There are two main explanations for the widespread distribution of Scandinavian place names in the North of England. They are both wrong. The first is that it was overwhelmed by Viking invaders and their kin. The second is that Viking warriors arrived, set themselves up as the aristocracy and others mimicked their exotic place naming habits, which, accordingly spread across the country. Proponents of the first explanation latch onto a few phrases in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle about the Danes "settling" the land. The second explanation is patently absurd (although there is good evidence that they became aristocrats and landowners) given the persistence of local place names names in Wales and Cornwall, with a similar aristocratic substitution (the subject of another essay in this collection).
The aim here is to find out what the scribes of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle meant when they used the words translated as "settled", "settling" and similar. The word is problematic, because it is overlaid with the modern idea of "settler economies" in which imperial powers used mass immigration to satisfy their own workers and produce an agricultural surplus. So, what did the Anglo-Saxons mean by it?
It is quite similar to the modern meaning of the verb "to set" ie, to fix the state of something. The Old English word is “gesaet”, ie "saet" with the prefix "ge" placed in front. Bosworth (see references below). (The 'ge' prefix is an inflection used to indicate that the action of a verb has been completed.)
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
To understand which specific meaning is intended, 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, translators (Giles in the version I am quoting from) 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. 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 standardised forms were employed to describe phenomena (Konshuh, 2015).The context of all mentions of families, children, farming and slavery were examined.
In total, variants of the word gesaet appear on eight occasions. (note that the "ge" prefix indicates that the action has been completed. 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 drove the oxen, alternatively their role as conquerors might have been more akin to gentlemen farmers, supervising the agricultural machine and enjoying its output.
In conclusion, I could find no convincing evidence of widespread peasant settlement in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
Bosworth-Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20190717111339/http://bosworthtoller.com/
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)
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
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/