ontinued to be the common language of England (non-Danelaw) until after the Norman Conquest of 1066 when, under the influence of the Anglo-Norman language spoken by the Norman ruling class, it changed into Middle English roughly between 1150-1500. (Stenton, 54)
But the central paradox of the Anglo- Saxon migration stays firm within the unavailability of substantial evidences. Till date there are considerable debates as to the extent of Anglo-Saxon migration from the fourth to the sixth centuries. This because we are unable to finds enough evidences regarding this migration and whatever is available proves to be unworthy as a sustainable source to prove within the academic consensus. As a result no single model of Anglo- Saxon migration can be taken into account academically.
The initial interpretation of the Anglo- Saxon migration during the fourth to the sixth centuries suggested that the Anglo-Saxon tribes arrived in Britain in large numbers and settled down instantly. This process was instigated by mass genocide and effective displacement of the local communities of the ‘Britons’ (as depicted in Latin Texts) from the eastern and southern parts of the island. It is also believed that a minority of the Romano-British fled to Brittany and Galicia in northern Spain.
Probably during the early sixth-century or late fifth century monk Gildas narrated the defeat of the British in the hand of the English and stated that this defeat was the result of a punishment from God in his writing De Excidio Britanniae. (Gildas, 77) A similar narrative appeared in Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, written in the early eighth century, which drew heavily on Gildas. This era of cataclysm was focussed by later Anglo-Saxon and British (Welsh) documents on the basic differences between the English and the Welsh. But many historians doubt the story - believing many or most Britons survived - but evidence to back up their account has always been hard to find. This is ...Show more