Kingship, Society, and the Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire 0198818777, 9780198818779

Citation preview

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

Medieval History and Archaeology General Editors JOHN BLAIR  HELENA HAMEROW

Kingship, Society, and the Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

MEDIEVAL HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY General Editors John Blair  Helena Hamerow

The volumes in this series bring together archaeological, historical, and visual methods to offer new approaches to aspects of medieval society, economy, and material culture. The series seeks to present and interpret archaeological evidence in ways readily accessible to historians, while providing a historical perspective and context for the material culture of the period. RECENTLY PUBLISHED IN THIS SERIES ANGLO-SAXON FARMS AND FARMING

Debby Banham and Rosamond Faith THE OPEN FIELDS OF ENGLAND

David Hall PERCEPTIONS OF THE PREHISTORIC IN ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND

Religion, Ritual, and Rulership in the Landscape Sarah Semple TREES AND TIMBER IN THE ANGLO-SAXON WORLD

Edited by Michael D. J. Bintley and Michael G. Shapland VIKING IDENTITIES

Scandinavian Jewellery in England Jane F. Kershaw LITURGY, ARCHITECTURE, AND SACRED PLACES IN ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND

Helen Gittos RURAL SETTLEMENTS AND SOCIETY IN ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND

Helena Hamerow PARKS IN MEDIEVAL ENGLAND

S. A. Mileson ANGLO-SAXON DEVIANT BURIAL CUSTOMS

Andrew Reynolds BEYOND THE MEDIEVAL VILLAGE

The Diversification of Landscape Character in Southern Britain Stephen Rippon WATERWAYS AND CANAL-BUILDING IN MEDIEVAL ENGLAND

Edited by John Blair

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

KINGSHIP, SOCIETY, AND THE CHURCH IN ANGLO-SAXON YORKSHIRE THOMAS PICKLES

3

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Thomas Pickles 2018 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2018 Impression:1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2018941897 ISBN 978–0–19–881877–9 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

Acknowledgements The seeds from which this book grew were sown during undergraduate tutorials on early medieval history and archaeology, which inspired BA, M.St., and D.Phil. dissertations on aspects of the church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire. Twelve years of teaching and research at four universities have contributed to its final form. Many debts of gratitude are owed, institutional and personal. Wadham College, Oxford, was my home for BA, M.St., and D.Phil. degrees, elected me to a Senior Scholarship, and employed me as a Lecturer from 2004 to 2005. First and special thanks are owed to my Wadham tutors Cliff Davies, Jane Garnett, Matthew Kempshall, Jörn Leonhard, and Alexander Sedlmaier. John Blair was an outstanding supervisor and has been an unfailing source of help and advice. John Nightingale nurtured my early medieval interests in tutorials and wrote references. Juliane Kerkhecker provided excellent Latin teaching. Richard Sharpe introduced me to Diplomatic. Tyler Bell oversaw the construction of a relational database linked to GIS software. Jane Hawkes and John Maddicott examined the D.Phil. thesis, provided excellent suggestions, and wrote references. Without financial support from several institutions the research would not have been completed. The Arts and Humanities Research Council funded my M.St. and D.Phil. research. The Vaughan Cornish Bequest provided money for visiting sites with Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture in Yorkshire. The book evolved during Lectureships at St Catherine’s College, Oxford (2005–9), the University of York (2009–12), Birkbeck (2012–13), and the University of Chester (2013– present). At Chester it benefited from the Faculty of Humanities Research Fund and was completed during my first period of research leave. Amongst the many wonderful people at these institutions, some deserve special mention: my St Catherine’s History colleagues—Marc Mulholland and Gervase Rosser; my Head of Department at Birkbeck—John Arnold; and three History colleagues at York—Katy Cubitt, Guy Halsall, and Craig Taylor. The Centre for Medieval Studies at York is an extraordinary place and I hope its staff will not mind receiving collective mention. Many individuals have contributed to the genesis of this book. Philip Rahtz, Richard Morris, and Lorna Watts met with a green second-year undergraduate in 1999 and all three have been generous with time and ideas. Lesley Abrams began as a reserve supervisor for my D.Phil. but quickly became a friend, a travelling partner, and an intellectual inspiration. Mary Garrison offered invaluable comments on a letter of Abbess Ælfflæd of Streoneshalh (Whitby). Matt Townend

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

vi Acknowledgements shared a draft of his excellent book Viking Age Yorkshire before publication. Jo Buckberry and Lizzie Craig-Atkins allowed me to use the results of their unpublished doctoral dissertations. Steve Bassett, Stephen Baxter, Betty Coatsworth, Rosemary Cramp, Tom Lambert, Ryan Lavelle, Steve Sherlock, and Alex Woolf supplied copies of their work and answered queries by e-mail. Participants in three Research Networks discussed some of the ideas: Ian Forrest and Sethina Watson’s ‘Social Church’ network; Roy Flechner and Máire Ní Mhaonaigh’s ‘Converting the Isles’ network; and Gordon Noble and Gabor Thomas’ ‘Royal Residences 500–800 AD’ network. Informal conversations with the following people have shaped my thinking: Philip Bullock, Thomas Charles-Edwards, Marios Costambeys, Andrew Dilley, Simon Ditchfield, Roy Flechner, Robin Fleming, Sally Foster, Helen Gittos, Meggen Gondek, Jenny Hillman, Charles Insley, George Molyneaux, Christopher Norton, Tom O’Donnell, David Parsons, Chris Renwick, David Rollason, Sarah Semple, David Stocker, Alice Taylor, Alan Thacker, Gabor Thomas, Elizabeth Tyler, Zoë Waxman, William Whyte, Howard Williams, and Barbara Yorke. Students at Oxford, York, Birkbeck, and Chester have taught me innumerable things. Dan Smith read and commented on a complete draft. Oxford University Press have been patient in awaiting the manuscript and efficient in processing it. John Blair and Helena Hamerow supported the initial proposal for the series. The two anonymous readers provided very positive and helpful comments on the initial draft. Stephanie Ireland, Cathryn Steele, Santhosh Palani, and Dorothy McCarthy have been exemplary editors. The Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture supplied most of the images and Derek Craig was wonderfully efficient on their behalf. The Whitby Literary and Philosophical Society and Whitby Museum gave permission to use the cover image. Paul Gwilliam allowed me to use his images of the Dewsbury sculpture. The greatest debt is to my family and the book is dedicated to them—my parents, Uncle Graham, Anne, and Antony and Michelle and their families. My father inspired my love of history and he and my mother have been unfailingly supportive: I wish that she had lived to see the D.Phil. and book completed, but I am extremely fortunate that he will read and appreciate the book. My wife Katherine shares my passion for history and is responsible for this book in too many ways to mention: I am even more fortunate that we will continue thinking about it together. My daughter Isla should never have to read it, but if she glances at the acknowledgements she will be reminded how important she is to both of us.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

Contents List of Images List of Maps List of Tables List of Abbreviations Maps of Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire Note on Names

ix xi xiii xv xix xxv

Introduction1 1. The Kingdom of the Deirans, 450–650

15

2. The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’, 600–730

57

3. Politics, Conversion, and Christianization, 616–867

93

4. The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

128

5. Kingship, Social Change, and the Church, 867–1066

187

6. Religious Communities, Local Churches, and the Laity, 867–1066224 Conclusion

278

Appendix 1. Burials and Cemeteries from Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire Appendix 2. Stone Sculpture from Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire Bibliography Index

287 298 319 365

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

List of Images 1. CASSS VIII: Dewsbury 9A. 2. CASSS VIII: Dewsbury 4A. 3. CASSS VIII: Dewsbury 5A. 4. CASSS VIII: Dewsbury 3A. 5. CASSS VIII: Otley 1cA. 6. CASSS VI: Masham 1. 7. CASSS VIII: Collingham 1D. 8. CASSS VIII: Melsonby 1CD. 9. CASSS VIII: Ilkley 1C. 10. CASSS VIII: Sheffield 1A. 11. CASSS VI: York Minster 38A. 12. CASSS III: Nunburnholme 1aB–1bD. 13. CASSS III: York Minster 2A. 14. CASSS III: York Minster 34A. 15. CASSS III: York Minster 34D. 16. CASSS VIII: Addingham 1A. 17. CASSS VIII: Ripon 3A. 18. CASSS VIII: Ripon 4. 19. CASSS VIII: Barwick in Elmet 2A. 20. CASSS VI: Coverham 1. 21. CASSS VIII: Bramham 1A. 22. CASSS VIII: Bilton in Ainsty 3A. 23. CASSS VIII: Kirkby Wharfe 1A. 24. CASSS III: Kirkdale 1A. 25. CASSS VIII: Leeds 1C–6C. 26. CASSS III: Skipwith 1. 27. CASSS VI: Brompton 3D. 28. CASSS VI: Kirklevington 4A.

166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 235 237 238 240 240 241 242 242 255 256 257 258 259 260 263 264 267 268

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

List of Maps 1. The topographical regions of Yorkshire. xix 2. The bedrock geology of Yorkshire. xx 3. The superficial geology of Yorkshire. xx 4. The vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire. xxi 5. British and Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire, c.450–c.650.xxii 6. The Kingdom of the Deirans, c.600–c.867.xxii 7. Anglo-Scandinavian Yorkshire, c.867–c.1066.xxiii 8. The mother parishes of Yorkshire. 155 9. The religious community of Streoneshalh (Whitby) and its satellites. 161 10. The distribution of kirkja-by(r) place-names. 246 11. Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture with figural images, c.867–c.1066.254 12. Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture schools, c.867–c.1066.272 13. Early to mid Anglo-Saxon burials and cemeteries in Yorkshire. 297 14. Mid to late Anglo-Saxon burials and cemeteries in Yorkshire. 297 15. Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture in Yorkshire. 317

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

List of Tables 1. Anglo-Saxon coinage in Yorkshire, c.600–c.867.119 2. The topographical locations of Deiran religious communities, c.600–c.867.138 3. References to mother churches and chapels in medieval Yorkshire. 146 4. Mother churches in medieval Yorkshire. 154 5. Soke estates in eleventh-century Yorkshire. 158 6. Kirkja-by(r) place-names. 245 7. Cist burials in Yorkshire. 287 8. Early Anglo-Saxon cremation burials and cemeteries in Yorkshire. 287 9. Early Anglo-Saxon inhumation burials and cemeteries in Yorkshire. 288 10. Early Anglo-Saxon mixed cemeteries in Yorkshire. 289 11. Early to mid Anglo-Saxon inhumation burials and cemeteries in Yorkshire. 290 12. Mid Anglo-Saxon inhumation burials and cemeteries in Yorkshire. 292 13. Mid to late Anglo-Saxon inhumation burials and cemeteries in Yorkshire. 294 14. Late Anglo-Saxon inhumation burials and cemeteries in Yorkshire. 295 15. Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture by date. 298 16. Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture by source. 308

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

List of Abbreviations Abt

Laws of Æthelberht: Liebermann (ed.) 1903–16: I, 3–8; Attenborough (ed. and trans.) 1922: 4–17. Æthelweard, Chronicon Campbell (ed. and trans.) 1962. Annales Cambriae Dumville (ed.) 2002. Annals of Ulster Mac Airt and Mac Niocaill (ed. and trans.) 1983. AO Ehwald (ed.) 1919. APW Lapidge and Herren (trans.) 1979. ASC A Anglo-Saxon chronicle MS A: Bately (ed.) 1986. ASC B Anglo-Saxon chronicle MS B: Taylor (ed.) 1983. ASC C Anglo-Saxon chronicle MS C: O’Brien O’Keefe (ed.) 2001. ASC D Anglo-Saxon chronicle MS D: Cubbin (ed.) 1996. ASC E Anglo-Saxon chronicle MS E: Irvine (ed.) 2004. ASSAH Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History ASE Anglo-Saxon England BAACT British Archaeological Association Conference Transactions BAR British Archaeological Reports CASSS I Cramp (ed.) 1984. CASSS II Bailey (ed.) 1988. CASSS III Lang (ed.) 1991. CASSS V Everson and Stocker (eds) 1999. CASSS VI Lang (ed.) 2002. CASSS VIII Coatsworth (ed.) 2008. CASSS IX Bailey (ed.) 2010. CAW Atkinson (ed.) 1879–81. CBA Council for British Archaeology CCSL Corpus Christiana Series Latina Continuatio Baedae McClure and Collins (ed. and trans.) 1994: 296–8. CPG Brown (ed.) 1889–91. CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum DA Æthelwulf, De abbatibus: Campbell (ed. and trans.) 1967. DB Domesday Book: Morris (ed. and trans.) 1975–86. DEC Offler (ed.) 1968. DGRA De gestis rebus Ælfredi: Stevenson and Whitelock (eds) 1959; Keynes and Lapidge (trans.) 1983.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

xvi

List of Abbreviations

Dialogus Ecgberhti: Haddan and Stubbs (ed.) 1869–71: III, 403–13. DPS Alcuin, De pontificibus et sanctis ecclesiae Eboracensis: Godman (ed. and trans.) 1982. EE Bede, Epistola ad Ecgberhtum: Grocock and Wood (ed. and trans.) 2013: 123–61. EEA V Burton (ed.) 1988. EEA XX Lovatt (ed.) 2000. EHD I Whitelock (ed.) 1979. EHR English Historical Review EME Early Medieval Europe EYC Early Yorkshire Charters: Farrer and Clay (eds) 1935–65. EPNS English Place-Name Survey FH Roger of Wendover, Flores Historiarum: Coxe (ed.) 1841–4. HA Bede, Historia abbatum: Grocock and Wood (ed. and trans.) 2013: 21–75. HB Historia Brittonum: Morris (ed. and trans.) 1980. HE Bede, Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum: Colgrave and Mynors (ed. and trans.) 1969. Hl Laws of Hlothhere and Eadric: Liebermann (ed.) 1903–16: I, 9–11; Attenborough (ed. and trans.) 1922: 18–23. HR I Historia regum, first set of annals: Arnold (ed.) 1882–5: I, 3–95; Stevenson (trans.) 1858: 11–69. HR II Historia regum, second set of annals: Arnold (ed.) 1882–5: I, 95–128; Stevenson (trans.) 1858: 69–91. HSC Historia de sancto Cuthberto: Johnson South (ed. and trans.) 2002. Ine Laws of Ine: Liebermann (ed.) 1903–16: I, 20–7, 89–123; Attenborough (ed. and trans.) 1922: 36–61. II Ew Laws of Edward: Liebermann (ed.) 1903–16: I, 140–4; Attenborough (ed. and trans.) 1922: 118–21. IV Eg Laws of Edgar: Liebermann (ed.) 1903–16: I, 206–14; EHD I: Nos. 40–1. JBAA Journal of the British Archaeological Association JEPNS Journal of the English Place-Name Society LDE Symeon of Durham, Libellus de exordio: Rollason (ed. and trans.) 2000. LPN Gelling and Cole 2000. Mercian Register Taylor (ed.) 1983: 49–51. MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historica Nor Griđ Liebermann (ed.) 1903–16: I, 473. Norđleod Norđleoda laga: Liebermann (ed.) 1903–16: I, 458–60; EHD I: No. 51. Dialogus

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

Northu

List of Abbreviations

xvii

Northumbrian Priests’ Law: Liebermann (ed.) 1903–16: I, 380–5; EHD I: No. 53. PAS Portable Antiquities Scheme PNChesh Dodgson and Rumble (eds) 1970–97. PNCumb Armstrong, Mawer, Stenton, and Dickens (eds) 1950–2. PNERY Smith (ed.) 1937. PNLancs Mills (ed.) 1976. PNLincs Cameron (ed.) 1985–2010. PNNorthants Gover, Mawer, and Stenton (eds) 1933. PNNotts Mawer and Stenton (eds) 1940. PNNRY Smith (ed.) 1928. PNWest Smith (ed.) 1967. PNWRY Smith (ed.) 1952–9. PT Poenitentiale Theodori: Haddan and Stubbs (eds) 1869–71: III, 173–204; McNeill and Gamer (trans.) 1938: 179–215. P&P Past and Present RRAN Davis, Whitwell, and Johnson (eds) 1913–19. RRS Swanson (ed.) 1981–5. RSB Rule of St Benedict: Fry (ed. and trans.) 1981. RTC Brown and Hamilton Thompson (eds) 1925–8. RTR Barker (ed.) 1974–5. RWGray Raine (ed.) 1872. RWGreen Brown and Hamilton Thompson (eds) 1931–40. RWM Hill, Robinson, Brocklesby, and Timmins (eds) 1977–2011. S 000 Sawyer 1968. Sermo Anonymous Monk of Jarrow, Sermo on Ceolfrith: Grocock and Wood (ed. and trans.) 2013: 77–121. SSNEM Fellows-Jensen 1978. SSNNW Fellows-Jensen 1985. SSNY Fellows-Jensen 1972. TRHS Transactions of the Royal Historical Society VBon Willibald, Vita Bonifatii: Levison (ed.) 1905: 7–57; Talbot 1981: 25–62. VCA Anonymous Monk of Lindisfarne, Vita Cuthberti: Colgrave (ed. and trans.) 1940: 59–139. VCB Bede, Vita Cuthberti: Colgrave (ed. and trans.) 1940: 141–307. VCHER Allison, Kent, Neave, and Neave (eds) 1969–2012. VCHLeics Page, Hoskins, McKinley, and Lee (eds) 1907–64. VCHNR Page (ed.) 1914–23. VCol Adomnán, Vita Columbae: Anderson and Anderson (ed. and trans.) 1991.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

xviii

List of Abbreviations

Caley (ed.) 1825. Anonymous Monk of Streoneshalh (Whitby), Vita Gregorii: Colgrave (ed. and trans.) 1968. VGuth Felix, Vita Guthlaci: Colgrave (ed. and trans.) 1956. VLeo Rudolf of Fulda, Vita Leobae: Waitz (ed.) 1887: 118–31; Talbot 1981: 205–26. VW Stephen, Vita Wilfridi: Colgrave (ed. and trans.) 1927. VWil Alcuin, Vita Willibrordi: Levison (ed.) 1920: 81–141; Talbot 1981: 3–22. Wi Laws of Wihtred: Liebermann (ed.) 1903–16: I, 12–14; Attenborough (ed. and trans.) 1922: 24–32. Wif Be wifmannes beweddung: Liebermann (ed.) 1903–16: I, 442–4. YAJ Yorkshire Archaeological Journal YASRS Yorkshire Archaeological Society Record Series

VE VG

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

Maps of Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Map 1.  The topographical regions of Yorkshire. Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2018. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

xx

Maps of Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Map 2.  The bedrock geology of Yorkshire. Reproduced with the permission of the British Geological Survey © NERC. All rights Reserved.

Map 3.  The superficial geology of Yorkshire. Reproduced with the permission of the British Geological Survey © NERC. All rights Reserved.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi



Maps of Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

xxi

Map 4. The vegetation of Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire. Reproduced with the permission of Emeritus Professor Brian K. Roberts, Durham University.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

xxii

Maps of Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Map 5. British and Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire, c.450–c.650. Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2018. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service.

Map 6.  The kingdom of the Deirans, c.600–c.867. Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2018. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi



Maps of Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

xxiii

Map 7.  Anglo-Scandinavian Yorkshire, c.867–c.1066. Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2018. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

Note on Names Place-names are given in the form in which they appear in Ekwall (1960). County abbreviations are given for places outside Yorkshire and follow those in Ekwall (1960). Personal names are given in the form in which they appear in the Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England database (www.pase.ac.uk).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Introduction According to Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica, in 655 a confrontation took place that was crucial to the conversion of the Northumbrians to Christianity and the building of an institutional church. Penda, pagan king of the Mercians, attacked Oswiu, Christian king of the Northumbrians. Oswiu offered Penda ‘an incalculable and incredible store of royal treasures and gifts as the price of peace’, but Penda rejected the offer. Oswiu turned to God for assistance: Oswiu therefore bound himself with an oath, saying, ‘If the heathen foe will not accept our gifts, let us offer them to Him who will, even the Lord our God.’ So he vowed that if he gained the victory he would dedicate his daughter to the Lord as a holy virgin and give twelve small estates to build monasteries.

Penda and Oswiu fought at Winwæd (Went Bridge?):1 despite Penda’s superior forces and the defection of Oswiu’s former ally Æthelwald, Oswiu was victorious. Then King Oswiu, in fulfilment of his vow to the Lord, returned thanks to God for the victory granted him and gave his daughter Ælfflæd, who was scarcely a year old, to be consecrated to God in perpetual virginity. He also gave twelve small estates on which, as they were freed from any concern about earthly military service, a site and means might be provided for the monks to wage heavenly warfare and to pray with unceasing devotion that the race might win eternal peace.2

Either as a result, or as a subsequent act, Oswiu founded a monastery at Streoneshalh (Whitby), which became a dynastic mausoleum for his family and a centre for the training of bishops.3 Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica, like this book, is concerned with the relationship between kingship, society, and the church. Writing for the benefit of King Ceolwulf and his household, Bede produced a moral-didactic narrative that focused on the central role and agency of kings in converting to Christianity, enforcing Christianization, and constructing an institutional church. Bede suggested that the Christian model of ministerial kingship charged kings with the 1

  Breeze 2004, for discussion of the identification. 3   HE iii.24.   HE iii.24–5 and iv.23–4.

2

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

2

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

support and protection of the institutional church to fulfil their responsibility of Christian correction. His story about Oswiu is exemplary. The king converted, made a vow to God, and fulfilled it through his endowments. In turn, he achieved victory and supplied centres for pastoral care. The Historia Brittonum version of this story raises the possibility that Penda had been campaigning amongst the Goddodin to the north and accepted the offering as a recognition of overlordship, only for Oswiu to attack and defeat his retreating forces at Winwæd (Went Bridge?).4 Either way, Bede’s version was carefully crafted to focus on the role and agency of the king in conversion and Christianization. Bede’s work can be placed alongside other sources that seem to support his position. Papal letters were written to persuade kings of the advantages and obligations of ministerial kingship. Written royal law codes were composed after conversion to Christianity, revealing new protections afforded to the church. Royal diplomas presented kings as generous donors to the church. Ecclesiastical reformers expected kings to correct the church. Nevertheless, this book re-examines the role and agency of kings in conversion and Christianization. It emphasizes the social strategies of local kin groups as the explanation for patterns of conversion, Christianization, and church building. It does so through a regional case study of Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire. It contributes to two major strands in the historiography of the Anglo-Saxon church. First, it expands on recent analyses of the social forces driving conversion between 600 and 867. Second, it engages with debates surrounding the ‘minster hypothesis’, using the development of the church in one region of northern England from 600 to 1100 to move them forward. Closer attention to each of these historiographical strands will situate its contributions and explain why it is a case study of Yorkshire.

KINGSHIP, SOCIETY, AND THE CHURCH For a long time Bede’s reputation as a historical scholar was so high that his narrative was accepted almost verbatim, but critical analysis by historians and archaeologists has produced a greater focus on the social dynamics of conversion.5 Initially, historians reproduced Bede’s narrative of conversion and Chris­ tianization, with minor adjustments from additional written sources. They adopted his emphasis on the role and agency of kings. Both Sir Frank Stenton and John Godfrey took this approach.6 Growing recognition that Bede’s narrative was partial, shaped by his sources and agenda, brought this approach into question.7   Charles-Edwards 2013: 394–6; endorsed by Higham 2015: 97–102; but disputed by Dunshea 2015.   Pickles 2016a: esp. 71–9, for a more detailed survey and critical analysis. 6 7   Stenton 1947: 102–28; Godfrey 1962.   Campbell 1966; Campbell 1968. 4 5

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Introduction

3

Bede’s omissions were observed: the contribution of British or Frankish ecclesiastics, the growth of ecclesiastical wealth, the spread of monasticism, and the prominence of some contemporary churchmen.8 Bede’s classical and biblical influences were explored: his adoption of classical rhetorical principles to extend the narratives of evangelization in the Acts of the Apostles to the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons, presenting moral exemplars for contemporary kings and churchmen.9 Awareness of the limitations of Bede’s narrative prompted historians and archaeologists to seek wider perspectives on the dynamics of conversion and Christianization. Working in parallel to critical analyses of the textual evidence for ‘paganism’,10 historians and archaeologists produced new analyses of ‘pagan’ ritual specialists,11 ritual foci,12 and funeral rites,13 elucidating the relationship between social status, political power, and belief.14 Comparisons with missions outside England highlighted a broader range of factors that attracted kings to Christianity and conditioned decisions to convert.15 Setting Bede’s work alongside vernacular poetry suggested that conversion resulted in a fusion of secular noble culture with Christian culture.16 Influences from anthropology and sociology helped historians and archaeologists to look beyond kings at broader social changes; to treat conversion, not as an event, but as a process.17 Nevertheless, Bede’s emphasis on the role and agency of kings has remained dominant. Robin Fleming’s recent analysis of conversion begins by accepting that ‘One of the things our narrative accounts make clear about these developments [mission and conversion] is that kings were crucial in this transformation, because again and again we find that, once a king decided to convert, his people followed.’18 Nick Higham’s recent interdisciplinary analysis of the shift from tribal chieftains to Christian kings sets conversion in the context of major economic, social, and political change, but depicts it as a royal decision predicated on the practical benefits of Christianity to kings.19 Of course, this book depends on the contributions of all these studies. More­ over, there are precedents for its general approach and some of its arguments. 8   Campbell 1971; Hughes 1971; Campbell 1973; Mayr-Harting 1972; Wood 1983; Wood 1994a; Wood 1994b: 176–80. 9   Wallace-Hadrill 1971: 72–97; Markus 1975; Thacker 1976: esp. 186–234; Thacker 1983; McClure 1983. 10   Owen 1981; Meaney 1985; Meaney 1992; Page 1995; Church 2008; Barrow 2011. 11   Meaney 1989; Dickinson 1993; Knüsel and Ripley 2000. 12   Wilson 1992; Blair 1995a; Semple 2007; Carver, Sanmark, and Semple (eds) 2010. 13   Geake 2003; Williams 2006. 14  Williams  2001; Dickinson  2002; Dickinson  2005; Dobat  2006; Dickinson  2011; Price and Mortimer 2014. 15  Angenendt  1986; Mayr-Harting  1994; Fletcher  1997: 97–129; Higham  1997; Scharer  1997; Cusack 1998: 88–118; Yorke 1999; Yorke 2003a. 16   Wormald 1978; Fletcher 1997: esp. 100–253. 17   Bullough 1983; Boddington 1990; Halsall 1992b; Russell 1994; Geake 1997; Burnell and James 1999; Dunn 2009; Halsall 2010a. 18 19   Fleming 2010: 152.   Higham and Ryan 2013: 126–65, esp. 149–63.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

4

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Recent studies of the relationship between kingship, society, and the church in Carolingian Europe have argued that local kin groups and their social strategies lie behind patterns of kingship and church building.20 Investigating the social context of child oblation, Mayke de Jong has emphasized the role of Anglo-Saxon and Continental kin group strategies.21 In comparing post-Roman political structures, Chris Wickham has reconsidered the power of early AngloSaxon kings: his comparative discussion provides a basis for questioning their ability to drive conversion and church building.22 Influenced by the anthropology of conversion in modern, non-western societies, Henry Mayr-Harting has raised the possibility that kings were dependent on the opinion of local kin groups in seeking to convert and has suggested that the maintenance of a number of ‘pagans’ at court was a political strategy reflecting this reality.23 Inspired by earlier analyses of Anglo-Saxon kings and conversion, Damian Tyler has argued that the disadvantages outweighed the advantages and has highlighted their reluctance to convert.24 In observing the way existing social structures shaped the development of the Anglo-Saxon church, John Blair has posited that the development of a new nobility in the sixth century was a factor in the rapid investment in religious communities.25 To push these observations to their logical conclusion, this book reconstructs Anglo-Saxon social, political, and religious structures at the moment of conversion, arguing for the central importance of local kin groups. It suggests that the social strategies of local kin groups explain patterns of conversion, Christianization, and church building. It charts the origins and dynamics of a new social fraction—the ‘ecclesiastical aristocracy’—along with its impact on kingship and society from 600 to 867.

THE ‘MINSTER HYPOTHESIS’ Almost a century ago William Page set out a general model of the church in AngloSaxon England.26 Bede suggests that seventh-century preachers focused on the conversion of kings and relied on royal patronage, so Page hypothesized that the church developed within existing secular structures. Two forms of church had been founded at secular estate centres: independent monasteries housing monks and episcopal ‘minsters’ filled with clergy. These communities comprised the earliest network of pastoral centres. ‘Over their own lands the monasteries ministered to their parochiani, while the districts not under the rule of a monastery continued to be served by the bishop from his minster of priests.’27 However, he identified two tensions that served to undermine this system. The pastoral jurisdiction of monasteries and minsters was eroded by the foundation 21   Innes 2000; Hummer 2006; Costambeys 2007.  Jong 1996. 23 24   Wickham 2005: 318–24.  Mayr-Harting 1994.   Tyler 2007. 25 26 27   Blair 2005: 8–78.  Page 1914–15.   Page 1914–15: 65. 20 22

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Introduction

5

of proprietary churches on local manors. The Norman Conquest shifted power decisively in favour of regular communities of monks: minsters of clergy and proprietary churches were used to endow monasteries. The church organization in England immediately before and after the Conquest reflected the struggle between the seculars and regulars. Before the Conquest the country wavered between the two opinions, but afterwards the regulars held the power and the secular priests, whether incumbents of parish churches or members of communities, were forced to relinquish much of their endowments to increase the wealth of the monks.28

Page used Domesday Book to review the state of the church in eleventh-century England, observing the different degrees to which the original pattern of monasteries and minsters had been distorted in each region. Page’s seminal paper has exerted an enormous influence over study of the church in Anglo-Saxon England. His model was reinforced by studies of eleventh-century records from Canterbury—the Textus Roffensis, the Domesday Monachorum, and the White Book of St Augustine’s.29 Building on this, Lennard’s Rural England included an index of churches whose early status had been lost after they were granted to monasteries, which he interpreted as a system of minsters in the final stages of decay.30 Thanks to Page, Ward, and Lennard, this model became the orthodox interpretation of the development of the parish—a system of monasteries and minsters providing pastoral care, which had subsequently declined under the pressure of local church foundation and monastic reform.31 Following W. G. Hoskins’s focus on landscape history, historians undertook regional multi-disciplinary landscape studies, seeking signs of the same structures.32 Two conferences brought together the fruits of this work. The first considered local variations in the structural development of the Anglo-Saxon church—the relationship between monasteries, minsters, local churches, and parishes.33 The second considered the conceptual framework of the AngloSaxon church—the terminology for ecclesiastical structures and the theology of pastoral ministry—set in their British and Irish contexts.34 Nevertheless, reservations were also voiced about this model,35 culminating in a formal debate about the merits of the ‘minster hypothesis’.36 Following this debate the historiography has moved in two directions. There have been continuing doubts about the utility of the model.37 Yet there have been significant studies that have continued to employ it.38 What follows will review the ‘minster 29   Page 1914–15: 102.   Ward 1932; Ward 1933.   Lennard 1959: Appendix 4, 396–404. 31   Addleshaw 1952; Addleshaw 1954; Deansley 1961: 191–210; Godfrey 1969. 32  Kemp  1966, parts of which were published as Kemp  1967–8 and Kemp  1968; Hase  1975; Everitt 1986; Morris 1989: esp. 93–167; Sims-Williams 1990; Blair 1991. 33 34   Blair (ed.) 1988.   Blair and Sharpe (eds) 1992. 35   Cambridge 1984; Morris 1989: 120–34; Cubitt 1992; Rollason 1999, though originally presented to the Harlaxton conference in 1994. 36   Cambridge and Rollason 1995; Blair 1995b; Palliser 1996. 37 38   Hadley 2000b: 38–9, 216–17; Rollason 2003: 168–9.   Blair 2005; Foot 2006. 28 30

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

6

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

hypothesis’ and the associated criticisms. The model remains an essential framework for analysis, but care needs to be taken in how it is conceived and employed. Debate derives partly from the different source base in northern England, which makes a case study of the church in northern England desirable. Debate has served a vital purpose in highlighting outstanding questions to which this study will seek to provide some answers. The minster model Reducing a century of scholarship to a brief summary risks over-simplification, but it is necessary to provide a touchstone for discussion. Following the official conversion of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the seventh century, religious communities were introduced. These religious communities were not governed by any normative rule, could be comprised of monks, clergy, and nuns, in various combinations, and might include semi-monastic brethren.39 The Old English term mynster, ‘minster’, is often employed to distinguish them from later reformed Benedictine monasteries,40 though the more neutral phrase ‘religious community’ is preferred here. Histories and royal diplomas reveal a boom in the foundation of religious communities between the 670s and 730s in particular.41 Their popularity has been explained by the emergence of a new nobility seeking a means to consolidate its social position through investment in an exotic external culture and its institutions.42 The enthusiasm for religious communities over episcopal churches and local churches may reflect their compatibility with existing social institutions like kinship and the household, and their potential to provide perpetual commemoration and hospitality.43 Grants of land for founding religious communities were given on unusually advantageous terms, to the individual abbot or abbess, in perpetuity and with freedom of alienation, making them desirable assets.44 Religious communities became widespread and probably constituted the earliest pastoral centres in Anglo-Saxon England. Prescriptive canons from episcopal councils expected all clergy and monks to live in religious communities and envisaged bishops overseeing religious communities as providers of pastoral care.45 Didactic histories describe ideal religious communities from which clergy and ordained monks pursued pastoral tours in the surrounding landscape.46 They suggest that the cult of saints forged a close relationship between religious 39   Mayr-Harting 1972: 148–67; Wormald 1976: esp. 141–6; Sims-Williams 1990: 115–43; Blair 2005: 80–3; Foot 2006: 172–84. 40   Foot 1992; Blair 2005: 2–3; Foot 2006: 5–10. 41   Mayr-Harting 1972: 148; Wormald 1982a: 70–8; Blair 2005: 84–100. 42 43   Blair 2005: 49–57.   Blair 2005: 73–8. 44   Wormald 1984; Blair 2005: 84–91; Wood 2006: 109–39, 152–60. 45   Cubitt 1992; Cubitt 1995: 116–17; Blair 2005: 162–3; Foot 2006: 293–4. 46   Thacker 1983; Thacker 1992; Blair 2005: 162–4; Foot 2006: 291–6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Introduction

7

communities and local lay communities.47 Existing structures of lordship provided a territorial basis for this pastoral role—members of religious communities may have ministered to the inhabitants of large royal resource territories in return for dues and services.48 Tenth-century laws reveal religious communities already possessed areas of pastoral jurisdiction and use the language of lordship to describe these areas.49 Many religious communities re-emerge in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries as mother churches with authority over large mother parishes; sometimes earlier royal resource territories bear a close relationship to the extent of these mother parishes.50 Religious communities perhaps became the first stable central places in Anglo-Saxon England.51 Enthusiastic investment in religious communities between the 670s and 730s created tensions that in turn transformed their fortunes, which were outlined in Bede’s Epistola ad Ecgberhtum in 734.52 Kings alienated too many resources in founding religious communities, episcopal structures were neglected, and the valuable terms of their endowments resulted in religious communities becoming pawns in familial politics. All this resulted in royal, episcopal, and noble expropriation of religious communities in the later eighth and ninth centuries.53 Scandinavian raiding, conquest, and settlement reduced the wider social sanction for religious communities and reduced their endowments.54 From the second half of the ninth century onwards, lay aristocrats began to found proprietary churches on their local estates, which gradually undermined the pastoral role of religious communities.55 By the time Domesday Book was compiled in the late eleventh century, many religious communities comprised just two or three clergy holding 1–2 hides of land.56 The utility of the minster model Criticism of the model developed in part from a concern that it might become a ‘new orthodoxy’, inflexible and self-reinforcing.57 Reviewing the historiography suggests instead that there has been a consistent dialogue between the broader accounts of ecclesiastical organization and local and regional studies. Comparing the cruder summaries by Addleshaw or Godfrey with the formulations set out in the introductory sections of the two conference volumes or in the contributions to the debate quickly establishes the way the model has been modified over time.58 Focusing on particular changes emphasizes this point. When the model was summarized in 1985, it was stated that kings created coherent networks 48   Blair 2002a; Blair 2005: 141–9; Foot 2006: 307–11.   Blair 2005: 153–60. 50   Blair 2005: 427–51.   Blair (ed.) 1988: 1–19 and the studies that follow; Blair 2005: 157–8. 51 52   Blair 2005: 246–90.   Blair 2005: 100–8. 53   Brooks 1984: 129–52, 175–206; Sims-Williams 1990: 144–76; Blair 2005: 121–34, 279–90, 323–9. 54   Blair 2005: 292–323. 55   Blair 1987; Blair (ed.) 1988: 1–19; Morris 1989: 140–67; Blair 2005: 368–425. 56 57  Blair 1985.   Rollason 1999: 61, 68–71. 58   Addleshaw 1952; Godfrey 1969; Blair 1985; Blair and Sharpe 1992: 1, 6; Blair 1995b. 47 49

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

8

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

of religious communities in the seventh and early eighth centuries to facilitate pastoral tours,59 based on the work of Brian Kemp in Berkshire, Hase’s study of Hampshire, and Blair’s survey of Surrey.60 By 1992, Blair and Sharpe had conceded that it was probably misleading to assume that the majority of communities were founded at an early date, or that they were founded primarily for pastoral care, proposing a longer period during which the network of religious communities were founded between the seventh and tenth centuries;61 this reflected the work of Richard Morris on Yorkshire and Patrick Sims-Williams on Worcestershire, and responded to the reservations voiced by Katy Cubitt.62 Equally, regional variation has been highlighted by employing the model as a benchmark for comparison and contrast in local case studies. Observing the comparatively late date of the foundation of parishes in the Leominster area, Brian Kemp argued that this reflected the remote location of the parishes and the strong controlling influence of the crown and the nunnery of Leominster.63 Seeking to explain the comparatively uneven spread of religious communities in Worcestershire, Bond used Domesday Book to investigate the correlation between areas of relatively dense settlement and the foundation of religious communities.64 Placing his dissertation on the religious communities of Wiltshire in a wider context, Jonathan Pitt provided a general overview of the regional differences in church development that have emerged as a result of such case studies.65 This dialogue between model and case study prompted John Blair to include two regional surveys of varying ecclesiastical structures in his overview of the church in Anglo-Saxon society.66 Since the dialogue between model and case studies can be effective, it may seem odd that historians remain concerned about its value and viability, but this is understandable. Part of the answer lies in the rhetoric of debate. Referring to the model as the ‘minster hypothesis’ or ‘minster model’ is a necessary shorthand, because the range of scholarship cannot always be invoked, but it lends an air of rigidity to an evolving explanatory framework. Invoking a single ‘minster hypothesis’ or ‘minster model’ can suggest ‘an inflexible model, destined to stand or fall in its entirety’;67 it justifies selection of older formulations for criticism, rather than the most up-to-date summary.68 It can create an unhelpful dichotomy between those who are ‘for’ and ‘against’ the model that does an injustice to the range of opinions within the field.69 It encourages historians to 60  Blair 1985.   Kemp 1967–8; Kemp 1968; Hase 1975; Blair 1991.   Blair and Sharpe 1992: 1, 6. 62   Morris 1989: 120–34; Sims-Williams 1990: 115, 144–76; Cubitt 1992: 207–11. 63 64 65   Kemp 1988: 83, 92.   Bond 1988: 126, 133–4.   Pitt 1999: 10–11, 174–9. 66 67   Blair 2005: 149–52, 295–32.   Blair 2005: 5. 68   For example, during the 1995 debate, Cambridge and Rollason consistently cited the 1988 formulation, despite the fact that some of their criticisms had been acknowledged and incorporated into a revised version in 1992. 69   Rollason 1999: 68, implies that Morris is an opponent of the model, and Hadley 2000b: 39, cites Cubitt and Sims-Williams as opponents of the model, when all three simply offered critiques that have been incorporated into subsequent formulations. The (understandable) result is the kind of summary by 59 61

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Introduction

9

consider only the summary of the model and not the case studies on which it is based. It is insufficient to take a fossilized form of the model and challenge it wholesale, for this would require the reinterpretation of a considerable body of local studies. Instead it should be envisaged as the best approximation on the evidence available. Questions about the value and viability of the model were also prompted by tensions and circularities in the way it has been applied. The term ‘minster’ is employed to acknowledge the variety amongst religious communities. Yet at times ‘minsters’ have been attributed universal characteristics—examples include the role of all ‘minsters’ in providing pastoral care, the common topography and regular distribution of ‘minsters’, and the idea that all ‘minsters’ became mother churches. Religious communities were founded for a range of reasons, of which pastoral care was only one,70 and were involved in pastoral activities along a spectrum from writing to provision of the sacraments to preaching in the local landscape;71 they may or may not have subscribed and responded to the pastoral ideals set out in didactic and prescriptive texts.72 Documented religious communities occupied comparable topographical positions and were often distributed evenly through a region, but the difficulties of identifying undocumented communities, the variations in topography and distribution observed in some regions, and our ignorance about the topography of secular sites, precludes certainty about all religious communities.73 Regional differences exist in the number of religious communities that re-emerge as mother churches,74 yet sometimes historians have defined ‘minster’ along the lines of ‘an early religious community that developed into a mother church with a mother parish’, which cannot be sustained.75 The model should not be set aside because of these tensions and circularities, but regional studies should avoid them. A final explanation for doubts about the value and viability of the model probably rests in the differing evidence available for studying the church in northern England. Studying the church in northern England Critics of the model have been predominantly, though not exclusively, historians and archaeologists working on the church in northern England. Richard Morris had investigated religious communities and local churches in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire.76 Eric Cambridge had studied the distribution of religious communities Thompson 1999: 17, placing Blair and Rollason at diametrically opposed extremes, with Sarah Foot ‘somewhere in the middle’. 71 72   Foot 2006: 77–87.   Foot 2006: 283–331.   Blair 2005: 164–5.   Cambridge 1984; Hase 1994; Pestell 2004: 21–64. 74   Blair 2005: 295–323, with map at 296, fig. 35. 75   Rollason 1999: 67–71; Blair 2005: 4. Examples include Higham 1993: 234, 248–58, and Davies, 1980a. 76   Morris 1989: 93–167. 70 73

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

10

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

in County Durham.77 David Rollason had, of course, analysed Anglo-Saxon hagiography across England,78 but he based his criticism of the minster model in the particular evidence from the kingdom of the Northumbrians.79 Dawn Hadley’s reluctance to engage with the minster model was partly a result of earlier debate, but partly also of her research on the church in the northern Danelaw—Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, and Yorkshire.80 The particularities of the evidence from regions of northern England have been a key factor in producing these different perspectives. Scholarship on the church in southern and western England combines diplomas,81 wills,82 dispute narratives,83 and conciliar canons,84 with Domesday Book85 to chart the foundation, constitution, and fate of religious communities and their endowments. Scholars of northern England are faced with very different material. Diplomas, wills, dispute narratives, and conciliar canons are almost entirely absent from northern England, despite the fact that diplomas were written and ecclesiastical councils were held. Domesday Book preserves information for much of northern England. Nevertheless the commissioners for Circuit VI of Domesday, within which many of the counties fell, asked different questions from those in other Circuits; their experimentations in the presentation of the returns created a different picture from that provided for other regions; and they omitted County Durham and Northumberland from the enquiry.86 Conversely, histories are more abundant. Thanks to an anonymous author at Lindisfarne, Stephen of Ripon, and Bede, there is an exceptional crop of histories from early eighth-century Northumbria.87 Largely because of the career of Alcuin of York there are important letters and a long poem throwing light on the history of York in the eighth century.88 The astute dealings of the Community of Cuthbert with the Scandinavian rulers of York facilitated their survival and fostered a series of historical compilations in eleventh-century Durham.89 The accessibility of good quality stone and an enthusiasm for constructing stone monuments produced a corpus of stone sculpture that ‘provides the ecclesiastical geography with something like the lapidary equivalent of a barium meal’.90 Faced with this disparity it is unsurprising that a model for ecclesiastical organization formulated in southern and western England has been criticized by scholars of northern England. Histories promote an ideal type of monasticism closer to later reformed Benedictine monasticism, whereas diplomas, wills, dispute narratives, and conciliar canons tend to reveal the idiosyncrasies of   Cambridge 1984. See also for context: Cambridge 1989; Cambridge 1995.   Rollason 1982; Rollason 1989. 79   Rollason 1999; Rollason 2003: 168–9. See also for context: Rollason 1987: 45–61. 80   Hadley 1996b; Hadley 2000b: 216–97. 81   Kelly 1990 for an introduction to diplomas; Sawyer 1968. 82 83   Whitelock (ed. and trans.) 1930.  Wormald 1989. 84 85   Whitelock, Brett, and Brooke (eds) 1981.   Morris (ed.) 1975–86. 86 87   Roffe 1990a; Baxter 2001.   VCA; VCB; VW; HA; HE. 88 89 90   Dümmler (ed.) 1895; DPS.   HSC; LDE.   Morris 1989: 153. 77 78

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Introduction

11

individual communities on the ground. Stone sculpture points to the existence of a whole range of ecclesiastical sites for which no written records survive, which can be difficult to reconcile with patterns of ecclesiastical organization observed elsewhere. The absence of diplomas, dispute narratives, and wills, along with the less forthcoming evidence from Domesday Book, makes it difficult to observe the origins, extent, and development of ecclesiastical endowments. All this is compounded by the absence of a comprehensive attempt to test the minster model with reference to the church in northern England. Filling this lacuna is not just important to test the minster model in a new region. Outstanding questions remain within the scholarship, some of which were highlighted by the contributors to these debates. Such questions can be approached through this distinctive evidential base. Outstanding questions If the chronology of conversion to Christianity and the incidence of investment in religious communities are now clearly established, the social context requires further analysis. Using the exceptional historical sources, this study argues that conversion was the result of local kin groups seeking new strategies to stabilize their social position, a process which resulted in the formation of a new social fraction—an ‘ecclesiastical aristocracy’. Taking this approach helps to explain the chronology of conversion and the incidence of investment in religious communities. Setting the historical texts alongside the material remains from northern England offers the opportunity to move beyond existing scholarship on pastoral care and the distribution of religious communities in the landscape. Didactic and prescriptive sources reveal that religious communities were expected to fulfil pastoral responsibilities, but it is unclear how many responded to these expectations.91 Multivalent images on stone sculpture provide one way to address this issue, revealing that a number of religious communities presented themselves as pastoral centres.92 Historical sources reveal that religious communities controlled satellite centres such as daughter houses, oratories, and estates, but these can be difficult to identify in the landscape.93 Patterns in the distribution of stone sculpture in northern England facilitate the investigation of such ­satellites.94 For over twenty years it has been clear that the locations of religious communities were chosen with care and consistency, yet relatively little attention has been focused on why such locations were considered suitable for the construction of sacred places.95 Reviewing the biblical and patristic associations   Blair 2005: 160–5.   The potential of this approach is clear from: Lang 1999; Lang 2000; Hawkes 2003a; Ó Carragáin 2005. 93   Blair 2005: 212–20. 94   The potential is clear from: Cambridge 1984; Cambridge 1989; Cambridge 1995. 95   Blair 2005: 191–204. 91 92

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

12

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

of landscape features and their reception in historical and hagiographical works helps to reconstruct how religious communities were understood as sacred places. Whereas it was once axiomatic that Scandinavian raiding, conquest, and settlement destroyed the church in northern and eastern England, it is now understood that there was a great deal of regional variation in the experiences of the church in these regions.96 Nevertheless the relative impact of Scandinavian activity in comparison with the West Saxon conquest remains unclear and there has been no satisfactory survey of continuity and change at a local level. The fact that early religious communities continued to be used for burial or commemoration is signalled by the existence of stone monuments at the sites of earlier religious communities dated to the tenth and eleventh centuries; the correlation between some religious communities and mother churches suggests some level of continuity in the pastoral framework.97 Yet the mere existence of such sculpture reveals reuse rather than continuity of use or continuity of function.98 To investigate this further, two alternative approaches can be taken. Art historical studies of stone sculpture can reveal the advertisement of continuity of tradition through style, the involvement of literate communities in promoting Christianity, and the desire of local elites to invest in pre-existing religious places or establish new ones.99 Place-name studies can help to establish cases where religious communities retained endowments and how ecclesiastical endowments were treated across the period relative to other regions.100

KINGSHIP, SOCIETY, AND THE CHURCH IN ANGLO-SAXON YORKSHIRE The state of the historiography justifies a reconsideration of the relationship between kingship, society, and the church, and a study of the church in northern England. Yorkshire is a particularly suitable focus for a number of overlapping reasons. To begin with, Yorkshire was a meaningful socio-political unit throughout the period. The Anglo-Saxon kingdom of the Deirans probably had its original core around the Chalk Wolds in the East Riding of Yorkshire, but its kings extended their authority over people across a region between the North Sea, the Humber and Mersey, the Pennines or the Irish Sea, and the Tees.101 Though the kingdom of the Deirans became part of the kingdom of the Northumbrians in the seventh century, its independent status was remembered throughout the eighth century, as the works of Bede and Alcuin testify.   Contrast Stenton 1947: 427, with Hadley 2006: 192–236.   Hadley 2000b: 216–97; Blair 2005: 295–323. 98 99   Rollason 1999: 72.   The potential has been shown by: Bailey 1980; Lang 1993; Lang 1997. 100 101  Pickles 2009b.   See Chapter 1, pp. 17–32. 96

97

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Introduction

13

This region re-emerged as a separate socio-political unit in the ninth and tenth centuries. The Scandinavian kings based at York from 867 to 954 seem to have aspired to rule the Northumbrians as a whole, but their administration was probably restricted to the area between Humber and Tees and Scandinavian migration seems to have occurred up to the Tees but not beyond.102 When the West Saxon kings incorporated the region into an English kingdom from 954 onwards, they established an earldom of southern Northumbria, apparently reflecting its separate administrative status.103 As a result of this process the new name for the region—Eoforwicscire, Yorkshire—emerged sometime in the mid eleventh century: it is first recorded in a writ of King Edward from the early 1060s,104 and its emergence may be charted through the entries in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which shift from including York within Northumbria to distinguishing the men of Yorkshire from the Northumbrians.105 Domesday Book (1086x1088) shows that English kings had extended their administrative structures up to the Tees but not beyond and that areas west of the Pennines were considered part of Yorkshire.106 Moreover, there is an excellent range of textual and material sources for the history of Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire in good modern scholarly editions, catalogues, and studies. Eighth-century histories offer exceptional levels of historical information for Yorkshire, County Durham, and Northumberland, but the Whitby Vita Gregorii, Stephen of Ripon’s Vita Wilfridi, and Alcuin’s De pontificibus et sanctis Ecclesiae Eboracensis make our evidence for Yorkshire particularly rich. Domesday Book is a useful if problematic source for Yorkshire, whereas it offers no information north of the Tees. Eleventh- and twelfth-century charter evidence is equally important and profuse across northern England, but the work of William Farrer and Charles Clay has produced an invaluable edited collection of the Yorkshire material.107 Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture survives in impressive quantities across northern England, but is most prolific in Yorkshire, and the sculpture is catalogued in three excellent volumes.108 The following study is divided into two broad historical periods. The first considers the relationship between kingship, society, conversion, and the construction of the church from 450 to 867. The second considers the impact of Scandinavian and West Saxon rule on the church from 867 to 1066. This division is prompted by the political history of the kingdom of the Deirans: Christian kings ruled the Deirans from Edwin (r. 616–33) until Osberht and Ælle (d. 867), whereas pagan Scandinavian and Christian West Saxon kings ruled from 867 to 1066. Considerably more space is devoted to the history of the earlier period because the sources allow for its reconstruction in greater detail. However, neither the wealth of sources, nor this uneven attention to the two periods, should 103   See Chapter 5, pp. 192–8, 201–3.   See Chapter 5, pp. 214, 216–18. 105   Woodman (ed.) 2012: No. 13, 220–3.   ASC CDE s.a. 1016 & CD s.a. 1065. 106 107 108   DB.   EYC.   CASSS III, CASSS VI, CASSS VIII. 102 104

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

14

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

be considered accidental or artificial. The disparity in sources is probably the product of a real difference in the history of the church: first religious communities flourished in the seventh and earlier eighth centuries, then the archiepiscopal see at York did in the later eighth and ninth centuries, whereas the archbishops and surviving religious communities experienced more challenging circumstances in the tenth and eleventh centuries. Hence the later period can be analysed as the impact on these earlier patterns of social and political change under Scandinavian and West Saxon rule. Chapter 1 reconstructs social, religious, and political structures in the period 450–650: it argues that social structures were the framework for religious beliefs and the foundation on which political power rested, locating power with local kin groups and emphasizing the dependence of Anglo-Saxon kings on those kin groups. Chapter 2 focuses on the conversion of those kin groups from 600 to 867: it argues that the social strategy of local kin groups and their members produced conversion and the building of the church, resulting in the forging of a new social fraction with its own identity and dynamics—the ‘ecclesiastical aristocracy’. Chapter 3 reconsiders the relationship between kingship, conversion, and the building of a church from 600 to 867: it argues that kings reacted to the conversion of local kin groups and remade kingship in the process. Chapter 4 charts the impact of the ‘ecclesiastical aristocracy’ on local lay society between 600 and 867: it argues that the formation and dynamics of this new social fraction resulted in a network of religious communities that helped to Christianize local lay populations. Chapter 5 considers the relationship between kingship, social change, and the church from 867 to 1066: it observes that both Scandinavian and West Saxon rulers were dependent upon the church and an existing, Christianized lay population, which may allow us to envisage greater continuity in ecclesiastical patronage and structures than has hitherto been suggested. Chapter 6 then reviews the textual, material, and linguistic evidence for continuity and change at a local level in the church across the region.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

1 The Kingdom of the Deirans, 450–650 The geology, topography, and resources of Yorkshire influenced the formation of the kingdom of the Deirans. The principal regions of Yorkshire (Map 1) result from the underlying bedrock geology (Map 2) and overlying superficial geology (Map  3). There are seven solid geological systems: Ordovician, Silurian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous. Moving from west to east, they produce four principal physiographic regions: the Pennines (Carboniferous Limestone and Millstone Grit), the Vale of York (Permian Magnesian Limestone and Triassic Sandstone), the North York Moors (Jurassic Sandstone and Shale), and the Yorkshire Wolds (Cretaceous Chalk).1 During the Devension period (26,000–10,000 years ago) two ice sheets converged on Yorkshire: one from the Lake District via Stainmore and Teesdale and the other from the Cheviots down the North Sea Coast. When the temperature rose, they retreated northwards, leaving glacial deposits, a dendritic river system draining into the River Ouse and the Humber estuary, two proglacial lakes—Lake Humber and Lake Pickering—and a series of moraines (ridges of drier land).2 For human societies engaged in settled agriculture there were regions with different levels of agricultural potential. Nick Higham modelled the arable and pastoral agricultural potential of northern England based on the interaction of a series of factors: effective transpiration, the length of the grazing season, the edaphic quality of the soils, the grass-drought index, the annual rainfall, the altitude, and the degree of exposure.3 Within Yorkshire, the Chalk Wolds of the Holderness Peninsula and their adjacent lowlands provide the best agricultural environment: undulating areas of lowland provide good soils for arable cultivation and chalk uplands facilitate seasonal grazing. The next best areas are the lowlands of the Vale of York and Vale of Mowbray, and the dales of the north-eastern coastal plains, which are good for pastoral farming. The third most attractive areas are the Pennine valleys. Building on Oliver Rackham’s work,4 2   Gaunt and Buckland 2003.  Atkinson 2003.   Higham 1987: esp. 38, fig. 2, and the data on 42, fig. 5. 4   Rackham 1980: 111–28; Rackham 1994: 7–11.

1

3

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

16

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Brian Roberts combined the Old English and Old Norse place-name evidence for woodland or woodland clearance with Domesday Book entries recording woodland and 1930s woodlands and common lands: his composite map (Map 4) reveals that the Chalk Wolds and surrounding lowlands had the ­largest areas of land cleared for arable and non-woodland pasture, followed by the western edge of the Vale of York and the Vale of Mowbray, and the northeastern coastal plains.5 By c.450, Late Prehistoric and Roman activity had created a network of routes connecting these regions (Map 5). The two hubs were the former legionary headquarters and colonia at York, and the Vale of Pickering and Ryedale. Roman York was established in a strategic position between the Chalk Wolds and the western edges of the Vales of York and Mowbray, controlling the junction of the Ouse with the York moraine. Thanks to the effects of Lake Pickering, Ryedale and the Vale of Pickering constituted a strategic region between the Chalk Wolds, the Vales of York and Mowbray, and the north-eastern coastal plains: they comprised a marshy lowland with narrow strips of drier land along its edges, accessing the Vale of York via the Kirkham gap, and the Vale of Mowbray via the Coxwold-Gilling Gap; in the Roman period they acquired a network of roads focused on the fort at Malton. Extending from these hubs, a network of Roman roads connected the regions of Yorkshire and continued north, south, and west via the Vales of York and Mowbray and the Pennine River valleys.6 During the sixth century two peoples and perhaps three polities occupied these regions (Map 4). ‘Pagan’ Anglo-Saxons inhabited the kingdom of the Deirans, apparently focused on the Chalk Wolds and their surrounding lowlands. Christian Britons inhabited the region and kingdom of Elmet in the south-west of the Vale of York. Either Britons or Anglo-Saxons inhabited Catraeth at the northern end of the Vale of Mowbray, perhaps under the lordship of a British kingdom of Rheged. The formation and dynamics of the kingdom of the Deirans provide essential context for understanding the relationship between kingship, society, conversion, and church building in Yorkshire. First, the evidence for these peoples and polities will be set out. Second, the evidence for the formation of the kingdom of the Deirans will be explored, through processes of migration, social emulation, social stratification, political centralization, ethnogenesis, and expansion, which were continuing at the point of conversion. Third, the evidence for the social, religious, and political structures of the kingdom in the sixth and earlier seventh centuries will be analysed. This will emphasize that connections between these structures posed potential problems to conversion, and presented social and political instabilities that shaped the decisions of converts. 5

 Roberts 2010.

6

  Ottaway 2013: 2 (Ill. 1.1), 126–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi



The Kingdom of the Deirans, 450–650

17

THE PEOPLES AND POLITIES OF SIXTH-CENTURY YORKSHIRE The Deirans The name Deirans first appears in the eighth century.7 A common Brittonic root probably lies behind the River Derwent in eastern Yorkshire, the Roman fort Derventio (Malton or Stamford Bridge), and Deirans.8 Bede refers to Beverley as the place in the wood of the Deirans (inderauuda).9 This suggests they occupied eastern Yorkshire. Stephen of Ripon and Bede name a number of places associated with kings of the Deirans in the seventh century, but by this time they had authority over most of Yorkshire.10 Nonetheless, there may be hints of an earlier focus in eastern Yorkshire. Bede associates King Edwin of the Deirans (r. 616–33) with a royal vill on the River Derwent, a pagan shrine at Goodmanham on the Wolds, and three further locations—Catterick, Campodunum, and York.11 The vill on the Derwent and the shrine at Goodmanham may reflect the original focus of the kingdom; Catterick and Campodunum were in territories taken under Deiran authority in the later sixth and early seventh centuries. Bede relates that King Æthelwald of the Deirans (r. c.651–5) founded a dynastic mausoleum at Lastingham in Ryedale, perhaps indicating longer-term dynastic associations.12 Origins in eastern Yorkshire are consistent with archaeological evidence. A few cremation cemeteries signal the arrival of migrants from northern Germany and southern Scandinavia in the fifth and sixth centuries, the largest at Sancton on the Chalk Wolds; more furnished inhumation cemeteries reflect the spread of ‘Germanic’ material culture amongst other communities living around the Wolds.13 Those who were cremated are unlikely to have been Christian because cremation was antithetical to Christian notions of bodily resurrection; aspects of the material culture considered later seem to confirm that the Deirans were not publicly or officially Christian in the sixth century; and Bede’s account of the conversion of King Edwin fits with this idea.14

7   VW cc. 15 (rex Deyrorum), 20 (rex Derorum), 54 (rex Derorum); Vita Gregorii, c. 9 (tribus, Deire); Bede, HE ii.1 (provincia, Deiri), ii.14 (provincia Deirorum), iii.1 (regnum Deirorum), iii.6 (provincia Derorum), iii.14 (provincia Derorum), iii.23 (regnum Derorum), iii.24 (provincia Derorum), iv.12 (provincia Derorum). Higham 2006: 401–4. The poem attributed to Aneirin and known as Y Gododdin also refers to the Deor—see pp. 20–1, 30–1 for discussion and references. 8   Jackson  1953: 419–21, 701–5, proposed that Deira meant ‘land of the waters’; Hind  1980, suggested instead that Deira might mean ‘oak country’. 9   HE v.6. Blair 2001 for confirmation of the connection between the two places. 10  See pp. 31–2. Rollason  2003: 45–8 for this approach to observing the key foci of Deira after expansion and incorporation within the kingdom of the Northumbrians in the seventh century. 11   HE ii.9 (vill on the Derwent), ii.13 (shrine at Goodmanham), ii.14 (Campodunum, Catterick and York). 12 13 14   HE iii.23.   See pp. 23–5.   See pp. 40–5, 54; HE, ii.9–14.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

18

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Elmet Bede tells us Edwin had a royal vill at Campodunum where Paulinus built a church, afterwards burnt down: the vill was replaced with one in the regio Loidis and the stone altar was preserved in a religious community in the wood of Elmet (in silva Elmete).15 He also tells us Edwin’s nephew Hereric was poisoned in exile under a British king Cerdic.16 The Historia Brittonum mentions a King Ceredig of Elmet and the Annales Cambriae record the death of a King Ceredig in 616.17 The Tribal Hidage lists the Elmed sætna, assessed at 600 hides.18 Elmet was apparently a region with a people, a king, and notable woodland. Elmet was in the south-west of the Vale of York. Place-names in several townships preserve the name Elmet—Barwick, Clifford, Micklefield, Saxton, Sherburn, South Kirby, and Sutton.19 The Antonine Itinerary places Campodunum 20 Roman miles from Calcaria (Tadcaster) towards Mamucio (Manchester): Margaret Faull and Stephen Moorhouse argued for a location near Leeds.20 The Brittonic element *Lāt, ‘violent or boiling one’, is probably the root of Loidis.21 This occurs in the place-names Leeds, Ledsham, and Ledston.22 Elmet probably included Campodunum and the regio Loidis, hence the altar moved to the community in silva Elmete. The Tribal Hidage begins with the Mercians and runs clockwise from the north-west, placing the Elmed sætna between the Pecsætna of the Peak District and the Lindesfarona of Lincolnshire.23 Further onomastic evidence indicates its extent. Brittonic derived place-names reflect regions where the language survived longest: the largest concentration is in south-west Yorkshire, from the Magnesian Limestone belt to the Pennines. Place-names including the elements wealh, ‘foreigner, Briton, slave’, and brettas, ‘Britons’, designate surviving British speakers in the seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries: a cluster occurs in the same region.24 Place-name elements denoting woodland or woodland clearance suggest dense woodland to the south and west of Leeds, perhaps the silva Elmete.25 Elmet possibly extended from the River Wharfe in the north to the River Sheaf in the south, taking in the Magnesian Limestone strip on the western edge of the Vale of York and the Pennines in the west.26 Elmet probably included smaller regions: the regio Loidis may be one; Craven may be another, deriving from a Brittonic term craf for the Limestone scars, known as Cravenshire in Domesday Book, and preserved as a rural deanery.27 16 17   HE ii.14.   HE iv.23 (21).   HB c. 63; Annales Cambriae s.a. 616.   Davies and Vierck 1974: 223–36; Dumville 1989b: 226–7. 19   Faull and Moorhouse (eds) 1981: IV, Map 10. 20 21   Faull and Moorhouse (eds) 1981: I, 157–63.  Jackson 1946. 22 23   Faull and Moorhouse (eds) 1981: IV, Map 10.   Dumville 1989b: 226–7. 24   Faull 1975; Cameron 1978–9; Gelling 1978: 93–6; Gelling 1993. 25   Faull and Moorhouse (eds) 1981: IV, Map 10. 26   Jones 1975: 10–27; Faull 1980: 21–3; Faull and Moorhouse (eds) 1981: I, 158–61, 171, 174–5; Taylor 1992; Gruffydd 1994. 27  Wood 1996. 15 18

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi



The Kingdom of the Deirans, 450–650

19

Elmet perhaps participated in a wider British political community. A Latin inscribed stone from Llanaelhaearn on the Llyn Peninsula reads ALIORTUS ELMETIACO(S) HIC IACET, ‘Here lies Aliortus, man of Elmet’.28 This could be a man of Elmet who died in the kingdom of Gwynedd, but could be someone from the ancient cantref of Elmet in Carmarthenshire or Elvet (Du). The royal dynasty of Elmet may have claimed common ancestry with sixth-century British kings and participated in political action with them, or may later have been considered sufficiently important to have such associations, but the evidence is uncertain. The Historia Brittonum claimed that the sixth-century British warrior Urien fought with Riderch the Old, Gwallawc, and Morcant, against Theodric, king of the Bernicians, between 572 and 592.29 Genealogies compiled in the time of Owain ap Hywel Dda, king of Dyfed (r. 950–c.970), survive in British Library MS Harley 3859, a manuscript of c.1100: designed to uphold Owain’s status and display potential kindred alliances, they list British royal kin groups according to their perceived status.30 The descendants of the northern king Coel Hen Guotepauc (‘the Protector’) include Urien, Riderch, Gwallawc, and Morcant; they were Coeling or meibyon Godebawc (descendants of Coel or the ‘protector’).31 One version of an Old Welsh triad mentions a Ceredig son of Gwallawc, perhaps King Cerdic of Elmet.32 The Historia Brittonum also mentions four British poets who flourished in the time of Ida, king of the Bernicians (r. 547–59), including Taliesin.33 A manuscript of the early fourteenth century preserves poems attributed to Taliesin.34 Sir Ifor Williams considered twelve of these potentially early, about the Coeling Urien, Urien’s son Owain, and Gwallawc: one may describe Gwallawc as judge of Elmet.35 It may have been thought that Coeling, including Gwallawc of Elmet, and a Madauc of Elmet, were at the battle of Catraeth.36 Old English place-names including the loanword eccles, ‘church’, suggest that the Britons of Elmet were Christians.37 British Latin *ecclesia and Brittonic *eglês are the probable etymological root of ‘eccles’.38 British Latin- and Brittonicspeaking communities in late Roman or sub-Roman Britain presumably used Latin *ecclesia and Brittonic *eglês to mean a religious community: the semantic sense ‘community’ was current, but the sense ‘Christian building’ was a development of the ninth century onwards.39 Brittonic-speaking communities in some 29   Nash Williams 1950: No. 87, p. 88. Foster 1965: 217, 228.   HB c. 63. 31   Bartrum (ed.) 1966; Charles-Edwards 2013: 359–64.   Bartrum (ed.) 1966: 10, 48. 32 33   Bromwich (ed.) 1961: No. 41, p. 103, and p. 308.   HB c. 62. 34   National Library of Wales, Peniarth, MS 2; The Book of Taliesin. 35   Williams (ed.) 1960: Nos. XI and XII, 13–16, on Gwallawc, with No. XII, p. 15, lines 20–1 for Elmet. 36   See pp. 20–2, 30–1. 37   Jackson 1953: 335, 412, 557; Cameron 1968; Gelling 1978: 96–9 and 104, Fig. 5; Barrow 1983; Hough 2009; James 2009. 38 39   Jackson 1953: 335, 412, 557.   James 2009: 126–7. 28

30

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

20

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

parts of Britain probably coined place-names using *eglês for a religious community or its estates, because *eglês was not adopted into Old English as a generic term, only as a place-name element.40 The simplex name ‘eccles’ may refer to a community, but its combination with Old English ­elements denoting land and its association with churches at the centre of large territories and/or mother parishes suggest it often referred to ecclesiastical estates.41 Given the chronology of the foundation of religious communities in western Britain and the fact that after 650 Old English speakers dominated a number of regions including ‘eccles’ names, the Brittonic place-names in England and southern Scotland probably belong to the period c.400–c.650; this explains a contrast in the distribution of Scottish ‘eccles’ names—in areas south of the Forth–Clyde line ‘eccles’ was used as a simplex name or in compound names with Old English elements, but north of the Forth–Clyde line Gaelic speakers were using it as a generic and in compound place-names.42 The distribution of ‘eccles’ names in Yorkshire may reflect a network of British r­ eligious communities and their endowments, encountered by Old English speakers as significant places. Catraeth The Roman fort and small town Cataractonium was at Catterick.43 It was an important place in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire. King Edwin’s preacher Paulinus baptized converts in the River Swale near the vicus Cataractam, two royal marriages occurred in Cateracta and apud Cateractam in 762 and 792, and it  was burnt down in 769.44 The Old English translation of Bede renders Cataracta as Cetreht and Domesday Book spells it Catrice.45 It is likely that Caractonium/Cataracta/Catreht/Catrice/Catterick is the place referred to in Old Welsh poems as Catraeth.46 It was probably a post-Roman region and political unit. The Historia Brittonum lists four British poets who flourished in the time of Ida, king of the Bernicians (r. 547–59), naming one as Aneirin.47 A manuscript of the second half of the thirteenth century, probably from Gwynedd, preserves poems attributed to him.48 The most famous is Y Gododdin. Palaeographical studies suggest two different hands copied Y Gododdin, A and B, preserving two versions identifiable through the hands and a few stanzas repeated with minor variations; hand B occasionally included a third variation.49 Versions A and B share two stanzas, occurring as a prefix to B, but incorporated within 41   Hough 2009: 110–11, 113–14.   Barrow 1983: 7; James 2009: 129–40. 43   Hough 2009: 114–18.  Wilson 2002. 44 45   HE ii.14; HR I, s.a. 762, 769, 792.   Ekwall 1960: 90. 46   Williams (ed.) 1978: xxxii–xxxvi; and Jackson 1969: 83–4. Hamp 1993 speculated on an ancient form of Catterick; Cessford 1996 suggested that this speculative form might be common, so Catterick and Catraeth might not be the same place, but this is not secure reasoning. 47 48   HB c. 62.  Huns 1989. 49   Williams (ed.) 1978: xii–xiv; Jarman (ed. and trans.) 1988: xiv–xv; Charles-Edwards (2013), 365–7. 40 42

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi



The Kingdom of the Deirans, 450–650

21

the poem in A. The first celebrates a victory by the British kingdom of Alclud at Strathcarron in 642.50 The second names the poem as Gododdin and notes Aneirin is dead.51 Both versions derive from a common exemplar including these stanzas, perhaps from the kingdom of Alclud, post-dating 642.52 Archaic spelling in the B version suggests a written exemplar produced no later than the beginning of the tenth century.53 The A version includes a poem, Pais Dinogad, set in a landscape including the Falls of Derwenydd (Derwent), probably the Lodore Cascade on Derwentwater (Cu).54 The exemplar of A was perhaps compiled by a Briton with knowledge of this area, either the British kingdom of Rheged, absorbed into the kingdom of the Northumbrians by the mid seventh century, or the British kingdom of Alclud/Strathclyde, which expanded south in the early tenth century.55 If it was compiled in Rheged, then the common exemplar and the exemplar of A might be as early as the mid seventh century. Thus there was probably an original common exemplar, possibly as early as the mid seventh century, and apparently before c.900: those stanzas shared between the two versions might take us close to parts of that common exemplar and the B version seems to be older than the A version.56 Y Gododdin opens by praising the Gododdin frontier region of Lleuddinian, Lothian, and their principal frontier fortress of Din Eidin, Edinburgh (Lo).57 The prologue uses Gododdin for the poem and the people.58 The stanzas common to A and B as well as those only in B suggest an older version ­comprised elegies about warriors who fought for the Gododdin in multiple ­conflicts, times, or places.59 One conflict was between the Gododdin and the 50  Williams (ed.)  1978: 39, LXXIX A & B, lines 966–77; Jarman (ed. and trans.)  1988: 66–7, No. 102, lines 991–6; Gruffydd 1996. 51   Williams (ed.) 1978: 26, LV A & B, lines 640–55; Jarman (ed. and trans.) 1988: 2–3, No. 1, lines 1–10. 52   Charles-Edwards 1978: 53; Koch 1993; Koch 1997: lxxx–lxxxiii. See Dumville 1988: 7. 53   Williams (ed.) 1978: xiii–xiv; Charles-Edwards 2013: 370–1. Complications deserve noting. First, aspects of the spelling of Y Gododdin suggest an exemplar of c.900 for B, but the orthography of B in general might derive from an exemplar produced as late as the mid thirteenth century. Second, there is debate about whether the orthography will take the origins of the poem before the early tenth century. See: Greene  1971; Dumville  1976–8: esp. 249–50; Charles-Edwards  1978: 50–1; Koch  1985; Koch 1988; Koch 1997: lxvi–lxxx, cxxviii–cxxix. 54   Williams (ed.) 1978: 44, LXXXVIII A, lines 1101–17; Jarman (ed. and trans.) 1988: 68–9, No. 103, lines 997–1013. For Derwentwater: Gruffydd 1990: 261–6. 55  Edmonds 2015. 56   Koch 1997 reconstructs and translates a hypothetical Ur-text from the sixth century. 57   Williams (ed.) 1978: 23–4, LI A, B, & C, lines 575–607; translated Charles-Edwards 2013: 375. 58   Williams (ed.) 1978: 26, LV A & B, lines 640–55; Jarman (ed. and trans.) 1988: 2–3, No. 1, lines 1–10. 59   Williams (ed.) 1978: 9, XX A & B, lines 221–34; 10, XXII A & B, lines 243–57; 11, XXIII A & B, lines 258–76; 12–13, XXVI A & B, lines 300–17; 18, XL–XLI B, lines 434–46; 19, XLIII A & B, lines 459–77; 19–20, XLIV A & B, lines 478–96; 20–1, XLV A, B, & C, lines 497–527; 25–6, LIV A & B, lines 627–39; 28, LXI A & B, lines 695–708; 29–31, LXIII A, B, C, D, & E, lines 717–73; 31, LXIV A & B, lines 774–89; 32–3, LXVI A & B, lines 800–18; 33, LXVII A & B, lines 819–26; 33–4, LXIX A & B, lines 831–42; 34–5, LXX A & B, lines 855–68; 35–6, LXXI A & B, lines 869–88; 37–8, LXXV A & B, lines 924–42; 39, LXXIX A & B, lines 966–77; 42–3, LXXXVII A & B, lines 1055–1100; 45–50, XC–CIII B, lines 1126–1257.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

22

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Deirans at Catraeth.60 However, the A version includes additional stanzas: some begin ‘Men went to Catraeth’,61 simplifying the poem to a lament about one battle, and some add to the enemies the Bernicians.62 This supports the idea of an early original poem belonging to a period before the emergence of the Bernicians as an enemy of the Gododdin. It has been argued that catraeth was originally a kenning meaning ‘battle-shore’, which later lost its semantic sense and was incorrectly interpreted as a place-name,63 but there is no other attestation of this kenning and the remaining Old Welsh poems understood Catraeth as a place. Catraeth was remembered as a place and a political unit. The poems attributed to Taliesin describe the Coeling Urien and his son Owain as lords of Rheged,64 Llwyfenydd,65 and Catraeth.66 A twelfth-century Welsh poem attributed to Hywel ab Owain Gwynedd associates Rheged with Carlisle (Cu).67 Llwyfenydd is probably the River Lyvennet (We).68 Rheged was recalled as a British kingdom focused on the Eden Valley (Cu), but Urien and Owain may have been lords of Catraeth.69

THE FORMATION OF THE KINGDOM OF THE DEIRANS Roman civitates might lie behind the kingdom of the Deirans. Two Late Prehistoric peoples were provided with civitates: the Parisi, with a probable civitas at Brough on Humber, and the Brigantes, with a likely civitas at Aldborough (near Boroughbridge).70 The three regions, peoples, and political units of Yorkshire had Brittonic names. Across western and northern Britain some civitates, and perhaps their subdivisions, pagi, developed into kingdoms.71 Catraeth and Elmet could have been pagi within the civitas of the Brigantes and the Deirans could have originated from the civitas of the Parisi. By the seventh century the Deirans were an Old English speaking people who claimed ancestors from northern Germany and southern Scandinavia and whose kingdom included Catraeth and Elmet. 60   Williams (ed.) 1978: 28–31, LXI A & B, lines 701 and 707; 29–30, LXIII A, B, C, & D, lines 717, 733, 741, 751; 31, LXIV A & B, lines 775, 783; 32–3, LXVI A & B, lines 804, 814; 47, XCVI B, line 1175; 47–8, XCVIII B, line 1197; 48, C & B, line 1216. 61   Williams (ed.) 1978: 3–4, VIII A, line 68; 4, IX A, line 74; 4, X A, line 84; 4, XI A, line 90; 5, XII A, line 97; 5, XIII A, line 105; 5, XIV A, line 121; 6, XV A, line 131; 10, XXI A, line 235; 15, XXXIII A, line 372. 62   Williams (ed.) 1978: 2–3, V A, line 50; 4, IX A, line 79; 23, L A, line 566. 63 64  Dunshea 2013.   Williams (ed.) 1960: II, line 27; III, lines 13–14; X, line 3. 65 66   Williams (ed.) 1960: VIII, line 27; IX, line 10; X, line 8.   Williams (ed.) 1960: VIII, line 9. 67 68   Gruffydd (ed.) 1991–6: Vol. 2, No. 6, lines 35–7.   Hogg 1946: 210–11. 69  Clarkson  2010: 68–78, is sceptical; Charles-Edwards  2013: 10–13, takes a more positive view adopted here; McCarthy 2011 for further discussion of landscape foci. 70   Ramm 1978; Hartley and Fitts 1988; Halkon 2013; Ottaway 2013: 170–5. 71   Charles-Edwards 2013: 1–26, 314–16.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi



The Kingdom of the Deirans, 450–650

23

Migration may be the root of this change. From about the mid fifth century there is good evidence for the presence of migrants from northern Germany and southern Scandinavia in eastern England and for the projection of social status with reference to that migrant culture. This is witnessed by the establishment of cremation and inhumation cemeteries with furnished burials including dress accessories with parallels in those regions—so-called ‘Frisian’ bone combs, wrist clasps, tutulus brooches, bow brooches, saucer brooches, annular brooches, trefoil-headed brooches, cruciform brooches, and great square-headed brooches, some decorated with Salin Style I motifs.72 Based on current object typologies, there is a suite of objects belonging to the period between the second quarter of the fifth century and the third quarter of the sixth century, replaced by another belonging to the period between the third quarter of the sixth century and the end of the seventh century.73 The earliest cremation and furnished inhumation cemeteries begin in the second quarter of the fifth century between the Thames and the Humber:74 they might reflect the controlled settlement of Saxones (a term covering Saxons, Angles, Jutes, and perhaps Frisians and Heruli) as foederati that some texts associate with this time.75 Anglo-Saxon burials and cemeteries from Yorkshire have been identified and dated by Jo Buckberry and Lizzie Craig-Aitkins: the results are presented in Tables 7–14 and Maps 13–14.76 Fifth- to sixth-century cremation cemeteries have been discovered at Sancton, York (Heworth Railway Station, The Mount, and Heslington Hill), and possibly Broughton, and individual cremation burials at Burdsall, Huggate, Langton, Lythe, Pickering, Staintondale, Swine, and Yarm (Table 8). The Sancton cemetery, comprising around 380 burials, has sufficient pottery and grave goods for detailed analysis.77 Kevin Leahy used the stratigraphy and grave goods from the cremation cemetery at Cleatham (Li) to establish a chronological typology for cremation urns and applied it to all cremation cemeteries from eastern England. He confirmed that the Sancton cremations began in the mid fifth century and continued into the late sixth century.78 The limits of the Sancton cemetery were not reached and comparable cemeteries from East Anglia and Lincolnshire sometimes included thousands of urns. Nevertheless, based on a crude mortality rate of 24.6 per 1,000 per year, it might represent a population of about 100 adults over 150 years or 77 adults over 200 years. Moreover,

 Hamerow 2005.   Hines 1990; Geake 1997; Hines, with Bayliss, Høilund Nielsen, McCormac, and Scull 2013. 74   Hines 1990: 25–8, 34–6, figs. 1–3. 75   Halsall 2007: 119–20, for the Saxones as a composite group; Charles-Edwards 2013: 44–56, for this reading of the evidence. 76   Buckberry 2004; Craig 2009. 77   Myres 1973 was the initial publication; Faull 1976, argued that Sancton I and II may be parts of a single cemetery; Timby 1993, for subsequent investigation. 78   Leahy 2007: 63–122. 72 73

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

24

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

it may have been a dispersed population.79 The form and decoration of the Sancton cremation urns and their grave goods derive in part from northern Germany and southern Scandinavia: Urn 2579 yielded a ‘Frisian’ zoomorphic barred comb (fifth century); Urn 2571 included a small-long brooch (475–525) and sleeve clasps of Hines Form B4 (later fifth century); Urn 63 contained sleeve clasps of Hines Form B10, late fifth century to early sixth century.80 The Sancton community had ongoing links with communities using cremation cemeteries across eastern England: Leahy identified a common pottery style in his earliest Phase 1 shared between Cleatham (Li), Elkington (Np) and Elsham (Li), and Sancton; he observed a single potter in his later Phases 4–5 serving sites across eastern England at Baston (Li), Elsham (Li), and Loveden Hill (Li), Illington (Nf) and Spong Hill (Nf), Newark (Nt), Melton Mowbray (Le), and Sancton.81 Distinguishing between the material correlates of trade, cultural emulation, and migration is not straightforward, but there are powerful arguments for migration. There is an inverse correlation between known Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon cremation cemeteries: this does not look like the continuation or re-emergence of an indigenous rite.82 To identify migration, there should be clear evidence for the chronological priority of a material culture in one region and its spread to another, which is certainly the case here.83 If the transmission of material culture took place through trade, the distribution should show a gradual fall off with distance, but does not; the low value of the items also makes them unlikely to have been traded over long distances. If transmission occurred from cultural emulation, then material culture might be expected from more powerful Continental cultures like Merovingian Gaul. Above all, the cremation cemeteries reveal the introduction of a distinctive personal and group identity expressed through a cultural package—dress style in life, pottery production, religious beliefs, and mortuary ritual.84 Alongside the cremation cemeteries there are many more furnished inhumation cemeteries: they focus on the Chalk Wolds and surrounding lowlands, with occasional outliers in the north-eastern coastal plains and the Vale of York and Vale of Mowbray (Tables 9–11). The two most comprehensively excavated and published are at Sewerby and West Heslerton. At Sewerby the furnished burials produced a large number of object types including square-headed brooches, cruciform brooches, small-long brooches, annular brooches, penannular brooches, buckles, girdle hangers, shields, and spears, prompting a broad date for the cemetery from the mid fifth to the seventh century and a polyfocal model for its layout.85 At West Heslerton the furnished burials revealed a ­wide-ranging corpus of objects including square-headed brooches, cruciform brooches, small-long   Williams 2002a; Williams 2002b.   Leahy 2007: 94 (Group 025 for Urn 135 & Group 03a for Urn 2579), 101 (Group 07n for Urn 2571), 105–6 (Group 10a for Urn 63). 81 82   Leahy 2007: 127–8.   Dark 2000: 69–70, fig. 12 for map. 83 84 85   Halsall 1992c: 96.   Scull 1995: 74, for all these points.   Hirst 1985: 25, 46–108. 79 80

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi



The Kingdom of the Deirans, 450–650

25

brooches, annular brooches, disc brooches, penannular brooches, wrist-clasps, pendants, swords, shields, and spears, prompting a range from c.475 to c.650, including grave assemblages in four phases (late fifth century, early sixth century, late sixth century, and early seventh century), and a polyfocal model for its layout.86 It is unclear whether the furnished inhumation cemeteries represent communities of migrants. Since not all individuals received furnished burials, the decision to furnish a burial may reflect a perceived crisis in social status amongst members of the burying group and a desire to project the social status of the person being buried to the local community.87 These cemeteries may represent communities within which some burying groups advertised social status through the burial of some group m ­ embers with objects associated with a migrant culture. This is highlighted by evidence from West Heslerton. Stable isotope levels in human bodies reflect childhood diet and variations offer the prospect of locating the regions in which individuals grew up. Analysis of twenty-four burials from West Heslerton suggested that seven hailed from the West Heslerton area, thirteen from the Pennines, and four from Continental Europe or Scandinavia.88 This suggests some people indigenous to the West Heslerton area and from British regions in the Pennines were buried with material culture whose form and decoration derived from northern Germany and southern Scandinavia, though it remains possible that some were the children of migrants. Based on this burial evidence, it seems probable that members of the migrant communities using the cremation cemeteries at places like Sancton and York took power, either through controlled settlement as foederati followed by cessation or rebellion, or through invasion and conquest. This may have been followed by continued political dominance, migration, and the settlement of migrants in local communities, producing the wider adoption of their culture as a symbol of social status. Mortuary ritual probably played a role in the construction of claims to land and resources, and furnished inhumations bear witness to increased social stratification and political centralization. Bronze Age round barrows and Iron Age linear earthworks on the Chalk Wolds seem to have been constructed to formalize pastoral transhumance territories.89 Chris Fenton-Thomas demonstrated that long-distance prehistoric route ways linking areas of open pasture on the Wold tops and the lowlands persisted into the Anglo-Saxon period, influencing the formation of township boundaries.90 Fifth- to seventh-century furnished inhumations were created in association with these earlier monuments, perhaps projecting ancestral rights over the transhumance territories (Tables 9–11, Map 13). Larger inhumation cemeteries at Cheesecake Hill Driffield (up to   Haughton and Powlesland 1999: I, 78–86, 97–128. 88  Halsall 1998.   Budd, Millard, Chenery, Lucy, and Roberts 2004. 89   Fenton-Thomas 2003: 32–47; Giles 2012: 40–64. 90   Fenton-Thomas 2003: 75–117, and see esp. 254, fig. 120; 255, fig. 121; 257, fig. 257. 86 87

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

26

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

thirty-four inhumations), Kings Mill Road Driffield (over twelve inhumations), Kelleythorpe Kirkburn (forty-seven), and West Heslerton (194 inhumations) were established in association with barrows in the lowlands in the fifth century and persisted in use into the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries. Individual inhumations and small groups at Kitty Hill Barrow Bishop Wilton (one), Kirkburn I (one), Londesborough (one), Pudding Pie Hill Sowerby (three), and Rillington (one) were established at barrows higher on the Wolds in the fifth or sixth century. Individual inhumations and small groups at Acklam Wold (two), Barrow 114 and Beacon Hill (two) Bishop Wilton, Duggleby Howe Kirby Gryndalythe (two), St Mary’s Fimber (two), Ganton Wold (one), Garton Slack II Kirkburn (six), Kingthorpe Thornton Dale (one), Painsthorpe Wold Kirby Underdale (six), and Warter (one) were established at barrows on the higher Wolds in the sixth century. Finally, larger cemeteries, individual inhumations, and small groups at Green Lane Garton (sixty-two), Garton Slack I (fifty-nine), Garton Station (thirty-five), Painsthorpe Wold (six or twenty), Uncleby Kirby Underdale (over seventy-one), Howe Hill Carthorpe (four), and Kemp Howe Cottam (six), were established at barrows and linear earthworks higher on the Wolds in the seventh and eighth centuries, including some seventh-century inhumations furnished with gold and garnet and silver objects. The creation of longer-term community inhumation cemeteries focused on barrows in the lowlands was apparently followed by increasing numbers of inhumations for fewer individuals at barrows higher on the Wolds, culminating in a few community cemeteries and groups of inhumations at barrows and linear earthworks higher on the Wolds including some unusually rich inhumations.91 The process is most visible and best understood around Driffield. The Driffield basin is a resource territory connecting the Chalk Wolds with the River Hull, principally via the Garton and Wetwang Slacks. Three long-distance route ways linking areas of open pasture on the Wold tops and the surrounding lowlands led into the Driffield basin—the Sledmere Green Lane, the Tibthorpe Green Lane, and the Hawold Bridle Track.92 At Elmswell there are springs from which the River Hull rises: they were a focus for a Roman shrine at which durable material culture was deposited in the second century and a Roman iron-working site where bog-iron ore from the Wolds was smelted and worked into objects, perhaps exchanged for other goods reflected in the finds of Late Roman glass vessels and Crambeck and Huntcliff ware pottery, and where Anglo-Saxon artefacts were also discovered.93 The Driffield basin has a dense concentration of furnished inhumation cemeteries and burials. Chris Loveluck considered the objects found in them. For the fifth- to sixth-century cemeteries he emphasized the inclusion of iron-working tools in some graves and the 91   This reinforces on a larger canvas the patterns established in Lucy 1998: 76–101 and Semple 2013: 26–38. 92   Fenton-Thomas 2003: 75–117, and see esp. 254, fig. 120; 255, fig. 121; 257, fig. 257. 93   Congreve 1937; Congreve 1938; Corder 1940; Mellor 1953.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi



The Kingdom of the Deirans, 450–650

27

higher proportion of iron and silver objects compared to those cemeteries east of the River Hull, where there were more imported beads and amulets. He argued persuasively for iron-working as the basis of wealth, social stratification, and social status.94 Since the extraction and working of iron reached a nadir in this period it will have been an economically and socially important region.95 Fifth- and sixth-century community cemeteries were established in the lowlands around Driffield and Kirkburn, at sites including Bridge Street Driffield (twelve inhumations), Cheesecake Hill Driffield (up to thirty-four), Kings Mill Road Driffield (over twelve), Eastburn Kirkburn (twelve), and Kelleythorpe Kirkburn (forty-seven). Individual inhumations and small groups were established at the transition between the lowlands and the Wolds around Garton at Garton I (one inhumation) and Garton Slack II (six); they were followed by community cemeteries in the same area at Garton Slack I (fifty-nine), Garton Station (thirty-five), and Garton Green Lane (sixty-two), including some unusually rich burials. Finally, a small group of inhumations was established on the Wold top at Kemp Howe Cottam (six inhumations). Around the Driffield basin, communities first used mortuary ritual to claim the focus of the iron-producing territory, then the transition point in a transhumance territory stretching up on to the Wolds, and finally the route ways ­traversing the Wolds top and uniting areas of open pasture.96 Social status was signalled first within the lowland communities in ways reflecting regional resources, but then to those moving between the lowlands and the uplands and across the uplands, and ultimately according to a richer material culture that was uniform across the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.97 Historical context is provided at the end of this process: the northern recensions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle record that King Aldfrith of the Northumbrians died on Driffelda on  14 December 705, and Stephen of Ripon claims that Abbess Ælfflæd of Streoneshalh (Whitby) and Abbess Æthelburg, probably from the Streoneshalh daughter house of Hackness, visited Aldfrith’s deathbed, suggesting a royal vill.98 The shift from projecting social status within local communities on the basis of regional resources to projecting it beyond those communities based on access to a common elite material culture may reflect some members of local communities becoming wealthier than their peers through service to a Deiran ruler and projecting status with reference to the movement of people to and from their territory.99 Over the course of the later fifth century and the sixth century new ethnic identities were projected. In the furnished inhumation cemeteries, some females were buried in a dress ensemble comprising a sleeved garment with wrist clasps, a tubular gown fastened at the shoulders with paired display brooches and 95   Loveluck 1996: 25–48.   Fleming 2012: 3–45, at 11, note 18 for Driffield. 97   Fenton-Thomas 2003: 121–3.   Loveluck 1996: esp. 42–3. 98 99   ASC DE s.a. 705; VW c. 59.   Semple 2013: 37–8. 94 96

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

28

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

gathered with a waist belt sometimes provided with girdle hangers, and occasionally a third display brooch.100 Across areas of eastern England, distinctive forms of display brooches were adopted known as cruciform brooches and great square-headed brooches. Toby Martin has produced a new corpus and analysis of cruciform brooches.101 He envisages migration as the route by which the earliest cruciform brooches reached England in the period c.420–c.475, including possible examples from Bridlington, Driffield, Hob Hill Saltburn, Market Weighton, and Rudston.102 He suggests that an unintentional eastern distribution facilitated their use for the projection of a common ethnic identity in the period c.475–c.550, as women became bearers for familial and ethnic traditions and a greater variety of regional types developed, including examples from Aislaby, Bishop Burton, Boynton, Brantingham, Bulmer, Burneston, Catterick, Driffield, Fangfoss, Ganton Wold, Goodmanham, Grimston, Hackforth, Hornsea, Hunsingore, Kilham, Londesborough, Long Marston, Malton, Market Weighton, North Cave, North Ferriby, Rillington, Roecliffe, Rudston, Sancton, Sewerby, Shelley, Skirpenbeck, Stamford Bridge, Staxton, Thirsk, Towton, Walkington, West Heslerton, and Wilberfoss.103 Finally, he identifies the emergence of supra-regional elites based on these ethnic identities in the period c.525–c.570, reflected in the greater uniformity and ostentation of the brooches, perhaps representing elite gift giving, including examples from Brompton on Swale, Catterick, Doncaster, Ebberston, Saltburn, and Thornton le Street.104 By the early eighth century the Deirans thought of themselves as descendants of Angles who had migrated to eastern England in the fifth century: Bede relates a tradition that ‘from the fatherland (patria) which is called Angulus . . .  came the East Angles, Middle Angles, Mercians, and the Northumbrian race (progenies) . . . as well as the other peoples who sprang from the Angles’.105 The distribution of cruciform brooches corresponds to the regions inhabited by these peoples and their kingdoms, suggesting that they were used to project a new Anglian identity c.475–c.550 and to project the identities of new kingdoms amongst the Angles c.525–c.570. This Anglian identity sometimes underpinned political authority and power in the seventh century: Pope Boniface wrote to King Edwin of the Deirans as king of the Angles (rex Anglorum), and the idea of an Anglian province (provincia Anglorum) and king of the Angles (reges Anglorum) persisted until at least the end of the seventh century.106 101   Owen-Crocker 2011: 91–116, at 97–100, and fig. 7.1(b).  Martin 2015.   Martin 2015: 128 for periodization, 173–8 for discussion, Nos. 24, 47, 138–9, 155, 172. 103   Martin 2015: 128, 178–85, Nos. 228, 294, 298, 309, 317, 337, 354–5, 362–3, 378, 515–16, 528, 535, 574, 591, 613, 645, 650–2, 661–2, 673, 681–2, 690–2, 707, 709–10, 730, 741, 749–51, 766, 768, 773, 777–8, 785, 811–12, 825, 831, 839, 843, 857, 862, 871–2, 889, 893, 950, 976, 984, 995–6, 1035, 1044, 1058, 1067, 1074, 1081, 1087, 1088, 1096, 1128, 1135, 1143, 1190, 1193, 1196, 1200, 1201, 1207, 1208, 1215, 1217. 104 105   Martin 2015: 128, 185–90, 291, Nos. 1242, 1268, 1276, 1294, 1333, 1334.   HE i.15. 106   HE ii.10 (rex Anglorum), iii.26 (provincia Anglorum), iv.26 (24) (regnum Anglorum), v.15 (rex Anglorum). Kirby 2000: 50–4; Higham 2006: 401–2. 100 102

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi



The Kingdom of the Deirans, 450–650

29

Nevertheless, there was room for other familial, lordship, and ethnic identities. Rob Collins produced a corpus of indigenous penannular brooches: Type F probably belongs to the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries and Type G to the fifth and sixth centuries, and their distribution relates to the post-Roman kingdoms of the Gododdin, Rheged, and the Deirans, suggesting some kin groups amongst the Deirans continued to project their status through links to indigenous British culture, perhaps as a result of intermarriage. Type F examples have been found at Catterick, Staxton, and possibly Yarm, and Type G at Driffield and Londesborough.107 Moreover, in his corpus of ‘Anglian’ great square-headed brooches, John Hines identified two groups belonging to his Phase III, c.550– c.570—Groups XXII and XXIII—focused on Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, including examples from Driffield, Sewerby, and Thornborough.108 It is striking that the Whitby Vita Gregorii refers to King Edwin (r. 616–33) as ‘a man of this  race of ours, which is called the Humbrians’ (gente nostra, que dicitur Humbrensium), that the proceedings of the council of Hatfield (679/80) refer to King Ecgfrith (r. 670–85) as king of the Humbrians (rex Humbronensium), and that one scribe copying the Canones Theodori referred to himself as Discipulum Humbrensium, ‘disciple of the people of the Humber’.109 Finally, a select number of females were buried with Leeds Type C2 Great Square-Headed Brooches: at Fornaby (Li); at Catterick, Hornsea, Kelleythorpe, Sewerby, and Staxton (Yorks); at Darlington, Norton, and Piercebridge (Du); and at Benwell (Nb). Chris Loveluck wondered whether this represents kin groups signalling membership of a Northumbrian culture group.110 The eventual triumph of a pan-Northumbrian identity following the unification of the Deirans and Bernicians in the seventh century may be followed in Stephen of Ripon’s reference to the ‘people beyond the Humber’ (ultrahumbrenses), in Bede’s to Ecgfrith as ‘king of the region beyond the Humber’ (transhumbranae regionis regem) and to the ‘people beyond the Humber’ (Transhumbrana gens), in Aldhelm’s and Stephen’s references to King Aldfrith as ‘governor of the kingdom of the northern empire’ (Aquilonalis imperii scepter gubernanti) and ‘king of the north’ (rex Aquilonalium/Aquilonensium), and the references in the proceedings of the council of Hertford (673) and by Bede to the Northumbrian people (gens), and the province (provincia) and kingdom (regnum) of the Northumbrians (Nordanhymbrorum).111 Memories of migration, social emulation, social stratification, ethnogenesis, and political centralization survive in much later texts; they cannot be verified, 108  Collins 2010.   Hines 1997b: 156–70, 199–204.   VG c. 12; HE iv.17 (15). Kirby 2000: 53; Higham 2006: 401–2. 110   Leeds and Pocock 1971; Loveluck 2002: 132–3, 134 fig. 12.2. 111   AO 61–75, 201–4, and APW 34–47, at 34; VW, cc. 44, 45, 47, 58, 65 (Ultrahumbrenses) and 43, 51 (rex Aquilonalium/Aquilonensium); HA c. 4; HE iii.14 (Transhumbrana gens), iv.5 (council of Hertford, rex Nordanhymbrorum), i.15 (Nordanhymbrorum progenies), i.34 (regnum Nordanhymrorum), ii.5 (rex Nordanhymbrorum gentis), iii.1 (provincias gens Nordanhymbrorum). Higham 2006: 397–8, 401–4. 107 109

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

30

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

but are consistent with the archaeological evidence. The ‘Anglian genealogies’, perhaps deriving from a Northumbrian collection put together in the reign of King Alhred (r. 765–74) or the first reign of King Æthelred (r. 774–778/9), provide royal genealogies for the Deirans and Bernicians.112 The Historia Brittonum claims that Soemel, great-great-great-grandfather of King Ælle of the Deirans (r. 568–98), separated Deira from Bernicia, i.e. perhaps in the mid fifth century.113 A chronicle fragment produced between the mid eighth century and the mid ninth century suggests that Oesa, grandfather of Ida, first king of the Bernicians (r. 547–59), was the first member of the Bernician dynasty to come to Britain, i.e. c.500.114 Since the Deiran dynasty supposedly preceded the Bernician dynasty, the Historia Brittonum statement does not make sense. However, it may preserve some memory of the separation of the Deirans from British rule in the  fifth century.115 The first securely attested Anglo-Saxon kings were Ælle of the Deirans (r. 560–588/90) and Ida of the Bernicians (r. 547–59).116 Y Gododdin, the poems attributed to Taliesin, and some further Old Welsh poems, may recall a political map of Yorkshire in the sixth century in which the Britons of Rheged and Elmet fought alongside Deirans against the Gododdin at Catraeth. The older version of Y Gododdin included a conflict between the Gododdin and the Deirans at Catraeth.117 Amongst the stanzas found only in the later A version, one implies the enemy included the Coeling or meibyon Godebawc, which might include Urien, recalled as lord of Rheged and Catraeth, and Gwallawc, ruler of Elmet.118 One of the poems attributed to Taliesin may celebrate Urien’s victory at Catraeth,119 and an Old Welsh panegyric on Cadwallan ap Cadfan suggests that Gwallawc caused, or was involved in, Catraeth.120 Though it is often assumed that the Gododdin fought only Deirans at Catraeth, this is not clear from Y Gododdin. The terms Lloegyr/Lloegrwys probably originally designated lowland Britain and its population, but were used for England and the English in medieval Wales: their use in a number of stanzas is not sufficient to determine the enemy’s ethnicity.121 Two stanzas preserved only in A envisage some of the enemy as Saxons (Saeson), but do not have to mean the enemy was exclusively Saxons and could result from the process of simplification that saw the poem become about Catraeth.122 One stanza preserved in the B version refers to the enemy as ‘the mixed host of l­owland Britain’, perhaps meaning Britons and Deirans.123 Together, this has prompted the hypothesis 113 114  Dumville 1976.   HB cc. 62–3.   Dumville 1973: 314, s.a. 547. 116 117   Dumville 1989a: 218.   HE ii.1, v.24; ASC, ABCE s.a. 547, 560.   See pp. 20–2. 118   Williams (ed.) 1978: 6, A XV, line 134; Jarman (ed. and trans.) 1988: 10–11, No. 16, line 144. See pp. 20–2. 119 120   Williams (ed.) 1960: 2, II.   Gruffydd 1978, with edition at 27–34. 121   Koch 1997: xl–xli. Williams (ed.) 1978: 11, XXIII A, line 261; 19, XLIV A, line 481; 27, LVIII A, line 671; 37, LXXIV A, line 916; 46, XCIV B, line 1160. Jarman (ed. and trans.) 1988: 18–19, No. 25, line 264; 30–1, No. 46, line 451; 36–7, No. 55, line 536; 48–9, No. 73, line 702; 60–1, No. 91, line 899. 122   Koch 1997: xli. Williams (ed.) 1978: 5, XIII A, line 115; 25, LIV A, line 633. Jarman (ed. and trans.) 1988: 10–11, No. 14, line 126; 36–7, No. 54, line 532. 123   Williams (ed.) 1978: 46, XCIV, line 1160; Jarman (ed. and trans.) 1988: 60–1, No. 91, line 899. 112 115

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi



The Kingdom of the Deirans, 450–650

31

that Rheged, Elmet, and the Deirans allied against the Gododdin at Catraeth.124 A minor complication is that one stanza in the B version celebrates a Madauc of Elmet,125 but there could have been two warriors from Elmet fighting on opposing sides.126 If these sources accurately recall this event and its protagonists, it probably occurred before the mid sixth century. Deirans, but not Bernicians, were originally identified as the key opponents. The Historia Brittonum suggests that after the mid sixth century the Bernicians were equally important adversaries for the Gododdin and the Coeling: it states that King Ida of the Bernicians (r. 547–59) ‘joined Din Guayroi (Bamburgh) to Bernicia’,127 perhaps referring to an expansion north from a Tees–Tyne core into Gododdin territory; and it states that King Theodric of the Bernicians at Meddgawd (Lindisfarne) was attacked by Urien, Riderch, Gwallawc, and Morgan, some time between 572 and 592, a campaign on which Urien was killed at Morgan’s instigation.128 By about 650 the Deiran kings had extended authority over Elmet and Catraeth: the kingdom should be thought of as a network of lordship relationships rather than a territory with formal boundaries, but the limits of lordship were broadly coincident with the pre-1974 county of Yorkshire. King Æthelfrith of the Bernicians may have had overlordship of the Deirans, Catraeth, and Elmet, because the future King Edwin of the Deirans was in exile during this reign, his nephew Hereric was apparently in exile in Elmet, where he was poisoned, and Æthelfrith was defeated by King Rædwald of the East Angles in battle on the River Idle in 616, presumably close to the limits of his overlordship.129 The Historia Brittonum suggests that Edwin drove out King Cerdic of Elmet and the Annales Cambriae record his death in 616;130 since this was apparently the first year of Edwin’s rule, the date has been questioned, but there seems little doubt that Edwin did indeed conquer Elmet. Bede depicts Edwin sponsoring Paulinus’ activity at Campodunum in Elmet and at Catterick, and suggests that there was a Deiran royal vill in the regio Loidis in Elmet and religious community in the wood of Elmet.131 King Ealhfrith of the Deirans transferred a religious community at Ripon to the control of Wilfrid in the 650s, which King Ecgfrith endowed with land on the Pennine passes at Ingeadyne (probably Yeadon in Wharfedale, originally in Elmet), iuxta Rippel (probably the River Ribble), Incaetlaevum (probably the Catlows), and in the regione Dunutinga (probably Dent), some apparently taken from British religious communities.132 To the south Deiran royal authority probably reached the Humber estuary and the Rivers Don and Sheaf.133 King Penda of the Mercians and King   Koch 1997: xv–xli.   Williams (ed.) 1978: 47, XCVI B, line 1179; Jarman (ed. and trans.) 1988: 62–3, No. 93, line 918. 126 127 128 129   Koch 1997: xxxi–xxxii.   HB c. 61.   HB c. 63.   HE ii.12, iv.23 (21). 130 131   HB c. 63, Annales Cambriae s.a. 616.   HE ii.14. 132   VW c. 17. Locations: Roper 1974; Jones 1995; Clark 2011: 118–20. 133   Hunter Blair 1948; Higham 2006: 391–48. 124 125

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

32

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Cadwallon of Gwynedd fought and defeated King Edwin ‘on the plain called Hatfield’ (in campo qui vocatur Hæthfelth) in 633: this was an extensive region to the north-east of Doncaster on the border between Yorkshire and Derbyshire.134 King Oswiu of the Bernicians and Deirans met King Penda in battle at Winwæd, which Bede describes as in regione Loidis in 655: this was probably close to Went Bridge, where the Great North Road crosses the River Went, north-west of Doncaster.135 An ecclesiastical council was held at Austerfield in 702, probably reflecting its border location: modern Austerfield lies south-east of Doncaster.136 To the north it probably reached the Tees.137 King Oswiu of the Bernicians and King Oswine of the Deirans were due to meet in battle at Wilfaræsdun some 10 miles north-west of Catterick, presumably on the border between their territories, but when Oswine retreated to Gilling near Richmond (Ingetlingum) Oswiu had him murdered in cold blood, before founding a religious community there in atonement in 651.138 Bede also relates that, when the Northumbrian diocese was divided in 678, the see for the Deirans was at York and the see for the Bernicians at Hexham (Nb) or Lindisfarne (Nb).139 Reginald of Durham mistakenly thought that the Deiran kingdom had stretched from the Humber to the Tyne, but Richard of Hexham believed that it stretched from the Humber to Tees, which is consistent with Bede’s placing of Hexham (Nb) amongst the Bernicians and the fact that the later diocesan boundary of Hexham (Nb) lay along the Tees.140

THE KINGDOM OF THE DEIRANS Combining the evidence from the fifth- to seventh-century burials with early eighth-century historical narratives about the seventh century, it is possible to provide an ethnographic sketch of Deiran society to explore the connections between social structures, religious beliefs, and political organization. Kinship The fundamental social institution was the nuclear family. Stephen of Ripon related that Ealhfrith granted Wilfrid the land of ten tributaries (terram tributariorum) at Stanforda and the land of thirty households (terra mansionem) at Ripon.141 Probably drawing on royal diplomas, Bede relates similar royal grants to Deiran religious communities:142 King Oswiu granted twelve small estates (possessiunculis) to religious communities, six amongst the Deirans, each of   HE ii.20. Parker 1992.   HE iii.24. Breeze 2004; Charles-Edwards 2013: 394–6; Higham 2015: 97–102; see Dunshea 2015 for an alternative. 136 137 138   VW c. 46.   Hunter Blair 1949.   HE iii.14, 24. Pickles 2009c. 139 140 141 142   HE iv.12.   Hunter Blair 1949: 50, 53–6.   VW c. 8.  Shaw 2016. 134 135

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi



The Kingdom of the Deirans, 450–650

33

ten ‘families’ or ‘households’ (familiae), and then ten familiae for the religious community at Streoneshalh (Whitby); Ealhfrith gave Wilfrid the land of ten familiae at Stanforda and thirty familiae at Ripon.143 Indeed, Bede described assessment in familiae as the English way of reckoning (aestimationem Anglorum).144 The Old English equivalent for these terms in vernacular ­diplomas and the translation of Bede is hı ̄d, ‘hide’.145 The Tribal Hidage lists the British Elmed sætna at 600 hides.146 Like their Germanic cognates, the Old English term hı ̄d and the related terms hı ̄wisc and hı ̄wscipe refer to the nuclear family.147 Partible inheritance was the norm, sometimes favouring the first son. Stephen of Ripon understood that Wilfrid’s mother died and his cruel stepmother prompted him to ‘leave his father’s fields’ (paterna rura deserere) aged 14 for the royal household; if his familial prospects were uncertain, his parents presumably had choice over the disposition of property.148 Bede suggested Abbot Benedict of Wearmouth (Du) offered the community the following advice: ‘Amongst their spiritual sons let them judge him greater who is endowed with a fuller grace of the spirit, in the same way that earthly parents recognize the first-born son as the most important of their children, and are accustomed to think he should be preferred over the rest when their inheritance must be divided up.’149 The Deirans recognized a wider bilateral, agnatic kin group, defining relatives through the father and mother, but emphasizing the male lines. The ‘Anglian genealogies’ provide an agnatic genealogy for the Deiran royal line.150 Old English kinship terminology distinguishes paternal and maternal kin, emphasizing agnatic links, but specific terminology is restricted to a small set of kin, using flexible and interchangeable terms and failing to distinguish between cousins with different degrees of kinship.151 The pattern of royal succession amongst the Deirans seems to confirm this picture, favouring a member of the bilateral, agnatic royal kindred proven in warfare, ideally the eldest son, but potentially a brother, and only rarely division between sons.152 Edwin’s son Uscfrea and grandson Yffi were spirited away as potential heirs, but died in infancy.153 Edwin’s cousin Osric succeeded.154 After a period of rule by the Bernician Oswald, Osric’s son Oswine succeeded.155 The Bernician Oswiu sought to unite the two kingdoms by marrying Edwin’s daughter, Eanflæd, ­providing successors with a bilateral, agnatic kin group that was both Deiran and Bernician.156 Kin groups expected compensation for the injury of a member and were obliged to pursue the debt of honour incurred. When the Bernician Oswiu had 144 145   HE iii.24, iii.25, v.19.   HE ii.9, iii.4, iv.16 (14).  Faith 1999. 147 148   Dumville 1989b: 226–7.   Charles-Edwards 1972: at 5–8.   VW c. 2. 149 150 151   HA c. 11.  Dumville 1976.   Lancaster 1958a: 235–9. 152 153   Charles-Edwards 1972: 28–30; Charles-Edwards 1997: 182–6.   HE ii.20. 154 155 156   HE iii.1.   HE iii.14.   HE iii.15. 143 146

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

34

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

the Deiran Oswine murdered in cold blood, he provided compensation to Oswine’s relatives.157 After the death of King Ecgfrith’s brother Ælfwine in battle against King Æthelred of the Mercians, Archbishop Theodore intervened to restore peace, so that ‘no further lives were demanded for the death of the king’s brother, but only the usual money compensation which was paid to the king to whom the duty of vengeance belonged’.158 Kin groups retained guardianship over women in marriage and their children: when Edwin was killed, his wife Æthelburg returned with her son and grandson to her family in Kent; when Edwin’s great-niece Hild became a nun, she returned to the Northumbrians and eventually to the Deirans, and Edwin’s daughter Eanflæd and granddaughter Ælfflæd were admitted to her care.159 All this is consistent with the more fine-grained picture provided by the early Kentish and West Saxon laws.160 Kinship was a given relationship, but one that needed to be activated and maintained through the disposition of property and fostering.161 Marriage Kin groups were extended through marriage: this was a negotiation between kin groups, concerning the honour of the kin group and involving them in exchange of property. King Edwin’s marriage to Æthelburg of Kent was preceded by the sending of ambassadors to her brother Eadbald to negotiate terms.162 King Ecgfrith probably granted a ‘morning gift’ (Old English morgengifu) to his East Anglian wife Æthelthryth, because Stephen of Ripon claims that she granted personal property to Wilfrid for the foundation of the c­ ommunity at Hexham (Nb).163 However, it was believed that Ecgfrith and Æthelthryth never consummated their marriage, so she returned to the kingdom of the East Angles to found the monastery at Ely (Ca), and Ecgfrith married Eormenburg.164 These sidelights from Deiran and Bernician marriages are consistent with more detailed evidence from the early Kentish and West Saxon laws, the episcopal handbooks, and the eleventh-century Be wifmannes Beweddunge. A member of the bride’s kin group acted as advocate in the contract; the bridegroom pledged his intentions and his friends stood surety for his obligations.165 The kin group gave the gyft of the woman to the bridegroom, and the bridegroom reciprocated with bridewealth, which later transmuted into fosterle ̄on, a payment recognizing their outlay in bringing up the bride; again, the bridegroom’s friends acted as sureties.166 Between betrothal and marriage, the advocate protected the bride’s virginity and the bridegroom paid the bride a morgengifu in return for virginity.167 The brideprice could sometimes be returned if the bride 158 159 160   HE iii.14, 24.   HE iv.21 (19).   HE iii.24.   Lancaster 1958b: 367–71. 162   Charles-Edwards 1997: 197–8; Crawford 1999: 122–6, 129–30.   HE ii.9. 163 164 165   VW c. 22.   HE iv.19.   Charles-Edwards 1997: 179–82. 166   Abt 77, 77.1, 83; Ine 31; Charles-Edwards 1976: 180–1. 167   Abt 77, 77.1; Wif 3. Charles-Edwards 1976: 180–1; Fell 1984: 56–7, 74–5. 157 161

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi



The Kingdom of the Deirans, 450–650

35

was not a virgin; in some cases the brideprice plus an extra 33 per cent of its value.168 It was sometimes stipulated that the morgengifu should pass to the bride’s kin group if she remained childless.169 It was sometimes stated that part of their joint property should pass to the bride if the marriage broke down, up to half if she had care of the children.170 Even with these contingency arrangements, marriage contracts were risky. Contracting endogamous marriages and stepsons marrying stepmothers were perhaps important strategies.171 Alternatives to marriage may have been preferable—abortion and infanticide to avoid too many children,172 bachelorhood,173 and concubinage.174 Lordship The nuclear family was extended through lordship, producing a household of dependants including foster children, youths, servants, slaves, and visitors with their own attendants. Stephen of Ripon’s account of Wilfrid provides a useful vignette. In his father’s household (domus) Wilfrid ministered to the king’s companions (socii) and their servants (servi). He obtained for himself and his boys/servants (pueri) suitable garments, arms, and horses, and travelled to the royal household. Here the noblemen (nobiles viros) he had ministered to ­recommended him to Queen Eanflæd. She commended him to Cudda, a royal companion (sodalis regis), as his servant. They entered the religious community at Lindisfarne.175 The reciprocal bonds of lordship were constructed through service, hospitality, and gifts. Wilfrid, returning from consecration in Gaul, landed amongst the South Saxons in 666: Stephen claims he had 120 companions (sodales), well armed (bene armati) and brave in heart (virile animo), whose lives he tried to purchase from enemies and who agreed to win death with honour or life with victory.176 Aldhelm’s letter to the abbots of Wilfrid’s religious communities during one of his subsequent exiles, probably amongst Frisians in 677, emphasized that they should follow their lord into exile.177 Early Kentish and West Saxon laws offer important glimpses of the culture of lordship.178 The laws of Æthelberht of Kent suggest any ceorl, ‘freeman’, could act as a lord over dependants.179 The laws of Ine of the West Saxons associated the hı ̄red, ‘household’, with the nuclear family constructed through marriage, but also with an extended household including a smith, a reeve, and a nurse.180 Obligations to provide protection for dependants are reflected in the laws stipulating compensation payments for the death of freemen and their 169   Abt 77.1; PT II.xii.34.   Abt 81. Fell 1984: 56–7, 74–5. 171 172   Abt 79. Fell 1984: 80–1.   Lancaster 1958a: 239–44.   PT I.xiv.24–6. 173 174   Crawford 1999: 107–9.   Hill 1979: 67–9; Ross 1985; Crawford 1999: 64–5. 175 176 177   VW c. 2.   VW c. 13.   AO 500–2 and APW 150–1, 168–70. 178  Whitelock  1952: 29–38, remains an excellent introduction, but combined evidence ranging from across the Anglo-Saxon period. 179 180   Abt 16, 25.   Ine 63. 168 170

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

36

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

dependants.181 Expectations that a lord would provide weapons for some of his dependants required statements of his responsibility for how they were used.182 Lords acted as guarantors for the conduct of dependants and guests.183 Oversight extended to the household and marriage contracts of some dependants,184 and the work and movements of others.185 Local communities Households were part of local communities. The fifth- to seventh-century furnished inhumation cemetery at West Heslerton included 300–350 individuals buried over a period of 125 or 175 years, interpreted as eight to fifteen households; the limits of the cemetery were established and all known burials were excavated.186 Setting this alongside the settlement evidence, the excavator estimated a population of 100–200 people.187 For the remainder of the furnished inhumation cemeteries from Yorkshire the limits were not established, but the figures suggest local communities of limited scale: Adwick le Street (forty inhumations), Catterick Racecourse (over forty-four), Catterick RAF (fifty), Cheesecake Hill Driffield (up to thirty-four), Garton Slack I (fifty-nine), Garton Station (thirty-five), Grainger’s Pit Willerby (fifty-five), Green Lane Garton (sixty-two), Hob Hill Saltburn (over thirty inhumations and over eighteen cremations), Kelleythorpe Kirkburn (forty-seven), Sewerby (fifty-nine), Street House Easington (109). This is in line with evidence from Anglo-Saxon England as a whole. Cemeteries at Berinsfield (Oxf) and Castledyke (Li) suggest families of about ten people, consistent with halls as the domestic space of a single household.188 Larger cemeteries contain c.200 people, representing the burials from five to ten households.189 Settlements tend to have between one and ten farmsteads comprised of domestic halls and service buildings.190 Three thoroughly excavated examples at West Stow (Sf), Mucking (Ex), and Bishopstone (Su) had between seven and ten farmsteads.191 Domestic halls housed around twelve people including children.192 This suggests local communities consisted of about five to ten households, each including around ten people, totalling 100 people overall. Social status Households within these local communities were part of social status groups. Bede’s story of the Northumbrian Imma neatly demonstrates this point. Imma, a youth (iuvenis), was captured during battle: he claimed to be a poor peasant 182   Abt 6, 25.   Abt 18–20; Ine 29. 184 185   Hl 1–4, 15; Wi, 14, 23–4; Ine 50, 74, 74.1.   Wi 5, 8.   Wi 9–10; Ine 39. 186 187   Haughton and Powlesland 1999: I, 78–80, 82–3, 93–6.   Powlesland 1997: 114. 188   Crawford 1999: 104–5. 189   Arnold 1997: 195, Table 7.5 for a comparison of 13 cemeteries and an attempt to estimate their populations; Crawford 1999: 102–4. 190 191 192   Härke 1997: 140.   Crawford 1999: 102–4.   Härke 1997: 139. 181 183

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi



The Kingdom of the Deirans, 450–650

37

and married (rusticum et pauperem atque uxoreo) who had travelled with other peasants to deliver food to the soldiers; however, his real status as a noble (nobilis), thegn (minister), and warrior (miles) was deduced from his appearance (vultus), bearing (habitus), and speech (sermo).193 Imma’s subterfuge assumes the existence of poor and wealthy peasants, single or married, and wealthier nobles, whose status was outwardly discernible and who were associated with particular types of royal service. By the seventh century status was rooted in landownership, assessed on the  basis of the hı ̄d, meaning both ‘household’ and ‘the land supporting a household’.194 Stephen and Bede used Latin phrases such as ‘land of tributaries’ (terra tributariorum), ‘land of households’ (terra mansionum), ‘measure of ­families’ (familiarum mensura), and ‘properties of families’ (possessiones familiarum).195 Vernacular royal diplomas from other regions use the equivalent phrases ‘land of X hides’ and ‘land of X families’.196 This suggests hı ̄d meant ‘household’, ‘the land supporting one household’, and ‘land owing tribute’. The hı ̄d, ‘household’, presumably represented a nuclear family and its household along with the land that supported them. Because the term ceorl, ‘peasant’, meant both a freeman and a husband in a nuclear family, it is likely that a hı ̄d represented a freeman with his nuclear family, his associated household, and the land that supported them.197 Being a freeman and supporting a household was a function of how much land you possessed. This is confirmed by the use of the hı ̄d to assess a wergild, ‘man payment’—the legal value set on a life. In the laws of King Ine of the West Saxons, a ceorl with one hı ̄d had a wergild of 200 shillings (or, if he was a Briton, 120 shillings), whereas a noble with five had a wergild of 1,200 shillings (or, if he was a Briton, 600 shillings).198 Norđleoda Laga, a law of the later ninth or tenth century covering Mercia and northern England, valued ceorlas at 266 thrymsas, thegns at 2,000, and holds and king’s high reeves at 4,000.199 The convention of partible inheritance ­coupled with social status dependent on landownership meant that kin groups needed to pursue careful property strategies to prevent dispersal of property and decline in status. Gender identities and age cycles Life for each individual was shaped by socially defined gender identities and age cycles. Using the fifth- to seventh-century furnished inhumation cemeteries at Cheesecake Hill Driffield, around Garton, at Kelleythorpe Kirkburn, at Sewerby, at Uncleby and at West Heslerton, Sam Lucy studied the relationship between 194   HE iv.22 (20).   Charles-Edwards 1972: 3–15. 197 198  Faith 1999.   Ine 38.   Ine 24.2, 32, 70. 199  Norđleod; Wormald 1999b: 391–4. 193 196

  See pp. 32–3.

195

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

38

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

mortuary ritual, gender, and age.200 At all cemeteries a proportion of burials were furnished with weapons and a proportion were buried in costume with jewellery and dress fasteners. At Sewerby and West Heslerton there were sufficient numbers of independently sexed skeletons to consider the relationship between sex and grave goods. At Sewerby 42.4 per cent of burials were furnished with weapons or buried in costume and at West Heslerton 55.4 per cent. Of these, a low proportion had independently sexed skeletons. At Sewerby, between 10 per cent and 20 per cent of these burials had male skeletons furnished with weapons and female skeletons buried in costume, and at West Heslerton between 12.5 per cent and 13.5 per cent. However, at Sewerby about 15 per cent of the skeletons buried in costume were sexed as possibly male and at West Heslerton about 12.5 per cent of the skeletons with weapons were sexed as possibly female.201 For Lucy, the fact that there were burials without weapons or costume, or containing no objects at all, ‘[threw] doubt on the whole basis of the weapon–jewellery dichotomy’.202 This selectivity, however, may be explained through the idea that furnished inhumation was provided in those cases where the death of a kin group member posed a particular threat to its social status, prompting a statement of status through burial.203 For Lucy, there were also concerns about occasional discrepancies between the sex of a burial and its gender assemblage.204 But this discrepancy probably results from the uncertainties inherent in sexing skeletons and the fact that biological sex is not a determinant of gender identity.205 At all cemeteries Lucy demonstrated a link between mortuary ritual and age, but with variations. At Sewerby all the weapon burials were aged 25 years or older and at West Heslerton only one was under 12 years old, seven were between 12 and 25 years old, and the majority were over 25 years old and provided with tools, tweezers, shields, and swords. Moreover, at Sewerby those buried in costume were supplied with waist ornaments, buckles, and wood vessels when they were over 12 years old, and small-long brooches, squareheaded brooches, and dress pins when they were over 25 years old, whereas at West Heslerton they were provided with pottery, small-long brooches, and beads up to 12 years old, cruciform brooches, girdle hangers, and latch lifters over 12 years old, and penannular or square-headed brooches and tweezers over 25 years old.206 There were also correlations between grave goods, age, grave size, and body position. At Sewerby the graves of skeletons in costume were longer, wider, and deeper than those with weapons, and peaked in size for 17–25-year-olds, and the bodies of these burials were more likely to be supine and extended.207 At West Heslerton the graves of skeletons provided with weapons were longer, those with weapons and in costume were wider and   Lucy 1998: 32–76.   Halsall 1998: 203–14. 206   Lucy 1998: 43–7. 200 203

202   Lucy 1998: 41–3.   Lucy 1998: 48. 204 205   Lucy 1998: 42–3, 48–9.   Härke 1997: 132–3. 207   Lucy 1998: 56–8. 201

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi



The Kingdom of the Deirans, 450–650

39

deeper, and those with weapons peaked in size at 35–45 years and in costume at 25–35 years.208 Associations like these were confirmed for the remaining cemeteries, but with further variations.209 At Sewerby, age at death peaked generally in the range 25–35 years old, but females were more likely to die in the range 25–35 years old and males in the range 35–45 years old.210 At West Heslerton, age at death also peaked in the range 25–35 years old.211 These cemeteries suggest that male gender identity and status was projected through weapons and female gender and status through costume, with significant transition points at around 12, 18, 25, and 35 years old, and a life expectancy of up to 35 years for females and up to 45 years for males. Studies of mortuary ritual, gender, and age in all early Anglo-Saxon cemeteries have ­identified transition points at 3, 7, 10–12, 15, 18, 25, and 35 years old.212 Northumbrian historiae describe a number of male rites of passage.213 The anonymous biographer of Cuthbert and Bede thought that an infant (infans) of 3 years old upbraided Cuthbert as a boy (puer) of eight years old, so that he gave up foolish games; Bede stated 8 years old was the end of infancy and beginning of boyhood (post infantiam puericiae).214 Similarly, Bede tells us that when he was 7 years old members of his kin (propinqui) gave him to Abbots Benedict of Wearmouth (Du) and Ceolfrith of Jarrow (Du) to be educated.215 Stephen relates that Wilfrid was 14 years old when he equipped himself and his followers to travel to the royal household.216 This may be when boyhood became adolescence: the anonymous biographer and Bede depicted Cuthbert as an adolescent (adolescens) watching over sheep; the anonymous states they were the sheep of his lord (dominus) and places him with other shepherds (pastores), but Bede describes them as shepherds (pastores) and companions (socii), which might suggest that he was in the service of a lord as a youth with his own companions.217 The anonymous Sermo on Ceolfrith says that he was 18 years old when he chose to enter a religious community at Gilling near Richmond.218 Bede claims that when Benedict was 25 years old he was King Oswiu’s servant (minister) and received a grant of property befitting his rank.219 He says Oswald was exiled along ‘with a great youth of nobles’ (cum magna nobilium iuventute).220 He suggests that Oswine sought refuge in the house of a companion (comes) at Gilling near Richmond, where he was murdered and which his successor, Oswiu, granted for the foundation of a religious community: this was apparently a royal territory on loan to the companion, which could be revoked and re-granted.221 Together this suggests that from 18 to 25 years old you were considered a youth, but 209 210   Lucy 1998: 52–6.   Lucy 1998: 58–65.   Hirst 1985: 34.   Haughton and Powlesland 1999: I, 176–8. 212   Härke 1997: 127–30; Stoodley 1999; Stoodley 2000; Stoodley 2011: 645–63. 213   Härke 1997: 126–7; Crawford 1999: 54–6; Charles-Edwards 2009: 111–14. 214 215 216   VCA i.3; VCB c. 1.   HE v.25.   VW c. 2; the age is repeated in HE v.19. 217 218 219   VCA i.5; VCB c. 4.   Sermo c. 2.   HA c. 1. 220 221   HE iii.1.   HE iii.14, 24. 208 211

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

40

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

from 25 years onwards might qualify as a companion and receive land. Northumbrian historiae provide no comparable evidence for female rites of passage, but clauses in the Poenitentiale Theodori suggest that up to 16 or 17 years old a girl was in the power of her parents and could be bestowed in marriage against her will, but not thereafter, and it is likely that females reached maturity and became marriageable at around 15 and were most likely to bear children between 18 and 25.222 Religious beliefs Following John Hines, religious beliefs may be considered ‘those elements of cultural practice that involve an intellectual and imaginative perception of a non-“phenomenal”, i.e. an intangible, spirit realm’.223 The social conventions and institutions identified above provided a framework for religious rituals with material manifestations. The household and local community were the primary foci for religious beliefs. Audrey Meaney identified a range of amuletic objects, attributed a­ potropaic, medicinal, or magical qualities, through a careful comparison of unusual objects fashioned from exotic material and employed as grave goods with references to amulets in texts.224 She revealed that households expressed gender and age distinctions partly through amulets: males had beads of amber and glass, whetstones, and boar tusks, whereas females had bead necklaces of amber, glass, rock crystal, and amethyst.225 Amongst the burials from Yorkshire she identified a range of amulets: bucket pendants (Driffield, West Heslerton), quartz (Driffield, Saltburn), jet (Garton, Kirkburn, Saltburn, Seamer), boar tusks (Kingthorpe), boar incisors (Londesborough), variegated glass bead necklaces (Londesborough), a brooch with a stag antler (Londesborough), a ring with a bone (Sancton), cowrie shells (Staxton, Cheesecake Hill Driffield), chalk beads (Garton II and Staxton), and shield pendants (Uncleby).226 Divergences from normative trends in furnished burial suggest individuals with the social sanction to perform religious rituals. At Garton a female was buried in the seventh century with chipped glass, playing pieces of glass, spindle whorls made of chalk and bone, a bronze work box, an iron hook, a bronze buckle, a flat bronze ring, an iron ‘spoon’, and a bone comb, perhaps all originally in a bag.227 She has been associated with a wider phenomenon whereby some women were buried with a specialist amulet-kit including a crystal ball,   PT II.xii.35–6. Crawford 1999: 110–13; Stoodley 2000: 461–5; Charles-Edwards 2009: 109–11. 224   Hines 2015: 64.   Meaney 1981: 3–37 for principles, 38–238 for the amulets. 225   Meaney 1981: 239–62. 226  Meaney  1981: 166–7 (bucket pendants), 77 and 293 n. 47 (quartz), 74 (jet), 98 (chalk), 132 (ox tooth), 133 (boar tusk), 202 (variegated beads), 134 (boar incisor), 139 (brooch with stag antler), 145 (ring with bone), 123 and 125 (cowrie shells), 96 (chalk beads), 162 (shield pendant). 227   Meaney 1981: 227. 222

223

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi



The Kingdom of the Deirans, 450–650

41

a bronze box, and a bag containing teeth and bones, about once per generation in any given cemetery; these burials have been connected with the use of feminine terms for magical practitioners and the references in episcopal handbooks to women performing magical acts associated with their roles as wife, lover, housekeeper, mother, and guardian of health.228 Episcopal handbooks regularly denounced divination, augury, and the casting of lots: such ‘cunning women’ may have been responsible for these activities.229 Rites of cremation involved the burning of individuals along with animal remains and their ritual deposition together in decorated cremation urns, perhaps expressing belief in spiritual transformation.230 Rites of furnished inhumation reveal a delicate balance between local and regional customs and supra-regional identities, requiring guardians of memory to recall the conventions and direct the funerals.231 Such ‘cunning women’ may also have managed mortuary ritual.232 Transgression of social norms perhaps underpinned the ability to harness supernatural forces and coordinate rituals of protection, prediction, and transformation, prompting fear of the individuals concerned. At Sewerby, Graves 49 and 41 represented a double grave. A female aged between 17 and 25 years old was buried in a coffin with an array of grave goods including a large bronze cauldron, gilt bronze wrist clasps, two bronze small-long brooches, one large gilt bronze square-headed brooch, two girdle hangers, over 200 beads, two triangular bronze pendants, a small box made of wood and shale, and some animal ribs. Above her was another female aged 35–45 buried prone, with a sooty fragment of beehive quern thrown onto her body with sufficient force to damage her pelvis, and with grave goods including a jet disc, a knife, an iron buckle, two bronze annular broaches, and fifteen amber and glass beads. Over the top were the remains of a chalk cairn and postholes.233 At West Heslerton there was a total of twelve prone burials (three male, seven female, and two of unknown sex and gender). Four may have been live burials, suggested by the position of the head and hands: Graves 6, 70, 83, and 113. Three were bound: Grave 17 at the ankles, Grave 114 at the feet, and Grave 132 at the knees. Four of these were inserted into earlier monuments: Graves 89 and 113 into a prehistoric enclosure ditch, and Graves 6 and 166 into barrow enclosure ditches. One was part of a double burial: Graves 118 and 120 were two females, the top prone.234 Fear of the transgression of social norms and the potential it provided for malign influence in life and death could explain the elaborate rites of punishment or disablement focused on some of these individuals.235 Such rites, performed by local communities, may have been a lesson to the living, a punishment for the dead, and an attempt to render corpses of suspect people safe after death.236   Meaney 1989: 9–40; Dickinson 1993: 45–54.   For instance, PT I.xv.1–5. Owen 1981: 51–60, and Meaney 1992, for more exhaustive surveys. 230 231 232 233  Williams 2001.  Williams 2006.  Geake 2003.   Hirst 1985: 38–43. 235 234   Reynolds 2009: 37–54, 61–95.   Haughton and Powlesland 1999: I, 91–2. 236   Reynolds 2009: 68–76, 81–5, 89–94. 228 229

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

42

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Members of early Deiran communities probably worshipped physical features and animals in ways that only sometimes left a durable mark.237 The majority of Bronze Age round barrows and Iron Age square barrows were associated with, and orientated on, linear earthworks and the intermittent watercourses known as Gypsies that were crucial to agricultural regimes: it has been argued that they reflected beliefs about the relationship between liminality, regeneration, ancestry, and rights to resources and access routes.238 During Roman rule in Yorkshire the ritual importance of water is demonstrable in the evidence for a range of structured deposits associated with springs, rivers, and wells; this is particularly clear from the spring shrines at Elmswell, Milllington, and West Heslerton.239 A range of evidence suggests the existence of similar beliefs in the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries. At a macro level, burials were repeatedly inserted into, or associated with, linear earthworks, Bronze Age round barrows, and Iron Age square barrows, and Chris Fenton-Thomas has demonstrated the persistence of transhumance regimes based on Wold top pastures into the Anglo-Saxon period.240 This might hint at a similar relationship between mortuary ritual, liminality, regeneration, ancestry, and rights to resources. At a micro level, a number of individual sites illustrate the significance of particular springs and watercourses to local and regional communities. The probable Romano-British spring shrine at West Heslerton on the edge of the Vale of Pickering was respected in the establishment of the fifth- to seventhcentury settlement, suggesting it remained a significant ritual focus.241 The church at Lastingham is located in relation to springs and in the church there are parts of a probable Roman altar apparently reused in an eighth-century tomb shrine.242 Bede tells us that King Æthelwald and Bishop Cedd founded a religious community at Lastingham and says that Cedd ‘was anxious first of all to cleanse the site which he had received . . . from the stain of former crimes (a pristina flagitiorum sorde)’, hinting at some past that Christians considered unsavoury.243 Along the former stream and Garton Green Lane route way descending from the Wolds into the Driffield basin, a series of Bronze Age round barrows and Iron Age square barrows were the focus for burials in the sixth and seventh centuries.244 At Garton Station, within an Iron Age square barrow cemetery comprising at least six square and four round enclosures, there was a large square central enclosure with a causewayed entrance in its west side and containing eleven early Anglo-Saxon burials, and there were seven more empty square enclosures with further early Anglo-Saxon burials on

237  The essays in Carver, Sanmark, and Semple (eds)  2010 collectively provide the best discussion of this issue. 238   Bevan 1999; Fenton-Thomas 2003: 39–46, 51–2, 56–7; Giles 2012: 40–64, 214–44. 239   Halkon 2013: 209–10, 212; Ottaway 2013: 151–3, 214–19, 285–6, 314–16. 240 241   See pp. 25–7.   Powlesland 2003: esp. 288–9 and fig. 90. 242 243 244   Morris 2015: 133–5.   HE iii.23.   See pp. 25–7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi



The Kingdom of the Deirans, 450–650

43

their periphery.245 John Blair has compared this with square-planned ditched enclosures associated with early Anglo-Saxon burials and square ritual enclosures, raising the possibility that an Iron Age square-barrow cemetery became an Anglo-Saxon ritual site into which burials were inserted.246 Excavations at Melton, on the southern tip of the Wolds, revealed that the junction of two prehistoric route ways alongside a marshy hollow was the focus for a probable shrine and associated furnished inhumation burials in use in the sixth and ­seventh centuries. There was a raised platform with fences, two pits filled with the articulated or partly articulated head and limb bones from several horses radiocarbon dated ad 573–665 (95 per cent), and 264 pottery sherds, three fragments of lead sheet, one fragment of copper alloy sheet, and ironstone from metalworking. There were also four burials: a female aged 18–25 with iron brackets from a probable box placed behind her head; a probable male aged 25–35 with an iron spatulate tool, a knife, and a copper alloy buckle; a probable female aged 35–45; and a male aged 25–35. The burials produced radiocarbon dates centring on the sixth and seventh centuries (ad 590–700, ad 430–640, ad 430–640) and the grave goods were typologically dated to the seventh century.247 These sites provide context for Bede’s description of a shrine at Goodmanham. He claims Edwin called an assembly to discuss conversion. Coifi was chief of the priests (primus pontificum), who were not allowed to carry arms or ride except on a mare. He spoke up in support of conversion and the destruction of the temples (templa) and altars (altaria) formerly held sacred (sacrum). He volunteered to profane (profanare) the sanctuaries (aras) and shrines (fana) of the idols (idola) with their enclosures (septa). Violating taboos, he set out with a sword and a spear on the king’s stallion to a shrine (fanum): he cast the spear into it and ordered his companions to destroy and set fire to the shrine (fanum) and all the enclosures (septa). Bede noted that it was still visible and called Godmunddingaham, located not far east of York over the River Derwent.248 There are good reasons for thinking that Godmunddingaham was Good­ manham and was the location of a regional cult centre. Goodmanham was Guthmundham in Domesday Book, a contraction of Bede’s Godmunddingaham, and the village is east of York, over the River Derwent.249 Like Garton Station, Goodmanham sits at the spring line between two streams on a south-facing slope of the Wolds amongst a dense distribution of Bronze Age round barrows and Iron Age square barrows; a substantial, perhaps man-made mound, underlies the twelfth-century church.250 Goodmanham shares topographical, archaeological, and onomastic characteristics with other early regional cult sites. The counties of south-eastern England preserve a corpus of place-names 246   Stead 1991: 17–24.   Blair 1995a: esp. 9–10 on Garton Station. 248   Fern 2010: esp. 150; Fenton-Thomas 2011: 226–45, 321–2.   HE ii.13. 249 250   Ekwall 1960: 200.   Blair 1995a: 22–3. 245 247

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

44

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

relating to Anglo-Saxon ‘paganism’.251 One category refers to ‘pagan’ shrines and ­temples—hearg and we ̄oh. Names in hearg are sometimes compounded with people names incorporating the element inga, ‘sons, followers, people of’, such as Besinga hearg and Gumeninga hearh, like Godmunddingaham. They occur on hill-top sites, connected with, but at some distance from, major route ways.252 Analysis of their archaeological signature reveals activity from the Bronze Age to the fifth and sixth centuries; they may be comparable to regional assembly sites with ritual activity known from Scandinavia.253 The sites at Garton Station and Goodmanham fit comfortably with the way Stephen of Ripon imagined a cult site. Stephen described an encounter in 666 between Wilfrid and a chief priest (princeps sacerdotum) or wizard (magus) of the South Saxons who stood on a high mound (in tumulo excelso) and attempted to curse Wilfrid and his companions. The models for this passage are Balaam’s wickedness in cursing the Israelites and David’s success against Goliath, but they seem to have been adapted to reflect a landscape populated by ritual specialists associated with mounds.254 If Bede’s picture of a ‘pagan’ cult centre at Goodmanham managed by a ritual specialist is reasonable, the process of plausible invention was probably at work in his description of Coifi. Unlike some other passages on ‘pagan’ cult sites, Bede’s gives no named authority for his information on Goodmanham.255 Bede includes two speeches, one by Coifi and another by an unnamed aristocrat. No model is known for Coifi’s speech. The second speech is probably a construction based on the Psalms and intended for meditation by a religious audience familiar with its reference points.256 The underlying idea of both speeches—the eschewing of earthly rewards of paganism in favour of heavenly rewards offered by Christianity—is Bede’s attempt to draw a clear line between paganism and Christianity. Coifi may or may not have been a genuine figure. His name is unusual: it could derive from a vernacular source and refer to the fact that he was born with an amniotic sack attached to his head like a cowl, which is elsewhere associated with shamanistic powers.257 Yet Bede could have been employing a biblical model to make a moral point with Caiaphas as the reference point for Coifi.258 It is likely that the sacral conventions by which he was bound, while paralleled in other societies, were in fact Bede’s hypothesis based on the ecclesiastical norms of his own time.259 Bede depicts Cuthbert arriving at Melrose as a warrior on horseback carrying military equipment, but discarding these on entering the monastery.260 His inclusion of similar details in both texts established the conventions that should separate secular and ecclesiastical life. 251   Stenton 1941; Gelling 1961; Gelling 1973; Gelling 1978: 154–61; Wilson 1985; Wilson 1992: 5–21; Meaney 1995; Semple 2007. 252 253   Wilson 1985; Wilson 1992: 7–8.   Semple 2007: 370–83. 254 255   Numbers 22–4, 31; 1 Samuel 17; VW c. 13.  Compare HE ii.15, iii.2. 256 257 258  Fry 1979.   Page 1995: 107; North 1997: 330–40.  Barrow 2011. 259 260   Page 1995: 120–2.   VCB c. 6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi



The Kingdom of the Deirans, 450–650

45

The Deirans probably possessed a polytheistic mythology pursued through seasonal rituals. Old English names for the days of the week incorporate ‘Germanic’ gods familiar from Tacitus’ first-century description in the Germania and from thirteenth-century Icelandic myths: Tîw (Tuesday), Woden (Wednesday), Thunor (Thursday), and Frig (Friday). In other regions of England place-names contain references to these gods and to hills, groves, springs, or mounds.261 Given that two of these names—Tı̄w and Thunor—were terms for natural phenomena, it may be that the worship of numina lay at the roots of religious beliefs.262 By the later sixth century, however, some of these were probably personified gods, because objects from the sixth century include images that may reflect knowledge of the attributes of these gods related in Scandinavian myths.263 Some Old English place-names raise the possibility that the Deirans believed in a wider range of supernatural entities, referring to a dragon (draca), a goblin (puca), a demon (scucca), and a giant (thyrs).264 Bede discusses a ‘pagan’ calendar, with hints of seasonal rituals: these include Modranect (25 December), ‘night of the mothers’, Hređmonath (March), Eosturmonath (April), and Halegmonath (September), ‘sacred month’.265 Philip Shaw argued persuasively that Eostre and Hređa represent regional goddesses worshipped by particular peoples, which Bede fashioned into a universal Anglo-Saxon ‘pagan’ calendar.266 These mythologies and seasonal rituals were probably associated with the projection of social status and power. Sixth-century gold bracteate pendants have been discovered in the Bridlington area, at Driffield, and at Hornsea: the Bridlington example is a C-Type bracteate with the image of an anthropomorphic head above a quadruped and probably belongs to the second quarter of the sixth century.267 Studies of the imagery on these high-status bracteates have associated them with the cult of Woden or shamanism and have argued for their role in constructing and legitimizing social status.268 A Type-B apex disc mount probably from a shield boss and decorated with Salin’s Style I animal ornament has been discovered near Selby.269 Building on the arguments about Style I and the gold bracteate pendants, Tania Dickinson has argued that shields carrying Style I animal ornament were invested with an apotropaic quality associated with the social role of some high-status adult males.270 262   Wilson 1992: 11–15; Semple 2013: 170–6.   North 1997: 206–7, 214–59.   Owen 1981: 8–33. 264  Semple  2013: 178–85. Draca: Drakehead Lane, Conisbrough: Drakehou, Kirksmeaton; Drakylgate, Snydale; Drake Pit, Birstall; Drakeholt, Kirkburton. Puca: Puckenhale, Sandal Magna. Scucca: Scrathaigh, Kexborough; Scratch Lane, Cridling Stubbs; Shokeforth-brooke, Morley; Shugden Hall, Halifax. Thyrs: Thirshowe, Barmston; Thursemyer, Broughton. 265 266   Wallis (trans.) 1999: 53–4.  Shaw 2011. 267   Hines 1984: 199–218, at 218; Behr 2010: 61–2, No. 15. 268   Hedeager 1999; Starkey 1999; Hedeager 2000; Magnus 2001; Pluskowski 2010: 106–8; but see the cautionary comments of Hines 1997: 392–3, and Hawkes 1997b. 269   PAS YOYRM-3938D7. 270   Dickinson 2005; Dickinson 2009; Dickinson 2011. 261 263

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

46

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Kingship Deiran kingship was constructed on the basis of these social and religious institutions. Kings were drawn from a bilateral, agnatic royal kin group: though there may have been preference for a first-born son, other competent kin could make an acceptable play for power.271 The king’s household comprised members of the royal family and those attracted to service through the culture of lordship. Bede tells us King Edwin was resident at a royal vill (villa regalis) on the River Derwent at Easter when his friendliest servant (minister amicissimus) Lilla threw himself in front of an assassin’s poisoned sword and another warrior (miles) Forthhere was killed in the process of dispatching the assassin.272 He relates that King Oswine was bountiful (largus) to nobles (nobiles) and non-nobles (ignobiles), attracting nobles from almost every kingdom (provincia) to his service (ministerium); indeed, when he dined with Bishop Aidan, he was surrounded by such servants or householders (ministri, domestici).273 He attributed to one of Edwin’s aristocrats (optimates) an invented speech arguing in favour of conversion, which imagined a king sitting in a house (domus) around a fire in winter for dinner (ad caenam) with his commanders (duces) and servants (ministri).274 The convention of partible inheritance favouring the first-born son, along with the expected gender and age cycle for males, helped to supply the royal household: a boy over 8 years old might minister to the king or his companions in his father’s household; a male about 14 years old might equip himself and his servants to travel to the royal household and be assigned to a royal servant for training; a boy about 18 years old might qualify as a warrior; after successful service at 25 years old, he might hope to become a king’s companion (comes) and receive land.275 The king’s household was itinerant. Stephen notes that King Ecgfrith and Queen Eormenburg were ‘making their progress with worldly pomp and daily rejoicings and feasts, through cities (civitates), fortresses (castellas), and ­villages (vicos)’ when they arrived to stay at the monastery (coenobium) of Coldingham.276 Kings could sustain lordship relationships through taking counsel, holding hunts, and leading raiding and warfare. Though King Edwin was willing to convert, Bede suggests he told Paulinus that ‘he would confer about this with his foremost friends (amici principes) and counsellors (consiliarii)’: the decision was made collectively after consultation with a chief priest (primus pontificum) and an unnamed noble (optimus).277 Bede states that King Edwin had a royal vill (villa regia) at Yeavering (Nb): excavations uncovered a semicircular tiered structure, focused on a standing pillar, which Paul Barnwell has compared with Frankish legal evidence for the king’s staffolus (stone/column/post) as a focal point for assembly, decision

  See p. 33.    272  HE ii.9.   273  HE iii.14.    274  HE ii.13.   See pp. 37–40.    276  VW c. 39.    277  HE ii.13.

271 275

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi



The Kingdom of the Deirans, 450–650

47

making, and proclamation.278 Early medieval laws do not survive from amongst the Deirans, so the king’s legal position is uncertain. However, the laws of Æthelberht, king of the Kentish people, seem to preserve pre-Christian law and suggest a limited legal role for kings before conversion. Lisi Oliver’s analysis of the syntax, structure, and prose style of Æthelberht’s laws provides the strongest case yet that they originated in a pre-Christian oral ‘text’ learnt by rote and recited, perhaps including a more linguistically archaic set of clauses relating to offences against freemen and personal injury, as well as a less archaic set relating to kings, nobles, women, and the unfree.279 Tom Lambert has argued that they reveal a combination of local customary laws varying by locality and prestigious customary laws universal to the people of Kent, orally preserved and curated by a lawman, and judged at a local assembly of freemen; in legal terms, kings were high-status freemen who led armies, assembled freemen to receive tribute, extended protection over those freemen, and received fines from theft.280 When King Oswine confronted Bishop Aidan at dinner Bede suggested that Oswine ‘had just come in from hunting (venerate enim de venatu)’ and ‘stood warming himself by the fire with his servants (ministri)’.281 Naomi Sykes’s analysis of the bone assemblages relating to wild animals suggests that wild animals formed a small proportion of diets and were not apparently associated with elite status until the middle Saxon period (mid seventh to mid ninth centuries).282 King Oswine of the Deirans raised an army to fight King Oswiu of the Bernicians in 651, including a faithful warrior (miles fidissimus) named Tondhere, but retreated to the house (domus) of his friend (amicus) and companion (comes) Hunwold.283 Guy Halsall has argued persuasively for annual crossborder raiding on a smaller scale and larger-scale wars of conquest at five or ten year intervals resulting in the imposition of overlordship and tribute: ­warfare provided an opportunity to project a common identity, advertise the leadership qualities of the king, acquire evidence of divine support, generate shared experiences reinforced through collective story telling, and obtain moveable wealth and land for redistribution.284 The itinerant royal household relied on a network of royal vills (villae regia) with surrounding territories (regiones) from which free households provided dues and services. The Deiran network cannot be reconstructed in full, but a significant number of royal vills can be identified. First, Bede names some royal vills: Campodunum (near Leeds?); somewhere in the regio Loidis; and somewhere beside the River Derwent.285 Second, some events suggest the locations of others: Cataracta (Catterick) was associated with preaching in 627 and two royal weddings in 762 and 792;286 on Driffelda (Driffield) was the location of   HE ii.14; Hope-Taylor 1977: 119–21, 168–9, 241–4, 279–80; Barnwell 2005: esp. 180–2. 280   Oliver 2002: 34–51; Lambert 2017: 32–3.   Lambert 2017: 27–62. 281 282   HE iii.14.   Sykes 2004: esp. 84–9; Sykes 2010: esp. 177–83. 283 284 285   HE iii.14.  Halsall 1989.   HE ii.9 and ii.14. 286   HE ii.14; HR I, s.a. 762, 769, 792. 278 279

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

48

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

King Aldfrith’s death in December 705;287 and Tanshelf was the location of a peace agreement in 947, as a gloss to which Symeon of Durham says it was a royal vill.288 Third, Stephen refers to royal grants of land in various regiones, which are likely to be royal vills with surrounding territories: iuxta Rippel (probably the River Ribble), Ingeadyne (probably Yeadon), Dunutinga (probably around Dent), and Incaetlaevum (probably the Catlows).289 Fourth, Bede records royal grants of land at places with region names incorporating the e­ lement inga, ‘sons, followers, people of’, or denoting a people group, that later provided the place-name of the principal settlement: Ingetlingum (Gilling near Richmond); Laestingaeu (Lastingham); and Inhrypum (Ripon).290 Fifth, there is a network of known or probable seventh- or eighth-century religious communities that were presumably founded on such royal territories: Adlingfleet, Calcaria (Tadcaster), Coxwold, Crayke, Osingadun (Easington), Hackness, Howden, Inderauuda (Beverley), in silva Elmete (Dewsbury?), Spurn Point, Stonegrave, Streoneshalh (Whitby), and York.291 The majority of these places were the focus of royal soke estates on loan to earls in Domesday Book, identified by their listing in the hands of dead earls, their valuation at multiples of £8 as a unit of royal assessment, and their outlying sokelands.292 The majority were also mother churches with mother parishes corresponding to the outlying sokelands, suggesting that they reflect an early network of royal tribute territories within which churches were founded and for which those churches became pastorally responsible.293 Finally, there are further places that were the focus of royal soke estates on loan to earls in Domesday Book and mother churches with similar mother parishes that might also reflect parts of that network: Aldborough, Bridlington, Conisbrough, Hovingham, Hunmanby, Lythe, Northallerton, Pickering, Pocklington, and Stokesley.294 The focal places of these estates and parishes generally have early place-names: Aldborough and Conisbrough are the old burh and king’s burh respectively; Bridlington, Hovingham, Pickering, and Pocklington incorporate the element ‘ingas’; and Lythe and Stokesley are topographical names.295 Three preserve important collections of seventh- or eighth-century sculpture: Hovingham, Lythe, and Northallerton.296 This probably represents only a proportion of the Deiran royal vills and the methodology is uncertain, but it provides a basis for considering the logistics of itineration. This network is ideal for dominating the regions of Yorkshire. The three coastal harbours are covered at Eskmouth, where the Gypsey Race meets the sea, and at the junctions of the Humber, Don, and Trent. The dendritic river

288 289   ASC DE 705.   ASC D s.a. 947; HR I, s.a. 948; HR II, s.a. 949.   VW c. 17. 291   HE iii.14, iii.23, iii.24, iii.25.   See Chapter 4, pp. 128–9. 292 293 294   Baxter 2007: 141–51.   See Chapter 4, pp. 144–62.   See Chapter 4, pp. 144–62. 295   Gelling 1988 for the arguments that these name types were more commonly coined predominantly before the eighth century. 296   See Chapter 4, p. 130; App. 2, pp. 298–317. 287 290

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi



The Kingdom of the Deirans, 450–650

49

system is controlled at points that were navigable in the fourteenth century.297 The major Roman roads were provided with royal vills at intervals of 10–20 miles, representing one day’s travel.298 The network provided a number of places suited as gathering points, reflected in their place-names: the eminences at Crayke (Brittonic crūg), Osingadun (OE dūn), Lythe (OE hlith), and Streoneshalh (Whitby, OE halh for the headland); and the level or open ground of Driffield (OE drit, ‘dirt’ & feld) and Wakefield (OE wake, ‘festivity’ & feld), Tanshelf (OE scelf), and Otley and Stokesley (OE le ̄ah).299 Many were associated with useful practical or symbolic resources. Streoneshalh (Whitby) seems to mean ‘nook of treasure’, and was applied to productive fishing places.300 The Driffield basin was apparently the focus for a post-Roman iron industry.301 The name Stonegrave (OE Stan-inga-graef ) refers to the nearby Roman stone quarries.302 Tracts of woodland provided potential for hunting, hinted at in the names of Inderauuda (Beverley), In silva Elmete (Dewsbury?), Coxwold (OE wald), Otley and Stokesley (OE le ̄ah), and the later history of Crayke and Pickering as the foci for an episcopal deer park and royal forest.303 Proximity to Roman ruins offered the opportunity, not only to use them as important gathering and control points, but also to project association with significant monuments to power: the principia at York, the civitas at Aldborough, the vicus and fort at Catterick, the known and suspected mansiones at Campo­dunum, Calcaria (Tadcaster), and the known or probable signal stations near Osingadun (Easington), Lythe, and Streoneshalh (Whitby). To gauge accurately the power of the kings of the Deirans it would be necessary to know the scale of the royal household and the nature of royal resources in land and people. The sources for the Deirans provide limited information on these issues, so they must be fleshed out through comparison.304 Bede tells us King Edwin and Queen Æthelburg received Paulinus at their royal vill (villa regia) called Adgefrin (Yeavering, Nb) amongst the Bernicians.305 The tiered structure at Yeavering (Nb) has been estimated to carry about 300 people.306 To this must be added those in attendance, but not in assembly. This might suggest between 300 and 500 people. West Saxon diplomas of the ninth century offer some encouragement for this estimate. Their witness lists reveal thirty to forty royal servants (Latin ministri, OE thegnas) of whom seven to eight were witnesses at any one time. This is consistent with Asser’s claim that   Edwards and Hindle 1991 and 1993: 12–14.   Hindle  1976, for the evidence for road use, including these, in the high and late middle ages; Stenton 1936: 247–50, for travel rates. 299   LPN: 123–33 (halh), 149–63 (crūg), 164–71 (dūn), 182–6 (hlith), 269–78 (feld), 216–19 (scelf ), 237–42 (le ̄ah). 300 301 302  Hough 2002–3.   See pp. 26–7.  Morris 1984–5. 303   LPN: 237–42 (le ̄ah), 253–7 (wald). On Crayke: Kaner (1993). On Pickering: Turton (1894–7). 304   Maitland 1897: esp. 272–306; Chadwick 1905: 367–77; Stenton 1947: 302–5; John 1960: esp. 1–63; Charles-Edwards  1976: 180–7; Wormald  1984; Abels  1988: 1–56; Charles-Edwards  1997: 192–9; Faith 1997: 7–14; Hadley 2000b: 60–93; Wickham 2005: 316–26. 305 306   HE ii.14.   Hope-Taylor 1977: 119–21, 168–9, 241–44, 279–80; Barnwell 2005. 297 298

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

50

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Alfred’s household was divided into three cohorts of people attending on rotation.307 The laws of Ine, king of the West Saxons, preserved as part of Alfred’s law book, include a clause suggesting a noble retinue might include seven to thirty-five men, allowing a basic estimate of twenty men in a retinue.308 It is plausible to imagine a household of about fifty people plus ten nobles each accompanied by a retinue of about twenty men, totalling around 250 people. Occasionally the royal household will have been larger, when supra-regional assemblies were gathered: the largest West Saxon witness lists run to nineteen people, increasing the estimate to about 500 people. This may be compared with more fully documented households of later periods. Henry I’s Constitutio Domus Regis of 1135 reveals a royal household of about 100 people to which about fifty unnamed hunting staff should probably be added: he was a much wealthier king ruling 100–200 English barons each with average households of thirty-five people, raising the possibility of assemblies in the thousands.309 The provincial households of the Netherlands in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries ranged between about seventy and 250 people in size, which are more comparable.310 For royal grants, Stephen and Bede used Latin phrases such as ‘land of tributaries’ (terra tributariorum), ‘land of households’ (terra mansionum), ‘measure of families’ (familiarum mensura), and ‘properties of families’ (possessiones familiarum).311 This suggests that, though kings owned some land that was worked directly for them, they also possessed rights to tribute from free households. This interpretation is reinforced by early West Saxon laws focusing on the rights of freemen (ceorlas) whose status was associated with landownership and by some diplomas from other kingdoms with lists of tribute owed from a territory.312 Both Bede and the diplomas refer to places or land within regiones, using imprecise language including terra, locus, possessio, and territorium, or Old English lond or land.313 Stephen and Bede record royal grants ranging from ten to thirty hides amongst the Deirans and the Tribal Hidage assessed the Elmed sætna at 600 hides.314 Both Bede and some royal diplomas record grants from other kingdoms of 300 hides, including an instance of separate grants adding up to 300 hides.315 Royal vills were apparently associated with surrounding regiones of up to 300 households owing tribute. When such territories are 308 309   Pratt 2007: 34–8.   Ine 13.1.   Bartlett 2000: 130–3. 311   Stein 2017: 81, Table 4.1.   See pp. 32–3. 312  See pp. 35–6, 51–2; S 146, 1188, 1263, 1861; Maitland 1897: 280–7; Stenton  1947: 284–5; Wickham 1994: 214–15, 221–2; Faith 1997: 1–13, 28–30, 38–43, 56–123; Wickham 2005: 320–3. 313   HE iii.14 & 24: Ingetlingum; iii.21: in regione quae vocatur Infeppingum; iv.6–10: Inberecingum; v.12: Incuneningum. Venerabilis Baedae Opera Historica, II, 103–4. Campbell 1979a; Campbell 1979b; Wickham 2005: 324. 314   VW c. 8; HE iii.24, v.19; Dumville 1989b: 226–7. 315   S 1165 for 300 hides given to Chertsey, comprising 205 hides plus 95 hides; S 1436 for a 300 hide territory around Eynsham; HE iv.14 for 300 hides on the Isle of Wight given to Wilfrid; Maitland 1897: 272–4; Wickham 2005: 318–19. 307 310

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi



51

The Kingdom of the Deirans, 450–650

reconstructed, five hides represents around 2 km2 and 300 hides about 100 km2, but the hide was a unit of subsistence and this will have varied.316 Bede tells us that when Paulinus was at the royal vill at Yeavering (Nb), he spent thirty-six days catechizing, baptizing, and instructing crowds of people from every village and place (viculus ac locus).317 Colm O’Brien produced a plausible case that Yeavering depended on dues and services from a territory of this type comprising a river basin.318 Bede does not provide an indication of the scale of the resources that sustained the royal household from such territories. Comparison with tribute lists from other kingdoms suggests that Edwin had almost reached the limits of his resources, and that Bede specified the length of the stay as an exceptional and exemplary devotion of royal resources to preaching. The laws of King Ine of the West Saxons provide the following information: 10 vats of honey, 300 loaves, 12 ambers of Welsh ale, 30 ambers of clear ale, 2 fullgrown cows or 10 wethers, 10 geese, 20 hens, 10 cheeses, a full amber of butter, 5 salmon, 20 pounds of fodder, and 100 eels shall be paid as food rent (foster) from every 10 hides.319

The context and meaning of this clause are not straightforward. It may stipulate an ideal foster from either royal territories of obligation or from any land loaned by a lord to his dependant. No explicit timescale is specified for the foster, though it seems likely to represent an annual tribute akin to the ‘farm of one night’ revealed in later sources.320 It is not clear whether it represents the status quo, or was felt necessary because the foster was often higher or lower. The Laws of Ine may be placed alongside the diplomas including references to food rents. A vernacular diploma for Stanhamstead in Kent c.810, for example, includes a list of dues owed to Christ Church, Canterbury (Kt), for about 40 hides of land: 150 loaves, 1 bullock, 4 sheep, 2 sides of bacon, 15 poultry, 10 pounds of cheese, 30 ambers of ale, and 2 ambers of honey.321 It is not clear whether they record all dues owed, transferred from the king to the religious community, or omit the dues owed to the king and list just those for the community.322 In the laws and diplomas it is possible that we are receiving no information about the core of land owned and worked directly for the king (or the new owner) and only a list of dues from free households.323 Keeping in mind the complexities, some significant observations may be made. Royal households were sustained by perishable and seasonally specific agricultural produce, collected and consumed locally. Kings required a local representative to organize the dues and services from these territories, perhaps sustained by some of that produce: the Sermo on Ceolfrith claims his father 317   Maitland 1897: 416–21; Wickham 2005: 318–19.   HE ii.14. 319   O’Brien 2002: esp. 61–6.   Ine 70.1. 320   Maitland 1897: 283–6; Stenton 1947: 285; Faith 1997: 38–41; Stafford 1980. 322 323   Wickham 2005: 321.   Faith 1997: 40–1. 316 318

  S 1188.

321

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

52

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

was a royal companion, perhaps responsible for such a territory, who organized a feast (epulae) for the king and his companions, but, when the king was unable to attend, fed the poor, foreigners, and the sick instead.324 The relative scale of the resources at the king’s disposal was probably not great. Based on an estimated individual calorific requirement of 2,500 calories per day, Ine’s foster for ten hides might feed about 200–300 people.325 Rounded up for notional territories of 300 hides, this would support a household of 250 people for a stay of about thirty days. This may be a maximum view of royal resources: Ine’s list might be aspirational and the Stanhamstead food rent is about 1/8th the size.326 The rents kings exacted may not have been high as a proportion of the produce of the land. Based on Maitland’s rough estimate of one hide as 120 acres, and modern ratios of about one cow for 1.8 acres or six to ten sheep per acre, the two cows or ten wethers of Ine’s foster for ten hides could have been a small proportion of herds and flocks.327 The 300 loaves of Ine’s foster represent perhaps 1/300th of the grain produce of one hide and the Stanhamstead rent demanded only half that number.328 The rents were probably contingent on the presence of the royal household.329 Kings probably had further rights over the free households in such territories, including provision of hospitality, participation in public works, and performance of military service. Kings were apparently able to exercise rights of hospitality for themselves and their officials, but these placed practical restrictions on their activities.330 Stephen’s claim that Wilfrid’s father had hosted the king’s men in his household may be placed alongside clauses in the laws of Æthelberht, king of the Kentish people, stating that the king could have food brought to him or consume it in another’s household.331 His detail that the consecration feast for Wilfrid’s church at Ripon lasted for three days may be compared with a clause in the laws of Hlothhere and Eadric, also kings of the Kentish people, placing a time limit of three nights on hosting a guest, after which the host became legally responsible for the guest.332 Rights to public works and military service are suggested by the distinctions between ‘folkland’ and ‘bookland’. From the 670s royal diplomas survive from other kingdoms granting land to religious communities: at some time a distinction was made between all other land, sometimes labelled ‘folkland’, and ‘bookland’ granted by diplomas.333 Diplomas granted bookland permanently and with freedom of alienation.334 Bede’s Epistola ad Ecgberhtum of 734 suggests that royal grants to religious communities were depleting the royal fisc 325 326   Sermo c. 34.   Lavelle 2013: 266–8.   Wickham 2005: 321.   Maitland 1897: 416–62; though see Lavelle 2013: 266–70 for comments on the potential impact on rearing strategies for herds and flocks. 328 329 330   Wickham 2005: 321.   Charles-Edwards 1989: 31.  Gautier 2009. 331 332   VW c. 2; Abt 3, 12.   Hl 15. 333   Maitland 1897: 291–4; Stenton 1947: 306–8; John 1960: 15–17. 334   Maitland 1897: 276–7; Stenton 1947: 304–5; John 1960: 4–13; Wormald 1984: 3–4, 20–2. 324 327

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi



The Kingdom of the Deirans, 450–650

53

and reducing the territories available to reward warriors.335 Diplomas from the mid eighth century onwards include reservation clauses stating that the territory is free from royal obligations except the common burdens—bridge building, fortress building, and military service.336 Bookland rights perhaps secured grants to religious communities against a range of rights traditionally associated with the land of freemen or the royal territories of obligation within which it lay.337 The land of freemen was apparently subject to partible inheritance, so stipulating freedom of alienation perhaps secured it against the interests of the recipient’s wider kin group:338 contrary to some commentators,339 it is possible that the land of freemen or royal rights over land were bequeathed and alienated before bookland. Loans of land were subject to reversion, so stipulating permanency may have secured the land against claims that it was a loan: contrary to some analyses,340 it remains possible that kings diverted or alienated parts of royal territories to laymen before bookland. Diplomas sometimes freed land or territory from royal obligations, but from the mid eighth century reserved the common burdens, so there were presumably royal rights to dues and services from some lands, perhaps even all lands, before diplomas: but it should not be assumed that such rights were universal or that land was never exempted from them before bookland.341 Rights to military service perhaps covered a broad spectrum of duties from supplying to serving in the army. Despite the possibility that all land was subject to military obligations, armies were probably usually recruited through lordship and limited in size.342 Recall Bede’s story about the Northumbrian Imma, who, when captured, claimed to be a poor married peasant (rusticum et pauperem atque uxoreo) who had travelled with other peasants to deliver food to the soldiers, to avoid being identified as a noble (nobilis), thegn (minister), and warrior (miles) fighting for the king.343 This assumes that royal armies were supplied by poor, married peasants, but composed of unmarried nobles.344 Bede’s accounts of battles involving the Northumbrians are consistent with the idea of smaller armies recruited through lordship: King Æthelfrith fought alongside his brother Theobald, who led his own retinue, at the battle of Degsastan,345 and King Penda of the Mercians had thirty noblemen leading retinues against Oswiu at Winwæd.346 On two occasions sources from other kingdoms specify the size of an army: the Laws of Ine apparently categorize any force above thirty-five men as an army, while the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry for 784 suggests an army of eighty-four men was successful against royal forces.347 336   EE cc. 10–13.   Stevenson 1914; John 1960: 64–79; Brooks 1971; Abels 1988: 43–57. 338   Charles-Edwards 1997: 192–4, reviews the possibilities.   Maitland 1897: 290. 339 340   John 1960: 39–63.   John 1960: 33–8. 341   This follows the arguments of Stevenson 1914 and Brooks 1971. Compare John 1960: 64–79 and Abels 1988: 52–8. 342 343   Brooks 1971: 45–7; Abels 1988: 22–36.   HE iv.22 (20). 344 345 346   Charles-Edwards 2009: 111–14.   HE i.34.   HE iii.24. 347   Ine 13.1; ASC s.a. 784. 335 337

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

54

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Perhaps the most difficult problem is the degree to which notions of sacral kingship underpinned the king’s authority and power. William Chaney set out a vision of ‘Germanic’ sacral kingship amongst the Anglo-Saxons in which the ruler was leader of the ‘tribal’ religion, standing between the ‘tribe’ and the gods, tied into temporal and cosmic history by divine descent, representing the ‘luck’ of the people, and sacrificing for victory and plenty.348 Much of this was problematic. It rested on the assumption that a pan-Germanic culture of kingship and religion justified the bringing together of evidence widely separated in space and time. It displayed a tendency to identify aspects of Christian culture as symptoms of this vision, even though this vision is not required to explain them. The contemporary evidence for sacral kingship is limited. The Anglian royal genealogies of the eighth century reveal that kings of the Deirans numbered Woden amongst their ancestors: this might reflect ‘pagan’ belief in the sacral descent of kings, but, as Barbara Yorke has suggested, might also result from worship of Woden as a bestower of victory and his euhemerization as a heroic ancestor following conversion.349 King Penda of the Mercians dismembered and displayed the body of King Oswald of the Northumbrians, which might reflect an idea that the king’s body was sacred, but there is no explicit evidence.350 The pattern by which kingdoms converted and apostatized before converting again could result from the idea that the welfare of the people rested in the king’s luck, but there are other equally valid explanations.351 There are indications that royal status was projected and reinforced through religious beliefs. At Yeavering the excavations suggest that an existing pre-Christian shrine and place of assembly was transformed into a royal vill, perhaps by a ritual specialist, at which ritual cattle slaughter occurred.352 The Sutton Hoo, Mound 1 ship burial includes ‘regalia’ based on Roman models, but also referencing pre-Christian religious beliefs:353 the Sutton Hoo helmet may reveal a ruler engaging in divine role playing;354 and the axe-hammer could reflect a royal role in the ritual slaughter of cattle.355 Nevertheless, the religious beliefs explored above suggest that there were local and regional ritual specialists, regional shrines, regional gods, and members of local kin groups also projecting social status through religious beliefs: there is no clear evidence for a priestly king of divine descent with an exclusive religious role in maintaining the welfare of the people. The kingdom of the Deirans should be envisaged as a face-to-face community within which the exercise of power depended on a direct relationship between 349  Chaney 1970.   Chaney 1970: 28–33; Dumville 1976; John 1992; Yorke 2015: 167–8.   HE iii.12; Chaney 1970: 40–1, 115–19; Damon 2001; Damon 2003: 52–6. 351   Chaney 1970: 156–73; Chapter 3, pp. 94–5, 101–2, for the alternatives. 352   Hope-Taylor 1977; Blair 1995a; Gittos 1999; Blair 2005: 54–7; Lucy 2005; Ware 2005; Walker 2010: esp. 86–91, 96–7. 353   Filmer-Sankey 1996; Pluskowski 2010; Fern 2010: esp. 140–1; Sanmark 2010: esp. 164–7. 354 355   Price and Mortimer 2014.  Dobat 2006. 348 350

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi



The Kingdom of the Deirans, 450–650

55

freemen and the king. Royal power rested on the ability of a king to attract freemen to serve at his household, and the loyalty of those freemen promoted to companions and rewarded with a royal tribute territory. Compliant warriors provided the muscle to guarantee a sufficient level of protection for free households in return for dues and services. They were necessary to administer royal vills, their tribute territories, and the dues and services. The custom of partible inheritance and the competition between kin groups provided the foundations for the extension of royal power—a pool of ambitious young males seeking service in return for rewards to maintain the status of their kin group. Nevertheless, the authority and power of individual kings was unstable, limited, and negotiated. They faced relatives with an equally legitimate claim who might seek to usurp their position. Their resources in land and moveable wealth circumscribed their movement and the hospitality they could offer, requiring constant itineration, consistent strategies for the acquisition of wealth for redistribution, and careful planning for the activities of royal officials. Their armies relied on bonds of lordship, were composed of warrior nobles with accompanying retinues, and were relatively small scale. Should their patronage not seem sufficiently attractive, warriors could seek out alternative claimants to royal power or move to neighbouring kingdoms. Their status was projected in relation to pre-Christian religious beliefs, but they had no exclusive religious authority.

CONCLUSIONS The evidence for the formation of the kingdom of the Deirans suggests that individuals and kin groups were exposed to Christianity in a number of ways before official conversion. Some Deirans probably contracted marriages with British Christians, suggested by the distribution of indigenous penannular brooches. Some Deirans, like Hereric, were exiled amongst Christians. Sufficient interaction took place between Brittonic speakers and Old English speakers to produce the adoption of some Brittonic elements in place-names, including the term ‘eccles’, which suggests an awareness of a network of British religious communities amongst Old English speakers. Conversion took place at a moment of political expansion when Deiran authority and power was being extended over Christian territories. Members of Deiran kin groups faced uncertainties that probably predisposed them to consider new social strategies—social status rooted in land, but conventions of partible inheritance; an unknown number of children to be supported and married off; conventional gender distinctions and biographical milestones to be embodied and achieved. Those gender distinctions and age cycles as well as the culture of lordship encouraged the movement of individuals between families and to the royal household, separating some individuals from local social and religious cultures and assisting in the spread of new ideas. For these reasons there may have been some impetus for conversion

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

56

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

amongst some members of Deiran kin groups. Nevertheless, the social identity and status of local kin groups was bound up with a set of non-Christian religious beliefs rooted in local and regional landscapes. This must have represented an obstacle to religious change. The power of kings of the Deirans depended on a direct relationship with the kin groups of their kingdom and their power was significantly circumscribed. This makes it less likely that the impetus for conversion lay with them because this dependence left them ill placed to impose radical change on local social and religious cultures. It is unlikely on grounds of wealth, lordship, legal status, or sacral authority that kings were in a position to impose religious change on their free subjects.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

2 The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’, 600–730 From c.600 members of Deiran and Bernician kin groups converted to Christianity. King Edwin married a Christian princess from Kent—Æthelburg— who brought to his kingdom the Roman bishop Paulinus.1 Bede thought Paulinus converted a significant number of people. Following an attempt to assassinate Edwin and the birth of his daughter, Eanflæd, Edwin consecrated her to Christ: ‘She was baptized on the holy day of Pentecost, the first of the Northumbrian race to be baptized, together with eleven others of his household (familia).’2 Edwin and his household officially converted in 627.3 Bede believed that this produced widespread conversion: King Edwin, with all the nobles (nobiles) of his race and a vast number of the common people (plebes), received the faith and regeneration by holy baptism . . . As many as were foreordained to eternal life believed and were baptized, among whom were Osfrith and Eadfrith, sons of King Edwin, their mother being Cwenburg, daughter of Ceorl, king of the Mercians; they were born while he was in exile. Other children of his by Queen Æthelburg were baptized later on, namely Æthelhun and a daughter Æthelthryth and a second son Uscfrea . . . Yffi, son of Osfrith, was also baptized and not a few (non pauci) other noble and royal men (nobiles ac regii virii). So great is said to have been the fervour of the faith of the Northumbrians and their longing for the washing of salvation, that once when Paulinus came to the king and queen in their royal palace at Yeavering, he spent thirty-six days there occupied in the task of catechizing and baptizing. During these days, from morning till evening, he did nothing else but instruct the common people (plebes) who flocked to him from every village and district in the teaching of Christ. When they had received instruction he washed them in the waters of regeneration in the river Glen, which was close at hand . . . All this happened in the kingdom of the Bernicians; but also in the kingdom of the Deirans where he used to stay very frequently with the king, he baptized in the River Swale which flows beside the town of Catterick.4

After Edwin’s death there was a period of apostasy under King Osric of the Deirans and King Eanfrith of the Bernicians.5 Nonetheless, King Oswald oversaw a second official conversion and instituted further preaching through

  HE ii.9.

1

2

  HE ii.9.

  HE ii.9–14.

3

4

  HE ii.14.

5

  HE iii.1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

58

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Aidan from the Irish religious community on Iona.6 From then on the Deirans and Bernicians were apparently officially Christians. Bede finished writing over a century later, c.731, but there are reasons for accepting the idea of a significant wave of conversion. First, Bede had good sources and informants. Two religious communities who sent preachers— Canterbury (Kt) and Lindisfarne (Nb)—provided information.7 A further religious community—Streoneshalh (Whitby)—whose members were present in Edwin’s household probably did too. Edwin’s daughter, Eanflæd, and greatniece, Hild, were baptized in his household in the 620s; Hild became abbess of Streoneshalh (Whitby) in 657, where Eanflæd and her daughter Ælfflæd were co-abbesses from 680.8 The community promoted the cults of Gregory the Great and Edwin, and probably transmitted information to Bede.9 Second, a significant number of children and youths were baptized and brought up Christian in this period, because they reached maturity in the 640s and 650s and embarked on careers as abbots, abbesses, and bishops. Heiu’s earlier life is not recorded, but she founded Hartlepool (Du) in 647 and was remembered as the first Northumbrian woman to take a religious vow.10 Hild was born in 613, baptized as a 14-year-old in 627, undertook the religious life at 33 in 646, founded a community on the north bank of the Wear in 647, succeeded Heiu at Hartlepool (Du) in 648, and moved to Streoneshalh (Whitby) in 657.11 Trumhere was a near contemporary, because he became abbot of Gilling near Richmond in 651.12 Benedict Biscop was born in 628, undertook pilgrimage to Rome in 653, and founded religious communities at Wearmouth (Du) in 674 and Jarrow (Du) in 681.13 Biscop’s cousin Eosterwine became abbot of Wearmouth (Du) from 682 until his death in 688.14 Wilfrid was born in 634, left for the royal household at 14 years old in 648, set out for Rome aged 19 in 653, and had returned and founded a religious community at Ripon by 663.15 Cuthbert was born in 635, grew up amongst Christians, entered Melrose (Ro) aged 16 in 651, spent time at Ripon until c.660, returned to Melrose (Ro) and became prior, moved to Lindisfarne (Nb) as abbot until 676, was a hermit on Farne (Nb) from 676 to 684, and was bishop of the Northumbrians 685–7.16 Four brothers, Cedd, Cynebill, Cælin, and Chad, all became priests; Cedd founded Lastingham in 653 and Chad succeeded him as abbot.17 Wilgils fathered Willibrord in 657 x 658 and placed him at Ripon before founding a religious community at Spurn Point.18 Cynefrith and Tunberht were abbots of Gilling near Richmond in the 650s and 660s.19 From at least the 620s there were kin groups sympathetic to Christianity. They sanctioned the introduction of a Christian queen to the kingdom, Paulinus’ 7 8   HE iii.2–6.   HE praef.   HE iii.24, iv.23 (21). 10   Fell 1981: esp. 80, 87, 96; Kirby 1965–6; Thacker 1998.   HE iv.23 (21). 11 12 13   HE iii.24, iv.23 (21).   HE iii.14, iii.24.   HA cc. 1–7. 14 15   Sermo c. 10. HA cc. 8–10.   VW cc. 2–3, 7–8; Cubitt 2013. 16 17 18 19   VCB cc. 6, 7, 9, 16, 17, 24.   HE iii.23.   VWil c. 1.   Sermo c. 2. 6 9

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’, 600–730

59

preaching, the reception of papal emissaries delivering letters to Edwin and Æthelburg, the dedication of the king’s daughter to Christ, and the official conversion of the kingdom. They and their children subsequently sanctioned and engaged in Christianization—investment in Christian institutions and culture. They had their children baptized as Christians, some of whom pursued ecclesiastical careers in the 640s and 650s. Their careers set a trend that produced a boom in the number of people undertaking the religious life from the 660s and in the patronage of religious communities from c.705 onwards. This chapter explores the social processes underpinning, and the social circumstances and strategies behind, conversion and Christianization. It argues that these circumstances and strategies resulted in the formation of a new social fraction with a distinctive identity—an ‘ecclesiastical aristocracy’. It investigates the social dynamics of this new social fraction, the forces for social reproduction and change.

THE FORMATION OF THE ‘ECCLESIASTICAL ARISTOCRACY’, 600–730 Socio-political structures within the kingdom of the Deirans produced circumstances in which members of kin groups could familiarize themselves with Christian societies before conversion. Intermarriage between Britons and Deirans may explain the distribution of indigenous penannular brooches.20 Members of kin groups were sent for service to other households; Bede’s story about the Northumbrian Imma and his comments to Bishop Ecgberht about Northumbrian warriors in 734 suggest this included serving kings of neighbouring kingdoms.21 Service in the Deiran and Bernician royal households resulted in contact with Christian societies. Contenders for the throne sometimes spent periods exiled in Christian households. Edwin’s brother Hereric was poisoned in the British Christian kingdom of Elmet.22 Edwin spent time in the household of Rædwald, king of the East Angles, who accepted Christian mission.23 Oswald and Oswiu were exiled amongst Irish Christians.24 Royal retinues were exiled too. The royal warrior (miles regis) Bass escorted Edwin’s wife Æthelburg and their sons and grandsons to Kent.25 Oswald and his warriors (milites) were baptized in exile amongst the Irish.26 Other royal servants travelled as messengers to Christian households. Æthelfrith sent messengers (nuntii) to Rædwald in the hope of arranging Edwin’s murder.27 Edwin sent ambassadors (consortia) to Kent to arrange his marriage.28 Eomer travelled from the kingdom of the West Saxons   See Chapter 1, p. 29.   See Chapter 1, pp. 37–40, for warrior-aristocratic life-cycles and service. HE iv.22 and EE c. 11. 22   HE iv.23 (21); Chapter 1, pp. 18–20 for Elmet. 23 24 25 26   VG c. 16; HE ii.12, 15.   HE iii.3, 29.   HE ii.20.   HE iii.3. 27   HE ii.12.   28  HE ii.9. 20 21

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

60

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

to attack Edwin.29 Eanflæd sent messengers (nuntii) with Wilfrid to secure safe passage through Kent.30 These circumstances produced some individuals who conversed in more than one language. Augustine had acquired Frankish interpreters (interpretes) before arriving in Kent.31 King Oswald acted as an interpreter (interpres) for his Irish bishop Aidan.32 In King Oswine’s household, Aidan spoke to the king in Old English but conversed with a priest in Irish.33 Place-names incorporating the element eccles, ‘church’, probably reflect communication between British Christians and Old English speakers in south-western Yorkshire.34 Old English place-names including British elements and incorporating the terms wealh or Brettas demonstrate continuing interaction between British and Old English speakers.35 During these encounters members of Deiran kin groups could observe and discuss the attractions of Christianity. John Blair provided an overview of the organization of the church in British, Irish, and Continental societies and a compelling analysis of their influences on the Anglo-Saxons.36 Kin groups within these societies were pursuing social strategies by encouraging some members to embark on ecclesiastical careers and by investing in religious communities. Members of some Irish kin groups were already competing to qualify for membership of learned literary status groups—poets and lawmen—at the point of conversion; through conversion they added a parallel status group of churchmen and women, dominated by the nobility.37 Four-generation Irish kin groups separated a portion of their collective property, or acquired property, for the foundation of religious communities, providing a route to ecclesiastical careers and a source of pastoral care.38 Over the course of the fifth century members of some provincial aristocratic families in Gaul switched from service in secular administration to pursuing ecclesiastical careers.39 Columbanus’ mission from Ireland to northern Gaul in the later sixth century resulted in an enthusiastic investment in religious communities.40 By the seventh century, Frankish vitae reveal that kin groups were sending children and youths to noble and royal households for training to undertake ecclesiastical careers.41 Kin groups founded and endowed religious communities partly as strategies to stabilize their social status—to provide institutional authority for members of the kin group, protect property, promote common interests, and preserve their memory.42 30 31 32 33   HE ii.9.   VW c. 3.   HE i.25.   HE iii.3.   HE iii.14. 35   See Chapter 1, pp. 19–20.   See Chapter 1, p. 18.    36  Blair 2005: 10–49. 37 38  Charles-Edwards 1998.   Charles-Edwards 2000: 84–96; Wood 2006: 140–7. 39   Harries 1994, for a comparative and contextual study of Sidonius’ administrative and ecclesiastical career. 40   Prinz 1981; Geary 1988: 168–77; Halsall 1992b; Wood 1994b: 181–202; Fletcher 1997: 136–42. 41   Jong 1996: 198–204. 42   Hummer 2006: 26–55, for the seventh century, 56–75 for eighth- and ninth-century developments; Innes 2000: 13–50, for eighth- and ninth-century examples. 29 34

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’, 600–730

61

The social circumstances of Deiran and Bernician kin groups before conversion produced tensions and uncertainties.43 Exposure to Christian societies will have highlighted that conversion provided new opportunities for social action to negotiate these. Social circumstances prior to conversion were reconstructed from a combination of mortuary ritual and eighth-century texts, but absence of written evidence before conversion means that there is no contemporary witness to their significance for conversion. Nevertheless their significance may be seen from the stories that circulated about converts and were recorded in the eighth century.44 The centrality of the kin group to decisions about conversion and ecclesias­ tical careers is clear, above all, in stories about oblation.45 Eadwald’s mother was said to have granted him to Wilfrid after he was recalled to life.46 Wilgils and his wife were thought to have given their son Willibrord to Ripon.47 Other noble men were remembered as giving up sons to Wilfrid.48 Bede attributed his oblation as a 7-year-old to his kinsmen (propinqui).49 Æthelberht’s family placed him with his relative Bishop Ecgberht.50 Stories about the Deirans and Bernicians do not discuss rebellion against parental ambitions, as the account of Boniface does. Prima facie this account might be understood as evidence that the interests of the kin group were not always paramount, but it reinforces the idea of their importance: Boniface was said to have brought his parents around and the discussion may reflect concerns about the balance between parental decisions and individual choice.51 Nor do stories about Deiran and Bernician oblates mention the wider kin group, only immediate parents, but longer accounts of Boniface, Willibald, and Leoba show consultation with wider kin.52 Kin groups were also central to stories about adolescents, youths, and adults embarking on ecclesiastical careers. Parental permission and support was considered necessary, even from those with a poor relationship with their parents. Stephen claimed that Wilfrid had a cruel stepmother which prompted his decision to set off for the royal household aged 14, but he was still supposed to have received parental permission and material support for travelling there, and subsequent parental blessing for pilgrimage to Rome.53 Youths and adults were regularly said to have sought out members of their wider kin group in pursuing the religious life.54 Hild, aged 33, set out to join her sister Hereswith as a nun at Chelles.55 Beornwine sought out his uncle, Wilfrid, amongst the

  See Chapter 1, pp. 32–40, 55.   Foot 2006: 139–52 for a comprehensive overview of stories about religious vocations. 45   Jong 1996: 47–53 for a review of Anglo-Saxon oblation, 53–5, 210–11, 220–3 for the central role of kin groups. 46 47 48 49   VW c. 18.   VWil cc. 1–3.   VW c. 21.   HE v.24. 50 51   DPS vv. 1415–31.   VBon c. 1. 52 53   VBon c. 1; VWillibaldi cc. 1–2; VLeo c. 6.   VW cc. 1 & 3. 54   Jong 1996: 53–5 for the most spectacular evidence from the West Saxon kin group of Boniface. 55   HE iv.23 (21). 43 44

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

62

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

South Saxons.56 Ceolfrith, aged 18, joined a religious community run by his brother Cynefrith and his kinsman (cognatus) Tunberht, and later followed Cynefrith’s example in retiring from abbatial office.57 These narratives are moral-didactic, prescribing ideal behaviour, and may mask a more complex reality in which some youths resisted or rebelled against their kin group.58 But, if so, this reinforces from a different perspective the centrality of the kin group and its concerns. In seeking to reproduce themselves, kin groups could not be sure how many children would be born, at what stage in the life-cycles of their members, how they might be cared for, and how group memory could be sustained. It was unclear what strains might be placed on the kin group’s resources by marriages or the support of ageing relatives. Religious communities could care for young and ageing members of the kin group. When Wilfrid arrived at the royal household, Queen Eanflæd assigned him to Cudda, one of the royal companions (sodales regis), who had resolved to enter a religious community on account of his infirmity.59 Religious communities could promote the memory of the kin group. The communities at Gilling near Richmond and Wearmouth and Jarrow (Du) preserved the memory of the circumstances of Gilling’s foundation in expiation for King Oswiu’s murder of King Oswine, the blood relationship between Oswiu’s wife Eanflæd and its first abbot Trumhere, and the blood relationships between its early abbots Cynefrith and Tunberht and Cynefrith’s brother Ceolfrith, until they were written down in the early eighth century.60 Lastingham did the same for the four brothers Cedd, Cynebill, Cælin, and Chad.61 Conventions of kinship and lordship provided potential structures for social action, but this latent potential had to be activated. To the existing relationships of kinship and lordship, Christianity added spiritual kinship through sponsorship at baptism, extending a godfather’s protection over a godchild without generating rights of inheritance.62 Through cooperative endowment of religious communities, latent kinship and lordship relationships could be activated. King Oswiu, a member of the royal line of the Bernicians, was married to Eanflæd, daughter of Edwin of the Deirans and a member of the royal line of the Deirans. Together they committed their daughter Ælfflæd to the religious life under the tutelage of Edwin’s great-niece, Hild, at Hartlepool (Du). Oswiu then founded a religious community at Streoneshalh (Whitby) where Hild ruled and was succeeded by Eanflæd and Ælfflæd as co-abbesses. The community promoted the cults of both royal lines.63

57   HE iv.16.   Sermo cc. 2–3, 21.   Jong 1996: 73–99 for Carolingian oblates who grew up and resisted the decision made by parents, 192–7 for the more diverse circumstances surrounding oblation depicted elsewhere. 59 60   VW c. 2.   Sermo cc. 2–3, 21; HE iii.14, 24. 61 62   HE praef, iii.23.   Charles-Edwards 1997: 171–204, at 177–9; Lynch 1998. 63   HE iii.24, iv.23 (21). 56 58

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’, 600–730

63

Social status was rooted in property and in social display, probably legitimized with reference to a ‘pagan’ mythology. Conventions of partible inheritance threatened the gradual dispersal of property and decline in the group’s status. Acquisition of royal grants for the foundation of religious communities, or the transformation of inherited or acquired property into endowments, offered a means to direct property towards particular branches or members of the kin group.64 The community at Gilling near Richmond passed between two members of the same kin group, Cynefrith and Tunberht.65 Abbess Hereburg of Watton hoped to pass the abbacy to her daughter Cwenburg.66 Wilgils founded a religious community at Spurn Point in the 660s, which remained within his kin group until the time of his descendant Alcuin in the 790s.67 Peer competition was an arms race requiring new and more impressive methods for social display. Christian material culture represented an exotic imported culture for the projection of social status. When Wilfrid held the dedication feast for his religious community at Ripon, he invited the royal and noble audience into a church of stone with gold, jewelled, and purple fixtures and fittings to hear a list of the properties he had acquired.68 Individuals within these kin groups experienced different levels of misfortune and had different degrees of social potential; conversion and Christian institutions offered new strategies to negotiate social and psychological crises. Some couples faced problems conceiving. Parents were regularly faced with the problem of ill, dying, or dead children. Christians could promise to devote a child to God in return for fertility or renewed health.69 It was believed that Eadwald had undertaken the religious life because, discovering he was not breathing, his mother took him to Wilfrid for a laying on of hands and agreed to dedicate him to the service of God in return.70 Conventions permitting remarriage and concubinage meant that young adults faced competition for the resources needed to achieve their social potential. Wilfrid was said to have left for the royal household because of a cruel stepmother.71 Biological characteristics, natural aptitude, personal inclinations, and childhood illness shaped individual potential to embody conventional gender distinctions and achieve expected transition points. Ecclesiastical careers presented new gender conventions and expectations, and new modes of charismatic and institutional authority. Cuthbert was said to have been afflicted in childhood with a swollen knee, making him lame, though in his case it was thought to have been completely cured and was not thought to have prompted his religious vocation.72 Extraordinary portents attending the births of Hild and Wilfrid, witnessed in visions and dreams, were recounted to signal their predestination for religious vocations.73 The unusual dispositions and discipline of Wilfrid and Cuthbert   See Chapter 1, pp. 52–3 on ‘folkland’ and ‘bookland’.    65  Sermo cc. 2–3. 67 68 69   HE v.3.   VWil c. 1.   VW c. 17.   Jong 1996: 164–70. 71 72 70   VW c. 2.   VCA i.4; VCB c. 2: Cuthbert.   VW c. 18. 73   VW c. 1; HE iv.23 (21). 64 66

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

64

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

in childhood were invoked to explain their aptitude for the religious life.74 Though such narratives undoubtedly reflect widely shared topoi, serving as retrospective justifications for exceptional success, they were designed to resonate with a social reality in which kin groups observed childhood dispositions to determine future prospects. Illnesses might also prompt personal reflection, psychological crisis, and the search for a cure. The vocation of Baldhelm, a companion (comes) of King Ecgfrith, was connected with an illness cured by Cuthbert.75 The near death experiences of Dryhthelm and a sinning craftsman known to Bede were associated with visions of heaven and hell; Dryhthelm was sufficiently chastened to take up the religious life.76 Lordship and military service involved exploitation of, and violence towards, other humans, that might induce attitudes of disapproval or guilt: Christian rites and ways of life could be pursued in the hope of reform or expiation. No stories explicitly involving Deirans or Bernicians include precisely this kind of crisis, but Felix, biographer of Guthlac, describes Guthlac’s youth leading warriors in raiding and plundering, which prompted a sudden moral crisis and religious vocation.77 Contact with neighbouring Christian societies will have highlighted not only the potential of Christianity for facilitating new modes of social action but also the way pre-existing social conventions could be adapted to Christian institutions. The relationships between Christ and his apostles, or between a saint (living or dead) and his followers, could be seen as analogous to those between lords and their followers.78 Godparenting could be conceived as a form of spiritual kinship.79 Religious communities could be envisaged as spiritual families or religious households.80 Oblation could be understood as an extension of a giftgiving culture to the supernatural world.81 Age cycles for churchmen and women offered transition points comparable to those for secular men and women. Conversion to Christianity nevertheless represented a social and cultural transformation. Kin groups will have observed, and been attracted by, the potential of Christianity to facilitate new social action and to be adapted to existing social conventions. But this is not to downplay the challenges or complexity of conversion. Social institutions and social status were apparently bound up with non-Christian religious beliefs.82 Conversion necessitated a transformation of this existing cosmology on the part of individual kin groups, their members, and (simultaneously or subsequently) the political community. ‘Pagan’ cosmologies are difficult to recover, but it has been pointed out that 75   VW c. 2; VCA i.3; VCB c. 1.   VCB c. 25. 77   HE v.12, 14.   VGuth cc. 16–18. 78   Brown 1981: 50–68; Head 1990: 198–9; Cubitt 2002: 430–2. 79   Jong 1996: 208–9, 219–24; Lynch 1998. 80   Blair 2005: 77; Foot 2006: 69–72 for the rhetoric of religious communities as spiritual families and households. 81 82   Jong 1996: 267–89.   See Chapter 1, pp. 40–5, 54. 74 76

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’, 600–730

65

there are likely to have been some significant contrasts between ‘pagan’ and Christian conceptions of the world.83 ‘Pagans’ were probably polytheists, perhaps with a more contractual and pragmatic conception of their relationship with supernatural powers, possibly focused on a cyclical conception of time reinforced through a seasonal calendar of propitiatory rituals. Christianity was monotheistic, with a complex theology describing the relationship between God and humankind, a convoluted liturgy governing ritual worship, and a linear, eschatological concept of time, even if its rituals were organized around a seasonal calendar. Aspects of ‘pagan’ beliefs may have helped to reduce the perception of culture clash: regional variations within mythology and a willingness to add new deities to the pantheon. Christian attitudes to conversion may have helped too: the willingness to allow converts to proceed by steps, to adapt centres of worship, to begin by encouraging public adoption or official conversion before effecting changes in private behaviour or magical practices. Nevertheless, conversion was a gradual and negotiated social process. Observation of the social potential of Christianity was necessary, but not sufficient, to produce conversion. Kin groups had to be persuaded to break the connection between social institutions, status, and pagan religious beliefs that existed in local communities.84 Royal service and exile removed some members of kin groups from those local communities, which may have facilitated this. Ultimately, however, preachers and individual converts needed strong arguments for use in public debates to secure the official conversion of kin groups and kingdoms. The kind of arguments to which the Deirans and Bernicians were exposed may be glimpsed from the papal letters sent to Æthelberht, king of the Kentish people, to Edwin, king of the Deirans and Bernicians, and to Edwin’s wife Æthelburg; from the stories of conversion related by Bede; and from the letter of Bishop Daniel to Boniface. These should be set within the broader range of evidence for preaching to non-Christians across early medieval Europe.85 At the heart of the Christian message was the biblical narrative of creation and salvation: it was thought that the Old and New Testament accounts should reveal to potential Christians the truth of the immortality of the soul, the afterlife, and divine judgement, as well as the Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection, and the types of behaviour resulting in salvation or damnation.86 Pope Boniface explained to Edwin and his household: Thus the goodness of the Divine Majesty who, by his word of command alone, made and created all things, both heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, ordaining the order in which they subsist, and who, by the counsel of the coeternal Word in the unity of the Holy Spirit, has made man in His own image and likeness, fashioning him  Urbanczyk 2003. 84  See Chapter 1, pp. 40–5.   The most accessible and comprehensive overviews remain: Sullivan 1953; Sullivan 1956. 86   Sullivan 1953: 715–16; Sullivan 1956: 281–5. 83 85

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

66

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

out of clay, has also granted him the high privilege and distinction of placing him over all things, so that if he keeps within the bounds of God’s commands, he may be granted eternal life.87

Writing to Edwin’s wife, Æthelburg, he emphasized that she must encourage Edwin to convert for the sake of her own salvation.88 ‘Pagans’ may not have had narratives of creation or an afterlife of this kind, which may have made Christian conceptions of salvation attractive: Christians certainly thought so. Bede invented a speech by an unnamed noble (optimus), which compared human life to the flight of a sparrow through a feasting hall and suggested ‘pagans’ knew little of what came before or after, but Christianity might offer more insights.89 Direct comparisons between ‘pagan’ gods and the Christian God reinforced these distinctions.90 Daniel advised Boniface to allow ‘pagans’ to assert that their gods were begotten of others through the intercourse of male and female, before asking who created the world if their gods were created in the world, whether their gods must be infinite in number if they continue to procreate, and whether they are worshipped for temporal and present blessings rather then eternal and future blessings.91 Boniface wrote to Edwin attacking the logic of worshipping idols: The great guilt of those who cling to the pernicious superstitions of idolatrous worship is seen in the damnable form of their gods. Of these the psalmist says: ‘All the gods of the nations are devils; but the Lord made the heavens.’ And again, ‘Eyes have they but they see not; they have ears but they hear not; noses have they but they smell not; they have hands but they handle not; feet have they but they walk not; and those who put their trust in them therefore become like them.’ How can they have power to help anyone, when they are made of corruptible material by the hands of your own servants and subjects and, by means of such human art, you have provided them with the inanimate semblance of the human form? They cannot move unless you move them, but are like a stone fixed in one place, and, being so constructed, have no understanding, are utterly insensible, and so have no power to harm or help. We cannot understand in any way how you can be so deluded as to worship and follow those gods to whom you yourselves have given the likeness of the human form.92

Bede thought it plausible that King Oswiu had expressed similar arguments to Sigeberht, king of the East Saxons.93 In spite of the exhortation to abandon temporal for eternal blessings, it was emphasized that the omnipotent power of the Christian God could bestow temporal as well as eternal goods on Christians, a point sharpened by the wealth and political reach of contemporary Christian rulers.94 Boniface advised Edwin that God had created everything and ‘To Him also the greatest empires   HE ii.10.   EHD I: No. 167.

87 91

89 90   HE ii.11.   HE ii.13.   Sullivan 1953: 716–18. 92 93 94   HE ii.10.   HE iii.22.   Sullivan 1953: 721–7.

88

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



67

The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’, 600–730

and the powers of the world are subject, because it is by His disposition that all rule is bestowed.’95 Gregory wrote to Æthelberht about Constantine, first Christian Roman emperor, who showed that conversion would help a ruler’s reputation transcend those of his predecessors.96 Boniface drew Edwin’s attention to ‘what [had] been accomplished by the mercy of the Redeemer in the enlightenment of our illustrious son King Eadbald and the nations which are subject to him . . .’.97 Daniel suggested Boniface should ask why Christians possess fertile lands, provinces fruitful in wine and oil and abounding in other riches; that he should impress upon the ‘pagans’ the might of the Christian world.98 Seen in this light, the first stage of conversion may be envisaged as a process akin to Brownian motion: just as the random kinetic energy of individual molecules diffuses one part of a solution amongst another, so individuals, receptive to the idea of conversion for a variety of reasons, introduced Christianity to kin groups. Observation of the social potential of Christianity, as well as education in the logical case for conversion, armed them with a wider range of arguments for securing the official conversion of kin groups and the kingdom. Nevertheless, this analogy only takes us so far. Unlike molecular activity, human behaviour is governed by cultural norms and expectations. For diffusion to proceed to the whole socio-political sphere, new cultural norms had to be generated through public deliberations, confrontations, and demonstrations, providing a social sanction for the introduction of Christian institutions and the entry of Deirans to the church. The precise dates and details are lost to us because of the absence of contemporary written sources. However, a series of oral stories circulated about such moments, which were related by Bede. Real events lay behind some of these stories, but there were no doubt details heavily embellished or invented in oral transmission and by Bede himself. Even if they were all inventions, they emphasize the role of public deliberations, confrontations, and demonstrations in producing change. A first set of deliberations, confrontations, and demonstrations was probably necessary to provide social sanction for official conversion, baptism, and preaching. During Edwin’s reign a political constituency of kin groups sympathetic to Christianity resulted in the first official conversion and public baptisms at York, Campodunum, Catterick, Yeavering (Nb), and Littleborough (Li).99 By Bede’s time this was remembered as the result of a formal royal council in which the merits of the two religions were debated, a noble and the chief ‘pagan’ priest made public statements in favour of Christianity, and the ‘pagan’ priest destroyed a ritual centre at Goodmanham.100 Edwin dedicated an altar in his church at York to St Gregory where the king’s head was later buried.101 The value of Christianity was not universally accepted, because a political constituency of ‘pagans’ produced apostasy under Edwin’s successors Osric, king of the Deirans, 95 99

  HE ii.10.   HE ii.9–14.

96

97 98   HE i.32.   HE ii.10.   EHD I: No. 167. 100   HE ii.13; Chapter 1, pp. 42–4 for detailed analysis.   

  HE ii.20.

101

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

68

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

and Eanfrith, king of the Bernicians (r. 632–3).102 Christianity became the official religion once more under Oswald (r. 633–42): by the late seventh and early eighth century it was believed that this was because Oswald had a vision or raised a cross before battle in the manner of Constantine and was victorious.103 A second set was probably necessary to provide a social sanction for the introduction of Christian institutions and the decision by kin groups that some members would pursue ecclesiastical careers. During the reigns of Edwin and Oswald adults and children were baptized in a public demonstration of their Christian faith, and a generation who had been Christians at birth reached maturity in the 640s and 650s.104 They were equipped to project a future for themselves in ecclesiastical careers and to embody Christian ideals sufficiently well to receive social sanction to exert new kinds of authority. Yet public confrontations and endorsements were required to signal and legitimize the distinction between the old and new moral codes, to sanction the new social strategies, and to generate social memories through which this change could be understood. Oswald was said to have upset the usual dynamics of royal hospitality by distributing food and a silver dish amongst the poor.105 Oswine was said to have granted a royal stallion to Bishop Aidan, who gave it to a beggar, then upbraided Aidan for his actions at a royal feast, before prostrating himself in humble apology for this un-Christian attitude.106 Oswiu was thought to have murdered Oswine in cold blood but founded a religious community in expiation of his sin in 651.107 He then offered his daughter as an oblate and granted a network of properties to religious communities in return for victory in battle against a ‘pagan’ in 655.108 His reign saw the development of a popular royal martyr cult focused on the remains of Oswald.109 Bede records that two sites associated with Oswald at Hefenfeld and Maserfelth became foci for popular lay devotion centred on natural places, non-corporeal relics (soil and splinters), and miracles associated with healing, animals, and crops.110 He then tells us that Oswald’s dismembered body parts were translated, first by Oswiu to Lindisfarne (Nb) and Bamburgh (Nb) in 643, and, second, by his daughter Osfryth to Bardney (Li), 679 x 697.111 This represents an official royal and ecclesiastical appropri­ ation of the cult. It could have responded to a ‘pagan’ tradition of dismembering royal bodies because of their sacral associations; it was more certainly an attempt to restrict the cult to ecclesiastical centres and distribute them to reflect the king’s political authority.112 His reign also witnessed an ecclesiastical council at Streoneshalh (Whitby) in 664 that deliberated the relative value of Irish and Roman liturgical calendars and rituals, establishing an official liturgy.113 103 104   HE iii.1.   VCol i.1; HE iii.2.   See pp. 57–9.    105  Sermo c. 34; HE iii.6. 107 108   HE iii.14.   HE ii.14, 24.   HE iii.24. 109 110   HE iii.2, 9–12. Thacker 1995: esp. 97–104.   HE iii.2, 9–10. Cubitt 2002: 424–32. 112 113 111   Damon 2001; Damon 2003: 52–6.   HE iii.25.   HE iii.10–12. 102 106

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’, 600–730

69

Together these two sets of public deliberations, confrontations, and demonstrations produced a social sanction for the introduction of religious communities and for some Deirans to embark on ecclesiastical careers in the 640s and 650s. Their careers highlighted to other kin groups the social potential of Christian institutions. This is visible in the social sanction given to charismatic authority and a second wave of enthusiasm for pursuing the religious life, which in turn produced a boom in the patronage of religious communities from c.705 onwards. Individuals who entered the church in the 640s and 650s were given the social sanction to wield charismatic authority as holy men and women in life and death.114 When Stephen wrote his vita of Wilfrid in the early eighth century, with an audience amongst his religious communities in mind, it was plausible that he had recalled a boy from death, healed a boy and a woman on the point of death, brought illness and health on the king’s wife, conjured daylight during darkness, loosed his own shackles, and protected his community at Oundle (Np) from fire after his death.115 Both an anonymous author and Bede, writing vitae of Cuthbert for his communities at Melrose (Ro) and Lindisfarne (Nb), thought it plausible to claim that Cuthbert had been the focus of, and vessel for, a wealth of miracles, in life and death, in which he received providential aid,116 controlled the elements,117 commanded obedience from animals,118 healed the sick,119 and prophesied,120 including prophesies about the destruction and accession of kings to their relatives.121 The social sanction to wield this charismatic authority, in combination with the influence of Frankish precedents, produced the first formal translations and elevations of indigenous holy men and women: within the kingdom of the Northumbrians the translation of Cedd (d. 664) at Lastingham, followed by the formal translation and elevation of Cuthbert (d. 687) at Lindisfarne (Nb) in 698.122 Witnessing Deirans and Bernicians commanding this charismatic authority as holy men and women and institutional authority as abbots, abbesses, and bishops, produced a second wave of enthusiasm for the religious life. A larger number of individuals travelled to Ireland or Rome for pilgrimage and study. The anonymous author of the Sermo on Ceolfrith noted that Cynefrith, abbot of Gilling near Richmond, departed for Ireland in the 650s, where he died in the 660s ‘together with other noble Angles (nobiles Anglorum) who had gone before him to study the Scriptures’.123 Writing about the year 664, Bede stated: At this time there were many in England, both nobles and commons (nobiles et mediocres), who, in the days of Bishops Finan and Colman, had left their own country 115   Rollason 1989: esp. 95–103.   VW cc. 18, 23, 36–9, 66–8; pp. 83–4. 117   VCA ii.2, 4, iii.3; VCB cc. 2, 5, 7, 12–14, 21.   VCA ii.7, iii.3; VCB cc. 3, 11, 18, 36. 118   VCA ii.3, 5, iii.5; VCB cc. 10, 19–20. 119   VCA ii.3, 8, iv.3–7, 12, 15–18; VCB cc. 10, 15, 23, 25, 29–33, 38, 41, 44–6. 120 121   VCA ii.4–6, iv.9; VCB c. 28.   VCA iii.6, iv.8; VCB cc. 24, 27. 122   HE iii.23 and iv.30–2 (27–30). Rollason 1989: 34–51; Thacker 2002: 45–73. 123   Sermo cc. 2–3. 114 116

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

70

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

and retired to Ireland either for the sake of religious studies or to live a more ascetic life. In course of time some of these devoted themselves faithfully to the monastic life, while others preferred to travel round to the cells of various teachers and apply themselves to study.124

He made similar comments about travel to Rome: ‘many of the English, both nobles and commoners, men and women, leaders and people in private life, were wont to go from Britain to Rome’,125 and in the time of Theodore (668–90), Oftfor, future bishop of Dorchester (O), ‘decided to go to Rome too, which in those days was considered to be an act of great merit’.126 The social potential of Christianity seems likely to have been the primary factor in this new enthusiasm, but the outbreak of plague from the 660s to the 680s, which prompted apostasy amongst some, prompted Christian pilgrimage, study, and vocations amongst others.127 The result was a second generation of individuals who undertook ecclesiastical careers. The three best-recorded are Ceolfrith, Ælfflæd, and Willibrord. Ceolfrith was born in 642, entered Gilling near Richmond aged 18 in 660, moved to Ripon where he was ordained aged 27 in 669, before entering Wearmouth (Du) under Benedict Biscop and co-founding Jarrow (Du) in 681 or 682.128 Ælfflæd, daughter of King Oswiu, was born in 654, dedicated to God at Hartlepool (Du) under Abbess Hild in 655, moved with Hild to Streoneshalh (Whitby) in 657, and became co-abbess from 680 to 713/14.129 Willibrord was given to Ripon in the 660s, remained there until he travelled to Ireland aged 20 and studied for twenty years, and then worked as a preacher on the Continent, achieving the position of archbishop of the Frisians (695–739) and abbot of Echternach (697–739).130 These are the three best-documented cases, but there are others who were members of this generation. Bishops Ætla of Dorchester (O), Bosa of York (678/9–706), John of Hexham (Nb) (687–706) and York (706–?714), Tatfrith and Oftfor of the Hwicce (680, 691–3), and Wilfrid II of York (718–32) all trained under Hild, abbess of Streoneshalh (Whitby) (657–80).131 Acca trained in the clergy of Bosa, bishop of York (678/9–706), travelled with Wilfrid as his companion, served as bishop of Hexham (Nb) 709–31, and died 737/40.132 Similar biographies were probably shared by those whose earlier life is not recorded, but who became abbots, abbesses, or bishops in the later seventh and early eighth centuries: Eadhæd, made bishop of Lindsey in 678, Tunberht, bishop of Hexham (Nb) and Trumwine, bishop of the Picts appointed in 681;133 Sigefrith, abbot of Wearmouth (Du) from 686;134 Herefrith, abbot of Lindisfarne

125 126   HE iii.27.   Wallis 1999: 236.   HE iv.23 (21).   Maddicott 1997: esp. 11–14 and 35–50. 129   HE iii.24. 128   Sermo cc. 2–7, 11–12, 17. HA cc. 7, 8, 13, 15, 22. 131   HE iv. 23 (21). 130   VW c. 26; HE iii.13, v.10–11; VWil cc. 3, 4, 6–7, 13. 132   VW c. 56; HE iii.13, iv.14; Continuatio Bedae s.a. 731; ASC DE, s.a. 710; HR I, s.a. 740. 133 134   HE iv.12.   HA c. 10. 124 127

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’, 600–730

71

(Nb) fl. 687;135 Eadberht, bishop of Lindisfarne (Nb) 688–98136 and his successor Eadfrith;137 Hereburg, abbess of Watton 706 x 714;138 Hwætberht, abbot of Wearmouth (Du) and Jarrow (Du) from 716;139 Ælfberht, abbot of Cornu Vallis fl. 716;140 and Tatberht, abbot of Ripon in the early eighth century.141 By the end of the seventh century the social potential of Christianity must have been clear to all Deiran and Bernician kin groups, which probably explains the boom in religious communities from c.705 onwards. Because surviving written texts illuminate in detail only events up to this time, it is not possible to chart the careers of those who founded and entered these communities, or even produce a list of the foundations that appeared. Nevertheless, it is clear that kin groups sanctioned a massive increase in royal grants for religious communities.142 Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica, completed c.731, included a comment on this: ‘In these favourable times of peace and prosperity, many of the Northumbrian race, both noble and simple (tam nobiles quam privati), have laid aside their weapons and taken the tonsure, preferring that they and their children should take monastic vows rather than train themselves in the art of war.’143 Bede’s letter to Ecgberht, bishop of York, in 734 reiterated this point: ‘So for about thirty years, since King Aldfrith was taken from the world of men, our province has been driven mad by the lunatic policy that has resulted in there being almost none of the local rulers (praefecti) who has not acquired a religious community . . . for himself during his period of office, and at the same time has bound his wife in just the same kind of guilt-ridden crooked business, and since the worst of customs is in force, the king’s own ministers and servants (ministri ac famuli) do their best to pursue the same aims . . . .’144 Liturgical calendars from Northumbrian religious communities seem to bear this out, gradually recording an increasing number of indigenous saints.145

THE IDENTITY OF THE ‘ECCLESIASTICAL ARISTOCRACY’ By 730 a significant number of Deirans had entered religious communities. A radical rejection of their secular identity was fundamental to this religious life and their charismatic and institutional authority: they became part of a new social fraction, an ‘ecclesiastical aristocracy’, with its own distinctive identity. To argue this runs against the grain of recent historiography. A brief overview of previous contributions will provide essential context. The ideal that entry to the religious life involved a radical rejection of secular identity is clear in the written texts, as Henry Mayr-Harting observed in his study of the Rule of St Benedict and Bede: ‘much of the rule is dedicated to the systematic 136 137   VCB prol, cc. 8, 23, 37.   HE iv.29–30.   VCA i.1, VCB prol, c. 46. 139 140 141   HE v.3.   Sermo c. 29; HA c. 18.   Sermo c. 29.   VW praef, c. 64. 142   Chapter 3, pp. 113–14.    143  HE v.23. 144   EE cc. 12–13.   145  Cubitt 2002: 439–43. 135 138

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

72

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

obliteration of all class distinctions within the monastery, and of all signs of the monks’ previous social standing in the world.’146 Everyone should be of equal status, whether slave or freeborn.147 Whilst more material possessions were allowed for some, this was envisaged as an infirmity.148 Presents from outside were forbidden.149 Clothes were to be modest and cheap, but sufficient.150 Seniority was to be based on the moment of admission.151 No one was excused kitchen service.152 All guests were to be received, but no kin were to be protected within the community and hospitality should be given to poor men and pilgrims.153 The Rule of St Benedict was introduced to England during the ­seventh century and its direct influence on Bede has been observed through ­careful enumeration of textual correspondences in his work.154 Bede drew directly on the Rule, but also shared and developed its concern with promoting the religious life as a radical rejection of secular identity through his writings.155 Until the 1970s the available written sources were accepted at face value. Bede’s vision that nobles had rejected their secular identity in undertaking the religious life, producing a Golden Age for the church in the seventh century, was dominant. The testimony of a range of sources—the letters of Bede, Boniface, and Alcuin, the canons of ecclesiastical councils, and the episcopal handbooks— was taken as evidence for decadence and decline in the eighth century: ecclesiastics were now commanding retinues, wearing lavish clothes, engaged in noble pursuits like feasting and drinking with poetry and music, hunting and horse racing, and guilty of sexual immorality. Greater attention to the social context of conversion and to source criticism in the 1970s revised this picture. Patrick Wormald made the paradigm-shifting contribution.156 He argued that preChristian social and religious values should be separated: survivals of social values should be acknowledged as an integral part of the process of conversion. In this way, it was possible to abandon the narrative of Golden Age and decline for an acknowledgement that conversion fused secular noble culture with Christian culture. Ultimately, he envisaged little distinction between secular and ecclesiastical identity: When the aristocracies of the barbarian West became Christian, they did not, and they could not, lose their awareness of being aristocracies, and this is as true of churchmen as of laymen. If we start from this point, the abuses denounced by the Church Fathers may legitimately be seen as evidence, not of Christianity’s failure but of one of its greatest triumphs: it had been successfully assimilated by a warrior nobility, which had no intention of abandoning its culture or seriously changing its way of life, but which was willing to throw its traditions, customs, tastes and loyalties into the articulation of the

147 148   Mayr-Harting 1976: quotation at 409–10.   RSB c. 2.   RSB c. 34. 150 151 152   RSB c. 54.   RSB c. 55.   RSB c. 63.   RSB c. 35. 153 154   RSB cc. 53, 69.   Bonner 1973: 77; Wormald 1976: 141–6; Mayr-Harting 1976: 414–17. 155 156   Mayr-Harting 1976: 414–23.  Wormald 1978. 146 149

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’, 600–730

73

new faith, and whose persisting ‘secularity’ was an important condition of the richness of early English Christian civilization.157

The impact of Wormald’s contribution is clear from influential studies by James Campbell, Richard Fletcher, and Sarah Foot. Writing about the social context of Cuthbert’s life, Campbell observed that the Durham Liber Vitae classes queens and abbesses together, highlighting ‘how difficult, indeed how futile, it can be to seek to distinguish the ecclesiastical from the secular in this period’; he argued that religious communities ‘often had many of the aspects of a special kind of nobleman’s club’ and may in some cases have been ‘institutions which provided not so much retreats from the world as special ways of organizing parts of it’.158 Richard Fletcher concluded from Wilfrid’s career that: Churchmanship of this order could co-exist with a manner of life which was that of the secular aristocracy . . . Wilfrid’s career shows us that the threshold between the world of the secular nobleman and that of the noble prelate was not one that was difficult or threatening to negotiate. The hurdle was not high; the leap not into the dark. Indeed, one may suspect that for some the threshold or leap was to all intents and purposes invisible. Not all churchmen would have agreed. Benedict Biscop probably had his scruples and we know that his pupil Bede had grave anxieties about the character of the emerging English Adelskirche. However, there is abundant evidence to show that throughout western Christendom these austere doubters were in a minority.159

It is with good reason, then, that Sarah Foot introduced her study of Anglo-Saxon religious communities with the caveat: ‘What distinguished a monasterium from a secular household was that its inmates had determined to devote their collective lives to religion, yet beyond this it is difficult to define.’160 Given the radical rejection of secular identity at the heart of the Rule of St Benedict and espoused by Bede this position might seem surprising, but it should not. The Rule was unusual amongst early rules for religious communities in its focus on the transformation of social status.161 It was also only one of a number whose influence was felt in Anglo-Saxon religious communities.162 Communities where the Rule of St Benedict had an impact could be considered special cases and the Rule did not have to be the only or dominant influence: Benedict Biscop travelled around seventeen communities before devising a rule from the best of what he experienced for the communities at Wearmouth and Jarrow.163 Nevertheless, the conclusion that it is difficult to observe a distinction between secular and ecclesiastical identity results in a problematic paradox: those who entered the church had a social sanction in a competitive social environment to exert new kinds of charismatic and institutional authority, but did not, in many cases, have a distinctive identity qualifying them to embody these new kinds of authority. 158   Wormald 1978: 59.   Campbell 1989: quotations at 95–6, 96–7, 101. 160 161   Fletcher 1997: 180–1.   Foot 2006: 5.   Mayr-Harting 1976: 410–11. 162 163   Mayr-Harting 1976: 412–13; Wormald 1976: 141–6; Foot 2006: 48–60.   HA c. 11. 157 159

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

74

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Here sociological insights into identity will be a starting point for rereading the evidence as a reflection of the distinction between secular and ecclesiastical identities. Two insights underpin the analysis. First, identity is understood as cognitive, multi-layered, performative, situational, and dynamic. Identity is cognitive because it is a state of mind. Yet it is multi-layered because individuals consider themselves to share characteristics with a range of groups—familial, local, ethnic. Identity is performative, situational, and dynamic, because individuals observe and invoke different shared characteristics in different circumstances. This model has been fundamental to recent studies of ethnicity and ethnogenesis at the end of the western Roman empire.164 A second insight is that social institutions shape identity, producing and reproducing a habitus or set of flexible dispositions amongst individuals to be deployed in the particular circumstances they face.165 The work of Erving Goffman and Pierre Bourdieu is most relevant. Goffman’s concept of the ‘total institution’, defined in terms of an ambition to regulate every aspect of a member’s life, included religious communities and drew evidence from Benedictine monasteries to consider the effects on each member’s identity.166 It is well known amongst medievalists and has profitably been applied to medieval religious communities.167 Bourdieu’s work on educational institutions focused on the way schools and universities worked to reproduce social status groups over time.168 It applies equally well to religious communities as educational institutions, though it does not seem to have been applied to them and is not much invoked amongst medievalists. Noble status was not a prerequisite for entering the church, but nobility was fundamental to ecclesiastical identity and a significant qualification for high office. Texts reveal royal or noble backgrounds for many of the Deirans and Bernicians who pursued the religious life.169 Hild, Eanflæd, Æbbe, and Ælfflæd were members of the royal lines of the Deirans or Bernicians.170 Trumhere was a relative of Eanflæd.171 Wilfrid ministered to the king’s companions (socii regalis) when they sought hospitality at his father’s house and his successor, Tatberht, was a kinsman (propinquus).172 Benedict Biscop and Eosterwine served at the royal household before they undertook the religious life.173 Ceolfrith’s father served as a royal companion and his kin group included Cynefrith and Tunberht.174 Cuthbert’s background is not explicit in his vitae, but Bede’s depiction of his arrival at Melrose (Ro) as a mounted warrior may signal 165   Halsall 2007: 35–45.   Bourdieu 1980: 52–65.   Goffman 1961. For critical reception, see: Coser 1974: esp. 3–8 for the idea of ‘greedy institutions’ defined not by totality of residence but by totality of commitment; Foucault 1991; Davies 2000. 167   Leclerq  1971; Servais and Hambye  1971; Jezierski  2006. Foot  2006: 38–42, includes a useful discussion, but, like Leclerq and Patzold, dismisses Goffman on the grounds that religious communities are exceptional, despite the fact that the exceptional features highlighted were an integral part of his analysis. 169 168   Rollason 1989: 93–5.   Bourdieu 1977; Bourdieu 1996. 170 171 172   HE iii.24, iv.19 (17), 23 (21).   HE iii.14, 24.   VW cc. 2, 63. 173 174   HA cc. 1, 8.   Sermo cc. 2, 34. 164 166

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’, 600–730

75

noble status.175 Tunna was the brother of the royal servant (minister, miles) Imma.176 Ecgberht and Æthelberht were relatives and Æthelberht’s noble parents placed him under Ecgberht’s supervision.177 Not all those who pursued the religious life were nobles. The story of Cædmon, a cowherd whose miraculous ability to compose religious poetry qualified him for entry to the community at Streoneshalh (Whitby), shows it was plausible for non-nobles to enter religious communities.178 So does the story of King Ecgfrith’s servant Imma. Upon capture by the Mercians, Imma pretended to be a poor married peasant (rusticum et pauperem atque uxoreo), with the result that he was not killed but imprisoned, but could not be bound on account of the masses said by his brother, the priest Tunna. When questioned, Imma explained about his brother, but this did not give away his nobility: it was plausible for a peasant to have a brother who was a priest. His appearance (vultus), bearing (habitus), and speech (sermo) gave him away.179 Nor can it be proven that the majority of ecclesiastics had noble backgrounds. Nevertheless, the dominance of the nobility in the church is signalled in vitae through this recurrent acknowledgement of noble status, through the topos that entrants to the church were noble by birth but nobler in spirit, and through the noble circles in which they moved. One example of the topos from Bede will establish its significance: Bede shared Benedict of Nursia’s concern with preventing social status from influencing life in religious communities, yet still employed the topos. Hild, daughter of King Edwin’s nephew Hereric, ‘spent her first thirty-three years very nobly (nobilissime) in the secular habit, while she dedicated an equal number of years still more nobly (nobilius) to the Lord in the monastic life’.180 Authors emphasized the nobility of outsiders, as the Streoneshalh (Whitby) author and Bede did for Pope Gregory the Great: ‘he was noble in the eyes of the law (nobilis secundum legem), but nobler still in the heart (nobilior corde) in the sight of God because of his religious life’181 and ‘the noble position (nobilitas) which was accounted his, according to the standards of the world, was by God’s grace entirely sacrificed to winning glory and honor of a higher kind’.182 The incidental context for many of the miracles of Wilfrid, Cuthbert, and John was imprisonment or hospitality in noble households and noble witnesses added authority to miracle narratives.183 Those entering religious communities did not join a different economic class. Secular nobility was partly defined by ownership of five hides of land.184 Individuals served in the royal household in hope of a grant of land to help 176 177   VCB c. 6.   HE iv.22 (20).   DPS vv. 1415–31. 179   HE iv.24 (22).   HE iv.22 (20). 180   HE iv.23 (21); compare HA cc.1 and 8 on Benedict Biscop and Eostorwine, and Sermo c. 4 on Ceolfrith. 181 182   VG c. 1.   HE ii.1. 183   VW cc. 36–8; VCA ii.7–8 iv.3, 7; VCB cc. 14–15, 25, 29; HE v.4–5; Rollason  1989: 95–8; Cubitt 2002: 428–30. 184   Chapter 1, pp. 36–7. 175 178

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

76

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

sustain this qualification in the context of partible inheritance.185 Entering a religious community could be an alternative strategy to achieve the same end. Quite how and when this might be achieved will have depended on the rule governing the religious community. Abbots and abbesses devised rules for their communities from the best of what they had experienced, but no rules survive, and nor do Northumbrian royal diplomas recording grants of land, so the possibilities are difficult to reconstruct. However, rules from outside England, which had a direct or indirect influence, as well as diplomas from other kingdoms, provide enough to demonstrate this point. Royal diplomas suggest kings granted land to individual abbots and abbesses to hold in perpetuity and with freedom of alienation; they either transferred parts of royal territories of obligation to them or confirmed that private hereditary or acquired land was a permanent religious endowment.186 Three types of religious community are visible, with different attitudes to property.187 Abbots and abbesses running regular communities of monks or nuns were supposed to hold the property in common and direct its use for the community. Those running regular clerical communities were supposed to do the same, though it was understood that the pastoral role of ordained members of these communities might necessitate individual stipends. This is acknowledged in Gregory the Great’s advice to Augustine about living the clerical life,188 and is explicitly set out in the eighth-century Continental Rule of Chrodegang of Metz;189 it is probably reflected in the efforts of Archbishop Wulfred of Canterbury to reorganize the Canterbury (Kt) endowment,190 and the stipulations in some diplomas from the later eighth century onwards that grants to religious communities were for specific purposes.191 That abbots and abbesses of regular monastic and clerical communities usually retained direction over the endowment is suggested by the fact that diplomas only begin to include grants explicitly for specific functions in the later eighth century. Within secular clerical communities, however, it was permissible for clergy to remain married and retain private property. All three types of community probably existed in the kingdom of the Deirans. Distinguishing between them is difficult because the Latin terms monasterium and coenobium, ‘monastery’, abbas, ‘abbot’, and frater, ‘brother’, along with the Latin phrase vita regularis, ‘regular life’ and its variants, were used for communities of monks and of clergy.192 However, authors sometimes seem to have been explicit in their use of the term monachus, ‘monk’. Gilling near Richmond and Lastingham were apparently regular communities of monks. The Sermo on Ceolfrith says that he became a monachus at Gilling near Richmond, suggesting a regular community of monks, and Bede twice repeats that continuous daily prayers were said there for the souls of King Oswiu and the murdered   Chapter 1, pp. 39–40.   Chapter 1, pp. 47–53; Wormald 1984; Charles-Edwards 1997: 194–7; Blair 2005: 84–91. 187 188 189   Pickles 2009b: 42–9.   HE i.27 (c. 1).   Bertram 2005: esp. 74–9. 190 191 192   Brooks 1984: 132–42, 155–60.   John 1955: 142–55.  Foot 1992. 185

186

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’, 600–730

77

King Oswine, presumably as part of the monastic offices.193 At Lastingham, Bede tells us that Cedd founded a monastery ‘and established in it the religious observances according to the usages of Lindisfarne where he had been brought up’; elsewhere he states that Lindisfarne (Nb) had an abbot (abbas) and monks (monachi) living side by side with a bishop (episcopus) and his clergy (presbiteri, diacones, cantores, lectores, caeterique gradus aecclesiastici), all pursuing the regular life, and that Owine travelled to Lastingham where he became a monachus.194 York and Ripon were perhaps regular clerical communities.195 All the sources describe York and Ripon using the terms monasterium or coenobium and assume they were ruled by an abbas and housed fratres, suggesting a regular community of monks or clergy.196 At York there was a regular community from at least the time of Bishop Bosa, Acca was brought up in his clergy, and Alcuin was trained there, but never became a monk.197 Members of the Ripon community are never described explicitly using the term monachus, but only presbiter, abbas, or episcopus; they are said to have received the Petrine tonsure, which had close associations with the clerical life.198 The community at Streoneshalh (Whitby) included an abbess ruling nuns living alongside clergy.199 Finally, Bede’s letter to Bishop Ecgberht of 734 incorporates a tirade against religious communities including abbots and abbesses who remained married, probably indicating the existence of communities of secular clergy, though his unwillingness to name any means that they cannot be identified.200 Like their secular counterparts serving in royal or noble households, those entering regular communities of monks or clergy lived initially as economic dependants of the abbot, abbess, or bishop. Just as their secular counterparts might receive a grant of land on which to settle and marry, if they were successful in rising through the monastic or clerical grades, they might eventually direct the endowment. Initially endowments were low and perhaps insufficient for noble status: Hild received just one hide at Wearmouth (Du) in the late 640s.201 Yet they quickly became more substantial: Hild received ten hides at Streoneshalh (Whitby) in 657, Wilfrid received forty hides at Ripon in the 660s, and Benedict Biscop received fifty or seventy hides at Wearmouth (Du) in 674 followed by a further forty hides for Jarrow (Du) in 682.202 More like their secular counterparts who received their paternal inheritance at an earlier stage in life, entrants to secular clerical communities may have retained or received property upon entrance to the religious life. Either way they became part of a nobility exploiting surpluses from peasants and their dependants. 194   Sermo c. 2; HE iii.14, 24.   VCB c. 16; HE iii.23.   Rollason, Gore, and Fellows-Jensen (eds) 1998: 153–5; Cubitt 2005: 277; Pickles 2009b: 65–7. 196  York: EE praef.; DPS vv. 1216–17. Ripon: VCA ii.2; VCB cc. 7–8; VW c. 8; HE iii.25, v.19. 197   HE v.20; DPS vv. 857–70. 198  Cuthbert: VCA ii.2; VCB c. 6; Wilfrid: VW cc. 2, 6, 8–11; HE iii.25, 28, v.19. Æthelwald: HE v.1. Acca: VW praef., cc. 56, 65; HE v.19–20. Tatberht: VW c. 63. Stephen: VW praef. 199 200 201   HE iv.23 (21).   EE c. 12.   HE iv.23 (21). 202   HE iii.24–5; Sermo cc. 7, 11; HA cc. 4, 7. 193 195

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

78

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Ecclesiastical aristocrats did not constitute a distinct economic class, but did form a social fraction. Entry to the religious life signalled the assumption of a distinctive social identity. The rhythms of life in a religious community produced a distinctive habitus shaping future social encounters.203 Pursuing the religious life involved ‘civil death’—the public repudiation of a secular legal identity.204 Biographers recognized this in emphasizing that ecclesiastics had rejected the usual concern of their peers for land, marriage, and children, and thereby acquired a new family. Stephen claimed that Wilfrid ‘meditated in his heart leaving his father’s fields to seek the Kingdom of Heaven’ and that ‘his father . . . blessed him as Isaac did Jacob, and Jacob his sons, in order that their seed might grow into many thousands of people’; and then, when he entered Lindisfarne he served Cudda and God so well ‘that his master and all the older monks loved him like a son and his equals like a brother’.205 Ecclesiastics acquired a new legal status and new legal procedures. The Dialogus Ecgberhti provides evidence for the Deirans: as Martin Ryan observed, there is no good reason to query the attribution to Ecgberht, bishop (c.732–5) and archbishop (735–66) of York, and it probably represents correspondence between Ecgberht and one of his suffragan bishops.206 It outlined the value of ecclesiastical oaths in criminal cases—a priest at 120 hides, a deacon sixty hides, a monk thirty hides—and the numbers of ecclesiastics required to testify over boundary disputes—one priest, two deacons, or three monks concerning one hide (tributarius).207 It advised that a priest or deacon witnessing to the final words of a dying person who bequeathed things to them should receive whatever could be fixed by the word of two or three witnesses.208 It suggested that ecclesiastics under accusation who could not find witnesses to clear themselves for fear of the accuser should have their ecclesiastical position recognized and be allowed to clear themselves in the sight of Christ.209 It asserted that ecclesiastics who committed offences should not be punished by anyone outside the church, but for adultery should be subject to fines of double the value assigned by public law.210 It envisaged compensation for an ecclesiastic who was killed, to be judged, not according to their social status, but according to their ecclesiastical grade, and to be paid to the church: 800 silver coins for a priest, 600 for a deacon, and 400 for a monk.211 It set out that no member of the church should be subservient to a member of the laity, and if they had entered the church under deception, they should be ejected.212 Ecgberht’s Dialogus comprises a series of specific questions and responses rather than a clear elucidation of the social position of ecclesiastics, but is consistent with other evidence. The early Kentish and West Saxon laws specify separate ecclesiastical jurisdictions, immunities, compensation levels, oath-taking procedures, 204   Bourdieu 1977: 31–45.   Goffman 1961: 25.   VW c. 2. Compare HA c. 1 on Benedict Biscop and VWillibaldi c. 3, on Willibald. 209 206 207 208   Dialogus III.  Ryan 2012.   Dialogus I.   Dialogus II. 210 211 212   Dialogus VIII.   Dialogus XII.   Dialogus XIV. 203 205

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’, 600–730

79

and rights of lordship.213 The Poenitentiale Theodori reveals systems of penance based on the assumption that there were different biographical qualifications for entry to the church, that ecclesiastics were subject to different standards in respect of manslaughter, drunkenness, and sexual continence, and that offences against them were treated distinctively.214 Admissions procedures for joining a religious community reassigned responsibility for role scheduling from the kin group or individual to the religious community.215 Through a review of the stipulations in the early rules governing religious communities and the passages from Anglo-Saxon texts describing entry to religious communities, Sarah Foot reconstructed the likely procedures for adult postulants. Entrants qualified by living as a novice for one year, before making a formal promise (promissio) and petition (petitio), participating in a ritual of ordination involving a mass and the wearing of a cowl for seven days, donning the habit, and being tonsured.216 The relevance of procedures like these to Deirans and Bernicians and their impact on identity is clear from the stories related about them. When Owine arrived at Lastingham, he was recalled as wearing a plain garment and carrying an axe and an adze, to signal his willingness to abandon secular noble status.217 This may be compared with Cuthbert’s entry to Melrose (Ro), when he was said to have given his horse and spear to a servant at the gate.218 After travelling as Cudda’s servant to join the community at Lindisfarne (Nb), it was said that Wilfrid lived as a novice learning the Psalter but not yet tonsured.219 The fact that novices were housed in separate quarters at Streoneshalh (Whitby) was incidental background to the story of a miraculous vision of Abbess Hild’s death.220 The precise context, moment, and type of tonsuring were carefully recorded in biographies: Wilfrid’s Petrine tonsure from Bishop Dalfinus of Lyons, and Cuthbert’s Petrine tonsure under Abbot Eata at Ripon or monastic tonsure under Prior Boisil at Melrose (Ro).221 Using Continental evidence Mayke de Jong reconstructed procedures for child oblates. Parents brought the child to a private mass (missa specialis), in which the idea of mass as a sacrificial gift was extended to transform the child into a holocaust: they took the child to the altar, where it was held over the altar with the bread and wine in its hands, the child’s hands were wrapped in the altar cloth (pallia altaris), before the priest partook of the host; repeated emphasis on the right hand connected these actions to rituals of oath swearing.222 It cannot be established that these precise procedures operated amongst the Deirans and Bernicians, but it is likely that something similar took place. Oblation was envisaged in the same way, as a sacrifice that might warrant a ­divine reward. King Oswiu was said to have promised to dedicate his daughter   Abt 1; Wi 1–2, 6–7, 16–19, 22, 24; Ine 1, 6.1, 13, 45, 76.3.   PT I.i.1–4, I.i.6, I.iii.1–2, I.iii.5, I.iv.5, I.v.1–2, I.v.5, I.v.7–9, I.v.11–13, I.vi.4, I.viii.1–14, I.ix.1–12, I.xiv.5, I.xiv.11, II.xiv.4, II.xiv.8. 218 215 216 217   VCB c. 6.   Goffman 1961: 24–30.   Foot 2006: 152–66.   HE iv.3. 219 220 221 222   VW c. 2.   HE iv.23 (21).   VCA ii.2; VCB c. 6.   Jong 1996: 170–91. 213 214

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

80

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

to God in return for victory in battle.223 It is clear that the experience of being an oblate could profoundly shape adult identities.224 Completing his Historia Ecclesiastica c.731, Bede thought it was worthwhile drawing attention to his own origins as an oblate;225 writing to Bishop Ecgberht in 734, he probably recalled and referenced the fact that Ecgberht was an oblate through his commentary on the appropriateness of Samuel as a model.226 Alcuin’s letters to, and poem on, York testify to the genuine affection oblates had for the institution in which they were nurtured. In a letter to York of c.795 he stated that: You tended the impressionable years of my infancy with motherly affection and upheld me in the wanton period of my boyhood with holy patience, teaching with fatherly correction and fortifying me with a religious education until I became a man. What more can I do than pray the eternal goodness of the great King to reward you for all your services to me, his servant, with the eternal glory of great blessing? This I do continually in my vigils and in daily prayer, not ceasing to pour out before the most High the secret tears of my longing, wherever my restless path takes me to the holy places of the martyrs and confessors of Christ.227

This might be dismissed as a reflection more of letter-writing conventions than of genuine affection, were it not for his other letters and his poem on York. He recalled and endorsed the vision of a young boy, Seneca, from the York community, who was nearing death and saw members of the York community reunited in heaven.228 His poem included a long ekphrasis recalling the glories of York as a place and a short meditation on Alcuin’s status as a foster son of York.229 Above all, there are numerous affectionate letters to, or about, his own pupils: these were no cheap or lazy sentiments about the importance of the bonds between nutritor and nutritus.230 The fact that role scheduling had been transferred to the community was often emphasized through the giving of a new name or nickname. When a woman brought her lifeless son to Wilfrid, who recalled him to life, Wilfrid demanded the boy should be given up to him at 7 years old: he took the Christian name Eadwald Bishop’s Son (Filius Episcopi).231 Again, Alcuin’s ­letters provide the clearest evidence: he wrote to members of the York clergy acknowledging nicknames including Albinus, Anthropos, Calvinus, Credulus, Cuculus, Seneca, Stratocles, and Simeon.232 Christian names and nicknames were not restricted to members of religious communities. Nicknaming was a  feature of Insular secular culture.233 Members of secular society received 224 225 226   HE iii.24.   Jong 1996: 215–16.   HE v.24.   EE c.7.   Dümmler (ed.) 1895: No. 42; Allott 1974: No. 1. 228   Dümmler (ed.) 1895: No. 42; Allott 1974: No. 1; DPS vv. 1602–48. 229   DPS vv. 17–45, 1649–58. 230   Dümmler (ed.) 1895: Nos. 13, 25, 55, 65, 80, 88, 134, 142, 215, 224, 244, 248, 251, 270, 281, 289, 294, 295; Allott 1974: Nos. 117–34. 231 232   VW c. 18.   Dümmler (ed.) 1895: Nos. 42, 116, 233; Allott, Nos. 1, 7, 21. 233  Kemble 1846. 223 227

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’, 600–730

81

­ aptismal names and Latin nicknames: Aldhelm wrote to King Aldfrith of the b Northumbrians using the nickname Acircius.234 By the time Alcuin was writing, nicknames were common amongst secular and ecclesiastical members of Charlemagne’s court. Nevertheless, careful study of Alcuin’s nicknaming by Mary Garrison has revealed that he selected different types of nickname suited to his correspondents, reflecting and defining their group identity—Virgilian and Old Testament names for secular correspondents, saints’ names and religious figures for religious colleagues, with Latin and Greek names playing on learned allusions and metaphors for his York students.235 Having transferred their role scheduling to the religious community, entrants progressed by proving their aptitude through achieving a series of age-defined targets. Two modes of religious education may be observed in the texts. The first was to live in the household of a bishop. Noble parents sent their sons to live with Wilfrid and train until adulthood, at which point they could choose to be royal warriors (regi armatos) or churchmen.236 An episcopal household including men destined to be warriors and clerics provided the context for one of Bishop John’s miracles.237 Archbishop Æthelberht selected young men to teach, cherish, and love.238 The second mode was education in a religious community. Those in episcopal households will have spent time with the bishop in religious communities—with Wilfrid at Ripon and Hexham (Nb), with John at Beverley, or with Bosa and Æthelberht at York. By putting references in historiae alongside surviving educational manuscripts, Michael Lapidge has reconstructed the outlines of the curriculum: students began with memorization of the Psalter, then proceeded to Latin grammar, metrics, and speech, which (if they had the aptitude) equipped them to spend as much as ten years studying Latin texts through dictation, transcription, and rote learning, when they might graduate to the Scientific Quadrivium (geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and harmony) and the analysis of Scripture with reference to the Patristic authorities.239 The importance of an aptitude for learning, measured through age-defined attainment targets, to the identity of Deiran and Bernician religious is clear from historiae. Whilst noble background was acknowledged, it was emphasized that individuals had qualified for exceptional status and authority through learning. Some did not have the aptitude, precluding them from positions of authority: Owine, at Lastingham, ‘as he was less capable of the study of Scriptures . . . applied himself more earnestly to manual labour . . . [so that] when [others] were engaged in reading inside the house, he used to work outside at whatever seemed necessary’.240 Others of lower secular status perhaps overtook peers on account of their superior aptitude: Cædmon had a talent for   APW 31–47.   VW c. 21. 240   HE iv.3.

234 236

235   Garrison 1998: esp. 61 for table, 69 for group identity. 238 239   HE v.6.   DPS vv. 1450–53.   Lapidge 1996: 1–5.

237

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

82

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

composing religious poetry and so Abbess Hild promoted him to full membership of Streoneshalh (Whitby).241 Talented individuals were singled out for particular attention: Prior Boisil at Melrose (Ro) spent time reading with Cuthbert before his death.242 Those seeking to progress to highest office probably needed to travel to acquire the necessary cultural capital: Wilfrid, Benedict Biscop, Ceolfrith, Hwætberht, Oftfor, Willibrord, Æthelberht, and Eanbald all travelled around Anglo-Saxon or Irish kingdoms, on the Continent, or to Rome.243 A striking vignette from a West Saxon nun running a Continental religious community shows how the learning on which an abbot’s or abbess’s authority rested might be challenged and established: Abbess Leoba had nuns read to her whilst she was falling asleep and it was believed that they misread passages in order to test her consciousness and knowledge.244 The result was a level of literacy amongst most members of religious communities that distinguished them from secular nobles: lay literacy before the later ninth century seems to have been unusual, probably restricted to runes and perhaps some knowledge of the vernacular.245 The story of Cædmon the poet may reflect this fact: he required interpreters to transmit knowledge about the Scriptures to him, presumably because they were literate in Latin but he was not, so that he could compose religious poetry in the vernacular.246 Living in a religious community also required entrants to subject their behaviour to new kinds of communal regulation.247 Secular men and women expected to have their behaviour regulated by others, because it was commonplace to live in other households, or travel in retinues. Regimentation was not new, but the type of regimentation was. The externally imposed timetable in a religious community revolved around the offices, including night-time activity signalled by peculiar customs. It derived from the authority of the abbot or abbess, who might suddenly request unusual activity. The way this shaped perception is illustrated in the story of the death of Hild, abbess of Streoneshalh (Whitby): Begu, a nun at the daughter house of Hackness, had a dream vision of the death in which she was raised from slumber by the night bell, then awoke, told her superior, and consequently the other nuns were roused to prayer.248 Stories about religious communities in other regions add further dimensions. The regime could include new types of physical contamination: Abbess Æthelthryth of Ely (Ca) imposed communal bathing assisted by the abbess and attendants (though she herself was said rarely to wash).249 It could mean a new type of desegregation in which behaviour was compared and assessed across multiple spheres: Eosterwine concerned himself with all activities in the community at Wearmouth (Du) from kitchen to garden to smithy, which for Bede was a sign 242   HE iv.24 (22).   VCB c. 8.   VW cc. 3, 5; Sermo cc. 3–4; HA cc. 2–6, 9, 18; HE iv.23 (21); VWil cc. 4–8; DPS vv. 1453–68; Dümmler (ed.) 1895: No. 43; Allott 1974: No. 2. 244 245 246   VLeo c. 11.   Wormald 1977; Kelly 1990.   HE iv.24 (22). 247 248 249   Goffman 1961: 42–6.   HE iv.23 (21).   Goffman 1961: 33–40; HE iv.19. 241 243

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’, 600–730

83

of virtue—his humility—but for the brethren working in each area was an intrusion from an inspecting authority.250 Together, ‘civil death’, communal role scheduling, progression through agedefined attainment targets, and subjection to regulation resulted in a distinctive identity amongst ‘ecclesiastical aristocrats’. Above all, this is clear from the surviving Deiran historiae and letters. Brief comments on Stephen of Ripon’s Vita Wilfridi will illustrate the point about historiae. Members of religious communities thought of a historia as a narrative (narratio) of the deeds (res gestae), words (dictis), and behaviour (conversatio) of famous men and women to be emulated or avoided; it was designed to persuade an audience through a careful process of invention.251 Stephen identifies himself as a priest (presbiter), a member of the religious community at Ripon, and a subordinate of Bishop Acca of Hexham (Nb) and Abbot Tatberht of Ripon.252 The references to Wilfrid as ‘our holy bishop’ (sanctus pontifex noster) and to the possibility that his death might ‘leave us as it were orphans, without any abbots’ (et ne nos quasi orbatos sine abbatibus reliqueret), along with the concern about abbatial succession at Wilfrid’s religious communities across the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, suggest Stephen intended an immediate audience amongst the members of those communities.253 The detail of his narrative offers a good indication of his assumptions about the intellectual culture within those communities. The preface suggests that he expected his audience to recognize his work as a rhetorical act of persuasion: it begins with an exordium designed to render them sympathetic to the author and his case, including a statement of humility, a claim to be acting under compulsion, an acknowledgement of the difficulty of the task and the inadequacy of the author, a defence of the value of the exercise, and an emphasis on the good authority of his information.254 Stephen’s case proceeds through a narrative that establishes Wilfrid’s virtue as a cleric, bishop, and abbot: the sign of his vocation revealed to his pregnant mother,255 his exceptional secular ministry as a boy and servant at Lindisfarne (Nb),256 his pioneering pilgrimage to Rome and his Petrine tonsure,257 his foundation of religious communities at Ripon and Hexham (Nb),258 his ordination, defence of Roman liturgy, episcopal election, and consecration, and his concern for the church of York,259 and his missionary activity.260 It focuses on the justice of his actions in defending his episcopal and abbatial rights at Rome.261 Along the way, his righteousness is demonstrated through examples of the miraculous protection he offered to those under his lordship and the misfortunes of those 251   Goffman 1961: 18, 42–6; HA c. 8.  Kempshall 2011.   VW praef., cc. 17, 45, 57–8. For problems with the traditional identification of Bede’s Eddius Stephanus with Stephen of Ripon, see: Kirby 1983. 253 254 255   VW cc. 62–5; Thacker 2013: 13–14.   VW praef.   VW c. 1. 256 257 258 259   VW c. 2.   VW cc. 3–6.   VW cc. 8, 17, 22.   VW cc. 9–16. 260 261   VW cc. 26, 41–2.   VW cc. 24–34, 43–55, 60. 250 252

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

84

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

who resisted him: he defeated a ‘pagan’ king of the South Saxons and his priest who threatened his companions, revived a dead child under his episcopal jurisdiction, healed a youth who fell while building his community at Hexham (Nb), produced a huge catch of fish to convert the Frisians, and performed miracles of illumination, healing, and loosing whilst imprisoned;262 when King Ecgfrith cooperated, he experienced victory, but when King Aldfrith despised him, he perished.263 Stephen may have been seeking to persuade the members of Wilfrid’s communities to remain united in his memory and protection; the work culminates with three posthumous miracles—the healing of a nun from a contact relic, the protection of his community at Oundle (Np) from arson, and the sign of a white arc in the sky above his abbots commemorating the anniversary of his death.264 Stephen’s biblical reference points assumed an audience capable of drawing typological connections between Christ, the Old and New Testament prophets and apostles, and Wilfrid.265 Moreover, he may have intended this act of persuasion as a response to the anonymous Vita Cuthberti and a contribution to a wider textual discourse about ecclesiastical organization and episcopal behaviour.266 Stephen’s use of his historia as a vehicle to persuade an audience may be compared with the Streoneshalh (Whitby) Vita Gregorii and Alcuin’s poem on York, whose messages are considered in later chapters.267 All three were part of a wider corpus of historiae read out during the offices and in the refectory, which reflected and reinforced the habitus formed in religious communities.268 Brief comments on an often overlooked letter of Abbess Ælfflæd of Streoneshalh (Whitby) will illustrate the point about letters.269 Letters (epistolae) were carefully crafted acts of communication, with a conventional form (salutation, exordium, narration, petition, conclusion), tailored to make the prose suitable to the subject, purpose, and recipient(s), and employing epistol­ ary formulae and set pieces.270 Ælfflæd’s letter was written to introduce to Abbess Adolana of Pfalzel by Trier a member of Ælfflæd’s religious community travelling on pilgrimage to Rome and to request hospitality and further assistance. It assumes that Ælfflæd and Adolana are not acquaintances, because Ælfflæd states that she knows Adolana by reputation. Hence it is carefully crafted according to epistolary conventions as a communication to a stranger who is a social equal and a fellow abbess, to request help for another. The ­salutation recognizes their social equality: ‘To Abbess Adolana, holy mother 263   VW cc. 13, 18, 23, 26, 36–9.   VW cc. 20, 58.   VW cc. 66–8; Thacker 2013: 13–14. 265   Trent Foley 1992; Laynesmith 2000; Duncan 2013; Thacker 2013: 4–5. 266   Goffart 1988: 235–328, esp. 267–93; Thacker 1989: 115–22; Coates 1996: 182–3; Stancliffe 2012; Higham 2013; Thacker 2013: 3–4, 11–13. 267 268   See Chapter 3, pp. 124–5, and Chapter 4, pp. 162–5.   Cubitt 2000a; Cubitt 2000b. 269 270   Tangl (ed.) 1916: No. 8, 3–4.   Lanham 1992; Haseldine 1996; Lanham 2001. 262 264

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’, 600–730

85

and honourable by God, Ælfflæd, handmaid of the family of the church, offers a greeting of eternal salvation in the Lord.’271 The exordium seeks to establish sympathy from Adolana through an appeal to flattery, humility, and her religious vocation: Ælfflæd claims to have become acquainted with the ‘fame of her holiness’ (fama vestrae sanctitatis) from her ‘celebrated reputation carried back by visitors’ (ex illis partibus rumore celebri referente); it depicts Ælfflæd as a suppliant, making a request in humility for prayers; it reminds Adolana of their shared religious vocation and her responsibility to help through quotations from John 15:12 and James 15:16.272 The narration sets out the purpose and makes a case for the journey, explaining that the sister is a devoted maidservant and abbess, who desired from adolescence to travel to Rome for the love of the apostles, but was prevented by Ælfflæd for the sake of the persons under her care.273 Finally, the petition makes the request for hospitality and further assistance on her journey.274 Each of the letters sent from Deiran ecclesiastics was written according to the same structure and conventions, with equal care for the audience to whom it was directed. Apart from those letters preserved in Stephen of Ripon’s Vita Wilfridi275 and Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica276 or written by Bede,277 they survive in the letter collections of Aldhelm (d. 709/10),278 Boniface (d. 755),279 and Alcuin (d. c.804),280 with outliers from the papal archives,281 the Canterbury letter book,282 and the collection of Lupus of Ferrières (d. c.862).283 The range of subjects in our surviving letters suggests they were a relatively commonplace mode of communication and the few remaining letters probably represent the tip of an iceberg.284 By the early eighth century ecclesiastics had generated a series of stories exploring the distinctions between secular and ecclesiastical identities. Perhaps prompted by the dominance of nobles within religious communities, they told stories predicated on their superiority to the peasantry. Before Cuthbert entered Melrose (Ro), he was supposed to have stood amongst the common people (vulgaris), who jeered at monks being washed out to sea, because the monks had spurned the common laws of mortals (communia mortalium iura). Even when Cuthbert challenged them, ‘they fumed against him with boorish minds 271   Tangl (ed.) 1916: No. 8, 3, lines 6–8: Domine sanctae atque a Deo honorabili Adolane abbatissae Aelffled ecclesiastice familiae famula sempiternae sospitatis salutem in Domino. 272   Tangl (ed.) 1916: No. 8, 3, lines 9–18. 273   Tangl (ed.) 1916: No. 8, 3, lines 19–22 and 4, lines 1–8. 274 275   Tangl (ed.) 1916: No. 8, 4, lines 8–14.   VW cc. 43, 54. 276 277 278   HE ii.10–11, ii.17, iii.29.   EE 123–61.   AO 475–503; APW. 279   Dümmler (ed.) 1892; Tangl (ed.) 1916; Emerton 1940. 280   Dümmler (ed.) 1895; Allott 1974. 281   Haddan and Stubbs (eds) 1896–71: III, 394–6 and EHD I, No. 184, pp. 764–5: Pope Paul I to King Eadberht and Archbishop Ecgberht. 282  Haddan and Stubbs (eds)  1896–71: III, 615–16, Bishop Ecgred of Lindisfarne to Archbishop Wulfsige of York. 283   Haddan and Stubbs (eds) 1896–71: III, 634–5; Dümmler (ed.) 1902: 1–126. 284  Garrison 1999.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

86

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

and boorish words (rustico et anime et ore)’. Only after his prayers secured the safe return of the monks did these rustici show shame for their behaviour. The story was supposed to have gained veracity because a man of rustic simplicity (rustici simplicitatis), thought incapable of inventing an untruth, told it to a monk of Bede’s community at Jarrow (Du).285 Later, it was said that Cuthbert had to travel far and wide to convert the common people (vulgus) from their life of foolish habits (vita stultae).286 But ecclesiastics also told stories assuming significant differences in behaviour between themselves and secular nobles. Secular men and ecclesiastics might mix and travel together, but different codes of conduct were expected of each group. When Bishop John’s household reached a stretch of land suitable for galloping horses, John supposedly forbade his cleric Herebald from joining in; when Herebald did, he reportedly suffered a crippling injury as divine punishment.287 Secular men and ecclesiastics might expect different things of their kings. Aidan was remembered as predicting that King Oswine of the Deirans was too humble to last long.288 This may be placed alongside stories about kings of other kingdoms and peoples. Sigeberht, king of the East Angles, it was suggested, retired to undertake the religious life, only to be dragged out to lead his people in battle; having refused to take up arms, he was killed on the battlefield.289 Some people said his namesake, Sigeberht, king of the East Saxons, was killed for being too merciful, though Bede felt he knew the real reason—Sigeberht had dined with an excommunicate against his bishop’s advice.290 Others said that one of his successors, Sebbe, king of the East Saxons, should have been a bishop rather than a king, though Bede thought his disposition and actions suitable for a king.291 Ecclesiastics shared stories about the way that the Christian cosmology underpinned their distinctive vocational activities. Two stories already encountered are particularly illuminating: those of Imma and Cædmon. Imma was a noble (nobilis) youth (iuvenis), a royal servant (minister), and a warrior (miles), captured in battle, but who could not be shackled. His captors thought that this might be ‘because he had loosing letters (litteras solutorias) such as are described in stories’. Imma explained ‘that he knew nothing of such arts (artium)’, but that his brother, a priest, was offering masses for his death, which might be the reason.292 Cædmon was a cowherd who was unable to sing songs at feasts, until a dream revealed to him his talent for turning sacred scripture into poetry, after which he entered Streoneshalh (Whitby). Bede says: [Abbess Hild] and all her people received him into the community of the brothers and ordered that he should be instructed in the whole course of sacred history (sacrae historiae). He learned all he could by listening to them (audiendo) and then, memorizing it (rememorando) and ruminating over it (ruminando), like some clean animal chewing   VCB c. 3.   HE iii.21.

  VCB c. 9.   HE iv.11.

288   HE v.6.   HE iii.14.   HE iv.22 (20).

285

286

287

290

291

292

  HE iii.18.

289

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’, 600–730

87

the cud, he turned it into the most melodious verse: and it sounded so sweet as he recited it that his teachers became in turn his audience.293

As Seth Lerer pointed out, these two stories illustrate new conceptions of the relationship between literacy and power: the distinction between rune-magic and prayer on the one hand, and secular and Christian poetry on the other.294 The story of Imma emphasizes that: A credence in charms or spells signals a reliance on the power of the signs themselves, on something of a ‘word magic’ which a later readership would associate with runic writing. But for the Christian, the sign is a symbol, a representation of the divine will. Such symbols may function within a larger system of rite and ritual, a system such as the Mass itself, whose power comes not from any signs or actions per se, but rather from its symbolic reenactment of the spiritual typologies that govern Christian living.295

The tale of Cædmon transfers poetic composition from the public, individual inspiration of the feasting hall to the private, meditative rumination on texts of the religious community.296 Despite this distinctive identity, ecclesiastics retained significant aspects of secular noble identity. Conventions of kinship and lordship remained important. Kinship obligations were often activated through entry to the religious life and were not abandoned: Alcuin’s letters reveal his worry that Bishop Eanbald II might become ‘sunk in greed for lands or riches because of his throng of relatives’.297 Bishops like Wilfrid, John, Hædda, and Eanbald II maintained imposing households including both warriors and clergy.298 Like a royal servant, Wilfrid was supposed to have been willing to be martyred for his patron Dalfinus at Lyons; Aldhelm expected the same loyalty from the abbots of Wilfrid’s communities, whom he advised to accompany Wilfrid into exile; those who remained loyal to him received gifts at his death.299 Critics of the religious life in the eighth century suggest that some ecclesiastics shared a penchant for elaborate clothing, feasting and drinking to excess, and hunting.300 This sketch of ecclesiastical identity might be thought to suffer from the same limitation as Mayr-Harting’s observations on the Rule of St Benedict and Bede: that it is a picture applicable only to the restricted number of large religious communities following the regular life. On the contrary, it applied to ecclesiastics as a whole. The laws and canons of ecclesiastical councils were agreed upon collectively by small, face-to-face societies: prescriptions will have been well known and persons hoping to retain the social sanction to wield 294   HE iv.22 (24).   Lerer 1991: 30–60. 296   Lerer 1991: 32 for quotation, 30–1, 35–40 on Imma.   Lerer 1991: 33–4, 42–8. 297   Dümmler (ed.) 1895: No. 209; Allott 1974: No. 22. 298   VW cc. 13, 21, 63; HE v.6; VGuth cc. 46–7; Dümmler (ed.) 1895: No. 233; Allott 1974: No. 21. 299   VW cc. 6, 13, 63; Ehwald 1919: No. 9 (12); APW: No. 12. 300   For example: Dümmler (ed.) 1895: Nos. 19 and 42; Allott 1974: Nos. 1 and 29. Fletcher 1997: 178–83. 293 295

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

88

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

authority as members of the church needed to pay attention to them or face criticism. When Bede wrote his tirade against false religious communities in 734, he nevertheless assumed that their founders constructed unusual buildings for themselves and their wives, including an enclosure, tonsured their followers, took professions of obedience from them, and carefully went about doing what needed to be done within the enclosure.301 Learned communities of the type discussed here were more widespread than those recorded by Bede: Michael Lapidge has observed that the large number of schools is testified to by explicit references to schools and by the range of surviving texts from them.302 In northern England, in Yorkshire in particular, stone sculpture suggests the existence of a large number of learned communities not recorded by Bede.303 The central ideals of religious communities were embodied in, and expounded through, the cult of saints. Written references suggest the veneration of AngloSaxon saints at Beverley, Crayke, Hackness, Howden, Lastingham, Middleham, Watton, Whitby, and York.304 Sculpture from Hovingham and Kirkdale suggests the veneration of two unnamed saints.305 There may even have been a saint for every religious community in early Anglo-Saxon England.306 The stories in Bede reflect these facts, because they represent the collective memory of a wide range of lay and religious communities across the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.307 The culture of criticism in the eighth century certainly reveals that some members of religious communities did not live up to the ideals, but it does not negate this distinctive identity. First, identity is cognitive and the rules governing ecclesiastical behaviour were well known, so that individuals breaking them, and others observing them doing so, were aware that this was in breach of their socially accepted role. Second, assumptions about the importance of the distinction between secular noble life and ecclesiastical life must have been sufficiently widely shared for reformers to hope for an impact from their statements.

THE SOCIAL DYNAMICS OF THE ‘ECCLESIASTICAL ARISTOCRACY’ To generate a social sanction from kin groups for their exercise of ecclesiastical authority, for the diversion of resources to the church, and for the entry of children to the church, ‘ecclesiastical aristocrats’ had to maintain a consensus 302 303   EE c. 12.   Lapidge 1996: 4–21.   See Chapter 4, pp. 128–35.   Blair 2002b: Beverley (Bercthun, John (i)); Crayke (Echa); Hackness (Æthelburg (iii)); Howden (Osana); Lastingham (Cedd); Middleham (Alchhild); Ripon (Æthelsige, Botwine, Ealdberht, Ecgberht, Sicgred, Tatberht, Wihtberht, Wilfrid (i), Wilfrid (ii), Wilgils); Watton (Monegunda); Whitby (Edwin, Hild); York (Ælfhild, Bosa). 305 306   CASSS III: 146–8, Hovingham 5, and 162–3, Kirkdale 8.  Blair 2002a. 307  Kirby 1965–6. 301 304

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’, 600–730

89

about the value and validity of the institutions through which their distinctive identity was reproduced. The distinctive identity and status of the ‘ecclesiastical aristocracy’ rested upon two key foundations. First, a culture of misrecognition consecrated their new social position and hid the reality that, in many cases, social status had been translated into religious capital.308 Second, carefully constructed spaces shaped and sustained status distinctions within religious communities, making them a matter of self-evident, lived experience. The reproduction of ‘ecclesiastical aristocratic’ identity was a resource-intensive process and fragile in the face of shifting patterns of patronage. ‘Ecclesiastical aristocrats’ were formed by an institutional system that sought to instil a particular set of values through a programme of chronologically defined attainment targets. The rationale and validity of this system was ­sustained through stories of providentially chosen prodigies who achieved attainment targets ahead of time.309 Individuals did not achieve the highest positions within the church because of social status, but because they were providentially ordained to do so: Hild and Willibrord by dreams experienced by their pregnant mothers, Wilfrid by the vision of a fire at the moment of his birth, and Cuthbert through reception of angelic healing and a prophecy of Prior Boisil.310 During childhood they demonstrated precocious discipline and predispositions for religious learning: challenged by another child about his behaviour, Cuthbert immediately reformed; Willibrord made progress in religious discipline and learning advanced beyond his age.311 Even before entering a religious community, they committed heroic acts of rupture, symbolizing their unusual bravery in challenging existing value systems: Cuthbert challenged a group of peasants jeering at monks drifting from the Tyne out to sea, then prayed successfully for their safe return.312 Though they were predestined for high positions, they resisted promotion until the honour was thrust upon them: Cuthbert wept and wailed at his election as bishop; Willibrord initially refused the suggestion of Pippin, king of the Franks, that he should be elected bishop of the Frisians.313 Their merits were confirmed through visions and portents attending their deaths.314 The fact that it was not status, but merit, that explained their achievements was reinforced through stories of humble entrants to the religious life who had achieved great things, such as Cædmon the cowherd turned poet;315 even though the celebration of the noble status of churchmen suggests that they were the exception rather than the rule. The hierarchical principles of this system were reinforced through spatial distinctions within religious communities. Individuals and groups who had reached different levels of attainment qualified for access to different spaces. 309   Bourdieu 1977: 8–9.   Bourdieu 1996: 20–3, 40–7. 311   VW c. 1; VCB cc. 2, 6; HE iv.23 (21); VWil c. 2.   VCB c. 1; VWil c. 3. 312 313   VCB c. 3.   VCB c. 24; VWil c. 5. 314   Sermo c. 39; VW c. 65; VCB cc. 4, 40; HA c. 14; HE iv.3, iv.9, iv.17 (19), iv.21 (23), iv.27 (29). 315   Bourdieu 1984: 83–4; Bourdieu 1996: ix–x, 11–19; HE iv.24 (22). 308 310

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

90

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Lay brethren remained on the periphery. Streoneshalh (Whitby) owned an estate (possessio) at Osingadun (Easington?) to which Cuthbert travelled to dedicate a church for lay brethren.316 Cædmon the cowherd may have been one such figure who only gained access to the abbess and her community through the intermediary of a reeve (vilicus).317 For those within the community, gender and levels of institutional progress governed access to spaces. Gender separation was fundamental to many communities. Bede’s narrative of the death of Hild, abbess of Streoneshalh (Whitby), implies that the male and female members of the community lived separately: Hild died at Streoneshalh, from which brothers (fratres) were sent to the daughter foundation of Hackness to alert the nuns (sanctimoniales, sorores) there to this fact, though one of their number, Begu, had already witnessed this in a dream.318 At Ely (Ca) the monks (fratres) and nuns (sorores) disposed themselves separately around the tent for Æthelthryth’s translation.319 At Barking (Ess) men and women not only had separate quarters, but also separate cemeteries.320 Gendered spaces might be thought to derive more from Bede’s preoccupations than from reality, or to have applied particularly to regular rather than secular communities. Yet Bede’s tirade against false religious communities, although it suggested that men and women remained married and sometimes slept together, even envisaged men in false communities acquiring places for their wives to run separate communities of women.321 Excavations at two communities have established a reality of gendered separation beyond Bede’s accounts. At Streoneshalh (Whitby) a cemetery with stele inscribed with female names lay close to the thirteenth-century Abbey church, well within a probable vallum, beyond which was a large mixed cemetery of men, women, and children, with a possible mortuary chapel.322 At Hartlepool (Du) there were apparently distinct male and female living zones and cemeteries, as well as a mixed lay cemetery, which was perhaps located outside the community.323 Institutional progress was marked by access to new spaces. Novices lived in the remotest part of the community at Streoneshalh (Whitby).324 Those not suited for a life of learning might be restricted to work in the garden, as Bede suggests of Owine at Lastingham.325 Those fulfilling official roles might spend more time in one part of the community, such as Cuthbert, who, it was recalled, was guest-master (officium praepositus hospitum) at Ripon in the 650s, moving between guesthouse and kitchen, when he entertained an angel.326 Those who made it to abbot or abbess might move between all zones of the community and occupy their own cell, where they could summon monks, clergy, or nuns to read to them, as Bede’s descriptions of the communities at Streoneshalh

  VCA iv.10; VCB c. 34; Chapter 4, pp. 160–2 for detailed analysis. 318 319 320   HE iv.24 (22).   HE iv.23 (21).   HE iv.19.   HE iv.7. 321 322 323   EE c.13.  Wilmott 2017.   Daniels 2007: 74–96, 145, 169–75. 324 325 326   HE iv.23 (21).   HE iv.3.   VCA ii.2; VCB c. 7. 316 317

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’, 600–730

91

(Whitby), Melrose (Ro), Wearmouth (Du), and Jarrow (Du) make plain.327 Those who qualified as a hermit might live in a remote retreat like Cuthbert’s on Farne Island (Nb).328 In services, at feasts, and after death, these distinctions would influence your location. Bede’s description of Benedict Biscop’s acquisition of paintings for Wearmouth (Du) and Jarrow (Du) assumes that they were disposed around a screen between the nave and chancel, where illiterates might view them, perhaps implying some division between illiterate (lay?) brethren in the nave and literate brethren in the chancel.329 Wilfrid and Benedict Biscop introduced Roman liturgical singing to their communities at Ripon, Wearmouth (Du), and Jarrow (Du): those trained in singing might be disposed within a schola cantorum; fragments from slabs at Hexham (Nb), Wearmouth (Du), and Jarrow (Du) could derive from screens surrounding a schola cantorum.330 Abbatial and/or episcopal thrones probably existed at many communities, to judge from their survival at Beverley and Hexham (Nb), and the fragments from others at Lastingham, Streoneshalh (Whitby), and Wearmouth (Du).331 Writing to Archbishop Eanbald in 796, Alcuin commented on the tradition of arranging people at feasts and its relevance as a lesson for ecclesiastics: ‘If we keep precedence of age and rank at dinner, how much more in the church of Christ?’332 Numerous references to the translation of burials into the church, by the altar or in porticus, are affirmed by the careful spatial distinctions in some cemeteries from excavated religious communities and by the surviving name stones from a range of communities.333 The formation and reproduction of ‘ecclesiastical aristocratic’ identity was resource intensive. It required a substantial endowment: to free up a number of individuals who were not producers, but consumers; to facilitate the acquisition of materials necessary for the educational and liturgical activities to create the culture of misrecognition; and to fund the building of complex settlements that reinforced its principles through spatial distinctions. It demanded a great deal of time and effort to establish, oversee, and assess entrants according to its age-defined attainment targets. The formation and reproduction of ‘ecclesiastical aristocratic’ identity was fragile in the face of shifting patterns of patronage. Insufficient support threatened the very existence of the institutions. Overenthusiastic investment could be just as damaging.334 An increased ­number of 328   VCB cc. 8, 10; HA c. 12; HE iv.23 (21).   VCB cc. 8, 17.   HA cc. 6, 9. 330   HA c. 6; HE iv.2. CASSS I: Jarrow 30; Hexham 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25–8, 33–5, 39; Wearmouth 9 & 14. 331   CASSS I: Hexham 41; Wearmouth 15 & 16. CASSS III, Beverley 1; Lastingham 10. CASSS VI: Whitby 52. 332   Dümmler (ed.) 1895: No. 114; Allott 1974: No. 6. 333  Translations: VCB cc. 37, 43; HA c. 20; HE iii.24, iv.19. Cemeteries: Cramp  2005: I, 76–90, 173–86; Daniels 2007: 169–75. Name stones and crosses: CASSS I: Hartlepool 1–8, Jarrow 10, 13, 16, Wearmouth 4–5; CASSS III: Hackness 1, York Minster 20–3, 25; CASSS VI: Wensley 8–9, Whitby 20–31, 47, 64, Wycliffe 1, Yarm 1; CASSS VIII: Dewsbury 10, Ripon 1, Thornhill 1–4; and Maddern 2013. 334   Bourdieu 1988: 128–58. 327 329

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

92

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

religious communities could create doubts about the quality or commitment of entrants to the religious life and competition within their ranks for access to the royal household and for election to high office. Doubt and competition could provoke calls for religious reform as individuals and groups within the church sought to establish that their conception of the religious life was to be preferred. Calls for reform and the dwindling odds of translating social status into religious capital through entry to religious communities might prompt a crisis of confidence from kin groups in the value of the religious life. The sources record enthusiastic investment in religious communities 705–30, but they do not provide the same level of detail on the biographies of ‘ecclesiastical aristocrats’ or the fortunes of religious communities. For this reason, the effects of this enthusiastic, perhaps over-enthusiastic, patronage can only be traced at the political level. They will be followed in Chapter 3, which will consider how the formation and dynamics of the ‘ecclesiastical aristocracy’ prompted official conversion, political competition focused on religious communities, and political instability, and how these dynamics changed the composition and scale of the ‘ecclesiastical aristocracy’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

3 Politics, Conversion, and Christianization, 616–867 The willingness of some Deiran kin groups to commit members to careers in the church transformed kingship. Between 616 and 642 a constituency of kin groups including Christians offered rival competitors for power the opportunity to marshal support as candidates sympathetic to conversion. This may explain why kings were persuaded to convert despite the ambiguous political benefits. Nevertheless, the advantages of conversion as a social strategy remained uncertain. Until a generation who had been Christian since childhood reached maturity in the 640s, the social potential of an ecclesiastical career was not obvious. Prior to the foundation of religious communities in the 640s and 650s, it was unclear how religious institutions could be accommodated within socio-political structures. Some kin groups retained existing beliefs and practices, providing political support for rivals unsympathetic to Christianity, which produced apostasy. During the period 642 to 705 some Deirans who had been Christian from childhood reached maturity and embarked on ecclesiastical careers, founding the first religious communities, and forming a new social fraction—an ‘ecclesiastical aristocracy’. The social potential of ecclesiastical careers became manifest, prompting a wider social sanction for official conversion, investment in religious communities, and Christian kingship. This produced new challenges for kings. There were tensions between the existing model of warrior kingship and Christian kingship. There was an unsustainable demand for royal patronage of religious communities. From 705 to 758 kings alienated too much land to religious communities. This required an exploitation of religious communities that undermined their moral authority. It resulted in an expansion of the ‘ecclesiastical aristocracy’ that provoked greater competition amongst ecclesiastics and calls for religious reform. From 758 to 867 kings found it difficult to negotiate these challenges, producing instability in royal succession and a reduced social sanction for supporting ecclesiastical institutions. Ultimately, this led to the extension of royal and episcopal control over religious communities and a shift in their composition.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

94

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire CONVERSION TO CHRISTIANITY, 616–642

The official conversion of the Deirans occurred during the reigns of King Edwin (r. 616–33) and King Oswald (r. 634–42). Bede describes the events in most detail, but papal letters, annals, and the Historia Brittonum supplement his narrative. The events are well known and another detailed chronological narrative is unnecessary.1 Instead, after a brief summary, there will be a focus on how the social and political context conditioned the process of official conversion. King Æthelfrith of the Bernicians (r. 592–616) apparently extended his rule over the Deirans and drove the future King Edwin (r. 616–33) into exile.2 During exile Edwin visited a number of royal households. His brother Hereric lived in exile in the Christian kingdom of Elmet, raising the possibility that Edwin visited there too.3 Edwin had two sons by Cwenburg, daughter of Ceorl, king of the Mercians.4 It was later believed that, in the household of King Rædwald of the East Angles, Edwin experienced a vision promising him power as a reward for conversion and that soon after, in 616, Rædwald helped Edwin defeat Æthelfrith.5 In 625 Edwin married Æthelburg, daughter of King Æthelberht of the Kentish people: she was Christian and Bede believed it was a condition of marriage that she could bring her priest Paulinus to Edwin’s household.6 Edwin and Æthelburg received letters from Pope Boniface V, urging Edwin to convert.7 In 626 Edwin was supposed to have been brought closer to conversion by the birth of a daughter, Eanflæd, and by surviving and avenging a West Saxon assassination attempt.8 Later British sources claim Edwin was baptized by Rhun, son of Urien, king of Rheged.9 Bede suggests that Edwin convened a council of his chief men to discuss the matter and then ‘publicly accepted the gospel . . . renounced idolatry and confessed his faith in Christ’.10 Only then, Bede says, were Edwin, ‘all the nobles of his race and a vast number of the common people’, baptized at York in 627.11 Bede relates that Edwin established an episcopal see at York, sponsored preaching at Campodunum and Catterick in Yorkshire, at Yeavering (Nb) for the Bernicians, and at Littleborough (Li) for Lindsey, converted the East Angles, and maintained peace within his territories beneath a banner derived from the Roman standard (tufa).12 Cadwallon, king of Gwynedd, and Penda, king of the Mercians, defeated and killed Edwin in 633. They oversaw ‘a great slaughter both of the church and of the Northumbrian people’. Paulinus, Æthelburg, and Edwin’s son, 1  Stenton  1947: 74–95; Yorke  1990: 72–99; Fletcher  1997: 107–29; Higham  1997: 133–267; Kirby 2000: 63–93; Rollason 2003: 117–30; Higham 2015: 57–75. 2  3  4  5  HE ii.12. HE iv.23 (21). HE ii.14. VG c. 16; HE ii.12. 7  8  6  HE ii.11–12. HE ii.9. HE ii.9. 10  11  9  HE ii.13. VG c. 15; HE ii.9–17. HB cc. 57, 63; Annales Cambriae s.a. 626. 12  HE ii.14–16.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Politics, Conversion, and Christianization, 616–867

95

daughter, and grandson, fled to Kent, but Bede says that they left a deacon called James at York living near Catterick.13 Rule over the Northumbrians was divided: Æthelfrith’s son Eanfrith ruled the Bernicians while Edwin’s cousin Osric ruled the Deirans. Both rulers were remembered as apostates: having ‘abjured and betrayed the mysteries of the heavenly kingdom . . . [they] reverted to the filth of their former idolatry, thereby to be polluted and destroyed’. Cadwallon killed Osric during a siege, ravaged the Northumbrian kingdoms, and killed Eanfrith when he sued for peace.14 Following this, Bede says, Cadwallon ruled over the Deirans and Bernicians as a tyrant. During these events Æthelfrith’s second son Oswald was exiled amongst the Irish, where Bede claims Oswald and his thegns converted to Christianity.15 Oswald supposedly assembled a small army to engage Cadwallon at Denisesburn, had a vision or set up a cross before battle, prayed to God, and achieved victory against the odds.16 He obtained an Irish preacher, Aidan, established an episcopal see for the Bernicians at Lindisfarne (Nb), allowed Aidan to construct further churches in the surrounding region, instructed his people about Christianity, sustained the poor, and stood sponsor to King Cynegils of the West Saxons.17 Penda, king of the Mercians, killed Oswald at Maserfelth (Oswestry, Sa) in 642.18 Oswald’s successors Oswiu, king of the Bernicians (r. 642–70), and Oswine, king of the Deirans (r. 644–51), remained Christians and from this time on Christianity was the official religion of the Deirans and Bernicians. The sources suggest official conversion began in 627 with Edwin’s council and ended in 642 with Oswald’s death. Christianity was introduced but there remained politically significant resistance to Christianization. The Deiran socio-political institutions outlined in Chapter 1 provide important indications of the forces behind this process. Kings depended on local kin groups to provide the political backing to propel them to power, to contribute junior members to serve in the royal household, and to produce and collect surpluses to sustain that household. Three aspects of Edwin’s conversion suggest that a significant number of Deirans were already sympathetic to Christianity, providing a political constituency to legitimize and facilitate official conversion. First, Edwin was able to introduce a Christian queen to his household, a fact attested to by the contemporary papal letter to Æthelburg.19 Second, Edwin was able to receive Christian ambassadors from Rome with the papal letters.20 Third, the activities of Paulinus in converting and baptizing at a series of royal vills—Catterick and Campodunum in the Vale of York, Yeavering (Nb), and Littleborough (Li)— suggest the existence of a number of families with willing adult converts and who committed their children to the new religion.21 The offspring of this

13  18 

HE ii.20. HE iii.9.

14  19 

HE iii.1. HE ii.11.

15 

HE iii.3. HE ii.11–12.

20 

16 

VCol i.1; HE ii.2. 21  HE ii.14.

17 

HE iii.3, 5–7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

96

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

generation of Deirans and Bernicians reached maturity from the 640s and embarked on ecclesiastical careers.22 The convergence of a number of factors may explain the timing of official conversion. A significant social strategy for kin groups was to commit members to serve at the royal household. Changes in mortuary ritual over the sixth century may reflect the development of this socio-political system and the emergence of the first Anglo-Saxon kings of the Deirans.23 There may have been Christians amongst the Deirans for some time: British Christians lived in the Vale of York, eccles place-names suggest significant contact between Old English speakers and British Christians, and stable isotope analysis from the West Heslerton cemetery suggests possible migration from British Pennine territories.24 However, it may be this structural context that made conversion a political issue. After a generation or two of competition for royal service, some kin groups may have been willing to commit themselves to Christianity partly as a marker of their distinctive political identity, to secure a candidate sympathetic to Christianity. By the early seventh century there was a strong political argument for official conversion: within a socio-political structure where expansion was desirable to sustain the service–reward culture of the royal household, it might facilitate expansion of the king’s authority over neighbouring Christians. The kings of the Deirans and Bernicians were apparently competing to establish wider hegemonies. Æthelfrith (r. 592–616), king of the Bernicians, was overlord of a wide collection of territories:25 his conquests to the north resulted in a victory against Áedán, king of the Dál Riátans, at Degsastan in 60326 and against the king of Powys near Chester (Chs) in 616;27 the presence of Edwin’s nephew Hereric as an exile in Elmet suggests his dominance in southern Yorkshire was partial,28 but Hereric was poisoned in Elmet and the defeat to Rædwald and Edwin took place at the River Idle, which may suggest this was the limit of his authority in 616.29 Edwin (r. 616–33) established a similarly impressive overlordship including Christians.30 The compiler of the Historia Brittonum thought that Edwin drove King Ceredig from Elmet in 616,31 which perhaps resulted in annexation or overlordship.32 He sponsored Paulinus’ preaching in Lindsey.33 He persuaded Eorpwald, king of the East Angles, to convert34 and achieved revenge against the West Saxons.35 Bede stated that he ‘ruled over all the inhabitants of Britain, English and Britons alike, except for Kent only. He even brought under English rule the Mevanian Islands (Anglesey and Man)’36 and that ‘there was so great a peace in Britain, wherever the dominion of King Edwin reached, that, as the proverb still runs, a woman with a newborn child See Chapter 2, pp. 57–9.    23  See Chapter 1, pp. 25–7. See Chapter 1, pp. 18–20, 24–5.    25  Kirby 2000: 59–60; Higham 2015: 43–57. 26  27  28  29  HE i.34. HE ii.2. HE iv.23. HE ii.12. 31  30  HB c. 63. Kirby 2000: 63–9, 71–2; Higham 2015: 59, 61–5. 32  33  34  35  36  Yorke 1990: 84. HE ii.16. HE ii.15. HE ii.9. HE ii.5. 22  24 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Politics, Conversion, and Christianization, 616–867

97

could walk throughout the island from sea to sea and take no harm’.37 That these statements had some basis in reality is suggested by the fact that Æthelfrith’s sons, Oswald, Oswiu, and Eanfrith, lived amongst the Dál Riátans and the Picts to be beyond his political reach.38 A political constituency sympathetic to conversion and overlordship of Christians were probably necessary factors to give political weight to the idea of conversion, but the availability of preachers from Rome via Kent perhaps made it possible. Christian kings often converted ‘pagan’ kings as an act of overlordship; to avoid subordination to immediate neighbours, converts more readily accepted preachers from more distant regions.39 Contact with British and Irish peoples apparently exposed Deirans to Christianity and Edwin could have introduced British or Irish Christian preachers, as Oswald did, but he did not. Roman preachers from Kent represented a source of Christianity free of subordination to neighbours. They also facilitated the projection of kingship as an institution legitimized by the Roman past, which may have seemed like a useful prop in extending authority into the Vale of York, where there were British peoples and a decaying Roman infrastructure through which expansion could be consolidated. The circumstances surrounding Edwin’s conversion can be read as a reflection of these concerns, but things might look different if more details had survived. The symbolic importance of Roman culture to local kin groups is signalled in two ways. First, from the third quarter of the sixth century a new suite of grave goods was deposited in the furnished inhumation cemeteries drawing on Roman, Byzantine, and Romano-British culture.40 Second, all three protagonists involved in the events surrounding Edwin’s accession were apparently concerned to legitimize kingship with reference to Roman culture.41 Either Rædwald or an immediate successor was probably ruling when the Sutton Hoo (Sf) Mound 1 burial was created c.625;42 it projects authority and status through a series of objects referring to the Roman past and present.43 Æthelfrith and Edwin probably reconstructed and used the excavated royal vill at Yeavering (Nb), with its tiered structure recalling Roman amphitheatres and its ritual ­specialist with Roman-style surveying tool.44 Æthelfrith was perhaps engaging in ‘peer-polity’ competition with contemporary kings including Æthelberht of the Kentish people or Rædwald in the reconstruction of Yeavering (Nb),45 and Edwin could have been in his adoption of the Roman tufa, which Bede states was carried before him in procession.46 Projections of Roman culture could 38  39  HE ii.16. HE iii.1, iii.3, iii.25. Mayr-Harting 1994: 5–12. See Chapter 1, pp. 25–8, and Chapter 4, pp. 179–80. 41  42  Archibald, Brown and Webster 1997; Yorke 1999: 156–8. Carver 1999. 43  Filmer-Sankey 1996; Webster 1999. 44  Excavated remains: Hope-Taylor 1977. Dating, c.550–c.630: Scull 1991; Gittos 1999. Discussion: Frodsham and O’Brien (eds) 2005. 45  46  Higham 1997: 143–8. HE ii.16. 37  40 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

98

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

have derived from numerous sources and may have been more about emulation in the present than connection with the past. Papal letters to Æthelberht, Edwin, and Æthelburg suggest that the connection between conversion, Roman culture, and the extension of royal authority was explicit at the time.47 The geography of preaching under Edwin may be a symptom of the connection between conversion, mission, Roman culture, and expansion into British regions, though this information has been filtered by those transmitting the memory and by Bede’s concerns as a narrator.48 According to Bede, Edwin was baptized at York and established an episcopal see there. He was acting in partial fulfilment of Gregory the Great’s vision of two metropolitan sees at London and York, probably based on Gregory’s knowledge of the organization of Roman Britain, perhaps transmitted by Paulinus.49 It seems likely that he was also self-consciously establishing a new ecclesiastical capital within a Roman ruin occupying a strategically important point for ruling two of the key regions of Yorkshire—the Wolds and the Vale of York. Edwin’s church has not been recovered, but Bede suggests Oswald completed it and Wilfrid apparently restored it in 669 × 671.50 Later seventh- to early eighth-century stele found under the present minster suggest his church was in the immediate vicinity, within the ruins of the former Roman fort, close to the basilica.51 Its presence may explain why the Roman plan continued to exert a strong influence on the streets and buildings of the northern half of the former Roman fortress in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.52 Edwin perhaps established a royal residence and a church. He was later remembered as having a royal residence and church occupying a site with a public square (platea populi), where he and Paulinus demonstrated the insignificance of superstition about crows, possibly, but not certainly, at York.53 His baptism and establishment of a see at York follows a pattern by which early royal converts to Christianity, including Æthelberht of the Kentish people, constructed Roman capitals echoing the actions of Constantine and laid out with reference to the sacred topography of Rome.54 Edwin’s preaching tour remained focused on Roman sites and territories including Christian Britons: Paulinus supposedly preached at royal vills near three former Roman centres at Campodunum and Catterick, at Littleborough (Li), and at Yeavering (Nb). It remains possible that this emphasis reflects Bede’s preoccupation with demonstrating how Anglo-Saxon kings used their authority over subject peoples, including Britons, for preaching, unlike their British counterparts who failed to convert the Anglo-Saxons. However, there are three hints that this geography reflects a context in which the Deirans and Edwin exploited Christian preaching to extend authority over British subjects. 47  See Chapter  2, pp. 65–7 for discussion of their contents; Fletcher  1997: 122–4; Yorke  1999: 159–60. 48  49  50  Higham 1997: 170–84. HE i.29. HE ii.14; VW c. 16. 51  52  CASSS III: York Minster Nos. 11–24. Rees-Jones 2013: 29–39. 53  54  VG c. 15. Daniel 1993. Fletcher 1997: 100–21; Hawkes 2003c.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Politics, Conversion, and Christianization, 616–867

99

First, Edwin faced difficulties in establishing churches in the Vale of York. Bede says that during Paulinus’ work near Catterick he baptized in the River Swale ‘because oratories or baptisteries could not be built in that first stage of the nascent church there’.55 Edwin’s vill at Campodunum was burnt down ‘by the heathen who slew king Edwin’ and was rebuilt in the regio Loidis, near Leeds.56 Bede was presumably referring to the activities of the Penda and Cadwallon after defeating Edwin at Hatfield, who ‘put all to death by torture and for a long time raged through all their land’ paying ‘no respect to the Christian religion which had sprung up amongst them’.57 The problems at Catterick are unidentified. But the difficulties of building a church at Catterick, the targeting of a vill at which Edwin had sponsored preaching by forces including British Christians, and the failure to re-establish a Christian site in the immediate aftermath may result from the political dimensions of his policy. It is unlikely that this was a clash between British and Roman Christian norms, which became a more divisive issue in the 660s;58 it was more likely a question of the political connection between overlordship and preaching. Second, there are divergent traditions about Edwin’s baptism. Edwin’s relatives at Streoneshalh (Whitby) believed that Paulinus was Edwin’s godfather.59 Bede made no direct statement about who officiated or was godfather, but noted that Paulinus was his instructor and bishop.60 The Historia Brittonum and the Annales Cambriae suggest that Rhun, son of Urien, king of Rheged, baptized Edwin.61 There is no way to reconcile these traditions: arguments for an earlier baptism in exile amongst the Britons,62 a two-stage baptism by Rhun and then Paulinus,63 or Paulinus as officiating bishop and Rhun as British sponsor64 all face logical objections.65 But these divergent memories are rooted in the assumption that Edwin’s conversion had crucial ramifications for his political relationship with British neighbours and subjects. Third, Oswald reintroduced Christianity through Irish preachers from the Dál Riátan religious community on Iona. Oswald’s awareness of the possibilities offered by this derived from his exile amongst the Irish. A political constituency for reintroducing Christianity will have been provided by the existence of Deiran and Bernician kin groups who had publicly declared themselves Christians under Edwin. Added political weight will have been created by Oswald’s success in replicating Edwin’s overlordship of other territories including Christians.66 He apparently controlled Lindsey.67 His victories around the Firth of Forth to the north68 and defeat at Maserfelth (Oswestry, Sa) to the south-west69 suggest the geography of his overlordship. He acted as sponsor

56  57  58  HE ii.14. HE ii.14. HE ii.20. Stancliffe 2003: 6–10. 60  61  HE ii.14, v.24. HB cc. 57, 63; Annales Cambriae s.a. 626. VG c. 14 (trans c. 15). 63  64  62  Phythian-Adams 1996: 57. Corning 2000. Chadwick 1963. 66  65  Kirby 2000: 73–8; Higham 2015: 68–75. Higham 2015: 59–61. 67  68  69  HE iii.11. Annals of Ulster s.a. 637; HB cc. 64–5. HE iii.9. 55  59 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

100

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

for the conversion of King Cynegisl of the West Saxons.70 Bede claimed that he was the sixth ruler to have authority over all the kingdoms south of the Humber71 and that ‘he held under his sway all the peoples and kingdoms of Britain, divided among the speakers of four different languages, British, Pictish, Irish and English’.72 Nonetheless, the legacy of the political dimensions of conversion under Edwin probably shaped royal policy. Oswald, as a Bernician, established a religious community next to the Bernician royal centre of Bamburgh (Nb), at Lindisfarne (Nb), and placed it under the control of an Irish preacher from Iona, Aidan, reflecting Bernician strategic concerns with the Dál Riátans and Picts to the north.73 The official conversion of the Deirans perhaps resulted from a relatively recent structural context within which some kin groups saw political capital to be gained from making conversion a political issue and supporting an act of conversion at the royal household. It probably occurred in the 620s because of the convergence of this political constituency sympathetic to conversion with the overlordship of a Deiran king over subject peoples including Christians and preachers from Rome representing an opportunity to convert without subordination to neighbours. A trend towards employing Roman culture to legitimize royal authority provided political weight for a public act of conversion. The geography of mission may reveal that the utility of conversion in extending authority into the Vale of York through the decaying Roman infrastructure and over British Christian populations added further political weight. The re-establishment of Christianity under Edwin’s successor Oswald from a source more suited to Bernician strategic concerns tends to confirm this analysis. Conversion was apparently driven by the socio-political strategies of local kin groups. This helps to explain why kings converted in spite of the fact that it offered both significant advantages and disadvantages for them in terms of the ideology of kingship and the resources at their disposal.74 Later royal genealogies raise the possibility that kings had projected status with reference to heroic ‘pagan’ ancestors and perhaps personified ‘pagan’ gods, but conversion posed a challenge to this practice.75 Pope Boniface V perhaps confronted this concern directly in his letter to Edwin, arguing that Edwin must abandon his idols and former gods, but reassuring him: You may certainly consider yourselves who have received the breath of life from the Lord to be better made than they. For Almighty god has appointed your descent through many ages and countless generations, from the first man he created.76

Christian kings eventually claimed descent from Adam via former ‘pagan’ gods euhemerized as heroic ancestors, but this solution may not have been immediately obvious. Kings who converted could draw on the Christian ideology of 71  72  HE iii.7. HE ii.5. HE iii.6. HE iii.3–6. Higham 1997: 201–14; Higham 2015: 67. 75  See Chapter 1, p. 54.    76  HE ii.10. 70  73 

74 

Tyler 2007.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Politics, Conversion, and Christianization, 616–867

101

kingship for legitimacy: kingship as an office appointed by God, established through rituals of coronation and anointment, offering justification for royal activities including warfare, assemblies, lawmaking, taxation, the marshalling of manpower, and the building of churches, towns, and cities.77 Yet kings considering conversion had to weigh up the benefits of this ideology against its curation by a literate priesthood only partially under royal control and their ability to embody its norms and negotiate its contradictions. Bede provided examples of the problems for Christian kings of meeting expectations and reconciling such contradictions. Oswine of the Deirans was, according to Bishop Aidan, too humble to last long and was soon killed in cold blood.78 Sigeberht of the East Angles retired into contemplation but was dragged onto the battlefield and forced to fight.79 Sigeberht of the East Saxons was murdered by his own kinsmen, who, it was said, considered him too merciful, though Bede believed that it fulfilled a prophecy made after he dined with an excommunicate.80 Even if they convinced themselves of their ability to balance these expectations, they had to steel themselves to demand new types of behaviour from subjects, outlined in the episcopal handbooks: these related to marriage, sexual continence, violence, eating, and the observance of Christian feast days and fast days.81 Christian kingship also required the commitment of royal resources otherwise used to sustain and reward members of the royal household. Even before conversion to Christianity kings may have been supporting ritual specialists through hospitality in their households or the diversion of some renders from royal resource territories.82 The switching of resources from ‘pagans’ to Christians risked resentment, whilst the responsibilities of Christian bishops for the provision of pastoral care across Christian kingdoms and the requirements of religious communities to hold property in perpetuity placed new demands on royal resources.83 Such demands had to be weighed up against the resources conversion offered: the potential to patronize a more complex hierarchy of literate officials, to enshrine royal law in written codes,84 to construct churches and religious communities as prestigious centres for itineration and commemoration,85 and to seal alliances or overlordship through the sacraments of baptism and marriage.86 The importance of these social strategies to the process of official conversion and the difficulties kings faced in drawing on this new political constituency sympathetic to Christianity are reflected in the apostasy after Edwin’s death. 77  For this ideology as it is presented later by Bede, see: Wallace-Hadrill 1968; Wallace-Hadrill 1971: 47–71; McClure 1983. 78  79  80  HE iii.14. HE iii.18. HE iii.22. 81  PT I.ii.1–22, I.iv.1–7, I.vii.1–12, I.xi.1–5, I.xiv.1–30, II.xi.1–9, II.xii.1–37, II.xiv.1–14; Dialogus XIII, XVI; Higham 1997: 34–8. 82  83  84  Campbell 2007: 69–70. See pp. 108–18. Wormald 1979; Wormald 1995. 85  86  Blair 2005: 51–7. Lynch 1998.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

102

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Because there was only partial support for official conversion and they were dependent on their local kin groups, kings were unable to enforce exclusive observance of Christianity. There is a regular pattern across the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, which has already been seen for the Deirans and Bernicians: after the first official conversion, a ‘pagan’ succeeded, followed by reconversion, a process that could encompass several decades. The Kentish people converted under Æthelberht in 597 but after his death in 616 his ‘pagan’ son Eadbald succeeded;87 Eadbald subsequently converted, but ‘the people of London refused to receive Mellitus, preferring to serve idolatrous high priests’ and Eadbald ‘had less royal power than his father and was unable to restore the bishop to his church against the will and consent of the heathen’.88 Eadbald’s successor Eorcenberht (r. 640–64) was able to draw a hard line between ‘paganism’ and Christianity: He was the first English king to order idols to be abandoned and destroyed throughout the whole kingdom. He also ordered the forty days fast of Lent to be observed by royal authority. And so that his commands might not be too lightly neglected, he prescribed suitable heavy punishments for offenders.89

The East Saxons first converted under Sæberht in 604,90 but three ‘pagan’ sons succeeded in 616/17,91 who converted c.653.92 The East Angles apparently converted under Rædwald (d. 616 × 627), but his son Eorpwald (d. 627/8) began his reign as a ‘pagan’ and for three years after his death there were further ‘pagan’ rulers, with conversion under Sigeberht (r. 630/1–).93 The West Saxons converted under Cynegisl (r. c.611–42), but his ‘pagan’ son Cenwealh (r. 642–73) succeeded and only converted during a three-year exile at the court of Anna, king of the East Angles.94 This pattern was not universal and several official conversions apparently occurred without apostasy: the Middle Angles under Peada in 653,95 the Mercians following the death of Penda in 655,96 and the South Saxons and people of the Isle of Wight c.681–6.97 Nevertheless, it is ­sufficiently regular to posit underlying structural forces. A similar situation has been observed in other societies undergoing official conversion, offering insights into the dynamics at work. After the official conversion of the Roman empire under Constantine in the 330s there was a period in which ‘pagan’ and Christian religious practices coexisted within a neutral political space, until a generation of wealthy, confident, aristocratic bishops emerged in the 390s and drew hard lines between ‘pagans’ and Christians.98 Anthropological work in modern non-western societies undergoing conversion has observed that social sanction is often given for a proportion of society to maintain its older beliefs, partly as a way to propitiate the old gods.99 For the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms this pattern has been envisaged as a deliberate royal 88  HE ii.5. HE ii.6. 93  HE ii.15. HE iii.22. 97  VW cc. 41–2; HE iv.13–16. 87  92 

89 

90  91  HE iii.8. HE ii.3. HE ii.5. 94  95  96  HE iii.7. HE iii.21. HE iii.24. 98  99  Brown 1995: 11–24. Mayr-Harting 1994: 13–20.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Politics, Conversion, and Christianization, 616–867

103

policy to maintain unbaptized sons and neutralize non-Christian opposition,100 but is probably better interpreted as a symptom of the continued importance of ‘pagan’ kin groups used as leverage in competition between rival members of the royal kin group.101 Either way, just as kin groups sympathetic to Christianity provided a potential political constituency for some members of the royal kin group, so did some sympathetic to ‘paganism’ for others. After 642 this problem disappeared amongst the Northumbrians as it did after periods of twenty to forty years in other kingdoms. Deiran and Bernician kin groups apparently reached a consensus about the value of Christianity and rival kin groups and kings competed for power through patronage of Christian institutions. This is probably because the first generation of child converts reached maturity as 18–25-year-olds, embarking on ecclesiastical careers and making manifest the value of this as a social strategy.

CHRISTIANIZATION, 642–705 After the death of Oswald in 642 Christian kings from the royal line of the Bernicians ruled the Deirans and Bernicians: Oswald was succeeded by his brother Oswiu (r. 642–70) and then Oswiu’s two sons Ecgfrith (r. 670–85) and Aldfrith (r. 685–705). The events are exceptionally well recorded, thanks not only to Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica, but also to additional light thrown by Stephen of Ripon’s Vita Wilfridi, the anonymous Vita Cuthberti, and Bede’s prose Vita Cuthberti. Excellent chronological narratives exist and another is not needed.102 The following will focus on a structural analysis of the relationship between socio-political strategies and investment in Christian institutions and culture. The Deirans and Bernicians were united into a larger kingdom of the Northumbrians. Oswiu faced three rivals for authority over the Deirans, but was apparently able to eliminate opposition by the end of his reign. For the first two years of his reign it is unclear whether or not he ruled the Bernicians and the Deirans, but a rival from the Deiran royal line, Oswine, ruled over the Deirans from 644 until Oswiu had him murdered in 651.103 Sometime after this Oswiu’s nephew Æthelwald ruled over the Deirans: it is not clear whether Oswiu installed him as a relative likely to be loyal, or he was an independent Deiran candidate.104 Either way, Æthelwald ruled over the Deirans until 655 when he initially allied with the Mercians in battle against Oswiu, then withdrew to await the result, after which he disappears from the historical record.105 101  Angenendt 1986; Yorke 1999: 161–3. Tyler 2007: 157–60. Stenton  1947: 74–95; Yorke  1990: 77–86; Higham  1997: 201–67; Kirby  2000: 77–121; Higham 2015: 76–229. 103  104  105  HE iii.14. HE iii.14. HE iii.23–4. 100  102 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

104

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Following these events Oswiu established his own son Ealhfrith as ruler over the Deirans, who ruled until c.664, when he also disappears from the historical record.106 No separate rulers for the Deirans are mentioned from this time onwards. Kings were able to re-establish and extend the overlordships of Edwin and Oswald. Bede tells us that Oswiu held almost the same territory as Oswald for a time, ruling over the Mercians and the other southern kingdoms for three years after Penda’s death, and that he ‘made tributary even the tribes of the Picts and Irish who inhabit the northern parts of Britain’.107 He granted land for the foundation of religious communities in the territories of both the Deirans and Bernicians.108 His bishop Wilfrid acted as bishop of the Picts.109 He sponsored preaching amongst the Mercians, Middle Angles, and East Saxons.110 Ecgfrith apparently re-established and maintained this overlordship. The southern limit of his power seems to have been the Humber: he fought against the Mercians in 679 near the River Trent and was supposed to have made them tributary, and may have ruled over the Mercians after Wulfhere’s death, but he does not seem to have established any wider Southumbrian overlordship.111 To judge from his activity he ruled from the North Sea in the east to the Irish Sea in the west. He granted lands to Wilfrid and Ripon at Ingeadyne (probably Yeadon in Wharfedale, originally in Elmet), iuxta Rippel (probably the River Ribble), Incaetlaevum (probably the Catlows), and in the regione Dunutinga (probably Dent), some apparently taken from British religious communities.112 Carlisle (Cu) was part of the Northumbrian diocese, with a Northumbrian religious community visited by the queen.113 A raiding party was sent to Ireland in 684.114 It was later believed that he granted the Community of St Cuthbert lands at Crayke and York, Cartmel (La), and Carlisle (Cu).115 To the north he had overlordship of the Picts: a Northumbrian monastery existed at Abercorn (Lo) as a basis for episcopal work amongst the Picts116 and a Pictish revolt was suppressed in 672.117 Ecgfrith’s defeat and death at the battle of Nechtansmere in 685 ended Northumbrian overlordship of the Irish and Picts of northern Britain: the Northumbrian episcopal centre at Abercorn (Lo) was abandoned and the Dál Riátans and Picts regained independence.118 Aldfrith seems to have ruled the kingdoms of the Bernicians and Deirans, including territories stretching from the North Sea to the Irish Sea, but without the wider overlordship of his predecessors. The relative stability of kingship over this period is probably explained by the fact that the Bernician royal line produced a series of adult kings competent to take advantage of the opportunities for expansion into rich territories to 107  108  VW cc. 7–14; HE iii.14, 25, 27. HE ii.5, iii.24. HE iii.24. 110  111  HE iv.3. HE iii.21, iii.22, iii.24. VW c. 20; HE iv.21 (19). 112  VW c. 17. Locations: Roper 1974; Jones 1995; Clark 2011: 118–20. 113  114  115  VCA iv.5, iv.8–9; VCB c. 27. HE iv.26. HSC cc. 5–6. 116  117  118  HE i.12, iv.26 (24). VW c. 19. HE iv.26. 106  109 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Politics, Conversion, and Christianization, 616–867

105

the north and west, acquiring the land and moveable wealth that sustained their households as a focus for ambitious kin groups.119 The existence of a consensus amongst those kin groups about the socio-political value of Christianity produced a social sanction for the diversion of those resources to establish enduring ecclesiastical institutions—bishops, sees, and religious communities. This social sanction was the result of a realization that socio-political strategies to maintain status could be pursued through the establishment of religious communities. Political competition became focused on Christian religious institutions. During the competition between Oswiu and his rivals, Oswine, Æthelwald, and Ealhfrith, Christian officials and institutions played important roles. Oswiu’s struggle with Oswine provides three glimpses of this. Bede gives an unusually enthusiastic portrait of Oswine and his close relationship with Bishop Aidan: it has plausibly been suggested that Oswiu was threatened by this relationship between his predecessor’s bishop of Lindisfarne (Nb) and his Deiran rival, perhaps with good reason, since memory of their relationship persisted even in 731.120 While Oswiu and Oswine ruled, a religious community with significant royal connections was founded at Hartlepool (Du) on the edge of the territories of the Deirans and Bernicians, which probably had important political dimensions now lost to us. Heiu founded Hartlepool (Du) in 647, but nothing more is known about her. However, Heiu retired in 648 and Hild, great-niece of King Edwin and abbess of a community on the north bank of the Tyne in a Bernician heartland, succeeded as abbess.121 This biography, the location of Hartlepool (Du), and the timing under the joint rule of Oswiu and Oswine, are strongly suggestive of a political dimension, but the precise significance is unclear. The political dimensions of religious patronage are much clearer following Oswiu’s murder of Oswine in 651: Bede tells us that Oswiu’s wife Eanflæd was a relative of Oswine and prompted Oswiu to grant land to another relative Trumhere for the foundation of a religious community at Gilling near Richmond, on the border between the Deirans and Bernicians, in expiation of his action and to offer prayers for Oswiu and Oswine.122 Under normal circumstances Oswiu would have been expected to pay a wergild to Oswine’s relatives in compensation and the foundation may have fulfilled that expectation.123 At the same time it enabled Oswiu to introduce the first religious community into the territory of the Deirans, draw a member of the Deiran nobility into his orbit, and secure commemoration of both royal lines as a way to promote his reputation amongst the Deirans.124 Oswiu’s struggle with Æthelwald played out in comparable ways. Perhaps to neutralize potential opposition, Oswiu secured marriages between his children 120  Maddicott 2000: 25–46. HE ii.14. Higham 1999: 97–100. 122  123  HE iv.23 (21). HE iii.14, iii.24. Rollason 1989: 121–3. 124  Pickles 2009c: 315–21, 325. 119  121 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

106

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

and those of Penda, king of the Mercians, as well as a possible pact of amicitia between their sons.125 He then secured a pact of amicitia with Sigeberht, king of the East Saxons.126 Following these alliances, Oswiu sent preachers to both territories—Cedd, Adda, Betti, and Diuma to the Middle Angles, and then Cedd to the East Saxons. Faced with these encircling alliances, Æthelwald offered Cedd land to found a religious community at Lastingham where he might pray and be buried: this established a relationship with the potential to cut across Oswiu’s alliances, and a royal mausoleum to promote his reputation and perhaps aid the accession of a son or close relative.127 The rivalry between Oswiu and his son Ealhfrith presents a yet more dramatic competition for power through the patronage of religious communities. Following Oswiu’s conflicts with Oswine and Æthelwald and his victory over Penda, king of the Mercians, at Winwæd (Went Bridge?) in 655, he sought to use religious patronage to unite the Bernicians and Deirans under his rule. Fulfilling a vow made before battle, he granted twelve portions of land to religious communities, six amongst the Bernicians and six amongst the Deirans. Then he established a dynastic mausoleum at Streoneshalh (Whitby) to unite the Bernician and Deiran royal lines: it was governed by Abbess Hild, greatniece of Edwin, king of the Deirans, but included Oswiu’s daughter Ælfflæd, and was to be the resting place of Edwin, Oswiu, and his queen Eanflæd.128 Ealhfrith at first seems to have worked within this ecclesiastical network: he granted land to Eata, abbot of Melrose (Ro) in the territory of the Bernicians, for the foundation of a religious community at Ripon, formerly under British control and in his own Deiran territories.129 Soon after, though, he challenged the theological foundations of his father’s communities: he ejected Eata from Ripon and granted it to Wilfrid, then Ealhfrith and Wilfrid promoted the orthodoxy of Roman observances over those of Oswiu’s foundations.130 Oswiu seems cleverly to have neutralized this challenge by convening a council at his dynastic foundation of Streoneshalh (Whitby) in 664 and deciding himself in favour of Roman observances.131 Nonetheless, Ealhfrith sent Wilfrid to Gaul for consecration as bishop.132 Again, Oswiu thwarted his plans by installing Chad as bishop at York.133 Quite how this rivalry would have played out is impossible to say, because Ealhfrith disappears from the historical record, presumably because he died. Oswiu’s candidate Chad remained in the see of York, and Wilfrid returned to Ripon, but fulfilled some episcopal responsibilities amongst the Mercians and Kentish people, until Archbishop Theodore brokered 126  127  128  HE iii.21. HE iii.22. HE iii.23. HE iii.24. 130  131  VW c. 8; HE iii.25. VW c.10; HE iii.25. VCB c. 7; HE iii.25. 132  VW cc. 11–12; HE iii.28. Stephen claims that Wilfrid was elected ‘by the councillors of the realm’, carefully avoiding any attribution to Ealhfrith, but Bede explicitly says that Ealhfrith sent Wilfrid to Gaul and Oswiu elected Chad, which makes more sense of Wilfrid’s delay in Gaul and the ensuing difficulties he had in establishing his claim to York. 133  VW c. 14; HE iii.28. 125  129 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Politics, Conversion, and Christianization, 616–867

107

a settlement that elevated him to the see of York and moved Chad to the see of Lichfield (St) in 669.134 The reigns of Oswiu’s sons Ecgfrith and Aldfrith were dominated by continuing conflicts over control of the Northumbrian church. On one side were kings of the Northumbrians and the religious communities at Lindisfarne (Nb) and Streoneshalh (Whitby), on the other was Bishop Wilfrid. They competed for control over the wealthy religious communities founded amongst the Northumbrians, the organization of the Northumbrian sees, and the right for those communities to supply bishops. More detailed studies exist of the social, political, and theological forces at work.135 Here it is sufficient to establish that kin groups and kings were competing through the politics of religious patronage. From 670 to 678 there was close cooperation between Ecgfrith, his wife Æthelthryth, and Wilfrid at York: Ecgfrith’s conquests established Wilfrid as bishop over an enormously enlarged diocese, and his generosity enabled Wilfrid to restore and endow the see at York, complete and dedicate the buildings at Ripon, and found a further religious community at Hexham (Nb).136 During this period Wilfrid’s biographer Stephen claims that ‘nearly all the abbots and abbesses made over their possessions to him by vow, either retaining them in his name during their lifetime or naming him heir in their wills’.137 Envy of the wealth and power Wilfrid had achieved, the retirement of Ecgfrith’s first wife Æthelthryth to the religious community at Ely (Ca), the resentment of his second wife Eormenburg against Wilfrid, and the reforming influence of Archbishop Theodore of Canterbury, resulted in the division of Wilfrid’s see and the seizure of Ripon and Hexham (Nb) in 678.138 Eata of Melrose (Ro)/ Lindisfarne (Nb) became bishop of Hexham (Nb)/Lindisfarne (Nb), Bosa of Streoneshalh (Whitby) became bishop of York, and Eadhæd, apparently a royal priest under Oswiu, became bishop of Lindsey.139 Wilfrid travelled to Rome and obtained papal support for his case, but when he returned in 680 Ecgfrith refused to recognize papal authority and had Wilfrid imprisoned.140 After his release in 681, Wilfrid travelled through the territories of the Mercians to work as bishop and preacher amongst the South Saxons.141 In this same year Ecgfrith and Theodore created two further bishops—Tunberht for Hexham (Nb) and Trumwine for the Picts.142 Ecgfrith sustained these arrangements until his death in battle in 685.143 Aldfrith experienced the same problems with Wilfrid. In 686–7, Theodore brokered a compromise: he persuaded King Aldfrith and his sister Abbess Ælfflæd of Streoneshalh (Whitby) to allow Wilfrid to return, resulting in the

135  VW cc. 14–15; HE iv.2–3. Gibbs 1973; John 1985; Cubitt 1989. 137  138  VW cc. 16–23. VW c. 21. VW cc. 21, 24; HE iv.19 (17). 139  140  141  HE iii.27, iv.12, iv.23. VW cc. 25–34. VW cc. 40–2. 142  143  VW c. 24; HE iv.12. HE iv.26 (24). 134  136 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

108

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

restoration of his see and Ripon and Hexham (Nb).144 Between 686–7 and 691–2, Aldfrith allowed Wilfrid to remain bishop, but the same bones of contention continued to arise. Wilfrid resented the subdivision of his see, the expropriation of Ripon, and its use to create a new see. With these issues still unresolved, he left to live among the Mercians.145 After an abortive council at Austerfield in 702–3, Wilfrid was excommunicated.146 Once again he set off for Rome, where his position was upheld.147 Aldfrith also refused to recognize papal authority.148 Only on his deathbed did he relent: he adjured his successors to restore Wilfrid.149 Finally, a further council on the River Nidd in 706 reached a compromise: Wilfrid would retain Ripon and Hexham (Nb), but would not be restored to the see.150 Competition between kin groups focused on the politics of religious patronage and this resulted in the introduction of Christian institutions. Within this context, the establishment of episcopal sees and churches proved less attractive than the foundation of religious communities. On the Continent, bishops established cathedral churches with communities in Roman cities, then worked in the surrounding territories through the establishment of episcopal churches with two or three priests and the extension of control over villa churches. Gregory’s vision of a metropolitan see at York with twelve sees under its jurisdiction was not realized, despite the efforts to subdivide the enormous Northumbrian diocese. Bede’s comment on the difficulty of establishing episcopal churches (ecclesia vel oratoria) in Paulinus’ time has already been noted and, after his comment that Aidan founded ecclesiae in the regions around Lindisfarne, he makes no further reference to possible episcopal churches for the Northumbrians.151 This is true across the early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and there have been three compelling explanations.152 The first is the absence of Roman towns and villas as a framework for episcopal organization—towns as communal foci and theatres for episcopal activity, villa churches as networks over which bishops could extend authority. The second is the way in which northern European social and political institutions shaped the reception of Christianity—in the absence of civitates, kingdoms of varying extent served as the basis for diocesan boundaries, while the household and kin group predisposed Anglo-Saxons to the religious community as a form of quasi household or kin group. The third is the role of Irish monks operating from religious communities in the evangelization of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Nevertheless, a fourth factor has been overlooked: within the royal support systems reviewed in Chapter 1, there were significant logistical reasons for the members of royal households to sanction, not episcopal sees and churches, but religious communities. 145  146  147  VW cc. 43–4. VW c. 45. VW cc. 46–9. VW cc. 50–7. 149  150  151  VW c. 59. VW c. 60. HE ii.14, iii.16. VW c. 58. 152  Godfrey 1962: 15–16, 38–58, 62, 150, 153, 310–30; Blair 2005: 65–78. 144  148 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Politics, Conversion, and Christianization, 616–867

109

Bishops and their clergy were expected to travel across dioceses to fulfil pastoral responsibilities: members of the royal household had to consider how resources might be diverted to support this. A simple solution was accommodation within the royal household. Bede’s story of an encounter between King Oswine and Bishop Aidan at a royal feast may reflect this approach.153 There were significant disadvantages to this solution. For warriors, their presence constituted a drain on supplies, necessitating a reduction in the number of royal servants or an attempt to extract more dues and services from resource territories. For the bishop and his clergy there were multiple concerns. Time in the royal household presented a challenge to their moral integrity. Bede was concerned to emphasize that ‘if it happened, as it rarely did, that [Aidan] was summoned to feast with the king, he went with one or two of his clergy, and, after taking a little food, he hurried away either to read with his people or to pray’.154 Following the letters of Paul to Timothy and Titus as well as Gregory the Great’s Regula Pastoralis, Bede warned Bishop Ecgberht about the dangers of surrounding himself with storytelling and gossip and the importance of regulating the behaviour of his companions, unlike ‘some bishops [who] serve Christ in such a way that they have no men with them of any kind of religion or restraint, but rather those who are steeped in mockery and pranks, made-up stories, feasting together, and drunkenness, and other wanton pursuits of a rather lax way of life, and who feed their stomachs with daily banquets more than their minds with heavenly sacrifices’.155 Alcuin wrote to a Mercian bishop about royal feasting and the way it drew him into secular culture.156 Living in the royal household also necessitated an uncomfortable dependence on royal hospitality with the potential to undermine episcopal authority. Think of Bede’s story of the encounter between Oswine and Aidan: the king was supposed to have given Aidan a stallion, which Aidan then gave to a pauper, after which the king confronted him at a royal feast, where Aidan showed exceptional resolve in standing up to him.157 Travelling with the royal household probably provided insufficient time in any given location to fulfil pastoral responsibilities: Bede’s story that Edwin and Paulinus spent thirty-six days at Yeavering (Nb) seems to imply an unusual length of stay and on the calculations in Chapter 1 would have exhausted royal resources in the area for a year.158 An alternative was to allow bishops and their clergy to itinerate around royal vills independently. This may be what lies behind Bede’s description of the context of Aidan’s death: [He] was on a royal vill (villa regia), not far away from [Bamburgh, Nb]. Here he had a church (ecclesia) and a cell (cubiculum) where he often used to go and stay travelling about the neighbourhood to preach. He did the same on the other royal 154  155  HE iii.14. HE iii.5. EE cc. 3–4. Dümmler 1895: No. 124. For analysis see now Garrison 2005. 158  HE ii.14. See Chapter 1, pp. 49–52. 153  156 

157 

HE iii.14.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

110

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

vills; for he had no possessions of his own except the church and a small piece of land (agellus) around it.159

Bishops might travel with or without a large retinue: any retinue would make their activity a significant drain on royal resources, but travelling without one might mean forfeiting the necessary respect to facilitate pastoral work. Either way, they remained uncomfortably dependent on royal hospitality. A solution to all of these problems was to grant a network of royal vills with their resource territories to the bishop. Permanent possession of these resource territories would free bishops from royal hospitality, allow them to sustain a sufficient household to command respect, and enable them to spend long periods of time in pastoral work. Yet permanent grants of a network of resource territories sufficiently wide to facilitate pastoral work across a diocese risked creating individuals with the resources to rival royal authority and reduced potential rewards for secular servants: this would seem to be the circumstances behind Wilfrid’s initial fall from grace in 678. A final possibility was for bishops and their clergy to rely on short-term hospitality in non-royal households. This may be the circumstances for a series of episodes in which bishops performed miracles: Bede tells us that Bishop Cuthbert travelled to the house of a royal companion (comes), and that Bishop John travelled to the houses of two royal companions (comites), Puch and Addi; they visited and cured sick members of the household and received hospitality in return.160 Yet this was no happier than the other solutions. Hospitality for an episcopal retinue would only be possible in wealthy households. When Cuthbert travelled to one remote region, Bede tells us, there was no one of sufficient status to put him up: Cuthbert erected his tent, while the local people constructed huts of felled branches.161 Travel with a retinue to lower-status households may have involved the bishop sharing his supplies with the household: Bede shows Cuthbert fulfilling his moral responsibility to share food with a family who cooked it for him and the principle that food should be shared with a servant.162 The bishop would probably need to stay for longer than the three days allowed by hospitality conventions.163 Such tensions may be reflected in the proceedings of the council at Hertford in the 670s: ‘both bishops and clergy when travelling shall be content with the hospitality afforded them’.164 Rogue bishops or clergy might continue to operate unobserved through the seeking of such hospitality. The Dialogus Ecgberhti repeatedly addressed the problem of corrupt deacons or priests, expelled by their own bishop, ministering in the remote places of another diocese; if anyone was discovered harbouring such clergy, it required them to make compensation payments to the cleric’s bishop and abbot, and face excommunication.165

159  163 

160  161  162  HE iii.17. VCB c. 29; HE v.4–5. VCB c. 32. VCB c. 12. See Chapter 1, p. 52.    164  HE iv.5.   165  Dialogus IIII, VI, VII

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Politics, Conversion, and Christianization, 616–867

111

Whichever of these solutions was attempted, there was an additional complication: bishops and their clergy had to operate across kingdom boundaries, so that hospitality or grants of resources were necessary from rival kings. Travelling across kingdoms risked accusations of divided loyalties and secret political missions, as Wilfrid found to his cost when travelling on the Continent.166 Episcopal councils presented the greatest logistical challenges of all and meeting these problems may explain significant aspects of the geography of Anglo-Saxon church councils. From 780–805 Southumbrian councils occurred almost once a year and it seems likely that Northumbrian councils were equally frequent.167 Witness lists suggest that these councils were the largest assemblies in early AngloSaxon England, unusual in drawing together groups from across kingdoms.168 Where the locations are known, these are in border areas: a good example is the council of Ætswinapathe (‘at the swine track’) in the plain (campus) of Austerfield in 702/3, close to the junction between the River Idle and a Roman road running north–south at the southern limits of the kingdom of the Deirans.169 Councils may generally have been held amongst the Southumbrians and Northumbrians, not only because these reflected the metropolitan provinces recommended by Gregory the Great, but also because these were areas with a sufficient framework of overlordship to oversee hospitality and protection for those present. Borderland assembly locations were common for reasons of neutrality, but also because they allowed supplies from several kingdoms, meeting the scale of provisions, and securing an even contribution to prevent social obligations of reciprocation to one party skewing proceedings. No wonder that, at the council of Hertford in 670, it was noted ‘That a synod shall be summoned twice yearly. (But on account of various hindrances, it was unanimously decided that we should meet once a year on 1 August . . . ).’170 It is perhaps unsurprising that episcopal sees and churches were less attractive than the foundation of religious communities. Members of the royal household could more happily support the endowment of religious communities because abbots needed only the territory and resources to sustain their own community, not to work across such great geographical areas. After royal territories were alienated for founding religious communities, kings could still itinerate to those communities for hospitality. Nonetheless, the introduction of religious communities was a gradual process reflecting carefully negotiated strategies at the royal household. Only a few foundations within the kingdom of the Deirans are securely datable to before 705: York (620s/660s),171 ?Tadcaster (648),172 Gilling near Richmond (651),173 167  168  VW cc. 25–8, 33. Cubitt 1995: 18–25. Cubitt 1995: 39–49. VW cc. 46, 60; Chapter 1, pp. 31–2; Cubitt 1995: 27–39, 297–321.    170  HE iv.5. 171  HE ii.14; VW c. 16. 172  HE iv.23 (21): Bede says Heiu, abbess of Hartlepool, retired to the town of Calcaria/Kælcacæster and made her dwelling there, probably referring to Tadcaster, and just possibly, but not necessarily, meaning the foundation of a religious community. 173  HE iii.14, iii.24. 166  169 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

112

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Lastingham (653),174 the unnamed community or communities to which Oswiu granted land in 655,175 Streoneshalh (Whitby) (657),176 Ripon (650s),177 Spurn Point (660s),178 and Hackness (680).179 Recorded grants to religious communities in the kingdom of the Deirans increased from ten hides each for the unnamed community or communities and for Streoneshalh (Whitby) in the 650s, to forty hides for Ripon in the 660s. Kings were apparently granting an endowment to the founding abbot or abbess from royal territories of obligation, comprising the dues and services from a certain number of households within the territory, to be held permanently, with freedom of alienation, and perhaps with immunity from some public burdens.180 The gradual nature of this process is probably a symptom of the recognition on the part of members of the royal household that this would produce a reduction in the royal resources available for rewarding warriors and result in the creation of a network of ‘ecclesiastical aristocrats’ less dependent on royal patronage. That it received social sanction may be explained by the wider overlordships that the Northumbrian kings established and maintained, providing additional royal resources for distribution, and by the recognition on the part of local kin groups that such grants could be used as a social strategy to sustain their social status. Royal grants of land to religious communities threatened to reduce royal power by alienating resources, but grants to religious communities across conquered territories served to tie those territories into the Northumbrian kingdom. Kings did not have the tenurial leverage over such communities that they did over warriors holding land as a loan in return for service. Nevertheless, communities with endowments and allegiances across the kingdom had an incentive to sustain a single ruler as overlord over those territories to protect their interests. Following the commitment of the majority of Deiran and Bernician kin groups to Christianity and their support for the foundation of religious communities, it is likely that Northumbrian kings found it necessary to remake kingship. Royal assemblies attended by members of Christian kin groups provided a theatre and audience for the performance of Christian kingship as kings itinerated around the kingdom. It is probably no coincidence that this is the period from which the first royal laws including clauses concerned with Christian behaviour survive,181 and from which stories about the dramatic tensions between warrior and Christian ideologies of kingship were transmitted to Bede for inclusion in the Historia Ecclesiastica in 731.182 Northumbrian kings of this period were said to have introduced Christian kingship to their households. Oswald and one of his royal companions were recalled as rejecting the traditional norms of royal hospitality, breaking up a silver dish, and 175  176  HE iii.23. HE iii.24. HE iii.24, iv.23 (21). 178  VCA ii.2; VCB c. 7; VW c. 8; HE iii.25. VWil c. 1. 180  181  See Chapter 1, pp. 47–53. Wi 3–6, 9–15; Ine 1–3. 182  HE iii.14, iii.18, iii.22; see p. 101 for details.

174  177 

179 

HE iv.23 (21).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Politics, Conversion, and Christianization, 616–867

113

distributing it as alms.183 As well as promoting the cult of Oswald at Lindisfarne (Nb), founding multiple religious communities, and convening an ecclesiastical council, Oswiu was believed to have taught Christian theology to King Sigeberht of the East Saxons.184 Oswine was thought to have prostrated himself in humility before his bishop at a royal feast.185 Aldfrith was trained to the Irish ecclesiastical grade of sapiens whilst living in exile, received Latin Christian texts from Adomnán of Iona and Aldhelm of Sherborne (Do), exchanged land to acquire further Christian texts from Wearmouth (Du) and Jarrow (Du), was praised by Stephen and Bede for his wisdom and learning, and issued the first overtly royal Christian coinage in northern Europe carrying a Latin royal title with cross.186

KINGSHIP AND RELIGIOUS PATRONAGE, 705–758 After the death of Aldfrith in 705 there is no historical narrative to match those of Stephen and Bede. Stephen’s Vita Wilfridi effectively ends with the council on the River Nidd and the restoration of Wilfrid’s rights in 706, even though it extends to his death in 709. Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica peters out after the death of Aldfrith, even though it was completed c.731. The relationship between kingship and religious patronage has to be pieced together from chronicle entries, letters, and poems, which produce a fragmented picture. Between 705 and 758 the Bernician royal line retained power and achieved some stability: Osred (r. 705–16), Cenred (r. 716–18), Osric (r. 718–29), Ceolwulf (r. 729–37), and Eadberht (r. 737–58). Expansion had apparently ended, but a reduced Northumbrian kingdom was maintained: these kings probably controlled the same territories as Aldfrith; only Eadberht is recorded as operating beyond these borders, conquering the plain of Kyle from the Britons of Alclud/ Strathclyde in 750 and subduing the Britons of Dumbarton (Dun) in 756.187 Kings needed to maintain loyalty without as regular a supply of treasure and land from raiding and conquest. It seems likely that the solution was the extension of religious patronage and the exploitation of religious communities. Kings rewarded a greater number of lower-status followers with land for the foundation of religious communities. Written sources reveal a handful of previously unknown religious communities amongst the Deirans. By the time he was ordained in 706, Bishop John had founded a community at Beverley.188 During his time in office (706–14) he visited Abbess Hereburg’s community

184  185  Sermo c. 34; HE iii.6. HE iii.22. HE iii.14. APW 31–47; VW c. 44; VCB c. 24; HA c. 15; HE iv.26, v.12, v.15; Grierson and Blackburn 1986: 158, 166; Yorke 2009a. 187  Continuatio Bedae s.a. 750; HR I, s.a. 756. Yorke 1990: 94–5. 188  HE v.4–5. 183  186 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

114

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

at Watton.189 King Osred (r. 705–16) may have had a sister Osana who was buried at a religious community at Howden, but the claim derives from the twelfth century.190 During his reign Eanmund founded a community, perhaps at Crayke.191 When Abbot Ceolfrith of Wearmouth (Du) and Jarrow (Du) retired and left for Rome in 716 he travelled to a community called Cornu Vallis to sail from the Humber, a community likely to be in Yorkshire.192 Abbot Thrythwulf was ruling a community in the wood of Elmet, perhaps Dewsbury, c.731.193 Abbot Forthred controlled communities at Coxwold and Stonegrave in the 750s.194 Compared with the preceding period this is not exceptional and it is impossible to know whether these were old or new foundations. However, Bede testifies to a transformation in religious patronage. In the penultimate chapter of the Historia Ecclesiastica Bede states that ‘In these favourable times of peace and prosperity, many of the Northumbrian race, both noble and simple, have laid aside their weapons and taken the tonsure, preferring that they and their children should take monastic vows rather than train themselves in the art of war.’195 Writing to Ecgberht, bishop of York, in 734, he explained this transformation: An even more serious disgrace is the fact that others, despite being laymen who have no experience of practising the monastic life and are endowed with no love for it, give money to kings and buy estates for themselves under the guise of building monasteries in which they can indulge more freely in their lust, and moreover they have the hereditary rights over these lands ascribed to them by royal warrants, and manage to get these charters of their privileges confirmed by the signature of bishops, abbots, and secular authorities as though they were truly worthy in God’s sight! . . . So for about thirty years, since King Aldfrith was taken from the world of men, our province has been driven mad by the lunatic policy that has resulted in there being almost none of the local rulers (praefecti) who has not acquired a monastery of this kind for himself during his period of office, and at the same time has bound his wife in just the same kind of guilt-ridden crooked business, and since the worth of customs is in force, the king’s own ministers (ministri) and servants (famuli) do their best to pursue the same aims, and in this way numerous men may be identified who in a perverse manner call themselves both abbots and likewise local rulers (praefecti) or ministers (ministri) or servants (famuli) of the king . . . 196

After the end of territorial expansion, the extension in religious patronage presumably helped to sustain royal power through purchasing loyalty. Yet it created tensions that threatened to destabilize kingship. Foundation of religious communities entailed permanent alienation of royal resources, with far-reaching 190  HE v.3. Dimlock (ed.) 1868: i.2. Campbell (ed. and trans.) 1967: ll. 35–182. For location, see Chapter 4, p. 129 n. 11. 192  Sermo c. 29. For location, see Chapter 4, p. 129 n. 10. 193  HE ii.14. For location, see Chapter 4, p. 129 n. 12. 194  Revealed in a letter of Pope Paul I to King Eadberht and Archbishop Ecgberht in 757–8: Haddan and Stubbs (ed.) 1896–71: III, 394–6; EHD I, No. 184. 195  196  HE v.23. EE cc. 12–13. 189  191 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Politics, Conversion, and Christianization, 616–867

115

consequences. Kingship depended on royal vills as centres for itineration, consumption, counsel, and status display. Alienation was accompanied by the quid pro quo that kings could exploit religious communities for the same purposes. Bede considered it exceptional that Bishop Colman of Lindisfarne (Nb) (661–4) had maintained a regime in which the brothers did not strive to meet the demands of royal hospitality: How frugal and austere he and his predecessors had been, the place itself over which they ruled bears witness. When they left, there were very few buildings there except for the church, in fact only those without which the life of a community was impossible. They had no money but only cattle; if they received money from the rich they promptly gave it to the poor; for they had no need to collect money or to provide dwellings for the reception of worldly and powerful men, since these only came to the church to pray and to hear the word of God. The king himself used to come, whenever opportunity allowed, with only five or six servants (ministri), and when he had finished his prayers in the church he went away. If they happened to take a meal there, they were content with the simple daily fare of the brothers and asked for nothing more.197

Presumably when Bede was writing, c.731, it was more usual for the king to visit with a large retinue and demand a feast. Royal diplomas from other early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms offer further insights into the hospitality expected and provided.198 Across this period, such behaviour was probably widespread and widely accepted, but kings ran the risk of reducing their moral authority and provoking calls for reform. Bede presented Lindisfarne (Nb) as an exemplar to be emulated. In his letter to Ecgberht he drew attention to the fact that there were too few episcopal centres and too many ‘false monasteries’ observing an insufficiently strict way of life: he advised King Ceolwulf and Bishop Ecgberht to expropriate them, found new episcopal centres, and instigate reform.199 Bede provides the first evidence for criticism of the royal extension of religious patronage, but he was not alone. Writing to King Æthelbald of the Mercians in 746–7, Boniface denounced Osred for violating the privileges of churches and fornicating with nuns, and claimed that his death was a punishment for these sins.200 The author of the early ninth-century poem De abbatibus recalled Osred as an evil king who had either killed his rivals or forced them to pursue the religious life.201 Extension of religious patronage also produced a long-term reduction in coercive power. Bede highlighted this danger in his letter to Ecgberht. And because there are very many extensive sites of this kind, which are, as is commonly said, neither of use to God nor men because quite clearly no regular monastic life as God desires it is followed there, and neither do soldiers (milites) or royal companions 198  199  HE iii.26. Blair 2005: 122, 131–2, 136. EE cc. 10–13. Tangl (ed.) 1916: No. 73; Emerton (trans.) 1940: No. 57. 201  Campbell (ed.) 1967: ll. 35–51. 197  200 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

116

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

(comites) with secular power own them who might defend our people against the barbarians; if anyone in those particular places were to establish an episcopal see there to respond to current needs, he will not incur blame for misusing it, but will rather receive approval for doing something excellent . . . It is a foul thing to say that those men who have absolutely no experience of monastic life have received so many places to rule over with the title monasteries, as you yourself know perfectly well, that there is absolutely no place left where the sons of nobles (nobiles) and veteran soldiers (emeritus milites) may receive an assignment of land; being therefore idle and unable to marry when they have left the time of their youth, they may not contain themselves with any suggestion of self-control, and because of this situation, may either leave their fatherland, on whose behalf they ought to have been soldiers (milites), and travel overseas, or else, since their minds are not set on chaste living, they become slaves to riotous living and whoring, a greater and more shameless crime, and they do not refrain even from virgins sacred to God!202

Alienation of royal estates left kings with insufficient resources to reward warriors for military service. Kings faced the prospect of a body of landless and disaffected warriors within the kingdom or their recruitment by enemies. A final consequence of the extension of religious patronage was a shift in the size and social dynamics of the ‘ecclesiastical aristocracy’, complicating the relationship between the king and his ecclesiastical elite. Extending royal patronage of religious communities may have helped the Bernician royal line to maintain a grip on power, but it probably created new tensions that threatened to destabilize succession. Neglect of episcopal structures and exploitation of religious communities opened kings up to criticism. Alienation of royal resources created disaffection among the royal household. Expansion of the ‘ecclesiastical aristocracy’ produced competition, calls for reform, and a reduced social sanction for religious communities. The fact that kings faced repeated challenges from rivals probably reflects shifting alliances between lay and ecclesiastical aristocrats vying for influence in these changed circumstances. Even at the beginning of the period there were problems. When Aldfrith died in 705 there were apparently two rival factions—an anti-Wilfrid faction and a pro-Wilfrid faction. Aldfrith hoped to secure the succession of his son Osred by restoring Wilfrid. Osred was only 8 years old. Initially the anti-Wilfrid faction propelled a rival candidate, Eadwulf, to power and demanded Wilfrid’s exile. Soon after, Aldfrith’s policy was vindicated as another faction forced out Eadwulf in favour of Osred.203 Osred ruled for eleven years.204 He apparently sustained his position by purchasing loyalty through generous grants for the foundation of religious communities, by murdering some rivals, and by forcing

203  EE c. 11. VW c. 60. HE v.18, v.22, v.24; ASC DE s.a. 705, 716 (the latter, confusingly, states that Osred ruled for 7 or 8 years). 202  204 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Politics, Conversion, and Christianization, 616–867

117

others to undertake the religious life.205 He is said to have ‘lost his glorious kingdom, his young life, and his lustful soul by a miserable and shameful death’.206 Osred’s reign demonstrates that kingship was already unstable in 705 and that there were tensions before the further extension of religious patronage. Yet his problems may reflect the fact that he was 8 years old at his accession and 19 at his death: his qualification to rule was questionable on grounds of age and experience. His religious policies, continued by his successors, created further instability. Osred was succeeded by Cenred (r. 716–18), who ruled for two years.207 Cenred was succeeded by Osric (r. 718–29), who was apparently able to appoint Ceolwulf as his successor.208 Ceolwulf (r. 729–37) was the dedicatee of Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica.209 Writing c.731, Bede pointed to dire portents that occurred prior to his accession and referred to turbulent events that he declined to describe.210 In the same year Ceolwulf was deposed, tonsured, and then returned to the throne; Bishop Acca of Hexham (Nb) was also driven from his see.211 Ceolwulf abdicated to become a monk at Lindisfarne (Nb) in unknown circumstances in 737.212 Eadberht (r. 737–58) achieved the longest reign of the century, but still faced moments of crisis. He pursued a son of Aldfrith, named Offa, who took refuge at Lindisfarne (Nb) and was dragged from the community in 750.213 He expanded into Kyle in the same year and subdued the Britons of Dumbarton (Dun) in 756. He and his brother Ecgberht, archbishop of York, appropriated three religious communities, at Coxwold, Donemuthe, and Stonegrave, to reward a royal follower named Moll, for which Pope Paul I chastised them in 757–8.214 Eadberht abdicated to take up the religious life as a clerk at York in 758.215 Despite Eadberht’s successes, his son Oswulf ruled for just a year before members of his own household murdered him in 759.216 With Oswulf’s death, the Bernician royal line lost its grip on power. This evidence probably reflects the relationship between political instability and the extension of religious patronage, since political crises consistently had a religious dimension—the forcible tonsuring of kings, their abdication to become monks or clerks, the deposition of a bishop, and the seeking of sanctuary in a religious community. Eadberht’s rule reveals this connection most clearly: the longest and most successful reign was achieved when the king Tangl (ed.) 1916: No. 73; Emerton 1940: No. 57; Campbell (ed.) 1967: ll. 35–51. Tangl (ed.) 1916: No. 73; Emerton 1940: No. 57. 207  HE v.22–3; ASC ABDE s.a. 716, C s.a. 717. 208  HE v.23, where Bede says Osric appointed Ceolwulf; ASC ABDE s.a. 716, C s.a. 717; ABC s.a. 731, DE s.a. 729. 209  210  211  HE praef. HE v.23. Continuatio Bedae 731; ASC D, s. a. 731. 212  213  Continuatio Bedae 737; ASC DE s. a. 737; HR I, s.a. 737. HR I, s.a. 750. 214  Haddan and Stubbs (eds) 1896–71: III, 394–6; EHD I, No. 184. 215  Continuatio Bedae 758; ASC DE, s.a. 757; HR I, s.a. 758. 216  ASC DE, s.a. 757; HR I, s.a. 758. 205  206 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

118

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

could call on his brother as archbishop to facilitate and legitimize manipulation of religious communities. This picture seems to be confirmed by the Northumbrian coinage and the development of the site at Fishergate in York. John Naylor applied a new methodology to the Yorkshire coinage, which produced significant results.217 Following David Metcalf’s analysis, Naylor separated the coinage into a series of chronological periods; then he established relative figures for regional coin loss in each period, and compared these with coin loss on individual excavated or metal detected sites. Naylor identified three types of site. First, those with average or above-average coin-loss across the period, considered potential long-term markets with supra-regional connections. Second, those with individual aboveaverage peaks, considered short-term markets dependent on circumstantial factors. Third, those with below-average coin-loss, considered coin-using sites, reflecting the reach of issues. Naylor’s methodology is replicated here using the Early Medieval Corpus of Coin Finds hosted by the Fitzwilliam Museum, represented in Table 1.218 After Aldfrith’s gold and silver coinage there was a gap in production, probably reflecting the instability of kingship, until a further royal silver coinage was issued under Eadberht and Ecgberht, reflecting stability under their joint regime.219 From c.680 to c.710 coins known as Primary Sceattas and Continental Intermediate Sceattas circulated in the kingdom of the Deirans at York and along Roman routes to York; trading sites may be identified near Malton, at North Ferriby, at Whitby, and at Fishergate in York from above-average coin loss.220 From c.710 to c.740 coins known as Later Intermediate and non-regal Secondary Sceattas circulated with a similar distribution, but fewer Continental coins; the trading sites near Malton, at Whitby and at Fishergate in York continued to operate, but North Ferriby declined, and others appeared near Driffield, at Kilham, and near Pocklington.221 Finally, from c.740 to c.796 the coinage was dominated by royal coins, mostly those of Eadberht and Ecgberht; the trading sites near Driffield, at Kilham, near Pocklington, and at Whitby continued, those near Driffield and at Fishergate in York declined, and new ones emerged at another location near Malton, at South Newbald, and at Thwing.222 Redevelopment at 46–54 Fishergate, York, presented the opportunity for excavation of an area comprising about 2,500m2, from 1985 to 1986. Three phases were uncovered. The first, Period 3a, comprised three post-built halls c.5.5m wide and between 11m and 19m long, one perhaps with an associated sunken featured building 3.25m x 1.6m, six pit clusters filled with domestic waste, and a N–S curved ditch, all dated from the late seventh or early eighth century

Naylor 2001; Naylor 2004: 37–56; Naylor 2007. http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/dept/coins/emc/. 219  220  Grierson and Blackburn 1986: 168–73, 182. Naylor 2004: 39–40. 221  222  Naylor 2004: 40–2. Naylor 2004: 42–3. 217  218 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



119

Politics, Conversion, and Christianization, 616–867

Table 1.  Anglo-Saxon coinage in Yorkshire, c.600–c.867 Find Spot

 

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5

Group Total 6

All  

Total %

23 2

78 7

96 8

226 19

180 15

572 49

1175  

All

Total— SN & W %—SN &W

23

68

85

126

124

400

803

3

8

11

16

15

50

 

  Bolton Percy  

Total %

0 0

1 1

0 0

0 0

29 23

98 77

128  

Cottam  

Total %

0 0

2 4

2 4

2 4

7 15

34 72

47  

Driffield near  

Total %

0 0

4 16

7 28

5 20

3 12

6 24

25  

Fishergate  

Total %

0 0

8 23

11 31

4 11

3 9

9 26

35  

Kilham  

Total %

0 0

1 5

6 32

5 26

2 11

5 26

19  

Malton near 1  

Total %

0 0

7 23

9 30

4 13

4 13

6 20

30  

Malton near 2  

Total %

0 0

0 0

0 0

10 37

4 15

13 48

27  

North Ferriby  

Total %

0 0

10 83

2 17

0 0

0 0

0 0

12  

Pocklington near  

Total

1

3

5

3

2

4

18

%

6

17

28

17

11

22

 

Ryther  

Total %

0 0

3 7

0 0

0 0

4 10

34 83

41  

Sherburn  

Total %

0 0

2 16

0 0

0 0

5 42

5 42

12  

South Newbald  

Total

0

1

0

70

27

84

182

%

0

1

0

38

15

46

 

Thwing  

Total %

0 0

2 9

0 0

8 36

9 41

3 14

22  

Whitby  

Total %

0 0

9 5

11 7

30 18

29 17

88 53

167  

York  

Total %

4 4

1 1

5 6

16 18

15 17

48 54

89  

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

120

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

to the early ninth century. The second, Period 3b, comprised a deposit of large lumps of charcoal, unburnt animal bone, soil, and daub, pebble, and cobbles, as well as finds, perhaps representing deliberate demolition, spreading of middens, and abandonment, dated to the late eighth or early ninth century. The third, Period 3c, comprised fourteen further pits in groups filled with domestic waste and another N–S ditch, all dated to the early to mid ninth century. A cobbled road about 6m wide was not attributable to any of these phases, but probably contemporary. Period 3a seems to represent the site at its height and the finds from Period 3b are probably re-deposited. Varied craft-working was undertaken. Finds of eighth- and ninth-century coinage suggested the possibility of trade and finds of pottery indicated long-distance exchange with northern France, the Rhineland, East Anglia, and Lincolnshire. Bone finds suggested organized meat provisioning from outside. The whole was interpreted as part of an eighth- to ninth-century royal craft working and trading site, elsewhere termed a wic or emporium.223 The evidence from the coinage and the Fishergate site might suggest the following model for the relationship between royal power and trade.224 First, early monetization c.680–c.710 associated with trading centres at North Ferriby, Whitby, and Fishergate in York. Second, a controlled economy from c.710 to c.740 focused on a royal entrepot at Fishergate and the sites near Driffield and Pocklington and at Kilham, reaching its zenith under the joint rule of King Eadberht and Archbishop Ecgberht—Driffield as the focus of an early royal vill and Driffield, Kilham, and Pocklington as royal holdings in the eleventh century.225 Third, the shift from a controlled economy focused on York to one focused on regional trading centres as Fishergate declined in importance and more sites emerged near Malton, at South Newbald, and at Thwing.

KINGSHIP, RELIGION, AND INSTABILITY, 758–867 Between 758 and 806 the tensions outlined above apparently escalated, producing chronic instability in royal succession. Below is a schematic representation of kingship in this period.226 1 Eadberht (737–58) 2 Oswulf (758–9)

3 Æthelwald Moll (759–65)

4 Alhred (765–74)

O’Connor 1991; Mainman 1993; Rogers (ed.) 1993; Kemp (ed.) 1996. This builds on the model in Naylor 2004: 45–56. 225  See Chapter  1, pp. 26–7 for Driffield; DB Fo 299v [1 Y 8] Driffield and Kilham, [1 Y 10] Pocklington. 226  Wormald 1982b: 114, is the source for this schematic; further analysis may be found in Yorke 1990: 94–9, and Rollason 2003: 190–8. 223  224 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Politics, Conversion, and Christianization, 616–867



5  Æthelred I (774–9)

6 Ælfwald (779–88)

121

7 Osred II (788–9)

8  Æthelred I (790–6)

9  Eardwulf (796–806)

In forty-eight years, eight kings ruled from at least three competing royal lines. Individual kings sometimes sustained relatively long reigns, but competing ­factions continually threatened to undermine their position. Eadberht’s son Oswulf (r. 758–9) ruled for one year before members of his own household murdered him in 759.227 Æthelwald Moll (r. 759–65) possibly engineered Eadberht’s abdication and Oswulf’s death in order to secure the throne and subsequently killed a rival, Oswine.228 Alhred (r. 765–74) wrote to Bishop Lul in 773 referring to ‘the disturbance in our churches and people’.229 He, ‘by the counsel and decision of all his royal household and nobles (consilio et consensu suorum omnium regiae familiae ac principium), was removed from the kingdom and exchanged his imperial majesty for exile’230 and ‘the Northumbrians . . . took as their lord Æthelred, Moll’s son’,231 after which he fled into exile amongst the Picts in 774. Æthelred I (r. 774–9) ordered the killing of three high reeves (heahgerefan) or ealdormen (duces) in 778 and was forced into exile in 779.232 Ælfwald (r. 779–88) witnessed two ealdormen (duces) murder Beorn, his patrician (patricius), and then a conspiracy by his patrician Sicga resulted in his murder.233 Osred (r. 788–90), ‘overcome by the treachery of his own nobles (principes)’, was deposed, tonsured, and then expelled.234 Æthelred I (r. 790–6) killed Osred on his return, tried to execute the ealdorman (dux) Eardwulf at Ripon, and killed the sons of King Ælfwald, before he was murdered in 796.235 Osbald, patrician (patricius), ‘was appointed by some of the nobles to rule the nation (a quibusdam ipsuis gentis principibus in regnum est constitutus)’, but lasted just twenty-seven days before he was ‘deserted by the whole of the royal household and the princes (omni regiae familiae ac principum est socitate destitutus)’ and exiled in 796.236 Eardwulf (r. 796–806) succeeded in 796, faced a revolt from an ealdorman (dux) in 798, killed another in 799, and killed the reputed son of King Alhred in 800, before he was expelled in favour of Ælfwald in 806, but restored through the intervention of Charlemagne.237 Continuatio Bedae s.a. 759; ASC DE s.a. 757; HR I, s.a. 758. Continuatio Bedae s.a. 759, 761; ASC DE s.a. 759, 761; HR I, s.a. 759. 229  Tangl (ed.) 1916: No. 131; EHD I No. 187. 230  231  HR I, s.a. 774; Hart (ed. and trans.) 2006: 107. ASC DE s.a. 774. 232  233  ASC DE s.a. 778; HR I, s.a. 778, 779. ASC DE s.a. 779, 789; HR I, s.a. 780, 788. 234  ASC DE, s.a. 790; HR I, s.a. 790; Hart (ed. and trans.) 2006: 125. 235  ASC DE s.a. 792, 794; HR I, s.a. 790, 791, 792, 796. 236  HR I, s.a. 796; Hart (ed. and trans.) 2006: 143. 237  ASC DE s.a. 795, 798, 806. HR I, s.a. 798, 799, 800, 801; FH s.a. 808; Annales Regni Francorum, s.a. 808; Story 2003: 135–67, places this in context, with analysis of the sources and this episode at 145–56. 227  228 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

122

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

After 867 it is difficult to establish a clear chronology for Northumbrian kings, because of a discrepancy between the chronicle dates and the numismatic dates for individual reigns:238 King

Chronicle date

Numismatic estimate

Eardwulf (restored)

808–10?

c.810–30

Eanred

810–40

c.830–54

Æthelred II (first reign)

c.840–5

c.854–8

Rædwulf

844

c.858

Æthelred II (restored)

844–8

c.858–62

Osberht

c.848–67

c.862–7

Ælle

862–7

c.867

Chronicle entries are even more laconic, but suggest continuing instability. Eanred is said to have died and been succeeded by his son Æthelred.239 Æthelred was ‘expelled from the kingdom, and Rædwulf succeeded him; and when, hastily invested with the crown, he fought a battle with the pagans . . . he and the Ealdorman Alfred fell with a large part of their subjects, and then Æthelred reigned again’.240 Æthelred was later killed, but the circumstances are not recorded, and Osberht succeeded.241 Finally, during a conflict between Osberht and Ælle, the Danish army attacked and killed them both in 867.242 Contained within these chronicle entries are some clues about the forces at work. Presumably as a result of the tensions outlined, the balance of power in determining successions shifted from the reigning king to his warrior and ecclesiastical nobility: whereas entries for Ceolwulf and Eadberht stated that they had given the throne to their respective successors, entries for 774 and 796 locate the initiative with the royal household and nobility.243 After alienating royal resources, the wealth of the Northumbrian kings was probably almost matched by the wealth of their household officials. Merovingian kings faced the same problem on the Continent: the Carolingians amassed wealth and influence as mayors of the palace before usurping power. In the early eighth century, the Carolingian king Charles Martel referred to his mayors of the palace by the title patrician (patricius). References to patricii in the Northumbrian annals may reflect the fact that Moll, Beorn, Sicga, and Osbald were chief household officers who used their position to amass wealth and influence before making a play for the throne.244 Factions were unable to consolidate their coups 238  FH for the chronicle dates; Pagan  1969 for the proposed revision of dates based on coinage; Lyon 1987 and Dumville 1987 for further discussion; Grierson and Blackburn 1986: 295–303, for the coinage; Woolf 2007: 68–9, for the table. 239  240  241  FH s.a. 840. FH s.a. 844. FH s.a. 848. 242  ASC ADE s.a. 867, BC s.a. 868; HSC, c. 10; HR I, s.a. 867; HR II, s.a. 867; FH s.a. 867. 243  Liebermann 1913: 54–8, understood this in terms of formal, constitutional action to depose, but it is probably better understood simply as a shift in the balance of power towards the nobility. See: Campbell 1989: 90–2 and Rollason 2003: 197–8. 244  Rollason 2003: 181–2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Politics, Conversion, and Christianization, 616–867

123

because the nobility was divided, which is reflected in the disturbance among churches and people in 773, the killing of the three high reeves or ealdormen in 778, and the violence involving the king, ealdormen (duces), patricians (patricii), and sons of former kings under Ælfwald and Eardwulf. This was exacerbated by the threat of ‘pagan’ raiders: the attack on Lindisfarne (Nb) in 793 prompted Alcuin to criticize kings for their moral leadership,245 there may have been ­further attacks on Hartness (Du) and Tynemouth (Nb) in 800,246 and Rædwulf, Osberht, and Ælle fell to ‘pagan’ armies.247 This produced instability in royal succession, but that should not be confused with instability in the kingdom as a whole.248 The focus remained on the idea of a single ruler for the Northumbrians, with nobles competing to secure their preferred candidate. Until the 790s the Northumbrians maintained a royal silver coinage, though after this the instability in succession produced a debased, low-grade coinage with almost negligible silver content and a substantial number of imitations, reflecting a breakdown in regulation.249 Alcuin thought that increased competition amongst warriors and ecclesiastics for control over land, religious appointments, and religious communities lay at the heart of these problems. Bishop George of Ostia and Alcuin probably both had a hand in the legatine councils of 786 and the drafting of the decrees, prescribing an ideal relationship between secular and ecclesiastical authority.250 Alcuin’s letters demonstrate a preoccupation with the competitive relations between secular and ecclesiastical authorities. In 793, after Scandinavian raiders attacked Lindisfarne (Nb), he wrote to King Æthelred I and his nobles to identify the cause and propose a solution, because ‘We are doubly related as fellow-citizens—of one city in Christ, as sons of mother church and as natives of one fatherland.’ God’s displeasure, he wrote, had been provoked by the behaviour of the Northumbrian nobility since the days of King Ælfwald—luxurious dress and hair, fornication, adultery, incest, greed, robbery, and judicial violence. He noted that kings had lost kingdoms and peoples their fatherlands for such sins. He advised them to imitate Hezekiah who prayed and defeated his enemies, to be moderate in dress and food, to rule justly, and to obey God’s priests.251 In 796 he repeated this advice to King Eardwulf, noting that ‘The vengeance of God clearly hangs over the land, for otherwise so much blood of nobles and rulers would not have been spilt, nor would the pagans have so destroyed the holy places, nor would injustice and pride be so strong among the people.’252 In 795 he admonished Archbishop Eanbald I and his clergy at York to protect their see and community from violence, to elect a successor to Eanbald I of their own choice, and not to sell the see for simony.253 In 800 he prompted a ASC DE s.a. 793; below for Alcuin’s letters. Woolf 2007: 41–67 for context and discussion. 247  FH s.a. 800. Above for references. Woolf 2007: 68–79 for context and discussion. 248  249  Campbell 1989: 90–2. Grierson and Blackburn 1986: 295–303. 250  Cubitt 1995: 153–90; Story 2003: 55–92. 251  Dümmler (ed.) 1895: No. 16; Allott 1974: No. 12. 252  Dümmler (ed.) 1895: No. 108; Allott 1974: No. 16. 253  Dümmler (ed.) 1895: Nos. 44 and 48; Allott 1974: Nos. 3 and 5. 245  246 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

124

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

clerk at York to counsel Archbishop Eanbald II about the dangers of being ‘sunk in greed for lands or riches because of his throng of relatives’.254 Twice in 801 he wrote letters to York on the same theme. Writing to Eanbald himself he said, ‘I think you are partly to blame for your troubles. Perhaps you receive the king’s enemies or protect their possessions.’255 Writing to two clerics nicknamed Calvinus and Cuckoo he expanded on these comments: I fear [Eanbald] may be suffering in part for taking land or supporting the king’s enemies. Let him be content with what he has, and not grasp at the property of others . . . He thinks he is helping a few, but is hindering many . . . Why has he so many soldiers in his retinue? He seems to keep them out of charity. He is harming the monastics who support him and his men. I hear he has more than his predecessors had and they likewise had more rank and file under them than is proper.256

Finally, his letter to Abbot Æthelbald of Wearmouth (Du) and Jarrow (Du) suggests that competition over religious communities was rife and damaging: ‘It is a tragedy that almost everywhere in our country the monastic life is being given up and the secular way of life spreading. The worst of it is that in many places it is the builders themselves who are the wreckers.’257 Alcuin also composed a moral-didactic poem De pontificibus et sanctis ecclesiae Eboracensis, probably inspired by his visits to the Northumbrians in 786 and 790–3.258 Alcuin began with Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica, but adapted its information to his own purposes, and extended the coverage to his own day, presenting exemplars for contemporary Northumbrian kings and ecclesiastics.259 By charting his omissions, adaptations, and additions it is possible to identify his preoccupations and read them as negative images of the problems underlying the crisis in kingship. Donald Bullough, Peter Godman, and Sue Ward have previously drawn attention to the potential of this approach, but their comments can be amplified.260 York and Northumbria were conflated to form a single Roman and Christian fatherland (patria) with its own independent identity and history.261 Alcuin echoed his comments to Æthelred I about the double bond shared by Northumbrians as members of the church and of one fatherland. Bede’s description of Britain was replaced with an ekphrasis on York and its Roman origins.262 Like Gildas and Bede, Alcuin includes a narrative of the defeat of the Britons as a providential punishment for their sins, noting that their unending struggle with the Picts and their sloth (pigria) left them unable to defend the fatherland (patria) and Dümmler (ed.) 1895: Allott 1974: No. 22. Dümmler (ed.) 1895: No. 232; Allott 1974: No. 20. For Hezekiah, see Isaiah 37:36, 38:5. 256  Dümmler (ed.) 1895: No. 233; Allott 1974: No. 21. 257  Dümmler (ed.) 1895: No. 67; Allott 1974: No. 24.    258  DPS xxxix–xlvii. 259  260  DPS lxxviii–lxxxviii. Bullough 1981; DPS xlvii–lx; Ward 2012. 261  DPS v. 1 invokes Christ as pater, vv. 16–18, state that he intends ‘to speak in praise of my patria and swiftly to proclaim the ancient foundation of York’s famed city’, creating a connection between Christ as divine Logos and father of the city. 262  DPS vv. 19–37. 254  255 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Politics, Conversion, and Christianization, 616–867

125

their freedom (libertas), so that they took the misguided decision to enlist mercenaries.263 Saxon conquest was attributed to three interlocking factors: a laudable love of the patria and libertas, support for the fathers (patres) from the common people (vulgus), and divine recognition that they would follow the Lord’s commands.264 Bede’s portraits of seventh-century kings, bishops, and saints were subtly transformed and set alongside further eighth-century examples to emphasize themes with contemporary resonance in the late eighth century. The desirability of descent from an ancient royal line and actions worthy of that descent was regularly reiterated.265 The reality and value of divine intervention to prompt moral reform and produce political success was demonstrated through Edwin’s vision and conversion,266 Oswald’s prayer before battle,267 Oswiu’s prayer before battle and gratitude in victory,268 and Dryhthelm’s vision.269 This was accompanied by warnings that failure to observe divine precepts could bring about defeat, as in the case of Penda of the Mercians who killed children, youths, and the elderly,270 or Ecgfrith’s unprovoked war against the Irish that was punished by the Picts.271 The moral virtue demanded of kings was outlined in the lives of Edwin, Oswald, and Oswiu.272 The reality of internal rebellion was ignored through omitting the events surrounding Oswine, Æthelwald, and Ealhfrith;273 such behaviour was also discouraged through the notion that disloyalty towards Edwin provoked vengeance from Oswald.274 The virtue of the monastic life with emphasis on chastity, self-control, and moderation was embodied in the lives of Æthelthryth, Balthere, Echa, and Æthelberht;275 it was reinforced through the vision of a cleric who saw members of the York community in heaven.276 Nevertheless, the vision of Dryhthelm established that marriage and the monastic life were equally acceptable.277 The ideal behaviour expected of bishops was embodied in the lives of John, Wilfrid II, Ecgberht, and Æthelberht.278 Finally, the fact that harmonious relationships between the king and his bishop helped to bring stability was illustrated by the cooperation of Ecgfrith with Wilfrid and Cuthbert,279 of Aldfrith with Bosa,280 and of Eadberht with Ecgberht,281 even though this required a judicious silence about the disputes surrounding Wilfrid. For other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms the proceedings of ecclesiastical councils and royal diplomas reveal that kings were expropriating the endowments of religious communities and bishops were claiming the right to interfere in the running of religious communities and often managed to take complete control.282 Across the eighth century there seems to have been a shift from communities of 264  265  DPS vv. 41–5. DPS vv. 46–78. DPS vv. 90, 113–14, 265–85. 267  268  DPS vv. 100–4. DPS vv. 236–64. DPS vv. 517–59. 269  270  271  DPS vv. 876–1007. DPS vv. 525–30. DPS vv. 836–43. 272  273  274  DPS vv. 155–30, 265–85, 570–73. DPS vv. 507–16. DPS vv. 224–64. 275  DPS vv. 751–85, 1319–87, 1388–93, 1394–596.    276  DPS vv. 1602–48. 277  278  DPS vv. 883–904. DPS vv. 1084–215, 1216–49, 1251–68, 1394–596. 279  280  281  DPS vv. 577–750. DPS vv. 843–75. DPS vv. 1251–87. 282  Brooks 1984: 129–32, 175–206; Sims-Williams 1990: 144–76; Cubitt 1995: 99–124, 191–203, 223–4; Blair 2005: 108–17, 121–34, 279–85. 263  266 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

126

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

monks to communities of clergy—the beginnings of a process that continued in the ninth and tenth centuries.283 Though there is a temptation to see this merely as a predatory process, it is likely that some religious communities volunteered themselves to royal or episcopal lordship as strategies to negotiate the contestation of property rights.284 The evidence is incomplete, but it is likely that similar activity was occurring amongst the Northumbrians. The Community of St Cuthbert later claimed a network of earlier religious communities and their estates, many of which were probably acquired by eighth- and ninth-century bishops of Lindisfarne (Nb).285 Two claims throw light on the extension of royal and episcopal control over Deiran religious communities. Late eighth- and early ninth-century architectural sculpture from Wycliffe suggests the presence by that date of a religious community, but the Community of St Cuthbert claimed that Bishop Ecgred (830–45) built the vill and donated it to them; it  seems likely that he acquired an existing community.286 According to the Community, King Ælle stole Wycliffe and Crayke but was punished by his death in 867.287 It is striking that many other early religious communities reemerge as royal or episcopal estates in Domesday Book.288 Coxwold, Gilling near Richmond, and Streoneshalh (Whitby) ended up as royal estates on loan to earls or prominent thegns. Probable early religious communities at Conisbrough, Hovingham, Howden, and Northallerton did so too. Known or probable early religious communities at Beverley, Crayke, Otley, Patrington, Ripon, and Wycliffe were later archiepiscopal or episcopal communities or estates. It is impossible to tell at what point this shift in ownership took place, but some of these communities may have passed under royal or episcopal control in the eighth and ninth centuries, even if the process was accelerated by the Scandinavian and West Saxon conquests in the later ninth and tenth centuries. The apparent wealth, political influence, and Continental associations of the eighth-century archbishops of York visible in Alcuin’s letters and his poem on York may have resulted in part from this process of expropriation: this would help to explain why the archbishops emerge as such important political players under Scandinavian kings in the later ninth and earlier tenth centuries, an issue explored in Chapter 5.

CONCLUSION The social strategies of Deiran kin groups, which lay behind the formation and dynamics of the ‘ecclesiastical aristocracy’, also explain the relationship between politics, conversion, and Christianization. From 616 to 642 the coexistence of 284  Blair 2005: 124–6. Ryan 2007. For the claims and discussion: Craster 1954; Morris 1977; Morris 1984; Aird 1998: 9–59. 286  CASSS VI: Wycliffe, Nos. 3 and 9; HSC c. 9; LDE ii.5, 92–5. 287  288  HSC c. 10; LDE ii.6, 98–9. See Chapter 4, pp. 156–60. 283  285 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Politics, Conversion, and Christianization, 616–867

127

some kin groups sympathetic to conversion with others who were not presented competing constituencies for rival contenders for political power. This resulted in official conversion, apostasy, and reconversion, but militated against the introduction of enduring Christian institutions. From 642 onwards the first generation of Deirans and Bernicians who had been Christian from birth reached maturity and embarked on ecclesiastical careers. This generation made the potential of Christianization manifest to their contemporaries and established the first enduring Christian institutions. Between 642 and 705 Christianization was sustained by political expansion and the foundation of religious communities helped to tie extended territories into an enlarged Northumbrian kingdom. Over the same period, kingship was remade as a Christian institution, but kings struggled to balance the expectations of warriors and ecclesiastics. From 705 to 748, Christianization continued apace as kings whose kingdoms had ceased to expand used religious patronage to purchase loyalty and support itineration. The alienation of royal resource territories changed the balance of wealth and power between kings and noble kin groups. Royal exploitation of religious communities raised questions about the moral authority of Christian kings. The rapid growth of the ‘ecclesiastical aristocracy’ prompted competition, criticism of royal behaviour, and calls for religious reform. From 748 to 867 kings struggled to control these political forces, producing chronic instability in royal succession, competition over ecclesiastical assets, and secular and episcopal expropriation of religious communities. Nevertheless, these social strategies and the resulting political developments produced an ‘ecclesiastical aristocracy’ with a network of religious communities which had the potential to spread Christianity amongst the Deirans as a whole. Chapter  4 will consider the ­network of religious communities and the evidence for their pastoral impact amongst the Deirans.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

4 The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867 The formation of an ‘ecclesiastical aristocracy’ established a network of religious communities amongst the Deirans. Chapter  4 uses the textual and material evidence to argue for a dense distribution of communities. It then explores the relationship between the ‘ecclesiastical aristocracy’ and the laity from 600 to 867. It suggests that the politics of religious patronage produced a network of communities at centrally accessible strategic points. It proposes that such locations were acceptable because they could be interpreted as sacred places suited to religious vocations. It considers two indications that religious communities were pastoral centres: first, the correspondence between early religious communities and high medieval mother churches controlling extended mother parishes; and second, the textual and material evidence that communities recognized pastoral responsibilities. Finally, it reviews changes in mortuary ritual as a reflection of Christianization.

RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES IN THE KINGDOM OF THE DEIRANS, 600–867 Textual sources record the foundation of a significant number of communities (Map 6). In 648 Abbess Heiu ‘withdrew to the civitatem Calcariam, which is called Kælcacæster (Tadcaster) by the English people, in which place she made her dwelling (mansionem instituit)’;1 Heiu perhaps founded or entered a religious community, but Bede does not say so, despite mentioning three further communities in the same chapter.2 In 651 King Oswiu founded Ingetlingum (Gilling near Richmond).3 In 653 Oswine’s successor Æthelwald, king or sub-king 1   HE iv.23 (21). Rivet and Smith (eds) 1979: 288–9; PNWRY: IV, 96–7; Campbell 1979b: 99–100: Roman Calcaria was referred to as Old English Tadcaster, with Bede’s civitas and Old English cæster demonstrating Anglo-Saxon recognition of its Roman past. 2   Campbell 1979b: 99–100; HE 270, n. 2. 3   HE iii.14, iii.24. For location: Morris 2008: 21–3; Wood 2008: 17–18; Pickles 2009c. Ingetlingum could be Gilling near Richmond or Gilling in Ryedale, but Bede’s association of it with the mustering of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

129

of the Deirans, founded Læstingæu (Lastingham).4 King Oswiu granted twelve parcels of land to an unnamed religious community or communities in 655, including six amongst the Deirans; he founded Streoneshalh (Whitby) in 657, which established a daughter house at Hackness in 680.5 Ealhfrith, sub-king of the Deirans, founded Ripon in the 650s.6 Wilgils settled as a hermit on Spurn Point in the later 650s or 660s and established an endowed community.7 An episcopal church was founded at York in 627 and restored in the 660s, but there is only evidence for a community from the time of Bishop Bosa (678–705), probably in the Bishophill complex south of the Ouse.8 Bishop John founded a community at Beverley before 706 and visited another at Watton.9 A community existed at Cornu Vallis in 716, probably amongst the Deirans.10 During Osred’s reign (r. 706–16) Eanmund perhaps founded a community at Crayke; there was a hermit at Crayke by 767 and the Community of St Cuthbert later stayed there.11 Thrythwulf’s community in Silva Elmete existed c.731, perhaps modern Dewsbury.12 Communities existed at Coxwold and Stonegrave in 757–8.13 Bishop Pehtwine of Whithorn (Dum/Ga) was consecrated at Ælfet.ee or Ædelfet.ee in 763, perhaps Adlingfleet.14 This list is partial: Deiran communities were included only when authors had sufficient information and it suited their agenda. Textual evidence is detailed for the seventh century, but almost absent in the eighth and ninth centuries; Bede’s letter to Bishop Ecgberht of 734 suggests a boom in the foundation of communities from 705 to 734, but only Eanmund’s community—perhaps Crayke—is recorded. Spurn Point and Cornu Vallis are omitted from Bede’s  Historia Ecclesiastica. Coxwold and Stonegrave are known only from a single letter. To obtain a more comprehensive list it is necessary to consider the material culture.

an army 10 miles north-west of Catterick, and with a territory on loan to a royal companion, favour Gilling near Richmond.   HE iii.23. Watts 1994; Burton 1999: 39–40 for eleventh-century re-foundation.   HE iii.24, iv.23 (21). For location: Barnwell, Butler, and Dunn  2003; Pickles  2016b: 267–9; Wilmott 2017: 82. Streoneshalh is appropriate to the topography of the Whitby headland: Bede states that, like Whitby, it was 13 miles from Hackness; Bede associates it with a Roman signal station probably located on the Whitby headland; and there was an eleventh-century re-foundation at Whitby. 6 7   VCA ii.2; VCB c. 8; VW c. 8; HE iii.25, v.19.   VWil c. 1. For location: Boer 1964. 8   DPS vv. 857–70, 1507–20, 1602–11, 1621–32. For location: Morris 1986: 80–9; Rees-Jones 2013: 43–5. 9  Beverley: HE v.2, v.4–6; Blair 2001. Watton: HE v.3; PNERY 158; LPN 164–73. 10   Sermo cc. 21, 25–9; HA cc. 16–18. For possible locations: Hornsea or Spurn Point—Webb (trans.)  1998: 224, n. 1; Adlingfleet—Richardson  1985: 19–21; Kirkdale—Morris  2008: 21–3 and Morris 2015: 144–5. 11  Eanmund’s community: DA ll. 35–182; Howlett  1975; Ward  1991; Lapidge  1996: 382–98. Hermit: DPS vv. 1388–93. Community of St Cuthbert: HSC cc. 5, 10, 20, and LDE i.9, 46–7, ii.6, 98–9, and ii.13, 122–3. 12   HE ii.14. For location: Faull and Moorhouse (eds) 1981: I, 158–9, 171–4 and III, Map 14 and CASSS VIII: Dewsbury. 13   EHD I, No. 184. For locations: PNNRY 191–2; LPN 253–7; Coates  1995; PNNRY 54–5; Morris 1984–5. 14   ASC DE s.a. 762. For location: Richardson 1985: 15–16; Cambridge 1995: 148–54. 4 5

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

130

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Religious communities were multi-focal institutions with daughter foundations, estate churches, cells, oratories, chapels, novice houses, and hospitals.15 Any of these might have left a material signature identifiable with the religious life: a church, a cross, literate or liturgical objects, or cemeteries of unusual size or composition. Moreover, as the debates about Flixborough (Li) and Whithorn (Dum/Ga) have demonstrated, settlement histories can include separate phases with more or less religious characteristics.16 From the material culture it is only possible to create a map of potential sites. The corpus of stone sculpture is a crucial resource for identifying potential early ecclesiastical sites: it is tabulated by date (Table 15) and source (Table 16) and mapped (Map  15). The original distribution of sculpture is probably reflected in its current distribution. It survives almost exclusively at modern parish churches. An estimated 186 places have around 825 fragments, of which about 749 come from a parish church or its environs: where information is known, about seventy-one from the foundations, about fifty-six from the floor, and about 429 from the fabric. The proximity between identified stone sources and the present location of fragments suggests they have not moved far: around 305 of the 825 Yorkshire fragments may be from local stone sources; about eighty-nine of the 186 places with sculpture have fragments probably from local sources. Sites often preserve fragments from multiple monuments of different date, which seems more likely to result from repeated use of a site than the movement of fragments from disparate locations to one place: thirty-six places certainly had monuments of more than one period, and another sixty-six are likely to—over half of the 186 places with sculpture; 380 fragments come from sites with fragments from more than one period and another 359 are likely to—almost 90 per cent of the total number of fragments. The correlation between named religious communities and surviving sculpture suggests some fragments retained their location over long periods: of a maximum of eighteen named religious communities in Yorkshire, the sites of ten possess pre-tenth-century sculpture. The coincidence between fragments of sculpture and places to which Old Norse place-names denoting a church were applied in the ninth, tenth, or eleventh century suggests other sites with sculpture had significant early medieval churches: fourteen places with fragments of stone sculpture in Yorkshire have place-names incorporating the Old Norse element kirkja.17 Churches dated to the seventh, eighth, or ninth century are likely to represent churches used by religious communities, because local churches only proliferated in the tenth and eleventh centuries.18 The seventh-century crypt from Ripon

  Blair 2005: 196–204, 212–20.   Flixborough: Dobney, Jaques, Barrett, and Johnstone 2007; Loveluck and Atkinson 2007; Evans and Loveluck 2009; Blair 2011. Whithorn: Hill 1997. 17   See Chapter 6, pp. 244–53. 18   Morris 1989: 140–67; Blair 2005: 368–425; Chapter 6, pp. 269–77 for Yorkshire. 15 16

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

131

survives beneath Ripon minster.19 Excavations from the filling of the foundation trench for the first stone building at Hovingham gave radiocarbon dates of ad 420–690 (95 per cent) or ad 540–660 (68 per cent), and ad 610–890 (95 per cent) or ad 650–780 (68 per cent).20 Two churches—Ledsham and Conisbrough— probably belong to the eighth century, based on the dimensions of their ground plans and the architectural sculpture at Ledsham.21 Stone fragments from buildings, furniture, or shrines survive from known communities at Beverley, Hackness, Lastingham, Ripon, and Whitby, but also from Darfield, Hovingham, Kirby Hill (near Boroughbridge), Kirby Misperton, Kirkby Moorside, Kirkdale, Leeds, Lythe, Melsonby, Middleton, Rothwell, Skipwith, West Witton, and Wycliffe.22 Monuments with multivalent images are likely to represent places connected to religious communities, because of the knowledge required to design, carve, and interpret them. They survive from known religious communities at Hackness and Whitby, but also from Collingham, Croft, Crofton, Cundall, Dewsbury, Easby, Hovingham, Ilkley, Little Ouseburn, Masham, Otley, Rothwell, Sheffield, and Skipwith.23 The same applies to monuments with Latin, Old English, or runic inscriptions, from known communities at Hackness, Ripon, Whitby, and York, but also from Dewsbury, Thornhill, Wensley, Wycliffe, and Yarm.24 Given that production of stone sculpture was apparently restricted to religious communities in this period, it is possible that any site with surviving fragments was connected with a religious community. Matching known religious communities with excavated settlements or cemeteries, and identifying other potential communities from excavations, is complicated by the absorption of some secular aristocratic culture by members of the ‘ecclesiastical aristocracy’, the heterogeneous character of religious communities, the small number of secular and religious sites that have been excavated, and the partial extent of those excavations. Each case should be considered independently. Settlements connected with known religious communities have been uncovered at Whitby and Kirkdale. Excavations at Streoneshalh (Whitby) took place around the thirteenth-century Abbey. Immediately north of the Abbey church 20   Taylor and Taylor 1965–78: II, 516–18.   Pacitto and Watts 2009: 51–60.  Ledsham: CASSS VIII: Ledsham 3–5; Taylor and Taylor  1965–78: I, 378–84; Bailey  1983; Faull 1986; Butler 1993; Gem 1993. Conisbrough: Davies 1980b; Ryder and Hey 1982: 45–62. 22   CASSS III: Beverley 1, Hackness 5, Hovingham 5, Kirkby Moorside 6, Kirkdale 7–8, Kirby Misperton 2–3, Lastingham 7–10, Middleton 9. CASSS VI: Kirby Hill 12, Lythe 36–7, Melsonby 1, Whitby 46–7, 50–4, Wycliffe 8–9. CASSS VIII: Darfield 1, Leeds 8, Ripon 8–10, Rothwell 1–2. Skipwith: Hall, Kendall, and Briden 2008: 455–7. 23   CASSS III: Hackness 1, Hovingham 5. CASSS VI: Croft 1, Cundall 1, Easby 1, Masham 1, Whitby 50. CASSS VIII: Collingham 1–2, Crofton 1–2, Dewsbury 1–5, 9, Ilkley 1–3, 8, Little Ouseburn 5, Otley 1–2, Rothwell 1–2, Sheffield 1. Skipwith: Hall, Kendall, and Briden 2008: 446–55. 24   CASSS III: Hackness 1, York Minster 20–2, York St Mary Bishophill Junior 5, York St Leonard’s Place 1. CASSS VI: Wensley 8–9, Whitby 20–4, 26, 34, 47, 48, Wycliffe 1, Yarm 1. CASSS VIII: Dewsbury 1, 5, 10, Ripon 1, Thornhill 1–4. 19 21

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

132

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

were a range of stone-footed buildings, apparently separated by pathways, and a probable female cemetery with memorial stele. To the north-west an area of extensive and intensively occupied settlement included a rectangular hall-like building, post-built rectangular structures, wells, pits, ditches, and gullies, and a hearth yielded an archaeomagnetic date of 605–805. To the north-east on the headland was a hall-type building measuring 6m x 14m and associated with glass-working debris including a millefiori rod. To the south was a mixed cemetery with a probable mortuary chapel and 225 graves comprising adult males and females as well as juveniles, from which a cremation was radiocarbon dated ad 610–80 at 95 per cent confidence and a Series E, Type 6 sceatta dated ad 700–40 was discovered. In several places a major boundary ditch was encountered, enclosing the headland, with a coin of Archbishop Eanbald II (796–830) in its uppermost fill. Material culture included styli (writing implements), book mounts, window glass, and jet discs carved with crosses, and the largest collection of seventh- to ninth-century stone sculpture from any site in England.25 At Kirkdale excavations were prompted by the existence of two eighth- to ninth-century stone slabs, probably from box shrines, and a reused Roman sarcophagus lid carved with a sundial and an inscription recording the purchase and rebuilding of an earlier mynster of St Gregory in the mid eleventh century.26 To the north of the churchyard boundary wall a series of burials were found including men, women, and children, with pottery fragments from the eighth and ninth centuries; these were covered by an occupation layer with a timber building, craft-working debris including a millefiori glass rod, and an inscribed lead plaque carrying the Old English word bancyst, ‘bone box’, perhaps from a reliquary chest; geophysical survey identified a possible boundary ditch in the field.27 Cemeteries probably associated with early religious communities have been uncovered at Addingham, Crayke, Pontefract, Ripon, and Skipwith (Tables 12–13, Map 14). Archbishop Wulfhere fled York for Addingham in 872, raising the possibility that it was part of an archiepiscopal property and housed a community.28 Excavations to the west of the parish church revealed fifty-six W–E aligned graves laid out in four rows, with little intercutting, more densely packed to the east than the west, including thirty-nine primary burials, nine empty burials in two of the westerly rows, and twenty-seven secondary burials reinterred with primary burials. Radiocarbon dating of four individuals returned dates of ad 660–880, 660–890, 670–980, and 790–1020, suggesting use from the eighth or ninth century. The densely packed eastern burials and re-interment suggested an eastern focus, possibly a church.29 25   Peers and Radford 1943; Rahtz 1962 and Rahtz 1967; Rahtz 1976; Cramp 1993; Wilmott 2017. CASSS VI: Whitby. 26   CASSS III: Kirkdale 7–8, 10. 27   Watts, Grenville, and Rahtz 1996–7; Rahtz and Watts 1997; Watts, Rahtz, Okasha, Bradley, and Higgitt 1997; Watts, Grenville, and Rahtz 1998–9; Rahtz and Watts 2003: 299–301. 28 29   HR II, s.a. 872; LDE ii.6, 98–9; FH s.a. 872.  Adams 1996.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

133

At Crayke a religious community is suggested from textual evidence, and two fragments of an early ninth-century cross were found near Crayke Hall in  1937.30 Excavations to the east of the present churchyard wall in Castle Garth uncovered a cemetery of at least thirty-one men, women, and children, buried W–E, with no intercutting, and Carbon-14 dating of one individual returned a date of ad 770–1020: the excavator suggested an earlier church perhaps existed near Crayke Hall with the cemetery focused around it.31 Pontefract was apparently a royal vill with adjacent church settlement. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle relates that King Eadred visited Tanshelf in 947 and a gloss to the Historia Regum states that Tanshelf was a royal vill known in the twelfth century by the Old Norse name kirkja-by(r), ‘church farm’ or ‘farm of the church’, and the Latin name Pontefract.32 Robert de Lacy founded a Cluniac Priory at Pontefract in 1090 and the endowment included the church of All Saints in the vill of Kirkeby.33 Excavations near All Saints in the Booths and at Tanners Row uncovered a cemetery of almost 100 burials including the remains of 197 individuals and a pre-Conquest church with three phases of building—a timber church and a single-celled stone church later extended with a second cell. Phase 1 probably included a burial with a radiocarbon date of ad 600–780. Phase 2 succeeded this but pre-dated the first timber church. Phase 3 was contemporary with the stone church, and a cluster of around twenty infant burials close to the west wall had radiocarbon dates of the ninth or tenth century. An extension of this cemetery may have been uncovered close to the castle chapel of St Clements. This raises the possibility of an eighth- or ninth-century timber church associated with an earlier cemetery, which gave rise to the Old Norse place-name ‘church farm’ or ‘farm of the church’.34 The religious community at Ripon is well known from the textual evidence, the surviving crypt, and stone sculpture.35 Excavations on Ailcy Hill, a natural mound 200m east of Ripon Minster, uncovered a minimum of thirty-seven burials and disarticulated bones from at least 140 individuals, apparently buried in three phases on different alignments. Phase 1 included men, women, juveniles, and infants, buried W–E, and radiocarbon dating of one burial produced a date of ad 560–660. Phase 2 apparently included only adult males, buried WNW–ESE, between four and nine probably buried in chests, and radiocarbon dating of two individuals returned dates of ad 660–810 and 680–880. Phase 3 included adult males and juveniles, buried WSW–ENE, inserted between the Phase 2 rows, and radiocarbon dating of two individuals returned dates of ad 780–990 and 660–860. Phase 1 has been interpreted as a lay cemetery, Phase 2 as the cemetery of a male religious community, and Phase 3, tentatively, as a cemetery of outsiders.36 31   See pp. 128–9. CASSS VI: Crayke.  Adams 1990. 33   ASC D s.a. 947; HR I, s.a. 948; HR II, s.a. 949.   Holmes (ed.) 1889–1902: I, No. 1. 34 35   Roberts (ed.) 2002: 9–10, 84–5, 401–4.   See pp. 128–9. CASSS VIII: Ripon 1–2, 5–11. 36   Hall and Whyman 1996. 30 32

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

134

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Stone surveying in Skipwith church tower brought to light two pieces of stone sculpture suggesting a religious community: a fragment from the arm of  a stone chair with a zoomorphic terminal, and part of a frieze or shrine carved with an image of the Women at the Sepulchre.37 Excavations discovered a structure earlier than the church tower, probably an earlier church, apparently contemporary with thirteen burials of men, women, and children, some in chests or coffins, three of which returned radiocarbon dates of ad 680–880, 770–980, and 790–990.38 This evidence suggests a dense network of religious communities. This observation comes with a caveat: it is impossible to establish an absolute figure for the number of religious communities, either across the period or at any moment. Religious communities cannot easily be distinguished from their satellites or from places with access to their expertise. A minimalist estimate for the whole period, accepting only those communities recorded in written sources and those for which there are multiple indications of the presence of a religious community, would be seventeen to twenty-five communities.39 An estimate for the whole period accepting all potential sites mentioned in the above discussion would be forty-five to fifty-two communities.40 A maximalist estimate for the whole period accepting all these sites, plus all those with stone sculpture dated to the seventh, eighth, or ninth century, would be seventy to seventy-seven communities.41 The evidence is spread over time: seventeen to twenty-three places first have evidence in the late seventh or early eighth century, fourteen in the eighth century, twenty-five in the late eighth or early ninth century, and sixteen in the ninth century. For only a small number of these places is there positive evidence that the religious community or its church existed for an extended period: textual references for Beverley,42 Crayke,43

38   Bailey 2008; Hawkes 2008.   Hall, Kendall, and Briden 2008: 399–413.   Certain sites in written sources: Beverley, Cornu Vallis, Coxwold, Crayke, In silva Elmete/Dewsbury, Hackness, Gilling near Richmond, Lastingham, Ripon, Spurn Point, Stonegrave, Watton, Whitby, and York = 14. Possible sites in written sources: Adlingfleet, Tadcaster = 2. Unidentified sites = 6 possible communities founded by Oswiu around 655. Total possible from written sources = 14–22—dependent on whether any of the recorded communities were amongst those founded by Oswiu. Sites with more than one indication: Dewsbury, Hovingham, Kirkdale, Skipwith, Wycliffe = 5. Total = 17–24. 40   All other potential sites mentioned in the discussion: Addingham, Darfield, Collingham, Conisbrough, Croft, Crofton, Cundall, Easby, Hovingham, Ilkley, Kirby Hill, Kirby Misperton, Kirkby Moorside, Ledsham, Leeds, Little Ouseburn, Lythe, Masham, Melsonby, Middleton, Otley, Pontefract, Rothwell, Sheffield, Thornhill, Wensley, West Witton, Yarm = 28. Total = 17–24 + 28 = 45–52. 41   Remaining sites with sculpture dated to the seventh, eighth, or ninth century: Barningham, Brignall, Catterick, Cotherstone, Danby Wiske, Filey, Frickley, Gilling in Ryedale, Great Ayton, Hartshead, Hauxwell, Hunmanby, Ingleby Arncliffe, Kirby Knowle, Leake, Leven, Marrick, Northallerton, North Otterington, Patrington, Rastrick, Sprotbrough, Wakefield, West Tanfield, Wharram Percy = 25. 42   HE v.2, v.6; De Abbatia Beverlaic II, 343–5, Abbess Wolfrida buried in 742, Abbot Bercthun died c.733 × 740, Abbot Wynewald died c.751, Abbot Wulfelth died c.773. Morris and Cambridge  1989; Palliser 2000. 43   DPS vv. 1388–93; HR I, s.a. 767; HSC cc. 5, 10, 20; LDE i.9, 46–7, ii.6, 98–9, ii.13, 122–3. 37 39

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

135

Ripon,44 and York;45 continuing erection of stone buildings or monuments at Darfield, Dewsbury, Hackness, Ilkley, Lastingham, Ledsham, Lythe, Northallerton, Otley, Ripon, Whitby, and York Minster; and continued burial in the cemeteries at Addingham, Crayke, Pontefract, Ripon, and Skipwith.

THE TOPOGRAPHY OF RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES Two foundation narratives provide an insight into the socio-political and religious concerns behind the topographical location of religious communities. Bede’s account of the foundation of Lastingham in 653 suggests that Æthelwald, king of the Deirans, offered Cedd land, and Cedd chose a site and completed a Lenten cleansing ritual before foundation.46 Æthelwulf’s description of the foundation of the community in which he lived, perhaps at Crayke, suggests that the founder Eanmund wrote to Ecgberht to request an altar and advice on  a suitable location, in response to which Ecgberht described a vision of the location.47 Their common elements suggest that there were two significant considerations: the politics of patronage and the suitability of the site for its religious purpose. These produced a network of religious communities at strategically significant, accessible places, but which were understood as sacred places suitable for religious vocations. From the later 640s socio-political competition focused on religious communities.48 Religious communities founded during the competition between Oswiu, king of the Bernicians (r. 642–70), and his rivals Oswine (r. 644–51), Æthelwald (r. 651–5), and Ealhfrith (r. 655–?), kings of the Deirans, reveal the relationship between socio-political competition, religious patronage, and topography.49 Socio-political competition influenced the macro-topography of religious communities—their position within the political geography of the kingdom. Gilling near Richmond was the first recorded religious community amongst the Deirans, in 651. Oswiu, king of the Bernicians, apparently founded it in expiation of the murder of Oswine, king of the Deirans, prompted by his wife Eanflæd, a relative of Oswine, and placed it under the control of another relative, Trumhere.50 The location suggests Oswiu consolidated his authority over the Deirans by granting to a Deiran relative part of a strategically important royal territory on the periphery of the kingdom, close to the junction of three 44   VW cc. 8, 17, 24, 44; VCA ii.2; VCB cc. 7–8; HE iii.25, v.19; Tangl (ed.) 1916: No. 131, for letter of Abbot Botwine to Lull 754 x 786; HR I, s.a. 786, 787, 790—Abbot Botwine died in 786, Abbot Æthelberht died in 787, King Æthelred captured his dux Eardwulf outside Ripon in 790 and they cared for Eardwulf. 45   Brooke 1997; Rollason, Fellows-Jensen, and Gore 1978; James 1995: 9–12. 46 47 48   HE iii.23.   DA cc. 11–12.   See Chapter 3, pp. 105–8. 49   Wood 2008, Pickles 2012: 2–17, and Morris 2015, inspired what follows and offer more wideranging discussions focused more particularly on the religious communities of Ryedale. 50   HE iii.14, iii.24.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

136

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Roman roads key to movement between the Deirans, the Bernicians, and British territories over the Pennines.51 The second recorded community was Lastingham, in 653. Æthelwald’s decision to grant land to Cedd, bishop of the East Saxons, may have been an attempt to cut across the political influence created by Oswiu through his overlordship of neighbouring kingdoms and the work of his bishops, as well as creating a centre to promote his royal line.52 These political concerns may be reflected in the grant of land from a royal territory in Ryedale: Lastingham was perched on the edge of this strategically important region, which connected the Deiran heartlands of the Wolds and the Vale of York, and was a few miles from the Roman road traversing the North York Moors. After Æthelwald’s death, Oswiu founded his own dynastic mausoleum to commemorate the connections between the Deiran and Bernician royal lines at Streoneshalh (Whitby):53 it was a few miles from the other end of the Roman road across the North York Moors, on the only estuary between the Tees and Humber, in association with the site of a Roman signal station. Following his experiences with Oswine and Æthelwald, Oswiu installed his own son, Ealhfrith, as king of the Deirans.54 During the 650s Ealhfrith granted land at Ripon to Eata, abbot of Melrose, probably as a strategy to give Bernicians interests in Deiran territories.55 The location may be politically significant: at the junction of the rivers Ure and Skell, midway up the Vale of York, on its drier and more valuable western fringe, where the Pennine river valley of Wensleydale, important for movement between the kingdom of the Deirans and British territories to the west, meets the valley floor. By about 660 Ealhfrith had ejected Eata in favour of Wilfrid, establishing more independent control over this community and its strategic position for the king of the Deirans.56 Oswiu’s successor, Ecgfrith, was initially a generous patron to Wilfrid and Ripon, giving them control of a series of strategic points on the Pennine passes: Ingeadyne, probably a territory based around Yeadon in Wharfedale, iuxta Rippel, probably a territory in the Ribble valley, and Incaetlaevum, perhaps a territory near modern Catlows, which together dominate the route to the Irish Sea via the Wharfe and Ribble river valleys; and the regione Dunutinga, which was probably a territory around modern Dent, controlling the western descent of routes to the River Lune from Wharfedale via Ribblehead and from Wensleydale via Garsdale or Dentdale.57 Ecgfrith granted other unnamed lands, probably including some in the Lune valley, where there are early fragments of sculpture and dedications to St Wilfrid.58 Gilling near Richmond, Lastingham, Streoneshalh (Whitby), and Ripon are the only communities whose history is sufficiently well documented to reveal the connection between socio-political competition, religious patronage, and topography.   Pickles 2009c: 315–21, 324–5.    52  See Chapter 3, pp. 105–6.    53  HE iii.24.   HE iii.14.   55  VCA ii.2; VCB c. 7.   56  VW c. 8; VCB c. 8; HE iii.25, v.19. 57 58   VW c. 17. Locations: Roper 1974; Jones 1995; Clark 2011: 118–20.  Clark 2010. 51 54

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

137

Nevertheless, they established a pattern that is reflected in the distribution of known or probable religious communities across the kingdom of the Deirans. The strategic corridor of Ryedale, connecting the Wolds and the Vale of York, was a particular focus for religious patronage, with known or probable religious communities disposed along the Roman roads and their junctions at Coxwold, Crayke, Hovingham, Kirkdale, and Stonegrave.59 The north-eastern coastal plain was apparently dominated by Streoneshalh (Whitby), its daughter house at Hackness, and its probable satellites at Lythe and Osingadun (Easington?).60 Along the northern and southern fringe of the kingdom there are a series of sites with probable or possible communities: Yarm, Croft, and Wycliffe on Tees; Spurn Point at the tip of Holderness and Adlingfleet at the mouth of the Humber; and Conisbrough and Sheffield, on the Sheaf and the Roman road from Manchester. Every major river and Pennine valley had a known or suspected community: Dewsbury, close to the junction of the Calder with a Roman road; Leeds, at the junction of the Aire with a Roman road; Addingham, Ilkley, Otley, and Collingham on the Wharfe and the Wharfedale Roman roads; Wensley and Masham on the Wensley/Ure; and Easby and Cundall on the Swale. Socio-political competition influenced the macro-topography of religious communities, but ideas about sacred place influenced their micro-topography. The topographical locations of Deiran religious communities named in surviving written texts are summarized in Table  2. A consistent micro-topography elucidated for other regions holds true for Yorkshire too.61 Communities are overwhelmingly associated with coastal and riverine locations. They often sit alongside the estuaries where important rivers meet the sea: inland, they regularly sit on a river or at the junction of two rivers, occupying gravel terraces above, or amidst, alluvial deposits. At coastal and inland locations there is a preference for elevation, either a hilltop, an elevated position in a river valley, or a raised peninsula or headland. Pre-existing features, natural or man-made, provided enclosure—natural islands on the coast, notional islands, bounded by rivers, within a floodplain, or within woodland clearings. Pre-existing structures were reoccupied—Iron Age and Roman ruins. A range of pragmatic concerns such as suitable resources, pre-existing settlements, physical accessibility, and visibility will have governed the choice of such. However, the consistency with which these characteristics recur suggests that there was more than pragmatism at work and these sites had to be understood as suitable to religious vocations. If the Scriptural associations of these topographical characteristics are reconstructed from the Scriptural commentary through which members of the communities were educated, then it becomes clear that they were equipped 60   Morris 2008; Wood 2008; Pickles 2012: 6–13; Morris 2015.   Pickles 2016b: 270–4.   Hill 1966; Rodwell 1984; Blair 1988a; Morris 1989: 46–92; Blair 1992; Stocker 1993; Hase 1994; Blair 1996; Hall 2000; Pestell 2004: 21–64; Blair 2005: 182–45. 59 61

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

138

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Table 2.  The topographical locations of Deiran religious communities, c.600–c.867 Site Name

Local Topography

Drift Geology

Drift Sheet No.

Adlingfleet

Stands on slightly raised ground within an area of flat, marshy land, with the River Ouse to the north and the River Trent to the west.

Stands on the alluvial deposits close to the confluence of the rivers Trent and Ouse with the Humber.

80

Beverley

Stands on a slight ridge above the River Hull, with reasonable views of the Holderness peninsula.

Stands on a ridge of stony clay till just to the east of the alluvial deposits of the River Hull.

72

Coxwold

Stands on the shoulder of a hill, which rises to the west, and affords extensive views across the vale to the north, east, and south.

Stands on a layer of till.

52

Crayke

Stands on the summit of a high hill, with extensive views to all sides, into the Vale of York, towards the Vale of Pickering and into Ryedale.

Stands on an expanse of till.

53

Dewsbury

Stands on flat ground, now subsumed within the modern town of Dewsbury.

Stands on the alluvial deposits of the River Calder.

77

Gilling near Richmond

Stands on flat ground in the valley bottom, with limited views to the valley edges.

Stands on an island of till, surrounded by the alluvial deposits of Gilling Beck.

41

Hackness

Stands on flat ground in the Derwent Valley, enclosed and protected by a horseshoe of hills.

Stands on a layer of peat in the valley, looking south to the alluvial deposits of the River Derwent.

35, 44

Howden

Stands to the south of the market place in the modern town.

Stands on a layer of silt and clay just above the alluvial deposits of the old course of the River Ouse.

79

Lastingham

Stands on a hill, which rises from the Hodge Beck to the east of the church towards the Moors to the north and west, and affords some views of the vale to the south-west.

Stands on the border between Osgodby formation sandstone and Oxford clay mudstone.

43

Ripon

Stands on an eastward projecting spur above the rivers Ure and Skell, with good views to the south east.

Stands on a tongue of Middle Marl overlooking the alluvial deposits of the rivers Ure and Skell.

 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



139

The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

Stonegrave

Stands on the shoulder of a hill on the edge of Ryedale, which rises to the north-west and affords extensive views of the vale to the south and west.

Stands on the border between upper calcareous grit and Kimmeridge clay, above the lacustrine deposits of the valley below.

53

Tadcaster

Stands on the western bank of the River Wharfe, with limited views, but close to the former Roman fort.

Stands on the boundary between glacio-fluvial sand and gravels, shale and alluvium silts, and clays overlying gravels, deposited by the River Wharfe.

70

Watton

Stands to the east of the present village, slightly to the north of Watton Beck, on raised ground.

Stands on the stony clay till to the north of the alluvial deposits of a tributary of the River Hull.

72

Whitby

Stands on the shoulder of a promontory, overlooking the River Esk to the west and the North Sea to the north, and affording extensive views of the Esk Valley to the south and west.

Stands on a layer of till formed from clay with pebbles and gravel.

York Minster

Stands within the principia of the Roman fort.

Stands on an island of boulder clay, with alluvial deposits from the rivers Ouse and Foss to the west, south, and east.

35, 44

63

to understand such locations as sacred places suitable for the various aspects of their vocation, from asceticism to pastoral action.62 Since this point has already been made with reference to Anglo-Saxon religious communities more generally, it will be illustrated through the topography of three Deiran communities— Lastingham, Crayke, and Streoneshalh (Whitby). Lastingham is located on a geological and topographical boundary, between the Osgodby formation sandstone and the Oxford clay mudstone, and the agricultural land of Ryedale and the moorland of the North York Moors. The significance of this location was signalled by the topographical terms applied to the settlement and the community, Old English eg and hamm, which were equivalents denoting an island of good land surrounded by moorland.63 From at least two perspectives this island could be considered a desert-like or wilderness location. Scripture and commentary dwelt on the idea of hills  Pickles 2011.

62

  Watts 1994.

63

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

140

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

and mountains as wilderness landscapes symbolizing the church in exile on earth, the elect in heaven, and the city of God to come.64 Texts from AngloSaxon England understood moorland as a threatening wilderness landscape, inhabited by nefarious men and evil spirits.65 The community and Bede were clearly drawing on such associations in the foundation narrative: Cedd chose himself a site for the religious community amid some steep and remote hills which seemed better fitted for the haunts of robbers and the dens of wild beasts than for human habitation; so that, as Isaiah says, ‘In the lairs where dragons once lived, reeds and rushes will arise’ [Isaiah 35:7], that is the fruit of good works shall spring up where once beasts dwelt or where men lived after the manner of beasts.66

Like the desert fathers, Cedd was occupying a wilderness landscape, in the hills, suitable for brigands and beasts, but transforming it to his own use. Nevertheless, there is more to this location and passage. Hills and mountains were a symbol of the pastoral activity at the heart of the church’s mission.67 Constructing the Temple on the mountain paralleled the process by which each human being moved from the mountain of pride to the mountain of the house of the Lord. Ascending and descending from hills and mountains stood for the contemplation, prayer, and study at the heart of the religious vocation, but also the duty to follow the apostolic tradition of teaching and preaching. The foundation narrative alluded to these symbolic associations through the quotation from Isaiah. Gregory the Great was a rare exception in commenting on this passage and was championed by Bede, so Bede probably had his commentary in mind.68 He wrote: This verdure is promised to the desert by the voice of the prophet, when it is said: ‘In the lairs where dragons once lived, reeds and rushes will arise.’ What indeed is designated by the reed unless scribes, what by the rush, which always grows near to moisture of water, unless small and tender hearers of the sacred word? Therefore in the lairs of dragons reeds and rushes will arise, because in those people, which the malice of the old enemy possessed, both the knowledge of teachers and the obedience of hearers is brought together.69

Lastingham, amidst its steep and remote hills, was therefore envisaged not just as an island in the wilderness but also as a place suited to learning, writing, teaching, and preaching—to the transformation of its members and those around from the mountain of pride to the mountain of the house of the Lord.

65   Pickles 2011: 46–8.   Charles Edwards 1974; Morris 2005. 67   HE iii.23.   Pickles 2011: 48–9. 68   This comment is based on a comprehensive search of the Corpus Christianorum Series Latina editions of patristic texts, using the indices of biblical citations, where I could find no other references to this passage. 69   Gregory the Great, Moralia in Iob, XXXIX.26.52, ed. CCSL 143B: 1470, lines 57–65. The translation is my own. 64 66

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

141

Richard Morris’s work is providing a spectacular context for this transformation. The church is located in relation to springs, and parts of a probable Roman shrine were apparently reused in an eighth-century tomb shrine, which may explain Cedd’s concern to cleanse the site from unspecified former crimes.70 The church may also form part of a wider ritual landscape. A track leads from Lastingham onto the moors via Holiday Hill (Holy Day Hill?) to the Three Howes above Rosedale, where Ainhow (OE ān the ‘one’ howe) is associated with medieval crosses, one called Ana Cross: on walking to the Three Howes, two visible howes become three as Ainhow with Ana Cross rises up in the centre, which evokes ‘a vision of Calvary’ and raises ‘the possibility of liturgical journeys from the monastery up onto the moor on certain holy days’.71 Finally, the ironstone beds exposed at the surface beside the Three Howes have magnetic properties that attract lightning strikes, which may lie behind Bede’s story that Cedd used thunder and lightning storms as a practical and theological lesson in the importance of prayer for mercy in the face of judgement.72 Crayke sat atop a rocky hill, probably in a clearing surrounded by woodland. The place-name ‘Crayke’, which became the community’s name, derives from the Brittonic term crüg, ‘rock’, presumably with reference to the rocky hilltop.73 The importance of its woodland location is suggested by a later Durham tradition. By the twelfth century the Durham archive included a charter purporting to record the seventh-century grant of Crayke to Cuthbert.74 Now, this is either an unreliable copy or an outright forgery, and the claim of an early grant to Cuthbert in the Historia de Sancto Cuthberto, Symeon’s Libellus de Exordio, and this charter may be no more than a spurious rationalization of a subsequent connection with the Community of St Cuthbert.75 However, a genuine feature of the community’s foundation and topography, preserved by the community and transmitted to Durham, may underlie an unusual characteristic of this copy or forgery. It asserts that Crayke was granted along with a circuit of miles, set out in a formula only otherwise found in Continental Irish influenced communities, and also claimed for the Durham property at Carlisle.76 It seems more likely that this unusual formula was a feature of the two properties rather than a fiction of the copier or forger, because it is hard to know how and why a twelfth-century monk would have alighted on this appropriate notion and applied it only to two places. This likelihood is increased by the preservation of an analogous circuit in the later medieval woodland boundaries around Crayke.77 Crayke’s topography is consistent with Æthelwulf’s description of the location chosen for Eanmund’s community, but it is not possible to prove the two were

71   Morris 2015: 133–4.   Morris 2015: 129–31. 73   HE iv.3; Morris 2015: 131–2.   LPN 159–63. 74 75   S 66.   HSC cc. 5, 10, 20; LDE i.9, 46–7. 76   Chaplais 1969: 537–8; Wormald 1984: 17, 31, n. 47. 70 72

 Kaner 1993.

77

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

142

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

one and the same place.78 Either way, Æthelwulf’s narrative offers a useful insight into the significance a location like this could have for the members of a religious community. Hills and mountains could be conceived of as wilderness locations, but rocks, hills, and mountains could also symbolize people of notable virtue or vice, the mountains of God whose head was Christ on whom the city of God was founded, or the mountains of this world whose head was the devil: as Bede commented, the Temple was built on the mountain because it was built on Christ, the foundation of the church, and the process of construction paralleled the process of transformation of each human being who became Christian.79 Woodland represented a desert-like place, but was the repository of more meaning: trees represented particular virtues and vices, were the Scriptures to be meditated upon, and were reminders of the importance of Christian mission—charity through good works and protection, correction through teaching and preaching, and renewal as timbers in the house of the Lord.80 Crayke could be considered suitable for a religious community as an ‘island in the wilderness’—a hilltop location, with woodland requiring clearance, inhabited by brigands.81 Yet in light of these wider Scriptural traditions, other ways of reading this topography in terms of religious vocation and pastoral action become clear. Æthelwulf may have equated the construction of the Temple and the Tabernacle with the foundation of Eanmund’s community; at the very least his narrative would have encouraged others to do so. The Temple’s location on a mountain facing east with its door towards the rising sun was thought to be a symbol of the duty of the church to direct its concentration to the east and receive the light of God, just as Ecgberht’s vision was of a hill with an eastern-facing aspect.82 The Tabernacle was constructed from acacia wood, stripped of its thorns, just as Eanmund was instructed to strip the thorns as a preparation for constructing his community, a process which was widely interpreted as the stripping of sins and vices, the cares and delights of this world, and which Bede understood as the necessary preparation undertaken by preachers before preaching and teaching.83 The tradition of associating woodland with the charitable act of protection is interesting in light of the potential zone of sanctuary or immunity around Crayke and of Æthelwulf’s meditation on the replacement of an evil band under arms with the members of his community. Streoneshalh (Whitby) was perched on a headland above the Esk estuary, overlooking the harbour and the North Sea, adjacent to the ruins of a former 79   See p. 129 n. 11.  Bede, De Templo, I, ed. CCSL 119A: 158, lines 460–9. Pickles 2011: 47–8. 81   Pickles 2011: 50–1.   DA cc. 11–12. 82  Bede, Homeliarum Evangelii ii.1, ed. CCSL 122: 190, lines 210–21. 83  Ambrose, Exameron III.xi.48, ed. CSEL 32.1: 91, lines 3–17; Augustine, In Iohannis Evangelium Tractatus CXXIV, XLVI.6, ed. CCSL 36: 401–2, lines 16–27; Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos, In Psalmum XXXI, Enarr. I, c. 4, ed. CCSL 38: 223; Gregory the Great, Moralia in Iob, xvii.17.23, ed. CCSL 143A: 865–6, lines 10–23; Bede, Homeliarum Evangelii, ii.25, ed. CCSL 122: 371, lines 109–19; Bede, De Tabernaculo ii.5, ed. CCSL 119A: 60, lines 718–31. 78 80

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

143

Roman signal station.84 Streoneshalh seems to translate literally as ‘nook of wealth/treasure’, with the element halh, ‘nook’, denoting the headland on which the community stood, but its original significance was probably more precise, because it was consistently applied to productive fishing places, emphasizing in this case the coastal and estuarine topography.85 Because the sea was equated with the forces of chaos but the seashore with God’s power over those forces, coastlines were liminal locations on the border between the troubles of the present life and uninterrupted continuance of eternal life: they could be considered suitable locations for churches in general and religious communities in particular, as theatres for operation against evil forces, as metaphors for the stability of the church in face of the forces of this world, and as reminders of the duty of God’s servants to work in the sea of the world as apostolic fishers of men to provide a fruitful catch at the last judgement.86 Rivers provided a perfect parallel for the passage from birth through life to death, signifying the troubles of the present life that carry away the soul as well as the role of religious communities in setting themselves up against the rivers of the world and fulfilling a responsibility to pour forth the word of God.87 Watchtowers had more specific associations with the watchtowers of Sion as pre-figurations of the role of bishops, abbots, and abbesses in admonishing and teaching within and beyond their communities.88 All these strands run through the biography of Hild and her community at Streoneshalh (Whitby). This emphasizes her foundation of a community that trained six bishops and hosted the council of 664 where it was decided to follow Roman dates for Easter.89 When Bede introduced Hild’s community as the location for the council of 664, he used the place-name as the basis for an exegetical commentary.90 It was, he said, a place called Streoneshalh, which can be interpreted (quod interpretatur) as sinus fari, a construction contrasting with his usual explication of place-names with the phrase id est, ‘that is’.91 He translated ‘nook of wealth/treasure’ into Latin sinus, ‘bay/bosom/fold in a garment/hiding place’ and fari, ‘watchtower/lamp’.92 The significance becomes clear from his subsequent narrative of the vision in which Hild’s future was foretold: her pregnant mother dreamt that she found a precious necklace lodged in the folds of her garment, which spread a blaze of light that filled Britain with its gracious splendour.93 The topography of Hild’s community was bound up with the significance of her biography and vocation: Streoneshalh (Whitby) and Hild were treasures or lamps in the bay/bosom of Northumbria shining out across Britain.   Bell 1998; Wilmott 2017.   Bosworth and Toller  1898: 446, ge-stréon: gain, product, employment, wealth, riches, treasure. LPN 123–33, halh. For discussion: Coates 1981; Styles 1998; Hough 2002–3; and Hough 2003–4. 86 87 88   Pickles 2011: 40–2.   Pickles 2011: 44–6.   Pickles 2011: 52–4. 89 90 91   HE iii.25, iv.23 (21).   Hunter Blair 1985: 10–11.   HE iii.25. 92 93   Lewis and Short 1879: 1709–10, sinus. Bell 1998: 307–8, fari.   HE iv.23 (21). 84 85

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

144

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Political competition combined with notions of sacred place to produce a network of religious communities across Yorkshire at central, accessible locations that could be understood as suitable to religious vocations, including a spectrum of activity from ascetic retreat to teaching and preaching. The necessary institutional network existed for the conversion of local lay populations and the provision of pastoral care. This demonstrates that religious communities could have fulfilled this responsibility, but not that they did so. Two further strands of evidence deserve attention. The first is the correspondence between early religious communities and high medieval mother churches controlling large mother parishes. The second is the corpus of stone monuments suggesting individual communities subscribed to pastoral ideals.

RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES, MOTHER CHURCHES, AND MOTHER PARISHES In common with many other regions of England, there is a strong correlation in Yorkshire between early religious communities and high medieval mother churches controlling multiple parishes. Richard Morris and Dawn Hadley highlighted this correlation, but were not able to compare early religious communities and later mother churches comprehensively, producing suggestive but inconclusive results.94 A more comprehensive comparison is possible thanks to two projects. First, the Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture has produced volumes for Yorkshire. Second, an Exeter University team has created a database and digital maps of nineteenth-century parish boundaries. A brief excursus on the methodology for reconstructing high medieval mother churches is necessary. A basic assumption underlies the identification of high medieval mother churches: that medieval mother parishes may be identified using nineteenthcentury parish boundaries. This requires justification. A starting point is the stability in the number of parish churches from the thirteenth century to the eighteenth century. In 1288 Pope Nicholas IV granted to Edward I the right to collect papal taxes for the duration of six years. Edward established a commission to investigate parish finances and calculate the taxation owed. The commission produced the Taxatio Ecclesiastica, the first document that purports to list all English parishes.95 The Taxatio suggests that c.8,000 parish churches existed by 1291.96 Census returns from English benefices in 1801 suggest that c.11,000 parishes existed—a modest increase over the centuries.97 Studies of late AngloSaxon diplomas have revealed that estate boundaries often correspond to 94   Morris 1989: 134, fig. 127 and 137, fig. 29; Hadley 2000b: 216–97, revisited in Hadley 2006: 192–236. 95   Franklin 1982: 40–9, remains the best introduction to, and discussion of, the Taxatio. 96 97   Morris 1989: 147.   Morris 1989: 166, graph at fig. 37 (b).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

145

nineteenth-century parish boundaries, suggesting late Anglo-Saxon estates were the basis for parish boundaries and there was often long-term stability in those boundaries.98 Accepting this assumption allows us to use nineteenth-century parish boundaries as a basis for reconstructing medieval parishes. However, that process is complicated by nineteenth-century changes to parish boundaries. Victorian reforms subdivided ecclesiastical parishes into civil parishes (sometimes known as townships or tithings). This occurred before the first edition Ordnance Survey maps recorded parish boundaries. The 1870s first edition one-inch Ordnance Survey maps for northern England record both the ecclesiastical and civil parish boundaries, but are drawn at a large scale that makes the reconstruction of ecclesiastical parish boundaries a Herculean task. Subsequent editions drawn to a more practical scale include only the civil parishes. It was impractical for previous studies to reconstruct the whole network of medieval parishes for Yorkshire. This process is now manageable. EDINA Digimap completed a digital map of the civil parishes from the 1870s first edition Ordnance Survey maps.99 An Exeter University project compiled a database of the Census returns from 1851, listing all the ecclesiastical parishes and their subdivisions, with accompanying maps.100 By combining these two resources it has been possible to create a comprehensive digital map of the nineteenth-century ecclesiastical parishes of Yorkshire—essentially a map of the medieval parishes of Yorkshire. To reconstruct the network of mother churches with mother parishes, all the cartularies and episcopal registers compiled in Yorkshire before ad 1500 were searched for references to dependent churches and the parish boundaries were adjusted. Table 3 lists the references on which the map is based. Universal coverage was desirable, but there were practical limitations. Only cartularies and registers that are already transcribed have been searched. Not all the cartularies have been transcribed, but combining Early Yorkshire Charters with Regesta Regum Anglo-Normanorum and those that have produces sufficiently reliable results.101 The episcopal registers for 1255–65, 1342–95, and 1407–80 could not be considered, but items missed from these registers have probably been offset by information from the published volumes of the Victoria County History and the Yorkshire Archaeological Society’s Fasti Parochiales series.102 Three principles were applied in identifying mother parishes. First, where a single church controlled a number of contiguous parishes, the outer boundary of those parishes was used as the limit of the mother parish. Second, where a church controlled outlying areas with a number of independent parishes in   Hooke 1981; Hooke 1983; Hooke 1990; Hooke 1994; Hooke 1999.  http://www.edina.ac.uk/ukborders. 100   Kain and Oliver 2001 and http://hds.essex.ac.uk. 101 102   Davis 2010 for edited cartularies. EYC. RRAN.   VCHNR; VCHER; Fasti Parochiales. 98 99

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

146

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Table 3.  References to mother churches and chapels in medieval Yorkshire Mother Church

Dependency

Date

References

Adlingfleet

Ousefleet?

1164 × 1177

EYC I, 373–4, No. 487.

Adlingfleet

Reedness?

1164 × 1177

EYC I, 373–4, No. 487.

Adlingfleet

Whitgift?

1164 × 1177

EYC I, 373–4, No. 487.

Adwick upon Dearne

Marr

1536

VE 51.

Aldborough

Flaxby?

1158 × 1181

EYC VI, 117–18, No. 37.

Aldborough

Hampsthwaite

1175 × 1186

EYC I, 393–4, No. 510.

Aldborough

Kirk Stainley

1115 × 1129

EYC I, 392–3, No. 509.

Alne

Myton on Swale

1154 × 1161

Burton (ed.) (1978), 20–5, No. 13.

Aysgarth

Thoraldby

1314

RWGreen, 222–7, No. 2124.

Barnoldswick

Bracewell

1152 × 1153

EEA V, 92–5, No. 121.

Barnoldswick

Marton

1152 × 1153

EEA V, 92–5, No. 121.

Bishopthorpe

Walton

1225

RWGray, 2, No. 7.

Bridlington

Auburn

1119 × 1140

EEA V, 34–5, No. 37.

Bridlington

Bempton

Bridlington

Bessingby

1125 × 1133

EEA V, 36–7, No. 40.

Bridlington

Buckton

1119 × 1140

EEA V, 34–5, No. 37.

Lancaster (ed.) (1912), 47.

Bridlington

Grindale

1119 × 1140

EEA V, 34–5, No. 37.

Bridlington

Speeton

1119 × 1140

EEA V, 34–5, No. 37.

Brompton, nr Northallerton

Deighton

1143 × 1147

DEC 151–5, No. 37; CPG II, 52–6, No. 686.

Burnsall

Kilnsey

1154 × 1164

EEA XX, 30–1, No. 28.

Burton Fleming

Harpham

1156 × 1157

EYC I, 269–77, No. 354.

Burton Fleming

Butterwick

1156 × 1157

EYC I, 269–77, No. 354.

Burton Fleming

Foxholes

1156 × 1157

EYC I, 269–77, No. 354.

Catterick

Bolton on Swale

1121 × 1130

EYC V, 105–6, No. 185.

Cherry Burton

Leconfield

1198 × 1199

EYC XI, 75, No. 79.

Conisbrough

Aston

1164 × 1181

EYC VIII, 102–3, No. 55.

Conisbrough

Braithwell

c.1147

EYC VIII, 86–7, No. 34.

Conisbrough

Clifton

1164 × 1181

EYC VIII, 102–3, No. 55.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



147

The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

Conisbrough

Crookhill

1164 × 1181

EYC VIII, 102–3, No. 55.

Conisbrough

Dalton

1164 × 1181

EYC VIII, 102–3, No. 55.

Conisbrough

Dinnington

c.1147

EYC VIII, 86–7, No. 34.

Conisbrough

Firsby

1164 × 1181

EYC VIII, 102–3, No. 55.

Conisbrough

Fishlake

c.1147

EYC VIII, 86–7, No. 34.

Conisbrough

Greasbrough

1164 × 1181

EYC VIII, 102–3, No. 55.

Conisbrough

Guilthwaite

1164 × 1181

EYC VIII, 102–3, No. 55.

Conisbrough

Hatfield

c.1147

EYC VIII, 86–7, No. 34.

Conisbrough

Harthill

c.1147

EYC VIII, 86–7, No. 34.

Conisbrough

Kirk Sandall

c.1147

EYC VIII, 86–7, No .34.

Conisbrough

Morthen

1164 × 1181

EYC VIII, 102–3, No. 55.

Conisbrough

Ravenfield

1164 × 1181

EYC VIII, 102–3, No. 55.

Conisbrough

Redes

1164 × 1181

EYC VIII, 102–3, No. 55.

Conisbrough

Suthsowerde

1164 × 1181

EYC VIII, 102–3, No. 55.

Cottingham

Skidby

1225

RWGray, 5, No. 19.

Coxwold

Ampleforth

1164 × 1180

EEA XX, 146–8, No. 131.

Coxwold

Husthwaite

1180 × 1186

EYC I, 135, No. 157.

Coxwold

Kilburn

1143 × 1147/1153 × 1154

EEA V, 75, No. 95.

Coxwold

Silton

1143 × 1147/1153 × 1154

EEA V, 75, No. 95.

Cundall

Norton

1481

RTR 5, No. 35.

Danby Wiske

Yafforth

1208

EYC V, 296–7, No. 356.

Darfield

Wombwell

1536

VE 55–6.

Darfield

Worsbrough

1536

VE 55–6.

Darrington

Stapleton

1136 × 1140

EEA V, 49–50, No. 57.

Dewsbury

Almondbury

1536

VE 71–7.

Dewsbury

Bradford

1348–56

Faull and Moorhouse (eds) (1981) I, 217.

Dewsbury

Halifax

1348–56

Faull and Moorhouse (eds) (1981) I, 217. (continued)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

148

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Table 3.  Continued Mother Church

Dependency

Date

References

Dewsbury

Hartshead

c.1147

EYC VIII, 86–7, No. 34.

Dewsbury

Huddersfield

1536

VE 71–7.

Dewsbury

Kirkburton

1536

VE 71–7.

Dewsbury

Kirkheaton

1536

VE 71–7.

Dewsbury

Thornhill

1536

VE 71–7.

Dewsbury

Wakefield

1349

Chadwick (1908–9), 370.

Drax

Stanhill

1154 × 1181

EYC VI, 100–2, No. 21.

Easington

Liverton

1218

CPG II, 183–5, No. 920.

Easingwold

Cold Kirby

1269

Brown (ed.) (1904), 2, No. 12.

Ecclesfield

Bradfield

c.1188

EYC III, 12–14, No. 1278.

Ecclesfield

Sheffield

c.1188

EYC III, 12–14, No. 1278.

Ecclesfield

Whiston

c.1188

EYC III, 12–14, No. 1278.

Escrick

Deighton

1494

RTR 78, No. 641.

Featherstone

Purston Jaglin

1159 × 1170

EYC III, 264–5, No. 1595.

Fishlake

Dunsthorpe

1536

VE 48.

Forcett

Eryholme

1125 × 1135

EYC IV, 8–11, No. 8.

Forcett

South Cowton

1125 × 1135

EYC IV, 8–11, No. 8.

Foxholes

Butterwick

1122 × 1137

EYC II, 179–80, No. 1073.

Giggleswick

Rathmell

1205 × 1211

EYC XI, 308, No. 236.

Giggleswick

Settle

1205 × 1211

EYC XI, 308, No. 236.

Gilling, near Richmond

Eryholme

1198 × 1213

EYC V, 51–2, No. 148.

Goldsborough

Flaxby?

1158 × 1181

EYC VI, 117–18, No. 37.

Great Ayton

Little Ayton

Twelfth century

CAW I, 1–6, No. 1.

Great Ayton

Newton under Roseberry

1153 × 1154

EEA V, 80–1, No. 104.

Great Ayton

Thorp

Twelfth century

CAW I, 1–6, No. 1.

Halifax

Elland

1398

RRS 13–14.

Halifax

Heptonstall

1482

RTR 27, No. 205.

Halifax

Luddington

1496

RTR 88–9, No. 722.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



149

The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

Harthill

Kneeton

1536

VE 60.

Hatfield

Stainforth

1536

VE 47–8.

Hatfield

Thorne

c.1147

EYC VIII, 86–7, No. 34.

Hawnby

Murton

1177 × 1181

EEA XX, 8–9, No. 9.

Hemingbrough

Barlby

1482

RTR 14, No. 107.

Hessle

Kingston on Hull

CPG II, 274, No. 1087.

Hooton Pagnell

Frickley

1536

VE 52.

Hornsea

Long Riston

1160 × 1175

EYC III, 66, No. 1348.

Howden

Eastrington

1226

RWGray 7, No. 26.

Howden

Lynam

1496

RTR 87, No. 708.

Howden

Skelton

1481

RTR 5, No. 37.

Hunmanby

Argam

1195 × 1214

EYC II, 486–7, No. 1211.

Hunmanby

Burton Fleming

1299

Brown (ed.) (1913–17), 227–32, No. 87.

Hunmanby

Newton

1192

EYC II, 483–4, No. 1205.

Hunmanby

Reighton

1282

Brown (ed.) (1907), 114, No. 366.

Hutton Cranswick

Skerne

1309

RWGreen III, 127, No.1411, and 159–62, No. 1489.

Hutton Rudby

Seamer

1228

RWGray, 19, No. 87.

Ilkley

Middleton

1175 × 1185

EYC XI, 251–2, No. 203.

Ingleby Arncliffe

East Harlsey

Kirk Sandall

Armthorpe

CPG II, No. 1102. c.1147

EYC, VIII, 86–7, No. 34.

Kirkby Malzeard Middlesmoor

1484

RTR 204–5, No. 1638.

Kirkby Moorside Gillamoor

1183 × 1199

EYC IX, 102–3, No. 23.

Kirklevington

Low Worsall

1180

EEA XX, 47–50, No. 41.

Kirklevington

Yarm

1180

EEA XX, 47–50, No. 41.

Leake

Cowesby

1164 × 1174

EEA XX, 16–17, No. 16.

Leake

Crosby

1160 × 1180

EYC II, 290, No. 954.

Ledsham

Fairburn

1155 × 1158

EYC III, 149–53, No. 1451. (continued)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

150

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Table 3.  Continued Mother Church

Dependency

Masham

Kirkby Malzeard

Date

References McCall (1908–9).

Melsonby

Maunby

1189 × 1198

EYC V, 193–4, No. 290.

Middleton Tyas

Kneeton

1197 × 1239

EYC IV, 141, No. 109.

Northallerton

East Cowton

1157 × 1170

EYC II, 291, No. 956.

Northallerton

Romanby

1190 × 1215

EYC II, 295–6, No. 963.

Northallerton

Worsall

1160 × 1181

EYC II, 281, No. 941.

Norton

Welham

1173

EYC III, 495–7, No. 1888.

Nunburnholme

Thorpe le Street

c.1178

EYC X, 122–4, No. 72.

Ormesby

Eston

1308–9

CPG II, 375–9, No. 16.

Osmotherley

Harlsey

1489

RTR 61, No. 495.

Pickering

Allerston

1252

RWGray App. 1, 211–14, No. 76.

Pickering

Ebberston

1252

RWGray App. 1, 211–14, No. 76.

Pickering

Ellerburn

1252

RWGray App. 1, 211–14, No. 76.

Pickering

Ellerton

1252

RWGray App. 1, 211–14, No. 76.

Pickering

Wilton

1252

RWGray App. 1, 211–14, No. 76.

Pocklington

Allerthorpe

1252

RWGray App. 1, 211–14, No. 76.

Pocklington

Barmby Moor

1252

RWGray App. 1, 211–14, No. 76.

Pocklington

Bielby

1252

RWGray App. 1, 211–14, No. 76.

Pocklington

Burnby

1252

RWGray App. 1, 211–14, No. 76.

Pocklington

Fangfoss

1252

RWGray App. 1, 211–14, No. 76.

Pocklington

Great Givendale

1252

RWGray App. 1, 211–14, No. 76.

Pocklington

Hayton

1252

RWGray App. 1, 211–14, No. 76.

Pocklington

Millington

1252

RWGray App. 1, 211–14, No. 76.

Pocklington

Thornton

1252

RWGray App. 1, 211–14, No. 76.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



151

The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

Pocklington

Yapham

1252

RWGray App. 1, 211–14, No. 76.

Pontefract

Knottingley

1121 × 1135

EEA V, 49–50, No. 57.

Preston

Hedon

1160 × 1162

EYC III, 35–6, No. 1307.

Rillington

Scawton

1154

EEA XX, 10–11, No. 10.

Sherburn in Elmet

Micklefield

1489

RTR 229, No. 1815.

Sheriff Hutton

Sittenham

1318

RWM II, 17–19, No. 38.

Silkstone

Barnsley

1536

VE 56–7.

Silkstone

Cawthorne

1155 × 1158

EYC III, 149–53, No. 1451.

Silkstone

Darton

1301

RTC I, 56, No. 148.

Silkstone

Penistone

1301

RTC I, 56, No. 148.

Skeckling

Burstwick

1160 × 1162

EYC III, 35–6, No. 1307.

Skeckling

Nuthill

1154 × 1180

EYC III, 107–8, No. 1397.

Skelton

Brotton

1308–9

CPG II, 375–9, No. 16.

Skipsea

Little Cowden

1154 × 1181

EEA XX, 1, No. 1.

Skipton

Carlton by Bolton

1120 × 1135

EYC VII, 53–4, No. 2.

Snaith

Airmyn

1481

RTR 193, No. 1563.

Snaith

Eastoft?

1164 × 1177

EEA XX, 104–6, No. 92.

Snaith

Fockerby?

1164 × 1177

EEA XX, 104–6, No. 92.

Snaith

Goole

1481

RTR 193, No. 1563.

Snaith

Haldenby?

1164 × 1177

EEA XX, 104–6, No. 92.

Snaith

Hooke

1481

RTR 193, No. 1563.

Snaith

Kellington

1202

Fowler (ed.) (1890–2), II, 141.

Snaith

Ousefleet?

1164 × 1177

EEA XX, 104–6, No.92.

Snaith

Reedness?

1164 × 1177

EEA XX, 104–6, No.92.

Snaith

Swinefleet?

1300 × 1304

RTC I, 144–17, No. 288.

Snaith

Whitgift?

1164 × 1177

EEA XX, 104–6, No. 92.

Snaith

Whitley

1202

Fowler (ed.) (1890–2), II, 141.

South Kirkby

Skelbrooke

1536

VE 51.

Stainton

Acklam

1308–9

CPG II, 375–9, No. 16.

Stainton

Middlesborough

1130 × 1139

EYC, II, 219–22, No. 873. (continued)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

152

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Table 3.  Continued Mother Church

Dependency

Date

References

Stainton

Thornaby

1308–9

CPG II, 375–9, No. 16.

Stanwick St. John

Barton

1228

RWGray 24–6, No. 119.

Stanwick St. John

Barforth

1228

RWGray 24–6, No. 119.

Stanwick St. John

Brettanby

1228

RWGray 24–6, No. 119.

Stanwick St. John

Cleasby

1228

RWGray 24–6, No. 119.

Stanwick St. John

Layton

1228

RWGray 24–6, No. 119.

Stillingfleet

Naseby

1402

RRS 52.

Tadcaster

Catterton

1290

Brown (ed.) (1913–17), I, 105–7, No. 282.

Tadcaster

Hazlewood

c.1189

EYC XI, 54–6, No. 50.

Tadcaster

Newton Kyme

c.1189

EYC XI, 54–6, No. 50.

Thirsk

Carlton

1143 × 1147/1152 × 1154

EEA V, 75, No. 95.

Thirsk

Sand Hutton

1143 × 1147/1152 × 1154

EEA V, 75, No. 95.

Thirsk

Sowerby

1143 × 1147/1152 × 1154

EEA V, 75, No. 95.

Thwing

Octon

1400

RRS 61, No. 399.

Thwing

Swaythorpe

1400

RRS 61, No. 399

Tickhill

Stainton

1164 × 1181

EYC III, 174–5, No. 1480.

Wakefield

Horbury

c.1147

EYC VIII, 86–7, No. 34.

Wakefield

Normanton

1202 × 1207

Clay (ed.) (1934), 318.

Wath

Wentworth

1234

RWGray 67, No. 290.

Wawne

Sutton upon Hull

1160 × 1162

EYC III, 35–6, No.1307.

Welburn

Wombleton

1154 × 1157

Greenway (ed.) (1976), 143–4, No. 203.

Welbury

Deighton?

1143 × 1147

DEC 151–5, No. 37.

West Heslerton

East Heslerton

1160 × 1175

EYC II 6–7, No. 656.

Wetwang

Fimber

1215 × 1255

RWGray App. 1, 189–90, No. 58.

Whitby

Aislaby

Twelfth century

CAW I, 1–6, No. 1.

Whitby

Dunsley

Twelfth century

CAW I, 1–6, No.1.

Whitby

Fyling

1132 × 1137

EYC II, 224, No. 877.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Whitby

The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867 Hawkser

1109

153

CAW I, 1–6, No. 1.

Whitby

Sneaton

1132 × 1137

EYC II, 224, No. 877.

Whitby

Ugglebarnby

1150 × 1156

EYC II, 231, No. 85.

Willerby

Ganton

1119 × 1140

EEA V, 42–3, No. 46.

Wintringham

Knapton

1402

RRS 51, No. 322.

Withernsea

Holmpton

1160 × 1162

EYC III, 35–6, No. 1307.

Woodkirk

East Ardsley

1164 × 1181

EEA XX, 148–9, No. 132.

between, the outliers remained outliers and the independent parishes were excluded from the mother parish. Third, the mother parishes were grouped according to topography. Parishes provide a church with the income necessary to sustain itself. In lowland areas, with rich agricultural land, a smaller unit can provide that income, whereas in upland areas a larger amount of land is necessary to generate the same income. The parishes were therefore divided into lowland, mixed, and upland parishes based on the 100m contour line and their overall areas were compared. Table 4 shows the mother churches identified as a result of that comparison. Map 8 shows the mother parishes. There is a clear correlation between sites known to be early religious communities, or suspected to be religious communities or satellites, and high medieval mother churches. Twelve locations with known or suspected early religious communities were also high medieval mother churches: Adlingfleet, Conisbrough, Coxwold, Dewsbury, Gilling near Richmond, Howden, Kirkby Moorside, Lythe, Masham, Middleton, Otley, Ripon, and Whitby. Three other suspected religious communities probably once had mother parishes: Lastingham probably once controlled the neighbouring parishes of Kirkby Moorside, Kirkdale, and Kirby Misperton because their boundaries overlap;103 Pontefract and Tadcaster had irregularly shaped parishes that may once have included a larger area. Northallerton has fragments of sculpture from the eighth century and the ninth century and was also a mother church. The first evidence for the origins of mother churches sometimes postdates the ninth century and it is likely that the network of mother churches evolved over a long period. Four places with tenth-century sculpture were also mother churches: Aysgarth, Catterick, Helmsley, and Pickering. Three places with written or architectural evidence for a small clerical community in the eleventh or twelfth century were   See Chapter 6, p. 251.

103

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

154

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Table 4.  Mother churches in medieval Yorkshire Topography

Name

Riding

Parish area sq. m.

Upland

Dewsbury

West

762502019

 

Aysgarth

North

329938418

 

Masham

West

312295034

Mixed

Ecclesfield

West

282292928

 

Ripon

West

220646020

 

Conisborough

West

206097053

 

Silkstone

West

177487528

 

Pickering

North

174418542

 

Helmsley

North

164247859

 

Whitby

North

136458286

 

Lythe

North

134724967

 

Gilling, nr Richmond

North

112490603

 

Middleton

North

108933458

 

Stokesley

North

108362083

 

Coxwold

North

96481387

 

Otley

West

95140049

 

Catterick

North

93848019

 

Leeds

West

82475609

 

Lastingham

North

75833234

 

Kirkby Moorside

North

73035146

 

Brompton, nr Northallerton

North

72462492

 

Hunmanby

East

68820835

 

Rotherham

West

66475136

 

Skelton

North

65904752

Lowland

Snaith

West

183014806

 

Pocklington

East

121907412

 

Howden

East

87719372

 

Northallerton

North

79220525

 

Aldborough

North

70270195

 

Adlingfleet

West

67857298

 

Topcliffe

North

66862926

 

Bridlington

East

64254609

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

155

Map 8. The mother parishes of Yorkshire. © 2003 Great Britain Historical GIS Project/ University of Portsmouth. An EDINA supplied service.

mother churches: Bridlington,104 Silkstone,105 and Topcliffe.106 Six more places preserve no early or late evidence for significance other than their role as mother churches: Aldborough (near Boroughbridge), Pocklington, Rotherham, Skelton, Snaith, and Stokesley. Thirteen of the twenty-six places identified as mother churches with mother parishes were known early religious communities or suspected early religious communities or their satellites and three more known or suspected early religious communities probably once had mother parishes. Some or all of the others could have origins in this period, but could equally well have originated at a later date. This correlation could be read either as the symptom of a pastoral framework from the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries, or as the symptom of the continuing influence of churches with early origins when a later pastoral framework was established. But there are other good reasons for thinking that 104  An early twelfth-century reference to a group of fratres: EEActa 5: No. 13, 15–16; Purvis 1927–9. 105   A dispute revealing a cruciform plan: RWGreen II: No. 748, 36–7; Pevsner 1967: 483. For the significance of cruciform plans: Blair 1998; Thurlby 2002. 106  A Domesday entry including multiple clergy: DB, fo 323r [13 N 17]; Chapter 6, pp. 224–5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

156

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

there was an early framework of religious communities serving the territories within which they were founded and that the mother parishes formed around these territories. The model of royal vills surrounded by territories of obligation offers a framework within which religious communities could have developed rights over mother parishes;107 the fragmentation of those territories of obligation during the ninth and tenth centuries suggests that religious communities may have developed such rights as early as the seventh and eighth centuries, before fragmentation.108 The language of parochial allegiance suggests that territorial obligations associated with landholding and lordship were the origins for parochial rights: hyrness, ‘lordship’ or ‘obedience’; folgothe, ‘authority’ or ‘office’; theowdom, ‘service’; and socn, ‘seeking’.109 During the tenth century, the West Saxon kings defended the rights of older religious communities (ealdan mynstre) to payments of tithes from newer churches founded within their jurisdiction, implying that religious communities already had formalized pastoral jurisdictions.110 The Yorkshire evidence is compatible with this interpretation, but there is a complication. Whereas in some regions territorial fragmentation was well advanced by the tenth century, in eastern and northern regions, including Yorkshire, territories of obligation were fossilized as ‘sokes’, which remained influential into the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It remains likely that mother parishes formed at an earlier date around territories of obligation, but the possibility that mother parishes formed at a later date must be explored and ruled out. A ‘soke’ comprised a central manor along with a number of dependent vills, described in Domesday Book as ‘berewicks’ and ‘sokelands’.111 Berewicks were detached portions of demesne or ‘inland’. Sokelands were lands owing dues and services. By the twelfth and thirteenth centuries many of the Yorkshire ‘sokes’ had fragmented, but conservatism of the customs, dues, renders, and labour services renders them visible as units of agrarian organization stretching across several vills. Some ‘sokes’ were known as ‘shires’ and are paralleled by better-documented ‘shires’ north of the Tees. Maitland and Jolliffe recognized the similarity of Northumbrian ‘shires’ to Welsh ‘cantrefs’ and Kentish ‘lathes’, which share comparable renders.112 It is generally accepted that the system of royal vills with territories of obligation is reflected in the organization of ‘sokes’.113 This does not mean that early territories of obligation were the root of all ‘sokes’ or that all ‘sokes’ preserve the outlines of such territories. Lords might expect some or all of a range of rights from sokelands, which might 108   See Chapter 1, pp. 47–52; Blair 2005: 154–5.   Faith 1997: 1–13 and 153–74. 110 111   Blair 2005: 427–33.   Blair 2005: 440–51.  Stenton 1910. 112   Maitland  1890; Jolliffe  1926; Jolliffe  1933. For Scotland and Northumberland: Barrow  1969; Barrow 1973. For Cumberland and Westmorland: Barrow 1975; Winchester 1986; Winchester 1987. For Yorkshire: Jones 1965; Jones 1976; Jones 1992; and Kapelle 1979: 66–75. 113   Unfortunately, this issue has been clouded by the debate over the antiquity of so-called ‘multiple estates’ and the rights of ownership and production revealed in the thirteenth century: Gregson 1985 and Jones 1985. A sensible solution is found in Faith 1997: early territories of obligation from which entities like ‘multiple estates’ emerged as privatized and formalized estates. 107 109

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

157

be alienated or revoked.114 ‘Sokes’ were dynamic units that could change.115 Nevertheless, when ‘sokes’ and mother parishes correspond, it is probable that an earlier territory of obligation lies behind them and that they reflect the outlines of that territory. To illustrate this point, it is necessary to consider some characteristics of ‘sokes’ with and without mother parishes. Table 5 lists all Yorkshire ‘sokes’ with five or more dependencies in Domesday Book. Of sixty-nine ‘sokes’ with five or more dependencies, only sixteen had corresponding mother parishes; the remaining mother parishes identified did not correspond to eleventh-century ‘sokes’. Known or suspected early religious communities or their satellites are associated with churches at the head of the sixteen ‘sokes’ with corresponding mother parishes. Amongst the sixty-nine ‘sokes’, individual landowners had some ‘sokes’ with corresponding mother parishes and others without. These patterns suggest that ‘sokes’ with mother parishes represent a survival from an earlier parochial framework. Unless this earlier system was the basis for ‘sokes’ with corresponding mother parishes, it is difficult to explain why it was predominantly ‘sokes’ associated with earlier religious communities that developed mother parishes or how those mother parishes without corresponding eleventh-century ‘sokes’ originally formed. After all, it was in the interests of a landlord to have the church at the focal settlement of his ‘soke’ as the mother church of the ‘soke’, because his rights to lordship would be reinforced by the parochial rights of his church. Given this incentive, if it had been possible for individual landlords holding some ‘sokes’ with corresponding mother parishes to create mother churches with mother parishes on their other ‘sokes’, they would surely have done so. That they apparently did not suggests that the network of mother churches with mother parishes was the relic of an earlier framework rather than a system being established or extended in the eleventh century. This explanation assumes that some early territories of obligation within which religious communities were founded retained their basic integrity during the Scandinavian and West Saxon conquests of the later ninth and mid tenth centuries. This demands justification. Passages in the Historia de Sancto Cuthberto suggest that some multi-vill estates were stolen from the Community of Cuthbert during the Scandinavian conquests, subsequently passed through the hands of secular lords, and were then returned to, or re-acquired by, the Community: they apparently retained their basic integrity throughout.116 Royal diplomas and estate surveys for a handful of Yorkshire ‘sokes’ allow comparisons between their structure and extent in the later tenth or early eleventh century and in Domesday entries (1086 x 1088): Howden, Newbald, Otley, Ripon, and Sherburn in Elmet maintained their basic integrity over longer time periods despite sometimes 114   Roffe 1990b: 164–6: ‘soke’, from Old English socn, ‘to seek’ (a lord), could cover renders, quitrent on an acre, and regalian rights. 115 116   Hart 1992: 231–80; Hadley 1996a; Hadley 2000b: 144–6, 155.   HSC 124–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

158

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Table 5.  Soke estates in eleventh-century Yorkshire Name

DB

Northallerton

1Y2

Gilling near Richmond

No. of Dependencies

Owner TRE

Value TRE £

Value TRE s

36

Earl Edwin

80

6N1

31

Earl Edwin

Conisbrough

12 W 1

27

Earl Harold

Howden

3Y4

27

King

40

Falsgrave

1Y3

25

Earl Tosti

56

Wakefield

1 Y 15–17, 25–6

25

King

60

Pickering

1Y4

21

Earl Morcar

88

Bolton (Abbey)

1 W 73

20

Earl Edwin

Ripon

2 W 7–9

20

Archbishop Ealdred

32

Pocklington

1 Y 10

17

King

56

Aldbrough

14 E 11

17

Ulf

40

Aldborough

1 Y 18, 1 W 30, 21 W 3, 24 W 10, 25 W 27, 28 W 36

16

King

10

Hallam

10 W 41–2

16

Earl Waltheof

8

Bridlington

1 Y 11, 1 E 12, 5 E 47

16

Earl Morcar

32

Welton

3 Y 1–2, 3 Y 8, 5 E 6, 5 E 16, 5 E 32–3, 5 E 37

16

Earl Morcar

20

Kippax and Ledston

9W1

16

Earl Edwin

16

Great Driffield

1 Y 8–9, 5 E 22, 5 E 28, 5 E 31

16

Earl Morcar

40

Otley

2W4

16

Archbishop Ealdred

10

Knaresborough

1 Y 19, 1 W 31, 13 W 36, 24 W 8, 24 W 19

15

King

6

Kirkby Moorside 23 N 19–21

14

Orm

12

Hovingham

23 N 23

14

Orm

12

Burstwick

14 E 1

13

Earl Tosti

56

 

Grindleton

30 W 37

12

Earl Tosti

 

 

(South) Loftus

4N2

12

Earl Siweard

48

 

Kilnsea

14 E 2

11

Earl Morcar

56

 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

159

Mappleton

14 E 5–6

11

Earl Morcar

56

 

Tanshelf

9 W 64, 9 W 78–84, 9 W 96

11

King

20

 

Withernsea

14 E 4

11

Earl Morcar

56

 

Whitby

4N1

10

Earl Siweard

112

 

Laughton en le Morthen

10 W 1

9

Earl Edwin

24

 

Easingwold

1Y1

9

Earl Morcar

32

Long Preston

30 W 4

9

Ulf

Acklam

4N3

9

Earl Siweard

48

Burton Agnes

1 Y 14, 31 E 1

9

Earl Morcar

24

Weaverthorpe

2 B 18

9

Archbishop Ealdred

14

Warter

1 Y 7, 5 E 32, 13 E 3, 13 E 9

9

Earl Morcar

40

Stokesley

29 N 8

9

Havarthr

24

Clifton

6 W 6, 6 E 1, 13 E6

8

Earl Morcar

Cundall

5 W 38

8

Earl Waltheof

Hexthorpe

5 W 8, 10 W 27

7

Earl Tosti

Beetham

30 W 40

7

Earl Tosti

(North) Ferriby

5 E 3, 15 E 2

7

Eadgifu

100

Aughton

5 E 7, 5 E 24

7

Earnwine the Priest

100

Bingley

24 W 1

6

Gospatric

Coxwold

23 N 1

6

Copsi

Market Weighton

1 Y 6, 11 E 6–8

6

Earl Morcar

Winterburn

30 W 7

6

Thorfinnr

Hutton (Rudby)

5 N 29

6

Gospatric

24

East Witton

6 N 92, 6 N 111, 6 N 124

6

Gluniairnn

4

Wilton (Bishop)

2 B 11

6

Archbishop Ealdred

14

Bulmer

5 N 53, 5 N 61

6

Lugulfr and Northmann

20 4 18

4 6 30

100

Wressle

15 E 3, 21 E 5

6

Alwine

Bagby

23 N 7–8

6

Orm

8

40

Howsham

5 E 60, 5 E 63–5, 5 E 67

5

Earl Waltheof

4 (continued)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

160

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Table 5.  Continued Name

DB

No. of Dependencies

Owner TRE

Value TRE £

Value TRE s

Hutton Conyers

2 W 13, 3 Y 9

5

Bishop of Durham

Bramham

5 W 7, CW 2

5

Ligulf

Seamer

5 N 28

5

Gospatric

Hunmanby

20 E 1–2, 20 E 4

5

Carl

Ellerton on Swale

6 N 29–35

5

Gospatric

40

Kirkby Fleetham

6 N 26–7, 6 N 31, 6 N 56

5

Gamal and Uhtred

40

Bolton

9 W 131

5

Arnketill

10

Hornsea

14 E 7

5

Morcar

Shafton and Carlton

5 W 18, 9 W 76, 9 W 93

5

Alsige

4

Masham

6 N 114, 6 N 118, 6 N 123, 6 N 138

5

Gospatric

6

Buckton

8 E 1, 23 E 16

5

Thurbrand

4

10 8 40 12

56

passing between secular and ecclesiastical owners.117 For the period after the West Saxon conquest of Yorkshire Stephen Baxter has supplied a model of lordship that might underpin this stability. He has argued plausibly that earls held some estates as a function of office, which were understood to remain notionally part of the royal fisc and were transferred en bloc from earl to earl. He has argued persuasively that, because royal renders were often calculated on the basis of multiples of eight, Domesday figures of round values based on such multiples might identify such estates.118 Earls held almost all of the eleventhcentury ‘sokes’ with churches that had been earlier religious communities and with roughly coterminous mother parishes, and these ‘sokes’ were usually valued in multiples of eight. The correlation between early religious communities and mother churches with mother parishes suggests that there was a territorial and pastoral framework in which some early religious communities were expected to provide pastoral care for the territories of obligation within which they were founded. The corpus of stone sculpture in Yorkshire provides an unusual perspective on the network 117   For discussion and illustration, see: Stenton 1910: 72–6; Patourel, Long, and Pickles (eds) 1993; Keynes 1986; Baxter 2004. 118   Baxter 2007: 141–51.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

161

of early ecclesiastical sites that existed and their relationship to this territorial and pastoral framework. First, it is clear that not all religious communities or their satellites became mother churches. This is expected and explicable. Given the variations in composition, size, and ethos, there is no reason to think that all early religious communities were founded on the same terms or expected to shoulder the same responsibilities. Given that they controlled satellites including oratories, novice houses, hospitals, and estate churches, and might have provided their expertise for secular patrons, there should be a network of sites associated with religious communities that did not house communities or serve pastoral functions. Second, comparing the distribution of religious communities, stone sculpture, ‘sokes’, and mother parishes may help to identify relationships between religious communities and satellite sites that are not visible in other regions (Map 9). The religious community at Streoneshalh (Whitby) had a daughter foundation at Hackness, and an estate (possessio) with a church for lay brethren (fratres) at Osingadun.119 The surviving sculpture suggests a quarry at Aislaby was used to produce a high volume of sculpture in a house style for

Map 9.  The religious community of Streoneshalh (Whitby) and its satellites. © 2003 Great Britain Historical GIS Project/University of Portsmouth. An EDINA supplied service.

  HE iv.23 (21); VCA iv.10; VCB c. 34.

119

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

162

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Streoneshalh (Whitby) and for early medieval churches at Hackness, Lythe, and Easington; the place-name Osingadun may be connected with modern Easington.120 Streoneshalh (Whitby), Hackness, Lythe, and Easington were situated within four adjacent territories in the eleventh century and were mother churches with corresponding mother parishes.121 This raises the possibility that Streoneshalh (Whitby) controlled satellite churches and lands ­deriving from grants or acquisitions within large royal territories, with whose populations those churches developed a pastoral relationship, in spite of their different origins.

RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES, STONE MONUMENTS, AND PASTORAL CARE Pope Gregory the Great, who sent the preachers who converted the Kentish and Northumbrian peoples, was from a monastic background and promoted efforts to combine contemplation and pastoral action.122 Gregory’s vision was connected with his understanding of the angelic hierarchy.123 Originally, he observed, there had been nine ranks of angels and a tenth rank of humans contemplating God.124 Humans had been alienated from God’s Wisdom and cut off by the angels as a result of the Fall, only to be considered as potential equals, who might once more aspire to the angelic ranks, after the Incarnation.125 Imitation of angels was an aid to attaining eternal life.126 Angels were spirits sent out as messengers with specific functions and all ranks of angels mixed contemplation with pastoral action.127 Christ, the evangelists, and the apostles had followed this pattern and all ordained priests should do so too.128 Those grounded in the contemplative life were best qualified to preach, had a duty to do so, and were most properly prepared to preserve themselves from pride.129 Gregory’s angelology and personal example provided a precedent for the performance of pastoral care by members of regular religious communities, whether monks or clergy. 121   Pickles 2016b: 270–2.   Pickles 2016b: 272–4.   Evans 1986: 19–24, 60–3, 80–5, 105–9; Straw 1988: 33–46; Markus 1997: 17–26; Leyser 2000: 132–87. 123  Leyser 2001. 124  Gregory, Homilia 34, ed. CCSL 141: 304–5, ll. 137–47. 125  Gregory, Homilia 8, ed. CCSL 141: 55–6, ll. 31–58, and Homilia 21, ed. CCSL 141: 175, ll. 39–42. 126  Gregory, Homilia 34, ed. CCSL 141: 309, ll. 260–4. 127  Gregory, Homilia 34, ed. CCSL 141: 306, ll. 178–99; 309–11, ll. 274–323; 312, ll. 336–55. 128  Gregory, Homilia 6, ed. CCSL 141: 42–3, ll. 100–13; Homilia 34, ed. CCSL 141: 313, ll. 368–75; Moralia in Iob, II.III.3, ed. CCSL 143: 60–2, ll. 3–42; Moralia in Iob, V.XXXVIII.69, ed. CCSL 143: 269, ll. 52–8; Moralia in Iob, XI.XII.19, ed. CCSL 143: 597, ll. 34–8; Moralia in Iob, XXX.XIX.64, ed. CCSL 143B: 1534–5, ll. 1–21; Moralia in Iob, XXXIV.VII.14, ed. CCSL 143B: 1742–3, ll. 38–54. 129   Rommel and Morel (ed.) 1992, for Gregory’s mature thoughts brought together as a guide for the behaviour of all Christian rulers. Kempshall 2001: esp. 111–22. 120 122

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

163

When a member of Streoneshalh (Whitby) composed the first vita of Gregory, c.704 × 714, he considered Gregory’s angelology and personal example as particularly pertinent to the Deirans. The opening chapters presented Gregory as a model for combining contemplation and pastoral: he was described as ‘our teacher’ (magistri nostras); it was emphasized that he lived in a monastery and ‘rose above passing events and accustomed himself to think about nothing but heavenly themes’; and, through his own writings, it was shown that, when he had maintained contemplation in pastoral office—‘“though this office . . . dragged me from the monastery and, with the distraction of business . . . cut me off as with a knife from my former life of quiet, yet by my serious conferences and readings with them [the monastic brethren], I was daily stirred to a desire for devotion.”’130 The worthiness of Gregory’s mixed life was witnessed through his miracles: ‘Miracles are granted for the destruction of idols of unbelieving pagans, or sometimes to confirm the weak faith of believers; most of all, they are granted to those who instruct the pagans, and so, the more gloriously and frequently they are manifested in those lands, the more convincing they become as teachers.’131 Because Gregory believed that Apostles each bring their own peoples to the Day of Judgement and imitated Christ in resisting pastoral office and responding to the call to convert the Angles (gens Anglorum), his example should be followed.132 The connection between Gregory, his angelology, his mixed life, and the Deirans, was encapsulated in the encounter that inspired him to send preachers. Gregory had observed some beautiful boys in the slave market at Rome, enquired after their origins, and prophesied on the basis of the replies: the fact that they were Angles (Anguli) prompted him to designate them Angels of God (Angeli Dei); the name of their king Ælle prompted him to say ‘Alleluia, God’s praise must be heard there’; and the name of their people, the Deire, prompted the prophecy that ‘They shall flee from the wrath of God (De ira Dei) to the faith.’133 An account of Paulinus, Edwin’s conversion, and the acquisition of the relics of Edwin provided a direct link between these events, the Deirans, and Streoneshalh (Whitby).134 Having established the link between Gregory and the Deirans, the signs of his holiness were enumerated, culminating in his angelology and the way it underpinned his achievements—his ability to bind and loose souls, and his model for combining contemplation and pastoral action.135 As the Vita put it: Now Gregory dealt with the orders of the angelic ranks with such skill as we have never been able to find in any saint before or since . . . Not only did Gregory divide them into orders, basing everything on the Holy Scriptures, but also, with that pure heart whereby the blessed alone shall see God, he even brought them into fellowship with this life of ours.136   VG cc. 1–3.   VG c. 11.

130

133

  VG c. 4.   VG cc. 15–19.

131 134

  VG cc. 6–8. 135   VG cc. 20–32.

132

  VG c. 25.

136

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

164

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Like the prophet Ezekiel on whom Gregory wrote homilies, and like Peter, the heavens had been opened to Gregory, ‘especially since he was also mindful of those beings who served as holy guardians of Jacob’s ladder’.137 When Gregory fled from the burden of pastoral office and hid, Jacob’s ladder, with angels ascending and descending, appeared to reveal his hiding place.138 Gregory’s angelology was a lesson to follow his example: Indeed the holy man [Gregory] in his wisdom very clearly teaches that what one sees and admires in others always becomes one’s own in turn. And this is none the less true also of the company of angels, whose secrets, as we said before, he investigated, for he states that that which one sees in another refreshes us as much as what one possesses oneself. And to deal with even higher matters, God Almighty, Lord of saints, of angels and of men, when He had created all things, showed His greatest miracles in those whom He created in His own image. For the angels first announced these things to the best of mankind, and they afterwards announced them to lesser men; this, we read, was so with Moses and the Jewish people and the rest of the saints right until the coming of our Saviour, whose task alone it was and always is to ‘save that which was lost’. So in the beginning He created and in the end he restored the lost. And in this He showed his love to all those to whom He said, ‘As the Father hath loved Me, even so have I loved you’, and He gave them power to perform still greater miracles when He said, ‘Greater works than these shall ye do.’ It can be seen that this is entirely true too in the matter of teaching, because Christ undoubtedly won a greater crowd of believers in Himself, not only through His Apostles but through other teachers too. And he will show them the same favour at the future Judgement when it will be the just who are to judge the sinners and when, to use His own words, ‘The angels shall come forth and sever the wicked from among the just.’ The Apostles also, sitting on twelve thrones, shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel.139

Streoneshalh (Whitby), through the Vita Gregorii, promoted the idea that Gregory’s angelology and his personal example as apostle to the Deirans could be an aid to salvation. This work was the product of particular institutional and political circumstances. The community was founded as a royal mausoleum to unite the royal lines of the Deirans and Bernicians. Its first abbess, Hild, had been baptized by Paulinus, was the great-niece of Edwin, and had established a community that trained bishops. Its subsequent abbess, Eanflæd, was also baptized by Paulinus and was Edwin’s daughter; she ruled the community with her daughter Ælfflæd; and, as the Vita shows, they had acquired the relics of Edwin and promoted his cult. Hild had hosted the council to debate the adoption of Roman Easter dates and in the subsequent struggles for control over the see of York the community seems to have been part of a compromise party who opposed the Wilfridians, who supplied bishops for the see of York, and whose abbess gave permission for Wilfrid’s re-entry to Northumbria.140 This supplies a clear institutional and political context for promoting Gregory,   VG c. 27.

137

  VG c. 7.

138

  VG c. 30.

139

  See Chapter 3, pp. 105–8.

140

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

165

Paulinus, Edwin, and a model of the mixed life combining contemplation and pastoral action; it cautions against automatically transposing this pastoral vision onto other religious communities. On the basis of other textual evidence it is possible that some other communities shared this pastoral vision. Bishops were responsible for organizing and regulating all clergy and pastoral action: regular communities of monks had no automatic responsibility for pastoral action and Bede’s letter to Bishop Ecgberht in 734 suggests many communities were beyond episcopal reach in his time.141 Yet all communities must have included at least one ordained priest to fulfil the Offices, who had the institutional authority to provide pastoral care outside the community. The fact that Streoneshalh (Whitby) trained at least six bishops suggests ideas current within the community might have had a wide circulation. Members of other communities were believed to have performed pastoral care amongst local lay populations. Stephen of Ripon presents Wilfrid, abbot of Ripon and bishop of York, engaged in the laying on of hands at Tidover, either because it was a Ripon estate, or as part of a pastoral tour of his diocese.142 Bede depicts John, abbot of Beverley and bishop of York, travelling from his community at Beverley to dedicate churches and care for the sick.143 Nevertheless, on this textual evidence it remains no more than possible that other communities shared this pastoral vision. References to pastoral care remain limited. Streoneshalh (Whitby) was training bishops and the other individuals were all bishops whose pastoral work might be a function of their office. There are no surviving stories from Deiran communities of individuals undertaking pastoral tours at each stage of their career to match the evidence for Melrose (Ro) and Lindisfarne (Nb).144 To move beyond this evidence it is possible to consider the extent to which communities subscribed to the idea that they should be pastoral centres through the production of stone monuments. These were multivalent monuments, intended to convey a number of layered and thematic messages to an audience familiar with biblical commentary.145 Patristic exegesis and the works of Bede may be used to explore the themes that inspired their visual programmes and that they would have brought to mind for the members of the communities by whom they were commissioned, carved, and observed.146 Fragments from monuments at Dewsbury and Otley (Images 1 and 5) seem to depict Gregory’s angelology as the model for combining contemplation and pastoral action.147 Images of angel veneration from both sites were perhaps designed to prompt the viewer to consider the contrast between Old and New Testament passages on angel veneration, which Gregory emphasized: Old Testament passages demonstrated that angels permitted human worship before 142 143   EE esp. cc. 9–13.   VW c. 18.   HE v.3–5.   VCB cc. 9, 12–14, 25–6, 30, 33–4; HE iii.26, iv.27–9. 145 146   Bailey 1996: 58–9; Hawkes 2003b.   Cassidy (ed.) 1992; Hawkes 2002b. 147  Pickles 2009a.

141 144

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

166

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Image 1.  CASSS VIII: Dewsbury 9A. Copyright Archaeological Services WYAS, Photographer Paul Gwilliam. Reproduced by permission of Paul Gwilliam.

the Incarnation, but New Testament passages showed that after the Incarnation they considered humans as equals who might aspire to their ranks.148 In different ways at each site, these images of angel veneration worked with further images to promote the role of the institutional church through its pastoral mission as the provider of salvation for each individual. At Dewsbury, the image of angel veneration surmounted a cross head, which probably formed the terminus to a square sectioned cross-shaft depicting the Virgin and Child and two scenes from the Life and Ministry of Christ, or to an Apostle pillar.149 Either way, it surmounted images emphasizing the role of the institutional church and its pastoral mission.150 The Virgin and Child was a reference to the Incarnation, central to re-establishing the equivalence between angels and humans, and depicted a nimbed Christ holding a scroll and in a gesture of benediction, referencing his position as the Son of God, giver of the New Law and founder of the institutional church.151 Four scenes from the Life 148   CASSS VIII: Dewsbury 9A and Otley 1aB. Gregory, Homilia 8, ed. CCSL 141: 55–6, ll. 31–58. Pickles 2009a: 8–18. 149 150   CASSS VIII: Dewsbury 1–5. Pickles 2009a: 1–4.   Pickles 2009a: 18–20. 151   CASSS VIII: Dewsbury 4A. Hawkes 1997a: esp. 118, 122–3, 128.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

167

Image 2.  CASSS VIII: Dewsbury 4A. Copyright Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Photographers K. Jukes and D. Craig.

and Ministry of Christ appear on early Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture—the Healing of the Blind Man, the Raising of Lazarus, the Miracle of the Loaves and the Fishes, and the Miracle at Cana—and the last two are depicted on the Dewsbury cross-shaft.152 Jane Hawkes demonstrated that, in Patristic tradition, the first three were associated with the ritual of baptism, the notion of salvation through faith, and the Eucharist, ideas encapsulated in the fourth as a reminder that the church is founded on Christ through faith expressed in baptism and the Eucharist. As she put it, ‘such carvings, displayed on highly visible large-scale monuments in very specific settings, were intended, at a number of levels, to exhibit and celebrate, in permanent and public form, the function and identity of the Church in Anglo-Saxon England as the means by which each believer was able to participate in the mysteries of Christ’.153 The Apostle pillar included a depiction of Christ in Majesty flanked by his Apostles, set in tiers: it is one of a number of monuments that depict the Apostles as pillars of the institutional church, preachers and ministers of baptism.154 Whether the   CASSS VIII: Dewsbury 5A.   CASSS VIII: Dewsbury 1–3.

152 154

  Hawkes 2003a: quotation at 365.

153

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

168

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Image 3.  CASSS VIII: Dewsbury 5A. Copyright Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Photographers K. Jukes and D. Craig.

image of angel veneration surmounted the cross-shaft or pillar, the angelic hierarchy and imitation of angels was the model from which all ecclesiastical authority derived and, for the institutional church and its pastoral mission, a model to which individuals should, quite literally, cling. At Otley, the image of angel veneration occurred at the foot of a squaresectioned cross-shaft beneath busts of Evangelists or Apostles set in tiered, architectural frames; they were juxtaposed with a series of angel busts set in plant-scroll on the opposite face and surrounded on the other two sides by plant-scroll.155 Whether they are Evangelists or Apostles, the juxtaposition of the angels and figures locates the roots of the church, its hierarchical structures, and its pastoral mission in angelic individuals who combined contemplation with pastoral action.156 Plant-scroll carried a series of associations with the Cosmological Tree and the Tree of Life, encompassing Christ, the church founded on him, the sacraments, and faith leading to salvation and eternal life.157 On one side of the Otley monument the plant-scroll was inhabited by birds and ­animals, extending this imagery to the incorporation of all the faithful members   CASSS VIII: Otley 1. Pickles 2009a: 4.

155

  Pickles 2009a: 20.

156

 Hawkes 2003d.

157

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

169

Image 4.  CASSS VIII: Dewsbury 3A. Copyright Archaeological Services WYAS. Photographer Paul Gwilliam. Reproduced by permission of Paul Gwilliam.

of the church into the sacramental and glorified body of Christ.158 The image of angel veneration at the base of the monument may have emphasized the lowly position of humankind within the ranks of angels and Evangelists or Apostles, and the idea that supplication to, or imitation of, angels offered the individual a way to aspire to the angelic ranks. This argument about the Dewsbury and Otley monuments has received some critical response from Rick Sowerby, which deserves attention.159 Three assumptions prompted the criticism. First, the belief that this argument about particular monuments implied that ‘Gregorian exhortations about imitating the exemplary life of the angels might well offer us a unifying theme for understanding the place of angels within Anglo-Saxon religious culture at large.’160 Such broad implications were not intended. Second, that the analysis paid ‘too little attention to the way that medieval biblical exegesis often drew out different meanings from the same figure, or number, or image, depending entirely on the context’ and supposed ‘that exegesis provided early medieval ecclesiastics with a uniform 159   O’Reilly 2003: 153.   Sowerby 2016: 45–76, esp. 46–59.   Sowerby 2016: 47–9, quotation at 48.

158 160

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

170

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Image 5.  CASSS VIII: Otley 1cA. Copyright Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Photo­ graphers K. Jukes and D. Craig.

set of symbols whose meanings were fixed and universally understood’.161 The concern for Dewsbury and Otley is, within the range of potential meanings associated with angels, to understand their more restricted meanings in the context of the images with which they were juxtaposed. Third, that the analysis argued that the image of angel veneration was Revelation 19:10.162 Rather, it was seen as an adaptation of a model of angel veneration like images of Revelation 19:10 to emphasize the connections and contrasts between Old and New Testament narratives of angel veneration, connections and contrasts to which Gregory drew attention. Setting these assumptions aside, Sowerby correctly observed that the original version of the argument perhaps implied too great a uniformity to the theology of Gregory and Bede on angels; retrospectively this seems partly a rhetorical misstep in writing about ‘contemplative preachers’ in instances when Gregory and Bede did not use this language.163 Nevertheless, Gregory and Bede did repeatedly discuss angels and the other figures set alongside them on these monuments in terms of contemplation and pastoral action, so that   Sowerby 2016: 48–9.

161

  Sowerby 2016: 53.

162

  Sowerby 2016: 57–63.

163

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

171

Image 6.  CASSS VI: Masham 1. Copyright Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Photo­ grapher R. M. C. Trench-Jellicoe.

the force of the argument rests in the particular associations on these monuments, which the criticisms do not address. A series of further monuments suggest that communities were subscribing to the idea that they had pastoral responsibilities. The most elaborate set of images survives on the Masham pillar (Image 6) and the ideas underlying those images have been elucidated most comprehensively and persuasively by Jane Hawkes.164 The pillar presents images including Samson at the Gates of Gaza, David the Psalmist, David and the Lion, Christ in Majesty surrounded by his Apostles, a  pair of peacocks, and a plant-scroll inhabited by beasts.165 Samson at the Gates of Gaza was understood in Scriptural commentary as a foreshadowing of Christ’s redemptive death, descent into hell, resurrection, and ascension. David the Psalmist had foretold this event and himself foreshadowed Christ as a prophet. David’s encounter with the lion foreshadowed the deliverance of Christians from evil through Christ’s death. The pillar form combined with the images of Christ surrounded by his Apostles to represent the Apostles as pillars of the church, working to preach and baptize. The peacocks and the plant-scroll   Hawkes 2002a: 337–48.

164

  CASSS VI: Masham 1.

165

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

172

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Image 7.  CASSS VIII: Collingham 1D. Copyright Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Photographers K. Jukes and D. Craig.

with beasts were symbols of the way the institutional church continued this work: the peacocks a reminder of the link between the Eucharist and immortality, the plant-scroll and its beasts of the Christian community receiving sustenance from the teachings and sacraments. Hawkes concluded: ‘As they survive the iconographic significance of these images can be understood to present a fairly coherent message referring to the central Christian doctrines of redemption, resurrection and salvation as preserved and confirmed by Christ’s Church founded on earth.’166 Fragments from Collingham, Dewsbury, Easby, Masham, Melsonby, and Otley (Images 3–9), including some of those already discussed, belong to cross-shafts or pillars depicting the Apostles set in serried ranks.167 Old and New Testament traditions in Joshua 1–4, Matthew 28:19, and Galatians 2:9 probably inspired these monuments.168 Joshua 1–4 relates that Joshua and his followers were led by the Levites carrying the Ark of the Covenant to the River Jordan. God parted   Hawkes 2002a: 341–2.   CASSS VI: Easby 1, Masham 1, Melsonby 1–2; CASSS VIII: Collingham 1, Dewsbury 1–3, Otley 1. Lang 1999; Lang 2000. 168   O’Reilly 1997 for what follows. 166 167

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

173

Image 8.  CASSS VIII: Melsonby 1CD. Copyright Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Photographer T. Middlemass.

the river and ordered Joshua to select twelve men and set up twelve stones from the river at Gilgal as a monument to their deliverance. Matthew 28:19 and Galatians 2:9 suggest that this story was understood as a prefiguration of Christ’s sanctification of the baptismal water, the establishment of the Apostles as ministers of baptism and pillars of the church, and the deliverance of all Christians via the universal church, ideas which were explicitly taken up in Patristic commentary and picked up by Bede.169 The sculptors of the round pillars at Dewsbury and Masham probably used the Roman tradition of triumphal columns and Jupiter columns as one reference point for their work and the revival of Late Antique apostolic imagery in eighth-century Italy as another.170 A cross-shaft from Ilkley (Image 9) represents a similar kind of monument, but one in which the serried ranks of Apostles were replaced by representations of the Evangelists as human busts with animal heads.171 Such representations were hybrid forms reflecting Patristic commentaries that equated the Evangelists with the four creatures from Ezekiel 1:4–16 and the vision of John 169  Bede, De Tabernaculo II, ed. CCSL 119A: 74–5, ll. 1269–1301; De Templo II, ed. CCSL 119A: 198–200, ll. 263–337. 170 171   Hawkes 2003c: 83–5; Hawkes 2006: 109–12.   CASSS VIII: Ilkley 1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

174

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Image 9. CASSS VIII: Ilkley 1C. Copyright Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Photographers K. Jukes and D. Craig.

in Revelation 4–7.172 Depictions of the Evangelists as three-quarter or halflength busts were understood as symbols of the four books of the Gospels reaching out to the four corners of the earth and spreading the word of God. When such busts were juxtaposed or hybridized with the Evangelist symbols, they prompted meditation on a series of issues: the fourfold qualities of Christ and aspects of his mission—royal, priestly, human, and spiritual;173 the four stages of his life—incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension;174 and the fourfold cosmology of the earth—four winds, four seasons, four elements, and four properties flowing from the Creator and revealed in the four Gospels.175 Underlying these allusions was the message that Christians can become more Christ-like through emulation of his nature and by spreading his message, because ultimately it will be by Christ and the Evangelists that the just will be judged.   Cronin 1995; O’Reilly 1998.  Ambrose, Expositio Evangelii Secundum Lucam, Prologus, cc. 7–8, ed. CCSL 14: 5–6, ll. 109–46. 174   Gregory the Great, Homilae in Hiezichihelem Prophetam, Homilia II, IV, ed. CCSL 142: 47–56; Bede, Expositio Apocalypseos c. V, on Rev. 4:6–7, ed. CCSL 121A: 281–3, ll. 58–79; De Tabernaculo I, ed. CCSL 119A: 15–16, ll. 418–52. 175   Brown 1996: 109–10; O’Reilly 1998: 54, 62–3. 172 173

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

175

Image 10.  CASSS VIII: Sheffield 1A. Copyright Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Photographers K. Jukes and D. Craig.

A final figural image with pastoral resonance is the archer inhabiting a plantscroll on the monument from Sheffield (Image 10).176 Discussions of the more famous archer on the Ruthwell Cross have highlighted a range of interpretations for archers, including secular hunting scenes, archers as enemies of the Roman church, and the archer as Ishmael, but it seems most likely that it symbolized the twin concerns of pastoral teaching and judgement.177 Ambrose, Augustine, and Gregory the Great all saw the archer and arrows as a sign of judgement and as a symbol of the yearning for contemplation that pierces the hearts of the faithful.178 Bede followed their lead, but linked this to the necessity of providing spiritual teaching: Taking aim, your bow will be extended over sceptres, says the Lord. He called the coming of divine judgement an unforeseen bow, whereby also sceptres, that is the kingdoms of the world, he foresaw would be examined . . . that is, threatening through the teachers 177   CASSS VIII: Sheffield 1.   Farrell 1978: 99.  Ambrose, Explanatio Psalmorum XII, Explanatio Psalmi XXXVI, c. 24, ed. CCSL 64: 89–90; Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos, In Psalmum LVII, c. 16, ed. CCSL 39: 722, ll. 26–36, and In Psalmum LXXVI, c. 20, ed. CCSL 39: 1064, ll. 1–8; Ó Carragáin 1987–8: 41–2; and Meyvaert 1992: 140–5, for Gregory. 176 178

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

176

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

you will threaten your judgement will suddenly arrive, so that whoever is afraid at the threat of wrath as at an extended bow, and takes care to beg for your pity, will not feel the shooting of arrows, that is the threat of everlasting punishments.179

The archer is likely to have been an image of the preacher, who by means of Scripture aims God’s commands and warnings of punishment at men to encourage repentance. There are further fragments from monuments which may have had visual programmes with pastoral resonance, but whose pastoral implications are more ambiguous. A pillar or cross-shaft from Cundall included two angel portraits above images of Samson at the Gates of Gaza and the Raising of Lazarus set alongside animals inhabiting plant-scroll:180 it would be possible to read this in light of angels as the key to combining contemplation and action, with Samson and Lazarus as images of redemption or salvation through faith, and the animals as the Christian community receiving sustenance from the teachings and sacraments, but no feature of the angel portraits prompts this explicit reading and there are no unambiguous images of the institutional church and its pastoral mission. A very worn fragment from Skipwith apparently depicts the Women at the Sepulchre on Easter Morning, a scene with important associations with the links between Resurrection and baptism, but ignorance of any wider visual programme limits our understanding of this piece.181 Inhabited plant-scroll occurs more widely as a motif, but it would be unwise to interpret every instance as necessarily carrying a pastoral message. The textual and material evidence for religious communities providing pastoral care is circumscribed in time and space. The Streoneshalh (Whitby) Vita Gregorii is dated 704 x 714, Stephen of Ripon’s Vita Wilfridi probably c.713, and Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica c.731.182 Competition between communities for the exercise of religious authority as a result of the boom in patronage of religious communities from 705 to 735 might be a broader trend underlying the writing and circulation of these texts and the ideals they present. The stone monuments belong to the later eighth and first half of the ninth centuries, reflecting a wider trend to erect monuments to the institutional and spiritual authority of the church.183 An extension of episcopal authority and power in the second half of the eighth century might be part of the explanation for this trend: Bede’s letter to Ecgberht of 734 suggested bishops should extend authority over religious communities and regulate pastoral provision;184 the Dialogus Ecgberhti can be read as Ecgberht acting on this advice;185 and the fact that some religious communities 179  Bede, Expositio In Canticum Habacuc, iii.9, ed. CCSL 119B: 394, ll. 361–75. See his comments on Hab. iii.11, ed. CCSL 119B: 397, ll. 448–67. 180 181   CASSS VI: Cundall/Aldborough 1.   Hawkes 2008: 446–55. 182   VG 45–50, and Thacker 1998; VW x–xi, and Stancliffe 2013. 183  Cramp  1970; Cramp  1978; Lang  1999; Lang  2000; Hawkes  2001; Hawkes  2003a; Hawkes 2003c: 77–9. 184 185   EE esp. cc. 9–13.   Dialogus esp. I, VI–XII, XIV.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

177

re-emerge as episcopal possessions in the tenth and eleventh centuries could be a symptom of this process, which would be consistent with the wealth and power of the archbishops of York visible through Alcuin’s letters and poem on York.186 Alcuin’s concerns about political instability and the decline of regular communities of clergy or monks might also lie behind the desire to erect monuments emphasizing the importance of the angelic model to combining contemplation with pastoral action as well as the Roman and institutional authority of the church rooted in its pastoral mission.187

LAY BELIEF AND PRACTICE There was a range of circumstances in which the ‘ecclesiastical aristocracy’ interacted with the laity, providing informal and formal contexts for exposure to the new religion. Entering a religious community theoretically involved a rejection of kinship, but it clearly remained important. Abbess Ælfflæd of Streoneshalh (Whitby) reportedly approached Cuthbert to ask about the future of her brother, King Ecgfrith.188 She was also placed at the deathbed of his successor, her halfbrother, King Aldfrith.189 It was plausible that King Ecgfrith’s thegn Imma, as a peasant or a thegn, had a brother who was a priest and abbot, aware of his fate and praying for his release.190 Members of the ‘ecclesiastical aristocracy’ were lords of laymen. Bishop John apparently travelled with a retinue including clergy and lay youths.191 Institutional authority as an abbot, abbess, or bishop brought formal responsibilities towards laity. The expectation that Abbess Hild of Streoneshalh (Whitby) would meet with, and listen to, her reeve is context for the story that her cowherd Cædmon entered the community because of his talents in composing Old English poems.192 The assumption that her successor, Abbess Ælfflæd, provided a church for an estate at Osingadun (Easington?) underpinned the story of a miracle performed by Cuthbert.193 Bishop Wilfrid and Bishop John were depicted providing charity, laying on hands, and dedicating churches amongst laity.194 Belief in the charismatic authority of ‘ecclesiastical aristocrats’, living or dead, might prompt the laity to seek them out. While imprisoned by King Ecgfrith, Wilfrid was supposedly approached by a reeve to request a cure for the reeve’s wife, which he provided.195 Such interactions provide the necessary social context to produce changes in lay belief. Charting any changes that occurred is more complex and problematic, both conceptually and methodologically. Changes in belief are best approached first through the textual evidence, which provides a context for thinking about mortuary ritual and material culture. 187   See Chapter 3, pp. 123–5.   Pickles 2009a: 22–3. 190 191   VW c. 59.   HE iv.22 (20).   HE v.6. 193   VCA iv.10; VCB c. 34; Pickles 2016b: 270–2 for location. 194 195   VW c. 18; HE v.2, 4–5.   VW c. 37. 186 189

188   VCA iii.6; VCB c. 24.   HE iv.24 (22).

192

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

178

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

The ‘ecclesiastical aristocracy’ established a yardstick for measuring changes in lay belief: the cult of idols and sacrifice to demons were considered unacceptable in Christians, a message regularly impressed upon the laity through preaching, ecclesiastical councils, and stories preserved in vitae. Pope Boniface V exhorted King Edwin to ‘hate idols and idol worship, to spurn their foolish shrines and the deceitful flatteries of their soothsaying’ and advised his Christian wife Æthelburg to encourage him in this.196 King Oswiu supposedly urged King Sigeberht of the East Saxons to abandon idols.197 The Dialogus Ecgberhti listed adoration of idols amongst those activities that debarred a person from ordination.198 Public ‘pagan’ religious practices were apparently abandoned quite quickly. This is implicit in the assumption by the early eighth century that public ‘pagan’ religious practices were historic and that heathens were to be found elsewhere. Edwin’s chief priest Coifi was credited with destruction of a major ‘pagan’ shrine at Goodmanham.199 Edwin’s household were thought to have been tempted to read an augury in the presence of a crow outside one of his churches, so that Paulinus had it shot and explained its insignificance.200 Cedd’s foundation at Lastingham may have been a former Roman shrine and had to be cleansed from the stain of unspecified former crimes.201 Stephen included stories of encounters between Wilfrid and heathens, but they took place amongst the South Saxons and the Frisians.202 The Northumbrian Ecgberht, living in Ireland, prompted Willibrord to preach conversion, amongst the Frisians, not the Deirans.203 This apparently swift abandonment of public ‘pagan’ worship is in line with evidence from across the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.204 The same eighth-century texts assume that some of the Deiran laity had accepted Christian beliefs. Stephen thought it would be plausible to his audience that a mother had sought out Wilfrid to baptize her son to restore him to life.205 Archbishop Ecgberht of York thought that the laity and their wives had observed fasts with the clergy since the time of Archbishop Theodore.206 The Deirans still required stories to elucidate the boundary between ‘pagan’ and Christian folk magic. Christians accepted the action of demonic and supernatural forces, though the boundary between the magical and non-magical must have differed from person to person, and ‘pagan’–Christian interactions apparently resulted in the adaptation of each to the other, including the development of Christianized magic.207 Christian belief in devils and demons lies behind Stephen’s story that Queen Eormenburg was possessed by a devil, ‘so that her limbs were all contracted and tightly bound together and that she was manifestly dying’.208 Christianized magic is not known amongst the Deirans, but its early existence

  HE ii.10–11.    197  HE iii.22.    198  Dialogus XV. 200 201   HE ii.13.   VG c. 15.   HE iii.23; Morris 2015: 133–5. 202 203 204   VW cc. 13, 26, 41.   HE v.10–11.   Blair 2005: 167–8. 205 206   VW c. 18.   Dialogus XVI.4. 207 208   Flint 1991; Murray 1992: esp. 198–205.   VW c. 39. 196 199

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

179

is likely in light of the evidence from later Anglo-Saxon England.209 The line between the power of God manifested through relics on the one hand, and magical charms or the apotropaic qualities of amulets on the other, was probably not always clear. A member of the community at Streoneshalh (Whitby) thought that the stories of Pope Gregory confronting some ‘pagan’ magicians and Paulinus destroying the crow thought to be an augury were worth telling in the early eighth century, both emphasizing the power of God over devilish arts.210 Stephen felt the same about the story of Wilfrid’s stand off with a South-Saxon magician.211 The author from Streoneshalh (Whitby) included a long explanation in defence of miracles, confronting the fact that different humans are attributed the same miracles, suggesting he envisaged an audience in need of reassurance.212 Stephen emphasized the error of King Ecgfrith’s wife, Queen Eormenburg, who stole Wilfrid’s reliquary and ‘wore it as an ornament both in her chamber at home and when riding abroad in her chariot’.213 Bede included the story of Ecgfrith’s thegn Imma partly as an illustration of the distinction between ‘loosing’ spells or charms and miracles granted from God.214 Alcuin wrote two letters outlining his disapproval of the existence of two aspects of Christian activity: ‘sworn brotherhoods’, who were being misled by ‘false’ Christian spiritual leaders and forgoing churches in favour of drunken assemblies outdoors; and popular amulets comprising bone bags or extracts from Scripture.215 The picture emerges of a society in which public religious practice was Christian and the laity were conceived of as Christians, but whose population— ecclesiastical and lay—shared a range of beliefs whose acceptability was being debated. Patterns in mortuary ritual and material culture are consistent with this picture. Based on the research of Jo Buckberry and Lizzie Craig-Aitkins, the cemeteries are separated into three broad phases in Tables 11–13 and on Maps 13–14: early to mid Saxon, mid Saxon, and mid to late Saxon.216 Around the last quarter of the sixth century the custom of burying individuals with ‘Germanic’ grave goods and signalling cultural affiliations through females ended. Instead some people were buried with a new suite of grave goods occurring across the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and signalling connections with the Romano-British past as well as the Roman and Byzantine present.217 Within Yorkshire this trend was followed by parts of the population buried at the cemeteries at Acklam, Aldborough, Arncliffe, Broughton, Burton Pidsea, Byland with Wass, Carthorpe, Collingam (Dalton Parlours), Easington (Street House), Garton Green Lane, Garton Slack I, Hawnby, Garton Station, Kirby Underdale (Painsthorpe Wold I), Kirby Underdale (Uncleby), North Elmsall, Stamford Bridge, Occaney Beck, and Womersley. This trend has plausibly been connected 210 211   Jolly 1996; Blair 2005: 473–86.   VG cc. 15, 22.   VW c. 13. 213 214   VG c. 30.   VW c. 34.   HE iv.22 (20). 215   Dümmler (ed.) 1895: Nos. 290–1. Blair 2005: 175–9 for more detailed discussion and analysis. 216   Buckberry 2004; Craig 2009. 217   Geake 1997: 107–22 and 137–9, Table 6.1 for chronological periodization. 209 212

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

180

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

with the development of Roman and Christian ideologies of kingship in the seventh century, though the chronology leaves open the question of whether local elites began to justify their own status in this way and prompted kings to do so in response, or did so in response to royal ideology.218 Either way, the connection with Christianization is open to interpretation: it could be interpreted as an independent social strategy making no reference to Christianity; but it could also be argued that these kin groups must have been aware that they were signalling connections to Christian societies. Within the cemeteries dated to this phase there are elements of continuity and contrast. Some earlier cemeteries were gradually abandoned. Cremation cemeteries and the cremation rite seem to end in the seventh century: the latest burial in the fifth- to sixth-century cremation cemetery at Sancton was a single inhumation probably dating to the seventh century.219 The fifth- to seventh-century cemetery at Sewerby included five graves potentially from this period grouped towards the south of the cemetery, but apparently no later burials.220 The fifthto seventh-century cemetery at West Heslerton included burials with assemblages and radiocarbon dates suggesting a possible early seventh-century date but this seems to have been its temporal limit.221 Other less extensively excavated cemeteries are thought to pre-date this phase because the burials contain no items from this suite. However, it remains possible that more fifth- to sixth-century cemeteries continued in use. Up to three burials in cairns at Hawnby (Dale Town) included items that might belong to the sixth century, such as annular brooches and gold and silver pins, and others that tend to occur after c.600, such as wire rings, a spindle whorl, a hanging bowl, and a workbox.222 Some fifth- to sixthcentury cemeteries included unfurnished burials and the remaining cemeteries belonging to this phase include unfurnished and undated burials. The majority of cemeteries from this phase are identified from single burials, some of which might form part of a larger cemetery; if so, the date range remains unknown. Like the earlier cemeteries, those of this phase include cemeteries of variable sizes and constructed at a range of Iron Age (IA), Bronze Age (BA), and Roman monuments as well as locations with no clear monumental significance: thirtyfive burials in an IA square barrow at Garton Station; fifty-nine burials in an IA linear earthwork at Garton Slack I; 109 burials in an IA rectilinear enclosure at Street House, Easington; four burials in a BA barrow at Howe Hill, Carthorpe; six burials in a BA barrow at Kemp Howe, Cottam; sixty-two burials 218   Geake 1997: 123–36; Hines with Bayliss, Høilund Nielsen, McCormac, and Scull 2013: 460, for phase-boundaries, 461 for the potential uncertainty from off-sets for diet or collagen turnover, and 493–515 for discrepancies between numismatic and Bayesian ranges. 219   Sancton: Myres 1973; Kerr 1980; Timby 1993. Heworth: Keen 1966. The Mount: Stead 1958. 220   Hirst 1985: Graves 23, 24, 25, 40, and 48; Geake 1997: 159. 221  Haughton and Powlesland  1999: I, 80–1 and fig. 45; Hines with Bayliss, Høilund Nielsen, McCormac, and Scull 2013: 342–3. 222   Denny 1865. Geake 1997: Tables on 137–9 and 189–90; Hines with Bayliss, Høilund Nielsen, McCormac, and Scull 2013: 366–7, 370.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

181

in a BA barrow at Garton Green Lane; up to twenty burials in a BA barrow near Kirby Underdale (Painsthorpe Wold I); more than seventy-one burials in another BA barrow near Kirby Underdale (Uncleby); one burial in the former Roman civitas of Isurium at Aldborough; and one more possible in the  former Roman villa at Dalton Parlours. Apart from the new suite of grave goods, it is difficult to identify distinctive trends. By the 650s members of the Deiran and Bernician royal kin groups and some of the ‘ecclesiastical aristocracy’ were commemorated and buried at religious communities. King Oswiu founded Gilling near Richmond in 651 as a community to pray for Oswine and for himself;223 Æthelwald founded Lastingham in 653 with the intention of being buried there;224 and Oswiu founded Streoneshalh (Whitby) in 657 to commemorate the Deiran and Bernician royal lines and as his own burial place.225 Cedd was buried at Lastingham, first outside the walls, but subsequently reinterred in a new stone church.226 Hild was presumably buried at Streoneshalh (Whitby) on her death in 680.227 It is possible that this process whereby kings and ‘ecclesiastical aristocrats’ were given monumental burials in religious communities prompted a revival of elite monumental burial amongst the Deirans. At Street House a cemetery was established within an abandoned Iron Age settlement enclosure.228 It comprised 109 graves, mainly laid out in E–W paired rows along four sides of a rectangle more closely aligned to the four points of the compass, with two gaps suggesting managed entrances, one aligned with the entrance to the enclosure. Two monuments defined the core of the cemetery. First, a ring-ditch with probable mound may have been a cenotaph. Second, a bed-burial, identified from surviving ironwork, was encased in a chamber, leaving visible stake-holes, and covered by a mound. A small sunken-featured building 2.4m × 1.5m was interpreted as a mortuary house. A large post-hole building 7.08m × 2.9m was interpreted as a chapel. Based on artefact typologies the cemetery was dated to c.630–c.670, but the bed burial belongs to a corpus of rich furnished female burials peaking in the 660s and 670s.229 Items in the paired burials suggested a mixed cemetery of males and females including a population engaged in leather-working and iron- or woodworking. Five burials included exceptional objects, some gold and silver: G42 (bed burial), G43, G70, G10, and G21. Several burials made explicit Christian statements: G21 included a pendant with two Iron Age coins of the Corieltavi with crosses on their reverse; G42 included a pendant with a scallop shell motif elsewhere employed as a symbol of St James and which can be read as a reminder of the connections between purification, rebirth, and baptism;230 G70 included a 224 225   HE iii.14, iii.24.   HE iii.23.   HE iii.24. 227 228   HE iii.23.   HE iv.23 (21).  Sherlock 2012. 229  Hines with Bayliss, Høilund Nielsen, McCormac, and Scull 2013: 460, 476–9, 520, 529–30; Hamerow 2016. 230   Sherlock 2012: 49–50; Hines with Bayliss, Høilund Nielsen, McCormac, and Scull 2013: 552. 223 226

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

182

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

circular pendant with a cross pattern; and the G81 knife and whetstone set was laid out to form a cross. A strong case has been made for connecting bed burial with Christian ideas of the afterlife, rest, and sleep.231 Street House is one mile to the north of Easington, the likely location of the Streoneshalh (Whitby) estate called Osingadun, and adjacent to the suggestively named Upton: it is worth considering whether this represents the cemetery established in connection with a royal vill or as a result of a grant to Streoneshalh.232 The Minster in Thanet foundation legend preserved a tradition that Eormengyth, sister of the community’s founder, chose her own place of burial a mile to the east of the community.233 A similar richly furnished female Christian burial at Westfield Farm, Ely (Ca), has been linked to Æthelthryth’s foundation of Ely (Ca) in the 670s.234 Alongside these furnished cemeteries, some new largely or wholly unfurnished cemeteries seem to have been established. At Garton Green Lane there were apparently two cemeteries, one furnished and the other unfurnished. Garton Slack I was mostly unfurnished. Burials at Adwick le Street, Kemp Howe (Cottam), at Kettlewell, Kilham Middle Street, at Ledston, at Viewly Bridge (Northallerton), and at Wharram Percy had no grave goods. During the final quarter of the seventh century furnished burial seems to have ended.235 Moreover, it is possible to see a change in the planning and orientation of cemeteries: the furnished inhumation cemeteries at Cottam (Kemp Howe), Garton (Green Lane), Garton (Slack I), and Garton (Station) were laid out on a more W–E orientation and the unfurnished inhumation cemeteries at Crayke, Pontefract, Ripon (Ailcy Hill), Skipwith, Spofforth, Thornton Steward, Whitby (Abbey Headland), and York (Lamel Hill) are laid out in rows on a W–E orientation with little intercutting, presumably as a result of above-ground markers. The coincidence between conversion to Christianity and this trend towards unfurnished W–E burial in rows has prompted a variety of terms to be applied to this period that assume some relationship between these developments: ‘Final Phase’, denoting the last period of the ‘pagan’ rite of depositing grave goods;236 ‘Christian’, on the assumption that official conversion was rapidly followed by Christianization;237 or ‘Conversion Period’, acknowledging that the relationship may be indirect and complex.238 Yet it has become clear that this simple equation cannot be maintained. Furnished burial may be better explained as the product of social competition than beliefs about the afterlife, even if such beliefs are sometimes   Hines with Bayliss, Høilund Nielsen, McCormac, and Scull 2013: 552. 233   Pickles 2016a: 270–4.   Blair 2005: 232–3. 234   Lucy, Newman, Dodwell, Hills, Dekker, O’Connell, Riddler, and Rodgers 2009. 235  The recent Bayesian analysis suggested the 660s or 670s as the most probable moment when furnished burial ended, but there is uncertainty about off-sets for diet and collagen turnover in the body as well as a disparity between the Bayesian date ranges and the numismatic dates: Hines with Bayliss, Høilund Nielsen, McCormac, and Scull 2013: 460–1, 464–73. 236 237   Lethbridge 1931: 82–5; Lethbridge 1936: 27–9.   Leeds 1936: 96–114. 238  Geake 1997. 231 232

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

183

expressed through the items deposited.239 Moreover, and more importantly, the church was apparently unconcerned about continued burial in traditional cemeteries or rites of furnished burial and there was no universal or universally enforced mode of Christian burial.240 Processes of Christianization may or may not underlie this shift from furnished to unfurnished burial: wider social changes are as likely to have brought it about; if processes of Christianization contributed, there are several competing possibilities for the contribution that they made. Aspects of Christian culture such as new ideologies of kingship, careers in the church, the writing of laws, the issuing of royal diplomas, the building of churches, and more permanent commemoration through stone markers and liturgical observances, may have provided alternative social strategies through which kin groups sought to stabilize their social status.241 Attitudes to membership of a Christian community of believers who would achieve equality in death might have prompted the adoption of more austere or unfurnished burials, sometimes with above-ground markers, by some people, gradually producing emulation amongst others.242 If the relationship between the new suite of grave goods, the end of furnished burial, and Christianization is difficult to establish, there are other developments whose implications for Christianization seem clearer. The first is the relationship between settlements and cemeteries. At a number of known or probable religious communities cemeteries which may include lay burials have been excavated: Addingham, Crayke, Pontefract, Ripon, Skipwith, and Whitby. In light of the mixed populations in religious communities, the existence of men, women, and children does not have to mean laity, but it seems possible that the burial of kings and ‘ecclesiastical aristocrats’ at religious communities along with the responsibility of religious communities towards the lay populations produced a gradual fashion for lay burials at religious communities.243 At Paddock Hill, Octon near Thwing a Bronze Age earthwork was reused for a settlement including a 30m long bow-sided hall building, a rectangular building interpreted as a mortuary chapel, a rubble platform, perhaps for a timber church, and a largely unfurnished cemetery of sixty-eight graves representing at least 132 individuals, surrounded by pallisaded enclosures associated with industrial activity: coin loss demonstrates use from the late seventh to the mid ninth century and radiocarbon dates centre on the period from the seventh to the tenth centuries.244 On current evidence, while awaiting full publication, the interpretation as a high-status secular but Christian settlement with a mortuary chapel and perhaps a church seems plausible; if so, it provides evidence for the spread of Christianity amongst the secular elite and their associates on the Wolds. 240   See Chapter 1, pp. 24–5.   Bullough 1983; Boddington 1990; Blair 2005: 228–9.   Geake 1997: 129–36; Geake 1999; Hadley 2000a. 242 243   Blair 2005: 233–4.   Blair 2005: 241. 244   Manby 1988; Hall 2003: 176–7; Naylor 2004: 32, 50, 52–3; Craig 2009: 28, 38, 186, 205–9, and Plans at figs. 5.13–5.18, 5.24, 5.34–5.35. 239 241

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

184

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

A second development is the emergence of an isolated execution cemetery. A former Roman shrine or temple site at Walkington Wold, Barrow 1, was reused for executions: excavations found twelve post-cranial burials placed in shallow graves, two of which had indications of decapitation, and a further thirteen skulls, several of which had no mandibles, indicating post-mortem display; Radiocarbon dating for three of these returned dates of ad 770–970, 640–770, and 900–1040 at 95 per cent probability.245 The topographical and administrative context suggests a site of judicial execution: on a Bronze Age barrow with extensive views including a major route way linking Beverley and York, and on the boundary between the later Hundreds of Welton and Cave.246 As Sarah Semple has observed, the cultural perception of barrows seems to have changed under Christian influence, as they became peripheral places associated with evil spirits and portrayed as portals to hell.247 A number of socio-cultural trends could have produced the Walkington Wold cemetery, along a spectrum from the desire to signal the social exclusion of deviants by placement in a peripheral landscape, to the decision to display the treatment of such deviants visibly to a wide community of travellers, to a dramatic rite to deny Christian salvation; if the latter possibility played any role the cemetery would be a symptom of Christianization. A third and final development was the projection of social status for a few members of society through more or less explicitly Christian objects. Two types of object may have served as relic containers cum amulets. Copper alloy workboxes were deposited with individuals at Garton Green Lane (burial no. 7), Hambleton Moor, Kirby Underdale (Mortimer Barrow 4), Uncleby (Barrow 29), Kirby Underdale (Painsthorpe Wold 1, burial no. 6), Hawnby, and Arncliffe.248 Neck or waist bags, sometimes with cruciform mounts, were used as furnishings at Hawnby, Kirby Underdale (Painsthorpe Wold 1, burial no. 6), and Sewerby (burials 23–4). Studies of both copper alloy workboxes and neck/waist bags have suggested they were amulet-bags or reliquaries: the continued use of these into the seventh century and the addition to some of cruciform decorative elements suggests that the traditional culture of wearing amulets was being adapted by Christians.249 Items of jewellery taking the form of crosses or marked with crosses may have been becoming fashionable status symbols. A pendant cross was included with the burial at Acklam Wold, another was an accidental discovery at Gray’s Garth Farm near Burton Pidsea,250 yet another was found near Catterick Bridge but is now lost,251 and others have been located through metal detecting in the parishes of Whorlton, Hambleton, and Stainforth.252 246   Bartlett and Mackay 1973; Buckberry and Hadley 2007.   Reynolds 2009: 150–1. 248   Semple 1998; Semple 2004.   Arncliffe: PAS LVPL1644. 249   Meaney  1981: 181–9; Meaney  1989; Geake  1997: 34–5; Blair  2005: 170–1, 174; Hills  2011; Hills 2015. 250 251   PAS YORYM214. MacGregor 2000a; MacGregor 2000b.  Cramp 2013. 252  Whorlton: PAS NCL-FDA851. Hambleton: PAS YORKM-FAD886. Stainforth: PAS SWYOR77FBD7. 245 247

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



The ‘Ecclesiastical Aristocracy’ and the Laity, 600–867

185

Like the workboxes and neck/waist bags, these crosses may have been considered Christian amulets: Cuthbert was buried with a pectoral cross with a space that was perhaps for a relic and Wilfrid wore a relic container around his neck (the same which was stolen by Queen Eormenburg).253 These examples are part of a wider corpus of pendant and pectoral crosses, often found in high-status female burials of the seventh century.254 Further metalwork dress accessories decorated with crosses might have functioned in the same way as status markers and amulets. Copper alloy disc mounts with crosses have been found in the parishes of Studley Royal, Husthwaite, and Doncaster.255 A cruciform horse-harness mount has appeared from the area around Harrogate.256 A ring decorated with a cross has turned up in the parish of Spofforth with Stockeld.257

CONCLUSIONS The conversion of the Deirans to Christianity seems to have begun through the initiative of local kin groups, some of whose members were attracted to Christianity for a variety of reasons particular to the circumstances of the kin group and their own biographies. Yet by providing a political constituency for the official conversion of the kingdom of the Deirans, by establishing a new ‘ecclesiastical aristocracy’, and by working to found a network of religious communities across its territories, they produced the necessary social and institutional framework for the conversion of the lay population. The correlation between early religious communities, eleventh-century soke estates, and high medieval mother parishes suggests that the religious communities of the kingdom were at the heart of a developing early pastoral framework in which they bore some responsibility for the pastoral care of populations across the royal tribute territories within which they were founded. The Streoneshalh (Whitby) Vita Gregorii, passing references in texts about other Deiran communities, and the multivalent images carved on some stone monuments, suggest that some communities actively promoted this responsibility for providing pastoral care. The process of conversion amongst the laity is difficult to chart. Nevertheless, there are glimpses that it was occurring. Eighth-century authors apparently assumed that the Deirans were Christians, that public pagan worship had ceased, and that the laity were participating in some Christian rites. What was being debated, for both the ‘ecclesiastical aristocracy’ and the laity, was the degree to which existing socio-cultural practices could, or should, be adapted to the new religion, a negotiation that would continue well beyond the period 254   Rollason 1989: 29; VW cc. 34, 39; Blair 2005: 173.   Blair 2005: 173–4, 230–3.  Studley Royal: PAS YORYM-55C275. Husthwaite: PAS SWYOR-77FBD7. Doncaster: PAS SWYOR-75CB17. 256 257   PAS YORYM-832B06.   PAS SWYOR-BC4105. 253 255

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

186

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

considered here. A visible manifestation of this debate and negotiation is provided by shifting patterns in mortuary ritual and material culture in Yorkshire. The ‘ecclesiastical aristocracy’ was already changing in the second half of the eighth century and first half of the ninth century, as Chapter  3 has discussed; the ­conquest of the region by Scandinavians and their effect will be subjects of Chapter 5 and Chapter 6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

5 Kingship, Social Change, and the Church, 867–1066 Between 867 and 1066 the people of the former kingdom of the Deirans experienced major social and political change (Map 7). In 867 the Scandinavian ‘Great Army’ defeated Osberht and Ælle, kings of the Northumbrians, at York, resulting in a period of Scandinavian political rule, migration, and settlement. From Edward the Elder (r. 899–924) to Eadred (r. 946–55), the kings of the West Saxons extended their authority over the Northumbrians. Chapter 5 considers these conquests and the socio-political structures developed. This provides a context for assessing the development of the church in the long tenth century in Chapter 6. From 867 to 954 it is a challenge to reconstruct a chronology of events and identify the rulers of the Northumbrians, so some space will be devoted to doing so. The existence of competing models for the political geography of northern England in this period demands a brief analysis of the evidence for a kingdom of the Northumbrians. Attention will then turn to the process of Scandinavian conquest 867–954 and West Saxon conquest and government 867–1066. It will be argued that kings and nobles competing for control over the Northumbrians used alliance with the church and ecclesiastical patronage to exert authority and power: this highlights the wealth and influence of parts of the Northumbrian church, the unpredictable circumstances the ecclesiastical aristocracy faced, and some techniques by which they sought to negotiate them.

CONQUESTS IN NORTHUMBRIA, 867–954 The discrepancy between the chronicle and numismatic dates makes the political situation in 866–7 ambiguous.1 Moreover, events from 867 to 954 are recorded in annals with competing perspectives and often preserved in much later sources. 1

  See Chapter 3, p. 122.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

188

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Excellent attempts to recover a narrative exist elsewhere.2 Nevertheless, some attention to the course of events is required. Parts of the Scandinavian ‘Great Army’ seem to have established intermittent authority over the Northumbrians from 867 to 877. The ‘Great Army’ defeated Osberht and Ælle at York in 866–7.3 The ‘Great Army’ and the Northumbrians made peace.4 Annals preserved in later sources suggest the ‘Great Army’ appointed a Northumbrian king, Ecgberht; the second set of annals in the Historia Regum and Symeon claim that he ruled only those living north of the River Tyne.5 If they are correct, the ‘Great Army’ perhaps controlled York with Ecgberht as their representative across all or some Northumbrians. After further campaigns the ‘Great Army’ returned to York in 869 and remained for a year.6 During 872–3 it experienced a rebellion. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle relates that the ‘Great Army’ went amongst the Northumbrians and took up winter quarters at Torksey (Li) in 873.7 The annals preserved in later sources suggest a context. They agree in asserting that the Northumbrians expelled King Ecgberht and Archbishop Wulfhere in 872.8 The Northumbrians possibly established an alternative ruler, Ricsige: two accounts note that Ecgberht died and Ricsige succeeded,9 but another suggests that the expulsion and accession were linked.10 Two accounts also suggest that the ‘Great Army’ returned in the same year that Archbishop Wulfhere was reinstated, in 873.11 Halfdan and part of the army returned to overwinter on the Tyne in 875: he apparently conquered or ravaged Northumbrian territories before raiding amongst the Picts and the Strathclyde Britons.12 Then, in 876, Halfdan ‘shared out the land of the Northumbrians, and they proceeded to plough and to support themselves’.13 Halfdan perhaps ruled all or some Northumbrians through a subordinate king: two of the annals preserved in later sources suggest Ricsige died and Ecgberht II succeeded in this year.14

2  Stenton  1947: 237–73, 315–57; Angus  1965; Stafford  1989: 24–44; Aird  1998: 9–59; Keynes 1999a; Rollason 2003: 215–18; Rollason 2004: 308–11; Hadley 2006: 37–45, 63–7; Downham 2007: 63–120; Woolf 2007: 68–86, 122–75; Townend 2014: 25–84. 3   ASC ADE s.a. 867, BC s.a. 868; DGRA c. 27; Æthelweard, Chronicon iv.2, p. 36; HR I, s.a. 867; HR II, s.a. 867; LDE ii.6; FH s.a. 867. 4   ASC ADE s.a. 867, BC s.a. 868; DGRA c. 27; Æthelweard, Chronicon iv.2, p. 36; HR I, s.a. 867; HR II, s.a. 867; LDE ii.6; FH s.a. 867. 5   HR II, s.a. 867; FH s.a. 867; LDE ii.6. 6   ASC ADE s.a. 868–9, BC s.a. 869–70; DGRA cc. 30–1; Æthelweard, Chronicon iv.2, 36; HR I, s.a. 868–9; HR II, s.a. 868–9; FH s.a. 868–9. 7   ASC ADE s.a. 873, BC s.a. 874; DGRA c. 45; HR I, s.a. 873. 8 9   HR II, s.a. 872; LDE ii.6; FH s.a. 872.   HR II, s.a. 873; FH s.a. 873. 10 11   LDE ii.6.   HR II, s.a. 873; FH s.a. 873. 12   ASC ADE s.a. 875, BC s.a. 876; DGRA c. 47; Æthelweard, Chronicon iv.3, p. 41; HSC c. 12; HR I, s.a. 875; HR II, s.a. 875; LDE ii.6; FH s.a. 875. 13   ASC ADE s.a. 876, BC s.a. 877. See also: DGRA c. 50; Æthelweard, Chronicon iv.3, p. 41; HSC c. 14, which places this event c.880, after the Community of St Cuthbert’s arrangement with Guthfrith, for which see p. 189; HR II, s.a. 876; FH s.a. 876. 14   HR II, s.a. 876; FH s.a. 876.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Kingship, Social Change, and the Church, 867–1066

189

Halfdan and his associates probably continued to raid with other members of the ‘Great Army’ after 876 and he apparently died in Ireland in 877.15 A further Scandinavian regime was established in 880, 883, or 885. Æthel­ weard’s Chronicon records the death of a Guthfrith in 895, who was ‘entombed in the city of York in the high church’.16 The Historia de Sancto Cuthberto claims that St Cuthbert appeared to Abbot Eadred of Carlisle (Cu) and instructed him to cross the Tyne, approach the army of the Danes, purchase the slave Guthfrith son of Harthacnut, have him elected as king, and have him constituted as king through the placing of a golden armlet on his arm on the hill called Oswiesdune, which Eadred subsequently did.17 Similar stories are found in the two sets of annals preserved in the Historia Regum and in Symeon’s Libellus de Exordio.18 This is a retrospective attempt to link Guthfrith’s regime with the Community of St Cuthbert. It is probable that Guthfrith’s accession occurred in 880. The Historia de Sancto Cuthberto offers no clear dating. The two sets of annals in the Historia Regum and Symeon’s Libellus de Exordio connect this event with the re-establishment of the see of Lindisfarne (Nb) at Chester le Street (Du). Symeon states that, nineteen years after the establishment of the see at Chester le Street (Du), King Alfred (d. 899) and Bishop Eardwulf died in the same year, which suggests Guthfrith was made king and the see was established in 880. This fits with two other pieces of evidence: Æthelweard’s Chronicon records the death of Guthfrith in 895, echoed by entries for 894 in the northern annals preserved in later sources, and the twelfth-century Durham source De primo Saxonum adventu assigns Guthfrith a fourteen-year reign.19 Nevertheless, alternative chronologies could suggest a date in 883, 885, or 886. Both sets of annals preserved in the Historia Regum and Symeon’s Libellus de Exordio date the start of the wandering of the Community of St Cuthbert to 875 and both sets of the annals in the Historia Regum date the establishment of the see at Chester le Street to 883.20 The second set of annals in the Historia Regum and Symeon’s Libellus de Exordio state that the community wandered for seven years, corresponding with this date in the annals of 883.21 However, the first set of annals in the Historia Regum state that the community wandered for nine years, which would give a date of 885.22 Moreover, Symeon states that Edward the Elder died in Bishop Tilred’s seventh year, which would date the wandering to 878–86 or 878–88 and the accession of Guthfrith and the establishment of Chester le Street (Du) to 886 or 888.23 Under this regime there were apparently continuing raids into territories south of the Humber. The entry in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 16   Downham 2007: 70–1.  Æthelweard, Chronicon iv.4, p. 51. 18   HSC c. 13.   HR I, s.a. 883; HR II, s.a. 883; LDE ii.13. 19  Æthelweard, Chronicon iv.4, p. 51; HR I, s.a. 894; HR II, s.a. 894; LDE ii.14; De Primum Saxonum Adventu II, 377. 20 21   HR I, s.a. 875, 883; HR II, s.a. 875, 883; LDE ii.6.   HR II, s.a. 875; LDE ii.5. 22 23   HR I, s.a. 875.   LDE ii.17; Woolf 2007: 143–4. 15 17

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

190

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

for 893 reads: ‘In this year . . . the Northumbrians and East Angles had given King Alfred oaths, and the East Angles had given six preliminary hostages; and yet, contrary to those pledges, as often as the other Danish armies went out in full force, they went either with them or on their behalf.’ It proceeds to give an extended account of the activity of raiding forces including Northumbrians.24 Following Guthfrith’s death, two Northumbrian rulers with Scandinavian names and styled as kings issued coins from the York mint—Sigeferth from c.895 to 900 and Cnut from c.900 to 905.25 Sigeferth may be the Earl Sigeferth who left Dublin in 893 and the Sigeferth piraticus who raided south in the same year.26 Cnut may be recalled in sagas as the Cnut who attacked the Northumbrians.27 Raids into West Saxon territories continued. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle relates that in 896 ‘the Danish divided, one force going amongst the East Anglians and one amongst the Northumbrians’ and that the armies amongst the East Anglians and Northumbrians continued to harass the West Saxons.28 Æthelweard records ‘a disturbance on a very great scale among the English (Anglos), that is the bands who were then settled in the territories of the Northumbrians’ in 899, perhaps referring to further Northumbrian raiding.29 This activity is the context for Northumbrian involvement in the West Saxon succession 899–902. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that Edward the Elder’s cousin Æthelwald rebelled and then ‘went to the Danish army amongst the Northumbrians, and they accepted him as king and gave allegiance to him’.30 Support for this may be found in York coins minted in the name of Aluualdus.31 According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Æthelwald subsequently induced the East Anglian army to break their peace with the West Saxons and support his rebellion, but died in battle in 902.32 From 905 to 919 the identity of the rulers of the Northumbrians is unclear. Chronicles name one ruler: Eadwulf, king of the Northumbrians, who died in 913, perhaps Eadwulf of Bamburgh (Nb).33 For the period 905–19 the York coinage does not usually carry the name of rulers, only the mint name and a reference to St Peter: numismatists consider them issues from secular rulers working with the archbishops and clergy of York.34 There are glimpses of the relations between the West Saxons, Mercians, and rulers of the Northumbrians. 24   ASC A s.a. 893, BCD s.a. 894. HR I, s.a. 893: this entry notes that the East Angles and Northumbrians gave hostages and swore oaths to King Alfred against the pagans. HR II, s.a. 894: this entry conflates the death of Guthfrith, which probably belongs to 895, with Northumbrian oaths to Alfred, which may or may not be the 893 oaths. Compare Æthelweard, Chronicon iv.3, p. 50. 25   Lyon and Stewart 1961; Dolley 1965: Pl. IV, Nos. 16 & 18, Pl. VI, Nos. 19–20; Dolley 1978: 26; Grierson and Blackburn 1986: 320–2; Blackburn 2004: 329–31. 26 27   Annals of Ulster s.a. 893; Æthelweard, Chronicon iv.3, p. 49.   Smyth 1975–9: I, 47–52. 28   ASC A s.a. 896, BCD s.a. 897. See also: HR II, s.a. 897. 29 30  Æthelweard, Chronicon iv.4, p. 51.   ASC A s.a. 900, BCD s.a. 901. 31 32   Dolley 1965: Pl. VI, No. 21.   Mercian Register s.a. 902; ASC A s.a. 904, BCD s.a. 905. 33   Annals of Ulster 913.1; Æthelweard, Chronicon iv.4, p. 53; Woolf 2007: 139. 34   Dolley 1965: Pl. VI, Nos. 22–5 and Pl. VIII, No. 28; Dolley 1978: 26–7; Grierson and Blackburn 1986: 322–3; Stewart and Lyon 1992; Blackburn 2004: 332–3. See pp. 208–9 for further analysis.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Kingship, Social Change, and the Church, 867–1066

191

Edward the Elder made peace with East Angles and Northumbrians in 906.35 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that, in 909, ‘King Edward sent an army both from the West Saxons and from the Mercians, and it ravaged very severely the territory of the northern army, both men and all kinds of cattle, and they killed many men of those Danes, and were five weeks there.’36 Relating the same event, the second set of annals preserved in the Historia Regum states that the Danes had broken a contract with Edward and he compelled kings and dukes to renew the peace.37 In 910 the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that ‘the army amongst the Northumbrians broke the peace . . . and ravaged over Mercia’, but that, during their return journey, Edward’s army overtook them at Tettenhall (St), defeated them, and killed a number of kings and holds.38 The Mercian Register suggests that, in 918, ‘the people of York’ promised Edward’s sister Æthelflæd, lady of the Mercians, that they would be under her direction, confirmed by pledges and oaths from some, but soon after she died.39 The identity of the rulers of the Northumbrians is then much clearer: from 919 to 954 a series of Scandinavian rulers who had been rulers of Dublin competed with the kings of the West Saxons for authority over the Northumbrians, until the West Saxons secured control in 954. Ragnald travelled from Dublin to attack the Northumbrians in 918 and conquer York in 919, and ruled from 919 to 920/1: he issued a regal coinage via the York mint and made peace with Edward the Elder at Bakewell in 920.40 Sihtric Caoch succeeded Ragnald in 920/1 and ruled until 927: Sihtric also issued a coinage; Edward’s successor Æthelstan converted Sihtric and married him to his sister in 926.41 Æthelstan drove Sihtric’s successor Guthfrith II from amongst the Northumbrians and established his authority over them from 927 to his death in 939, reflected in the novel coinage he issued from the York mint.42 Following Æthelstan’s death in 939, the Northumbrians chose Olaf Guthfrithsson as king in 940: Olaf also issued a coinage and extended his authority to Watling Street in 940, but died 35   ASC A, s.a 905, BCDE s.a. 906; HR I, s.a. 906; HR II, s.a. 906. HR II claims Edward was perceived as invincible, but ASC E and HR I suggest he was compelled by necessity. 36 37   ASC A s.a. 909, BCD s.a. 910.   HR II, s.a. 910; FH s.a. 909. 38   ASC AE s.a. 910, BCD s.a. 911. See also: Mercian Register s.a. 910; HR I, s.a. 910; HR II, s.a. 911; FH s.a. 911. 39   Mercian Register s.a. 918. 40   ASC A s.a. 920, DE s.a. 923; HR I, s.a 919; HR II, s.a. 921; FH s.a. 921; Dolley 1965: Pl. VI, No. 26; Dolley 1978: 27; Grierson and Blackburn 1986: 322; Blackburn 2004: 334. Ragnald fought in the battle of Corbridge in 918. Because the HSC cc. 22 and 24 narrates the battle of Corbridge twice, it was once thought that there were two battles in 914 and 918, but it is most likely that there was only one in 918, a prequel to the conquest of York in 919. For analysis: Campbell 1942: 85–91; Wainwright 1950; HSC 105–7; Downham 2007: 91–4; Woolf 2007: 142–4. The ASC records the 920 meeting as a submission to Edward the Elder, but for the argument that this is a West Saxon spin on a peace agreement, see: Davidson 2001. 41   ASC D s.a. 925–6; HR II, s.a. 925–6; FH s.a. 925–6; Dolley  1965: Pl. IX, Nos. 30–1; Dolley 1978: 27. 42   ASC D s.a. 926; ASC E s.a. 927; HR I, s.a. 927; HR II, s.a. 926; FH s.a. 926; Blackburn 2004: 335–6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

192

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

in 941.43 Olaf Sihtricsson (Cuaran) succeeded in 941: he ruled for some time alongside Ragnald Guthfrithsson and both issued coinages; King Edmund conquered the Five Boroughs in 942 and stood sponsor to the baptism of Olaf and the confirmation of Ragnald in 943, before they were driven out and Edmund established his authority.44 When Edmund died in 946 and Eadred succeeded, he re-established West Saxon authority and received oaths and pledges from Arch­ bishop Wulfstan and the councillors of the Northumbrians at Tanshelf in 947.45 Because of conflicting accounts the events of 948–54 are disputed, but it is clear that Wulfstan and the Northumbrians switched allegiances between the West Saxon kings, Eric (perhaps Eric Bloodaxe), and Olaf Sihtricsson, before West Saxon authority was established for good in 954.46

THE KINGDOM OF THE NORTHUMBRIANS, 867–954 Following the majority of chronicle entries, the foregoing narrative has consistently assumed the existence of a kingdom of the Northumbrians. However, there is some disagreement about the political geography of northern England. Entries in the chronicles, including the northern versions and those transmitted through later sources, generally refer to the Northumbrians, the kingdom of the Northumbrians, the councillors of the Northumbrians, and either the army amongst the Northumbrians or the army of the Northumbrians.47 Nonetheless, there are occasional references to the men of York or the people of York and historians sometimes speak of the Viking kings of York or the kingdom of York.48 Two alternative political geographies have been proposed. The first envisages Scandinavian rulers aiming to rule the Northumbrians as a whole, initially through subordinate Anglo-Saxon kings, but competing with indigenous rulers.49 The second envisages Scandinavian rulers at York operating predominantly from Humber to Tees, the Community of St Cuthbert developing its landed power and some judicial independence between the Tees and Tyne, and a quasi kingdom ruled by obscure kings and earls of Bamburgh (Nb) from Tyne to Forth.50 Here it is suggested that contemporaries thought in terms of

43   ASC ABC s.a. 942, D s.a. 941; ASC E s.a. 942; HR I, s.a. 939, 941; HR II, s.a. 941; FH s.a 940–1. Dolley 1965: Pl. IX, No. 32, Pl. X, Nos. 33–4; Dolley 1978: 28; Blackburn 2004: 336–7. 44   ASC ABCE s.a. 942, 944, D s.a. 943–4; Æthelweard, Chronicon iv.4, p. 54; HR I, s.a. 943, 945; HR II, s.a. 943–4; FH s.a 941, 943; Dolley 1965: Pl. XI, Nos. 36 & 38; Dolley 1978: 29. It remains unclear who drove out Olaf and Ragnald: the ASC and HR II claim it was Edmund, Æthelweard claims it was the ealdorman of the Mercians, and Bishop Wulfstan, and HR I says it was the Northumbrians. 45   ASC ABCD s.a. 946, D s.a. 947, E s.a. 948; HR I, s.a. 948; HR II, s.a. 949. 46   For the various possibilities, see: Sawyer 1995; Woolf 1998; Keynes 1999b; Keynes 1999c. 47   Rollason 2003: 215; Rollason 2004: 312. 48 49   Hadley 2006: 44–54, 63–7; Townend 2014: 20–2.   Woolf 2007: 73–175. 50   Rollason 2003: 213, 219–20; Rollason 2004: 308–11.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Kingship, Social Change, and the Church, 867–1066

193

the people and kingdom of the Northumbrians, and that Scandinavian rulers operating from York aimed to rule the Northumbrians as a whole. The Northumbrians were apparently still conceived as inhabiting a region roughly from Humber to Forth and North Sea to Irish Sea, but excluding the north-western territories of the kingdom of Strathclyde. Its southern limits were the Humber, the Dore, and the Whitwell gap in the east, and the Mersey in the west. At the beginning of the period in 867 the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that ‘the raiding-army (here) went from the East Angles over the mouth of the Humber (ofer Humbre muthan) to York city (Eoforwicceastre) amongst the Northumbrians (on Northhymbre)’.51 In the middle of the period in 919 it relates that Edward the Elder ordered an army from the Mercian people to occupy Manchester (La) amongst the Northumbrians (Mameceaster on Northhymbrum).52 Towards the end of the period, in 942, it records that King Edmund overran Mercia as bounded by Dore, Whitwell gate, and the Humber.53 Nonetheless, the Northumbrians may sometimes have been considered to include the people of Lindsey. Three recensions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle claim that in 873 ‘the raiding army (here) went amongst the Northumbrians (on Northhymbre) and took winter quarters (wintersetl) at Torksey in Lindsey (on Lindesse aet Turecesiege)’, and Asser is explicit in his formulation that the army ‘moved on to the province (regio) of the Northumbrians, and spent the winter there in the district (paga) known as Lindsey’.54 The northern limits of the region were probably considered to be somewhere near the Tweed or Forth in the east and the Eden Valley in the west. The AngloSaxon Chronicle entry for 875 states that ‘Halfdan went with part of the raidingarmy (here) amongst the Northumbrians (on Northhymbre) and took up winter quarters (wintersetl) by the River Tyne (be Tinan), and the army conquered (geeode) the land (thaet lond) and often ravaged (oft gehergode) among the Picts and the Strathclyde Britons’.55 The implication is that the Tyne was amongst the Northumbrians and that, having conquered the Northumbrians, Halfdan was free to raid to the north amongst the Scots and to the north-west amongst the Strathclyde Britons. Relating the death of Eadwulf of Bamburgh (Nb) in 913 Æthelweard stated that he ‘died in the lands/borders/frontiers/limits (orae) of the Northumbrians’; though it does not state where, this may reflect the idea that Bamburgh (Nb) was amongst the Northumbrians.56 One recension of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle claims that in 920 Edward the Elder received at Bakewell (Db) ‘the king of the Scots and all the people of the Scots, and Ragnald, and the sons of Eadwulf and all who live amongst the Northumbrians, both English   ASC ADE s.a. 867, BC s.a. 868; compare also DGRA c. 31, and Æthelweard, Chronicon iv.2, p. 35. 53   ASC A s.a. 919.   ASC ABCD s.a. 942. 54   ASC A s.a. 873, BC s.a. 874; DGRA c. 45; ASC DE s.a. 783–4 simply records overwintering at Torksey and subsequently refers to the here at Torksey as the here of Lindesse. 55   ASC ADE s.a. 875, BC s.a. 876; compare DGRA c. 47 and Æthelweard, Chronicon iv.3, p. 41. 56  Æthelweard, Chronicon iv.4, p. 53. 51

52

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

194

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

and Danish, Norsemen and others, and also the king of the Strathclyde Welsh and all the Strathclyde Welsh’.57 This suggests that there were Northumbrians within the territory of the sons of Eadwulf of Bamburgh (Nb). However, Scottish kings were active south of the Forth in the ninth and tenth centuries and dominated the territory of Lothian, roughly between the Tweed and the Forth, by the end of the tenth century.58 To the north-west the kingdom of the Northumbrians had once included the modern counties of Cumberland and Dumfries and Galloway, but probably did not by 954. Recovery of low bullion coins (styccas) from Galloway, including in the latest phases of Whithorn (Dum/Ga), suggests Northumbrian royal control and an integrated economy held out in the north-west to the 860s.59 The tradition preserved in the Historia de Sancto Cuthberto and Symeon’s Libellus de Exordio that the Community of St Cuthbert left Lindisfarne (Nb) c.875 for a peregrination, best understood as an assertion to rights over their lands, which took in Derwentmouth (Cu), supports the idea that Northumbrians still claimed Cumberland.60 Indeed, further entries in the Historia de Sancto Cuthberto suggest that western territories were still Northumbrian in the early decades of the tenth century. During the episcopate of Cuthheard (898 × 912– 912 × 926), Abbot Tilred of Heversham (We) was supposed to have bought membership of the Community of St Cuthbert and the abbacy of Norham (Du); Alfred, son of Beorhtwulf was thought to have fled pirates and come ‘over the mountains in the west’; and Eadred son of Ricsige ‘rode westwards across the mountains and slew Prince Eardwulf, seized his wife, violating the peace and the will of the people, and fled to the protection of St Cuthbert’.61 However, one recension of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle claims that King Æthelstan of the West Saxons succeeded to the kingdom of the Northumbrians and established peace through pledges and oaths with Hywel, king of Deheubarth, Constantine, king of the Scots, Owain, king of Gwent, and Ealdred son of Eadwulf of Bamburgh (Nb) at Eamont (Cu) in the Eden Valley in 926.62 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle suggests that King Edmund ‘reduced all the Northumbrians under his rule’, but then ravaged all Cumberland and granted it to Malcolm, king of the Scots, in 944–5.63 The Eden Valley probably represented the north-west limits of the region inhabited and claimed by Northumbrians and the British kings of Strathclyde presumably extended control over Cumberland in the first half of the tenth century.64 Yet it should be noted that the late tenth-century author of the Life of St Cathroe asserted that the king of the Cumbrians escorted Cathroe to Leeds in the 940s, a frontier (confinium) of the Normanni and the Cumbrians.65 58 59   ASC A s.a. 920.   Molyneaux 2015: 6–7.   Woolf 2007: 70. 61   HSC c. 20; LDE ii.6, ii.11. Rollason 1987: 45–61, for analysis.   HSC cc. 21, 22, 24. 62 63 64   ASC D s.a. 926.   ASC ABCDE s.a. 944–5.  Edmonds 2015. 65   Colgan (ed.) 1945: 494–501, at 497. 57 60

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Kingship, Social Change, and the Church, 867–1066

195

If Northumbrians were considered to inhabit territories stretching from Humber to Tweed or Forth and North Sea to Irish Sea, their particular identity could be ambiguous. The term Northumbrians could be used to denote both ethnic and political groups. Chronicle entries for 866–7 describe a raidingarmy (here) attacking and defeating the Northumbrians, using the term to mean the Christian and Anglo-Saxon people of the whole region.66 Those for the events of 875–6 describe Halfdan and his raiding-army coming amongst the Northumbrians, overwintering on the Tyne, subduing the whole province or people, and then sharing out the land of the Northumbrians, apparently also meaning the Christian and Anglo-Saxon people of the whole region.67 Asser clarifies this by saying that ‘Halfdan, king of one part (ille pars) of the Northumbrians, shared out the whole province (tota regio) between himself and his men.’68 Other entries bristle with ambiguity. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for 893 begins by saying that ‘In this year, that was twelve months after the Danes had built the fortress in the eastern kingdom, the Northumbrians and East Anglians had given King Alfred oaths, and the East Anglians had given six preliminary hostages; and yet, contrary to those pledges, as often as the other Danish armies went out in full force, they went either with them or on their behalf.’69 It is not clear whether the Northumbrians are the Christian and Anglo-Saxon people of the whole region, or the Scandinavians amongst the Northumbrians or ruling the Northumbrians. The first set of annals in the Historia Regum states that the Northumbrians gave hostages and swore fealty against the aforesaid ‘pagans’, who had now returned into England, perhaps referring to the Christian and Anglo-Saxon people.70 Yet the phrase in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle ‘as often as the other Danish armies’ might suggest it  referred to the Scandinavians. Later in the same passage the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle relates that ‘those Danes who lived amongst the Northumbrians and East Anglians collected some hundred ships’, perhaps suggesting the earlier reference to the Northumbrians was to the Scandinavians. Elsewhere, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is clearer in referring to the raiding-army (here) or Danish raiding-army amongst the Northumbrians or the northern army (northhere) of Danish men (menn thara Deniscra).71 The use of the term Northumbrians to denote ethnic and political identities in different contexts makes it difficult to establish who the political actors were in some instances and estimate the extent of their political authority or power. Nonetheless, it seems likely that contemporaries thought in terms of a kingdom of the Northumbrians including the whole region delineated above and aimed   ASC ADE s.a. 867, BC s.a. 868; compare DGRA c. 27 and HR I, s.a. 867 and HR II, s.a. 867.   ASC ADE s.a. 875–6, BC s.a. 876–7; Æthelweard, Chronicon iv.3, p. 41. 68 69 70   DGRA c. 50.   ASC A s.a. 893, BCD s.a. 894.   HR I, s.a. 893. 71   ASC A s.a. 896, BCD s.a. 897; ASC A s.a. 900, BCD s.a. 901; ASC A s.a. 909, BCD s.a. 910; ASC A s.a. 910, BCD s.a. 911. 66 67

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

196

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

to rule the whole region and its people. Scandinavian rulers were sometimes explicitly termed kings of the Northumbrians,72 and there are regular references to the kingdom of the Northumbrians,73 or to the Northumbrians having kings.74 Given the different shades of meaning attached to the term Northumbrians, these references allow of various possibilities. However, there are indications that kings of the Northumbrians aimed to rule the whole region and its people. At the start of the period the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Asser suggest that in 875–6 Halfdan came amongst the Northumbrians, overwintered on the Tyne, subdued the whole province or people, ravaged beyond its limits amongst the Picts and Strathclyde Britons, became king of the Northumbrians or of one part of the Northumbrians, and shared out the whole land or province between himself and his men.75 To establish himself as king of the Northumbrians, Ragnald invaded via the Tyne and defeated Ealdred, son of Eadwulf of Bamburgh (Nb), and Constantine, king of the Scots, at the battle of Corbridge (Nb) in 918, as a prelude to conquering York in 919.76 Towards the end of the period the first set of annals preserved in the Historia Regum claims that King Olaf Guthfrithsson plundered the church of St Balter and burnt Tyninghame (Lo) in 941, but was killed, after which the men of York ravaged the island of Lindisfarne (Nb).77 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is explicit that King Edmund and King Eadred of the West Saxons reduced all the Northum­brians to their rule in 944 and 946, presumably meaning the whole people, and Eadred ravaged all the Northumbrians after they accepted Eric as their king in 947–8.78 Nonetheless, kings of the Northumbrians were able to establish greater authority or power over some parts of the region and its people than others at particular moments. The Scandinavian kings of the Northumbrians were associated with York. The raiding-army (here) initially attacked York in 867 and returned to stay there for one year in 869.79 Asser thought that Halfdan was ‘king of one part (ille pars) of the Northumbrians’, perhaps meaning York with a hinterland, even though he was able to ‘share out the whole province 72   DGRA c. 50, Halfdan, king of one part of the Northumbrians; ASC D s.a. 925, Sihtric, king of the Northumbrians. 73  Æthelweard, Chronicon iv.3, p. 41, Healfdene divided the kingdom of the Northumbrians; ASC D s.a. 926, King Æthelstan succeeded to the kingdom of the Northumbrians; ASC DE s.a. 954, King Eadred succeeded to the kingdom of the Northumbrians. 74  Æthelweard, Chronicon iv.3, p. 51, death of Guthfrid, king of the Northumbrians; ASC D s.a. 941, the Northumbrians chose Olaf from Ireland as their king; ASC D s.a. 947–8, Northumbrians had accepted Eric as their king. 75   ASC ADE s.a. 875–6, BC s.a. 876–7; DGRA c. 50. 76   Annals of Ulster 914.4, 914.5, 917.2, 917.2, 918.4; ASC DE s.a. 923; HR I, s.a. 919; HSC cc. 22–4; LDE ii.16. 77   HR I, s.a. 941. 78   ASC ABCDE s.a. 944–5; ASC ABCD s.a. 946, E s.a. 948; ASC D s.a. 947–8. 79   ASC ADE s.a. 867, BC s.a. 868, DGRA c. 26; Æthelweard, Chronicon iv.2, pp. 35–6; ASC ADE s.a. 869, BC s.a. 870, DGRA c. 31.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Kingship, Social Change, and the Church, 867–1066

197

(tota regio) between himself and his men’.80 King Ragnald apparently achieved victory at Corbridge (Nb) in 918 but subsequently ‘won York’ in 919.81 The Scandinavian kings issued Christian royal coinages from York in cooperation with the archbishops.82 Though Halfdan and Ragnald seem to have shared out lands across the region, Old Norse place-names reflecting Scandinavian migration occur in Yorkshire but not beyond the Tees.83 Scandinavian-style jewellery is found across the counties of eastern and northern England, but rarely to the north of the Tees or west of the Pennines.84 Occasionally Scandinavian rulers and their followers were called the men or people of York. The Mercian Register entry for 918 claims that the people of York promised to be under the direction of Æthelflæd, ruler of the Mercians.85 The first set of annals in the Historia Regum claims that Olaf Guthfrithsson’s death provoked the men of York to ravage Lindisfarne (Nb) in 941.86 Moreover, Eadwulf of Bamburgh (Nb) and his sons remained a significant rival focus of authority and power within the region. The Annals of Ulster describe Eadwulf as ‘king of the Saxons of the north’ in his obituary in 913.87 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle suggests that King Edward the Elder received both Ragnald and the sons of Eadwulf at Bakewell (Db) in 920.88 It claims that when King Æthelstan succeeded to the kingdom of the Northumbrians he also ‘brought under his rule all the kings who were in this island’, including Ealdred, son of Eadwulf from Bamburgh (Nb), implying a degree of independence for Ealdred and perhaps royal status.89 Claims that the Community of St Cuthbert acquired authority from Tees to Tyne and that indigenous kings ruled beyond the Tyne may have been confections to suit the circumstances of the Community when they were produced. The Historia de Sancto Cuthberto states that St Cuthbert told Abbot Eadred to travel ‘over the Tyne to the army of the Danes’ to secure the election of Guthfrith (r. ?880–95), that Guthfrith should be asked to ‘give me all the land between the Tyne and the Wear and [to grant that] whoever shall flee to me, whether for homicide or for any other necessity, may have peace for thirty-seven days and nights’, and that Eadred bought from Guthfrith a series of estates in this area.90 The same text claims that Ragnald seized and redistributed the Community’s estates after the battle of Corbridge (Nb) in 918, but only gives details for estates between the Tees and Tyne.91 Given that a member of the Community of St Cuthbert wrote this text to establish retrospective claims to their rights   DGRA c. 50.   Annals of Ulster 914.4, 914.5, 917.2, 917.2, 918.4; ASC DE s.a. 923; HR I, s.a. 919; HSC cc. 22–4; LDE ii.16. 82 83   See pp. 208–9.   See p. 201.    84  See pp. 202–3. 85 86   Mercian Register s.a. 918.   HR I, s.a. 941. 87   Annals of Ulster s.a. 913. Compare Æthelweard, Chronicon iv.4, p. 53, where Eadwulf is described as ‘reeve (actor) of the town called Bamborough’. 88 89 90 91   ASC A s.a. 920.   ASC D s.a. 926.   HSC cc. 13, 19a.   HSC cc. 22–4. 80

81

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

198

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

over land and people, perhaps as early as the mid tenth century, but in its final form in the late eleventh or early twelfth century, these details should be treated with caution. The historical claim that the Tyne was a boundary beyond which the Scandinavian regime could be found was a useful way to detach the sons of Eadwulf and the Community from any suspicions of collaboration with Scandinavians before Guthfrith. The claim that Guthfrith established the Community’s rights to authority between Wear and Tyne may be no more than back projection of rights from the mid tenth century, or the late eleventh or early twelfth century. If Ragnald did seize and redistribute the Community’s estates, this could have included estates beyond the Tyne, but the Community may only have felt it necessary to specify those between Tees and Tyne, relying on the sons of Eadwulf of Bamburgh (Nb) to recognize its rights beyond the Tyne. A similar scepticism should be shown to the idea that indigenous kings only ruled beyond the Tyne. The annals preserved in later sources agree in asserting that under Halfdan there were three subordinate kings—Ecgberht (r. 876–72), Ricsige (r. 872–6), and Ecgberht II (r. 876–8). There are some reasons for thinking that these kings ruled the Northumbrians as a whole. The northern annals preserved in Roger of Wendover’s Flores Historiarum simply state that they were kings of the Northumbrians and ruled the kingdom under Danish power.92 The connection between the expulsion of Ecgberht and Archbishop Wulfhere of York in 872 and the accession of Ricsige and restoration of Wulfhere in 873 suggests a single connected dominion.93 The reign attributed to Ecgberht II in De primo Saxonum adventu (876–8) suggests he died before Guthfrith succeeded, so that they were successive kings of the Northumbrians, not contemporary rulers of different regions. Yet the second set of annals preserved in the Historia Regum and Symeon’s Libellus de Exordio both assert that these kings ruled beyond the Tyne.94 This claim in two twelfth-century Durham-connected texts was perhaps designed to provide historical justification for the independent power of the Community from Tees to Tyne in the twelfth century.95 The kingdom of the Northumbrians probably stretched from Humber to Tweed or Forth and east coast to west. It is likely that rulers of the Northumbrians were seeking to establish their authority and power over the people of this whole region and there is little reason to think in terms of clear political subdivisions. But Scandinavian rulers coexisted and competed with Scandinavian rivals, the West Saxon kings, indigenous kings, the sons of Eadwulf of Bamburgh (Nb), the archbishop of York, the Community of St Cuthbert, and a powerful Northumbrian nobility, making cooperation with the church an attractive strategy.

93   FH s.a. 867, 872, 873.   HR II, s.a. 872; FH s.a. 872; LDE ii.6. 95   HR II s.a. 867, 876; LDE ii.6.   Woolf 2007: 73–9.

92 94

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Kingship, Social Change, and the Church, 867–1066

199

SCANDINAVIAN CONQUESTS, KINGSHIP, AND THE CHURCH, 867–954 Many of the Scandinavian rulers were part of a kin group descended from Ivar, a leader of the ‘Great Army’ in 865/6, but it remains unclear whether membership of this kin group conferred any special legitimacy, or how connected, cooperative, or coordinated were their activities.96 Leaders of the raiding armies derived authority primarily from a reputation for military success and power from retinues of followers rewarded with tribute from raiding. Within the armies were rivals with the potential to usurp that authority and power, whose loyalty needed to be preserved.97 Accounts of the ‘Great Army’ in the AngloSaxon Chronicle depict a number of leaders, sometimes designated ‘kings’, who formed temporary alliances; they suggest that their retinues retained a distinctive identity and remained a basis for political power after conquest. When Alfred faced the ‘Great Army’ at Ashdown (Brk) in 871 ‘the Danes were in two divisions: in the one were the heathen kings Bagsecg and Halfdan, and in the other the earls’, and Scandinavian casualties included Earl Sidroc the elder, Earl Sidroc the younger, Earl Osbern, Earl Fraena, and Earl Harald.98 After its sojourn at Repton (Db) the army divided in 875: ‘Halfdan went with part of the army amongst the Northumbrians and took up winter quarters by the River Tyne . . . and the three kings, Guthrum, Oscytel and Anwend went from Repton to Cambridge with a great force and stayed there a year.’99 Following further cooperative raiding from 893 to 896 ‘the Danish army divided, one force going amongst the East Anglians and one amongst the Northumbrians; and those that were moneyless got themselves ships and went south across the sea to the Seine.’100 Æthelwald ‘went to the Danish army amongst the Northumbrians and they accepted him as king and gave allegiance to him’ in 900.101 Having provided their support, the East Anglian contingent was defeated in Kent in 902: ‘on the Danish side King Eohric was killed, and the atheling Æthelwald, whom they had chosen as their king, and Beorhtsige, son of the atheling Beornnoth, and Ysopa the hold and Oscytel the hold and also very many with them, whom we cannot name now.’102 In 910 ‘the army amongst the Northumbrians broke the peace . . . and ravaged across Mercian land’, but Edward’s army confronted and defeated them, ‘And there were killed King Eowils and King Halfdan and Earl Ohtor and Earl Scurfa, and Othulf the hold and Benesing the hold, and Olaf the Black and Thurferth the hold, and Osfrith Hlytte, and Guthfrith the hold, and Agmund the hold and Guthfrith.’103 96   There is a long controversial historiography on this issue: Haliday 1884; Smyth 1977; Smyth 1975–9; Hudson 2005. For the most reliable overview: Downham 2007: esp. 1–9, 63–120. 97 98 99  Raffield 2016.   ASC ADE s.a. 871, BC s.a. 872.   ASC ADE s.a. 875, BC s.a. 876. 100 101   ASC A s.a. 896, BCD s.a. 897.   ASC A s.a. 900, BCD s.a. 901. 102   Mercian Register s.a. 902; ASC A s.a. 904, BCD s.a. 905. 103   ASC AB s.a. 910, BCD s.a. 911.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

200

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Scandinavian rulers also had to negotiate alliances amongst the Northumbrian nobility. A law of the later ninth or tenth century covering midland and northern England, Norđleoda laga, offers a glimpse of this political community: it outlines idealized socio-political structures for these regions and defines them in terms of the compensation due to different status groups—ceorlas or freemen valued at 266 thrymsas, thegns at 2,000, holds and king’s high-reeves at 4,000, ealdormen and bishops at 8,000, and the archbishop at 15,000.104 The potential difficulties Scandinavian rulers faced in engaging with this political community may be glimpsed in the events of 866–7 and 918.105 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reports infighting amongst the Northumbrians in 866–7: ‘And there was great civil strife going on in that people, and they had deposed their king Osberht and taken a king with no hereditary right, Ælle. And not until late in the year did they unite sufficiently to proceed to fight the raidingarmy.’106 The Historia de Sancto Cuthberto played down the rivalry and suggested instead that Osberht and Ælle expropriated estates from the Community of St Cuthbert and suffered conquest as divine retribution.107 Both authors had good reason to assert these different positions, the first as a lesson in unity and the second as a lesson about the dangers of exploiting religious communities. Yet there could be truth in both. The first fits comfortably with dynastic competition witnessed in the eighth century for the Northumbrians and the ninth century for the Mercians, and which the ‘Great Army’ exploited in other cases.108 The second might be a function of the problems created by the explosion of religious patronage in the early eighth century, and royal expropriation of ecclesiastical estates occurred in other kingdoms in the ninth century.109 In narrating the events of 918 the Historia de Sancto Cuthberto claims that Ragnald had driven Ealdred son of Eadwulf of Bamburgh (Nb), from his territory, so that Ealdred sought help from Constantine, king of the Scots, as a result of which Ragnald faced not only Constantine and Ealdred, but also Alfred son of Beorhtwulf, and Eadred son of Ricsige, who had fled to the lordship of the Community of St Cuthbert, as well as other Northumbrian nobles.110 It goes on to suggest that Ragnald redistributed the lands of the Community, including those held by these men, to his followers Scula and Onlafbald, but also to the brother and son of Eadred son of Ricsige.111 The Historia presents retrospective claims about the Community’s rights over land and people: the details should not be assumed accurate. Nevertheless, its account sets out the  secular and ecclesiastical forces that an author of the mid tenth century, or the later eleventh or early twelfth century, assumed were at work: each successive conquest and redistribution of land created a new set of conflicting claims to be balanced.

105  Norđleod; Wormald 1999b: 391–4.   See Chapter 3, pp. 120–2.   ASC ADE s.a. 867, BC s.a. 868. See also: HR I and HR II, s.a. 867; FH s.a. 867. 107 108   HSC c. 10. See also: LDE ii.6.   See Chapter 3, pp. 120–2. 109 110 111   See Chapter 3, pp. 125–6.   HSC cc. 22, 24.   HSC cc. 23–4. 104 106

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Kingship, Social Change, and the Church, 867–1066

201

Moreover, this political community was apparently undergoing rapid change through migration. A large proportion of the place-names, field-names, and personal names of Yorkshire, Cumberland, Westmorland, and Lancashire, recorded in the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries, are wholly or partly derived from Old Norse.112 The interpretation of these names has produced a great deal of historical debate: there is no space or need to engage with all the contributions here.113 Two important analyses argue convincingly that a dense distribution of Old Norse names represents a dense population of Old Norse speakers whose migration probably began in this period, though it may have continued for hundreds of years.114 The first is a reassessment of place-names in -by(r), ‘farm, estate’.115 It argues that the corpus of -by(r) names suggests a large number of Old Norse speakers, perhaps coining these names in the tenth century. The predominant elements combined with -by(r) were Old Norse personal names and descriptive terms. The names preserve Old Norse grammatical forms in a number of instances. This suggests that they were coined and maintained by local populations of Old Norse speakers. The variety of Old Norse personal names combined with -by(r) suggests a large number of Old Norse speakers associated with the land. The presence of field-names in -by(r) suggests a relatively large population of Old Norse speakers, including some of relatively low status. The fact that shortened forms of Old Norse personal names were rarely combined with -by(r) and were fashionable in the eleventh century suggests that the -by(r) names may have been coined in the tenth century. The second is a study of the personal names recorded in Domesday Book (1086 x 1088). There are significant regional contrasts in the proportion of Old English and Old Norse personal names in Domesday Book, and the highest relative proportion of Old Norse names is found in Yorkshire at 70 per cent.116 This rises in some regions, such as Ryedale, where the relative proportion of Old Norse names is 98 per cent and there is a wide diversity of names recorded.117 Since personal naming was ‘meaningfully constrained within networks of family, community, and patronage’, the adoption of Old Norse names is more likely to reflect ongoing migration and settlement than fashion, suggesting a dense population of Old Norse speakers.118 A limited number of furnished burials and an increasing corpus of Scandinavian and Anglo-Scandinavian jewellery probably derive from migration. Male inhumations furnished with weapons from four sites in Yorkshire may reflect Scandinavian influence: Camp Hill House, Carthorpe; Kildale church;

  For the corpus: Fellows-Jensen 1968; Fellows-Jensen 1972; Fellows-Jensen 1985.   Abrams and Parsons 2004: 381–92. 114   For a more thoroughgoing analysis of the Yorkshire evidence, see Townend 2014: 95–112. 115 116   Abrams and Parsons 2004: esp. 392–404.  Parsons 2002. 117 118   Townend 2007: esp. 6–17.   Townend 2007: quotation at p. 10. 112 113

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

202

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Wensley church; and Pippin Castle, Scargill.119 They represent a limited and localized culture of furnished and monumental burial in which male social status was projected with reference to weapons, trade, and agriculture, and some items with Scandinavian connections, but they could represent either the burials of Scandinavians specifically or the burials of individuals of unknown ethnicity in a society where some people derived social status from such associations.120 Two female inhumations at Bedale and Adwick le Street, each buried with a pair of oval ‘tortoise’ brooches, are probably Scandinavian women, because the paired brooches represent late ninth- or tenth-century Scandinavian dress and jewellery fashions found on a minority of individuals in England.121 At Adwick le Street the burial was of a female aged 35–45 years or older, also furnished with a copper-alloy bowl, an iron knife, and an iron key or latch-lifter, and isotope analysis of her tooth enamel suggests origins just possibly in north-east Scotland, but more probably in the Trondheim region of Norway.122 Scandinavian and Anglo-Scandinavian jewellery includes two main types of dress accessory—brooches and strap ends—but the brooches are of most interest for identifying migration. Jane Kershaw compiled a corpus of over 500 brooches discovered across England up to December 2008 and subjected them to persuasive analysis.123 Scandinavian brooches are distinguished from Anglo-Scandinavian brooches by the materials of manufacture and aspects of form.124 Scandi­navian brooches were manufactured in Scandinavia using brass with tinning on the reverse, including a double H-shaped pin-lug, a hooked catchplate, and a suspension loop, but lost in England. Anglo-Scandinavian brooches were manufactured in England without brass or tinning, included a single, transverse pin-lug and a C-shaped catchplate, though without a suspension loop, and were influenced by Scandinavian art styles. Dating is stylistic: Oval brooches from c.800 to c.900/925; Lozenge brooches, Type II Borre-style disc brooches, East Anglian Series brooches, and Trefoil brooches from c.875 to c.950; Terslev-style brooches and Jellinge-style brooches from c.900 to 975; Ringerike-style brooches from c.1000 to 1050; and Urnes-style brooches from c.1050 to 1125.125 Scandinavian brooches were lost in Yorkshire across this period. Scandinavian Oval brooches have been found not only in the burials at Bedale and Adwick le Street, but also at Kilnwick.126 Scandinavian Type II Borre-style disc brooches have been found at Appleton le Street and near   Redmond 2007: 92–116, esp. 106–11.  For discussion: Graham-Campbell 1980; Edwards  1992; Edwards  1998; Halsall  2000; Richards 2002; Hadley 2006: 237–71; Redmond 2007: 114–16. 121 122   Redmond 2007: 95.   Speed and Walton Rogers 2004. 123   Kershaw 2013, and online catalogue hosted by the Archaeological Data Service at http://dx.doi. org/10.5284/1012709. 124   Kershaw 2013: 20–41, partially expressed on p. 21, Table 2.1. 125   Kershaw 2010 and Kershaw 2011 are excellent guides to the styles and dating; Kershaw 2013: 25–33 and 146–55, for application to the brooches, with a useful visualization of dating on p. 155, fig. 4.2. 126   Kershaw 2013: Nos. 434, 439, and 440. 119 120

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Kingship, Social Change, and the Church, 867–1066

203

Doncaster.127 Scandinavian Trefoil brooches have been found at Maltby and near Thornton le Dale.128 Scandinavian Jellinge-style disc brooches have been found at Burton Fleming, Cottam, Dalton, Skipsea, Weaverthorpe, and Wetwang.129 A  Scandinavian equal-armed brooch has also been found at Collingham.130 Moreover, these may be set alongside a range of Anglo-Scandinavian brooches reflecting the popularity of Scandinavian art styles—Borre-style disc brooches from Deighton and Wharram le Street; an East Anglian Series brooch from Rowland Hill; a Trefoil brooch from Cottingham; Terslev brooches from Bawtry and Beverley; and Jellinge-style disc brooches from York.131 Though East Anglia and Lincolnshire reveal larger concentrations of Scandinavian and AngloScandinavian brooches, this suggests a significant number of female migrants in Yorkshire, particularly on the Chalk Wolds and surrounding lowlands and on the western edge of the Vale of Mowbray.132 The archaeology of settlements on the Chalk Wolds suggests that significant economic and social changes were taking place. The Wharram Percy research project ran from 1959 to 1990 and uncovered evidence for Anglo-Saxon settlement in several areas: the Northern Plateau, Western Plateau (North and South), and the Valley (including the churchyard and mill pond).133 Anglo-Saxon activity is most likely to have begun at the Wharram sites in Phase 2 (630–80) and the activity from Phase 2 is now considered alongside that from Phase 3 (680–725), Phase 4 (725–70), and Phase 5 (770–850) in a broad Middle Saxon phase.134 The new geophysical survey revealed this activity focused on a series of curvilinear enclosures, including occasional post-built and more frequent sunken-featured buildings, and associated with a broad range of Middle Saxon metalwork, bone, and ceramic finds.135 Three areas revealed metalworking. Two were on the Western Plateau (N). Sites 94 and 95 included a sunken-featured building with a central hearth, which was backfilled with clay crucibles, moulds, and tuyère blocks, as well as a curvilinear ditch containing further metalworking debris.136 Sites 59, 76, 81, 85, 90, and 93 revealed two successive ditches associated with two successive buildings, including bars and rods of iron and patches of burnt clay, ash, and slag.137 A third was on the Western Plateau (S). Sites 32 and 78 uncovered a series of ditches, gullies, and post-holes with Middle Saxon pottery sherds, associated with a building and a 128   Kershaw 2013: Nos. 74 and 76.   Kershaw 2013: Nos. 406 and 412. 130   Kershaw 2013: Nos. 458–60, 462, and 485–6.   Kershaw 2013: No. 431. 131   Kershaw 2013: Nos. 72–3, 316, 342, 354, 404, and 483–4. 132   Kershaw 2013: 179–214, esp. 202–6. 133   Wrathmell (ed.) 2012a: 3–9 for the most up-to-date survey of the work undertaken. 134   Riddler 2012a: 137–46. 135   Milne and Richards (eds) 1992; Stamper and Croft (eds) 2000: 27–37, 60–100, 101–64; Rahtz and Watts (eds) 2004: 35–103, esp. 66–73; Mays, Harding, and Heighway (eds) 2007: 20–39, 65–70; Linford, Linford, and David 2012: 51; Riddler 2012a; Wrathmell 2012b. 136   Wrathmell 2012b: 121–3. 137   Milne and Richards (eds) 1992: 27–37; Wrathmell 2012b: 124–5. 127 129

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

204

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

hearth lining containing metalworking slag.138 This looks like a Middle Saxon settlement type known from the Wolds through aerial photography and excavation, often called a Butterwick-type settlement.139 The range of finds is consistent with a rural settlement to which iron was imported for smithing,140 which had access to coins and Continental objects, and which may have had ecclesiastical connections, suggested by fragments of stone sculpture and ceramic moulds.141 At some time between c.850 and c.950 this settlement was abandoned and a new planned settlement was established comprising a row of tofts and crofts with a mill, a burial ground, and then a church. The West Row of tofts is thought to be the earliest element of the planned village on account of its relative isolation within the plan, the irregularity, the absence of crofts, and the large peasant houses; it probably pre-dates c.1180 because the scarp defining its frontage runs into the curia of the South Manor.142 This may be contemporary with unusually broad ridge-and-furrow, overlying the Middle Saxon curvilinear enclosures and ignored by the South Manor croft boundaries.143 Finds dating to the later ninth and earlier tenth centuries suggest a contraction of the settlement to the South Manor Area, particularly the West Row of tofts, and to the Valley, including the churchyard and surrounding plateau.144 Within the churchyard, radiocarbon dates suggest that the burials began in the period 940–95 at 95 per cent probability and spread to the limits of the cemetery before 1066. A Phase I timber structure, perhaps a church, was superseded by a Phase II stone church radiocarbon dated to the period ad 945–1185 at 95 per cent probability or ad 1010–1120 at 68 per cent probability. A series of grave-covers, some reused Roman sarcophagi lids, were probably carved in the later tenth or early eleventh century and may represent founder graves associated with the Phase II stone church.145 Again, the finds give the impression of a rural village, but with access to an impressive quantity of imports from York or an intermediate market nearer to Wharram.146 At Cottam and Cowlam work by Julian Richards has suggested a similar transition. Following significant metal-detected finds147 and periods of fieldwalking in 1989 and 1993,148 he undertook geophysical surveys and excavations at three sites in close proximity—Cottam A, Cottam B, and Cowlam. 139   Wrathmell 2012b: 130–3.   Stoertz 1997: 55, 59; Wrathmell 2012c: 106–13.  McDonnell  1992; McDonnell, Blakelock, and Rubinson, with contributions from Chabot, Daoust, and Castagnino 2012. 141  Richards  1992; Hurst (ed.)  1979: 46, 124; Rahtz and Watts (eds)  2004: 226; Riddler  2012a: 146–54. 142 143   Oswald 2012: 39–41.   Oswald 2012: 41. 144   Riddler 2012b: 202–3; Wrathmell 2012d. 145   Hurst and Rahtz (eds) 1987: 52, 55–61, 179; Mays, Harding, and Heighway (eds) 2007: 30–75, 193–215, 271–87, 327–35; Wrathmell 2012d: 207–8. 146   Richards 1992: 197–200; Riddler 2012b: esp. 202–3. 147 148   Haldenby 1990; Haldenby 1992; Haldenby 1994.   Didsbury 1990; Vyner 1999. 138 140

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Kingship, Social Change, and the Church, 867–1066

205

At Cottam B two excavations were undertaken to investigate two c­ oncentrations of finds: one exposed three trenches 10m by 20m in 1993, and the other, c.200m to the north, exposed an area 20m by 50m in 1995. There were two eighth- to ninth-century phases, mainly focused within a sub-rectangular enclosure aligned on a N–S trackway in the first excavated area. Period IIA comprised the truncated remains of two post-hole timber buildings, one perhaps c.5m by c.12m, and a shallow ditch with internal post-holes, including lava quern fragments and a knife, all in the first excavated area. Period IIB comprised a post-in-trench building, a corn dryer, another ditch, and pits, with fills including ninth-century metalwork and coins in the first excavated area, and field boundaries and ditches in the second. For Period IIA the earliest datable object was a Northumbrian styca of Eadberht from ad 737 and for Period IIB the majority of the datable finds are from the mid ninth century. A female skull recovered from one of the pit fills was radiocarbon dated at ad 647–877 at 95 per cent confidence, and seems likely to be from the first three-quarters of the eighth century; the upper fill of the pit included a silver penny of Æthelberht of the West Saxons (858–c.862/4). Amongst the metal-detected finds were iron and copper-alloy objects, including strap-ends, pins, and knives. Based on the size of the halls and sunken-featured buildings, the bone assemblage suggesting production and consumption on-site, the low level of evidence for manufacture, the comparatively low density of metalwork objects, and an absence of imported objects (except the lava quern fragments), Julian Richards has argued persuasively that this was a small Butterwick-type farming settlement, comparable with the Middle Saxon phase at Wharram Percy. Cottam A is a settlement identified through a 40m × 50m excavation at Cottam Grange Farm adjacent to the western boundary of Stockyard Field. On the site of an abandoned Romano-British ladder settlement there was a sub-circular feature 0.6m in diameter and 0.2–0.25m deep, two circular pits 1m in diameter and 0.2–0.25m deep, and a layer rich in small finds of eighth- to tenth-century date: these included an eighth- to ninth-century disc-headed dress pin, a range of coins spanning from one of King Eadberht (737–58) to another of Archbishop Wulfhere (c.854–900), an eighth- to ninth-century spindle whorl, two ninth- to tenth-century finger-rings, and two eighth- to eleventh-century combs. Again, this seems to be a Butterwick-type settlement comparable to the Middle Saxon phase at Wharram Percy.149 Church Farm, Cowlam is the site of a Deserted Medieval Village excavated by Tony Brewster in 1971–2: he discovered a building, post-holes, and ditches possibly of late Anglo-Saxon date: Building A was a post-hole building of 5.18m × 9.75m associated with a sherd of late Anglo-Saxon shell tempered pottery; further undated post-holes were connected with a circular pit associated with a late Anglo-Saxon Torksey type bowl; and two E–W ditches or slots 149

  Richards 2013: 211–30, 257–62.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

206

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

were associated with more Torksey ware and late Anglo-Saxon gritty ware. Following up these discoveries, Julian Richards instigated further metal-detecting, a gradiometer survey, test pitting, a borehole survey, and an excavation of 8m × 10m. The excavation revealed a series of linear and curvilinear ditches with a sunken-featured building 4.2m × 3.2m and 0.35m deep, with fill deposits including a Series J sceatta (c.710–60), an oval intrusion 1.4m × 2.3–1.4m and 0.5m deep, and a sub-circular post-hole. The finds included coins ranging from Series E, Series J, and Series Q sceattas (c.710–60) to one of Archbishop Wigmund (c.837–54), twenty pins, four seventh- to eleventh-century hooked tags, a pair of seventh- to ninth-century tweezers, and ten ninth- to tenth-century strap ends. The faunal assemblage shows a predominance of sheep reared for meat and cattle kept for breeding, milk, or traction. Again, this looks like a Butterwicktype settlement, comparable to the Middle Saxon phase at Wharram Percy.150 However, as these Middle Saxon ‘Butterwick’ type settlements went out of use, a single late ninth- to early tenth-century phase was discovered at Cottam B in the second excavated area. Period III comprised a concentration of postholes at the north of the excavated area, apparently from multiple phases of timber buildings, with two enclosures to its south—one with post-holes suggesting timber structures, another without internal structures, interpreted as a possible stock enclosure—all accessed from the south through a large timber gateway along a N–S trackway. Finds included York-, Torksey-, and Maxey-type ware pottery of the later ninth and tenth century, a spearhead, ‘Norse’ bells, a Borre-style buckle, a Jellinge-style brooch, lava and gritstone quern fragments, hone stones, fuel ash slag, and lead slag. Julian Richards makes a persuasive case for a tenth-century Anglo-Scandinavian farmstead occupied by farmers aspiring to high status.151 Setting the Wharram Percy evidence in its wider settlement context, Stuart Wrathmell argued that these changes represent a fundamental economic and social shift: from Early to Middle Saxon resource territories focused on settlements on the lowlands with outlying dependences connected to transhumance regimes, to Late Saxon nucleated settlements sustaining a larger number of aspiring local landlords.152 The silver hoards of northern England are a symptom of the challenges posed to Scandinavian rulers by this political environment. Scandinavians across the Viking diaspora were engaged in the acquisition of portable wealth, particularly silver, to maintain or construct social relationships.153 Patterns of raiding and exchange, focused particularly on the Irish Sea zone, lie behind the distribution of hoards of silver coins and bullion in northern and western

  Richards 2013: 207–52, 257–62.   Richards 1999; Richards 2001; Haldenby and Richards 2009. 152   Wrathmell 2012e; Wrathmell 2012f. 153  Gurevič 1968; Samson 1991; Hedeager 1994; Sindbaek 2011; Skre 2011; Sheehan 2013. 150 151

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Kingship, Social Change, and the Church, 867–1066

207

Scotland and Ireland.154 The northern English hoards may be considered part of this wider Irish Sea zone silver economy, but also reflect Scandinavian conquest in England and the development of Scandinavian coinages.155 For these purposes, the mixed hoards of coins, ingots, jewellery, and hack-silver are most pertinent. A starting point is a riverine location close to York known as ‘Ainsbrook’. A ditch enclosing around 76 acres is associated with burials radiocarbon dated to the tenth century, finds of weights, brooches, silver ingots, hack-silver, hackgold, weapon fragments, Northumbrian coins, a copper alloy book mount, and an ornamental stud. A hoard comprising weights and scales, silver ingots, two swords, and Anglo-Saxon coins including three of Burgred, king of the Mercians, was deposited soon after 874. This is plausibly interpreted as the winter camp of the ‘Great Army’ present in Yorkshire in 875–6.156 At Cuerdale Hall beside the River Ribble (La) a hoard including up to 7,500 coins comprising c.5,000 from contemporary Scandinavian issues in Northumbria and East Anglia, over 1,000 West Saxon coins, about 1,000 Continental coins from the Loire valley and Rhine–Maas delta, and Arabic, Byzantine, and Danish issues, as well as over 1,000 items of silver bullion, weighing in total about 40kg, was buried in a lead or lead-lined container c.905; at least 30 per cent of the silver, and probably much more, originated in Ireland.157 Near what is now Goldsborough church in West Yorkshire a hoard of thirty-nine coins, including thirty-seven Kufic coins, an ‘offering piece’ of King Alfred the Great and a coin of King Edward the Elder, as well as fourteen pieces of bullion, including remains from five Irish penannular brooches, three fragments of Hiberno-Norse armrings, and a cross or Thor’s hammer pendant, was buried in a small lead chest or pot, c.920 or c.925.158 At a location adjacent to Warton (La) a hoard of three Samanid Dirhams and silver bullion, including an ingot converted into hack-silver and three pieces of arm-ring, was probably also deposited in the mid 920s.159 At Flusco Pike (Cu) two discoveries may represent a single hoard of coins, a  majority of Anglo-Saxon issues from Edward the Elder and Archbishop Plegmund, some York issues, a Scandinavian East Anglian issue, and Arabic issues, and bullion comprising ingots, jewellery, and hack-silver, deposited in the mid 920s.160 Close to Lobster House, some 10 miles from York on the Malton road, the so-called Bossall/Flaxton hoard of c.270 coins 154  Scotland: Graham-Campbell and Batey (eds)  1998: 226–47; Graham-Campbell  1995. Ireland: Sheehan 1998; Sheehan 2000; Sheehan 2004; Sheehan 2007. 155   For summary and analysis: Graham-Campbell 2001; Williams 2013a. 156   Ager and Williams 2007; Richards and Naylor 2010: 341; Hall 2011: 78; Williams 2013b: 17–19; Townend 2014: 40–1; Williams 2014: 120–1. 157  See the studies in Graham-Campbell (ed.) 1992 and Graham-Campbell (ed.)  2011; GrahamCampbell 2001: 220–3. 158   Graham-Campbell 2001: 217–18; Graham-Campbell (ed.) 2011, Catalogue entry No. 3, pp. 234–7; Williams 2013a: 461–6. 159 160   Williams 2013a: 466–9.   Williams 2013a: 471–4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

208

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

and bullion weighing about 2lbs was deposited in a lead box c.927. The majority of the coins were York issues, but there were also Anglo-Saxon coins, Scandinavian coins from East Anglia, and Kufic coins. The bullion included ingots, arm-rings, and perhaps fragments from chains.161 Finally, at a location near Harrogate a hoard of over 600 coins, including Anglo-Saxon issues from King Alfred, King Edward, and King Æthelstan as well as York issues, a gold arm-ring, five silver arm-rings, ingots, and hack-silver, was buried in an early to mid ninth-century Frankish silver cup c. 927–8.162 The mixture in these hoards of York coin issues with Irish bullion, along with their regular association with routes between Yorkshire and the Irish Sea zone, makes it likely that they reflect Scandinavian rulers or their rivals operating between York and Dublin. They may be compared with further jewellery, bullion, and coin hoards from the first half of the tenth century with a comparable distribution.163 Hoards may be deposited for a variety of reasons—as ritual acts of propitiation, as war-chests for later retrieval, as a means to remove wealth from circulation to deny rivals—but they suggest that the roots of authority and power lay in the acquisition and redistribution of moveable wealth on a spectacular scale and in circumstances sufficiently unstable to require the regular deposition of wealth, which was often not retrieved. Cooperation with the archbishops and their community at York was a key strategy in negotiating these political challenges. The coinage produced at York reveals this cooperation, facilitating the projection of these rulers as kings according to established western European norms and the extraction of ­revenue through a regularized administration.164 Gareth Williams’s review of parallels from across western Europe established a close link between kingship, Christianity, and the production of coinage.165 It is most likely that the Scandinavian rulers in York controlled the production of coinage.166 Over 90 per cent of the coins issued from 895 to 905 present a regal title and the remaining anonymous coins are die-linked with royal issues.167 Many coins issued 927–54 also present either a regal title or the bust of a king; the thirteen named moneyers include a majority with Continental Frankish names, suggesting Scandinavian rulers brought in Frankish moneyers, and the high rate of errors introduced into the inscriptions suggests secular craftsmen.168 The so-called St Peter coinage of 905–19 and 921–7 presents an apparent contrast to this picture: it carries only the name of the city disposed around a cross and an inscription to St Peter.169 Based on wider western European parallels,   Graham-Campbell 2001: 212–17.   Williams and Ager 2010; Ager and Williams 2011; Williams 2013a: 481–2. 163   Williams 2013a: 475–81. 164   For overviews of the coinage, see: Dolley 1965; Grierson and Blackburn 1986: 316–25; Blunt, Stewart, and Lyon 1989: chs. 4 & 14; Blackburn 2004. 165 166 167  Williams 2007.   Blackburn 2004: 329–24.   Blackburn 2004: 331–2. 168 169   Blackburn 2004: 336–42.   Dolley 1965: Pls. VI–VII, Nos. 22–5, Pl. VIII, No. 28. 161 162

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Kingship, Social Change, and the Church, 867–1066

209

numismatists accept this as a secular issue, perhaps lacking a regal title because the rulers who issued it did not feel qualified or obliged to claim such a title.170 The alternative proposition, that the archbishops were wielding political power and controlling the mint during this period, is possible, but less probable.171 However, the coinage does suggest cooperation between Scandinavian rulers on the one hand and the archbishop and Minster community on the other. Coins issued from 895 to 905 carry liturgical inscriptions such as ‘Dominus Deus Rex’, ‘Dominus Omnipotens Rex’, or ‘Mirabilia Fecit’, often disposed in the order of a blessing and accompanied by a cross motif on the reverse: these are professedly Christian and innovative issues drawing on a good level of literacy and a secure knowledge of liturgy.172 The 905–19 and 921–7 St Peter coinage explicitly promotes the patron saint of the see. This cooperation is also visible in the annals. The suggestive evidence, from the annals preserved in later sources, that the ‘Great Army’ set up King Ecgberht I in 867 as their representative and that there was a connection between the expulsion of Ecgberht and Archbishop Wulfhere by the Northumbrians in 872, and the return of the ‘Great Army’, the accession of Ricsige, and the restoration of Wulfhere in 873, has already been noted.173 Even more suggestive is the behaviour of Archbishop Wulfstan during the 940s.174 Wulfstan apparently found himself caught between the West Saxons and the Scandinavian rulers, which produced shifting allegiances. When Edmund and Olaf Sictricsson met in 942–3, the first set of annals preserved in the Historia Regum and those in the Flores Historiarum tell us that Archbishops Odda and Wulfstan reconciled the two kings to one another.175 When Edmund conquered the Northumbrians in 944, the chronicle accounts disagree about the circumstances, perhaps because of the ambiguity of Wulfstan’s position as a political representative of the West Saxons and the Northumbrians: the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that Edmund drove out the two kings Olaf Sihtricsson and Ragnald Guthfrithsson, but Æthelweard’s Chronicon attributes this to the ealdorman of the Mercians and Archbishop Wulfstan, and the first set of annals preserved in the Historia Regum suggests it was the Northumbrians.176 When Eadred travelled to Tanshelf in 947, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle D manuscript tells us that it was Archbishop Wulfstan and the witan of the Northumbrians who submitted to his authority.177 However, in the complex events of the period 948–54 Wulfstan apparently

  Blackburn 2004: 332–3; Williams 2007: 200–1.   Rollason 2003: 228–30; Rollason 2004: 313–14. 172 173   Blackburn 2004: 329–30; Blackburn 2007.   See pp. 188, 198. 174   Whitelock 1959: 73; Rollason 2003: 228–30; Rollason 2004: 313–14; Downham 2007: 107–15; Woolf 2007: 182–90. 175   ASC ABC s.a. 942, D s.a. 943; HR I, s.a. 939; FH s.a. 940. 176   ASC ABCDE s.a. 944; Æthelweard, Chronicon iv.6, p. 54; HR I, s.a. 943, 945. 177   ASC D s.a. 947. 170 171

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

210

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

repeatedly switched allegiances between Eadred, Eric, and Olaf Sihtricsson.178 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle D manuscript states that, after the Northumbrians accepted Eric as their king, Eadred ravaged the Northumbrians and burnt down the religious community at Ripon: this may have already been an archiepiscopal community and estate, as it certainly was by 972 × 992, and it is possible that this act was a punishment of the archbishop’s behaviour.179 It also records that Eadred imprisoned Wulfstan in 952 on account of accusations made against him.180 The Scandinavian kings, through their cooperation with the archbishops, may have been able to establish a formal administration between the Humber and Tees, though the evidence is not conclusive. The Scandinavian settlement of Iceland provides context. A volcanic ash layer deposited in 871 ± 2 years underlies all the excavated Icelandic settlements and fits well with Ari Thorkelsson’s claim in Íslendingabók that Iceland was settled between the 870s and 930s.181 According to Ari, a general assembly, the Althing, was established c.930, including thirty-six local chieftains (gođorđ), and then the island was divided c.965 into four quarters (Old Norse fjorđungar, ‘fourth parts or farthings’) each with twelve chieftains and three or four assemblies.182 Two Scandinavian regions in England—Yorkshire and Lincolnshire—were subdivided into three ridings (Old Norse thriđjungar, ‘third parts or thirdings’) in Domesday Book (1086 × 1088). The three ridings of Yorkshire converged on York. It is possible that these divisions occurred at any time between the 870s and their appearance in Domesday Book. However, it is most plausible that they were created under the Scandinavian kings; this is reinforced by the fact that an Old English term Eoforwicscir was used by English kings for their administration of the region in the eleventh century.183 Similarly, in Domesday Book the North and West Ridings were subdivided into wapentakes (Old Norse vápnatak, ‘a taking of weapons’), whereas the remainder of the East Riding was subdivided into smaller hundreds that were later amalgamated into larger wapentakes, with the exception of Holderness which was a wapentake of three hundreds.184 King Edgar’s laws testify to the existence of wapentakes in some regions of northern and eastern England by the 960s and they were perhaps created along with the ridings.185 Some indication of this might be provided by the wapentake of Holderness. King Æthelstan purchased from the pagans (pagani) the territory of Amounderness (La) (Old Norse Ögmundr/Agmundr + ness, ‘the headland of Ögmundr/ Agmundr’) and granted it to the community at York in 934.186 Holderness is probably Old Norse höldr + ness, ‘the headland of the hold’.187 An Agmund hold was killed at Tettenhall (St) in 910.188 It is possible that   See p. 191.    179  ASC D s.a. 948.    180  ASC D s.a. 952. 182   Vésteinsson 1998; Grønlie (trans.) 2006: cc. I, III.   Grønlie (trans.) 2006: c. V. 183 184   Townend 2014: 161–3.   DB, II, Index of Places—Wapentakes and Hundreds. 185 186   Stenton 1947: 497–8; Townend 2014: 170–1.   Woodman (ed.) 2012: No. 1. 187 188   PNERY 14–15.   ASC BD, s.a. 911. 178 181

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Kingship, Social Change, and the Church, 867–1066

211

Amounderness and Holderness were territories granted to a hold, the latter forming the basis for an assembly region known as a wapentake.189 Scandinavian influence on local administrative organization is revealed by assessment according to carucates and bovates as well as calculating on base twelve rather than ten.190 Formal administrative arrangements like these might explain the coining and transmission of Old Norse place-names in Yorkshire referring to assemblies and Scandinavian representatives.191 Nonetheless, the regular correspondence between the locations of early royal vills or religious communities, the centres of royal soke estates in Domesday Book, and churches controlling mother parishes roughly coterminous with those estates, suggests Scandinavian kings and their followers inherited and preserved some of the territorial and tenurial structures of the kingdom of the Deirans.192 The coinage and the annals suggest a series of regimes that cooperated with churchmen and were officially tolerant towards Christianity. It is more difficult to assess whether the Scandinavian rulers were Christians and ruled over an exclu­ sively Christian kingdom. There are hints of conversion and Christianization. Guthfrith (r. ?880–895) was apparently buried in the Minster in 895:193 the public act of Christian burial seems unlikely unless an official conversion had taken place; he was remembered as a Christian king in the Historia de Sancto Cuthberto. The adoption by Cnut (r. c.900–5) and Ragnald (r. 919–21) of the monogram ‘Karolus’ on their coins could represent a baptismal name, and the liturgical inscriptions ‘Dominus Deus Rex’ and ‘Dominus Omnipotens Rex’ on the coinage issued 895–905 seem to assert a Christian basis for kingship, which would have had little public resonance unless an official conversion had occurred.194 When Æthelstan met Sihtric Caoch at Tamworth (St) and married Sihtric to his sister in 926, he presumably converted Sihtric as part of the arrangement.195 Edmund apparently stood sponsor to the baptism of Olaf Sihtricsson and the confirmation of Ragnald Guthfrithsson in 943.196 Nonetheless, this evidence could be consistent with short-term official conversion for political purposes that produced a public tolerance for Christianity, or attempts to establish an exclusively Christian regime. The evidence for Scandinavian ‘paganism’ takes us no closer to resolving this problem. Coins and Skaldic poems provide a potential insight from the perspective of the Scandinavian rulers themselves. Coins were issued carrying a series of ambiguous symbols (a sword, a hammer, a bow, a raven, or a triquetra),   Townend 2014: 66–7.   Stenton 1927: 238–41; Stenton 1947: 639; Hart 1992: 289–36; Palliser 1992: 16. 191   Townend 2014: 170–2. Thing, ‘legal assembly’: PNNRY 128 (Thingwala near Whitby); PNNRY 213 (Fingay Hill); PNWRY I, 168–9 & V, 207 (Fingerfield and Morthen). Höldr: PNERY 14–15 (Holderness); PNNRY 42–3 (Holdelythe in Ryedale). Drengr: PNERY 81, 323 (Dringhoe, Drengate); PNWRY IV, 225, 229 (Dringhouses, Dringthorpe). 192 193   See Chapter 4, pp. 144–62.  Æthelweard, Chronicon iv.4, p. 51. 194   Blackburn 2004: 329–30, 334; Blackburn 2007. 195 196   ASC s.a. 926; FH, s.a. 925; Woolf 2007: 149–51.   ASC ABCD s.a. 943. 189 190

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

212

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

which could be symbols of a temporary alliance between secular pagan rulers and the Christian church, symbols of conversion with the retention of cultural paganism, or simply Christian symbols (the sword of St Peter, the raven of Oswald, a triquetra representing the Trinity).197 The corpus of Skaldic poetry from tenth-century England reveals knowledge of a number of gods and parts of the ‘pagan’ mythology recorded in much later Scandinavian sources.198 Though the household at York seems likely to have been a major centre for the patronage and performance of Skaldic poetry, there is surviving evidence for only four poems connected more particularly with the rulers of York, probably because later Scandinavian rulers did not trace their descent from the Scandinavian rulers of the Northumbrians.199 Of these four poems, two reveal knowledge of Scandinavian gods and their associated mythology. Darratharljoth, an anonymous praise poem probably originally commemorating the battle between Niall Glundubh and Sihtric Caoch at Dublin in 919, is based on the imagery of the Valkyries weaving the outcome of the battle.200 Egill SkallaGrimsson’s Hofuđlausn, apparently originally composed for Eric at York to save Egill’s head, depicts Odin, Bragi, Baldr, Sigmundr, and Sinfjotli welcoming Eric to Valhalla.201 These poems suggest knowledge of Scandinavian ‘paganism’ amongst the Scandinavian rulers of York, but they do not allow us to distinguish ‘pagan’ belief and worship from conversion to Christianity with continued patronage or celebration of ‘pagan’ culture. Apart from the coins and poems, the only evidence is problematic external or retrospective assertions by Christians that these rulers or their followers were ‘pagans’. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry recording Edmund’s conquest of the Five Boroughs in 942 suggests Edmund had redeemed the Danes from the Norsemen and the bonds of heathen captivity, apparently distinguishing between earlier Danish rule and settlement and more recent ‘pagan’ HibernoNorse rule; indeed, Eadred adopted the royal title ‘King of the Anglo-Saxons, Northumbrians, pagans and Britons’ in the 950s; but the desire of West Saxon kings from Alfred onwards to present their conflict as Christian resistance against ‘pagans’ should make us cautious about these labels.202 The Historia de Sancto Cuthberto claims that Ragnald’s follower Onlafbald, to whom Ragnald was supposed to have redistributed some of the Community of St Cuthbert’s estates, entered the church of the Community and swore by Thor and Odin that he would be their enemy, resulting in his immediate death, but the Com­munity had good reasons for rooting their rights to these estates in a retrospective   Blackburn 2004: 334, 336–8. 199   Jesch 2001: esp. 317–18 for the corpus and 319–20 for the references.  Townend 2003. 200   Kershaw (ed. and trans.) 1992: 122–5. For an analysis of the date, authenticity, and subject matter, see: Poole  1991: 116–56; Kershaw (ed. and trans.) 1992: 115–17; Townend 2014: 61–2. 201   Kershaw (ed. and trans.) 1992: 93–9. For analysis of date, authenticity, and subject matter see: Frank 1985; Hines 1995: 87–9; Townend 2014: 76–80. 202   ASC ABCD s.a. 942; EHD I, Nos. 105, 508. For analysis: Mawer  1923; Downham  2009; Townend 2014: 72–3. 197 198

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Kingship, Social Change, and the Church, 867–1066

213

historical narrative of the clash between ‘paganism’ and Christianity in a work probably designed to appeal to Christian kings.203 Whether individual Scandinavian rulers of the Northumbrians merely cooperated with churchmen or converted to Christianity, the textual evidence makes it very difficult to chart the fortunes of the ecclesiastical aristocracy and the religious communities under their rule. Despite the evidence that Scandinavian armies regularly attacked, plundered, and displaced religious communities in other regions, making it a strong possibility that they did so in Northumbria too, the evidence for this is thin and problematic.204 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle D and E manuscripts record raids on Lindisfarne (Nb) in 793 and Donemuthe, probably near Jarrow (Du), in 794, but mention none thereafter.205 Raids in later years are recorded only in the Historia de Sancto Cuthberto and the northern annals preserved in later works: given the tendency for retrospective attribution of militant paganism to the Scandinavians and of any perceived decline or  disruption in religious life due to their activities, it is difficult to know how  much weight to place on their testimony. Roger of Wendover’s Flores Historiarum relates that ‘the most impious army of the pagans cruelly despoiled the churches of Hartness (Du) and Tynemouth (Nb)’ in 800.206 The Historia de Sancto Cuthberto states that after the defeat of Osberht and Ælle in 867 ‘the Scaldingi . . . demolished and despoiled the churches’207 and Symeon’s Libellus de Exordio claims that ‘They destroyed monasteries and churches far and wide with sword and fire, and when they departed they left nothing except roofless walls, to such an extent that the present generation can recognize hardly any sign— sometimes none at all—of the ancient nobility of these places.’208 The second set of annals in the Historia Regum and Symeon suggest that there was further destruction of monasteries when Halfdan occupied the Tyne in 875, prompting the movement of the Community of St Cuthbert.209 The first set of annals in the Historia Regum states that Olaf plundered the church of St Balter and burned Tyninghame (Lo) and that the men of York ravaged Lindisfarne (Nb) in 941.210 Beyond this handful of references, the only further evidence is the claims of eleventh- and twelfth-century re-founders or reformers that the communities they were re-establishing or reorganizing had been destroyed in this period, but these could well be no more than convenient claims to justify their activities.211   HSC c. 23.   For broader assessments of Scandinavian raiding and its effects on religious communities in the British Isles, see: Sawyer  1962: cc. 2 and 9; Brooks  1979: esp. 49–62; Wormald  1982c; Foot  1991; Halsall 1992a; Dumville 1996; Etchingham 1996; Richards 2000: 20–40; Hadley 2006: 15–20. For a comprehensive discussion of the textual evidence for all regions, see Barrow 2015. 205   ASC DE s.a. 793, 794. See also HR I, s.a. 793; LDE ii.5; Greenway (ed. and trans.) 1996: iv. 26–7. 206 207 208   FH s.a. 800.   HSC c. 12.   LDE ii.6. 209 210   HR II, s.a. 875; LDE ii.6.   HR I, s.a. 941. 211  Knowles and Hadcock  1953: 467–87, for an appendix listing the dates of destruction such authors give, including: Beverley 867, Carlisle 875, Hackness 870, Jarrow 867, Lindisfarne 875, and Whitby 867; Barrow 2015 for analysis. 203 204

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

214

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Even if communities did experience raids, ultimately the key issue for their survival was the maintenance of moveable wealth and land to provide an endowment for monks or clergy.212 If moveable wealth and land could be maintained, monks or clergy could be sustained and recruited through family networking, purchase, and patronage.213 Here the Historia de Sancto Cuthberto is useful again in illustrating what an author, writing either in the mid tenth century, or the eleventh or early twelfth century, considered a plausible scenario for the progress of a church amongst the Northumbrians. It assumes that bishops with some moveable wealth and controlling a major relic cult could negotiate the purchase of land, attract patronage from other secular and ecclesiastical figures, and encourage lordship relationships with secular nobles to provide the community with protection. Abbot Eadred was supposed to have bought land from Guthfrith.214 Cuthheard was said to have purchased two further estates.215 During Cuthheard’s episcopacy, the Community was thought to have attracted gifts of land from Bernard the Priest and Abbot Tilred of Heversham (We), seeking membership, and Wulfheard.216 It was also believed that two nobles—Alfred son of Beorhtwulf and Eadred son of Ricsige—approached the Community seeking the protection of Cuthbert and received estates in return for service.217

THE WEST SAXON CONQUEST, GOVERNMENT, AND THE CHURCH, 867–1066 The first set of annals preserved in the Historia Regum sums up the result of the West Saxon conquest completed in 954 with admirable clarity: ‘Here the kings of the Northumbrians came to an end, and henceforward the province was administered by ealdormen.’218 The author might, in hindsight, have said ealdormen and archbishops. From 954 to 1066 the English kingdom seems to have included land from the Channel to the Mersey and the Tees (what the Domesday survey refers to as Anglia) and aspirations to rule an ambiguous territory from Tees to Forth.219 The Northumbrians were generally supplied with two ealdormen appointed by the West Saxon or English kings, with authority over northern and southern Northumbrians, and they operated alongside carefully selected archbishops of York. The West Saxon kings and their officials probably built up lordship and landholdings in the midlands and the north through purchase, conquest, submissions, and forfeitures.220 Edward the Elder and Æthelflæd apparently ordered men to purchase lands at Chalgrave and Tebworth (Bd) and Hope and 213 214   Barrow 2000: 165–6.   Barrow 2005: 19–21.   HSC c. 19a. 216 217 218   HSC c. 21.   HSC cc. 21, 24.   HSC cc. 22, 24.   HR I, s.a. 952. 219 220   Molyneaux 2015: 2–9.   Molyneaux 2015: 38–45. 212 215

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Kingship, Social Change, and the Church, 867–1066

215

Ashford (Db) to extend their influence into regions under Scandinavian rule.221 Peace agreements and submissions may have involved formal arrangements about rights to land.222 When Edward faced a breach of peace from the Northumbrians in 910, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says they ‘broke the peace, and scorned every privilege that King Edward and his councillors offered them’.223 Whatever the truth of this statement, the author assumed that the West Saxon peace negotiations might include the offering of unspecified privileges. This may be placed alongside Edward’s laws, which refer to the drawing up of friđgewritu, ‘peace writings’.224 The Chronicle presents Edward’s conquests in terms of a series of submissions on the part of Scandinavian leaders, their armies and the people they ruled, and burhs and their inhabitants.225 Glimpses of what the author thought the process involved are provided by the descriptions of these submissions. Most of them describe the creation of a relationship of lordship—service in return for peace and protection—exemplified by the claim that the army belonging to Cambridge ‘chose him especially as its lord and protector and established it with oaths just as he decreed it’.226 The entry recording Edward’s acquisition of London and Oxford in 911 suggests that the submission of burhs sometimes involved the transfer of lands: ‘In this year Æthelred, ealdorman of the Mercians, died, and King Edward succeeded to London and Oxford and to all the lands which belonged to them.’227 The Liber Eliensis suggests that on other occasions the West Saxons simply established lordship over existing landlords: when the Danish jarls at Northampton (Np) and Cambridge (Ca) submitted in 917 they were apparently allowed to keep their lands with tenure confirmed by the king.228 Once a region had been bound to the West Saxon royal household, officials could be appointed, rewarded with recovered land, and expected to establish control over public lands in the area and to take control of land forfeited on legal grounds. Edmund was able to reward Wulfsige the Black with lands in south Derbyshire in 942: it was probably a member of his family who was a later West Saxon minister in control of these lands.229 The archiepiscopal lands controlled by York included land said to have been acquired by the West Saxon appointee Archbishop Oscytel for a violation of marriage law.230 Various symptoms of this gradual and negotiated process of conquest and consolidation may be observed. There is a complete absence of surviving diplomas of Edward the Elder for the years 910–24: there are a number of potential reasons for this, but these include strategies relating to the expansion of his 221   S 396 & 397; Sawyer (ed.) 1979: No. 3; Kelly (ed.) 2000–1: No. 21; EHD I, No. 103; Stenton 1947: 318–19; Sawyer 1975: 31–4; Keynes 1999a: 464. 222 223 224   Abrams 2001: 138–40.   ASC A s.a. 910, BCD s.a. 911.   II Ew 5.2. 225   ASC A s.a. 911, BCD s.a. 912; A s.a. 912, BCD s.a. 913; A s.a. 915; A s.a. 916; A s.a. 917; A s.a. 918; A s.a. 919; A s.a. 920; A s.a. 921. 226 227 228   ASC A s.a. 917.   ASC A s.a. 911, BCD s.a. 912.   Abrams 2001: 138. 229   S 479, 484 & 1606; Sawyer 1975: 34–7; Sawyer 1979: Nos. 5 and 6. 230   EHD I, No. 114; Stafford 1989: 57–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

216

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

authority into territories under Scandinavian rule—the retention of acquired lands as royal lands only granted by lease, the recognition that privileged tenures might adversely affect his campaign, and the administering of land in former Scandinavian territories according to local customs that did not produce written records.231 The witness lists of diplomas under Æthelstan include numerous earls with Scandinavian names, reflecting the extension of power northwards.232 Those under Edgar for 957–9 apparently reveal local Scandin­ avians who had presumably retained their land and either retained or been granted fresh levels of influence after conquest;233 for the 960s and 970s they demonstrate regular representation of the northern provinces at Edgar’s household and the domination of the secular hierarchy by four men including Earl Oslac of the Northumbrians.234 Edgar’s laws also extend West Saxon legal jurisdiction over Scandinavian territories, but do so through the enshrinement of legal differences amongst conquered peoples.235 Following conquest and consolidation King Edgar (r. 957/9–75) established a new administrative system. Though a network of regional assemblies may already have existed across much of his kingdom, the formal system of hundreds or wapentakes and shires is likely to belong to his reign, because this was when the first uniform national coinage appeared and when the first references occur to hundreds or wapentakes, shires, and their royal agents operating as the focus for all royal administration.236 By the eleventh century English kings possessed a powerful system of royal lordship and administration. English kings were the wealthiest landlords in their kingdom and their nobles were encouraged to look to royal direction because their landholdings were distributed across the kingdom and their landholdings and offices were partially dependent on royal patronage.237 Quite when this system of lordship and administration was introduced to Yorkshire it is difficult to say: English kings had representatives amongst the southern Northumbrians capable of establishing and running a system of hundreds or wapentakes and the shire from their conquest of the region, and assembly units known as wapentakes may already have existed, but it was only in the eleventh century that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle distinguished the men of York from the Northumbrians as a whole and in 1060 that the term Eoforwicscir was first recorded.238 Regardless of precisely when the English kings introduced their system of lordship and administration, the authority and power of both the kings and their secular and ecclesiastical officials remained uncertain. English kings created a nobility with greater wealth and authority than ever before: though they owed this wealth and authority to royal patronage, they also needed to establish 231   Stenton 1955: 51–3; Dumville 1992: 151–3; Keynes 1999a: 465–6. For discussion of evidence for the possibility of oral transfers of land in Scandinavian territories, Abrams 2008: 186. 232 233 234   Abrams 2008: 182–3.   Abrams 2008: 183–6.   Keynes 1999a: 480. 235   IV Eg; Stafford 1989: 53–4; Abrams 2008: 173, 175–6, 177–9. 236 237 238   Molyneaux 2015: 116–94.  Baxter 2007.   See Introduction, p. 13.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Kingship, Social Change, and the Church, 867–1066

217

links with local nobles to secure their authority and power, which could raise question marks over their loyalty and place them in unpredictable positions during succession crises.239 Authority over the Northumbrians was generally split between members of the house of Bamburgh (Nb), often called highreeves, and Mercian nobles, known as ealdormen.240 These high-reeves and ealdormen seem to have worked alongside a series of lesser earls.241 The uncertainties facing all three parties are clear from a brief review of relations between the English kings and their representatives. Under Edgar (r. 959–75), the Mercian ealdorman Oslac, the lesser earl Gunner, and perhaps his son, Thored son of Gunner, had authority over the southern Northumbrians, but under Edward the Martyr (r. 975–8) Oslac was driven into exile, perhaps a reaction against Edgar’s regime.242 During the succession crisis between Edward the Martyr and Æthelred from 975 to 978 there was a division of rule between West Saxon and Mercian territories and it is possible that the Northumbrians expressed separatist ambitions through the selection of another Thored.243 Æthelred seems initially to have allowed all major political players to retain their roles and drew Thored, earl of the Northum­ brians, into his household, but after a failed campaign against Scandinavian raiders in 992 he took the opportunity to appoint ealdormen from new families and reduced the size of the ealdormanries, including the appointment of the Mercian Ælfhelm to York.244 This regime apparently worked sufficiently well for about a decade, but the conflicting demands of patronage it created may have reached a crisis point after defeats by Scandinavian raiders in 1002–3, resulting in the demotion of some household thegns around 1005, followed by the execution of Ælfhelm, the blinding of his sons, and the exile of another household thegn in 1006; this resulted in the raising of more new men, including the granting to Uhtred of Bamburgh (Nb) of authority over the southern Northumbrians.245 After Cnut’s conquest of England in 1016, Uhtred apparently submitted, but was killed and replaced by Cnut’s Scandinavian associate Eric (Hakonsson) as ealdorman of the southern Northumbrians until at least 1023, with Eadwulf Cudel and then Eadwulf, both of Bamburgh (Nb), to the north.246 Eric was succeeded by Siweard from at least 1033 and King Harthacnut seems to have eliminated Eadwulf of Bamburgh (Nb) and placed Siweard over the northern Northumbrians too in 1041.247 Edward the Confessor replaced Siweard with Tosti, a member of the West Saxon family of Godwine, who dominated ealdormanries during his reign, in 1055, probably part of an effort to extend royal power over the Northumbrians; but this prompted a major Northumbrian

240   Stafford 1978: 17–19; Stafford 1989: 37–44.   Whitelock 1959: 76–85. 242   Bolton 2009: 111–17.   Keynes 1999a: 482–3. 243   Stafford 1978: 21–4; Stafford 1989: 57–8. 244   Stafford 1978: 24, 29–30; Stafford 1989: 61–8; Bolton 2009: 112–13. 245 246 247   Stafford 1978: 30–4.   Keynes 1994: 57–8.   Keynes 1994: 65–6. 239 241

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

218

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

rebellion that resulted in the appointment of the Northumbrian choice—the Mercian Morcar—and the exile of Tosti in 1065–6.248 Faced with these uncertain circumstances, the English kings and their ealdormen sought to stabilize their authority and power through ecclesiastical patronage. Because of the loss of northern archives, these policies cannot be reconstructed in full, but enough material survives to establish the general point that the church was a sufficiently influential force to be worth patronizing and that kings did so. Just as kings favoured the appointment of Mercians as ealdormen of the southern Northumbrians, so they favoured the appointment of Mercians as archbishops who held Worcester (Wo) and York in plurality.249 Through strategic acts of patronage they sought to obtain and retain the loyalty of northern sees and some religious communities. While making his expedition to the north in 934, Æthelstan granted a huge tract of land in the north-west at Amounderness (La) to the see of York, the Historia de Sancto Cuthberto claims that he visited the Community of St Cuthbert at Chester le Street (Du) and gave them land and moveable wealth, and the communities of St Leonard’s at York, St John at Beverley, and St Wilfrid at Ripon remembered him as the source of rights to dues and sanctuary.250 Edmund was also thought to have bestowed gifts on the Community of St Cuthbert.251 Eadred apparently granted two large bells to the see of York.252 Eadwig and Edgar granted the see of York large estates at Southwell and Sutton (Nt), presumably to facilitate the movement of archbishops into Mercia whilst holding York and Worcester in plurality and working as West Saxon representatives.253 At the same time, the West Saxon kings seem to have been engaged in the translation of Northumbrian saints to southern communities, perhaps in an attempt to foster kingdom-wide cults and prevent regional resentments focusing on regional saints: Edmund was later thought to have translated the relics of Æbbe, Aidan, Bede, Begu, Boisil, Ceolfrith, and Hild to Glastonbury (So) and Eadred’s burning of Ripon in 948 may have been the context for the movement of relics of Wilfrid from Ripon to Canterbury (Kt), where his cult was certainly subsequently promoted.254 Apart from the grants of land, all of these acts of patronage are recorded after the event in sources with good reasons to court West Saxon power or to attribute acts of patronage retrospectively to West Saxon kings. However,   Stafford 1989: 89–98.

248

  Whitelock 1959: 73–6; Barrow 2000: 157–61.

249

  S 407; Woodman (ed.) 2012: No. 1; HSC cc. 26–7; Dugdale, Caley, Ellis, and Bandinel (eds) 1817–30: VI, 608, 609; Leach (ed.) 1898–1903: II, 280–7; Fowler (ed.) 1882–1908: I, 90–3. For discussion of the York, Beverley, and Ripon claims, see: Hamilton Thompson  1932/1966: 97; Wilson  2003; and Wilson 2006: 119–20. 251   HSC c. 28. 252   FH s.a. 946 for the bells. For discussion of the movement of relics to Canterbury and promotion: Brooks 1984: 227–31. 253   S 659; S 679; Woodman (ed.) 2012: Nos. 2–3. 254   Brooks 1984: 227–8; Rollason 1986: 95–6; Rollason 1989: 152–8. 250

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Kingship, Social Change, and the Church, 867–1066

219

there is some further evidence to add weight to these claims.255 Two surviving manuscripts seem to be a product of the relationship between the West Saxon kings and St Cuthbert. The first, BL Cotton Otho B. ix, is a gospel book, probably written on the Continent, but subsequently provided with an image of Æthelstan presenting a book to Cuthbert and a series of Old English additions recording Æthelstan’s gift and others.256 The second, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 183, is a collection of texts celebrating the life of Cuthbert, including a portrait depicting Æthelstan as donor or devoted worshipper and probably produced either as a gift for Chester le Street (Du) or as a text for circulation to promote Cuthbert in southern England.257 Embroideries, probably a stole and two maniples, with inscriptions recording that they were made at the behest of Æthelstan’s stepmother for Frithestan, bishop of Winchester (909–31), were recovered from the tomb of St Cuthbert.258 The sanctuary rights of Durham, Hexham (Nb), Beverley, and Ripon, explicitly outlined in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, show important correspondences with West Saxon laws on breach of the royal and ecclesiastical peace, which hints that West Saxon practice may indeed lie behind them, though this does not pin down precisely when they were established.259 Æthelred, Cnut, and Edward the Confessor seem to have continued this trend. The later additions to the Historia de Sancto Cuthberto include a record that Æthelred was persuaded by Styrr, son of Ulf, probably a lesser earl of the  Northumbrians, to grant land at Darlington (Du) to the Community of St Cuthbert, to which Styrr himself added a number of lands. 260 Cnut was faced with the emergence of potential candidates for the Norwegian throne from the Norse in Ireland, Scotland, and amongst the Northumbrians, in the early 1030s, which may be the context for his patronage of York and Durham at this time.261 He either confirmed, extended, or granted anew to Ælfric, archbishop of York, lands at Patrington in Holderness, a grant which is unusual in recording the names of eighteen thegns, probably local men whose influence Cnut and Ælfric were seeking to secure.262 He also apparently visited Durham on pilgrimage and granted to the Community of St Cuthbert lands at Staindrop (Du) and Brompton.263 Edward the Confessor granted to Archbishop Ealdred of York’s deacon, also Ealdred, the religious community at Axminster (D) in the 1060s.264 Ecclesiastical patronage was equally important for West Saxon ealdormen amongst the Northumbrians, as a means to activate latent bonds of kinship and lordship in an effort to establish their authority and power. Only a little light is shed on the activities of Thored, earl of the Northumbrians 978–92: he was recalled as a patron of the Community of St Cuthbert who granted 256   Rollason 1989: 144–52.   Keynes 1985: 170–8. 258   Keynes 1985: 180–5; Rollason 1989.  Coatsworth 2001. 259 260 261   See Chapter 6, pp. 233–4.   HSC c. 29.   Bolton 2009: 133–50. 262 263   S 968; Woodman (ed.) 2012: No. 8.   HSC c. 32; LDE iii.8. 264   S 1161; Woodman (ed.) 2012: No. 10. 255 257

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

220

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

lands at Crayke, Smeaton, and Sutton, but apparently also as a despoiler of the see of York.265 A little more may be said of the ways in which Uhtred forged alliances through the Community of St Cuthbert at Durham. Uhtred was supposed to have been made ealdorman as a result of his successful defence of Durham against the Scots and is said to have been responsible for helping the Community of St Cuthbert to establish itself at Durham.266 He was recalled as marrying Bishop Ealdhun’s daughter, Ecgfritha, and receiving lands at Barmpton, Skirningham, Elton, Carlton, School Aycliffe, and Monk Hesleden (Du) as a result.267 He probably used further patronage of Durham to build a pro-Æthelred network amongst the lesser earls of the Northumbrians. Northman and Nafena were brothers who witnessed as earls under Æthelred in 996 and Northman received a grant of lands at Tywell (Np) in 1013.268 Under Bishop Ealdhun the Community of St Cuthbert was thought to have presented land not only to Uhtred, but also to Earl Northman and the otherwise unknown Earl Ethred and it is likely that this was a lease of two composite estates between these three.269 Northman was in turn recalled as the grantor of Escomb (Du) to  the Community.270 Uhtred repudiated his first marriage and married the daughter of Styrr, son of Ulf, a prominent man in York, supposedly on the proviso that Uhtred would kill Styrr’s enemy Thurbrand.271 Styrr, as we have seen, was thought to have persuaded Æthelred to grant Darlington (Du) to Durham and to have granted further lands himself.272 Uhtred then made a third marriage, to Æthelred’s daughter.273 During Cnut’s conquest, Uhtred offered support to the ætheling Edmund and despite his subsequent submission, Uhtred and Nafena’s son (Northman’s nephew) Thurcytel were murdered together at Cnut’s court, perhaps by Thurbrand, in 1016.274 Siweard and Tosti apparently followed Uhtred’s lead. Siweard is said to have married Ealdred of Bamburgh’s daughter Ælfflæd, which allowed him to pursue a claim to the Durham lands held by Uhtred, and was recalled as helping Bishop Æthelric in his struggles with the clerks of Durham.275 Tosti was remembered for helping Bishop Æthelwine succeed to Durham and as a benefactor of Durham along with his thegn Copsi, granting the church of St Germanus at Marske and nearby lands.276 These examples demonstrate that the uncertainties faced by the West Saxon kings, their representatives, and the Northumbrian nobility, made ecclesiastical patronage desirable as a way to forge political networks and reflect the fact that the see of York and the Community of St Cuthbert were sufficiently   Rollason, Rollason, Briggs, and Piper (eds) 2007: fo. 43v; S 1453. 267   LDE iii.2; Arnold (ed.) 1882–5: I, 215–20; Morris 1992: 1.   Morris 1992: 2. 268 269   S 877, S 931.   HSC c. 31 and pp. 112–13. 270 271   Rollason, Rollason, Briggs, and Piper (eds) 2007: 57.   Morris 1992: 2. 272 273   LDE iii.4.   Morris 1992: 3. 274 275   ASC CDE s.a. 1016; Morris 1992: 3; FH s.a. 1016.   Morris: 5; LDE iii.9. 276   LDE iii.9, 11. 265 266

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Kingship, Social Change, and the Church, 867–1066

221

wealthy and influential to make that patronage worthwhile. At the same time, however, they reveal that lands, including former ecclesiastical lands, could pass rapidly through a number of hands and in and out of ecclesiastical lordship. They thereby provide some insight into the chaotic circumstances that probably underlie the apparently straightforward picture that many former royal tribute territories on which religious communities were founded in the seventh and eighth centuries re-emerge as royal soke estates, either held in demesne or on loan to ealdormen in 1066.277 This point may be reinforced through a consideration of Howden and Conisbrough, parts of whose tenurial history are revealed through documents preserved in the Peterborough (Np) and Burton (Db) archives. Howden may have been the site of a religious community founded on a royal territory of obligation and with pastoral responsibilities towards the population of that territory: Gerald of Wales testifies that Howden was the focus of the cult of Saint Osana, supposedly a seventh-century Northumbrian princess and abbess; it was the centre of a soke estate in the tenth and eleventh centuries with a roughly coterminous medieval mother parish, and it became a jurisdictional peculiar of the see of Durham with a high medieval clerical community.278 When King Edgar was ruling as king of the Mercians in 959 he issued a diploma granting land at Howden and Drax to Quen, matrona: the title matrona suggests that she was married, or more likely widowed, and the phrase mihi valde fideli suggests that she recognized a bond of lordship with Edgar, prompting the hypothesis that Edgar was confirming the estates of a prominent noble to his widow.279 Since a copy of this diploma survives in the Peterborough Abbey (Np) archive, it is likely that the estate subsequently passed to the community at Peterborough: it might have been a gift of Quen or her heir; or it could have been purchased by Æthelwold, abbot of Abingdon (Brk) and Peterborough (Np), like an estate immediately to the south of Howden on the opposite bank of the Humber at Barrow (Li);280 it is possible, but not probable, that Ælfhelm acquired the estate as ealdorman of the Northumbrians (993–1006) and granted it to Peterborough (Np) along with estates in Northamptonshire; or it may be that Æthelric and Æthelwine, bishops of Durham 1041–71, who were accused of despoiling Durham for Peterborough (Np), transferred a Durham estate to Peterborough (Np).281 Nor is it clear how this estate passed out of Peterborough’s control: Hugh Candidus suggests that Howden and Barrow (Li) were lost during the years when Abbot Ælfsige was in exile (1013–16) as a result of the need to pay Danegeld and tribute, but it is hard to know what weight to place on his late testimony.

278   See Chapter 4, pp. 144–62.   See Chapter 4, pp. 144–62. Barlow 1950: 53–116. 280   Kelly (ed.) 2009: No. 14, 242–5 for analysis.   Kelly (ed.) 2009: No. 15. 281   Kelly (ed.) 2009: 243–5. 277 279

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

222

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

In 1066 it was in royal lordship, but by 1088 it had been granted to the Bishop and Community of St Cuthbert at Durham.282 Conisbrough may similarly have been the site of a religious community founded within a large royal territory of obligation and with pastoral responsibilities towards the population of that territory: there is some evidence for a church of eighth-century date and it was the centre of an enormous soke estate in the eleventh century with a corresponding medieval mother parish.283 Wulfric Spot held Conisbrough in the early eleventh century, apparently a member of a Mercian kin group who had been in West Saxon service since the reign of Edgar.284 Quite how Wulfric came by this land is impossible to say, but it is likely to have been granted, or converted to bookland, by the king, since its appearance in Wulfric’s will suggests he held it with the right to alienation. Wulfric bequeathed it to his brother Ælfhelm, who was ealdorman of the Northumbrians from 993 until he was killed and his sons were blinded in 1006.285 Ælfhelm’s property perhaps reverted to the king. Conisbrough next appears in a list of benefactors of Peterborough Abbey (Np), probably based on an early Old English list of donations and transactions from the period before and around 1066: it was claimed as a gift of Godgytha, who by analogy with other entries in the list was probably a wealthy widow in possession before 1066.286 Yet Conisbrough was probably a royal estate on loan to Earl Harold in 1066.287 Given the complicated tenurial histories of these two estates it is not surprising that in the two partially surviving archives for York and Durham there is good evidence that talented churchmen had to work hard to retain and expand the property portfolio of a community. When the Community of St Cuthbert was at Chester le Street (Du), it is possible that a member of the Community composed the core of the Historia de Sancto Cuthberto in the mid tenth century as a work designed to promote connections between the West Saxons and Cuthbert as well as justify to the West Saxons the Community’s rights to lands: it roots Alfred’s victory over the Scandinavians in a vision of St Cuthbert and narrates the circumstances surrounding the Community’s acquisition and loss of estates under Scandinavian regimes; after this, the text apparently became an ad hoc repository for recording further gifts to the Community.288 At some stage, Durham gospel books and the Durham Liber Vitae began to be used in the same way.289 More visible still is the work of archbishops Oscytel, Oswald, and Wulfstan at York considered in Chapter 6.290

283   DB fo. 304v (3 Y 4).   See Chapter 4, pp. 130–1, 144–62. 285   Sawyer (ed.) 1979: xv–liii and No. 29.   ASC CDE s.a. 1006. 286 287   Kelly (ed.) 2009: No. 31, pp. 354–6 for analysis.   DB fo. 321r (12 W 1). 288 289   Craster 1954; Simpson 1989; HSC 25–36.   HSC 6. 290   See Chapter 6, pp. 227–31. 282 284

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Kingship, Social Change, and the Church, 867–1066

223

CONCLUSIONS The Scandinavian and English rulers of the Northumbrians and their representatives forged close connections with the see of York and the Community of St Cuthbert at Durham in an effort to establish their authority and power in the region. Charting this process offers a starting point for considering the development of the church in the long tenth century. There is good evidence that the Scandinavian rulers cooperated with the see of York in projecting themselves in the tradition of western European Christian kingship, that they sometimes publicly converted to Christianity, and that their regimes were often publicly tolerant of Christianity, though they may not have ruled an exclusively Christian kingdom. There are clear indications that the English kings courted the see of York, the Community of St Cuthbert at Chester le Street (Du) and Durham, and perhaps other religious communities at Beverley, Ripon, Hexham (Nb), and York, during the process of conquest, and used control over episcopal appointments and further acts of patronage to consolidate their hold over the Northumbrians. Under Scandinavian and English regimes, indigenous nobles and external appointees used ecclesiastical patronage as a way to activate latent kinship and lordship relationships and forge alliances. This evidence suggests at the very least that the episcopal community at York, the Community of St Cuthbert, and perhaps a handful of other religious communities, were still sufficiently wealthy and influential to make them important political players. Nonetheless, there were at least a few significant raids on religious communities by both the Scandinavians and West Saxons, the Scandinavian kings were accused of sharing out the lands of St Cuthbert, the West Saxons may have been deliberately translating the relics of northern saints to Gloucester (So) and Canterbury (Kt) in an effort to remove potential foci for regional resistance, and the estates on which some religious communities had been founded had complex tenurial histories in this period. From the Durham and York archives it is clear that religious communities could survive, but the necessary conditions for this were the retention of some wealth to facilitate the purchase of land and the retention of relics to be promoted as a focus for further patronage. The sufficient conditions were probably presented by the attraction to the community of churchmen who were also politicians talented enough to exploit these resources. With this broader socio-political context in mind, Chapter 6 will consider the progress of the church in Yorkshire at a local level through the long tenth century.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

6 Religious Communities, Local Churches, and the Laity, 867–1066 The economic, social, and political changes discussed in Chapter 5 could be consistent with a range of scenarios for the development of the church. Because Scandinavian and West Saxon kings cooperated with archbishops and engaged in ecclesiastical patronage, it is possible to envisage a wealthy archiepiscopal see, the survival of individual religious communities, the rapid conversion of Scandinavian settlers, and investment in religious communities and local churches. Yet, because there is some evidence for ‘pagan’ culture and only good evidence for the continuing political significance of the see of York and the Community of St Cuthbert, it is possible to envisage the disappearance of religious communities, and a slower process of conversion. It is necessary to turn to the evidence for the churches themselves. Previous studies have established some broad structural trends, which demand attention as a context for the approaches developed here. The network of seventh-, eighth-, and ninth-century religious communities has been compared with the church in Domesday Book (1086–8). Inspired by William Page’s pioneering study, John Blair established criteria for identifying religious communities and local churches in Domesday Book.1 The results suggest, prima facie, the almost complete demise of religious communities in Yorkshire. Blair argued that Domesday entries identify religious communities in the following cases: 1. Where they refer to groups of ‘clerici’, ‘presbyteri’, or ‘canonici’ who were probably resident at that place. 2. Where they record churches or priests with endowments of at least one hide or carucate. 3. Where they describe tenure of the church or its land separate from the parent manor, especially if the tenant was a royal clerk or other named ecclesiastic. 1

  See Introduction, pp. 4–5 for Page. Blair 1985; Blair 1987.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Religious Communities, Local Churches, Laity, 867–1066

225

4. Where they provide separate valuations of churches and surveys of their assets. 5. Where they give miscellaneous marks of status, including named dedications and eleemosynary exemptions from geld.2 Based on these criteria the archbishop of York had a number of functioning religious communities under his lordship: the three large and wealthy communities at Beverley,3 Ripon,4 and York,5 and a handful of estates where members of the York community held land and there were small clerical communities— Everingham,6 Newbald,7 Patrington,8 Poppleton,9 and Sherburn in Elmet.10 Beyond these archiepiscopal communities there are references to multiple ‘presbyteri’/‘clerici’ or churches in the entries for Featherstone, Purston (Jaglin), West Hardwick, and Nostell (Priory);11 Kippax and Ledston;12 Langton, Kennythorpe, Burdale, Raisthorpe, Sherburn, and (East) Heslerton;13 Topcliffe, Crakehill, Dalton, Asenby, and Skipton;14 Wakefield;15 and Withernsea.16 All these entries relate to ‘sokes’ and they may not represent multiple priests or churches at a single place. The Wakefield entry records three ‘presbyteri’ and two churches,17 but entries for three Wakefield sokelands—Dewsbury, Morley Wood, and Normanton—record a church and a priest, and the Normanton entry states that the church was excluded from the Wakefield sokeland;18 the Wakefield ‘presbyteri’ and churches are probably three priests at Dewsbury, Morley Wood, and Normanton, and two churches at Dewsbury and Morley Wood. This sparse and problematic Domesday evidence might suggest that religious communities had disappeared by 1088. But this absence of evidence should not be taken as evidence of absence: the varying practices of the Domesday commissioners on different Circuits, of those running local estates and making returns, and of the scribes who produced the final document, produced substantial variations in the recording of churches and priests.19 Whether or not the network of early religious communities had disappeared, the question remains of what happened, when, and why. Studies have adopted two further methods. A comparison has been made between early religious communities and mother churches serving multiple parishes.20 This has been applied more comprehensively in Chapter  4.21 The broad correspondence between early religious communities and mother churches serving multiple 3   Blair 1985: 104–6.   DB fo. 298v (C 37), 304r (2 E 1–3, 5–17, 23–41).   DB fo. 298v (C 37), 303v (2 W 7–9). 5   DB fos. 298r–v (C 1–2, 21, 23–5, 30–1, 33, 35, 37), 302v–303v (2 B 4–8, 12, 15–17, 19; 2 N 1–6, 14–15, 19–30; 2 W 1–3, 5). 6 7 8   DB fo. 302v (2 B 9).   DB fo. 302v (2 B 6).   DB fo. 302r (2 1). 9 10 11   DB fo. 303r (2 W 2).   DB fo. 302v (2 B 1).   DB fo. 316r (9 W 54). 12 13 14   DB fo. 315r (9 W 1).   DB fo. 328r (23 E 14).   DB fo. 323r (13 N 17). 15 16 17   DB fo. 299v (1 Y 15).   DB fo. 323v (14 E [15] 4).   DB fo. 399v (1 Y 15). 18 19   DB fos. 299v (1 Y 16–17), 317v (9 W 118).   Morris 1989: 140–5, esp. diagram on p. 142. 20   Morris 1989: 134, fig. 127 and 137, fig. 29; Hadley 2000b: 216–97, revisited in Hadley 2006: 192–36. 21   See Chapter 4, pp. 144–62. 2 4

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

226

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

parishes suggests some structural continuity from 867 to 1066. Nonetheless, this advances our knowledge of the fate of religious communities only a little, because the continuity could result either from the continued functioning of those communities or the efforts of landlords or local clergy. The correlation between the sites of early religious communities and late ninth-, tenth-, or eleventh-­century sculpture has been considered.22 Based on the survey of early religious communities in Chapter 4 this method is revisited here (Table 15, Map 15). At thirty-six sites where there was a known or possible early religious community, monuments survive from this period: Addingham, Collingham, Conisbrough, Croft, Dewsbury, Easington, Gilling near Richmond, Hovingham, Hunmanby, Ilkley, Kirby Hill, Kirby Misperton, Kirkby Moorside, Kirkdale, Lastingham, Leeds, Little Ouseburn, Lythe, Masham, Melsonby, Middleton, Northallerton, North Otterington, Otley, Ripon, Skipwith, Sherburn, Stonegrave, Tadcaster, Thornhill, Wensley, Wharram Percy, Whitby, Wycliffe, York Minster, and York Bishophill. This method indicates activity, but not the nature of that activity; it reveals snapshots of reuse, not continuity of use, or continuity of function. Chapter 6 provides a more fine-grained analysis of the development of the church using the linguistic and material culture. Since the Scandinavian, West Saxon, and English kings cooperated with the archbishops, York was probably a major political and religious centre. York provides an opportunity to consider the material reflex of surviving religious communities. The analysis begins by considering the endowments of the see, the activities of the archbishops, and the culture of commemoration at the Minster. It proceeds to consider the place-name evidence for ecclesiastical endowments and the material evidence for religious communities and their activities. It concludes with a review of the evidence for local churches and the role of religious communities in fostering local Christian identities.

THE ARCHBISHOPS AND YORK, 867–1066 The archbishops were significant political players. They presumably controlled landholdings sufficient to be influential lords. Nevertheless, it has sometimes been assumed that they were poor. Partly this is because of the late and fragmentary evidence for archiepiscopal lands. For some Anglo-Saxon sees the chronology and geography of episcopal landholdings has been reconstructed through comparison of diplomas with Domesday Book.23 The destruction of early Northumbrian diplomas, along with the possibility of oral transactions in the long tenth century, makes it difficult to tell when the majority of the see’s   Hadley 2000b: 216–97, revisited in Hadley 2006: 192–36.   Brooks 1984: 100–7, 129–52, 203–6, 220–1, 232–7, 250–3, 278–87, 292–312; Giandrea 2007: 125–45 and Appendix 201–15. 22 23

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Religious Communities, Local Churches, Laity, 867–1066

227

Domesday holdings were obtained. But the fragmentary evidence need not mean that the archbishops were poor. The assumption that the see was poor has been useful: to explain the archbishops’ willingness to ally with Scandinavian kings and switch allegiances; or the necessity for Worcester and York to be held in plurality; or the failure of archbishops to institute reform.24 But an assumption of poverty is not necessary to explain these phenomena. It is plausible that the see retained possession of three valuable lands throughout this period. It is demonstrable that it possessed a handful of its most valuable lands by the third quarter of the tenth century, representing a network of sites to facilitate activity across Yorkshire. It is possible that the remaining endowment was put in place at any point between the seventh and the eleventh century.25 BL Harley 55 is a composite manuscript including a set of medical recipes (fos. 1–3), a copy of the laws of King Edgar (fos. 3v–4v), a memorandum on York lands (fo. 4v), and a copy of the laws of Cnut (fos. 5–13v).26 The memorandum is in an eleventh-century hand and annotated by Wulfstan, archbishop of York (1002–23).27 It first focuses on three holdings at Otley, Ripon, and Sherburn in Elmet, listing their lost túnas. It then records ‘the lands which Archbishop Oscytel obtained in Northumbria with his money and which were given to him in compensation for illegal marriage’: land purchased at Appleton, Bracken, Everingham, and Newbald, and land forfeited at Helperby. It concludes: ‘all these lands which Archbishop Oscytel obtained in Northumbria—and my lord granted them to me when he was at Nottingham—[and] these other lands which are entered here besides, I had them all until ?Thored? ascended. Then St Peter was afterwards robbed [of them].’ Archbishop Wulfstan’s annotations claim that ‘Archbishop Oswald composed this declaration and had it written’, adjust the terms by which Oscytel acquired lands, ‘I, Archbishop Oswald, declare that all these lands which the Archbishop Oscytel obtained in Northumbria—and my lord granted them to me for St Peter’s when he was at Nottingham’, and append the clause ‘May God avenge it as he will.’ Since the original document records acquisitions by Oscytel (963–71) and a subsequent grant at Nottingham, and it was annotated by Wulfstan (1002–23), the attribution to Archbishop Oswald (972 × 992) is accepted. If the person in whose time the theft occurred was Earl Thored, then it was perhaps composed 975 × 992. Other documents from the York archive provide some corroboration for the memorandum. A copy of an apparently authentic diploma of King Æthelstan granting lands at Amounderness (La) to York in 934 demonstrates that the see had holdings before Oscytel’s time: it includes the odd statement that ‘I have granted in perpetuity not only it [Amounderness], but rather all the estates of   Brooke 1977: 41–2; Rollason 2003: 228–30, 273–4; Rollason 2004: 316–17.   Keynes 1986: 81–98, esp. 83–6. 26   Ker 1990: items 225–6; Watson 1979: item 629; Gneuss 2001: item 412. 27   Woodman (ed.) 2012: No. 6. Ker 1990: No. 225, p. 302, and Ker 1985: 21.

24

25

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

228

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

that aforementioned church, namely of St Peter, Prince of the Apostles, bought with refined gold’, which may either be an authentic but unusual scribal formula to ensure existing lands and recent purchases were confirmed, or a later interpolation.28 Copies of further apparently authentic diplomas of King Eadwig and King Edgar granting lands to Oscytel at Southwell and Sutton (Nt) in 956 and 958 demonstrate he did make acquisitions.29 Copies of apparently authentic diplomas of King Edgar granting Newbald to Gunner and Sherburn in Elmet to Æsclac in 963 confirm that these lands were acquired after this date.30 The only recorded additions are a grant by Cnut of land at Patrington in 1033,31 either an addition to an existing holding or a new holding, and a grant by Edward of the religious community at Axminster (D) 1060 × 1066.32 York, Minster Library, MS Add. 1 is an illuminated Gospel Book known as the York Gospels with Old English additions relating to York.33 It was probably produced at Canterbury (Kt) in the late tenth and early eleventh centuries: it includes scripts pointing to a late tenth-century date and work by Eadwig Basan (fl. 1012–1020s), a known scribe from Christ Church, Canterbury (Kt).34 It was apparently in or near York in the 1020s: a previously blank bifolium was used for the addition of three surveys of Otley, Ripon, and Sherburn in Elmet; a new gathering of four leaves was added, containing three sermons by Wulfstan, archbishop of York (1002–23), a set of prayers prompting people to recall the friends of the York community, and King Cnut’s Letter of 1019 or 1020, as well as an inventory of Sherburn in Elmet, and a list of the ‘festermen’ of Ælfric, probably Ælfric Puttoc, archbishop of York (1023–51).35 Since Cnut’s letter was dated 1019 or 1020 and Archbishop Wulfstan (1002–23) annotated the homilies, the surveys were probably entered c.1020 and the homilies, letter, and prayers between 1020 and 1023, but the inventory and list of ‘festermen’ is in a hand of the second half of the eleventh century.36 The surveys of c.1020 confirm that Otley, Ripon, and Sherburn in Elmet were archiepiscopal properties. Otherwise they offer no insight into the scale of the see’s endowments. It is unlikely that they were entered because they were the only York holdings, but perhaps because they were the most valuable holdings, or the only holdings which had suffered depredation, or those which had suffered the most depredation, or because the Oswald memorandum presented a useful building block for Wulfstan’s programme to promote and restore the rights of the church.37 They throw important light on the history of these three

29   Woodman (ed.) 2012: No. 1.   Woodman (ed.) 2012: Nos. 2–3. 31   Woodman (ed.) 2012: Nos. 4–5.   Woodman (ed.) 2012: No. 8. 32   Woodman (ed.) 2012: No. 10. 33   Barker (ed.) 1986; Ker 1990: item 402; Gneuss 2001: item 774; Doane, Keefer, and Rollason (eds) 2007. 34 35  McGurk 1986.   York, Minster Library, MS Add. 1, fos. 156–61. 36   Ker 1990: item 402, pp. 468–9; Keynes 1986: 81–3; Wormald 1999b: 195–7, 347–8. 37   Keynes 1986: 85–6; Baxter 2004. 28 30

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Religious Communities, Local Churches, Laity, 867–1066

229

holdings. For Otley, the Oswald memorandum suggests that land had been lost from thirteen túnas and the c.1020 survey includes land in eight of these túnas, suggesting many lost lands had been restored.38 The Domesday entry for Otley suggests the archbishops had converted former sokelands into berewicks.39 For Ripon, the Oswald memorandum suggests land had been lost from six túnas; the c.1020 survey reveals that the holding included land acquired by Archbishop Oscytel as well as land in two of those túnas from which land had been taken.40 The Domesday entry for Ripon suggests the holding had been reorganized with the addition and detachment of properties and changes in the status of land in some túnas.41 A comparison of King Edgar’s diploma for Sherburn in Elmet with the Oswald memorandum and the survey of c.1020 suggests progress in restoring some lost túnas and enlarging the holding with sokelands to the south and east.42 The Oswald memorandum and the c.1020 surveys allow some observations about the development of the York holdings. There is a strong possibility that three early religious communities, at Beverley, Otley, and Ripon, were acquired before or during the period of Scandinavian rule, remained under archiepiscopal control, and provided a basis for archiepiscopal power. No evidence exists to hint at earlier archiepiscopal control of Beverley, but the memorandum claims Archbishop Oscytel (963 x 971) bought land at Bracken from King Edgar who granted it to him by charter for St John’s (he gebohte æt Eadgare cinge, he hit him gebocode into sancte Iohanne), suggesting archiepiscopal interest in Beverley. Amongst the stolen Otley túnas was Addingham: Archbishop Wulfhere fled to Addingham in 872, so Otley and its dependent tún at Addingham were possibly archiepiscopal possessions by this date.43 When Archbishop Wulfstan and the Northumbrians provoked King Eadred’s ravaging of the Northumbrians, he burnt Ripon in 948: it may have been in archiepiscopal hands and targeted because of this connection.44 The Oswald memorandum takes for granted archiepiscopal interest in Beverley, Otley, and Ripon, but records the acquisition history of the other holdings under Oscytel (956–71). Although Oscytel could have used personal wealth or Worcester revenue, he could have used York revenues to purchase further lands: the retention of these lands (and perhaps others not mentioned in the memorandum) might explain his ability to purchase Appleton for £24, Bracken for an unspecified sum, Everingham for £44, Newbald for 120 mancuses of red gold, and Skidby for £20. This landed wealth and influence might be the context for Oscytel’s ability to enforce religious laws on marriage: the memorandum claims that he obtained Helperby ‘in compensation for illicit cohabitation—there were two brothers who had one wife’.

  Keynes 1986: 89–90; Baxter 2004: 182.   Keynes 1986: 90–1; Baxter 2004: 182. 42   Keynes 1986: 86–8; Baxter 2004: 182–6. 44   See Chapter 5, pp. 192, 209–10. 38 40

  Keynes 1986: 90.   Keynes 1986: 91. 43   See Chapter 5, p. 188. Keynes 1986: 89.

39 41

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

230

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

These holdings could be only a proportion of the see’s endowments or its  entire holdings. Even if they were the entire holding, they were a real basis for  episcopal power and influence across Yorkshire. Their significance may be grasped through consideration of their value and distribution. Domesday demonstrates that these lands were some of the most valuable holdings amongst the York endowments and provided a substantial proportion of its estimated wealth in 1066. Beverley (TRE £24), Otley (TRE £10), and Ripon (TRE £32) were worth £66. Everingham (TRE £14), Newbald (TRE £24), and Sherburn in Elmet (TRE £8) were worth £46. Their combined value was TRE £112, over a third of the total value of the see’s Yorkshire holdings at around £299. Southwell (Nt) (TRE £40) and Sutton (Nt) (TRE £8) were worth £48, about two-thirds of the total value of the see’s Nottinghamshire holdings at around TRE £69.45 The value of lands could change between the tenth century and eleventh century. The evidence for Otley, Ripon, and Sherburn in Elmet has demonstrated that holdings underwent significant reorganization. The Domesday entries demonstrate that the estimated value of some holdings changed substantially over the period 1065–88. But these were valuable holdings in the tenth century, just as they were in the eleventh. The Oswald memorandum’s claim that Oscytel purchased Appleton for £24, Bracken for an unspecified sum, Everingham for £44, Newbald for 120 mancuses of red gold, and Skidby for £20 demonstrates that these holdings were considered valuable. If the reorganizations of Otley, Ripon, and Sherburn in Elmet had increased their value, as they may well have done, the value of others, such as Everingham, had dropped. These lands comprised a network of strategically placed nodes for travel and communication.46 Ripon was a centre for influence on the western edge of the Vale of York and up into the Vale of Mowbray as well as a potential staging post for travel north via the former Roman road Dere Street, lying 30 miles north-east of York. Otley was a centre for influence to the west of York in the key Pennine river valley of Wharfedale and a potential staging point for travel over the Pennines via the Aire–Ribble gap, lying 30 miles west of York on an important former Roman routeway. Sherburn in Elmet was a centre for influence to the south-west in the Vale of York, accessible by a former Roman road via Tadcaster and a potential staging post for travel out of Yorkshire by road, located 16 miles from York. Everingham and Newbald were potential staging points at 17 miles and 24 miles for travel south-east along another Roman road from York, either south to the Humber crossing point at Brough, or east over the Wolds to Beverley at 30 miles from York. Beverley provided a centre for influence in Holderness. In Domesday Book many of these places had clerical communities: Beverley and Ripon were larger and well-endowed communities and there were smaller   Giandrea 2007: 213–14.

45

 Barrow 2012.

46

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Religious Communities, Local Churches, Laity, 867–1066

231

groups of clergy at Everingham, Newbald, and Sherburn in Elmet.47 It is possible that the expansion of archiepiscopal holdings was accompanied by the revival or establishment of a network of clerical communities. At Beverley and Ripon there are indications of religious communities in the tenth century. Textual sources reveal nothing about either community in the ninth century or the first half of the tenth century. Some continuity of religious life seems likely because Archbishops Oswald and Wulfstan sought to reform not only the community at York but also the community at Ripon; because the cults of St John of Beverley and St Wilfrid of Ripon were preserved; because elaborate rights of sanctuary evolved at both communities; and because idiosyncratic rights to pastoral dues were maintained or established at Beverley. At York and Ripon the archbishops may have attempted monastic reform. At York there may have been an early regular clerical community focused on Holy Trinity, St Mary Bishophill Junior, St Martin’s, and St Gregory’s.48 Domesday records that Richard son of Erfast held Holy Trinity along with lands at Bilbrough, Middlethorpe, Moor Monkton, and Knapton, all marked ‘Christ Church’, probably the former endowment of a clerical community under lay control.49 The topographical connections between the York Minster and Christ Church holdings have prompted the hypothesis that it was a religious community associated with the cathedral.50 When Holy Trinity was used for a Cluniac priory in 1089, the foundation charter recalled that it was ‘at one time adorned by canons and with revenues of small estates and with ecclesiastical furnishings, but now almost reduced to nothing through exigent sins’.51 This information presents a contradiction: a former clerical community with a small endowment, only recently extinguished, but part of whose endowment was called muneca-tún, ‘the tún of the monks’. For Ripon, the list of lost túnas in the Oswald memorandum may be placed alongside the c.1020 survey: this suggests that Oswald, Ealdwulf, or Wulfstan had successfully re-acquired some of the lost túnas, records places called biscopes-tún, ‘the tún of the bishop’ and muneca-tún, ‘the tún of the monks’, and designates holdings as préosta-land.52 A community where there is no recorded evidence for monks held separate lands for monks and clergy. A wider review and analysis of these place-names suggests they were often formed from royal or episcopal expropriation of religious communities and reorganization to provide separate endowments for bishops, clergy, and monks, and that endowments for monks were created as a result of the monastic reform movement in the tenth century.53 These placenames may be all that survives of an attempt by the archbishops to reorganize two of the communities under their control.

48   See pp. 224–5.   See Chapter 4, p. 129. 51   Rees-Jones 2013: 43–5.   EYC IV: No. 1. 53   Pickles 2009b: 39–108. 47 50

49   DB fo. 327r (22 W [23] 1–3, 5–6).   See pp. 227–9.

52

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

232

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

The Chronica Pontificum Ecclesiae Eboracensis, written at York sometime after 1140 and perhaps using lost Beverley sources, claims that there was subsequent building under Ælfric (1023–51), Cynesige (1051–60), and Ealdred (1061–9) at York and Beverley, including a refectory at York and a refectory and dormitory at Beverley.54 Building of dormitories and refectories suggests an attempt to reinforce or reintroduce a regular clerical life. Hugh the Chanter implies that there had been a regular clerical life at York: he relates that, when Archbishop Thomas I was elected to the see after the northern rebellion of 1070, he found a burnt city, a ruined church, and only three of the total complement of seven canons; he rebuilt the church, restored the correct number of canons, constructed a dormitory and refectory, provided new endowments, and split communal property into prebends.55 Traces of a pre-Conquest regular life may be found in the post-Conquest constitutions of Beverley and Ripon: canons were introduced with separate prebends from which their stalls were named, but they were initially only seven in number at both places, no canon had separate jurisdiction from the chapter at either place, and the Beverley canons held property in common and prebends named from the altars to which they were attached, rather than a manor or parish.56 Preservation of the cults of St John at Beverley and St Wilfrid at Ripon in the ninth century and first half of the tenth century is likely because of the interest shown by the West Saxon kings and their archbishops in both saints. King Æthelstan probably visited York during his expedition to the north in 934, the likely occasion for the grant of land at Amounderness (La) to York.57 Later sources from Beverley and Ripon claimed that he made pilgrimages to pay respects to John and Wilfrid, and made grants to both communities, as we shall see. Eadred’s burning of Ripon in 948 may have been motivated partly by the continuing significance of the cult of Wilfrid and this was probably the context for the translation of Wilfrid’s relics to Canterbury (Kt): Frithegod’s Vita Wilfridi suggests that his relics were acquired by Canterbury (Kt) because the archbishops of York had neglected the shrine at Ripon; it also demon­ strates that Frithegod had access to a copy of Stephen’s Vita Wilfridi, probably preserved at Ripon and taken in the tenth century.58 Byrhtferth of Ramsey’s Vita Oswaldi, written in the period 997–1002, relates that Oswald visited Ripon, found the buildings in ruins, discovered the remains of Wilfrid, Tatberht, Botwine, Alberht, Sigered, and Vilden, and constructed a reliquary for Wilfrid’s remains.59 Edgar was thought to have sold land to Archbishop Oscytel and granted it by diploma for St John’s Beverley.60 Even allowing for the potential for knowledge of northern saints from Bede and the enthusiasm for Bedan   Raine (ed.) 1879–94: II, 343–4; Wilson 2006: 11, 106–7.   Johnson, Brett, Brooke, and Winterbottom (ed. and trans.) 1990: 18–21. 56 57   Palliser 2000: 28.   Woodman (ed.) 2012: No. 1. 58   ASC D s.a. 948; Campbell (ed.) 1950. For discussion: Brooks 1984: 227–31; Lapidge 1988. 59 60   Lapidge (ed. and trans.) 2009: v.9.   See p. 229. 54 55

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Religious Communities, Local Churches, Laity, 867–1066

233

saints in the tenth-century reforms, the existence of religious communities curating these cults seems likely to underpin their political significance, the concern to court and control them, and the ability to identify and access relics, including those of one figure from the Ripon community—Vilden—whose identity remains obscure. The presence of religious communities at Beverley and Ripon in the tenth century would help to explain their developing rights to sanctuary and pastoral dues. The entry for Ripon in the York estate surveys of c.1020 begins ‘at Ripon first the space of one mile on each side’, presumably referring to a sanctuary zone. Cotton Nero MS A.i (B) is a manuscript associated with Wulfstan’s circle, perhaps a pocket-sized moral handbook for a preacher. It is headed Be cyricgriđ and contains laws of King Æthelred on sanctuary, including a text known as Norđhymbra Ciricgriđ. This refers to sanctuaries at Beverley, Ripon, and York, of the highest rank, in which killings inside the church were unemendable and breaking the peace without killing was compensated by three hundred, as well as sanctuaries in other lower-ranking churches.61 The entry for Ripon in Domesday Book begins LEUGA ś WILFRIDI, referring to a sanctuary zone of 1 league (1.5 miles).62 The Beverley and Ripon sanctuaries are set out most clearly in an account known as The Customs of York Minster, claiming to report the results of an inquest into the Archbishop’s privileges in 1106, but surviving in a fourteenthcentury copy.63 The details on the sanctuaries are likely to belong to the early twelfth century, because Richard of Hexham (d. 1155 x 1167) used them in his description of the Hexham (Nb) privileges.64 Customs claims that the York sanctuary rights were given by King Æthelstan and states that: the church of St John in Beverley has one mile around it free and quit of all royal custom, all payment of money and all the geld which is paid to the king throughout the whole of England. If anyone commits a breach of the peace from the beginning of that mile to the cross of King Æthelstan, he shall be guilty of one hundred, from Æthelstan’s cross to the churchyard, three hundred, who commits breach of the peace in the churchyard six hundred and within the church twelve hundred, and if within the choir he shall lose all his goods and his body will be in danger, without any possibility of satisfaction by paying money. The same applies to the similar liberty in the mile around the church of St Wilfrid in Ripon: from its beginning to the churchyard the violator of the peace shall be guilty of three hundred, in the churchyard six and in the choir as we have said above about the others. Moreover at the three feasts and at Pentecost all those who come to the feasts from their homes shall have peace, coming and returning and if anyone breaches the peace against them he shall be guilty of one hundred. Similarly at the feast of St John the Baptist and of St John the Confessor and the feast of the dedication of the church at Beverley in the same way and also at the two feasts of St Wilfrid those

  Nor Griđ; Wormald 1999b: 202–3, 336, 394–5.   Caenegem (ed. and trans.) 1990: I, No. 172. 64   Raine (ed.) 1864: I, 1–62, ii.14; Strickland 2004. 61

63

62

  DB fo. 303v (2 W 7).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

234

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

who come and go shall have peace and whoever breaches it then, a mile coming and a mile returning, shall be guilty of one hundred for breach of the peace.65

As Tom Lambert has argued, these sanctuary rights could pre-date the tenth century, but a tenth-century origin is probable: the structure of fines in hundreds is close to that in a late tenth-century law code for the Danelaw, III Æthelred, and Norđhymbra Ciricgriđ sets out a different Wulfstanian sanctuary scheme without zones and ranking sanctuary rights that was probably ‘part of an attempt to recast Northumbrian institutions in a Wulfstanian mould’, an attempt which these existing sanctuary schemes survived.66 A useful parallel is the claim in the Historia de Sancto Cuthberto that the Scandinavian king Guthfrith granted the Community of St Cuthbert the right of asylum for thirty-seven days and that King Æthelstan’s army donated 12 hundred or £96 to St Cuthbert in 934, perhaps recognizing a breach of sanctuary.67 West Saxon laws on breach of royal and ecclesiastical peace probably lie behind these sanctuary rights.68 Based on Customs, the Beverley and Ripon sanctuaries probably offered personal protection to individuals who had sought sanctuary at the churches within the specified spatial limits, except on feast days when protection was extended to anyone within those limits.69 An early fourteenth-century rhyming charter also claimed that King Æthelstan granted to Beverley the right to four thraves from every plough in the East Riding of Yorkshire.70 Hescornes had been an older regional name for thraves and the chronicler of Meaux believed that they had originally been exacted by royal officials for the king’s horses: they might be a variant of church-scot and could belong either to an earlier period or to a restoration of dues in the tenth century.71 There is further evidence that a community had been revived or established at Sherburn in Elmet by the second half of the eleventh century. Amongst the items in York, Minster Library, MS Add. 1—the York Gospels—is an inventory of Sherburn in Elmet and a list of ‘festermen’ for Ælfric, probably Ælfric, archbishop of York, added in a hand dated the second half of the eleventh century.72 The inventory includes a selection of liturgical books necessary for the observance of divine service, suggesting the existence of a religious community. The list of ‘festermen’ distinguishes a number of people through geographical suffixes referring to locations around Sherburn. The Gospel Book was perhaps kept for some time in this community at Sherburn in Elmet: the existing prayers encouraging commemoration of friends of the York community might explain the addition of the list of ‘festermen’ and their commemoration would be most appropriate in proximity to a community who knew them.73 66   Caenegem (ed. and trans.) 1990: I, 141–2.   Lambert 2009: 128–31. 68 69   HSC cc. 13, 27.  Hall 1989.   Lambert 2009: 131–6. 70 71   Woodman (ed.) 2012: No. 12.   Morris and Cambridge 1989: 12. 72   Ker 1990: item 402, pp. 468–9; Keynes 1986: 81–3; Wormald 1999b: 195–7, 347–8. 73   Keynes 1986: 96–8. 65 67

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Religious Communities, Local Churches, Laity, 867–1066

235

Stone sculpture and the see of York, 867–954 The continuing political significance of the archbishops, along with their landed wealth and efforts to reorganize religious communities, may have a material reflex in the stone sculpture from York and some archiepiscopal holdings. The York Metropolitan School school of carving points to the existence of a wealthy, literate, and learned Christian community that was a focus for elite commemoration in the period c.870–c.954.74 Two types of monument characterize the school. First, grave-slabs whose surface is divided into panels by a cross and decorated with distinctive zoomorphic interlace (Image 11).75 Second, cross-shafts carrying classically influenced portraits of ecclesiastics and the

Image 11.  CASSS VI: York Minster 38A. Copyright Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Photographer T. Middlemass.

74   Lang 1976b; Lang 1978a: 145–53; Lang 1978b: esp. 13–18; CASSS III: 26–7, 38–40; Lang 1993: 266–7; Lang 1997: 74. 75   CASSS III: York Minster 30, 31, 35–9, 40, 43; All Saints Pavement 1; St Denys 1; St Mary Bishophill Junior 6; St Mary Bishophill Senior 13; Clifford Street 1; Coppergate 2; St Mary’s Abbey 1. CASSS I: Gainford 20.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

236

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

same zoomorphic interlace.76 They are connected by the reuse of Roman sarcophagus lids, standard approaches to ruling and gridding, and shared motifs.77 An unfinished product of this school was discovered in the Coppergate excavations of 1977 in a pre-960 stratigraphic context: a fragment of a grave-cover decorated with zoomorphic interlace on two sides B and E, unfinished on B.78 A number of slabs were uncovered beneath the south transept of York Minster and the footings of Archbishop Thomas I’s Norman church during excavations from 1966 to 1971: they were in situ as grave-markers, but reused—some had been divided and used for different graves.79 Amongst the products of the school, a small number of monuments are attributed to one sculptor, the ‘York Master’: the tool marks, construction lines, system of grids and fixed points, angel portraits, and zoomorphic interlace on Clifford Street 1, Coppergate 2, Newgate 1, and the earliest carving on Nunburnholme 1, suggest the work of a single sculptor.80 Close analysis of Nunburnholme 1 indicates the period in which he was working (Image 12).81 Eschewing the artistic traditions of seventhto ninth-century monuments in Yorkshire, he drew on classical models for portraits, perhaps influenced by Carolingian art and seen in the Canterbury (Kt) and York episcopal coinages, and the Trewhiddle style for his animals.82 Echoing earlier Mercian designs, a second sculptor added zoomorphic interlace.83 This suggests a date in the late ninth or early tenth century. Close analysis of the York Metropolitan School animals suggests the same period—the profile beast and the profile winged biped.84 The profile beast has earlier Insular roots, but has been adapted to the Jellinge style, with extended ears, nose-folds, a contoured ribbon body, and scrolled joints.85 The profile winged biped may be derived from an eighth-century cross-shaft at Otley via a ninth-century crossshaft from Ilkley.86 The majority of the York Metropolitan School monuments were discovered under York Minster and others were found at the churches of the Bishophill complex, where there was probably an early clerical community associated with the see.87 It seems reasonable to think of the archiepiscopal community as 76   CASSS III: York Minster 2–4; Holy Trinity Micklegate 1–2; St Mary Bishophill Senior 1; St Mary Castlegate 1–2; Newgate 1; Nunburnholme 1. 77   Lang 1986b: 254–8; CASSS III: 38–40, 49. 78   CASSS III: Coppergate 2, 103–4, ills. 327, 329–30. 79   Hope-Taylor 1971 and Phillips and Heywood 1995; CASSS III: 26, 39, ills. 416–17 for the in situ grave covers, and York Minster 2–4, 30–9, 43; Lang 1978a: 151–2. 80  Lang 1976b; CASSS III: 38–9, 48–9; Clifford Street 1; Coppergate 2; Newgate 1; Nunburnholme 1. 81   Lang 1976b: 83–8; CASSS III: 38–9, 191–3. 82   Carolingian analogues: Gospels of St Médard de Soissons, early ninth century, in Hubert, Porcher, and Volbach 1970: Pls. 76 and 280; ivory panels at Frankfurt and Cambridge, ninth or tenth century, in Hinks 1935: 157–8, Pl. XVI, a–b; archiepiscopal coinage, Dolley 1970: Pl. IX, 25. 83   Mercian analogues: Breedon cross-shaft, Leicestershire, CASSS III: 34, fig. 7a. 84 85   CASSS III: 34–5, 39–40.   Lang 1984b: 50–1; Lang 1986b: 254–7. 86   CASSS VIII: Ilkley 3; Otley 2. 87   CASSS III: York Minster 2–4, 30–1, 35–40, 43; St Mary Bishophill Junior 6; St Mary Bishophill Senior 1, 13; Holy Trinity Micklegate 1–2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Religious Communities, Local Churches, Laity, 867–1066

237

Image 12.  CASSS III: Nunburnholme 1aB–1bD. Copyright Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Photographer T. Middlemass.

responsible for their design and production. The Nunburnholme monument (Image 12) may have influenced further work in York and is a suitable place to begin considering individual monuments. The monument is divided into arcades supported by angels and containing a series of figural images: a seated warrior above a seated figure with a ?book and staff, a cleric with cowl, rational, and stole above zoomorphic interlace, a Virgin and Child above a Crucifixion, and a saint above a priest delivering mass.88 The Nunburnholme monument may have been a touchstone for further sculpture produced by the York Metropolitan School. Part of a cross-shaft discovered under the Minster in the 1966–71 excavations carries a figural image on its principal face and variations on the characteristic York Metropolitan School zoomorphic interlace on the other three (Image 13).89 An Irish or Irishinfluenced Crucifixion image in which Christ’s hands rest on the heads of two flanking figures, who in turn reach out to grasp the cross, may underlie 88   CASSS III: Nunburnholme 1, 189–93, ills. 713–20 for the original layout, ills. 709–12 for the current layout after an incorrect reconstruction. 89   CASSS III: York Minster 2, 54–5, ills. 6, 11–13.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

238

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Image 13.  CASSS III: York Minster 2A. Copyright Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Photographer T. Middlemass.

the Crucifixion on the Nunburnholme monument and the figural image on this cross-shaft.90 Unusual details in the York image suggest adaptation of a Crucifixion. A standing figure with a scrolled nimbus rests his hands on the upturned heads of two flanking figures, but the figures seem to be seated on the folds of his robe, with their feet resting on his, and they reach out to grasp an oval object on his chest. It could be a misunderstood or adapted Crucifixion,91 but this seems unlikely, since there is no explicit depiction of the cross. It may represent a Benediction scene, though the parallels are later than the cross-shaft itself and the central object remains mysterious.92 It is worth considering whether it is an adaptation of a Crucifixion or Benediction image to represent a ritual accommodation between Scandinavian rulers and the church. Two passages suggest such accommodations were sealed through rituals involving arm-rings. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle manuscript A records that Alfred made peace with the raiding-army in 876 ‘and they swore him oaths on the sacred ring’; the   See, for example, the Durrow high cross: Harbison 1985: Pl. V.   Pattison 1973: 214, 228, Pl. LIa.

90 92

  Lang 1976b: 88–9.

91

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Religious Communities, Local Churches, Laity, 867–1066

239

Latin translation in Æthelweard’s Chronicon—sacrum armillum—suggests an arm-ring.93 The Historia de Sancto Cuthberto describes a ritual whereby Guthfrith was established as king: he was taken to the hill called Oswiesdune and had a gold armlet (armillam auream) placed on his right arm.94 These passages resonate with the developing cult of St Bega based on a bracelet at St Bees in Cumberland and with descriptions of sacred arm-rings in later Scandinavian sagas.95 Whatever the origins or meaning of this monument, it is probably the product of a wealthy, confident, and inventive Christian community. There are fragments surviving from other monuments with similarly complex programmes and images. A fragment by the ‘York Master’ found at Newgate shares Nunburnholme’s division into arcades supported by angels as well as the combination of a figure singled out by a dished halo with panels of zoomorphic interlace.96 A fragment found under York Minster during the 1966–71 excavations combines a figure with a dished halo and panels of zoomorphic interlace.97 Part of a cross-shaft found at St Mary Bishophill Senior has one face decorated with a saint/cleric with halo and rational, as well as the lower legs of an apparently secular figure with garter and scabbard.98 A cross-head discovered beneath the church of St Mary Castlegate depicts a Crucifixion on one side and another worn figure on the reverse, perhaps Christ in Majesty or a Judgement: the sculptor(s) revived the earlier free-armed cross-head form and may have drawn on Irish Crucifixions in the decision to dispose Christ on the cross-head, but these Insular models were combined with a ring-knot and knotted dragon.99 Cross-shafts with Christian figural images and grave-slabs with crosses were mixed with monuments representing Scandinavian mythology. The most spectacular example of this is the ‘Sigurd grave-slab’ found during the excavations of 1966–71 under York Minster (Images 14–15). On the long side is the killing of the dragon Fáfnir, with Sigurd as a swordsman between two images of the dragon and with the severed head before him at his feet. On the top a series of images is laid out in ascending order—the coiled dragon, the decapitated smith Reginn, Sigurd roasting the dragon’s heart, the loading of the horse Grani, and other indistinguishable scenes. It shares motifs with other monuments in the York Metropolitan School and may even be by the same hand as the St Mary Castlegate 2 cross-head.100 At Nunburnholme (Image 12), the second sculptor adapted the mass scene on Face D, juxtaposing the mass with the feast of Sigurd and Reginn the smith—two confronted, seated figures, the left-hand 94   ASC A s.a. 876; Æthelweard, Chronicon iv.2, 41–2.   HSC c. 13. 96   Smyth 1975–9: II, 265–70.   CASSS III: Newgate 1, 105–7, ills. 342–6. 97   CASSS III: York Minster 4, 56–7, ills. 20–3. 98   CASSS III: St Mary Bishophill Senior 1, ills. 246–56. 99   CASSS III: St Mary Castlegate 2, 96–7, ills. 297–301. 100   CASSS III: York Minster 34, 71–2, ills. 142, 144–7. Compare CASSS III: St Denys 2, ill. 213 and St Mary Castlegate 2, ill. 297. 93 95

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

240

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Image 14.  CASSS III: York Minster 34A. Copyright Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Photographer T. Middlemass.

Image 15.  CASSS III: York Minster 34D. Copyright Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Photographer T. Middlemass.

figure perhaps having a monstrous head and holding up a large ring.101 On a ‘hogback’ recumbent grave-marker found under York Minster a sculptor may have connected Sigurd and/or Gunnar in the snake pit with the crucified Christ: the gable end carries a single figure, arms outstretched, bound by ribbons and accompanied by snakes.102 These sculptural trends may have extended to archiepiscopal holdings at Otley and Ripon. Otley has a number of monuments worthy of consideration. Part of the centre and lower arm of a cross-head includes a roundel containing the lower half of a figure in a pleated skirt, whose position on the cross-head suggests a Christian scene; the interlace and the figural style suggest a tenthcentury date.103 The lower part of a cross-shaft is decorated on its two broader faces with zoomorphic interlace reflecting the same development of Insular animal art seen in the York Metropolitan School and is a single isolated example

  CASSS III: Nunburnholme 1, 191, ill. 728.   CASSS III: York Minster 46, 77–8, ills. 187–9. 103   CASSS VIII: Otley 8, 224–5, ills. 615–16. 101 102

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Religious Communities, Local Churches, Laity, 867–1066

241

of this, probably to be dated to the same period.104 A further fragment from a cross-shaft revives the panelled layout and plant-scroll motif found on earlier Otley sculpture, but the remaining interlace has tenth-century parallels.105 An earlier cross-head carrying vine-scroll and plant-scroll was broken up and reused as a grave-marker depicting a warrior, perhaps framed by a chair, surrounded by his weapons; a similar reused monument exists at nearby Weston; warrior portraits are elsewhere a tenth-century phenomenon.106 At Addingham (Image 16) remains of a cross-shaft were discovered in the churchyard. The principal face depicts two figures beneath a ringed cross-head and a chain hanging from the destroyed cross-head. A number of possible identifications have been suggested for the figural scene including an image of Doomsday or  a donor portrait, but the most plausible is the Veneration of the Cross, perhaps linked to an image of Judgement on the cross-head. The reverse is

Image 16.  CASSS VIII: Addingham 1A. Copyright Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Photographers K. Jukes and D. Craig.   CASSS VIII: Otley 3, 221, ills. 579–82.   CASSS VIII: Otley 4, 221–2, ills. 583–6 (Face B, ill. 584). 106   CASSS VIII: Otley 6, 223, ills. 591–6, 608; Otley 7, 223–4, ills. 597–600; Weston 1, 268–9, ills. 777–83. 104 105

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

242

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Image 17. CASSS VIII: Ripon 3A. Copyright Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Photographers K. Jukes and D. Craig.

Image 18. CASSS VIII: Ripon 4. Copyright Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Photographers K. Jukes and D. Craig.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Religious Communities, Local Churches, Laity, 867–1066

243

decorated with a medallion plant-scroll derived from medallion scrolls on earlier cross-shafts from Otley and Ilkley. The remaining two sides carry a plain plaited interlace.107 At Ripon (Image 17) an incomplete cross-head, which revives the earlier free-armed form, carries on one side an image of two confronted birds over a central boss, probably deriving from earlier Christian motifs representing Resurrection or the Fountain of Life, but carries on the other a double-stranded interlace with ring knots, suggesting a later ninth- or tenth-century date.108 A second free-armed cross-head (Image 18) presents on  one side an image of Sigurd sucking his thumb after burning it while roasting the dragon’s heart and on the other a similar double-stranded ringknot interlace.109 The York Metropolitan School and the monuments from Otley, Addingham, and Ripon share some common features: the revival of earlier forms and styles, the representation of complex Christian figural images or motifs alongside ‘secular’ portraits, and the innovative combination of these elements with new motifs, styles, and mythologies developing under Scandinavian influence. They reflect control over the surpluses necessary to sustain sculptors. Revival of earlier forms and styles is a common strategy for projecting authority in a changing environment: rather than the unconscious, incidental, or pragmatic reuse of earlier forms and styles, this may have been a self-conscious effort by the archbishops and their communities to project continuity under Scandinavian and West Saxon rule.110 Literate, learned, clerical communities must lie behind the carving of complex Christian figural images; presumably those carving the monuments assumed that there was, and would continue to be, access to this culture at the places where the monuments were erected if they were to retain significance. Portraits of warriors and the adaptation of sculpture to Scandinavian influence seem to be an acknowledgement of interactions between the church and the laity. Juxtapositions of Scandinavian mythology with Christian images presumably reflect such interactions, and look like an attempt to prompt meditation on the similarities and differences between ‘pagan’ mythology and Christian theology—this will be discussed further. The archbishops and their community were sufficiently wealthy to invest in and develop a dynamic culture of elite Christian commemoration between c.870 and c.954, testifying to their interaction and association with the laity and their concern to promote the church. Nonetheless, these monuments represent high points of activity at unknown and not necessarily contemporaneous points within this period, implying nothing about an unbroken continuity of personnel, constitution, resources, or power.

  CASSS VIII: Addingham 1, 90–1, ills. 12–15. 109   CASSS VIII: Ripon 3, 235–6, ills. 655–9.   CASSS VIII: Ripon 4, 236, ills. 660–4. 110   Lang 1978b: esp. 13 and 18; Lang 1993: esp. 266–7; Lang 1997: esp. 65–7, 74. 107 108

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

244

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES, 867–1066

That the archbishops probably retained some endowments, certainly acquired others, and may have used their influence to promote Christianity to the laity, raises the possibility that other religious communities did so too. No sources equivalent to the York diplomas, memorandum, and surveys exist to throw light on the fate of other religious communities in Yorkshire between 867 and 1066. Some insights are provided by the distribution of church-related placenames and the corpus of stone sculpture. The place-name kirkja-by(r) Forty-four places across the counties of the Danelaw were, at one time or another, called kirkja-by(r) (Table 6, Map 10). Kirkja-by(r) is a compound place-name combining Old Norse kirkja, ‘church’, and by(r), ‘farmhouse, estate, town’.111 Early spellings often include the form ‘chercheby’, preserving an inflexion. This might theoretically be nominative singular kirkja, or the accusative, genitive, or dative singulars, all kirkju.112 Translations might be ‘church-farm’, ‘farm for the church’, or ‘farm of the church’. Thirty-three were recorded in the mid eleventh century and a further eight in the twelfth century: most, if not all, presumably belonged to the later ninth, tenth, or early eleventh century. Kirkja-by(r) names are part of a wider corpus of names including Old Norse by(r). A recent review has reconsidered their historical implications.113 Over 80 per cent of by(r) names are compounded with Old Norse place-name elements and some fossilize inflexions. About 50 per cent are compounded with personal names; the majority are Old Norse. This suggests that Old Norse speakers coined and preserved the majority of by(r) names, and that a considerable body of land was associated with people possessing Old Norse names. The majority including Old Norse personal names preserve their full form, whereas shortened versions of Old Norse personal names were in use by the eleventh ­century; the coining of the names perhaps occurred in the later ninth or tenth century. Most of the by(r) names apply to places with relatively low status in marginal areas and are often accompanied by Old Norse field names. This seems to reflect lower-status migrants moving into a populated landscape and working the land. The kirkja-by(r) place-names form an exceptional sub-group.114 Gillian Fellows-Jensen established this point.115 Kirkja-by(r) names generally refer to places occupying desirable locations with good soils. They often refer to places with evidence for earlier occupation: a pre-existing Old English name was   Zoëga 1910: 81–2, for by(r) and 240 for kirkja.   112  Zoëga 1910: 537. 114   Abrams and Parsons 2004.   Abrams and Parsons 2004: 412, n. 205. 115   Fellows-Jensen 1987: 295–308. 111 113

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



245

Religious Communities, Local Churches, Laity, 867–1066

Table 6.  Kirkja-by(r) place-names Place

County

Grid reference

First record

Reference

Kirkby in Walley

Cheshire

SJ296921

1180 × 1245

PNChesh, IV, 332

West Kirby

Cheshire

SJ218865

1154 × 1181

PNChesh, IV, 294–5

Kirkby Crossan

Cumberland

NY020290

C13th

PNCumb, II, 436

Kirkby John

Cumberland

NY200553

c.1305

PNCumb, II, 291

St Bees

Cumberland

NX968121

c.1125

PNCumb, II, 430–1

Kirby le Soken

Essex

TM219220

c.1181

Ekwall 1960, 279

Cartmel

Lancashire

SD379787

1086

SSNNW, 34

Kirkby Ireleth

Lancashire

SD245846

1191 × 1198

PNLancs, 220

Kirkby Walton

Lancashire

SJ402994

1086

SSNNW, 34

Kirby Bellars

Leicestershire

SK717176

1086

SSNEM, 57

Kirkby Mallory

Leicestershire

SK455005

1086

SSNEM, 57

East Kirkby

Lincolnshire

TF334622

1086

SSNEM, 57

Kirkby

Lincolnshire

TF063927

c.1164

PNLincs, III, 52

Kirkby Green

Lincolnshire

TF085579

1086

SSNEM, 57

Kirkby Laythorpe

Lincolnshire

TF099460

1086

SSNEM, 57

Kirkby on Bain

Lincolnshire

TF242625

1086

SSNEM, 57

Kirkby Underwood

Lincolnshire

TF073272

1086

SSNEM, 57

Kirby Bedon

Norfolk

TG279054

1086

Ekwall 1960, 279

Kirby Cane

Norfolk

TM373941

1086

Ekwall 1960, 279

Kirby Hall

Northamptonshire

SP928926

1086

PNNorthants, 167

Kirkby in Ashfield

Nottinghamshire

SK500563

1086

PNNotts, 120

Monks Kirkby

Warwickshire

SP463831

1086

SSNEM, 57

Kirkby Kendal

Westmorland

SD516922

1086

PNWest, I, 114–15

Kirkby Lonsdale

Westmorland

SD611798

1086

PNWest, I, 42

Kirkby Stephen

Westmorland

NY775089

1090 × 1097

PNWest, II, 8–9

Kirkby Thore

Westmorland

NY638258

c.1179

PNWest, II, 117–18

Kirby Grindalythe

East Yorkshire

SE904675

1086

PNERY, 124–5

Kirby Underdale

East Yorkshire

SE808585

1086

PNERY, 129–31

Kirkby Fleetham

North Yorkshire

SE282957

1086

PNNRY, 239

Kirby Hill

North Yorkshire

NZ140066

c.1160

Ekwall 1960, 279

Kirby Hill

North Yorkshire

SE393686

1086

PNNRY, 290 (continued)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

246

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Table 6.  Continued Place

County

Grid reference

First record

Reference

Kirby in Cleveland

North Yorkshire

NZ538061

1086

PNNRY, 168

Kirby Knowle

North Yorkshire

SE463878

1086

PNNRY, 200–1

Kirby Misperton

North Yorkshire

SE778795

1086

PNNRY, 75

Kirkby Moorside

North Yorkshire

SE697866

1086

PNNRY, 64

Kirby Sigston

North Yorkshire

SE417947

1086 × 1088

PNNRY, 211–12

Kirby Wiske

North Yorkshire

SE376848

1086

PNNRY, 274

Kirkby Malham

West Yorkshire

SD894609

1086

PNWRY, VI, 132

Kirkby Malzeard

West Yorkshire

SE235745

1086

PNWRY, V, 209

Kirkby Ouseburn

West Yorkshire

SE452611

1086

PNWRY, V, 4

Kirkby Overblow

West Yorkshire

SE324492

1086

PNWRY, V, 42

Kirkby Wharfe

West Yorkshire

SE506410

1086

PNWRY, IV, 68–9

Pontefract

West Yorkshire

SE456220

c.1090

Holmes (ed.) 1889–1902: I, 279

South Kirkby

West Yorkshire

SE452110

1086

PNWRY, II, 40–1

Map 10. The distribution of kirkja-by(r) place-names. Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2018.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Religious Communities, Local Churches, Laity, 867–1066

247

probably replaced. Places to which the name kirkja-by(r) became attached often have good documentary or material evidence for a church, sometimes of the eighth or ninth century, more often of the tenth or eleventh century, and generally gave their name to a parish. Seven churches at places that acquired kirkja-by(r) names preserve eighth- or ninth-century sculpture: Kirkby Kendal (We);116 Kirkby Stephen (We);117 Kirby Hill (NY);118 Kirby Knowle (NY);119 Kirby Misperton (NY);120 Kirkby Moorside (NY);121 and Kirkby Ouseburn (WY).122 Five of these also preserve later ninth- or tenth-century sculpture: Kirkby Stephen (Cu);123 Kirby Hill (NY);124 Kirby Misperton (NY);125 Kirkby Moorside (NY);126 and Kirkby Ouseburn (WY).127 A further twelve churches at  places which acquired kirkja-by(r) names preserve later ninth- or tenthcentury sculpture: West Kirby (Ch);128 St Bees (Cu);129 Kirkby Green (Li); Kirkby Laythorpe (Li); Kirkby Underwood (Li); Kirby Grindalythe (EY); Kirby in Cleveland (NY);130 Kirby Sigston (NY);131 Kirby Wiske (NY);132 Kirkby Malzeard (WY);133 Kirkby Overblow (WY);134 and Kirkby Wharfe (WY).135 There were possibly churches at nineteen of forty-four places with kirkja-by(r) names by the tenth century. Ten of the places to which kirkja-by(r) became attached have Domesday entries recording either churches or priests: Kirkby Green (Li);136 Kirkby Laythorpe (Li);137 Kirby Bedon (Nf);138 Kirby Cane (Nf);139 Kirkby in  Ashfield (Nt);140 Monks Kirby (Wa);141 Kirkby Fleetham (NY);142 Kirby Misperton (NY);143 Kirkby Moorside (NY);144 Tanshelf (Pontefract) (WY);145 and South Kirkby (WY).146 So there is good evidence for churches at a further seven by the eleventh century, raising the total to twenty-six of forty-four. Fellows-Jensen drew the reasonable conclusion that Scandinavian settlers coined kirkja-by(r) place-names with reference to places at which there were churches when they settled nearby. 117   CASSS II: Kendal 1, 120, ills. 380–3.   CASSS II: Kirkby Stephen 2, 122, ills. 394–7.   CASSS VI: Kirby Hill 12, 134–5, ills. 369–71. 119   CASSS VI: Kirby Knowle 1–2, 135–6, ills. 372–3. 120   CASSS III: Kirby Misperton 1 and 3, 152–4, ills. 508–9, 511–13. 121   CASSS III: Kirkby Moorside 6, 157–8, ills. 536–41. 122   CASSS VIII: Little Ouseburn 1–2, 208–9, ills. 525–7 and 5, 209–11, ills. 530–5. 123   CASSS II: Kirkby Stephen 1 and 3–8, 120–1 and 122–5, ills. 390–3 and 398–421. 124   CASSS VI: Kirby Hill 1–10, 129–34, ills. 345–67. 125   CASSS VI: Kirby Misperton 2, ill. 510. 126   CASSS VI: Kirkby Moorside 1–5, 154–7, ills. 514–35. 127   CASSS VIII: Little Ouseburn 3–4, 209, ills. 528–9. 128   CASSS IX: West Kirby 1–5, 133–6, ills. 345–61. 129   CASSS II: St Bees 1–5, 145–7, ills. 543–50. 130   CASSS VI: Kirkby in Cleveland 1–3, 140–1, ills. 392–8. 131   CASSS VI: Kirby Sigston 1–6, 136–8, ills. 374–85. 132   CASSS VI: Kirby Wiske 1–2, 139, ills. 386–91. 133 134   CASSS VIII: Kirkby Malzeard 1, 185, ill. 429.   Milstead and Hall 2011: 18–19. 135   CASSS VIII: Kirkby Wharfe 1–4, 185–9, ills. 430–43. 136 137 138 139   DB fo. 361r.   DB fo. 337v.   DB fo. 175v.   DB fo. 212r. 141 142 143 140   DB fo. 243v.   DB fo. 310v.   DB fo. 314r.   DB fo. 289v. 144 145 146   DB fo. 327v.   DB fo. 316v.   DB fo. 315v. 116 118

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

248

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

This conclusion deserves revisiting because there are further features of the corpus of names. A significant proportion of the places to which kirkja-by(r) became attached seem, at one time or another, to have been the location of a religious community or lands under a religious community’s control. This may be established by a brief review. A holding of Wilfrid or Ripon may be associated with Kirkby Overblow. Stephen relates a miracle performed by Wilfrid. He states that ‘Wilfrid was out riding on a certain day, going to fulfil the various duties of his bishopric, baptizing and also confirming the people with the laying on of hands.’ He travelled to a vill (villa) called Ontiddanufri. A woman whose son had apparently died concealed his death and brought him to Wilfrid, hoping that Wilfrid would confirm the child; when he discovered the boy was dead, he placed his hands on the body and the boy revived. Wilfrid returned him, but told her that when he reached 7 years old he should enter the bishop’s service. She took the boy into hiding ‘amongst other Britons’ (sub aliis Bryttonum) and Wilfrid sent his reeve (praefectus), Hocca, to retrieve him.147 Ontiddanufri has been identified as Tidover.148 Tidover was one of three vills in the parish of Kirkby Overblow— Tidover, Walton, and Kirkby. Stephen’s story implies that the mother and/or her son were Britons and wealh-tun, Walton, means tun of the Wealas, ‘Britons/ foreigners/slaves’. There is nothing explicit to suggest that Wilfrid or Ripon owned land at Ontidannufri: he was fulfilling his duties as a bishop; his rights over the boy derived from the miracle he performed; his reeve, Hocca, might have been administering land at Ontidannufri, but it is not necessary to think so. Wilfrid’s ownership of Ontidannufri cannot be assumed from his jurisdiction over them.149 Nevertheless, it remains a strong possibility that Wilfrid or Ripon owned Ontidannufri. Stephen lists Ripon lands including ‘consecrated places in various parts which the British clergy had deserted’ and names Ingeadyne, probably around Yeadon in Wharfedale.150 Stone sculpture from Otley, Ilkley, and Collingham suggests religious communities and/or their satellites in Wharfedale.151 Stephen may have identified Ontiddanufri by name in a work probably intended for his religious communities because it was part of a Ripon holding and a well-known place. Holdings of the Community of St Cuthbert are associated with two more kirkja-by(r) names. The Historia de Sancto Cuthberto claims that ‘King Ecgfrith and all the Britons with him gave him [Cuthbert] the territory (terra) of Cartmel.’152 Attribution to Ecgfrith is probably a retrospective attempt to connect a holding claimed in the mid tenth or eleventh century with a plausible donor. The use of terra probably denotes a holding including a central vill and

148 149   VW c. 18.   PNWRY V, 43.   Contra Jones 1995: 22–38.   VW c. 17. For identification and discussion: Wood 1987; Jones 1995; Clark 2011: 118–20. 151 152   See Chapter 4, pp. 130–7.   HSC c. 6. 147 150

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Religious Communities, Local Churches, Laity, 867–1066

249

rights over neighbouring vills scattered over a wider area.153 By the eleventh century Cartmel (La) comprised three vills—Kirkby, Walton, and Newton.154 The wealh-tun, or tun of the ‘Britons/foreigners/slaves’, is striking in light of the Historia’s claim. The first set of annals in the Historia Regum preserved a list of places pertaining to Lindisfarne under the entry for 854, including possessions ‘between the river called Tweed and the southern Tyne, and beyond the desert to the West (the Pennines?)’, including Culterham, probably Holme Cultram (Cu).155 The antiquity of the list is suggested by the double glossing of Lugubalia with Luel and Carlisle, and the emphasis on Carlisle and Norham as foci for the Community of St Cuthbert.156 Holme Cultram included the place known as Kirkby John by 1305.157 Pontefract was apparently a royal vill called Tanshelf and an adjacent church settlement called kirkja-by(r).158 King Eadred visited Tanshelf in 947 and a gloss to the Historia Regum misleadingly states that Tanshelf, kirkja-by(r), and Pontefract were equivalent names in different languages for the same place.159 Robert de Lacy’s foundation charter for his Cluniac priory at Pontefract associates kirkja-by(r) with All Saints church.160 Excavations of a church and cemetery near All Saints in the Booth and at Tanners Row suggest that a timber church postdated Phase 1 burials of the period 600–780 as well as undated Phase 2 burials, but pre-dated a stone church contemporary with Phase 3 burials dated to the ninth or tenth century.161 This raises the possibility of a religious community with a church and cemetery of eighth- or ninth-century date, later known as kirkja-by(r). The community of St Bees in Cumberland is connected with another kirkja-by(r) name. William Mechin founded St Bees priory and granted to St Mary’s Church, York, six carucates of land in kirkja-by(r), before later adding the church and land in the rest of the parish.162 A twelfth-century vita of St Bega claimed she was the daughter of an Irish king, who was given the miraculous gift of an armring when she vowed to follow Christ; she supposedly lived a solitary life at St Bees, but was forced by piratical attacks to flee to Northumbria, leaving behind her arm-ring as a miracle-working relic.163 There are reasons to accept the idea of an earlier religious community and cult. The St Bees lands included a place called préosta-tún, ‘the tún of the priests’: a wider study of this name suggests the regular context was royal or episcopal expropriation of a religious community in the later eighth, ninth, tenth, or early eleventh century, followed by reorganization of its endowment to endow clergy.164 St Bees church controlled   HSC pp. 124–9, Appendix II: Estate Structure in the Historia, with useful illustrative maps between pp. 118 and 119. 154   Farrer and Brownbill (eds) 1906–14: II, 143, 254. 155 156   HR I, s.a. 854, ed. HSC 119, Appendix I.1.   Woolf 2007: 82. 157 158 159   PNCumb II: 291.   See Chapter 4, p. 133.   ASC D s.a. 947; HR II, s.a. 949. 160 161   Holmes (ed.) 1889–1902: I, No. 1.   Roberts (ed.) 2002: 9–10, 84–5, 401–4. 162 163   Wilson (ed.) 1915: 178–9.   Wilson (ed.) 1915: 497–520. 164   PNCumb 428; Pickles 2009b. 153

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

250

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

a large mother parish of the type associated with early religious communities and the territories of obligation within they were founded. Nevertheless, the genesis of the cult was more complicated than the vita suggests. The personal name Bega is attested, but could derive from Old English béag, ‘bracelet’.165 Scandinavians swore oaths on arm-rings, which might provide a context for the arm-ring.166 Twelfth-century personal names around St Bees include the Irish patronym gill Becoc, ‘servant of St Bega’, suggesting Irish settlers in the region who developed an association with Bega.167 The vita conflates a nun recorded by Bede—Begu of Hackness—with a local legendary figure, hence the move to Northumbria.168 Monks Kirby (Wa) and Melton Mowbray (Le) were connected holdings in the eleventh century, both with small clerical communities and kirkja-by(r) names. Leofwine and his son Leofric held land at both places, subsequently acquired by Geoffrey de la Guerche, probably via marriage. At Monks Kirby, Geoffrey found a ruinous church served by two priests who controlled a small endowment; along with the irregular, sprawling parish and the large graveyard, this suggests a once larger religious community of which this was the remnant; Geoffrey used the church and priests to found a cell of St Nicholas, Angers.169 Melton Mowbray also had two priests who controlled a small endowment in 1086 and included the place called Kirkby Bellars.170 Its background as a small clerical community may explain why St Peter’s church at Kirkby Bellars was used for the establishment of a college in 1316.171 At Kirby Grindalythe (EY) and West Kirby (Chs), the Latin term monasterium was applied to two places with kirkja-by(r) names that were never reformed monasteries: this term was probably used in recognition of earlier status as a small Anglo-Saxon religious community. A stone sarcophagus from Kirby Grindalythe suggests a church housing a high-status burial in the tenth century: its Romanesque arcading has arches of a type found on tenth-century manuscripts, its decoration on one side suggests it stood against a wall, and the rarity of stone sarcophagi at this date points to a high-status burial, perhaps a founder, re-founder, or local saint.172 The term monasterium was used for Kirby Grindalythe and nearby Garton on the Wolds when they were granted to the Augustinian priory at Kirkham.173 West Kirby was granted to the monks of St Evroul, who gave it to the monks at Chester; they established a cell on the small island of Hilbre (Chs) in the parish.174 Yet West Kirby itself was referred to as a monasterium.175 A confused and late local tradition favours an early   Blair 2002b: ‘Bega’. 167   See pp. 238–9. Smyth 1975–9: II, 267–70.   Smyth 1975–9: II, 265. 168   HE iv.23 (21). For a discussion of these confusions and the vita in a wider context, see: Bartlett 1999. 169 170  Greenway 1996.   DB, fo. 325v. 171 172   VCH Leics II, 25. Hamilton Thomson 1929–31.   John Blair, pers. comm. 173 174 175   RRAN II: 200.   Brownbill 1928: 88–9.   Tait (ed.) 1920: II, 289–91. 165 166

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Religious Communities, Local Churches, Laity, 867–1066

251

Anglo-Saxon saint called Hildburga who gave her name to the nearby island, but this could either preserve some memory of a genuinely early saint, or derive from spurious folk etymology.176 To these cases may be added instances where a known or probable early religious community has a neighbouring church or churches preserving stone sculpture that were later called kirkja-by(r); these may represent satellite lands with churches and/or communities. Ripon and Kirby Hill near Boroughbridge share identical fragments of sculpture, probably by the same hand, identified as imposts or string courses from late eighth- or early ninth-century stone churches;177 Ripon’s enormous mother parish abuts Kirby Hill parish. Heversham (We) had a religious community by the time of King Edward the Elder (r. 899–924), when Tilred, abbot of Heversham, bought land at Castle Eden and gave half to St Cuthbert ‘so that he might be a brother in his monastery’ and half to Norham ‘so that he might be abbot there’.178 Heversham parish is flanked by the enormous mother parishes of Kirkby Kendal (We) and Kirkby Lonsdale (We). Heversham and Kirkby Kendal have fragments of eighth-century stone sculpture, and two pieces from these sites are likely to have been produced by the same sculptor.179 Memory of an earlier connection between Heversham, Kirkby Kendal, and Kirkby Lonsdale may explain why the three places were together granted with their lands to St Mary’s Abbey, York.180 Lastingham was a religious community from the seventh century; Lastingham parish is flanked by the parishes of Kirby Misperton, Kirkby Moorside, and Kirkdale. Fragments of architectural sculpture from Kirby Misperton and Kirkby Moorside suggest that they were supplied with stone churches in the ninth century and grave-covers from Kirkdale suggest the veneration of saints in the later eighth or early ninth century.181 By the eleventh century an enormous holding centred on Kirkby Moorside included berewicks (demesne lands) in all four parishes.182 Overlapping jurisdiction along the borders of the four parishes raises the possibility that they were carved out of a larger territory. It would be possible to envisage a wider royal territory—the territory of the Læstingas—within which Lastingham was founded on a patch of good land surrounded by moorland—Læstinga-eg or -hamm—and within which further satellite churches and/or communities were established.183 The evidence for each case is suggestive rather than conclusive, but cumulatively seems to carry more weight: a significant proportion of places to which kirkja-by(r) became attached were apparently, at one time or another, connected with religious communities. It is worth emphasizing a few more characteristics   Brownbill 1928: 10–11, 167; Ecroyd Smith 1870: 21–7, 31–4.   CASSS VIII: Ripon 9, 239–40, ills. 671–5; CASSS VI: Kirby Hill 12, 134–5, ills. 369–71. 178 179 180   HSC c. 21.   CASSS II: 74–5, 120.   EYC I, No. 354, 274–5. 181   CASSS III: Kirby Misperton 1, 152–3, ills. 508–9, 511–12, and Kirby Misperton 3, 154, ill. 513; Kirkby Moorside 6, 157–8, ills. 536–41; Kirkdale 7, 161–2, ills. 558–62 and Kirkdale 8, 162–3, ills. 563–7. 182   DB fo. 327v (23 N [24] 19–21). 183   For fuller discussions, see: Pickles 2012: esp. 24–5; Morris 2015: 132–3. 176 177

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

252

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

of the corpus of kirkja-by(r) names. First, kirkja-by(r) names were not apparently applied to our recorded early religious communities, but to parts of their holdings or places nearby; some recorded early religious communities whose location is unknown might have been at places subsequently called kirkja-by(r), but, even allowing for this, the general rule holds. Second, kirkja-by(r) names were sometimes coined, preserved, and transmitted in local landscapes where there were a number of churches, but only for some of the places: in Ryedale tenthcentury stone sculpture points to the existence of churches not only at Kirby Misperton, Kirkby Moorside, and Kirkdale but also at Amotherby, Ellerburn, Helmsley, Hovingham, Lastingham, Middleton, Oswaldkirk, Nunnington, Old Malton, Pickering, Sinnington, and Stonegrave.184 Third, kirkja-by(r) names required Old English or Old Norse qualifiers to distinguish one kirkja-by(r) from another. These take different forms. Some were perhaps pre-existing names for a holding within which the kirkja-by(r) was located: mespiler-tún, ‘medlar tree tún’ or Siga’s tún. Others were topographical names: crandala, ‘crane dale’; Hundolvesdale, ‘the dale of Hundolfr’; knoll, ‘hill’; or Lonsdale (the River Lune), and Wiske (the River Wiske). Still others referred to later ownership—Monks Kirby from the Priory of Monks Kirby, or Kirby Bedon, Kirby Bellars, and Kirby Cane from the family names of twelfth- and thirteenth-century lords. Kirkja-by(r) was apparently a new name for a particular type of place within a holding or a local region, for which the new, local naming community was satisfied with a generic rather than specific description, requiring a qualifier to distinguish it in non-local contexts. With these further characteristics in mind, it is possible to reconsider their meaning, the process by which they were coined and transmitted, and their historical implications. Old Norse speakers who settled nearby were presumably responsible for coining and preserving these names: this is suggested by the wider context of by(r) names, the possibility that kirkja-by(r) names replaced earlier Old English names, and the preservation of some names with inflexions. Religious communities existed at or near to a number of places to which the name was applied and others seem to have been holdings of religious communities, raising the possibility that kirkja-by(r) meant either ‘religious community’, ‘farm of the church’, or ‘farm with/by a church’. It could have been coined to mean different things in different places. Yet the evidence seems to weigh against the general meaning ‘religious community’ or ‘farm with/by a church’. No known early reli­ gious communities were renamed kirkja-by(r), so it seems unlikely to mean religious community. An unknown proportion of kirkja-by(r) names were preserved and transmitted to us, so more places with churches may once have been called kirkja-by(r). But the small proportion of places with emerging churches 184   CASSS III: Amotherby 1–2, 124–5; Ellerburn 1–9, 126–30; Helmsley 1, 142–3; Hovingham 1–2, 144–5; Lastingham 1–2 and 6, 167–8 and 170; Levisham 1–5, 175–8; Middleton 1–8, 181–7; Nunnington 1–2, 193–4; Old Malton 1–2, 196–7; Oswaldkirk 1–2, 197–8; Pickering 1–4, 199–201; Sinnington 1–18, 207–13; Stonegrave 1 and 3–8, 215–20.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Religious Communities, Local Churches, Laity, 867–1066

253

that acquired the name is surprising if it meant ‘farm with/by a church’. Moreover, there is only evidence that twenty-six of the forty-four kirkja-by(r) places had churches by the eleventh century: just as we should acknowledge that the poor preservation of evidence for churches allows for the idea that the remaining eighteen places called kirkja-by(r) had churches, we should also acknowledge that they may not have. Places called kirkja-by(r) have not been excavated, so they could all have had churches sharing some distinguishing characteristic— construction in stone or a particular settlement form. Yet, in light of the evidence that religious communities or their holdings were connected with these places, that only a small proportion of places with churches were called kirkja-by(r), and that only twenty-six of the forty-four have evidence for churches when the names were coined, the simplest and most persuasive solution is that kirkja-by(r) meant ‘farm of the church’, denoting ownership by a church. Several indications suggest Old English speakers possessed the holdings within which these places were located. The wider corpus of by(r) names suggests that, when Old Norse speakers controlled a place, it was common for Old Norse speakers nearby to coin place-names combining an Old Norse personal name with by(r). The coining of new generic Old Norse place-names in kirkja-by(r) by local Old Norse communities that signalled some generic status but did not distinguish the place further and required Old English or Old Norse qualifiers for non-local communities seems most explicable if the places were outside the ownership and interest of the local Old Norse naming communities. If so, the holdings presumably remained in the possession of Old English speakers and retained the characteristics that made them a kirkja-by(r) for a sufficient period for the new Old Norse name to become customary and worth retaining amongst the Old English- and/or Old Norse-speaking populations nearby. The idea that kirkja-by(r) meant ‘farm of the church’, denoting land in the possession of a church, is consistent with this picture. Two processes might explain the transmission of the Old Norse name: either the number of Old Norse speakers became so large that the Old Norse name triumphed because of their numbers or the volume of their interactions with Old English speakers; or the places passed into the hands of an Old Norse-speaker who adopted the more familiar name. Either way, the corpus of kirkja-by(r) names seems to point to a minimum number of places where churches retained land for a significant period after Old Norse-speakers settled nearby. Stone sculpture, Christian imagery, and Old Norse mythology At York the material reflex of continuing religious life was a corpus of stone sculpture reviving earlier forms and styles, executed with access to clerical expertise, and exhibiting knowledge of Old Norse mythology. It is possible to propose the existence of some other clerical communities across Yorkshire on the basis that churches preserve tenth-century sculpture with these characteristics (Map 11).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

254

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Map 11.  Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture with figural images, c.867–c.1066. Contains OS data © Crown Copyright/database right 2018. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service.

Clerical knowledge and expertise must lie behind Old and New Testament images drawing on Scriptural associations. Presumably it was expected that someone would be on hand to help understand these images. Angels, characterized by their wings, appear on monuments at Crathorne185 and Slaidburn.186 Human figures with haloes suggest saints at Leeds187 and Sherburn.188 Human figures carrying books may be clerics at Brompton,189 Leeds,190 and Stonegrave.191 Sometimes specific details facilitate more or less secure identification of particular Scriptural narratives. Old Testament narratives surrounding the Creation and the Fall perhaps inspired a small number of images depicting God, Adam, and Eve, and sometimes the tree and serpent.192 A fragment from the lower part of a cross-shaft at Barwick in Elmet is carved on one side with an image framed by plant-scroll and including a taller central figure resting its hands on the heads of two shorter   CASSS VI: Crathorne 1, Face C, 84–5, ill. 131.   CASSS VIII: Slaidburn 1, Face A, 249, ill. 696. 187   CASSS VIII: Leeds 1, Faces A and B, 198–202, ills. 478 and 480. 188   CASSS III: Sherburn 2, Face A, 202–3, ill. 764. 189   CASSS VI: Brompton 3, Face D, 66–8, ill. 40. 190   CASSS VIII: Leeds 2, Face 2aA, 202–3, ill. 499. 191 192   CASSS III: Stonegrave 1, Face A, 215–16, ill. 833.   CASSS VIII: 60–1. 185 186

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Religious Communities, Local Churches, Laity, 867–1066

255

Image 19. CASSS VIII: Barwick in Elmet 2A. Copyright Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Photographers K. Jukes and D. Craig.

figures with crossed arms that touch the central figure’s legs: this seems to be a Christian image, most likely Adam and Eve (Image 19).193 This has been compared with a fragment of cross-shaft from Bilton in Ainsty framed by similar plant-scroll and showing the legs of three standing figures.194 On a cross-shaft from Coverham a serpent snakes its way down through plant-scroll with its head pointing to a larger figure with its hands raised in the orans position and flanked by two smaller figures (Image 20).195 At Spennithorne, a second monument probably by the same sculptor carries a comparable image.196 New Testament narratives about the Incarnation and Life and Ministry of Christ may lie behind other images.197 The Virgin and Child occur on a possible shrine tomb fragment from Oswaldkirk and a cross-shaft at Sutton upon   CASSS VIII: Barwick in Elmet 2, Face A, 94–5, ills. 26 and 30.   CASSS VIII: Bilton in Ainsty 4, Face A, ills. 31 and 53. 195   CASSS VI: Coverham 1, 83, ill. 125. 196   CASSS VI: Spennithorne 1, 197–8, ill. 746: Lang here discerns a central figure flanked by four smaller figures, but I have only been able to make out two, so that the comparison seems closer and the iconographic problems he felt the four figures posed seem to be removed. 197   CASSS VIII: 60–3. 193 194

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

256

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Image 20. CASSS VI: Coverham 1. Copyright Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Photographers K. Jukes and D. Craig.

Derwent.198 A tapered fragment from Kildwick has a central haloed figure touching two circular objects and standing above or beyond five rectangular objects: this is most plausibly the Miracle of the Loaves and the Fishes, with Christ standing beyond five loaves and blessing two dishes.199 A fragment from Bramham (Image 21) shows a central figure with its left hand raised in a gesture of benediction, flanked by two figures holding scrolls and reaching out towards it: this is probably the Traditio Legis with Christ giving the Law to Peter, observed by Paul.200 At North Otterington a fragment of cross-shaft presents a panel framing two cowled figures, the left-hand figure in vestments, and the righthand figure reaching out to offer an object: it likely depicts the Traditio Clavis, with Christ presenting a key to St Peter.201 New Testament narratives surrounding the Crucifixion are best represented. Two fragments from Bilton in Ainsty may portray the Arrest and Mocking of Christ. The first has figural images on two sides, but the details are only clear   CASSS III: Oswaldkirk 2, 198, ills. 745–8 and Sutton upon Derwent 1, 220–1, ills. 868–71. 200   CASSS VIII: Kildwick 1, 178–9, ills. 391–4.   CASSS VIII: Bramham 1, 106–7, ills. 74–8. 201   CASSS VI: North Otterington 3, 186, ill. 695. 198 199

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Religious Communities, Local Churches, Laity, 867–1066

257

Image 21.  CASSS VIII: Bramham 1A. Copyright Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Photographers K. Jukes and D. Craig.

on one: a panel frames a portrait of two figures, perhaps with haloes indicated by the shape of the undressed surface curving around their heads, the right-hand figure robed and with his hands bound or holding an object, the left-hand figure in a short dress and holding an elongated object; this could be Peter on the left preparing to cut off the ear of the servant Malchus, or a soldier on the left holding a knife or bundle of withies.202 Part of a second cross-shaft includes a panel framing three figures, the central one with his neck grasped by the other two, who hold their other hands to their heads: this might be the Three Children in the Fiery Furnace, but is more likely the Second Mocking of Christ (Image 22).203 A cross-shaft from Kirkby Wharfe (Image 23) displays on one side a long panel including a cross flowering and supported by two haloed figures disposed to either side: this seems to represent the Crucifixion with Mary and John, referring to Christ’s decision to commit Mary to John’s care; by equating the tree and the cross and presenting male and female figures, it may make a typological parallel between the Creation, the Fall, and the Crucifixion.204   CASSS VIII: Bilton in Ainsty 2, Face A, 97–9, ill. 40.   CASSS VIII: Bilton in Ainsty 3, Face A, 99–100, ill. 39. 204   Bailey 1980: 146–8; CASSS VIII: Kirkby Wharfe 1, 185–7, ill. 440. 202 203

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

258

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Image 22. CASSS VIII: Bilton in Ainsty 3A. Copyright Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Photographers K. Jukes and D. Craig.

Representations of the Crucifixion itself are most common.205 Close study of these crucifixions has suggested an inspiration from Irish figural sculpture, particularly in the regions of County Leinster and County Kildare, manifested in the position of the Christ on the cross-head, his flattened head, his long robes, and his extended arms reaching to the edges of the cross-head, terminating in splayed fingers.206 Variations suggest that the sculptors accessed a range of models with a nuanced understanding of the Crucifixion to emphasize particular understandings of the narrative. Christ is always disposed on the cross-head. The position of the waist and legs on a fragment from Dewsbury suggests his body stretched down the cross-shaft as it did at Kirkburton, whereas the 205   CASSS III: Ellerburn 8, 129, ill. 437; Kirby Grindalythe 4, 151, ill. 503; Kirkdale 1, 158–9, ill. 546; Sherburn 8, 205–6, ills. 785–90; Sinnington 11, 211, ill. 814. CASSS VI: Brompton 14, 73, ills. 71–4; Finghall 4, 107–8, ill. 244; Great Ayton 3, 119–20, ills. 303–8; Kirby Hill 7, 132, ills. 363–7; Kirklevington 15, 148, ills. 438–41; Kirklevington 16, 148–9, ills. 442–5; North Otterington 5, 187, ills. 703–5; Stanwick 7, 204–5, ills. 768–72; Thornton Steward 1, 209–10, ills. 788–92; Thornton Steward 4, 211–12, ills. 801–5; Thornton Steward 5, 212, ills. 807–11. CASSS VIII: Dewsbury 6, 139, ills. 208–11; Kirkburton 1, 183–5, ills. 416–24. 206   Coatsworth 1979; Bailey 1980: 150–4; Coatsworth 2000; CASSS VI: 36–8; CASSS VIII: 61–2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Religious Communities, Local Churches, Laity, 867–1066

259

Image 23. CASSS VIII: Kirkby Wharfe 1A. Copyright Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Photographers K. Jukes and D. Craig.

remaining images had shortened bodies concentrated on the cross-head.207 Usually Christ is nailed to the cross, but at Kirkdale (Image 24) and Thornton Steward he is bound.208 At Ellerburn, North Otterington, and Thornton Steward, Christ is robed, whereas at Dewsbury, Finghall, Great Ayton, Kirkburton, Kirby Grindalythe, Kirby Hill, Kirkdale, and Sherburn he is naked but for a loincloth.209 Alongside the Crucifixion on the Dewsbury cross-shaft fragments there is another image most plausibly interpreted as a Virgin and Child, suggesting an intended parallel between the Incarnation and the Crucifixion.210 On the Thornton Steward cross-head the Crucifixion is juxtaposed with a seated figure, probably Christ in Majesty, apparently connecting the Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension.211 At Kirkdale Christ is apparently bound to the cross, flanked   CASSS VIII: Dewsbury 6, 139, ill. 208; Kirkburton 1, 183–5, ills. 416–24.   CASSS III: Kirkdale 1, 158–9, ill. 546. CASSS VIII: Thornton Steward 4, 211–12, ills. 801–5. 209   CASSS III: Ellerburn 8, 129, ill. 437; Kirby Grindalythe 4, 151, ill. 503; Kirkdale 1, 158–9, ill. 546; Sherburn 8, 205–6, ills. 785–90. CASSS VI: Finghall 4, 107–8, ill. 244; Great Ayton 3, 119–20, ills. 303–8; Kirby Hill 7, 132, ills. 363–7; North Otterington 5, 187, ills. 703–5; Thornton Steward 4, 211–12, ills. 801–5. CASSS VIII: Dewsbury 6, 139, ill. 208; Kirkburton 1, 183–5, ills. 416–24. 210   CASSS VIII: Dewsbury 6, 139, ills. 208–11. 211   CASSS VI: Thornton Steward 4, 211–12, ills. 801–5. 207 208

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

260

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Image 24. CASSS III: Kirkdale 1A. Copyright Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Photographer T. Middlemass.

by the sun, the moon, and a broken spear, and treading on two serpents; this may bring together more conventional aspects of the Gospel narrative—the sun, moon, and spear bearer—with the idea of the Crucifixion as the overcoming of the ancient evil.212 At Sinnington a similar point might lie behind the addition of a serpent below Christ’s left arm.213 Juxtaposition of the Crucifixion at Great Ayton with a lorgnette cross on the reverse of the cross-head is striking in light of the fact that lorgnettes have been interpreted as a stylized representation of the Crucifixion drawing on the tradition of the five wounds of Christ. 214 Crucifixions from Stanwick and Thornton Watlass include a prominent boss in the centre of the cross-head and Christ’s body: it may represent the communion host, connecting the Crucifixion and Mass.215 There are other possible Old and New Testament images from Yorkshire, but their rarity and partial survival precludes secure identification. Part of a 213   CASSS III: Kirkdale 1, 158–9, ill. 546.   CASSS III: Sinnington 11, 211, ill. 814.   CASSS VI: Great Ayton 3, 119–20, ills. 303–8. 215   CASSS VI: Stanwick 7, 204–5, ills. 768–72; Thornton Watlass 1, 213, ill. 812; Thornton Watlass 2, 213–14, ill. 238. 212 214

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Religious Communities, Local Churches, Laity, 867–1066

261

cross-shaft from Lythe has a panel including a quadruped with its head turned back over its body and two wrestling figures above: it could be a secular combat scene, but comparison with Irish and Scottish parallels suggests a range of possible Christian scenes, including Cain and Abel, Jacob wrestling with the angel, John the Baptist recognizing Christ, and Judas’s kiss.216 A figure in the orans position at Kildwick has tentatively been compared with an image of Christ in Majesty.217 A figure standing with its arms outstretched and hands spread at Kippax has been discussed as a representation of the faithful believer trampling lion and serpent underfoot or as a Crucifixion with spear, sponge, sun, and moon.218 Complex Christian associations may underpin a series of images depicting harts or harts and hounds. As Richard Bailey argued, following Pliny’s discussion of the hart as the enemy and devourer of serpents, Patristic commentary and early medieval Physiologus texts equated the hart with Christ and the serpent with the devil. Images accompanying Psalms 44:1 and 90:3 in the Utrecht Psalter suggest that this association of enemies of the stag with the devil was extended to equate the hound with the devil.219 Sculptors of the tenth century on the Isle of Man and in northern England developed a distinctive hart and hound motif. Part of a cross-shaft from the Priory of St Mary at Lancaster carries an image of a hart biting a snake, being attacked by a hound, and with a triquetra between its legs: the unique combination of elements makes clear the significance as a representation of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice—he who killed serpents, ate poisons, and was pursued by the Jews with dog-like madness, but through his death and resurrection gave redemption, to be connected with the triquetra as a Trinitarian motif.220 Images at Harewood, Ellerburn, Middleton, Staveley, and Stonegrave are probably hunt scenes and there are no features to prompt a more precise interpretation along these lines; a possible hound-like quadruped from High Hoyland and hart-like ones from Melsonby and Stanwick are isolated images whose identification remains tentative.221 Images of hunting, possible harts, or harts and hounds occur at Forcett, Gargrave, Kirkdale, Kirklevington, and Wath.222 Some or all of these could have been designed to prompt the associations seen at St Mary Lancaster. Like the St Mary Lancaster image, the Forcett hart and hound motif was juxtaposed with a serpent.223 The quadruped at Gargrave had a triquetra between its legs: perhaps a hart or a 217   CASSS VI: Lythe 1, 153–4, ills. 463–6.   CASSS VIII: Kildwick 2, 179, ills. 395–8.   CASSS VIII: Kippax 1, 182–3, ills. 425–8. 219   Bailey 1977: 68–9, for this analysis; Bailey 1980: 172–4. 220   CASSS IX: Lancaster St Mary 4, 221–3, ills. 581–3. 221   CASSS III: Ellerburn 5, 128, ill. 432; Middleton 1, 181–2, ills. 670–5; Stonegrave 7, 219–20, ill. 861. CASSS VI: Melsonby 3, 177, ill. 651; Stanwick 9, 205–6, ill. 775. CASSS VIII: Harewood 1, 161–2, ills. 329–32; High Hoyland 4, 166, ill. 317; Staveley 1, 254–5, ills. 712–16. 222   CASSS III: Kirkdale 4, 160, ills. 542–5. CASSS VI: Forcett 1, 109–10, ills. 250–1; Kirklevington 11, 146–7, ill. 431; Wath 4, 218–19, ills. 845–7. CASSS VIII: Gargrave 2, 156, ill. 282. 223   CASSS VI: Forcett 1, 109–10, ills. 250–1. 216 218

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

262

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

lamb alongside a Trinitarian motif.224 No immediate context survives for the hart and hound from Kirklevington, but the existence of two Crucifixions and an image perhaps representing St Anthony and the incubi from the same site raises the possibility of more complex Christian associations (Image 28).225 Clerical activity may also lie behind a number of fragments of sculpture depicting images from Scandinavian mythology. Jim Lang, Richard Bailey, and  Lilla Kopár have provided comprehensive surveys demonstrating that a restricted number of images reflecting a small number of episodes known from later mythology and art were selected for use on monuments on the Isle of Man and in northern England.226 It is only necessary to review the fragments from Yorkshire and emphasize those features suggesting a potential clerical context and purpose. Sigurd episodes occur at Kirby Hill, Nunburnholme, Ripon, and York. Part of a cross-shaft from Kirby Hill may juxtapose the Crucifixion with parts of the Sigurd myth. At the top of the surviving fragment the shaft tapers, probably to accommodate a now missing cross-head: at the point of tapering there are two splayed feet suggesting a figure, most likely to be a Crucifixion. Beneath these feet are two figures identifiable as Reginn the decapitated smith and Sigurd roasting the dragon’s heart on the spit and sucking his thumb.227 A further fragment illustrates two other episodes: a sword piercing a ribbon on one side represents Sigurd’s slaying of the dragon and a horse on the other is Sigurd’s horse Grani.228 At Nunburnholme the second sculptor added to a Mass scene two figures representing Sigurd and Reginn the smith feasting on the dragon’s heart.229 At Ripon part of a cross-head depicts the head and shoulders of a figure with one arm raised in front of its face, probably Sigurd sucking his burnt thumb.230 All these episodes are brought together on a York Minster grave-slab, as we have seen.231 A ‘hogback’ recumbent grave-marker from York Minster has an individual with arms outstretched amongst ribbons, perhaps conflating Sigurd or Gunnar in the snake pit with a bound Crucifixion.232 Weland episodes survive at Bedale, Leeds, and Sherburn. A ‘hogback’ recumbent grave-marker from Bedale carries two figural images. Along one side is a horizontal image showing the torso and legs of a man bound into a set of wings and a fanned tail—Weland in his flying machine. On its gable end is a panel including two dragons on the left and a central arched niche containing a   CASSS VIII: Gargrave 2, 156, ill. 282.   CASSS VI: Kirklevington 11, 146–7, ill. 431; Kirklevington 4, 143–4, ills. 412–15; Kirklevington 15, 148, ills. 438–41; Kirklevington 16, 148–9, ills. 442–5. 226   Lang 1976a; Bailey 1980: 101–42; Kopár 2012. 227   CASSS VI: Kirby Hill 2, 130, ill. 356. Lang 1976a: 84–6, 90. 228   CASSS VI: Kirby Hill 9, 133, ills. 358–9. Lang 1976a: 84–6. 229   CASSS III: Nunburnholme 1, 189–3, ills. 709–28. Lang 1976a: 89–90. 230   CASSS VIII: Ripon 3, 235–6, ills. 655–9. Lang 1976a: 86. 231   CASSS III: York Minster 34, 71–2, ills. 142, 144–7. Lang 1976a: 83–4. 232   CASSS III: York Minster 46, 77–8, ill. 189. 224 225

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Religious Communities, Local Churches, Laity, 867–1066

263

Image 25.  CASSS VIII: Leeds 1C–6C. Copyright Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Photographers K. Jukes and D. Craig.

human bust.233 Fragments from an enormous cross-shaft from Leeds (Image 25) juxtapose Christian images with episodes from the Weland myth. One face pre­ sents at least three panels, two of which depict two evangelists, apostles, or saints, with nimbed haloes, and the third of which shows a man bound into a set of wings holding a female figure—Weland. The opposite face includes a panel with another figure sporting a nimbed halo and a secular figure carrying a sword with a bird perched on his shoulder—perhaps Weland. The two remaining faces carry interlace, vine-scroll, and plant-scroll.234 Fragments from a second cross-shaft at Leeds include two from the same face depicting a seated robed figure and book and a repetition of the Weland scene.235 At Sherburn a fragment of cross-shaft shows the head and arms of a man bound into a contraption similar to those from Bedale and Leeds, also identifiable as Weland in his flying machine.236 A further fragment depicting a figure with a nimbed halo   CASSS VI: Bedale 6, 61–2, ills. 23–5. Lang 1976a: 92–3.   CASSS VIII: Leeds 1, 198–202, ills. 478–86, 488–92. Lang 1976a: 90. 235   CASSS VIII: Leeds 2, 202–3, ills. 487, 493–504. Lang 1976a: 90. 236   CASSS III: Sherburn 3, 203, ills. 768–71. Lang 1976a: 90–1. 233

234

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

264

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

may have the fan-tail of another image of Weland in his flying machine above.237 Beyond these distinctive images, which offer clear elements to distinguish Weland, there are other portraits of a figure with birds at Kirklevington and Sherburn that might present either Weland, Odin, or secular portraits,238 and winged figures that are more probably angels at Brompton and Crathorne.239 What are probably images depicting episodes from Ragnarök, the destruction of the gods, survive at Lythe and Skipwith. One of the many ‘hogback’ recumbent grave-markers from Lythe was recently rescued from the churchyard and cleaned, revealing an image on one of its long sides including a figure with outstretched arms placed in the mouths of two flanking quadrupeds: a likely identification is Tyr fettering the wolf Fenrir, an episode which directly brought about Ragnarök.240 A slab built into an internal wall of Skipwith church tower (Image 26) shows a profile figure on the left with arms outstretched, apparently assaulted by a serpent to the right beneath his left arm, and a quadruped to the

Image 26.  CASSS III: Skipwith 1. Copyright Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Photo­ grapher T. Middlemass.

  CASSS III: Sherburn 2, 202–3, ills. 764–7.   CASSS VI: Kirklevington 2, 142–3, ills. 399, 404–7. CASSS III: Sherburn 1, 201–2, ill. 762. Lang (1976a), 91–2. 239   CASSS VI: Brompton 3, 66–8, ill. 37; Crathorne 1, 84–5, ill. 131. 240   Anon. 2008: 16–17. 237 238

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Religious Communities, Local Churches, Laity, 867–1066

265

right of this figure engaged in attacking three figures below its legs, in front of its body, and immediately above its head. This is probably Thor fighting the world serpent and Odin being eaten by the wolf Fenrir.241 The juxtaposition of Christian images with Scandinavian mythology is common to a number of these monuments—certainly at Nunburnholme and Leeds, probably at Kirby Hill, and possibly at Sherburn and in the conflated image on the York Minster ‘hogback’. Set in the wider context of sculpture depicting Scandinavian mythology, this was perhaps a self-conscious effort, requir­ing clerical expertise, to produce monuments emphasizing the comparisons and contrasts between Christian theology and Scandinavian mythology. From the Sigurd and Weland stories known from later Scandinavian mythology the sculptors selected a small number of episodes with potential Christian resonances, sometimes signalled by the juxtapositions.242 Sigurd and Gunnar could be equated with St Michael or Christ through their struggles with a dragon and serpent; Sigurd’s encounter with the tree could be considered alongside narratives of Creation and the tree of knowledge; Sigurd’s feast with Reginn and roasting of the dragon’s heart, which brought him supernatural powers, bore comparison with the Eucharist, made explicit on the Nunburnholme shaft.243 Within Anglo-Saxon contexts, Weland was reduced from mythological hero to human: his life was a lesson in suffering and consolation through wisdom, encapsulated in his design of a flying machine to escape; this prompted a parallel between his escape, the Resurrection, and humankind’s ability to achieve salvation and rejoin angelic ranks.244 These parallels may explain the juxtaposition of Weland with portraits of evangelists or saints at Leeds and perhaps at Sherburn. Ragnarök included narrative elements echoed in the Crucifixion and Second Coming.245 That such parallels were sometimes made does not mean that they were always intended: just as a Skaldic poem apparently composed at York could draw on Scandinavian mythology to imagine the heroic reception of Eric into Valhalla, so the sculptures without explicit juxtapositions could have been setting the dead person in a mythological tradition. Yet there are reasons for thinking that even isolated episodes from Scandinavian mythology functioned in a similar Christian context. First, they occur at a restricted number of places, locations of known or suspected early religious communities or their satellites—Kirby Hill, Leeds, Lythe, Ripon, Sherburn, Skipwith, and York.246 At Nunburnholme, the monument is the work of the York Master. Bedale is the only exception to this rule. Second, they appear on Christian monuments or in Christian cemeteries: on cross-shafts at Kirby Hill, Leeds, Ripon, and Sherburn, and amongst other Christian monuments at Bedale, Lythe, and York. 242   CASSS III: Skipwith 1, 214–15, ill. 823.   Kopár 2012: 3–56, 167–80. 244 245   Bailey 1980: 116–25.   Bailey 1980: 103–16.   Bailey 1980: 125–37. 246   See Chapter 4, pp. 128–35. 241 243

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

266

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

A network of clergy seems a necessary context for the clerical expertise exhibited on these monuments. Written sources from other regions demonstrate that the church in the tenth century included religious communities and newly developing local churches served by clergy living off family land, given hospitality in aristocratic households, or sustained by small endowments. These monuments might reflect clergy living in any one of these circumstances. Nonetheless, the evidence relating to York, Beverley, and Ripon, as well as the analysis of kirkjaby(r) names, raises the possibility that some religious communities survived, were revived, or were newly founded in the tenth century. At a number of places where there had been known or probable early religious communities or sites associated with them, such sculpture survives from the tenth century—Dewsbury, Kirby Hill, Kirkdale, Leeds, Lythe, Masham, North Otterington, Sherburn, Skipwith, and Stonegrave. Small clerical communities might explain why several of these places were unusually prominent foci for elite commemoration. At Kirby Hill there are six fragments from cross-shafts, two from cross-heads, and two from grave-covers, representing a minimum of eight and a maximum of ten monuments.247 At Kirkdale there are four fragments from cross-shafts with heads, one from a cross-head and another from a ‘hogback’ recumbent grave-cover, representing five or six monuments.248 At Lythe there are six fragments from cross-shafts, two from cross-heads, seventeen from ‘hogback’ recumbent grave-markers, two from related grave-markers, and eight from cross-shaped grave markers;249 since the cross-shafts and the grave-markers may have stood adjacent to ‘hogbacks’ and recumbent grave-covers, this reflects a minimum of nineteen monuments, or a maximum of thirty-five. At Sherburn there are six fragments from cross-shafts, two from cross-heads and two from grave-covers, which may represent a minimum of six or a maximum of ten monuments.250 At Stonegrave there are four fragments from cross-shafts, one from a cross-base, and two from grave-covers, suggesting a minimum of four monuments and a maximum of seven.251 For four other places with no known earlier history, the existence of a religious community can be posited on the grounds that there are multiple monuments suggesting access to clerical expertise and that the site was an unusually significant focus for elite commemoration. The first is Brompton church. Two cross-shafts reflect clerical expertise: they revive earlier traditions in presenting empanelled frontal portraits of evangelists or saints, a cleric, and an angel, juxtaposed with animals and a revived plantscroll motif (Image 27).252 A cross-head is carved with an Irish-influenced Crucifixion.253 Another cross-shaft carries on one side a human portrait and on 248   CASSS VI: Kirby Hill 1–11, 129–34.   CASSS III: Kirkdale 1–6, 158–61, and 9, 163. 250   CASSS VI: Lythe 1–34, 153–66.   CASSS III: Sherburn 1–10, 201–6. 251   CASSS III: Stonegrave 1 and 3–8, 215–20. 252   CASSS VI: Brompton 3, 66–8, ills. 37–40; Brompton 5, 69, ills. 44–7. 253   CASSS VI: Brompton 14, 73, ills. 71–4. 247 249

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Religious Communities, Local Churches, Laity, 867–1066

267

Image 27.  CASSS VI: Brompton 3D. Copyright Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Photographer T. Middlemass.

the other two panels including a hart and an unidentified quadruped.254 A further two cross-shafts with heads, three cross-shafts, six cross-heads, and nine ‘hogback’ recumbent monuments survive.255 Since the headless cross-shafts may have their heads amongst the six shaftless cross-heads and the cross-shafts may have stood adjacent to the ‘hogback’ recumbent grave-markers with which they share some decorative motifs, this represents a minimum of ten monuments or a maximum of twenty-five. The second case is Kirklevington church. A fragment from a cross-shaft shows two animal-headed figures holding a staff between them: the most likely model is Irish images of St Anthony and the incubi, raising the possibility of a monastic context (Image 28).256 Amongst the other fragments are two Irishinfluenced Crucifixions and a hart and hound.257 In total there are eighteen fragments from cross-shafts and six from cross-heads at the site; allowing for 255   CASSS VI: Brompton 4, 68, ills. 41–3.   CASSS VI: Brompton 1–2, 6–13, 14–25.   CASSS VI: Kirklevington 4, 143–4, ills. 412–15. 257   CASSS VI: Kirklevington 11, 146–7, ill. 431; Kirklevington 15, 148, ills. 438–4; Kirklevington 16, 148–9, ills. 442–5. 254 256

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

268

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Image 28.  CASSS VI: Kirklevington 4A. Copyright Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Photographers K. Jukes and D. Craig.

the possibility that some of the shafts belonged with some of the cross-heads, this reflects a minimum of twelve monuments and a maximum of twenty-four. The third case is Sinnington church. A fragment of cross-shaft carries an image of two figures in profile, facing one another and grasping a staff: this is probably an image depicted on Irish sculpture, representing the founding of a monastery, which raises the possibility of a monastic context.258 A cross-head with an Irish-influenced Crucifixion is amongst the remaining sculpture.259 In total, part of one cross-shaft with head, eleven cross-shafts, two cross-heads, one grave-cover, one ‘hogback’ recumbent grave-marker, and two unidentifiable fragments have been identified at Sinnington;260 this represents a minimum of twelve monuments and a maximum of eighteen monuments from this site. The fourth case is Stanwick church. Access to clerical expertise is suggested by the survival of an Irish-influenced Crucifixion.261 Four further fragments carried images that might have had Christian significance but are now too worn or damaged to be identified: a crudely carved human figure and three   CASSS III: Sinnington 1, 207, ill. 800.   CASSS III: Sinnington 1–18, 207–13.

258 260

  CASSS III: Sinnington 11, 211, ill. 814.   CASSS VI: Stanwick 7, 204–5, ills. 768–72.

259 261

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Religious Communities, Local Churches, Laity, 867–1066

269

quadrupeds.262 In total, there are six fragments from cross-shafts, one from a cross-head, four that may be from cross-shafts or grave-covers, two from hogbacks, and six from unidentifiable monuments;263 this might represent a minimum of ten monuments or a maximum of nineteen. Previous analysis of places at which there was an unusual profusion of monuments in the tenth century has explained them through the presence of concentrations of Anglo-Scandinavian traders.264 It was thought that these churches showed little evidence for a prominent position in the ecclesiastical hierarchy or the presence of a religious community; hence they were considered local churches. However, the evidence considered here suggests that the presence of earlier religious communities, perhaps continuing or revived as small clerical communities, and the foundation of new religious communities, might be a reason why these places were particular foci for elite commemoration. Nonetheless, the observed topographical association between St Mary Bishophill Senior in York, Kirklevington, Lythe, and possible ‘strands’ with markets is compelling, as is the fundamental point that Brompton and Stanwick are situated at key points in the transport and communication network.265 This is true of many other sites with larger than average numbers of monuments: Kirby Hill, Kirkdale, Sherburn, Sinnington, and Stonegrave. The explanation may be that small religious communities—surviving, revived, or newly founded—facilitated permanent elite commemoration in stone and became especially important foci where they were at key points in communication networks, because their location made such competitive commemoration worthwhile on account of the dynamic population familiar with far-flung reference points—a sufficient and sufficiently knowledgeable audience to make a return on investment.

RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL CHURCHES, 867–1066 Local church building in Yorkshire perhaps began as early as the eighth century: Bede relates that Bishop John travelled from his community at Beverley to the estates of two comites to dedicate churches.266 Nonetheless, it is from the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries that there is more widespread evidence for the growth of local churches. Neither an absolute overall figure for the number of churches, nor a precise chronology for their emergence, can be provided. Using methods pioneered by Richard Morris, some broad trends and orders of magnitude can be illustrated.267 262   CASSS VI: Stanwick 1, 201–2, ills. 752–9; Stanwick 3, 203, ill. 764; Stanwick 4, 203–4, ill. 765; Stanwick 9, 205–6, ill. 775. 263 264   CASSS VI: Stanwick 1–19.   Stocker 2000; Stocker and Everson 2001. 265 266 267   Stocker 2000: 200–6.   HE v.4–5.   Morris 1989: 140–67.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

270

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

A starting point is the corpus of stone sculpture. In total, 127 churches preserve sculpture dated to the ninth or tenth century and fifty-seven to the tenth or eleventh century: when sites with earlier sculpture are eliminated from the list, the sculpture provides the first evidence for activity for ninety-three churches in the ninth or tenth century and a further twenty-three more in the tenth or eleventh century (Table 15). To this may be added evidence from Domesday, which lists 183 places with a church, a priest, or a church and a priest. Only fifty-four of the places with sculpture from the ninth, tenth, or eleventh century have a church, a priest, or a church and priest. The corpus of sculpture and Domesday Book suggest that many local churches existed in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries and that 279 local churches could have existed by the eleventh century. This is about 50 per cent of an estimated medieval total of 550 churches. Aleks McClain’s more rigorous study of the North Riding demonstrated that activity is identifiable at some 123 church sites before 1100, representing just below 50 per cent of the 254 churches and chapels known from the medieval period.268 At any given site there may have been a church for some time before the first surviving monument or record. Nevertheless, there are reasons for thinking that most of the local churches recorded by 1100 emerged in the ninth, tenth, or eleventh century. First, the earliest surviving monuments at each site are consistently from this period. Second, as David Stocker and Paul Everson have argued, the excavations at Raunds (Np) may be compared with the consistent number of monuments preserved at each church site in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire. At Raunds (Np) the church was founded in the mid tenth century and had an associated cemetery with a probable founder grave marked by a stone grave-cover and one other grave similarly marked.269 Most sites with sculpture from the ninth, tenth, or eleventh century across Lincolnshire and Yorkshire preserve remains from between one and four monuments; this regular incidence probably reflects a moment when elites were founding, and first commemorating themselves at, local churches.270 Third, in some regions of Lincolnshire and Yorkshire it can be shown that each neighbouring church site with sculpture from the ninth, tenth, or eleventh century formed the centre of a medieval parish: this pattern seems to reflect a moment when the skeleton of the parish system started to evolve.271 Fourth, for better-documented regions several types of source break silence in the tenth and eleventh centuries, acknowledging the existence of more categories of local church and illuminating the circumstances by which they were established—devolution from clerical communities, foundation by local landlords, or joint enterprise within or between local communities.272  McClain 2011: 159–66.   269 Boddington 1996.   Stocker 2000: 180–6, 199–20; Stocker and Everson 2001: 224–5. 271   Morris 1989: 141, 144, fig. 32; Stocker and Everson 2001: 227–9, fig. 12.2. 272   Blair 2005: 368–417. 268 270

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Religious Communities, Local Churches, Laity, 867–1066

271

Evidence from York is consistent with this picture. Excavations at St Andrew’s Fishergate uncovered a wooden structure, perhaps the predecessor of the first stone church erected in the eleventh century, as well as a cemetery founded in the late tenth century and including 131 burials dated from the later tenth to the twelfth century.273 Burials from Blue Bridge Lane are probably outliers of this cemetery.274 Investigations at St Helen-on-the-Walls, Aldgate, demonstrated that the first church was a single-celled stone structure of the tenth or eleventh century with an associated cemetery in use from the tenth to the sixteenth century.275 At St Mary Bishophill Senior, a cemetery of the tenth and eleventh centuries included graves cut by the foundations of the nave of the eleventh-century church, suggesting the possible existence of an earlier church with cemetery beginning in the tenth century.276 The lost church of St Benet’s in Swinegate was probably associated with a cemetery comprising 100 burials, including thirty-eight in oak coffins, seven with dendrochronological dates between the late ninth and early eleventh century, and others sealed by an eleventh-century metalled surface.277 Using Domesday Book, Sarah Rees-Jones has argued that many of the small neighbourhood churches of York were established on ‘urban manors’ between the ninth and eleventh centuries.278 Outside York, there is archaeological evidence from churches at Kellington, Scarborough, and Wharram Percy. At Kellington a timber church apparently postdated the earliest burials; it was replaced by a single-celled stone church and then a two-celled stone church thought to be from the later eleventh or  early twelfth century; the associated cemetery of unfurnished burials has been dated to the tenth and eleventh centuries.279 Overlying the Roman signal station at Scarborough, but pre-dating the Norman castle, was a simple twocelled church which became the castle chapel and an associated cemetery: the church foundations cut some of the burials, amongst which were a jet cross, a bronze book mount, and a strap-end of probable ninth- to eleventh-century date, a late tenth-century coin, and a mid eleventh-century coin.280 Excavations at the church of St Martin in the deserted medieval village of Wharram Percy uncovered a series of post-holes perhaps from a Phase I timber church of the tenth century, postdated by a series of stone churches from the eleventh century onwards; the associated cemetery was subjected to radiocarbon dating that suggests burial began in the period ad 940–95 (95 per cent certainty) and the Phase II stone church was established in the period ad 945–1185 (95 per cent) or ad 1010–1120 (68 per cent).281

  Stroud and Kemp 1993; Daniel 2001: 220–6.    274 Anon. 2004.   Dawes and Magilton 1980; Magilton 1980.    276  Hall 1994: 45. 277   Buckberry 2004: II, 485.    278  Rees-Jones 2013: 66–71. 279   Mytum 1994; Buckberry 2004: II, 460. 280   Rowntree (ed.) 1931: 40–50, 141–49 at 146–8, and 51–93; Bell 1998: 308–11. 281   Bell and Beresford 1987; Wrathmell (ed.) 2012a: 207–8. 273 275

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

272

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Map 12.  Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture schools, c.867–c.1066. Contains OS data © Crown Copyright/database right 2018. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service.

During the tenth century there are no textual sources to illuminate the circumstances behind local church foundation, but the corpus of stone sculpture suggests that the activities of the archbishop and the possible clerical communities previously identified were a stimulus to the growth of local churches and elite commemoration at local churches. Evidence for this may be found in the fact that the York Metropolitan School and these putative clerical communities were the focus for regional schools of sculpture reflecting distinctive cultures of commemoration—a Wharfedale School, a Ryedale School, and an Allertonshire School (Map 12). Betty Coatsworth observed that the earlier sculpture from Otley probably inspired a school of sculpture in tenth-century Wharfedale, probably a reflection of the significance of the archiepiscopal centre at Otley.282 A key departure point was the eighth-century cross-shaft from Otley depicting busts of Evangelists or Apostles and busts of angels on its two principal sides, and vine-scroll on its two remaining sides.283 From the vine-scrolls the sculptors developed two distinctive forms of ‘medallion’ scroll. The first is found on monuments from Collingham and Kirkby Wharfe.284 The second is found on monuments from Addingham, 283   CASSS VIII: 75–6.   CASSS VIII: Otley 1, 215–19, ills. 552–67, 575–6.   CASSS VIII: Collingham 3A, 122, ill. 153; Kirkby Wharfe 2A, 187–8, ill. 436.

282 284

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Religious Communities, Local Churches, Laity, 867–1066

273

Barwick in Elmet, and Guiseley (at one point there were outliers of the Otley holding at Addingham and Guiseley).285 Monuments from these sites and other neighbouring sites share distinctive connections. Identical ‘right-angled crossing’ interlace is found at Aberford, Collingham, Kirkby Wharfe, and Saxton.286 A ‘tendril pattern’ displaying potential influence from the Scandinavian Mammen style occurs at Barwick in Elmet, Guiseley, and Spofforth.287 Some monuments display a penchant for Irish-influenced Christian figural images—those depicting veneration of the cross at Addingham and Kirkby Wharfe, those depicting the Fall at Barwick in Elmet and Bilton in Ainsty, and those with further figural images from Bilton in Ainsty.288 The revival of the Anglian form of free-armed cross-head, the inspiration from earlier vine-scrolls, and the influence of HibernoNorse interlace forms seen on the Isle of Man suggest a date in the first half of the tenth century. Jim Lang identified a school of sculpture in Ryedale drawing on the York Metropolitan School and inspired by monuments at Sinnington, the possible location of a religious community, as discussed.289 A direct connection between the York Metropolitan School and Sinnington is suggested by the survival of fragments from two identical grave-covers, probably produced by the same sculptor, at St Mary Castlegate, York, and at Sinnington.290 A sculptor at Sinnington probably drew on the York Metropolitan School zoomorphic interlace to develop a ‘bound dragon’ motif.291 Sculptors of the Ryedale School utilized this motif on a characteristic monument—a cross-shaft supporting a crested and drilled ring-head, with various combinations of warrior-portrait and ‘bound dragon’—found at Ellerburn, Folkton, Kirkby Moorside, Levisham, Middleton, Old Malton and Pickering.292 The inspiration from the York Metropolitan School and the Hiberno-Norse ring-head form suggest activity in the first half of the tenth century. Richard Bailey and Jim Lang demonstrated the existence of a third school in the region known as Allertonshire, including Brompton and Kirklevington,   CASSS VIII: Addingham 1C, 90, ill. 14; Barwick in Elmet 1A, 93, ill. 22; Guiseley 1B, 159, ill. 308.   CASSS VIII: Aberford 3A, 3C, 89, ills. 9, 11; Collingham 5A, 5C, 123–4, ills. 162, 164; Kirkby Wharfe 1A, 1C, 185–6, ills. 440, 442; Kirkby Wharfe 3A, 3C, 188, ills. 432, 434; Saxton 1A, 1C, 245–6, ills. 688, 690. 287   CASSS VIII: Barwick in Elmet 1D, 93, ill. 25; Guiseley 1A, 159–60, ill. 307; Spofforth 1D, 250–1, ill. 711. 288   CASSS VIII: Addingham 1, 90–1, ills. 12–15; Kirkby Wharfe 1, 185–7, ills. 440–3; Barwick in Elmet 2, 94–5, ills. 26–30; Bilton in Ainsty 4, 100–1, ills. 31, 53–6; Bilton in Ainsty 1–3, 95–100, ills. 32–41, 46–9. 289   CASSS III: 40–2. 290   CASSS III: St Mary Castlegate 5, 99, ills. 313, 316; Sinnington 15, 212–13, ill. 819. 291   CASSS III: Sinnington 3A, 208, ill. 804; Sinnington 4A, 208–9, ill. 807; Sinnington 5A, 209, ill. 808. 292   CASSS III: Ellerburn 1, 126, ills. 427–8; Folkton 2, 131–2, ills. 446–9; Kirkby Moorside 1, 154–5, ills. 514–17; Kirkby Moorside 4, 156–7, ills. 526–30; Kirkby Moorside 5, 157, ills. 531–5; Levisham 2, 175–6, ills. 635–8; Levisham 4, 177, ills. 639–43; Levisham 5, 177–8, ills. 648–58; Middleton 1, 181–2, ills. 670–5; Middleton 2, 182–4, ills. 676–81; Old Malton 1, 196–7, ills. 732–6; Pickering 1, 199–200, ills. 751–4. 285 286

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

274

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

where sculpture suggests religious communities, as discussed.293 A single workshop was responsible for a series of monuments sculpted from the same fine-grained sandstone, cut with distinctive deep chiselling to produce modelled relief, provided with a broad edge and transverse moulding locked by a ring, organized into panels, laid out using grids and templates, and decorated with densely woven, closed-circuit interlace, animals, and human figures.294 A further workshop at Brompton probably produced or inspired another group of related monuments. At Brompton two monuments seem to be poorer derivatives of the Allertonshire workshop, suggesting local sculptors served the site.295 The range of types and variation in quality amongst the Brompton ‘hogbacks’ suggests it was the centre where this monument type originated.296 Some distinctive features seen at Brompton are found on monuments across Allerton­shire. The so-called ‘Brompton loop’ interlace motif occurs at Kirklevington, Northallerton, Kirby Sigston, and Sockburn. 297 Three ‘hogback’ forms are confined to the Allertonshire region—‘niche’, ‘extended niche’, and ‘panel’ types.298 The revival of earlier sculptural traditions in layout, figural images, and plant-scrolls combined with Irish models for ring-head forms and crucifixions suggests a date in the early to mid tenth century. In the mid eleventh century glimpses are afforded into the link between two elite networks, church foundation and commemoration. The first surrounds Tosti, earl of the Northumbrians (r. 1055–65). Tosti was an outsider introduced to rule the Northumbrians and it was imperative for him to build relationships with the secular and ecclesiastical nobility.299 Tosti’s immediate subordinate was Copsi.300 The Community of St Cuthbert recalled that Tosti and Copsi founded the church of St Germanus at Marske, invited Bishop Ælric of Durham (r. 1042–56) to dedicate it, and granted it to them with lands at Marske, Thornton, Loftus, Rawcliffe, Guisborough, and Tockets.301 Loftus and Acklam (the estate including Thornton) were probably royal lands on loan to Tosti, since Domesday entries suggest they were royal lands once loaned to his successor, 293   Bailey 1978: 180–5; Lang 1984b: 43–6; Lang 1986a: 154–5, 159–60; Lang 1986b: 248; CASSS VI: 44–9. 294   CASSS I: Sockburn 5. CASSS VI: Baldersby 1, 57–8, ills. 4–7; Birdforth 1, 62–3, ill. 26; Brompton 3, 66–8, ills. 37–40; Brompton 6, 69, ill. 48; Brompton 7, 69–70, ill. 49; Brompton 8, 70, ill. 50; Croft 3, 92, ill. 155; Kirby Sigston 1, 136–7, ills. 374–7; Kirby Sigston 2, 137, ill. 379; Kirby Sigston 3, 137, ill. 378; Kirby Sigston 4, 137, ill. 380; Kirklevington 2, 142–3, ills. 404–7; Northallerton 4, 182, ills. 668–71; Wycliffe 4, 271, ills. 1112–15. 295 296   CASSS VI: Brompton 4, 68, ills. 41–3; Brompton 5, 69, ills. 44–7.   CASSS VI: 47. 297   CASSS VI: Brompton 1, 65, ills. 30–2; Brompton 2, 65–6, ills. 33–5; Brompton 9, 70, ills. 51–4; Brompton 10, 71, ills. 55–7; Brompton 11, 71–2, ills. 58–61; Brompton 12, 72, ills. 62–5; Brompton 13, 72, ills. 66–70; Kirby Sigston 5, 137–8, ills. 381–3; Kirklevington 19, 150, ills. 446–9; Northallerton 6, 183–4, ills. 677–80; Northallerton 7, 184, ills. 681–4; Northallerton 8, 184, ills. 687–9; Northallerton 9, 184–5, ills. 685–6. CASSS I: Sockburn 11, 139–40, ills. 718–19, 722–3. 298   CASSS VI: 23: Ingleby Arncliffe 4, 126, ills. 335–6; Stainton 6, 201, ill. 750; Wycliffe 7, 272–3, ill. 1121. CASSS I: Dinsdale 1, 63, ills. 170–1, 174–5; Sockburn 2, 135–6, ill. 705; Sockburn 3, 136–7, ills. 710–12; Sockburn 4, 137, ills. 706–9; Sockburn 17, 141–2, ills. 761–2. 299 300 301   Fletcher 2002: 142–62.  Aird 2004.   EYC II: 261–2, No. 925.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Religious Communities, Local Churches, Laity, 867–1066

275

Earl Siweard.302 Marske and Tockets were perhaps held by royal or comital thegns, since in Domesday they were held by the thegns Norman and Uhtred.303 Tosti apparently cooperated with his main subordinate and perhaps some thegns to found the church at Marske and grant it to Durham. The second network comprises the grandsons of Thurbrand the Hold. A text written at Durham in the eleventh century, known as De obsessione Dunelmi, relates that a member of Cnut’s aristocracy called Thurbrand the Hold murdered Earl Uhtred and that their families engaged in a long-running feud.304 Careful detective work has pieced together Thurbrand’s descendants: two sons named Carl and Gamal; four grandsons by Carl named Thurbrand, Gamal, Cnut, and Sumarlede; and another grandson by Gamal named Orm son of Gamal, who were major landholders in Ryedale.305 They probably activated and reinforced their kinship through the construction of churches and commemorative monuments. Orm controlled a valuable holding centred on Kirkby Moorside with outlying berewicks (demesne lands) over a wide territory including Kirkdale.306 At Kirkdale there survives a Romanesque church of the eleventh century with an associated sundial carrying an inscription commemorating Orm’s role in rebuilding the church.307 A persuasive case has been made that Archbishop Ealdred of York assisted Orm in acquiring a Roman coffin lid and copying a Roman dedication inscription from York on which the Kirkdale formula is based.308 Orm may have been refounding a small clerical community, since the abbreviation prb on the sundial could stand for either presbiter or presbiteri.309 Orm controlled a similarly valuable holding centred on Hovingham and may have rebuilt the church of another early religious community: the tower could date from the mid eleventh century and its west face includes a probable coffin lid dated to the eighth century.310 Orm’s cousins are connected with three further commemorative monuments.311 An antiquarian observed Sumarlede’s name on a sundial at Old Byland church.312 Thurbrand and Gamal held land at Great Edstone, where there is another sundial, dated to the mid eleventh century.313 They also held land at Kirby Misperton, where there are fragments from what seems to be another sundial and another inscribed stone.314 Cnut held land at Appleton le Street, where the church tower could also date from the mid eleventh century.315 303   DB fo. 305r (4 N 2–3).   DB fos. 305r (4 N 2–3), 305v (5 N 20), and 322v (13 N 4).   Arnold (ed.) 1882–5: I, 215–20; Morris 1992: 1–5; Fletcher 2002. 305   Fletcher 2002: 51, 118–19, 157–8, 176; Wrathmell 2012f. 306   DB fo. 327v (23 N [24] 19–21). 307   Taylor and Taylor 1965–78: I, 357–61; CASSS III: 163–6, Kirkdale 10. 308 309   Blair 2010.  Morris 1990. 310   DB fo. 327v (23 N [24] 23–4); Taylor and Taylor 1965–78: I, 326–8; CASSS III: 146, Hovingham 4. 311 312   Wrathmell 2012f: 192–3.   CASSS III: 195, Old Byland 1. 313   DB fo. 314r (8 N 22–3); CASSS III: 133–5, Great Edstone 1. 314   DB fo. 314r (8 N 1–2); personal observation of church fabric. 315   DB fo. 300v (1 N 69); Taylor and Taylor 1965–78: I, 128–9. 302 304

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

276

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

Paul Everson and David Stocker have produced a model for parochial development on the Wolds that is consistent with this picture, but adds social and chronological complexity. First, they envisage the development of nucleated settlements on the vale edge in the later ninth and early tenth century, when local churches were created in village locations and came to serve strip parishes. Second, they envisage the extension of this process to the Wold valleys, producing churches at open locations that were sometimes later foci for nucleated settlements. Third, they envisage freemen at Wold top settlements emulating their lords by establishing churches on the green serving blocky parishes.316 The archbishops and the local clergy Some results of this process of local church building may be found in the Northumbrian Priests’ Law. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 201 is a composite manuscript: pp. 8–151 and pp. 167–70 are in the hand of a single scribe, Scribe 2, working in the mid eleventh century; they represent a manual composed at York, comprising the homilies of Wulfstan, the first edition of his Institutes of Polity, a set of ‘Wulfstanian’ laws, Wulfstan’s ‘Canons of Edgar’ and ‘Benedictine Office’, the Northumbrian Priests’ Law, and a copy of the Old English translation of Apollonius of Tyre.317 Close analysis suggests that, despite the Wulfstanian context, the Northumbrian Priests’ Law is unlikely to be the work of Wulfstan but rather of one of his successors who knew his oeuvre, either Archbishop Ælfric or Archbishop Cynesige.318 The archbishops assumed the presence of an archdeacon as well as a network of priests and deacons serving local churches, amongst whom they were setting up structures to ensure proper behaviour.319 Mutual enforcement was promoted: ‘each priest is to provide himself with 12 sureties, that he will rightly observe the priests’ law’.320 The incentive was provided by precise fines for each offence, split between the archbishop and his colleagues.321 Churches and priests were firmly embedded within local social, political, and economic life. Churches could be considered property: there was a risk that incumbents might acquire them illegally by purchase or gift, or that they might be trafficked, or subjected to lords.322 They commanded rights to annual pastoral dues.323 They were foci for sanctuary, which might be violated.324 Priests might be married.325 They collected annual dues from local laymen.326 They might refer legal cases, but

  Everson and Stocker 2012.   CCCC MS 201. Ker 1990: items 49, 50; Wormald 1999b: 206–10 and 204–5, Table 4.3. 318   Northu; Wormald 1999b: 396–7. 319  Northu 6–7 for archdeacons; 2–2.2, for priests; 23–4, for deacons; 2, 20–2, 25–8, for local churches; 3, 7, 13–18, for provision of mass; 8 and 10 for provision of baptism and confession; 11 for direction on feasts and fasts. 320 321 322 323   Northu 2.3.   Northu 2.1–2.   Northu 2–2.1, 20–1.   Northu 43. 324 325 326   Northu 19.   Northu 35.   Northu 43, 57.2–60. 316 317

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



Religious Communities, Local Churches, Laity, 867–1066

277

might get this wrong.327 They might conduct the judicial ordeal.328 They were expected to offer lawful help to those around them and warn them of danger,329 but also to expose fraud and other wrongdoings.330 They might become drunkards, gleemen, or tavern minstrels,331 or offer scorn, insult, or violence to others.332 They might carry weapons into the church, be driven from churches, wounded, or killed.333

CONCLUSIONS The political importance of the archbishops under Scandinavian, West Saxon, and English rule probably facilitated the retention of some valuable holdings and the acquisition of others, which provided the potential for influence across Yorkshire. The material reflex of this was the revival of earlier forms and styles and an inventive adaptation under Scandinavian influence. The wealth, authority, and power of the archbishops raises the possibility that other religious communities survived, were revived, or were established. Kirkja-by(r) placenames suggest some communities may have retained endowments for a significant period after the settlement of Old Norse speakers in their vicinity. The survival of stone sculpture produced with access to clerical expertise and the concentration of above-average numbers of monuments at some sites may reveal the existence of some religious communities in the first half of the tenth century. The fact that some of these places were foci for regional schools of sculpture may reveal their influence on the growth of local churches. The growth of local churches is revealed in the regular occurrence of tenth-century or eleventhcentury sculpture at the sites of later local churches, the references to churches and priests in Domesday Book, and the stipulations of the Northumbrian Priests’ Law.

 Northu 5.   328 Northu 39.   329 Northu 32–3.   330  Northu 40, 42. 332 333   Northu 41.   Northu 29–30.   Northu 22–4, 37.

327 331

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Conclusion This book has considered the relationship between kingship, society, and the church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire. The historiographical context and rationale were set out in the Introduction: there has been an emphasis on the role and agency of kings in conversion and church building in early Anglo-Saxon England, and there has been a debate about Anglo-Saxon ecclesiastical organization with its roots in the differing evidence available for studying the church in northern England. The argument challenges that emphasis and provides a case study of ecclesiastical organization in one region of northern England. Having been foregrounded in the Introduction and summarized in the conclusion to each chapter, it does not require reiteration. Nonetheless, it will be helpful to reflect on its contribution to some wider issues about conversion to Christianity and ecclesiastical organization in Anglo-Saxon England.

CONVERSION TO CHRISTIANITY A wealth of sociological, anthropological, historical, theological, and archaeological studies have analysed instances of conversion: it is impossible, and unnecessary, to engage with all of them here, but it may be profitable to draw attention to the relationship between the argument presented here and some of these analyses.1 In line with some studies of conversion at other times and in other places, the evidence for the conversion of the Deirans suggests a period of familiarization before conversion to Christianity. Chapter 1 set out the evidence for migration from northern Germany and southern Scandinavia, for a process of ethnogenesis whereby indigenous people and migrants constructed new Anglo-Saxon identities, and for continued social and political interaction between British Christians in the Vale of York and ‘pagan’ Anglo-Saxons around the Yorkshire Wolds. Sometimes evidence like this has been reified as a phase in a conversion

  Rambo and Farhadian 2014.

1

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Conclusion

279

process.2 Reification should not be mistaken for explanation: it should be the first step in considering how that process was particular to a given society. Chapter 1 also emphasized that, for the Deirans, familiarization took place in the context of a society focused on local kin groups whose social status was unstable, a culture of lordship in which some members of the kin group left for service in other households, and in which those neighbouring societies were organized along familiar lines. This may have facilitated the conversion of individual members of some kin groups who were removed from the local contexts in which social status was connected with ‘pagan’ religious beliefs and who were able to observe Christian societies comparable to their own. Here the dynamics of ‘familiarization’ will have been quite different from conversions at other times and other places, such as early modern or modern western missions to non-western peoples.3 Like some other societies, the evidence suggests that the Deirans experienced a process of social stratification prior to, and parallel to, conversion, a point already observed for the Anglo-Saxons as a whole in John Blair’s analysis of the church in Anglo-Saxon society.4 From changes in mortuary ritual amongst the Deirans, Chapter  1 identified increased social stratification and political centralization—fewer individuals being provided with richer monumental burials occupying locations connected with the movement of people to and from a territory. To clarify, this is not an argument for the first post-Roman social stratification, the first emergence of kings, or the first emergence of kings asserting wider authority or power.5 Rather, it is an argument for greater social stratification and competition amongst the Deirans based on the culture of royal lordship revealed in our early eighth-century texts. Sociologists from Weber to Bourdieu have posited a connection between social stratification and ‘world religions’, including Christianity, but usually in circumstances that do not apply to the Deirans—urbanization, craft specialization, and commercialization, producing a social class sympathetic to ethico-rational religious systems curated by a literate priesthood.6 Anthropological studies of modern non-western societies building on their ideas have been a reference point for some studies of Anglo-Saxon conversion, though without assuming comparable structural circumstances.7 Here the connection between social stratification and conversion is made in terms of kin groups attracted to the new religion because of the social strategies   Hoggett 2010: 13–16.   Abrams 2015 for a comparison between early medieval and early modern mission rooted in both commonalities and differences. 4   Blair 2005: 49–57. 5   For the debate surrounding these issues, see: Bassett 1989; Scull 1993; Scull 1995; Yorke 2003b; Hamerow 2005; Halsall 2007: 314–16; Yorke 2009b; and Halsall 2013: 270–5. 6   Weber 1922–3; Bourdieu 1991. 7  For the anthropological studies: Firth  1970; Horton  1971; Horton  1975; Thompson  1975; Bellah 1976. For their critical reception into studies of Anglo-Saxon conversion: Fletcher 1997: 97–129; Higham 1997: 20–4. 2 3

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

280

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

it presented in an increasingly socially competitive environment. This is not an argument that conversion to Christianity did help local kin groups or an elite to stabilize their social position. Like all social strategies these were uncertain and ongoing, producing unpredictable outcomes.8 Influenced by recent studies of Carolingian Europe by Matt Innes, Hans Hummer, and Marios Costambeys, Chapters 2 and 3 argued that local kin groups and their social strategies lie behind conversion and church building.9 In this way, the role and agency of kings in conversion and church building has been reduced. Yet this is not an argument that everything was everywhere the same. The social approach to conversion adopted here merely takes inspiration from these studies and focuses on the circumstances particular to the society under discussion. Comparative studies have demonstrated the impact of different conventions of landholding on the organization of society and its religious institutions across the regions of early medieval western Europe.10 This analysis of the social process of conversion amongst the Deirans has also yielded some hypotheses about the dynamics, chronology, and effects of conversion, which may be worth consideration in other analyses of conversion. Chapter  2 has suggested that it was only individuals baptized in infancy or childhood and brought up as Christians who could visualize and successfully pursue an ecclesiastical career: hence there was a gap between official conversion in the 620s and the foundation of religious communities staffed by indigenous men and women in the 640s and 650s, reflecting the time taken for the first generation of those born and brought up Christian to reach adulthood and embark on ecclesiastical careers. Moreover, Chapter  3 identified this as the reason that official conversion was followed by apostasy and reconversion, as kings reacted to the emergence of a political constituency of Christians. These ideas may be worth exploring elsewhere, even if the cultural norms surrounding adulthood and the dynamics of royal lordship are particular to the early AngloSaxon peoples, so that events will have played out differently in other societies. Chapters 2 and 3 also suggested that dramatic public actions were necessary to the social process of conversion: public deliberations, confrontations, and demonstrations, to embody the difference between the old and new cultural norms and generate social memories through which they could be understood. Again, the deliberations, confrontations, and demonstrations were particular to the society under discussion—royal assemblies, subversions of the culture of lordship, public challenges to ‘paganism’—but the principle may apply in other instances of conversion. A social effect of conversion identified in Chapter 2 was the forging of a new social fraction—the ‘ecclesiastical aristocracy’—whose identity was distinctive, but whose reproduction was resource-intensive and   Bourdieu 1980: esp. 80–97.   Wickham 2005; Wood 2006.

8 10

9

  Innes 2000; Hummer 2006; Costambeys 2007.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Conclusion

281

fragile. A political effect pursued in Chapter 3 was the remaking of kingship as a Christian institution, which in turn created conflicting ideological norms and demands on resources, ultimately destabilizing kingship. A cultural effect observed in Chapter 4 was the Christianization of the landscape, which reflected conversion as a process of revelation whereby sacred places were recognized as manifestations of God’s plan for the salvation of the Deirans. The analysis of the social process of conversion offered here gives primacy neither to individual nor collective theories of conversion, combining aspects of the different sociological explanations helpfully reviewed by Snow and Machalek, and Kilbourne and Richardson.11 In the context of social institutions and cultural norms, and using retrospective collective accounts, Chapter  2 offers suggestions as to why individual members of kin groups might have become attracted to Christianity, but it does not seek to recover the motivations of particular individuals. Amongst the suggestions made, an obvious absence is what Kilbourne and Richardson describe as intellectual or self-conversion in isolation, whereby ‘individuals transform themselves in relative isolation from others or only with the help of an absent reference group’, which seems particularly rooted in modern communication networks.12 Individual conversions might have fitted one of the models summarized by Snow and Machalek—a psychophysiological response to coercion or induced stress, a personal predisposition or cognitive orientation towards conversion, or a reaction to tensionproducing situational factors.13 Most of the examples might fall into one of Kilbourne and Richardson’s intra-individual or inter-individual subcategories—a mystical revelation, a cognitive choice, a desire for emotional attachment, a fulfilment of psychopathological needs, or a process of role learning, social drift, or socialization.14 Yet Chapter 2 simply argues that individual conversions probably occurred for a variety of potential reasons, producing social and political change, and charts conversion through Snow and Machalek’s broad empirical indicators of membership status and demonstration events;15 it does not seek to explain or chart the conversion of particular individuals. This is for two reasons. First, there are no autobiographical writings like Augustine’s Confessiones offering the perspective of an individual on their own conversion that would reveal the reconstruction of the self highlighted by Snow and Machalek.16 Second, even if such autobiographical writings survived, there is a strong case for suggesting that they are evidence, not for the causes of conversion, but for the convert’s rationalization of conversion.17 By allowing for a variety of possible causes of conversion, and emphasizing its chronological and   Snow and Machalek 1984; Kilbourne and Richardson 1988.   Kilbourne and Richardson 1988: 3–4, quotation on 4. 13 14   Snow and Machalek 1984: 178–81.   Kilbourne and Richardson 1988: 4–8. 15 16   Snow and Machalek 1984: 171–3.   Snow and Machalek 1984: 173–4. 17   Snow and Machalek 1984: 175–8. 11 12

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

282

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

social contingency, the argument hopes to avoid the danger of psychological or social-environmental determinism inherent in some theories of conversion.18

ECCLESIASTICAL ORGANIZATION As the Introduction observes, the so-called ‘minster hypothesis’ should be envisaged as a sum of the regional studies on which it is based: it should be considered the best approximation for Anglo-Saxon ecclesiastical organization, to be supplemented or adjusted through further regional case studies. Thus the argument presented here is not a defence or vindication of the ‘minster hypothesis’, but provides some supplements and adjustments to our picture of Anglo-Saxon ecclesiastical organization from the evidence for one region of northern England. The chronology of conversion and investment in religious communities set out in Chapters  2 and  3 is well established—official conversion in the 620s, apostasy followed by reconversion in the 630s, foundation of the first religious communities in the 640s and 650s, a boom in the foundation of religious communities from the 670s to the 730s, and royal and episcopal expropriation of religious communities thereafter. The explanation offered here builds on John Blair’s analysis. He observed that the boom of the 670s coincided with AngloSaxons trained from youth in Christian doctrine reaching their majority and taking over ecclesiastical organization.19 He endorsed Barbara Yorke’s argument that the boom of the 670s also resulted from the dynamics of royal patronage and dynastic strategies: in the 650s kings first established exclusively Christian kingdoms and resigned from office to establish the Christian status of their dynasties, but this proved controversial, so that by the 670s they were pursuing the same aim by founding religious communities for relatives.20 He suggested that these trends were reinforced by the attractive terms of land granted by charter for the foundation of religious communities.21 He argued that this boom ended because some religious communities admitted members less qualified or committed to their ideals: It is often the fate of intellectual and cultural institutions that by accepting the patronage which they thrive on, they compromise their raison d’etre to accommodate non-­ professionals who do not really understand their true purpose . . . such compromises can leave establishments vulnerable, once the novelty or prestige which secured the original patronage has faded, to a potentially deadly alliance of reformers and cost-cutters. In mid eighth-century England there clearly was a principled drive for reform, but it could all too easily become a cloak for asset-stripping.22

Building on these points, Chapters 2 and 3 offer a distinctive explanation for this chronological pattern in terms of the social strategies of local kin groups.   Kilbourne and Richardson 1988: 8–17. 22   Blair 2005: 87–91.   Blair 2005: 107.

18

21

  Blair 2005: 79.

19

  Blair 2005: 84–5.

20

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Conclusion

283

A generation or two after the first evidence for increased social stratification and political competition in the later sixth century, probably to be connected with the emergence of the culture of royal lordship revealed in our eighth-century sources, individual members of some local kin groups had converted for a variety of reasons and whole kin groups had observed the social potential of Christianity: this presented a political constituency of kin groups that underpinned official conversion in the 620s. But there was no consensus about this official conversion: rival constituencies of ‘pagans’ and Christians resulted in apostasy and reconversion. Only those individuals born and brought up as Christians could visualize and embody a future career in the church so that, in line with existing social institutions and cultural conventions, it took eighteen to twenty-five years for the first indigenous ecclesiastics and religious communities to emerge in the 640s and 650s. When this generation embarked on ecclesiastical careers, the social potential of conversion was manifest, securing official conversion and prompting kin groups to raise a second generation who entered the church, resulting in the remaking of kingship and the boom in religious foundations from the 670s. Indigenous ecclesiastics represented a new social fraction, but the reproduction of their distinctive identity was resource-intensive and fragile: once the boom reduced the social return on pursuing an ecclesiastical career, kin groups were less willing to sanction the diversion of resources to religious communities, and more willing to sanction royal and episcopal expropriation of religious communities. The fact that the establishment of episcopal sees and churches was less attractive than the foundation of religious communities in early Anglo-Saxon England is also well known. John Godfrey and John Blair have identified three historical factors behind this: the absence of Roman towns and villas as a framework for episcopal organization; the role of social and political institutions like the household, kin group, and kingdom in shaping the reception of Christian institutions; the role of Irish monks in converting the Anglo-Saxons.23 Together, Chapters 1 and 3 add a fourth: within existing royal support systems there were significant logistical difficulties in supporting episcopal work and reasons for preferring the foundation of religious communities. If bishops were accommodated within the royal household their dependence on royal hospitality could conflict with their episcopal responsibilities and there was insufficient time in each region to fulfil pastoral expectations. If bishops were allowed to itinerate around royal vills independently, existing social conventions required them to travel with a substantial retinue, which conflicted with contemporary episcopal ideals. If bishops were granted a network of royal vills wide enough to sustain activity across their diocese they would become rivals to kings as wealthy patrons with property across kingdoms. All of these possibilities reduced the number of people who could be maintained in the royal household. If bishops   Godfrey 1962: 15–16, 38–58, 62, 150, 153, 310–30; Blair 2005: 65–78.

23

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

284

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

relied on short-term hospitality in non-royal households, they would either have to focus on noble households, or share their resources, and there would again be insufficient time to discharge their responsibilities. Ultimately, as Chapters 3 and 4 suggest, episcopal wealth and authority probably increased in the second half of the eighth century with the expropriation of religious communities and the archiepiscopal see at York seems to have become a dominant ecclesiastical and political centre. Like analyses of the church in other regions of early Anglo-Saxon England, this study has emphasized that the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries witnessed the establishment of a dense distribution of religious communities at accessible locations across the kingdom of the Deirans. An important contribution here is to suggest that the distinctive combination of texts and material culture surviving from these centuries in Yorkshire nevertheless reveals a similar network of sites in one region of northern England, once the limitations of that material are accounted for, and even if it is impossible to establish an absolute figure, either across the period or for a single point in time.24 Comparisons with other places and times are complicated by the differences in the evidence, but the estimates of seventeen to twenty-four communities, or forty-five to fifty-two communities, or seventy to seventy-seven communities are comparable with the sixty to seventy religious communities founded across Yorkshire between 1069 and 1215.25 The density need not be exceptional, but simply revealed by the exceptional evidence, though there is every reason to think that the density of religious communities did differ between regions and across time.26 The combination of furnished burials and historical narratives has enabled an analysis of the historical forces behind this network, which reinforces the arguments of Ian Wood and Richard Morris that the politics of patronage were crucial to the macro-topography of religious communities,27 but argues that notions of sacred place and vocation were key to their micro-topography, an idea that has been extended elsewhere to religious communities across Anglo-Saxon England.28 Moreover, this study has endorsed the idea that the network of religious communities included some that acted as pastoral centres, an idea which the evidence from regions of northern England has sometimes been used to question. Building on the work of Richard Morris and Dawn Hadley,29 this study has compared the network of possible religious communities with a comprehensive map of the medieval parishes of Yorkshire, revealing a strong correlation between early religious communities and mother parishes. From the relationship between early religious communities, eleventh-century soke estates, and mother parishes, it has added arguments in favour of thinking that much of the network of mother parishes developed at an early date. By considering the distribution of known 25   Cambridge 1984; Morris 1989: 93–139.   Burton 1999: xvii–xix, 3. 27 28   Blair 2005: 295–323.   Wood 2008; Morris 2015.  Pickles 2011. 29   Morris 1989: 39–139; Hadley 2000b: 216–97; Hadley 2006: 192–236. 24 26

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Conclusion

285

religious communities and stone sculpture alongside the soke estates and mother parishes, it has moved beyond the general recognition that religious communities had satellite sites to identify the Streoneshalh (Whitby) satellites on the ground; in turn, this reinforces the idea that, while not all religious communities or associated sites were pastoral centres, satellite sites founded for a range of reasons—daughter houses, oratories, estate churches—could develop pastoral responsibilities.30 Following in the footsteps of Jane Hawkes in particular, this study has utilized the multivalent images carved on some later eighth-century and earlier ninth-century monuments to argue that some communities subscribed to pastoral ideals set out in earlier eighth-century texts, but has added a cautionary note about the particular historical contexts that may surround this evidence—growing episcopal wealth and influence as well as a shift from communities of monks to communities of clergy, both partly a result of royal and episcopal expropriation of religious communities in the second half of the eighth century. More recent analyses of the impact of Scandinavian raiding, conquest, and settlement have raised doubts about the cataclysmic effects on the Anglo-Saxon church suggested by some contemporary and retrospective sources,31 drawing attention to the importance of considering the particular evidence for the fate of episcopal sees and churches, and emphasizing regional variation.32 Some analyses based on the full range of textual evidence for Anglo-Saxon England or the Isles have constructed forceful arguments for a large-scale impact from raiding on ecclesiastical sites,33 but the analysis in Chapter 5 has been restricted to the evidence for the raiding of ecclesiastical sites in one region, which is limited, so it has been ambivalent about this issue. Some analyses have argued for a smaller-scale elite settlement, but Chapter 5 has accepted the arguments of David Parsons, Lesley Abrams, and Matt Townend in favour of a larger-scale peasant settlement, even if this took place over a long time period.34 Regardless of the scale of raiding or settlement, Chapter 5 has followed Julia Barrow in emphasizing that the crucial issue was whether religious communities were able to maintain the moveable wealth and land necessary to support their members and attract new recruits.35 Ultimately, the argument presented here has placed the impact of Scandinavian raiding, conquest, and settlement in its broader historical context and considered it in terms of what the material and onomastic evidence reveals about the fate of religious communities and the development of local churches. It has thereby produced the most positive assessment of the

31   Pickles 2016b elaborates on this.  Barrow 2015.  Hadley  1996b; Barrow  2000; Hadley  2000b: 216–97; Blair  2005: 292–323; Hadley  2006: 192–236. 33   Brooks 1979: esp. 49–62; Foot 1991; Dumville 1996. 34   Parsons 2002; Abrams and Parsons 2004; Townend 2007; Townend 2014: 95–112. 35   Barrow 2000: 165–6; Barrow 2005: 19–21. 30 32

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

286

Kingship, Society, Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire

survival and development of ecclesiastical institutions in any region of northern and eastern England in this period, but one that may be particular to that region. As Chapters 3 and 4 suggest, the process of royal and episcopal expropriation of religious communities in the second half of the eighth century and the ninth century probably resulted in the development of the archiepiscopal see at York as a dominant ecclesiastical and political centre, a reduction in ecclesiastical endowments, and a shift in the composition of religious communities. These are important contexts for the impact of Scandinavian raiding, conquest, and settlement. As Chapters 5 and 6 illustrate, both Scandinavian and English regimes were responsible for the fate of religious communities and the development of local churches from 867 to 1066. In Chapter 5 it is argued that the Scandinavian and English kings and their nobility faced unstable and uncertain circumstances that prompted them to work with the see of York and the Community of St Cuthbert at Durham. Under these circumstances, Chapter 6 suggests that the see of York was able to maintain and extend its wealth as well as a number of religious communities; that some other religious communities survived or were revived; and that these communities influenced the establishment of local churches. This positive picture should not automatically be transposed onto other regions or considered a universal judgement on the impact of Scandinavian raiding, conquest, and settlement, because it rests on the particular circumstances of the see of York and the position of Yorkshire in the developing English kingdom.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

AP P EN D I X 1

Burials and Cemeteries from Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire The corpus of Anglo-Saxon burials and cemeteries from Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire compiled and dated by Jo Buckberry and Lizzie Craig-Atkins: Buckberry 2004 and Craig 2009. Table 7.  Cist burials in Yorkshire Name

Grid reference

Gender

Objects

Appleton-le-Street

SE73357147

Female

Furnished

Castle Howard

SE734670

 

Furnished

Hessle I

TA03302643

Male

Furnished

Occaney Beck

SE352621

Male

Furnished

Spaunton

SE724899

Male

Furnished

Table 8.  Early Anglo-Saxon cremation burials and cemeteries in Yorkshire Name

Grid reference

Status

Sub-name

Size

Birdsall

SE824629

?

Mortimer Barrow 108

Broughton

SE77097288

?

 

Huggate

SE858559

 

Cross Dykes

1

Barrow

Langton

SE80326837

?

Racecourse

>1?

Barrow

Lythe

NZ825150

?

 

1

Barrow?

Pickering

SE78757962

?

Costa Pickering

1

 

Sancton

SE903402

 

Grange Farm

Sancton

SE899395

 

Sancton II

Staintondale

SE990984

?

Swine

TA134358

Yarm

TA418128

York

1 >11

376–381

Monument Barrow  

 

>1

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

SE61055292

 

Heworth Railway Station

>40

 

York

SE59345110

 

The Mount

>11

 

York

SE6350

Heslington Hill

5 or 7

 

 

Table 9.  Early Anglo-Saxon inhumation burials and cemeteries in Yorkshire Grid reference

Status

Sub-name

Aldborough

TA246389

 

 

Bishop Wilton

SE78055648

?

Kitty Hill Barrow 199

Boynton

TA125674

 

 

Size

Monument

Orientation

2

 

 

1?

Barrow

 

 

 

>1

Bulmer

SE698674

?

 

 

 

Catterick

SE232976

 

Racecourse

> 44

1

Cairn; Amphitheatre

W–E/Variable

Driffield

TA04235782

 

Cheesecake Hill Barrow C44

29–34

Barrow

Variable

Driffield

TA02375803

 

Bridge Street

 

Variable

12

Ganton

SE991781

?

Windale Beck Farm

 

 

Haltemprice

TA021265

?

Hessle II

  2?

 

 

Henderskelfe

SE734670

?

Welburn

4

 

N–S

>18

 

E–W/S–N

>1

 

 

Hornsea

TA207484

 

Hornsea

Kilham

TA07926598

 

Kilham Lane

Kirkburn

TA001562

?

Kirkburn I Barrow C37

1

Barrow

 

Lockington

SE99724684

 

St Mary’s

?

 

 

Londesborough

SE87154624

?

 

>1

Barrow

 

North Cave

SE905321

?

Everthorpe Cutting

>1

 

 

Pontefract

SE455225

?

Park

1

 

 

Rillington

SE85677442

?

 

1

Barrow

 

Rudston

TA097677

 

Rudston II

1?

 

 

Rudston

TA11216746

 

Thorpe Hall

>1?

 

 

Thirsk

SE42758200

?

Thirsk Castle

>7

 

Variable

 

 

1

 

 

55

 

 

Warter

SE870505

 

Warter Priory

Willerby

SE864639

 

Burdale

Willerby

TA02287930

 

Grainger’s Pit

 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Name

Table 10.  Early Anglo-Saxon mixed cemeteries in Yorkshire Name

Grid reference

Status

Sub-name

Inhumations

Cremations

Monument

TA01995749

 

Kings Mill Road

>12

1

TA02975748

?

Cake Mill

>1

>1

 

Barrow

Fylingdales

NZ948052

 

Robin Hood’s Bay

>1

>1

 

Heslerton

SE917767

 

West Heslerton

194

10

Barrow

Kirby Moorside

SE69748650

?

Howe End

12

3

Barrow

Marton cum Grafton

SE426633

?

Aldborough

>1

>1

Barrow

Saltburn-on-Sea

NZ651205

 

Hob Hill

>30

>18

Sowerby

SE43708102

 

Pudding Pie Hill

3

1

  Barrow

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Driffield Driffield

Name

Grid reference

Status

Sub-name

Radiocarbon

Acklam

SE792612

 

Acklam Wold

 

Appleton le Street

SE73357147

 

Hepton Hill

Barnby

NZ83051301

?

Beverley

TA037392

Bishop Wilton

SE82425694

Bishop Wilton

Size

Monument

Orientation

2

Barrow

 

 

1

Barrow

 

Wade’s Stone

 

1

Standing Stone

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

Barrow 114

 

2

Barrow

 

SE81235634

 

Beacon Hill Barrow 69

 

1

Barrow

 

Bridlington

TA20556911

 

Sewerby

 

59

 

Variable

Brompton on Swale

SE226995

 

Catterick Bridge

 

2

 

 

Catterick

SE23989736

 

Bainesse Farm

340–640; 410–660

> 8

 

 

Catterick

SE225971

?

Castle Hills

 

1

 

 

Catterick

SE224990

?

Bypass

 

4

Roman defences

 

Catterick

SE24539725

 

RAF Catterick

 

50

Roman buildings

Variable

Driffield

TA028576

 

Routh Hall

 

1

 

 

East Witton

SE15068652

 

Fleets Farm

 

>1

Mound

 

Elloughton

SE941278

 

Mill Hill

 

>1

 

 

Ferry Fryston

SE47342499

?

Angel Moon Field

 

3

Barrow

W–E

Fimber

SE896606

 

 

 

6

 

 

Fimber

SE894606

 

St Mary’s

 

2

Barrow

 

Ganton Wold

TA00357618

 

Greenwell Barrow 29

 

1

Barrow

 

Garton

SE978578

?

Garton I

 

1

 

 

Hawnby

SE52858925

 

Dale Town

 

3?

Cairns

 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Table 11.  Early to mid Anglo-Saxon inhumation burials and cemeteries in Yorkshire

Hawsker

NZ934086

?

Knipe Howe

 

 

 

Hayton

SE82484698

 

Burnby Gates

 

1

 

 

Kilham

TA057646

 

North of Back Lane

Kirby Grindalythe

SE88046689

?

Duggleby Howe

 

1

 

 

 

2

Barrow

 

Kirby Underdale

SE823582

 

Painsthorpe Wold Barrow 4

 

4

Barrow

 

Kirby Underdale

SE82465826

 

Painsthorpe Wold Barrow 102

 

1

Barrow

 

Kirby Underdale

SE82975859

?

Painsthorpe Wold II Barrow 200

 

1

Barrow

 

Kirkburn

TA000563

 

Eastburn

 

12

 

 

Kirkburn

SE98665752

 

Garton Slack II Barrow 112

 

6

Barrow

 

Kirkburn

TA01705669

 

Kelleythorpe Barrow C38  

47

Barrow

 

Market Weighton

SE8741

 

 

 

2

 

 

Nafferton

TA05205915

 

 

 

>1

 

 

Newbald

SE90953685

 

North Newbald

 

7

 

 

Nunburnholme

SE86404886

 

 

 

3

 

 

Rudston

TA08586778

?

Barrow 224

 

 

Barrow

 

South Cave

SE900310

 

Everthorpe

 

4

 

 

Thornton Dale

SE834857

 

Kingthorpe

 

1

Barrow

 

Warter

SE899531

 

Blanch Farm

 

1

Barrow

 

Welton

SE975268

 

Melton Hill

 

1

 

 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Barrow

Name

Grid reference

Acklam

SE79196117

Adwick le Street

Status

Sub-name

Radio Carbon

 

Greet’s Hill

 

 

SE534084

 

 

 

 

Aldborough

SE40526670

 

Isurium

 

 

1

Roman civitas

 

Arncliffe

SD93437169

?

Carr Farm

 

 

>2

 

 

Burton Pidsea

TA252311

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

Byland with Wass

SE55208070

 

Hambleton Moor

 

 

1

 

 

Carthorpe

SE303833

 

Howe Hill

 

 

4

Barrow

 

Collingham

SE402445

?

Dalton Parlours

 

 

1

Roman villa

 

Cottam

SE96166628

 

Kemp Howe

 

18

Barrow

NW–SE, W–E

Easington

NZ7419

 

Street House

 

 

110

Iron Age enclosure

W–E

Garton

SE98675775

 

Garton II Green Lane

 

 

62

Iron Age linear earthwork

NW–SE

Garton

SE95656185

 

Garton Slack I

 

740–50

59

Iron Age linear earthwork

W–E

 

 

35

 

1

Garton

SE980577

 

Garton Station

Kettlewell

SD96617281

 

 

725; 745

660–780

Coins

Size

Monument

Orientation

8

 

 

40

 

N–S

Iron Age barrow

W–E, N–S

 

 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Table 12.  Mid Anglo-Saxon inhumation burials and cemeteries in Yorkshire

SE82215934

 

Painsthorpe Wold I Barrow 4

 

 

6 or 20

Barrow

 

Kirby Underdale

SE82195941

 

Uncleby Barrows X & Z

 

>71

Barrow

Variable

 

Ledston

SE4328

 

 

C7th–C8th

 

1

 

 

Northallerton

SE3592

 

Viewly Bridge

670–880; 660–870; 640–780; 660–860

 

>33

 

W–E

North Elmsall

SE47671270

 

White Hart Farm

 

 

1

 

 

Seamer

TA02838417

 

 

 

 

>1

 

 

Stamford Bridge

SE733556

 

Burton Fields

 

 

1

 

 

Wharram

SE858645

 

Wharram Percy

600–760

 

1

 

 

Womersley

SE535195

 

 

 

 

1

 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Kirby Underdale

Name

Grid reference

Status

Sub-name

Radiocarbon

Coins

Size

Orientation

Crayke

SE56077064

 

 

770–1020

 

16

W–E

Fylingdales Moor

SE88929868

 

Lilla Howe

 

 

1

Kilham

TA06306432

 

Middle Street

720–980; 690–940

 

181

Pontefract

SE46152240

 

Castle

 

 

70

Ripon

SE31717114

 

Ailcy Hill

II 660–810; 680–880; III 780–990; 660–860

 

>140

W–E

Skipwith

SE657385

 

Church

680–880; 770–980; 790–990

 

13

W–E

Spofforth

SE36545101

 

Village Farm

770–970; 660–780; 660–810; 660–830; 880–1020; 670–870; 680–890; 660–780; 680–880

C8th

300

W–E

Thornton Steward

SE169869

 

St Oswald’s Church

660–810; 680–900; 810–1020

 

17

W–E

Walkington Wold

SE96233571

 

 

640–775; 775–980; 900–1030

 

12

 

Whitby

NZ90281125

 

Whitby Abbey

 

 

Whitby

NZ90301122

 

Abbey Headland

 

700–40

York

SE614509

 

Lamel Hill

 

York

SE60575147

 

Castle Yard

 

 

  W–E W–E/E–W

  144

W–E

 

58–68

W–E

 

840–67

>2

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Table 13.  Mid to late Anglo-Saxon inhumation burials and cemeteries in Yorkshire

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi



295

Appendix 1

Table 14.  Late Anglo-Saxon inhumation burials and cemeteries in Yorkshire Name

Grid reference Status Sub-name

Radiocarbon

Coins

Size

Addingham

SE08464972

 

 

790–1020; 660–880; 660–890; 670–980

 

56

Beverley

TA038393

 

Minster

 

 

 

Carthorpe

SE311825

?

Camp Hill House

 

 

1

Conisbrough

SK512988

?

Church

 

 

1

Cottam

SE975667

 

 

647–877

858–62

1

Haltemprice

TA03302643

?

Hessle I

 

 

1

Kellington

SE547245

 

 

 

 

>1

Kildale

NZ60430985

 

Church

 

 

7

Kilham

TA047645

?

York Road

 

 

6

Lockington

SE99724684

?

St Mary’s

 

 

20

Northallerton SE3693

?

Bedale

 

 

 

Pontefract

SE46182239

 

Tanners Row

591–771; 550–710; 830–1220

 

197

Riccall

SE60863736

 

Riccall Landing

775–980; 895–1025; 895–1155

 

69

Ripon

SE31557124

?

Deanery Gardens

 

 

3

Ripon

SE31527124

 

Ladykirk

 

 

36

Romanby

SE360930

?

 

 

 

?1

Scarborough

TA05178916

 

Castle Hill

 

 

400

Selby

SE61623249

?

St Germanus Chapel

 

 

14

Thwing

TA030707

 

Paddock Hill

228–880; 376–680; 580–906; 574–831; 656–890; 674–993; 673–1030; 758–1028

 

132

Wakefield

SE33352092

 

Wakefield Cathedral

 

 

5

Welburn

SE677857

 

Kirkdale

 

 

 

Wensley

SE092895

 

Church

 

 

1

Westow

SE736658

 

Kirkham Priory

 

 

20 (continued)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

296

Appendix 1

Table 14.  Continued Name

Grid reference Status Sub-name

Radiocarbon

Coins

Size

Wharram

SE85836421

 

St Martin’s Church

980–1160;   1000–1220; 1020–1210; 980–1160

York

SE60705100

 

Blue Bridge Lane

 

 

York

SE60445168

 

Coppergate

 

 

York

SE59995147

 

Florence Row

 

 

4

York

SE60655115

 

St Andrew’s Fishergate

 

 

131

York

SE60665213

 

St Helen on the Walls

 

 

 

York

SE59975141

 

St Mary Bishophill Junior

 

 

4

York

SE60155141

 

St Mary Bishophill Senior

 

 

>1

York

SE603520

 

Swinegate

 

 

100

York

SE60305220

 

Minster

696–997; 717–742/ 754–1021; 819–837/ 856–1164; 779–1158

 

118

 

2  

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Map 13.  Early to mid Anglo-Saxon burials and cemeteries in Yorkshire. Contains OS data © Crown Copyright/database right 2018. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service.

Map 14.  Mid to late Anglo-Saxon burials and cemeteries in Yorkshire. Contains OS data © Crown Copyright/database right 2018. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service.

Stone Sculpture from Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire Table 15.  Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture by date Place

Late C7th–C8th

C8th

Late C8th– early C9th

C9th

Late C9th– C10th

C10th

C10th– C11th

C11th

Total Frags

Multiperiod

Aberford

 

 

 

 

1

2

 

 

3

?

Addingham

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

Aldbrough

 

 

 

 

 

1

1

 

Amotherby

 

 

 

 

1

  1

 

 

 

2

?

Aysgarth

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

Baldersby

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

1

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

1

Bardsey

 

 

 

 

 

Barmston

 

 

 

 

 

1

Barnburgh

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barningham

 

 

1

 

 

Barwick in Elmet

 

 

 

 

 

Bedale

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beverley

1

 

1  

 

1

 

2

 

 

 

2

?

4

2

 

 

6

?

 

 

 

 

1

 

Bilton in Ainsty

 

 

 

 

 

4

Bingley

 

 

 

 

 

 

Birdforth

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

4

?

2

 

 

2

?

 

 

1

 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

A P P E ND I X 2

Birkby

 

 

 

 

Birstall

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

1

 

1

Bolton on Swale

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

Bradfield

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

1

 

Bradford

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

2

?

Bramham

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

Brignall

 

 

 

1

 

Brompton, nr Northallerton

 

 

 

 

 

1   26

 

 

1

 

 

 

26

?

 

 

 

 

1

8

2

 

13

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

2

?

Catterick

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

?

1

3

 

4

?

 

 

 

5

?

1

2

Cawthorne

 

 

 

Collingham

 

 

 

2

  3

 

Conisbrough

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

Cotherstone

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

1

Coverham

 

 

 

 

1

1

 

2

?

Crathorne

 

 

 

 

 

7

1

 

8

?

Crayke

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

?

2

Croft

 

1

Crofton

 

1

  1

 

 

1

1

 

 

3

Y

 

 

 

 

 

2

? (continued)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Burnsall Castle Bolton

Place

Late C7th–C8th

C8th

Late C8th– early C9th

C9th

Late C9th– C10th

C10th

C10th– C11th

C11th

Total Frags

Multiperiod

Cundall

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

Danby Wiske

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

 

3

?

Darfield

1

Dewsbury

 

 

10

3

 

2

 

 

15

Y

Easby

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

9

?

Easington

 

 

 

 

5

3

 

East Riddlesden

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

1

 

Ecclesfield

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

1

 

Ellerburn

 

 

 

 

1

7

1

 

9

?

Filey

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

Finghall

 

 

 

 

3

2

1

 

6

?

Folkton

 

 

 

 

1

1

 

 

2

?

Follifoot

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

Forcett

 

 

 

 

3

5

 

 

8

?

Fountains Abbey

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

1

 

Frickley

 

 

 

3

1

 

 

 

4

?

Gargrave

 

 

 

 

 

7

 

 

7

?

Gilling, in Ryedale

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

Gilling, nr Richmond

 

 

 

2

 

6

2

 

10

Y

Great Ayton

 

 

 

1

 

1

1

1

4

Y

Great Edstone

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

1

 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Table 15.  Continued

Guiseley Hackness

  2

  1

  1

Harewood

 

 

 

Hartshead

 

 

 

Hauxwell

 

 

Hawsker

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

3

?

 

 

 

 

1

5

Y

 

1

 

 

1

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

1

 

2

Y

 

 

2

 

 

2

 

1  

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

High Hoyland

 

 

 

 

1

2

1

 

4

?

Holme upon Spalding Moor

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

Hovingham

 

 

 

2

 

 

5

Y

 

1

2

Hunmanby

 

 

1

 

 

3

Y

Ilkley

 

1

4

2 5

 

 

 

 

 

10

Y

Ingleby Arncliffe

 

 

 

2

 

4

 

 

6

Y

Kildale

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

2

?

Kildwick

 

 

 

 

 

9

 

 

9

?

Kippax

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

Kirby Grindalythe

 

 

 

 

3

 

2

 

5

?

Kirby Hill

 

 

1

 

2

4

 

12

Y

Kirby Knowle

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

 

2

?

Kirby Misperton

 

 

 

2

1

 

 

 

3

?

4

(continued)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Haxby Helmsley

Place

Late C7th–C8th

C8th

Late C8th– early C9th

C9th

Late C9th– C10th

C10th

C10th– C11th

C11th

Total Frags

Multiperiod

Kirby Sigston

 

 

 

 

1

5

 

 

6

?

Kirby Wiske

 

 

 

 

1

1

 

 

2

?

Kirkburton

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

1

 

Kirkby in Cleveland

 

 

 

 

 

2

1

 

3

?

Kirkby Malzeard

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

Kirkby Moorside

 

 

 

 

5

 

 

6

1

 

  Y

Kirkby Overblow

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

Kirkby Wharfe

 

 

 

 

 

4

 

 

4

?

Kirkdale

 

 

2

 

2

5

 

1

10

Y

Kirkheaton

 

 

 

 

4

 

 

 

4

?

 

Kirklevington

 

8

14

1

 

24

?

Lastingham

1

4

  3

1

 

3

 

 

12

Y

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

Leake Ledsham

 

3

1

1

 

 

5

?

Leeds

 

 

2

3

1

3

 

 

9

Y

Leven

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

1

 

Levisham

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

5

Y

 

 

 

 

4

Little Driffield

 

 

 

2

 

 

2

?

Little Ouseburn

 

 

3

 

 

 

2

 

 

5

Y

Londesborough

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

Low Bentham

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Table 15.  Continued

Lowthorpe

 

 

 

 

  3

  29

1

 

1

 

3

 

37

Y

Lythe

1

 

1

 

Marrick

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

Masham

 

 

4

 

1

 

 

1

6

Y

Melsonby

 

 

2

 

1

1

 

 

4

Y

Mexborough

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

Middleham

 

 

 

 

1

1

 

 

2

?

Middlesmoor

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

Middleton

 

 

 

 

8

 

 

9

Y

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

1

 

Northallerton

 

2

 

1

 

6

 

 

9

Y

North Frodingham

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

North Otterington

 

1

 

 

3

2

 

 

6

Y

Nunburnholme

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

Nunnington

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

?

 

1

1

 

 

 

2

?

2

Old Byland

 

 

 

 

 

Old Malton

 

 

 

 

1

1

 

Ormesby

 

 

 

 

2

1

2

 

5

?

Osmotherley

 

 

 

 

 

3

1

 

4

?

Oswaldkirk

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

2

? (continued)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Mirfield Newburgh

Place

Late C7th–C8th

C8th

Late C8th– early C9th

C9th

Late C9th– C10th

C10th

C10th– C11th

C11th

Total Frags

Multiperiod

Otley

 

2

 

1

2

7

1

3

16

Y

Patrick Brompton

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

Patrington

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

Penistone

 

 

 

 

1

1

 

Pickering

 

 

 

 

 

3

1

 

4

?

Pickhill

 

 

 

 

 

4

 

 

4

?

Rastrick

 

Ripon

5

Rothwell

 

Royston

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

1

 

2

 

2

 

 

 

11

Y

 

2

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

10

?

 

2

 

 

Saxton

 

 

 

Sheffield

 

 

 

1

 

Sherburn

 

 

 

 

3

5

2

Sinnington

 

 

 

 

5

13

 

18

?

Skelton

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

1

 

Skipwith

 

 

2

 

 

1

 

 

3

Y

Slaidburn

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

Spennithorne

 

 

 

 

1

1

 

2

?

Spofforth

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

Sprotbrough

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

1

 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Table 15.  Continued

Stainton

 

 

 

 

2

2

2

 

6

?

Stanbury

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

2

?

Stansfield

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

Stanwick

 

 

 

 

7

 

12

 

 

19

?

Staveley

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

Stonegrave

 

 

 

1

 

7

 

 

8

Y

Sutton upon Derwent

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

1

 

Thornhill

 

 

1

8

1

 

 

 

10

?

Thornton Steward

 

 

 

 

2

4

 

 

6

?

Thornton Watlass

 

 

 

 

 

2

Thorp Arch

 

 

 

 

 

 

Todmorden

 

 

 

 

 

Topcliffe

 

 

 

 

Upleatham

 

 

 

Wakefield

 

 

 

1

 

Wath

 

 

 

 

Welbury

 

 

 

 

Well

 

 

 

 

Wensley

 

 

5

1

 

2

?

1

 

1

 

1

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

 

6

1

 

7

?

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

5

?

3

1

 

 

 

1

1

 

 

1

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

2

 

 

9

Y

1

(continued)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Tadcaster Terrington

Place

Late C7th–C8th

C8th

Late C8th– early C9th

Weston

 

 

 

West Tanfield

 

 

 

C9th

Late C9th– C10th

C10th

 

1

 

 

 

 

  2

C10th– C11th

C11th

Total Frags

Multiperiod

 

1

 

 

2

?

West Witton

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

2

?

Wharram Percy

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

3

4

Y

 

 

56

Y

 

1

 

Whitby

23

8

18

2

2

 

Wighill

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

Wycliffe

 

1

1

2

 

5

 

 

9

Y

Yarm

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

1

 

York All Saints

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

York Clifford Street

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

York Coppergate

 

 

1

 

 

3

 

 

4

Y

York Holy Trinity

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

2

? Y

York Minster

 

1

14

2

3

1

7

13  

5

2

48

York Mount

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

York Newgate

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

 

York Parliament Street

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

2

3

Y

York St Denis

 

 

 

 

1

1

 

 

2

?

York St Leonards

 

1

 

1

 

 

 

 

2

?

York St Martin

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

1

 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Table 15.  Continued

York St Mary A

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

York St Mary Bishophill Junior

 

 

1

1

2

3

 

 

7

Y

York St Mary Bishophill Senior

 

 

 

 

8

13

 

1

22

?

York St Mary C

 

 

 

 

3

5

1

 

9

Y

York St Oswald

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

York Walls

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

825

 

186

 

Y

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

380

36

?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

359

66

N

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

86

84

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

  Total

Place

Fragments

Local geology

Church

Excavations

Foundations

Floor

Fabric

Aberford

3

2

3

 

 

 

3

Addingham

1

1

1

 

 

 

 

Fabric date

Churchyard

C11th–C12th  

  1

Aldbrough

1

1

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

Amotherby

2

2

2

 

 

 

2

 

 

Aysgarth

1

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Baldersby

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bardsey

1

1

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barmston

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barnburgh

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

Barningham

1

1

 

1

 

 

 

 

Barwick-in-Elmet

2

2

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bedale

6

2

3

 

 

2

 

 

1

Beverley

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bilton-in-Ainsty

4

3

4

 

 

 

2

 

1

Bingley

2

2

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Birdforth

1

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Birkby

1

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

Birstall

1

1

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

Bolton-on-Swale

1

1

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

Bradfield

1

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bradford

2

2

 

 

 

 

 

2

2

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Table 16.  Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture by source

Bramham

1

1

 

 

 

 

Brignall

1

1

 

 

 

 

Brompton-in-­ Allertonshire

26

26

26

 

26

 

Burnsall

13

12

13

 

 

10

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

1

Castle Bolton

2

2

2

 

 

 

2

 

 

Catterick

3

 

3

 

 

 

1

C15th

 

Cawthorne

4

4

4

 

 

 

4

 

 

5

5

5

 

3

 

2

 

1

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

Cotherstone

1

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coverham

2

1

 

 

 

1

C14th

 

 

1 8

 

 

Crathorne

8

 

 

8

 

 

Crayke

2

2

2

2

 

 

 

 

 

Croft

3

2

3

 

 

 

2

Crofton

2

2

2

 

 

 

2

C14th  

1  

Cundall

2

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

Danby Wiske

1

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

Darfield

3

3

3

 

 

 

3

 

 

15

13

15

 

1

11

 

 

Dewsbury

1

(continued)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Collingham Conisbrough

Table 16.  Continued Place

Fragments

Easby

4

Easington

9

East Riddlesden

1

Local geology  

Church

Excavations

3

 

9

9

 

 

 

 

Foundations  

Floor

Fabric

 

3

9

 

 

 

Fabric date

Churchyard

C12th–C13th

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ecclesfield

1

1

1

 

 

 

 

1

Ellerburn

9

9

9

 

 

 

9

 

 

 

Filey

1

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

Finghall

6

6

6

 

 

 

6

 

 

Folkton

2

 

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Follifoot

1

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forcett

8

4

 

 

 

 

 

8

 

 

8

Fountains Abbey

1

 

 

 

 

 

Frickley

4

4

4

 

 

 

4

 

 

Gargrave

7

4

7

 

 

 

 

 

7

 

Gilling East

1

1

1

 

 

 

1

 

Great Ayton

4

3

4

 

 

 

 

 

1

Great Edstone

1

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

Guiseley

3

3

 

 

 

 

 

2

Hackness

4

1

4

Harewood

1

1

1

1

1

 

1

Hartshead

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hauxwell

2

 

 

 

2

2

 

 

 

 

1

 

3

 

 

1862–3

 

 

 

C12th

1

Hawsker

2

 

Haxby

1

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Helmsley

1

1

 

 

 

 

 

High Hoyland

4

4

4

 

 

 

4

 

 

Holme upon Spalding Moor

1

 

1

 

 

 

1

C15th

 

Hovingham

5

 

5

 

 

 

4

C11th–C12th

 

Hunmanby

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ilkley

 

 

 

10

9

10

 

 

 

3

 

3

Ingleby Arncliffe

7

6

7

 

 

 

3

 

2

Kildale

2

1

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kildwick

9

6

9

 

 

 

C16th

 

Kippax

1

1

1

 

 

 

1

C12th

 

Kirby Grindalythe

5

 

5

 

 

 

5

 

 

12

 

12

 

 

 

12

 

 

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kirby Hill Kirby-in-Cleveland

3

3

9

Kirby Knowle

2

2

2

 

 

 

2

 

 

Kirby Misperton

3

 

2

 

 

 

2

 

 

Kirby Sigston

6

 

4

 

 

 

4

 

 

Kirby Wiske

2

2

 

 

 

 

 

Kirkburton

1

1

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

Kirkby Malzeard

1

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

Kirkby Moorside

6

 

6

 

 

 

1 (1190s)  

 

 

1

5

(continued)

Table 16.  Continued Place Kirkby Wharfe Kirkdale Kirkheaton

Fragments

Local geology

Church

Excavations

Foundations

Floor

4

3

4

 

 

 

10

1

10

 

 

 

Fabric   7

Churchyard

   

  2

5

4

5

 

4

 

 

 

Kirklevington

24

 

24

 

 

 

24

 

 

Lastingham

12

 

12

 

 

 

10

 

 

1

 

1

 

 

 

1

C12th

 

Leake

 

Fabric date

Ledsham

5

5

5

 

 

 

5

 

 

Leeds

9

 

9

 

 

 

9

 

 

Leven

1

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

Levisham

5

 

3

 

 

 

3

 

 

Little Driffield

2

 

2

 

 

 

1

 

 

Little Ouseburn

5

 

5

 

 

 

3

 

 

Londesborough

1

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

1

 

 

 

 

 

Low Bentham

1

1

Lowthorpe

1

 

Lythe Marrick

 

 

37

5

37

 

 

 

37

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Masham

6

5

6

 

 

 

5

 

1

Melsonby

4

4

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mexborough

1

1

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Middleham

2

1

2

 

 

1

 

 

1

Middlesmoor

1

1

1

 

 

 

Middleton

9

1

9

 

 

 

  5

 

1

 

 

Mirfield

1

1

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Newburgh

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Northallerton

9

 

9

 

 

 

9

 

 

North Frodingham

1

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

North Otterington

6

 

5

 

 

 

5

 

 

Nunburnholme

1

 

1

 

 

 

1

C18th

 

Nunnington

2

2

 

 

 

2

 

 

2

Old Byland

1

1

 

 

 

1

 

Old Malton

2

2

2

 

 

 

 

 

1

Ormesby

5

 

 

 

1

 

4

 

 

Osmotherley

4

 

4

 

 

 

 

Oswaldkirk Otley Patrick Brompton

 

4

2

 

4 2

 

 

 

 

 

16

9

16

 

 

 

16

 

 

1

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Patrington

1

1

 

 

 

 

 

Penistone

1

1

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

Pickering

4

1

2

 

 

 

2

 

 

Pickhill

4

 

4

 

 

 

4

 

 

Rastrick Ripon

 

 

 

1 11

  3

1

 

 

 

11

 

 

3

 

  5

 

1

 

1 (continued)

Table 16.  Continued Place

Fragments

Local geology

Church

Excavations

Foundations

Floor

Fabric

Fabric date

Churchyard

Rothwell

2

2

2

 

 

 

2

 

 

Royston

1

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Saxton

1

1

1

 

 

 

1

Sheffield

1

1

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

Sherburn

10

 

10

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sinnington

18

5

18

 

 

 

 

 

18

 

Skelton

1

1

1

 

 

 

 

1

Skipwith

1

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

Slaidburn

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spennithorne

2

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

2

 

C12th–C13th

Spofforth

1

1

1

 

 

1

 

 

Sprotbrough

1

1

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

Stainton

6

4

4

 

 

 

4

 

 

Stanbury

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stansfield

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stanwick

19

5

19

 

 

 

19

 

 

Staveley

1

1

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

Stonegrave

8

2

8

 

 

 

8

 

 

Sutton-upon-­ Derwent

1

 

1

 

 

 

1

C12th–C13th

 

Tadcaster

1

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

Terrington

1

1

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

Thornhill

10

6

10

 

 

 

10

 

 

Thornton Steward

6

3

6

 

 

 

 

2

Thornton Watlass

2

2

2

 

 

 

2

 

 

Thorp Arch

1

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Todmorden

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Topcliffe

1

 

 

 

 

 

Upleatham

7

6

7

3

 

 

 

 

 

Wakefield

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wath

5

 

 

 

 

C13th

 

1 1

1

Wensley

9

9

5

 

 

 

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9

5

 

1

Weston

1

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

West Tanfield

2

2

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

West Witton

2

1

2

 

 

 

2

 

 

Wharram Percy

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whitby

56

9

56

53

 

 

 

 

Wighill

1

1

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

Wycliffe

10

5

8

 

 

 

5

 

 

Yarm

1

 

York All Saints

1

 

  1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  1

 

 

 

  (continued)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Welbury Well

1

 

Place

Fragments

Local geology

Church

York Clifford Street

1

 

 

York Coppergate

4

 

 

York Holy Trinity

Excavations

Foundations

  4  

Floor

Fabric

Fabric date

Churchyard

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

2

York Minster

48

 

48

45

9

 

 

1

 

 

33

4

 

 

York Mount

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

York Newgate

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

York Parliament Street

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

York St Denis

2

 

2

 

 

1

 

 

1

York St Leonards

2

 

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

York St Martin

1

 

1

 

 

 

5

 

 

York St Mary A

1

 

1

1

 

 

 

 

 

York St Mary Bishophill Junior

7

 

7

 

 

 

5

 

 

York St Mary Bishophill Senior

22

 

22

2

 

 

18

 

 

York St Mary C

9

 

9

6

3

2

 

 

3

York St Oswald

1

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

York Walls

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  825

305

749

118

71

56

429

 

33

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Table 16.  Continued

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Map 15.  Anglo-Saxon stone sculpture in Yorkshire. Contains OS data © Crown Copyright/ database right 2018. An Ordnance Survey/EDINA supplied service. Key: 1. Aberford; 2. Addingham; 3. Aldbrough; 4. Amotherby; 5. Aysgarth; 6. Baldersby; 7. Bardsey; 8. Barmston; 9. Barnburgh; 10. Barningham; 11. Barwick in Elmet; 12. Bedale; 13. Beverley; 14. Bilton in Ainsty; 15. Bingley; 16. Birdforth; 17. Birkby; 18. Birstall; 19. Bolton on Swale; 20. Bradfield; 21.  Bradford; 22. Bramham; 23. Brignall; 24. Brompton nr Northallerton; 25. Burnsall; 26. Castle Bolton; 27. Catterick; 28. Cawthorne; 29. Collingham; 30. Conisbrough; 31. Cotherstone; 32. Coverham; 33. Crathorne; 34. Crayke; 35. Croft; 36. Crofton; 37. Cundall; 38. Danby Wiske; 39. Darfield; 40. Dewsbury; 41. Easby; 42. Easington; 43. East Riddlesden; 44. Ecclesfield; 45. Ellerburn; 46. Filey; 47. Finghall; 48. Folkton; 49. Follifoot; 50. Forcett; 51. Fountains Abbey; 52. Frickley; 53. Gargrave; 54.  Gilling in Ryedale; 55. Gilling nr Richmond; 56. Great Ayton; 57. Great Edstone; 58. Guiseley; 59. Hackness; 60. Harewood; 61. Hartshead; 62. Hauxwell; 63. Hawsker; 64. Haxby; 65. Helmsley; 66.  High Hoyland; 67. Holme upon Spalding Moor; 68. Hovingham; 69. Hunmanby; 70. Ilkley; 71.  Ingleby Arncliffe; 72. Kildale; 73. Kildwick; 74. Kippax; 75. Kirby Grindalythe; 76. Kirby Hill nr  Boroughbridge; 77. Kirby Knowle; 78. Kirby Misperton; 79. Kirby Sigston; 80. Kirby Wiske; 81.  Kirkburton; 82. Kirkby in Cleveland; 83. Kirkby Malzeard; 84. Kirkby Moorside; 85. Kirkby Overblow; 86. Kirkby Wharfe; 87.  Kirkdale; 88. Kirkheaton; 89. Kirklevington; 90. Lastingham; 91. Leake; 92. Ledsham; 93. Leeds; 94. Leven; 95. Levisham; 96. Little Driffield; 97. Little Ouseburn; 98. Londesborough; 99. Low Bentham; 100. Lowthorpe; 101. Lythe; 102. Marrick; 103. Masham; 104. Melsonby; 105. Mexborough; 106. Middleham; 107. Middlesmoor; 108. Middleton; 109. Mirfield; 110. Newburgh Priory; 111. Northallerton; 112. North Frodingham; 113. North Otterington; 114.  Nunburnholme; 115. Nunnington; 116. Old Byland; 117. Old Malton; 118. Ormesby; 119. Osmotherley; 120. Oswaldkirk; 121. Otley; 122. Patrick Brompton; 123. Patrington; 124. Penistone; 125. Pickering. 126. Pickhill; 127. Rastrick; 128. Ripon; 129. Rothwell; 130. Royston; 131. Saxton; 132.  Sheffield; 133.  Sherburn; 134. Sinnington; 135. Skelton; 136. Skipwith; 137. Slaidburn; 138. Spennithorne; 139. Spofforth; 140. Sprotbrough; 141. Stainton; 142. Stanbury; 143. Stansfield; 144. Stanwick; 145. Staveley; 146. Stonegrave; 147. Sutton upon Derwent; 148. Tadcaster; 149. Terrington; 150. Thornhill; 151. Thornton Steward; 152. Thornton Watlass; 153. Thorp Arch; 154. Todmorden; 155.  Topcliffe; 156. Upleatham; 157. Wakefield; 158. Wath; 159. Welbury; 160. Well; 161. Wensley; 162. Weston; 163. West Tanfield; 164. West Witton; 165. Wharram Percy; 166. Whitby; 167. Wighill; 168. Wycliffe; 169. Yarm; 170. York All Saints; 171. York Clifford Street; 172. York Coppergate; 173. York Holy Trinity; 174. York Minster; 175. York Mount; 176. York Newgate; 177. York Parliament Street; 178. York St Denis; 179. York St Leonards; 180. York St Martin; 181. York St Mary’s Abbey; 182. York St Mary Bishophill Junior; 183. York St Mary Bishophill Senior; 184. York St. Mary Castlegate; 185. York St Oswald; 186. York Walls.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Bibliography Abels, R. P. (1988). Lordship and Military Obligation in Anglo-Saxon England (London: University of California Press). Abrams, L. (2001). ‘Edward the Elder’s Danelaw’, in Higham and Hill (eds) 2001: 128–53. Abrams, L. (2008). ‘King Edgar and the Men of the Danelaw’, in D. Scragg (ed.), Edgar, King of the English 959–975 (Woodbridge: Boydell), 171–91. Abrams, L. (2015). Bede, Gregory, and Strategies of Conversion in Anglo-Saxon England and the Spanish New World (Jarrow: Friends of Jarrow). Abrams, L. and Parsons, D. N. (2004). ‘Place-Names and the History of Scandinavian Settlement in England’, in Hines, Lane, and Redknap (eds) 2004: 379–431. Adams, K. A. (1990). ‘Monastery and Village at Crayke, North Yorkshire’, YAJ 62: 29–50. Adams, M. (1996). ‘Excavation of a Pre-Conquest Cemetery at Addingham, West Yorkshire’, Medieval Archaeology 40: 151–91. Addleshaw, G. W. O. (1952). The Beginnings of the Parochial System, Borthwick Paper No. 3 (York: Borthwick). Addleshaw, G. W. O. (1954). The Development of the Parochial System, Borthwick Paper No. 6 (York: Borthwick). Adriaen, M. (ed.) (1971). CCSL 142 (Turnhout: Brepols). Adriaen, M. (ed.) (1975). CCSL 14 (Turnhout: Brepols). Adriaen, M. (ed.) (1979–85). CCSL 143, 143A, 143B (Turnhout: Brepols). Ager, B. and Williams, G. (2007). ‘North Yorkshire Area: Closely Associated Group of Viking-Period and Late Saxon Objects and Coins’, Treasure Annual Report 2004 (London: HMSO), 63–4. Ager, B. and Williams, G. (2011). ‘The Vale of York Viking Hoard: Preliminary Catalogue’, in T. Abramson (ed.), Studies in Early Medieval Coinage. Volume 2: New Perspectives (Woodbridge: Boydell), 135–45. Aird, W. (1998). St Cuthbert and the Normans: The Church of Durham 1071–1153 (Woodbridge: Boydell). Aird, W. (2004). ‘Copsi, Earl of Northumbria (d. 1067)’, in Matthew, Harrison, and Goldman (eds) 2004. Allison, K. J., Kent, G. H. R., Neave, D., and Neave S. (eds) (1969–2012). A History of the County of York, East Riding, I–IX (London: Oxford University Press). Allott, S. (1974). Alcuin of York, A.D. 732 to 804: His Life and Letters (York: William Sessions). Anderson, A. O. and Anderson, M. O. (ed. and trans.) (1991). Adamnan’s Life of Columba (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Angenendt, A. (1986). ‘The Conversion of the Anglo-Saxons Considered Against the Background of the Early Medieval Mission’, Settimane di Studio 32: 747–92. Angus, W. S. (1965). ‘Christianity as a Political Force in Northumbria in the Danish and Norse Periods’, in Small (ed.) 1965: 142–65.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

320 Bibliography Anon. (2004). An Archaeological Evaluation at Blue Bridge Lane, York (York: York Archaeological Trust). Anon. (2008). York Archaeological Trust 36th Annual Report, 2007–8 (York: York Archaeological Trust). Archibald, M., Brown, M., and Webster, L. (1997). ‘Heirs of Rome: The Shaping of Britain AD 400–900’, in L. Webster and M. Brown (eds), The Transformation of the Roman World AD 400–900 (London: British Museum Press), 208–48. Armstrong, A. M., Mawer, A., Stenton, F. M., and Dickens, B. (eds) (1950–2). The Place-Names of Cumberland, I–III, EPNS 20, 21, and 22 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Arnold, C. J. (1997). An Archaeology of the Early Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, 2nd edn (London: Routledge). Arnold, T. (1882–5). Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia, I–II (London: Longman). Atkinson, J. C. (ed.) (1879–81). Cartularium Abbathiae de Whiteby, I–II (Durham: Surtees Society). Atkinson, K. (2003). ‘Glacial History’, in R. A. Butlin (ed.), Historical Atlas of North Yorkshire (Otley: Westbury), 10–14. Attenborough, F. L. (ed. and trans.) (1922). The Laws of the Earliest English Kings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Bailey, R. N. (1977). ‘The Meaning of the Viking-Age Shaft at Dacre’, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society Ser. 2 77: 61–74. Bailey, R. N. (1978). ‘The Chronology of Viking-Age Sculpture in Northumbria’, in J. T. Lang (ed.), Anglo-Saxon and Viking Age Sculpture, BAR BS 49 (Oxford: Archaeopress, 1978), 173–203. Bailey, R. N. (1980). Viking Age Sculpture in Northern England (London: Collins). Bailey, R. N. (1983). ‘Ledsham’, Bulletin of the Council for British Archaeology Churches Committee 18: 6–8. Bailey, R. N. (ed.) (1988). Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture, II: Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire North of the Sands (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Bailey, R. N. (1996). England’s Earliest Sculptors (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies). Bailey, R. N. (2008). ‘The Beast-Headed Stone’, in Hall, Kendall, and Briden 2008: 455–7. Bailey, R. N. (2010). Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture, IX: Cheshire and Lancashire (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Barker, E. E. (ed.) (1974–5). Register of Thomas Rotherham, Archbishop of York 1480–1500 (Torquay: Canterbury and York Society). Barker, N. (ed.) (1986). The York Gospels (London: Roxburghe Club). Barlow, F. (1950). Durham Jurisdictional Peculiars (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Barnwell, P. S. (2005). ‘Anglian Yeavering: A Continental Perspective’, in Frodsham and O’Brien (eds) 2005: 174–84. Barnwell, P. S., Butler, L. A. S., and Dunn, C. J. (2003). ‘The Confusion of Conversion: Streanæshalh, Strensall and Whitby and the Northumbrian Church’, in Carver (ed.) 2003: 311–26. Barrow, G. W. S. (1969). ‘Northern English Society in the Early Middle Ages’, Northern History 4: 1–28.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Bibliography

321

Barrow, G. W. S. (1973). The Kingdom of the Scots: Government, Church and Society from the Eleventh to the Fourteenth Century (London: Edward Arnold). Barrow, G. W. S. (1975). ‘The Pattern of Lordship and Feudal Settlement in Cumbria’, Journal of Medieval History 1: 117–38. Barrow, G. W. S. (1983). ‘The Childhood of Scottish Christianity: A Note on Some Place-Name Evidence’, Scottish Studies 27: 1–15. Barrow, J. (2000). ‘Survival and Mutation: Ecclesiastical Institutions in the Danelaw in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries’, in Hadley and Richards (eds) 2000: 155–76. Barrow, J. (2005). ‘The Clergy in English Dioceses c. 900–c. 1066’, in F. Tinti (ed.), Pastoral Care in Late Anglo-Saxon England (Woodbridge: Boydell), 17–26. Barrow, J. (2011). ‘How Coifi Pierced Christ’s Side: A Re-Examination of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, ii, chapter 13’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 62 (4): 693–706. Barrow, J. (2012). ‘Way-Stations on English Episcopal Itineraries, 700–1300’, EHR 127 (526): 549–65. Barrow, J. (2015). ‘Danish Ferocity and Abandoned Monasteries: The Twelfth-Century View’, in M. Brett and D. A. Woodman (eds), The Long Twelfth-Century View of the Anglo-Saxon Past (Farnham: Ashgate), 77–93. Bartlett, J. E. and Mackay, R. W. (1973). ‘Walkington Wold Excavations 1967–9’, East Riding Archaeology 1: 1–93. Bartlett, R. (1999). ‘Cults of Irish, Scottish and Welsh Saints in Twelfth Century England’, in B. Smith (ed.), Britain and Ireland 900–1300: Insular Responses to Medieval European Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 67–86. Bartlett, R. (2000). England under the Norman and Angevin Kings 1075–1225 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Bartrum, P. C. (ed.) (1966). Early Welsh Genealogical Tracts (Cardiff: University of Wales Press). Bassett, S. (1989). ‘In Search of the Origins of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms’, in Bassett (ed.) 1989: 3–27. Bassett, S. (ed.) (1989). The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms (London: Leicester University Press). Bately, J. (ed.) (1986). The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition, Vol. 3 MS A (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer). Baxter, S. (2001). ‘The Representation of Lordship and Land Tenure in Domesday Book’, in E. Hallam and D. Bates (eds), Domesday Book (Stroud: Tempus), 73–102. Baxter, S. (2004). ‘Archbishop Wulfstan and the Administration of God’s Property’, in M. Townend (ed.), Wulfstan, Archbishop of York: The Proceedings of the Second Alcuin Conference (Turnhout: Brepols), 161–205. Baxter, S. (ed.) (2006), The Times of Bede: Studies in Early English Christian Society and its Historian (Oxford: Blackwell). Baxter, S. (2007). The Earls of Mercia: Lordship and Power in Late Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Behr, C. (2010), ‘New Bracteate Finds from Early Anglo-Saxon England’, Medieval Archaeology 54: 34–87. Bell, R. D. and Beresford, M. W. (1987). Wharram Percy: The Church of St Martin, (London: Society for Medieval Archaeology). Bell, T. (1998). ‘A Roman Signal Station at Whitby’, Archaeological Journal 155: 303–22.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

322 Bibliography Bellah, R. (1976). Beyond Belief: Essay on Religion in a Post-Traditional World (New York: Harper and Row). Bertram, J. (2005). The Chrodegang Rules: The Rules for the Common Life of the Secular Clergy from the Eighth and Ninth Centuries (Aldershot: Ashgate). Bevan, B. (1999). ‘The Landscape Context of the Iron-Age Square-Barrow Burials, East Yorkshire’, in J. Downes and T. Pollard (eds), The Loved Body’s Corruption: Archaeological Contributions to the Study of Human Mortality (Glasgow: Cruithne Press), 69–93. Blackburn, M. (2004). ‘The Coinage of Scandinavian York’, in Hall (ed.) 2004: 325–49; reprinted in Blackburn 2011: No. XII. Blackburn, M. (2007). ‘Crosses and Conversion: The Iconography of the Coinage of Viking York, c. 900’, in K. L. Jolly, C. E. Karkov, and S. L. Keefer (eds), Cross and Culture in Anglo-Saxon England: Studies in Honour of George Hardin Brown (Morgantown: West Virginia University Press), 172–200; reprinted Blackburn (2011), No. XIII. Blackburn, M. (2011). Viking Coinage and Currency in the British Isles (London: Spink). Blair, J. (1985). ‘Secular Minster Churches in Domesday Book’, in P. Sawyer (ed.), Domesday Book: A Reassessment (London: Edward Arnold), 104–42. Blair, J. (1987). ‘Local Churches in Domesday Book and Before’, in. J. C. Holt (ed.), Domesday Studies (Woodbridge: Boydell), 265–78. Blair, J. (1988a). ‘Minster Churches in the Landscape’, in D. Hooke (ed.), Anglo-Saxon Settlements (Oxford: Blackwell), 35–58. Blair, J. (1988b). ‘Introduction: From Minster to Parish Church’, in Blair (ed.) 1988: 1–19. Blair, J. (ed.) (1988). Minsters and Parish Churches: The Local Church in Transition 950–1200 (Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology). Blair, J. (1991). Early Medieval Surrey: Landholding, Church and Settlement (Stroud: Sutton). Blair, J. (1992). ‘Anglo-Saxon Minsters: A Topographical Review’, in Blair and Sharpe (eds) 1992: 226–66. Blair, J. (1995a). ‘Anglo-Saxon Pagan Shrines and their Prototypes’, ASSAH 8: 1–28. Blair, J. (1995b). ‘Debate: Ecclesiastical Organisation and Pastoral Care in Anglo-Saxon England’, EME 4 (2): 193–212. Blair, J. (1996). ‘The Minsters of the Thames’, in Blair and Golding (eds) 1996: 5–28. Blair, J. (1998). ‘Clerical Communities and Parochial Space: The Planning of Urban Mother Churches in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries’, in T. R. Slater and G. Rosser (eds), The Church in the Medieval Town (Aldershot: Ashgate), 272–91. Blair, J. (2001). ‘Beverley, Inderauuda and St John: A Neglected Reference’, Northern History 38: 315–16. Blair, J. (2002a). ‘A Saint for Every Minster? Local Cults in Anglo-Saxon England’, in Thacker and Sharpe (eds) 2002: 455–94. Blair, J. (2002b). ‘A Handlist of Anglo-Saxon Saints’, in Thacker and Sharpe (eds) 2002: 495–565. Blair, J. (2005). The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Blair, J. (2010). ‘The Kirkdale Dedication Inscription and its Latin Models: “Romanitas” in Late Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire’, in A. Hall (ed.), Interfaces between Language and Culture in Medieval England: A Festschrift for Matti Kilpiö (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), 139–46.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Bibliography

323

Blair, J. (2011). ‘Flixborough Revisited’, ASSAH 17: 101–8. Blair, J. and Golding, B. (eds) (1996). The Cloister and the World (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Blair, J. and Sharpe, R. (1992). ‘Introduction’, in Blair and Sharpe (eds) 1992: 1–10. Blair, J. and Sharpe, R. (eds) (1992). Pastoral Care before the Parish (London: Leicester University Press). Blunt, C. E., Stewart, B. H. I. H., and Lyon, S. (1989). Coinage in Tenth-Century England from Edward the Elder to Edgar’s Reform (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Boddington, A. (1990). ‘Models of Burial, Settlement and Worship: The Final Phase Reviewed’, in E. Southworth (ed.), Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries: A Reappraisal (Stroud: Sutton), 177–99. Boddington, A. (1996). Raunds Furnells: The Anglo-Saxon Church and Churchyard (London: English Heritage). Boer, G. de (1964). ‘Spurn Head: Its History and Evolution’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 34: 71–89. Bolton, T. (2009). The Empire of Cnut the Great: Conquest and the Consolidation of Power in Northern Europe in the Early Eleventh Century (Leiden and Boston: Brill). Bond, C. J. (1988). ‘Church and Parish in Norman Worcestershire’, in Blair (ed.) 1988: 119–58. Bonner, G. (1973). ‘Bede and Medieval Civilization’, ASE 2: 71–90. Bonner, G., Rollason, D., and Stancliffe, C. (eds) (1989). St. Cuthbert, his Cult and his Community to A. D. 1200 (Woodbridge: Boydell). Bosworth, J. and Toller, T. N. (1898). An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Bourdieu, P. (1977). Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture, trans. R. Nice (London: SAGE, 1990). Bourdieu, P. (1980). The Logic of Practice, trans. R. Nice (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990). Bourdieu, P. (1984). Homo Academicus, trans. P. Collier (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988). Bourdieu, P. (1991). ‘Genesis and Structure of the Religious Field’, Comparative Social Research 13: 1–44. Bourdieu, P. (1996). The State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power, trans. L. C. Clough (Stanford: Stanford University Press). Bourke, C. (ed.) (1997). Studies in the Cult of Saint Columba (Dublin: Four Courts Press). Breeze, A. (2004). ‘The Battle of Uinued and the River Went, Yorkshire’, Northern History 41: 377–83. Bromwich, R. (ed.) (1961). Trioedd Ynys Prydein, The Welsh Triads (Cardiff: University of Wales Press). Brooke, C. N. L. (1977). ‘York Minster from the Ninth to the Early Thirteenth Centuries’, in G. E. Aylmer and R. Cant (eds), A History of York Minster (Oxford), 12–43; reprinted in his Churches and Churchmen in Medieval Europe (London: Hambledon, 1999), 37–68. Brooks, N. P. (1971). ‘The Development of Military Obligations in Eighth- and NinthCentury England’, in P. Clemoes and K. Hughes (eds), England before the Conquest: Studies in Primary Sources Presented to Dorothy Whitelock (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 69–84; reprinted in Brooks 2000: 32–47.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

324 Bibliography Brooks, N. P. (1979). ‘England in the Ninth Century: The Crucible of Defeat’, TRHS 5th Ser. 29: 1–20; reprinted in Brooks 2000, 48–68. Brooks, N. P. (1984). The Early History of the Church of Canterbury: Christ Church from 597–1066 (Leicester: Leicester University Press). Brooks, N. P. (2000). Communities and Warfare 700–1400 (London: Hambledon). Brown, M. P. (1996). The Book of Cerne: Prayer, Patronage and Power in Ninth-Century England (London: British Library). Brown, P. (1981). The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press). Brown, P. (1995). Authority and the Sacred in Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Brown, W. (ed.) (1889–91). Cartularium Prioratus de Gyseburne, I–II (Durham: Surtees Society). Brown, W. (ed.) (1904). Register of Walter Giffard, Lord Archbishop of York, (1266–79) (Durham: Surtees Society). Brown, W. (ed.) (1907). Register of William Wickwane, Lord Archbishop of York (1279–85) (Durham: Surtees Society). Brown, W. (ed.) (1913–17). The Registers of John le Romeyn, Lord Archbishop of York 1286–1296, Part II, and of Henry of Newark, Lord Archbishop of York (1296–99) I–II (Durham: Surtees Society). Brown, W. and Hamilton Thompson, A. (eds) (1925–8). Register of Thomas of Corbridge, Lord Archbishop of York (1300–4) I–II (Durham: Surtees Society). Brown, W. and Hamilton Thompson, A. (eds) (1931–40). Register of William Greenfield, Lord Archbishop of York, (1306–15) I–V (Durham: Surtees Society). Brownbill, J. (1928). West Kirby and Hilbre (Liverpool: Young). Buckberry, J. L. (2004). ‘A Social and Anthropological Analysis of Conversion Period and Later Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire’, Ph.D. Thesis (University of Sheffield). Buckberry, J. L. and Hadley, D. M. (2007). ‘An Anglo-Saxon Execution Cemetery at Walkington Wold, Yorkshire’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 26 (3): 309–29. Budd, P., Millard, A., Chenery, C., Lucy, S., and Roberts, C. (2004). ‘Investigating Population Movement by Stable Isotope Analysis: A Report from Britain’, Antiquity 78: 127–41. Bullough, D. (1981). ‘Hagiography as Patriotism: Alcuin’s York Poem and the Early Northumbrian vitae sanctorum’, in Hagiographie, Cultures et Sociétés IVe–XIIe Siècles (Paris: Études Augustiniennes), 339–59. Bullough, D. (1983). ‘Burial, Community and Belief in the Early Medieval West’, in Wormald, Bullough, and Collins (eds) 1983: 177–201. Burnell, S. and James, E. (1999). ‘The Archaeology of Conversion on the Continent in the Sixth and Seventh Centuries: Some Observations and Comparisons with AngloSaxon England’, in Gameson (ed.) 1999: 83–106. Burton, J. (ed.) (1978). The Cartulary of the Treasurer of York Minster and Other Related Documents (York: Borthwick Society). Burton, J. (ed.) (1988). English Episcopal Acta V: York 1070–1154 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988). Burton, J. (1999). The Monastic Order in Yorkshire, 1069–1215 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Bibliography

325

Butler, R. A. (1993). ‘Ledsham Church: The South Doorway of the Tower’, JBAA 146: 48–9. Caenegem, R. C. Van (ed. and trans.) (1990). English Lawsuits from William I to Richard I, I–II (London: Selden Society). Caley, J. (ed.) (1825). Valor Ecclesiasticus Tempore Henri VIII Auctoritate Regia Institutus, V (London: Record Commission). Cambridge, E. (1984). ‘The Early Church in County Durham: A Reassessment’, JBAA 137: 65–82. Cambridge, E. (1989). ‘Why did the Community of St. Cuthbert Settle at Chester-leStreet?’, in Bonner, Rollason, and Stancliffe (eds) 1989: 367–86. Cambridge, E. (1995). ‘Archaeology and the Cult of St. Oswald in Pre-Conquest Northumbria’, in Stancliffe and Cambridge (eds) 1995: 128–63. Cambridge, E. and Rollason, D. (1995). ‘Debate: The Pastoral Organisation of the Anglo-Saxon Church: A Review of the “Minster Hypothesis” ’, EME 4 (1): 87–104. Cameron, K. (1968). ‘Eccles in English Place-Names’, in M. Barley and R. P. C. Hanson (eds), Christianity in Britain 300–700 (Leicester: Leicester University Press), 87–92. Cameron, K. (1978–9). ‘The Meaning and Significance of Old English walh in English Place-Names’, JEPNS 12: 1–46. Cameron, K. (ed.) (1985–2010). The Place-Names of Lincolnshire, 7 vols, EPNS 58, 64, 65, 66, 71, 73, 77 (Nottingham: English Place-Name Society). Campbell, A. (1942). ‘Two Notes on the Norse Kingdoms in Northumbria’, EHR 57: 85–97. Campbell, A. (ed.) (1950). Frithegodi Monachi Breviloquium Vitae Beati Wilfredi et  Wulfstani Cantoris Narratio Metrica de Sancto Swithuno (Turici: In Aedibus Thesauri Mundi). Campbell, A. (ed. and trans.) (1962). The Chronicle of Æthelweard (London: Nelson). Campbell, A. (ed. and trans.) (1967). Æthelwulf, De abbatibus (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Campbell, J. (1966). ‘Bede’, in T. A. Dorey (ed.), Latin Historians (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul), 159–90; reprinted in Campbell 1986, No. 1, 1–28. Campbell, J. (1968). ‘Bede’, in J. Campbell (trans.), Bede: The Ecclesiastical History of the English People and other Selections (New York), vii–xxxii; reprinted in Campbell 1986, No. 2, 29–48. Campbell, J. (1971). ‘The First Century of Christianity in England’, Ampleforth Journal lxxvi: 12–29; reprinted in Campbell 1986: No. 3, 49–68. Campbell, J. (1973). ‘Observations on the Conversion of England’, Ampleforth Journal lxxviii: 12–26; reprinted in Campbell 1986: No. 4, 69–84. Campbell, J. (1979a). Bede’s reges and principes Jarrow Lecture 1979 (Jarrow: Friends of Jarrow); reprinted in Campbell 1986: No. 5, 85–98. Campbell, J. (1979b). ‘Bede’s Words for Places’, in P. H. Sawyer (ed.), Names, Words and Graves (Leeds: University of Leeds), 34–54; reprinted in Campbell 1986: No. 6, 99–120. Campbell, J. (ed.) (1982). The Anglo-Saxons (Oxford: Phaidon). Campbell, J. (1986). Essays in Anglo-Saxon History (London: Hambledon). Campbell, J. (1989). ‘Elements in the Background to the Life of St Cuthbert and his Early Cult’, in Bonner, Rollason, and Stancliffe (eds) 1989: 3–19; reprinted in Campbell 2000: No. 4, 85–106.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

326 Bibliography Campbell, J. (2000). The Anglo-Saxon State (London: Hambledon). Campbell, J. (2007). ‘Some Considerations on Religion in Early England’, in M. Henig and T. J. Smith (eds), Collectanea Antiqua: Essays in Memory of Sonia Chadwick Hawkes, BAR IS 1673 (Oxford: Archaeopress), 67–74. Carver, M. O. H. (ed.) (1992). The Age of Sutton Hoo: The Seventh Century in NorthWest Europe (Woodbridge: Boydell). Carver, M. O. H. (ed.) (1993). In Search of Cult: Archaeological Investigations in Honour of Philip Rahtz (Woodbridge: Boydell). Carver, M. O. H. (1999). ‘Sutton Hoo’, in M. Lapidge, J. Blair, S. Keynes, and D. Scragg (eds), The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford: Blackwell), 433–6. Carver, M. O. H. (ed.) (2003). The Cross Goes North: Processes of Christian Conversion in Northern Europe (York: Boydell). Carver, M. O. H., Sanmark, A., and Semple, S. (eds) (2010). Signals of Belief in Early England: Anglo-Saxon Paganism Revisited (Oxford: Oxbow). Cassidy, B. (ed.) (1992). The Ruthwell Cross: Papers from the Colloquium Sponsored by the Index of Christian Art (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press). Cessford, C. (1996). ‘Yorkshire and the Gododdin Poem’, YAJ 68: 241–3. Chadwick, H. M. (1905), Studies on Anglo-Saxon Institutions (Cambridge; reissued New York: Russell and Russell, 1963). Chadwick, N. K. (1963). ‘The Conversion of Northumbria: A Comparison of Sources’, in N. K. Chadwick (ed.), Celt and Saxon: Studies in the Early British Border (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 138–66. Chadwick, S. J. (1908–9). ‘Notes on Dewsbury Church and Some of its Rectors and Vicars’, YAJ 20: 369–446. Chaney, W. A. (1970). The Cult of Kingship in Anglo-Saxon England (Manchester: Manchester University Press). Chaplais, P. (1969). ‘Who Introduced Charters into England? The Case for Augustine’, Journal of the Society of Archivists 3 (10): 526–42. Charles-Edwards, T. M. (1972). ‘Kinship, Status and the Origins of the Hide’, P&P, 56: 3–33. Charles-Edwards, T. M. (1974). ‘The Foundation of Lastingham’, Ryedale Historian 7: 13–21. Charles-Edwards, T. M. (1976). ‘The Distinction between Land and Moveable Wealth in Anglo-Saxon England’, in P. H. Sawyer (ed.) 1976: 180–7. Charles-Edwards, T. M. (1978). ‘The Authenticity of the Gododdin: An Historian’s View’, in R. Bromwich and R. B. Jones (eds), Studies in Early Welsh Poetry (Cardiff: University of Wales Press), 44–71. Charles-Edwards, T. M. (1989). ‘Early Medieval Kingships in the British Isles’, in Bassett (ed.) 1989: 28–39. Charles-Edwards, T. M. (1997). ‘Anglo-Saxon Kinship Revisited’, in Hines (ed.) 1997: 171–204. Charles-Edwards, T. M. (1998). ‘The Context and Uses of Literacy in Early Christian Ireland’, in H. Pryce (ed.), Literacy in Medieval Celtic Societies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 62–82. Charles-Edwards, T. M. (2000). Early Christian Ireland (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Bibliography

327

Charles-Edwards, T. M. (2009). ‘Social Structure’, in P. Stafford (ed.), A Companion to the Early Middle Ages: Britain and Ireland c. 500–c. 1100 (Oxford: Blackwell), 107–25. Charles-Edwards, T. M. (2013). Wales and the Britons, 350–1064 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Church, S. D. (2008). ‘Paganism in Conversion-Age Anglo-Saxon England: The Evidence of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History Reconsidered’, History 93: 162–80. Clark, F. H. (2010). ‘Wilfrid’s Lands? The Lune Valley in its Anglian Context’, in L. Sever (ed.), Lancashire’s Sacred Landscape (Stroud: History Press), 130–46. Clark, F. H. (2011). ‘Thinking about Western Northumbria’, in Petts and Turner (eds) 2011: 113–28. Clarkson, T. (2010). The Men of the North: The Britons of Southern Scotland (Edinburgh: John Donald). Clay, C. T. (ed.) (1934). ‘The Yorkshire Portion of the Lewes Chartulary’, YAJ 31: 290–319. Clemoes, P., Lapidge, M., and Gneuss, H. (eds) (1985). Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Coates, R. (1981). ‘The Slighting of Strensall’, JEPNS 13: 50–3. Coates, R. (1995). ‘English Cuckoos, Dignity and Impudence’, JEPNS 28: 43–9. Coates, S. (1996). ‘The Role of Bishops in the Early Anglo-Saxon Church: A Reassessment’, History 81: 177–96. Coatsworth, E. (1979). ‘The Iconography of the Crucifixion in Pre-Conquest Sculpture in England’, Ph.D. Thesis, 2 Vols (University of Durham). Coatsworth, E. (2000). ‘The “Robed Christ” in Pre-Conquest Sculptures of the Crucifixion’, ASE 29: 153–76. Coatsworth, E. (2001). ‘The Embroideries from the Tomb of St Cuthbert’, in Higham and Hill (eds) 2001: 292–306. Coatsworth, E. (ed.) (2008). CASSS VIII, Western Yorkshire (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Colgan, J. (ed.) (1945). Acta Sanctorum Hiberniae (Leuven: Everard De Witte). Colgrave, B. (ed. and trans.) (1927). The Life of Bishop Wilfrid by Eddius Stephanus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Colgrave, B. (ed. and trans.) (1940). Two Lives of Cuthbert: A Life by an Anonymous Monk of Lindisfarne and Bede’s Prose Life (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Colgrave, B. (ed. and trans.) (1956). Felix’s Life of Saint Guthlac (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Colgrave, B. (ed. and trans.) (1968). The Earliest Life of Gregory the Great by an Anonymous Monk of Whitby (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press). Colgrave, B., and Mynors, R. A. B. (ed. and trans.) (1969). Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Collins, R. (2010). ‘Brooch Use in the 4th- to 5th-Century Frontier’, in R. Collins and L. Allason-Jones (eds), Finds from the Frontier: Material Culture in the 4th–5th Centuries (York: CBA), 64–77. Congreve, A. L. (1937). A Roman and Saxon Site at Elmswell, East Yorkshire, 1935– 1936 (Hull: Hull Museum). Congreve, A. L. (1938). A Roman and Saxon Site at Elmswell, East Yorkshire, 1937 (Hull: Hull Museum).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

328 Bibliography Connolly, S. (trans.) (1996). Bede: On the Temple (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press). Corder, P. (1940). Excavations at Elmswell, East Yorkshire, 1938 (Hull: Hull Museum). Corning, C. (2000). ‘The Baptism of Edwin, King of Northumbria: A New Analysis of the British Tradition’, Northern History 36 (1): 5–15. Coser, L. (1974). Greedy Institutions: Patterns of Undivided Commitment (London: Collier Macmillan). Costambeys, M. (2007). Power and Patronage in Early Medieval Italy: Local Society, Italian Politics and the Abbey of Farfa, c. 700 –900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Coxe, H. O. (ed.) (1841–4). Rogeri de Wendover Chronica, sive Flores Historiarum, 5 vols (London: English Historical Society). Craig, E. F. (2009). ‘Burial Practices in Northern England c. A. D. 650–850: A BioCultural Approach’, Ph.D. Thesis (University of Sheffield). Cramp, R. J. (1970). ‘The Position of the Otley Crosses in English Sculpture of the Eighth to Ninth Centuries’, Kolloquium über spätantike und Frühmittelalterliche Skulptur II (Mainz), 55–78. Cramp, R. J. (1978). ‘The Anglian Tradition in the Ninth-Century’, in J. T. Lang (ed.), Anglo-Saxon and Viking Age Sculpture in its Context: Papers from the Colling­ wood Symposium on Insular Sculpture from c.800–1066, BAR BS 49 (Oxford: Archaeopress), 1–32. Cramp, R. J. (ed.) (1984). Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture, I: County Durham and Northumberland (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Cramp, R. J. (1993). ‘A Reconsideration of the Monastic Site of Whitby’, in Spearman and Higgett (eds) 1993: 64–73. Cramp, R. J. (2005). Wearmouth and Jarrow Monastic Sites, I–II (Swindon: English Heritage). Cramp, R. J. (2013). ‘A Lost Pendant Cross from Near Catterick Bridge, Yorkshire’, in Reynolds and Webster (eds) 2013: 73–87. Craster, E. (1954). ‘The Patrimony of St Cuthbert’, EHR 69: 177–99. Crawford, S. (1999). Childhood in Anglo-Saxon England (Stroud: Sutton). Cronin, J. (1995). ‘The Evangelist Symbols as Pictorial Exegesis’, in C. Bourke (ed.), From the Isles of the North (Belfast: HMSO), 111–17. Cubbin, G. P. (ed.) (1996). The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition, Vol. 6 MS D (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer). Cubitt, C. (1989). ‘Wilfrid’s “Usurping Bishops”: Episcopal Elections in Anglo-Saxon England c. 600–800’, Northern History 25: 18–39. Cubitt, C. (1992). ‘Pastoral Care and Conciliar Canons: the Provisions of the 747 Council of Clofesho’, in Blair and Sharpe (eds) 1992: 193–211. Cubitt, C. (1995). Anglo-Saxon Church Councils c. 650–c. 850 (London: Leicester University Press). Cubitt, C. (2000a). ‘Memory and Narrative in the Early Anglo-Saxon Saints’ Lives’, in M. Innes and Y. Hen, The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 29–66. Cubitt, C. (2000b). ‘Monastic Memory and Identity in Early Anglo-Saxon England’, in W. O. Frazer and A. Tyrrell (eds), Social Identity in Early Medieval Britain (London: Leicester University Press), 253–76.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Bibliography

329

Cubitt, C. (2002). ‘Universal and Local Saints in Anglo-Saxon England’, in Thacker and Sharpe (eds) 2002: 423–53. Cubitt, C. (2005). ‘The Clergy in Early Anglo-Saxon England’, Historical Research 78: 273–87. Cubitt, C. (2013). ‘Appendix 2: The Chronology of Stephen’s Life of Wilfrid’, in Higham (ed.) 2013: 334–41. Cusack, C. (1998). Conversion Amongst the Germanic Peoples (London: Bloomsbury). Damon, J. (2001). ‘Desecto capite perfido: Bodily Fragmentation and Reciprocal Violence in Anglo-Saxon England’, Exemplaria 13: 399–432. Damon, J. (2003). Soldier Saints and Holy Warriors: Warfare and Sanctity in the Literature of Early England (Aldershot: Ashgate). Daniel, C. (1993). ‘York and the Whitby Author’s Anonymous Life of Gregory the Great’, Northern History 29: 197–9. Daniel, C. (2001). ‘Battle and Trial: Weapon Injury Burials of St Andrew’s Church, Fishergate, York’, Medieval Archaeology 45: 220–6. Daniels, R. (2007). Anglo-Saxon Hartlepool and the Foundation of English Christianity: An Archaeology of the Anglo-Saxon Monastery (Hartlepool: Tees Archaeology). Dark, K. R. (2000). Britain and the End of the Roman Empire (Stroud: Tempus). Davidson, M. R. (2001). ‘The (Non) Submission of the Northern Kings in 920’, in Higham and Hill (eds) 2001: 200–11. Davies, C. (2000). ‘Goffman’s Concept of the Total Institution: Criticisms and Revisions’, in G. A. Fine and G. W. H. Smith (eds), Erving Goffman (London: SAGE), 239–54. Davies, G. (1980a). ‘The Origins of the Parishes of South Yorkshire’, South Yorkshire Historian 4: 1–18. Davies, G. (1980b). ‘St Peter’s Church, Conisborough’, South Yorkshire Historian 4: 19–23. Davies, W. and Vierck, H. (1974). ‘The Contexts of Tribal Hidage: Social Aggregates and Settlement Patterns’, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 8: 223–93. Davis, G. R. C. (2010). Medieval Cartularies of Great Britain: A Short Catalogue, rev. edn (London: British Library, 2010). Davis, R. H. C., Whitwell, R. J., and Johnson, C. (eds) (1913–19). Regesta Regum AngloNormanorum, 1066–1154 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Dawes, J. D. and Magilton, J. R. (1980). The Cemetery of St Helen-on-the-Walls, Aldwark (London: CBA). Deansley, M. (1961). The Pre-Conquest Church in England (London: A & C Black). Denny, H. (1865). ‘Notice of Early British Tumuli on the Hambleton Hills, near Thirsk’, Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological and Philosophical Society 4: 488–502. Dickinson, T. M. (1993). ‘An Anglo-Saxon “Cunning Woman” from Bidford-uponAvon’, in M. Carver (ed.) 1993: 43–54. Dickinson, T. M. (2002). ‘Translating Animal Art: Salin’s Style I and Anglo-Saxon Cast Saucer Brooches’, Hikuin 29: 163–86. Dickinson, T. M. (2005). ‘Symbols of Protection: The Significance of AnimalOrnamented Shields in Early Anglo-Saxon England’, Medieval Archaeology 49: 109–63. Dickinson, T. M. (2009). ‘Medium and Message in Early Anglo-Saxon Animal Art: Some Observations on the Contexts of Salin’s Style I in England’, ASSAH 16: 1–12.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

330 Bibliography Dickinson, T. M. (2011).‘Iconography, Social Context and Ideology: The Meaning of  Animal-Ornamented Shields in Early Anglo-Saxon England’, in W. Heizmann and M. Axboe (eds), Die Goldbrakteaten de Völkwanderungszeit—Auswertung und Neufunde (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter), 635–86. Didsbury, P. (1990). ‘Fieldwork in Cottam and Cowlam Parish’, YAJ 62: 63–7. Dimlock, J. F. (ed.) (1868). Gerald of Wales, Itinerarium Cambriae (London: Rolls Series). Doane, A. N., Keefer, S. L., and Rollason, D. (eds) (2007). Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts in Microfiche Facsimile: Manuscripts of Durham, Ripon and York (Tempe: Arizona Centre for Medieval and Renaissance Studies). Dobat, A. (2006). ‘The King and His Cult: The Axe-Hammer from Sutton Hoo and its Implications for the Concept of Sacral Leadership in Early Medieval Europe’, Antiquity 80: 880–93. Dobney, K., Jaques, D., Barrett, J., and Johnstone, C. (2007). Farmers, Monks and Aristocrats: The Environmental Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon Flixborough (Oxford: Oxbow). Dodgson, J. M. and Rumble, A. R. (eds) (1970–97). The Place-Names of Cheshire, 7 vols, EPNS 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 54, and 74 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Dolley, M. (1965). Viking Coins of the Danelaw and of Dublin (London: Trustees of the British Museum). Dolley, M. (1970). Anglo-Saxon Pennies (London: Trustees of the British Museum). Dolley, M. (1978). ‘The Anglo-Danish and Anglo-Norse Coinages of York’, in Hall (ed.) 1978: 26–31. Downham, C. (2007). Viking Kings of Britain and Ireland: The Dynasty of Ivarr to A. D. 1014 (Edinburgh: Dunedin). Downham, C. (2009). ‘  “Hiberno-Norwegians” and “Anglo-Danes”: Anachronistic Identities and Viking Age England’, Mediaeval Scandinavia 19: 139–69. Dugdale, W., Caley, J., Ellis, H., and Bandinel, B. (eds) (1817–30). Monasticon Anglicanum, 6 vols in 8 (London: Bohn). Dümmler, E. (ed.) (1892). Sancti Bonifatii et Lulli, MGH Epistolae Aevi Merovingici et Karolini I (Berlin: Weidmann). Dümmler, E. (ed.) (1895). Epistolae Karolini aevi II, MGH Epistolarum IV (Berlin: Weidmann). Dümmler, E. (ed.) (1902). Epistolae Karolini Aevi IV, MGH Epistolarum VI (Berlin: Weidmann). Dumville, D. N. (1973). ‘A New Chronicle-Fragment of Early British History’, EHR 88: 312–14. Dumville, D. N. (1976). ‘The Anglian Collection of Royal Genealogies and Regnal Lists’, ASE 5: 23–50. Dumville, D. N. (1976–8). ‘Palaeographical Considerations in the Dating of Early Welsh Verse’, Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 27: 246–51; reprinted in Dumville 1993: No. 13. Dumville, D. N. (1987). ‘Textual Archaeology and Northumbrian History Subsequent to Bede’, in Metcalf (ed.) 1987: 43–55. Dumville, D. N. (1988). ‘Early Welsh Poetry: Problems of Historicity’, in B. F. Roberts (ed.), Early Welsh Poetry: Studies in the Book of Aneirin (Aberystwyth: National Library of Wales), 1–16, at 7; reprinted in Dumville 1993: No. 2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Bibliography

331

Dumville, D. N. (1989a). ‘The Origins of Northumbria: Some Aspects of the British Background’, in Bassett (ed.) 1989: 213–22. Dumville, D. N. (1989b). ‘The Tribal Hidage: An Introduction to its Texts and their History’, in Bassett (ed.) 1989: 225–30. Dumville, D. N. (1992). ‘Between Alfred the Great and Edgar the Peacemaker: Æthelstan, First King of England’, in his Wessex and England from Alfred to Edgar (Woodbridge: Boydell), IV: 141–71. Dumville, D. N. (1993). Britons and Anglo-Saxons in the Early Middle Ages (Aldershot: Variorum). Dumville, D. N. (1996). The Churches of North Britain in the First Viking Age (Whithorn: Friends of Whithorn). Dumville, D. N. (ed.) (2002). Annales Cambriae: A.D. 682–954: Texts A–C in Parallel (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic). Duncan, S. (2013). ‘Prophets Shining in Dark Places: Biblical Themes and Theological Motifs in the Vita Sancti Wilfridi’, in Higham (ed.) 2013: 80–92. Dunn, M. (2009). The Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons (London: Continuum). Dunshea, P. M. (2013). ‘The Meaning of Catraeth: A Revised Early Context for Y Gododdin’, in A. Woolf (ed.), Beyond the Gododdin: Dark Age Scotland in Medieval Wales (Fife: University of St Andrews), 81–114. Dunshea, P. M. (2015). ‘The Road to Winwæd? Penda’s Wars Against Oswiu of Bernicia, c. 642 to c. 655’, ASE 44: 1–16. Ecroyd Smith, H. (1870). Reliques of the Anglo-Saxon Churches of St Bridget and St  Hildeburga, West Kirby, Cheshire (Liverpool: Historical Society of Lancashire and Cheshire). Edmonds, F. (2015). ‘The Expansion of the Kingdom of Strathclyde’, EME 23 (1): 43–66. Edwards, B. J. N. (1992). ‘The Vikings in North-West England: The Archaeological Evidence’, in J. Graham-Campbell (ed.) 1992: 43–62. Edwards, B. J. N. (1998). Vikings in North West England: The Artifacts (Lancaster: University of Lancaster). Edwards, J. F. and Hindle, B. P. (1991). ‘The Transportation System of Medieval England and Wales’, Journal of Historical Geography 17 (2): 123–34. Edwards, J. F. and Hindle, B. P. (1993). ‘Comment: Inland Water Transportation in Medieval England’, Journal of Historical Geography 19 (1): 12–14. Ehwald, R. (ed.) (1919). Aldhelmi Opera Omnia, MGH Scriptores, Auctores Antiquissimi XV (Berlin: Weidmann). Ekwall, E. (1960). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Place-Names, 4th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Eligius Dekkers, D. and Fraipont, J. (eds) (1956). CCSL 38–40 (Turnhout: Brepols). Emerton, E. (trans.) (1940). The Letters of Saint Boniface (New York: Norton). Etaix, R. (ed.) (1999). CCSL 141 (Turnhout: Brepols). Etchingham, C. (1996). Viking Raids on Irish Church Settlements in the Ninth Century (Maynooth: St Patrick’s College). Evans, D. and Loveluck, C. P. (2009). Life and Economy at Early Medieval Flixborough, c. AD 600–1000: The Artefact Evidence (Oxford: Oxbow). Evans, G. R. (1986). The Thought of Gregory the Great (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

332 Bibliography Everitt, A. (1986). Continuity and Colonization: The Evolution of Kentish Settlement (Leicester: Leicester University Press). Everson, P. and Stocker, D. (eds) (1999). Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture, V: Lincolnshire (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Everson, P. and Stocker, D. (2012). ‘Why at Wharram? The Foundation of the Nucleated Settlement’, in Wrathmell (ed.) 2012a: 208–20. Faith, R. (1997). The English Peasantry and the Growth of Lordship (London: Leicester University Press). Faith, R. (1999). ‘Hide’, in M. Lapidge, J. Blair, S. Keynes, and D. Scragg (eds), The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford: Blackwell), 238–9. Farrell, R. T. (1978). ‘The Archer and Associated Figures on the Ruthwell Cross—A Reconsideration’, in R. T. Farrell (ed.), Bede and Anglo-Saxon England, BAR BS 46 (Oxford: Archaeopress), 96–117. Farrer, W. and Brownbill, J. (eds) (1906–14). The Victoria County History of the History of Lancashire, I–VIII (London: Archibald Constable). Farrer, W. and Clay, C. T. (eds) (1935–65). Early Yorkshire Charters, I–VIII (Edinburgh: Ballantyne, Hanson and Co., and Wakefield: Yorkshire Archaeological Society). Faull, M. (1975). ‘The Semantic Development of Old English wealh’, Leeds Studies in English, NS 8: 20–44. Faull, M. (1976). ‘The Location and Relationship of the Sancton Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries’, The Antiquaries Journal 56: 227–33. Faull, M. (1980). ‘Place-Names and the Kingdom of Elmet’, Nomina 4: 21–3. Faull, M. (1986). ‘The Decoration of the South Doorway of Ledsham Tower’, JBAA 139: 143–7. Faull, M. and Moorhouse, S. A. (eds) (1981). West Yorkshire: An Archaeological Survey to A.D. 1500, I–IV (Leeds: West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council). Fell, C. (1981). ‘Hild, Abbess of Streonaeshalch’, in H. Bekker-Nielsen, P. Foote, H. Jørgensen, and T. Nyberg (eds), Hagiography and Medieval Literature: A Symposium (Odense: Odense University Press), 76–99. Fell, C. (1984). Women in Anglo-Saxon England (London: British Museum). Fellows-Jensen, G. (1968). Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag). Fellows-Jensen, G. (1972). Scandinavian Settlement Names in Yorkshire (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag). Fellows-Jensen, G. (1978). Scandinavian Settlement Names of the East Midlands (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag). Fellows-Jensen, G. (1985). Scandinavian Settlement Names in the North-West (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag). Fellows-Jensen, G. (1987). ‘The Vikings’ Relationship with Christianity in the British Isles: The Evidence of Place-Names Containing the Old Norse Element Kirkja’, in J. E. Knirk (ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth Viking Congress, 1985 (Oslo: Universitetets Oldsaksamling), 295–308. Fenton-Thomas, C. (2003). Late Prehistoric and Early Historic Landscapes on the Yorkshire Chalk, BAR BS 350 (Oxford: Archaeopress). Fenton-Thomas, C. (2011). Where Sky and Yorkshire and Water Meet: The Study of the Melton Landscape from Prehistory to the Present (York: On Site Archaeology). Fern, C. (2010). ‘Horses in Mind’, in Carver, Sanmark, and Semple (eds) 2010: 128–57.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Bibliography

333

Filmer-Sankey, W. (1996). ‘The “Roman Emperor” in the Sutton Hoo Ship Burial’, JBAA 149: 1–9. Firth, R. (1970). Rank and Religion in Tikopia: A Study in Polynesian Paganism and Conversion to Christianity (London: Allen and Unwin). Fleming, R. (2010). Britain After Rome (London: Penguin). Fleming, R. (2012). ‘Recycling in Britain After the Fall of Rome’s Metal Economy’, P&P 217: 3–45. Fletcher, R. (1997). The Conversion of Europe: From Paganism to Christianity 371–1386 (London: HarperCollins). Fletcher, R. (2002). Bloodfeud: Murder and Revenge in Anglo-Saxon England (London: Penguin). Flint, V. I. J. (1991). The Rise of Magic in Early Medieval Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Foot, S. (1991). ‘Violence against Christians: The Vikings and the Church in NinthCentury England’ Medieval History 1 (3): 3–16. Foot, S. (1992). ‘Anglo-Saxon Minsters: A Review of Terminology’, in Blair and Sharpe (eds) 1992: 212–25. Foot, S. (2006). Monastic Life in Anglo-Saxon England c. 600–900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Foster, I. Ll. (1965). ‘The Emergence of Wales’, in I. Ll. Foster and G. Daniel (eds), Prehistoric and Early Wales (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul), 213–35. Foucault, M. (1991). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. A. Sheridan (London: Penguin). Fowler, J. T. (ed.) (1882–1908). Memorials of the Church of Saints Peter and Wilfrid, Ripon, I–IV (Durham: Surtees Society). Fowler, J. T. (ed.) (1890–2). The Coucher Book of Selby I–II (Leeds: Yorkshire Archaeological Society). Frank, R. (1985). ‘Skaldic Poetry’, in C. J. Clover and J. Lindow (eds), Old Norse– Icelandic Literature: A Critical Guide (Ithaca: Cornell University Press), 157–96. Franklin, M. J. (1982). ‘Minsters and Parishes: Northamptonshire Studies’, Ph.D. Thesis (University of Cambridge). Frazer, W. O. and Tyrrell, A. (eds) (2000). Social Identity in Early Medieval Britain (London: Leicester University Press). Frodsham, P. and O’Brien, C. (eds) (2005). Yeavering: People, Power and Place (Stroud: Tempus). Fry, D. K. (1979). ‘The Art of Bede: Edwin’s Council’, in King and Stevens (eds) 1979: I, 195–209. Fry, T. (ed. and trans.) (1981). The Rule of St Benedict in Latin and English with Notes (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press). Gameson, R. (ed.) (1999). St Augustine and the Conversion of England (Stroud: Sutton). Garrison, M. (1998). ‘The Social World of Alcuin: Nicknames at York and at the Carolingian Court’, in L. A. J. R. Houwen and A. A. MacDonald (eds), Alcuin of York: Scholar at the Carolingian Court (Groningen: University of Groningen), 59–79. Garrison, M. (1999). ‘ “Send more socks”: On the Mentality and the Preservation Context of Medieval Letters’, in M. Mostert (ed.), New Approaches to Medieval Communication (Turnhout: Brepols), 69–99.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

334 Bibliography Garrison, M. (2005). ‘Quid Hinieldus cum Christo?’, in K. O’Brien O’Keefe and A. Orchard (eds), Latin Learning and English Lore: Studies in Anglo-Saxon Literature for Michael Lapidge, Vol. 1 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press), 237–59. Gaunt, G. D. and Buckland, P. C. (2003). ‘The Geological Background to Yorkshire’s Archaeology’, in Manby, Moorhouse, and Ottaway (eds) 2003: 17–24. Gautier, A. (2009). ‘Hospitality in Pre-Viking Anglo-Saxon England’, EME 17 (1), 23–44. Geake, H. (1997). The Use of Grave-Goods in Conversion Period England c. 650–c. 850, BAR BS 261 (Oxford: Archaeopress). Geake, H. (1999). ‘Invisible Kingdoms: The Use of Grave-Goods in Seventh-Century England’, ASSAH 10: 203–15. Geake, H. (2003). ‘The Control of Burial Practice in Middle Anglo-Saxon England’, in Carver (ed.) 2003: 259–70. Geary, P. (1988). Before France and Germany: The Creation and Transformation of the Merovingian World (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Gelling, M. (1961). ‘Place-Names and Anglo-Saxon Paganism’, University of Birmingham Historical Journal 8: 7–25. Gelling, M. (1973). ‘Further Thoughts on Pagan Place-Names’, in F. Sandgren and O. von Feilitzen (eds), Otium et Negotium, (Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Son), 109–28. Gelling, M. (1978). Signposts to the Past: Place-Names and the History of England (London: Dent). Gelling, M. (1988). ‘Towards a Chronology for English Place-Names’, in D. Hooke (ed.), Anglo-Saxon Settlements (Oxford: Blackwell), 59–76. Gelling, M. (1993). ‘Why aren’t we Speaking Welsh?’, ASSAH 6: 51–6. Gelling, M. and Cole, A. (2000). The Landscape of Place-Names (Stamford: Shaun Tyas). Gem, R. (1993). ‘The Architecture of the Anglo-Saxon Church, 735–870: From Archbishop Ecgberht to Archbishop Ceolnoth’, JBAA 146: 29–66. Giandrea, F. M. (2007). Episcopal Culture in Late Anglo-Saxon England (Woodbridge: Boydell). Gibbs, M. (1973). ‘The Decrees of Agatho and the Gregorian Plan for York’, Speculum 48 (2): 213–46. Giles, M. (2012). A Forged Glamour: Landscape, Identity and Material Culture in the Iron Age (Bollington: Windgather Press). Gittos, H. (1999). ‘Yeavering’, in M. Lapidge, J. Blair, S. Keynes, and D. Scragg (eds), The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford: Blackwell), 497. Gneuss, H. (2001). Handlist of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts: A List of Manuscripts and Manuscript Fragments Written or Owned in England up to 1100 (Tempe: Arizona Centre for Medieval and Renaissance Studies). Godfrey, J. (1962). The Anglo-Saxon Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Godfrey, J. (1969). The English Parish 600–1300 (London: SPCK). Godman, P. (ed. and trans.) (1982). The Bishops, Kings and Saints of the Church of York (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Goffart, W. (1988). The Narrators of Barbarian History: Jordanes, Gregory of Tours, Bede, and Paul the Deacon (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; reprinted Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005). Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates (London: Penguin reprint, 1991).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Bibliography

335

Gover, J. E. B., Mawer, A., and Stenton, F. M. (eds) (1933). The Place-Names of Northamptonshire, EPNS 10 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Graham-Campbell, J. (1980). ‘The Scandinavian Viking-Age Burials of England—Some Problems of Interpretation’, in P. A. Rahtz, T. M. Dickinson, and L. Watts (eds), Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries, 1979, BAR BS 82 (Oxford: Archaeopress), 379–82. Graham-Campbell, J. (ed.) (1992). Viking Treasure from the North West: The Cuerdale Hoard in its Context (Liverpool: National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside). Graham-Campbell, J. (1995). ‘The Northern Hoards of Viking-Age Scotland’, in C. E. Batey, J. Jesch, and C. D. Morris (eds), The Viking Age in Caithness, Orkney and the North Atlantic (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press), 173–86. Graham-Campbell, J. (2001). ‘The Northern Hoards, from Cuerdale to Bossall/Flaxton’, in Higham and Hill (eds) 2001: 212–29. Graham-Campbell, J. (ed.) (2011). The Cuerdale Hoard and Related Viking-Age Silver and Gold from Britain and Ireland in the British Museum (London: British Museum). Graham-Campbell, J. and Batey, C. E. (eds) (1998). Vikings in Scotland: An Archaeological Survey (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press). Graham-Campbell, J. and Williams, G. (eds) (2007). Silver Economy in the Viking Age (Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press). Graham-Campbell, J., Sindbaek, S., and Williams, G. (eds) (2011). Silver Economies, Monetisation and Society in Scandinavia, AD 800–1100 (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press). Graham-Campbell, J., Hall, R., Jesch, J. and Parsons, D. N. (eds) (2001). Vikings and the Danelaw: Select Papers form the Proceedings of the Thirteenth Viking Congress (Oxford: Oxbow). Greene, D. (1971). ‘Linguistic Considerations in the Dating of Early Welsh Verse’, Studia Celtica 6: 1–11. Greenway, D. E. (ed.) (1976). Charters of the Honour of Mowbray, 1107–91 (London: British Academy). Greenway, D. E. (1996). ‘Conquest and Colonisation: The Foundation of an Alien Priory, 1077’, in Blair and Golding (eds) 1996: 46–56. Greenway, D. E. (ed. and trans.) (1996). Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Gregson, N. (1985). ‘The Multiple Estate Model: Some Critical Questions’, Journal of Historical Geography 11 (4): 339–51. Grierson, P. and Blackburn, M. (1986). Medieval European Coinage I: The Early Middle Ages (5th–10th Centuries) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Grocock, C. and Wood, I. N. (ed. and trans.) (2013). Abbots of Wearmouth and Jarrow (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Grønlie, S. (trans.) (2006). The Book of the Icelanders (London: Viking Society for Northern Research). Gruffydd, R. G. (1978). ‘Canu Cadwallon ap Cadfan’, in R. Bromwich and R. B. Jones (eds), Studies in Old Welsh Poetry (Cardiff: University of Wales Press), 25–43. Gruffydd, R. G. (1990). ‘Where was Rhaeadr Derwennydd (Canu Aneirin, line 1114)?’, in A. T. E. Matonis and D. F. Melia (eds), Celtic Language, Celtic Culture: A Festschrift for Eric P. Hamp (Van Nuys, CA: Ford and Bailie), 261–6. Gruffydd, R. G. (ed.) (1991–6). Cyfres Beirdd y Tywysogion, I–VI (Cardiff: University of Wales Press).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

336 Bibliography Gruffydd, R. G. (1994). ‘In Search of Elmet’, Studia Celtica 28: 63–79. Gruffydd, R. G. (1996). ‘The Strathcarron Interpolation (Canu Aneirin, Lines 966–77)’, Scottish Gaelic Studies 17: 172–8. Gryson, R. (ed.) (2001). CCSL 121A (Turnhout: Brepols). Gurevič, A. Y. (1968). ‘Wealth and Gift Bestowal Among the Ancient Scandinavians’, Scandinavica 7: 126–38. Gwenogwyn Evans, J. (ed.) (1910). The Book of Taliesin (Llanbedrog). Haddan, A. W. and Stubbs, W. (eds) (1869–71). Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents Relating to Great Britain and Ireland, I–III (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Hadley, D. M. (1996a). ‘Multiple Estates and the Origins of the Manorial Structure of the Northern Danelaw’, Journal of Historical Geography 22 (1): 3–15. Hadley, D. M. (1996b). ‘Conquest, Colonization and the Church: Ecclesiastical Organization in the Danelaw’, Historical Research 69: 109–28. Hadley, D. M. (2000a). ‘Equality, Humility and Non-Materialism? Christianity and Anglo-Saxon Burial Practices’, Archaeological Review from Cambridge 17 (2): 149–78. Hadley, D. M. (2000b). The Northern Danelaw: Its Social Structure c. 800–1100 (London: Leicester University Press). Hadley, D. M. (2006). The Vikings in England: Settlement, Society and Culture (Manchester: Manchester University Press). Hadley, D. M. and Richards, J. D. (eds) (2000). Cultures in Contact: Scandinavian Settlement in England in the Ninth and Tenth Century (Turnhout: Brepols). Haldenby, D. N. (1990). ‘An Anglian Site on the Yorkshire Wolds’, YAJ 62: 51–63. Haldenby, D. N. (1992). ‘An Anglian Site on the Yorkshire Wolds’, YAJ 64: 25–39. Haldenby, D. N. (1994). ‘An Anglian Site on the Yorkshire Wolds’, YAJ 66: 51–6. Haldenby, D. N. and Richards, J. D. (2009). ‘Settlement Shift at Cottam, East Riding of  Yorkshire, and the Chronology of Anglo-Saxon Copper-Alloy Pins’, Medieval Archaeology 53: 309–14. Haliday, C. (1884). The Scandinavian Kingdom of Dublin, 2nd edn (Dublin: M. H. Gill and Son). Halkon, P. (2013). The Parisi: Britons and Romans in Eastern Yorkshire (Stroud: The History Press). Hall, D. (1989). ‘The Sanctuary of St Cuthbert’, in Bonner, Stancliffe, and Rollason (eds) 1989: 425–36. Hall, R. A. (ed.) (1978). Viking Age York and the North (York: CBA). Hall, R. A. (1994). Viking Age York (London: Batsford). Hall, R. A. (2003). ‘Yorkshire AD 700–1066’, in Manby, Moorhouse, and Ottaway (eds) 2003: 171–80. Hall, R. A. (ed.) (2004). Aspects of Anglo-Scandinavian York (York: CBA). Hall, R. A. (2011). ‘Recent Research into Early Medieval York and its Hinterland’, in Petts and Turner (eds) 2011: 71–84. Hall, R. A. and Whyman, M. (1996). ‘Settlement and Monasticism at Ripon, North Yorkshire, from the Seventh to the Eleventh Century A. D.’, Medieval Archaeology 40: 62–150. Hall, R. A., Kendall, T., and Briden, C. (2008). ‘St Helen’s Church, Skipwith, North Yorkshire’, Archaeological Journal 165: 399–470.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Bibliography

337

Hall, T. (2000). Minster Churches in the Dorset Landscape, BAR BS 304 (Oxford: Archaeopress). Halsall, G. (1989). ‘Anthropology and the Study of Pre-Conquest Warfare and Society: The Ritual War in Anglo-Saxon England’, in S. C. Hawkes (ed.), Weapons and Warfare in Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology), 155–77. Halsall, G. (1992a). ‘Playing by Whose Rules? A Further Look at Viking Atrocity in the Ninth Century’, Medieval History 2 (2): 3–12. Halsall, G. (1992b). ‘Social Change Around A. D. 600: An Austrasian Perspective’, in M. O. H. Carver (ed.) 1992: 265–78. Halsall, G. (1992c). ‘The Origins of the Reihengräberzivilisation: Forty Years On’, in J.  F. Drinkwater and H. Elton (eds), Fifth-Century Gaul: A Crisis of Identity? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 196–207; reprinted in Halsall 2010b: 93–106. Halsall, G. (1998). ‘Burial, Ritual and Merovingian Society’, in J. Hill and M. Swan (eds), The Community, the Family and the Saint: Patterns of Power in Early Medieval Europe (Turnhout: Brepols), 325–38; reprinted in Halsall 2010b: 203–14. Halsall, G. (2000). ‘The Viking Presence in England? The Burial Evidence Reconsidered’, in Hadley and Richards (eds) 2000: 259–76. Halsall, G. (2007). Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West 376–568 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Halsall, G. (2010a). ‘Examining the Christianization of the Region of Metz from Archaeological Sources (5th–7th Centuries): Problems, Possibilities and Implications for Anglo-Saxon England’, in Halsall 2010b: 261–78. Halsall, G. (2010b). Cemeteries and Society in Merovingian Gaul: Selected Studies in History and Archaeology, 1992–2009 (Leiden and Boston: Brill). Halsall, G. (2013). Worlds of Arthur: Facts and Fictions of the Dark Ages (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Hamerow, H. (2005). ‘The Earliest Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms’, in P. A. Fouracre (ed.), The New Cambridge Medieval History I, 500–700 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 263–88. Hamerow, H. (2016). ‘Furnished Female Burial in Seventh-Century England: Gender and Sacral Authority in the Conversion Period’, EME 24 (4): 423–47. Hamerow, H., Hinton, D., and Crawford, S. (eds) (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Hamilton Thomson, A. (1929–31). ‘The Chapel of St Peter at Kirkby-upon-Wreak’, Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological Society 16: 130–212. Hamilton Thompson, A. (1932/1966). ‘Northumbrian Monasticism’, in A. Hamilton Thompson (ed.), Bede: His Life, Times and Writings (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 60–101. Hamilton Thompson, A., Clay, C. T., and Lawrence, N. A. H. (eds) (1933–85). Fasti Parochiales, YASRS, Vols 85, 107, 129, 133, 143 (Leeds: Yorkshire Archaeological Society). Hamp, E. P. (1993). ‘Catraeth’, Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 40: 119. Harbison, P. (1985). ‘Three Miniatures in the Book of Kells’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 85 (C): 181–94.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

338 Bibliography Härke, H. (1997). ‘Early Anglo-Saxon Social Structure’, in Hines (ed.) 1997: 125–60. Harries, J. D. (1994). Sidonius Apollinaris and the Fall of Rome AD 407–485 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Hart, C. R. (1992). The Danelaw (London: Hambledon). Hart, C. R. (ed. and trans.) (2006). Byrhtferth’s Northumbrian Chronicle (Lampeter: Edwin Mellen). Hartley, B. R. and Fitts, R. L. (1988). The Brigantes (Stroud: Sutton). Hase, P. H. (1975). ‘The Development of the Parish in Hampshire’, Ph.D. Thesis (University of Cambridge). Hase, P. H. (1994). ‘The Church in the Wessex Heartlands’, in M. Aston and C. Lewis (eds), The Medieval Landscape of Wessex (Oxford: Oxbow), 47–82. Haseldine, J. (1996). ‘Epistolography’, in F. A. C. Mantello and A. G. Rigg (eds), Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press), 650–8. Haughton, C. and Powlesland, D. (1999). West Heslerton: The Anglian Cemetery, I–II (Yedingham: Landscape Research Centre). Hawkes, J. (1997a). ‘Columban Virgins: Iconic Images of the Virgin and Child in Insular Sculpture’, in Bourke (ed.) 1997: 107–35. Hawkes, J. (1997b). ‘Symbolic Lives: The Visual Evidence’, in Hines (ed.) 1997: 311–38. Hawkes, J. (2001). ‘Constructing Iconographies: Questions of Identity on Mercian Sculpture’, in M. Brown and C. A. Farr (eds), Mercia: An Anglo-Saxon Kingdom in Europe (London: Leicester University Press), 231–45. Hawkes, J. (2002a). ‘The Art of the Church in Ninth-Century Anglo-Saxon England: The Case of the Masham Column’, Hortus Artium Medievalium 8, 337–48. Hawkes, J. (2002b). The Sandbach Crosses: Sign and Significance in Anglo-Saxon Sculpture (Dublin: Four Courts Press). Hawkes, J. (2003a). ‘Sacraments in Stone: The Mysteries of Christ in Anglo-Saxon Sculpture’, in Carver (ed.) 2003: 351–70. Hawkes, J. (2003b). ‘Reading Stone’, in C. E. Karkov and F. Orton (eds), Theorising AngloSaxon Stone Sculpture (Morgantown: West Virginia University Press), 5–30. Hawkes, J. (2003c). ‘Iuxta Morem Romanorum: Stone and Sculpture in Anglo-Saxon England’, in C. E. Karkov and G. H. Brown (eds), Anglo-Saxon Styles (Albany: State University of New York Press), 69–99. Hawkes, J. (2003d). ‘The Plant-Life of Early Christian Anglo-Saxon Art’, in C. P. Biggam (ed.), From Earth to Art: The Many Aspects of the Plant World in Anglo-Saxon England (Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi), 263–87. Hawkes, J. (2006). ‘The Legacy of Constantine in Anglo-Saxon England’, in E. Hartley, J. Hawkes, M. Henig, and F. Mee (eds), Constantine the Great: York’s Roman Emperor (York: York Museums and Galleries Trust), 104–14. Hawkes, J. (2008). ‘An Anglo-Saxon Carving at Skipwith, East Yorkshire’, in Hall, Kendall, and Briden 2008: 446–55. Head, T. (1990). Hagiography and the Cult of Saints: The Diocese of Orleans, 800–1200 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Hedeager, L. (1994). ‘Warrior Economy and Trading Economy in Viking Age Scandinavia’, Journal of European Archaeology 2 (1): 130–47.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Bibliography

339

Hedeager, L. (1999). ‘Myth and Art: A Passport for Political Authority in Scandinavia During the Migration Period’, ASSAH 10: 151–6. Hedeager, L. (2000). ‘Migration Period Europe: The Formation of a Political Mentality’, in F. Theuws and J. L. Nelson (eds), Rituals of Power from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages (Leiden: Brill), 15–57. Higham, N. J. (1987). ‘Landscape and Land-Use in Northern England: A Survey of Agricultural Potential c. 500 B. C.–A. D. 1000’, Landscape History 9: 35–44. Higham, N. J. (1993). The Origins of Cheshire (Manchester: Manchester University Press). Higham, N. J. (1997). The Convert Kings: Power and Religious Affiliation in Early Anglo-Saxon England (Manchester: Manchester University Press). Higham, N. J. (1999). ‘Dynasty and Cult: The Utility of Christian Mission to Northumbrian Kings between 642 and 654’, in J. Hawkes and S. Mills (eds), Northumbria’s Golden Age (Stroud: Sutton), 95–104. Higham, N. J. (2006). ‘Northumbria’s Southern Frontier: A Review’, EME 14 (4): 391–418. Higham, N. J. (2013). ‘Wilfrid and Bede’s Historia’, in Higham (ed.) 2013: 54–66. Higham, N. J. (ed.) (2013). Wilfrid, Abbot, Bishop, Saint: Papers from the 1300th Anniversary Conferences (Donington: Shaun Tyas). Higham, N. J. (2015). Ecgfrith, King of the Northumbrians, High-King of Britain (Donington: Shaun Tyas). Higham, N. J. and Hill, D. H. (eds) (2001). Edward the Elder 899–924 (London: Routledge). Higham, N. J. and Ryan, M. J. (2013). The Anglo-Saxon World (New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press). Hill, P. (1997). Whithorn and St Ninian: The Excavation of a Monastic Town (Stroud: Sutton). Hill, R. (1966). ‘Christianity and Geography in Early Northumbria’, Studies in Church History 3: 126–39. Hill, R. (1979). ‘Marriage in Seventh-Century England’, in King and Stevens (eds) 1979: I, 67–75. Hill, R. M. T., Robinson, D., Brocklesby, R., and Timmins, T. C. B. (eds) (1977–2011). Register of William Melton, Archbishop of York 1317–40, I–VI (Woodbridge: Canterbury and York Society). Hills, C. (2011). ‘Work-Boxes or Reliquaries: Small Copper-Alloy Containers in SeventhCentury Anglo-Saxon Graves’, in S. Brooks, S. Harrington, and A. Reynolds (eds), Studies in Early Anglo-Saxon Art and Archaeology: Papers in Honour of Martin G. Welch, BAR BS 527 (Oxford: Archaeopress), 14–19. Hills, C. (2015). ‘Work Boxes or Reliquaries? Small Copper-Alloy Containers in Seventh-Century Anglo-Saxon Graves’, in C. Ruhmann and V. Brieske (eds), Dying  Gods—Religious Beliefs in Northern and Eastern Europe in the Time of Christianisation (Stuttgart: Konrad Thiess), 51–62. Hind, J. G. F. (1980). ‘Elmet and Deira: Forest Names in Yorkshire?’, Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 28: 541–2. Hindle, B. P. (1976). ‘The Road Network of Medieval England and Wales’, Journal of Historical Geography 2 (3): 207–21.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

340 Bibliography Hines, J. (1984). The Scandinavian Character of Anglian England in the Pre-Viking Period, BAR BS 124 (Oxford: Archaeopress). Hines, J. (1990). ‘Philology, Archaeology and the Adventus Saxonum vel Anglorum’, in A. Bammesberger and A. Wollman (eds), Britain 400–600: Language and History (Heidelberg: Carl Winter), 17–36. Hines, J. (1995). ‘Egill’s Hofudlausn in Time and Place’, Saga Book of the Viking Society 24 (2–3): 83–104. Hines, J. (1997a). ‘Religion: The Limits of Knowledge’, in J. Hines (ed.) 1997: 375–41. Hines, J. (1997b). A New Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Great Square-Headed Brooches (Woodbridge: Boydell). Hines, J. (ed.) (1997). The Anglo-Saxons from the Migration Period to the Eighth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective (Woodbridge: Boydell). Hines, J. (2015). ‘Burial and Religion in Pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon England’, in Ruhmann and Brieske (eds) 2015: 63–71. Hines, J., Lane, A., and Redknap, M. (eds) (2004). Land, Sea and Home: Proceedings of a Conference on Viking-Period Settlement at Cardiff, July 2001 (Leeds: Society for Medieval Archaeology). Hines, J. with Bayliss, A., Høilund Nielsen, K., McCormac, G., and Scull, C. (2013). AngloSaxon Graves and Grave Goods of the 6th and 7th Centuries AD: A Chronological Framework (London: Society for Medieval Archaeology). Hinks, R. P. (1935). Carolingian Art (London: Sidgwick and Jackson). Hirst, S. M. (1985). An Anglo-Saxon Inhumation Cemetery at Sewerby, East Yorkshire (York: University of York). Hogg, A. H. A. (1946). ‘Llwyfenydd’, Antiquity 20: 210–11. Hoggett, R. (2010). The Archaeology of the East Anglian Conversion (Woodbridge: Boydell). Holder, A. G. (trans.) (1996). Bede: On the Tabernacle (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press). Holder Egger, O. (1887). MGH Scriptores XV:I (Hanover: Impensis Bibliopolii Hahniani). Holmes, R. (ed.) (1889–1902). The Chartulary of St John of Pontefract, I–II, YASRS 25, 30 (Leeds: Yorkshire Archaeological Society). Hooke, D. (1981). Anglo-Saxon Landscapes of the West Midlands: The Charter Evidence, BAR BS 95 (Oxford: Archaeopress). Hooke, D. (1983). The Landscape of Anglo-Saxon Staffordshire: The Charter Evidence (Keele: University of Keele). Hooke, D. (1990). Worcestershire Anglo-Saxon Charter Bounds (Woodbridge: Boydell). Hooke, D. (1994). Pre-Conquest Charter Bounds of Devon and Cornwall (Woodbridge: Boydell). Hooke, D. (1999). Warwickshire Anglo-Saxon Charter Bounds (Woodbridge: Boydell). Hope-Taylor, B. (1971). Under York Minster: Archeological Discoveries 1966–1971 (York: Dean and Chapter of York). Hope-Taylor, B. (1977). Yeavering: An Anglo-British Centre of Early Northumbria (London: HMSO). Horton, R. (1971). ‘African Conversion’, Africa 41: 101–8. Horton, R. (1975). ‘On the Rationality of Conversion’, Africa 45: 219–35, 373–99. Hough, C. (2002–3). ‘Strensall, Streanaeshalch and Stronsay’, JEPNS 35: 17–24.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Bibliography

341

Hough, C. (2003–4). ‘Another (ge)stréones halh’, JEPNS 36: 61–2. Hough, C. (2009). ‘Eccles in English and Scottish Place-Names’, in Quinton (ed.) 2009: 109–24. Howlett, D. R. (1975). ‘The Provenance, Date and Structure of De Abbatibus’, Archaeologia Aeliana 5th Ser. 3: 121–30. Hubert, J., Porcher, J., and Volbach, W. F. (1970). Carolingian Art (London: Thames and Hudson). Hudson, B. (2005). Viking Pirates and Christian Princes: Dynasty, Religion and Empire in the North Atlantic (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Hudson, J. E. (ed.) (1983). CCSL 119B (Turnhout: Brepols). Hughes, K. (1971). ‘Evidence for Contact between the Churches of the Irish and the English’, in P. Clemoes and K. Hughes (eds), England before the Conquest: Studies in Primary Sources Presented to Dorothy Whitelock (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 49–68. Hummer, H. (2006). Politics and Power in Early Medieval Europe: Alsace and the Frankish Realm 600–1000 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Huns, D. (1989). Llyfr Aneirin: A Facsimile (Cardiff and Aberystwyth: National Library of Wales). Hunter Blair, P. (1948). ‘The Northumbrians and their Southern Frontier’, Archaeologia Aeliana 4th Ser. 26: 98–126; reprinted in Lapidge and Hunter Blair 1984: No. IV. Hunter Blair, P. (1949). ‘The Boundary between Bernicia and Deira’, Archaeologia Aeliana 4th Ser. 27: 46–59; reprinted in Lapidge and Hunter Blair 1984: No. V. Hunter Blair, P. (1985). ‘Whitby as a Centre of Learning in the Seventh Century’, in Clemoes, Lapidge, and Gneuss (eds) 1985: 3–32. Hurst, D. (ed.) (1955). CCSL 122 (Turnhout: Brepols). Hurst, D. (ed.) (1969). CCSL 119A (Turnhout: Brepols). Hurst, D. and Martin, L. T. (trans.) (1991). Bede the Venerable: Homilies on the Gospels (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications). Hurst, J. G. (ed.) (1979). Domestic Settlement 1: Areas 10 and 6, Wharram: A Study of Settlement on the Yorkshire Wolds, Vol. 1 (London: Society for Medieval Archaeology). Hurst, J. G. and Rahtz, P. A. (eds) (1987). Wharram Percy: The Church of St Martin, Wharram: A Study of Settlement on the Yorkshire Wolds, Vol. III (London: Society for Medieval Archaeology). Innes, M. (2000). State and Society in the Early Middle Ages: The Middle Rhine Valley 400–1000 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Irvine, S. (ed.) (2004). The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition, Vol. 7 MS E (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer). Jackson, K. H. (1946). ‘On the Name “Leeds” ’, Antiquity 20 (80): 209–10. Jackson, K. H. (1953). Language and History in Early Britain (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press). Jackson, K. H. (1969). The Gododdin: The Oldest Scottish Poem (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press). James, A. G. (2009). ‘*Eglês/Eclês and the Formation of Northumbria’, in Quinton (ed.) 2009: 125–50. James, E., (1995). ‘The Post-Roman Period to 1069’, in D. Phillips and B. Heywood (eds), Excavations at York Minster, Volume 1: From Roman Fortress to Norman Minster (London: HMSO), 9–12.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

342 Bibliography Jarman, A. O. H. (ed. and trans.) (1988). Aneirin: Y Gododdin, Britain’s Oldest Heroic Poem (Llandysul: Gomer). Jesch, J. (2001). ‘Skaldic Verse in Scandinavian England’, in Graham-Campbell, Hall, Jesch, and Parsons (eds) 2001: 313–26. Jezierski, W. (2006). ‘Monasterium Panopticum: On Surveillance in a Medieval Cloister— The Case of St Gall’, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 40: 167–82. John, E. (1955). ‘The Division of the Mensa in Early English Monasteries’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 6: 142–55. John, E. (1960). Land Tenure in Early England: A Discussion of Some Problems (Leicester: Leicester University Press). John, E. (1985). ‘The Social and Political Problems of the Early English Church’, in Clemoes, Lapidge, and Gneuss (eds) 1985: 3–32. John, E. (1992). ‘The Point of Woden’, ASSAH 5: 127–34. Johnson, C., Brett, M., Brooke, C. N. L., and Winterbottom, M. (ed. and trans.) (1990). Hugh the Chanter, The History of the Church of York 1066–1127 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Johnson South, T. (ed. and trans.) (2002). Historia de Sancto Cuthberto: A History of Saint Cuthbert and a Record of His Patrimony (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer). Jolliffe, J. (1926). ‘Northumbrian Institutions’, EHR 41: 1–42. Jolliffe, J. (1933). Pre-Feudal England: The Jutes (London: Oxford University Press). Jolly, K. L. (1996). Popular Religion in Late Saxon England: Elf Charms in Context (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press). Jones, C. W. (ed.) (1977). Beda Venerabilis, Opera Didascalica, 2. De temporum ratione, CCSL 123B (Turnhout: Brepols). Jones, G. R. J. (1965). ‘Early Territorial Organisation in Northern England and its Bearing on the Scandinavian Settlement’, in Small (ed.) 1965: 67–84. Jones, G. R. J. (1975). ‘Early Territorial Organization in Gwynedd and Elmet’, Northern History, 10 (1975), 3–27. Jones, G. R. J. (1976). ‘Multiple Estates and Early Settlement’, in Sawyer (ed.) (1976), 15–40. Jones, G. R. J. (1985). ‘Multiple Estates Perceived’, Journal of Historical Geography 11 (4): 352–63. Jones, G. R. J. (1992). ‘The Multiple Estates of (Holy) Islandshire, Hovingham and Kirkby Moorside’, Medieval Europe 1992: Rural Settlement (York: Medieval Europe), 79–84. Jones, G. R. J. (1995). ‘Some Donations to Bishop Wilfrid in Northern England’, Northern History 31: 22–38. Jong, M. de (1996). In Samuel’s Image: Child Oblation in the Early Medieval West (Leiden and Boston: Brill). Kain, R. J. P. and R. R. Oliver (2001). Historic Parishes of England and Wales: Electronic Map—Gazetteer—Metadata (Colchester: History Data Service). Kaner, J. (1993). ‘Crayke and Its Boundaries’, in Le Patourel, Long, and Pickles (eds) 1993: 103–11. Kapelle, W. E. (1979). The Norman Conquest of the North: The Region and its Transformation, 1000–1135 (London: Croom Helm). Keen, L. (1966). ‘Heworth, Foss Islands Railway’, YAJ, 41: 565.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Bibliography

343

Kelly, S. (1990). ‘Anglo-Saxon Lay Society and the Written Word’, in R. McKitterick (ed.), The Uses of Literacy in Early Medieval Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 36–62. Kelly, S. (ed.) (2000–1). The Charters of Abingdon Abbey (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Kelly, S. (ed.) (2009). Charters of Peterborough Abbey (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Kemble, J. M. (1846). ‘On the Names, Surnames and Nicnames (sic) of the AngloSaxons’, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute (London: Archaeological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland), 81–102. Kemp, B. R. (1966). ‘The Foundation of Reading Abbey and Growth of its Possessions’, Ph.D. Thesis (University of Reading). Kemp, B. R. (1967–8). ‘The Mother Church of Thatcham’, Berkshire Archaeological Journal 63: 15–22. Kemp, B. R. (1968). ‘The Churches of Berkeley Hernesse’, Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucester Archaeological Society 87: 96–110. Kemp, B. R. (1988). ‘Some Aspects of the Parochia of Leominster in the Twelfth Century’, in Blair (ed.) 1988: 83–95. Kemp, R. L. (ed.) (1996). Anglian Settlement at 46–54 Fishergate, The Archaeology of York 7/1 (York: York Archaeological Trust). Kempshall, M. (2001). ‘No Bishop, No King: The Ministerial Ideology of Kingship and Asser’s Res Gestae Aelfredi’, in R. Gameson and H. Leyser (eds), Belief and Culture in the Middle Ages: Studies Presented to Henry Mayr-Harting (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 106–27. Kempshall, M. (2011). Rhetoric and the Writing of History, 400–1500 (Manchester: Manchester University Press). Ker, N. R. (1985). ‘The Handwriting of Archbishop Wulfstan in His Books’, in A. G. Watson (ed.), Books, Collectors and Libraries: Studies in the Medieval Heritage, N. R. Ker (London: Hambledon), 9–26. Ker, N. R. (1990). A Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Kerr, N. (1980). ‘A Pagan Anglo-Saxon Cremation Burial from Sancton, Yorkshire’, YAJ 52: 169–71. Kershaw, J. (2010). Viking-Age Scandinavian Art Styles and Their Appearance in the British Isles, Part 1: Early Viking Age Art Styles, Finds Research Group AD 700–1700, Datasheet No. 42. Kershaw, J. (2011). Viking-Age Scandinavian Art Styles and Their Appearance in the British Isles, Part 1: Late Viking-Age Art Styles, Finds Research Group AD 700–1700, Datasheet No. 43. Kershaw, J. (2013). Viking Identities: Scandinavian Jewellery in England (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Kershaw, N. (ed. and trans.) (1992). Anglo-Saxon and Norse Poems (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Keynes, S. (1985). ‘King Athelstan’s Books’, in Clemoes, Lapidge, and Gneuss (eds) 1985: 143–202. Keynes, S. (1986). ‘The Additions in Old English’, in Barker (ed.) 1986: 81–98.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

344 Bibliography Keynes, S. (1994). ‘Cnut’s Earls’, in A. R. Rumble (ed.), The Reign of Cnut: King of England, Denmark and Norway (London: Leicester University Press), 43–88. Keynes, S. (1999a). ‘Chapter 18: England, 900–1016’, in T. Reuter (ed.), The New Cambridge Medieval History of England 3, 900–1024 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 456–84. Keynes, S. (1999b). ‘Wulfstan I’, in M. Lapidge, J. Blair, S. Keynes, and D. Scragg (eds), The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford: Blackwell), 492–3. Keynes, S. (1999c). ‘Rulers of the English’, in M. Lapidge, J. Blair, S. Keynes, and D.  Scragg (eds), The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford: Blackwell), 505. Keynes, S. and Lapidge, M. (trans.) (1983). Alfred the Great: Asser’s Life of King Alfred and Other Contemporary Sources (London: Penguin). Kilbourne, B. and Richardson, J. T. (1988). ‘Paradigm Conflict, Types of Conversion, and Conversion Theories’, Sociological Analysis 50 (1): 1–21. King, M. H. and Stevens, W. M. (eds) (1979). Saints, Scholars and Heroes: Studies in Medieval Culture in Honour of Charles W. Jones, I–II (Collegeville, MN: Hill Monastic Manuscript Library, Saint John’s Abbey and University). Kirby, D. P. (1965–6). ‘Bede’s Native Sources for the Historia Ecclesiastica’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 48: 341–71. Kirby, D. P. (1983). ‘Bede, Eddius Stephanus, and the Life of Wilfrid’, EHR 98: 101–14. Kirby, D. P. (2000). The Earliest English Kings, rev. edn (London: Routledge). Knowles, D. and N. Hadcock (1953). Medieval Religious Houses, England and Wales (London: Longman). Knüsel, C. and Ripley, K. (2000). ‘The Berdache or Man-Woman in Anglo-Saxon England and Early Medieval Europe’, in Frazer and Tyrell (eds) 2000: 157–91. Koch, J. T. (1985). ‘When was Welsh Literature First Written Down?’, Studia Celtica 20/21: 43–66. Koch, J. T. (1988). ‘The Cynfeirdd Poetry and the Language of the Sixth Century’, in B. F. Roberts (ed.), Early Welsh Poetry: Studies in the Book of Aneirin (Aberystwyth: National Library of Wales), 17–41. Koch, J. T. (1993). ‘Thoughts on the Ur-Gododdin: Rethinking Aneirin and Mynyddawc Mwynvawr’, Language Sciences 15 (2): 81–9. Koch, J. T. (1997). The Aneirin of Gododdin: Text and Context from Dark-Age Britain (Cardiff: University of Wales Press). Kopár, L. (2012). Gods and Settlers: The Iconography of Norse Mythology in AngloScandinavian Sculpture (Turnhout: Brepols). Lambert, T. B. (2009). ‘Spiritual Protection and Secular Power: The Evolution of Sanctuary and Legal Privilege in Ripon and Beverley, 900–1300’, in T. B. Lambert and D. Rollason (eds), Peace and Protection in the Middle Ages (Durham: Durham University), 121–40. Lambert, T. (2017). Law and Order in Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Lancaster, L. (1958a). ‘Kinship in Anglo-Saxon Society—I’, British Journal of Sociology 9 (3): 230–50. Lancaster, L. (1958b). ‘Kinship in Anglo-Saxon Society—II’, British Journal of Sociology 9 (4): 359–77.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Bibliography

345

Lancaster, W. T. (ed.) (1912). Abstracts of the Charters and Other Documents Contained in the Chartulary of the Priory of Bridlington, in the East Riding of the County of York (Leeds). Lang, J. T. (1976a). ‘Sigurd and Welland in Pre-Conquest Carving from Northern England’, YAJ 48: 83–94. Lang, J. T. (1976b). ‘The Sculptors of the Nunburnholme Cross’, Archaeological Journal 133: 75–94. Lang, J. T. (1978a). ‘Continuity and Innovation in Anglo-Scandinavian Sculpture’, in J.  T. Lang (ed.), Anglo-Saxon and Viking Age Sculpture, BAR BS 49 (Oxford: Archaeopress), 145–72. Lang, J. T. (1978b). ‘Anglo-Scandinavian Sculpture in Yorkshire’, in Hall (ed.) 1978: 11–20. Lang, J. T. (1984a). ‘The Hogback: A Viking Colonial Monument’, ASSAH 3: 86–172. Lang, J. T. (1984b). ‘Fine Measurement Analysis of Viking Age Ornament’, in G. Fellows-Jensen and N. Lund (eds), Tredie tværfaglige Vikingesymposium (Højbjerg: Forlaget hikuin og Afdeling for middelalder-arkaeologi), 37–57. Lang, J. T. (1986a). ‘Principles of Design in Free-Style Carving in the Irish Sea Province, c. 800–c. 950’, in J. Higgitt (ed.), Medieval Sculpture in Britain and Ireland, BAR BS 152 (Oxford: Archaeopress), 153–74. Lang, J. T. (1986b). ‘The Distinctiveness of Viking Colonial Art’, in P. Szarmach (ed.), Sources of Anglo-Saxon Culture (Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University), 243–60. Lang, J. T. (1988). Anglo-Saxon Sculpture (Princes Risborough: Shire Archaeology). Lang, J. T. (ed.) (1991). CASSS III, York and Eastern Yorkshire (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Lang, J. T. (1993). ‘Survival and Revival in Insular Art: Northumbrian Sculpture of the Eighth- to Tenth-Centuries’, in Spearman and Higgitt (eds) 1993: 261–7. Lang, J. T. (1997). ‘Survival and Revival in Insular Art: Some Principles’, in C. E. Karkov, R. T. Farrell, and M. Ryan (eds), The Insular Tradition (Albany: State University of New York Press), 63–77. Lang, J. T. (1999). ‘The Apostles in Anglo-Saxon Sculpture in the Age of Alcuin’, EME 8 (2): 271–82. Lang, J. T. (2000). ‘Monuments from Yorkshire in the Age of Alcuin’, in H. Geake and J. Kenny (eds), Early Deira: Archaeological Studies of the East Riding in the Fourth to Ninth Centuries A.D. (Oxford: Oxbow), 109–19. Lang, J. T. (ed.) (2002). CASSS VI, Northern Yorkshire (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Lanham, C. D. (1992). ‘Freshman Composition in the Early Middle Ages: Epistolography and Rhetoric before the “Ars dictaminis” ’, Viator 23: 115–34. Lanham, C. D. (2001). ‘Writing Instruction from Late Antiquity to the Twelfth Century’, in J. J. Murphy (ed.), A Short History of Writing from Ancient Greece to Modern America, 2nd edn (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum), 79–121. Lapidge, M. (1988). ‘A Frankish Scholar in Tenth-Century England: Frithegod of Canterbury/Fredegaud of Brioude’, ASE 17: 45–65; reprinted with addenda in Lapidge 1996: 157–81. Lapidge, M. (1996). Anglo-Latin Literature, c. 600–899 (London: Hambledon).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

346 Bibliography Lapidge, M. (ed. and trans.) (2009). Byrhtferth of Ramsey, The Lives of St Oswald and St Ecgwine (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Lapidge, M. and Herren, M. (trans.) (1979). Aldhelm, The Prose Works (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer). Lapidge, M. and Hunter Blair, P. (1984). Anglo-Saxon Northumbria (London: Variorum). Lapidge, M. and Rosier, J. (trans.) (1985). Aldhelm, The Poetic Works (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer). Lavelle, R. (2013). ‘Ine 70.1 and Royal Provision in Anglo-Saxon Wessex’, in G. R. Owen-Crocker and B. W. Schneider (eds), Kingship, Legislation and Power in AngloSaxon England (Woodbridge: Boydell), 259–73. Laynesmith, M. D. (2000). ‘Stephen of Ripon and the Bible: Allegorical and Typological Interpretations of the Life of St Wilfrid’, EME 9 (2): 163–82. Le Patourel, H. E. J., Long, M. H., and Pickles, M. F. (eds) (1993). Yorkshire Boundaries (Leeds: Yorkshire Archaeological Society). Leach, A. F. (ed.) (1898–1903). Memorials of Beverley Minster, I–II (Durham: Surtees Society). Leahy, K. (2007). ‘Interrupting the Pots’: The Excavation of Cleatham Anglo-Saxon Cemetery (York: CBA). Leclerq, J. (1971). ‘Le Cloitre est-il une Prison?’, Revue d’Ascetique et de Mystique 47: 407–20. Leeds, E. T. (1936). Early Anglo-Saxon Art and Archaeology (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Leeds, E. T. and Pocock, M. (1971). ‘A Survey of the Anglo-Saxon Cruciform Brooches of Florid Type’, Medieval Archaeology 15: 13–36. Lennard, R. V. (1959). Rural England 1086–1135: A Study of Social and Agrarian Conditions (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Lerer, S. (1991). Literacy and Power in Anglo-Saxon England (London: University of Nebraska Press). Lethbridge, T. C. (1931). Recent Excavations in Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries in Cambridgeshire and Suffolk: A Report (Cambridge: Bowes & Bowes). Lethbridge, T. C. (1936). A Cemetery at Shudy Camps, Cambridgeshire: Report of the Excavation of a Cemetery of the Christian Anglo-Saxon Period in 1933 (Cambridge: Bowes and Bowes). Levison, W. (ed.) (1905). Vitae Sancti Bonifatii Archiepiscopi Moguntini (Hanover: Impensis Bibliopolii Hahniani). Levison, W. (ed.) (1920). Scriptorum Rerum Merovingicarum, VII, MGH Passiones Vitaeque Sanctorum aevi Merovingici V (Hanover: Impensis Bibliopolii Hahniani). Lewis, C. T. and Short, C. (1879). A Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Leyser, C. (2000). Authority and Asceticism from Augustine to Gregory the Great (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Leyser, C. (2001). ‘Angels, Monks and Demons in the Early Medieval West’, in R.  Gameson and H. Leyser (eds), Belief and Culture in the Middle Ages: Studies Presented to Henry Mayr-Harting (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 9–22. Liebermann, F. (ed.) (1903–16). Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, I–IV (Halle: M. Niemeyer).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Bibliography

347

Liebermann, F. (1913). The National Assembly in the Anglo-Saxon Period (Halle: M. Niemeyer). Linford, P., Linford, N., and David, A. (2012). ‘A New Geophysical Survey of Wharram Percy’, in Wrathmell (ed.) 2012a: 44–53. Lovatt, M. (ed.) (2000). English Episcopal Acta XX: York 1154–1181 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Loveluck, C. P. (1996). ‘The Development of the Anglo-Saxon Landscape, Economy and Society “On Driffield”, East Yorkshire, 400–750 AD’, ASSAH 9: 25–48. Loveluck, C. P. (2002). ‘The Romano-British to Anglo-Saxon Transition—Social Transformations from the Late Roman to Early Medieval Period in Northern England, AD 400–700’, in C. Brooks, R. Daniels, and A. Harding (eds), Past, Present and Future: The Archaeology of Northern England (Durham: Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland), 127–48. Loveluck, C. P. and Atkinson, D. (2007). The Early Medieval Settlement Remains from Flixborough, Lincolnshire: The Occupation Sequence, c. AD 600 –1000 (Oxford: Oxbow). Loveluck, C. P. and Barrett, J. (2007). Rural Settlement, Lifestyles and Social Change in  the Late First Millennium AD: Anglo-Saxon Flixborough in its Wider Context (Oxford: Oxbow). Loyn, H. R. (1984). ‘The Conversion of the English to Christianity: Some Comments on the Celtic Contribution’, in R. R. Davies, R. A. Griffiths, I. G. Jones, and K. O. Morgan (eds), Welsh Society and Nationhood (Cardiff: University of Wales Press), 5–18; reprinted in Loyn 1992: ch. 2. Loyn, H. R. (1992). Society and Peoples: Studies in the History of England and Wales, c. 600–1200 (London: University of London). Lucy, S. (1998). The Early Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries of East Yorkshire: An Analysis and Reinterpretation, BAR BS 272 (Oxford: Archaeopress). Lucy, S. (2005). ‘Early Medieval Burial at Yeavering: A Retrospective’, in Frodsham and O’Brien (eds) 2005: 127–44. Lucy, S., Newman, R., Dodwell, N., Hills, C., Dekker, M., O’Connell, T., Riddler, I., and Walton Rogers, P. (2009). ‘The Burial of a Princess? The Late Seventh-Century Cemetery at Westfield Farm, Ely’, The Antiquaries Journal 89: 81–141. Lynch, J. (1998). Christianizing Kinship: Ritual Sponsorship in Anglo-Saxon England (London: Cornell University Press). Lyon, S. (1987). ‘Ninth-Century Northumbrian Chronology’, in Metcalf (ed.) 1987: 27–41. Lyon, S. and Stewart, B. H. I. H. (1961). ‘The Northumbrian Viking Coinage in the Cuerdale Hoard’, in R. H. M. Dolley (ed.), Anglo-Saxon Coins: Studies Presented to F. M. Stenton on the Occasion of his 80th Birthday (London: Methuen), 96–121. Mac Airt, S. and Mac Niocaill, G. (ed. and trans.) (1983). The Annals of Ulster (to A.D. 1131. Part I: Text and Translation (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies). McCall, H. B. (1908–9). ‘The Peculiar of Masham cum Kirkby Malzeard’, YAJ 20: 233–53. McCarthy, M. (2011). ‘The Kingdom of Rheged: A Landscape Perspective’, Northern History 48 (1): 9–22.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

348 Bibliography McClain, A. (2011). ‘Local Churches and the Conquest of the North: Elite Patronage and Identity in Saxo-Norman Northumbria’, in Petts and Turner (eds) 2011: 151–78. McClure, J. (1983). ‘Bede’s Old Testament Kings’, in Wormald, Bullough, and Collins (eds) 1983: 130–53. McClure, J. and Collins, R. (ed. and trans.) (1994). Bede, The Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Oxford: Oxford University Press). McDonnell, G. (1992). ‘The Ironworking Evidence’, in Milne and Richards (eds) 1992: 155–66. McDonnell, G., Blakelock, E., and Rubinson, S. with contributions from Chabot, N., Daoust, A., and Castagnino, V. (2012). ‘The Iron Economy of Wharram Percy’, in Wrathmell (ed.) 2012a: 154–62. MacGregor, A. (2000a). ‘The Holderness Anglo-Saxon Cross’, Minerva 11 (2): 3. MacGregor, A. (2000b). ‘A Seventh-Century Pectoral Cross from Holderness, East Yorkshire’, Medieval Archaeology 44: 217–22. McGurk, P. (1986). ‘Palaeography’, in Barker (ed.) 1986: 37–42. McNeill, J. and Gamer, H. M. (trans.) (1938). Medieval Handbooks of Penance: A Translation of the Principal Libri Poenitentialies (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991). Maddern, C. (2013). Raising the Dead: Early Medieval Name Stones in Northumbria (Turnhout: Brepols). Maddicott, J. R. (1997). ‘Plague in Seventh-Century England’, P&P 156: 7–54. Maddicott, J. R. (2000). ‘Two Frontier States: Northumbria and Wessex, c. 650–750’, in J. R. Maddicott and D. M. Palliser (eds), The Medieval State: Essays Presented to James Campbell (London: Hambledon), 25–46. Magilton, J. R. (1980). The Church of St Helen-on-the-Walls, Aldwark (London: CBA). Magnus, B. (2001). ‘The Enigmatic Brooches’, in B. Magnus (ed.), Roman Gold and the Development of the Early Germanic Kingdoms (Stockholm: Kungl Vitterhets), 279–96. Mainman, A. J. (1993). Pottery from 46–54 Fishergate, The Archaeology of York 16/6 (York: York Archaeological Trust). Maitland, F. W. (1890). ‘Northumbrian Tenures’, EHR 5: 625–32. Maitland, F. W. (1897). Domesday Book and Beyond: Three Essays in the Early History of England (Cambridge; reissued London: Fontana, 1960). Manby, T. G. (1988). ‘Excavation and Field Archaeology in Eastern Yorkshire: The Thwing Project 1973–87’, CBA Forum 1988 (York: CBA): 16–18. Manby, T. G., Moorhouse, S., and Ottaway, P. (eds) (2003). The Archaeology of Yorkshire: An Assessment at the Beginning of the 21st Century (Leeds: Yorkshire Archaeological Society). Markus, R. A. (1975). Bede and the Tradition of Ecclesiastical Historiography: Jarrow Lecture, 1975 (Jarrow: Friends of Jarrow); reprinted in Markus 1983: No. 3. Markus, R. A. (1983). From Augustine to Gregory the Great: History and Christianity in Late Antiquity (London: Variorum). Markus, R. A. (1997). Gregory the Great and His World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Martin, T. F. (2015). The Cruciform Brooch and Anglo-Saxon England (Woodbridge: Boydell).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Bibliography

349

Matthew, H. C. G., Harrison, B., and Goldman, L. (eds) (2004). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, online edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Mawer, A. (1923). ‘The Redemption of the Five Boroughs’, EHR 38: 551–7. Mawer, A. and Stenton, F. M. (eds) (1940). The Place-Names of Nottinghamshire, EPNS 17 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Mayr-Harting, H. (1972). The Coming of Christianity to Anglo-Saxon England, 3rd edn (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991). Mayr-Harting, H. (1976). The Venerable Bede, The Rule of St Benedict and Social Class (Jarrow: Friends of Jarrow); reprinted in Bede and his World, Volume I: The Jarrow Lectures, 1958–1978 (Aldershot: Variorum, 1994), 407–34. Mayr-Harting, H. (1994). Two Conversions to Christianity—the Bulgarians and the Anglo-Saxons (Reading: University of Reading). Mays, S., Harding, C., and Heighway, C. (eds) (2007). The Churchyard, Wharram: A  Study of Settlement on the Yorkshire Wolds, Vol. XI (York: York University Archaeological Publications). Meaney, A. (1981). Anglo-Saxon Amulets and Curing Stones, BAR BS 96 (Oxford: Archaeopress). Meaney, A. (1985). ‘Bede and Anglo-Saxon Paganism’, Parergon NS 3: 1–29. Meaney, A. (1989). ‘Women, Witchcraft and Magic in Anglo-Saxon England’, in D.  Scragg (ed.), Superstition and Popular Medicine in Anglo-Saxon England (Manchester: Manchester Centre for Anglo-Saxon Studies), 9–40. Meaney, A. (1992). ‘Anglo-Saxon Idolators and Ecclesiasts from Theodore to Alcuin: A Source Study’, ASSAH 5: 103–25. Meaney, A. (1995). ‘Pagan English Sanctuaries, Place-Names and Hundred Meeting Places’, ASSAH 8: 29–42. Meehan, D. and Bieler, L. (ed. and trans.) (1958). Adamnán, De Locis Sanctis, Scriptores Latini Hiberniae 3 (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies). Mellor, E. (1953). ‘Elmswell’, YAJ 38: 262–4. Metcalf, D. M. (ed.) (1987). Coinage in Ninth-Century Northumbria: The Tenth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History, BAR BS 180 (Oxford: Archaeopress). Meyvaert, P. (1992). ‘A New Perspective on the Ruthwell Cross: Ecclesia and Vita Monastica’, in Cassidy (ed.) 1992: 140–5. Mills, A. D. (ed.) (1976). The Place-Names of Lancashire (London: Batsford). Milne, G. and Richards, J. D. (eds) (1992). Two Anglo-Saxon Buildings and Associated Finds, Wharram: A Study of Settlement on the Wolds, VII (York: York University Archaeological Publications). Milstead, I. and Hall, R. A. (2011). ‘Kirkby Overblow Before the Normans’, Yorkshire Archaeology Today 20: 18–19. Molyneaux, G. (2015). The Formation of the English Kingdom in the Tenth Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Morris, C. D. (1977). ‘Northumbria and the Viking Settlement: The Evidence for Landholding’, Archaeologia Aeliana 5th Ser. 5: 81–103. Morris, C. D. (1984). ‘Aspects of Scandinavian Settlement in Northern England: A Review’, Northern History 20: 1–22. Morris, C. J. (1992). Marriage and Murder in Eleventh-Century Northumbria: A Study of ‘De Obsessione Dunelmi’ (York: Borthwick Society).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

350 Bibliography Morris, G. E. (1984–5). ‘The Significance of the Place-Name Stonegrave’, JEPNS 17: 14–19. Morris, J. (ed.) (1975–86). Domesday Book, I–XXXV (Chichester: Phillimore). Morris, J. (ed. and trans.) (1980). British History, and the Welsh Annals (London: Phillimore). Morris, R. (1986). ‘Alcuin, York and the Alma Sophia’, in L. A. S. Butler and R. Morris (eds), The Anglo-Saxon Church (York: Council for British Archaeology), 80–9. Morris, R. (1989). Churches in the Landscape (London: Dent). Morris, R. (1990). ‘A Note on St. Gregory’s Minster, Kirkdale’ Bulletin of the CBA Churches Committee 27: 4–6. Morris, R. (2005). ‘ “Calami et iunci”: Lastingham in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries’, Bulletin of International Medieval Research 11: 3–21. Morris, R. (2008). Journeys from Jarrow (Jarrow: Friends of Jarrow). Morris, R. (2015). ‘Landscapes of Conversion among the Deirans: Lastingham and its Neighbours in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries’, in P. S. Barnwell (ed.), Places of Worship in Britain and Ireland, 300–950 (Donington: Shaun Tyas), 119–52. Morris, R. and Cambridge, E. (1989). ‘Beverley Minster before the Early Thirteenth Century’, in C. Wilson (ed.), Medieval Art and Architecture in the East Riding of Yorkshire, BAACT 9 (London: British Archaeological Association), 9–32. Murray, A. (1992). ‘Missionaries and Magic in Dark Age Europe’, P&P 136: 186–205. Myres, J. N. L. (1973). The Anglo-Saxon Cremation Cemetery at Sancton, East Yorkshire (Hull: Hull Museums). Mytum, H. (1994). ‘Parish and People: Excavations at Kellington Church’, Medieval Life 1: 19–22. Nash Williams, V. E. (1950). The Early Christian Monuments of Wales (Cardiff: University of Wales Press). Naylor, J. (2001). ‘York and Its Region in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries AD: An Archaeological Study’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 20 (1): 79–105. Naylor, J. (2004). An Archaeology of Trade in Middle Saxon England, BAR BS 376 (Oxford: Archaeopress). Naylor, J. (2007). ‘The Circulation of Early-Medieval European Coinage: A Case Study from Yorkshire, c. 650–c. 867’, Medieval Archaeology 51: 41–61. North, R. (1997). Heathen Gods in Old English Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). O’Brien, C. (2002). ‘The Early Medieval Shires of Yeavering, Breamish and Bamburgh’, Archaeologia Aeliana 5th Ser. 30: 53–73. O’Brien O’Keefe, K. (ed.) (2001). The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition, Vol. 5 MS C (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer). Ó’Carragáin, É. (1987–8). ‘The Ruthwell Crucifixion Poem in its Iconographic and Liturgical Contexts’, Peritia 6–7: 1–71. Ó’Carragáin, É. (2005). Ritual and the Rood: Liturgical Images and the Old English Poems of the Dream of the Rood Tradition (London: The British Library). O’Connor, T. (1991). Bones from 46–54 Fishergate, The Archaeology of York 15/4 (York: York Archaeological Trust). Offler, H. S. (ed.) (1968). Durham Episcopal Charters, 1071–1152 (Durham: Surtees Society).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Bibliography

351

Oliver, L. (2002). The Beginnings of English Law (Toronto and London: University of Toronto Press). O’Reilly, J. (1997). ‘Reading the Scriptures in the Life of Columba’, in Bourke (ed.) 1997: 80–106. O’Reilly, J. (1998). ‘Patristic and Insular Traditions of the Evangelists’, in A. M. Luiselli Fadda and É. Ó Carragáin (eds), Le Isole Britanniche e Roma in Età Romanobarbarica (Rome: Herder Editrice e Libreria), 49–94. O’Reilly, J. (2003). ‘The Art of Authority’, in T. Charles-Edwards (ed.), After Rome—The Short Oxford History of the British Isles (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 141–89. Oswald, A. (2012). ‘A New Earthwork Survey of Wharram Percy’, in Wrathmell (ed.) 2012a: 23–44. Ottaway, P. (2013). Roman Yorkshire: People, Culture and Landscape (Pickering: Blackthorn Press). Owen, G. R. (1981). Rites and Religions of the Anglo-Saxons (London: Rowman and Littlefield). Owen-Crocker, G. R. (2011). ‘Dress and Identity’, in Hamerow, Hinton, and Crawford (eds) 2011: 91–116. Pacitto, T. and Watts, L. (2009). ‘Excavations at the Church of All Saints, Hovingham, Yorkshire’, Church Archaeology 11: 51–60. Pagan, H. E. (1969). ‘Northumbrian Numismatic Chronology in the Ninth Century’, British Numismatic Journal 38: 1–15. Page, R. I. (1995). ‘Anglo-Saxon Paganism: The Evidence of Bede’, in T. Hofstra, L. A. J. R. Houwen, and A. A. MacDonald (eds), Pagans and Christians: The Interplay between Christian Latin and Traditional Germanic Cultures in Early Medieval Europe (Groningen: Egbert Forsten), 99–130. Page, W. (1914–15). Some Remarks on the Churches of the Domesday Survey’, Archaeologia 2nd Ser. 16: 61–102. Page, W. (ed.) (1914–23). A History of the County of York, North Riding, I–II (London: Constable). Page, W., Hoskins, W. G., McKinley, R. A., and Lee, J. M. (eds) (1907–64). The Victoria County History of the County of Leicester, I–V (London: Archibald and Constable/ Oxford University Press). Palliser, D. M. (1992). ‘An Introduction to the Yorkshire Domesday’, in A. Williams and G. H. Martin (eds), The Yorkshire Domesday, 3 vols (London: Alecto, 1992), I: 1–38. Palliser, D. M. (1996). ‘Review Article: The “Minster Hypothesis”: A Case Study’, EME 5 (2): 207–14. Palliser, D. M. (2000). ‘The Early Medieval Minster’, in R. Horrox (ed.), Beverley Minster: An Illustrated History (Cambridge: The Friends of Beverley Minster), 23–35. Parker, M. S. (1992). ‘The Province of Hatfield’, Northern History 28: 42–70. Parsons, D. N. (2002). ‘Anna, Dot, Thorir . . . Counting Domesday Personal Names’, Nomina 25: 29–52. Patourel, H. E. J. Le, Long, M. H., and Pickles, M. F. (eds) (1993). Yorkshire Boundaries (Leeds: Yorkshire Archaeological Society). Pattison, I. R. (1973). ‘The Nunburnholme Cross and Anglo-Danish Sculpture in York’, Archaeologia 104: 209–34. Peers, C. R. and Radford, C. A. R. (1943). ‘The Saxon Monastery at Whitby’, Archaeologia 89: 27–88.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

352 Bibliography Pestell, T. (2004). Landscapes of Monastic Foundation: The Establishment of Religious Houses in East Anglia c.650–1200 (Woodbridge: Boydell). Petschenig, M. (ed.) (1999). CSEL 64 (Vienna: Verlag). Petts, D. and Turner, S. (eds) (2011). Early Medieval Northumbria: Kingdoms and Communities, A.D. 450–1100 (Turnhout: Brepols). Pevsner, N. (1967). Yorkshire: The West Riding, 2nd edn (Harmondsworth: Penguin). Phillips, D. and Heywood, B. (eds) (1995). Excavations from York Minster, Volume 1: From Roman Fortress to Norman Cathedral (London: HMSO). Phythian-Adams, C. (1996). The Land of the Cumbrians: A Study in British Provincial Origins, A.D. 400–1120 (Aldershot: Scolar). Pickles, T. (2009a). ‘Angel Veneration on Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture from Dewsbury (West Yorkshire), Otley (West Yorkshire) and Halton (Lancashire): Contemplative Preachers and Pastoral Care’, JBAA 162: 1–28. Pickles, T. (2009b). ‘Biscopes-tún, Muneca-tún and Préosta-tún: Dating, Significance and Distribution’, in Quinton (ed.) 2009: 39–108. Pickles, T. (2009c). ‘Locating Ingetlingum and Suthgedling: Gilling West and Gilling East’, Northern History 46 (2): 313–25. Pickles, T. (2011). ‘Anglo-Saxon Monasteries as Sacred Places: Topography, Exegesis and Vocation’, in P. Thomas and J. Sterrett (eds), Sacred Text—Sacred Space (Leiden and Boston: Brill), 35–55. Pickles, T. (2012). Power, Religious Patronage and Pastoral Care: Religious Communities, Mother Parishes and Local Churches in Ryedale, c. 650–c. 1250 (York: Friends of Kirkdale). Pickles, T. (2016a). ‘The Historiography of the Anglo-Saxon Conversion: The State of the Art’, in R. Flechner and M. Ní Mhaonaigh (eds), The Introduction of Christianity into the Early Medieval Insular World (Turnhout: Brepols), 61–92. Pickles, T. (2016b). ‘Streanaeshalch (Whitby), its Satellite Churches and Lands’, in T. Ó’Carragáin and S. Turner (eds), Making Christian Landscapes in Atlantic Europe: Conversion and Consolidation in the Early Middle Ages (Cork: University of Cork Press), 265–76. Pitt, J. M. A. (1999). ‘Wiltshire Minster Parochiae and West Saxon Ecclesiastical Organisation’, Ph.D. Thesis (King Alfred’s College, Winchester). Pluskowski, A. (2010). ‘Animal Magic’, in Carver, Sanmark, and Semple (eds) 2010: 103–27. Poole, R. (1991). Viking Poems on War and Peace: A Study in Skaldic Narrative (Toronto: University of Toronto Press). Powlesland, D. (1997). ‘Early Anglo-Saxon Settlements: Structure, Form and Layout’, in Hines (ed.) 1997: 101–17. Powlesland, D. (2003). ‘The Heslerton Parish Project: 20 Years of Archaeological Research in the Vale of Pickering’, in Manby, Moorhouse, and Ottaway (eds) 2003: 275–92. Pratt, D. (2007). The Political Thought of King Alfred the Great (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Price, N. and Mortimer, P. (2014). ‘An Eye for Odin? Divine Role Playing in the Age of Sutton Hoo’, European Journal of Archaeology 17 (3): 517–38. Prinz, F. (1981). ‘Columbanus, the Frankish Nobility and the Territories East of the  Rhine’, in H. B. Clark and M. Brennan (eds), Columbanus and Merovingian Monasticism, BAR IS 113 (Oxford: Archaeopress), 73–87.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Bibliography

353

Purvis, J. S. (1927–9). ‘The Foundation of Bridlington Priory’, and ‘The Foundation Charter of Bridlington Priory’, YAJ 29: 241–2 and 395. Quinton, E. (ed.) (2009). The Church in English Place-Names (Nottingham: English Place-Name Society). Rackham, O. (1980). Ancient Woodland, Its History, Vegetation and Uses in England (London: Edward Arnold). Rackham, O. (1994). ‘Trees and Woodland in Anglo-Saxon England: The Documentary Evidence’, in J. Rackham (ed.), Environment and Economy in Anglo-Saxon England (York: CBA), 7–11. Raffield, B. (2016). ‘Bands of Brothers: A Reappraisal of the Viking Great Army and its Implications for the Scandinavian Colonization of England’, EME 24 (3): 308–37. Rahtz, P. A. (1962). ‘Whitby 1958’, YAJ 40: 604–8. Rahtz, P. A. (1967). ‘Whitby 1958: Site Two’, YAJ 42: 72–3. Rahtz, P. A. (1976). ‘The Building Plan of the Anglo-Saxon Monastery of Whitby’, in Wilson (ed.) 1976: 459–62. Rahtz, P. A. and Watts, L. (1997). ‘Kirkdale Anglo-Saxon Minster’, Current Archaeology 155: 419–22. Rahtz, P. A. and Watts, L. (2003). ‘Three Ages of Conversion at Kirkdale, North Yorkshire’, in Carver (ed.) 2003: 289–309. Rahtz, P. A. and Watts, L. (eds) (2004). The North Manor Area and North West Enclosure, Wharram: A Study of Settlement on the Yorkshire Wolds, Vol. IX (York: York University Archaeological Publications). Raine, J. (ed.) (1864). The Priory of Hexham: Its Chroniclers, Endowments and Annals, I–II (Durham: Surtees Society). Raine, J. (ed.) (1872). Register of Walter Gray, Lord Archbishop of York, 1225–1255 (Durham: Surtees Society). Raine, J. (ed.) (1879–94). The Historians of the Church of York and its Archbishops, 3 vols (London: Longman). Rambo, L. R. and Farhadian, C. (eds) (2014). The Oxford Handbook of Religious Conversion (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Ramm, H. (1978). The Parisi (London: Duckworth). Redmond, A. Z. (2007). Viking Burial in the North of England: A Study of Contact, Interaction and Reaction between Scandinavian Migrants with Resident Groups, and the Effect of Immigration on Aspects of Cultural Continuity, BAR BS 429 (Oxford: Archaeopress). Rees-Jones, S. (2013). York: The Making of a City, 1068–1350 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Reynolds, A. (2009). Anglo-Saxon Deviant Burial Customs (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Reynolds, A. and Webster, L. (eds) (2013). Early Medieval Art and Archaeology in the Northern World: Studies in Honour of James Graham-Campbell (Leiden and Boston: Brill). Richards, J. D. (1992). ‘The Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Scandinavian Evidence’, in Milne and Richards (eds) 1992: 195–200. Richards, J. D. (1999). ‘Cottam: An Anglo-Scandinavian Settlement on the Yorkshire Wolds’, Archaeological Journal 156: 1–111. Richards, J. D. (2000). Viking Age England, rev. edn (Stroud: Tempus).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

354 Bibliography Richards, J. D. (2001). ‘Anglian and Anglo-Scandinavian Cottam: Linking Publication and Archive’, Internet Archaeology 10 [http://dx/doi/org/10/11141/ia.10.4]. Richards, J. D. (2002). ‘The Case of the Missing Vikings: Scandinavian Burial in the Danelaw’, in S. Lucy and A. Reynolds (eds), Burial in Early Medieval England and Wales (London: The Society for Medieval Archaeology), 156–70. Richards, J. D. (2013). ‘Cottam, Cowlam and Environs: An Anglo-Saxon Estate on the Yorkshire Wolds’, Archaeological Journal 170: 201–71. Richards, J. D. and Naylor, J. (2010). ‘The Metal Detector and the Viking Age in England’, in J. Sheehan and D. Ó Corráin (eds), The Viking Age: Ireland and the West (Dublin: Four Courts Press), 338–52. Richardson, W. (1985). ‘The Venerable Bede and a Lost Anglo-Saxon Monastery in Yorkshire’, YAJ 57: 15–22. Riddler, I. (2012a). ‘Early and Middle Saxon Artefacts’, in Wrathmell (ed.) 2012a: 135–54. Riddler, J. (2012b). ‘The Late Saxon Material Culture’, in Wrathmell (ed.) 2012a: 196–203. Rivet, A. L. F. and Smith, C. (eds) (1979). The Place-Names of Roman Britain (London: Batsford). Roberts, B. K. (2010). ‘Northumbrian Origins and Post-Roman Continuity: An Exploration’, in R. Collins and L. Allason-Jones (eds), Finds from the Frontier: Material Culture in the 4th–5th Centuries (York: CBA), 120–32. Roberts, I. (ed.) (2002). Pontefract Castle: Archaeological Excavations, 1982–1986 (Leeds: West Yorkshire Archaeology Service). Robertson, A. J. (ed. and trans.) (1925). The Laws of the Kings of England from Edmund to Henry I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Rodwell, W. (1984). ‘Churches in the Anglo-Saxon Landscape: Aspects of Topography and Planning’, in M. Faull (ed.), Studies in Late Anglo-Saxon Settlement (Oxford: Oxford University Department for External Studies), 3–18. Roffe, D. (1990a). ‘Domesday Book and Northern Society: A Reassessment’, EHR 105: 310–36. Roffe, D. (1990b). ‘From Thegnage to Barony: Sake and Soke, Title and Tenants-in-Chief’, Anglo-Norman Studies 12: 157–76. Rogers, N. S. H. (ed.) (1993). Anglian and other Finds from Fishergate, The Archaeology of York 17/9 (York: York Archaeological Trust). Rollason, D. (1982). The Mildrith Legend: A Study in Early Medieval Hagiography in England (Leicester: Leicester University Press). Rollason, D. (1986). ‘Relic-Cults as an Instrument of Royal Policy c. 900–c. 1050’, ASE 15: 91–103. Rollason, D. (1987). ‘The Wanderings of St. Cuthbert’, in D. Rollason (ed.) (1987), Cuthbert: Saint and Patron (Durham: Dean and Chapter of Durham), 45–61. Rollason, D. (1989). Saints and Relics in Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford: Blackwell). Rollason, D. (1999). ‘Monasteries and Society in Early Medieval Northumbria’, in Thompson (ed.) 1999: 59–74. Rollason, D. (ed. and trans.) (2000). Symeon of Durham: Libellus de Exordio atque Procursu istius hoc est Dunelmensis Ecclesie (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Bibliography

355

Rollason, D. (2003). Northumbria, 500–1000: Creation and Destruction of a Kingdom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Rollason, D. (2004). ‘Anglo-Scandinavian York: The Evidence of Historical Sources’, in Hall (ed.) 2004: 305–24. Rollason, D., Fellows-Jensen, G., and Gore, D. (eds) (1998). Sources for York History to AD 1000, Archaeology of York 1 (York: York Archaeological Trust). Rollason, D., Rollason, L., Briggs, E., and Piper, A. J. (eds) (2007). The Durham Liber Vitae: Edition and Digital Facsimile (London: British Library). Rommel, F. and Morel, C. (eds) (1992). Grégoire le Grand, Règle Pastorale, 2 vols, Sources Chrétiennes 381–2 (Paris: Sources Chrétiennes). Roper, M. (1974). ‘Wilfrid’s Landholdings in Northumbria’, in D. P. Kirby (ed.), Saint Wilfrid at Hexham (Newcastle: Oriel Press), 61–80. Ross, M. C. (1985). ‘Concubinage in Anglo-Saxon England’, P&P 108: 3–34. Rowntree, A. (ed.) (1931). The History of Scarborough (London: Dent). Ruhmann, C. and Brieske, V. (eds) (2015). Dying Gods—Religious Beliefs in Northern and Eastern Europe in the Time of Christianisation (Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss). Russell, J. C. (1994). The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Ryan, M. J. (2007). ‘Ad sedem episcopalem reddantur: Bishops, Monks and Monasteries in the Diocese of Worcester in the Eighth Century’, Studies in Church History, 43: 114–29. Ryan, M. J. (2012). ‘Archbishop Ecgberht and his Dialogus’, in A. R. Rumble (ed.), Leaders of the Anglo-Saxon Church: From Bede to Stigand (Woodbridge: Boydell), 41–60. Ryder, P. and Hey, D. (1982). Saxon Churches in South Yorkshire, South Yorkshire County Archaeology Monograph No. 2 (Barnsley: South Yorkshire County Council). Samson, R. (1991). ‘Economic Anthropology and Vikings: Social Approaches to Viking Studies’, in R. Samson (ed.), Social Approaches to Viking Studies (Glasgow: Cruithne), 87–96. Sanmark, A. (2010). ‘Living On: Ancestors and the Soul’, in Carver, Sanmark, and Semple (eds) 2010: 158–80. Sawyer, P. H. (1962). The Age of the Vikings (London: Edward Arnold). Sawyer, P. H. (1968). Anglo-Saxon Charters: An Annotated List and Bibliography (London: Royal Historical Society); revised edition online at www.trin.cam.ac.uk/ chartwwws. Sawyer, P. H. (1975). ‘The Charters of Burton Abbey and the Unification of England’, Northern History 10: 28–39. Sawyer, P. H. (ed.) (1976). Medieval Settlement: Continuity and Change (London: Edward Arnold). Sawyer, P. H. (ed.) (1979). Charters of Burton Abbey (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Sawyer, P. H. (1995). ‘The Last Scandinavian Kings of York’, Northern History 31: 39–44. Scharer, A. (1997). ‘The Conversion of the Anglo-Saxon Kings in the Seventh and Eighth Century’, translated and reprinted in A. Scharer, Changing Perspectives on England and the Continent in the Early Middle Ages (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014), 1–17.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

356 Bibliography Schenkl, C. (ed.) (1896). CSEL 32 (1) (Vienna: F. Tempsky). Scull, C. (1991). ‘Post-Roman Phase 1 at Yeavering: A Reconstruction’, Medieval Archaeology 35: 51–63. Scull, C. (1993). ‘Archaeology, Early Anglo-Saxon Society and the Origins of AngloSaxon Kingdoms’, ASSAH 6: 65–82. Scull, C. (1995). ‘Approaches to Material Culture and Social Dynamics of the Migration Period of Eastern England’, in J. Bintliff and H. Hamerow (eds), Europe Between Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, BAR IS 617 (Oxford: Archaeopress), 71–83. Semple, S. (1998). ‘A Fear of the Past: The Place of the Prehistoric Burial Mound in the Ideology of Middle and Later Saxon England’, World Archaeology 30: 109–26. Semple, S. (2004). ‘Illustrations of Damnation in Late Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts’, ASE 32: 231–45. Semple, S. (2007). ‘Defining the OE hearg: A Preliminary Archaeological and Topographic Examination of hearg Place-Names and their Hinterlands’, EME 54: 364–84. Semple, S. (2013). Perceptions of the Prehistoric in Anglo-Saxon England: Religion, Ritual and Rulership in the Landscape (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Servais, E. and Hambye, F. (1971). ‘Structure et signification: problème de méthode en sociologie des organizations claustrales’, Social Compass 18: 27–44. Shaw, P. (2011). Pagan Goddesses in the Early Germanic World: Eostre, Hreda and the Cult of Matrons (London: Bristol Classical Press). Shaw, R. (2016). ‘Bede’s Sources for his References to “Hides” in the Ecclesiastical History and the History of the Abbots’, Historical Research 89 (245): 412–34. Sheehan, J. (1998). ‘Early Viking Age Silver Hoards from Ireland and their Scandinavian Elements’, in H. B. Clarke, M. Ní Mhaonaigh, and R. Ó Floinn (eds), Ireland and Scandinavia in the Early Viking Age (Dublin: Four Courts Press), 166–202. Sheehan, J. (2000). ‘Ireland’s Early Viking-Age Silver Hoards: Components, Structure, and Classification’, in S. Stummann Hansen and K. Randsborg (eds), Vikings in the West (Copenhagen: Munksgaard), 49–63. Sheehan, J. (2004), ‘Social and Economic Integration in Viking-Age Ireland: The Evidence of Hoards’, in Hines, Lane, and Redknap (eds) 2004: 177–88. Sheehan, J. (2007). ‘The Form and Structure of Viking-Age Silver Hoards: The Evidence from Ireland’, in Graham-Campbell and Williams (eds) 2007: 149–62. Sheehan, J. (2013). ‘Viking Raiding, Gift-Exchange and Insular Metalwork in Norway’, in Reynolds and Webster (eds) 2013: 808–23. Sherlock, S. (2012). A Royal Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Street House, Loftus, NorthEast Yorkshire (Hartlepool: Tees Archaeology). Simpson, L. (1989). ‘The King Alfred/St Cuthbert Episode in the Historia de Sancto Cuthberto: Its Significance for Mid-Tenth-Century English History’, in Bonner, Rollason, and Stancliffe (eds) 1989: 397–411. Sims-Williams, P. (1990). Religion and Literature in Western England, 600–800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Sindbaek, S. (2011). ‘Silver Economies and Social Ties: Long-Distance Interaction, Long-Term Investments—and Why the Viking Age Happened’, in Graham-Cambell, Sindbaek, and Williams (eds) 2011: 41–66. Skre, D. (2011). ‘Commodity Money, Silver and Coinage in Viking-Age Scandinavia’, in Graham-Campbell, Sindbaek, and Williams (eds) 2011: 67–92.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Bibliography

357

Small, A. (ed.) (1965). The Fourth Viking Congress (Edinburgh: Oliver Boyd). Smith, A. H. (ed.) (1928). The Place-Names of the North Riding of Yorkshire, EPNS 5 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Smith, A. H. (ed.) (1937). The Place-Names of the East Riding of Yorkshire, EPNS 14 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Smith, A. H. (ed.) (1952–9). The Place-Names of the West Riding of Yorkshire, 8 vols, EPNS 30–7 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Smith, A. H. (ed.) (1967). The Place-Names of Westmorland, 2 vols, EPNS 42–3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Smyth, A. P. (1975–9). Scandinavian York and Dublin: The History and Archaeology of Two Related Viking Kingdoms, I–II (Dublin: Templekieran Press). Smyth, A. P. (1977). Scandinavian Kings in the British Isles, 850–880 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Snow, D. A. and Machalek, R. (1984). ‘The Sociology of Conversion’, Annual Review of Sociology 10: 167–90. Sowerby, R. (2016). Angels in Early Medieval England (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Spearman, R. M. and Higgitt J. (eds) (2003). The Age of Migrating Ideas (Stroud: Sutton). Speed, G. and Walton Rogers, P. (2004). ‘A Burial of a Viking Woman at Adwick-leStreet, South Yorkshire’, Medieval Archaeology 48: 51–90. Stafford, P. (1978). ‘The Reign of Æthelred II, A Study in the Limitations on Royal Policy and Action’, in D. Hill (ed.), Ethelred the Unready: Papers from the Millenary Conference, BAR BS 59 (Oxford: Archaeopress), 15–46. Stafford, P. (1980). ‘The “Farm of One Night” and the Organisation of King Edward’s Estates in Domesday’, Economic History Review 33: 491–502. Stafford, P. (1989). Unification and Conquest: A Political and Social History of England in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries (London: Edward Arnold). Stamper, P. A. and Croft, R. A. (eds) (2000). The South Manor Area, Wharram: A Study of Settlement on the Yorkshire Wolds, Vol. VIII (York: York University Archaeological Publications). Stancliffe, C. (2003). Bede, Wilfrid and the Irish (Jarrow: Friends of Jarrow). Stancliffe, C. (2012). ‘Disputed Episcopacy: Bede, Acca, and the Relationship between Stephen’s Life of St Wilfrid and the Early Prose Lives of St Cuthbert’, ASE 41: 7–39. Stancliffe, C. (2013). ‘Dating Wilfrid’s Death and Stephen’s Life’, in Higham (ed.) 2013: 17–26. Stancliffe, C. and Cambridge, E. (eds) (1995). Oswald: Northumbrian King to European Saint (Stamford: Paul Watkins). Starkey, K. (1999). ‘Imagining an Early Odin: Gold Bracteates as Visual Evidence’, Scandinavian Studies 71: 373–92. Stead, I. (1958). ‘An Anglian Cemetery on The Mount, York’, YAJ 39: 427–35. Stead, I. M. (1991). Iron Age Cemeteries in East Yorkshire (London: English Heritage and British Museum Press). Stein, R. (2017). Magnanimous Dukes and Rising States: The Unification of the Burgundian Netherlands, 1380–1480 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Stenton, F. M. (1910). ‘Types of Manorial Structure in the Northern Danelaw’, in P.  Vinodograff (ed.), Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History, I–II (Oxford: Clarendon), II, 1–96.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

358 Bibliography Stenton, F. M. (1927). ‘The Danes in England’, Proceedings of the British Academy 13: 203–46. Stenton, F. M. (1936). ‘The Road System of Medieval England’, Economic History Review 7; reprinted in D. M. Stenton (ed.), Preparatory to Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970), 234–52. Stenton, F. M. (1941). ‘The Historical Bearing of Place-Name Studies: Anglo-Saxon Heathenism’, TRHS 4th Ser. 23: 1–24. Stenton, F. M. (1947). Anglo-Saxon England, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Stenton, F. M. (1955). The Latin Charters of the Anglo-Saxon Period (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Stevenson, J. (trans.) (1858). Symeon of Durham, A History of the Kings of England (facsimile reprint Lampeter: Llanerch, 1987). Stevenson, W. H. (1914). ‘Trinoda Necessitas’, EHR 29: 689–703. Stevenson, W. H. and Whitelock, D. (eds) (1959). Asser’s Life of King Alfred Together with the Annals of St Neots Erroneously Ascribed to Asser (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Stewart, I. and Lyon, S. (1992). ‘Chronology of the St Peter Coinage’, Yorkshire Numismatist 2: 45–73. Stocker, D. (1993). ‘The Early Church in Lincolnshire: A Study of the Sites and their Significance’, in A. Vince (ed.), Pre-Viking Lindsey (Lincoln: City of Lincoln Archaeological Unit), 101–22. Stocker, D. (2000). ‘Monuments and Merchants: Irregularities in the Distribution of Stone Sculpture in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire in the Tenth Century’, in Hadley and Richards (eds) 2000: 179–212. Stocker, D. and Everson, P. (2001). ‘Five Towns Funerals: Decoding Diversity in Danelaw Stone Sculpture’, in Graham-Campbell, Jesch, and Parsons (eds) 2001: 223–44. Stoertz, C. (1997). Ancient Landscapes of the Yorkshire Wolds: Aerial Photographic Transcription and Analysis (Swindon: RCHME). Stoodley, N. (1999). The Spindle and the Spear: A Critical Enquiry into the Construction and Meaning of Gender in the Early Anglo-Saxon Burial Rite, BAR BS 288 (Oxford: Archaeopress). Stoodley, N. (2000). ‘From the Cradle to the Grave: Age Organization and the Early Anglo-Saxon Burial Rite’, World Archaeology 31 (3): 456–72. Stoodley, N. (2011). ‘Childhood to Old Age’, in Hamerow, Hinton, and Crawford (eds) (2011), 641–66. Story, J. (2003). Carolingian Connections: Anglo-Saxon England and Carolingian Francia, c. 750–870 (Aldershot: Ashgate). Straw, C. (1988). Gregory the Great: Perfection in Imperfection (Berkeley: University of California Press). Strickland, M. (2004). ‘Hexham, Richard of (d. 1155 × 67)’, in Matthew, Harrison, and Goldman (eds) (2004). Stroud, G. and Kemp, R. L. (1993). Cemeteries of the Church and Priory of St Andrew, Fishergate (London: CBA). Styles, T. (1998). ‘Whitby Revisited: Bede’s Explanation of Strænæshalh’, Nomina 21: 133–48. Sullivan, R. E. (1953). ‘The Carolingian Missionary and the Pagan’, Speculum 28 (4): 705–40.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Bibliography

359

Sullivan, R. E. (1956). ‘Carolingian Missionary Theories’, Catholic Historical Review 42 (3): 273–95. Swanson, R. N. (ed.) (1981–5). Register of Richard Scrope, Archbishop of York, 1398–1405 (York: Borthwick Society). Swanton, M. (trans.) (1996). The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (London: Dent). Sykes, N. (2004). ‘The Dynamics of Status Symbols: Wildfowl Exploitation in England AD 410–1550’, Archaeological Journal 161 (1): 82–105. Sykes, N. (2010). ‘Deer, Land, Knives and Halls: Social Change in Early Medieval England’, The Antiquaries Journal 90: 175–93. Tait, J. (ed.) (1920). The Chartulary or Regilster of the Abbey of St Werburgh, Chester I–II (Manchester: Chetham Society). Talbot, C. H. (1981). The Anglo-Saxon Missionaries in Germany (London: Sheed and Ward). Tangl, M. (ed.) (1916). Die Briefe des heiligen Bonifatius et Lullus, MGH Epistolae Selectae I (Berlin: Weidmann). Taylor, C. M. (1992). ‘Elmet: Boundaries and Celtic Survival’, Medieval History 2 (1): 111–29. Taylor, H. M. and Taylor, J. (1965–78). Anglo-Saxon Churches, I–III (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Taylor, S. (ed.) (1983). The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition, Vol. 4 MS B (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer). Thacker, A. T. (1976). ‘The Social and Continental Background to Early Anglo-Saxon Hagiography’, D.Phil. Thesis (University of Oxford). Thacker, A. T. (1983). ‘Bede’s Ideal of Reform’, in Wormald, Bullough, and Collins (eds) 1983: 130–53. Thacker, A. T. (1989). ‘Lindisfarne and the Origins of the Cult of St Cuthbert’, in Bonner, Rollason, and Stancliffe (eds) 1989: 103–22. Thacker, A. T. (1992). ‘Monks, Preaching and Pastoral Care in Early Anglo-Saxon England’, in Blair and Sharpe (eds) 1992: 137–70. Thacker, A. T. (1995). ‘Membra Disjecta: The Division of the Body and the Diffusion of the Cult’, in Stancliffe and Cambridge (eds) 1995: 97–127. Thacker, A. T. (1998). ‘Memorializing Gregory the Great: The Origin and Transmission of a Papal Cult in the Seventh and Early Eighth Centuries’, EME 7 (1): 59–84. Thacker, A. T. (2002). ‘The Making of a Local Saint’, in Thacker and Sharpe (eds) 2002: 45–73. Thacker, A. T. (2013). ‘Wilfrid, his Cult and his Biographer’, in Higham (ed.) 2013: 1–16. Thacker, A. T. and Sharpe, R. (eds) (2002). Local Saints and Local Churches in the Early Medieval West (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Thompson, B. (1999), ‘Introduction: Monasteries and Medieval Society’, in Thompson (ed.) 1999: 1–33. Thompson, B. (ed.) (1999). Monasteries and Society in Medieval Britain, Harlaxton Medieval Studies 6 (Stamford: Paul Watkins), 59–74. Thompson, L. (1975). Survival in Two Worlds: Moshoeshoe of Lesotho, 1786–1870 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Thurlby, M. (2002, for 2001). ‘Minor Cruciform Churches in Norman England and Wales’, Anglo-Norman Studies 24: 239–76.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

360 Bibliography Timby, J. R. (1993). ‘Sancton I Anglo-Saxon Cemetery. Excavations Carried Out Between 1976 and 1980’, Archaeological Journal 150: 243–365. Townend, M. (2003). ‘Whatever Happened to York Viking Poetry? Memory, Tradition and the Transmission of Skaldic Verse’, Saga Book of the Viking Society 27: 48–90. Townend, M. (2007). Scandinavian Culture in Eleventh-Century Yorkshire (Kirkdale: Friends of Kirkdale). Townend, M. (2014). Viking Age Yorkshire (Pickering: Blackthorn). Trent Foley, W. (1992). Images of Sanctity in Eddius Stephanus’ ‘Life of Bishop Wilfred’: An Early English Saints’ Life (Lampeter: Edwin Mellen). Turton, R. B. (1894–7). The Honor and Forest of Pickering, I–IV (London: North Riding Record Society). Tyler, D. (2007). ‘Reluctant Kings and Christian Conversion in Seventh-Century England’, History 92: 144–61. Urbanczyk, P. (2003). ‘The Politics of Conversion in North Central Europe’, in Carver (ed.) 2003: 15–27. Vésteinsson, O. (1998). ‘Patterns of Settlement in Iceland: A Study in Prehistory’, Saga Book of the Viking Society 25: 1–29. Vyner, B. E. (1999). ‘Fieldwalking Cottam’, Archaeological Journal 156: 15–16. Wainwright, F. T. (1950). ‘The Battles at Corbridge’, Saga-Book of the Viking Society 13: 156–73; reprinted in F. T. Wainwright and H. P. R. Finberg, Scandinavian England: Collected Papers (Chichester: Phillimore, 1975), 163–79. Waitz, G. (1887). Monumenta Germaniae Historica Scriptorum XV:I (Hanover: Impensis Bibliopolii Hahniani). Walker, J. (2010). ‘In the Hall’, in Carver, Sanmark, and Semple (eds) 2010: 83–102. Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. (1968), ‘Gregory of Tours and Bede: Their Views on the Personal Qualities of Kings’, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 2: 31–44; reprinted in his Early Medieval History (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 96–114. Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. (1971). Early Germanic Kingship in England and on the Continent (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Wallis, F. (trans.) (1999). Bede: The Reckoning of Time (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press). Wallis, F. (trans.) (2013). Bede: Commentary on Revelation (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press). Ward, G. (1932). ‘The List of Saxon Churches in the Textus Roffensis’, Archaeologia Cantiana 44: 39–59. Ward, G. (1933). ‘The Lists of Saxon Churches in the Domesday Monachorum and White Book of St Augustine’s’, Archaeologia Cantiana 45: 60–89. Ward, K. E. (1991). ‘The Monastery of the De Abbatibus: A Reconsideration of its Location’, Durham Archaeological Journal 7: 123–7. Ward, S. (2012). ‘Church and State in Eighth-Century Northumbria: Alcuin’s York Poem’, Archaeologia Aeliana 5th Ser. 41: 217–30. Ware, C. (2005). ‘The Social Use of Space at Gefrin’, in Frodsham and O’Brien (eds) 2005: 153–60. Watson, A. G. (1979). Catalogue of Dated and Datable Manuscripts c. 700–1600 in The Department of Manuscripts: The British Library, I–II (London: British Library). Watts, L., Grenville, J., and Rahtz, P. A. (1996–7). Kirkdale Archaeology, Supplement to the Ryedale Historian No. 18 (Helmsley: Helmsley Archaeological Society).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Bibliography

361

Watts, L., Grenville, J. and Rahtz, P. A. (1998–9). Kirkdale Archaeology 1996–1997, Supplement to the Ryedale Historian No. 19 (Helmsley: Helmsley Archaeological Society). Watts, L., Rahtz, P. A., Okasha, E., Bradley, S. A. J., and Higgitt, J. (1997). ‘Kirkdale— The Inscriptions’, Medieval Archaeology 41: 51–99. Watts, V. E. (1994). ‘The Place-Name Hexham: A Mainly Philological Approach’, Nomina 17: 119–36. Webb, J. F. (trans.) (1998). The Age of Bede (Harmondsworth: Penguin). Weber, M. (1922–3). ‘The Social Psychology of the World Religions’, in H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (ed. and trans.), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (London: Routledge, 1998), 267–301. Webster, L. (1999). ‘Regalia’, in M. Lapidge, J. Blair, S. Keynes, and D. Scragg, The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford: Blackwell), 387–8. Whitelock, D. (ed. and trans.) (1930). Anglo-Saxon Wills (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Whitelock, D. (1952). The Beginnings of English Society (The Anglo-Saxon Period) (Harmondsworth: Penguin). Whitelock, D. (1959). ‘The Dealings of the Kings of England with Northumbria in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries’, in P. Clemoes (ed.), The Anglo-Saxons: Studies in Some Aspects of their History and Culture Presented to Bruce Dickins (London: Bowes & Bowes), 70–88. Whitelock, D. (ed.) (1979). English Historical Documents I, c. 500–1042, 2nd edn (London: Eyre Methuen). Whitelock, D., Brett, M., and Brooke, C. N. L. (eds) (1981). Councils and Synods with Other Documents Relating to the English Church, I: AD 871–1204, I–II (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Whitelock, D., Douglas, D. C., and Tucker, S. I. (ed. and trans.) (1961). The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Revised Translation (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode). Wickham, C. (1994). Land and Power (London: British School at Rome). Wickham, C. (2005). Framing the Early Middle Ages (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Williams, G. (2007). ‘Kingship, Christianity and Coinage: Monetary and Political Perspectives on Silver Economy in the Viking Age’, in Graham-Campbell and Williams (eds) 2007: 177–214. Williams, G. (2013a). ‘The “Northern Hoards” Revisited: Hoard and Silver Economy in the Northern Danelaw in the Early Tenth Century’, in Reynolds and Webster (eds) 2013: 459–86. Williams, G. (2013b). ‘Towns and Identities in Viking England’, in D. M. Hadley and L. ten Harkel (eds), Everyday Life in Viking-Age Towns: Social Approaches to Towns in England and Ireland, c. 800–1100 (Oxford: Oxbow), 14–34. Williams, G. (2014). ‘Viking Camps in England and Ireland’, in G. Williams, P. Pentz, and M. Wemhoff (eds), Vikings: Life and Legend (London: British Museum), 120–1. Williams, G. and Ager, B. (2010). The Vale of York Hoard (London: British Museum Press). Williams, H. (2001). ‘An Ideology of Transformation: Cremation Rites and Animal Sacrifice in Early Anglo-Saxon England’, in N. S. Price (ed.), The Archaeology of Shamanism (London: Routledge), 193–212.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

362 Bibliography Williams, H. (2002a). ‘Cemeteries as Central Places: Place and Identity in Migration Period Eastern England’, Acta Archaeologica Lundensia 8, 39: 341–62. Williams, H. (2002b). ‘Cemeteries as Central Places: Landscape and Identity in Early Anglo-Saxon England’, in B. Hårdh and L. Larsson (eds), Central Places in the Migration and Merovingian Periods (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell), 341–62. Williams, H. (2006). Death and Memory in Early Medieval Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Williams, I. (ed.) (1960). Canu Taliesin (Cardiff: University of Wales Press). Williams, I. (ed.) (1978). Canu Aneirin (Cardiff: University of Wales Press). Wilmott, T. (2017). ‘The Anglian Abbey of Streonaeshalch—Whitby: New Perspectives on Topography and Layout’, ASSAH 20: 81–94. Wilson, D. (ed.) (1976). The Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England (London: Methuen). Wilson, D. (1985). ‘A Note on OE hearg and weoh as Place-Name Elements Representing Different Types of Pagan Worship Site’, ASSAH 4: 179–83. Wilson, D. (1992). Anglo-Saxon Paganism (London: Routledge). Wilson, J. (ed.) (1915). The Register of St Bees (Durham: Surtees Society). Wilson, P. R. (2002). Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its Hinterland. Excavations and Research 1958–1997, I–II (York: CBA). Wilson, S. E. (2003). ‘King Æthelstan and St John of Beverley’, Northern History, 40 (1): 5–24. Wilson, S. E. (2006). The Life and Afterlife of St John of Beverley: The Evolution of the Cult of an Anglo-Saxon Saint (Aldershot: Ashgate). Winchester, A. J. L. (1986).‘The Multiple Estate: A Framework for the Evolution of Settlement in Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian Cumbria’, in J. R. Baldwin and I. D. Whyte (eds), The Scandinavians in Cumbria (Edinburgh: Scottish Society for Northern Studies), 89–102. Winchester, A. J. L. (1987). Landscape and Society in Medieval Cumbria (Edinburgh: Donald). Wood, I. N. (1983). The Merovingian North Sea (Alingsås: Viktoria Bokförlag). Wood, I. N. (1987). ‘Anglo-Saxon Otley: An Archiepiscopal Estate and its Crosses in a Northumbrian Context’, Northern History 23: 20–38. Wood, I. N. (1994a). ‘The Mission of Augustine of Canterbury to the English’, Speculum 69: 1–17. Wood, I. N. (1994b). The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751 (London: Routledge). Wood, I. N. (2008). ‘Monasteries and the Geography of Power in the Age of Bede’, Northern History 45 (1): 11–26. Wood, P. N. (1996). ‘On the Little British Kingdom of Craven’, Northern History 32: 1–20. Wood, S. (2006). The Proprietary Church in the Medieval West (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Woodman, D. A. (ed.) (2012). Charters of Northern Houses (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Woolf, A. (1998). ‘Erik Bloodaxe Revisited’, Northern History 34: 189–93. Woolf, A. (2007). From Pictland to Alba 789–1070 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

Bibliography

363

Wormald, C. P. (1976). ‘Bede and Benedict Biscop’, in G. Bonner (ed.), Famulus Christi: Essays in Commemoration of the Thirteenth Centenary of the Birth of the Venerable Bede (London: SPCK), 141–69. Wormald, C. P. (1977). ‘The Uses of Literacy in Anglo-Saxon England and its Neighbours’, TRHS 5th Ser. 27: 95–114. Wormald, C. P. (1978). ‘Bede, Beowulf and the Conversion of the Anglo-Saxon Aristocracy’, in R. T. Farrell (ed.), Bede and Anglo-Saxon England, BAR BS 46 (Oxford), 32–90; reprinted with updates in Baxter (ed.) 2006: No. 2, 30–105. Wormald, C. P. (1979). ‘Lex Scripta and Verbum Regis: Legislation and Germanic Kingship, from Euric to Cnut’, in P. H. Sawyer and I. N. Wood (eds), Early Medieval Kingship (Leeds: University of Leeds), 105–38; reprinted in Wormald 1999a: 1–43. Wormald, C. P. (1982a). ‘The Age of Bede and Æthelbald’, in Campbell (ed.) 1982: 70–100. Wormald, C. P. (1982b). ‘The Age of Offa and Alcuin’, in J. Campbell (ed.) 1982: 101–31. Wormald, C. P. (1982c). ‘Viking Studies: Whence and Whither?’, in R. T. Farrell (ed.), The Vikings (London: Phillimore), 128–53. Wormald, C. P. (1984). Bede and the Conversion of England: The Charter Evidence (Jarrow: Friends of Jarrow); reprinted with updates in Baxter (ed.) 2006: 135–66. Wormald, C. P. (1989). ‘A Handlist of Anglo-Saxon Lawsuits’, ASE 17: 247–81; reprinted in Wormald 1999a: 253–87. Wormald, C. P. (1995). ‘ “Inter Cetera Bona Genti Suae”: Law-Making and PeaceKeeping in the Earliest English Kingdoms’, Settimane di Studio 42: 963–96; reprinted in Wormald 1999a: 179–200. Wormald, C. P. (1999a). Legal Culture in the Early Medieval West: Law as Text, Image and Experience (London: Hambledon). Wormald, C. P. (1999b). The Making of English Law: King Alfred to the Twelfth Century, 1: Legislation and its Limits (Oxford: Blackwell). Wormald, C. P., Bullough, D. A., and Collins, R. (eds) (1983). Ideal and Reality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Society (Oxford: Blackwell). Wrathmell, S. (ed.) (2012a). A History of Wharram Percy and Its Neighbours, Wharram, A Study of Settlement on the Wolds, XIII (York: York University Archaeological Publications). Wrathmell, S. (2012b). ‘Characterising Middle Saxon Wharram Percy: The Structural Evidence’, in Wrathmell (ed.) 2012a: 118–35. Wrathmell, S. (2012c). ‘Resettlement of the Wolds’, in Wrathmell (ed.) 2012a: 99–118. Wrathmell, S. (2012d). ‘Dating the Foundation of the Medieval Village’, in Wrathmell (ed.) 2012a: 203–6. Wrathmell, S. (2012e). ‘Early Anglo-Saxon Grazing Grounds’, in Wrathmell (ed.), 2012a: 82–96. Wrathmell, S. (2012f). ‘Lordship, Local Administration, and Ecclesiastical Provision in the Late Saxon Period’, in Wrathmell (ed.) 2012a: 180–95. Yorke, B. (1990). Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England (London: Routledge).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/10/2018, SPi

364 Bibliography Yorke, B. (1999). ‘The Reception of Christianity at the Anglo-Saxon Royal Courts’, in R. Gameson (ed.) 1999: 152–73. Yorke, B. (2003a). ‘The Adaptation of the Anglo-Saxon Royal Courts to Christianity’, in Carver (ed.) 2003: 243–57. Yorke, B. (2003b). ‘Anglo-Saxon Gentes and Regna’, in H.-W. Goetz and J. Jarnut (eds), Regna and Gentes: The Relationship between Late Antique and Early Medieval Peoples (Leiden and Boston: Brill), 381–407. Yorke, B. (2009a). Rex Doctissimus: Bede and King Aldfrith of Northumbria (Jarrow: Friends of Jarrow). Yorke, B. (2009b). ‘The Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms 600–900 and the Beginnings of the Old English State’, in W. Pohl and V. Wieser (eds), Der Frümittelalterliche Staat— Europäische Perspektiven (Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences), 73–88. Yorke, B. (2015). ‘The Fate of Otherworldly Beings After the Conversion of the AngloSaxons’, in Ruhmann and Brieske (eds) 2015: 167–75. Zoëga, G. T. (1910). A Concise Dictionary of Old Icelandic (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

Index abbess  6, 27, 58, 62–3, 69, 70–1, 73, 76–7, 79, 82, 84, 85–6, 90, 105–7, 111 n. 172, 112–13, 128, 134 n. 42, 143, 164, 177, 221 abbot  6, 10–17, 33, 35, 39, 58, 62, 69, 70–1, 76–7, 79, 82–4, 87, 90, 110–11, 112, 114, 124, 134 n. 42, 135 n. 44, 136, 143, 165, 177, 189, 194, 197, 214, 221, 251 Abel 261 Abercorn (Lo)  104 Aberford  273, 298, 308, 317 Abingdon (Brk)  221 Abrams, Lesley  285 Acca, abbot and bishop  70, 77, 83, 117 Acklam (EY)  26, 179, 184, 290, 292 Acklam (NY)  151, 159, 274 Acklam Wold  26, 184, 290 Adam  100, 254, 255 Adda, priest  106 Addi, comes 110 Addingham  132, 134 n. 40, 135, 137, 183, 226, 229, 241, 243, 272–3, 295, 298, 308, 317 Addleshaw G. W. O. 7 Adgefrin see Yeavering (Nb) Adlingfleet  48, 129, 134 n. 39, 137–8, 146, 153, 154 Adolana, abbess of Pfalzel by Trier  84–5 Adomnán, abbot of Iona  113 Adwick le Street  36, 182, 202, 292 Adwick upon Dearne  146 Æbbe, abbess of Coldingham  74, 218 Áedán, king of the Dál Riátans  96 Aedelfet.ee see Adlingfleet Ælfberht, abbot of Cornu Vallis 71 Aelfet.ee see Adlingfleet Ælfflæd, abbess of Streoneshalh (Whitby)  1, 27, 34, 58, 62, 70, 74, 84–5, 106–7, 164, 177 Ælfflaed, daughter of Ealdred of Bamburgh  220 Ælfhelm, ealdorman of the Northumbrians  217, 221–2 Ælfhild  88 n. 304 Ælfric (Puttoc), bishop and archbishop  219, 228, 232, 234, 276 Ælfsige, abbot of Peterborough  221 Ælfwald I, king of the Northumbrians  121 Ælfwald II, king of the Northumbrians  121 Ælfwine, brother of Ecgfrith, king of the Northumbrians 34 Ælle, king of the Deirans  30, 163 Ælle, king of the Northumbrians  13, 122, 123, 126, 187, 188, 200, 213 amulets see Paganism, amulets Æsclac 228

Æthelbald, abbot of Wearmouth and Jarrow  124 Æthelbald, king of the Mercians  115 Æthelberht, abbot of Ripon  135 n. 44 Æthelberht, king of the Kentish people  35, 47, 52, 65, 67, 94, 97–8, 102 Æthelberht, king of the West Saxons  205 Æthelberht (Koaena), archbishop of York  61, 75, 81, 82, 125 Æthelburg, abbess (of Hackness?)  27 Æthelburg, queen and abbess  34, 49, 57, 59, 65–6, 94, 95, 98, 178 Æthelflæd, lady of the Mercians  191, 197, 214 Æthelfrith, king of the Bernicians  31, 53, 59, 94–7 Æthelhun, son of Edwin, king of the Northumbrians 57 Æthelred, ealdorman/king of the Mercians  215 Æthelred, king of the Mercians, abbot of Bardney 34 Æthelred I, king of the Northumbrians  12–14, 30, 121, 135 n. 44 Æthelred II, king of the Northumbrians  122 Æthelred (the Unready), king of the English  217, 219, 220, 233 Æthelric, bishop of Durham  220–1 Æthelsige  88 n. 304 Æthelstan, king of the Anglo-Saxons/ English  191, 194, 196 n. 73, 197, 208, 210, 211, 216, 218–19, 227, 232–4 Æthelthryth, daughter of Edwin, king of the Northumbrians 57 Æthelthryth, queen and abbess  34, 82, 90, 107, 125, 182 Æthelwald, ætheling  190, 199 Æthelwald, king of the Deirans  1, 17, 42, 103, 105–6, 125, 129–30, 135–6, 181 Æthelwald, priest of Ripon  77 n. 198 Æthelwald Moll, king of the Northumbrians  117, 120–1 Æthelweard, Chronicon see Æthelweard, ealdorman and chronicler Æthelweard, ealdorman and chronicler  189–90, 192 n. 44, 193, 209, 239 Æthelwine, bishop of Durham  220–1 Æthelwold, abbot and bishop  221 Æthelwulf, author of De abbatibus  135, 141–2 Ætla, bishop of Dorchester  70 Ætswinapathe, council of  111 see also Austerfield, council of Agmund, hold  199, 210 Aidan, bishop of Lindisfarne  46–7, 58, 60, 68, 86, 95, 100–1, 105, 108–9, 218 Ailcy Hill, Ripon  133, 182, 294

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

366 Index Ainhow 141 ‘Ainsbrook’ 207 Aire, River  137, 230 Airmyn 151 Aislaby, near Pickering  28 Aislaby, near Whitby  152, 161 Alberht, abbot of Ripon  232 Albinus, cleric at York  80 Alchhild  88 n. 304 Alclud, kingdom of  21, 113 see also Strathclyde, kingdom of Alcuin, deacon and abbot  10, 12–13, 63, 72, 77, 80–1, 84–5, 87, 91, 109, 123–4, 126, 177, 179 Aldborough, near Boroughbridge  22, 48–9, 146, 154, 155, 158, 179, 181, 288–9, 292 Aldbrough  158, 298, 308, 317 Aldfrith, king of the Northumbrians  27, 29, 48, 71, 81, 84, 103–4, 107–8, 113–14, 116–18, 125, 177 Aldgate, York  271 Aldhelm, abbot and bishop  29, 35, 81, 85, 87, 113 Alfred, ealdorman  122 Alfred, king of the West Saxons  49–50, 189–90, 190 n. 24, 195, 199, 207–8, 212, 222, 238 Alfred, son of Beorhtwulf  194, 200, 214 Alhred, king of the Northumbrians  30, 120–1 Allerston 150 Allerthorpe 150 Almondbury 147 Alne 146 Alsige, landholder  160 Alwine, landholder  159 Ambrose, bishop of Milan  175 Amotherby  252, 298, 308, 317 Amounderness (La)  210–11, 218, 227, 232 Ampleforth 147 Ana Cross  141 Aneirin, British poet  20, 21 Angel Moon Field, Ferry Fryston  290 angels  89–90, 162–70, 176–7, 236–7, 239, 254, 261, 264–6, 272 see also stone sculpture, multivalent images, angel Angles  23, 28, 69, 163 Anglesey 96 Anna, king of the East Angles  102 Anthony, St  262, 267 Anthropos, cleric of York  80 Anwend, king  199 apostasy see conversion, apostasy apostles  64, 84–5, 162–4, 166–9, 171–3, 263, 272 see also stone sculpture, multivalent images, apostles James 181 John 257 Judas 261 Paul  109, 256 Peter  164, 256–7 Appleton  227, 229, 230

Appleton le Street  202, 275, 287, 290 archbishops  14, 34, 70, 76, 78, 81, 85 nn. 281–2, 91, 106–7, 114 n. 194, 117–18, 120, 123–4, 126, 132, 158–9, 177–8, 188, 190, 197–8, 200, 205–10, 214–15, 218–19, 222, 224–9, 231–3, 243–4, 272, 275–7, 325–6 archbishops of York see York, archbishops Argam 149 Ari Thorkelsson  210 Armthorpe 149 Arncliffe  179, 184, 292 Arnketill, landholder  160 Asenby 225 Ashdown (Brk)  199 Ashford (Db)  215 Asser, bishop of Sherborne  49–50, 193, 195–6 Aston 146 Auburn 146 Aughton 159 augury see Paganism, augury Augustine, archbishop of Canterbury  60, 76 Augustine, bishop of Hippo  175, 281 Austerfield, council of  32, 108, 111 Axminster (D)  219, 228 Aysgarth  146, 153–4, 298, 308, 317 Bagby 159 Bagsecg 199 Bailey, Richard  261–2, 273 Bainesse Farm, Catterick  290 Bakewell (Db)  191, 193, 197 Balaam 44 Baldersby  298, 308, 317 Baldhelm, priest of Lindisfarne  64 Balthere, saint  125 Bamburgh (Nb)  31, 68, 100, 109, 190, 192–4, 196–8, 200, 217, 220 baptism see conversion, baptism Bardney (Li)  68 Bardsey  298, 308, 317 Barforth 152 Barking (Ex)  90 Barlby 149 Barmby Moor  150 Barmpton (Du)  220 Barmston  45 n. 264, 298, 308, 317 Barnburgh  298, 308, 317 Barnby 290 Barningham  134 n. 41, 298, 308, 317 Barnoldswick 146 Barnsley 151 Barrow, Julia  285 Barrow upon Humber (Li)  221 Barton 152 Barwick in Elmet  18, 254–5, 273, 298, 308, 317 Bass, miles 59 Baston (Li)  24 battle  19, 22, 31–2, 36–7, 53, 68, 79–80, 86, 95, 101, 103–4, 106–7, 122, 125, 190–1, 191 n. 40, 196–7, 212

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

Index 367 Catraeth see Catraeth Corbridge  191 n. 40, 196–7 Degsastan see Degsastan Denisesburn see Denisesburn Hatfield see Hatfield, battle of Hefenfeld see Hefenfeld Idle, River  31 Maserfelth see Maserfelth; Oswestry Nechtansmere see Nechtansmere Winwæd see Winwæd Bawtry 203 Baxter, Stephen  160 Beacon Hill, Bishop Wilton  26, 290 Bedale  202, 262–3, 265, 295, 298, 308, 317 Bede, monk of Wearmouth and Jarrow  1–4, 7, 10, 12, 17–18, 20, 28–9, 31–3, 36–7, 39, 42–53, 57–9, 61, 64–9, 71–7, 80, 82–3, 85–8, 90–1, 94–101, 103–6, 108–9, 110–15, 117, 124–5, 128–9, 135, 140–3, 165, 170, 173–6, 179, 218, 232, 250, 269 see also Epistola ad Ecgberhtum; Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum; Vita Cuthberti Beetham 159 Bempton 146 Benesing, hold  199 Benwell (Nb)  29 Bega, St  239, 249–50 Begu, nun of Hackness  82, 90, 218, 250 Benedict Biscop, abbot of Wearmouth and Jarrow (Du)  33, 39, 58, 70, 73–5, 75 n. 180, 77, 78 n. 205, 82, 91 Beorhtsige, son of ætheling Beornnoth  199 Beorn, patricius 121–2 Beornnoth, ætheling  199 Beornwine, nephew of Wilfrid  61–2 Bercthun, abbot of Beverley  88 n. 304, 134 n. 42 berewick  156, 229, 251, 275 Berinsfield (Oxf)  36 Berkshire 8 Bernard, priest  214 Besinga hearg 44 Bessingby 146 Betti, priest  106 Beverley  17, 48–9, 81, 88, 91, 113, 126, 129, 131, 134, 138, 165, 184, 203, 213 n. 211, 218–19, 223, 225, 229–34, 266, 269, 290, 295, 298, 308, 317 Bielby 150 Bilbrough 231 Bilton in Ainsty  255–6, 257 nn. 202–3, 258, 273, 298, 308, 317 Bingley  159, 298, 308, 317 Birdforth  274 n. 294, 298, 308, 317 Birdsall 287 Birkby  299, 308, 317 Birstall  45 n. 264, 299, 308, 317 Biscop Baducing see Benedict Biscop biscopes–tun see place-names, biscopes-tun Bishop Burton  28 Bishop Wilton  26, 159, 288, 290

Bishophill, York  129, 131 n. 24, 226, 231, 235 n. 75, 236, 239, 269, 271, 296, 307, 316–17 bishops  1, 4, 6, 42, 46–7, 57–61, 65, 68–71, 77–81, 83, 86–7, 89, 99, 101–2, 104–11, 113–15, 117, 121, 123, 125–6, 129, 136, 143, 164–5, 176–7, 189, 200, 214, 219–22, 231, 248, 269, 274, 283 see also archbishops; York, archbishops; York, bishops Bishopstone (Su)  36 Bishopthorpe 146 Blair, John  4, 8, 43, 60, 224, 279, 282–3 Blanch Farm, Warter  291 Blue Bridge Lane, York  271, 296 Boisil, prior of Melrose  79, 82, 89, 218 Bolton, near Cleckheaton  160 Bolton Abbey  158 Bolton on Swale  146, 299, 308, 317 Bolton Percy  119 Bond, C. James  8 Boniface, archbishop of the Frisians  61, 65–7, 72, 85, 115 Boniface V, Pope  28, 94, 100, 178 bookland see royal, diplomas Bosa, bishop of York  70, 77, 81, 88 n. 304, 107, 125, 129 Bossall 207 Botwine, abbot of Ripon  88 n. 304, 135 n. 44, 232 Bourdieu, Pierre  74, 279 bovates 211 Boynton  28, 288 Bracewell 146 Bracken  227, 229, 230 Bradfield  148, 299, 308, 317 Bradford  147, 299, 308, 317 Braithwell 146 Bramham  160, 256, 299, 309, 317 Brantingham 28 Brettanby 152 Brewster, Tony  205 Bridge Street, Driffield  27, 288 Bridlington  28, 45, 48, 146, 154–5, 158, 290 Brigantes 22 Brignall  134 n. 41, 299, 309, 317 Britons  16, 18–19, 21, 30, 37, 59, 96, 98–9, 113, 117, 124, 188, 193, 196, 212, 248–9 see also Alclud, kingdom of; Elmet; Gododdin; place-names; religious community; Rheged; Strathclyde, kingdom of Brompton, near Northallerton  146, 154, 219, 254, 264, 266–7, 269, 273–4, 290, 299, 309, 317 Brompton on Swale  28 brooches  23–5, 27–9, 38, 40, 41, 55, 59, 180, 202–3, 206–7 Brotton 151 Brough on Humber  22, 230 Broughton  23, 45 n. 264, 179, 287

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

368 Index Buckberry Jo  23, 179, 287 Buckton  146, 160 bullion hoards see silver hoards Bullough, Donald  124 Bulmer  28, 159, 288 Burdale  225, 288 Burgred, king of the Mercians  207 burials  17, 23–7, 32, 36–43, 54, 90–1, 96–7, 130–5, 179–85, 201–2, 204, 207, 211, 249–50, 265, 270–1, 279, 284, 287–97 Anglo-Saxon  17, 23–7, 36–43, 179–85, 287–97 barrow  23–7, 42, 287–97 Bronze Age  42–4, 180–1 Christian  91, 165, 179–85, 211, 249, 250, 271 church  91, 181, 204, 211, 249, 250, 270–1 cist 287 ‘Conversion Period’  179–83 cremation  17, 23–4, 180, 287, 289 deviant  40–1, 184 execution see burials, deviant ‘Final Phase’  179–83 furnished  17, 23–7, 36–43, 54, 97, 179–85, 184, 201–2, 279, 284, 287–92 inhumation  17, 23–7, 36–43, 54, 97, 179–85, 201–2, 207, 279, 284, 287–97 Iron Age  42–3, 180–2 religious communities  90, 130–5, 249 Scandinavian  201–2, 207 settlements  183, 204, 207 unfurnished  180–3, 249, 271, 294–7 Burnby 150 Burnby Gates, Hayton  291 Burneston 28 Burnsall  146, 299, 309, 317 Burstwick  151, 158 Burton Agnes  159 Burton Fields, Stamford Bridge  293 Burton Fleming  146, 149, 203 Burton Pidsea  179, 184, 292 Burton upon Trent (Db)  221 Butterwick  146, 148 Byland  179, 275, 292, 303, 313, 317 Byrhtferth, monk of Ramsey  232 Byrhtferth of Ramsey, Vita Oswaldi see Byrhtferth, monk of Ramsey by(r) see place-names, by(r) Cadwallon ap Cadfan, king of Gwynedd  32, 94–5, 99 Cædmon, poet  75, 81–2, 86–7, 89–90, 177 Cælin, priest  58, 62 Caiaphas 44 Cain 261 Cake Mill, Driffield  289 Calcaria  18, 48, 49, 111 n. 172, 128 see also Kælcacæstir; Tadcaster Calder, River  137–8 Calvinus, cleric of York  80, 124 Cambridge (Ca)  199, 215 Cambridge, Eric  9–10

Campbell, James  73 Camp Hill House, Carthorpe  201 Campodunum (Cambodunum)  17, 18, 31, 47, 49, 67, 94, 98–9 Canterbury (Kt)  5, 51, 58, 76, 85, 107, 218, 223, 228, 232, 236 Carl, son of Thurbrand the Hold  160, 275 Carlisle (Cu)  22, 104, 141, 189, 213 n. 211, 249 Carlton, near Thirsk  152 Carlton (Du)  220 Carlton by Bolton  151 Carthorpe  26, 179, 180, 201, 292, 295 Cartmel (La)  104, 245, 248–9 cartularies 145 carucates  211, 249 casting of lots see paganism, casting of lots Castle Bolton  299, 309, 317 Castle Hill, Scarborough  295 Castle Hills, Catterick  290 Castle Howard  287 Castle Yard, York  294 Castledyke (Li)  36 Castlegate, York  239, 273, 317 Cataractonium, Roman fort and small town  20 see also Catterick Cathroe 194 Catlows  31, 48, 104, 136 Catraeth  16, 19, 20–2 see also Cataractonium; Catterick battle  19, 20–2 kenning 22 place  20, 22 polity 22 Catterick  17, 20, 28, 29, 31, 32, 36, 47, 49, 57, 67, 94, 95, 98, 99, 128–9 n. 3, 134 n. 41, 146, 153, 154, 184, 288, 290, 299, 309, 317 Catterick Bridge, Brompton on Swale  184, 290 Catterick Bypass  290 Catterick Racecourse  288 Catterick RAF  290 Catterton 152 Cawthorne  151, 299, 309, 317 Cedd, abbot and bishop  42, 58, 62, 69, 77, 88, 106, 135, 136, 140, 141, 178, 181 cemeteries see burials Cenred, king of the Northumbrians  113, 117 Cenwealh, king of the West Saxons  102 Ceolfrith, abbot of Wearmouth and Jarrow  39, 51–2, 62, 69–70, 74, 75 n. 180, 76, 82, 114, 218 Ceolwulf, king of the Northumbrians  1, 113, 115, 117, 122 ceorl  35, 37, 50, 200 Ceorl, king of the Mercians  57, 94 Cerdic, British king  18–19, 31 Ceredig, king of Elmet  18–19, 96 see also Cerdic, British king Ceredig, son of Gwallawc  19 Chad, bishop and abbot  58, 62, 106–7 Chalgrave (Bd)  214

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

Index 369 charters see royal, diplomas Cheesecake Hill, Driffield  25, 27, 36, 37, 40, 288 Cherry Burton  146 Chester (Ch)  96, 250 Chester le Street (Du)  189, 218–19, 222, 223 Cheviots 15 Christ  57, 59, 64, 78, 80, 84, 91, 94, 109, 123, 124 n. 261, 142, 162–4, 166–9, 171–4, 237, 239–40, 249, 255–62, 265 Christianization see conversion, Christianization Chronica Pontificum Ecclesiae Eboracensis 232 church building  130–1, 133–5, 183, 204, 222, 249, 271 burial see burials, church cemetery see burials, church episcopal  6, 18, 67, 83, 95, 98–9, 108–10, 129, 178, 189 furnishing  42, 63, 67, 130–1, 134–5, 251 local  5–6, 9, 165, 204, 220, 224, 266, 269–77, 285–6 mother  7, 9, 12, 48, 128, 144–62, 225–6 place-names see place-names proprietary  4–5, 7, 183, 220, 274–5 religious community see religious community, church urban 271 Church Farm, Cowlam  205–6 civil parish see parish, civil civitas/civitates see Brigantes; Parisi Clay, Charles  13 Cleasby 152 Cleatham (Li)  23–4 clergy  4–7, 70, 76–7, 80, 87, 90, 109–11, 123, 126, 155 n. 106, 162, 165, 177–8, 190, 214, 226, 231, 248–9, 266, 276–7, 285 cleric  83, 86, 110, 117, 123–5, 220, 224–5, 237, 239, 254, 266 see also stone sculpture, multivalent images clerical communities see religious community Clifford 18 Clifford Street, York  235 n. 75, 236, 306, 316–17 Clifton  146, 159 Clyde, River  20 Cnut, king in York  190, 211 Cnut, king of the English and Danes  217, 219, 220, 227, 228, 275 Cnut, son of Carl, grandson of Thurbrand  275 Coatsworth, Elizabeth  272 Coel Hen Guotepauc  19 Coeling  19, 27, 30, 31 Coifi  43, 44, 178 coin hoards see silver hoards coinage Deiran/Northumbrian  113, 118–20, 123, 194 St Peter  190–1, 208–9 Scandinavian  190–2, 197, 208–9, 211–12 West Saxon  216 Cold Kirby  148 Coldingham (Berw)  46

Collingham  131, 134 n. 40, 137, 172, 203, 226, 248, 272–3, 292, 299, 309, 317 Collins, Rob  29 Colman, bishop of Lindisfarne  69, 115 Columbanus, abbot  60 common burdens see royal, diplomas Community of St Cuthbert  10, 104, 126, 129, 141, 157, 188 n. 13, 189, 192, 194, 197–8, 200, 212–14, 218–19, 220, 222–4, 234, 248–9, 274, 286 companion, royal (comes/comites, socii, sodales)  35, 39–40, 46–7, 51–2, 55, 62, 64, 74, 110, 112–13, 115–16, 269 concubinage see marriage Conisbrough  45 n. 264, 48, 126, 131, 134 n. 40, 137, 146–7, 153, 158, 221–2, 226, 295, 299, 309, 317 Constantine, king of the Scots  194, 196, 200 Constantine, Roman emperor  67–8, 98, 102 conversion  2–4, 57–71, 93–113 anthropology  4, 102–3, 278 apostasy  94–5, 101–3, 280 attractions 60 baptism  67–9, 99, 101, 280 Christianization 103–13 chronology  6–7, 57–9, 69–71, 93–5, 100, 126–7, 280–1 collective 281–2 confrontation  67–9, 280 contractual 64–5 cosmological transformation  64–7 deliberation  43, 46, 67–9, 280 demonstration  43, 67–9, 280 effects 280–1 familiarization  55, 59–60, 96, 278–9 historiography 2–4 individual  63–4, 281–2 kingship see kingship kinship  61–3, 95–6, 280 lay belief  177–85 lordship  62, 101 official  6, 17, 57–8, 65–9, 92, 94–103, 280 overlordship  96–100, 104 politics  4, 55, 67–9, 93–113 preaching 65–7 Romanitas 97–100 Scandinavian  211–13, 224 social circumstances  11, 55–6, 59–64, 96, 100, 103, 278–81 social conventions  64 social memory  59 social process  65–7, 280–1 social sanction  59, 67–9, 93, 103 social strategies  59–64, 93, 103, 279–81 sociology 278–82 stories 61–9 typology 278–82 Coppergate, York  235 n. 75, 236, 296, 306, 316–17 Copsi, earl of the Northumbrians  159, 220, 274 Cornu Vallis  71, 114, 129, 134 n. 39

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

370 Index Costambeys, Marios  280 Cotherstone  134 n. 41, 299, 309, 317 Cottam  26–7, 119, 180–2, 203–6, 292, 295 Cottingham  147, 203 Coverham  255–7, 299, 309, 317 Cowesby 149 Cowlam 204–5 Coxwold  16, 48–9, 114, 117, 126, 129, 134 n. 39, 137–8, 147, 153, 154, 159 Craig-Aitkins, Lizzie  23, 179 Crambeck 26 Crathorne  254, 264, 299, 309, 317 Craven 18 Cravenshire 18 Crayke  48–9, 88, 104, 114, 126, 129, 132–5, 137–9, 141–2, 182–3, 220, 294, 299, 309, 317 Crayke Hall  133 Croft  131, 134 n. 40, 137, 226, 274 n. 294, 299, 309, 317 Crofton  131, 134 n. 40, 299, 309, 317 Crookhill 147 Crosby 149 Cubitt, Katy  8 Cudda  35, 62, 78–9 Cuerdale Hall (La)  207 cult of saints  6–7, 64, 68, 71, 88, 113, 164, 214, 218, 221, 231–3, 239, 249–51 calendars 71 elevation see burials, church images see stone sculpture, multivalent images martyr 68 miracles see miracles official cult  68, 71, 88, 113, 164, 214, 218, 221, 231–3, 239, 249–51 popular cult  68 relics  68, 164, 184–5, 214, 218, 239, 249–50 translation  68–9, 164, 218 vitae see Frithegod, Vita Wilfridi; Stephen of Ripon, Vita Wilfridi; Whitby, Vita Gregorii Cumberland  156 n. 112, 194, 201, 239, 245, 249 Cundall  131, 134 n. 40, 137, 147, 159, 176, 300, 309, 317 Cuthbert, bishop of Hexham and Lindisfarne  39, 44, 58, 63–4, 69, 73–5, 77 n. 198, 79, 82, 85–6, 89–91, 110, 125, 141, 177, 185, 189, 194, 197, 214, 219, 234, 248, 251 see also Community of St Cuthbert Cuthheard, bishop of Lindisfarne  194, 214 Cwenburg, daughter of Hereburg, abbess of Watton 63 Cwenburg, mother of Osfrith and Eadfrith  57, 94 Cynebill, priest  58, 62 Cynefrith, abbot of Gilling near Richmond  58, 62–3, 69, 74 Cynegils, king of the West Saxons  95 Cynesige, archbishop of York  232, 276 Dál Riátans  96–7, 100, 104 Dale Town, Hawnby  180, 290

Dalfinus, archbishop of Lyons  79, 87 Dalton  203, 225 Dalton, near Conisbrough  147 Dalton Parlours  179, 181, 292 Danby Wiske  134 n. 41, 147, 300, 309, 317 Danegeld 221 Danes  189, 191, 195, 197, 199, 212 Daniel, bishop of the West Saxons  65–7 Darfield  131, 134 n. 40, 135, 147, 300, 309, 317 Darlington (Du)  29, 219–20 Darrington 147 Darton 151 David  44, 171 De abbatibus 115 see also Æthelwulf, author of De abbatibus De pontificibus et sanctis Ecclesiae Eboracensis  13, 124–5 see also Alcuin, deacon and abbot De primo Saxonum adventu  189, 198 deacon  78, 95, 110, 217, 219 Deanery Gardens, Ripon  295 Degsastan  53, 96 Deheubarth 194 Deighton  146, 148, 152, 203 Deirans ethnogenesis 27–9 kingdom of extent  12–13, 17, 31–2 formation  12–13, 22–32 origins  17, 22–5, 29–30 political centralization  25–7, 29–30 kingship 46–55 see also kingship name 17 people  17, 27–9 religious beliefs  40–5 see also conversion, lay belief social organization  32–40 age cycles  37–40 gender 37–40 kinship 32–4 local communities  36 lordship 35–6 social status  36–7 social stratification  25–7 Denisesburn 95 Dent  31, 48, 104, 136 Dentdale 136 Derbyshire  10, 32, 215 Derventio 17 Derwent, River  17, 43, 46–7, 138 Derwentmouth (Cu)  194 Derwentwater (Cu)  21 Dewsbury  48, 49, 91 n. 333, 114, 129, 131, 134 n. 39, 135, 137–8, 147–8, 153–4, 165–70, 172–3, 225–6, 258–9, 266, 300, 309, 317 see also In silva Elmete Dialogus Ecgberhti  78, 110, 176, 178 Dinnington 147 diocese Bernician 32 Chester le Street (Du)  189

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

Index 371 Deiran 32 Hexham  32, 107, 117 Lichfield 107 Lindisfarne  32, 95, 107, 189 Lindsey 107 Northumbrian  32, 104, 107–8 Picts  104, 107 Ripon 107–8 Worcester  218, 227 York  14, 94, 98, 106–7, 123, 164, 218, 220, 223–43, 284, 286 diplomas see royal, diplomas dispute narratives  10–11 Diuma, bishop of the Mercians  106 divination see paganism, divination Domesday Book  5, 7–8, 10–11, 13, 16, 18, 20, 43, 48, 126, 156–7, 160, 201, 210–11, 214, 224–7, 229–31, 233, 247, 270–1, 274–5, 277 Domesday Monachorum  5 Don, River  31 Doncaster  28, 32, 185, 203 Donemuthe  117, 213 Dorchester (O)  70 Dore, River  193 Drax  148, 221 Drengate  211 n. 191 Driffield  25–9, 36–7, 40, 42, 45, 47, 49, 118, 158, 288–90, 302, 312, 317 Driffield, near  119–20 Dringhoe  211 n. 191 Dringhouses  211 n. 191 Dringthorpe  211 n. 191 Dryhthelm  64, 125 Dublin  190–1, 208, 212 Duggleby Howe, Kirby Grindalythe  26, 291 Dumbarton (Dun)  113, 117 Dumfries 194 Dunsley 152 Dunsthorpe 148 Durham  10, 32, 48, 141, 160, 189, 198, 219–23, 274–5, 286 Durham, County  10, 13 Durham Liber Vitae  73, 222 Eadbald, king of Kent  34, 67, 102 Eadberht, bishop of Lindisfarne  71 Eadberht, king of the Northumbrians  85 n. 281, 113, 114 n. 194, 117–18, 120–2, 125, 205 Eadfrith, bishop of Lindisfarne  71 Eadfrith, son of Edwin, king of the Northumbrians 57 Eadgifu, landholder  159 Eadhæd, bishop of Lindsey  70, 107 Eadred, abbot of Carlisle  189, 197, 214 Eadred, king of the English  133, 187, 192, 196, 209–10, 212, 218, 229, 232, 249 Eadred, son of Ricsige  194, 200, 214 Eadric, king of Kent  52 Eadwald  61, 63, 80 Eadwig, king of the English  218, 228

Eadwig (Basan), scribe  228 Eadwulf, earl of the Northumbrians  217 Eadwulf, king of the Northumbrians  190 Eadwulf of Bamburgh  190, 193–4, 196–8, 200 Ealdberht  88 n. 304 Ealdhun, bishop of Chester le Street and Durham 220 ealdorman (dux)  121–3, 192 n. 44, 200, 209, 214–15, 217–22 see also earl Ealdred, archbishop of York  158–9, 219, 232, 275 Ealdred, deacon of York  219 Ealdred, son of Eadwulf of Bamburgh  194, 196–7, 200, 220 Ealdwulf, abbot, bishop, and archbishop  231 Ealhfrith, king of the Deirans  31–3, 104–6, 125, 129, 135–6 Eanbald I, archbishop of York  82, 123 Eanbald II, archbishop of York  87, 91, 123–4, 132 Eanflæd, queen and abbess  33–5, 57–8, 60, 62, 74, 94, 105–6, 135, 164 Eanfrith, king of the Bernicians  57, 68, 95, 97 Eanmund, abbot  114, 129, 135, 141–2 Eanred, king of the Northumbrians  122 Eardwulf, bishop of Lindisfarne  189 Eardwulf, dux  121, 135 n. 44 Eardwulf, king of the Northumbrians  121–3 Eardwulf, princeps 194 earl  48, 158–60, 190, 192, 199, 216–17, 219–20, 222, 227, 274–5 Earnwine, priest  159 Easby  131, 134 n. 40, 137, 172, 300, 310, 317 Easington, near Loftus  36, 48–9, 90, 137, 148, 162, 177, 179, 180, 182, 226, 292, 300, 310, 317 Easingwold  148, 159 East Angles  28, 31, 34, 59, 86, 94, 96, 101–2, 190–1, 193, 195, 199 East Anglia  23, 202–3, 207 East Ardsley  153 East Cowton  150 East Harlsey  149 East Heslerton  152, 225 East Kirkby (Li)  245 East Riddlesden  300, 310, 317 East Saxons  66, 86, 101–2, 104, 106, 113, 136, 178 East Witton  159, 290 Eastburn  27, 291 Eastoft 151 Eastrington 149 Eata, abbot and bishop  79 Ebberston  28, 150 eccles see place-names, eccles ecclesiastical aristocracy  57–92 careers  57–9, 69–71 charismatic authority  69 civil death  78 communal regulation  82–3 communication 83–5

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

372 Index ecclesiastical aristocracy (cont.) cult of saints  83–4, 88 desegregation 82–3 dynamics 88–92 economic position  75–7 education 81–2 formation 59–71 gender 90 historiography 71–3 identity 71–88 heroic acts of rupture  89 kinship 87 legal status  78–9 literacy 81–5 lordship 87 misrecognition 89 nicknames 80–1 nobility 75–7 nobles 74–5 peasants 75 physical contamination  82 prodigies 89 regimentation 82 reproduction  89, 91–2 role scheduling  79–81 sociology 74 space 89–91 storytelling 85–7 ecclesiastical councils Austerfield  32, 108, 111 Hatfield 29 Hertford  29, 110, 111 legatine 123 Nidd  108, 113 Streoneshalh (Whitby)  68, 106, 143 ecclesiastical parish see parish, ecclesiastical Ecclesfield  148, 154, 300, 310, 317 Ecgberht, bishop and archbishop of York  59, 61, 71, 75, 77, 78, 80, 85 n. 281, 88 n. 304, 109–10, 114–15, 117–18, 120, 125, 129, 165, 176, 178 Ecgberht, monk and priest  135, 142, 178 Ecgberht I, king of the Northumbrians  188, 198, 209 Ecgberht II, king of the Northumbrians  198 Ecgfrith, king of the Northumbrians  29, 31, 34, 46, 64, 75, 84, 103, 104, 107, 125, 136, 177, 179, 248 Ecgfritha, daughter of Ealdhun, bishop of Chester le Street and Durham  220 Ecgred, bishop of Lindisfarne  85 n. 282, 126 Echa, anchorite  88 n. 304, 125 Echternach 70 Eden Valley  22, 193–4 Edgar, king of the English  210, 216–18, 221–2, 228–9, 232 EDINA Digimap  145 Edinburgh 21 Edmund, ætheling  220 Edmund, king of the English  192–4, 196, 209, 211–12, 215, 218

Edward I, king of England  144 Edward (the Confessor), king of the English  13, 158–9, 219, 228 Edward (the Elder), king of the Anglo-Saxons  187, 189, 190–1, 193, 197, 199, 207–8, 214–15, 251 Edward (the Martyr), king of the English  217 Edwin, earl  158–9 Edwin, king of the Northumbrians  13, 17–18, 20, 28–9, 31–4, 43, 46, 49, 51, 57–60, 62, 65–8, 75, 88 n. 304, 94–101, 104–6, 109, 125, 163–5, 178 Egill Skalla-Grimsson  212 Elkington (Northants)  24 Elland 148 Ellerburn  150, 252, 258 n. 205, 259, 261, 273, 300, 301, 317 Ellerton 150 Ellerton on Swale  160 Elloughton 290 Elmet  18–20, 22, 30–1 king of  18–19, 96 kingdom of  16, 59, 94, 96 people 18 place-names 18 region  18, 104 wood  18, 48–9, 114, 129, 134 n. 39 Elmet (Carmarthenshire)  19 Elmswell  26, 42 Elsham (Li)  24 Elton (Du)  220 Elvet (Du)  19 Ely (Cambs)  34, 82, 90, 107, 182 English, kingdom of administration 216 ecclesiastical patronage in Yorkshire  218–20 formation  190–2, 214–16 lordship 216 representatives in Yorkshire  216–17 Eoforwicscire (Yorkshire)  13 Eomer 59–60 Eorcenberht, king of Kent  102 Eohric, king  199 Eormenburg, queen and abbess  34, 46, 107, 178–9, 185 Eormengyth, saint  182 Eorpwald, king of the East Angles  96, 102 Eosterwine, abbot of Wearmouth  58, 74, 82 Eowils, king  199 episcopal church see church, episcopal episcopal registers  145 Epistola ad Ecgberhtum  7, 52, 59, 71, 77, 80, 109, 114–15, 129, 165, 176 Eric (?Bloodaxe), king of the Northumbrians 192 Eric (Hakonsson), earl of the Northumbrians 217 Eryholme 148 Escomb (Du)  220 Escrick 148 Esk, River  139, 142

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

Index 373 Eskmouth  48, 142 Eston 150 ethnogenesis see Deirans, ethnogenesis Ethred, earl in Northumbria  220 Evangelists  162, 168–9, 173–4, 263, 265–6, 272 Eve 254–5 Everingham  225, 227, 229–31 Everson, Paul  270, 276 Everthorpe  288, 291 exile  18, 31, 35, 39, 55, 57, 59, 65, 87, 94–6, 99, 102, 113, 116, 121, 140, 217–18, 221 Ezekiel  164, 173 Fairburn 149 Falsgrave 158 Fangfoss  28, 150 Farne Island (Nth)  58, 91 Farrer, William  13 Faull, Margaret  18 Featherstone  148, 225 Felix, author of Vita Guthlaci 64 Fellows-Jensen, Gillian  244, 247 Fenton-Thomas, Chris  25, 42 Ferry Fryston  290 festermen  228, 234 field names  201, 244 Filey  134 n. 41, 300, 310, 317 Fimber  26, 152, 290 Finan, bishop of Lindisfarne  69 Fingay Hill  211 n. 191 Fingerfield  211 n. 191 Finghall  258 n. 205, 259, 300, 310, 317 Firsby (Li)  147 Fishergate, York  118–20, 271, 296 Fishlake 147–8 Five Boroughs  192, 212 Flaxby  146, 148 Flaxton 207 Fleets Farm, East Witton  290 Fleming, Robin  3 Fletcher, Richard  73 Flixborough (Li)  130 Florence Row, York  296 Flores Historiarum  198, 209, 213 Flusco Pike (Cu)  207 Fockerby 151 foederati  23, 25 folkland see royal, diplomas Folkton  273, 300, 310, 317 Follifoot  300, 310, 317 Foot, Sarah  73, 79 Forcett  148, 261, 300, 310, 317 Fornaby (Li)  29 Forth, River  20, 99, 192–5, 198, 214 Forthhere 46 Forthred, abbot of Coxwold, Donemuthe, and Stonegrave 114 Fountains Abbey  300, 310, 317 Foxholes  146, 148 Fraena, earl  199

Frickley  134 n. 41, 149, 300, 310, 317 Frisians  23, 35, 70, 84, 89, 178 Frithegod, Vita Wilfridi 232 Fyling 152 Fylingdales  289, 294 Galloway 194 Gamal, landholder  160 Gamal, son of Carl, grandson of Thurbrand  275 Gamal, son of Thurbrand, father of Orm  275 Ganton  153, 288 Ganton Wold  26, 28, 290 Gargrave  261, 262 n. 224, 300, 310, 317 Garrison, Mary  81 Garsdale 136 Garton on the Wolds  27, 37, 40, 250, 290 Garton Slack  26–7, 36, 179–80, 182, 291–2 Garton Station  26–7, 36, 42–4, 179–80, 182, 292 gender see Deirans, social organization, gender; ecclesiastical aristocracy, gender Geoffrey de la Guerche  250 George, bishop of Ostia  123 Gerald of Wales  221 Giggleswick 148 Gilgal 73 Gillamoor 149 Gilling, in Ryedale  16, 128 n. 3, 134 n. 41, 300 Gilling, near Richmond  32, 39, 48, 58, 62–3, 69–70, 76, 105, 111, 126, 128, 134 n. 39, 135–6, 138, 148, 153, 154, 158, 181, 226, 300, 310, 317 Glen, River (Nth)  57 Gloucester (Go)  223 Gluniairnn, landholder  159 Godfrey, John  2, 7, 283 Godgytha 222 Godman, Peter  124 Godmunddingaham 43–4 see also Goodmanham Gododdin  17 n. 7, 20–2, 29–31 Godwine, ealdorman of Wessex  217 Goffman, Erving  74 Goldsborough (YWR)  148, 207 Goliath 44 Goodmanham  17, 28, 43–4, 67, 178 Goole 151 Gospatric, landholder  159–60 Grainger’s Pit, Willerby  36, 288 Gray’s Garth Farm, Burton Pidsea  184 Greasbrough 147 Great Army  187–90, 199–200, 207, 209 Great Ayton  134 n. 41, 148, 258 n. 205, 259, 260, 300, 310, 317 Great Driffield  158 Great Edstone  275, 300, 310, 317 Great Givendale  150 Green Lane, Garton  26–7, 36, 42, 179, 181–2, 184, 292 Greet’s Hill, Acklam  292 Gregory the Great, Pope  58, 67, 75–6, 98, 108–9, 111, 132, 140, 162–6, 170, 175, 179, 231

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

374 Index Grimston 28 Grindale 146 Grindleton 158 Guilthwaite 147 Guisborough 274 Guiseley  273, 301, 310, 317 Gumeninga hearh 44 Gunner  217, 228 Guthfrith, hold  199 Guthfrith I, king in York  189, 197–8, 211, 214, 234, 239 Guthfrith II, king in York  191 Guthlac 64 Guthmundham 43 see also Goodmanham Guthrum, king of the East Angles  199 Gwallawc  19, 30–1 Gwent 194 Gwynedd, kingdom of  19–20, 32, 94 Gypsey Race  48 Gypsies 42 Hackforth 28 Hackness  27, 48, 82, 88, 90, 91 n. 333, 112, 129, 131, 134 n. 39, 135, 137–8, 161, 162, 213 n. 211, 250, 301, 310, 317 Hadley, Dawn  10, 144, 184 Hædda, bishop of Winchester  87 Hæthfield 32 see also Hatfield, battle of Haldenby 151 Halfdan, king of the Northumbrians  188–9, 193, 195–9, 213 Halifax  45 n. 264, 147–8 Hallam 158 Haltemprice  288, 295 Hambleton 184 Hambleton Moor, Byland  184, 292 Hampsthwaite 146 Harald, earl  199 Harold, earl  158 Harewood  261, 301, 310, 317 Harlsey 150 Harpham 146 Harrogate 185 Harrogate, near  208 Harthill  147, 149 Hartlepool (Du)  58, 62, 70, 90, 91 n. 333, 105, 111 n. 172 Hartness (Du)  123, 213 Hartshead  134 n. 41, 148, 301, 310, 317 Hatfield  147, 149 Hatfield, battle of  32, 99 Hatfield, council of  29 Hase, P. H.  8 Hauxwell  134 n. 41, 301, 310, 317 Havarthr, landholder  159 Hawkes, Jane  167, 171–2, 285 Hawnby  149, 179, 180, 184, 290 Hawold Bridle Track  26 Hawsker  291, 301, 311, 317 Haxby  301, 311, 317 Hayton  150, 291

Hazlewood 152 Hedon 151 Hefenfeld 68 Heiu, abbess of Hartlepool  58, 105, 111 n. 172, 128 Helmsley  153–4, 252, 301, 311, 317 Helperby  227, 229 Hemingbrough 149 Henderskelfe 288 Henry I, king of England  50 Hepton Hill, Appleton le Street  290 Heptonstall 148 Herebald, abbot of Tynemouth  86 Hereburg, abbess of Watton  63, 71, 113 Herefrith, abbot of Lindisfarne  70 Hereric  18, 31, 55, 59, 75, 94, 96 Hereswith, queen and nun  61 hermit  58, 91, 129 Hertford, council of  29, 110, 111 Heruli 23 hescornes 234 Heslington Hill, York  23, 287 Hessle  149, 287, 288, 295 Hexham (Nb)  32, 34, 70, 81, 83, 84, 91, 107–8, 117, 219, 223, 233 Hexthorpe 159 Heversham (We)  194, 214, 251 Heworth Railway Station, York  23, 287 hide  7, 18, 33, 37, 50–2, 75, 77–8, 112, 224 High Hoyland  261, 301, 311, 317 high reeves  37, 121, 123, 200, 217 see also reeve Higham, Nicholas  3, 15 Hilbre (Ch)  250 Hild, abbess of Streoneshalh (Whitby)  34, 58, 61–3, 70, 74–5, 77, 79, 82, 86, 88 n. 304, 89–90, 105–6, 143, 164, 177, 181, 218 Hildburga, of Hilbre (Ch)  250–1 Hines, John  29, 40 Historia Brittonum  2, 18, 19, 20, 30–1, 94, 96, 99 Historia de Sancto Cuthberto  141, 157, 189, 194, 197, 200, 211–14, 218–19, 222, 234, 239, 248 Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum  1, 71, 80, 85, 103, 112–14, 117, 124, 129, 176 Historia Regum  133, 188–9, 191, 195–8, 209, 213–14, 249 histories (historiae)  6, 10, 13, 39–40, 81, 83–4 Hlothhere, king of the Kentish people  52 Hob Hill, Saltburn  28, 36, 289 see also Saltburn Hocca, praefectus 248 hold  37, 191, 199–200, 210–11, 275 Holdelythe  211 n. 191 Holderness  15, 137–8, 210–11, 219, 230 Holiday Hill, Lastingham  141 Holme Cultram (Cu)  249 Holme upon Spalding Moor  301, 311, 317 Holmpton 153 Hooke 151 Hooton Pagnell  149 Hope (Db)  214–15

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

Index 375 Horbury 152 Hornsea  28–9, 45, 129 n. 10, 149, 160, 288 Hoskins, W. G.  5 hospitality  6, 35, 52, 55, 68, 72, 74–5, 84–5, 101, 109–13, 115, 266, 284 household  1, 6, 32–3, 35–7, 39–40, 46–7, 49–52, 55, 57–61, 63–5, 73–5, 77, 81–2, 86–7, 92, 94–6, 100–1, 104–5, 108–12, 116–17, 121–2, 178, 212, 215, 217, 266, 279, 283–4 episcopal  81, 86–7, 110 noble  35, 52, 75, 77, 110, 266, 284 peasant  47, 50–2, 110, 284 religious  64, 73, 108 royal  1, 33, 35, 39, 46–7, 49–52, 55, 57–61, 63, 65, 74–5, 77, 92, 94–6, 100–1, 104–5, 108–9, 111–12, 116–17, 121–2, 178, 212, 215, 217, 283 Hovingham  48, 88, 126, 131, 134 n. 39, 137, 158, 226, 252, 275, 301, 311, 317 Howden  48, 88, 114, 126, 138, 149, 153–4, 157–8, 221 Howe End, Kirkby Moorside  289 Howe Hill, Carthorpe  26, 179–80, 292 Howsham 159 Huddersfield 148 Huggate  23, 287 Hugh Candidus  211 Hugh the Chanter  232 Hull, River  26–7, 138–9 Humber, River  12–13, 15, 23, 29, 31–2, 48, 100, 104, 114, 136–8, 189, 192–3, 195, 198, 210, 221, 230 Humbrians 29 Hummer, Hans  280 Hunmanby  48, 134 n. 41, 149, 154, 160, 226, 301, 311, 317 Hunsingore 28 Huntcliff 26 Hunwold 47 Husthwaite  147, 185 Hutton Conyers  160 Hutton Cranswick  149 Hutton Rudby  149, 159 Hwætberht, abbot of Wearmouth and Jarrow  71, 82 Hwicce 70 Hywel ab Owain Gwynedd  22 Hywel Dda ap Cadell, king of Deheubarth  19, 194 Iceland 210 Ida, king of the Bernicians  19–20, 30–1 identity see ecclesiastical aristocracy, identity Idle, River  31, 96, 111 idols see paganism, idols Ilkley  131, 134 n. 40, 135, 137, 149, 173, 226, 236, 243, 248, 301, 311, 317 Illington (Nf)  24 Imma  36–7, 53, 59, 75, 86–7, 177, 179 Incaetlaevum  31, 48, 104, 136 see also Catlows

Inderauuda  17, 48–9 Ine, king of the West Saxons  35, 37, 50–1 Ingeadyne  31, 48, 104, 136, 248 see also Yeadon Ingetlingum  32, 48, 50 n. 313, 128 see also Gilling, near Richmond Ingleby Arncliffe  134 n. 41, 149, 274 n. 298, 301, 311, 317 inheritance  33, 37, 46, 53, 55, 62–3, 75–6, 77 Innes, Matt  280 Inhrypum 48 see also Ripon In silva Elmete see Elmet, wood interpreters 60 Iona (Hebrides)  58, 99–100, 113 Irish bishop  60, 95 bullion 208 cult 249–50 exile  59, 95, 99, 113 influenced sculpture  237, 239, 258, 266–8, 273–4 language  60, 100 liturgy 68 monks  108, 283 overlordship  104, 125 penannular brooches  207 religious community  58, 60, 99–100, 141 Irish Sea  12, 104, 136, 193, 195, 206–8 Ishmael 175 Isle of Man  261–2, 273 Isle of Wight  50 n. 315, 102 Islendingabok 210 Israelites 44 Ivar, leader of the Great Army  199 Jacob  78, 164, 261 James, apostle see apostles James, deacon  95 Jarrow (Du)  39, 58, 62, 70–1, 73, 77, 86, 91, 113–14, 124, 213 John, apostle see apostles John, bishop  70, 75, 81, 86–7, 88 n. 304, 110, 113, 125, 129, 165, 177, 218, 229, 231–3, 269 John the Baptist  233, 261 Jolliffe, John Edward Austin  156 Jong, Mayke De  4, 79 Jordan, River  172 Joshua 172–3 Judas, apostle see apostles Kælcacæstir  111 n. 172 see also Tadcaster Kelleythorpe  26–7, 29, 36–7, 291 Kellington  151, 271, 295 Kemp, Brian  8 Kemp Howe, Cottam  26–7, 180, 182, 292 Kennythorpe 225 Kent  34–5, 47, 51, 52, 57, 59–60, 65, 78, 94–8, 102, 106, 156, 162, 199 Kershaw, Jane  202 Kettlewell  182, 292 Kildale  201, 295, 301, 311, 317

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

376 Index Kildwick  256, 261, 301, 311, 317 Kilham  28, 118–20, 182, 288, 291, 294–5 Kilnsea 158 Kilnsey 146 Kilnwick 202 king of Angles 28 Anglo-Saxons  189–91, 195, 197, 207–8, 214–15 Bamburgh 197 Bernicians  19–20, 30–4, 47, 53, 57, 60, 62, 65, 68, 75–6, 94–6, 135 Dál Riátans  96 Deheubarth 194 Deirans  13, 17, 20, 28–34, 46–7, 49, 57, 60, 62, 65, 67, 75, 77, 86, 94–7, 99, 105–6, 109, 113, 129, 135–6, 163, 178, 181 Dyfed 19 East Angles  59, 86, 94, 96–7, 102 East Saxons  66, 86, 102, 106, 113, 178 Elmet  18–19, 31, 96 English  133, 192–3, 194, 196, 208, 210, 212, 216–17, 221, 227–9, 232–4, 249, 251 Franks  89, 122 Gwent 194 Gwynedd  31–2, 94–5 Humbrians 29 Kentish people  47, 52, 65, 67, 94, 97, 102 Mercians  1, 31, 34, 53–4, 57, 94–5, 102, 106, 115, 207 Middle Angles  102 Northumbrians  1, 13, 27, 30, 46, 48, 54, 60, 64, 66, 68, 70–1, 75, 79–81, 84, 85 n. 281, 94, 103–4, 107, 112–15, 120–3, 125–6, 128–9, 135 n. 44, 136, 177–9, 181, 187, 188–92, 195–8, 200, 205, 209–11, 234, 239, 248 Rheged  94, 99 Scots  194, 196, 200 West Saxons  37, 50–1, 95, 100, 102, 187 kingdom of Alclud see Alclud, kingdom of Deirans see Deirans, kingdom of Elmet see Elmet, kingdom of English see English, kingdom of Gododdin see Gododdin Gwynedd see Gwynedd, kingdom of Northumbrians see Northumbrians, kingdom of Rheged see Rheged Strathclyde, see Strathclyde, kingdom of York see York, kingdom of Kings Mill Road, Driffield  26–7, 289 kingship 46–55 administration  210–11, 216 Christian  100–1, 112–13, 208–13 Christianization 103–13 conversion  2–4, 93–103 counsel  46–7, 49 dynastic  46, 199 hospitality 52 hunting  47, 49

instability  120–6, 199–200, 206–8, 216–18 itinerant 46–8 legal authority  46–9 military obligations  52–3 overlordship  96–100, 104 religious patronage  105–20, 218–20 Romanitas  49, 97–8 royal household  46, 49–50 see also companion, royal; ealdorman; earl; thegn; warrior royal lordship  215–16 royal resources  49–52, 118–20, 214–16 royal vills  47–9 sacral 54 warrior  47, 53, 104–5 Kingston on Hull  149 Kingthorpe, Thornton Dale  26, 40, 291 kinship see conversion, kinship; Deirans, social organization, kinship; ecclesiastical aristocracy, kinship Kippax  158, 225, 261, 301, 311, 317 Kirby Bedon (Nf)  245, 247, 252 Kirby Bellars (Le)  245, 250, 252 Kirby Cane (Nf)  245, 247, 252 Kirby Grindalythe  245, 247, 250, 258 n. 205, 259, 291, 301, 311, 317 Kirby Hall (Nf)  245 Kirby Hill (near Boroughbridge)  131, 134 n. 40, 226, 245, 247, 251, 258 n. 205, 259, 262, 265–6, 269, 301, 311, 317 Kirby Hill (near Richmond)  245 Kirby in Cleveland  246–7, 302, 311, 317 Kirby Knowle  134 n. 41, 246–7, 301, 311, 317 Kirby le Soken (Ess)  245 Kirby Misperton  131, 134 n. 40, 153, 226, 246–7, 251–2, 275, 301, 311, 317 Kirby Sigston  246–7, 274, 302, 311, 317 Kirby Underdale  26, 179, 181, 184, 245, 291, 293 Kirby Wiske  246–7, 252, 302, 311, 317 Kirkburn  26–7, 36–7, 40, 288, 291 Kirkburton  45, 148, 258–9, 302, 311, 317 Kirkby, near Cartmel (La)  245, 248–9 Kirkby, near St Bees (Cu)  245, 247, 249–50 Kirkby (Li)  245 Kirkby Crossan (Cu)  245 Kirkby Fleetham  160, 245, 247 Kirkby Green (Li)  245, 247 Kirkby in Ashfield (Nt)  245, 247 Kirkby in Walley (Ch)  245 Kirkby Ireleth (La)  245 Kirkby John, near Holme Cultram (Cu)  245, 249 Kirkby Kendal (We)  245, 247, 251 Kirkby Laythorpe (Li)  245, 247 Kirkby Lonsdale (We)  245, 251, 252 Kirkby Malham  246 Kirkby Mallory (Le)  245 Kirkby Malzeard  149–50, 246–7, 302, 311, 317 Kirkby Moorside  131, 134 n. 40, 149, 153, 154, 158, 226, 246–7, 251–2, 273, 275, 289, 302, 311, 317

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

Index 377 Kirkby on Bain (Li)  245 Kirkby Ouseburn  246–7 see also Little Ouseburn Kirkby Overblow  246–8, 302–17 Kirkby Stephen (We)  245, 247 Kirkby Thore (We)  245 Kirkby Underwood (Li)  245, 247 Kirkby Walton (La)  245 Kirkby Wharfe  246–7, 257, 258, 272–3, 302, 312, 317 Kirkdale  88, 129 n. 10, 131–2, 134 n. 39, 137, 153, 226, 251, 252, 258 n. 205, 259–61, 266, 269, 275, 295, 302, 312, 317 Kirkham  250, 295 Kirkham Gap  16 Kirkheaton  148, 302, 312, 317 kirkja–by(r) see place-names, kirkja-by(r) Kirklevington  149, 258 n. 205, 261–2, 264, 267–9, 273–4, 302, 312, 317 Kirk Sandall  147, 149 Kirk Stainley  146 Kitty Hill Barrow, Bishop Wilton  26, 288 Knapton  153, 231 Knaresborough 158 Kneeton 149–50 Knipe Howe, Hawsker  291 Knottingley 151 Kopár, Lilla  262 Ladykirk, Ripon  295 Laestingaeu  48, 129 see also Lastingham Lake District  15 Lake Humber  15 Lake Pickering  15 Lambert, Tom  47, 234 Lamel Hill, York  182, 294 Lancashire 201 Lancaster (La)  261 Lang, Jim  262, 273 Langton  23, 225, 287 Lapidge, Michael  81, 88 Lastingham  17, 42, 48, 58, 62, 69, 76–7, 79, 81, 88, 90–1, 106, 112, 129, 131, 134 n. 39, 135, 136, 138–41, 153–4, 178, 181, 226, 251–2, 302, 312, 317 lathe 156 Laughton en le Morthen  159 laws Kentish  34–5, 37, 47, 50–2, 78–9, 112 West Saxon  34–5, 37, 52–3, 78–9, 112, 200, 210, 215–16, 219, 227, 233–4, 276–7 lay beliefs  177–85 see also Deirans, religious beliefs amulets 179 augury 178 Christian brotherhoods  179 Christian costume  184–5 demons 178 devils 178 fasting 178 idols 178

magic 179 miracles 178–9 mortuary ritual  179–84 relics  179, 184–5 Layton 152 Lazarus  167, 176 Leahy, Kevin  23–4 Leake  134 n. 41, 149, 302, 312, 317 Leconfield 146 Ledsham  18, 131, 134 n. 40, 135, 149, 302, 312, 317 Ledston  18, 158, 182, 225, 293 Leeds  18, 47, 99, 131, 134 n. 40, 137, 154, 194, 226, 254, 262–3, 265–6, 302, 312, 317 Lennard, Reginald  5 Leoba, abbess of Bischofsheim  61, 82 Leofric 250 Leofwine 250 Leominster 8 Lerer, Seth  87 letters (epistolae)  2, 7, 10, 35, 52, 59, 65, 71–2, 77, 80, 83, 84–5, 87, 94–5, 98, 100, 109, 113, 115, 123–4, 126, 129, 165, 176–7, 179, 228 see also Epistola ad Ecgberhtum Leven  134 n. 41, 302, 312, 317 Levisham  252 n. 184, 273, 302, 312, 317 Levites 172–3 Liber Eliensis 215 Lichfield (St)  107 Life of St Cathroe 194 Ligulf, landholder  160 Lilla 46 Lilla Howe, Fylingdales Moor  294 Lincolnshire  10, 18, 23, 29, 120, 203, 210, 270 Lindesfarona 18 Lindisfarne (Nth)  10, 31–2, 35, 58, 68–71, 77–9, 83, 85 n. 282, 95, 100, 105, 107–8, 113, 115, 117, 123, 126, 165, 189, 194, 196, 197, 213, 249 Lindsey  70, 94, 96, 99, 107, 193 Little Ayton  148 Little Cowden  151 Little Driffield  302, 312, 317 Little Ouseburn  131, 134 n. 40, 226, 302, 312, 317 Littleborough (Li)  67, 94–5, 98 Liverton 148 Llanaelhaearn, Gwynedd  19 Llwyfenydd 22 see also Lyvennet (We), River Lobster House, Bossall  207–8 local church see church, local Lockington  288, 295 Lodore Cascade (Cu)  21 Loftus  158, 274 Loidis  18, 31–2, 47, 99 see also Leeds Londesborough  26, 28–9, 40, 288, 302, 312, 317 London  98, 102, 215 Long Marston  28 Long Preston  159 Long Riston  149

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

378 Index lordship see Deirans, social organization, lordship; kingship, royal lordship Lothian  21, 194 Loveden Hill (Li)  24 Loveluck, Chris  26, 29 Low Bentham  302, 312, 317 Low Worsall  149 Lucy, Sam  37–9 Luddington 148 Lugulfr, landholder  159 Lune, River  136, 252 Lupus of Ferrières  85 Lythe  23, 48–9, 131, 134 n. 40, 135, 137, 153–4, 162, 226, 261, 264, 265, 266, 269, 287, 303, 312, 317 Lyvennet (We), River  22 McClain, Aleks  270 Madauc, of Elmet  19, 31 Maitland, Frederick William  52, 156 Malcolm I, king of the Scots  194 Maltby 203 Malton  16–17, 28, 207, 252, 273, 303, 313, 317 Malton, near  118–20 Mamucio 18 see also Manchester Manchester (La)  18, 137, 193 Mappleton 159 Market Weighton  28, 159, 291 markets 118–20 Marr 146 marriage  20, 29, 33–6, 40, 47, 55, 59, 62–3, 77–8, 94, 101, 105, 116, 125, 215, 220, 227, 229, 250 Marrick  134 n. 41, 303, 312, 317 Marske  220, 274–5 Martin, Toby  28 Marton 146 Marton cum Grafton  289 Mary, mother of Christ  257 Maserfelth  68, 95, 99 Masham  131, 134 n. 40, 137, 150, 153–4, 160, 171–3, 226, 266, 303, 312, 317 Maunby 150 Mayr-Harting, Henry  4, 71, 87 Meaney, Audrey  40 Meaux Abbey, chronicler  234 meibyon Godebawc  19, 30 Mellitus, bishop and archbishop  102 Melrose (Rox)  44, 58, 69, 74, 79, 82, 85, 91, 106–7, 136, 165 Melsonby  131, 134 n. 40, 150, 172–3, 226, 261, 303, 312, 317 Melton 43 Melton Hill, Welton  291 Melton Mowbray (Le)  24, 250 Mercian Register  191, 197 Mercians  1, 18, 28, 31, 34, 37, 53–4, 57, 75, 94–5, 102–4, 106–9, 115, 125, 190, 191–3, 197, 199, 200, 207, 209, 215, 217–18, 221–2, 236 Mersey, River  12, 193, 214

Mevanian Islands  96 see also Anglesey; Isle of Man Mexborough  303, 312, 317 Micklefield  18, 151 Middle Angles  28, 102, 104, 106 Middle Street, Kilham  182, 294 Middleham  88, 303, 312, 317 Middlesborough 151 Middlesmoor  149, 303, 313, 317 Middlethorpe 231 Middleton, near Ilkley  149 Middleton, near Pickering  131, 134 n. 40, 153–4, 226, 252, 261, 273, 303, 313, 317 Middleton Tyas  150 migration  23–5, 28–9, 201–2 Anglo-Saxon  23–5, 28–9 Scandinavian 201–2 military obligations see kingship, military obligations Mill Hill, Elloughton  290 Millington 150 ‘minster hypothesis’  4–12 contributions 282–6 criticisms 7–11 model 6–7 origins and development  4–6 outstanding questions  11–12 utility 7–9 Minster in Thanet (Kt)  182 ‘minsters’ see religious community miracles  68–9, 75, 84, 110, 163, 179, 248 Mirfield  303, 313, 317 Moll, patricius  117, 120–2 monasteries see religious community monastic reform  231 Monegunda  88 n. 304 Monk Hesleden (Du)  220 monks  76–8, 85–6, 89, 108, 117, 125–6, 162, 165, 231 Monks Kirby (Wa)  245, 247, 250, 252 Moor Monkton  231 Moorhouse, Stephen  18 Morcant 19 Morcar, earl of the Northumbrians  158–9, 218 Morgengifu see marriage Morley  45 n. 264 Morley Wood  225 Morris, Richard  8–9, 141, 144, 269, 284 Morthen  147, 211 n. 191 mortuary ritual see burials mother church see church, mother mother parish see parish, mother Mucking (Ex)  36 muneca–tun see place-names, muneca-tun Murton 149 Mynster/mynstre see religious community Myton on Swale  146 Nafena, minister 220 Nafferton 291 Naseby 152

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

Index 379 Nechtansmere 104 Newark (Nt)  24 Newbald  118–20, 157, 225, 227, 228–9, 230–1, 291 Newburgh  303, 313, 317 Newgate, York  236, 239, 306, 316, 317 Newton, near Cartmel (La)  249 Newton, near Hunmanby  149 Newton Kyme  152 Newton under Roseberry  148 Niall Glundubh, king of Ireland  212 Nicholas IV, Pope  144 Nidd, River  108, 113 Norđhymbra Ciricgriđ 233–4 Norđleoda Laga  37, 200 Norham (Du)  194, 249, 251 Norman, thegn  275 Normanton 225 Norsemen  194, 212 North Cave  28, 288 North Elmsall  179, 293 North Ferriby  28, 118–20, 159 North Frodingham  303, 313, 317 North Newbald  291 North Otterington  134 n. 41, 226, 256, 258 n. 205, 259, 266, 303, 313, 317 North Sea  12, 15, 104, 139, 142, 193, 195 North Sea Coast  15 North York Moors  15, 136, 138–9 Northallerton  48, 126, 134 n. 41, 135, 150, 153–4, 158, 182, 226, 274, 293, 295, 303, 313, 317 Northampton (Np)  215 Northamptonshire 221 Northman, minister 220 Northmann, landholder  159 Northumberland  10, 13, 156 n. 112 Northumbria  10, 13, 143, 164, 207, 213, 227, 249–50 Northumbrian Priests’ Law 276–8 Northumbrians  1, 10, 12, 13, 17 n. 10, 21, 27–30, 32, 34, 36, 39, 53–4, 57–9, 69, 71, 76, 81, 94–5, 103–4, 107–8, 111–14, 118, 121–4, 126–7, 162, 178, 187–8, 190–200, 209–10, 212–23, 229, 274 bishops of see bishops; diocese, Northumbrian conversion of see conversion kingdom of extent  17 n. 10, 192–8 formation  21, 29, 94–5, 103–4 overlordship  96–7, 99–100, 104–5 Norton 150 Norton, near Cundall  147 Norton (Du)  29 Norway 202 Nostell (Priory)  225 Nottinghamshire  10, 230 Nunburnholme  150, 236–40, 262, 265, 291, 303, 313, 317 Nunnington  252, 303, 313, 317 Nuthill 151

oblation  4, 61–2, 64, 68, 79–80 Occaney Beck, Walkingham Hill with Occaney  179, 287 Octon  152, 183 Odda, bishop, and archbishop of Canterbury 209 Oesa, ancestor of kings of the Northumbrians 30 Offa, son of Aldfrith, king of the Northumbrians 117 Oftfor, bishop of the Hwicce  70, 82 Ohtor, earl  199 Olaf, the Black  199 Olaf Guthfrithsson, king in York  191–2, 196–7 Olaf Sihtricsson (Cuaran), king in York  192, 209–11, 213 Old Byland  275, 303, 313, 317 Old Malton  252 n. 184, 273, 303, 313, 317 Old Welsh poetry  17 n. 7, 19–22 see also Aneirin, British poet; Taliesin; Y Gododdin Old Welsh triads  19 Oliver, Lisi  47 Onlafbald  200, 212 Ontiddanufri 248 see also Tidover Ordnance Survey  145 Orm, landholder  159 Orm, son of Gamal, grandson of Thurbrand  158, 275 Ormesby  150, 303, 313, 317 Osana, saint  114, 221 Osbald, patricius 121–2 Osberht, king of the Northumbrians  13, 122–3, 187–8, 200, 213 Osbern, earl  199 Oscytel, bishop and archbishop  215, 222, 227–30, 232 Oscytel, hold  199 Oscytel, king  199 Osfrith, son of Edwin, king of the Northumbrians 57 Osfrith Hlytte  199 Osingadun  48–9, 90, 137, 161–2, 177, 182 see also Easington near Loftus; Street House, Easington Oslac, earl of the Northumbrians  216–17 Osmotherly  150, 303, 313, 317 Osred I, king of the Northumbrians  113–14, 116–17, 129 Osred II, king of the Northumbrians  121 Osric, king of the Deirans  33, 57, 67–8, 95 Osric, king of the Northumbrians  113, 117 Oswald, bishop and archbishop  222, 227–32 Oswald, king of the Northumbrians  33, 39, 54, 57–60, 68, 94–5, 97–100, 103–4, 112–13, 125, 212 Oswald memorandum  227–30 Oswaldkirk  252, 255, 256 n. 198, 303, 313, 317 Oswestry (Sa)  95, 99 Oswiesdune  189, 239 Oswine 121

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

380 Index Oswine, king of the Deirans  32–4, 39, 46–7, 60, 62, 68, 77, 86, 95, 101, 103, 105–6, 109, 113, 125, 128, 135–6, 181 Oswiu, king of the Bernicians and Northumbrians  1–2, 32–3, 39, 47, 53, 59, 62, 66, 68, 70, 76–7, 79, 95, 97, 103–7, 112–13, 125, 128–9, 134 n. 39, 135–6, 178, 181 Oswulf, king of the Northumbrians  117, 120–1 Othulf, hold  199 Otley  49, 126, 131, 134 n. 40, 135, 137, 153–4, 157–8, 165–6, 168–70, 172, 226–30, 236, 240–1, 243, 248, 272–3, 304, 313, 317 Oundle (Northants)  69, 84 Ouse, River  15–16, 129, 138–9 Ousefleet  146, 151 Owain ap Hywel, king of Gwent  19, 22, 194 Owine, monk of Lastingham  77, 79, 81, 90 Oxford (Ox)  215 Paddock Hill, Octon  183, 295 paganism amulets 40 Anglo-Saxon 40–5 augury  41, 179 calendar 45 casting of lots  41 cosmology  64–6, 211 divination 41 gods/goddesses  45, 100 idols  43, 66, 94–5, 100–2, 163, 178 mythology  45, 211, 239–43, 262–6 ritual specialists  40–1, 84, 101, 179 rituals  41, 45 sacrifice  54, 178 Scandinavian 211–13 shrines  17, 42–4 supernatural entities  45 Page, William  4–5, 224 pagi see Brigantes; Parisi Painsthorpe Wold, Kirby Underdale  26, 179, 181, 184, 291, 293 parish  4–12, 144–62, 270–6 chronology  155–60, 270–6 civil 145 ecclesiastical 144–5 historiography see ‘minster hypothesis’ legal evidence  7 mother 144–62 see also church, mother terminology 144–5 tithing 145 topography 153 township 145 Parisi 22 Parliament Street, York  306, 316, 317 Parsons, David  285 pastoral care  128–86 see also ‘minster hypothesis’ patrician (patricius) 121–3 Patrick Brompton  304, 313, 317

Patrington  126, 134 n. 41, 219, 225, 228, 304, 313, 317 Paul, apostle see apostles Paul I, Pope  85 n. 281, 114 n. 194, 117 Paulinus, bishop of York and Rochester  18, 20, 31, 46, 49, 51, 57, 58–9, 94–6, 98–9, 108–9, 163–5, 178–9 Peada, king of the Middle Angles and South Mercians 102 Peak District  18 Pecsætna 18 Pehtwine, bishop of Whithorn  129 Penda, king of the Mercians  1–2, 31–2, 53–4, 94–5, 99, 102, 104, 106, 125 Penistone  151, 304, 313, 317 Pennines  12–13, 15, 18, 25, 136, 197, 230, 249 personal names, Old Norse  201 Peter, apostle see apostles Peterborough (Np)  221–2 Pfalzel 84 Pickering  23, 48–9, 150, 153–4, 158, 252, 273, 287, 304, 313, 317 Pickhill  304, 313, 317 Picts  70, 97, 100, 104, 107, 121, 124–5, 188, 193, 196 Piercebridge (Du)  29 pilgrimage  58, 61, 69–70, 83–4, 219, 232 Ireland 69 Rome  58, 61, 69, 83–4 Pippin III, king of the Franks  89 Pippin Castle, Scargill  202 Pitt, Jonathan  8 place-names biscopes-tun 231 Brittonic  17–20, 22, 49, 141 by(r)  201, 244–53 eccles 19–20 kirkja-by(r) 244–53 muneca-tun 231 preosta-tun  231, 249 plague 70 Plegmund, archbishop of Canterbury  207 Pocklington  48, 120, 150–1, 154–5, 158 Pocklington, near  118–20 Poenitentiale Theodori  29, 40, 79 Pontefract  132–3, 134 n. 40, 135, 151, 153, 182–3, 246–7, 249, 288, 294, 295 Pontefract Castle  133, 294 Pontefract Park  288 Poppleton 225 Powys 96 preosta–tun see place-names, preosta-tun Preston 151 priests  58, 60, 75, 78, 83, 86, 94, 107, 159, 177, 214, 225, 247, 250, 270, 276–7 see also religious community proprietary church see church, proprietary Puch 110 Pudding Pie Hill, Sowerby  26, 289 Purston (Jaglin)  148, 225

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

Index 381 Quen, matron 221 Rackham, Oliver  15 Rædwald, king of the East Angles  31, 59, 94, 96, 97, 102 Rædwulf, king of the Northumbrians  122–3 Ragnald, king in York  191, 193, 196–8, 200, 211–12 Ragnald Guthfrithsson, king in York  191–2, 209, 211 Raisthorpe 225 Rastrick  134 n. 41, 304, 313, 317 Rathmell 148 Raunds (Np)  270 Ravenfield 147 Rawcliffe 274 Redes 147 Reedness  146, 151 reeve  35, 37, 90, 121, 123, 177, 197 n. 87, 200, 217, 248 Reginald of Durham  32 regio Loidis  18, 31, 32, 47, 99 see also Leeds Reighton 149 relics see cult of saints, relics religious belief Christian see ecclesiastical aristocracy; lay beliefs Pagan see paganism religious community admission 79–80 British see place-names, eccles burial see burials, religious communities cemetery see burials, religious communities church 130–4 clerical communities, regular  4–7, 76–7, 125–6, 224–5, 230–4, 266–9 clerical communities, secular  4–7, 76–7, 125–6, 224–5 commemoration  6, 60, 62, 84, 88, 101, 105, 183, 234, 266, 269, 274–5 distribution  128–37, 230, 269 endowment  52–3, 76–7, 111–16 expropriation 125–6 foundation narratives  135–44 gender see ecclesiastical aristocracy, gender hospitality 115 identification  128–35, 224–6, 230–4, 253–69 ‘minsters’ see ‘minster hypothesis’ monastic communities  4–7, 76–7, 125–6, 231 novice see religious community, admission oblate see oblation pastoral care  144–77 postulant see religious community, admission raiding see Scandinavian, raiding religious households see household, religious rules  71–3, 76–7 sacred place  137–44 satellites  130, 160–2 topography  135–44, 230, 269 Repton (Db)  199

Rheged  16, 21–2, 29–31, 94, 99 Rhun, son of Urien  94, 99 Ribble, River (La)  31, 48, 104, 136, 207, 230 Ribblehead 136 Riccall 295 Riccall Landing, Riccall  295 Richard, son of Erfast  231 Richard of Hexham  32, 233 Richards, Julian  204–6 Ricsige, king of the Northumbrians  188, 198, 209 Riderch the Old  19, 31 ridings 210 Rillington  26, 28, 151, 288 Ripon  10, 13, 17, 27, 29, 31–5, 44, 48, 52, 58, 61, 63, 70–1, 77, 79, 81, 83, 85, 88 n. 304, 90–1, 103–4, 106–8, 112, 121, 126, 129–33, 134 n. 39, 135–6, 138, 153–4, 157–8, 165, 176, 182–3, 210, 218–19, 223, 225–34, 240, 242–3, 248, 251, 262, 265–6, 294–5, 304, 313, 317 Robert de Lacy  133, 249 Roberts, Brian  16 Roecliffe 28 Roger of Wendover  198, 213 Rollason David  10 Romanby  150, 295 Roman civitas/civitates see Aldborough; Brigantes; Brough on Humber; Parisi fort  17, 20, 49, 97, 139 liturgy  83, 91, 106, 143, 164 road  16, 49, 111, 118, 135–7, 230 sarcophagus  132, 204, 236, 275 shrine  26, 42, 141, 178 signal station  129 n. 5, 136, 142–3, 271 standard  94, 97 Rosedale 141 Rotherham 154–5 Rothwell  131, 134 n. 40, 304, 314, 317 Routh Hall, Driffield  290 Rowland Hill  203 royal diplomas 50–3 genealogies Anglian  30, 33, 54 British 19 household see household; kingship, royal household vill see kingship, royal vills Royston  304, 314, 317 Rudston  28, 288, 291 Rule of Chrodegang of Metz see religious community, rules Rule of St Benedict see religious community, rules Ruthwell Cross  175 Ryan, Martin  78 Ryedale  16–17, 135 n. 49, 136–9, 201, 252, 272, 273, 275

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

382 Index Ryedale School see stone sculpture, Ryedale School Ryther 119 sacrifice see paganism, sacrifice Sæberht, king of the East Saxons  102 St Bees (Cu)  239, 245, 247, 249–50 St Evroul, abbey  250 saints see cult of saints; stone sculpture, multivalent images Saltburn  28, 36, 40, 289 Samson  171, 176 Samuel 80 Sancton  17, 23–5, 28, 40, 180, 287 sanctuary  117, 142, 218–19, 231, 233–4, 276 Sand Hutton  152 Saxones 23 Saxons  23, 30 Saxton  18, 273, 304, 314, 317 Scandinavian administration 210 armies see Danes; Great Army; Norsemen burials see burials, furnished conquests in Northumbria  187–98 conversion 211–13 hoards see silver hoards jewellery 202–3 migration 201–3 mythology  211–12, 239–43, 262–5 place-names see place-names, by(r); place-names, kirkja-by(r) poetry 211–13 raiding 213–14 rulers see kings of, Northumbrians Scarborough  271, 295 Scargill 202 Scawton 151 School Aycliffe (Du)  220 Scots  193–4, 196, 200, 220 Scula 200 sculpture see stone sculpture Scurfa, earl  199 Seamer  40, 149, 160, 293 Sebbe, king of the East Saxons  86 Seine, River  199 Selby 295 Selby, near  45 Seneca, boy of York  80 Sermo  39, 51–2, 69, 76 Settle 148 settlements see Cottam; Cowlam; Thwing; Wharram Percy Sewerby  24, 28–9, 36–9, 41, 180, 184, 290 Shafton 160 Sharpe, Richard  8 Sheaf, River  18, 31, 137 Sheffield  131, 134 n. 40, 137, 148, 175, 304, 314, 317 Shelley 28 Sherborne (Do)  113 Sherburn (ERY)  18, 119, 225–6, 254, 258 n. 205, 259, 262–6, 269, 304, 314, 317

Sherburn in Elmet (WRY)  151, 157, 225, 227–31, 234 Sheriff Hutton  151 shire  156, 216 shrine Christian  131–2, 134, 141, 232, 255 pagan Anglo-Saxon  17, 42–4, 54 Roman  26, 42, 141, 178, 184 Sicga, patricius 121–2 Sicgred  88 n. 304 Sidroc, the elder  199 Sidroc, the younger  199 Sigeberht, king of the East Angles  86, 101, 102 Sigeberht, king of the East Saxons  66, 86, 101, 106, 113, 178 Sigeferth, king in York  190 Sigefrith, abbot of Wearmouth  70 Sigered, abbot of Ripon  232 Sihtric Caoch, king in York  191, 211, 212 Silkstone  151, 154, 155 Silton 147 silver hoards  206–8 Simeon, cleric of York  80 Sims-Williams, Patrick  8 Sinnington  252, 258 n. 205, 260, 268–9, 273, 304, 314, 317 Sittenham 151 Siweard, earl of the Northumbrians  158–9, 217, 220, 274–5 Skaldic poetry see Scandinavian, poetry Skeckling 151 Skelbrooke 151 Skell, River  136, 138 Skelton, near Howden  149 Skelton, near Marske  151, 154–5, 304, 314, 317 Skerne 149 Skidby  147, 229–30 Skipsea  151, 203 Skipton  151, 225 Skipwith  131–5, 176, 182–3, 226, 264–6, 294, 304, 314, 317 Skirningham (Du)  220 Skirpenbeck 28 Slaidburn  254, 304, 314, 317 Sledmere 26 Sledmere Green Lane  26 Smeaton 219–20 Snaith  151, 154–5 Sneaton 153 Sockburn (Du)  274 Soemel, ancestor of Northumbrian kings  30 soke estates see ‘sokes’ sokelands see ‘sokes’ ‘sokes’  48, 156–61, 185, 211, 221–2, 225, 229, 284–5 South Cave  291 South Cowton  148 South Kirkby  151, 246–7 South Newbald  118–20 see also Newbald; North Newbald South Saxons  35, 44, 61–2, 83–4, 102, 107, 178

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

Index 383 Southwell (Notts)  218, 228, 230 Sowerby  26, 289 Sowerby, near Thirsk  152 Sowerby, Rick  169–70 Spaunton 287 Speeton 146 Spennithorne  255, 304, 314, 317 Spofforth  182, 185, 273, 294, 304, 314, 317 Spong Hill (Nf)  24 Sprotbrough  134 n. 41, 304, 314, 317 Spurn Point  48, 58, 63, 112, 129, 134 n. 39, 137 Staindrop (Du)  219 Stainforth  149, 184 Stainmore 15 Stainton  151–2, 274 n. 298, 305, 314, 317 Staintondale  23, 287 Stamford Bridge  17, 28, 179, 293 Stanbury  305, 314, 317 Stanforda 32–3 Stanhill 148 Stansfield  305, 314, 317 Stanwick  152, 258 n. 205, 260–1, 268–9, 305, 314, 317 Stapleton 147 Staveley  261, 305, 314, 317 Staxton  28–9, 40 Stenton, Sir Frank  3 Stephen of Ripon, priest  10, 13, 17, 27, 29, 32–5, 37, 39, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 61, 69, 78, 83–5, 103, 106 n. 132, 107, 113, 165, 176, 178–9, 232, 248 Stephen of Ripon, Vita Wilfridi  13, 83–4, 85, 103, 113, 176, 232 Stillingfleet 152 Stocker, David  270, 276 Stokesley  48–9, 154–5, 159 Stonegrave  48–9, 114, 117, 129, 134 n. 39, 137, 139, 226, 252, 254, 261, 266, 269, 305, 314, 317 stone sculpture  10, 12–13, 88, 90–1, 130–5, 141, 153, 160–2, 165–76, 226, 235–43, 247, 251, 253–70 Allertonshire School  273–4 apostle pillars  166–9, 171–4 architectural  91, 131, 134–5 cross-shafts  165–76, 235–43, 253–70, 272–4 distribution  130, 226, 247, 251, 253–70 furniture  91, 131, 134 geology 130 grave slabs  132, 235–6, 275 hogback  240, 262, 264–9, 274 inscriptions  131, 275 multivalent images  131, 165–76, 235–43, 253–69 Adam and Eve  254–5 angel  165–9, 176, 237, 254, 266 apostle  166–9, 171–4 archer 175–6 Arrest and Mocking of Christ  256–7 benediction 237–8 Cain and Abel  261 Christ in Majesty  167, 171, 239, 261

cleric  237, 239, 266 crucifixion  237–8, 239, 257–60, 266–8 David and the Lion  171 David the Psalmist  171 evangelists  168–9, 172–4 founding of a monastery  268 Hart and Hound  261–2, 267 Healing of the Blind Man  167 Jacob Wrestling with the Angel  261 John the Baptist  261 Judas 261 Judgement  239, 241 Miracle at Cana  167 Miracle of the Loaves and the Fishes  167, 256 peacocks  171, 243 plant-scroll  168–9, 171, 176, 243, 266 priest 237 Raising of Lazarus  166–7, 176 ritual accommodation  237–9 saint  237, 239, 254, 266 St Anthony and the incubi  262, 267 Samson at the Gates of Gaza  171, 176 secular portrait  239, 241 Three Children in the Fiery Furnace  257 Traditio Clavis  256 Traditio Legis  256 Veneration of the Cross  241 Virgin and Child  166–7, 237, 255–6, 259 warrior  237, 241 Women at the Sepulchre on Easter Morning 176 name stones  90–1 Ryedale School  273 Scandinavian mythological images  239–43, 262–5 Gunnar 240 Ragnarök 264–5 Sigurd  243, 262, 340–49 Weland 262–4 schola cantorum 91 shrines  131–2, 134, 141 stele  90, 132 thrones  91, 134 transmission  130–1, 226, 247 Wharfedale School  272–3 York Metropolitan School  135–40 Strathcarron 21 Strathclyde, kingdom of  21, 113, 188, 193–4, 196 Stratocles, cleric of York  80 Street House, Easington  36, 179–82, 292 see also Easington, near Loftus Streoneshalh  1, 27, 33, 48–9, 58, 62, 68, 70, 75, 77, 79, 82, 84, 86, 90–1, 99, 106–7, 112, 126, 129, 131, 136–7, 139, 142–3, 161–5, 176–7, 179, 181–2, 185, 285 see also Whitby Studley Royal  185 Styrr, son of Ulf, minister 219–20 Sumarlede, son of Carl, grandson of Thurbrand 275

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

384 Index Surrey 8 Suthsowerde 147 Sutton  18, 219–20 Sutton Hoo (Sf)  54, 97 Sutton (Nt)  218, 228, 230 Sutton upon Derwent  255–6, 305, 314, 317 Sutton upon Hull  152 Swale, River  20, 57, 99 Swaythorpe 152 Swine  23, 287 Swinefleet 151 Swinegate, York  271, 296 Symeon of Durham, Libellus de Exordio 141, 189, 194, 198, 213 synods see ecclesiastical councils Tadcaster  18, 48–9, 111–12, 128, 134 n. 39, 139, 152–3, 226, 230, 305, 314, 317 Taliesin  19, 22, 30 Tanners Row, Pontefract  133, 249, 295 Tanshelf  48–9, 133, 159, 192, 209, 247, 249 Tatberht, abbot of Ripon  71, 74, 77 n. 198, 83, 88 n. 304, 232 Tatfrith, bishop-elect of the Hwicce  70 Taxatio Ecclesiastica 144 Tebworth (Bd)  214 Tees, River  12–13, 15, 31–2, 136–7, 156, 192, 197–8, 210, 214 Teesdale 15 Terrington  305, 315, 317 Tettenhall (St)  191, 210 Textus Roffensis  5 Thames, River  23 The Booths, Pontefract  133 The Customs of York Minster 233–4 The Mount, York  23, 180 n. 219, 287, 306, 316, 317 thegn (minister)  37, 39, 46–7, 49, 53, 71, 75, 86, 95, 114, 126, 177, 179, 200, 215, 217, 219–20, 275 Theobald, brother of Æthelfrith, king of the Northumbrians 53 Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury  34, 70, 106–7, 178 Theodric, king of the Bernicians  19, 31 Thingwala, near Whitby  211 n. 191 Thirsk  28, 152, 288 Thomas (of Bayeux) I, archbishop of York  232, 236 Thoraldby 146 Thored, earl of the Northumbrians  217, 219, 227 Thored, son of Gunner  217 Thorfinnr, landholder  159 Thornaby 152 Thornborough 29 Thorne 149 Thornhill  91 n. 333, 131, 134 n. 40, 148, 226, 305, 315, 317 Thornton, near Middlesborough  274 Thornton, near Pocklington  150

Thornton Dale  26, 291 Thornton Dale, near  203 Thornton le Street  28 Thornton Steward  182, 258 n. 205, 259, 294, 305, 315, 317 Thornton Watlass  260, 305, 315, 317 Thorp, near Great Ayton  148 Thorp Arch  305, 315, 317 Thorpe le Street  150 thraves 234 Three Howes  141 Thrythwulf, abbot  114, 129 Thurbrand, hold  220, 275 Thurbrand, landholder  160 Thurferth, hold  199 Thwing  118–20, 152, 183, 295 Tibthorpe 26 Tibthorpe Green Lane  26 Tickhill 152 Tidover  165, 248 Tilred, abbot of Heversham  189, 194, 214, 251 tithing see parish, tithing Tockets 274–5 Todmorden  305, 315, 317 Tondhere 47 Topcliffe  154–5, 225, 305, 315, 317 Torksey (Li)  188, 193 Tosti, earl of the Northumbrians  158–9, 217–18, 220, 274–5 Townend, Matt  285 township see parish, township Towton 28 Trent, River  48, 104, 138 Tribal Hidage  18, 33, 50 Trondheim, Norway  202 Trumhere, abbot and bishop  58, 62, 74, 105, 135 Trumwine, bishop of the Picts  70, 107 Tunberht, abbot and bishop  58, 62–3, 70, 74, 107 Tunna, priest  75 Tweed, River  193–5, 198, 249 Tyler, Damian  4 Tyne, River  31–2, 89, 105, 123, 188–9, 192–3, 195–9, 213, 249 Tynemouth (Du/Nth)  123, 213 Tyninghame (Lo)  196, 213 Tywell (Np)  220 Ugglebarnby 153 Uhtred, ealdorman of the Northumbrians  217, 220, 275 Uhtred, landholder  160 Uhtred, thegn  275 Ulf 219–20 Ulf, landholder  158–9 Uncleby, Kirby Underdale  26, 37–8, 40, 179, 181, 184, 293 Upleatham  305, 315, 317 urban church see church, urban; York, urban churches

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/11/2018, SPi

Index 385 Ure, River  136–8 Urien  19, 22, 30–1, 94, 99 Uscfrea, son of Edwin, king of the Northumbrians  33, 57 Vale of Mowbray  15–16, 203, 230 Vale of Pickering  16, 42, 138 Vale of York  15–16, 18, 24, 95–100, 136–8, 230, 278 Viewly Bridge, Northallerton  182, 293 Viking see Scandinavian Vilden, abbot of Ripon  232–3 Village Farm, Spofforth  294 Vita Cuthberti, anonymous  84, 103 Vita Cuthberti, Bede  103 Vita Gregorii see Whitby, Vita Gregorii Vita Oswaldi see Byrhtferth, monk of Ramsey Vita Wilfridi see Stephen of Ripon, Vita Wilfridi Wade’s Stone, Barnby  290 Wakefield  49, 134 n. 41, 148, 152, 158, 225, 295, 305, 315, 317 Walkington  28, 294 Walkington Wold  184 Waltheof, early  158–9 Walton, near Bishopthorpe  146 Walton, near Cartmel (La)  249 Walton, near Tidover  248 wapentakes  210–11, 216 Ward, Sue  124 warrior (miles)  37, 44, 46–7, 53, 55, 59, 64, 74–5, 81, 86–7, 109, 112, 116, 122–3, 127 Warter  26, 159, 288, 291 Warton (La)  207 Wass  179, 292 Wath, near Ripon  261, 305, 315, 317 Wath, near Wentworth  152 Watton  63, 71, 88, 113–14, 129, 134 n. 39, 139 Wawne 152 Wear, River (Du)  58, 197–8 Wearmouth (Du)  33, 39, 58, 62, 70–1, 73, 77, 82, 91, 113–14, 124 Weaverthorpe  159, 203 Weber, Max  279 Welburn  152, 288, 295 Welbury  152, 305, 315, 317 Welham 150 Well  305, 315, 317 Welton  158, 184, 291 Wensley  91 n. 333, 131, 134 n. 40, 201–2, 226, 295, 305, 315, 317 Wensley, River  137 Wensleydale 136 Went, River  32 Went Bridge (Kirk Smeaton)  1, 2, 32, 106 see also Winwæd Wentworth 152 West Hardwick  225 West Heslerton  24–6, 28, 36–42, 96, 152, 180, 289 West Kirby (Ch)  245–7, 250

West Saxons  12–14, 34–5, 37, 49–51, 59–60, 61 n. 54, 78, 82, 94–6, 100, 102, 126, 156–7, 160, 187, 190–2, 194, 196, 198, 205, 207, 209, 212, 214–20, 222–4, 232, 234, 243, 277 West Stow (Sf)  36 West Tanfield  134 n. 41, 306, 315, 317 West Witton  131, 134 n. 40, 306, 315, 317 Westfield Farm, Ely (Ca)  182 Westmorland  156 n. 112, 201 Weston  241, 306, 315, 317 Westow 295 Wetwang  152, 203 Wetwang Slack  26 Wharfe, River  18, 136–7, 139 Wharfedale  31, 104, 136–7, 230, 248, 272 Wharram le Street  203 Wharram Percy  134 n. 41, 182, 203–6, 226, 271, 293, 296, 306, 315, 317 Whiston 148 Whitby  1, 27, 33, 48–9, 58, 62, 68, 70, 75, 77, 79, 82, 86, 88, 88 n. 304, 90–1, 99, 106–7, 112, 118–20, 126, 129, 131–2, 134 n. 39, 135–7, 139, 142–3, 152–4, 159, 161–5, 176–7, 179, 181–3, 211 n. 191, 213 n. 211, 226, 285, 294, 306, 315, 317 Whitby, Vita Gregorii  13, 29, 75, 84, 163–5, 176, 179, 185 White Book of St Augustine’s  5 White Hart Farm, North Elmsall  293 Whitgift  146, 151 Whitley 151 Whithorn (Dum/Ga)  129–30, 194 Whitwell Gap  193 Whorlton 184 Wickham, Chris  4 Wighill  306, 315, 317 Wihtberht  88 n. 304 Wilberfoss 28 Wilfaræsdun 32 Wilfrid, abbot and bishop  31–5, 39, 44, 50 n. 315, 52, 58, 60–3, 69–70, 73–5, 77–84, 87, 88 n. 304, 89, 91, 98, 104, 106–8, 110–11, 113, 116, 125, 136, 164–5, 177–9, 185, 218, 231–2, 248 Wilfrid II, bishop of York  70, 88 n. 304, 125 Wilgils, father of Willibrord  58, 61, 63, 88 n. 304, 129 Willerby  36, 153, 288 William Mechin  249 Williams, Gareth  208 Williams, Sir Ifor  19 Willibald, bishop of Eichstaatt  61 Willibrord, abbot of Echternach and archbishop of the Frisians  58, 61, 70, 82, 89, 178 wills  10–11, 107 Wilton 150 Wiltshire 8 Windale Beck Farm, Ganton  288 Winterburn 159

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 10/17/2018, SPi

386 Index Wintringham 153 Winwæd  1–2, 32, 53, 106 Wiske, River  252 Withernsea  153, 159, 225 Wolfrida, abbess of Beverley  134 n. 42 Wombleton 152 Wombwell 147 Womersley  179, 293 Woodkirk 153 Worcester  218, 227, 229 Worcestershire 8 Wormald, Patrick  72–3 Worsall 150 Worsbrough 147 Wrathmell, Stuart  206 Wressle 159 Wulfelth, abbot of Beverley  134 n. 42 Wulfheard 214 Wulfhere, archbishop of York  132, 188, 198, 205, 209, 229 Wulfhere, king of the Mercians  104 Wulfred, archbishop of Canterbury  76 Wulfric Spot  222 Wulfsige, archbishop of York  85 n. 282 Wulfsige, the Black  215 Wulfstan I, archbishop of York  192, 209–10, 229 Wulfstan II, bishop and archbishop  222, 227–8, 231, 233–4, 276 Wycliffe  91 n. 333, 126, 131, 134 n. 39, 137, 226, 274 nn. 294, 298, 306, 315, 317 Wynewald, abbot of Beverley  134 n. 42 Y Gododdin  17 n. 7, 20–2, 30–1 Yafforth 147 Yapham 151 Yarm  23, 29, 91 n. 333, 131, 134 n. 40, 137, 149, 287, 306, 315, 317 Yeadon  31, 48, 104, 136, 248 Yeavering (Nb)  46, 49, 51, 54, 57, 67, 94–5, 97–8, 109 Yffi, son of Osfrith, grandson of Edwin, king of the Northumbrians  33, 57 York  10, 13, 16–17, 23, 25, 43, 48–9, 67, 77, 78, 80–4, 88 n. 304, 91 n. 333, 94–5, 98, 104, 106–8, 111, 114, 117–20, 123–6, 129, 131–2, 134 n. 39, 135, 139, 165, 177–8, 182, 184, 187–93, 196–8, 203–4, 207–10, 212, 214–20, 222–44, 249, 251, 262, 265, 271–3, 275, 276, 284, 286–7, 294–6, 306–7, 315–17

archbishops  78, 81, 85 n. 282, 117, 123–6, 132, 177–8, 190, 198, 208–10, 214–15, 218–19, 222, 225–44, 275 bishops  70, 71, 78, 106–7, 114, 165 burials  23, 25, 182, 287, 294–6 coins see York, mint colonia 16 Community of Cuthbert in  104 cults  88 n. 304 ealdorman of  217 endowment 227–30 kingdom of  192–8 kings in  10, 13, 17, 67, 94, 98, 187–93, 196–7, 212, 218–19 men of York  192, 196–7, 213, 216 mint  190–1, 197, 207–8 people of York  191–2, 197 poem on  80, 84, 124–5, 126, 177 principia  49, 139 religious communities  48, 77, 80–1, 111, 117, 123–5, 129, 134 n. 39, 135, 190, 208, 210, 218, 223, 225, 230–2, 269 saints 88 see of York  14, 32, 94, 98, 107–8, 129, 164, 218, 220, 223–4, 284, 286 see also diocese, York stone sculpture  91 n. 333, 131, 135, 226, 235–43, 262, 265, 272–3, 275, 306–7, 315–17 see also stone sculpture topography 15 urban churches  271 Vale of see Vale of York wic 118–20 York Bishophill  129, 131 n. 24, 226, 231, 235 n. 75, 236, 239, 269, 271, 296, 307, 316–17 York Gospel Book  228, 234 York Minster  67, 91 n. 333, 98, 135, 139, 209, 211, 226, 231, 235–40, 262, 265, 296, 306, 316–17 York Road, Kilham  295 Yorke, Barbara  54, 282 Yorkshire geology 15–16 historiography 8–10 origins 12–13 sources 13 topography 15–16 Yorkshire Wolds  12, 15–17, 24–7, 42–3, 98, 136–7, 183, 203–4, 230, 276, 278 Ysopa, hold  199