anglo-saxon and celtic overkingships...anglo-saxon and celtic overkingships 83 not to mention the...
TRANSCRIPT
Anglo-Saxon and Celtic Overkingships : a Discussion of Some Shared Historical Problems
David N. Dumville
81
Where do the origins of Anglo-Saxon kingship and overkingship lie? This is a problem,
or rather a pair of problems, which has long disturbed students of early English history.
One of the principal difficulties attending the subject resides in the very nature of modern
historiography. The troubles are of long standing. As the modern study of history
developed in Britain in the later nineteenth century, William Stubbs celebrated'the
primaeval German pride of purity of extraction'and famously observed that'From the
Briton and the Roman of the fifth century we have received nothing'(1870/1913, 1 and 3).
Frederic Seebohm (1883/1890; 1895/1904; 1902) stood against this Germanicising tide in
Britain, while on the Continent Fustel de Coulanges (1891) was also a celebrated oppo-
nent. But in British universities the tone had been set.
It could produce a virulent and eccentric reaction. The Welsh nationalist A. W.
Wade-Evans described with horror what passed for early British history at Oxford when
he went there as a student of History in 1893 (Wade-Evans 1956/1959, 112-16) and he
resolved to demonstrate his perception that the Anglo-Saxon conquest and settlement of
Britain never took place (Wade-Evans 1956/1959 was the logical outcome of this process;
cf. Emanuel 1965). In some measure the wheel has come full circle, for what the learned
but obsessive Welshman argued throughout a long lifetime of being regarded by English
scholars as a crank is not so very different from the views of those who now take a
minimalist view of the extent and impact of Germanic settlement in sub-Roman Britain.
Were he to return, even Seebohm might be surprised by the degree to which received
wisdom has changed. In this context, it would be surprising if the possibility of Roman
and British contributions to Anglo-Saxon kingship and overkingship, as to other aspects
of early English society, were not to be explored. However, workers who are interested
and qualified in the study of all these cultures are few indeed and progress has been
slight.
The predisposition to view early Germanic culture as essentially a single whole,
which was so strong a feature of European scholarship before 1914 and which remained
an important force in German historiography thereafter, was progressively attenuated in
Britain after World War I. The narrowing of focus then so apparent in British
historiography was to some extent compensated for by the development of Anglo-Saxon
82 David N. Dumville
archaeology within a strongly Germanic context. However, no sustained reinterpretation
of the bases of early English society was attempted until recent years when changes in
archaeological thought and the growth of the more physical divisions of historical studies
(landscape-and settlement-studies) have encouraged extraordinarily strong emphasis on
long-term continuity in the agrarian life of Britain (cf. Finberg 1964, 1-65, and 1972,
385-401; Bonney 1976; Jones 1976; Everitt 1986; Williamson 1986; Hooke and Burnell
1995). These new developments have taken place against an extended background of
lack of interest (except among archaeologists) in the integration of study of ancient
Germania and Anglo-Saxon England. The overall result has been a drastic general
shift towards a presupposition of extensive native survival: all that that might imply
for social and political history has been left rather unspecific, however.
Historical studies have not been able effectively to take advantage of the new mood,
however. In spite of the enthusiastic, indeed inspirational, but often cranky, work of
Nora K. Chadwick (1891-1972) who has been reported as speaking of'the Saxon fringe'
(Brooke 1986, viii) of the Celtic world, there are few practising historians whose training
equips and whose inclinations spur them to examine the question of Celtic origins of
English institutions. There are indeed those, like the present writer, who regard the trend
described above as fundamentally wrong-headed. Anglo-Celtic historians (if they may
be so designated) of the post-Chadwick generation, of whom David Kirby was perhaps
the first, have in general been level-headed on these large questions (cf. Kirby 1967); only
one, peculiarly suitably equipped by his training and by the interests of two of his mentors,
has taken up issues of this character (see especially Charles-Edwards 1972, an article
which shows just how difficult such subjects are). Before the present generation of
historians, there had been a half-century's general lack of integration of work by Anglo-
Saxon and Celtic historians, in spite of the title of the Irish historian and jurist D. A.
Binchy's celebrated pamphlet, Celtic and Anglo-Saxon Kingship (Binchy 1970; cf.
Wormald 1986). This unhappily divided inheritance does, however, provide unusual
challenges and opportunities for today's scholars.
In a context in which scholars have come to view with suspicion the notion of the
comprehensive Germanicisation of what came to be England, all aspects of early Anglo-
Saxon society need to be measured against a Romano-British background, against a more
generally Celtic context, against the culture of powerful neighbours (particularly the
Franks), and against what can be deduced of the culture of the Anglo-Saxons'Continental
ancestors. What applies generally must apply also to the specific question of kingship in
its various manifestations. Very much will turn on our sense of how, in what
circumstances, and when the Anglo-Saxons assumed control in the various parts of
Britain. The options involve differing types of sub-Roman government, the assumption
of power by Germanic'federates', straightforward hostile takeover, and more complex
situations involving marriage-alliances or other forms of treaty. Given all these variables,
Anglo-Saxon and Celtic Overkingships 83
not to mention the different backgrounds and experiences of the Germanic incomers
themselves, it should be no great surprise to see varying forms of political authority
emerging in early Anglo-Saxon England.
Different historians have found no obstacles to variant readings of the evidence,
whatever the situation may have been in early Anglo-Saxon England. H. M. Chadwick
placed great emphasis on the role of lordship in the Germanic migration and settlement
and consequently on the role of'kingly government'(Chadwick 1905, 1907, 1912).
Wendy Davies has argued that there were no kings in some parts of England even in
the seventh century (Davi邸〔&Vierc記 1974,237-8). E. A. Thompson stressed the
periodic rejection by Germanic peoples of a full kingly or overlordly structure (1965;
1984, 94-5). The first fact of English royal history is the overkingship of尼thilberhtI
(ob. 616) of Kent (Bede, Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum I.25 and 32; II.2, 3, 5);
we may remember also Bede's notice (II.5) of尼thilberht'stwo overkingly predecessors,
.JElle and Ceawlin. But in the papal correspondence included by Bede in his History (II.
8: see Hunter Blair 1971, 7-8) we may note the existence, in the next generation, of
a second king reigning in Kent (presumably, on later analogy, in West Kent). As
the seventh century goes on, a wide variety of kingship- and overkingship-arrange-
ments is revealed to us in the various localities. One which seems very reminiscent of
Celtic political structures is that revealed for Wessex by an aside of Bede (Historia ecclesi-
astica IV.12), which may however also provide a parallel to early confederacies on the
Continent (cf. James 1989). Likewise, the three-level overlordship revealed (Historia
ecclesiastica IV.13) between Wulfhere of Mercia, 巫thilwalhof Sussex, and the king of
Wight is very reminiscent of Irish constitutional arrangements (cf. Campbell 1986, 91-2).
Variety may be the result of different inheritance or circumstances, of the different
perspectives provided by various and fragmentary sources, or of differing paces of
development in different areas. Whether we can speak of the growth, or development, of
overkingship in early Anglo-Saxon England is an issue which should be pursued. Much
turns on whether the petty kingdoms visible in the seventh-and eighth-century record can
be deemed the primary units of Anglo-Saxon political organisation (cf. Bassett 1989 for
discussion; see further Dumville 1997, Kirby 1991, Yorke 1990). There seems to be no
means of demonstrating this beyond cavil. Those of us who think that it probably is
so are no doubt influenced by our reading of the history of Celtic kingship-arrangements
and by a certain theory of the development of English constitutional history. Over-
kingships would have developed by competition for resources and status among these
primary units: but how the primary kingdoms were treated by those who took their
submission or overran them might have varied very greatly from place to place. Nev-
ertheless, here is a broad theory-it can be no more than that—as to how Anglo-Saxon
overkingships evolved. It is in the regiones named in charters and mentioned by Bede
that we see the petty kingdoms of the seventh and eighth centuries. The principal kings
84 'David N. Dumville
of the period, named in narrative sources, stand at different points in the hierarchy of
overkingship, but that all or almost all of them—from Sussex to the H wicce to North-
umbria to Kent—were overkings seems certain (cf. Chadwick 1905, 249-92). How much
development took place between, say, 450 and 550 is unknowable; but the dynasties first
visible in the historical period are perhaps merely the last of many prehistoric over-
kings. If so, developments had been rather fast. Visible or reconstructable overking-
ships date from ca 550; the known dynasties took their origin scarcely later than that
(except perhaps in Kent).
All these remarks pertain to the relationship between kings, land, and the inhabitants,
in respect of political power and its growth. The king in his primary relationship to his
people was also an element in local and low-level social arrangements. In the 1920s
and'30s, it was the work of J.E. A. Jolliffe to worry away at these problems (Jolliffe 1926,
1929, 1930, 1933a, 1933b, 1934, 1935a, 1935b, 1935-7, 1937/1961; cf. Lapsley 1938), but in
more recent times Glanville Jones (1981/2, for example) and Geoffrey Barrow (1973,
7-68) have taken up the challenge, combining their Celtic and late mediaeval English
interests to research the history of estates, of shires, and of royal dues, concluding that in
at least parts of England similarities of institutional structures and agrarian customs
strongly suggest a significant British input into English social and constitutional practice.
Whether at the higher political level or at the tax-gathering level, there is a good deal
in what has been found and deduced in the course of comparison of institutions which
sounds familiar to the Celtic historian. A vast field for research has opened up, but it is
important (it seems to me) not to jump to conclusions, for criteria have still not been
satisfactorily established by which similarities of institution or practice in these different
societies may be attributed to borrowing from one another or to a distant, ancient, common
inheritance or to similar and independent reactions to similar conditions. Thomas
Charles-Edwards (1989) has made an investigation of aspects of kingship in the several
regions of the British Isles: he has counselled caution about deducing genetic rather than
environmental reasons for observed similarities but has also stressed the differences which
manifest themselves between the history of kingship and overkingship in, for example,
England and Ireland (1989, 39).
The principal differences between Ireland and England in the area of royal dues [in
the seventh and eighth centuri蕊〕 appear to be, first, that in Ireland hospitality dues
were relatively more important than in England. This affected [Irish〕゚ verkings,for
they demanded hospitality from their client kingdoms. The difference is associated
with the structure of their dynasties, since hospitality predominated among client
kingdoms ruled by collateral kinsmen of the overking. A highly segmented dynasty
in which several branches retained royal status thus favoured hospitality dues at the
expense of food renders. . . . Secondly, there is no evidence of a network of local
Anglo-Saxon and Celtic Overkingships 85
royal centres to which food renders were delivered. On this score England and
Wales agree in having such centres as against Ireland.
There are many problems here needing to be pursued further, some of them being made
worse by absence of evidence from all areas at all times. Whether we can be certain that
there were uillae regales all over England in the seventh and eighth centuries must remain
a matter for debate (cf. Sawyer 1983). I do not see, given the absence of evidence, how
that point can be established for Wales at the same period. And if, as has sometimes been
asserted, the subreguli of seventh-(and eighth-?) century Wessex were all claiming shared
descent, should not their arrangements for dues have favoured hospitality rather than
food-renders?
Whatever the answers to these questions may be, it is clearly necessary that at least
Insular Celtic kingship and overkingship be studied alongside their Anglo-Saxon
equivalents. And the origins and nature of neo-Brittonic kingship (the bulk of the
evidence for which is Welsh, although suggestive material is derivable from Brittany and
Cornwall and, in rather different ways, from Strathclyde and other once Brittonic-
speaking areas of the North) must be thought about. In some areas (the South-west,
Wales, the Pennine region, Scotland between the walls) these can perhaps be traced to a
remote antiquity (for the practices of the first-century Brigantes, see Charles-Edwards
1974); in others, they must be sought in sub-Roman Britain (cf. Dumville 1994), in no
doubt varied and often confused circumstances, where we must consider the importance of
the Roman inheritance (cf. Stevens 1947, Dark 1994). Converging evidence from a
number of sources has convinced some scholars (for example, David Kirby, Thomas
Charles-Edwards, and me) that a familiar early mediaeval Welsh pattern is of an
institutionally stable overkingship with petty kings associable with what at least later were
called cantrefi ('hundreds') and overkings with long established tribal (Dyfed) or
territorial (Ceredigion, Glywysing) units. A third level of kingship was unstable, arising
from competition between overkings. Whether there was a level of kingship below the
cantref is, I think, unknown: it might be a matter of dispute whether it is a necessary
adjunct of the system described. The evidence for this system is part legal (Charles-
Edwards 1970-2), part genealogical (Dumville 1977a, 1977b, 1984), and part comparative
(Charles-Edwards 1974). It has not, however, satisfied every historian (Davies 1990,
1993). In Wales, this system came to an effective end in the ninth century, extirpated by
the Second Dynasty of Gwynedd in the three quarters of Wales which came under its
rule. But this was not the end of overkingship, for competition resumed between kings,
first of this dynasty as it segmented and then between its lineages and other kings of
various origins in the late tenth and later centuries (cf. Davies 1990, Maund 1991). It
should be added that the history of mediaeval Welsh kingship-terminology is very difficult
and potentially confusing: it has been well discussed (Charles-Edwards 1971, 1974, 1993)
86 David N. Dumville
but still requires a great deal of work.
The comparative Irish evidence is of uncertain relevance. Early mediaeval Irish
kingship has been very clearly expounded by modern scholarship (cf. Binchy 1941,
1962/1975, 1970; Byrne 1971, 128-35) but such exposition bears an uncertain relationship
to the evidence, both in various particulars and in its diachronic dimension. The
antiquity (indeed, the Indo-European origins) of Irish petty kingship has been argued
largely from comparative philological evidence, and this carries with it an inherent
determinism. Archaeological evidence would perhaps offer grounds for dissent from this
prehistory if the two disciplines could be brought into juxtaposition with one another for
the purpose. Nevertheless, it is clear from the abundant annalistic, genealogical, and legal
literature of early mediaeval Ireland that an institutionally fairly stable three-level
kingship-system of petty kings, mesne (over)kings, and supreme (over)kings of the
several provinces of Ireland existed in the early middle ages. Above the provincial levels,
struggles of decreasing infrequency produced claims to overkingship of larger areas and
even to kingship of the whole island. To that we shall return.
The antiquity claimed for Irish kingship and, beyond it in prehistory, for Celtic
kingship raises another important and troubled question. Celtic and Germanic peoples
lived alongside one another for centuries on the Continent, with many opportunities for
mutual influence. Comparative philologists long ago detected that Germanic words for
kings and kingship, related to Latin rex and regnum and Old Irish ri and rige, for
example, were probably not cognate with their Indo-European congeners and therefore not
inherited. The alternative hypothesis which presented itself was that they (and rix,
'king', in particular) were borrowed from Celtic (cf. Evans 1967, 243-9). While it is
next to impossible to find a philologist who will affirm vigorously either the borrowed or
the inherited status of this section of the Germanic kingship-lexicon, the scholarly
literature shows a muted agreement on a Celtic contribution. If we switch to the
evidence of written sources, we find that Germanic kingship (or at any rate some aspects
of it: cf. James 1989) had a decidedly uncertain, indeed discontinuous, history. It can be
argued that the periodic crises which can be seen in ancient Germanic society and
government were what produced discontinuous kingship, but that neither in the first
century nor until the period of major Germanic settlements in the Roman empire was
kingship a normal political form among the Germanic peoples.
In as much as Insular primary kingship is arguably associable with the hundred or
cantref (whose underlying unit is the hide or tref, the land associable with one family,
and it has been argued 〔Charles-Edwards1972〕that these have a h誌t。rywh比hcan be
traced back to a Continental Celto-Germanic past), the question must be put whether we
might see a comparable prehistory for English kingship and overkingship which would
explain their similarities with their Celtic counterparts. But before we step down that
road we must realise that the Germanic antiquity of the hundred has been very much
Anglo-Saxon and Celtic Overkingships 87
doubted among both Continental and English historians (cf. Chadwick 1905, 239-48;
von Schwerin 1907; Jolliffe 1937 /1961, 116-23; Stenton 1971, 292-3, 297-300; Charles-
Edwards 1972, 18-19; Loyn 1992, 111-34): comparative philological study seems to be
what essentially sustains the proposition, and the problem of philological determinism
still lurks unresolved.
We have also to remember who the Germanic settlers of Britain appear to have been.
Although their origins were clearly very various in detail (see Bede, Historia ecclesiastica
V.9: Myres 1970, 151, for comment; for place-name evidence see Ekwall 1936 and 1953),
there does not seem to be any reason to doubt that the bulk of them were indeed from
Norway (Hines 1984 and 1992), Denmark, North Germany, and Frisia and that these
might not have been the parts or the peoples of the Germanic world most affected by
contact with Celts.
The nature and indeed existence of kingship among these peoples on the Continent,
before and after the migration to Britain, have sometimes seemed secure by linking
Tacitus's famous remarks with those of Bede on the Old Saxons of his own day (Historia
ecclesiastica V.10; cf. Thompson 1965 and 1984, 94-5), and sometimes less so when the
uncertain application of Latin terminology to outer Germanic circumstances is remembered.
There is at least a question-mark attached to the proposition that Germanic settlers
arriving in Britain would usually have done so under the leadership of kings ex
nobilitate, tribal rulers wielding inherited powers of leadership, as H. M. Chadwick
(1907) seems to have thought that they did. What Chadwick considered, however, and
indeed commissioned one of his pupils to work on (cf. Phillpotts 1913, 245-76), was the
possible effect of sea-migration on the institutions of those Germanic groups who settled
in Britain. As far as I am aware, this rather important question has not since been
attended to, although a good deal of comparative evidence must be available. The time
has perhaps also come to reconsider whether we should resurrect long-rejected comparisons
between the English assault on fifth-century Britain and that of the vikings in the ninth
century, particularly in view of our improved understanding of the nature of viking-forces
(cf. Lund 1986).
We should perhaps take together with the foregoing observations what may be
characterised as the dynamic nature of early Anglo-Saxon kingship and overkingship.
The very growth of overkingship as a successful political reality on English soil may seem
eloquent. That kingship and overkingship proved appropriate to the invaders'needs in
Britain certainly does not establish that they were institutions originating in Britain; but
this fact does nothing to help an argument that the Anglo-Saxons transplanted kingship of
Celto-Germanic origin from their Continental homes. We should perhaps start by looking
for the roots of English government in fifth-and sixth-century Britain, as well as by
attempting to determine the nature of structures of authority in the immigrants'homelands.
Given the observed similarities between manifestations of British and English king-
88 David N. Dumville
ship in the early middle ages, it would in principle be possible to argue that English
kingship-structures derived from British prototypes (for the role of dux bellorum in both
cultures, see Charles-Edwards 1991, 21-5 and 28). This would, however, bring with it
all manner of assumptions which we might not, on reflection, care to make. It would
imply first that the sub-Roman polities of much of lowland Britain were thoroughly Celtic
in character. It would imply further that Germanic leaders stepped straight into the shoes
of British predecessors and governed in institutional continuity. While some might wish
to embrace the latter proposition, for the purposes of this argument it is the former which
would have to be accepted as a precondition.
It has been argued by Eric John (1966, 11-13, with reference to Erdmann 1951, 9-10)
that the origin of the idea of an overking of the Southumbrian English, particularly if he
were then awarded the title'king of Britain', began with a British political institution of
which he has thought to find a trace in the early ninth-century Cambro-Latin text known
as Historia Brittonum (ed. Faral 1929, III.19-21: §§27-28). If the evidence of that text
were taken literally, however, we should have to acknowledge that its author spoke of
Roman rulers in Britain: the connexion of this History's information with that of Bede
and other sources for the Southumbrian overkingship requires a mighty leap, however, and
such exertion must be deemed unnecessary.
If we need evidence for great confederacies in pre-English southern Britain, it is in
the nature of the sub-Roman situation that we are unlikely to be able to discover testimony
(for a possibility in northern Britain see Dark 1992 and Dark & Dark 1996). What we
can do, on the other hand, is to remind ourselves of the many Germanic confederacies
which seem to have been created on the Continent throughout the first half-millennium
A. D. (cf. Schiltte 1929-33, Hedeager 1992); do these provide a useful parallel for
southern English developments of the early middle ages ?
The lengthy observable history of authority-structures and of ethnic identification
among Celtic-speaking peoples includes evidence both for large federations of peoples and
for major overkingships (see, for example, Cunliffe 1974, Nash 1978, Collis 1984, Cunliffe
1993; scholars discussing the ancient world have been content to write-without adequate
definition-of'tribes', while mediaevalists have been altogether uneasy about that concept
as the discussion by Byrne 1971 and Scott 1970-3 has shown). But Caesar's account
(De hello Gallico I.1) of the place of Chartres, as the navel of the land, in the political
life of Gaul in the first century B. C. can be paralleled in mediaeval accounts of the
quondam role of Uisnech in the Irish polity (Byrne 1973, 58, 64-5, 87, 92, 93; cf. Binchy
1958). Much is to be seen as shared Celtic inheritance and this allows us to hypothe-
sise, if no more, that such shared features of social life might once have been manifest in
Britain too. However, given the history of southern Britain in the Roman period, that
might not be the best place to expect to find important survivals of Celtic overkingship-
practice and ideology.
Anglo-Saxon and Celtic Overkingships 89
It has occasionally been pointed out in recent years that there are significant parallels
between late seventh-century Gaelic hagiographers'accounts of supreme overkingship in
Ireland and Britain (John 1966, 1-35; Byrne 1969, 5-7). What Adomnan of Iona had to
say of Oswald of Northumbria is paralleled by the ways in which he and Muirchu
described the power of Ui Neill kings of Tara, although Eric John has pointed to some
interesting discrepancies (John 1966, 9-11 and 27-31). Francis John Byrne has supposed
that'the ruler of Britain'had'more than local power, preferably combined with ... having
won the submission ... of some of the non-English inhabitants of the Island of Britain'
(Byrne 1969, 7).
The basic observation of the relationship of the two notions of island-kingship is
undoubtedly correct. It seems to me, however, that the point can be sharpened to much
greater effect. We may begin by enquiring after the kingship of all Ireland. In terms
of datable records we meet the concept first in the seventh century. An annal-entry
attributable to the lost℃ hronicle of Ireland'(a text originally of eighth-or ninth-century
origin which drew on contemporary records extending back to a disputed date between ca
550 and ca 680) tells us under the year 642 of'The death of Domnall son of Aed, king
of Ireland, at the end of January'('Mors Domnaill m. Aedo regis Hibernie in fine
Ianuari') (Mac Airt & Mac Niocaill 1983, 122-3, s. a. 642.1). While subsequent revision
of the Chronicle's notices of secular events, in the service of political bias towards Ui
Nふ11,has been alleged (but not demonstrated) (Kelleher 1963) and has found some
acceptance among Irish historians, it is not clear that such bias was missing in the seventh
century—indeed, there is no reason to think that it was! The political approach (cf. 6 Cuiv 1963, 242) in any case soon finds confirmation in the writing of two Hiberno-Latin
hagiographers of the second half of the century. Muirchu, in his Life of St Patrick,
referred to Loeguire mac NふIIas'a great king, a fierce pagan, an emperor of barbarians,
with his royal seat at Tara which was then the capital of the realm of the Irish, ... a
scion of the royal family of almost the entire island'('rex quidam magnus, ferox
gentilisque, imperator barbarorum regnans in Temoria quae tunc erat caput regni Scoto-
rum, Loiguire nomine filius Neill, origo stirpis regiae huius pene insolae') (Bieler &
Kelly 1979, 74; I have revised Bieler's translation at this point but some difficulties still
remain). Adomnan of Iona, himself a member of Ui NふII,wrote even more forcefully
and without qualification: Diarmait mac Cerbaill (king 544-565), seen by some later
sources (cf. Binchy 1958 and 1982) as the last pagan king of Tara, he described as
'totius Scotiae regnatorem a Deo auctore ordinatum'and again as totius regem Scotiae
(Anderson & Anderson 1991, 64-7: I.36). Of the station of Diarml;lit's son, Aed Slaine,
he wrote'The prerogative, fore-ordained to you by God, of the monarchy of the kingdom
of all Ireland'('tibi a Deo totius Euerniae regni praerogatiuam monarchiae praedisti-
natam') (Anderson & Anderson 1991, 38/9: I.14).
For these writers, then, Ui Neill were providing in their own times (and, as
90 David N. Dumville
Adomnan cared to think, already in the mid-sixth century, almost a century and a half
previously) kings of Ireland. For Muirchu, who hesitated to put matters quite so bluntly,
Tara was nevertheless caput regni Scotorum and the king who reigned there was of Ui
Nふ11and might be described as imperator: although he wrote ostensibly with reference
to the fifth century, it is hard to doubt that Muirchu saw the description as applicable to
his own time.
The sad but interesting fact is that this was fantasy. While for a good part of the early
middle ages the descendants of Niall taken as a single group were the most powerful
political force in the island, they were not (until the middle of the ninth century) in a
position to attempt to dominate it as a whole. They never succeeded in holding any
long-term supremacy of the island of Ireland. What they did do, however, was
collectively to maintain a barrage of propaganda asserting their own superiority and their
unique claim to power-past, present, and future. This approach was built on their
absolute control, from the mid-seventh century to the late tenth, of the royal dignity of
Tara.
The'kingship of Tara'(Binchy 1958; Byrne 1973, 48-69; Charles-Edwards & Kelly
1983, 123-31; Bhreathnach 1996) was a dignity whose history deserves a full study of
its own. It seems likely to have been an institution originating in the pagan past, in
circumstances long since lost to memory. In as much as the visible contestants for this
honour in the years before 637 were kings of Leinster, Ulster, and Ui Neill (to whom
the kings of Connaught in the period stood in an uncertain political and biological
relationship), it has been reasonably conjectured that the kingship of Tara was an
overlordship of the northern half of Ireland, that is, Ireland without Munster. Since
there is some evidence that each of these two parts of Ireland viewed the other as be-
longing to an alius orbis (Byrne 1973, 165-229), the kingship of Tara may have seemed
the head of a unit complete in itself. Be that as it may, it is at the very least a
striking coincidence that the first potentially contemporary reference to a'king of Ireland'
tout court occurs precisely in application to Domnall mac Aedo, from whose time Ui
Neill monopolised the kingship of Tara. Finally, one must add the complication that
it is not clear that Tara ever had been the seat of kings (cf. Wailes 1982). What is
more, there is certainly an early mediaeval ecclesiastical literary tradition that its state
of desertion at that time fittingly rewarded its earlier pagan associations (for all the
literature, see Petrie 1839; cf. Bhreathnach 1995). It is possible that Tara was once an
inauguration-site, but that, after the leading dynasties of the North accepted christianity,
the title alone provided the connexion with the site. For more progress on the matter,
we must rely on archaeology; as yet, only a fraction of this large and complex site has
been excavated (Newman et al. 1997).
The propagandists for Ui Nふ11steadily built up a pseudohistory of the dynasty's
exclusive right to and eternal control of a kingship of all Ireland (cf. Binchy 1970, 32-8;
Anglo-Saxon and Celtic Overkingships 91
Byrne 1973, 87-105). This ideology had already been put in place before the end of the
seventh century. Abbot Adomn紐'sreference to a'prerogative, fore-ordained by God, to
the monarchy of the whole kingdom of Ireland'indicates the tone of this assertion of right
(for an apparently contemporary king-list in the same vein, see Murphy 1952, 145-51).
It is against this background that we must consider Adomnan's reference, in similar
terms, to Oswald of Northumbria:'totius Brittanniae imperator a Deo ordinatus','ordained
by God as emperor of all Britain'(Anderson & Anderson 1991, 14-17: I.l). The role of
divine ordination was important to Adomnan: he wrote of it again in reference to a royal
succession in Dal Riata, the Gaelic province in which the church of Iona was situated
(Anderson & Anderson 1991, ・188/9: III.5). His attitude and language have been much
discussed (cf. Enright 1989), particularly in connexion with the question of the origins and
early development of European royal ordination-ritual. For our purpose what is important
is that Oswald, already culted as a martyr-saint in Northumbria in Adomnan's day, was a
king undoubtedly greatly approved by the community of St Columba: he had been
converted to christianity under the auspices of the℃ olumban Church'when an exile
in north Britain in the years 616-633 and he had subsequently invited the heirs of
St Columba to send missionaries to evangelise his people (cf. Dumville 1998). When
Adomnan wrote his Life of St Columba another much-approved member of Oswald's
dynasty, a former exile in the Gaelic world, Aldfrith (cf. Dumville 1990b, 149-52), was
king of Northumbria (686-705). Oswald himself, and his brother and successor Oswiu
(642-670), had achieved remarkable supremacies in Britain, although at the Council of
Whitby Oswiu had taken action which damaged the interests of the Church of St Col-
umba. It may have seemed to Adomnan that in this Bernician dynasty resided an
equivalent in Britain to the Irish dynasty, Ui Neill, of which he himself was a member.
It is very possible, indeed, that this idea had already occurred to an Iona churchman in
the period 634-664 during which such close links existed between a successful Bernician
dynasty and the equally—or more-spectacularly successful church of St Columba. The
idea of totius Brittanniae imperator must at times have seemed very close to realisation
in the successive reigns of Oswald and Oswiu, and in as much as these kings were
new christians the notion that this new status was a Deo ordinatus might have been
very attractive.
These same kings were celebrated by Bede (Historia ecclesiastica II.5 and V. 23)
among those who held imperium over all the Southumbrian peoples. Scholars who have
considered Adomnan's evidence about Oswald as totius Brittanniae imperator have
thought that it should be brought into association with Bede's list. Historians have
also been agreed that we should similarly incorporate in the discussion the description of
巫thelbaldof Mercia (king, 716-757) in one of his charters as rex Suutanglorum and rex
Britanniae (Sawyer 1968, no. 89). J.Ethelbald was admitted by Bede as one of his
Southumbrian overkings (V. 23). We also find him engaged in pan-British strategic al-
92 David N. Dumville
liance with Onuist, king of Picts 729-761, against the kings of Northumbria and Wessex,
the latter of whom'rose against'(surrexit coれtra)巫thelbaldand Onuist in 750 (Coた
tinuatio Bedae, s. a. 750; edd. & transl. Colgrave & Mynors 1969, 574/5).
Difficult questions and choices follow. Was a seventh-century Gaelic churchman able
to see Oswald as totius Brittanniae imperator because he was able to combine rule of
Northumbria and some measure of overkingship in the Celtic North with the overkingship
of the southern English, thus coming very close to pan-British rule (Bede, Historia
ecclesiastica III.6, estimated Oswald's power as greater than he allowed in II.5)? Or was
his status in the churchman's eyes simply recognition (albeit incorporating political
approval) of Oswald's tenure of overkingship of the Southumbrians? Or did that
churchman's description of Oswald derive wholly from the application of Gaelic political
thought to a British context in which his ecclesiastical organisation had an important
mterest?
Nor have we reached the end of the questions. Perhaps the most important concern
is the issue of Gaelic input into the concept of Southumbrian overkingship. Is it possible
that the whole idea of such overkingship derives from a Gaelic model? If so, it would be
probable that it was introduced directly by Gaelic churchmen, whether in northern or
southern England (although we should remember that secular contacts did exist between
the Gaels and the pre-christian English: cf. Moisl 1983 and Dumville 1996). Or was
the Gaelic input to equate Southumbrian overkingship with kingship of Britain?
First, we must attempt to determine whether there is any likelihood that we are
dealing with a native English, a native British, or an imported concept of such a
territorially and racially defined overkingship. One approach must rely on an estimation
of the likely existence of such an overkingship before the chance of Gaelic influence on
English political thought might be deemed probable. That overkingship is doubly attested
in the 730s, in Bede's History and巫thelbald'sIsmere charter. In the years 709 x 731,
Stephanus in his Life of St Wilfrid (§20: Colgrave 1927, 42/3) referred to Wulfhere of
Mercia (658-675) as leader of all the southern English peoples. Beyond this we cannot
go, save via the pages of Bede himself, a circular procedure. The cause is not thereby
advanced, and we must admit the possibility of a native English concept of major
overkingship which eventually achieved a northern boundary at the River Humber.
Certainly we must allow that in the eighth and pre-viking ninth centuries Northumbria
and Southumbria came to seem as if they were two separate worlds (cf. Hunter Blair
1984, IV, and Stenton 1971, 32-3, 95), much as Munster and the Northern Half of Ireland
had appeared to be before 800.
The question has ever been put whether it is credible that尼 lleof Sussex and Ceawlin
of Wessex could have occupied the role defined for them by Bede. Two approaches may
be allowed. While it is perhaps unlikely that either―assuming for the moment that both
are historical figures-was able to receive the submission of all the peoples, or all the
Anglo-Saxon and Celtic Overkingships 93
English peoples, of what would become English Southumbria, it is not inconceivable that
their hypothetically impressive overkingships could later have been seen as stages on the
road to such an imperium (cf. Dumville 1985). What should perhaps be asked, however,
is whether Bede had any (probably biblical) model for his formulation that尼thelberht
was the third king to hold this imperium but the :first to enter the kingdom of heaven.
If an analogy to Bede's opening formulation could be found, it would be potentially dam-
aging to the place, or the exclusive place, of the :first two overkings in his list (for a
suggestive probe in that direction see Mayr-Harting 1994).
Similarly, two approaches may be attempted to the issue of native British precedent
for the Southumbrian overkingship. If such an antecedent existed, we should have to
place its origins in the :fifth or earlier sixth century, for it is hard to imagine a pre-Roman
arrangement making such an impact after so many centuries'abeyance; we should then
perhaps think of such an arrangement as a successor of sorts to the division between the
civilian and military zones of Roman Britain. However, we have no evidence to
encourage us to admit the existence of a sub-Roman development of that sort. The other
approach is inextricably bound with the problem of Irish influence. If the idea of
Southumbrian overkingship as kingship of Britain is primary, and if the parallel notion
of kingship of Tara as kingship of Ireland belongs to prehistory rather than the seventh
century, then it would be possible to hypothesise that this British imperium is a Celtic
institution cognate with its Irish counterpart and derived from a shared Celtic inheritance.
In this formulation there are too many conditions for it to be sustainable, however.
What is so striking about the Southumbrian overking being called'king of Britain'and
the king of Tara being called'king of Ireland'is that in neither case can the equation
have been literally true at the time of :first attestation. In the Irish instance, our problem
(effectively insoluble because it transports us into prehistory) is to establish either that at
no time in the past was the equation true or else that it was invented at the point of :first
attestation. For my part I see no evidence that the kingship of Tara was regarded as a
kingship of Ireland before Ui Nふ11propagandists got to work; but that is a heavily
qualified conclusion.
In as much as the ideological element in the presentation of both kingships is their
most striking characteristic, and that element is effectively identical (overkingship of a
part of the island=overkingship of the whole), it is natural to see a connexion between
the two. Saving the outside possibility of a shared Celtic inheritance, it would be simplest
to suppose the ideological element to have been created in Ireland, both because it is :first
attested there and because of the direction of the flow of ideas in this period. But if that
is correct, we have to wonder why the English ideology was not made an exact replica
of the Irish, that the overkingship of the Northerners amounted to the overkingship of the
island. The answer may reside in the very history of Southumbrian overkingship and
thus validate the historicity of the institution before overkingship of the South was
94 David N. Dumville
achieved by Northumbrians.
If the direction of the growth of royal power and regional wealth in southern England
in the later sixth and seventh centuries has been correctly perceived, the succession of
Bede's Southumbrian overkings does not on other grounds seem implausible. Whatever
Ceawlin's now shadowy role may have been, 巫thilberhtof Kent and Rぉdwaldof East
Anglia do not look incredible as the embodiments of the political developments of their
age. In other words, the picture of a Southern imperium built up to the point where its
leader could in 616 successfully challenge a powerful Northern ruler, shows no sign of
needing to be a construct made to satisfy an Anglo-Saxon historian. Admittedly, 巫thil-
frith of Northumbria is the first Northern ruler of any known significance, but the
general point is not invalidated thus. If the achievement of three successive Northum-
brian potentates in the middle quarters of the seventh century (from the death of Rぉdwald
in the 620s to Wulfhere's accession to Mercia in 658) was to join their new Northumbrian
overkingship to that which had already been achieved in the South, their Irish ecclesia-
stical mentors could accordingly have perceived the Southumbrian overkingship as the
essential key to domination of the whole.
Alternatively, we may choose to suppose that the Iona churchmen did indeed replicate
Irish political ideology in Britain and that Adomnan's description of Oswald is the sole
surviving direct trace of that replication. But, once political dominince passed decisively
from Northumbria and back to Southumbria, the Southerners appropriated the ideology for
themselves.
I have tried to lay out the many possibilities of interpretation of the frustratingly
limited quantity of evidence. The central point is that the peculiar claim that the
overkingship of the Southumbrians was a kingship of Britain is directly paralleled in the
history of the kingship of Tara. The simplest explanation of this equivalence is to assume
that Irish churchmen transplanted understanding of their domestic political situation to
the English polity. The English Church rapidly followed suit (on this last point, see
Charles-Edwards, forthcoming).
Whether an English ideology of British kingship outlasted the reign of巫thelbaldof
Mercia (716-757) I do not know. Certainly it was revived in the reign of尼thelstan
(924-939, first king of England 927-939: Dumville 1992, 141-71). On Bede's criteria
Ecgberht (802-839) and Edward (899-924) of Wessex would have qualified as distant
successors to尼 thelbaldin this discontinuous sequence of overkings. But with the decline
of Mercian power after the death of巫thelbald,the concept may have withered: we do not
know. What did not wither, of course, was the effect of original sin in its political
manifestation! —rulers continued to try to dominate as many of their neighbours as they
could, a phenomenon neither peculiarly Celtic nor peculiarly English.
Anglo-Saxon and Celtic. Overkingships 95
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ANDERSON & ANDERSON, 1991: Alan Orr Anderson & M. 0. Anderson (edd. & transl.),
Adomnan's Life of Columbia (2nd edn, Oxford: Clarendon).
BARROW, 1973: G. W. S. Barrow, The Kingdom of the Scots (London: Edward Arnold).
BASSETT, 1989: S. Bassett,'In search of the origins of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms', in The Origins
of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, ed. Steven Bassett (London: Leicester U. P.), pp. 3-27, 237-45.
BHREATHNACH, 1995: Edel Bhreathnach, Tara. A Select Bibliography (Dublin: Discovery
Programme).
BHREATHNACH, 1996: E. Bhreathnach,'Temoria: caput Scotorum ?', Eriu 47: 67-88.
BIELER & KELLY, 1979: Ludwig Bieler & Fergus Kelly (edd. & transl.), The Patrician Te工ts
in the Book of Armagh (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies).
BINCHY, 1941: D. A. Binchy (ed.), Crtth Gablach (Dublin: Stationery Office).
BINCHY, 1958: D. A. Binchy,'The Fair of Tailtiu and the Feast of Tara', Eriu 18: 113-38.
BINCHY, 1962/1975: D. A. Binchy,'The passing of the old order', in Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Congress of Celtic Studies held in Dublin 6-10 July 1959, ed. Brian 6 Cuiv (Dublin:
Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies), pp.119-32 (the volume reprinted in 1975 as The Impact
of the Scandinavian Invasions on the Celtic-speaking Peoples, c. 800-1100 A. D.).
BINCHY, 1970: D. A. Binchy, Celtic and Anglo-SaェonKingship (Oxford: Clarendon).
BINCHY, 1982: D. A. Binchy,'A pre-christian survival in mediaeval Irish hagiography', in
Ireland in Early Mediaeval Europe, edd. Dorothy Whitelock et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge
U. P.), pp.165-78.
BONNEY, 1976: D. Bonney,'Early boundaries and estates in southern England', in Medieval
Settlement: Continuity and Change, ed. P.H. Sawyer (London: Edward Arnold), pp. 72-82.
BROOKE, 1986: Christopher N. L. Brooke, The Church and the Welsh Border in the Central
Middle Ages (Woodbridge: Boydell).
BYRNE, 1969: Francis John Byrne, The Rise of the Ui Niill and the High Kingship of Ireland
(Dublin: National University of Ireland).
BYRNE, 1971: F. J. Byrne,'Tribes and tribalism in early Ireland', Eriu 22: 128-66.
BYRNE, 1973: Francis John Byrne, Irish Kings and High Kings (London: Batsford).
CAMPBELL, 1986: James Campbell, Essays in Anglo-Saxon History (London: Hambledon).
CHADWICK, 1905: H 〔匹or〕Munro Chadwick, Studies on Anglo-SaェonInstitutions (Cambridge:
Cambridge U. P.).
CHADWICK, 1907: H 〔匹or〕Munro Chadwick, The Origin of the English Nation (Cambridge:
Cambridge U. P.; 2nd edn, 1924).
CHADWICK, 1912: H 〔釦虹〕 Munro Chadwick, The Heroic Age (Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.).
CHARLES-EDWARDS, 1970-2: T. M. Charles-Edwards,'The Seven Bishop-houses of Dyfed',
Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 24: 247-62.
CHARLES-EDWARDS, 1971: T. M. Charles-Edwards,'The heir apparent in Irish and Welsh law',
Celtica 9: 180-90.
CHARLES-EDWARDS, 1972: T. M. Charles-Edwards,'Kinship, status and the origins of the hide',
96 David N. Dumville
Past and Present 56: 3-33,
CHARLES-EDWARDS, 1974: T. M. Charles-Edwards,'Native political organization in Roman
Britain and the origin of MW. brenhin', in Antiquitates Indogermanicae, edd. Manfred Mayrhofer
et al. (Innsbruck: Institut fiir Sprachwissenschaft der Universitat Innsbruck), pp. 35-45.
CHARLES-EDWARDS, 1989: T. 〔M.〕Charles-Edwards,'Early medieval kingships in the British
Isles', in The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, ed. Steven Bassett (London: Leicester U. P.),
pp. 28-39, 245-8.
CHARLES-EDWARDS, 1991: T. M. Charles-Edwards,'The Arthur of history', in The Arthur of
the Welsh, edd. Rachel Bromwich et al. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press), pp. 15-32.
CHARLES-EDWARDS, 1993: T. M. Charles-Edwards, Early Irish and Welsh Kinship (Oxford:
Clarendon).
CHARLES-EDWARDS, forthcoming: T. M. Charles-Edwards,、Armagh,Wilfrid and Theodore:
metropolitans and archbishops in the British Isles, 597-735'(forthcoming)_
CHARLES-EDWARDS & KELLY, 1983: Thomas Charles-Edwards & F. Kelly (edd. & transl.),
Bechbretha (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies).
COLGRAVE, 1927: Bertram Colgrave (ed. & transl.), The Life of Bishop Wilfrid by Eddius
Stephanus (Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.).
COLGRAVE & MYNORS, 1969: Bertram Colgrave & R. A. B. Mynors (edd. & transl.), Bede's
Ecclesiastical History of the恥 glishPeople (Oxford: Clarendon).
COLLIS, 1984: John Collis, Oppida, Earliest Tow応 northof the Alps (Sheffield: Department of
Prehistory & Archaeology, University of Sheffield).
CUNLIFFE, 1974: Barry Cunliffe, Iron Age Communities in Britain (London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul).
CUNLIFFE, 1993: Barry Cunliffe, Wessex to A. D. 1000 (London: Longman).
DARK, 1992: K. R. Dark,'A Sub-Roman re-defence of Hadrian's Wall?', Britannia 23: 111-20.
DARK, 1994: K. R. Dark, Civitas to Kingdom: British Political Continuity 300-800 (London:
Leicester U. P.).
DARK & DARK, 1996: K. R. Dark & S. P. Dark,'New archaeological and palynological evidence
for a Sub-Roman reoccupation of Hadrian's Wall', Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th series, 24: 57-72.
DAVIES, 1990: Wendy Davies, Patterns of Power in Early Wales (Oxford: Clarendon).
DAVIES, 1993: W. Davies, ℃ eltic kingships in the early middle ages', in Kings and Kingship in
Medieval Europe, ed. Anne J. Duggan (London: King's College), pp.101-24.
DAVIES & VIERCK, 1974: W. Davies & H. Vierck,'The contexts of Tribal Hidage: social aggre-
gates and settlement patterns', Fruhmittelalterliche Studien 8: 223-93.
DUMVILLE, 1977a: D. N. Dumville,'Sub-Roman Britain: history and legend', History, new series,
62: 173-92 (reprinted Dumville 1990a),
DUMVILLE, 1977b: D. N. Dumville,'Kingship, genealogies and regnal lists', in Early Medieval
Kingship, edd. P.H. Sawyer & I. N. Wood (Leeds: School of History, University of Leeds), pp.
72-104 (reprinted Dumville 1990a).
DUMVILLE, 1984: D. N. Dumville,'Gildas and Maelgwn: problems of dating', in Gildas: New
Approaches, edd. Michael Lapidge & D. Dumville (Woodbridge: Boydell), pp. 51-9 (reprinted
Dumville 1993).
Anglo-Saxon and Celtic Overkingships 97
DUMVILLE, 1985: D. N. Dumville,'The West Saxon Genealogical Regnal List and the chronology
of early Wessex', Peritia 4: 21-66 (reprinted Dumville 1993).
DUMVILLE, 1990a: David N. Dumville, Histories and Pseudo-histories of the Insular Middle
Ages (Aldershot: Variorum).
DUMVILLE, 1990b: D. N. Dumville,'Two troublesome abbots', Celtica 21: 146-52.
DUMVILLE, 1992: David N. Dumville, Wessex and England from Alfred to Edgar (Woodbridge:
Boydell).
DUMVILLE, 1993: David N. Dumville, Britons and Anglo-Saェonsin the Early Middle Ages
(Aldershot: Variorum).
DUMVILLE, 1994: D. N. Dumville,'The idea of government in Sub-Roman Britain', in After
Empire, ed. Giorgio Ausenda (San Marino: CIROSS), pp.177-216.
DUMVILLE, 1996: D. 〔N.〕Dumville, ℃ ath Fedo Euin', Scottish Gaelic Studies 17: 114-27.
DUMVILLE, 1997: D. N. Dumville,'The terminology of overkingship in early Anglo-Saxon
England', in The Anglo-Saxons from the Migration Period to the Eighth Century, ed. John
Hines (San Marino: CIROSS), pp. 345-73.
DUMVILLE, 1998: D. N. Dumville,'Derry, Iona, England, and the governance of the Columban
Church', in Derry and Londonderry: History and Society, ed. Gerard O'Brien (Dublin:
Geography Publications).
EKWALL, 1936: E. Ekwall,'Some notes on English place-names containing tribal names', Namn
och Bygd 24: 178-83.
EKWALL, 1953: E. Ekwall,'Tribal names in English place-names', Namn och Bygd 41: 129-77.
EMANUEL, 1965: H. D. Emanuel,'The Rev. A. W. Wade-Evans—an appreciation of his contribution
to the study of early Welsh history', Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion
(1965) 257-71.
ENRIGHT, 1989: Michael J. Enright, Iona, Tara and Soissons (Berlin: de Gruyter).
ERDMANN, 1951: Carl Erdmann, Forschungen zur politischen Ideenwelt des Fruhmittelalters
(Berlin: Akademie-Verlag).
EV ANS, 1967: D. Ellis Evans, Gaulish Personal Names. A Study of Some Continental Celtic
Formations (Oxford: Clarendon).
EVERITT, 1986: Alan Everitt, Continuity and Colonization. The Evolution of Kentish
Settlement (Leicester: Leicester U. P.).
FARAL, 1929: Edmond Faral (ed.), La Legende arthurienne. Etudes et documents (3 vols,
Paris: Honore Champion).
FINBERG, 1964: H.P. R. Finberg, Lucerna. Studies of Some Problems in the Early History of
England (London: Macmillan).
FINBERG, 1972: H.P. R. Finberg,'Anglo-Saxon England to 1042', in The Agrarian History of
England and Wales, 1.2, A. D. 43-1042, ed. H.P. R. Finberg (Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.1972),
pp. 383-525.
FUSTEL DE COULANGES, 1891: 〔NumaDen誌〕 Fustel de Coulanges, The Origin of Property
in Land (London: Swan Sonnenschein).
HEDEAGER, 1992: Lotte Hedeager, Iron-Age Societies. From Tribe to State in Northern
Europe, 500 B. C. to A. D. 700 (Oxford: Blackwell).
98 David N. Dumville
HINES, 1984: John Hines, The Scand切avianCharacter of Anglian恥 glandin .the Pre-Viking
Period (Oxford: British Archaeological Reports).
HINES, 1992: J. Hines,'The Scandinavian character of Anglian England: an update', in The
Age of Sutt畑 Hoo,ed. M. O. H. Carver (Woodbridge: Boydell), pp. 315-29.
HOOKE & BURNELL, 1995: Della Hooke & S. Burnell (edd.), Landscape and Settlement in
Brita切 A.D. 400-1066 (Exeter: University of Exeter Press).
HUNTER BLAIR, 1971: P. Hunter Blair,'The letters of Pope Boniface V and the mission of
Paulinus to Northumbria', in恥 glandbefore the Conquest, edd. Peter Clemoes & K. Hughes
(Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.), pp. 5-13 (reprinted Hunter Blair 1984).
HUNTER BLAIR, 1984: Peter Hunter Blair, ふ glo-SaxonNorthumbria (London: Variorum).
JAMES, 1989: E. James,'The origins of barbarian kingdoms: the Continental evidence', in The
Origins of心 glo-Saxon邸 gdoms,ed. Steven Bassett (London: Leicester U. P.), pp. 40-52, 249-
50.
JOHN, 1966: Eric John, Orbis Britanniae a叫 OtherStudies (Leicester: Leicester U. P.).
JOLLIFFE, 1926: J.E. A. Jolliffe,'Northumbrian institutions', 恥 glishHistorical Review 41: 1-42.
JOLLIFFE, 1929: J.E. A. Jolliffe,'The hidation of Kent', 恥 glishHistorical Revie切 44:612-18.
JOLLIFFE, 1930: J.E. A. Jolliffe,'The Domesday hidation of Sussex and the rapes', 恥 glish
Historical Revie四 45:427-35.
JOLLIFFE, 1933a: J.E. A. Jolliffe, Pre-feudal恥 gland:the Jutes (London: Oxford U. P .).
JOLLIFFE, 1933b: J.E. A. Jolliffe,'The origin of the hundred in Kent', in Historical Essays in
H畑 ourof James Tait, edd. J. G. Edwards et al. (Manchester: privately printed), pp.155-68.
JOLLIFFE, 1934: J.E. A. Jolliffe,'The era of the folk in English history', in 0エfordEssays in
Medieval History presented to Herbert Edward Salter, ed. F. M. Powicke (Oxford: Clarendon),
pp.1-32.
JOLLIFFE, 1935a: J.E. A. Jolliffe,'English book-right', 邸 glishHistorical Revie四 50:1-21.
JOLLIFFE, 1935b: J.E. A. Jolliffe,'The Old English term "snade'", Antiquity 9: 220-2.
JOLLIFFE, 1935-7: J.E. A. Jolliffe,'Alod and fee', Cambridge Historical Journal 5: 225-34.
JOLLIFFE, 1937/1961: J.E. A. Jolliffe, The C畑 stitutionalHistory of Medieval恥 glandfrom
the邸 glishSettlement to 1485 (London: Adam & Charles Black; 4th edn, 1961).
JONES, 1976: G. R. J. Jones,'Multiple estates and early settlement', in Medieval Settlement:
Continuity and Ch研 geed. P.H. Sawyer (London: Edward Arnold), pp. 15-40.
JONES, 1981/2: G. R. J. Jones, ℃ ontinuity despite calamity: the heritage of Celtic territorial organiza-
tion in England', The Journal of Celtic Studies 3: 1-30.
KELLEHER, 1963: J. V. Kelleher,'Early Irish history and pseudo-history', Studia Hibernica 3:
113-27.
KIRBY, 1967: D. P. Kirby, The Making of Early恥 gland(London: Batsford).
KIRBY, 1991: D. P. Kirby, The Earliest恥 glishKings (London: Unwin Hyman).
LAPSLEY, 1938: G. T. Lapsley,、MrJolliffe's construction of early constitutional history', History,
new series, 23: 1-11.
LOYN, 1992: H. R. Loyn, Society and Peoples. Studies in the History of恥 glandand Wales,
c. 600-1200 (London: Centre for Medieval Studies, Queen Mary & Westfield College).
LUND, 1986: N. Lund,'The armies of Swein Forkbeard and Cnut: leding or lio ?', 心 glo-S心 on
Anglo-Saxon and Celtic Overkingships 99
England 15: 105-18.
MAC AIRT & MAC NIOCAILL, 1983: Sean Mac Airt & G. Mac Niocaill (edd. & transl.),
The Annals of Ulster (to A. D.1131), I (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies).
MAUND, 1991: K. L. Maund, Ireland, Wales, and England in the Eleventh Century (Woodbridge:
Boydell).
MA YR-HARTING, 1994: H. Mayr-Harting,'Bede's patristic thinking as an historian', in Historio-
graphie im fruhen Mittelalter, edd. Anton Scharer & G. Scheibelreiter (Wien: Oldenbourg), pp.
368-75.
MOISL, 1983: H. Moisl,'The Bernician royal dynasty and the Irish in the seventh century',
Peritia 2: 103-26.
MURPHY, 1952: G. Murphy (ed. & transl.),'On the dates of two sources used in Thurneysen's
Heldensage', Eriu 16: 145-56.
MYRES, 1970: J. N. L. Myres,'The Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes', Proceedings of the
British Academy 56: 145-74.
NASH, 1978: Daphne Nash, Settlement and Coinage in Central Gaul, c. 200-50 B. C. (Oxford:
British Archaeological Reports).
NEWMAN ET AL., 1997: Conor Newman et al., Tara: an Archaeological Survey (Dublin:
Discovery Programme).
6 CUiV, 1963: B. 6 Cuiv,'Literary creation and Irish historical tradition', Proceedings of the
British Academy 49: 233-62.
PETRIE, 1839: G. Petrie,'On the history and antiquities of Tara Hill', Transactions of the
Royal Irish Academy (Antiquities) 18: 25-232.
PHILLPOTTS, 1913: Bertha Surtees Phillpotts, Kindred and Clan in the Middle Ages and
After. A Study in the Sociology of the Teutonic Races (Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.).
SA WYER, 1968: P.H. Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters. An Annotated List and Bibliography
(London: Royal Historical Society).
SAWYER, 1983: P. 〔H.〕Sawyer,'The royal tun in pre-Conquest England', in Ideal and Reality
in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Society, edd. P. Wormald et al. (Oxford: Blackwell), pp. 273-99.
SCHUTTE, 1929-33: Gudmund Schiitte, Our Forefathers the Gothonic Nations. A Manual of
the Ethnography of the Gothic, German, Dutch, Anglo-Saxon, Frisian and Scandinavian
Peoples (2 vols, Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.).
SCOTT, 1970-3: B. G. Scott, "'Tribes" and "tribalism" in early Ireland', Ogam-Tradition celtique
22-25: 197-208.
SEEBOHM, 1883/1890: Frederic Seebohm, The English Village Community (London: Longmans,
Green; 4th edn,1890).
SEEBOHM, 1895/1904: Frederic Seebohm, The Tribal System in Wales (London: Longmans,
Green; 2nd edn, 1904).
SEEBOHM, 1902: Frederic Seebohm, Tribal Custom in Anglo-Saxon Law (London: Longmans,
Green).
STENTON, 1971: F. M. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England (3rd edn, Oxford: Clarendon).
STEVENS, 1947: C. E. Stevens,'A possible conflict of laws in Roman Britain', Journal of Roman
Studies 37: 132-4.
100 David N. Dumville
STUBBS, 1870/1913: William Stubbs (ed.), Select Charters and Other Illustrations of English
C叩 stitutionalHistory from the Earliest Times to the Reign of Edward the First (Oxford:
Clarendon; 9th edn, 1913).
THOMPSON, 1965: E. A. Thompson, The Early Germans (Oxford: Clarendon; rev. imp., 1968).
THOMPSON, 1984: E. A. Thompson, Saint Germanus of Auxerre and the End of Roman Britain
(Woodbridge: Boydell).
VON SCHWERIN, 1907: Claudius Freiherr von Schwerin, Die altgermanische Hundertschaft
(Breslau: M. & H. Marcus).
WADE-EV ANS, 1956/1959: A. W. Wade-Evans, The Emergence of邸 glandand Wales (Wetteren:
De Meester⑫ nd edn, Cambridge: W. He:ffer, 1959〕).
WAILES, 1982: B. Wailes,'The Irish "royal sites" in history and archaeology', Cambridge Medieval
Celtic Studies 3: 1-29.
WILLIAMSON, 1986: T. Williamson,'Parish boundaries and early fields: continuity and disconti-
nuity', Journal of Historical Geography 12: 241-8.
WORMALD, 1986: P. Warmald, ℃ eltic and Anglo-Saxon kingship: some further thoughts', in Sources
of心 glo-Sax呪 Culture,edd. Paul E. Szarmach & V. D. Oggins (Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Insti-
tute), pp.151-83.
YORKE, 1990: Barbara Yorke, Kings and K切gdomsof Early Anglo-Saxon邸 gland(London:
Seaby).