Talk:Cerdic of Wessex

Another datum about Cerdic
One YouTube channel I follow -- Paul Whitewick, who films his exploration of the historical landscape of his part of Britain -- mentions that an Anglo-Saxon charter mentions a "Cedric's Barrow". (I've identified the charter as #359 in P.H. Sawyer's Anglo-Saxon Charters: An Annotated List and Bibliography (London: Royal Historical Society, 1968); citations there to the published text & commentary.) I haven't confirmed that it is actually mentioned in the list of boundaries. I also don't know just how common the name "Cerdic" was before the date of this charter (AD 900), so while Whitewick & his source both identify the namesake of the barrow with the semi-legendary king, it is possible that there is no connection. However, as the place name is near Hurstbourne Tarrant in Hampshire identification is not completely unlikely. -- llywrch (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is all a little circumstantial, plus the A-S wording is actually Cerdic's hill, rather than Cerdic's barrow. There is a folk habit of naming notable features in a landscape after notable figures, like Arthur's Seat in Edinburgh. It could be merely be this origin. Urselius (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Urselius Traces of a barrow have been identified in this location on multiple occasions through aerial photography. Other barrows in the Royal charter - from Cerdic's descendants - are referred to in the same way with 'beorge, beorga etc', so why would this be referring to a hill?

There is a folk habit of naming some features in a landscape after notable figures, but in this case the barrow is near ancient trackways and a dyke, facing west towards Wiltshire. The dyke is also thought to extend to the Wiltshire border. Mounds like this were being reused on the edge of kingdoms and estates for burials. This barrow at 72 ft (22m) in diameter and 6 to 12 ft high was enormous. It was no accident that the barrow was connected to Cerdic because it was deliberately placed in a very prominent position. Thanks PH8288 (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is all original research, which is not allowed. We have to rely on reliable sources, which for Anglo-Saxon history means comments by experts on the period. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This would surely include George Grundy's research, added previously, who supports the possibility Cerdic was buried there. I'm not so concerned as to whether Wikipedia uses the research. It was the fact a regular Wikipedia editor created the section in spite after a disagreement on YouTube, based on a random and inaccurate Find A Grave entry, while another anonymous editor is dismissive on a very public page. Thanks.PH8288 (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Grundy died in 1948. If his views on the location are given credence by modern historians, then there should be a more recent RS. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The current page includes references dating from 1898, 1910, 1914, 1953 and 1956. Archaeologists have carried out a search in 2005 based on Grundy's study.
 * It's not my concern whether Wikipedia uses the research and had not planned to update this page or even use Wikipedia, until the page was updated with incorrect information. I also wanted to respond to comments on public talk page. Thanks. PH8288 (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Recent additions
Hello @PH8288, on Wikipedia we generally have discussions about the content of pages on the relevant talk page where all interested editors may participate, as opposed to private emails. From your descriptions, you may have a conflict of interest regarding the content you've added to the page: additionally, Wikipedia is generally not a place for original research (regarding your own work, as opposed to the work of others you've described as their original research in edit summaries). Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and original research while contributing, thank you! Remsense 诉  12:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Remsense The page was updated with the incorrect location for the barrow and the wrong century date for the relevant charter. I had not been planning to update the page beforehand. My first edits on Wikipedia included a link to the relevant charter and independent research into the barrow location. In addition, inaccuracies regarding battle locations were updated with sources as goodwill. Thanks PH8288 (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not strictly about who added it, it's the fact that it is not published in a reliable source. Work that is not published in a reliable source is considered original research for our purposes. I made sure not to touch your verifiable changes, all in good faith. Remsense  诉  12:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Remsense The location for the barrow was incorrect, with the wrong date for charter, so I wanted to ensure this was corrected. Will familiarise myself with Wikipedia policies as these were my first edits. Thanks. PH8288 (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The three copies of the charter, that were readable in the referenced Harvard compilation, of Walter De Gray, state they grant Stoke by Hurstbourne Tarrant, Hampshire, to the refectory at Winchester, the barrow being on the border of the grant (link restored to the Wikipedia preferred published compilation, but have left the substituted primary ref to one copy).
 * FYI: the findagrave site wasn't cited, but appears to have borrowed its content from genealogieonline.nl, which in turn borrowed an earlier version of this page, and a copy of CERDIC AND KING ARTHUR, By Andrew Godsell, 2002, that cite Mike Ashley, 1998 (restored the deleted ref to Mike Ashley's book, that's available on kindle unlimited), who in turn cites the charters. As does Johnstone's, 1939 article in Antiquity, as does Peter Marren, 2006, and several others. A.j.roberts (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The editor has taken to updating the page after a disagreement in YouTube comments. The YouTube video is the result of a two-year investigation into the barrow. PH8288 (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Moderation
I would like to make a suggestion that makes an assertion more accurate and moderate, and Wikipedia articles need to be as accurate as is possible. My suggested additions are in bold. "A 10th century charter from Edward the Elder, son of Alfred the Great, which transferred 10 hides of land (roughly 11,000 acres), which now makes up St Mary Bourne parish in Hampshire, to Winchester Cathedral suggests contemporary people believed that he was buried in a barrow, then known as 'Ceardices Beorg', within the boundary". Given the centuries separating Cerdic from Edward the Elder folk memory may have become distorted and unreliable. Urselius (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * That would be editorializing on our part, and therefore original research, if that claim is not reflected in the sources. Remsense  诉  11:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, this barrow business is all mere speculation, and my suggestion is merely logical, not editorialising . Cerdic's historical existence is not certain, claims of any sort concerning finding the burial place of a possibly non-existent person needs very careful handling and moderating such claims is essential. Urselius (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I vote the whole matter should be removed until and unless higher quality sources are available. Urselius (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, as long as what is there is sourced. Remsense  诉  11:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have deleted. It leaves the previous text unreferenced, but the refs were dated or not RS. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi I would like to draw your attention to further academic sources which mention Cerdic's Barrow and which stem from the reference in the 10th century charter.
 * 1, Bruce Eagles, a well respected academic, references Cerdic's Barrow in the: following paper
 * 2, This is a direct reference from Barbara Yorke's paper in 1989 - (Yorke, Barbara A. E.. (1989) - In: Reading medieval studies vol. 15 (1989) p. 95-117. 90, Essay, The Jutes of Hampshire and Wight and the Origins of Wessex). Prof Yorke is one of the foremost scholars on Wessex's history.
 * 3, In addition, the existence of Cerdic's Barrow stemming from the charter is referenced in The English Settlements - (Myres, John (1989), The English Settlements, Oxford History of England, p.155). The existing Cerdic of Wessex page quotes from this book which is a very good background source for Cerdic.
 * 4, There is an earlier reference to the barrow in Stoke, Hampshire, - Copley, Gordon (1954), The Conquest of Wessex in the 6th Century, Phoenix House, p142. 'The Ceardices Beorg' at Hurstbourne Priors has been regarded as the actual burial-place of the first king of Wessex.'
 * This barrow is commonly placed in 'Stoke, Hurstbourne' because that is the title for land in the charter, but the actual land transferred is 11,000 acres and now makes up what is now St Mary Bourne parish. It is up to Wikipedia editors if they want to use the research or mention the barrow. Just wanted this very public page relating to Cerdic to show that Cerdic's Barrow has been referenced by a number of academics and not treated as 'mere speculation'. Thanks. PH8288 (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Attributed coat-of-arms
I re-added my rendition of the attributed coat of arms for Cerdic of Wessex, with the compromise that it be further down on the page, after it was removed with no discussion. I thusly decided to open a Talk section, as suggested by the other user, to discuss concerns over whether or not the attributed arms should be allowed on the page; as of currently, I reverted the edit removing it, with the arms at the bottom of the page. The reason why I added the arms was because said arms, which are also considered anachronistic - as medieval heraldry did not exist at the time Cerdic of Wessex lived - are not only depicted in the main image for the page, but attributed and anachronistic arms were allowed on the page for House of Wessex, to which Cerdic of Wessex is also assigned. By the same logic of "no attributed or anachronistic arms are allowed", the main images for Cerdic of Wessex and House_of_Wessex would need to be removed. I also did specify in my original contributon to the page that the arms were attributed by John Speed to Cerdic of Wessex, rather than the arms being self-assumed by Cerdic. Obversa (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * While subjects like Cerdic have few if any contemporary images available, so that the use of much later images is unavoidable, heraldry is a rather unique case. There has to be an especially cogent reason for the use of anachronistic heraldry, the mere existence of an attributed coat of arms is not really sufficient. Take for example the arms attributed to Edward the Confessor, there are two reasons that these are relevant, they are based on a design of silver pennies minted during the reign of this king and they were made use of by much later Medieval kings of England. One of the banners that King Henry V had close to him at the Battle of Agincourt was that showing the arms of the Confessor. In general, the consensus of Wikipedia editors working on Early Medieval subjects is against the use of anachronistic heraldry. Urselius (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)