Talk:History of the Isle of Wight
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] This article is a mess
I think that this article needs a major cleanup for the following reasons:
- The history is disjointed, often speculative and has significant gaps
- There are sections that either don't belong (Caulkheads, Festival) or should be incorporated into the main text.
- It needs a good set of informative illustrations, maps and diagrams.
I am happy to start work on this but I think the work needs some level of planning. I love the Island and would like us to be able to create something of high quality that would do it justice. I'm interested in other's opinions etc. Gaspode the Wonder Dog (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ethnic Cleansing of Wight
"Some believe they became victims of a policy of ethnic cleansing by the West Saxons in England." what?? who? more information is needed.
His source is probably Bedes history http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/bede-book1.html , an account limited to less then a paragraph per anum. However I believe Bedes account says that this ethnic cleansing took place in 648 not the "fifth century" Furthermore using Bede as a source at all is just slapping a bumper sticker over a damaged wall. Bede was a fanatical monk who believed the conquest of vast territories could be determined by magical wizards prophets and divine favor, most of the "English conquest of Briton" was recorded in this manner so this psuedo event should be no more believable then the ethnic cleansing of Kent Bernicia or any other British territory. - Bloody Sacha 5/18/2007
St Bede states that in 686 King Caedwalla of Wessex "destroyed all the people" of the Isle of Wight and gave the land the to his followers. The population was given as 1200 families and the land of 300 families was given to Bishop Wilfrid. In fact the Island was rated as 1200 hides- a hide being the amount of land requred to support a family (generally as much an ox plough team could plough in two days) and 300 hides were given. The Island Jutes under their King Arwald had incurred the wrath of St Wilfrid since they were not only the last pagan kingdom, they had been forcibly converted by King Wulfhere of Mercia and had apostasised back to paganism.This was communicated to Wilfrid by Wulfhere's agent Eoppa the mass priest.
- Caedwalla had entered into a pact with Wilfrid, shortly after which King Centwine was persuaded to abdicate in his favour and become a monk and then Caedwalla invaded the Isle of Wight and gave Wilfrid a quarter of it.
Later Christian apologists make out that Wilfrid prevailed upon Caedwalla to spare 300 families from death so he could convert them to Christianity. The only source for this is Bede and this is not what he says- even though Bede was obviously a Christian apologist. He goes on to relate (with approval) how the young nephews of Arwald were murdered after having been converted momnets before death (and they are canonised under the name St.Arwald,- King Arwald having died in battle and thus the only saint to have been a pagan martyred by Christians.
- It is very unlikely that genocide happened all over Britain at the time, involving too many people (about 1.5 million) but the only account for the Isle of Wight says that it did and it is a disingenuous distortion to imply that it did not. Kent was ravaged by Caedwalla and his brother Mul, but clearly Britons did survive as they their weregild is set down in the laws of King Ine, Caedwalla's successor.
- Streona 9 October 2007
- MORE INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED AND I REQUEST THAT THIS DISPUTE IS NOW CONSIDERED RESOLVED.
- The argument of Bloody Sacha is that there is insufficient information. Bede's account is all the information there is but we are talking about 686 a.d. There are also accounts of the relationship between Wilfrid and Caedwalla in the Vita Wilfridi of Eddius Stephanus, which support Bede's account. Sacha is unexpectedly vehement in his condemnation of Bede, I would suggest quite unfairly. It is obvious, especially by his tone, that Bede, if anything would wish to show his co religionists in a good light, rather than commissioning genocide.
The account of the Catholic encyclopaedia over this matter reflects what is said to be local "tradition" that St.Wilfrid prevailed upon the as yet unbaptised St. Caedwalla to spare a quarter of the populace which he baptised at Brading Church (St.Mary's).The evidence does not bear this out, any more than it does more recent Holocaust deniers, nor does Bede's account bear out Barbara Yorke's suggestion that only the Jutish aristocracy were killed. She makes the very sound argument that genocide was not evident in the whole of England, but more of an inter mixing of invaders and natives, but this is an entirely different situation not involving a million and a half people over a wide area but 1200 families" in 147 square miles.Streona 12:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Beaker people named it?
"The name Wight came from the Beaker people who inhabited the island around 1900 BC and called it "Wiht"[1], meaning island, which the Romans translated as Vectis. "
This is all well and good, but we don't actually know what kind of language the Beaker people spoke, since they didn't write it down. --MacRusgail 18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The Beaker people comment can have no basis in fact and the reference given does not lead to any reliable primatry source. Modern archaeologists are not even convinced by trhe concept of Beaker people (see Wiki article). I will remove unless strong opposition.Gaspode the Wonder Dog 10:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, GtWD. As I understood it, it's most likely that 'Wight' is actually an Old England corruption/derivation of 'Vectis'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.40.4.204 (talk) 16:11, August 22, 2007 (UTC) There are several suggestions for the origin of the name "Wight". My preference is from the Welsh (ie Ancient British) "Inys am Gwyth" meaning "Island of the Channel". The Romans would be unfamiliar with the constructions "Gw-" and "-th" and would have pronounced this "Wect" and adding an inflection to make it a "proper" Latin word came up with "Vectis". The particle "Wyth" or "Wect" gives us "Wight"- especially if you give full value to the "gh".
- We could recover Beaker words if they had left survivals in the Celtic language. However as the Celts came from the Continent the languages are not related and English has barely any Celtic survivals in its vocabulary, so it is unlikely that we have any knowledge of Beaker words at all and the idea that "Wight" could be one is the purest speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streona (talk • contribs) 12:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
