Let me explain one of the traditions about place names in Britain, such as Bradford-on-Avon or Bradwell-on-Sea. The Avon is a river. Carved crosses from the Anglo-Saxon period are also widespread in England, though usually much-worn by centuries of weathering. Probably the best is the 7th- or 8th-century Ruthwell Cross , now protected from the elements inside Ruthwell parish church , just north of the Scottish border.
A similar cross at Bewcastle Cumbria appears to have come from the same era, and possibly even the same craftsmen. Unfortunately, its head is missing. In the 20th and 21st centuries, archaeologists have been excited by major Anglo-Saxon finds. This had been a real, seagoing ship, with places for 40 oarsmen and evidence of periodic repairs. Its benches and mast had been removed, and a central area enclosed to receive the body. In the s, Britain endured another round of invasions.
This time, the intruders were from Scandinavia—the Vikings. Just a few miles south of the Scottish border, the island monastery is only accessible when the tide is low. Today, you must follow a winding road to get to the causeway; read the tide tables carefully; and drive slowly across to the island, after which you need to keep in mind throughout your visit just how much time is left before the waters close over the road.
Lindisfarne is the site of a superb castle , on a vertical rock that dominates the island. Built in the s because of the chronic problem of Scottish raids, it was allowed to fall into ruin but was restored and rebuilt in the early 20th century by the architect Edwin Lutyens.
After the initial raid on Lindisfarne, Viking depredations became a regular fact of life in the early s, especially along the East Coast of England. At one point, he was forced into hiding in the marshlands of Athelney, Somerset, where a monument to him still stands. Archaeological work at Athelney has shown that this was the site of an Iron Age fort; that Athelney was an island, often surrounded by flooded fields; and that a causeway led from it to nearby East Lyng.
Signs of metalworking in the area also suggest that Alfred and his followers cast weapons there in preparation for their counterattack on the Vikings. Nevertheless, the reported plundering and ethnic cleansing are probably overrated. In recent decades, ground breaking research in DNA, archaeology, history, and linguistics provide nuance to these written records. And together they provide a much clearer picture.
They indicate that the Vikings were not the worst invaders to land on English shores at that time. That title goes to the Anglo-Saxons, years earlier! It should really start already around CE. Here, I outline the various sources that indicate a much more systematic colonisation that started with the Anglo-Saxons, and how recent research when viewed in its entirety, gives us a much clearer understanding of the impact that the Anglo-Saxons had before the Vikings arrived.
One support for this contention is the impact or rather the lack of impact that the Viking Old Norse had on contemporary Old English language of the Anglo Saxons in the 9th and 10th centuries. This should be compared to the absence of Celtic language in England in the 5th and 6th centuries after the Anglo-Saxons had arrived.
In the 5th and 6th centuries, the Old English wiped out the earlier Celtic language in a similar way that modern English eradicated the language of the Native Americans in U. This is clear in the almost non-existent impact that Native American words have on the English spoken today in the U. Modern American English has retained around 40 Native American words. So, did the Anglo Saxons have the same sort of impact on the Britons that 19th century Europeans had on Native Americans? And are we looking at ethnic cleansing in the 5th - 8th centuries?
Old Norse did not eradicate the Old English language; Old English was simplified or pidginised because the Anglo Saxons and the Vikings were able to coexist for a time. An example could be somewhere in Eastern England in the 9th century where an Anglo-Saxon met a Norseman.
The Anglo-Saxon wants to sell the Norseman a horse to pull a wagon. The point is that there are differences but they would have understood each other. What is lost in translation are the grammatical elements. Therefore, according to some linguists, English was simplified because of the meeting between two closely related languages.
The same process that changed the language spoken in Britain 1, years ago also led to of the pidginisation of languages in the old English and French colonies of Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific, years ago. They did not want to be cheated in the horse trade, so to speak. Numerous archaeological finds of settlements and graves in England suggest that many Scandinavians settled in the Eastern part of England, in what they called Danelaw and in parts of Scotland.
On the other hand, the Old English of the 9th century was not assimilated into Old Norse, unlike the earlier irradiation of Celtic by the first Anglo Saxon conquests. Put simply, the impact of Viking immigration was not as massive as the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons in the 5th century. And this is now backed up by a large-scale DNA analyses of the modern British. Read More: New study reignites debate over Viking settlements in England.
In fact, some scholars have suggested that the Anglo-Saxons practiced a sort of apartheid against the local Celtic-speaking people between the 5th and 9th centuries, where they probably lived apart, or only had limited interaction. As we saw in South Africa from until Nelson Mandela came to power in , apartheid was, however, hard to enforce long-term. Ethnic cleansing by the Anglo-Saxons is a likely alternative scenario, as suggested by the fact that Celtic culture and language did not survive outside of Wales, Scotland, and Ireland.
Additionally, the Romano-British were less well organised and lived in a vacuum after the Romans left Britain in the 5th century, whereas the later Anglo Saxon kingdoms of the 9th century were better organised. In some areas, such as Wales and Cornwall, the invaders hardly changed the language or way of life of the people.
In others, the British Celts learnt the language of the invaders, and adapted to their way of life. After years of Roman rule, Romanised Britons tried to defend the religion and civilisation of Roman Britain against the Anglo-Saxon invaders. During this year period there was constant shifting of boundaries, boundaries both on the map and in the minds of the people living then. Different cultures met and clashed time after time.
Spiritually, the British moved from a people worshipping Celtic pagan gods at the start of the period to a nation of Christians at its end.
At the start of the period, Britain was inhabited by Celtic peoples. The Romans called them Brittones, so they named the areas they conquered Britannia. Caledonians, Irish and Picts lived in what is now Scotland. Scotti lived in Ireland — all very confusing. The Scotti later settled in Scotland, giving it its modern name by the 10th century.
The point is that we have to be careful about names during this period. When the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians invaded Britain, during the 5th and 6th centuries AD, the area they conquered slowly became known as England from Angle-land.
0コメント