and have adapted my sessions to this terminology change, and a lot of the times I'd used it weren't necessary e.g. 'Anglo-Saxon women' when really I was talking about one or two particular queens and could use their names instead, or just say 'English queens'. So what I'm saying
-
-
Replying to @FlorenceHRS @Miff__
is that thinking about every time we use it gives us an opportunity to be more precise and actually convey what we mean. Which is especially important when it comes to school teaching I think. I haven't found Anglo-Saxon means much to 10 year olds anyway!
1 reply 2 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @FlorenceHRS @Miff__
Sorry for the fast and probably not very well-worded response! Does it make sense?
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @FlorenceHRS
Super helpful I’m not a historian so I think those terms didn’t come to mind but makes sense. I always assumed the particularly the Saxon part was about the origin of the group? In what I suppose I imagined to be Saxony. Would the term angles/ Saxons have been used at the time?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Miff__
From Bede onwards Saxons and Angles are both in use to describe different peoples that Bede says invaded Britain (although even this idea is in contention!) But the term Anglo-Saxon in particular is only used in a few places and a few contexts in the 10th and 11th centuries
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @FlorenceHRS @Miff__
So Angles is where we get place names like East Anglia, and Saxon gives us Essex (East Saxons), Sussex (South Saxons) etc. The extent to which there were actually different groups from central Europe that invaded and took over Britain is not clear, but these terms were in use
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @FlorenceHRS @Miff__
So the idea of these 'peoples' did exist, but there was NEVER one group of people in England going around calling themselves Anglo-Saxons, it simply isn't true. It's something we say to simplify the past, but it's absolutely inaccurate and is tied up with racist ideas
1 reply 2 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @FlorenceHRS
Fab. And also, if I were to refer to literature of the period, what would you say? Pre Norman literature? For example. Or if I know specifically it’s Viking I can say that. I suppose wanting a pre-Latinate era to refer to? Would pre-Latinate work linguistically?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Miff__
Ah! There is no pre-Latinate era! Bede was writing in Latin. Latin always co-existed with Old English. So if you mean lit written in Old English, saying that is fine. And I'm not aware of any contemporary Viking literature from Britain in this period, what are you thinking of?
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @FlorenceHRS
No I wasn’t really thinking of anything specific, I was just wondering. I suppose like Beowulf is the main example I might have referred to as Anglo Saxon?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Beowulf is Old English.
-
-
Replying to @AdmiralHip @FlorenceHRS
Yes it is! I just think I’ve heard it referred to as ‘Anglo Saxon literature’ but old English too. Good to know that AS lit is also not a thing and to have a specific term.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.