If we look at our own mixed societies today we find bi-lingual ability at
least in the first immigrant generation, then a gradual dying out of the
language in the second and third and so on. Why cannot we accept this in
antiquity? There are so many complexities in integrating societies but
wiping them out would NOT seem very sensible if you want them to continue
to work and communicate with you, the conqueror. They would also have
translators. Like Robert I thought that archaeological evidence has
shown the anhiliation theory to be no longer acceptable.
>Since there are no records of this change, why simply assume a mass
>migration when so many signs speak against it? In fact, it is only the
>written sources (written after 700 AD) that mention the 'landings' of
>families that supposedly were the ancestors of the later kings. And
>reading Bede clearly points out that no actual knowledge of the events
>during the period 400-550 existed - Bede had to fall back on Gildas'
>The thing is, we simply don't know when that linguistic result of the
>'occupation' took effect; in a short while due to an invasion, or over a
>very long time? When exactly did all the inhabitants of, say, Essex or
>Surrey, speak a form of English and no longer a form of Brythonic? After
>650 AD or even after 800 AD?