| Summary : 793 seaborne raid by the Vikings on the Holy Island of Lindisfarne, the first recorded incursion by the Vikings against Anglo-Saxon England. The monastery on the island (7835) was plundered and the monks unable to defend themselves. Not only was this raid a precursor of what was to come (see, for example, the sack of Jarrow the next year, 1579441), there were further raids on Lindisfarne, leading to the abandonment of the monastic settlement some 40 years later. Alcuin of York suggested that the raid had not happened by chance, but was divine retribution for sin. It was almost certainly not a chance happening, but not quite in the sense intended by Alcuin. The date of the raid, in June, when the weather favoured seaborne raiding, the Anglo-Saxon monastery, a visible target from the sea, and the causeway between the island and the mainland, which is revealed at low tide, suggest some element of prior reconnaissance as a suitable target. The causeway or the surrounding sands would have provided a suitable landing area to beach ships before the inland incursion, allowing a rapid getaway as they were refloated, entirely consistent with known Viking practice in later ages (and indeed at the Battle of Maldon, where a battle took place at a causeway in 991, 380691). Possibly the sands to the north, known as Sand Ridge, are more likely than Holy Island Sands to the south. Without taking account of any earlier morphology of the sandbanks and channels, at the present day there is a deep water channel leading to Holy Island Sands, with a narrow entrance, barred by rocky promontories of the Island itself to the north and Old Law to the south, making access at this point perhaps less likely for a rapid raiding party, particularly on the grounds of requiring further prior reconnaissance before beaching. It should be stated that this interpretation is for representational purposes only and is not necessarily either conclusive or definitive. |
More information : Primary sources:
The Laud or 'E' manuscript of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle:
793. Her waeron rethe forebecna cumene ofer Northanhymbra land and th[a] folc earmlice bregdon. Tha waeron ormete lig raescas and waeron geseowene fyrene dracan on tham lyfte fleogende. Tham tacnum sona fyligde mycel hunger and litel aefter tham thaes ilcan geares on vi id' Janr earmlice hethenra manna hergung diligode Godes cyrican in Lindisfarena ee. Thurh reaflac and man sleht and Sigcga forthferde on vii kl' Mr. (1)
'D' and 'E' manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle:
793. 'In this year dire portents appeared over Northumbria and sorely frightened the people. They consisted of immense whirlwinds* and flashes of lightning, and fiery dragons were seen flying in the air. A great famine immediately followed those signs, and a little after that in the same year, on 8 June,** the ravages of heathen men miserably destroyed God's church on Lindisfarne, with plunder and slaughter. And Sicga died on 22 February.' (2)
Footnotes from this text:
*Omitted in 'E'
** The MSS have by mistake January for June.
Letter of Alcuin to Ethelred, king of Northumbria, (793, after 8 June)
'Lo it is nearly 350 years that we and our fathers have inhabited this most lovely land, and never before has such terror appeared in Britain as we have now suffered from a pagan race, nor was it thought that such an inroad from the sea could be made. Behold, the church of St. Cuthbert spattered with the blood of the priests of God, despoiled of all its ornaments; a place more venerable than all in Britain is given as a prey to pagan peoples.' (3)
Secondary sources:
There is a probable continuity of site between the monastery of St. Cuthbert at Lindisfarne and its successor, the medieval priory.
Lindisfarne was attacked by Viking pirates on 8 June 793, and letters not only to Aethelred but also to Higbald of Lindisfarne quoted:
'Is this the beginning of greater suffering, or the outcome of the sins of those who live there? It has not happened by chance, but is the sign of some great guilt.'
'Pagans have desecrated God's sanctuary, shed the blood of saints around the altar, laid waste the house of our hope and trampled the bodies of saints like dung in the streets. . . What assurance can the churches of Britain have, if St. Cuthbert and so great a company of saints do not defend their own?'
The documentary sources suggest that the monks retreated inland to Norham in the 830s, although artefact evidence in the form of 23 carved grave markers suggest that a Christian community remained at Lindisfarne between the late 8th and late 10th centuries. (4)
Interpretation of the site of beaching of the raid:
The raid was almost certainly not a chance happening, but not quite in the sense intended by Alcuin, who saw it as an punishment visited on the community by God.
The date of the raid, in June, when the weather favoured seaborne raiding (crossing the North Sea being difficult in winter); the Anglo-Saxon monastery, which is likely to have been visible from the sea and thus an easily discernible target; and the causeway between the island and the mainland, which is revealed at low tide, combine to suggest some element of prior reconnaissance as a suitable target.
The causeway or the surrounding sands would have provided a suitable landing area to beach ships before the inland incursion onto the rocks and cliffs whereupon the church was built. This beaching area would have been a convenient nearby site allowing a rapid getaway as they were refloated with an incoming tide, entirely consistent with known Viking practice in later ages (and indeed at the Battle of Maldon, where a battle took place at a causeway in 991, 380691).
Possibly the sands, known as Sand Ridge, to the north of the causeway and the spur of land known as The Snook, are more likely than Holy Island Sands to the south, because they are directly visible from the sea. Without taking account of any earlier morphology of the sandbanks and channels, at the present day there is a deep water channel leading to Holy Island Sands, with a narrow entrance, barred by rocky promontories of the Island itself to the north and Old Law to the south, making access at this point perhaps less likely for a rapid raiding party, particularly on the grounds of requiring further prior reconnaissance before beaching. It should be stated that this interpretation is for representational purposes only and is not necessarily either conclusive or definitive. (5) |