User talk:Beowlff

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:


 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app ksmiletris.png|23px]]  Introduction
 * 5     The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * [[Image:Crystal package utilities.png|23px]]  How to edit a page
 * [[Image:Crystal khelpcenter.png|23px]]  Help
 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app ktip.png|23px]]  Tips
 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app ksokoban.png|23px|]]  How to write a great article
 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app kedit.svg|23px]]  Manual of Style
 * [[Image:Nuvola apps konquest.svg|23px]]  Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Abductive (reasoning) 11:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research
Regarding your uhm.. edits in the policy into which you added your opinions. The policy only affects articles written on Wikipedia and not articles used as sources. Therefore archeology and scholary works are safe! Quite embarassing really, but I hope that cleared it up for you. Please refrain from vandalising in the future. --Bill (talk 19:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sussex Monarchs
Beowlff, I'm going to revert the changes you've made to the Sussex monarchs template. The problem is that this template is used as a small navigation tool at the bottom of these kings' pages. See Ælle of Sussex, for example -- the template is at the bottom. The material you're adding seems to me to fall into a couple of different areas. The best option might be to create an article called List of Kings of Sussex, along the lines of List of monarchs of Mercia. You could use the article on Mercian kings as a basis for the work you're doing. You might also be able add material to the pages on the individual kings. The template is definitely the wrong place, though; it's meant to be small, with links and a minimal presentation of the sequence of kings. It also looks from the work you've done as if you're mixing reference notes with the text. The article on Ælle will show you how you can avoid this -- ideally the material is presented, with footnotes that give the reader sources and background information that doesn't need to be in the main text. If you have questions, please ask, either here or on my talk page. I'd be glad to help. Mike Christie (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

MIKE, AN ARTICLE IS ON ITS WAY, BUT I CONFESS THAT I HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO SET IT UP. YOUR SKILLS HERE WILL BE ESSENTIAL. MANY THANKS FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY, BEOWLFF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.58.63 (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll be glad to help. First things first -- you need a page you can work in and try things out.  I've created one that "belongs" to you: click HERE to bring it up.  I suggest you edit that and just put in the text you want, and we can worry about formatting it later.  Also, it's best to avoid typing in capitals -- it's easier to read if you use lower and upper case.  Also, when you write a note on a talk page (like this page), follow it with " ~ ".  That will be automatically converted into your signature -- "Beowlff" if you're logged in.  (Log in when editing; otherwise nobody will know it was you and then they can't come ask you about what you've done.)


 * Any questions, ask me here. Mike Christie (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike, I have tried clicking the |HERE]] but it does'nt respond. There are the words (in red) 'Page notice' and if I click here a page does come up. Shall I use this instead? The article is now complete, with Introduction/History/Reconstructed List of Rulers/References and Notes. The method I propose to use is 'copy and paste', so that the action should be straight foreward. Best wishes, Beowlff.
 * That's odd; I'm not quite sure what you're describing. What should happen is that if you are reading this page and you click on the bold word "HERE" in my message above, a page ought to come up that is titled "User:Beowlff" and which says, under the title, "This is a test page -- please edit this."  Is that not what you see?  If it is what you see, there's a link at the top of the page that says "edit this page".  If you click that you should be able to add your article. Does that work? Mike Christie (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike, many thanks for your reply. Things have'nt quite worked as you planned, BUT I HAVE FOUND THE USER PAGE! by clicking on 'user page' on the top left. All's hunky-dory. I'm just on my way out at the moment, so I shall copy and paste the article tomorrow and send it on its way. Cheers, David.


 * I see you've created the article on your user page. Give me a day or two and I'll edit it just for formatting, to give it paragraphs and section headings and so on.  Once I've done it you'll be able to see how it's done.  I have an interest in the topic and would like to go through and review the article and suggest changes after that, if you'd like me to. Mike Christie (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike, this is exciting! I'm intrigued to note tnat you have an interest in this topic, are you from Sussex? My father's family came from Steyning, but I'm now in my 70's and its a long time ago since I was a boy. Lets take it step by step. Can you supply the Sussex Martlets and a map of say Aethelwalh's kingdom after 661? Best wishes, Beowlff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.58.63 (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was born in London and raised (mostly) in Orpington, so I am not a local, no. (I live in the US now.)  I got interested in Anglo-Saxon history in general a few years ago and started working on some of the articles about the kings -- see Caedwalla of Wessex for one I worked on that has a Sussex connection.  Is Sussex history a hobby for you, or do you have some academic background in the area?  (Credentials don't matter here, but I was curious as to the source of your interest.)


 * By the way, do remember to sign in when you're editing. On the log in page you can check a box to say "keep me signed in" and that will mean you don't have to log in again each time.  Also, use " ~ " at the end of your posts on talk pages, and Wikipedia will add your signature for you.  You can see above there's a program (called SineBot) that comes around and adds a signature if you forget.  It's good to sign your posts so people who read the pages can keep track of who's saying what.


 * I don't think I'll be able to take much of a look at the page tonight, so it might be a day or two till I can comment, I'm afraid. (I have to work!)  But I'll see what I can do.  I look forward to working with you! Mike Christie (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike, my interst in the South Saxons has developed over the past ten years, after I discovered, to my dismay, that Sussex had no king list and that there was a great deal of unresearched and unqualified guess work about the old kingdom as well. During this time I have done two fearure articles for Kessler's History Files. I am also a member of ANSAX through the recommendation of historians at Manchester and Oxford. I am a retired secondary school Art and History of Art teacher and I was a Head of Department for many years. My mother, by the way, was Welsh which is the reason why I have a strong command of the Welsh language. I am also a Llenor of the Welsh Gorsedd, which necessitated sitting nine hours of examinations in Welsh and an hour long aural to test fluency! We have got our six year old Japanese grandson staying with os for ten days from next Friday, so this will give you the time needed to study the page and also have ideas about layout and graphics. I shall be totally dependent on your skills here. I will keep checking this page and my user page on a daily basis. Looking foreward immensely to building up the Wikipedia entry with you, my best wishes,  Beowlff .

South Saxons king list
Beowlff, I made a couple of changes to the article, just introducing section headings. There are several things you can add to your articles which are essentially typesetting marks, if you're familiar with those. They give you the ability to tell the web page how it should look. If you add two equal signs to both sides of a header: "==Introduction==" instead of just "Introduction", then Wikipedia will display it in a large font, and will include that section in the table of contents. There are several Wikipedia typesetting commands (often called markup commands) and you'll get used to seeing some of them; that one's worth learning right away.

I wanted to ask you about sources. Wikipedia has fairly strong policies on sources for articles; this is an encyclopedia, after all, so we're supposed to write articles that summarize what the experts have written. I know there are a lot of sources on Anglo-Saxon kings, and I think a good first step would be to agree on what sources we can use. I see a couple of references to an article by "D. Slaughter"; given that you're a Llenor, is that you? I'm not familiar with the article -- can you tell me where it was published?

Just to give you an idea of the sort of thing I would tend to use for this: I'd look at these sources first:
 * Lapidge: Blackwood Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England
 * Stenton: Anglo-Saxon England
 * Kirby: The Earliest Anglo-Saxon Kings
 * Yorke: Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England

There are other good books, of course, but those are very reliable sources. I would also use primary sources like the ASC and charters, but since we're an encyclopedia we can't draw our own conclusions from those sources. We have to find secondary sources that draw the conclusions, and then we can include that material, and cite the sources.

Just to give you a bit of background on myself: I've worked in computing most of my life, with a smattering of other things. I got interested in Anglo-Saxon history four or five years ago and started working on the Wikipedia article about Asser. That got me more interested and I've written quite a few articles since then. I also have a hobby of collecting old science fiction magazines from the twenties up to the sixties, and I have written a few articles about those too.

No hurry in replying -- I look forward to hearing from you. Mike Christie (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike, the problem with all these sources is that none of them have any discussion which can help build up a picture of the South Saxons PER SE, since it has been regarded as a fathomless blank. This is why even historians get into difficulties when discussing Sussex and often fall into the trap of stating a conjecture WITHOUT GIVING A GOOD REASON BASED ON RESEARCH FROM RAW MATEWRIAL. If we are going to learn about the South Saxons we must get beyond the confines of the above books, however authoritive, and start going back to raw marerial in an objective and disciplined manner, for instance 1]the 5th century coastline of Sussex, re: Aelle's strategy for one, 2] the -ing place names of coastal Sussex, they are excellent historical evidence, 3]Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, 4] a vital passage from Roger of Wendover must be emended not unobjectively dismissed, 4) Anglo-Saxon dynastic namimg patterns can be studied and analysed, this can help in understanding the South Saxon dynasties and where they came from, 5] Kelly's Postal Directory has to be an informed source, therefore I have used it, 5] Dr. Susan Kelly's 'Charters of Selsey' is a far better course on the kingdom in Sussex than any broader study encompassing the whole 'Heptarchy', since it focuses on the Kingdom in Sussex, 6] We annot disregard the evidence of archaeology either. particularly the discoveries regarding the fifth century in Sussex, 7] Unfortunately, even standard classics have their detractors and encyclopedias are not always reliable, the same misinformation can be repeated from one edition to another. Cornish for instance is spoken fluently, I hear it used by their delegation at the National Eisteddfod of Wales every year, yet dictionaries and such like will inform you that Cornish is a dead language! Let us agree that we should have two sections to this entry for a reconstructed list of rulers which are linked. One based on say Kirbie and York by yourself and then my article based on 'Rulers of the South Saxons before 825' which was researched and written by myself and published on the web last year. The URL for the site is: anglo-saxonkingsofsussex2009.blogspot.com, it has had nearly 250 visitors to date, please read it. My membership of Ansax-L (University of Virginia) was on the recommendation of historians at Manchester and Oxford Universities who read my paper. With my best wishes  Beowlff . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.58.63 (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't accept work that can't be found in other reliable published sources. The policy page is here; essentially what is says is that to put something in Wikipedia, it has to be the work of someone who got it published.  If you think about it, this is a sensible policy, or otherwise we'd have competing views on all sorts of controversial topics such as religion, and no way to come to a consensus on what the article should look like.  There are other encyclopedias on the web that are based on the credentials of the writer -- for example, Citizendium works that way.  I haven't contributed there, but I believe that if you have verifiable credentials in a field then you get to write the article the way you want to.  That doesn't apply here -- we have to have sources.


 * The basic idea of Wikipedia articles is that they should be verifiable, and from reliable sources. "Verifiable" means that someone can go and look it up somewhere else for confirmation; and a source is "reliable" if it has editors, people checking facts that are independent of the authors, and so on.  So a textbook or newspaper is usually reliable; self-published books and web pages are not.


 * One way to think about it is that Wikipedia isn't interested in "true" content; it's interested in verifiable content. There's no other way for two independent editors, such as you and I, to agree on what should be in an article.  Does that make sense?


 * However, I think a good article can be written on the Sussex kings, using good sources. I'm not familiar with all the sources you cite, but I am sure we can work together to put a good article together.


 * By the way, do remember to log in when you edit, and to sign your name with four tildes, like so: " ~ ". It does help the readability of the page. Mike Christie (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

MIKE, I WROTE THE REPLY BELOW BEFORE I HAD SEEN THE DEVELOPMENT ON MY USER PAGE. IT LOOKS ABSOLUTELY SPENDID AND YOU CLEARLY HAVE THE COMPUTERACY OF A MAGICIAN! When you reach the pearly gates there will be a delegation of South Saxon warriors who will invite you into their company as a co-opted member and I shall take joy in seeing you in their midst. My invitation below, however, stii holds. Why not make a specific discussion group link, with a first contribution by yourself and be the Devil's Advocate if you wish. There is obviously space for the heraldic Sussex Martlets and a map of the old county or its 5-6th century coast. David/Dafydd or  Beowlff .

Mike, this looks something like a last call. If the historians you suggest had approached the raw material with a mind to reconstructing a king list for Sussex, or in such a way as to invite another scholar to do so, a reconstructed Sussex king list would now be in full use. Moreover, my article has been read and reviewed by certain of my peers. if you make a visit to my site you will see the acknowledgements. I would also say that Nennius (on South Saxons), Bede, the A-S Chronicles, Roger of Wendover, Kelly's Postal Directories, Murray's map of Roman Britain (re: 5th century Sussex coast), J.B.Johnston's Place-Names of England and Wales (a standard classic), Dr.Kelly's Charters of Selsey, published genealogical tables of Anglo-Saxon dynasties and archaeological papers by historians like Martin Bell are all verifiable, with verifiable passages or information on the South Saxons. Old English at Calgary (University) is an Internet course. So I will give it ONE more shot. Why don't you write an editor's introduction to the subject based on the books which you know and have studied, by way of both developing your own angle on the topic and of being a Devil's advocate in reviewing my article, with which I would NOT interfere. I would be perfectly happy to accept this approach, provided there was a link to a designated discussion forum. Once again my good wishes,  Beowlff .


 * I had a look at your article and it is indeed interesting. It is scholarly research, as far as I can tell from scanning it without reading it in detail.  The problem is that Wikipedia simply does include research work -- that's not what Wikipedia is for.  This is not my opinion, rather I am letting you know what Wikipedia's policies define as acceptable material.  Unfortunately your article is not acceptable as it stands because it contains original arguments.  I understand that this is frustrating.


 * Right now, if we were to create a List of South Saxon kings article, we could not publish your article, because it is an original synthesis of primary and secondary sources, and it makes an argument about sequence of kings in Sussex. What's more, I'm afraid we couldn't use your article as a source, because it has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.  This has nothing to do with the quality of your arguments -- we could not cite unpublished material from Simon Keynes either, for example.  The rule is we can only use published sources.


 * However, what we can do is use the sources you cite. If the sources you cite make a statement, we can repeat that information in the Wikipedia article.


 * Wikipedia does need to improve its articles on the south Saxons, and it's clear you know a lot about the topic and would be a great help in improving the articles. But all we can do is take what's been published and assemble it into a coherent form for the reader; we can't introduce our own opinions, or make any arguments, or come to any synthetic conclusion drawn from the sourced material.


 * If you'd like to help with any of the south Saxon articles, I would be glad to work with you -- I'm sure you'd be a big asset to the encyclopedia. For example, we could start with Eadwine of Sussex and work our way back through the articles on the kings, one by one.  Would you be interested in that?  Mike Christie (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

MIKE, I am puzzled. Why has the prototype page been so carefully prepared? I don'nt understand this. Reading your latest comments we are obviously back to square one. If you would like to set up a page by quoting from texts (without any new approach to them) I would be glad to advise you on them, but my comments would inevitably be biased towards a reconstructed king list. Even if you do this, your new page will still have to published in a peer-reviewed journal, unless of course you simply list the references to draw attention to them and for this action you clearly need no assistance. On the basis you have set out, any comments would still need to be peer-reviewed first. Best,  Beowlff .


 * Here's a specific example that might make it clear. Here are two sentences from the Aelle of Sussex article:
 * "Three of the places named can be identified. 'Cymen's shore' ('Cymenes ora' in the original) now lies under the sea, but from later references it is clear it lay south of what is now Selsey Bill, just east of the Isle of Wight. Sandbanks—the Middle and Outer Owers—now mark the spot.[15] The wood called 'Andredes leag' is the Weald, which at that time was a forest extending from north-west Hampshire all through northern Sussex; and 'Andredes cester' is known to be Anderitum, the Saxon Shore fort, built by the Romans, at Pevensey Castle, just outside the town.[15][16]"
 * The two references, [15] and [16], are as follows:
 * 15. Hunter Blair, Peter (1966). Roman Britain and Early England: 55 B.C. – A.D. 871, p. 176.
 * 16. Stenton, Frank M. (1971). Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 17–19.


 * The references support the text, in that Blair and Stenton make the same comments about the placenames. If a reader of Wikipedia wanted to verify that "Cymenes ora" really does refer to what is now the Owers, they can do so by checking Blair.


 * By contrast, here's a sentence from your web page that would require sourcing: "Cissa might have married a Romano-British aristocrat whose baptismal name was Magdalena, the hypocoristic form of which could have been Menia." If there's a published source that makes this hypothesis, we could use it in the article.  If not, we can't.


 * So any article can only reconstruct king lists to the extent that published sources have already done it. To use your phrase from above, we can't come up with a new approach to texts; we can only cite what they assert.


 * As to your question about the preparation of the page, do you mean the section headings that I added? I just did that to get started on organizing it like a Wikipedia article so it was easier to read and work with; it's quick to do. Mike Christie (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike, 1] Blair is misinformed. Cymenesora can not have been the Owers because they were already flooded by the 5th century. Ref. Villagenet. 2] The Latin Anderida compares with the Old Welsh ynn+deri+dân = ash+oak+deer. Reference, Geiriadur Mawr, Stephens, University of Wales Press. 3] The later Latin for Anderitum does not prove that the Britons called it Caer Andred. They called it Pensavlecoid. Reference Nennius. 4] My reference to Magdelena was in criticism of a recent publication and how such source material should be treated with greater care. Magdelena has NOT got an entry in the main body of the paper. In any case I made a very careful selection of the individuals in the proposed Wikipedia article, only refering to 2 females, Eafe and Aethelthryth. 5] My point is that you don't need my assistance to make a list of references on the Sussex kings, there being nothing I can contribute under your rules, unless you review them. 6] Having disqualified my article, what is the point of setting out a prototype Wikipedia page? 7] Why doesn't Wikipedia, like any other encyclopedia of note, have panels of recognised experts to vet proposed articles? 8] Where is the reference on your Wikipedia page for Eadwine to confirm that the Latin 'princeps' of the South Saxons meant 'King' of Sussex? Now, I have my grandson staying for a fortnight. It should give you time to study my paper properly and enjoy it more. Clearly nothing is to come of the article you invited me to write. I will call in on this page after my grandson has gone and if the situation is not more logical, I shall delete the prototype Wikipedia page. Woe is me!  Beowlff .

New section
Beowlff, I'm afraid I agree that there's little chance of your article being used by Wikipedia as it stands, though we would still benefit from your knowledge of the subject if you decided to contribute to other articles. Some responses to your points above, with the same numbers:


 * 1) I took a look at Villagenet; I would like to get a reliable source that says the Owers can't be Cymenesora, since I'd like to add that to the article.  Villagenet probably isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, though, so I would need to use a reference to a secondary source.  If you know of one I'd be grateful for the reference.
 * 2) This looks plausible to me, but again I'd need to find a secondary source giving this as a possible etymology for Anderida.  The dictionary citation serves to cite the meaning of the individual elements, but we need a source asserting that this is in fact applicable to Anderida; etymologies are easy to get wrong.  Constructing the etymology without a source would be original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia articles.  If you have a source for this I'd like to have it as again it could be used in the article.
 * 3) I'm not sure of your point here -- the bit I quoted doesn't say "Caer Andred".
 * 4) My point was only to illustrate the kind of thing that requires sources in Wikipedia articles; I didn't mean that that comment was in your proposed Wikipedia article.
 * 5) I think this is a misunderstanding.  Wikipedia could very much use your assistance; you evidently know the material extremely well, and would be able to assemble an article very effectively.  I should also point out that I have no special status; I'm just another Wikipedia editor, like you.  If you disagree with my opinions feel free to talk to someone else.  I've just been taking some time to give you background information on existing Wikipedia policies, but I have no particular standing at all.  The reason we're talking is that I noticed some of your changes and came over to your talk page to see if I could help.  You're free to edit any Wikipedia page you like, without any reference to me; however, everyone else is too, and since you're not familiar with Wikipedia policies I was just trying to save you some time.  If you'd like me to find another editor who's familiar with Anglo-Saxon history to comment, I know several I can ask -- just let me know.  Or you could go and ask for opinions at the medieval history project talk page, if you like.
 * 6) Do you mean your user page?  Putting proposed articles on user pages is an easy way to deal with disputed content while the dispute is worked out.  I think it was a sensible thing to do while we discussed whether it could be used.  User pages don't show up in searches, so there's no risk it would come up in a search for information about kings of Sussex.  Hence it's not really part of encyclopedia while it's on your user page; it's just a work area for improving articles.
 * 7) That's a very good question.  I don't know of a concise answer, so I'll just say that that's the basic rule of Wikipedia; anyone can edit it.  There are other online encyclopedias with different rules; see Citizendium, for example, which you might like to work on -- it wants experts, not the general public, to write its articles.
 * 8) I've never looked at the article on Eadwine of Sussex before; it's not really accurate to call it "my" Wikipedia page.  I just looked and I see that Eadwine is called a king there; the ASC entry is translated by Swanton as "ealdorman".  The PASE also regards him as an ealdorman.  I think it would be reasonable to post a note on the talk page asking why he's described as a king, and asking for a source.  That kind of conversation goes on frequently on Wikipedia talk pages, and is how the articles get improved in the absence of a panel of experts.  Or you could just edit it to change it to "ealdorman".

I hope this has been useful. I'd be glad to answer any other questions, or direct you to other editors if you're not happy with the answers I've been giving you. Mike Christie (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mike, My apologies for not signing in some days back. Everything must have been either lost or garbled. But this time I have remembered. In answer to some of the points you have raised above, I have enclosed the following paragraphs from Rulers of the South Saxons before 825.

From the Introduction, PART IVB: b] The enigma of Cymen's Shore. Another subject is the location of Cymenesora which could not have been or, at any rate, is very unlikely to have been the Middle or Outer Owers off Medmerry as many believe. This is because they would either have been shoals emerging at low tide or, more likely, permanently submerged in the fifth century. The same conditions would have applied to the Malt Owers, the Inner Owers and the abandoned Roman quarry at the Mixon Hole. Even hinterland around Medmerry remains close to or below sea level and stout defences have been required to protect the productive, alluvial soil here from sea water flooding. As a means to understanding the oscillations of the North Sea, a geological extension of which is the English Channel, one can refer to an article titled 'The late Holocene sea level at the East Frisian coast (North Sea)'. It was published by the Department of Geography, University of Liverpool (Barbara Mauz), in 2004. The first transgressive phase occured here at the time of the last century of Roman rule Britain and lasted until 800. It was followed by a regressive phase from 800-1200 and a second transgressive phase from 1200-1400. These transgressive periods in Britain were influenced considerably by the south-east coast subsiding by 1.2mm a year, a process which had begun when the mass of the ice sheet was released at the end of the last glaciation. In this regard the reader is directed to the East Sussex County Council webpage for Rye Bay and the Baie de Somme in Picardy. In Rye Bay the return of the sea began in the middle of the second century, 250 years earlier than the start of inundation in the Netherlands. In the same Early Roman Britain, that is before the abandonment of the Antonine Wall (Roman Britain, Bédoyèr), Roman engineers had diverted the Lavant from its ancestral course through Pagham Harbour (SCOPAC, East Head to Pagham Harbour). Meanwhile their quarry and catapult site at the Mixon was probably being reclaimed by the sea, indeed, on Keith Briggs' map of the Roman road system (published in 2009), the local road from Chichester only reaches halfway down the Manhood Peninsula. It is also evident that the tides continued to flow into the Sussex hinterland at Rye until the tenth century or in other words for perhaps a century and a half longer than on the Frisian littoral. There is also an informative article titled 'Coastal Erosion' in the Sunday Times Book of the Countryside, which was published in 1980, where the geomorphology of Romney Marsh is discussed. The Romney marshland was flooded by the fifth century and the sea did not begin its retreat from here until a hundred years later. On the webpages of Villagenet, an informative site supported by East Sussex County Council, the fifth century sea level is assumed to have been as much as 10-15 feet (4-6.5 metres) above the present rising ocean. On the same site and drawing upon the expertise of Dr. Rendel Williams, the page devoted to Beachy Head makes clear the ability of the sea to change the coastline radically. In his book The End of Roman Britain, Michael E.Jones (Bates College, Lewiston, Maine) includes a chapter on the changing climate of this era. From 400 the weather became wetter and colder, a pattern which was to intensify by the middle the fifth century. The website for BBC Weather describes how cold, wet weather is accompanied by low pressure and how these conditions can cause strong winds. Frequent climate conditions of this nature, during the fifth century, would have driven destructive swash waves agaimst shingle protected, eastern shores of Selsey Island and equally powerful drift waves along the undefended coast to Pagham Harbour. The rapid transportation of gravel from the Owers sandbanks would have been inevitable and, even without a rise in sea level, it would seem unlikely that they would have afforded Aelle a landing site as late as 477. However, the headland of Selsey Bill is a well-defined coastal feature and the shore here could have given Aelle a place to beach his ships.

The name Owers may derive from the an Old English such as (Ceóle)s Ora(n), 'Shores of the Keel', where keel-loads of Saxons would beach their ships during the years that followed Aelle's landing in 477. The Owers sandbanks, perhaps sometime after Late Antiquity becoming more visible at low tide, might have given rise to the idea that their location marked the fifth century shore of Selsey Island where Aelle had landed. Moreover, about a century and a half after the start of the regressive phase in the Netherlands, circa 800, the Owers sandbanks and the Mixon must have returned to dry land because there is a South Saxon charter of 957 to prove this; but the Manhood shores were and are subject to constant change. Wallace speculated that that between 950-1050 the Mixon had become a reef, which would only have emerged at low tide, whilst the Owers would have again become totally submerged. If we take Wallace's later date of 1050, keeping in mind the cartulary evidence of 957, the transgressive phase at Selsey might have begun 150 years before the start of the same phase on the Frisian littoral. Comparing the littoral changes caused by periodic high and low sea levels at the Manhood peninsula with the Frisian coast, it would appear that the transgressive phases would have lasted much longer in West Sussex than in the Netherlands. Conversely the regression of the sea around Selsey appears to have been for considerably shorter periods of time than at the Frisian coast. It is also believed that a barrier spit might have connected Selsey Island with the mainland in former times, but that this feature was totally destroyed in a storm surge of exceptional magnitude during 1048.

c] Old Shoreham as Cymen's Shore. It is not possible for all the Owers (or Oran = Old English 'shores') to mark Aelle's 477 landing. The form Cymenesoran means Cymen's shores and presents itself as a collective name for these sandbanks rather than a single location. A more likely site for an historical Cymenesora would be in the vicinity Old shoreham. This landing might well have been named Cymenes Oraham, but it could have occured at a later date of South Saxon expansion, perhaps around 485x486, after the indecisive encounter against the Britons at Mearcred's Burn. Hilaire Belloc, the great poet and Sussex historian, held the view that Shoreham was the location of Cymenesora or Cymen's Shore. This would make the origin of the name Shoreham 'Cymenes Oraham' later contracted to 'Soraham' and developed to Shoreham. Since the Adur had an expansive estuary in the fifth century, it is entirely feasible that Aelle sailed in with his three ships at this point with Cymen Wlencing and a young Cissa. As we shall reaffirm above, it is the crossing of the Adur which was likely to have been emphasised at King Cissa's court fifty years later. It is also conceivable that a later landing involving Cissa was eventually identified with Aelle's earlier landing near Selsey Bill in the year of the King's birth. By the third quarter of the sixth century the aural works of younger men, seeking to flatter Cissa the Grand Old Man, were probably amongst the first to retell history. As the King grew ever older and more frail he might have been increasingly glad to receive the status of an historical giant to help uphold his authority. Inevitably, because there was no precise location for a Cymenesora where Aelle, Cymen Wlencing and Cissa landed amongst the Owers sandbanks, we find the plural Cymenesoran.

d] Aelle's landing at or near Selsey Bill. Nevertheless, the probable link with Aelle and Selsey Bill is fourfold. Firstly, Hayling Island. This island is said to be connected with Aelle (for example by the Ayling family of Sussex) and it is proposed in the Nothgyth Quest that it was from his headquarters here that Aelle sailed for Selsey in 477. Secondly, Selsey or Seal Island would have given Aelle the perfect bridgehead on the mainland, since from Medberry to the Nortons this area was essentially insular in the fifth century. Thirdly, Norton itself would have supplied Aelle with an immediate safe anchorage with the promise of a tidal inlet towards Earnley off a wide basin for ships, where there is now a nature reserve, once the mainland beyond Pagham had been captured. Fourthly, it was in this area that the main royal vil in Sussex appears to have been, still within territory that had clear waterway boundaries while at the same time within easy reach of the Noviomagus Reginorum, once the centre of Roman authority. Moreover besides these factors, the territory from Hayling Island to Pagham and the environs would have given Aelle a central threshold to move eastwards to encompass the other early chieftaindoms into his sphere of influence as a warlord, while at the same time providing facilities to launch a naval campaign against the Britons in the Solent and Southampton Water; although it was to be Cerdic who embarked upon this enterprise some twenty years later. To end on a subjective note, if Aelle had spent much of his boyhood in southern Holland, then the flat scenery from Hayling to Pagham and up to the old civitas, with its numerous waterways and islands, would have been remmiscent of a Dutch landscape already familiar to him.

XXC. EADWINE, PRINCEPS AUSTRALIUM SAXONUM OR ?EADUUINE DUX. Although this nobleman is beyond the scope of the Nothgyth Quest, the writer feels that it is necessary to give him an entry. Perhaps born around the mid 920's x late 920's and known to have died in 982. He bequeathed estates in his will, where he is referred to as 'princeps Australium Saxonum', to Abingdon Abbey. It was at this abbey that Eadwine was buried in the same year. The title given to him by the scribe translates from Latin as 'a/the prince of (the) South Saxons'. This phrase is perhaps best understood as 'a prince of the South Saxons' and does not necessarily imply that he was either the king or a subregulus of the South Saxons. He must have been a nobleman of very high status and perhaps claimed to be a descendant of King Cissa. If we accept that the Aethelmund who witnessed Oslac's charter was the grandson of King Osmund, in terms of Osmumd's lineage as presented in this paper, we could conjecture that Eadwine descended from Cissa as an agnatic descendent of Aethelmund. If this was so, Eadwine might have associated himself with Wine Cissing. On this count, he could have been a seven-times great grandson of King Osmund, the last dominant King of the South Saxons. It is worth noting that if Eaduuine Princeps is the same alderman as the Eaduuine Dux who witnessed Eathelread Unread's charter of 982, in favour of Aelfgar, he was fifteenth in the order of witnesses. Hardly appropriate for a man of regnal status The list of witnesses is headed by the King and Archbishop Dunstan. Aelfgar was Aethelread's minister and he was granted five hides at Charlton in Berkshire by his royal master.

With regard to the etymology of Andreades Ceaster (from the Latin) and the unsafe idea, held by some commentators, that the Old Welsh or British for Anderidum would have been Caer Andred, we have the Old Welsh form from none other than Nennius writing in the first decade of the ninth century. He recorded CAIR PENSAVELCOIT. There is a scribal error and an emendation is needed to CAIR PENSAVLECOIT, this would give the Modern Welsh CAER PENSAFLECOED. As to the Weald, the Latin was Anderida. I have observed that, etymologically, Anderida is close to the Old Welsh 'ynn+deri+dân' meaning 'ashes+oaks+deer'. However, inclusion of these facts on any Wikipedia page on a reconstructed list of Sussex kings is not strictly necessary.

Best wishes,   Beowlff </nowiki

Next steps
Beowlff, sorry I've been a bit slow to respond -- I've been a bit busy. I would like to go through your notes over the next week or two and just work point by point to see what we can get done. The information about Cymenes ora looks like a good place to start. I'll try to get to it either this weekend or next and leave you a message here.

Thanks

Mike