Der Prozess, der die Sprache und Kultur des größten Teils des Englischen von Romano-Britisch zu Germanisch veränderte.
Die angelsächsische Siedlung von Großbritannien beschreibt den Prozess, der die Sprache und Kultur der meisten Menschen veränderte von dem, was England wurde, von Romano-Britisch zu Germanisch. [1] Die germanischen Sprecher in Großbritannien, die selbst unterschiedlicher Herkunft waren, entwickelten schließlich eine gemeinsame kulturelle Identität als Angelsachsen. Dieser Prozess fand vom Mitte des 5. bis Anfang des 7. Jahrhunderts statt, nach dem Ende der römischen Macht in Großbritannien um das Jahr 410. Nach der Ansiedlung wurden angelsächsische Königreiche im Süden und Osten Großbritanniens gegründet, später folgte das Rest des modernen England.
Zu den verfügbaren Nachweisen gehören die spärliche, zeitnahe und nahezu zeitgenössische schriftliche Dokumentation sowie archäologische und genetische Informationen. [a] Die wenigen literarischen Quellen erzählen von Feindseligkeiten zwischen Eingewanderten und Eingeborenen. Sie beschreiben Gewalt, Zerstörung, Massaker und die Flucht der römisch-britischen Bevölkerung. Darüber hinaus gibt es wenig eindeutige Beweise für den Einfluss von British Celtic oder British Latin auf Old English. Diese Faktoren deuten auf eine sehr große Invasion verschiedener germanischer Völker hin. In dieser Ansicht, die von der Mehrheit der Historiker bis Mitte des 20. Jahrhunderts gehalten wurde, wurde ein Großteil des heutigen Englands von seinen früheren Einwohnern befreit. Wenn dieser traditionelle Standpunkt richtig sein würde, wären die Gene der späteren Engländer überwiegend von germanischen Migranten geerbt worden.
Eine andere Ansicht, die heute wahrscheinlich am weitesten verbreitet ist, ist jedoch, dass die Migranten weniger waren, möglicherweise auf eine Kriegerelite ausgerichtet. Diese Hypothese legt nahe, dass die Eingewanderten, die eine Position politischer und sozialer Dominanz erreicht haben, einen Prozess der Akkulturation der Eingeborenen an ihre Sprache und ihre materielle Kultur initiierten und in erheblichem Maße mit ihnen heirateten. Archäologen haben festgestellt, dass Siedlungsmuster und Landnutzung keinen klaren Bruch mit der römisch-britischen Vergangenheit aufweisen, obwohl sich die Ortsnamen und die materielle Kultur deutlich ändern. Diese Ansicht sagt voraus, dass die Abstammung der Menschen im angelsächsischen und modernen England weitgehend von den gebürtigen Romano-Briten abgeleitet wäre. Die unsicheren Ergebnisse der genetischen Studien stützten tendenziell sowohl eine vorherrschende Menge an einheimischen britischen keltischen Vorfahren als auch einen signifikanten Beitrag von angelsächsischen Migrationen.
Wenn sich diese Zuwanderer jedoch als soziale Elite etabliert haben, hätte dies ihnen zu mehr Fortpflanzungserfolg verhelfen können (die sogenannte "Apartheid-Theorie"). In diesem Fall könnten die vorherrschenden Gene des späteren angelsächsischen Englands größtenteils von einer moderaten Anzahl von germanischen Migranten stammen. [3][4] Diese Theorie, die aus einer populationsgenetischen Studie hervorging, wurde als umstritten angesehen und von einer Reihe kritisch angenommen von Gelehrten.
Hintergrund [ edit ]
Um 400 waren die römischen Provinzen in Großbritannien (das gesamte Gebiet südlich des Hadrianswalls) ein Randbereich der römischen Kaiserzeit, der gelegentlich verloren ging Rebellion oder Invasion, aber bis dahin immer wieder erholt. Dieser Zyklus von Verlust und Wiedererlangung brach im nächsten Jahrzehnt zusammen. Um etwa 410, obwohl die römische Macht für weitere drei Generationen in ganz Gallien eine Macht blieb, geriet Großbritannien außerhalb der direkten imperialen Kontrolle in eine Phase, die allgemein als "sub-römisch" bezeichnet wurde. [5]
Die Geschichte dieser Zeit ist traditionell eine Geschichte des Niedergangs und des Niedergangs. Die Ergebnisse von Verulamium deuten jedoch darauf hin, dass der Wiederaufbau des städtischen Typs [6] mit Leitungswasser spät im 5. Jahrhundert, wenn nicht sogar darüber hinausging. In Silchester gibt es Anzeichen für eine unterrömische Besetzung bis etwa 500 [7] und in Wroxeter wurden neue römische Bäder als römischer Typ identifiziert. [8]
Die Schriften von Patrick und Gildas (siehe unten) zeigt das Überleben der lateinischen Alphabetisierung, der römischen Bildung, des Lernens und des Rechts innerhalb der Elitegesellschaft und des Christentums in Großbritannien während des Großteils des 5. und 6. Jahrhunderts. Es gibt auch Anzeichen in Gildas Werken, dass die Wirtschaft ohne römische Besteuerung florierte, da er über Luxusurien und Selbstlust klagt. Dies ist das Großbritannien des 5. Jahrhunderts, in dem die Angelsachsen erscheinen. [9]
Historische Beweise [ edit ]
Vermessung der historischen Quellen für Anzeichen der angelsächsischen Siedlung und des Volkes geht davon aus, dass die Wörter Angles, Saxons oder Angelsaxon in allen Quellen die gleiche Bedeutung haben. Die Zuordnung ethnischer Labels wie "angelsächsisch" ist mit Schwierigkeiten verbunden, und der Begriff selbst wurde erst im 8. Jahrhundert verwendet, um "germanische" Gruppen in Großbritannien von denen auf dem Kontinent zu unterscheiden (Altsachsen im heutigen Norddeutschland). [10][c]
Frühe Quellen [ edit ]
Die Chronica Gallica von 452 Aufzeichnungen für das Jahr 441: "Die britischen Provinzen, die zu diesem Zeitpunkt verschiedene Niederlagen und Unglücksfälle erlitten hatten, sind reduziert zur sächsischen Herrschaft. " Die Chronik wurde in einiger Entfernung von Großbritannien geschrieben. [11] Die genauen Daten für Ereignisse im fünften Jahrhundert sind vor allem vor 446 ungewiss. [12] Dies untergräbt jedoch nicht die Position der Gallischen Chroniken als sehr wichtige zeitgenössische Quelle. was darauf hindeutet, dass Bedes späteres Datum für "die Ankunft der Sachsen" falsch war. In der Chronik gruppiert sich Großbritannien mit vier anderen römischen Territorien, die zur gleichen Zeit unter "germanischer" Herrschaft standen, wobei die Liste als Erklärung für das Ende des römischen Reiches im Westen gedacht war. [13] Die vier haben ein ähnliches Bild Geschichte, da sie alle von der römischen Autorität in die "Macht der Barbaren" gegeben wurden: drei wurden absichtlich mit deutschen Föderationen besiedelt, und obwohl die Vandalen Afrika mit Gewalt eroberten, wurde ihre Herrschaft durch einen Vertrag bestätigt. [11]
Procopius erklärt, Großbritannien sei von drei Rassen besiedelt worden: Angiloi, Frisones und Britons, die jeweils von ihrem eigenen König regiert wurden. Jede Rasse war so fruchtbar, dass sie jedes Jahr eine große Anzahl von Individuen zu den Franken schickte, die sie in unbesiedelten Gebieten ihres Territoriums anpflanzten. In der Mitte des sechsten Jahrhunderts schrieb er auch, dass nach dem Sturz von Konstantin III. Im Jahr 411 "es den Römern nie gelungen war, Großbritannien wiederzugewinnen, aber es blieb unter dieser Zeit unter Tyrannen." [14]
Gildas De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae [ edit ]
In Gildas Werk des 6. Jahrhunderts (vielleicht 510–530), De Excidio und Conquestu Britanniae ein religiöser Die Sachsen waren Feinde, die ursprünglich aus Übersee stammten, und brachten die ortsansässigen Könige oder Tyrannen zu Recht. [d] [15] [19659004] Die Reihenfolge der Ereignisse in Gildas ist: [16]
- Nach einem Appell an Aëtius (das Stöhnen der Briten) wurden die Briten von einer Hungersnot ergriffen, während sie Angriffe der Picts und Scoti erleiden mussten. Einige wehrten sich erfolgreich, was zu einer Periode des Friedens führte.
- Der Frieden führte zu zu Luxus und Nachgiebigkeit.
- Ein erneuter Angriff wurde von den Picts und Scoti bedroht, was zu einem Rat führte Dort, wo vorgeschlagen und vereinbart wurde, Land im Osten den Sachsen auf der Grundlage eines Vertrags zu überlassen, ein foedus mit dem die Sachsen die Briten gegen Nahrungsmittelvorräte verteidigen würden. Diese Art von Arrangement war im spätrömischen Kontext unüblich; Die Franken waren im 4. Jahrhundert als foederati auf kaiserlichem Territorium in Nordgallien (Toxandria) niedergelassen worden, und die Westgoten wurden Anfang des 5. Jahrhunderts in Gallia Aquitania angesiedelt.
- The Saxon foederati beschwerte sich zunächst, dass ihre monatlichen Lieferungen unzureichend waren. Dann drohten sie, den Vertrag zu brechen, was sie taten, und verbreitete den Angriff "von Meer zu Meer".
- Dieser Krieg, den Higham den "Krieg der sächsischen Föderationen" nannte, endete kurz nach 20 bis 30 Jahren die Belagerung bei Mons Badonicus und etwa 40 Jahre vor der Geburt von Gildas. [e]
- Es gab einen Frieden mit den Sachsen, die in ihre östliche Heimat zurückkehrten, was Gildas lugubre divortium nannte Barbarorum - eine schwere Scheidung von den Barbaren. Die "Scheidungsvereinbarung", vor allem Higham, war aus britischer Sicht ein verbesserter Vertrag. Dies beinhaltete die Fähigkeit, den Menschen im Osten (dh den Sachsen), die unter der Führung der Person namens Gildas pater diabolus standen, Tribut zu entziehen. [17]
Gildas verwendete die korrekte spätrömische Bezeichnung für die Sachsen , foederati Personen, die im Rahmen eines weit verbreiteten Vertragssystems nach Großbritannien kamen. Diese Art von Vertrag wurde an anderer Stelle benutzt, um Menschen in das römische Reich zu bringen, um sich entlang der Straßen oder Flüsse zu bewegen und neben der Armee zu arbeiten. [18] Gildas nannte sie Saxons, was wahrscheinlich die britische Bezeichnung für die Siedler war. Die Verwendung des Wortes durch Gildas Patria [f][19] machte bei Verwendung in Verbindung mit den Sachsen und Picten den Eindruck, dass einige Sachsen bis dahin als in Britannia heimisch angesehen werden könnten. [20] [20]
Großbritannien war für Gildas die ganze Insel; Ethnizität und Sprache waren nicht seine Angelegenheit, er beschäftigte sich mit dem Glauben und dem Handeln der Führer. Die historischen Details lauten, wie Snyder sagte: "Nebenprodukte aus der Erzählung von königlichen Sünden". [21] Es gibt eine starke Tradition christlicher Schriftsteller, die sich mit den moralischen Qualitäten der Führung beschäftigten, und Gildas schloss sich diesen an. Er benutzte eine apokalyptische Sprache: Zum Beispiel waren die Sachsen "Schurken", "Feinde", angeführt von einem Teufel-Vater. Doch Gildas hatte nach seinen eigenen Worten ein Zeitalter des "äußeren Friedens" durchgemacht, und dieser Frieden brachte die Tyrannis - "ungerechte Herrschaft" mit sich.
Gildas Äußerungen spiegeln seine anhaltende Besorgnis über die Verletzlichkeit seiner Landsleute und ihre Missachtung und Eingriffe wider. Zum Beispiel: "Es war immer so, dass dieses Volk (wie es jetzt ist) schwach war, die Waffen zu schlagen des Feindes aber stark im Bürgerkrieg und in der Last der Sünde. "[22] Nach dem Krieg der Sächsischen Föderation schien es Gildas jedoch nicht zu wissen, ob es Völkermord, Massenflucht oder Massenflucht gab über sie. Gildas erwähnte in seinen Erörterungen über die heiligen Schreine, dass das spirituelle Leben Großbritanniens gelitten hatte, weil die Teilung (19459026) des Landes, das die Bürger (19459025) verhinderte, ausbrach Anbetung an den Schreinen der Märtyrer. Die Kontrolle war den Sachsen übertragen worden, sogar der Zugang zu solchen Schreinen. Die Kirche war jetzt "Zufluß", ihre Söhne hatten "Dung umarmt" und der Adel hatte seine Regierungsgewalt verloren. [23]
Gildas beschrieb die Korruption der Elite: "Großbritannien hat Könige, aber." Sie sind Tyrannen, sie hat Richter, aber sie sind böse. "[24] Diese Passage gibt einen Einblick in die Welt von Gildas", fuhr er fort: "Sie plündern und terrorisieren die Unschuldigen, sie verteidigen und schützen die Schuldigen und die Diebe, sie haben viele Ehefrauen, Huren und Ehebrecherinnen schwören falsche Eide, erzählen Lügen, belohnen Diebe, setzen sich mit Mörderischen zusammen, verachten die Demütigen, ihre Befehlshaber sind "Feinde Gottes" "; Die Liste ist lang. Mehrmals wurde das Eidbrechen und das Fehlen gerechter Urteile für normale Menschen erwähnt. Überall war die britische Führung unmoralisch und der Grund für den "Ruin Britanniens". [24]
Bedes Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum [ [19599047]
] [Gildas] Quellen wurden von Bede in seiner Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum verwendet, die um 731 geschrieben wurde. Bede identifiziert die Migranten als Angles, Saxons und Jutes und berichtet (Bk I, Ch 15), dass die Sachsen aus dem alten Sachsen (Nordsachsen) kamen Deutschland) und die Angles aus 'Anglia', die zwischen den Wohngebieten der Sachsen und Jute lagen. [25] Unter Anglia wird vernünftigerweise die alte schleswig-holsteinische Provinz (die moderne deutsch-dänische Grenze) verstanden, die die moderne Region einschließt Angeln. Jütland war die Heimat der Jutes und die Küste zwischen Elbe und Weser (Niedersachsen) ist das sächsische Ursprungsgebiet.
Bezeichnenderweise scheint Bede drei Siedlungsphasen zu identifizieren: eine Explorationsphase, als Söldner kamen, um die ansässige Bevölkerung zu schützen; eine Migrationsphase, die erheblich war, wie aus der Aussage hervorgeht, dass Anglus verlassen war; und eine Etablierungsphase, in der Angelsachsen begann, Gebiete zu kontrollieren, was in Bedes Aussage über die Ursprünge der Stämme impliziert wurde. [26] Diese Analyse von Bede hat zu einer Neubewertung von Bedes hinsichtlich Kontinuität und Veränderung geführt "Northumbrian" -Ansicht der Geschichte und wie diese Ansicht in den Bericht der letzten beiden Siedlungsphasen projiziert wurde; und eine mögliche Überarbeitung des traditionellen chronologischen Rahmens.
Das Konzept von Bretwalda stammt von Bedes Kommentar dazu, wer das Imperium von Großbritannien besaß. [27] Aus diesem Konzept haben Historiker eine formale Einrichtung der Oberherrschaft südlich des Humber abgeleitet. Ob eine solche Institution existierte, ist ungewiss, aber Simon Keynes argumentiert, dass es sich bei der Idee nicht um ein erfundenes Konzept handelt. [28] Das Bretwalda-Konzept wird als Beweis für das Vorhandensein einer Reihe von frühen angelsächsischen Elitefamilien genommen. Ob es sich bei der Mehrheit um frühe Siedler, Nachkomme von Siedlern oder besonders nach der Erkundungsphase um römisch-britische Führer handelte, die die angelsächsische Kultur übernahmen, ist unklar, aber die Meinung ist, dass die meisten Migranten waren. Zu den bemerkenswerten Lücken gehören: Niemand aus den östlichen oder westlichen Midlands ist in der Liste der Bretwaldas vertreten, und es herrscht einige Unsicherheit über die Daten dieser Führer.
Bedes Ansicht von Briten ist mitverantwortlich für das Bild von ihnen als unterdrückten Untertanen angelsächsischer Unterdrückung. Dies wurde von Linguisten und Archäologen verwendet, die Völkermord, Sklaverei und blutige Siedlungstheorien der Invasionen hervorgebracht haben. [29] Bedes abfällige Darstellung der Briten ist von dem beeinflusst, was er in Gildas gelesen hatte, die auch versucht hatten, Gottes Willen zu verstehen. Für Gildas stellten die Sachsen die Geißel Gottes dar und er sah die Schrecken des Sachsen als Gottes Vergeltung für die Sünden seines Volkes. Bede konzentrierte sich auf diesen Punkt und erweiterte Gildas Vision, indem er die heidnischen Angelsachsen nicht als Geißel Gottes gegen die reobierten Briten, sondern als Agenten der Erlösung Großbritanniens darstellte. Daher wird das schreckliche Szenario, das Gildas befürchtete, ruhig von Bede erklärt: Jede grobe Behandlung war notwendig und wurde von Gott verordnet, weil die Briten Gottes Gunst verloren hatten und seinen Zorn erlitten hatten. Bede benutzt Ethnizität nicht wie ein moderner Leser. Windy McKinney bemerkt: "Bedes Verwendung von (ethnischer Terminologie) war viel veränderlicher: an den Ausdruck von Tradition und religiösen Vorstellungen, an die Loyalität eines Volkes gegenüber Autorität und an Veränderungen im Verlauf der Geschichte gebunden. Daher ist es so Es ist fraglich, ob alle, die Bede unter dem Begriff Angli umfasste, rassisch germanisch waren. "[30] Tatsächlich war Bede selbst kein ethnisch" reiner "Angle. [31]
Tribal Hideage [ edit ]
The Tribal Hideage ist eine Liste von 35 Stämmen, die zwischen dem 7. und 9. Jahrhundert im angelsächsischen England zusammengestellt wurde. Die Einbeziehung der "Elmet-Bewohner" deutet Simon Keynes an, dass die Tribal Hideage in den frühen 670er Jahren, während der Regierungszeit von König Wulfhere, zusammengestellt wurde, da Elmet danach anscheinend unter Northumbrian Kontrolle zurückgekehrt ist.
Es umfasst eine Reihe unabhängiger Königreiche und anderer kleinerer Gebiete und weist jedem eine Reihe von Häuten zu. Eine Haut war eine Menge Land, die ausreichte, um einen Haushalt zu unterstützen. Die Liste der Stämme wird von Mercia angeführt und besteht fast ausschließlich aus Völkern, die südlich der Humber-Mündung und den Territorien des Mercian-Königreichs lebten, von denen einige von Gelehrten nie zufriedenstellend identifiziert wurden. Das Dokument ist problematisch, aber für Historiker äußerst wichtig, da es einen Einblick in die Beziehung zwischen Menschen, Land und den Stämmen und Gruppen gibt, in denen sie sich organisiert hatten.
Die einzelnen Einheiten der Liste entwickelten sich aus Siedlungsgebieten von Stammesgruppen, von denen einige nur 300 Häute umfassen. Die Namen sind schwer zu finden: Orte wie East Wixna und Sweord ora . Es zeigt sich, dass die Mikroidentität von Stamm und Familie von Anfang an wichtig ist. Die Liste ist ein Beweis für eine komplexere Besiedlung als die einzige politische Einheit der anderen historischen Quellen. [32]
Angelsächsische Chronik [ edit
The Anglo- Sächsische Chronik ist eine historische Aufzeichnung der Ereignisse im angelsächsischen England, die vom späten 9. bis zur Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts aufbewahrt wurde. Die Chronik ist eine Sammlung von Annalen, die in einigen Fällen noch mehr als 600 Jahre nach den von ihnen beschriebenen Ereignissen aktualisiert wurden. Sie enthalten verschiedene Einträge, die die Breite der historischen Beweise zu erhöhen scheinen und gute Beweise für eine Migration, die angelsächsischen Eliten und verschiedene bedeutende historische Ereignisse liefern.
Die frühesten Ereignisse, die in der Angelsächsischen Chronik beschrieben wurden, wurden Jahrhunderte nach ihrem Auftreten transkribiert. Barbara Yorke, Patrick Sims-Williams und David Dumville haben unter anderem hervorgehoben, dass eine Reihe von Merkmalen der angelsächsischen Chronik für das 5. und frühe 6. Jahrhundert eindeutig der Vorstellung widersprechen, dass sie ein verlässliches Jahr enthalten -Jahresrekord. [33] Stuart Laycock hat vorgeschlagen, dass es Informationen aus der frühen Zeit geben kann, die auf der Grundlage folgender Informationen verwendet werden können: Die offensichtlichen Globen und Fiktionen sollten abgelehnt werden (z. B. die Informationen über Porta und Portsmouth); Der Kern hinter einigen Einträgen kann eine Wahrheit enthalten (z. B. die Reihenfolge der Ereignisse, die mit Ælle of Sussex verbunden sind); Während die Daten ungewiss sind, glaubt Laycock, dass einige der Ereignisse des 6. Jahrhunderts reale Situationen beschreiben können. [34] Die Beweise für die angelsächsische Siedlung aus einer Chronik wie der angelsächsischen Chronik sind jedoch ungewiss und stützt sich stark auf die gegenwärtige Ansicht, welche Einträge akzeptabel sind. Dumville weist auf die angelsächsische Chronik hin: "Die mittelalterliche Historiographie hat andere Annahmen als wir, insbesondere was die Unterscheidung zwischen Fiktion und Nicht-Fiktion angeht." [35]
Linguistische Beweise [ edit ]
Die Erklärung des sprachlichen Wandels und insbesondere des Aufstiegs des Altenglischen ist für jeden Bericht des anglo- Sächsische Siedlung von Großbritannien. Der moderne Konsens besteht darin, dass die Verbreitung des Englischen dadurch erklärt werden kann, dass eine relativ kleine Anzahl von germanischsprachigen Einwanderern politisch dominiert, in einem Kontext, in dem Latein durch den Zusammenbruch der römischen Wirtschaft und Verwaltung an Ansehen und Ansehen verloren hatte.
Die Beweise [ edit ]
Alle sprachlichen Beweise aus dem römischen Britannien deuten darauf hin, dass die meisten Einwohner britisch keltisches und / oder britisches Latein sprachen. Als im 8. Jahrhundert umfangreiche Beweise für die Situation nach der römischen Sprache verfügbar sind, ist es jedoch klar, dass die vorherrschende Sprache im heutigen Osten und Süden Englands das alte Englisch war, dessen westdeutsche Vorgänger in dem, was jetzt ist, gesprochen wurde die Niederlande und Norddeutschland. [38] Das alte Englisch breitete sich dann in den folgenden Jahrhunderten nach Westen und Norden aus. Diese Entwicklung unterscheidet sich auffallend von beispielsweise dem nachrömischen Gallien, Iberia oder Nordafrika, wo germanischsprachige Eindringlinge allmählich zu den jeweiligen Landessprachen wechselten. [39][40][41] Altes Englisch zeigt wenig offensichtlichen Einfluss aus dem keltischen oder dem gesprochenen Latein: Beispiel: verschwindend wenige englische Wörter bretonischer Herkunft. [42][43][44] Außer in Cornwall kann die große Mehrheit der Ortsnamen in England leicht als Old English (oder Old Norse aufgrund des späteren Einflusses der Wikinger) etymologisiert werden, was die Dominanz des Englischen demonstriert quer durch das nachrömische England. [45] Intensive Forschungen zur keltischen Toponymie in den letzten Jahrzehnten haben gezeigt, dass mehr Namen in England und im südlichen Schottland bretonische oder gelegentlich lateinische Etymologien haben, als man früher dachte, [46] aber es ist klar Daß bretonische und lateinische Ortsnamen in der östlichen Hälfte Englands extrem selten sind, und obwohl sie in der westlichen Hälfte merklich häufiger sind, sind sie in Cheshire immer noch eine winzige Minderheit (2%) Beispiel [47]
Die Debatte [ edit ]
Im späten zwanzigsten Jahrhundert war die übliche Erklärung der Gelehrten für den fehlenden keltischen Einfluss auf Englisch, gestützt durch unkritische Lesungen der Berichte von Gildas und Bede waren der Grund, dass Old English dominiert wurde, hauptsächlich weil germanisch sprechende Eindringlinge die früheren Bewohner der von ihnen besiedelten Gebiete getötet, vertrieben und / oder versklavt haben. In den letzten Jahrzehnten haben einige Fachleute diese Interpretation weiter unterstützt, [48][49][50] und Peter Schrijver hat gesagt: "In weitem Maße ist die Linguistik dafür verantwortlich, in drastischen Szenarien über den demografischen Wandel im späten römischen Großbritannien nachzudenken [51]
Der heutige Konsens unter den Experten ist jedoch durch die Forschung in der Kontaktlinguistik beeinflusst, dass die politische Dominanz durch eine relativ kleine Anzahl von alten englischsprachigen Mitgliedern eine große Anzahl von Briten zur Annahme veranlasst haben könnte Das alte Englisch hinterlässt nur wenig erkennbare Spuren dieses Sprachwechsels. [43][52][53] Der Zusammenbruch der römischen Wirtschaft und der Verwaltungsstrukturen in Großbritannien scheint die Briten in einer technologisch ähnlichen Gesellschaft wie ihre angelsächsischen Nachbarn zurückgelassen zu haben, was Anglo-Saxons unwahrscheinlich macht müßte sich Wörter für unbekannte Begriffe ausleihen. [54] Wenn Old English die prestigeträchtigste Sprache in einer bestimmten Region wurde, könnten Sprecher anderer Sprachen f Es ist von Vorteil, zweisprachig zu werden und über einige Generationen hinweg die weniger angesehenen Sprachen (in diesem Fall British Celtic und / oder British Latin) nicht mehr zu sprechen. Dieser Bericht, der nur eine geringe Anzahl politisch dominanter germanischsprachiger Migranten nach Großbritannien verlangt, ist zur "Standarderklärung" für den allmählichen Tod des keltischen und gesprochenen Latein im post-römischen Großbritannien geworden. [55] [56] [57] [58] [1945987]
Ebenso haben die Gelehrten auch andere Mechanismen als die massiven demographischen Veränderungen eingesetzt durch welche Vor-Migration könnten keltische Ortsnamen verloren gegangen sein. Gelehrte haben betont, dass walisische und kornische Ortsnamen aus der römischen Epoche nicht wahrscheinlicher zu überleben scheinen als englische: "Der Namensverlust war eindeutig ein römisch-britisches Phänomen, nicht nur ein Zusammenhang mit angelsächsischen Einwanderern." [60][61] Other Erklärungen für die Ersetzung der römischen Ortsnamen umfassen die Anpassung keltischer Namen, so dass sie jetzt aus dem Altenglischen zu stammen scheinen, [62][63][64][65][66] ein allmählicherer Verlust keltischer Namen als früher angenommen wurde, [67][68][69] und neue Namen werden geprägt ( in der neu dominanten englischen Sprache), weil Instabilität von Siedlungen und Landbesitz. [68][69]
Aktuelle Forschung [ edit
Es wird intensiv untersucht, ob British Celtic einen subtilen Einfluss auf das Substrat hatte die Phonologie, Morphologie und Syntax von Old English [70][71][72][73][74] (sowie darüber, ob britische lateinische Sprecher die bretonischen Sprachen beeinflussten, vielleicht als sie westlich von der angelsächsischen Herrschaft in die britischen Hochländer flüchteten). [19659] 096] Diese Argumente sind jedoch noch nicht zu einem Konsens geworden. Eine neuere Synthese schlussfolgert daraus, dass "die Beweise für den keltischen Einfluss auf das alte Englisch etwas spärlich sind, was bedeutet, dass es schwer fassbar bleibt, nicht dass es sie nicht gab." [78]
Die Debatte geht weiter ein Rahmen, der davon ausgeht, dass viele Sprecher der Bretonischen Sprache auf Englisch umgestellt haben, beispielsweise darüber, ob zumindest einige germanischsprachige Kleinst-Immigranten involviert gewesen sein müssen, um den Sprachwechsel herbeizuführen; Welche rechtlichen oder sozialen Strukturen (wie Sklaverei oder Apartheid-ähnliche Gebräuche) könnten den hohen Status des Englischen gefördert haben? und genau wie langsam Brittonic (und britisches Latein) in verschiedenen Regionen verschwunden ist.
Eine eigenwillige Ansicht, die breite Aufmerksamkeit in der Öffentlichkeit gefunden hat, ist Stephen Oppenheimers Vorschlag, dass der Mangel an keltischem Einfluss auf Englisch darauf zurückzuführen sei, dass die englischen Vorfahren in England bereits vor Ende der römischen Zeit von den Belgae weit verbreitet waren. [79] Oppenheimers Ideen waren jedoch nicht hilfreich, um die bekannten Tatsachen zu erklären: In Großbritannien gibt es vor dem 5. Jahrhundert keine Beweise für eine gut etablierte germanische Sprache, und Oppenheimers Idee widerspricht den umfangreichen Beweisen für die Verwendung von Keltisch und Latein. [80][41]
Persönliche Namen der Elite [ edit ]
Während viele Studien zugeben, dass ein erhebliches Überleben von Ureinwohnern aus den unteren sozialen Schichten wahrscheinlich ist, werden diese Menschen im Laufe der Zeit aufgrund der Aktion " Englisch: emagazine.credit-suisse.com/app/art ... = 118 & lang = en Es gibt auch Belege für das Überleben der britischen Elite und ihre Anglisierung. Eine angelsächsische Elite könnte auf zwei Arten gebildet werden: von einem ankommenden Häuptling und seiner Kriegsband aus Norddeutschland, die ein Gebiet in Großbritannien übernehmen, oder durch einen gebürtigen britischen Häuptling und seine Kriegsband, die angelsächsische Kultur und Sprache annehmen. [81]
Das Vorkommen britischer keltischer Personennamen in den königlichen Genealogien einer Reihe von "angelsächsischen" Dynastien deutet auf den letzteren Prozess hin. Die königliche Linie der Wessex wurde traditionell von einem Mann namens Cerdic gegründet, einem zweifellos keltischen Namen, der mit Ceretic dem Namen, der zwei britischen Königen gegeben wurde, identisch war und letztendlich vom bretonischen * Caraticos abgeleitet wurde. [82] Dies kann darauf hindeuten dass Cerdic ein gebürtiger Brite war und dass seine Dynastie im Laufe der Zeit anglisiert wurde. [83][81] Eine Reihe von Cerdics angeblichen Nachkommen besaß auch keltische Namen, darunter den "Bretwalda" Ceawlin. [84] Das letzte Vorkommen eines britischen Namens in dieser Dynastie Das ist der von König Caedwalla, der erst 689 starb. [85] Der britische Name Caedbaed ist im Stammbaum der Könige von Lindsey zu finden, der für das Überleben britischer Eliten in dieser Gegend ebenfalls argumentiert. [86] Im Mercian Der königliche Stammbaum, der Name von König Penda und die Namen anderer Könige haben mehr offensichtliche bretonische als deutsche Etymologien, obwohl sie nicht mit bekannten walisischen Personennamen übereinstimmen. [87] [88] [88]
Bede beschreibt in seinem Hauptwerk die Karrieren von vier Brüdern der Oberklasse in der englischen Kirche, er bezeichnet sie als Northumbrian und daher als "Englisch". [89] Allerdings die Namen des Heiligen Tschad von Mercia (ein bekannter Name) Bischof) und seine Brüder Cedd (auch ein Bischof), Cynibil und Caelin (eine abweichende Schreibweise von Ceawlin) sind eher britisch als angelsächsisch. [1945987] [91] [1945657] [19659004] Ein gutes Argument kann für Süd-Britannien (insbesondere Wessex, Kent, Essex und Teile von Südost-Anglien) gemacht werden, das zumindest von Dynastien mit germanischen Vorfahren oder Verbindungen übernommen wurde, die aber auch ihren Ursprung in oder zwischen ihnen haben , gebürtige britische Eliten. [81][92]
Archäologische Beweise [ edit ]
Archäologen, die Beweise für Migration und / oder Kultur suchen, müssen sich zunächst mit der frühen angelsächsischen Archäologie als "Archäologie der Identität" auseinandersetzen. Dieses Konzept schützt vor einem isolierten Aspekt der Archäologie und stellt sicher, dass verschiedene Themen zusammen betrachtet werden, die zuvor separat betrachtet wurden, wie zum Beispiel Geschlecht, Alter, ethnische Zugehörigkeit, Religion und Status. [93] [19659004] Die Interpretationsaufgabe wurde durch den Mangel an archäologischen Werken für die angelsächsische Zeit im Allgemeinen und insbesondere für die Frühphase im Besonderen behindert. Dies ändert sich mit neuen Werken der Synthese und Chronologie, insbesondere der Arbeiten von Catherine Hills und Sam Lucy zu den Beweisen von Spong Hill, die die mögliche Synthese mit der kontinentalen materiellen Kultur eröffnet haben und die Chronologie für die Siedlung früher verschoben haben 450 n.Chr., Eine bedeutende Anzahl von Gegenständen befindet sich jetzt in Phasen vor diesem historisch gesetzten Datum. [94]
Verständnis des römischen Erbes [ edit
Archäologische Beweise für die Entstehung der beiden gebürtigen Briten Identität und das Auftreten einer germanischen Kultur in Großbritannien im 5. und 6. Jahrhundert müssen zuerst die Zeit am Ende der römischen Herrschaft berücksichtigen. Der Zusammenbruch der römischen materiellen Kultur zu Beginn des 5. Jahrhunderts hinterließ eine Lücke in den archäologischen Funden, die ziemlich schnell von der aufdringlichen angelsächsischen materiellen Kultur gefüllt wurde, während die einheimische Kultur archäologisch nahezu unsichtbar wurde - obwohl die jüngsten Horden und Metalle detector finds show that coin use and imports did not stop abruptly at AD 410.[95][96][97]
The archaeology of the Roman military systems within Britain is well known but is not well understood: for example, whether the Saxon Shore was defensive or to facilitate the passage of goods. Andrew Pearson suggests that the "Saxon Shore Forts" and other coastal installations played a more significant economic and logistical role than is often appreciated, and that the tradition of Saxon and other continental piracy, based on the name of these forts, is probably a myth.[98]
The archaeology of late Roman (and sub-Roman) Britain has been mainly focused on the elite rather than the peasant and slave: their villas, houses, mosaics, furniture, fittings and silver plate.[99] This group had a strict code on how their wealth was to be displayed, and this provides a wealth of material culture, from which "Britons" are identified. There was a large gap between richest and poorest; the trappings of the latter have been the focus of less archaeological study. However the archaeology of the peasant from the 4th and 5th centuries is dominated by "ladder" field systems or enclosures, associated with extended families, and in the South and East of England the extensive use of timber-built buildings and farmsteads shows a lower level of engagement with Roman building methods than is shown by the houses of the numerically much smaller elite.[100]
Settler evidence[edit]
Confirmation of the use of Anglo-Saxons as foederati or federate troops has been seen as coming from burials of Anglo-Saxons wearing military equipment of a type issued to late Roman forces, which have been found both in late Roman contexts, such as the Roman cemeteries of Winchester and Colchester, and in purely 'Anglo-Saxon' rural cemeteries like Mucking (Essex),[101] though this was at a settlement used by the Romano-British. The distribution of the earliest Anglo-Saxon sites and place names in close proximity to Roman settlements and roads has been interpreted as showing that initial Anglo-Saxon settlements were being controlled by the Romano-British.[102]
Catherine Hills suggests it is not necessary to see all the early settlers as federate troops, and that this interpretation has been used rather too readily by some archaeologists.[103] A variety of relationships could have existed between Romano-British and incoming Anglo-Saxons. The broader archaeological picture suggests that no one model will explain all the Anglo-Saxon settlements in Britain and that there was considerable regional variation.[104] Settlement density varied within southern and eastern England. Norfolk has more large Anglo-Saxon cemeteries than the neighbouring East Anglian county of Suffolk; eastern Yorkshire (the nucleus of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Deira) far more than the rest of Northumbria.[105] The settlers were not all of the same type. Some were indeed warriors who were buried equipped with their weapons, but we should not assume that all of these were invited guests who were to guard Romano-British communities. Possibly some, like the later Viking settlers, may have begun as piratical raiders who later seized land and made permanent settlements. Other settlers seem to have been much humbler people who had few if any weapons and suffered from malnutrition. These were characterised by Sonia Chadwick Hawkes as Germanic 'boat people', refugees from crowded settlements on the North Sea which deteriorating climatic conditions would have made untenable.[106]
Tribal characteristics[edit]
Catherine Hills points out that it is too easy to consider Anglo-Saxon archaeology solely as a study of ethnology and to fail to consider that identity is "less related to an overall Anglo-Saxon ethnicity and more to membership of family or tribe, Christian or pagan, elite or peasant".[107] "Anglo-Saxons" or "Britons" were no more homogeneous than nationalities are today, and they would have exhibited diverse characteristics: male/female, old/young, rich/poor, farmer/warrior—or even Gildas' patria (fellow citizens), cives (indigenous people) and hostes (enemies)—as well as a diver sity associated with language. Beyond these, in the early Anglo-Saxon period, identity was local: although people would have known their neighbours, it may have been important to indicate tribal loyalty with details of clothing and especially fasteners.[108] It is also unlikely that people would have thought of themselves as Anglo-Saxon: instead they were part of a tribe or region, descendants of a patron or followers of a leader. It is this identity that archaeological evidence seeks to understand and determine, considering how it might support separate identity groups, or identities that were inter-connected.[109]
Part of a well-furnished pagan period mixed inhumation and cremation cemetery was excavated at Alwalton near Peterborough. Twenty-eight urned and two unurned cremations dating from between the 5th and 6th centuries, and 34 inhumations, dating from between the late 5th and early 7th centuries, were uncovered. Both cremations and inhumations were provided with pyre or grave goods, and some of the burials were richly furnished. The excavation found evidence for a mixture of practices and symbolic clothing; these reflected local differences that appeared to be associated with tribal or family loyalty. This use of clothing in particular was very symbolic, and distinct differences within groups in the cemetery could be found.[110]
Reuse of earlier monuments[edit]
The evidence for monument reuse in the early Anglo-Saxon period reveals a number of significant aspects of the practice. Ancient monuments were one of the most important factors determining the placing of the dead in the early Anglo-Saxon landscape. Anglo-Saxon secondary activity on prehistoric and Roman sites was traditionally explained in practical terms. These explanations, in the view of Howard Williams, failed to account for the numbers and types of monuments and graves (from villas to barrows) reused.[111]
Anglo-Saxon barrow burials started in the late 6th century and continued into the early 8th century. Prehistoric barrows, in particular, have been seen as physical expressions of land claims and links to the ancestors, and John Shephard has extended this interpretation to Anglo-Saxon tumuli.[112] Eva Thäte has emphasised the continental origins of monument reuse in post-Roman England,[113] Howard Williams has suggested that the main purpose of this custom was to give sense to a landscape that the immigrants did not find empty.[111]
In the 7th and 8th centuries, monument reuse became so widespread that it strongly suggests the deliberate location of burials of the elite next to visible monuments of the pre-Saxon past, but with 'ordinary' burial grounds of this phase also frequently being located next to prehistoric barrows. The relative increase of this kind of spatial association from the 5th/6th centuries to the 7th/8th centuries is conspicuous. Williams' analysis of two well-documented samples shows an increase from 32% to 50% of Anglo-Saxon burial sites in the Upper Thames region, and from 47% to 71% of Anglo-Saxon cemeteries excavated since 1945. Härke suggests that one of the contexts for the increasing reuse of monuments may be "the adoption by the natives of the material culture of the dominant immigrants".[114]
Landscape archaeology[edit]
The Anglo-Saxons did not settle in an abandoned landscape on which they imposed new types of settlement and farming, as was once believed. By the late 4th century the English rural landscape was largely cleared, generally occupied by dispersed farms and hamlets, each surrounded by its own fields but often sharing other resources in common (called "infield-outfield cultivation").[115] Such fields, whether of prehistoric or Roman origin, fall into two very general types, found both separately and together: irregular layouts, in which one field after another had been added to an arable hub over many centuries; and regular rectilinear layouts, often roughly following the local topography, that had resulted from the large-scale division of considerable areas of land. Such stability was reversed within a few decades of the 5th century, as early "Anglo-Saxon" farmers, affected both by the collapse of Roman Britain and a climatic deterioration which reached its peak probably around 500, concentrated on subsistence, converting to pasture large areas of previously ploughed land. However, there is little evidence of abandoned arable land.
Evidence across southern and central England increasingly shows the persistence of prehistoric and Roman field layouts into and, in some cases throughout, the Anglo-Saxon period, whether or not such fields were continuously ploughed. Landscapes at Yarnton, Oxfordshire, and Mucking, Essex, remained unchanged throughout the 5th century, while at Barton Court, Oxfordshire, the 'grid of ditched paddocks or closes' of a Roman villa estate formed a general framework for the Anglo-Saxon settlement there.[116] Similar evidence has been found at Sutton Courtenay, Berkshire.[117] The Romano-British fields at Church Down in Chalton and Catherington, both in Hampshire, Bow Brickhill, Buckinghamshire, and Havering, Essex, were all ploughed as late as the 7th century.[118][119]
Susan Oosthuizen has taken this further and establishes evidence that aspects of the "collective organisation of arable cultivation appear to find an echo in fields of pre-historic and Roman Britain".[120] In particular: the open field systems, shared between a number of cultivators, but cropped individually; the link between arable holdings and rights to common pasture land; in structures of governance and the duty to pay some of the surplus to the local overlord, whether in rent or duty. Together these reveal that kinship ties and social relations were continuous across the 5th and 6th centuries, with no evidence of the uniformity or destruction, imposed by lords, the savage action of invaders or system collapse. This has implications on how later developments are considered, such as the developments in the 7th and 8th centuries.
Landscape studies draw upon a variety of topographical, archaeological and written sources. There are major problems in trying to relate Anglo-Saxon charter boundaries to those of Roman estates for which there are no written records, and by the end of the Anglo-Saxon period there had been major changes to the organisation of the landscape which can obscure earlier arrangements.[121] Interpretation is also hindered by uncertainty about late Roman administrative arrangements. Nevertheless, studies carried out throughout the country, in "British" as well as "Anglo-Saxon" areas, have found examples of continuity of territorial boundaries where, for instance, Roman villa estate boundaries seem to have been identical with those of medieval estates, as delineated in early charters, though settlement sites within the defined territory might shift.[122] What we see in these examples is probably continuity of the estate or territory as a unit of administration rather than one of exploitation.[123] Although the upper level of Roman administration based on towns seems to have disappeared during the 5th century, a subsidiary system based on subdivisions of the countryside may have continued.[124]
The basis of the internal organisation of both the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and those of their Celtic neighbours was a large rural territory which contained a number of subsidiary settlements dependent upon a central residence which the Anglo-Saxons called a villa in Latin and a tūn in Old English. These developments suggest that the basic infrastructure of the early Anglo-Saxon local administration (or the settlement of early kings or earls) was inherited from late Roman or Sub-Roman Britain.[125]
Distribution of settlements[edit]
There are a number of difficulties in recognising early Anglo-Saxon settlements as migrant settlers. This in part is because most early rural Anglo-Saxon sites have yielded few finds other than pottery and bone. The use of aerial photography does not yield easily identifiable settlements, partly due to the dispersed nature of many of these settlements.[126]
The distribution of known settlements also remains elusive with few settlements found in the West Midlands or North-West. Even in Kent, an area of rich early Anglo-Saxon archaeology, the number of excavated settlements is fewer than expected. However, in contrast the counties of Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire are relative rich in early settlements. These have revealed a tendency for early Anglo-Saxon settlements to be on the light soils associated with river terraces.[126]
Many of the inland settlements are on rivers that had been major navigation routes during the Roman era.[127][128] These sites, such as Dorchester on Thames on the upper Thames, were readily accessible by the shallow-draught, clinker-built boats used by the Anglo-Saxons. The same is true of the settlements along the rivers Ouse, Trent, Witham, Nene and along the marshy lower Thames. Less well known due to a dearth of physical evidence but attested by surviving place names, there were Jutish settlements on the Isle of Wight and the nearby southern coast of Hampshire.
A number of Anglo-Saxon settlements are located near or at Roman-era towns, but the question of simultaneous town occupation by the Romano-Britons and a nearby Anglo-Saxon settlement (i.e., suggesting a relationship) is not confirmed. At Roman Caistor-by-Norwich, for example, recent analysis suggests that the cemetery post-dates the town's virtual abandonment.[129]
Cemetery evidence[edit]
The earliest cemeteries that can be classified as Anglo-Saxon are found in widely separate regions and are dated to the early 5th century.[130] The exception is in Kent, where the density of cemeteries and artifacts suggest either an exceptionally heavy Anglo-Saxon settlement, or continued settlement beginning at an early date, or both. By the late 5th century there were additional Anglo-Saxon cemeteries, some of them adjacent to earlier ones, but with a large expansion in other areas, and now including the southern coast of Sussex.[131]
Up to the year 2000, roughly 10,000 early 'Anglo-Saxon' cremations and inhumations had been found, exhibiting a large degree of diversity in styles and types of mortuary ritual.[132] This is consistent with evidence for many micro cultures and local practice. Cemetery evidence is still dominated by the material culture: finds of clothes, jewellery, weapons, pots and personal items; but physical and molecular evidence from skeletons, bones and teeth are increasingly important.
Considering the early cemeteries of Kent, most relevant finds come from furnished graves with distinctive links to the Continent. However, there are some unique items, these include pots and urns and especially brooches,[133] an important element of female dress that functioned as a fastener, rather like a modern safety pin. The style of brooches (called Quoits), is unique to southern England in the fifth century AD, with the greatest concentration of such items occurring in Kent. Seiichi Suzuki defines the style through an analysis of its design organisation, and, by comparing it with near-contemporary styles in Britain and on the continent, identifying those features which make it unique. He suggests that the quoit brooch style was made and remade as part of the process of construction of new group identities during the political uncertainties of the time, and sets the development of the style in the context of the socio-cultural dynamics of an emergent post-Roman society. The brooch shows that culture was not just transposed from the continent, but from an early phase a new "Anglo-Saxon" culture was being developed.[133]
Women's fashions (trachtnative costumes not thought to have been trade goods), have been used to distinguish and identify settlers,[134] supplemented by other finds that can be related to specific regions of the Continent. A large number of Frankish artifacts have been found in Kent, and these are largely interpreted to be a reflection of trade and commerce rather than early migration. Yorke (Wessex in the Early Middle Ages1995), for example, only allows that some Frankish settlement is possible.[135] Frankish sea raiding was recorded as early as 260[136] and became common for the next century, but their raids on Britain ended c. 367[137] as Frankish interest turned southward and was thereafter focused on the control and occupation of northern Gaul and Germania.
The presence of artifacts that are identifiably North Germanic along the coastal areas between the Humber Estuary and East Anglia indicates that Scandinavians migrated to Britain.[138][139][140][141] However, this does not suggest that they arrived at the same time as the Angles: they may have arrived almost a century later,[141][142] and their status and influence upon arrival is uncertain. In particular, regarding a significant Swedish influence in association with the Sutton Hoo ship and a Swedish origin for the East Anglian Wuffinga dynasty, both possibilities are now considered uncertain.[143]
The process of mixing and assimilation of immigrant and native populations is virtually impossible to elucidate with material culture, but the skeletal evidence may shed some light on it. The 7th/8th-century average stature of male individuals in Anglo-Saxon cemeteries dropped by 15 mm (⅝ in) compared with the 5th/6th-century average.[144] This development is most marked in Wessex where the average dropped by 24 mm (1 in).[145] This drop is not easily explained by environmental changes; there is no evidence for a change in diet in the 7th/8th centuries, nor is there any evidence of a further influx of immigrants at this time. Given the lower average stature of Britons, the most likely explanation would be a gradual Saxonisation or Anglicisation of the material culture of native enclaves, an increasing assimilation of native populations into Anglo-Saxon communities, and increasing intermarriage between immigrants and natives within Anglo-Saxon populations. Skeletal material from the Late Roman and Early Anglo-Saxon period from Hampshire was directly compared. It was concluded that the physical type represented in urban Roman burials, was not annihilated nor did it die-out, but it continued to be well represented in subsequent burials of Anglo-Saxon date.[146]
At Stretton-on-Fosse II (Warwickshire), located on the western fringes of the early Anglo-Saxon settlement area, the proportion of male adults with weapons is 82%, well above the average in southern England. Cemetery II, the Anglo-Saxon burial site, is immediately adjacent to two Romano-British cemeteries, Stretton-on-Fosse I and III, the latter only 60 metres (200 feet) away from Anglo-Saxon burials. Continuity of the native female population at this site has been inferred from the continuity of textile techniques (unusual in the transition from the Romano-British to the Anglo-Saxon periods), and by the continuity of epigenetic traits from the Roman to the Anglo-Saxon burials. At the same time, the skeletal evidence demonstrates the appearance in the post-Roman period of a new physical type of males who are more slender and taller than the men in the adjacent Romano-British cemeteries.[147] Taken together, the observations suggest the influx of a group of males, probably most or all of them Germanic, who took control of the local community and married native women. It is not easy to confirm such cases of 'warband' settlement in the absence of detailed skeletal, and other complementary, information, but assuming that such cases are indicated by very high proportions of weapon burials, this type of settlement was much less frequent than the kin group model.[114]
Nick Higham outlines the main questions:
"It is fairly clear that most Anglo-Saxon cemeteries are unrepresentative of the whole population, and particularly the whole age range. This was, therefore, a community which made decisions about the disposal of the dead based upon various factors, but at those we can barely guess. Was the inclusion of some but not all individuals subject to political control, or cultural screening? Was this a mark of ethnicity or did it represent a particular kinship, real or constructed, or the adherents of a particular cult? Was it status specific, with the rural proletariat – who would have been the vast majority of the population – perhaps excluded? So are many of these cemeteries associated with specific, high-status households and weighted particularly towards adult members? We do not know, but the commitment of particular parts of the community to an imported and in some senses 'Germanic', cremation ritual does seem to have been considerable, and is something which requires explanation."[17]
Molecular evidence[edit]
Various forms of molecular evidence have been employed to provide evidence for the Anglo-Saxon settlement.
Y-chromosome evidence[edit]
The inheritance of DNA is a complex process that varies between male and female individuals; consequently this allows the study of separate female and male lineages using mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA respectively.[148] Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA for short) and Y-chromosome DNA differ from the DNA of diploid nuclear chromosomes in that they are not formed from the combination of both parents' genes. Rather, males inherit the Y-chromosome directly from their fathers, and both sexes inherit mtDNA directly from their mothers. Consequently, they preserve a genetic record from individual to individual that is altered only through mutation.
An examination of Y-chromosome variation, sampled in an east–west transect across England and Wales, was compared with similar samples taken in Friesland and Norway. Friesland was selected for the study due to it being regarded as a source location for Anglo-Saxon migrants, and because of the similarities between Old English and Frisian. Samples from Norway were also compared, as this is a source of the later Viking migrations. It found that in England 50% to 100% of paternal genetic inheritance was derived from incomers originating in the Germanic coastlands of the North Sea.[149]
Research published in 2003 on Y-chromosome marker variation, taken from a larger sample population and from more sites throughout Britain, came to a different conclusion. This study suggested that in most of England, continental (North German and Danish) paternal genetic input varied between 20% and 40%, with York forming an outlier at about 60%. Southern England, including Kent, had markedly lower frequencies of non-indigenous Y-chromosome markers than eastern England, where Danish Viking settlement is attested. However, the study could not distinguish between North German and Danish populations, thus the relative proportions of genetic input derived from the Anglo-Saxon settlements and later Danish Viking colonisation could not be ascertained.[150]
Historical evidence suggests that following the Anglo-Saxon transition, people of indigenous ethnicity were at an economic and legal disadvantage compared to those having Anglo-Saxon ethnicity. This has led to the development of the "apartheid-like social structure" theory to explain this high contribution to the modern gene pool, where the proportion of settlers would be smaller.[151]
This view has been challenged by JE Pattison, who suggested that the Y-chromosome evidence could still support the idea of a small settlement of people without the apartheid-like structures.[152] In addition, there is no reliable method for dating the influx of genetic material into Britain from the Continent; and the genetic similarities between people on either side of the North Sea may reflect a cumulative process of population movement, possibly beginning well before the historically attested formation of the Anglo-Saxons or the invasions of the Vikings.[153] The 'apartheid theory' has received a considerable body of critical comment, especially the genetic studies from which it derives its rationale. Problems with the design of Weale's study and the level of historical naïvete evidenced by some population genetics studies have been particularly highlighted.[154][155][156][157][158]
Stephen Oppenheimer reviewed the Weale and Capelli studies and suggested that correlations of gene frequency mean nothing without a knowledge of the genetic prehistory of the regions in question. His criticism of these studies is that they generated models based on the historical evidence of Gildas and Procopius, and then selected methodologies to test against these populations. Weale's transect spotlights that Belgium is further west in the genetic map than North Walsham, Asbourne and Friesland. In Oppenheimer's view, this is evidence that the Belgae and other continental people – and hence continental genetic markers indistinguishable from those ascribed to Anglo-Saxons – arrived earlier and were already strong in the 5th century in particular regions or areas.[79] Oppenheimer, basing his research on the Weale and Capelli studies, maintains that none of the invasions since the Romans have had a significant impact on the gene pool of the British Isles, and that the inhabitants from prehistoric times belong to an Iberian genetic grouping. He says that most people in the British Isles are genetically similar to the Basque people of northern Spain and southwestern France, from 90% in Wales to 66% in East Anglia.[79] Oppenheimer suggests that the division between the West and the East of England is not due to the Anglo-Saxon invasion but originates with two main routes of genetic flow – one up the Atlantic coast, the other from neighbouring areas of Continental Europe – which occurred just after the Last Glacial Maximum.[79]Bryan Sykes, a former geneticist at Oxford University, came to fairly similar conclusions as Oppenheimer, which he set forth in his 2006 book called Blood of the Isles: Exploring the Genetic Roots of our Tribal Historypublished in the United States and Canada as Saxons, Vikings and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland. Many feasible scenarios can be constructed to account for evidence. However, Y-chromosome evidence relies on the archaeological and historical evidence for interpretation, and there is a danger of creating a circular argument. Therefore, scenarios that are not justified by other evidence or are created to account for the historical evidence have not been universally accepted.
Ancient DNA, rare alleles and whole genome sequencing[edit]
Modern population studies[edit]
A major study in 2015 by Leslie et al. on the fine scale genetic structure of the British population revealed a rich and detailed pattern of genetic differentiation with remarkable concordance between genetic clusters and geography in the British Isles, showing clear signals of historical demographic events. Based on two separate analyses, the study found clear evidence in modern England of the Anglo-Saxon migration and identified the regions not carrying genetic material from these migrations, but with each analysis limiting the proportion of Saxon ancestry and clearly excluding the possibility of long-term Saxon replacement. The proportion of Saxon ancestry in Central/Southern England was found to be very likely under 50%, and most likely in the range 10%-40%. Additionally, in the 'non-Saxon' parts of the UK there was found to exist genetically differentiated subgroups rather than a general 'Celtic' population.[159]
Ancient DNA studies[edit]
In 2016, through the investigation of burials using ancient DNA techniques, researchers found evidence of intermarriage and mixed ancestry in the earliest phase of Anglo-Saxon settlement. The highest status grave of the burials investigated, as evidenced by the associated goods, was that of a female of local, British, origins. It is notable that people of native, immigrant and mixed ancestry were buried in the same cemetery, with grave goods from the same material culture, without any discernable distinction. The authors remark that their results run contrary to previous theories that have postulated strict reproductive segregation between natives and incomers. By studying rare alleles and employing whole genome sequencing, it was claimed that the continental and insular origins of the ancient remains could be discriminated, and it was calculated that a range of 25–40% of the ancestry of modern Britons is attributable to continental 'Anglo-Saxon' origins. The breakdown of the estimates given in this work into the modern populations of Britain determined that the population of eastern England is consistent with 38% Anglo-Saxon ancestry on average, with a large spread from 25 to 50%, and the Welsh and Scottish samples are consistent with 30% Anglo-Saxon ancestry on average, again with a large spread. The study also found that there is a small but significant difference between the mean values in the three modern British sample groups, with East English samples sharing slightly more alleles with the Dutch, and Scottish samples looking more like the Iron Age (Celtic) samples. [160][161] Another 2016 study analyzed nine ancient genomes of individuals from northern Britain, with seven from a Roman-era cemetery in York, and the others from earlier Iron-Age and later Anglo-Saxon burials. Six of the Roman genomes showed affinity with modern British Celtic populations, such as the Welsh, but were significantly different from eastern English samples. They also were similar to the earlier Iron-Age genome, suggesting population continuity, but differed from the later Anglo-Saxon genome. This pattern was found to support a profound impact of migrations in the Anglo-Saxon period.[162]
Isotope analysis[edit]
Isotope analysis has begun to be employed to help answer the uncertainties regarding Anglo-Saxon migration; this can indicate whether a buried individual had always lived in the area he was buried in. However, the number of studies is small. Strontium data in a 5th–7th-century cemetery in West Heslerston implied the presence of two groups: one of "local" and one of "nonlocal" origin. Although the study suggested that they could not define the limits of local variation and identify immigrants with confidence, they could give a useful account of the issues.[163] Oxygen and strontium isotope data in an early Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Wally Corner, Berinsfield in the Upper Thames Valley, Oxfordshire, found only 5.3% of the sample originating from continental Europe, supporting the hypothesis of acculturation. Furthermore, they found that there was no change in this pattern over time, except amongst some females.[164]
Another isotopic method has been employed to investigate whether protein sources in human diets in the early Anglo-Saxon varied with geographic location, or with respect to age or sex. This would provide evidence for social advantage. The results suggest that protein sources varied little according to geographic location and that terrestrial foods dominated at all locations.[165]
Migration and acculturation theories[edit]
Various scholars have used a synthesis of evidence to present models to suggest an answer to the questions that surround the Anglo-Saxon settlement. These questions include: How many migrants were there? When did the "Saxons" gain political ascendency? What happened to the 'Romano-Brittonic' peoples in the south-east of Britain? The Anglo-Saxons were a mix of invaders, migrants and acculturated indigenous people. The ratios and relationships between these formative elements at the time of the Anglo-Saxon settlement are the subject of enquiry. The traditional interpretation[g] of the settlement of Britain has been subject to profound reappraisal, with scholars embracing the evidence for both migration and acculturation. Heinrich Härke explains the nature of this agreement:
"It is now widely accepted that the Anglo-Saxons were not just transplanted Germanic invaders and settlers from the Continent, but the outcome of insular interactions and changes. But we are still lacking explicit models that suggest how this ethnogenetic process might have worked in concrete terms".[166]
Estimating continental migrants' numbers[edit]
Knowing the number of migrants who came from the continent provides a context from which scholars can build an interpretation framework and understanding of the events of the 5th and 6th centuries. Robert Hedges in discussing this point observes that "archaeological evidence only addresses these issues indirectly."[167]
The traditional methodology used by archaeology to estimate the number of migrants starts with a figure for the population in Britain in the 3rd and 4th centuries. This is usually estimated at between 2 and 4 million.[168] From this figure it is estimated that the population of Southern and Eastern England is 1 million. Within 200 years the settlement density has been established as an Anglo-Saxon village every 2–5 kilometres (1.2–3.1 miles), in the areas where evidence has been gathered.[169] Given that these settlements are typically of around 50 people, this implies an Anglo-Saxon population in Southern and Eastern England of 250,000. This estimate is hardly certain, but does provide a ratio of 1 to 4, between those with a settler background and those with an insular background.
The number of migrants therefore depends on the variable of population increase, if the population rose by 1 per cent per year (which is slightly less than the present world population) this would suggest a population of 30,000 migrants. However, if the population rose by 2 percent per year (which is similar to India in the last 20 years) this would suggest a population of 5,000 migrants.[167]
This number is confirmed by the archaeological evidence. The excavations at Spong Hill, for example, revealed over 2,000 cremations and inhumations in what is a very large early cemetery. However, when the period of use is taken into account (over 200 years) and its size, it is presumed to be a major cemetery for the entire area and not just one village, it does point to a smaller rather than large number of original immigrants of 20,000.[170]
Heinrich Härke concluded that "most of the biological and cultural evidence points to a minority immigration on the scale of 10 to 20% of the native population. The immigration itself was not a single ‘invasion’, but rather a series of intrusions and immigrations over a considerable period, differing from region to region, and changing over time even within regions. The total immigrant population may have numbered somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 over about a century, but the geographical variations in numbers, and in social and ethnic composition, should have led to a variety of settlement processes."[114]
Generally, the problems associated with seeking estimates for the population before AD 1089 were set out by Mark Thomas, Michael Stumpf and Heinrich Härke. They suggest that "Incidental reports of numbers of immigrants are notoriously unreliable, and absolute numbers of immigrants before the Norman period can only be calculated as a proportion of the estimated overall population."[171]
However, there is a discrepancy between, on the one hand, archaeological and some historical ideas about the scale of the Anglo-Saxon immigration, and on the other, estimates of the genetic contribution of the Anglo-Saxon immigrants to the modern English gene pool (see "Molecular evidence" above). Mark Thomas, Michael Stumpf and Heinrich Härke created a statistical study of the two groups: those who held the "Migrant" Y chromosome and those that didn't. They examined the effect of differential reproductive success between those groups, coupled with limited intermarriage between the groups, on the spread of the genetic variant to discover whether the levels of migration needed to meet a 50% contribution to the modern gene pool. What they found is the genetic pool can rise from less than 5% to more than 50% in as little as 200 years with the addition of a slight increase in reproduction advantage of 1.8 (meaning a ratio 51.8 to 50) and restricting the amount of female (migrant genes) and male (indigenous genes) inter-breeding to at most 10%.[151]
"Saxon" political ascendancy in Britain[edit]
A re-evaluation of the traditional picture of decay and dissolution Post-Roman Britain has occurred, with sub-Roman Britain being thought rather more a part of the Late Antique world of western Europe than was customary a half century ago.[172] As part of this re-evaluation some suggest that sub-Roman Britain, in its entirety, retained a significant political, economic and military momentum across the fifth century and even the bulk of the sixth. This in large part stems from attempts to develop visions of British success against the incoming Anglo-Saxons, as suggested by the Chronicles which were written in the ninth and mid-tenth century. However, recent scholarship has contested the extent to which either can be credited with any level of historicity regarding the decades around AD 500.[173]
The representation of long-lasting British triumphs against the Saxons appears in large parts of the Chronicles, but stem ultimately from Gildas's brief and frustratingly elusive reference to a British victory at Mons Badonicus – Mount Badon (see historical evidence above). Nick Higham suggests, that the war between Britons and Saxons seems to have ended in some sort of compromise, which conceded a very considerable sphere of influence within Britain to the incomers. According to Higham;
- The most developed vision of a ‘big’ sub-Roman Britain, with control over its own political and military destiny for well over a century, is that of Kenneth Dark, who has argued that Britain should not be divided during the fifth, and even the bulk of the sixth, century into ‘British’ and ‘Anglo-Saxon’ cultural and/or political provinces, but should be thought of as a generally ‘British’ whole. His thesis, in brief, is to postulate not just survival but continuing cultural, political and military power for the sub-Roman elite, both in the far west (where this view is comparatively uncontroversial) but also in the east, where it has to be imagined alongside incoming settlements. He postulates the sub-Roman community to have been the dominant force in insular affairs right up to c.570.[174]
Kenneth Dark's argument for continuing British military and political power in the east rests on the very uneven distribution of Anglo-Saxon cemeteries and the proposition that large gaps in that distribution necessarily represent strong British polities which excluded Anglo-Saxon settlers by force.[175] Cremation cemeteries in eastern Britain north of the Thames begin during the second quarter of the fifth century,[176] backed up by new archaeological phases before 450 (see Archaeological evidence above). The chronology of this "adventus" of cremations is supported by the Gallic Chronicle of 452, which states that wide parts of Britain fell under Saxon rule in 441. However, this did not result in many Brittonic words entering Old English. It seems therefore that no large-scale interaction occurred between incoming "Germanic" communities and numerous indigenous Brittonic speakers of equivalent social rank. If such interaction had been widespread, then we might have expected far greater language borrowing both in terms of structure and vocabulary (see linguistic evidence above).
'Romano-Brittonic' peoples' fate in the south-east[edit]
The most extreme estimation for the size of the Anglo-Saxon settlement suggests that some 80% of the resident population of Britain were not Anglo-Saxon. Given that, explanation has been sought to account for the change in culture of the Britons to one where by the 8th Century the majority of people in southern Britain saw themselves as heirs to the Anglo-Saxon culture. Whilst the developments were rather complicated, there are two competing theories.
One theory, first set out by Edward Augustus Freeman, suggests that the Anglo Saxons and the Britons were competing cultures, and that through invasion, extermination, slavery, and forced resettlement the Anglo-Saxons defeated the Britons and consequently their culture and language prevailed.[177]
This view has influenced much of the linguistic, scholarly and popular perceptions of the process of anglicisation in Britain. It remains the starting point and 'default position', to which other hypotheses are compared in modern reviews of the evidence.[178] Widespread extermination and displacement of the native peoples of Britain is still considered a viable possibility by certain scholars.[179] Our best contemporary source, Gildas, certainly suggests that just such a change of populations did take place. However, Freeman's ideas did not go unchallenged, even as they were being propounded. In particular, the essayist Grant Allen believed in a strong Celtic contribution to Englishness.
Another theory has challenged this view and started to examine evidence that the majority of Anglo Saxons were Brittonic in origin. The major evidence comes firstly from the figures, taking a fairly high Anglo-Saxon figure (200,000) and a low Brittonic one (800,000), Britons are likely to have outnumbered Anglo-Saxons by at least four to one. The interpretation of such figures is that while "culturally, the later Anglo-Saxons and English did emerge as remarkably un-British, ... their genetic, biological make-up is none the less likely to have been substantially, indeed predominantly, British".[180]
Two processes leading to Anglo-Saxonisation have been proposed. One is similar to culture changes observed in Russia, North Africa and parts of the Islamic world; where a politically and socially powerful minority culture becomes, over a rather short period, adopted by a settled majority. A process usually termed 'elite dominance'.[181]
The second process is explained through incentives, such as the Wergild outlined in the law code of Ine of Wessex which produced an incentive to become Anglo-Saxon or at least English speaking.[151] The wergild of an Englishman was set at a value twice that of a Briton of similar wealth. However, some Britons could be very prosperous and own five hides of land, which gave thegn-like status, with a wergild of 600 shillings.[182] Ine set down requirements to prove guilt or innocence, both for his English subjects and for his British subjects, who were termed 'foreigners/wealas' ('Welshmen').[183] The binary ethnic distinction that appears in Ine's Laws seems to be between ' Englisc/English ('us') and 'Wylisc/Welsh' ('them'). Since Ine's people self-identified as Saxons (West Saxons) this very early use of the word 'English' (unless it is a later introduction into the text) suggests that it was the use of a particular language, already recognised as a single language, and already called 'English', that was the crucial determinant in ethnic identity. This implies that in the early Anglo-Saxon period it was language use that was the key determination of ethnicity, and not whether you had "Germanic" ancestors.
Whatever the case, a continuity of 'sub-Roman' Britons cannot be doubted, as evidenced, for example, by the sheer number of burials which already date to the late 5th and early 6th centuries - otherwise impossible to maintain by even the largest 'migration' estimates. In addition to the 'highland Tyrants' in the west, the case has been made by persistence of a 'native', post-Roman, polity of sorts south of the Thames during much of the fifth century- evidenced by the oppositional deposition of Quoit Brooch Style artefacts in inhumation burials south of the Thames versus 'Scandinavian' artefacts (such as 'square headed brooches') within predominantly cremation burial settings dominate north of the Thames (i.e. in "Anglian" areas). However, a take-over by continental migrants cannot be denied, as evidenced by an abrupt end of Quoit Broch style artefacts and inundation of exotic artefacts of a "Jutish' character in the final decade or two of the fifth century.[184] Thus Ken Dark's notion of a long chronology of a surviving, even dominant "sub-Roman" Britain finds little support.[185] Moreover, Halsall argues that 'Britons' are scarcely if at all visible in the archaeological record of lowland England by the 6th century and beyond, not because of any bizarre notions of ethnic cleansing or 'apartheid', but simply because, by then, everyone was an 'Anglo-Saxon', whatever their geographic origin.[186]
Aspects of the success of the Anglo-Saxon settlement[edit]
The reasons for the success of Anglo-Saxon settlements remains uncertain. Helena Hamerow has made an observation that in Anglo-Saxon society "local and extended kin groups remained ... the essential unit of production throughout the Anglo-Saxon period". "Local and extended kin groups" is one of a number of possible reasons for success; along with societal advantages, freedom and the relationship to an elite, that allowed the Anglo-Saxons' culture and language to flourish in the fifth and sixth centuries.[187]
Anglo-Saxon political formation[edit]
Nick Higham is convinced that the success of the Anglo-Saxon elite in gaining an early compromise shortly after the Battle of Badon is a key to the success of the culture. This produced a political ascendancy across the south and east of Britain, which in turn required some structure to be successful.[188]
The Bretwalda concept is taken as evidence for a presence of a number of early Anglo-Saxon elite families and a clear unitary oversight. Whether the majority of these leaders were early settlers, descendant from settlers, or especially after the exploration stage they were Roman-British leaders who adopted Anglo-Saxon culture is unclear. The balance of opinion is that most were migrants, although it shouldn't be assumed they were all Germanic (see Elite personal names evidence). There is agreement: that these were small in number and proportion, yet large enough in power and influence to ensure "Anglo-Saxon" acculturation in the lowlands of Britain.[189] Most historians believe these elites were those named by Bede, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and others, although there is discussion regarding their floruit dates. Importantly, whatever their origin or when they flourished, they established their claim to lordship through their links to extended kin ties. As Helen Peake jokingly points out "they all just happened to be related back to Woden".[190]
The Tribal Hidage is evidence of the existence of numerous smaller provinces, meaning that southern and eastern Britain may have lost any macro-political cohesion in the fifth and sixth centuries and fragmented into many small autonomous units, though late Roman administrative organisation of the countryside may have helped dictate their boundaries. By the end of the sixth century the leaders of these communities were styling themselves kings, with the majority of the larger kingdoms based on the south or east coasts.[191] They include the provinces of the Jutes of Hampshire and Wight, the South Saxons, Kent, the East Saxons, East Angles, Lindsey and (north of the Humber) Deira and Bernicia. Several of these kingdoms may have their foundation the former Roman civitas and this has been argued as particularly likely for the provinces of Kent, Lindsey, Deira and Bernicia, all of whose names derive from Romano-British tribal or district names.[34]
The southern and east coasts were, of course, the areas settled first and in greatest numbers by the settlers and so presumably were the earliest to pass from Romano-British to Anglo-Saxon control. Once established they had the advantage of easy communication with continental territories in Europe via the North Sea or the Channel. The east and south coast provinces may never have fragmented to the extent of some areas inland and by the end of the sixth century they were already beginning to expand by annexing smaller neighbours. Barbara Yorke suggests that such aggressiveness must have encouraged areas which did not already possess military protection in the form of kings and their armies to acquire their own war-leaders or protection alliances.[104] By the time of the Tribal Hidage there were also two large 'inland' kingdoms, those of the Mercians and West Saxons, whose spectacular growth we can trace in par in our sources for the seventh century, but it is not clear how far this expansion had proceeded by the end of the sixth century.[191]
What Bede seems to imply in his Bretwalda list of the elite is the ability to extract tribute and overawe and/or protect communities, which may well have been relatively short-lived in any one instance, but ostensibly "Anglo-Saxon" dynasties variously replaced one another in this role in a discontinuous but influential and potent roll call of warrior elites, with very few interruptions from other "British" warlords.[192] The success of this elite was felt beyond their geography, to include neighbouring British territories in the centre and west of what later became England, and even the far west of the island. Again, Bede was very clear that English imperium could on occasion encompass British and English kingships alike,[193] and that Britons and Angles marched to war together in the early seventh century, under both British and English kings.[194] It is Bede who provides the most vivid picture of a late sixth- and early seventh-century Anglian warlord in action, in the person of Æthelfrith of Northumbria, King of Bernicia (a kingdom with a non-English name), who rapidly built up a personal 'empire' by military victories over the Britons of the North, the Scots of Dalriada, the Angles of Deira and the Britons of north-eastern Wales, only ultimately to experience disaster at the hands of Rædwald of East Anglia.[195]
Rural freedoms and kinship groups[edit]
Where arable cultivation continued in early Anglo-Saxon England, there seems to have been considerable continuity with the Roman period in both field layout and arable practices, although we do not know whether there were also changes to patterns of tenure or the regulation of cultivation. The greatest perceptible alterations in land usage between about 400 and 600 are therefore in the proportions of the land of each community that lay under grass or the plough, rather than in changes to the layout or management of arable fields.[196]
The Anglo-Saxons settled in small groups covering a handful of widely dispersed local communities.[197] These farms were for the most part mobile. This mobility, which was typical across much of Northern Europe took two forms: the gradual shifting of the settlement within its boundaries or the complete location of the settlement altogether. These shifting settlements (called Wandersiedlungen or "wandering settlements") were a common feature since the Bronze Age. Why farms became abandoned and then relocated is much debated. However it is suggested that this might be related to the death of a patron of the family or the desire to move to better farmlands.[198]
These farms are often falsely supposed to be "peasant farms". However, a ceorlwho was the lowest ranking freeman in early Anglo-Saxon society, was not a peasant but an arms-owning male with access to law, support of a kindred and the wergild, situated at the apex of an extended household working at least one hide of land. It is the ceorl that we should associate with the standard 8–10 metres (26–33 feet) x 4–5 metres (13–16 feet) post-hole building of the early Anglo-Saxon period, grouped with others of the same kin group. Each such household head had a number of less-free dependants.[199]
The success of the rural world in the 5th and 6th centuries, according to the landscape archaeology, was due to three factors: the continuity with the past, with no evidence of up-rooting in the landscape; farmer's freedom and rights over lands, with provision of a rent or duty to an overlord, who provided only slight lordly input; and the common outfield arable land (of an outfield-infield system) that provided the ability to build kinship and group cultural ties.
Material culture[edit]
The origins of the timber building tradition seen in early Anglo-Saxon England has generated a lot of debate which has mirrored a wider debate about the cultural affinities of Anglo-Saxon material culture.
Philip Rahtz asserted that buildings seen in West Stow and Mucking had late Roman origins.[200] Archaeologist Philip Dixon noted the striking similarity between Anglo-Saxon timber halls and Romano-British rural houses. The Anglo-Saxons did not import the 'long-house', the traditional dwelling of the continental Germanic peoples, to Britain. Instead they upheld a local vernacular British building tradition dating back to the late first century. This has been interpreted as evidence of the endurance of kinship and household structures from the Roman into the Anglo-Saxon period.[201][202]
However, this has been considered too neat an explanation for all the evidence. Anne and Gary Marshall summarise the situation:
"One of the main problems in Anglo-Saxon archaeology has been to account for the apparent uniqueness of the English timber structures of the period. These structures seem to bear little resemblance either to earlier Romano-British or to continental models. In essence, the problem is that the hybrid Anglo-Saxon style seems to appear full-blown with no examples of development from the two potentially ancestral traditions … The consensus of the published work was that the Anglo-Saxon building style was predominantly home-grown." [203]
For Bryan Ward-Perkins the answer is found in the success of the Anglo-Saxon culture and highlights the micro-diversity and larger cohesion that produced a dynamic force in comparison to the Brittonic culture[181] From beads and quoits to clothes and houses, there is something unique happening in the early Anglo-Saxon period. The material culture evidence shows that people adopted and adapted styles based on set roles and styles. John Hines, commenting on the diversity of nearly a thousand glass beads and many different clothes clasps from Lakenheath, states that these reveal a "society where people relied on others to fulfill a role" and "what they had around them was making a statement", not one about the individual, but about "identity between small groups not within small groups".[204]
Julian Richards commenting on this and other evidence suggests:
"[The Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain] was more complex than a mass invasion bringing fully formed lifestyles and beliefs. The early Anglo-Saxon, just like today's migrants, were probably riding different cultural identities. They brought from their homelands the traditions of their ancestors. But they would have been trying to work out not only who they were, but who they wanted to be … and forge an identity for those who followed."[205]
Looking beyond simplistic 'homeland' scenarios, and explaining the observations that 'Anglo-Saxon' houses and other aspects of material culture do not find exact matches in the 'Germanic homelands' in Europe, Halsall explains the changes within the context of a larger 'North Sea interaction zone', including lowland England, Northern Gaul and northern Germany. These areas experienced marked social and cultural changes in the wake of Roman collapse—experienced not only within the former Roman provinces (Gaul, Britain) but also in Barbaricum itself. All three areas experienced changes in social structure, settlement patterns and ways of expressing identities, as well as tensions which created push and pull factors for migrations in, perhaps, multiple directions.[206]
Culture of belief[edit]
The study of pagan religious practice in the early Anglo-Saxon period is difficult. Most of the texts that may contain relevant information are not contemporary, but written later by Christian writers who tended to have a hostile attitude to pre-Christian beliefs, and who may have distorted their portrayal of them. Much of the information used to reconstruct Anglo-Saxon paganism comes from later Scandinavian and Icelandic texts and there is a debate about how relevant these are. The study of pagan Anglo-Saxon beliefs has often been approached with reference to Roman or even Greek typologies and categories. Archaeologists therefore use such terms as gods, myths, temples, sanctuaries, priests, magic and cults. Charlotte Behr argues that this provides a worldview of Anglo-Saxon practice culture which is unhelpful.[207]
Peter Brown employed a new method of looking at the belief systems of the fifth to seventh centuries, by arguing for a model of religion which was typified by a pick and choose approach. The period was exceptional because there was no orthodoxy or institutions to control or hinder the people. This freedom of culture is seen also in the Roman-British community and is very evident in the complaints of Gildas.[208]
One Anglo-Saxon cultural practice that is better understood are the burial customs, due in part to archaeological excavations at various sites including Sutton Hoo, Spong Hill, Prittlewell, Snape and Walkington Wold, and the existence of around 1,200 pagan (or non-Christian) cemeteries. There was no set form of burial, with cremation being preferred in the north and inhumation in the south, although both forms were found throughout England, sometimes in the same cemeteries. When cremation did take place, the ashes were usually placed within an urn and then buried, sometimes along with grave goods.[209] According to archaeologist Dave Wilson, "the usual orientation for an inhumation in a pagan Anglo-Saxon cemetery was west–east, with the head to the west, although there were often deviations from this."[210] Indicative of possible religious belief, grave goods were common amongst inhumation burials as well as cremations; free Anglo-Saxon men were buried with at least one weapon in the pagan tradition, often a seax, but sometimes also with a spear, sword or shield, or a combination of these.[209] There are also a number of recorded cases of parts of animals being buried within such graves. Most common amongst these was body parts belonging to either goats or sheep, although parts of oxen were also relatively common, and there are also isolated cases of goose, crab apples, duck eggs and hazelnuts being buried in graves. It is widely thought therefore that such items constituted a food source for the deceased.[211] In some cases, animal skulls, particularly oxen but also pig, were buried in human graves, a practice that was also found earlier in Roman Britain.[209]
There is also evidence for the continuation of Christianity in south and east Britain. The Christian shrine at St Albans and its martyr cult survived throughout the period (see Gildas above). There are references in Anglo-Saxon poetry, including Beowulf, that show some interaction between pagan and Christian practices and values. While there is little scholarly focus on this subject, there is enough evidence from Gildas and elsewhere that it is safe to assume some continuing - perhaps more free - form of Christianity survived. Richard Whinder states "(The Church's pre-Augustine) characteristics place it in continuity with the rest of the Christian Church in Europe at that time and, indeed, in continuity with the Catholic faith ... today." [212]
The complexity of belief, indicated by various pieces of evidence, is disturbing to those looking for easy categories. The extent to which belief was discursive and free during the settlement period suggests a lack of proscription, indeed, this might be a characteristic of Anglo-Saxon cultural success.
Language and literature[edit]
Little is known about the everyday spoken language of people living in the migration period. Old English is a contact language and it is hard to reconstruct the pidgin used in this period from the written language found in the West Saxon literature of some 400 years later. Two general theories are proposed regarding why people changed their language to Old English (or an early form of such): either a person or household changed so as to serve an elite, or a person or household changed through choice as it provided some advantage economically or legally.[213]
According to Nick Higham, the adoption of the language—as well as the material culture and traditions—of an Anglo-Saxon elite, "by large numbers of the local people seeking to improve their status within the social structure, and undertaking for this purpose rigorous acculturation", is the key to understanding the transition from Romano-British to Anglo-Saxon. The progressive nature of this language acquisition, and the 'retrospective reworking' of kinship ties to the dominant group led, ultimately, to the "myths which tied the entire society to immigration as an explanation of their origins in Britain".[214]
The final few lines of the poem The Battle of Brunanburh, a tenth-century Anglo-Saxon poem that celebrates a victory of Æthelstan, the first king of all the English, give a poetic voice to the English conception of their origins.[215]
| Old English | Modern English |
...Engle and Seaxe upp becomon, | ...Angles and Saxons came up |
This 'heroic tradition' of conquering incomers is consistent with the conviction of Bede, and later Anglo-Saxon historians, that the ancestral origin of the English was not the result of any assimilation with the native British, but was derived solely from the Germanic migrants of the post-Roman period. It also explains the enduring appeal of poems and heroic stories such as Beowulf, Wulf and Eadwacer and Judith, well into the Christian period. The success of the language is the most obvious result of the settlement period. This language was not just the language of acculturation, but through the stories, poetry and oral traditions became the agency of change.
Nick Higham has provided this summary of the processes:
"As Bede later implied, language was a key indicator of ethnicity in early England. In circumstances where freedom at law, acceptance with the kindred, access to patronage, and the use of possession of weapons were all exclusive to those who could claim Germanic descent, then speaking Old English without Latin or Brittonic inflection had considerable value."[216]
See also[edit]
- ^ A sample of this discussion can be seen on the television series Britain AD: King Arthur's Britainparticularly the discussion between Francis Pryor and Heinrich Härke.[2]
- ^ Based on Jones & Mattingly's Atlas of Roman Britain (ISBN 978-1-84217-067-0, 1990, reprinted 2007); Mattingly's Imperial Possession (ISBN 978-0-14-014822-0, 2006); Higham's Rome, Britain, and the Anglo-Saxons (ISBN 1-85264-022-7, 1992); Frere's Britannia (ISBN 0-7102-1215-1, 1987); and Snyder's An Age of Tyrants (ISBN 978-0-631-22260-6) — the sources are cited in the image legend — Locations of towns (fortified and unfortified) are given on p. 156, with tribal civitates and coloniae specified on p. 154, of Atlas of Roman Britain. Specification of the Romanised regions of Britain are also from the Atlas, p. 151. The "Departure Dates" are found in the cited sources, and are generally known. The Pictish, Saxon, and Scoti raids are found in the cited sources, as is the date of the Irish settlements in Wales. Frere suggests (p. 355) that it was the Irish who sacked Wroxeter c. 383. The locations of the Irish settlements is from the locations of inscription stones given in File:Britain.Deisi.Laigin.jpg as of 2010[update]-10-11, which cites its sources of information.
- ^ Throughout this article Anglo-Saxon is used for Saxon, Angles, Jute or Frisian unless it is specific to a point being made;"Anglo-Saxon" is used when specifically the culture is meant rather than any ethnicity. However all these terms are interchangeable used by scholars
- ^ By the waning years of the Roman Empire, Britain was earning a special reputation as a "province fertile with tyrants". These tyrants dominate the historical accounts of the 5th and 6th centuries and the work tells us much about the transition from magisterial to monarchical power in Britain.
- ^ The phrase which mentions 40 years has been subject of much scholarly discussion. See Battle of Badon for more details.
- ^ From patrius ("of or pertaining to a father"), from pater ("father"), and cognate with Ancient Greek πατριά (patria"generation, ancestry, descent, tribe, family") and πατρίς (patris"place of one's ancestors")
- ^ The sudden and drastic change from Romano-Britainto Anglo-Saxon Britain was once widely accepted as providing clear evidence for a mass migration from continental Europe and the near-complete replacement of the indigenous population in England
Citations[edit]
- ^ The area of Lothian in modern Scotland was also anglicised in this period, following the conquest of the British 'kingdom' of Manau Gododdin. It formed part of the Anglian kingdoms of Bernicia and Northumbria, only becoming a part of Scotland as late as 1018, when a recent Scottish annexation was recognised by the English. See: Fry, P.S. and Mitchison, R. (1985) The History of ScotlandRoutledge, p. 48
- ^ Channel 4 2004, Episode 3 Britain AD: King Arthur's Britain.
- ^ Brugmann, B. Migration and Endogenous Change in The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology (2011), Hamerow, H., Hinton, D.A. and Crawford, S. (eds.), OUP Oxford, pp. 30-45
- ^ Heinrich Härke, 'Anglo-Saxon Immigration and Ethnogenesis', Medieval Archaeology55 (2011), 1–28.
- ^ P. Salway, Roman Britain (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1981), pp. 295–311, 318, 322, 349, 356, 380, 401–5
- ^ S. S. Frere, Verulamium Excavations, II (London, Society of Antiquaries, 1983).
- ^ M. G. Fulford, 'Excavations on the sites of the amphitheatre and forum-basilica at Silchester, Hampshire: an interim report', Antiquaries Journal, 65, 1985, pp. 39–81; Fulford, Guide to the Silchester excavations: the Forum basilica 1982–4 (Reading, Department of Archaeology, University of Reading, 1985); Fulford, The Silchester amphitheatre: excavations of 1979–85 (London, Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, 1989).
- ^ P. Barker et al., The Baths Basilica, Wroxeter: Excavations 1966–90 (London, English Heritage Archaeological Reports 8, 1997). The general point of urban decline is made by A. Woolf, 'The Britons', in Regna and Gentes: The Relationship between Late Antique and Early Medieval Peoples and Kingdoms in the Transformation of the Roman World, eds H.-W. Goetz, J. Jarnut and W. Pohl (Leiden, Brill, 2003), pp. 362–3
- ^ A. B. E. Hood (ed. and trans.), St. Patrick: His Writings and Muirchu's Life (Chichester, Phillimore, 1978); M. Winterbottom (ed. and trans.), Gildas: The Ruin of Britain and other works (Chichester, Phillimore, 1978). Neither text is securely dated but both are clearly post-Roman and Patrick at least is generally assumed to be a 5th-century author. For the dating of Gildas, see variously D. N. Dumville 'The Chronology of De Excidio Britanniae, Book I', in Gildas: New Approaches, eds M. Lapidge and D. N. Dumville (Woodbridge, Boydell and Brewer, 1984), pp. 61–84; N. J. Higham, The English Conquest: Gildas and Britain in the Fifth Century (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1994), pp. 118–45.
- ^ Higham & Ryan 2013:7"The Anglo-Saxon World"
- ^ a b Jones & Casey 1988:367–98 "The Gallic Chronicle Restored: a Chronology for the Anglo-Saxon Invasions and the End of Roman Britain"
- ^ Miller, Molly (1978): The Last British Entry in the 'Gallic Chronicles', in: Britannia 9, pp. 315–318.
- ^ Ian Wood, 'The end of Roman Britain: Continental evidence and parallels', p19, In: Lapidge, M. and Dumville, D. (eds.). Gildas: New Approaches. Woodbridge, Boydell. 1984
- ^ Procopius, History of the Wars, III.2.38
- ^ Snyder 1998, Age of Tyrants.
- ^ Winterbottom, M. (1978), De Excidio britanniae, Chichester The standard modern edition and translation.
- ^ a b Higham, Nick. "From sub-Roman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England: Debating the Insular Dark Ages." History Compass 2.1 (2004).
- ^ Heather, Peter J., and P. J. Heather. Goths and Romans, 332-489. Clarendon Press, 1991.
- ^ Snyder 1998:Chapter 5, Age of Tyrants
- ^ Daniell, Christopher. "The geographical perspective of Gildas." Britannia 25 (1994): 213-217.
- ^ Snyder 1998:85
- ^ De Excidio XXI, 1, Winterbottom, Gildas, p. 24.
- ^ De Excidio I, 5, Winterbottom, Gildas, pp. 13–14.
- ^ a b Winterbottom, M. (1978), De Excidio britanniae, Chichester The standard modern edition and translation. Chapter 27
- ^ Giles 1843a:72–73, Bede's Ecclesiastical HistoryBk I, Ch 15.
- ^ Brugmann, B. I. R. T. E. "Migration and endogenous change." The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology (2011): 30-45.
- ^ Giles 1843a:72–73, Bede's Ecclesiastical HistoryBk 2, Ch 5.
- ^ a b Keynes, Simon. "England, 700-900." The New Cambridge Medieval History 2 (1995): 18-42.
- ^ See Coates 2007 for such a view which is made to fit with Bede
- ^ McKinney, Windy A. "Creating a gens Anglorum: Social and Ethnic Identity in Anglo-Saxon England through the Lens of Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica." (2011).
- ^ Nicholas Higham, The Kingdom of Northumbria: AD 350-1100. Stroud: Alan Sutton Publishing, Inc., 1993. p75
- ^ Davies, Wendy & Hayo Vierck - The Contexts of the Tribal Hidage: Social Aggregates and Settlement Patterns, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 8, 1974
- ^ Dumville, D.N. (1986) 'The West Saxon Genealogical Regnal List: manuscripts and texts', in Anglia 104, 1-32
- ^ a b Laycock, Stuart. Britannia-The Failed State: Tribal Conflict and the End of Roman Britain. History Press, 2012.
- ^ Kooper, Erik, ed. The Medieval Chronicle II: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Medieval Chronicle, Driebergen/Utrecht 16–21 July 1999. Vol. 144. Rodopi, 2002. p167
- ^ Kenneth Hurlstone Jackson, Language and History in Early Britain: A Chronological Survey of the Brittonic Languages, First to Twelfth Century A.D., Edinburgh University Publications, Language and Literature, 4 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1953), p. 220.
- ^ Map by Alaric Hall, first published here as part of Bethany Fox, 'The P-Celtic Place-Names of North-East England and South-East Scotland', The Heroic Age10 (2007).
- ^ Cf. Hans Frede Nielsen, The Continental Backgrounds of English and its Insular Development until 1154 (Odense, 1998), pp. 77–9; Peter Trudgill, New-Dialect Formation: The Inevitability of Colonial Englishes (Edinburgh, 2004), p. 11.
- ^ Ward-Perkins, 'Why did the Anglo-Saxons', 258, suggested that the successful native resistance of local, militarised tribal societies to the invaders may perhaps account for the fact of the slow progress of Anglo-Saxonisation as opposed to the sweeping conquest of Gaul by the Franks.
- ^ Chris Wickham, Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean 400-800 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 311-12.
- ^ a b Hills C.M. (2013). Anglo-Saxon Migrations. The Encyclopedia of Global Human Migration. Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781444351071.wbeghm029.
- ^ Kastovsky, Dieter, ‘Semantics and Vocabulary’, in The Cambridge History of the English Language, Volume 1: The Beginnings to 1066ed. by Richard M. Hogg (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 290–408 (pp. 301–20).
- ^ a b Matthew Townend, 'Contacts and Conflicts: Latin, Norse, and French', in The Oxford History of Englished. by Lynda Mugglestone, rev. edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 75–105 (pp. 78–80).
- ^ A. Wollmann, 'Lateinisch-Altenglische Lehnbeziehungen im 5. und 6. Jahrhundert', in Britain 400–600ed. by A. Bammesberger and A. Wollmann, Anglistische Forschungen, 205 (Heidelberg: Winter, 1990), pp. 373–96.
- ^ Nicholas J. Higham and Martin J. Ryan, The Anglo-Saxon World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), pp. 99–101.
- ^ E.g. Richard Coates and Andrew Breeze, Celtic Voices, English Places: Studies of the Celtic impact on place-names in Britain(Stamford: Tyas, 2000).
- ^ Nicholas J. Higham and Martin J. Ryan, The Anglo-Saxon World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), pp. 98–101.
- ^ D. Hooke, 'The Anglo-Saxons in England in the seventh and eighth centuries: aspects of location in space', in The Anglo-Saxons from the Migration Period to the Eighth Century: an Ethnographic Perspectiveed. by J. Hines (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1997), 64–99 (p. 68).
- ^ O. J. Padel. 2007. “Place-names and the Saxon conquest of Devon and Cornwall.” In Britons in Anglo-Saxon England [Publications of the Manchester Centre for Anglo-Saxon Studies 7]N. Higham (ed.), 215–230. Woodbridge: Boydell.
- ^ R. Coates. 2007. “Invisible Britons: The view from linguistics.” In Britons in Anglo-Saxon England [Publications of the Manchester Centre for Anglo-Saxon Studies 7]N. Higham (ed.), 172–191. Woodbridge: Boydell.
- ^ Peter Schrijver, Language Contact and the Origins of the Germanic LanguagesRoutledge Studies in Linguistics, 13 (New York: Routledge, 2014), quoting p. 16.
- ^ D. Gary Miller, External Influences on English: From Its Beginnings to the Renaissance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 35–40).
- ^ Kastovsky, Dieter, ‘Semantics and Vocabulary’, in The Cambridge History of the English Language, Volume 1: The Beginnings to 1066ed. by Richard M. Hogg (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 290–408 (pp. 317–18).
- ^ Chris Wickham, The Inheritance of Rome: A History of Europe from 400 to 1000 (London: Allen Lane, 2009), p. 157.
- ^ Quoting Matthew Townend, 'Contacts and Conflicts: Latin, Norse, and French', in The Oxford History of Englished. by Lynda Mugglestone, rev. edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 75–105 (p. 80).
- ^ Alaric Hall, 'The Instability of Place-names in Anglo-Saxon England and Early Medieval Wales, and the Loss of Roman Toponymy', in Sense of Place in Anglo-Saxon Englanded. by Richard Jones and Sarah Semple (Donington: Tyas, 2012), pp. 101–29 (pp. 102–3).
- ^ Pryor 2005 Pryor, Francis. Britain AD: A Quest for Arthur, England and the Anglo-Saxons. HarperCollins UK, 2009.
- ^ D. Gary Miller, External Influences on English: From Its Beginnings to the Renaissance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 35–40.
- ^ Nicholas J. Higham and Martin J. Ryan, The Anglo-Saxon World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), pp. 97–99.
- ^ Quoting Nicholas J. Higham and Martin J. Ryan, The Anglo-Saxon World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), p. 99.
- ^ Alaric Hall, 'The Instability of Place-names in Anglo-Saxon England and Early Medieval Wales, and the Loss of Roman Toponymy', in Sense of Place in Anglo-Saxon Englanded. by Richard Jones and Sarah Semple (Donington: Tyas, 2012), pp. 101–29 (pp. 112–13).
- ^ Higham and Ryan (2013), p. 100.
- ^ Smith, C. 1980. “The survival of Romano-British toponymy.” Nomina 4: 27–40.
- ^ Carole Hough. 2004. The (non?)-survival of Romano-British toponymy. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 105:25–32.
- ^ Bethany Fox, 'The P-Celtic Place-Names of North-East England and South-East Scotland', The Heroic Age10 (2007), §23.
- ^ Alaric Hall, ‘A gente Anglorum appellatur: The Evidence of Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum for the Replacement of Roman Names by English Ones During the Early Anglo-Saxon Period', in Words in Dictionaries and History: Essays in Honour of R. W. McConchieed. by Olga Timofeeva and Tanja Säily, Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice, 14 (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2011), pp. 219–31.
- ^ Barrie Cox, ‘The Place-Names of the Earliest English Records’, Journal of the English Place-Name Society, 8 (1975–76), 12–66.
- ^ a b Alaric Hall, 'The Instability of Place-names in Anglo-Saxon England and Early Medieval Wales, and the Loss of Roman Toponymy', in Sense of Place in Anglo-Saxon Englanded. by Richard Jones and Sarah Semple (Donington: Tyas, 2012), pp. 101–29 (pp. 108–9).
- ^ a b Nicholas J. Higham and Martin J. Ryan, The Anglo-Saxon World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), pp. 100–101.
- ^ Filppula, Markku, and Juhani Klemola, eds. 2009. Re-evaluating the Celtic Hypothesis. Special issue of English Language and Linguistics 13.2.
- ^ The Celtic Roots of Englished. by Markku Filppula, Juhani Klemola and Heli Pitkänen, Studies in Languages, 37 (Joensuu: University of Joensuu, Faculty of Humanities, 2002).
- ^ Hildegard L. C. Von Tristram (ed.), The Celtic EnglishesAnglistische Forschungen 247, 286, 324, 3 vols (Heidelberg: Winter, 1997–2003).
- ^ Peter Schrijver, Language Contact and the Origins of the Germanic LanguagesRoutledge Studies in Linguistics, 13 (New York: Routledge, 2014), pp. 12–93.
- ^ Poussa, Patricia. 1990. 'A Contact-Universals Origin for Periphrastic Do, with Special Consideration of OE-Celtic Contact'. In Papers from the Fifth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, ed. Sylvia Adamson, Vivien Law, Nigel Vincent, and Susan Wright, 407–34. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
- ^ Paul Russell, 'Latin and British in Roman and Post-Roman Britain: methodology and morphology', Transactions of the Royal Philological Society109.2 (July 2011), 138–57.
- ^ Peter Schrijver, Language Contact and the Origins of the Germanic LanguagesRoutledge Studies in Linguistics, 13 (New York: Routledge, 2014), pp. 31–91.
- ^ D. Gary Miller, External Influences on English: From Its Beginnings to the Renaissance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 25–28.
- ^ Quoting D. Gary Miller, External Influences on English: From Its Beginnings to the Renaissance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 35–40 (p. 39).
- ^ a b c d Oppenheimer, Stephen (2006). The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story: Constable and Robinson, London. ISBN 978-1-84529-158-7.
- ^ Alaric Hall, 'A gente Anglorum appellatur: The Evidence of Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum for the Replacement of Roman Names by English Ones During the Early Anglo-Saxon Period', in Words in Dictionaries and History: Essays in Honour of R. W. McConchieed. by Olga Timofeeva and Tanja Säily, Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice, 14 (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2011), pp. 219–31 (pp. 220–21).
- ^ a b c Myres, J.N.L. (1989) The English Settlements. Oxford University Press, pp. 146–147
- ^ Parsons, D. (1997) British *Caraticos, Old English CerdicCambrian Medieval Celtic Studies, 33, pp, 1–8.
- ^ Koch, J.T., (2006) Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia, ABC-CLIO, ISBN 1-85109-440-7, pp. 392–393.
- ^ Ward-Perkins, B., Why did the Anglo-Saxons not become more British? The English Historical Review 115.462 (June 2000): p513.
- ^ Yorke, B. (1990), Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England, London: Seaby, ISBN 1-85264-027-8 pp. 138–139
- ^ Basset, S. (ed.) (1989) The Origins of Anglo-Saxon KingdomsLeicester University Press
- ^ Koch, J.T., (2006) Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia, ABC-CLIO, ISBN 1-85109-440-7, p. 60
- ^ Higham and Ryan (2013), pp. 143, 178
- ^ Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English PeopleBook 3, chapter 23
- ^ Koch, J.T., (2006) Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia, ABC-CLIO, ISBN 1-85109-440-7, p. 360
- ^ Higham and Ryan (2013), p. 143
- ^ Catherine Hills (2003) Origins of the English, Duckworth, pp. 55, 105
- ^ Díaz-Andreu, Margarita, and Sam Lucy. Archaeology of Identity. Routledge, 2005.
- ^ Hills, C.; Lucy, S. (2013). Spong Hill IX: Chronology and Synthesis. Cambridge: : McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. ISBN 978-1-902937-62-5.
- ^ Esmonde Cleary, S 1993, 'Approaches to the differences between late Romano-British and early Anglo-Saxon archaeology', Anglo-Saxon Stud Archaeol Hist 6, 57–6[clarification needed].
- ^ Härke, H 2007a, 'Invisible Britons, Gallo-Romans and Russians: perspectives on culture change', in Higham (ed), 57–67.
- ^ Also see Cool, H E M[clarification needed] 2000, 'The parts left over: material culture into the 5th century', in T Wilmott and P Wilson (eds), The Late Roman Transition in the North, Brit Archaeol Rep Brit Ser 299, 47–65.
- ^ Pearson, A. F. "Barbarian piracy and the Saxon Shore: a reappraisal." Oxford Journal of Archaeology 24.1 (2005): 73-88.
- ^ Creary. S "The Ending(s) of Roman Britain", The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology (2011): 3-12.
- ^ Hingley, Rural Settlements in Roman Britain 1989
- ^ Jones, M U 1980: 'Mucking and Early Saxon rural settlement in Essex.' Buckley (ed) 1980, 82–6
- ^ Myres, J N L 1986: The Anglo-Saxon Settlements. Oxford
- ^ Hills, C 1979: 'The archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England in the pagan period: a review.' Anglo-Saxon England 8, 297–329
- ^ a b Yorke, Barbara. Kings and kingdoms of early Anglo-Saxon England. Routledge, 2002.
- ^ Arnold, C. 1988a: An Archaeology of the Early Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. London
- ^ Hawkes, S Chadwick 1982: 'Anglo-Saxon Kent c 425–725.' Archaeology in Kent to AD 1500. ed P E Leach, London
- ^ Hills, Catherine. "Overview: Anglo-Saxon identity." The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology (2011):4
- ^ Hills, Catherine. "Overview: Anglo-Saxon identity." The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology (2011): 3-12.
- ^ Brooks, Nicholas. "The formation of the Mercian Kingdom", The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms (1989): 159-170.
- ^ Gibson, C. 2007. Minerva: an early Anglo-Saxon mixed-rite cemetery in Alwalton, Cambridgeshire. In Semple, S. and Williams, H. (eds.), Early Medieval Mortuary Practices: Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History, 14, 238–350. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology.
- ^ a b Williams, Howard. "Ancient Landscapes and the Dead: The Reuse of Prehistoric and Roman Monuments as Early Anglo-Saxon Burial Sites." (1997).
- ^ Shephard, J 1979, 'The social identity of the individual in isolated barrows and barrow cemeteries in Anglo-Saxon England', in B C Burnham and J Kingsbury (eds), Space, Hierarchy and Society, Brit Archaeol Rep Int Ser 59, 47–79.
- ^ Thäte, E 1996, 'Alte Denkmäler und frühgeschichtliche Bestattungen: Ein sächsisch-angelsächsischer Totenbrauch und seine Kontinuität', Archäol Inf 19, 105–16
- ^ a b c Härke, Heinrich (2011). "Anglo-Saxon Immigration and Ethnogenesis". Medieval Archaeology. 55 (1): 1–28. doi:10.1179/174581711X13103897378311.
- ^ Taylor, Christopher. Village and farmstead: a history of rural settlement in England. G. Philip, 1983: 83–106
- ^ Hammerow, H. Early Medieval Settlements: The Archaeology of Rural Communities in North-West Europe, 400–900. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- ^ Hamerow et al. 2007: 'Anglo-Saxon settlement near Drayton Road, SuttonCourtenay, Berkshire'. Archaeological Journal 164: p115
- ^ Gaimster, M. and Bradley, J. 2003,'Medieval Britain and Ireland, 2002'. Medieval Archaeology 47: p242
- ^ Everitt, A 1986: Continuity and Colonization. The Evolution of Kentish Settlement. Leicester: pp 69–92
- ^ Oosthuizen, Susan. Tradition and Transformation in Anglo-Saxon England: Archaeology, Common Rights and Landscape. Bloomsbury Academic, 2013.
- ^ Hall, D 1988: 'The late Saxon countryside: villages and their fields.' Hooke (ed) 1988, 99–122
- ^ Rodwell, W J and Rodwell, K A 1985: Rivenhall: Investigations of a Villa, Church and Village, 1950–1977.
- ^ Rippon, Stephen, et al. "The Fields of Britannia: Continuity and Discontinuity in the Pays and Regions of Roman Britain." Landscapes 14.1 (2013): 33-53.
- ^ Foard, G 1985: 'The administrative organization of Northamptonshire in the Saxon period.' Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 4, 185–222
- ^ Wareham, Andrew. Lords and communities in early medieval East Anglia. Boydell Press, 2005
- ^ a b Hamerow, Helena, David A. Hinton, and Sally Crawford, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology. OUP Oxford, 2011. p 119–124
- ^ Jones 1990:199, An Atlas of Roman Britain. The major inland navigation routes are shown.
- ^ Zaluckyj 2001:13, Mercia"Mercia: The Beginnings", by Sarah Zaluckyj. Zaluckyj states that the Angles travelled up river valleys, specifically mentioning the Trent and Nene.
- ^ Russo 1998:71, Town Origins and Development in Early England.
- ^ Jones 1990:317, An Atlas of Roman Britain
- ^ Jones 1990:318, An Atlas of Roman Britain
- ^ Lucy, Sam. The Anglo-Saxon way of death: burial rites in early England. Sutton Publishing, 2000.
- ^ a b Suzuki, Seiichi. The quoit brooch style and Anglo-Saxon settlement: a casting and recasting of cultural identity symbols. Boydell & Brewer, 2000.
- ^ Yorke 2006:57, The Conversion of Britain c.600–800.
- ^ Yorke 1995:43, Wessex in the Early Middle Ages.
- ^ Haywood 1999:47, Dark Age Naval Power.
- ^ Haywood 1999:111, Dark Age Naval Power.
- ^ Yorke 1995:31, Wessex in the Early Middle Ages.
- ^ Jones 1990:308–309, Atlas of Roman Britain.
- ^ Yorke 1990:61, Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England"The East Angles".
- ^ a b Brown 2001:151, Mercia"The Archaeology of Mercia", by Martin Welch.
- ^ Snyder 2003:86, The Britons"Britons and Saxons". Snyder says that they arrived in the late 5th century.
- ^ Kirby 2000:16, The Earliest English Kings.
- ^ Härke, H 1992a, Angelsächsische Waffengräber des 5. bis 7. Jahrhunderts, Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters Beiheft 6.
- ^ Pace Stuckert, C M 1980, Roman to Saxon: population biology and archaeology. Paper presented at the Society for American Archaeology Forty-Fifth Annual Meeting 1–3 May 1980, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 4–5, who worked with a significantly smaller sample and less refined dating; her unpublished work was quoted by Arnold, C J 1984, Roman Britain to Saxon England, London: Croom Helm., 129–30, to support the continuity argument.
- ^ Arnold, C J 1984, Roman Britain to Saxon England, London: Croom Helm., 130
- ^ Ford, W J 2002, 'The Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon settlement and cemeteries at Stretton on-Fosse, Warwickshire', Trans Birmingham Warwickshire Archaeol Soc 106, 1–115.
- ^ Renfrew, C. & Bahn, P. 2008. Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. London: Thames & Hudson p. 464
- ^ Weale, M.E et al. (2003) Y chromosome evidence for Anglo-Saxon mass migration, Molecular Biology and Evolution 19, 7, pp. 1008–1021
- ^ Capelli, C. et al. (2003) A Y chromosome census of the British Isles. Curr. Biol. 13, 979–984. (doi:10.1016/S0960-9822(03)00373-7)
- ^ a b c Thomas, Mark G., Michael PH Stumpf, and Heinrich Härke. "Evidence for an apartheid-like social structure in early Anglo-Saxon England." Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 273.1601 (2006): 2651–2657.
- ^ Pattison, John E. "Is it necessary to assume an apartheid-like social structure in Early Anglo-Saxon England?." Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 275.1650 (2008): 2423–2429.
- ^ Hills, C. (2003) Origins of the EnglishDuckworth, London. ISBN 0-7156-3191-8, p. 67
- ^ Higham, C. 2008. Wither Archaeogenetics? A view from the trenches. In Simulations, Genetics and Human Prehistory—a focus on islands. S. Matsumura, P. Forster, and C. Renfrew, eds. Cambridge, UK: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 183–187. Published by: Wayne State University Press
- ^ Green, T, (2012) Britons and Anglo-Saxons: Lincolnshire AD 400-650, History of Lincolnshire Committee, Lincoln (critique of Weale on pp. 124-125)
- ^ Pattison J.E. (2011) Integration Versus Apartheid in Post-Roman Britain: A Response to Thomas et al. (2008)Human Biology 83(6):715-733
- ^ Woolf, A. (2007). Apartheid and economics in Anglo-Saxon England. In: Britons in Anglo-Saxon England. N. J. Higham, ed. Woodridge, UK: Boydell & Brewer, 115–129.
- ^ Hills, C. (2009). 'Anglo-Saxon DNA?', in Sayer & Williams, eds, ‘’Mortuary Practices and Social Identities in the Middle Ages.’’, University of Exeter Press, p. 129
- ^ Leslie et al. (2015) The fine scale genetic structure of the British population
- ^ Rincon, Paul (2016-01-19). "English DNA 'one-third' Anglo-Saxon - BBC News". Retrieved 2016-02-17.
- ^ Schiffels, S. et al. (2016) Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon genomes from East England reveal British migration historyNature Communications 7, Article number:10408 doi:10.1038/ncomms10408
- ^ Martiniano et al. (2016) Genomic signals of migration and continuity in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons.
Material was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- ^ Montgomery, Janet, et al. "Continuity or colonization in Anglo-Saxon England? Isotope evidence for mobility, subsistence practice, and status at West Heslerton." American Journal of Physical Anthropology 126.2 (2005): 123–138.
- ^ Hughes, Susan S., et al. "Anglo-Saxon origins investigated by isotopic analysis of burials from Berinsfield, Oxfordshire, UK." Journal of Archaeological Science 42 (2014): 81–92.
- ^ Mays, S., and N. Beavan. "An investigation of diet in early Anglo-Saxon England using carbon and nitrogen stable isotope analysis of human bone collagen." Journal of Archaeological Science 39.4 (2012): 867–874.
- ^ In the abstract for: Härke, Heinrich. "Anglo-Saxon Immigration and Ethnogenesis." Medieval Archaeology 55.1 (2011): 1-28.
- ^ a b Hedges, Robert (2011). "Anglo-Saxon migration and the molecular evidence". In Hamerow, Helena; Hinton, David A.; Crawford, Sally. The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology. Oxford, Großbritannien: Oxford University Press. pp. 81–83. ISBN 9780199212149.
- ^ Millet, Martin. "The Romanization of Britain." An Essay in Archaeological Interpretation (1990).
- ^ Hamerow, Helena. "The earliest Anglo-Saxon kingdoms." The New Cambridge Medieval History 1 (2005): 263-90.
- ^ The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Spong Hill, North Elmham. Norfolk Archaeological Unit, 1995.
- ^ Thomas, Mark G., Michael PH Stumpf, and Heinrich Härke. "Integration versus apartheid in post-Roman Britain: a response to Pattison." Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 275.1650 (2008): 2419–2421.
- ^ A. S. Esmonde Cleary, 'The Roman to medieval transition', in Britons and Romans: advancing an archaeological agenda, eds S. James and M. Millett (York, Council for British Archaeology Research Report 125, 2001), pp. 90–7.
- ^ D. N. Dumville, 'Sub-Roman Britain: History and legend', History, 62, 1977, pp. 173–92; Dumville, 'The historical value of the Historia Brittonum', Arthurian Literature, 6, 1986, pp. 1–26
- ^ Higham, Nick (January 2004). "From sub-Roman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England: Debating the Insular Dark Ages". History Compass. 2 (1): **. doi:10.1111/j.1478-0542.2004.00085.x.
- ^ Dark, K., Civitas to Kingdom: British Political Continuity 300–80 (London, Leicester University Press, 1994) p 97–104
- ^ J. Hines, 'Philology, Archaeology and the Adventus Saxonum vel Anglorum', in Britain 400–600: Language and History, eds A. Bammesberger and A. Wollman (Heidelberg, Carl Winter, 1990), pp. 17–36.
- ^ Freeman, E.A. (1869) Old English History for ChildrenMacMillan, London, pp. 7, 27-28
- ^ Grimmer, M. (2007) Invasion, Settlement or Political Conquest: Changing Representations of the Arrival of the Anglo-Saxons in BritainJournal of the Australian Early Medieval Association, 3(1) pp. 169-186.
- ^ Ausenda, G. (1997) Current issues and future directions in the study of the early Anglo-Saxon periodin Hines, J. (ed.) The Anglo-Saxons from Migration Period to the Eighth CenturyStudies in Historical Archaeoethnology, pp. 411-450
- ^ Ward-Perkins, Bryan. "Why did the Anglo-Saxons not become more British?." The English Historical Review 115.462 (2000): page 523
- ^ a b Ward-Perkins, Bryan. "Why did the Anglo-Saxons not become more British?." The English Historical Review 115.462 (2000): 513-533.
- ^ Lavelle, R. (2010) Alfred's Wars: Sources and Interpretations of Anglo-Saxon Warfare in the Viking AgeBoydell & Brewer p. 85
- ^ Attenborough. The laws of Ine and Alfred. pp. 35–61
- ^ Suzuki (2000, pp. 114–121)
- ^ Higham (2004, p. 4)
- ^ Haslsall (2006)
- ^ Hamerow, Helena. Rural Settlements and Society in Anglo-Saxon England. Oxford University Press, 2012.p166
- ^ Higham Nicholas J. "From Tribal Chieftains to Christian Kings." The Anglo-Saxon World (2013): 126.
- ^ Yorke, Barbara. "The vocabulary of Anglo-Saxon overlordship." Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History. BAR British Series 92 (1981): 171-200.
- ^ Britain AD: King Arthur's Britain, Programme 2 - Three part Channel 4 series. 2004
- ^ a b Davies, Wendy, and Hayo Vierck. "The contexts of Tribal Hidage: social aggregates and settlement patterns." Issues 44 (2011).
- ^ Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica, II, 5.
- ^ As in his remarks on Edwin's imperium: Historia Ecclesiastica, II, 5, 9.
- ^ As in his remarks concerning Cædwallon and Penda, Historia Ecclesiastica, II, 20.
- ^ Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica, I, 34; II, 12.
- ^ Hamerow, H. "Early medieval settlement." The archaeology of rural communities in north-west Europe (2002): 400-900.
- ^ Wickham 2009:157, The Inheritance of Rome.
- ^ Hamerow, Helena. Early medieval settlements: the archaeology of rural communities in North-West Europe 400-900. Oxford University Press on Demand, 2004. p105
- ^ Higham, Nicholas J. An English Empire: Bede, the Britons, and the Early Anglo-Saxon Kings. Vol 2 p244
- ^ Rahtz, Philip. "Buildings and rural settlement." The Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England 44 (1976): p 56
- ^ Hodges, R. (1989) The Anglo-Saxon Achievement' Duckworth, London. ISBN 0-7156-2130-0, pp. 34–36
- ^ Dixon, Philip. "How Saxon is the Saxon house?" Structural reconstruction. Oxford (1982).
- ^ Marshall, Anne, and Garry Marshall. "A survey and analysis of the buildings of Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon England." Medieval Archaeology 35 (1991): 29
- ^ John Hines: "Stories from the Dark Earth: Meet the Ancestors Revisited" Episode 4 BBC 2013
- ^ Julian Richards: "Stories from the Dark Earth: Meet the Ancestors Revisited" Episode 4 BBC 2013
- ^ Halsall (2011, p. 35)
- ^ Behr, Charlotte. Review "Signals of Belief in Early England: Anglo-Saxon Paganism Revisited, edited by Martin Carver, Alex Sanmark & Sarah Semple, 2010. Oxford: Oxbow Books; ISBN 978-1-84217-395-4". in Cambridge Archaeological Journal 21.02 (2011): 315-316.
- ^ Brown, Peter. The Rise of Western Christendom. Oxford, 2003.
- ^ a b c Hutton 1991. p. 274.
- ^ Wilson 1992. p. 87.
- ^ Wilson 1992. pp. 98–100.
- ^ Whinder, R, Christianity in Britain before St Augustine Catholic History Society 2008
- ^ Killie, Kristin. "Old English–Late British language contact and the English progressive." Language Contact and Development Around the North Sea 321 (2012): p119
- ^ Higham, N. 1992. Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons. Guildford: Seaby p 229–230
- ^ "Old-English poem The Battle of Brunanburh along with translations and background information=http://loki.stockton.edu/~kinsellt/litresources/brun/brun2.html#astext".
- ^ Higham, Nicholas J., and Martin J. Ryan. The Anglo-Saxon World. Yale University Press, 2013.
References[edit]
General[edit]
- Channel 4 (2004), Britain AD: King Arthur's Britain
- Hamerow, Helena; Hinton, David A.; Crawford, Sally, eds. (2011), The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology.Oxford: OUP, ISBN 978-0-19-921214-9
- Higham, Nicholas J.; Ryan, Martin J. (2013), The Anglo-Saxon WorldYale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-12534-4
- Hills, Catherine (2003), Origins of the EnglishLondon: Duckworth, ISBN 978-0-7156-3191-1
- Koch, John T. (2006), Celtic Culture: A Historical EncyclopediaSanta Barbara and Oxford: ABC-CLIO, ISBN 978-1-85109-440-0
- Pryor, Francis (2005), Britain AD: A Quest for Arthur, England and the Anglo-SaxonsLondon: Harper Perennial (published 2001), p. 320, ISBN 978-0-00-718187-2
Archaeology[edit]
- Behr, Charlotte (2010), Review of Signals of Belief in Early England Anglo-Saxon England 21 (2) (Cambridge University Press)Cambridge
- Martin Millett (11 June 1992), The Romanization of Britain: An Essay in Archaeological InterpretationCambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-42864-4
- Brugmann, Birte (2011), Migration and endogenous change: The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology.Oxford: OUP, ISBN 978-0-19-921214-9
- Dixon, Philip (1982), How Saxon is the Saxon housein Structural Reconstruction. Approaches to the interpretation of the excavated remains of buildings, British Archaeological Reports British Series 110, Oxford
- Marshall, Anne; Marshall, Garry (1991), A survey and analysis of the buildings of Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon England." Medieval Archaeology 35Medieval Archaeology 35
- Halsall, Guy (2011), "Archaeology and Migration: Rethinking the debate", in Rica Annaert; Tinne Jacobs; Ingrid In ’t Ven; Steffi Coppens, The very beginning of Europe? Cultural and Social Dimensions of Early-Medieval Migration and Colonisation (5th-8th century)Flanders Heritage Agency, p. 29–40, ISBN 978 90 7523 034 5
- Halsall, Guy (2006), "Movers and Shakers: Barbarians and the Fall of Rome", in Noble, Thomas, From Roman Provinces to Medieval KingdomsPsychology Press, ISBN 9780415327428
- Hamerow, Helena (1993), Buildings and rural settlementin The Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England 44
- Hamerow, Helena (2002), Early Medieval Settlements: The Archaeology of Rural Communities in Northwest Europe, 400-900Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-924697-7
- Hamerow, Helena.; Hinton, David A.; Crawford, Sally., eds. (2011), The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology.Oxford: OUP, ISBN 978-0-19-921214-9
- Hamerow, Helena (5 July 2012), Rural Settlements and Society in Anglo-Saxon EnglandOxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-920325-3
- Higham, Nick (2004), "From sub-Roman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England: Debating the Insular Dark Ages", History Compass2
- Hodges, Richard (1 January 1989), The Anglo-Saxon Achievement: Archaeology & the Beginnings of English SocietyDuckworth, ISBN 978-0-7156-2130-1
- Hughes, S. S.; Millard, A. R.; Lucy, S. J.; Chenery, C. A.; Evans, J. A.; Nowell, G.; Pearson, D. G. (2014), Anglo-Saxon origins investigated by isotopic analysis of burials from Berinsfield, Oxfordshire, UK.in Journal of Archaeological Science, 42, pp. 81–92
- Jantina, Helena Looijenga (1997), Runes around the North Sea and on the continent AD 150 - 700Groningen University: SSG Uitg., ISBN 978-90-6781-014-2
- Rahtz, Philip (1976), Excavations at Mucking, Volume 2: The Anglo-Saxon Settlementin Archaeological Report-Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission For England 21
- Myres, John (1989), The English SettlementsOxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-282235-2
- Suzuki, Seiichi (2000), The quoit brooch style and Anglo-Saxon settlement: a casting and recasting of cultural identity symbols.Woodbridge, Eng. & Rochester N.Y.: Boydell & Brewer, ISBN 978-0-85115-749-8
- Williams, H. (2002), Remains of Pagan Saxondomin Sam Lucy; Andrew J. Reynolds, eds., Burial in Early Medieval England and Wales, Society for Medieval Archaeology, ISBN 978-1-902653-65-5
History[edit]
- Bazelmans, Jos (2009), "The early-medieval use of ethnic names from classical antiquity: The case of the Frisians", in Derks, Ton; Roymans, Nico, Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity: The Role of Power and TraditionAmsterdam: Amsterdam University, pp. 321–337, ISBN 978-90-8964-078-9
- Brown, Michelle P.; Farr, Carol A., eds. (2001), Mercia: An Anglo-Saxon Kingdom in EuropeLeicester: Leicester University Press, ISBN 978-0-8264-7765-1
- Charles-Edwards, Thomas, ed. (2003), After RomeOxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-924982-4
- Dornier, Ann, ed. (1977), Mercian StudiesLeicester: Leicester University Press, ISBN 978-0-7185-1148-7
- Elton, Charles Isaac (1882), Origins of English HistoryLondon: Bernard Quaritch
- Frere, Sheppard Sunderland (1987), Britannia: A History of Roman Britain (3rd, revised ed.), London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, ISBN 978-0-7102-1215-3
- Giles, John Allen, ed. (1841), "The Works of Gildas", The Works of Gildas and NenniusLondon: James Bohn
- Giles, John Allen, ed. (1843a), "Ecclesiastical History, Books I, II and III", The Miscellaneous Works of Venerable BedeIILondon: Whittaker and Co. (published 1843)
- Giles, John Allen, ed. (1843b), "Ecclesiastical History, Books IV and V", The Miscellaneous Works of Venerable BedeIIILondon: Whittaker and Co. (published 1843)
- Härke, Heinrich (2003), "Population replacement or acculturation? An archaeological perspective on population and migration in post-Roman Britain.", Celtic-EnglishesIII (Winter): 13–28retrieved 18 January 2014
- Haywood, John (1999), Dark Age Naval Power: Frankish & Anglo-Saxon Seafaring Activity (revised ed.), Frithgarth: Anglo-Saxon Books, ISBN 978-1-898281-43-6
- Higham, Nicholas (1992), Rome, Britain and the Anglo-SaxonsLondon: B. A. Seaby, ISBN 978-1-85264-022-4
- Higham, Nicholas (1993), The Kingdom of Northumbria AD 350–1100Phoenix Mill: Alan Sutton Publishing, ISBN 978-0-86299-730-4
- Jones, Barri; Mattingly, David (1990), An Atlas of Roman BritainCambridge: Blackwell Publishers (published 2007), ISBN 978-1-84217-067-0
- Jones, Michael E.; Casey, John (1988), "The Gallic Chronicle Restored: a Chronology for the Anglo-Saxon Invasions and the End of Roman Britain", BritanniaXIX (November): 367–98, doi:10.2307/526206, JSTOR 526206retrieved 6 January 2014
- Kirby, D. P. (2000), The Earliest English Kings (Revised ed.), London: Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-24211-0
- Laing, Lloyd; Laing, Jennifer (1990), Celtic Britain and Ireland, c. 200–800New York: St. Martin's Press, ISBN 978-0-312-04767-2
- McGrail, Seàn, ed. (1988), Maritime Celts, Frisians and SaxonsLondon: Council for British Archaeology (published 1990), pp. 1–16, ISBN 978-0-906780-93-0
- Mattingly, David (2006), An Imperial Possession: Britain in the Roman EmpireLondon: Penguin Books (published 2007), ISBN 978-0-14-014822-0
- Pryor, Francis (2004), Britain ADLondon: Harper Perennial (published 2005), ISBN 978-0-00-718187-2
- Russo, Daniel G. (1998), Town Origins and Development in Early England, c. 400–950 A.D.Greenwood Publishing Group, ISBN 978-0-313-30079-0
- Snyder, Christopher A. (1998), An Age of Tyrants: Britain and the Britons A.D. 400–600University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, ISBN 978-0-271-01780-8
- Snyder, Christopher A. (2003), The BritonsMalden: Blackwell Publishing (published 2005), ISBN 978-0-631-22260-6
- Wickham, Chris (2005), Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean, 400–800Oxford: Oxford University Press (published 2006), ISBN 978-0-19-921296-5
- Wickham, Chris (2009), "Kings Without States: Britain and Ireland, 400–800", The Inheritance of Rome: Illuminating the Dark Ages, 400–1000London: Penguin Books (published 2010), pp. 150–169, ISBN 978-0-14-311742-1
- Wood, Ian (1984), "The end of Roman Britain: Continental evidence and parallels", in Lapidge, M., Gildas: New ApproachesWoodbridge: Boydell, p. 19
- Wood, Ian (1988), "The Channel from the 4th to the 7th centuries AD", in McGrail, Seàn, Maritime Celts, Frisians and SaxonsLondon: Council for British Archaeology (published 1990), pp. 93–99, ISBN 978-0-906780-93-0
- Yorke, Barbara (1990), Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon EnglandB. A. Seaby, ISBN 978-0-415-16639-3
- Yorke, Barbara (1995), Wessex in the Early Middle AgesLondon: Leicester University Press, ISBN 978-0-7185-1856-1
- Yorke, Barbara (2006), Robbins, Keith, ed., The Conversion of Britain: Religion, Politics and Society in Britain c.600–800Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, ISBN 978-0-582-77292-2
- Zaluckyj, Sarah, ed. (2001), Mercia: The Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Central EnglandLittle Logaston: Logaston, ISBN 978-1-873827-62-8
No comments:
Post a Comment