improvement. Mike Christie (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Listed: Congrats
When comparing this article to the criteria listed at WP:WIAGA, I can find no obvious problems. It is well written, well referenced, and neutral. It is stable. It uses images appropriately. As an aside, this article could probably be feature quality as well. Consider a peer review before possible nomination at WP:FAC. Congrats--Jayron32| talk | contribs 04:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Further details/sources to mull over for this article
From my notes, which went into an earlier draft of this article; only this time, I'm including pointers to my sources. :-D
 * Ceawlin's possible connection with the Gewisse. The Gewisse are a shadowy Germanic people thought to be identical with early crementation burials along the Thames above Oxford. Stenton thought it was odd that they are not mentioned in this section of the ASC in connection with Ceawlin. (One authority thought they were his powerbase -- which one I haven't been able to track down yet.)
 * The battle of 568. First, Charles Plummer (in his edition of the ASC, Two Saxon Chronicles Parallel, 1899 (Oxford: University Press, 1972), vol. 2 p. 16) quotes Henry of Huntington as first pointing out that this was the first battle between two of the Anglos-Saxon tribes. Second, although Plummer repeats the identification of Wibbandun with "Wimbleton" (ibidlocum), early the next century the English Place-Name Society provided scientific proof that Wibbandun did not evolve into Wimbleton (E.P.N.S., iii (1926), p. xiv, cited in H. R. Hodgkins, A History of the Anglo-Saxons, third edition (Oxford: University Press, 1952), p. 188 n.2). I assume this is a reference to Allen Mawer & F.M. Stenton, The place-names of Bedfordshire & Huntingdonshire (Cambridge: University Press, 1926).
 * Also note: Plummer's edition of the ASC is worth mining because he lists a number of late traditions about the events of the 5th & 6th century that are recounted in the ASC. Better than working one's way thru Henry of Huntington & William of Malmesbury without hope of knowing anything is in either to be found.
 * The battle of 571. While Plummer without question accepts the identification of Bedcanford with the modern Bedford, & Hodgkins insists on this older identification (History, p. 189), again the English Place-Name Society had accumulated enough evidence by the mid-1920s to show the two are not the same. The mistaken identification of both Wibbandun and Bedcanford should be mentioned if only to provide proof that they are not scientifically sound identifications.
 * The battle of 577. It is someting of a truism that this battle effectively cut off the Britons of Cornwall from those in Wales. However, at least one authority (IIRC, Wendy Davies) notes that this victory did not cut off all land-based traffic between the two, & that water-borne traffic continued unabated (e.g. Saint Samson of Dol is described as travelling from southern Wales to Cornwall by boat without a thought of taking the land route.)
 * The battle of 592. First, pagan anglo-Saxon placenames in England are very rare: Margaret Gelling quotes F.M. Stenton predicting in 1941 that more exampels of these than the 50-60 then known, to comment that "The thirty-five years of systematic place-name study which have elapsed since that prophecy was made, however, have not produced a single new specimen" (Signposts to the Past [London: J.M. Dent, 1978], p. 138). Second, Plummer quotes William of Malmesbury as adding that "the Angles and the British conspiring together" to defeat Ceawlin (Two Chronicles, vol. 2 p. 17).

I had thought I had other authorities on this section, but I had confused them with ones on earlier parts. Hope these notes are of help. -- llywrch 05:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks; that's immensely useful. I've incorporated some of these, but I'm not sure about all of them.  Here are some notes.


 * The Gewisse -- done. I can't believe I didn't mention this already.
 * Wimbledon and Bedford -- I put in the note about Wimbledon; I knew about this but couldn't find a good source for the early claim, so I didn't add it. I do have a note in there about Bedford already -- is that enough?
 * 577 -- I also am sure I've seen a source for the comment about water-borne traffic; in my case I am sure I saw something in one of Hunter Blair's books. However, I have been unable to find it; and I don't really want to add something without a firm citation to a scholarly opinion.  Do you have a page ref for the Wendy Davies?
 * 592 -- I added a note about William of Malmesbury -- thanks for the reference. For the placename comment, I didn't see a good way to work it into that paragraph, but please go ahead and do so if yourself.  I agree it's a worthwhile note to add.


 * -- Mike Christie (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * About Wendy Davies & the battle of 577: if I had a citation, I would have eagerly provided it. But I am relying on my fallable memory, so chances are that I won't be able to provide the information unless I happen to stumble across it once again in my reading. However, that was the point of offering these points outside of the FAC process -- that way if my memory is wrong, or I happen to insist on including something that makes no sense to you, you can ignore it. I thought the article that you submitted to FAC stood on its own merits -- but I had thought the same about my version which you rewrote. ;-) -- llywrch 02:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It did stand on its own merits; and I feel rather guilty about having hijacked it. I know we all know there's no such thing as owning an article, but there is certainly pride of authorship.  I did retain a fair amount of your structure and some of your text in the expansion.  I recently spent some time working on another article that was in good shape when I got there, but the main editor was not happy with my changes so I ended up reverting them all.  I think from now on I'm going to focus only on articles that could clearly be expanded -- probably Ine of Wessex next.  As for Wendy Davies, yes, I should have realized you'd cite it if you could.  I'll keep my eyes open for the Hunter Blair cite, too.  And I should emphasize that I certainly don't think I own this article in any sense; if you'd like to take a turn at improving and reworking the article I'd be glad to see it.  Thanks again for the help. Mike Christie (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic uncertainties
In: Why did the Anglo-Saxons not become more British?(*). BRYAN WARD-PERKINS. The English Historical Review 115.462 (June 2000): p513.

The following footnote occurs:

(3.) The names Cerdic, Ceawlin and Caedwalla, all in the genealogy of the West Saxon kings, are apparently British: R. Coates, On Some Controversy surrounding Gewissae/Gewissei, Cerdic and Ceawlin' Nomina, xiii (1989-90), 1-11.

I haven't been able to get hold of Prof. Coates' original article but the subject sounds very interesting

Apparently Caedwalla was the earliest West Saxon king to leave a surviving written record that he claimed to be a descendant of Ceawlin and to be a prince of the Gewissae (Bede).

The connection between two kings both having Celtic names suggests that the ethnic situation of the early West Saxon dynasty and kingdom may have been rather more complex than is often suggested. That the king who did the most to destroy the remaining British power in lowland southern Britain may have been British or partly British himself is intriguing to say the least. It suggests that contemporary social and political allegiancies crossed ethno-linguistic boundaries, the importance was personal loyalty to a dynasty or a particular strong leader not to a tribal or "national" entity. This would parallel the slightly earlier situation in Ireland when dynasts, such as members of the Ui Niall, Eogannachta families etc. asserted political control over territories ignoring previous tribal boundaries.

Some comment to this effect might be a useful addition, highlighting the very tenuous light that history (written later than the events described) casts over the period.

Urselius 11:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Another quote, from "Origins of the English" by Catherine Hills, Duckworth (2003), p. 105.

"Records of the West Saxon dynasties survive in versions which have been subject to later manipulation, which may make it all the more significant that some of the founding 'Saxon' fathers have British names: Cerdic, Ceawlin, Cenwalh."

Urselius 18:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Gewissae
By a round about route I have ascertained some information on the contents of the Coates paper. It apears that Prof. Coates has put forward a theory that the term Gewissae (meaning the "known ones" (from A-S witan - to know?) or the "trustworthy ones") was used by some early Anglo-Saxon group or groups to designate British allies. The term would be in distinction to 'wealas,' foreigners, which would denote hostile British. This would fit in well with the idea that the early West-Saxon, Gewissae, kings were a British dynasty allied to, and eventually culturally assimilated by, Anglo-Saxon neighbours. He also acknowledges a possible Brittonic origin for the name Ceawlin, but is cautious in the attribution.

Urselius 09:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Addition
I have added some information to the opening section of the page with reference to my comments above. I fear it jars somewhat with the immediately following paragraph, however, a highly relevant area of recent scholarship should not be ignored in a description which makes any claims to be encyclopaedic.

I can add the references to the secondary section but do not have them in the form (endnote?) of the others, though as this shouldn't affect the final visible version the difference is moot.

It is notable that the only other recorded use of the name in the period, in the form Caelin, occurs as the name of one of the brothers of St Chad of Mercia. All the names of this family: Chad (originally Ceadda), Cedd, Cynibil and Caelin appear to be British not Anglo-Saxon.

Urselius 15:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding this; I had no refs for it myself. I have moved it down to the sources section -- it didn't seem to me to belong in the lead.  Moving it down there allowed me to associate it with the scepticism expressed in that section about the literal nature of the genealogies, which in turn let me shorten it somewhat -- I hope not by too much. Mike Christie (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Makes more sense where you inserted it.

Urselius 13:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have found further written sources for the above argument:

Cerdic and his Ancestors by P. K. JOHNSTON Antiquity Vol. 20, Number 77, March 1946.

http://antiquity.ac.uk/Ant/020/0031/Ant0200031.pdf

"Turning to Ceawlin, we find a name of quite uncertain origin, but one which can hardly be Teutonic of any sort. The combination -aw- recurs in Beaw (for *Beowa, from Beowulf ?) and in Gleawanceaster (Gloucester, Glevum). This analogy would suggest a Welsh form something like *Coewlyn (cp. Caer Gloew, for Glev-). The nearest forms which actually occur are Cocholoyn and Cuhelyn, both supposedly derived from the Irish CuChulainn. But the Northumbrian Bede, though he cites the West Saxon form, preferred to spell the name Caelin (22). He knows it not only as that of the Wessex Bretwalda, but also as the name of a brother of St. Chad (ob. 672). This is particularly significant when it is noted that Caelin’s three brothers, Ceadda (St. Chad), St. Cedd and Cynibill all bear names of probably Keltic derivation (23). It is therefore reasonably certain that St. Chad’s brother derived his name from local, Keltic tradition, rather than from any echo of the victories of Ceawlin far off to the south. Caelin may be derived from Keltic *caelos (Welsh cod, ‘ omen ’). Forms Coelin, Coeling occur in Welsh literature, in the sense of ‘ descendants of Coel the Old ’ (24). The name Ceawlin would seem to indicate a claim to Coeling ancestry."

Given the number of sources perhaps the Celtic-British aspects of Ceawlin's name might merit a rather more prominent place in the wiki page.

Urselius (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Full scale migrations
I would strongly protest at the use of the phrase "full scale migrations" for the Anglicisation of Lowland Britain, this is not supported by any evidence. At best it is a contested theory.

Contemporary written evidence merely describes a few boatloads of fighting men arriving from the Continent in Britain. No overt mention is made of a single peasant or woman being imported from Germany to Britain. Archaeological and genetic investigations are, at best equivocal, about a mass migration, I think this phrase should be stricken.

Urselius (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)