Talk:Mucking (archaeological site)

Saxon or Anglo-Saxon
User:Johnbod has substituted Anglo-Saxon for Saxon in a number of places in this article. As far as I am aware, the settlement and cemeteries were Saxon. The Angles settled further north and east (in Norfolk and Suffolk). The term Anglo-Saxon is a composite one intended to cover all migration period people (including Jutes). Anglo-Saxon is appropriate when referring to a number of settlements in south-east England, but not for a specific early settlement. I propose to return to the former wording, but will wait for any comments. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Saxon" should almost never be used in the context of English archeology, especially if linked to Saxons. That was a bad old 19th-century habit. Several of the referenced sources have "Anglo-Saxon" in their titles, and doubtless in their text. In fact the Quoit Brooch Style, for which Mucking is one of the most important sites, is given to the Jutes by some archaeologists, and just called Anglo-Saxon by everybody else (see references at that article). The settlement continued to the 8th century, long after anyone attempts these dubious distinctions, which mainly rely on Bede.  You can see the British Museum also classifies 5th-century finds from Mucking as "Culture/period     Sub-Roman Frankish  Early Anglo-Saxon" the last defined as "In the context of archaeological material the term refers to the date range circa 5thC to mid-7thC. For numismatic material use the Broad Term Anglo-Saxon."  I'm aware Myres has described Mucking as specifically Saxon, but like all such attempts to divide early settlements, others have different views (see eg:

The English Settlements by J. N. L. Myres, Review by: E. Christiansen, The English Historical Review, Vol. 102, No. 402 (Jan., 1987), pp. 107-108, Published by: Oxford University Press, Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/572415,) which is why the broad term should always be used outside specific discussions of these ethnic or sub-ethnic distinctions.

Johnbod (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You make a compelling case that when referring to the date of an archaeological site, Anglo-Saxon is correct usage. There is still a strong case for using Saxon where the context is clearly related to early Anglo-Saxon cultural differences between for example the Saxons and the Anglians. There is a further issue of intended focus ie calling Sigeberht an Anglo-Saxon king is fine in a general context, but in a specialist discussion he is clearly an (East) Saxon king. I am mainly concerned with the use of the term Saxon for a political and social group in what became England. I am not arguing for a link to a continental group of peoples with the same name and coming from a particular region. I will re-read the article, to examine the context of your changes, but will not undertake a wholesale return to the former wording. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, things are rather different for historians, where the kingdom names etc allow these terms to be used confidently. But historians now doubt that eg the kingdom of the East or West Saxons was entirely or even predominantly made up of these groups, as opposed to ruled by them. Both "official" mercenaries and freebooting expansionary forces have always tended to attract collections of individuals from very different origins, whether we look at the French Foreign Legion, Islamic State, Crusaders, Mongol and Muslim conquest armies after their first successes, Norman Conquest, and so on. So for archaeology it is best to avoid specific ethnic labels from the get-go. Not to mention that neither such distinctions, nor direct continuity with specific regional continental "homeland" practices, are easily discernable in the English archaeological finds. I've added some pics anyway Johnbod (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mucking (archaeological site). 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/20110608220243/http://www.thurrock.gov.uk/heritage/content.php?page=factfiles_details&id=3 to http://www.thurrock.gov.uk/heritage/content.php?page=factfiles_details&id=3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091119213241/http://www.sal.org.uk/grants/themargaretandtom/ to http://www.sal.org.uk/grants/themargaretandtom/

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) 16:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)