Talk:Jutes

Untitled

It's a little tricky to turn this article into nothing more than a redirect to [[the mens war ]]. While some authorities believe the two people are the same, one can discuss either people without reference to the other: the Geats relate to Swedish history, while the Jutes to English history. After this possible identity in the 6th century, neither country has much to do with each other until the Viking era. Combining the two articles leads to confusion. They are separate topics. -- llywrch 19:27, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As far as I understand language experts and historians, the Jutes, Danes, Burgundians (Bornholm) and many other people have immigrated to Denmark. Some went on, some stayed. The language of east jutland and west jutland are very different in grammatics, which clearly indicates that these two populations, who were each joined by water and separated by land, are in fact originally two different people. However, they probably mixed so much that they cannot be distinguished by genes, but only by language and culture. The division by grammatics therefore indicates that we have Jutes in west jutland, Danes in east jutland and on the islands, and "east Danes" in Skåne and Bornholm. I guess that today they would also point at a significant polish heritage in the southern islands etc. This is too confusing to describe, but I think it is important that the article not only focuses on Jutes being the people living in Jutland, but also on the original people who immigrated and gave the name to that area. Dybdahl 16:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This would be fabulous. The relationship between Jutland, early Germanic migrations, a multitude of Goth/Geat-like named tribes and probably another multitude of other tribes in the neighbourhood would without doubt shed more light on this obscure people. Indeed, did they ever even exist? The whole theory of Jute participation to the invasions now seems to be based on a single source copied for centuries, nowadays bundled together with a couple of very uncertain interpretations of old scriptures and would be.

By the way, does anybody know about some investigation or publication concerning the "British" Jutes being a misnomer for something else left out?

Rokus01 14:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I cannot judge if the following was meant sarcastically or not?

"This would be fabulous. The relationship between Jutland, early Germanic migrations, a multitude of Goth/Geat-like named tribes and probably another multitude of other tribes in the neighbourhood would without doubt shed more light on this obscure people."

I really think it would be fabulous. And I am looking forward to well-sourced info. RhinoMind (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Keel boat launchings

I am a student of Anglo-Saxon / Celtic history and recently I delivered a boat from Hannen in Sweden to Holland. Hannen is by the way some 5 miles into Sweden and is an old Viking 'launch pad' for raids into Europe. I stopped off at the very tip of Jutland to refuel. Whilst in the port I saw a grass covered escarpment above me. Looking up the Danish Harbour Master said 'that is where YOU (the English,) came from. There were dozens of long scars down the grass slopes. This must have been caused by hundreds of launchings of Jutish / Angle Keel Boats (like Viking Long Boats.) As soon as I looked at it I knew it was significant.

WP Cobbett 26 Jan 07 08.28am

While in no way questioning the personal experiences you relate, how likely is it that the soil scars of the launchings of relatively small and light craft (I believe longboats were regularly portaged between rivers) on a grassed hill would persist for well over 1,000 years? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ref. text in photo used is not correct Text says: northern Schleswig - it is german wish thinking - only used by german people!

The text shall be changed to: southern Jytland (Sønderjylland in danish)

It was part of Germany from 1864 to 1920 - and then back to Denmark again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.226.198 (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC) And "southern Schleswig" was part of Denmark from the earliest records we have until 1864. All of that area is southern Jutland.

'Three most powerful Germanic peoples of their time'

The article attributes to Bede the claim that the Jutes were one of the 'three most powerful Germanic peoples of their time'. Are we sure this is correct? I would have guessed that his claim would have been that they were one of the three most powerful Germanic peoples around or relevant to Britain. (Given the geographical distribution of Germanic peoples from Greenland to the Volga, and the difficulty in individuating them into discrete groups, rendering a broader judgment seems problematic.) I understand, of course, that he could have simply overstated his case. If so, it might be good to mention that too. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I am could take a whack at clarifying this? MJM74 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC).

"Powerful" simply means they were among the best organized of their time and therefore was easier to discern from the inevitable and perhaps chaotic mix of clans and peoples, that you also refers to. It would still be great to have better and more elaborate sources of a good quality in this article altogether. RhinoMind (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if I would necessarily agree with that. Do you seriously believe that spherical Angles in vacuum were more powerful (organised, whatever) than, for example, Lombards or Goths, not to mention Franks? I don't buy it. Генерал-адьютант Е.И.В, товарищ председателя Совета Народных Комиссаров, Светлейший Князь idio3 (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, the Franks for example were not a very well defined ethnic connotation in the Iron Age, ie. at the time of Bede and at the time of the Jutes. After the establishment of Francia, the term 'Frank' reemerged and by then had another meaning than the original Frankish people. Read the Wiki-article on the Franks to get a quick overview of this issue. RhinoMind (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, well, let's look at the articles, then. Bede was alive 672/3 – 735 (according to his wiki article) which happens to be the time Charles Martel (c. 686 – 22 October 741) was also around. Need I say more? Perhaps I do. At the death of Charles' predecessor - Pepin of Heristal, Francia was FAR more powerful/important/whatever than tribes in England could possibly hope to be by then. Charles Martel, however, has made them a lot stronger still. Commissar of His Imperial Majesty, Metropolitan of the Politbureau CK CPSU, Serene Prince of the Council of People's Commissars - idio3. (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Bede is probably referring to the time of the invasion of Great Britain from the 4th century. At that time, the Franks consisted of divided petty kingdoms. And the term Frank had a different connotation that what was later associated with Francia, as I also stated and linked to above. I don't know why I wrote "at the time of Bede" and it was clearly that statement that must have spurred your response. as you also states, it was around the time of Bede that Francia began to emerge. And by then the term Frank simply meant "everybody living in Francia" and was not an ethnic connotation anymore. RhinoMind (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I would have to question this statement too. It seems more relevant to Bede's situation. The Franks were probably the most powerful people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.97.254 (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I guess we would have to discern what "powerful" means in the first place. What does the sources say about it? RhinoMind (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Franks specifically, you are talking about the era after the establishment of Francia, which was centuries later than the Jutes. At the time of the Jutes, the term 'Frank' had a different connotation and applied to a much smaller group. You can read more about it in the Frank-article. RhinoMind (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

What are the other two most powerful people mentioned by Bede? RhinoMind (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The other two were the Angles and Saxons, so it looks as though Bede was taking a rather insular view of things, which would not be surprising. However, I think we need not be worried about this; the article clearly attributes the comment to Bede. LynwoodF (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes, sorry, I must have been temporarily blind or something :) Eveything was in the article already. RhinoMind (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Map Context

As someone who has never been aware of the Jutes, the map of Jutland peninsula confused me. Where in relation to the rest of the world is Jutland peninsula? Razzo90 (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)Razzo90

See the map in the infobox of Denmark.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Map of Magna Germania [1] by Ptolemy shows the peninsula later called Jutland as Cimbric Chersonese. (71.137.207.170 (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC))

North Frisia

Where it states that "... and part of the East Frisian coast in northern Germany." it should say "... of the North Frisian coast..." or "Northern Friesland coast" to be correct(er). Unlike Northern Friesland, East Frisia is quite distant from Jutland and three German states away, bordering not Denmark but the Netherlands. Ipospot (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Alfred the Great

Asser, who was Welsh, is writing at the end of the 9th century.Bede (who was writing sometime after tells us that the pagan Jutes of the Isle of Wight were wiped out by Caedwalla in 686CE,& St Wilfrid took a "quarter of the IOW for the Church". Soon after Wilfrid was restored to his diocese in Ripon by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was "not above bribery", according to Wilfrid's biographer, Eddius Stephanus.(Eddie Stephens)which might imply sudden riches on the part of Wilfrid. This has caused apologists (after Bede) to assert that a quarter of the population survived & were converted and Asser follows this line of argument in attributing Jutish origins to Osburgh, whose ancestry is only known back to her father. I suggest that Alfred DID have Jutish ancestors from the Isle of wight but not through his mother. The only known survivor of the massacre was the sister of the last Jutish pagan King, Arwald, - whose name is unknown, but was married to the Jutish King of Kent at the time and they had a son, Wihtred, through whom the founder of the House of Wessex, Egbert, was descended.--Streona (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jutes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130308084744/http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/T/timeteam/snapshot_jutes.html to http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/T/timeteam/snapshot_jutes.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Initial link non-functional, but has since been fixed by WaybackMedic. Chenzw  Talk  13:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Jutes and Danes ... disputed

What is the relation between Jutes and Danes? Are the terms synonymous, or were they considered different peoples? Zacwill (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

For the pre-historic tribes, the story goes that the Jutes occupied the northern parts of Jutland, while the Danes invaded their territory from their base on Zealand in the late Nordic Iron Age and both drove them out and assimilated them, when they formed the Kingdom of Denmark. RhinoMind (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

For the present times, Jutes are people from all of Jutland, while Danes denotes all people from the country of Denmark. RhinoMind (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe not. As historian David Willson stated: A tradition exists that about the year 450 a British ruler in Kent, to whom Gildas gives the name of Vortigern, invited Jutish warriors on the Continent to come to Britain to defend him from the Picts and Scots. According to this legend the Jutes arrived under their chieftains Hengist and Horsa. They served Vortigern for a few years, and then turned against him, slew many Britons, took possession of Kent, and opened the way for other Jutes to cross from the Continent. This story of the origin of the Jutish kingdom of Kent is not at all impossible, for it follows a pattern that can be found elsewhere. Historians have had some difficulty in identifying the Jutes. The easy theory that they came from Jutland has been discarded. Years later when the Kentish kingdom was well established, its social customs and its system of agriculture resembled those of the Franks in Gaul; hence the suggestion has been made that the Jutes were Frankish warriors from the lower Rhine. On the other hand, they may have been Saxons who found Frankish practices established in Kent and did not destroy them. Or the Jutes may have been miscellaneous tribesmen who achieved a sense of unity only after they had settled in Kent. So their identity is somewhat disputed. See also Collingwood & Myres, Roman Britain and the English Settlements. 50.111.8.107 (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Language

They spoke Proto-Norse? But in this map, Jutland is North Sea Germanic, not North Germanic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingvaeonic_languages#/media/File:Germanic_dialects_ca._AD_1.png--Propatriamori (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Propatriamori:. The map in that article is wrong, a correct map for Jutes can be found in North Germanic languages. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I have corrected the map since both Danes and Jutes spoke North Germanic. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. But according to the map of this page, todays North (also South) Schleswig was the area of the Angles.--Propatriamori (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The borders between different language groups in the map are by necessity just rough approximations, since no exact details are known... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

But some others have different views. That map was restored as Jutland is blue (North Germanic) region by another user....--Propatriamori (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The evidence is thin, but I get the impression that the Jutes were Ingvaeonic-speaking and were replaced and/or assimilated by Danes who moved into Jutland from the eastern islands. I am still trying to find evidence of North Germanic features in the speech of the Jutes who came to Britain. LynwoodF (talk) 09:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Language of the Jutes

The details of what language they (Jutes) spoke is totally unknown. There is possible information out there on the Internet. Runic inscriptions and such. (I'd imagine it would be very hard to find.) But, from my research and perspective; it was probably more than likely an Ingaevonic language rather than a Norse one. I would theorize personally; that the few Jutes that stayed in Denmark during Invasion Era likely were later captured and assimilated into speaking Old Norse; which then evolved into early Danish and the Danish people. One point to remember: the Proto-Norse languages are apparently much younger than the Ingaevonic languages by several centuries. —— DesertStormer (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is likely that the Jutes spoke an Ingvaeonic language. The only evidence I have found online is in this article by a respectable British academic. My gut feeling has long been that the Angles, Saxons and Jutes who settled in Britain were speaking very similar languages, as I have never seen any evidence of specifically North Germanic features in the language used by the Jutes. As you say, Proto-Norse seems to have developed relatively late, but it would have been in existence by the fifth century. Some time back I saw a comment by a Scandinavian editor which I can no longer find. They said that the received wisdom was that the Danish language spread relatively late from the eastern islands into Jutland. This would be consistent with our contention that the Jutes were Ingvaeonic speakers. LynwoodF (talk) 10:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Proto-Norse existed between the 2nd and 8th centuries AD (becoming Old Norse during the 8th century AD), and thus predates the migrations of the 5th century AD by about 300 years. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The names of their kings are of Anglo-Saxon type, not Norse one, unless they were addapted on the historic account.--Manfariel (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Jutes were not "mixed race"

The article currently says Jutes were of mixed race, but that's not true. They were North European, but might have included different tribes and subcultures. 77.233.228.141 (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Modern Jutes

A modern inhabitant of Jutland may have little relation to the historic Jutes who came to England 1,5 millenia ago. Still, if you in modern English want to refer to such a person (in Danish: "en jyde"), wouldn't the correct term be "a Jute"?

If so, this article needs to mention the fact - perhaps just one sentence in the lead, or a hat note, sth like

This article is about the historic peoples of England referred to as Jutes, who may or may not have come from the peninsula of Jutland. The word may also refer to modern inhabitants of this Danish peninsula; see Jutland.

Right? Nø (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

You are right. I have included an "about" statement at the beginning of the article to make it clear that it is about the early Anglo-Saxon period..Wilfridselsey (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Eponymous?

The article mentions the

theory that they originated from the eponymous Jutland Peninsula (then called Iutum in Latin)

"Eponymous" is a somewhat ambiguous concept; which is named after which? The article Jutland says the peninsula is named after the people, but that seems to contradict the parenthesis above. Which is it - do we know? Did Latin iutum refer to the peninsula or to the people or both - and if/when to the people: People on the island (Great Britain), people on the pepninsula (Jutland), or people in a part of the continent whe cannot pinpoint today? Nø (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I have a problem with the whole paragraph:

However, there is some archaeological evidence to support a theory that they originated from the eponymous Jutland Peninsula (then called Iutum in Latin) and to have populated parts of the North Frisian coast. Based on contemporary sources, it appears that they were a tribe of admixed Gutones, Cimbri, Teutons and Charudes, also called Eudoses, Eotenas, Iutae and Euthiones.

as it contradicts the discussion in the main body of the article. To my knowledge there is no supporting archaeology to this theory. Bede described the Jutes as Iutae in his Latin text, which has been interpreted as Jutes. I would prefer that the paragraph should be trimmed thus:

One theory is that they originated from the eponymous Jutland Peninsula (then called Iutum in Latin) but after a Danish invasion of the area, migrated to the Frisian coast.

This is a summary of what is said in the main text where it is discussed in detail. It may well be described as an hypothesis rather than a theory as I do not believe that there is any evidence to support it?

Eponymous just means that the peninsular is named after the Jutes, which I believe is correct? Wilfridselsey (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion, I think, but I still think "eponymous" is problematic. Is Jutland named after the Jutes in England, and if so, why? Or were people actually living in Jutland named Jutes, jyder or Iutes before the peninsula was named for them - and if so, why were they named thus? Is "Jutes" in Jutland cognate to "Jutes" in England? And what did Iutes refer to? Nø (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I would have interpreted "eponymous" in this context, as being named after the Jutes who lived there. However that's just me. As the article is about the Jutes who settled in England during the early Anglo-Saxon age, I can understand that it can be seen as rather ambiguous, so I would remove it. My suggestion is to replace the paragraph with:

One hypothesis is that they originated from the Jutland Peninsula but after a Danish invasion of the area, migrated to the Frisian coast.

The next paragraph should be tweaked as well:

From the Frisian coast they went on to settle southern Britain in the later fifth century during the Migration Period, as part of a larger wave of Germanic migration into Britain. Wilfridselsey (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Updated as per discussion. Wilfridselsey (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 9 June 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

---

• Jutes → Jutes (tribe)
• Jute → Jute (fiber)
• Jute (disambiguation) → Jute

– I'm requesting for the above articles to be moved to their respective new titles because the word 'jute' and name 'Jute' and their respective plurals are a bit ambiguous; the word 'jute(s)' (with a lowercase letter 'j') refers to a certain fibre material, while the name 'Jute(s)' (with a captial 'J') refers to an ancient Germanic tribe (with a capital 'J'), while their plurals refer to their respective topics, with a lowercase letter 'j' and capital 'J', respectively. PK2 (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Inclined to oppose. The fiber material is a mass noun, and isn't usually used in a plural form. That page also has considerably more pageviews than the one on the tribe. The tribe is usually plural, and our category for individuals who were part of the tribe is at Category:Jutish people, implying that "Jute people" or similar forms (e.g. the noun form "he was a Jute") are not as commonly used. Thus the current solution seems like an elegant solution. Dekimasuよ! 06:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - The current situation is absolutely fine. "A Jute" (an individual from the tribe of Jutes) is rare; "a Jute" (a modern individual from Jutland) may be normal usage, but not really a problem here. "Jutes" (materials, plural) is rare, and not a natural encyclopedia entry. Hatnotes can easily direct readers to the rigth article in the rare cases where someone gets to the wrong one first.Nø (talk) 08:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - For same reasons as above Wilfridselsey (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per both above. Plus "tribe" may not be the right word for the AS ones. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current situation is absolutely fine. The people are the primary topic for the plural form and the fibre for the singular form. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Jutish which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. PK2 (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)