The i-mutation during 7th-century England

Novelis

Jedi Master
Hello everybody, I was reading the ‘Encyclopedia of the English Language (Cambridge University Press)’ about one week ago, and it really got me thinking:

[quote author=”The Encyclopedia of the English Language”]The first vowel shift

We can say one thing with certainty about the accent of the Anglo-Saxon invaders after they arrived in Briton: It changed. We know this because the words which emerged in Old English out of the Germanic spoken on the continent (P.6) looked (and therefore sounded) very different from their counterparts in the early days of German. What happened to cause such a difference?[/quote]

Indeed, I thought it was quite curious too. Next we have:

[quote author=”The Encyclopedia of the English Language”]A related observation arises out of the way some Latin words were borrowed into Old English without a change in their vowel, whereas others did change. Latin Caseus became Cyse ‘Cheese’ in Old English, but Castellum became Castel ‘village’. In the first case, the a vowel changed; in the second case, it did not. There are many similar examples. What happened to cause such a difference?

i – mutation

The explanation is now a well known part of German philology. It asserts that the old English vowels changed in quality between the time the Anglo-Saxons left the continent and the time Old English was first written down. By examining hundreds of cases, it is possible to establish a pattern in the way this change took place.

In Germanic there were many words where a vowel in a stressed syllable was immediately followed by a high front vowel () or vowel like sound ([j]) in the next syllable. The plural of *fot is thought to have been *fotiz, with the stress on fo. For some reason (see below), the quality of this high front sound caused the preceding vowel to change (mutate). In the case of *fot, the o became e, which ultimately came to be pronounced [i:], as in modern feet. The –iz ending dropped away, for once the plural was being shown by the e vowel, it was unnecessary to have an ending as well. Fet therefore emerged as an irregular noun in English – though the process which gave rise to it was perfectly regular, affecting hundreds of cases.

This process has come to be call i – mutation, or i – umlaut (a German term meaning ‘sound alteration’). It is thought to have taken place during the 7th century. There is no sign of the vowels continuing to change in this way in later periods. The process also explains the Latin example above: Caseus must have been borrowed very early into English, before the time that i – mutation was operating, as its vowel has been affected (In this case, the a has become y); Castellum, however, must have been borrowed after the time when the i – mutation stopped taking place, as its vowel has remained in Castel.

i – mutation is a kind of ‘vowel harmony’ – a very natural process which affects many modern languages. People, it seems, readily fall into the habit of making one vowel in a word sound more like another in the same word, and this is what happened in 7th-century Old English. All back vowels in the context described above were changed into front vowels – and all short front vowels and dipthongs were affected, too, being articulated even further forward and higher (with the exception of , of course, wich is already as high in the mouth as any vowel can be).

There are a few exceptions and complications, which analysts still puzzle over, but the general effect on language was immense, as this sound change applied to the most frequently occurring word classes, all of which had i sounds in their inflectional endings. This is why we have in modern English such pairs as food/feed (from the addition of an *-ian verb-forming suffix in Germanic), as well as strong/strength and several others (from the addition of an *-ith adjective – froming suffix). Not all the forms affected by i – mutation have survived into modern English though. In Old English, the plural of book was bec, but this has not come through into modern English as beek: the forces of analogy (p.200) have taken over, and caused a change to the regular books.

We do not know why the i – mutation operated when it did. What was it that made 7th-century Anglo-Saxons start pronouncing their vowels more towards the front of their mouths? And why did the process not affect all cases of i in a following suffix (words ending in –ing, for example, were not affected)? This phonological debate is by no means over.

The asterisk mark a hypothetical form. [/quote]

Now, as I read the above, I wondered how such a change could take place in such a short space of time, and how would the change even take place. My first ideas were that maybe the change could be accounted for by considering regional accents, and the domination of certain regional accents over others?

I mean, take British English for example. In England, speakers pronounce the dipthong /au/, as in ‘house’ or ‘mouse’, whereas in Scotland, they pronounce the same words with a long /u:/ vowel, so they would say ‘hoose’ (house) and ‘moose’ (mouse).

So, let’s say that, one day, the English people suddenly ‘disappear’, they get displaced, driven away, they evacuate, or they are suddenly destroyed by plague, comets or other major catastrophes, and England is gradually populated again by the Scots, wouldn’t their unique way of pronouncing ‘mouse’ (with a long /u:/ vowel, as in, ‘moose’) become the standard? Wouldn’t all traces of the old way of pronouncing the same words be lost forever? Wouldn’t this change be quite sudden and inexplicable to future historians, especially if the evidence of the catastrophe is nowhere to be found?

Perhaps, at that time, there was a group of Britons who said foot with an /o/ sound, and another group that said the same word with a /i/ sound, and the ‘o group’ suffered horrendous losses to their population, and the ‘i group’ took over and their way of speaking became the dominant accent?

Well, not exactly, in my opinion, since if the ‘o group’ were ‘wiped off the map’ exactly like the hypothetical situation (between Scottish and British variations of the /ao/ vs /u:/ sounds) I created, then why does the word ‘foot’ still exist?

It seems to me that, if a cataclysm DID initiate the eventual vowel change, then the destruction wouldn’t have been that complete, or one way (feet) would have completely replaced the other (foot), instead of creating a sort of ‘hybridised’ form that we use in modern English today (foot/feet, strong/strength).

There is another precedent for this kind of ‘hybridisation’ that comes to me off the top of my head, which is the way that English speakers use different words to describe the farm animal vs the animal’s meat form.

In English we refer to common farm animals one way, and the same animal’s meat with quite a different word. We have cow/beef, chicken/poultry, sheep/mutton.

Why?

Well, the German word for ‘cow’ is ‘Kuh’, which is quite similar to the English word, but the German word for ‘beef’ is ‘Rindfleisch’, which is nothing like the word ‘beef’. We got the word ‘beef’ from the French word for ‘beef’, which is ‘boeuf’.

We get the same deal with a lot of these ‘animal vs meat pairs’:

Chicken/poultry:

German = huhn (Or, roasted chicken) Hahnchen
French = Poulet

Sheep/mutton:

German = Schaf
French = Mouton

Now, this ‘hybridisation’ can be explained when you think about how English was affected by the Norman invasion. The Normans took over, and naturally formed the upper class of people in England, whereas the Germanic Anglo-Saxons became the lower, peasant class.

So, the poorer part of the population, who were most likely the farmers and the people who would refer to the animals while they were alive, kept their Germanic words, while the French, who were the ones BUYING the meat, would have referred to the meat in French, and, over time, a ‘hybridisation’ occurred, and have survived into modern English.

Going back to the i – mutation, I’ll admit that it is difficult to imagine a similar process of hybridisation (Would one group of people always refer to ‘feet’ in the singular form?!), but, nevertheless, it is worth considering, in my opinion.

Next we come to the cataclysm in that time period. Is there evidence of such an event around that time period that could account for such a major change in phonology?

I did a bit of digging, and have found the following:

Meteorites, Asteroids, and Comets: Damages, Disasters, Injuries, Deaths, and Very Close Calls, by Laura Knight-Jadczyk.

_http://www.sott.net/article/151954-Meteorites-Asteroids-and-Comets-Damages-Disasters-Injuries-Deaths-and-Very-Close-Calls

[quote author=”Laura”] 580 - France - Great fireball and blast; Orleans and nearby towns burned.

588 - June 25 - China - "Red-colored object" fell with "noise like thunder" into furnace; exploded; burned several houses

616 - Jan. 14 - China - Ten deaths reported in China from meteorite shower; seige towers destroyed

679 - Coldingham, England - Monastery destroyed by "fire from heaven" as reported in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

764 - Nara, Japan - Meteorite strikes house.

810 - Upper Saxony - Charlemagne's horse startled by meteor; throws him to the ground.

1000 - Alberta, Canada - The date of this meteor strike is estimated. [/quote]

Hmm… Seems like quite a volatile time, I homed in around the year 679, when the Monastery was destroyed. I wanted to know more about this time period, so I went onto Wiki to bring our discussion to context.

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_century_in_England

[quote author=”Wiki”]677
o Wilfrid, the Bishop of York, expelled from Northumbria after resisting re-organisation of the Church.[1]
• 678
o Battle of the River Trent: Mercia defeats Northumbrian invasion.[1]
• 680
o Wilfrid converts the last Saxon pagan realm, the Kingdom of Sussex, to Christianity.[1]
o First Bishop of Worcester (Bosel) consecrated.[1]
• 681
o Centwine of Wessex pursues the Britons to the sea.[3] [/quote]

This time period seems to be marked by a lot of conversions to Christianity, which is the first clue that something was forcing these people to adopt a new faith (See 680). Notice also how ‘Centwine of Wessex pursues the Britons to the sea’. Let’s digress briefly and look a little bit closer at this point:

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centwine_of_Wessex
[quote author=”Wiki”]Centwine (died after 685) was King of Wessex from c. 676 to 685 or 686, although he was perhaps not the only king of the West Saxons at the time.
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reports that Centwine became king c. 676, succeeding Æscwine. Bede states that after the death of King Cenwalh: "his under-rulers took upon them the kingdom of the people, and dividing it among themselves, held it ten years".[1] Bede's dismissal of Æscwine and Centwine as merely sub-kings may represent the views of the supporters of the King Ine, whose family ruled Wessex in Bede's time.[2] However, if the West Saxon kingdom did fragment following Cenwalh's death, it appears that it was reunited during Centwine's reign.[3]
An entry under 682 in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that "Centwine drove the Britons to the sea". This is the only event recorded in his reign. The Carmina Ecclesiastica of Aldhelm, Bishop of Sherborne (died 709), written a generation after Centwine's reign, records that he won three great battles. In addition, it states that he was a pagan for part of his reign, adopting Christianity and becoming a patron of the church.[4] The Chronicle's version of his ancestry makes Centwine a son of King Cynegils, and thus a brother of King Cenwalh and King Cwichelm, but Aldhelm does not record any such relationship.[5]
Chapter 40 of Eddius Stephanus's Life of Wilfrid records that Centwine was married to a sister of Queen Iurminburh, second wife of King Ecgfrith of Northumbria. Her name is not reliably recorded, and the suggestion that she is to be identified with Dunna, Abbess of Withington, is broadly rejected. Their daughter Bugga was certainly a nun when Aldhelm dedicated verses to her, and was probably an Abbess.[6]
Centwine is reported to have abdicated and become a monk. Aldhelm writes that he "gave up riches and the reins of government and left his own kingdom in the name of Christ".[7] He was succeeded by Caedwalla. The date of his death is unknown. [/quote]

Look at this:

[quote author=”Wiki”] An entry under 682 in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that "Centwine drove the Britons to the sea". This is the only event recorded in his reign. The Carmina Ecclesiastica of Aldhelm, Bishop of Sherborne (died 709), written a generation after Centwine's reign, records that he won three great battles.[/quote]

So, the phrase ‘Centwine drove the Britons to the sea’ was the ONLY event recorded in his reign, and the details were filled in by this Bishop one generation after Centwine’s death?!

Not only that, but:

[quote author=”Wiki”]In addition, it states that he was a pagan for part of his reign, adopting Christianity and becoming a patron of the church. [/quote]

What made him convert?

Next, I looked a bit closer at this:

[quote author=”Wiki”]680 - Wilfrid converts the last Saxon pagan realm, the Kingdom of Sussex, to Christianity.[1] [/quote]
On Wilfrid we find:
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfrid
[quote author=”Wiki”]Wilfrid (originally spelled Wilfrith;[3] c. 633 – c. 709) was an English bishop and saint. Born a Northumbrian noble, he entered religious life as a teenager and studied at Lindisfarne, at Canterbury, in Gaul, and at Rome; he returned to Northumbria in about 660, and became the abbot of a newly founded monastery at Ripon. In 664 Wilfrid acted as spokesman for the Roman position at the Synod of Whitby, and became famous for his speech advocating that the Roman method for calculating the date of Easter should be adopted. His success prompted the king's son, Alhfrith, to appoint him Bishop of Northumbria. Wilfrid chose to be consecrated in Gaul because of the lack of what he considered to be validly consecrated bishops in England at that time. During Wilfrid's absence Alhfrith seems to have led an unsuccessful revolt against his father, Oswiu, leaving a question mark over Wilfrid's appointment as bishop. Before Wilfrid's return Oswiu had appointed Ceadda in his place, resulting in Wilfrid's retirement to Ripon for a few years following his arrival back in Northumbria.
After becoming Archbishop of Canterbury in 668, Theodore of Tarsus resolved the situation by deposing Ceadda and restoring Wilfrid as the Bishop of Northumbria. For the next nine years Wilfrid discharged his episcopal duties, founded monasteries, built churches, and improved the liturgy. However his diocese was very large, and Theodore wished to reform the English Church, a process which included breaking up some of the larger dioceses into smaller ones. When Wilfrid quarrelled with Ecgfrith, the Northumbrian king, Theodore took the opportunity to implement his reforms despite Wilfrid's objections. After Ecgfrith expelled him from York, Wilfrid travelled to Rome to appeal to the papacy. Pope Agatho ruled in Wilfrid's favour, but Ecgfrith refused to honour the papal decree and instead imprisoned Wilfrid on his return to Northumbria before exiling him.
Wilfrid spent the next few years in Selsey, where he founded an episcopal see and converted the pagan inhabitants of the Kingdom of Sussex to Christianity. Theodore and Wilfrid settled their differences, and Theodore urged the new Northumbrian king, Aldfrith, to allow Wilfrid's return. Aldfrith agreed to do so, but in 691 he expelled Wilfrid again. Wilfrid went to Mercia, where he helped missionaries and acted as bishop for the Mercian king. Wilfrid appealed to the papacy about his expulsion in 700, and the pope ordered that an English council should be held to decide the issue. This council, held at Austerfield in 702, attempted to confiscate all of Wilfrid's possessions, and so Wilfrid travelled to Rome to appeal against the decision. His opponents in Northumbria excommunicated him, but the papacy upheld Wilfrid's side, and he regained possession of Ripon and Hexham, his Northumbrian monasteries. Wilfrid died in 709 or 710. After his death, he was venerated as a saint.
Historians then and now have been divided over Wilfrid. His followers commissioned Stephen of Ripon to write a Vita Sancti Wilfrithi (or Life of Wilfrid) shortly after his death, and the medieval historian Bede also wrote extensively about him. Wilfrid lived ostentatiously, and travelled with a large retinue. He ruled a large number of monasteries, and claimed to be the first Englishman to introduce the Rule of Saint Benedict into English monasteries. Some modern historians see him mainly as a champion of Roman customs against the customs of the British and Irish churches, others as an advocate for monasticism. [/quote]
This guy seems to have caused a lot of trouble everywhere he went! I found the following bits quite interesting:
[quote author=”Wiki”]In 664 Wilfrid acted as spokesman for the Roman position at the Synod of Whitby, and became famous for his speech advocating that the Roman method for calculating the date of Easter should be adopted. [/quote]
As opposed to which already established system?
[quote author=”Wiki”]However his diocese was very large, and Theodore wished to reform the English Church, a process which included breaking up some of the larger dioceses into smaller ones. When Wilfrid quarrelled with Ecgfrith, the Northumbrian king, Theodore took the opportunity to implement his reforms despite Wilfrid's objections. [/quote]
It looks like Wilfrid was aiming for centralisation of power, while Theodore wanted to break it up…
[quote author=”Wiki”]Wilfrid spent the next few years in Selsey, where he founded an episcopal see and converted the pagan inhabitants of the Kingdom of Sussex to Christianity. [/quote]
How did he manage to do this?
Well, I found a clue here:
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Sussex
[quote author=”Wiki”]There had been a famine in the land of the South Saxons when Wilfrid arrived.[29] Wilfrid taught the locals to fish, and they were impressed with Wilfrid's teachings and agreed to be baptised en masse.[29] On the day of the baptisms the rain fell on the "thirsty earth", so ending the famine.[29] [/quote]
A “famine”?
Following on, some more clues about Wilfrid:
[quote author=”Wiki”]Wilfrid lived ostentatiously, and travelled with a large retinue. He ruled a large number of monasteries, and claimed to be the first Englishman to introduce the Rule of Saint Benedict into English monasteries. Some modern historians see him mainly as a champion of Roman customs against the customs of the British and Irish churches, others as an advocate for monasticism. [/quote]

What kind of a man would ‘live ostentatiously, and travel with a large retinue’? We know that he went against the traditional customs of the British and Irish churches, but was he taking advantage of an already weakened population dying off quickly due to cataclysmic events around that time?

Okay, some more on the background of Wilfrid’s time:

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfrid

[quote author=”Wiki”]During Wilfrid's lifetime the British Isles consisted of a number of small kingdoms. Traditionally the English people were thought to have been divided into seven kingdoms, but modern historiography has shown that this is a simplification of a much more confused situation.[4] A late 7th-century source, the Tribal Hidage, lists the peoples south of the Humber river; among the largest groups of peoples are the West Saxons (later Wessex), the East Angles and Mercians (later the Kingdom of Mercia), and the Kingdom of Kent. Smaller groups who at that time had their own royalty but were later absorbed into larger kingdoms include the peoples of Magonsæte, Lindsey, Hwicce, the East Saxons, the South Saxons,[5] the Isle of Wight, and the Middle Angles.[6] Other even smaller groups had their own rulers, but their size means that they do not often appear in the histories.[5] There were also native Britons in the west, in modern-day Wales and Cornwall, who formed kingdoms including those of Dumnonia, Dyfed, and Gwynedd.[7]
Between the Humber and Forth the English had formed into two main kingdoms, Deira and Bernicia, often united as the Kingdom of Northumbria.[8] A number of Celtic kingdoms also existed in this region, including Craven, Elmet, Rheged, and Gododdin. A native British kingdom, later called the Kingdom of Strathclyde, survived as an independent power into the 10th century in the area which became modern-day Dunbartonshire and Clydesdale.[9] To the north-west of Strathclyde lay the Gaelic kingdom of Dál Riata, and to the north-east a small number of Pictish kingdoms.[10] Further north still lay the great Pictish kingdom of Fortriu, which after the Battle of Dun Nechtain in 685 came to be the strongest power in the northern half of Britain.[11][12][13] The Irish had always had contacts with the rest of the British Isles, and during the early 6th century they immigrated from the island of Ireland to form the kingdom of Dál Riata, although exactly how much conquest took place is a matter of dispute with historians. It also appears likely that the Irish settled in parts of Wales, and even after the period of Irish settlement, Irish missionaries were active in Britain.[14]
Christianity had only recently arrived in some of these kingdoms.[15] Some had been converted by the Gregorian mission, a group of Roman missionaries who arrived in Kent in 597 and who mainly influenced southern Britain. Others had been converted by the Hiberno-Scottish mission, chiefly Irish missionaries working in Northumbria and neighbouring kingdoms.[16] A few kingdoms, such as Dál Riata, became Christian but how they did so is unknown.[17] The native Picts, according to the medieval writer Bede, were converted in two stages, initially by native Britons under Ninian, and subsequently by Irish missionaries.[18] [/quote]
It seems to me that, since the change was from the Germanic fot (foot) to the unknown fet (feet), then maybe a lot of Anglo-Saxons were the ones to suffer most losses, and were influenced by the natives? Maybe that’s why there was such a push at the time to centralise the bases of power by people like Wilfrid?

If we hypothesise that the Germanic peoples suffered more than the natives, maybe their differences in diet, religious beliefs and life styles can be ascertained, thus giving us some guidelines as to how to prepare for similar events?

Incidentally, while investigating the source of the Old English, I came across this:

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_language

[quote author=”Wiki”]Old English was not static, and its usage covered a period of 700 years, from the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain in the 5th century to the late 11th century, some time after the Norman invasion.
Old English is a West Germanic language, developing out of Ingvaeonic (also known as North Sea Germanic) dialects from the 5th century. Anglo-Saxon literacy developed after Christianisation in the late 7th century. The oldest surviving text of Old English literature is Cædmon's Hymn, composed between 658 and 680. There is a limited corpus of runic inscriptions from the 5th to 7th centuries, but the oldest coherent runic texts (notably Franks Casket) date to the 8th century. [/quote]
So, between 658 and 680, in our time period of interest, there is a piece of poetry called ‘Cædmon's Hymn’. What is this hymn about then?

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A6dmon%27s_Hymn

[quote author=”Wiki”]Cædmon's Hymn is a short Old English poem originally composed by Cædmon, in honour of God the Creator. It survives in a Latin translation by Bede in his Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum and in vernacular versions written down in several manuscripts of Bede's Historia.
Bede wrote about the poet and his work in the fourth book of his Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum.[1] Bede told the story of Cædmon who was an illiterate cow-herd who miraculously was able to recite a Christian song of creation in Old English verse. This miracle happened after Cædmon left a feast when they were passing a harp around for all to sing a song. He left the hall after feeling ashamed that he could not contribute a song. Later in a dream he said a man appeared to him and asked him to sing a song. Cædmon responded that he could not sing, yet the man told him that he could and asked him to “Sing to me the beginning of all things.” Cædmon was then able to sing verses and words that he had not heard of before.[citation needed] Cædmon then reported his experience first to a steward then to Hild the abbess. She invited scholars to evaluate Cædmon’s gift, and he was sent home to turn more divine doctrine into song.[citation needed] The abbess was so impressed with the success of his gift that she encouraged him to become a monk.[citation needed] He learned the history of the Christian church and created more music like the story of Genesis and many biblical stories which impressed his teachers. Bede says that Cædmon in his creation of his songs wanted to turn man from love of sin to a love of good deeds.[citation needed] Cædmon is said to have died peacefully in his sleep after asking for the Eucharist and making sure he was at peace with his fellow men.[citation needed] [/quote]
Cædmon was able to ‘sing verses and words that he had not heard of before’? Somehow this sounds like Channeling to me. Does this story give us a clue about these mysterious ‘native traditions’ that had to be stamped out by people like Wilfrid?

Perhaps there was some mixing of the populations going on during the 7th century, as indicated by the vowel changes taking place. The Germanic peoples were suffering terribly due to cometary activity, and they were adopting the ways of the natives at the time. Something had to be done, so there was a push by the establishment to force the pagans to adopt Christianity, thus destroying the older traditions?

I am by no means a Historical Linguist, I am just presenting some interesting finds that I came across. I hope to be corrected if I am wrong, and I would like to read the insights from others who know a lot more about this than I do.

Thanks for reading
 
Re: The i-mutation during 7th-century England (and History)

I enjoyed your post. It is very interesting. Maybe you are interested in the Historical Event Database thread and project?

I am reading the Fourth Book of the Chronicles of Fredegar. It mostly describes the time from about 584 till 768 in the region that is now more or less France, the northern part of Italy, some part of Germany, Belgium, Holland, (Middle East) and some adjoining regions. I have got the impression that not many people lived then and there. There are fewer tribes mentioned compared with later Carolingian time chronicles. And conversion to Christianity is also a hot topic there. By the way the chronicle was written in "bad Latin". It seems that Latin knowledge was a low priority for Fredegar and for others back then.

In the second half of the sixth century there were major events in Europe - one of the big cataclysmic times. Afterwards the Roman names seem to be out of use mostly but Christian names not in use yet (until at least 10th century). To say that the life was not easy back then is an understatement. You find this drop of civilization described in Pierres and Laura's new book "Earth Changes and the Human-Cosmic Connection", too.

As far as I know was the food of the Germanic people based on meat. Caesar mentions it in his book the Gallic Wars and also Charlemagne liked to eat a lot of meat. The grain-eating Romans seem to have vanished from Western Europe in about the 6th century with the cataclysms. By the way the Saxons on the continent were among the survivors. There were still connections between the Saxons on the British Isle and on the Continent mentioned by Widukind of Corvey (10th century), The Saxons were growing in both regions, I think. When they were reduced in Britain in the 7th century, this could be connected with the type of region (the flatter parts of Britain) or that they lived nearer the local Romans and their possible plague / famines IMO.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Hi Robin Turner :)

Your post was quite enjoyable to read and i've been meaning to comment. (actually, scanning over it, i'll have to re-read it!)

Firstly, i too was looking into a similar time frame around Europe, in particular England, and even being familiar with alot of the concepts stated here, i am still trying to order it in my head.

I was looking at a Saint (Ceadda) who had 4 brothers who all became bishops (novel according to Bede) and 2 were attributed as 'bringing christianity' to the area/converting etc.. Now, as research is showing there were groups who may have sheltered themselves during the cataclysms, and knowing the manipulation of history, i can't tell whether the 4 brothers are the same person; it's propaganda or a mixture of them all.

What i found, after buying a copy of The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles by Anne Savage from a charity shop for 0.50p (GBP), was around the time they were supposed to be doing their thing, it mentions the following:

664 - The sun darkened on May 3rd. In the same year, there was much pestilence on the Island of Britain; and in the pestilence Bishop Tuda passed away, and was buried in Wagel. Arcenbryht, king of Kent, passed away. Ecgbryht, his sone, received the kingdom of, Colman, with his company, went to his own country. Ceadda and Wilfrid were consecrate; and in the same year archbishop Deusdedit passed away.
[...]
671 - There was a great death of birds.

And apparently around the same time the bishop of Canterbury died of Plague.

Anyway, your post reminded me of this and i thought this may be of interest.

Caveat - i can't confirm whether this book is 'reliable' or reputable, this will be confirmed elsewhere here.

The historical database project seems most appropriate for you, so i would check that out, from what i have been following, there's some very interesting work going on.

I recently listened to 'Who was Jesus' which contains a really enjoyable discussion quite relevant to your research. Laura lists some of their findings. http://www.sott.net/article/264750-SOTT-Talk-Radio-Who-was-Jesus-Examining-the-evidence-that-Christ-may-in-fact-have-been-Caesar
from the Transcript

SOTT Talk Radio: Who was Jesus? Examining the evidence that Christ may in fact have been Caesar!

549: Flood in Cilicia; plague in the British territories (according to the Bishop of Llandaff)...

551: Another Beirut earthquake and tsunami; earthquake over the Middle East; "the sea retreats" (John Malalus)...

553: Earthquake, terrible thunder, and lightning (from Chronicle of Theophanes)...

554: Earthquake in Constantinople; the destruction of Baalbek (now that's interesting...wait till you read the next book and hear about Baalbek--that's very, very interesting)...

555: There's another earthquake in Constantinople and plague...

556: Famine [in] Constantinople, plague, ashes fell from the sky...
 
Back
Top Bottom