Originally posted by rogue06
View Post
Originally posted by rogue06
View Post
Originally posted by rogue06
View Post
Originally posted by rogue06
View Post
That statement is not supported by the text you cited from Wiki.
Originally posted by rogue06
View Post
The next sentence in that extract starts with "Early antiquarians associated it, on little evidence, with a Saxon deity". It gives no date for those "Early antiquarians". They may have been from the 1700s or later.
You therefore made an unfounded assumption when you wrote "it being Anglo-Saxon, which is what was first suggested back in the 17th cent".
Comment