Linguistic evidence

Historical context

As the Roman occupation of Britain was coming to an end, Constantine III withdrew the remains of the army, in reaction to the barbarian invasion of Europe.The Romano-British leaders were faced with an increasing security problem from sea borne raids, particularly by Picts on the East coast of England.The expedient adopted by the Romano-British leaders was to enlist the help of Anglo-Saxon mercenaries (known as foederati), to whom they ceded territory.[4][5] In about AD 442 the Anglo-Saxons mutinied, apparently because they had not been paid.[6] The British responded by appealing to the Roman commander of the Western empire, Aëtius for help (a document known as the Groans of the Britons), even though Honorius, the Western Roman Emperor, had written to the British civitas in or about AD 410 telling them to look to their own defence.[7][8][9][10] There then followed several years of fighting between the British and the Anglo-Saxons.[11] The fighting continued until around AD 500, when, at the Battle of Mount Badon, the Britons inflicted a severe defeat on the Anglo-Saxons.

Background

Before the Anglo-Saxon settlement, Great Britain except the most northern part was a roman province. The former inhabitants, the celtic Britons were conquered by roman troops and both groups formed the Romano-British culture. Slaves were the engine of both the economy and the army in Roman Britain, as they were throughout the Roman Empire. Estimates for the prevalence of slavery vary, with some estimating that approximately 30% of the population of the Empire in the 1st century was enslaved. The Germanic region was one of the main sources of slaves. The business of selling slaves was mostly carried out by wholesale dealers who followed the Roman armies. There was a reduction of sources for procurement of slaves after the expansion phase, although around AD 210 there was a significant increase of piracy in the North Sea which helped the Empire partially resolve the issue. Pirates often attacked whole villages, capturing people for ransom or to sell as slaves.

Under Diocletian, the Ius Colonatus was a reform of the slavery system introduced around AD 286. This provided a set of rights for slaves and improved their living conditions, establishing a system similar to later serfdom. The owners of slaves paid a tax to prevent the recruitment of their slaves into the army. This led to a Germanization and barbarization of the army, as the tax was used to recruit mercenaries. Britannia required approximately 3 to 4 legions to maintain Roman control. After the Battle of Adrianople, the foederati reforms extended the practice of subsidizing entire barbarian tribes in exchange for their providing warriors to fight in the Roman armies. The Hospitalitas reform involved the granting of a third of the land or fees of a region to barbarians who had invaded them. In return, these people declared loyalty to the Emperor and provided military support, while retaining their independence with Roman approval. Some Germanic peoples may have been resident in Britain after these reforms.

Between the third and fifth century many people living around the borders of the empire were displaced by raids by the Huns; this was the period of highest movement of Germanic populations to the island.

The population of Britain may have decreased after the Roman period by between 1.5 and 3 million people. This reduction may have been caused by environmental changes – some reconstructions of historical climatology have found a sharp fall-off in 3rd-century and 5th-century temperatures in the northern hemisphere[4] – or by disease – the Plague of Justinian reached Britain around 544[5] and contemporary reports suggest that it may have killed up to 50% of Europe's population over the next century;[6] smallpox left India around AD 600.[7]

Linguistic evidence

Linguistic evidence can be interpreted as a marker of the cultures that have influenced given regions.[31] Study in Old English has shown little evidence of a Celtic language substratum. A recently emerging (2004) diglossia model proposes to explain the substantial changes between Old English and Middle English. According to this model, Old English was the written language of the Anglo-Saxon period but a large portion of the population spoke a Celticised English which emerged in Middle English following the Norman conquest and the overthrowing of the Anglo-Saxon elite.[32][33][34] Niehues suggests that words from the various Celtic languages can be found in almost all spheres of the English language, ranging from first names and surnames to names of places, to common nouns, and even to a number of verbs.[35] He also points out that there is no general consensus on how large the Celtic contribution to the English lexicon actually is and whether it is smaller than one would expect or merely not yet fully recognised.[35][36] Celtic is claimed as a cause of the change from a synthetic language expressing grammatical relations through suffixes to an analytic one employing word order instead[32] and the use of the progressive tense (e.g., "am reading").[37][38] Celtic influence is also used to explain puzzling elements in English – for instance, frequent use of the semantically neutral verb "to do" ("I don't know", rather than "I know not")[39] and the lack of an external possessor in English, despite its presence in all major European languages except Celtic.[40]

When the Anglo-Saxons arrived in Britain in the 5th century, they had a strong oral tradition but were largely illiterate,[41] [42][43] save for some use of Germanic runes.[44] They were introduced to Latin script by Christian missionaries from the late 7th century onwards.[45] During the Anglo-Saxon period, documents would have been produced in writing offices known as scriptoria in cathedrals and monasteries.[45] Based on ideas from the remaining Brythonic Celtic communities and possibly Ireland, the scribes developed an Old English script.[45] Manuscripts were then produced, providing us with a written record of the language although Latin continued to predominate.[45] The use of Old English script diminished after the Norman Conquest, but did not finally die out until the 12th century.[45]

Studies of placenames give clues about the linguistic history of an area.[46] The traditional perspective held that Brythonic language and culture and the political power of the original Britons were displaced in these areas over time, but remained in Wales, Cornwall, and for a time in the Hen Ogledd ("Old North"), an area now divided between northern England and southern Scotland.[30] Recent research on placenames suggests that some Brythonic-speakers actually survived the Anglo-Saxon conquest in parts of what is now England, and that Brythonic may have been spoken in north-west Wiltshire after 600,[47] many parts of the west Midlands until the end of the 9th century,[48] and Cumberland until the 12th century.[49][50][51]

However, although recent research has demonstrated that there are more Brythonic placenames in English than previously thought, the number is still modest.[46][52] There are scattered Celtic placenames throughout, increasing towards the west. There are also Celtic river names and topographical names. An explanation proposed for the placename and linguistic evidence is that the Anglo-Saxons became politically and socially dominant in the south and east of Britain, so their language and culture also became dominant in those areas. Names with Latin elements suggest continuity of settlement, while some placenames have names of pagan Germanic deities. Names of British origin are usually taken as indicating survival of a British population, though this may not be so. Names such as Walton, based on the Anglo-Saxon word for the British wealh, are also taken as indicating British survival.[53]

Epigraphic evidence, such as Anglo-Saxon runes, provide another source of information on the settlements of the Saxons and others in this period.

Дата добавления: 2015-11-13