More information : Primary Sources:
The Laud 'E' manuscript of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle:
'794 . . . And tha haethenan on Northhymbrum hergodon, and Ecgferthes mynster aet thone muthe berefodon. And thaer heora heretogena sum ofslaegen wearth, and eac heora scipu sume thur ofer weder wurdon tobrocene and heora feala thaer adruncon. And sume cuce to tham staethe comon, and tha man sona ofsloh aet thaere ea muthan.' (1)
794. D (E).
'And the heathens ravaged in Northumbria, and plundered Ecgfrith's monastery at Donemuthan (*), and one of their leaders was killed there, and also some of their ships were broken to bits by stormy weather, and many of the men were drowned there. Some reached the shore alive and were immediately killed at the mouth of the river.' (2)
* original footnote in this text: 'i.e. 'at the mouth of the Don.' Simeon's History of the Church of Durham identifies it as Jarrow. It cannot in that case be the 'Donemutha' of Pope Paul's letter (English Historical Documents, 1, No.184) for this had belonged to an abbess and was in lay hands in the mid 8th century.' (2)
Another version of this event, also for the year 794, is quoted in Symeon of Durham's Historia Regum, quoted in translation in (10)
'The above-mentioned pagans, devastating the harbour of Ecgfrid, plundered the monastery at the mouth of the river Don. But Saint Cuthbert did not let them leave without punishment. Indeed their leader was killed by a cruel death by the English, and after a short time the strength of a storm battered, destroyed, and pounded their ships, and the sea covered very many. So some of them were cast onto the shore and killed without pity. And these things rightly befell them, since not injuring themselves, they injured others greatly.'
The Historia Regum was one of the sources for Symeon's Historia Dunelmensis Ecclesia (History of the Church at Durham), composed approximately 1104-1109. In the latter the sack of 'Don mouth' also follows after the 793 raid on Lindisfarne. This, too, is cited in translation in (10);
'And the Danes, while devastating the harbour of King Ecfrid, that is to say Jarrow, in the following year, also despoiled the monastery at the mouth of the River Don; their leader suffered a cruel death; not much later their ships were destroyed, pounded and beaten by the force of a storm. And some of them were swallowed up by the flood; others, who were somehow thrown living on the land, were soon slain by the sword of the natives.' (10)
It was in this source that Symeon added the gloss 'id es Gyrvum', "that is to say, Jarrow", to 'Donemutha'. (10)
A further version was preserved by Symeon in the Historia Post Bedam, incorporated into the work of Roger of Hoveden; and another record is preserved in Geffrei Gaimar, footnoted in (10) and recorded as follows from (12), translation by compiler:
'Ecbrith was then king in Kent/He had another name privately/The pagans did not linger/but they ravaged Lindsey/at the mouth of the Humber they sailed/then to the Ouse, then to the mouth of the Don./It is said and it is written in the Chroniceles/that at that place many were assembled/wanting to defend their land./More than 30 opposed them/and the waters were in great tumult/One of their leaders was killed/as the sea entered into the country/and imperilled their ships./Some of their men were drowneed/and even though they went away/they had ravaged a great part of the land.' (11)
Secondary sources:
The river at Jarrow is the Don and adjoins Jarrow Slake, where at the present day vestiges of mud can be seen at the edge of Jarrow Slake (a corruption of Jarrow's Lake), which was formerly, as the name implies, of greater extent. (3)(4)
794. Jarrow attacked by Vikings. (5)
Discussion of Symeon's identification of 'Don-mouth' with Jarrow. It is explained as a gloss and may have originated with him, Jarrow being named nowhere else in connection with this incident. It is noted, for example, that in the letters of Alcuin, who wrote to the monks of Lindisfarne after the sacking of their monastery, no such letter survives for Jarrow, if Jarrow it was, although he did warn them some time after 793 against a fate similar to the 'church of St. Cuthbert', i.e. Lindisfarne.
There is further discussion of a letter from Pope Paul I to Eadberht, king of Northumbria, and his brother Ecgberht, Archbishop of York, 757-8, concerning a double monastery in the hands formerly of an abbot and an abbess at "Donaemuthe", then taken into private hands: this does not fit the profile of Jarrow, as a double monastery for males only and still in ecclesiastical hands at this date.
The Don that empties into the Tyne is not so recorded, apart from Symeon of Durham, until the 16th century, although there is a possibility that a name recorded as "Dano" may refer to a Roman fort at Jarrow rather than as Doncaster.
King Ecgfrith is associated with the foundation of Jarrow but the name could also allude to a son of Offa of Mercia, who became a king in 796.
This article puts forward suggestions of an identification with the Yorkshire river Don, although acknowledging that the topography of the Anglo-Saxon river is not well known. The southern channel ran into the Thorne Mere in a landscape that was largely submerged. It is acknowledged that no local ecclesiastical or other archaeology supports this interpretation, but it is noted that Symeon's Historia Regum uses the Latin word 'mare' or sea, perhaps confused with Old English 'mere' and 'sae', which could both mean 'sea' and 'lake', which could support Thorne Mere, or if the ships were wrecked at sea, this could have been at the mouth of the Humber.
The article also discusses the problems associated with an identification of Stainforth, west of Thorne, with 'Aetstanforda' or Stanford given by Alhfrith of Northumbria to St. Wilfrid c. AD 658, as Donmouth, namely that Alhfrith was not, of course, Ecgfrith. (10)
Discussion in (11) of the candidature of Adlingfleet, on the grounds of an entry in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the year 763: 'Then Pehtwin was consecrated bishop of Whithorn at Aelfet.ee', identified in 1823 as Adlingfleet. Discussion of the validity of this identification, with particular reference to Elvet in Durham, in terms of a 12th/early 13th century document relating to Whithorn and York and 'concerned to establish the claims of Durham in the remote past', in common with spurious Durham charters making similar claims.
Pope Paul's letter, referred to in the original footnote cited in (2) above, and in (10), is also referenced, drawing attention to the fact that in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry for 794 Tynemouth was earlier mentioned by name - 'aet Tinan-mude', and that it would be natural for later chroniclers to assume that 'the mouth' and 'the river mouth' referred back to it. The 16th century reference to the Don at Jarrow is traced to Leland.
The error is ascribed to mistranscription: the misidentification of the capital letter 'eth' (resembling a D with a horizontal stroke through the vertical line) at the beginning of 'the' ('thone') with 'Don', thus creating a reading of 'Donmouth' for 'the mouth', explaining Symeon's gloss, equating it with Jarrow.
The case is then made for Adlingfleet, on the Yorkshire Don, under Saxon ownership at Domesday with a church and priest, and if identifiable with Donmouth, explaining the later rich Rectory at Adlingfleet, which is also situated in flood country, and possible hints of an earlier Saxon church under the present church. (11)
Interpretation of raid and its location:
The two questions of the location of the raid and the sequence of events are intertwined and are here discussed together.
As (10) and (11) demonstrate, there has been much discussion of whether the event took place at the Humber/Yorkshire Don, either at Thorne Mere (10) or Adlingfleet (11), or at the Tyne/Don, and their relationship with the sea. The Thorne/Adlingfleet interpretation receives some support from Geffrei Gaimar (Geoffrey Gaimar)'s work (fl. c.1136-7) (13), mentioning Lindsey, the Humber, Ouse and Don.
There are a number of difficulties with all interpretations. Symeon of Durham died circa 1129 (14), so cannot be regarded as a contemporary chronicler, and would, of course, have been biased in favour of local claims to the event. Nevertheless, he was in a good position to have local knowledge of place names and identifications, nor should the possibility that he was basing his identification of Donmouth with Jarrow on an intervening, now lost, source be discounted: i.e. the possibility exists that the identification did not originate with him even though his is the only surviving source for this identification.
Geffrei's poem, in Norman French, is similarly second-hand although based on knowledge of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles and possibly other sources. He clearly states the trajectory of the Viking vessels as Lindsey, Ouse, and [Yorkshire] Don, but these two rivers are not mentioned in the source text of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. It should also be noted that he translates the events of 793 as 'Donc vindrent la paien gent/ El havne de Humbre arriverent/En Lindeseie deserterent' (ll.2162-4) (12), that is'Then came the pagan people/who arrived at the mouth of Humber/ and ravaged Lindeseie'.
This suggests a confusion between Lindisfarne and Lindsey, a confusion which is also present in the respective place names, as noted by (15) and (16), and which may be an error of translation, as footnoted in (12).
In (15) Bede's "insula Lindisfarnensis" or "ecclesia Lindisfaronensis", c.730 AD, is noted, as is "gens Lindisfarorum", "people of Lindsey", with "Lindisfarne" noted as "people who have been to or regularly go to Lindsey". The earliest citation of Lindsey itself is also in Beded, as "provincia Lindissi", "Lindissiae provincia", also c.730 AD, based on "Lindon", the old name for Lincoln, + element "eg", "island", referring to the pre-drainage state of the local area, supported in (16).
These resemblances would naturally have created typical scribal and translation errors in later works such as those by Gaimar. It does, however, give rise to the possibility that, the connection between Lindsey and Lindisfarne being noted in the place names as quoted by Bede circa 60 years earlier, the Vikings did indeed first sack Lindisfarne, then turn their attention to the Lindsey area the following year through this connection, of which perhaps they had intelligence.
Against this, however, is the difficulty presented by the lack of recorded Anglo-Saxon archaeology, ecclesiastical or otherwise, in either the Adlingfleet or Thorne locations, acknowledged by the authors of (10) and (11) and borne out by examination of EH webGIS records from the National Record of the Historic Environment for the parishes of Thorne, Stainforth and Adlingfleet (3), whereas Jarrow, being still extant, is a securely recorded Anglo-Saxon foundation of considerable contemporary fame and associations running deep within Anglo-Saxon society, having been founded by King Ecgfrith, and the location of the Venerable Bede's life and work. A location at Jarrow fulfils the conditions of an association with Ecgfrith, recorded in a stone naming him at Jarrow, and the ravaging of Northumbria explicitly recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the year 794, which pose difficulties for the Yorkshire Don.
There are also other difficulties posed by the Adlingfleet and Thorne locations on the Yorkshire Don, besides the fact that they lie south of the Humber and therefore cannot qualify as "Northumbria"; the former lies some 30 miles from the mouth of the Humber and the latter further inland still (whether or not it was accessible from the contemporary submerged landscape of Thorne Mere). It would have been a risky strategy for the Vikings to navigate inland in what would have been a hostile landscape in search of a monastery to plunder, with the attendant risks of being trapped on unknown sandbanks or being attacked by locals ready to defend their homes and property. A rapid escape route would have been more suitable (such as that at Lindisfarne).
This difficulty is more easily overcome by the proximity of the Tyne Don to the sea. This in turn overcomes the difficulty of the ships being wrecked in the sea shortly after the raid.
Jarrow lies at the mouth of what is now known as the River Don, on the southern bank of the Tyne, with the monastery on the western bank of the Don. The extent of Jarrow Slake on the eastern bank of the Don at this period is not known (nor has it been analysed for the purposes of this study). The difficulties of the name as discussed above in (10) and (11) are acknowledged. That aside, it seems a plausible location for a good beaching area for a waterborne raid between tides (although the river Don would have had to be crossed). It is also worth noting that Jarrow Slake, i.e. Jarrow's Lake, also overcomes the ambiguity inherent in "mere" (10) in being a lake.
This location would be consistent with the Viking model of amphibious assault with a target within easy reach, such as the ravaging of Lindisfarne the previous year, suggesting that the Vikings were now further exploring this coast in search of new sites to raid.
However, the location of the raid and the subsequent storm in their turn pose some problems of interpretation which are worth analysing. Jarrow lies some 2.5 miles inland from the mouth of the Tyne and the raid suggests a certain degree of boldness on the part of the Vikings in risking entrapment on a river just after a bend and where it is fairly narrow, only a quarter of a mile wide, but it would have been easier to accomplish than an attack on an inland monastery. It also, perhaps, suggests a degree of reconnaissance.
Although it is clear from (10) that the contemporary sources are silent on the subject of Jarrow's sacking, there is another interesting silence in that the Anglo-Saxon monastery at Tynemouth (the forerunner of the modern priory) is not mentioned as the target. It was certainly extant by 792 when it was the burial place of King Osred II of Northumbria (1)(2)(6) so is likely to have been visible on the headland from the sea, and to the Vikings passing under the headland up the river. Why, then, was Tynemouth itself not sacked?
The answer may possibly lie in terms of the headland itself, steep and relatively inaccessible since it was protected by the hazards of the Black Middens on the north bank and, across the mouth of the Tyne, the Herd Sand. This is likely to have made a landing difficult, although it may in fact have been the original intended target.
There is some difficulty in the original entry in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in that the relevant words "thone muthan" ("thone" being prefaced with the "thorn" rune, a soft "th") could be interpreted "at that mouth", rather than "at Donmouth" specifically, a difficulty alluded to in (11), albeit with an "eth" rune. Source (11) suggests that "the mouth" refers back to Tynemouth, and Ecgfrith's monastery and the context of ravaging Northumbria would be sufficient to make it clear that the monastery was Jarrow.
The question then is whether the river mouth referred to is the Don or the Tyne: the confusion is likely to have arisen because of referring back to Tynemouth in the earlier entry (792) for the one river, and to a different river for the other, which may in itself explain Symeon's clarification 'that is, Jarrow'.
There seems no possibility of error, scribal or otherwise, for Tynemouth, since Tynemouth is securely referred to in the entry for 792, only two years previously, as "Tinan muthe". Why, then, did the Vikings not attack Tynemouth itself? Could some of the ships have been beached there, or riding just off the Tyne, while their felllows went on upriver to see what other targets presented themselves? This raid, then, could be the product of ad-hoc reconnaissance at the time, rather than prior reconnaissance through trade contacts, if any, which seems fairly implausible.
When the storm arose, the vessels were "broken to bits" (2) which seems fairly dramatic for an event in a river, as does "the strength of a storm battered, destroyed and pounded their ships, and the sea covered very many" (Symeon of Durham, Historia Regum for the year 794, cited in (10).
These descriptions are much more characteristic of vessels stranded on a lee shore (that is, with the wind blowing them onshore, and wind and waves combining to pound them to pieces). This would be a characteristic manner of loss for the Herd Sand to the south of Tynemouth (by comparison with wrecks of a later date upon the Herd (7). Alternatively, some or all of the ships could have been pounded on the rocks of the Black Middens to the north (7), or even, as in the case of later storms, lost on both sides of the river.
Alternatively, in relation to the mouth of the Don, it could, perhaps, be suggestive of a collision between the ships in a fairly small area, exacerbated by the effects of the wind, but this seems less likely.
It could then be that there are two possible scenarios. In the first, the sequence of events might have been as follows:
The Vikings reached the Tyne, where some of the group remained at Tynemouth, seeing that a raid on the monastery was likely to pose some difficulty, and others sailed upriver to see what else might present a target. The monastery was sacked, and the Vikings who had sailed upriver returned, but before they could sail away, a storm arose, pinning them on shore, and drowning many and casting others ashore alive, where they were slain.
In the second scenario, which took place at the mouth of the Don, the Vikings bypassed Tynemouth as inaccessible, and reconnoitred other targets on the Tyne. Seeing Jarrow, they beached their ships at the mouth of the Don and at Jarrow Slake, and plundered the monastery, whereupon they returned to their ships. They did not get very far, for a storm arose, leading them to run on shore and/or collide with one another. By this time the local populace were up in arms and ready to kill those who had just plundered the monastery.
Since these two scenarios are open to interpretation, and both have merit in different ways, it is not possible to definitely assign a location for the ships in the raid and the consequent wrecks. A named location at Tynemouth, for the wrecks lost in the sea following the raid event, has therefore been selected to reflect the uncertainty over where exactly they took place. It is noted that this is for representational purposes only and that this interpretation may change should more information supporting a Yorkshire Don identification come to light. (8)
Flash burning of the stones in situ at Wearmouth, for example around the Anglo-Saxon window apertures, which have been 'reddened and damaged by exiting flames' may be attributable either to the historic fires known to have taken place in these buildings or to the Viking raids. (9)
|