What looks like the beginning of a major Anglo-Saxon find in Kent;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/archaeology/9646078/Anglo-Saxon-hall-found-in-Kent-is-tip-of-iceberg.html

Here's something with more detail, the excavation blog etc, Trike. http://www.reading.ac.uk/news-and-events/releases/PR472531.aspx

Why are they calling it Anglo-Saxon in the article? I am sure the Angles never made it as far as Kent. Wouldn't Juto-Saxon better fit the description if one must ally the Saxons with another race in that area?

Or, hey - why not just "Saxon", like the historian uses in the interview.

Having been born and raised in Kent, this article caught my attention; more especially as I’d never heard of the place and had to check it out on Google.

What Nordmann writes particularly interests me when he writes… “ally the Saxons with another race in that area?”... and the word ‘race’.

Is that actually correct, I’d always thought the term ‘race’ is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups i.e. European, African, Arab and Asian.

Does it then follow that the Danes, Normans, Angles, Scots, Picts etc are all of separate race…? Where does ‘tribe’ or ‘clan’ fit in.?

Not being pedantic… just a little confused…

Me too. I read only today that Obama could not bank on getting the Hispanic vote from any race.

I think in the case of the word "race" context is everything. I am sure that there is a proper classification but I am sure also that we will hear modern day English being proudly described as "a race apart" etc etc for many years to come.

Race is a confusing word, difficult to properly define and often misused imo.

I don't have an OED to hand, but the Collins Dictionary has this

race ¹ (rs)
n.
1.
A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more
or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical
characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.
5. Biology
a.
An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of
organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the
frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal
taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
b. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.

---

[French, from Old French, from Old Italian razza, race, lineage.]
Usage Note:
The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of
view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of
the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial
classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color,
hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially
codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations
of humans. The traditional terms for these populationsCaucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoidare now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian
does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used
almost exclusively to mean "white" or "European" rather than "belonging
to the Caucasian race," a group that includes a variety of peoples
generally categorized as nonwhite.) The biological aspect of race is
described today not in observable physical features but rather in such
genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the
groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with
those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and
other pointssuch as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in anothermany cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact.