["Chapter 3 Weapons from the Site of Old London Bridge 79 Medieval Finds from the River Thames Over the years the River Thames, which runs for some 40 miles (65 km) through the Greater London area, has produced a vast number of archaeological and antiquar- ian finds, from dredging, building, and embankment works, stray finds on the tidal foreshore, and more recently from foreshore searching by metal-detectorists. Most of them are metalwork; they range in date from prehistoric to modern, tend to be in an excellent state of preservation, and are often of the highest quality. Although several museums hold Thames material,18 the most extensive collection of river finds from the London area is that in the Museum of London. Opening in 1976, the Museum of London brought together the collections of the former London Museum and Guildhall Museum, both of which included Thames finds, and has since benefited from the activities of Thames \u201cmudlarks,\u201d the licensed metal-detectorists who report their finds to the museum, now under the terms of the national Portable Antiquities Scheme.19 As curator of the Museum of London\u2019s medieval collection, I had long been aware of the importance of Thames material in that collection, and on my retirement from the museum in 2009 I began a study of those finds and the circumstances of their discovery. Some 2,600 objects out of approximately 15,500 in the core medieval collec- tion of the Museum of London are recorded as coming from the River Thames, and most of them have closer findspots recorded (though these are often vague and\/or unreliable).20 The existence of so many records suggested that it might be possible to derive meaningful statistics concerning the types of object, their dates, and the locations in which they were found, and to assess whether there were any patterns that might suggest that at any period or in any circumstances one was dealing with the sort of deliberate deposition recognized by prehistorians. The chronologi- cal span of the museum\u2019s medieval collection, from the fifth century to the fif- teenth, allowed the comparison of distributions of early and later medieval finds that, for example, Raffield\u2019s period-specific study of \u201cDeposited weapons . . . dur- ing the Viking Age\u201d failed to address. Torbr\u00fcgge and Bradley similarly seem to 18 For example, the British Museum and especially Reading Museum, which houses the Thames Water Collection, the collection of the former Thames Conservancy from dredging and other river works on the non-tidal Thames upstream of Teddington. 19 Burdon, Green, and Smith, \u201cPortable Antiquities.\u201d 20 These figures, and the discussion that follows, are based upon records downloaded from the museum\u2019s central database in summer 2009. They represent a snapshot of the data held at that time, and take no account of additions to the collection or changes in identification or assigned date that may have been made since. In some cases, however, I have corrected find- spots or refined the dating.","80 John Clark have respected an \u201cend-date\u201d of around the year 1000 in their studies. However, Stocker and Everson included later medieval weapons in their study of finds from the River Witham, and suggested the continuation of traditional practices into the Christian period to account for their presence.21 As we have seen, in 1965 Wilson had commented on the prevalence of late Anglo-Saxon\/Viking Age swords as river finds: \u201cThey are present in such large numbers that it is difficult to see them in any other light than as offerings.\u201d22 One might question just how significant as proof \u201clarge numbers\u201d alone can be. The Museum of London collection contains twice as many late medieval swords from the River Thames as it does Viking Age swords \u2013 and ten times as many late me- dieval and sixteenth-century daggers.23 Were there simply more people with weapons who might lose them or cast them away in the later medieval period, and simply more weapons around? Or did whatever practice may be envisaged to have been current among \u201cpagan\u201d Viking invaders and settlers continue into the nominally Christian, later medieval period? Table 3.1: Categories of River Thames finds by period. Category Early Mid Late Early Late Medieval Medieval (\uf131\uf134th\u2013\uf131\uf135th C) Anglo-Saxon Anglo-Saxon Anglo-Saxon (\uf131\uf132th\u2013\uf131\uf133th C) (\uf135th\u2013\uf137th C) (\uf138th\u2013\uf139th C) (\uf131\uf130th\u2013\uf131\uf131th C) building \uf136 commerce \uf132 \uf131\uf130 \uf131\uf132\uf130 games \uf132 \uf135\uf139 household \uf133 \uf131\uf136 \uf131\uf139 \uf131\uf133\uf136 miscellaneous \uf131 \uf133 \uf133\uf135 personal \uf131\uf132 \uf134 \uf134\uf132 \uf138\uf131\uf136 items 21 Evidence from the Museum of London collections, with more weapons of even later dates coming from the Thames than from the Witham (up to and including the sixteenth century), surely justifies Stocker and Everson\u2019s decision to consider the later medieval material from the Witham, though it may cast doubt on their conclusions. The distribution, context, and possible significance of medieval and early modern weapon finds from the Thames are discussed in Clark, \u201cThe Sword in the Stream.\u201d 22 Wilson, \u201cSome Neglected Swords,\u201d 51. 23 Clark, \u201cThe Sword in the Stream.\u201d","Chapter 3 Weapons from the Site of Old London Bridge 81 Table 3.1 (continued) Category Early Mid Late Early Late Medieval Medieval (\uf131\uf134th\u2013\uf131\uf135th C) religion Anglo-Saxon Anglo-Saxon Anglo-Saxon (\uf131\uf132th\u2013\uf131\uf133th C) river (fishing etc) (\uf135th\u2013\uf137th C) (\uf138th\u2013\uf139th C) (\uf131\uf130th\u2013\uf131\uf131th C) tools transport \uf131 \uf138 \uf134\uf130\uf138 weaponry Total: \uf131 \uf131\uf131\uf130 \uf133\uf134 \uf136 \uf136 \uf137\uf138 \uf132 \uf131\uf131 \uf131\uf139 \uf131\uf132\uf131 \uf134\uf139 \uf135\uf134 \uf132\uf134 \uf139\uf136 \uf131\uf132\uf138 \uf135\uf135 \uf138\uf137 \uf131\uf132\uf135 \uf131,\uf138\uf138\uf133 Table 3.1 sets a functional classification of Thames finds against a break- down of their numbers by date, from \u201cEarly Anglo-Saxon\u201d to \u201cLate Medieval.\u201d The large numbers of finds attributed to the latter period, representing the four- teenth and fifteenth centuries, come chiefly from the area of the medieval city of London; their numbers are heavily boosted by the activities of metal-detectorists who have been searching the river foreshore, largely in this area, for the last forty and more years. Of the categories highlighted in the table, \u201cpersonal items\u201d comprise chiefly small decorative objects of brass or lead alloy such as jewelry and dress fittings; the majority of the items assigned to \u201creligion\u201d are lead-alloy religious badges and pilgrim souvenirs. Also highlighted is the category \u201cweaponry,\u201d which comprises large numbers from every date within our overall medieval period. The prevalence of weapon finds of all periods from rivers has long been recognised \u2013 but must be treated with cau- tion. We may need to allow for a selective bias. Many of these finds come from dredging or are stray finds made on the foreshore by members of the public. Dredger crews might well be attracted to pick out of the bucket something recognisable as a sword, something that might have a resale value, rather than an unidentifiable piece of scrap iron. For example, collector Thomas Layton (1819\u20131911) of Brentford ac- quired material from the crews of Thames dredgers between Richmond and Wands- worth, who quickly learned the types of objects that interested him and for which he was willing to pay more.24 Finders, dealers, collectors, and museum curators might 24 Seaton, \u201cThomas Layton.\u201d The majority of Layton\u2019s collection of antiquities remains on long-term deposit in the Museum of London.","82 John Clark all be attracted by the \u201cglamor\u201d of weaponry. We do not know what proportion of metalwork was not retrieved or selected for preservation \u2013 although the considerable number of non-weapon finds acquired from the City foreshore metal-detectorists since the 1970s may provide a corrective sample. Table 3.2: Medieval weaponry from the River Thames by zone. Zone: \uf131\uf132 \uf133 \uf134\uf135 \uf136 \uf137 \uf138 \uf131\uf130 \uf131\uf131 \uf133\uf131 Early Anglo-Saxon \uf135 \uf132 \uf137\uf131 \uf132\uf133 \uf133 \uf132 Mid Anglo-Saxon \uf131 \uf132\uf135 \uf131\uf130 \uf131 \uf133 Late Anglo-Saxon \uf131 \uf133 \uf131\uf138 \uf131\uf131 \uf133 \uf132 \uf132\uf130 \uf131 \uf136 Early Medieval \uf135\uf131 \uf134\uf134 \uf131 Late Medieval \uf138 \uf131\uf132 \uf131 \uf136 \uf131 Key to zones: \uf131: Hampton\/Kingston upon Thames \uf132: Richmond \uf133: Kew\/Brentford \uf134: Hammersmith\/Fulham\/Wandsworth \uf135: Battersea\/Chelsea \uf136: Lambeth\/Westminster \uf137: City of London\/Southwark \uf138: Bermondsey\/Limehouse \uf139: Greenwich \uf131\uf130: Newham\/Woolwich \uf131\uf131: Dagenham\/Erith In Table 3.2 the weaponry finds are assigned to nominal zones or stretches of the river, downstream from Hampton to Erith. The area of the medieval city of London and of Southwark (Zone 7) is, not surprisingly, rich in finds from the late Anglo-Saxon period onwards, as the urban center developed; notable, how- ever, is the preponderance of earlier finds in the area between Kew and Wands- worth (Zones 3 and 4). Both these areas are highlighted in the table.25 The relative distribution of weapon finds of the early Anglo-Saxon period (fifth to seventh century \u2013 largely the so-called \u201cpagan\u201d period) and the late Anglo-Saxon period (tenth and eleventh centuries \u2013 the \u201cViking wars\u201d to the 25 However, many of them are from Thomas Layton\u2019s collection, and Layton\u2019s interest in this area may bias the sample.","Chapter 3 Weapons from the Site of Old London Bridge 83 Norman Conquest) is illustrated in Maps 3.1 and 3.2. The first of these shows only spearheads (which comprise all but a handful of the weapon finds of this date).26 The preponderance of finds from Brentford (more than sixty spear- heads, most from a marshy area at the confluence of the River Brent and the Thames) is striking and deserves further exploration.27 Map 3.1: Finds of early Anglo-Saxon spearheads from the Thames in the Museum of London collection. Map 3.2 shows the much more even spread of finds of weapons \u2013 including swords, seaxes, spears and battleaxes \u2013 belonging to the tenth and eleventh cen- turies. Not surprisingly, it resembles Torbr\u00fcgge\u2019s map of \u201cViking weapon-finds\u201d referred to earlier.28 There is a notable cluster in the area of the City of London, but finds, usually single items, are spread along the river to Brentford and be- yond. How should one interpret such scattered finds? We have noted that, given the \u201clarge numbers\u201d of finds of weaponry, there is a temptation to interpret even isolated finds as the result of deliberate deposition, 26 Apart from spearheads, totaling well over a hundred, the only other Thames finds of weap- onry in the Museum of London collection that have been dated to the early Anglo-Saxon pe- riod are three swords, a seax, two shield bosses, and a decorative shield mount. 27 On the concentration of early Anglo-Saxon finds at Brentford see Clark, \u201cThe Sword in the Stream.\u201d 28 One might, of course, question how many of these weapons are \u201cViking\u201d \u2013 that is, Scandi- navian weapons wielded by warriors from Scandinavia \u2013 and how many are \u201cEnglish,\u201d and at what point in the eleventh century the distinction becomes meaningless.","84 John Clark Map 3.2: Finds of late Anglo-Saxon\/Viking-Age weapons from the Thames in the Museum of London collection. and to seek to explain this by some form of ritual activity. Yet single weapons could be accidental losses, particularly at crossing points. Even clusters of weapons, if recognisably of the same date, could arguably be relics of a battle at a river cross- ing. What is surely needed, before we can accept \u201cdeliberate deposition\u201d as the de- fault explanation, is confirmation by supplementary evidence. Thus, we might seek evidence of selection \u2013 the manner in which spearheads so strikingly outnumber any other weapon in the Brentford area, for example. Or evidence of choice of loca- tion and repetition in the same location \u2013 again, Brentford, where, to judge by the range of dates of the spearheads found, a similar process of disposal was repeated over more than two hundred years.29 What, then, is the significance of the group of early-eleventh-century weaponry and other ironwork from \u201cOld London Bridge\u201d in the Museum of London? 29 The Museum of London\u2019s dating of Anglo-Saxon spearheads from Brentford and elsewhere was dependent largely on the work of Michael Swanton, published in the 1970s (Swanton, Cor- pus and Spearheads), and may be overdue for revision.","Chapter 3 Weapons from the Site of Old London Bridge 85 The Place and Circumstances of the Find The group of ironwork that is the subject of this chapter was acquired by the then London Museum in 1920. The axes, spears, and grappling hook are listed in sequence in the museum\u2019s original manuscript accessions register with num- bers from A23339 to A23353, each with a very brief description, a single mea- surement, and a date \u201cViking Period.\u201d30 The first record reads, \u201cFound on Site of Old London Bridge\u201d; the others repeat \u201cFound with last.\u201d Each is noted as \u201cBought Nov. 1920.\u201d The \u201ctongs\u201d pictured top right in our Figure 3.1 (accession number A23506) were not acquired until several months later \u2013 together with two large iron nails. Although also \u201cFound on Site of Old London Bridge,\u201d there is no confirmation from the museum register that these three items were found at the same time or in the same location as the others. There is no further information in the museum\u2019s archives about the circum- stances of discovery or the manner of the museum\u2019s acquisition of the items. This was not unusual at the time.31 In 1927 Mortimer Wheeler, then Keeper of the museum, was a little more forthcoming: Some years ago, workmen excavating in the former foreshore of the river, not far from the north end of Old London Bridge, found a number of weapons and tools, sixteen of which are now in the Museum. The implements lay in the alluvium within a narrowly restricted area, and it is all but certain that they form a group.32 Wheeler did not become Keeper until 1926. Where did this information \u2013 with the disturbing suggestion that what we have is only part of an originally larger group \u2013 come from? A possible source is revealed in another author\u2019s reference to: an interesting find of Viking objects on the foreshore at London Bridge a few years ago, no doubt evidence of one of the raids on London by these folk in the eleventh century. Six Viking axes of iron, two others with decorated bronze tubes to receive the shaft (one of them ornamented with typical Ringerike design), five spear-heads, another with silver plating on the socket with zoomorphic decoration, a grapnel and a pair of smith\u2019s tongs, were all found in a mass.33 This latter account, written in 1929, is by G. F. Lawrence, a London antiquities dealer who from April 1911 was paid a retaining fee to acquire archaeological 30 These register entries seem to have been intended as drafts for the production of labels when the objects went on display. As a result, they are brief and formulaic. 31 For the early history of the London Museum and expenditure on purchases from its rather secretive \u201cFund,\u201d see Sheppard, Treasury of London\u2019s Past, 69\u201397, esp. 90\u201392. 32 London Museum, London and the Vikings, 18. 33 Lawrence, \u201cAntiquities from the Middle Thames,\u201d 93\u201395.","86 John Clark specimens for the new London Museum (which opened in 1912), and continued in this role until retiring in 1926, shortly before Wheeler\u2019s appointment as Keeper. Thereafter he occasionally provided material for the London Museum, as well as supplying foreign museums and private collectors.34 Like Thomas Layton before him, he acquired material dredged from the Thames, but as the London Museum\u2019s \u201cInspector of Excavations,\u201d he also visited London building sites and came to infor- mal (and mutually profitable) arrangements with the workmen to buy any interest- ing finds they might have made. What has been described as \u201ca somewhat piratical attitude to the acquisition of specimens\u201d unsurprisingly led to the occasional brush with the authorities, particularly over finds made in the City of London.35 The most famous of these involved the Cheapside Hoard, a hoard of seventeenth-century jew- elry discovered by workmen on a building site in Cheapside and acquired from them by Lawrence for the London Museum in 1912.36 An unfriendly rivalry devel- oped between Lawrence and staff of the City\u2019s own Guildhall Museum. Lawrence seems not to have been averse to falsifying a findspot to avoid an inconvenient ad- mission that he had no legal right to be on a particular site or to buy finds from the workmen \u2013 for in most cases the legal owners of such finds were the landowners. The vast majority of the archaeological finds that entered the London Muse- um\u2019s collections between 1912 and 1926 passed through Lawrence\u2019s hands, and al- though in his 1929 article he does not claim any personal responsibility for the Old London Bridge material, and although the relevant entries in the museum accession register are not in his handwriting (unlike many earlier archaeological finds which he entered up in the register himself, sometimes rubber-stamping the entry \u201cInspec- tor of Excavations\u201d), it is surely inconceivable that he had no involvement in the acquisition of such an important group of finds from the City in 1920. If so, Law- rence must be the ultimate source of the published information about the find. After his official retirement from the London Museum, he remained on reasonably friendly terms with the new Keeper, Mortimer Wheeler. Wheeler would no doubt have discussed the circumstances of the discovery with Lawrence. It is not difficult to guess why he felt constrained to provide a rather imprecise description of its lo- cation in his 1927 publication. Indeed, the slight differences between his account and that of Lawrence in 1929 are significant. Lawrence placed the find \u201con the fore- shore at London Bridge.\u201d Although the tidal foreshore was already in the 1920s the legal responsibility of the Port of London Authority, the status of archaeological finds from this area was to remain unclear even in the 1970s, and few would have 34 Macdonald, \u201cStony Jack.\u201d 35 Macdonald, \u201cStony Jack,\u201d 245\u201347. 36 Sheppard, Treasury of London\u2019s Past, 71\u201372; Forsyth, London\u2019s Lost Jewels, 7\u201316.","Chapter 3 Weapons from the Site of Old London Bridge 87 questioned the London Museum\u2019s right to purchase such items directly from the finders. Lawrence adopted an ambiguous euphemism (for example, was it north or south of the river?), whereas the more professional Wheeler was less circumspect in referring to \u201cworkmen excavating in the former foreshore of the river, not far from the north end of Old London Bridge.\u201d And surely Wheeler was more accurate: the discovery was on the former foreshore (that is, on a site that was now land, re- claimed from the river), north of the river, not far from the end of Old London Bridge. And that allows us to identify the area and probably the construction site from which the group of finds came. Thanks to the major waterfront excavations carried out by Guildhall Museum and the Museum of London since the 1970s, it is clear that the strip of land in the City of London between Thames Street and the river, a hundred meters or more in width in some places, is reclaimed land: a sequence of earlier waterfronts and foreshores buried by dumping in a gradual series of encroachments on the river, beginning in the eleventh century and largely complete in the fifteenth century.37 It is in this strip south of Thames Street that we should expect to find the site of the \u201cformer fore- shore\u201d alluded to by Wheeler. His additional description takes us almost inevitably to one major site \u2013 that of Adelaide House, at the north end of modern London Bridge, on the east side of the bridge approach, and including within it the location of the northern end of the medieval bridge.38 Opened in 1925 as the company headquarters of coal-owner, steel magnate, and entrepreneur Richard Tilden Smith, Adelaide House was the first building in the City of London to be erected on a steel frame of the type already familiar in American skyscrapers. Demolition of earlier buildings, clearance of the site and groundworks had begun in 1920, and in April 1921 a com- plete surviving arch of the medieval stone London Bridge was revealed. A campaign to preserve it in situ or to dismantle the stonework for rebuilding elsewhere failed, and the arch was demolished in October 1922.39 Given the very public and acrimoni- ous debate, in which the Archbishop of Canterbury took a prominent role, one should not be surprised if Wheeler, writing a few years later, did not wish to make it too obvious if he knew or suspected that the London Museum, just a few months before the London Bridge arch came to light, had acquired a major archaeological discovery from the same site \u2013 presumably without the knowledge of the site owner, Mr. Tilden Smith, or the contractor, Sir Robert MacAlpine. 37 Milne, Port of Medieval London, 18\u201328. 38 Bradley and Pevsner, London I, 124, 539. 39 Watson, Brigham, and Dyson, London Bridge, 170 \u2013 although the authors did not note the first announcement of the discovery that appeared in The Times on April 22, 1921. The history of the campaign to preserve the arch can be traced through subsequent reports and letters in The Times.","88 John Clark If this was the site, and if the museum register\u2019s reference to \u201cthe Site of Old London Bridge\u201d is meaningful, then some relationship between the find and Lon- don Bridge itself is a possibility, to which we shall return. However, as we have seen, Wheeler places the find merely \u201cnot far from the north end of Old London Bridge.\u201d Although the Adelaide House site included the northern end of the stone bridge and land to the west as far as the approaches to the later, nineteenth- century, bridge, it extended no further east, and the exact alignment of the wooden bridge or bridges that preceded the building of the stone bridge, begun in 1176, is unclear. Nor do Wheeler\u2019s references to \u201cthe former foreshore\u201d and \u201cthe alluvium\u201d assist. We are at best seeking to interpret the words of the finders, transmitted by Lawrence and Wheeler. Unrelated as it is to any report of a waterfront structure or timber revetment, and with no hint from Wheeler that such a structure (familiar features on every one of the waterfront excavations since the 1970s) had been no- ticed, we have no way of knowing whether this \u201cformer foreshore\u201d was indeed the tidal foreshore immediately in front of a contemporary waterfront, buried by later dumped deposits, or was an area of the bed of the Thames some distance away from the contemporary shoreline, similarly buried as later medieval reclamation proceeded. Were the items lost, thrown or dropped from the shore, or from the bridge, or even from a vessel some way out in the river? The Content and Date of the Group What seems certain however, in view of both Lawrence\u2019s and Wheeler\u2019s state- ments, is that the items (plus others, according to Wheeler) were indeed a \u201cgroup,\u201d found \u201cin the alluvium within a narrowly restricted area,\u201d or \u201cin a mass.\u201d Wheeler hints that the group as originally found was larger. What hap- pened to the other items? Did the finders decide they were not worth picking up, or retain them themselves, or dispose of them separately? It is now over a hundred years since the original discovery. Are there other items still in private hands or by now even in other museum collections? Have any other items from the original find resurfaced since in the antique arms and armor trade, bereft of any information about their findspot, and their true significance unrecognised? The present contents of the group may not necessarily represent the nature of the whole, as discovered. However, we can reasonably assume that, as with what survives, the majority of the items found were weapons. Moreover, those that sur- vive are weapons of high quality, some of them decorated. Seven of the axe-heads in the group are war axes of Scandinavian type, of Wheeler\u2019s type VI (= Petersen","Chapter 3 Weapons from the Site of Old London Bridge 89 type M), a form which Wheeler concluded began \u201cabout the year 1000.\u201d40 Wilson suggested that \u201csome of the axes may well have been dropped in the river by work- men repairing or building the bridge.\u201d41 This seems unlikely. The axes are of a form whose function as a weapon has never been doubted \u2013 they would not serve well as woodworking tools. They resemble far too closely the axes in the battle scenes of the Bayeux Tapestry to be anything other than weapons, in contrast to the obvious woodsman\u2019s felling axes and the carpenter\u2019s short-handled T-shaped axes portrayed in the Tapestry\u2019s ship-building scene.42 Indeed, the eighth axe from London Bridge seems to be a felling axe, similar to those shown on the Tapestry \u2013 in form, weight, and crudity of workmanship it differs from the seven battleaxes. But if there is any doubt about the purpose of the axes, the spearheads con- firm that we are dealing with what is largely a group of weapons. Although varying in size, they can all be assigned to Petersen\u2019s type K, which he suggests began in the tenth century and continued in the eleventh.43 Two of the spears have traces of wood preserved in the sockets, but there is nothing to show whether the weapons were still fitted to their shafts when they entered the water. Two items have datable decoration. Two of the axe-heads have brass col- lars to protect the haft where it enters the socket, and in one case (A23346) this collar has incised decoration (Figures 3.2 and 3.3). The socket of one spear (A23353) is decorated with silver inlay (Figs. 3.4 and 3.5). In both cases the deco- ration reflects the familiar Scandinavian style known as Ringerike.44 This decora- tion, consistent with Wheeler\u2019s and Petersen\u2019s dating of the axes and spears, places the objects, and presumably their deposition, somewhere in the first half of the eleventh century. Explanations The weapons are Scandinavian in both form and decoration, not Anglo-Saxon. They are foreign to the place in which they were found, and we need to consider what circumstances might have brought them to this place. The proposed dating 40 London Museum, London and the Vikings, 25; Petersen, De Norske Vikingesverd, 46\u201347. 41 Wilson, \u201cCraft and Industry,\u201d 255; repeating an observation made earlier by the same au- thor in \u201cSome Neglected Swords,\u201d 50. 42 Wilson, Bayeux Tapestry, 184\u201345 (Plates 35, 36: woodsmen\u2019s and shipwrights\u2019 axes); 225 (Plates 62, 64, 65: battleaxes; and battleaxes carried as ceremonial weapons or emblems of authority, Plates 10, 28). 43 Petersen, De Norske Vikingesverd, 31\u201333, 183. 44 Fuglesang, Ringerike Style, 33, 43, 149\u201350 (Cat. No. 4), 166\u20137 (Cat. No. 46).","90 John Clark Figure 3.2: Axe-head A23346 with decorated brass collar. Photograph \u00a9 Museum of London. Figure 3.3: Drawing of axe-head, with detail of decorated brass collar, from London Museum catalogue London and the Vikings, 1927. to the first half of the eleventh century does not allow us, with certainty, to choose between two possible historical contexts: the period of Danish attacks on London leading up to Cnut\u2019s accession in 1016, or alternatively later in Cnut\u2019s reign when","Chapter 3 Weapons from the Site of Old London Bridge 91 Figure 3.4: Spearhead A23353 with decorated socket. Photograph \u00a9 Museum of London. Figure 3.5: Drawing of spearhead A23353 with detail of decoration, from London Museum catalogue London and the Vikings, 1927.","92 John Clark there was a strong Danish presence and influence in London45 \u2013 perhaps best il- lustrated archaeologically by the stone grave-marker, often cited as a classic exam- ple of Ringerike-style art, found in St. Paul\u2019s Church Yard in 1852 and now in the Museum of London, with its runic inscription in Old Norse on one edge.46 The grappling hook \u2013 four conjoined hooks with a ring to attach a rope \u2013 is undatable in itself, but seems to suggest a maritime context, and perhaps inspired Wheeler\u2019s identification of the group as \u201cthe equipment of some Viking battle- ship.\u201d The \u201ctongs\u201d \u2013 an unusual form, more like fire tongs than the blacksmith\u2019s tongs with hinged jaws familiar in other medieval contexts47 \u2013 are problematic. Lawrence, and after him Wheeler, included the tongs in his account of the group \u2013 and they were displayed together in the London Museum, as the photograph re- produced in our Figure 3.1 demonstrates. Yet, as we have seen, the tongs entered the London Museum\u2019s collection several months later, and the two large iron nails acquired at the same time as the tongs seem never to have been thought of as part of the group. It is possible that whoever sold the tongs to the museum, presumably through Lawrence, claimed that they came from the group of weapons. Whether that claim was true is debatable. In any case, the presence of the felling axe seems to confirm that we are dealing with a mixed group, even if weapons predominate. An obvious assumption would be that the weapons represent debris from a battle, and Wheeler wrote: \u201cit is tempting to associate them with one or other of the attacks which, in the days of St. Olaf and King Cnut, centred round the old timber bridge.\u201d48 And, as we have noted, he identified them as \u201cthe equipment of some Viking battle- ship,\u201d although neither he nor Lawrence gives any hint that their informants had seen timbers suggesting the presence of a sunken ship. It would have been tempting, but unwise, to associate the weapons with one particular battle, the famous occasion when, according to Snorri Sturluson, \u00d3l\u00e1fr Haraldsson (St. Olaf of Norway) attacked the bridge and succeeded in pulling it down, precipitating its defenders into the river (particularly unwise given doubts over the historicity of this event).49 However, it is difficult to envisage a process by which either the armaments of a Viking ship foun- dering near the bridge or weapons wielded by men standing on the bridge to defend 45 Discussed, for example, by Nightingale, \u201cCourt of Husting.\u201d 46 Tweddle, Biddle, and Kj\u00f8lbje-Biddle, Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture, 226\u201328. See further the cover of this book. 47 Contrast the typical hinged tongs illustrated for example in Goodall, Ironwork in Medieval Britain, 12\u201313, or Arwidsson and Berg, M\u00e4stermyr Find, 14 (Plate 22). 48 London Museum, London and the Vikings, 18. 49 Heimskringla II: \u00d3l\u00e1fs saga helga, ed. Bjarni A\u00f0albjarnarson, 13\u201318. I am grateful to Profes- sor Alison Finlay for advice on the context and significance of \u00d3l\u00e1fr\u2019s exploit. See further Rey- nolds in this volume, pp. 57\u201360.","Chapter 3 Weapons from the Site of Old London Bridge 93 it \u2013 or falling from it \u2013 could have landed so precisely in \u201ca narrowly restricted area\u201d or \u201ca mass\u201d with no other associated equipment or debris. Nor indeed does the close association of so many items suggest accidental loss during battle or a more mundane accident at a river crossing or embarkation point \u2013 falling from the bridge or a boat, attempting to ford the river, or unwisely venturing onto the muddy foreshore as the tide was turning. The apparent association with the site of London Bridge may itself be mis- leading. If we are right in identifying Adelaide House as the location of the finds, then they clearly lay close to, or just upstream of, the northern end of the stone bridge (\u201cOld London Bridge\u201d), built between 1176 and 1209. But earlier bridges did not necessarily lie on the same alignment. It has been argued that the Roman bridge, while its northern abutment was close to that of the medieval stone bridge, reached the south bank at a point further upstream than the medieval bridge.50 On the other hand, on the south bank, timbers found during excava- tions at Fennings Wharf and dated by dendrochronology to the years around 1000 have been identified as part of the Anglo-Saxon bridge; both these timbers and a later timber caisson structure, probably forming part of a later wooden bridge built in the early twelfth century, lie within the footprint or the immediate area of the stone-built abutment of the 1176 bridge.51 There is no evidence where the northern end of these earlier timber bridges lay.52 Indeed, it has been sug- gested that a structure found during excavations at New Fresh Wharf, to the east of Adelaide House, a cluster of regularly-spaced vertical timber posts which could be dated to the late tenth or early eleventh century and which was identi- fied by the excavators as the foundations of a jetty, was in fact the northern abut- ment of a bridge.53 If so, the site where our weapons were found would have been well upstream of the contemporary bridge, and, as long as the bridge was sound and was defended, not readily accessible to Danish attackers from the east and an unlikely place for them to attempt a landing. However, Watson concluded that these timbers \u201cwere too flimsy to have formed the foundations for a bridge abutment,\u201d and argued that the stone bridge had deliberately been constructed 50 Watson, Brigham, and Dyson, London Bridge, 28\u201330. 51 Watson, Brigham, and Dyson, London Bridge, 74\u201378. 52 For the argument that an Anglo-Saxon bridge existed long before the earliest archaeolog- ical evidence, and on the same alignment as the medieval stone bridge, see Haslam, \u201cThe De- velopment of London by King Alfred,\u201d 133\u201337. 53 Milne, Port of Medieval London, 57\u201358; Steedman, Dyson, and Schofield, The Bridgehead and Billingsgate, 28\u201329, 101\u20134, and cover illustration.","94 John Clark on the alignment of its timber predecessor, replacing it piecemeal, arch by arch, during a building campaign that lasted more than thirty years.54 If our group of finds was not the result of \u201caccidental loss,\u201d in war or in peace, we need to examine the possibility that it was thrown into the river or laid on the foreshore deliberately. And the identification of the material as \u201cScandina- vian\u201d \u2013 the types and forms of the weapons, the nature of the decoration \u2013 eases our task. For, as we have noted, there is a long tradition of the \u201critual\u201d depositing of weapons in watery places in Scandinavia \u2013 and there is now a long tradition among British archaeologists of accepting the reality of such a practice on British rivers in the Viking Age. Although we have doubted the reliability of a claim \u201criver finds are numerous\u201d as prima facie evidence of deliberate deposition, the nature and context of the London Bridge finds seems to imply the selection of good quality weapons and their deposition as a group on a single occasion. We have also seen a growing acceptance that the presence of tools or other iron- work \u2013 the felling axe, the grappling hook, and (if they belong) the tongs \u2013 alongside weapons need not debar a \u201choard\u201d from identification as \u201critual depo- sition.\u201d The motive or rationale of such a ritual (or, to adopt a neutral term, \u201ccer- emony\u201d) is a matter for speculation. Here we offer just two possibilities. Julie Lund brought the London Bridge group into a discussion of weapons ap- parently deposited deliberately at river crossings and bridge sites in Scandinavia, and concluded: \u201cConsidering the number of weapons found at crossings in the Scandinavian area, the [London Bridge] hoard is more likely to be the remnants of a ritual deposit.\u201d55 Elsewhere she has enlarged on the evidence for such practices in England, notably at a site at Skerne, East Yorkshire, where amid the timbers of a wooden bridge were discovered a number of iron tools, a sword (of Scandinavian type) datable to the tenth or early eleventh century, and the bones of over twenty animals: \u201cThe occurrence of a weapon and tools with the animal bones . . . indicate- [s] that a religious ritual \u2013 a sacrifice \u2013 was intended.\u201d56 No animal bones are re- corded from London Bridge \u2013 such bones, if found, would probably not have been reported by the workmen. Yet the mixture of weapons and tools leads one to ponder whether we are dealing with a \u201cfoundation deposit\u201d of the type envisaged by Lund \u2013 part of a ceremony to inaugurate the building of a new bridge, or major re- pairs to a bridge damaged or \u201cbroken down\u201d during the Danish attacks on London. In the excavations at Fennings Wharf, on the south bank of the Thames, the earliest timbers identified as being part of a medieval bridge structure came from a tree that 54 Watson, Brigham, and Dyson, London Bridge, 56. 55 Lund, \u201cThresholds and Passages,\u201d 115. 56 Lund, \u201cAt the Water\u2019s Edge,\u201d 55\u201356.","Chapter 3 Weapons from the Site of Old London Bridge 95 (according to tree-ring analysis) was felled between ca. 987 and ca. 1032.57 We can envisage building works taking place following the events of 1016 and the accession of Cnut, when there was a large-scale Danish presence in London. The weapons, then, would attest to the existence of a Danish garrison in or near the city \u2013 troops who donated weapons for a ritual they were familiar with in their homeland.58 Alternatively, we can take note of a hint from John Blair, who, commenting on the large number of weapons from the Thames between Oxford and Read- ing, queried: \u201cDid the English learn from the Vikings a practice of dropping weapons in the river at peace-making or oath-taking ceremonies?\u201d59 The Anglo- Saxon Chronicle records under the year 1016 not only the momentous agreement between Cnut and Edmund over the partition of the kingdom, but that subse- quently \u201cLundenewaru gri\u00f0ede wi\u00f0 \u00feone here \u204a heom fri\u00f0 gebohtan, \u204a se here gebrohton heora scipa on Lundene \u204a heom wintersetle \u00fe\u00e6rinne namon\u201d (the in- habitants of London made a truce [gri\u00f0, a Danish loanword] with the raiding- army and bought peace from them; and the raiding-army brought their ships to London, and took winter-quarters for themselves in there).60 Surely such a truce would warrant recognition in a suitable lavish ceremony. Might it entail the sacrifice to the river by the victors of some of their weapons, close to the bridge that had been the center of so much fierce fighting? Conclusion: A Dedication? The weapons and other ironwork that were found in 1920 close to the likely site of the eleventh-century London Bridge differ from the generality of river finds of weaponry of this date. The latter are usually single finds, and although there is currently a consensus that many may be examples of ritual deposition, this can rarely be substantiated. We must not dismiss the possibility of accidental loss. The context and nature of the London Bridge discovery, a compact group of related objects that were apparently deposited together at one time, make more acceptable the conclusion that some form of ritual or ceremony was in- volved. The weapons are Danish (or at least Scandinavian), and although we cannot date them more securely than the first half of the eleventh century, we may speculate about their possible relevance to the events of 1016 and the 57 Watson, Brigham, and Dyson, London Bridge, 57. 58 On the Danish garrison, see Nightingale, \u201cCourt of Husting,\u201d 567\u201370. 59 Blair, Anglo-Saxon Oxfordshire, 99. 60 ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 74 (s.a. 1016); trans. Swanton, 153 (s.a. 1016).","96 John Clark accession of King Cnut. We have suggested two possible scenarios. Although London Bridge may not have been pulled down at exactly the time or in exactly the manner described by Snorri Sturluson, his account suggests that at some point in the conflict it was badly damaged. Extensive repairs or rebuilding would have been needed \u2013 could the works have been initiated with a Scandi- navian-style foundation deposit? Alternatively, perhaps an unrecorded cere- mony confirming the truce made between the Londoners and the Danish army in late 1016 involved the deliberate casting of fine weaponry into the river. Both are tempting hypotheses, but, in the absence of written sources that describe such ceremonies, archaeology can only allow us to conjecture.","Simon Keynes Chapter 4 The Reign of King \u00c6thelred the Unready in Multiple Maps The accompanying series of maps, which will be found at intervals in this chap- ter, represents an attempt to visualize a framework within which we may begin to understand the unfolding course of events during a long and complex reign, and in this way to maintain a sense of perspective.1 The purpose of any such exercise is to make it easier to follow the events on the ground (for example, when reading the annals in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle); and to be reminded at the same time where significant law codes, coin-types, charters, and other forms of evidence belong in the story as it unfolds. The maps, originally devised as teaching-aids, are unashamedly old-fashioned in appearance; needless to say, much more could be done, by way of historical mapping, with the aid of modern technology. Map 4.1 (980s), covers a period from \u00c6thelred\u2019s accession in 978 (aged about twelve) to the end of the 980s, by which time he would have been ap- proaching his mid-twenties. It was a difficult period, marred by continuing re- sentment in certain quarters of the impact of the monastic reform movement, accompanied by abuse of church privileges. The death of \u00c6thelwold, bishop of Winchester, in 984, was regarded as a point when the young king lost his way, leading to further abuses. The period also saw the resumption of Viking raids along the coasts, which soon came to be regarded as a sign of God\u2019s anger with the English people for their sins. Maps 4.2a (991\u2013994), 4.2b (997\u20131000), and 4.2c (1001\u20131005), in combi- nation, cover a complex but critical period of Viking activity in England. It began in the summer of 991, with the arrival of a large force led by \u00d3l\u00e1fr 1 The example was set by Hill, in Atlas of Anglo-Saxon England, 63\u201371. The maps form part of a series extending from the seventh century to the eleventh, developed over several years for the purposes of university teaching, and were drawn on my behalf by the late Reginald Pig- gott, of whom there is an account online (Wikipedia); see also Keynes, \u201cMapping the Anglo- Saxon Past,\u201d 167. The maps for \u00c6thelred\u2019s reign were deployed as a handout at the London conference \u201cThe Siege of London\u201d in 2016 (four maps to each of three pages of an A4 hand- out). I am grateful to James Kirwan, Digitisation Services Manager, Trinity College Library, Cambridge, for his invaluable help in separating them into twelve. I am also indebted to Alison Finlay and Richard North for giving me the opportunity to make them more widely available. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1515\/9781501513336-005","98 Simon Keynes Map 4.1: Viking raids in the 980s.","Chapter 4 The Reign of King \u00c6thelred the Unready in Multiple Maps 99 Map 4.2a: The Viking army in England 991\u2013994.","100 Simon Keynes Map 4.2b: The Viking army in England 997\u20131000.","Chapter 4 The Reign of King \u00c6thelred the Unready in Multiple Maps 101 Map 4.2c: The Viking army in England 1001\u20131005.","102 Simon Keynes Tryggvason, accompanied apparently by Sveinn Forkbeard. The death of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth at the Battle of Maldon (August 10, 991) followed soon afterwards. It would appear that a substantial part of the Viking force remained at large in the kingdom for several years thereafter, as raiders, settlers, or mercenaries, and that it was not until 1005 that those who remained active as raiders were finally driven away, not so much by military might as by a serious famine. The period as a whole, however, was significant for many other reasons. Sigeric, archbishop of Canterbury (990\u2013994), and his successor \u00c6lfric, archbishop of Canterbury (995\u20131005), seem to have taken forward a program of reform and renewal which found expression in various ways. The business of the kingdom was conducted, and was seen to be conducted, at assemblies convened on per- haps a grander scale than before, leading directly or indirectly to significant ac- tivity in various aspects of royal government, religious learning, and literature in Latin and in the vernacular. The presence and therefore the reality of the threat posed by the Viking forces, attended also by heightened concern about the apocalypse, led to intense debate in high circles about the measures re- quired in response, and was accompanied, unsurprisingly, by differences of opinion and the emergence of faction. When the Viking force left England in 1005, two of the king\u2019s closest associates \u2013 \u00c6thelm\u00e6r (in effect, the head of the royal household), and Ordulf (the king\u2019s uncle) \u2013 chose to withdraw from life at court, and to \u201cretire\u201d to the monasteries they had founded at Eynsham (Oxford- shire) and at Tavistock (Devon). As it happened, Archbishop \u00c6lfric died at about the same time (November 16, 1005), much lamented by those who knew what he had contributed while in office. Map 4.3 (1006\u20131007), in one part, and Maps 4.4a (1009\u20131010), 4.4b (1010), and4.4c (1010\u20131012), in combination, cover two major Viking invasions which must have had a devastating impact on \u00c6thelred\u2019s kingdom. Map 4.3 begins with a \u201cdomestic\u201d upheaval in circles high enough to be mentioned in the Chronicle (with an echo in the Welsh annals), perhaps an expression of faction in high places (in the aftermath of the developments towards the end of 1005). The concentration of such events has the look of a \u201cpalace revolution\u201d \u2013 one which culminated, perhaps, in 1007 with the appointment of Eadric Streona as ealdorman of the Mercians, finding further expression a few years later in Ea- dric\u2019s promotion to the primacy over all of the ealdormen. In the summer of 1006 a \u201cgreat fleet\u201d came to Sandwich, and set about its business, led conceivably by the Tostig who is named on a Swedish runestone of this period as a Viking leader active in England before Thorkell the Tall (in 1009). The Vikings received a large payment of gafol, and apparently stayed over the winter of 1006\u20131007 in their \u201csanctuary\u201d on the Isle of Wight, counting their \u201cHelmet\u201d pennies; but one does not know whether they stayed there as a mercenary force, or settled","Chapter 4 The Reign of King \u00c6thelred the Unready in Multiple Maps 103 Map 4.3: The Viking raid of 1006\u20131007.","104 Simon Keynes Map 4.4a: Thorkell\u2019s army in England 1009\u20131010.","Chapter 4 The Reign of King \u00c6thelred the Unready in Multiple Maps 105 Map 4.4b: Thorkell\u2019s army in England 1010.","106 Simon Keynes Map 4.4c: Thorkell\u2019s army in England 1011\u20131012.","Chapter 4 The Reign of King \u00c6thelred the Unready in Multiple Maps 107 elsewhere, or returned to their homelands. Map 4.4a (1009\u20131010) incorporates, top left, two boxes (not to be overlooked) which refer to the significant measures taken by the king and his counselors in 1008, led now by \u00c6lfheah, archbishop of Canterbury (1006\u20131012), and by Wulfstan, archbishop of York (1002\u20131023). The em- phasis, however, is on the arrival of Thorkell\u2019s army at Sandwich in August 1009, which precipitated at first a \u201clocal\u201d peace in Kent, and soon afterwards the remark- able program of prayer devised at an assembly at Bath in the late summer of 1009, associated with the Agnus Dei coinage and the desperate appeal for God\u2019s help. (It was arguably in 1009, rather than 1014 (as stated on the map), that Archbishop Wulfstan first preached his famous Sermo ad Anglos, recycling it thereafter on vari- ous occasions.2) The further movements of Thorkell\u2019s army are tracked in Map 4.4b (1010) and Map 4.4c (1011\u20131012), including the chronicler\u2019s detailed account of the shires which had been devastated by the Danes, and by the martyrdom of Arch- bishop \u00c6lfheah at Greenwich on April 19, 1012, followed by his burial in St. Paul\u2019s. The two chrismons reproduced on Map 4.4c appear as pictorial invocations on di- plomas of King \u00c6thelred dated 1011 and 1012, when Thorkell\u2019s army was at large in \u00c6thelred\u2019s kingdom. They encourage a modern mind to be moved by the desperate appeal for the divine assistance needed to bring the Viking attacks to a close. Maps 4.5 (1013\u20131014), 4.6 (1014\u20131015), 4.7 (1015\u20131016) and 4.8 (1016) cover the fast-moving events and crowded annals of the closing years of \u00c6thelred\u2019s reign, and the short reign of his son Edmund Ironside. As before, in 1006 and 1009, the chosen point of arrival for Sveinn\u2019s fleet, in 1013, was Sandwich in Kent, which would be used again by Cnut in 1015. It is obvious why; but it seems also to unite them all in the same enterprise. One should also notice how Sveinn, in 1013, turned north from Kent to invade the kingdom from his base at Gainsborough on the Trent (Map 4.5), and how Cnut, in 1015, headed west along the south coast to Southampton, and thus conducted a rather different campaign (Map 4.7) There is no substitute, however, for following the move- ments closely, on the ground, as described at considerable length in the annals for 1013\u20131016, observing at the same time how the sustained external pressure was only part of the problem for the English. After Sveinn\u2019s death, as king of the English, in February 1014, the English had turned back to King \u00c6thelred, who had taken refuge in Normandy; he soon returned to England, having come to a mutual understanding with his people (Map 4.6). \u00c6thelred\u2019s eldest son \u00c6thelstan became the natural successor; but when \u00c6thelstan died unexpect- edly, on June 25, 1014, conflicting political interests were exposed as Edmund 2 For discussion of the date, see Wilcox, \u201cWulfstan\u2019s Sermo Lupi ad Anglos,\u201d 376\u201383; and Keynes, \u201cAn Abbot, an Archbishop, and the Viking Raids,\u201d 203\u201313.","108 Simon Keynes Map 4.5: Swein Forkbeard\u2019s invasion 1013\u20131014.","Chapter 4 The Reign of King \u00c6thelred the Unready in Multiple Maps 109 Map 4.6: England 1014\u20131015: Intermission.","110 Simon Keynes Map 4.7: Cnut\u2019s invasion 1015\u20131016.","Chapter 4 The Reign of King \u00c6thelred the Unready in Multiple Maps 111 Map 4.8: Edmund Ironside and Cnut 1016.","112 Simon Keynes Ironside, and others, sought to secure their own interests, thereby exposing the weaknesses of the kingdom itself (Map 4.7). The final map of the series repre- sents the vigorous campaign waged by Edmund Ironside, as king, against Cnut in 1016; the five occasions when Edmund is said by the chronicler to have fought \u201cwith all the English nation\u201d against the Danes stands in sharp and per- haps deliberate contrast with earlier events (Map 4.8). A colored drawing de- picting Edmund\u2019s single mounted combat with Cnut, supposed to have taken place at Olney or Alney, near Deerhurst, in Gloucestershire, may be found in Matthew Paris\u2019s Chronica Maiora at the foot of folio 80 verso in Cambridge, Cor- pus Christi College, MS. 26.3 3 https:\/\/parker.stanford.edu\/parker\/catalog\/rf352tc5448.","Zoya Metlitskaya Chapter 5 The \u00c6thelredian Fragment of the Anglo- Saxon Chronicle and the Personality of its Author The so-called \u00c6thelredian Fragment of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, namely the set of entries for 993\u20131016 which is contained, with minor variations, in the Chronicle manuscripts CDEF, has been studied from different perspectives by many eminent scholars, among them Simon Keynes, Nicholas Brooks, Cecily Clark, and Jonathan Wilcox. No agreement between them has emerged as to the personality of the Frag- ment\u2019s author, or of his social and political standing or local connections. Long ago Charles Plummer suggested that the entries for 993\u20131016 were originally writ- ten at Canterbury, although, in his words, \u201cthe indications are not very sure.\u201d1 Sir Frank Stenton named the author of the \u00c6thelredian Fragment the \u201cmonk of Abing- don.\u201d2 Keynes, in his groundbreaking essay \u201cThe Declining Reputation of King \u00c6thelred the Unready,\u201d which ought to be the starting point for every discussion on this topic, demonstrated that the author wrote the entries not year by year, as Stenton supposed,3 but in one sitting, presumably in 1016\u00d71023, and more proba- bly early in this period. In Keynes\u2019s opinion the author was a Londoner and had hardly any connections with the king\u2019s court.4 Brooks put forward an alternative hypothesis: that the \u00c6thelredian Fragment was written in ca. 1022 by a priest from the king\u2019s household who was then in Cnut\u2019s service.5 Notwithstanding the plausi- bility of these arguments, questions remain concerning the personality of the au- thor of the Fragment. This chapter will draw attention to certain features of the text with a view to providing additional arguments on the question. Let us begin with the vocabulary of the text. Cecily Clark observes that the vo- cabulary of the \u00c6thelredian Fragment \u201ccomes from a wider range of registers\u201d6 than the earlier entries and that it contains some borrowings from poetic language; she also notes that \u201cthe speculative turn gives the narrative new depth.\u201d7 Keeping 1 Two of the Saxon Chronicle Parallel, ed. Plummer, I, cxvi. 2 Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, 394. 3 Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, 394. 4 Keynes, \u201cDeclining Reputation,\u201d 163\u201364. 5 Brooks, \u201cWhy is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle about Kings?,\u201d 52. 6 Clark, \u201cThe Narrative Mode,\u201d 227. 7 Clark, \u201cThe Narrative Mode,\u201d 226.-. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1515\/9781501513336-006","114 Zoya Metlitskaya in mind these ideas, it would be useful to look not only at the differences, but also at the similarities between the Fragment and the earlier entries in the Chronicle. It is worth noting that the author\u2019s vocabulary contains some borrowings from the Chronicle\u2019s entries of the end of the ninth century. As Jacqueline Stodnick has pointed out, the text of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle includes some \u201cformulas\u201d which were used for describing repeated situations and events.8 For example, she notes the consistent use of the formula \u201c[name] for\u00f0ferde and . . . [other name] feng to rice (or biscopdome)\u201d to describe the succession of secular as well as of religious leaders, including kings, bishops, and archbishops.9 As might be seen from the quotations presented below (in my Appendix 1), the author of the \u00c6thelredian Fragment used some formulas from the \u201cAlfredian Chronicle.\u201d10 In the entries for 998 and 1016 we find the formula \u201csige ahte\u201d (had the victory) or its variant \u201csige nam\u201d (took the victory), which appears eleven times in the \u201ccommon stock\u201d (that is, in annals 800, 823, 837, 845, 853, 854, 871, 872, 886, 891, 894). In the entries for 992 and 1001 we see the formula \u201cmicel w\u00e6l ofslogon\u201d (there was great slaughter); its variant \u201cmicel w\u00e6l (ge)feol\u201d (great slaughter befell) appears in the entries 1004 and 1016; both of them occur in the \u201cAlfredian Chronicle\u201d (592, 823, 833, 837, 839, 845, 853, 868, 872 (twice)). In the entries 999 and 1010 the formula \u201cahton w\u00e6lstowe geweald\u201d (had the possession of the place of slaughter) is used, which is present seven times in the \u201cAlfredian Chronicle\u201d (833, 837, 839, 845, 853 (twice), 868 and 872 (twice)). It is worth noting that in the earlier part of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle the formula \u201cahton w\u00e6lstowe geweald\u201d is used only in the descriptions of severe battles, those in which the Anglo-Saxons were defeated. It does not seem coin- cidental that in the \u00c6thelredian Fragment this formula occurs only in connec- tion with two steadfast, albeit unsuccessful, efforts of the Anglo-Saxons to withstand the enemy: in Kent in 999 and in Cambridgeshire in 1010. In the Pe- terborough entry for 999 we read: Her com se here eft abutan into Temese \u204a wendon \u00fea up andlang Medew\u00e6gan \u204a to Hrofe- ceastre, \u204a com \u00fea seo centisce fyrde \u00fe\u00e6r ongean, \u204a hi \u00fe\u00e6r f\u00e6ste togedere fengon, ac wala \u00feet hi to hra\u00f0e bugon \u204a flugon for\u00feam \u00fee hi n\u00e6fdon fultum \u00fehi habban sceoldan. \u00dea De- niscan ahton w\u00e6lstowe geweald, \u204a namon \u00fea hors \u204a ridan swa wider swa hi woldon sylf \u204a forn\u00e6h ealle Weastcentingas fordydon \u204a forheregodon.11 8 Stodnick, \u201cSentence to Story.\u201d Such \u201cformulas\u201d and their functions in the Chronicle\u2019s narra- tive formed the basis of my PhD thesis \u201cAnglo-Saxon Chronicle as the historical narrative.\u201d 9 Stodnick, \u201cSentence to Story,\u201d 102. 10 That is, the \u201ccommon stock\u201d and the entries 891\u2013896. 11 ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 63 (s.a. 999).","Chapter 5 The \u00c6thelredian Fragment 115 [Here the raiding-army again came round into the Thames, and then turned up along the Medway to Rochester. And then the Kentish army came against them, and there they de- terminedly joined battle; but alas! they too quickly submitted and fled, because they did not have the help they should have had; then the Danes had possession of the place of slaughter and took horses and rode as widely as they themselves wanted, and destroyed and plundered well nigh all the men of West Kent.]12 In the entry for 1010: \u00deone fleam \u00e6rest astealde \u00deurcytel Myranheafod, \u204a \u00fea D\u00e6niscan ahton w\u00e6lstowe geweald \u204a \u00fe\u00e6r wurdon gehorsode \u204a sy\u00fe\u00fean ahton Eastengle geweald, \u204a \u00feone eard .iii. mon\u00feas hergodon \u204a b\u00e6rndon.13 [It was Thurcytel Mare\u2019s-Head that first started the flight, and the Danes had possession of the place of slaughter, and then were horsed and thereafter had possession of East Anglia, and for three months raided and burned that country.]14 This phrasing may be compared, for example, with the Winchester entry for 837: \u204a \u00fey ilcan geare gefeaht \u00c6\u00feelhelm dux wi\u00f0 deniscne here on Port mid Dorns\u00e6tun \u204a gode hwile \u00feone here gefliemde, \u204a \u00fea Deniscan ahton w\u00e6lstowe geweald \u204a \u00feone aldormon ofslogan.15 [And the same year Ealdorman \u00c6thelhelm fought against a Danish raiding-army on Port- land with the Dorset men, and for a good while they put the raiding-army to flight \u2013 and the Danes had possession of the place of slaughter and killed the ealdorman.]16 The author of the \u00c6thelredian Fragment also uses the collocation \u201cse here\u201d to describe the Vikings\u2019 army, the same appellative as was used in the \u201cAlfredian Chronicle.\u201d What these features probably imply is that the author of the \u00c6thel- redian Fragment was well acquainted with the previous text of the Chronicle. Moreover, he knew it well enough to manipulate quotations from the \u201cAlfredian Chronicle\u201d with a certain irony, in order to achieve his own aims. Thus, while describing yet another failed effort to fight the Vikings in the entry for 1009 (CD), the author takes the \u201cpositive\u201d formula \u201csige nam\u201d and in- verts it: \u201cn\u00e6s se sige na betera \u00fee eall angelcynn to hopode\u201d (that victory which all England hoped for was never better [than this]).17 In the Peterborough manuscript (E) we read, \u201cn\u00e6s se ege na betera \u00fee eall Angelcynn tohopode\u201d 12 Based on ASC (E), trans. Swanton, 131, 133 (s.a. 999). 13 ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 68 (s.a. 1010). 14 ASC, trans. Swanton, 140 (s.a. 1010). 15 ASC (A), ed. Bately, 43 (s.a. 837). 16 ASC, trans. Swanton, 62 (s.a. 837). 17 ASC (D), ed. Cubbin, 54 (s.a. 1009).","116 Zoya Metlitskaya (that terror which all England hoped for was never better [than this]).18 This phrase seems not without sense, but it is less expressive or meaningful than the text in versions CD, presumably because the scribe of E, who copied his text in the 1120s, did not understand the irony of its contemporary author. In the Peterborough entry for 1014 the author writes of the decision of the king\u2019s councilors to summon \u00c6thelred, who had fled to Normandy, asking him to return: \u00dea ger\u00e6ddan \u00fea witan ealle, ge hadode ge l\u00e6wede, \u00feet man \u00e6fter \u00feam cyninge \u00c6\u00feelrede sende, \u204a cw\u00e6don \u00feet him nan hlaford leofra n\u00e6re \u00feonne hiora gecynda hlaford gif he hi rihtlicor healdan wolde \u00feonne he \u00e6r dyde.19 [Then all the councilors, both ordained and lay, advised that the king \u00c6thelred should be sent for and declared that no lord was dearer to them than their natural lord, if he would govern them more justly than he did before.]20 It is interesting that the first part of the phrase repeats almost word for word the phrase from the story of Cynewulf and Cyneheard, which, though of 786, is contained in the annal for 755. In this story, when Cynewulf\u2019s rival and slayer addresses the followers of the murdered king with a new proposition, they re- ject him bravely as follows: \u204a \u00fea gebead he him hiera agenne dom feos \u204a londes gif hie him \u00fe\u00e6s rices u\u00feon, \u204a him cy\u00f0don \u00fe\u00e6t hiera m\u00e6gas him mid w\u00e6ron \u00fea \u00fee him from noldon, \u204a \u00fea cw\u00e6don hie \u00fe\u00e6t him n\u00e6nig m\u00e6g leofra n\u00e6re \u00f0onne hiera hlaford \u204a hie n\u00e6fre his banan folgian noldon.21 [And then he offered them their own choice of money and land if they would grant him the kingdom, and told them that relatives of theirs were with him who did not want to leave him; and then they said that no relative was dearer to them than their lord, and they would never follow his slayer.]22 It might thus be reasonable to suppose that the author of the \u00c6thelredian Frag- ment intentionally presents the address of the witan as a reminiscence of the heroic speech of the warriors of an earlier epoch. If so, his aim was surely to make an ironic contrast with the following clause, in which the warriors ask the king to govern more justly than before, since this clause is incompatible with the kingship that would justify heroic ideals of loyalty to one\u2019s lord. 18 ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 67 (s.a. 1009). 19 ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 71 (s.a. 1014). 20 ASC (E), trans. Swanton, 145 (s.a. 1014). 21 ASC (A), ed. Bately, 37 (s.a. 755). 22 ASC (A), trans. Swanton, 48 (s.a. 755).","Chapter 5 The \u00c6thelredian Fragment 117 To clarify further the personality of the author of the \u00c6thelredian Fragment, it may be instructive to examine the list of persons he mentions in different contexts (see Appendix 2). As a rule, the persons mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are identified in some way by the authors of the entries in which their names occur. The common practice is the identification through name and \u201coffice\u201d; more rarely, this is by name and ties of kinship. Contrary to this common usage, the au- thor of the \u00c6thelredian Fragment cites a number of people without giving any in- dication of their standing or family ties. In the entry for 993, he names, without any identification, Fr\u00e6na, Godwine, and Frithegist, men who have fled from battle with the Vikings. Although we can only guess who they were, it is highly likely that these were persons with northern connections, for just before the description of the battle it is said that the Vikings wrought great harm there both in Lindsey and in Northumbria.23 Here it may be supposed that Godwine is the same ealdor- man Godwine whose death in the battle is reported in the entry for 1016, and who was supposedly ealdorman of Lindsey. Ulfcytel, ealdorman of East Anglia, is men- tioned three times by name only, twice in 1004 and once in 1016; only once, in the report of his death in 1016, is he named Ulfcytel of the East Angles. There are also no indications of the standing of Wulfgeat, Wulfeah, and Ufegeat, who were vic- tims of what Keynes has called the \u201cpalace revolution\u201d of 1006.24 Another victim of these events was \u00c6lfhelm, whom the author of the \u00c6thelredian Fragment iden- tifies as an ealdorman. According to Keynes, \u00c6lfhelm was made ealdorman of Northumbria (or South Northumbria) in 993.25 According to the not wholly reliable twelfth-century evidence of John of Worcester, Wulfeah and Ufegeat were the sons of \u00c6lfhelm.26 If so, we have a second indication that these were persons with northern connections. To these names we may add that of Wulfgeat, who, though not blinded like the others, \u201cw\u00e6s eall his are of genumen\u201d (was deprived of his honor).27 Keynes, on the basis of the twelfth-century Chronicle of John of Worcester, identifies Wulfgeat with the man whose unjust forfeitures of monastic lands are the subject of charters S 918 (s.a. 1008) and S 934 (s.a. 1015); as well as with the \u201cdilectus minister\u201d (dear retainer) of S 937 (s.a. 999?).28 However, it seems just as likely that Wulfgeat, who witnessed the king\u2019s charters regularly from 986 to 1005, may be identified with the owner of 23 ASC (E), trans. Swanton, 127 (s.a. 993). 24 Keynes, \u201cThe Diplomas,\u201d 211. 25 Keynes, \u201cThe Diplomas,\u201d 197, 210\u201311. 26 Keynes, \u201cThe Diplomas,\u201d 211. 27 ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 65 (s.a. 1006). Here the word \u201car\u201d (honor) may also refer to \u201cestates\u201d or \u201cterritory\u201d: see ASC (E), ed. Swanton, 136, n. 5 (s.a. 1006). 28 Keynes, The Diplomas, 210.","118 Zoya Metlitskaya the land in Cambridgeshire to whom reference is made in S 1448 (s.a. 986).29 If this is the case, Wulfgeat was a member of the East Anglian nobility. In the story of the battle of the East Angles with the Vikings in 1010, two further people are men- tioned by name only: Oswig, who fell in this battle, and \u00deurcytel Myranheafod (Mare\u2019s-Head), who fled the battlefield. It may or may not be true that this Oswig was the son-in-law of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth, who was killed at Maldon;30 and \u00deur- cytel Myranheafod may or may not be identical with the \u00deurcytel from East Anglia who bequeathed lands to Bury St. Edmunds sometime between 1020 and 1038.31 In any case, the location of this battle in 1010 makes it highly likely that these men also belonged to the East Anglian nobility. In this way, it may be seen that almost all of the people cited without identification in the \u00c6thelredian Fragment have some affiliations either with Northumbria, East Anglia, the East Midlands, or with the king\u2019s court.32 There are two possible explanations for their lack of attributes. One is that the author or the source he used lacked the necessary information. The other possibility is that the author and his presumed readership or audience knew these men well enough to understand who they were without the aid of attributes. My third area of inquiry relating to the author of the \u00c6thelredian Fragment is an apparent resemblance in attitude between the author of the \u00c6thelredian Frag- ment and Archbishop Wulfstan. The Chronicler certainly shares Wulfstan\u2019s indig- nation at the evils done by his countrymen, but in essence his mood is different. For Wulfstan, the situation in England is first and foremost the consequence of the people\u2019s sins, such as their transgressions against God\u2019s Commandments and their violation of the rights and privileges of the Church. Wulfstan views moral failure as the cause of the recent political disorder: \u201cUnderstanda\u00f0 eac georne \u00fe\u00e6t deofol \u00feas \u00feeode nu fela geara dwelode to swy\u00fee, \u204a \u00fe\u00e6t lytle getreow\u00fea w\u00e6ran mid man- num, \u00feeah hy wel spr\u00e6can\u201d33 (Understand well too that the Devil has now led this nation too far astray for many years, and there has been little loyalty among men, though they might speak well).34 The misfortunes of war are due not so much to cowardice and the weakness of Englishmen as to God\u2019s wrath: 29 For this part of my research, I am greatly indebted to the digital projects \u201cThe Prosopogra- phy of Anglo-Saxon England (PASE)\u201d (http:\/\/www.pase.ac.uk\/) and \u201cThe Electronic Sawyer\u201d (http:\/\/www.esawyer.org.uk\/). 30 Dickins, \u201cThe Day of Byrhtnoth\u2019s Death,\u201d 15\u201317. 31 See PASE in note 29. 32 The last unidentified person is \u00c6lm\u00e6r Deorling, who in 1016 fought for Cnut against Ed- mund Ironside. His identification is very problematic; here this question is put to one side. 33 Sermo Lupi ad Anglos, ed. Whitelock, 33\u201334. 34 \u201cThe Word of the \u2018Wolf,\u2019\u201d trans. Liuzza, 196.","Chapter 5 The \u00c6thelredian Fragment 119 Ful earhlice laga \u204a scandlice nydgyld \u00feurh Godes yrre us syn gem\u00e6ne; understande se \u00fee cunne. \u204a fela ungelimpa gelimp\u00f0 \u00feysse \u00feeode oft \u204a gelome: ne dohte hit nu lange inne ne ute. Ac w\u00e6s here \u204a hete on gewelhwilcan ende, oft \u204a gelome, \u204a Engle nu lange eal sigelease \u204a to swy\u00fee geyrigde \u00feurh Godes yrre. \u204a flotmen swa strange \u00feurh Godes \u00feafunge, \u00fe\u00e6t oft on ge- feohte anfese\u00f0 tyne, \u204a twegen oft twentig, \u204a hwilum l\u00e6s hwilum ma, eal for urum synnum.35 [Utterly shameful laws and disgraceful tributes are common among us, because of God\u2019s anger, let him understand it who is able; and many misfortunes befall this nation time and again. For a long time now nothing has prospered at home or abroad, but there has been devastation and hatred in every region time and again, and for a long time now the English have been entirely without victory, and too much disheartened through God\u2019s wrath, and the pirates so strong through God\u2019s consent, that often in battle one drives away ten, and two often drive away twenty, sometimes less and sometimes more, all because of our sins.]36 In Wulfstan\u2019s opinion the only means to improve the situation is to return to Christian morals and piety. At the end of the sermon, he calls on the English: Uton don swa us \u00feearf is gebugan to rihte \u204a be suman d\u00e6le unriht forl\u00e6tan, \u204a betan swy\u00fee georne \u00fe\u00e6t we \u00e6r brecan. \u204a utan God lufian \u204a Godes lagum fylgean, \u204a gel\u00e6stan swy\u00fee georne \u00fe\u00e6t \u00fe\u00e6t we behetan \u00fea \u00fee fulluht underfengan, o\u00f0\u00f0on \u00fea \u00fee \u00e6t fulluhte ure forespecan w\u00e6ran, \u204a utan word & weorc rihtlice fadian, \u204a ure in ge\u00feanc cl\u00e6nsian georne, \u204a a\u00f0 & wed w\u00e6rlice healdan, \u204a sume getryw\u00f0a habban us betweonan butan un- cr\u00e6ftan. \u204a utan gelome understandan \u00feone miclam Dom \u00fee we ealle to sculon \u204a beorgan us georne wi\u00f0 \u00feone weallendan bryne helle wites, \u204a geearnian us \u00fea m\u00e6r\u00fea \u204a \u00fea myrh\u00f0a \u00fee God h\u00e6f\u00f0 gegearwod \u00feam \u00fee his willan on worolde gewyrca\u00f0.37 [Let us do what is necessary for us \u2013 bow to justice and in some measure abandon injustice, and repair carefully what we have broken; and let us love God and follow God\u2019s laws, and ear- nestly practice what we promised when we received baptism, or those who were our sponsors at baptism; and let us arrange our words and deeds rightly, and cleanse our conscience thor- oughly, and carefully keep oaths and pledges, and have some faith between ourselves without deceit. And let us frequently consider the great judgment to which we all must come, and ea- gerly defend ourselves against the surging fires of the torments of hell, and earn for ourselves the glories and delights which God has prepared for those who do his will in the world.]38 In order to overcome these calamities, the Archbishop proposes the upholding of civil and religious laws, the uprooting of iniquities, the ceasing of violence, and the fear of God. What is missing from his sermon here, however, is a refer- ence to the people\u2019s duty to fight the Vikings and to defend their country. The author of the \u00c6thelredian Fragment views the same situation differently. He reproaches the Anglo-Saxons not for their moral failings or for their violations of 35 Sermo Lupi ad Anglos, ed. Whitelock, 44\u201345. 36 \u201cThe Word of the \u2018Wolf,\u2019\u201d trans. Liuzza, 199. 37 Sermo Lupi ad Anglos, ed. Whitelock, 52. 38 \u201cThe Word of the \u2018Wolf,\u2019\u201d trans. Liuzza, 202.","120 Zoya Metlitskaya the Church\u2019s rights, but for their reluctance to go into battle. As we have already seen, there are some traces of irony in his text, one of which consists of the repeated reference to reflections of the king and his witan on the means of defense. In the entry for 1006 he writes: \u201cAgan se cyng georne to smeagenne wi\u00fe his witan hwet heom eallum r\u00e6dlicost \u00feuhte \u00feet man \u00feissum eared gebeorgan mihte \u00e6r he mid ealle fordon wur\u00fee\u201d39 (The king began to plan earnestly with his councilors as to what they all thought most advisable as to how his country might be protected, be- fore it was entirely done for).40 And again, in the entry for 1010: \u201c\u00deonne bead man ealle witan to cynge and man \u00feonne r\u00e6dan scolde hu man \u00feisne eard werian sceolde\u201d41 (Then all the councilors were ordered to the king, and it had then to be decided how this country should be defended).42 In this description, the king and his councilors \u201cdecide,\u201d instead of fighting the enemy. It seems not improbable that here the author is mocking Wulfstan\u2019s mode of thought, which was mirrored in \u00c6thelred\u2019s laws prescribing the same things as were proposed at the end of Sermo Lupi.43 The author observes that the ealdormen have no wish to defend the land (1006, 1009, 1012). There is a dark irony in his comment in the entry for 1012 that men of Scandinavian earl Thorkell the Tall promised the king \u201c\u00feet hi woldon \u00feisne eard healdan and he hi fedan scolde and scrydan\u201d44 (that they would guard this country, and he would feed and clothe them).45 The whole style of the narrative changes when the author begins to describe Edmund Ironside\u2019s expeditions against the Vikings after his coronation. Here he does not repeat the same words or phrases, nor use any poetic words; his narrative is more simply and clearer, sometimes resem- bling the \u201cAlfredian Chronicle.\u201d \u00dea gesomnode Eadmund cyng .iiii. si\u00fee ealle Eangla \u00feeode and ferde ofer Temese to Brentforda and ferde innan Cent and se here him flean beforan mid hira horsa into Scea- pige, and se cyng ofsloh heora swa feala swa he offran mihte.46 [Then for the fourth time King Edmund assembled the entire English nation and travelled over the Thames at Brentford, and travelled into Kent, and the raiding-army fled before him with their horses into Sheppey, and the king killed as many of them as he could overtake.]47 39 ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 66 (s.a. 1006). 40 ASC, trans. Swanton, 137. 41 ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 68 (s.a. 1010). 42 ASC (E), trans. Swanton, 140 (s.a. 1010). 43 See, for example, \u00c6thelred V and VI, in Die Gesetze, ed. Liebermann, 237\u201359. 44 ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 69 (s.a. 1012). 45 ASC (E), trans. Swanton, 143 (s.a. 1012). 46 ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 73 (s.a. 1016). 47 ASC, trans. Swanton, 150\u201351.","Chapter 5 The \u00c6thelredian Fragment 121 There are no references to God\u2019s punishment in the \u00c6thelredian Fragment, but three references to God\u2019s help (994, 1009, and 1016). All three are concerned with London, and Keynes takes them as evidence of a particular interest of the annal- ist in the fate of this city.48 But it seems to me no less important that in all three cases the author\u2019s descriptions imply that the Londoners stood fast against the enemy. In the annal for 994 it is said that Vikings tried to take the city or set it on fire, but \u201chi \u00fear gefeordon maran hearm \u204a yfel \u00feonne hi \u00e6fre wendon \u00feet heom \u00e6nig buruhwaru gedon sceolde\u201d49 (there they suffered more harm and injury than they ever imagined that any town-dwellers would do to them).50 It is only after revealing this that the author declares that \u201cseo halige Godes modor on \u00feam hire mildheortnisse \u00fe\u00e6re buruhware gecy\u00f0de, \u204a hi ahredde wi\u00f0 heora feondum\u201d51 (the holy Mother of God manifested her kind-heartedness to the town-dwellers and rescued them from their enemies).52 Likewise, in the entry for 1009 the annal- ist relates that the Scandinavians \u201coften on \u00fea burh Lundene gefuhton, ac si Gode lof \u00fe\u00e6t heo gyt gesund stent\u201d53 (often attacked London town, but praise be to God that it still stands sound).54 Then, however, he adds that \u201chi \u00fe\u00e6r \u00e6fre yfel geferdon\u201d55 (they [i.e., the Vikings] always fared badly there).56 Finally, in the entry for 1016, the statement that \u201cse \u00e6lmihtiga God hi ahredde\u201d57 (the Almighty God rescued [London])58 follows two mentions of a valiant and successful defense of this city by the Londoners and King Edmund Ironside. In this way, anyone seeking analogues for the mood of the \u00c6thelredian Chronicler may find a closer parallel in the poet of The Battle of Maldon than in Archbishop Wulfstan. As Wilcox, in his highlighting of parallels between this poet and the \u00c6thelredian annalist, has shown, both authors represent brave and steadfast, though desperate, defense as the moral norm, and retreat (however reasonable) as a shameful and lawless act.59 Laura Ashe has recently pointed to the dramatic tension which the sermons of such churchmen as Wulfstan might 48 Keynes, \u201cDeclining Reputation,\u201d 163. 49 ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 60\u201361 (s.a. 994). 50 ASC (E), trans., Swanton, 129 (s.a. 994). 51 ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 61\u201362 (s.a. 994). 52 ASC (E), trans. Swanton, 127\u201329 (s.a. 994). 53 ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 67 (s.a. 1009). 54 ASC (E), trans. Swanton, 139 (s.a. 1009). 55 ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 67 (s.a. 1009). 56 ASC (E), trans. Swanton, 139 (s.a. 1009). 57 ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 73 (s.a. 1016). 58 ASC (E), trans. Swanton, 150 (s.a. 1016). 59 Wilcox, \u201cMaldon and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,\u201d 39\u201345.","122 Zoya Metlitskaya produce in the minds of the laity, including lay warriors.60 Was their main task to prepare for Doomsday, to do personal penance and reconciliation, or was it to fight for their country? Choosing between these alternatives seems to present no dilemma to the author of the \u00c6thelredian Fragment, whose judgments on the events are colored more by the traditional heroic values of the Anglo-Saxon past than by any devoutly Christian ideas of God\u2019s punishment and of penance.61 Let us sum up the arguments of this chapter. First, it seems that the author of the \u00c6thelredian Fragment was well acquainted with the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and that he wrote his own text to a certain degree as a continuation of this. It seems thus plausible that he belonged to a circle \u2013 that is, to the king\u2019s court or to a cathedral or monastic community, in which such work might have been done. My second conclusion is that the author of the \u00c6thelredian Fragment was in some way affiliated with Northumbria, or more probably with the East Mid- lands or East Anglia. Meanwhile, it seems likely that he was familiar enough with court politics to know the deeds and standing not only of the highest elites, but also of persons of lower rank. In this way it is known that in his will \u00c6theling \u00c6thelstan grants \u201c\u00feara landa \u00fee ic ahte on East Englan\u201d62 (the lands which I ob- tained in East Anglia)63 to his brother Edmund, and that the core of Edmund\u2019s support in his conflict with Eadric Streona in 1015 lay in the East Midlands. For these reasons it may be concluded that the author of the \u00c6thelredian Frag- ment belonged to the nobility of the North, the East Midlands, or East Anglia, and probably to the last of these regions. If he was one of \u00c6theling \u00c6thelstan\u2019s men, not only would he have witnessed the events in his regional homeland, but he would also have been familiar with the situation across the whole of England, as well as with the details of court politics; he might also have recorded some ideas about these events for himself or for his lord, if that lord were \u00c6theling \u00c6thelstan. After the death of \u00c6thelstan in 1014, the author of the Fragment would have joined many of \u00c6thelstan\u2019s men in transferring his loyalty to Edmund Ironside. He may have begun to compose his part of the Anglo-Saxon \u201cKings\u2019 Chronicle\u201d64 just after King Edmund\u2019s succession, in the hope of adding to it a positive continuation, be- fore Edmund\u2019s death laid this hope to rest. 60 Ashe, 1000\u20131350: Conquest and Transformation, 22. 61 On the traditional heroic values see, for example, O\u2019Brien O\u2019Keeffe, \u201cHeroic Ideals and Christian Ethics.\u201d 62 Anglo-Saxon Wills, ed. and trans. Whitelock, 58. 63 Anglo-Saxon Wills, ed. and trans. Whitelock, 59. 64 Here I invoke the hypothesis of Brooks in \u201cAnglo-Saxon Chronicle or Old English Royal Annals?\u201d.","Chapter 5 The \u00c6thelredian Fragment 123 Appendix 1: Formulas in the \u00c6thelredian Fragment I 998C Her wende se here eft eastweard into Frommu\u00f0an \u204a \u00fe\u00e6r \u00e6ghw\u00e6r up eodon swa wide swa hi woldon into Dors\u00e6ton, \u204a man oft fyrde ongean hi gader- ede, ac sona swa hi tog\u00e6dere gan sceoldan, \u00feonne wear\u00f0 \u00fe\u00e6r \u00e6fre \u00f0uruh sum \u00feing fleam astiht, \u204a \u00e6fre hi \u00e6t ende sige ahton. \u204a \u00feonne o\u00f0re hwile lagon him on Wihtlande \u204a \u00e6ton him \u00fea hwile of Hamtunscire \u204a of Su\u00f0seaxum. 1016C . . . \u00de\u00e6r ahte Cnut sige \u204a gefeht him ealle Engla \u00feeode. II. 992C . . . \u00dea sende se ealdorman \u00c6lfric \u204a het warnian \u00f0one here, \u204a \u00fea on \u00f0\u00e6re nihte \u00fee hy on \u00f0one d\u00e6ig tog\u00e6dere fon sceoldan, \u00fea sceoc he on niht fram \u00fe\u00e6re fyrde him sylfum to myclum bysmore, \u204a se here \u00f0a \u00e6tb\u00e6rst butan an scyp \u00fe\u00e6r man ofsloh. \u204a \u00fea gemette se here \u00f0a scypu on Eastenglum \u204a of Lun- dene, \u204a hi \u00f0\u00e6r ofgeslogan micel w\u00e6l \u204a \u00fe\u00e6t scyp genaman eall gew\u00e6pnod \u204a gew\u00e6dod \u00fe\u00e6t se ealdorman on w\u00e6s. 1001C . . . \u00dea gesomnede man \u00fe\u00e6r orm\u00e6te fyrde Defenisces folces \u204a Sumer- s\u00e6tisces folces, \u204a hi \u00f0a tosomne comon \u00e6t Peonnho, \u204a sona swa hi tog\u00e6dere coman, \u00fea beah \u00fe\u00e6t folc, \u204a hi \u00f0\u00e6r mycel w\u00e6ll ofslogan \u204a ridon \u00fea ofer \u00fe\u00e6t land, \u204a w\u00e6s \u00e6fre heora \u00e6ftra si\u00fe wyrsa \u00feonne se \u00e6ra, \u204a mid him \u00f0a micle here- hu\u00f0e to scipon brohton. 1004C . . . \u00dea on mergen, \u00f0a hi to scipon woldon, \u00fea <com> Ulfcytel mid his werode \u00fe\u00e6t hi \u00f0\u00e6r tog\u00e6dere fon sceoldon, \u204a hi \u00fe\u00e6r tog\u00e6dere f\u00e6stlice fengon, \u204a micel w\u00e6l \u00f0\u00e6r on \u00e6g\u00f0re hand gefeol. 1016C . . . \u00dea w\u00e6s Eadmund cyng \u00e6r \u00f0am gewend ut \u204a gerad \u00fea Westsexon, \u204a him beah eal folc to, \u204a ra\u00f0e \u00e6fter \u00feam he gefeaht wi\u00f0 \u00feone here \u00e6t Peonnan wi\u00f0 Gillingaham, \u204a o\u00feer gefeoht he gefeaht \u00e6fter middansumera \u00e6t Sceorstane, \u204a \u00fe\u00e6r mycel w\u00e6l feoll on \u00e6g\u00f0re healfe, \u204a \u00f0a heras him sylfe toeodan, on \u00feam gefeohte w\u00e6s Eadric ealdorman \u204a \u00c6lm\u00e6r dyrling \u00feam here on fultume ongean Eadmung kyning. Appendix 2: Persons in the \u00c6thelredian Fragment The list does not include the king or members of his family. The names of the persons whose identification seems well established are printed in bold, while the names of the persons whose identification seems dubious (if, for example, based on twelfth-century sources) are printed in italics.","124 Zoya Metlitskaya Name (Old Year Identification (Old Local connection Circumstances English English) in which spelling) mentioned Brihtno\u00fe \uf139\uf139\uf131 ealdorman of Essex fell Siric \uf139\uf139\uf131 arcebiscop of Canterbury, abbot of advised (Sigeric) St. Augustine Oswald \uf139\uf139\uf132 eadiga arcebiscop of York died \u00c6\u00feelwine \uf139\uf139\uf132 ealdorman of East Anglia died \u00c6lfric \uf139\uf139\uf132 ealdorman of Hampshire (?) betrayed \u00deorod \uf139\uf139\uf132 eorl of Northumbria (?) led the army \u00c6lfstan \uf139\uf139\uf132 biscop of Ramsbury (?), of Rochester led the army (?), or of London (?) \u00c6scwige \uf139\uf139\uf132 biscop of Dorchester-on-Thames led the army abbot of Burch Ealdulf, \uf139\uf139\uf132 abbot of Burch of Peterborough became bishop Eadulf abbot \u00c6lfrices sunu ealdormannes Kenulf \uf139\uf139\uf132 of Peterborough became abbot Fr\u00e6na \uf139\uf139\uf133 fled Godwine \uf139\uf139\uf133 probably ealdoman of Lindsey fled Fri\u00feegist \uf139\uf139\uf133 fled \u00c6lfgar \uf139\uf139\uf133 son of the ealdorman of was blinded Hampshire (?) or of ealdorman of Mercia (d. \uf139\uf138\uf135) (?) \u00c6lfheah \uf139\uf139\uf134 biscop of Winchester, archbishop of negotiated Canterbury \u00c6\u00feelward \uf139\uf139\uf134 ealdorman of the Western Provinces negotiated \uf139\uf139\uf135 biscop Siric \uf139\uf139\uf135D abbod of Canterbury, abbot of St. died (Sigeric) \uf139\uf139\uf136 arcebiscop Augustine Sigeric = Siric died (Siric) of Canterbury became \u00c6lfric","Chapter 5 The \u00c6thelredian Fragment 125 (continued) Name (Old Year Identification (Old Local connection Circumstances English English) in which spelling) maternal uncle of King mentioned \u00c6\u00feelred monastery was Ordulf \uf139\uf139\uf137 (Ordulfes mynster) of Essex (?) burned negotiated, Leofsig, \uf131\uf130\uf130\uf132 ealdorman of York killed Leofsige reeve of Emma was killed \u00c6fic \uf131\uf130\uf130\uf132 heahgerefa of Hampshire (?) died Ealdulf \uf131\uf130\uf130\uf132 arcebiscop ealdorman of East Anglia betrayed Hugon \uf131\uf130\uf130\uf133 ceorl, gerefa betrayed \u00c6lfric \uf131\uf130\uf130\uf133 ealdorman withstand Ulfkytel \uf131\uf130\uf130\uf134 Vikings died \u00c6lfric \uf131\uf130\uf130\uf136 arcebiscop of Canterbury became \uf131\uf130\uf130\uf136 biscop \u00c6lfheah, of Winchester, became \u00c6lfeah \uf131\uf130\uf130\uf136E biscop archbishop of Canterbury was \uf131\uf130\uf130\uf136 dispossessed Brihtwold of Wiltshire was blinded was blinded Wulfgeate was killed died Wulfeah \uf131\uf130\uf130\uf136 of southern Northumbria Ufegeat \uf131\uf130\uf130\uf136 became \u00c6lfelm \uf131\uf130\uf130\uf136 ealdorman of Winchester, abbot of accused Kenulf \uf131\uf130\uf130\uf136 biscop Peterborough, \u00c6dric \uf131\uf130\uf130\uf137 ealdorman of Mercia Brihtric \uf131\uf130\uf130\uf139 Eadrices bro\u00feor brother of Eadric ealdormannes","126 Zoya Metlitskaya (continued) Name (Old Year Identification (Old Local connection Circumstances English English) in which spelling) mentioned Wulfno\u00fe \uf131\uf130\uf130\uf139 Su\u00feseaxscian was accused cild, Wulno\u00fe cild Eadric \uf131\uf130\uf130\uf139 ealdorman of Mercia betrayed Ulfcytel \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf130 ealdorman (?) of East Angles led army \u00c6\u00feelstan \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf130 cynges a\u00feum son-in-law or brother-in-law fell of king \u00c6\u00feelred Oswi, Oswig \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf130 probably son-in-law of fell ealdorman Byrthtnoth Anon. his (Oswies) sunu son of Oswig fell Wulfric, Wulf \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf130 Leofwines sunu fell Eadwig \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf130 \u00c6fices bro\u00feor fell \u00deurcytel \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf130 fled Myranheafod \u00c6lmer \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf131 (?) (?) betrayed of St. Augustine monastery was freed \u00c6lmer \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf131 abbot of Canterbury was captured \u00c6lfheah, \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf131 arcebiscop \u00c6lfeah \u00c6lfword, \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf131 cynges gerefa King\u2019s reeve was captured \u00c6lfweard Leofwine, \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf131 abbodesse was captured Leofrune Godwine \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf131 biscop of Rochester was captured of Mercia Eadric \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf132 ealdorman came to witenagemot","Chapter 5 The \u00c6thelredian Fragment 127 (continued) Name (Old Year Identification (Old Local connection Circumstances English English) in which spelling) mentioned Eadno\u00fe \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf132 biscop of Dorchester took \u00c6lfheah\u2019s corpse \u00c6lfhun, \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf132 biscop bishop of London took \u00c6lfheah\u2019s \u00c6lfun corpse Lifing, Lyfinc \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf132 biscop of Wells became archbishop Uhtred \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf133 eorl of Northumbria accepted Swein as a king \u00c6\u00feelmer \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf133 ealdorman of the Western Provinces, son accepted of \u00c6\u00feelweard (?) Swein as a king \u00c6lsige, \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf133E abbot of Burh of Peterborough went to \u00c6lfsige Normandy \u00c6lfun \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf133 biscop bishop of London went to Normandy \u00c6lfwig \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf134D biscop of London became Eadric \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf135 ealdorman of Mercia killed Sigefer\u00fe, \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf135 yldesta \u00fe\u00e6gn into chief thegn of Seven was killed Sifer\u00fe Seofonburgum Boroughs (North-East) Morc\u00e6r \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf135 yldesta \u00fe\u00e6gn into chief thegn of Seven was killed Seofonburgum Boroughs Eadric \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf136 ealdorman of Mercia betrayed Uhtred \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf136 eorl of Northumbria submitted to Cnut, was killed \u00deurcytel, \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf136 Nafanan sunu, Nafen was killed \u00deurhcytel","128 Zoya Metlitskaya (continued) Name (Old Year Identification (Old Local connection Circumstances English English) in which spelling) mentioned \u00c6lm\u00e6r \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf136 fought for Cnut Deorlingc Eadno\u00fe \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf136 biscop (D) of Dorchester fell Wulsige fell \u00c6lfric \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf136 abbot of Ramsey fell Godwine fell Ulfcytel \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf136 ealdorman of Hampshire (?) fell \u00c6\u00feelward fell \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf136 Ealdorman of Lindsey (?) Wulfgar died \u00c6\u00feelsige \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf136 of Eastenglan ealdorman of East Anglia became \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf136 \u00c6\u00feelsiges (\u00c6lfwines, \u00c6\u00feelwines) sunu ealdormannes \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf136E abbot of Abbandune abbot of Abingdon \uf131\uf130\uf131\uf136E abbot of Abingdon"]
Search
Read the Text Version
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- 138
- 139
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 143
- 144
- 145
- 146
- 147
- 148
- 149
- 150
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 154
- 155
- 156
- 157
- 158
- 159
- 160
- 161
- 162
- 163
- 164
- 165
- 166
- 167
- 168
- 169
- 170
- 171
- 172
- 173
- 174
- 175
- 176
- 177
- 178
- 179
- 180
- 181
- 182
- 183
- 184
- 185
- 186
- 187
- 188
- 189
- 190
- 191
- 192
- 193
- 194
- 195
- 196
- 197
- 198
- 199
- 200
- 201
- 202
- 203
- 204
- 205
- 206
- 207
- 208
- 209
- 210
- 211
- 212
- 213
- 214
- 215
- 216
- 217
- 218
- 219
- 220
- 221
- 222
- 223
- 224
- 225
- 226
- 227
- 228
- 229
- 230
- 231
- 232
- 233
- 234
- 235
- 236
- 237
- 238
- 239
- 240
- 241
- 242
- 243
- 244
- 245
- 246
- 247
- 248
- 249
- 250
- 251
- 252
- 253
- 254
- 255
- 256
- 257
- 258
- 259
- 260
- 261
- 262
- 263
- 264
- 265
- 266
- 267
- 268
- 269
- 270
- 271
- 272
- 273
- 274
- 275
- 276
- 277
- 278
- 279
- 280
- 281
- 282
- 283
- 284
- 285
- 286
- 287
- 288
- 289
- 290
- 291
- 292
- 293
- 294
- 295
- 296
- 297
- 298
- 299
- 300
- 301
- 302
- 303
- 304
- 305
- 306
- 307
- 308
- 309
- 310
- 311
- 312
- 313
- 314
- 315
- 316
- 317
- 318
- 319
- 320
- 321
- 322
- 323
- 324
- 325
- 326
- 327
- 328
- 329
- 330
- 331
- 332
- 333
- 334
- 335
- 336
- 337
- 338
- 339
- 340
- 341
- 342
- 343
- 344
- 345
- 346
- 347
- 348
- 349
- 350
- 351
- 352
- 353
- 354
- 355
- 356
- 357
- 358
- 359
- 360
- 361
- 362
- 363
- 364
- 365
- 366
- 367
- 368
- 369
- 370
- 371
- 372
- 373
- 374
- 375
- 376
- 377
- 378
- 379
- 380
- 381
- 382
- 383
- 384
- 385
- 386
- 387
- 388
- 389
- 390
- 391
- 392
- 393
- 394
- 395
- 396
- 397
- 398
- 399
- 400
- 401
- 402
- 403
- 404
- 405
- 406
- 407
- 408
- 409
- 410
- 411
- 412
- 413
- 414
- 415
- 416
- 417
- 418
- 419
- 420
- 421
- 422
- 423
- 424
- 425
- 426
- 427
- 428
- 429
- 430
- 431
- 432
- 433
- 434
- 435
- 436
- 437
- 438
- 439
- 440
- 441
- 442
- 443
- 444
- 445
- 446
- 447
- 448
- 449
- 450
- 451
- 452
- 453
- 454
- 455
- 456
- 457
- 458
- 459
- 460
- 461
- 462
- 463
- 464
- 465
- 466
- 467
- 468
- 469
- 470
- 471
- 472
- 473
- 474
- 475
- 476
- 477
- 478
- 479
- 480
- 481
- 482
- 483
- 484
- 485
- 486
- 487
- 488
- 489
- 490
- 491
- 492
- 493
- 494
- 495
- 496
- 497
- 498
- 499
- 500
- 501
- 502
- 503
- 504
- 505
- 506
- 507
- 508
- 509
- 510
- 511
- 512
- 513
- 514
- 515
- 516
- 517
- 518
- 519
- 520
- 521
- 522
- 523
- 524
- 525
- 526
- 527
- 528
- 529
- 530
- 531
- 532
- 533
- 534
- 535
- 536
- 537
- 538
- 539
- 540
- 541
- 542
- 543
- 544
- 545
- 546
- 547
- 548
- 549
- 550
- 551
- 552
- 553
- 554
- 555
- 556
- 557
- 558
- 559
- 560
- 561
- 562
- 563
- 564
- 565
- 566
- 567
- 568
- 569
- 570
- 571
- 572
- 573
- 574
