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)
'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 It cannot in that case be the 'Donemutha' of Pope Paul's letter (English Historical Documents, 1, No.184) for this had belonged to an abbess and was in lay hands in the mid 8th century.'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 (5):
'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.'
Interpretation of wrecks:
Jarrow lies at the mouth of 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), but it seems likely that it could have provided a good beaching area for a waterborne raid between tides (although a crossing of the river would have been necessary). This would be consistent with the Viking model of amphibious assault with a target within easy reach, and is consistent with 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 issues, which are worth analysing, not least the issues of whether the raid took place at Jarrow itself (noting the possible attributions to the Yorkshire Don discussed more fully in the record for the battle, 1579441).
Jarrow lies some 2.5 miles inland from the mouth of the Tyne and a raid there suggests a certain degree of boldness on the part of the Vikings, who risked entrapment on a river just after a bend and where it is fairly narrow, only a quarter of a mile wide. It also, perhaps, suggests a degree of reconnaissance, possible through earlier trade contact, since Jarrow is unlikely to have been visible from the sea.
It is also worth noting that the Anglo-Saxon monastery at Tynemouth (the forerunner of the modern priory) is not mentioned in this sacking. It was certainly extant by 792 when it was the burial place of King Osred II of Northumbria (1)(2) 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 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 rocks on the north bank and, across the mouth of the Tyne on the south bank, 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", referring back to Tynemouth mentioned in the annal for 792, "at Tinan muthe", rather than "at Donmouth" specifically, but Ecgfrith's monastery and the context of ravaging Northumbria would be sufficient to make it clear that the monastery referred to was Jarrow, and there would be no difficulty with "at that mouth" or "at the mouth" referring back to Tynemouth in the entry for 792.
The question then is whether the river mouth referred to is the Don or the Tyne. 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? 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.
When the storm arose, the vessels were "broken to bits", which seems fairly dramatic for an event in a river, as such a description is 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, or upon the Black Middens, or even upon both sides of the river, (by comparison with wrecks upon each hazard and on both sides of the river in later storms). (4) The Herd Sand may be slightly more likely as this would have been more accessible for the local inhabitants to slaughter those cast ashore alive. Indeed, Symeon of Durham's words three centuries later (5) appear to be describing this scenario, with particular attention to the fact that he explicitly mentions the sea: "after a short time the strength of a storm battered, destroyed, and pounded their ships, and the sea covered very many".
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 is less likely, although Jarrow Slake could be a candidate for to have been accessible for locals to slaughter those who came ashore alive.
The likely sequence of events would seem to be as follows:
The Vikings reached the Tyne, and perceived that a raid on the most obvious target was likely to pose some difficulty, so sailed upriver to see what other targets there might be. The monastery at Jarrow was sacked, and the Vikings 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.
(3)
|