To establish whether the ASC provides documentary evidence of Viking age mass Scandinavian settlement.
This evidence is based on the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which gives a very brief yearly summary of events in England. The original version may have been commissioned by King Alfred. Although this has been lost, later variants have survived. Those parts of the survivals that are common to all variants are assumed to have come from the original. The early years seem to have been reconstructed in Wessex by scholars using historical sources (notably Gildas and Bede). Swanton (1996) provides information on the several variants, together with translations. A few key passages are commonly cited as evidence of Danish peasant “settlement”. Settlement is a translation of the Old English word “gesaet”. In general the word conveyed the concept of “remaining”. Bosworth (Welcome to the digital edition of the Bosworth-Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, n.d.) identifies eight key concepts, each of which is subdivided into increasingly specific meanings. The key concepts are listed as:
I.) to set, put, place, lay
II.) to cause a person to take a position
III.) to assign something to a person
IV.) to occupy
V.) to decree, ordain
VI.) to settle, fix
VII.) to put together, compose, constitute
VIII.) when used intransitively it can mean to place oneself, settle
These meanings share the common theme of fixing the state of an entity, as does the modern English "set". The translator needs to draw upon the context. If the context makes the precise meaning clear, all is well and a precise translation can be employed. Where the context does not help, the translator should employ more general terms. Unfortunately, Giles sometimes attributes specific meanings where several interpretations might equally have fitted the context. To gain a better understanding of the way in which the authors of the ASC used the word, the original text was searched electronically for the following variants: gesæt, geseten, gesæton and gesettan. For a discussion of the prefix "ge-" in Old English see Kemenade et and Los (2003). The Giles translation was also searched electronically for concepts that might more obliquely have implied peasant settlement. These searches were made easier by the formulaic language used by the original authors, where abbreviated and standardized forms were employed to describe phenomena (Konshuh, 2015).The context of all mentions of families, children, farming and slavery were examined. Apart from direct evidence of settlement I also looked for indirect evidence; things that might have been reported but were not. For example, if Danish peasants had wanted land for themselves, they would have had to replace the roles currently undertaken by English peasants. I looked for reports of English peasants being forced to leave the land, their slaughter, their enslavement or similar. By itself, the absence of any reference to such things does not necessarily mean that they did not happen. It might simply be that they were not considered a proper subject for the ASC. Accordingly I looked elsewhere in the ASC for mention of these things. If they were mentioned in other contexts the Viking era omission requires explanation.
In total, variants of the word gesaet appear on eight occasions. The original text is given first, followed by the translation offered by Giles:
1. "He (Burhred) for to Rome & þær gesæt", [874] is translated as, "Burhred went to Rome, and there remained". It is clear from the original text that Burhred went to Rome permanently, hence the translation "remained" is not contentious.
2. "& geridon Wesseaxna lond & gesæton", [878] translated as, "and overran the land of the West-Saxons, and sat down there". It is clear from the original text that the Danes did not stay long. The phrase "sat down" is again not contentious.
3. "gegadrode on hloþ wicenga, & gesæt ", [879] translated as, "a body of pirates drew together, and sat down". Again it is clear from the original text that the Danes did not stay long. The phrase "sat down" is not contentious.
4. "gesæt þæt lond", [880] translated as, "settled in the land". Here Giles infers quite a precise meaning to the word "gesæt". It is not clear that this is justified by the context. The more general interpretation "remained in" could be equally appropriate.
5. "& þæt lond ærest gesæt", [890] translated as, "and first settled that country". Again "remained in" might have provided a more neutral interpretation.
6. "& gesettan, ægþer ge mid Engliscum mannum, ge mid Deniscum", [922] translated as "and occupied as well by English as by Danes". This refers to the re-building of Nottingham. It is clear from the context that "gesettan" means "occupied" in the sense of "lived in".
7. "& him cierde eall þæt folc to þe on Mercna lande geseten wæs, ægþer ge Denisc ge Englisc" [922] translated as, "And all the people who were settled in Mercia, as well Danish as English, submitted to him.". This emphasises the fact that both the Danes and English who were living in Mercia submitted to King Edward. It is clear from the context that settled has the implication of a "settled" community rather than a "settler" community.
8. "& het gewyrcan þa burg, & gesettan" [923] translated as, "and commanded the town to be built, and occupied". This refers to the construction of Thelwell. Again, as with Case 6, it is clear that "gesettan" means "occupied" in the sense of "lived in".
There are similar problems with the possible over-interpretation of the word "ge-dǽlan". It means "to divide" or "to distribute" (and presumably, "to deal", as in a pack of cards). It occurs in the ASC entries for 876, 877 and 880. The word could equally be applied to the distribution of land to the aristocracy as to the peasantry. We should not assume that the distribution of land implies peasant settlement. This is illustrated by the agreement reached between the Danish army and Ceolwulf. It is clear that part of the land was kept by the army and part apportioned to Ceolwulf, who was pledged to act on their behalf. In the Giles translation for 877 we have, "And afterwards, during harvest, the army went into Mercia, and some part of it they apportioned, and some they delivered to Ceolwulf." The only other mention in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that might imply widespread peasant settlement relates to Northumbria. The entry for 876 tells us that "& þy geare Halfdene Norþanhymbra lond gedęlde & ergende wæron & hiera tilgende". Giles translates this as, "And that year Halfdene apportioned the lands of North-humbria: and they thenceforth continued ploughing and tilling them." Swanton translates the phrase as, "... Halfdan divided up the land of Northumbria; and they were ploughing and providing for themselves". Again, a lot rests on the precise interpretation. The phrase might have implied that Halfdene’s army settled down to put their hands to the plough and drive oxen, alternatively their role as conquerors might have been more akin to gentlemen farmers, supervising the agricultural machine and enjoying its output.
Turning to the indirect evidence for settlement, if widespread expropriation of peasants had occurred, then we would expect some record of their disposal. There are no reports of the widespread slaughter of civilians. There is no mention of permanent mass migrations, and no mention of populations permanently displaced. There is no mention of peasants being driven from the land, nor any mention of churls, farmers, men, women or peasants in relation to settling the land. There is no mention of the Danish army taking civilian captives, or selling them into slavery. This would have been the obvious way to dispose of a surplus population with the capture of and trade in slaves being a normal part of the Danish economy (Keefer, 2019). In a deeply Christian country (Cavill, 1999) and in a document written by clergymen, the enslavement of Christians by a heathen enemy, with its echoes of the captivity of the Israelites, would surely have been reported. However, the ASC is silent in these matters. It might be argued that clearances and captivities were not the stuff from which the ASC was made, however this was not the case. Enslavement was reported later at Southampton and Thanet in 980. Furthermore myths of the Anglo-Saxon victories over the local British population spoke of just such matters. In 457 Kent was reported to have been cleared of its British population, then in 491 the population of Andredscester were reported as being killed.
Blair, P. H. (1977). An introduction to Anglo-Saxon England. Cambridge University Press.
Cavill, P. (1999). Anglo-Saxon Christianity: Exploring the earliest roots of Christian spirituality in England. Fount.
Giles, J. A. (1914). The Anglo-Saxon chronicle edited from the translation in Monumenta Historica Britannica and other versions, by the late J.A. Giles, D.C.L. G. Bell and Sons. (available at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:The_Anglo-Saxon_Chronicle_(Giles).djvu)
Keefer, K. H. (2019). Marked by fire: Brands, slavery, and identity. Slavery &
Abolition, 40(4), 659-681. doi:10.1080/0144039x.2019.1606521
Konshuh, C. (2015). Fighting with a lytle werode: Alfred’s Retinue in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. The Medieval Chronicle X, 95-117. doi:10.1163/9789004318779_006
Manuscript A: The Parker Chronicle" (n.d.) retrieved from http://asc.jebbo.co.uk/a/a-L.html
Swanton, M. J. (1996). The Anglo-Saxon chronicle. J. M. Dent.
Welcome to the digital edition of the Bosworth-Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20190717111339/http://bosworthtoller.com/