The Battle of Carham A Thousand Years On edited by Alex Woolf, Neil McGuigan Book Read Online And Epub File Download
Overview: Very little is known about the battle of Carham, fought between the Scots and Northumbrians in 1018. The leaders were probably Máel Coluim II, king of Scotland, and Uhtred of Bamburgh, earl or ealdorman in Northumbria. The outcome of the battle was a victory for the Scots, seen by some as a pivotal event in the expansion of the Scottish kingdom, the demise of Northumbria and the Scottish conquest of ‘Lothian’. The battle also removed a potentially significant source of resistance to the recent conqueror of England, Cnut.
This collection of essays by a range of subject specialists explores the battle in its context, bringing new understanding of this important and controversial historical event. Topics covered include: Anglo-Scottish relations, the political character and ecclesiastical organisation of the Northumbrian territory ruled by Uhtred, material from the Chronicles and other historical records that brings the era to light, and the archaeological and sculptural landscape of the tenth- and eleventh-century Tweed basin, where the battle took place.
The Battle of Carham A Thousand Years On edited by Alex Woolf, Neil McGuigan Book Read Online Chapter One
The Battle of Carham: An Introduction
NEIL MCGUIGAN
Rightly or wrongly, the encounter between the Northumbrians and their northern and western neighbours has long been regarded as one of Scotland’s ‘coming of age’ battles.1 Our most detailed notice of the battle of Carham contains the last clear reference to a king of Strathclyde, but the battle has also long been linked with the Scottish annexation of Lothian. The Victorian historian Thomas Hodgkin opined that the battle was ‘more important than Brunanburh’ adding that ‘we might perhaps say only a little less important than Hastings’.2 His contemporary Peter Hume Brown agreed with the comparison: ‘it is with Hastings rather than Bannockburn that Carham must be reckoned in the list of British battles’.3 More recently, the Handbook of British Chronology told its readers that Máel Coluim II (r. 1005–34) ‘secured Lothian by the battle of Carham’ and ‘obtained Strathclyde . . . thus forming the kingdom of Scotland’.4 The following chapter aims to provide an overview of the battle from the point of view of the modern historian, examining issues relating to the sources and dating of the battle, as well as the encounter itself, its participants and its consequences.
Sources
Northern Anglo-Latin annals
We have at least three distinct sources about the battle of Carham. The names of the battle’s leaders are given most fully by a tradition of Latin-language ‘annals’ from northern England that, in surviving form, began to be woven together around 1120. When historians talk about ‘annals’, we are referring to records of events listed according to the year they took place and chronicled on a year-by-year basis over a longer period, usually centuries but sometimes only a few decades. We tend to use the term ‘annals’ when the events or ‘notices’ (of the events) occur in a list-like form, where there is no consistent attempt to create logical links between each year or integrate the events of multiple years into a unified narrative. Annals often survive in later single compilations and copies, but usually it is assumed (sometimes wrongly of course) that the original annals themselves were composed soon after the events that they document. Modern scholars often cite particular annals from a collection by writing ‘under year x’ or sub anno (abbreviated s.a.): for instance, a notice of the battle of Clontarf occurs in the Annals of Ulster, s.a. 1014.5
The Anglo-Latin annals that concern us here come from a northern English adaptation of (an early version of ) Chronicon ex Chronicis, a collection nowadays attributed to John of Worcester (previously attributed to Florence of Worcester).6 Occasionally, ‘new’ or unique material relating to northern England appears, added by an author with a distinct interest in more northerly affairs. The most famous of the northern adaptations include the later part of Historia Regum (occasionally attributed to Symeon of Durham), the early part of Roger of Howden’s Chronica, and the early part of Chronicle of Melrose – but there are also lesser known recensions.7 In Chronicon ex Chronicis, many of the annals related to England appear to be based on a translation of a lost recension of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, annals originally written in Old English. The battle of Carham, unfortunately, is not mentioned in Chronicon ex Chronicis, nor indeed in any surviving recension of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. It is the unique northern material that gives us a notice, entered s.a. 1018, commemorating the battle.
There are two versions of the 1018 Carham annal, a short version and a long version. The short version is common to several variant recensions, including Roger of Howden’s Chronica and the Chronicle of Melrose. For convenience, Roger of Howden’s entry, sub anno 1018, will be used as the representative version:
Ingens bellum inter Anglos et Scottos apud Carrum geritur.
A massive battle between the English and the Scots is waged at Carham.8
The longer version of this matter-of-fact annal appears in a collection of historical material found in Corpus Christi College MS 139, known today as Historia Regum. The following is its variant entry, similarly entered sub anno 1018:
Ingens bellum apud Carrum gestum est inter Scottos et Anglos, inter Huctredum filium Waldef comitem Northymbrorum et Malcolmum filium Cyneth regem Scottorum. Cum quo fuit in bello Eugenius Calvus rex Clutinensium.
A massive battle was fought at Carham between the Scots and English, between Uhtred son of Waltheof earl of the Northumbrians and Máel Coluim son of Cinaed king of the Scots, with whom in battle was Owain the Bald king of the Clyde-folk.9
As Offler pointed out in 1971, neither the abbreviated Paris version of the annal nor Roger of Howden’s Chronica nor the Chronicle of Melrose names any of the commanders.10 That information is unique to the longer version, unique to Historia Regum. For some unknown reason, a contributor to Historia Regum, and he alone, working in or after 1129, was able (and willing) to produce this important extra detail.
Durham church histories
A lengthier account of the battle is found in a history of the church of Durham written 1104×1115, Symeon of Durham’s Libellus de Exordio. The battle is dated to 1018:
Anno Incarnationis Dominice mille duodeuicesimo, Cnut regnum Anglorum disponente, Northanhymbrorum populis per triginta noctes cometa apparuit, que terribili presagio futuram prouincie cladem premonstrauit. Siquidem paulo post (id est post triginta dies) uniuersus a flumine Tesa usque Twedam populus, dum contra infinitam Scottorum multitudinem apud Carrum dimicaret, pene totus cum natu maioribus suis interiit. Episcopus audita populi sancti Cuthberti miseranda nece, alto cordis dolore attactus grauiter ingemuit, et ‘O me’, inquit, ‘miserum! ut quid in hec tempora seruatus sum?’
In the year of our Lord 1018, while Cnut was ruling the kingdom of the English, there appeared to the Northumbrian peoples a comet, which persisted for thirty nights, presaging in a terrible way the future devastation of the province. For soon afterwards (that is after thirty days) the whole people between the river Tees and the river Tweed fought a battle at Carham against a countless multitude of Scots and almost all perished, including even their old folk. When the bishop heard of the miserable death of the people of St Cuthbert, he was stricken with deep sorrow of heart and sighed, saying ‘O why – wretched as I am – was I spared to see these times?’11
The account continues to describe the bishop’s longing for his own death, a prayer soon answered by God. The so-called Annales Lindisfarnenses et Dunelmenses or ‘Annals of Lindisfarne and Durham’, which appears to represent an earlier stage in Symeon’s research, contain the following detail, added after notice of Bishop Ealdhun’s death:
Cometa late spargens flammas visa est per Northymbriam per XXX noctes. Transactis post hoc XXX diebus fuit Carrum illud famosum bellum inter Northanhymbros et Scottos, ubi pene totus sancti Cuthberti populus interiit, inter quos etiam XVIII sacerdotes, qui inconsulte se intermiscuerant bello; quo audito prescriptus episcopus dolorem et vitam morte finivit.
A comet spewing flames was seen across Northumbria for thirty nights. When it passed after thirty days, the infamous battle of Carham was fought between the Northumbrians and Scots, where the entire populus of St Cuthbert met with the penalty of destruction, among them eighteen priests who had rashly got themselves involved in the fray; when he heard the news, the bishop, having ordered his affairs, ended his sadness and his life with death.12
Both versions show that Symeon is primarily interested in Ealdhun’s end rather than Carham itself. This could mean that the information about the battle had passed to him as part of hagiographic traditions relating to the bishop, or that he himself was synchronising the death of the bishop and the battle for hagiographic purposes. The details about Bishop Ealdhun are more useful for reconstructing the twelfth-century historical imagination than the events of the 1010s, but the synchronisation of the event with the comet is of significant interest. Since the northern annals were probably produced after Libellus de Exordio, it is possible that the latter shaped their sub anno 1018 notice about Carham, a likelihood that increases if we believe that Symeon of Durham played a role in the provision of extra historical material to the annal tradition in the 1120s.13
Scottish king-list
A third source for the battle comes from a Scottish king-list. The list in question is one of Marjory Anderson’s ‘Y lists’.14 It is a member of a variant set that commences with Fergus son of Erc rather than Cinaed son of Ailpín.15 This Dál Riata–Scotland list is number five among the Scottish items in Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Latin 4126, the famous ‘Poppleton manuscript’.16 Among the events of the reign of Máel Coluim mac Cinaeda, Malcolín, filius Kinet, the king-list notes that:
Hic magnum bellum fecit apud Carrun.
He fought a great battle at Carrun.17
It has been argued by Dauvit Broun that surviving Scottish king-list material covering the Viking Age is based on tenth-century material updated in the reign of Donnchad son of Crínán, i.e. 1034–1040.18 There is a possibility, then, that magnum bellum fecit apud Carrun had been included in the material in the first half of the eleventh century. Against this, the Carham notice is absent from other king-lists. This particular king-list dates to the reign of King William and thus, alone, the notice cannot with certainty be dated earlier than William’s reign, 1165–1214.19
The chances that the Scottish king-list is independent of Historia Regum and the Durham material would normally be very good. In this case, however, there is some reason for pause. For one thing, ingens bellum (used in the northern Anglo-Latin annals) and magnum bellum are similar enough to raise suspicions. More significantly, the manuscript in question originates in northern England where Roger of Howden’s work enjoyed wide circulation and was regarded, even at Durham, as the standard work for the centuries after Bede.20 One of the odd features of the Poppleton Dál Riata–Scotland king-list is that Donnchad mac Crínáin, Máel Coluim II’s historical successor, is omitted: Macheth filius Findleg follows Máel Coluim II’s thirty-year reign.21 The northern Anglo-Latin chronicles tell us that Macbeth succeeded Máel Coluim in 1034, also omitting Donnchad.22 This ‘error’ seems to be rooted in how the common source of the northern annals used Chronicon ex Chronicis, attributed to John of Worcester. For documenting non-English affairs, Chronicon ex Chronicis often used the work of an eleventh-century predecessor, Marianus Scotus. Although based in Germany, Marianus was a Gael, probably from the north of Ireland. He took an interest in Scottish affairs, and among his annals there occurs an obit for Máel Coluim mac Cinaeda, entered s.a. 1034. Marianus’s work also includes a notice, s.a. 1040, of Donnchad I’s death and of Macbeth’s accession; and, s.a. 1050, a notice about the activity of Macbeth on pilgrimage at Rome.23 The 1034 and 1050 notices were reproduced by Chronicon ex Chronicis (and subsequently the northern Anglo-Latin annals), but the notice of Donnchad’s accession was not used by Chronicon ex Chronicis and, thus, the s.a. 1040 notice of Donnchad’s demise was unavailable to the northern revisers.24 The latter, therefore, without any knowledge of Donnchad’s reign seems to have added Macbeth’s accession to its notice, s.a. 1034, in order to join up the dots of Scottish affairs. At any rate, for whatever reason it came about, an idiosyncratic error shared by the king-list and the annals is enough to raise a little doubt about the king-list’s credentials as a source of independent information about Carham.
A fourth source?
A conflict between Máel Coluim II and Uhtred is mentioned in the Scoto-Latin chronicle tradition associated with the names of John of Fordun and Walter Bower. Although Fordun and Bower lived in the fourteenth and the fifteenth centuries respectively, their eleventh-century material was based on a chronicle put together at St Andrews in the thirteenth century.25 They tell us that Máel Coluim II’s career was marked by several victories over the Danes and by a struggle with Cnut, Danish conqueror of England. The source tells us that:
Ochtredum itaque comitem Anglicum sed Danis subditum, cuius inter eos simultatis exorte causam nescio, Cumbriam predari conantem, repceptis predis, iuxta Burgum bello difficili superauit.
As Uhtred, an English comes but subject to the Danes, was attempting to pillage Cumbria (the reason for the hostility that had arisen between them I know not) Máel Coluim took back the plunder and defeated him in a hard-fought battle near Brough.26
On the face of it, this battle has nothing to do with Carham. The chronicle appears to intend either Burgh-by-Sands near Carlisle (Cumberland) or Brough under Stainmore (Westmorland) as the location of this battle. We know of only one other battle that plausibly involved both Uhtred and Máel Coluim, but that was a Scottish defeat in 1006 (see below). One of the distinct, tendentious features of the thirteenth-century Scoto-Latin chronicle is the way it systematically attempts to portray Cumbria as a historical appanage of the Scottish kingship.27 Máel Coluim [II], prior to his accession to the Scottish kingship, had served as ruler of Cumbria under King ‘Grim’; subsequently, Máel Coluim provided Cumbria for his own successor, his grandson Donnchad. It is possible that the chronicle is a unique source for a third battle, not otherwise recorded; but it is also conceivable that this piece of narration was based on an account, perhaps very brief, that documented the battle of Carham; which the thirteenth-century Scoto-Latin chronicler relocated to Cumberland in order to accommodate his vision of eleventh-century Scoto-Cumbrian relations.28
Date
No extant source places the battle of Carham in any year except 1018, the year given by the Anglo-Latin annals and by Libellus de Exordio. As we have seen, in their final form all extant sources for the battle of Carham are post-1100. The independence of these sources is, as we have also seen, uncertain. Theoretically, it is conceivable that all of our dates originate in a speculative attempt by Symeon of Durham to synchronise an otherwise undated battle with the death of Bishop Ealdhun. No contemporary or near-contemporary source mentions the battle of Carham, but we do have one near-contemporary source with implications for its date. A group of entries included in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle covering the period 983–1022 were written retrospectively at some point in the 1020s. The important notice, however, relates specifically to 1016. In that year, we are told about the activities of Edmund (d. 1016), son of King Æthelred ‘the Unready’ (d. 1016), who was at London preparing to fight Cnut and his ally, the Mercian ealdorman Eadric Streona (d. 1017):
Then the atheling Edmund rode to Northumbria to Earl Uhtred, and everyone thought that they would collect an army against King Cnut. Then they led an army into Staffordshire and into Shropshire and to Chester, and they ravaged on their side and Cnut on his side. [Cnut] then went out through Buckinghamshire into Bedfordshire, from there to Huntingdonshire, and so into Northamptonshire, along the fen to Stamford, and then into Lincolnshire; then from there to Nottinghamshire and so into Northumbria towards York. When Uhtred learned this, he left his ravaging and hastened northwards, and submitted then out of necessity, and with him all the Northumbrians, and he gave hostages. And nevertheless he was killed by the advice of Ealdorman Eadric, and with him Thurcetel, Nafena’s son. And then after that the king appointed Eric for the Northumbrians, as their earl, just as Uhtred had been . . .29
The essential problem is that if Uhtred died in 1016, which seems to be implied by the text above, he could not have appeared at Carham in 1018.
The problem invites several potential solutions. The most obvious, perhaps, is that Symeon of Durham’s Libellus de Exordio and all northern Anglo-Latin annals simply got the year of the battle wrong. Since it is not possible to prove that these sources are independent authorities for either the date or the event, only a single misstep made either by Symeon or his source material need be responsible for an error. Elsewhere, Historia Regum and the other northern annals share common source material with Libellus de Exordio, and the latter was certainly used to supplement the former.30 One error by Libellus or one of its sources could, then, account for all appearances of 1018 as the year of the battle. The historian most associated with the rejection of 1018 is the great Anglo-Saxonist and place-name scholar, Frank Stenton. Stenton accepted that Uhtred had participated in the battle of Carham, and pointed out, quite reasonably, that ‘names are better remembered than dates’.31 His reasoning put the battle back to 1016 or to some earlier year.
Another response to the problem is to accept that the battle happened in 1018, but that Uhtred had indeed died in 1016. By default, this is to reject the claim that Uhtred was the leader at the battle of Carham, a claim which, in fairness, is made only by Historia Regum. This solution appears to have been around long before Stenton’s. It was implicitly favoured by John Hodgson in 1858, Eben William Robertson in 1862, and argued explicitly later in the century by William Forbes Skene and Edward Freeman, who were followed by other notable commentators in succeeding generations. With Uhtred dead two years before Carham, his brother Eadwulf emerged as the best candidate for leadership of the English, a corollary theory beginning at least as early as Hodgson.32 Eadwulf is named as Uhtred’s successor in the Anglo-Norman-era Northumbrian earl lists, but Eadwulf was also attractive because of another text, De Obsessione Dunelmi (‘Regarding the Siege of Durham’). In De Obsessione Dunelmi we are told that during his time in Bamburgh Eadwulf was forced to cede Lothian to the Scots.33 Although the author of De Obsessione Dunelmi shows no awareness of any battle at Carham, Eadwulf ’s predicament could be explained if we were to suppose he had been defeated in a large military encounter.
In the 1970s, A. A. M. Duncan offered a third solution, this one involving reinterpretation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’s 1016 entry. Duncan focused on one key line:
And nevertheless he was killed by the advice of Ealdorman Eadric, and with him Thurcetel, Nafena’s son.
Duncan argued that this was a parenthetical comment prompted by the account of how Uhtred ‘submitted . . . and with him all the Northumbrians, and . . . gave hostages’. Cnut had presumably come to be blamed for Uhtred’s death by the 1020s, and the chronicler is reflecting on the injustice of it. The reflection is included in the text entered sub anno 1016, the year of Uhtred’s peace with Cnut; but, according to Duncan, he is not necessarily saying that Uhtred’s killing itself happened in 1016; Uhtred’s ‘reconciliation’ in 1016 is just the opportunity for the parenthetical comment because Cnut’s subsequent malevolence, in light of Uhtred’s submissive behaviour, was unwarranted.34 Avoiding his inevitable fate in 1016 Uhtred would theoretically be free to lead the Northumbrians at Carham in 1018 (or afterwards). In general, Duncan’s explanation has impressed the scholarly community, and has gained acceptance among a significant portion of historians working on this era, enough that, at the time of this volume, it can probably be regarded as the closest thing we have to a ‘consensus date’.35
As things stand, this ‘consensus’ is not unreasonable. One of our northern sources, Libellus de Exordio, places the battle in the same year, 1018, as the appearance of a comet. If Symeon of Durham was using a muddled source or a source with dating errors, we might expect the comet to be misdated too. Yet, the Saxon chronicler Thietmar of Merseburg, writing in the 1010s, documented the appearance of a comet in August 1018, one that ‘was visible for more than fourteen days’.36 The comet is also noted in Irish annals,37 and in East Asian sources.38 The comet presents some difficulties for anyone seeking to reject 1018. One possibility is that knowledge of the comet and its year existed in some astronomical record circulating in Symeon’s time. Another is that a story of the comet was linked to the death of Bishop Ealdhun in oral or written tradition. That is to say, Libellus de Exordio was able to perform the synchronisation of 1018 and comet successfully because of reliable traditions about Ealdhun. The battle is only linked to the comet because Symeon speculatively added the battle of Carham to a body of older traditions about the death of Ealdhun, the bishop Symeon regarded as the founder of Durham. This type of solution can work, but the overall resulting argument is a little more convoluted than would be ideal. The truth is that if we are going to explain how Symeon in the twelfth century came, as seems to be the case, to have reliable information about a comet in 1018, the most economic explanation is probably that he did have access to reliable dating information that came along with a reliable account of the battle.
As a result of Stenton’s argument, the year 1016 seems to have emerged as an alternative date, and often more cautious historians can be seen using 1016×1018 as the battle’s date, i.e. no earlier than 1016 but no later than 1018. However, Stenton did not, at least not in his third edition, commit himself to 1016. Indeed, even accepting Stenton’s argument, 1016 would not be particularly appealing as a correction to 1018. The northern Anglo-Latin annals do not say any leader died at the battle. While the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle does include a comment about Uhtred’s death under commentary relating to 1016, it does not mention Carham; Uhtred is killed by the Danes, not the Scots. Carham may not be mentioned s.a. 1018, but Carham would be a much stranger omission for the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle s.a. 1016, where the annal takes interest in Uhtred. Uhtred’s activities in 1016 would have been affected by a major encounter with the Scots, but the annal has no suggestion of any such encounter. Uhtred met Cnut in southern Northumbria by moving northwards from the southern Danelaw, not heading southwards from Carham or the Tweed basin. Are we to believe that Uhtred would have been able and willing to raise an army and leave Northumbria if the Scots had just defeated him in a ‘massive battle’? If we want to place the battle in 1016, we are left with what must have been a very small interval between submission to Cnut and death at Cnut’s orders. That is not impossible, and Uhtred would have been more vulnerable to ‘betrayal’ had he just lost a battle to the Scots; but there is no particular evidence that requires us to squeeze his death into such a tight gap rather than, say, 1015 or 1014 or 1013 (and so forth). The range 1016×1018, therefore, is hardly much more rigorous than a specific year like 1016 or 1018.
Even for those who accept Stenton’s argument, 1016 is only the latest possible year of the battle. It is worth noting, however, the other leaders mentioned by Historia Regum: Máel Coluim mac Cinaeda, king of the Scots; and Eugenius Calvus, ‘Owain the Bald’, king of the ‘Clyde-folk’. Only Máel Coluim, reigning between 1005 and 1034, comes with a secure set of dates. If we knew that Uhtred did die in 1016 and that he did fight at Carham, the obvious date range for Carham would be 1005×1016. Unfortunately, Owain the Bald would not allow us to narrow that range further; nor does he provide much assistance with the date of the battle generally; he is not attested anywhere else, not with certainty at least. The closest we get is the B version of Annales Cambriae, which reports the death of a certain Owain son of Dyfnwal (Owinus filius Dunawal).39 The B version of Annales Cambriae does not supply a year directly, but relative chronological order suggests that the original annalist had 1015 in mind – though 1014 and 1016 would also be possibilities. If we could be sure Owinus was Eugenius Calvus, and if we were sure of 1015 as the date of Owinus’s death, we could be sure that Historia Regum got the year wrong. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be much reason to be certain about either of these suppositions. Although it is true that the name Dunawal tended to be used in northern Britain more than Wales (Dyfnwal in modern Welsh or Domnall in early Gaelic; i.e. ‘Donald’ in Scottish English, ‘Donal’ in Hiberno-English), use of such a name can be explained adequately if Owinus were a kinsman of Eugenius Calvus.40 In any case, since the Annales Cambriae have no reference to Carham, we could only date Carham to 1005×1016, the same range we would get from accepting Stenton’s position. 41
Historia Regum is the only source to offer the names of the leaders at the battle of Carham, but not everyone has accepted the historical integrity of its 1018 annal. Hilary Seton Offler proposed that the original annal relating to the battle of Carham, s.a. 1018 in the surviving annals, had lacked the names of the leaders; he thought that someone in the mid twelfth century may have added names to the Corpus Christi College version of Historia Regum using a ‘muddled addition from an unknown source’.42 It should be noted that Offler’s motivation for seeking this explanation rested on a 1016 date for the death of Uhtred and, writing in 1971, he had not been able to benefit from or reach a judgement about Duncan’s argument. Nonetheless, Offler’s position is still a reasonable one. Offler did not put Historia Regum’s names down to invention, however, but proposed an ‘unknown source’. The reason for this proposal, surely, was the difficulties of explaining the inclusion of Eugenius Calvus rex Clutinensium otherwise. Eugenius is unrecorded (at least in this form) in any other extant source. To modern historians Eugenius is a plausible figure, while it is unlikely he was casually invented in the middle of the twelfth century, by which time the kings of Strathclyde had become a fading memory.
Uhtred and Máel Coluim mac Cinaeda both appear in De Obsessione Dunelmi and the northern Anglo-Latin annals, and so it is possible that a scribe in the mid twelfth century, using those sources, could have synchronised the two rulers accurately. Even so, we would still be left trying to explain how the reviser obtained Eugenius Calvus. It is also unlikely that a ‘king of the Clyde-folk’ would be invented for a text of the 1100s. Doubtlessly, multiple speculative explanations for Eugenius’s appearance are possible; but the most economical explanation is that the scribe responsible for the names in Historia Regum obtained the synchronism of the three rulers from a single, older source, now lost. It is also worth noting that the appearance of all three rulers at the battle in an older source would not affect the security, either way, of 1018 as the year of the battle. The person responsible for the extra text in the Corpus Christi College version of the annal, as Offler suggests, may have been adding information about an event that a predecessor had already (perhaps incorrectly) dated. The appearance of Eugenius Calvus and a 1018 dating are, theoretically, independent.
Neither the obit of Owinus in Annales Cambriae nor the reference to Uhtred’s death in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle allow us to date the battle of Carham to a particular year. Of all the years in which it is possible to date the battle, 1018 is by far the best candidate. If we can rely on the works of Symeon of Durham, whose texts are the most specific about the date; and if we use what we know about the comet of that year, then we can surmise that the battle took place in either August or September 1018. That remains the only year supplied to us by any source. Nevertheless, the year is not certain and reasonable doubts are possible. All the sources that date the battle to 1018 may be the result of a speculative attempt by Symeon of Durham, in the early twelfth century, to add the battle of Carham to existing traditions about the death of Bishop Ealdhun, for instance. For historians seeking a more cautious dating, the range 1005×1018 could be recommended, perhaps alongside an extra cautious 1005×1034. The wider date range cannot really be questioned without robbing the battle of all identity and, thus, effectively disputing its existence.
Participants
Coalition: the Scots
Máel Coluim, almost certainly the commander of the Scots at Carham, was a member of the Alpinid dynasty, whom contemporaries called Clann Cinaeda meic Alpín, ‘the children of Cinaed mac Ailpín’ (i.e. Kenneth Mac Alpin; d. 858).43 Máel Coluim was descended from Cinaed mac Ailpín’s son Causantín mac Cinaeda (d. 877). Throughout the tenth century the line of Causantín mac Cinaeda shared power with the line descended from Causantín’s brother, Áed mac Cinaeda (d. 878). However, the last royal descendant of Áed mac Cinaeda, Causantín mac Cuilén, was deposed in 997 by Cinaed mac Duib (‘Kenneth Mac Duff ’; d. 1005), a member of the rival branch. Máel Coluim II succeeded his kinsman Cinaed mac Duib in 1005, and soon afterwards appears to have launched an invasion of northern England. According to the Annals of Ulster, a large number of Scottish nobles were killed in battle with the English in 1006.44 It is generally thought that the account of Uhtred’s victory over the Scots presented in the Anglo-Norman-era text De Obsessione Dunelmi reflects some sort of memory of the 1006 victory, despite the fact that De Obsessione Dunelmi dated the event to 969 and confused the victory with a siege of Durham launched three and a half decades after 1006 by Máel Coluim’s successor Donnchad mac Crínáin (d. 1040).45
Scotland, or Alba as it was known by its inhabitants, did not quite have the same territorial form in the early eleventh century that it has today. Until the thirteenth century the terminology was used only in reference to the territory north of the Forth, river and firth. In ideal terms, the men of Máel Coluim’s polity may have conceived their kingdom encompassing all the lands north of the Forth. In reality, Máel Coluim’s own power was probably very limited beyond the south-eastern quarter of Alba. Although the Alpinids claimed to have Dál Riatan and Argyll ancestry, their power in that ‘Scottish homeland’ may have been confined to limited or irregular ‘taxation’.46 Many of the islands of western Scotland, in particular the Outer Hebrides, had been heavily settled in the early Viking Age by migrants from Scandinavia, foreign to the Scots both in allegiance as well as culture and language. A similar situation prevailed north of the Dornoch Firth, the land that the Scots called Cait. The area that later came to be Sutherland and Caithness was closer to Orkney and the Outer Hebrides in these terms than the southern side of the Moray Firth.47
It is also unlikely that, by 1018, Máel Coluim would have been able to exercise much direct authority over the southern Moray Firth region. In 1020, Irish annals note the death of a ‘king of Scotland’ named Findláech son of Ruaidrí (‘Findlay son of Rory’); again, in 1029, they note the death of Findláech’s nephew, another ‘king of Scotland’ named Máel Coluim son of Máel Brigte son of Ruaidrí.48 This rising dynasty, Clann Ruaidrí, were probably based somewhere on the southern shore of the Moray Firth (or perhaps in Easter Ross) – the area occupied by their descendants in the twelfth century. The region had probably been part of the Alpinid realm, which seems to have included Forres among its major royal centres. It was at Forres where Dub mac Maíl Choluim was killed in 967, according to the Annals of Ulster by ‘the Scots themselves’ (do marbad la h-Albanchu fein).49 There is no evidence that there was a separate Moravian kingship before the eleventh century, and the first ‘king of Moray’ is not recorded until the reign of Máel Coluim III.50 The style ‘king of Scotland’ indicates affiliation with the Scottish political system, and so the sudden appearance of two ‘kings of Scotland’ suggests that a certain section of Scotland, perhaps all the Scots north of the Mearns (what later became Kincardineshire), replaced Máel Coluim but were not able to force other Scots to follow suit. One explanation for their discontent with Máel Coluim II might have been the defeat in 1006; another, perhaps, is political alienation resulting from the displacement of the line of Áed mac Cinaeda.51
Whatever the reason for the appearance of ‘Moravian separatism’ in the early decades of the eleventh century, Máel Coluim’s power may not have extended north of ‘the Mounth’ (i.e. the ‘Grampian’ massif that protrudes into the Mearns). The territory that Máel Coluim governed directly around 1018, the lands that he habitually toured and resided, probably consisted of Perthshire, Fife, Angus and the Mearns – an area that in 1755, when we have our first detailed knowledge of Scotland’s demographics, encompassed between a quarter and a fifth of the country’s population.52 It is still possible, however, that the Scottish army at Carham contained contingents from elsewhere. We have no way of knowing how exactly Máel Coluim and Clann Ruaidrí formalised their relationship, what rights and responsibilities were shared between the two. Custom may have allowed Máel Coluim the right to recruit westerners and northerners to join hostings directed at England; avarice and lust for glory may have supplied men on a voluntary basis – the opportunity to plunder the riches of Northumbria would have been hard for Moravians or Argyllmen to turn down.53
Coalition: the Clyde-folk
As we have seen, according to Historia Regum, Máel Coluim’s Scottish forces at Carham had been joined by the ‘Clyde-folk’ and their king, Owain.54 The kings of Strathclyde had been part of the political landscape of northern Britain just as long as the Alpinid Scots. Strathclyde, or ‘Clydesdale’ as it came to be known in the Scoto-English vernacular of the later Middle Ages, was probably very similar to what later became Lanarkshire. Owain’s kingdom is generally called Cumerland (or some variation) in English,55 ‘Britain’ (Bretain) or Northern Britain (Bretain Tuaiscirt) in Gaelic.56 Their ‘Cumbrian’ and ‘British’ identity tells us that the dominant language of this polity was a British Celtic language, something very similar to Welsh and Cornish in the south-west of Britain. The men of Strathclyde probably called themselves Cludwys in their native British,57 a term seemingly mirrored by the Latin of the Historia Regum entry for 1018 as well as the term Bretain Chluada known, elsewhere, in Irish.58 At the height of their power, the kings of the Clyde-folk may have held sway over a greater area, perhaps much of what later became southern Scotland and north-western England. It is generally thought today that the Strathclyde kings, earlier in the Viking Age, had been able to expand into surrounding regions, including Tweeddale, Annandale and (the later English county of ) Cumberland as well, perhaps, as Lothian.59
From the thirteenth to the twentieth century, historians portrayed Strathclyde as a subordinate appanage of the Viking-Age Scottish kingdom. Such a view would make sense of Owain’s participation at the battle of Carham. Today, historians recognise that the evidence for such a view is very weak, and now proceed on the basis that the Cumbrian realm was no more or less independent than any of its neighbours, including the Scots.60 Fiona Edmonds, in this volume, suggests that political pressures from its eastern and western neighbours had the effect of pushing the Cumbrians into a closer relationship with the Scots. Doubtlessly, also, political opportunities presented to the Scots were just as appealing to the Cumbrians. Co-operation would have lowered the ceiling of booty for each side, but would also have brought increased safety.
The English
The English at Carham were not the people of the kingdom of England, per se. They were Northumbrians or ‘Northern English’. As we have seen, there are some doubts about whether or not Uhtred fought at Carham. There is no doubt, however, that the ‘English’ at Carham were the followers and subjects of the rulers of Bamburgh, in whose territory Carham itself lay. After the Danish settlement of southern Northumbria in the 870s, the ancient citadel of Bamburgh on the North Sea, within sight of the Holy Island of Lindisfarne, emerged as the stronghold of the English rulers who had escaped subjection to the Danes. Bamburgh came to be ruled by the Eadwulfing clan, descendants of Eadwulf ‘king of the Northern English’ who died in 913. Uhtred was a member of this family, the son of Waltheof (fl. 994), son of Ealdred (fl. 958–9?), son of Oswulf (fl. 934–54), son of Eadwulf (d. 913). The Eadwulfing polity had frequently enjoyed a close relationship with the West Saxon kings of England prior to the 960s, but it was not directly part of the kingdom of England itself, no more than Strathclyde or Gwynedd were.61 This is quite important to recognise because, contrary to expectations generated by later centuries, prior to the mid eleventh century the English kings south of the Humber would not necessarily have taken any particular side in a conflict between the Northern English and Scots.
The Eadwulfings, rather like the rulers of Strathclyde, enjoyed mixed relations with the Scots. The Alpinids and Eadwulfings had been allies at the battle of Corbridge in 918 and again in 952, united against the Hiberno-Norse rulers of the English Danelaw. However, Eadwulfing territory was invaded several times by Máel Coluim II’s father, Cinaed mac Maíl Choluim. During one of these invasions, the Scots captured a ‘son of the king of the English’.62 In 1006, probably led by Máel Coluim II himself, in his inaugural invasion or crech-ríge, the Scots were defeated in a significant battle (location unknown).63 The encounter of 1006, as we saw above, seems to have formed the basis for memory about a victory enjoyed by Uhtred, mixed with other traditions and confusingly reproduced by De Obsessione Dunelmi. It is the text’s attribution of the victory to Uhtred that allows us to link it to the battle of 1006.64
For most of the tenth century the Eadwulfings presided over a territory stretching, roughly speaking, from the Forth to the Tyne, perhaps with a core collection of residences in the lower Tweed basin. However, from about 1006, the year of Uhtred’s victory over the Scots, Eadwulfing power expanded significantly. Uhtred of Bamburgh was granted control of the ealdordom of York by Æthelred ‘the Unready’, king of England. The office was created in the 960s by Æthelred’s father and predecessor Edgar (d. 975) as a means of managing West Saxon-controlled territories in southern Northumbria. The ealdorman was responsible for peace and justice in the region, and for defence against invaders. Uhtred became Æthelred’s son-in-law too, marrying one of the monarch’s daughters. Æthelred was probably seeking to utilise the resources of the Eadwulfings to maintain control of the north in the face of the increasing political instability and the growing threat of Danish conquest. It did not work, and Uhtred’s alliance with the southern monarch led to his undoing. The Danes finally conquered the English kingdom in 1016; by 1017, at the latest, the new king Cnut had stripped Uhtred of the ealdordom. If Uhtred was still alive in 1018, he probably still controlled the areas subject to Bamburgh. However, he would have been a man on a sharp downward trajectory. If the Scots and Clyde-folk fought Uhtred or any Eadwulfing in 1018, they did so just as the family’s fortunes were collapsing.65
Purpose of the battle
Rulers of polities like Scotland and Strathclyde had a perennial need to provide plunder for their leading inhabitants. Scottish armies invaded northern England at least once every generation from Cinaed mac Ailpín onwards. Successful invasions allowed kings to boost their prestige and provide their followers with proud memories and glorious deeds, but more importantly with precious metal, cattle, slave girls and other valued moveable goods.66 The ability of kings to supervise such large-scale theft safely was usually doubtful – otherwise the neighbour in question would have little option but to pay tribute on a permanent basis. It is probable, particularly with the Scottish realm divided between two kingships, that the Scots, the Cumbrians and the Northern English of Bamburgh were, in relative terms, quite evenly matched in the 1010s. Windows of weakness, however, opened all of them up to predation by neighbours. Such a window was open on the Northern English from 1016. Therefore, the declining fortunes of the Eadwulfings in the face of Cnut is probably the best general explanation for the Scoto-Cumbrian invasion and why, in general terms, the battle took place.
At the same time, it is possible that the Scots or Cumbrians invaded with some more specific political goal. Unfortunately, we can only speculate what that could have been. It is not impossible that they had been invited to invade by Cnut. It is also possible that they sought to change the leadership in Bamburgh. Perhaps the ‘son of the king of the English’ captured by Máel Coluim’s father Cinaed had grown up with Máel Coluim in the Scottish royal household. Now that Uhtred was on the way out, the Scots may have felt this was their time to establish a grateful dependent in the south, perhaps Eadwulf Cudel. After the disasters of the era, the Northern English people may also have preferred a leader with Scottish support, and it is possible that some leaders had invited the coalition to intervene. Even if no territorial question had been at stake, victory might have tempted the Scots or the Clyde-folk to demand concessions on a territorial basis, perhaps transfers of tribute or even of palace sites.
Modern historians are not able to say with any authority what sort of numbers might have participated in the battle of Carham. Any attempt to calculate the size of either side’s contingent is wrought with intractable difficulties.67 Documentary evidence from the Viking Age tends not to reveal much about the size of armies or number of participants in battles, and historians almost never believe numbers supplied by primary source anyway. One source for the battle of Brunanburh, an encounter of 937 that was almost certainly larger in scale than Carham, tells us that the losing Scots and Hiberno-Norse had more than 35,000 men.68 Since it is usually assumed that authors exaggerate the size of armies for rhetorical effect, there is a general tendency among modern historians to revise figures downwards. Figures provided by the twelfth-century writer Jordan Fantosme are a good example of where scepticism might also be employed. Describing the Scottish invasion force of 1173/4, he claimed that the mormaer of Angus alone commanded 3,000 Scots.69 If other provincial commanders had similar numbers the Scottish invading army of 1174 would be in the 30,000 to 40,000 range! Few historians would believe such figures, and it is doubtful that many historians would be prepared to suggest anything over 10,000 even for a twelfth-century army.
However, if the Carham expedition was raised primarily for plunder, it is possible that the armies of Scotland and Strathclyde were very large; consisting, perhaps, of a sizeable proportion of middle- and upper-class males of fighting age. Armies above the 10,000 range cannot be entirely dismissed, therefore. Within each contingent, however, the quality of arms and armour would likely have varied with social rank and wealth. The Scottish and Strathclyde armies probably had many seasoned professional warriors, drawn from the households of the kings, mormaers and other local rulers; but the bulk of both armies likely consisted of ‘amateurs’, prosperous farmers who were not well disciplined. Lack of discipline in such armies was ruthlessly exposed by the Normans in the coming centuries. In 1174, in the vicinity of Alnwick (about 30 miles from Carham), the Scottish king William (d. 1214) was captured despite the presence of his very large army of Scots – distracted at the time by plundering. A tiny force of fully professional, highly mobile Norman knights took advantage of the situation and ended Scottish participation in the wider conflict (i.e. the revolt of Henry the ‘Young King’ against his father King Henry II of England).70 Máel Coluim III, William’s great-grandfather, may have been killed in similar circumstances in 1093. Depending on how the encounter was initiated, the battle of Carham may also have involved only the smallest, most professional elements of the army. Without any detailed source on the battle it is impossible to say whether or not the battle was a full-scale engagement rather than just a large-scale encounter.
Scotland in the eleventh century was organised into a number of provinces such as Angus, Fife, Atholl, Gowrie, Mearns, Mar and so forth. The Fír Alban, the army of the ‘men of Scotland’, would have been raised by local officials and have marched province by province, perhaps under the banner of their local mormaer or ‘clan chief ’ (the toísech clainne of the Book of Deer notitiae).71 The Scots would have crossed the Fords of Frew on the Forth, and headed south towards their prearranged meeting point with the Clyde-folk. It is possible that the Scots took a route passing through Edinburgh and Stow of Wedale, and met the Clyde-folk at Caddonlee, Selkirkshire; alternatively, both armies may have met further north, perhaps at the monastery of Falkirk, Stirlingshire.72 Woolf argues that Uhtred’s army may have been forced to rely on levies from regions close to the battle site, from Berwickshire, Roxburghshire and the area between the rivers Tweed and Aln.73 The mustering of the Scottish and Clydesdale armies would have taken time and planning and could not have been done in secret. Therefore, it is possible that Uhtred and the Northern English, perhaps informed by travellers, merchants or even spies, had time to make some preparations.
Our sources are clear that the battle was a large-scale encounter. It is unlikely that the English side would have fought the battle against the will of its leaders. Even accepting that psychological issues of confidence and political pressure may have interfered somewhat with the decision-making process, we are still entitled to assume that the English army was close enough in size that fighting the battle was a rationally-justifiable risk. Perhaps some advantageous position or some opportunity to kill one of the coalition’s kings or defeat a major component of the army encouraged the engagement. We can only speculate.
Carham the place
Carham as a place-name is of some interest. Modern spellings could suggest that the generic element derives from the relatively common Old English ham, meaning ‘homestead’, ‘enclosure’, ‘abode’, from which the modern English ‘home’ and Scots ‘hame’ derive. This interpretation of the name was in existence by the thirteenth century, but the earliest forms are not particularly supportive of a -ham etymology.74 For instance, the form is Carrum in the eleventh-century Historia de Sancto Cuthberto and in the related twelfth-century Libellus de Exordio and Historia Regum.75 It is more likely that the place-name is an Old English dative incorporating the Old Northumbrian word carr, ‘rock’, itself a borrowing from Celtic.76 The Carham area became very significant militarily in the twelfth century as it emerged as the frontier of lands directly subject to the Norman (and later Angevin) kings of England. Richard of Hexham listed Carham among the five Northumbrian oppida seized by King David of Scotland in 1135, the others being Carlisle, Alnwick, Norham and Newcastle. Richard tells us that Carham (Carrum) was called ‘Wark’ in English (quod ab Anglis Werch), very likely Old English [ge]weorc, ‘work’, ‘building’, ‘structure’.77 The name ‘Carham’ may have been taken into Richard’s native Norman French, the language of England’s aristocracy at the time, when they first arrived in the region; after the beginning of the French castle, the native English locals appear to have coined a new name, subsequently the only name of Wark Castle. The castle probably, then, originates with the Normans, with the original ‘Carham’ focused on the other high status place in the area, the church.
Carham was the site of what was probably, in ‘national’ terms, a medium-sized church, most likely under some sort of control by the Cuthbertine community further east. The eleventh-century Historia de Sancto Cuthberto claimed that Carham had become part of the Cuthbertine dominion in the days of King Ecgfrith (d. 685), a claim that is plausible but which cannot be verified with contemporary evidence.78 Lack of adequate documentation means that the political status of much of the Tweed basin is uncertain until the reign of Henry I (r.1100–35). Carham was held by Walter Espec by the 1120s, a man who exercised vice-regal authority in the north of England on behalf of the king. Like most of the surrounding region, Carham must have been subject to some sort of Norman lordship from at least the 1090s, when we can be sure Norman lords were operating both at Carlisle and Bamburgh.79 Wark Castle was probably built at Walter’s instigation or at the instigation of some obscure predecessor.
In Northumbria, important ecclesiastical sites tended to be within a few miles of important royal centres: for instance, Lindisfarne and Bamburgh, Tyninghame and Dunbar, and so forth. The closest major pre-Norman secular site to Carham appears to be Sprouston, three and a half miles distant. Sprouston was one of the first major residences in Teviotdale used by twelfth-century Scottish monarchs.80 There is the possibility of a 30-by-8 metre hall ‘unparalleled in Bernicia’ [Smith] comparable in size and construction to the ninth- or tenth-century ‘hall G’ of Thetford, capital of Viking East Anglia.81 Sprouston, however, like most major royal sites, also developed its own church and after 1100 became the centre of a distinct parish. Sprouston, today, is in Scotland; Carham in England. It is likely that Sprouston was obtained by David mac Maíl Choluim around 1113, when he exercised the office of earl in the region of Teviotdale. He handed over rights and responsibilities for the church of Sprouston (and its glebe) to the Tironensians of Teviotdale, an act that would also make it difficult for the successors of Cuthbert, who by the Norman era were based at Durham, far to the south on the Wear, to ‘recover’ their jurisdiction.82
The monks of Durham tried to obtain Carham from Queen Matilda sometime before 1118.83 It was gained instead, as we have seen, by the king’s military commander in the region, Walter Espec, who managed to have Carham (with its township) included in the holdings of his new Augustinian foundation of Kirkham Priory. Carham became the centrepiece of Kirkham’s Northumberland franchise, and eventually ended up as a ‘cell’. The earliest notice of Kirkham’s property comes from a confirmation of Henry I, c. 1126, indicating that the churches of Carham, Kirknewton and Ilderton, as well as the villa of Titlington, had been among the gifts bestowed on the new Yorkshire house. Walter granted Kirkham the tithes of all his property in Northumberland and Yorkshire. The properties and services of Ulfchill clericus of Carham were also among the gifts received by Kirkham.84 Durham does not appear to have given up trying to regain Carham until the episcopate of Hugh le Puiset.85
The three contiguous parishes of Carham, Kirknewton and Ilderton have the Teviotdale parishes of Sprouston, Linton, Yetholm and Morebattle to their west. Carham falls on the English side of what became the Anglo-Scottish border – but only just. The Anglo-Scottish border as it is today (and as it has been, in practice, since the twelfth century) ceases to follow the Tweed about 700 metres up river from the position of Carham’s ecclesiastical site. The border leaves the Tweed at the ‘Carham burn’, and proceeds south and then east, far enough to mean that the immediate vicinity of the church of Carham came to be surrounded on three sides by the kingdom of Scotland. The same boundary came to mark the boundary between the parish of Carham and the parish of Sprouston, as well as between the deanery of Bamburgh within the diocese of Durham and the Glasgow-run archdeaconry and deanery of Teviotdale.
The site of the modern village, based on the medieval church, is close to fords on the Tweed. This raises the possibility that the battle occurred as one side, probably the Scots, tried to ford the river. As Alex Woolf points out in his contribution,86 Carham lies opposite a site with the Old English name Bricgham (i.e. modern Birgham), indicating the presence of a bridge, perhaps a major bridge, over the Tweed. However, custom and ritual may also have played a role both in the location of the battle and in how it was fought. As long-term neighbours, it is not impossible that both sides took part in the battle in a way that offered one group the possibility of decisive victory while limiting the destruction and suffering on both sides – although, as we have seen, this is not quite what Symeon of Durham’s accounts suggest. As David Petts points out in his contribution to this volume, there is no way to locate the battle specifically within the ‘shire’ of Carham and, thus, it is pointless to speculate much about tactics.87
Aftermath and significance
Lack of documentation means that the immediate aftermath of the Scottish victory is obscure and open to a large amount of speculation. Doubtless, the Scots and Cumbrians returned home with lots of booty. Whoever was ruler in Bamburgh at the time of the battle, the defeat would not have boosted their status or credibility. If De Obsessione Dunelmi can be believed, Uhtred met his end in Yorkshire when he and his party were killed by one Thurbrand, a hold (a senior Anglo-Danish aristocratic status, junior to earl). Despite a royal safe conduct, Uhtred was, so the account has it, killed in the king’s presence.88 It is difficult to evaluate the reliability of this account positively, and it is possible that the text is back-projecting a later feud; on the other hand, if Uhtred had taken part at Carham it would not be unreasonable to suppose that enemies at home became emboldened; such a defeat would have significantly decreased his chances of surviving more than a year. Perhaps Uhtred felt forced to risk a direct meeting with Cnut because the disaster of Carham had robbed him of options; perhaps Uhtred had to flee Bamburgh after 1018 and mistakenly believed he could take refuge with the Danish king. Unfortunately, however, these suggestions are purely speculative. We cannot date even Uhtred’s death with any certainty. It is thus impossible to establish a strong link between his death and the battle of Carham.
In De Obsessione Dunelmi, Uhtred’s successor Eadwulf Cudel is said to have handed over Lothian to the Scots.89 This evidence has long been linked in modern historiography to the battle. For this reason, Hume Brown declared that ‘[a]t Carham the Celts of Alba overthrew the Saxons of Northumbria, and by the annexation of Lothian made possible the growth of a Teutonic Scotland distinct from a Teutonic England’.90 Hume Brown was right, doubtless, that the acquisition of Anglophone territory by the Scottish kings, and the failure to Gaelicise these territories, came to be important developments in Scottish history – if nothing else, important to the identity of nineteenth- and twentieth-century Scottish intelligentsia!91 The integration of Lothian and Scotland had important consequences for the makeup and identity of Scotland in earlier centuries too, a process documented so well in recent years by Dauvit Broun.92 However, the connection of these events with the battle of Carham is opaque and its nature, therefore, questionable. It is possible that some region called ‘Lothian’, perhaps just a small area around Edinburgh, was lost to the Northern English after Carham; but we have no reliable sources that document such a transfer.
It is very likely that the rulers of Bamburgh still controlled East Lothian, Teviotdale and the Merse until at least the episcopate of Bishop Edmund II of Durham, the successor of Ealdhun who died c. 1040. In contemporary terms, Scottish control south of the Forth cannot be reliably documented until the reign of Máel Coluim III, in relation to East Lothian and the Merse.93 Even then, it was not until the 1110s that Teviotdale was transferred to a Scottish ruler from Anglo-Norman control.94 De Obsessione Dunelmi is only one of several Norman-era sources that claim to explain why the Scottish kings controlled ‘Lothian’. According to one twelfth-century tradition, the grant of Lothian had actually taken place under King Edgar.95 According to another, Lothian remained detached from Scotland until the time of Máel Coluim III, when the latter received the land from Edward the Confessor (d. 1066) in exchange for marrying Margaret.96 All three of these explanations are probably just speculative attempts to account for an arrangement that, in the twelfth century, was seen as anomalous in cultural, linguistic and legal terms.97
This is not to say that the significance of the battle can be dismissed. No historian is in a position to rule out territorial gains resulting from Carham. During the era of Carham the evidence does suggest that the ecclesiastical structures of the area governed by Bamburgh were reorganised, with power and relics being concentrated further south on the Wear – clear evidence of some sort of crisis in the Tweed basin and heartlands of the Bamburgh realm.98 The battle would also, most likely, have ended any Eadwulfing hopes of reacquiring the territories south of the Tyne or Tees, governed briefly by Uhtred, probably the last chance of reuniting Northumbria under Northumbrian leadership. The Bamburgh polity appears to have retained its ability to devastate the Cumbrians in the 1030s, but otherwise never again appears as a power of great significance in the north.99 It is not unreasonable, then, to link Carham to a ‘process’ of changing power relations where the Scots expanded in power at the expense of the Northern English. That process was central to the emergence of the familiar, later medieval Anglo-Scottish border.
____________
1 For more on the battle’s historiographic reputation, see D. Broun, ‘Southern Scotland as Part of the Scottish Kingdom: The Evidence of the Earliest Charters’, this volume, 33–49.
2 T. Hodgkin, The History of England from the Earliest Times to the Norman Conquest (London, 1906), 409.
3 P. Hume Brown, History of Scotland to the Accession of Mary Stewart, 3 vols (Edinburgh, 1899–1909), i, 43.
4 E. B. Fyrde et al. (eds), Handbook of British Chronology, 3rd edn (Cambridge, 1996), 56.
5 AU 1014.2.
6 The text is John of Worcester, Chronicon ex Chronicis, in The Chronicle of John of Worcester, 2 of 3 vols (Oxford, 1995–8); volume ii, ed. R. R. Darlington and P. McGurk, trans. J. Bray and P. McGurk (Oxford, 1995); volume iii, ed. and trans. P. McGurk (Oxford, 1998). It is cited in this volume simply as Chronicon ex Chronicis.
7 Historia Regum, ed. T. Arnold, Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia, 2 vols, Rolls Series 75 (London, 1882–5), ii, 3–283 [hereafter HR]. The section influenced by Chronicon ex Chronicis might be called ‘Part 2’, which is ibid., ii, 95–283. ‘Part 1’ has been more recently edited by Cyril Hart, as Byrhtferth’s Northumbrian Chronicle: An Edition and Translation of the Old English and Latin Annals, Early Chronicles of England 1 (Lewiston, 2006), 2–233. For a more detailed look at Historia Regum ‘Part 2’ and John of Worcester’s work, see D. Woodman, ‘Annals 848 to 1118 in the Historia Regum’, this volume, 202–30. A major new edition of the whole HR text has been promised for many years. D. Rollason, ‘Symeon of Durham’s Historia de Regibus Anglorum et Dacorum’, in M. Brett and D. A. Woodman (eds), The Long Twelfth-Century View of the Anglo-Saxon Past (Farnham, 2015), 95–111, at 95, has stated in print that it will become available in Oxford Medieval Texts under the title Historia de Regibus Anglorum et Dacorum. For Roger’s work, see Roger of Howden, Chronica [hereafter RHC], ed. W. Stubbs, 4 vols, Rolls Series 51 (1868–71), with the annals up to 1148, sometimes known as Historia post Bedam, found at RHC, i, 3–211. A new edition of the Chronicle of Melrose is under preparation for the Scottish History Society. The first volume has been published in D. Broun and J. Harrison (eds), The Chronicle of Melrose Abbey: A Stratigraphic Edition. Volume I: Introduction and Facsimile Edition, Scottish History Society 6th Ser. (Edinburgh, 2007). A facsimile version was previously published, i.e. A. O. Anderson and M. O. Anderson (eds), The Chronicle of Melrose: From the Cottonian Manuscript, Faustina B.IX in the British Museum (London, 1936), but otherwise the latest printed edition in Joseph Stevenson’s Chronica de Mailros: e codice unico in Bibliotheca Cottoniana servato, Bannatyne Club 52 (Edinburgh, 1835). Shorter annal sets with common source material include the unprinted Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Nouv. Acq. Lat. 692; Liège, Bibliothèque Universitaire, MS 369C; and London, British Library, Cotton Caligula A.viii. Other annals related to the tradition include Alfred of Beverley, Annales, ed. T. Hearne (Oxford, 1716), and some appear in later collections such as Ranulf Higden’s Polychronicon. A good overview of the relationship between Historia Regum ‘Part 2’ and John of Worcester is M. Brett, ‘John of Worcester and his Contemporaries’, in R. H. C. Davis and J. M. Wallace-Hadrill (eds), The Writing of History in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to Richard William Southern (Oxford, 1981), 101–26, especially 119–21. The most detailed discussion of these sources can be found in B. Meehan, ‘A Reconsideration of the Historical Works Associated with Symeon of Durham: Manuscripts, Texts, and Influences’, PhD thesis (University of Edinburgh, 1979). David Rollason, ‘Symeon of Durham’s Historia de Regibus Anglorum et Dacorum’, 107, figure 6.1, provides a helpful illustration of how he understood some of these relationships in 2015.
8 RHC, s.a. 1018, ed. Stubbs, i, 87.
9 HR, s.a. 1018, ed. Arnold, ii, 155–6.
10 H. S. Offler, ‘Hexham and the Historia Regum’, Transactions of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland, New Ser. 2 (1971), 52–62, at 57. B. Meehan, ‘The Siege of Durham, the Battle of Carham and the Cession of Lothian’, SHR 55 (1976), 1–19, at 12.
11 LDE, iii.5, 154–7.
12 ALD, s.a. 1018, ed. Levison, 487.
13 See also Woodman, this volume.
14 E.g. M. O. Anderson, Kings and Kingship in Early Scotland, rev. edn (Edinburgh, 1980), 234.
15 For discussion of this set, see D. Broun, The Irish Identity of the Kingdom of the Scots (Woodbridge, 1999), 144–5.
16 These are described and printed in Anderson (ed.), Kings and Kingship, 235–60.
17 For an edition, see Anderson (ed.), Kings and Kingship, 253–4, at 254.
18 Broun, Irish Identity, 165–9.
19 Ibid., 144.
20 Offler, ‘Hexham and the Historia Regum’, 57.
21 Anderson (ed.), Kings and Kingship, 254.
22 RHC, s.a. 1034, ed. Stubbs, i, 89; HR, s.a. 1034, ed. Arnold, ii, 158.
23 Marianus Scotus, Chronicon, s.aa. 1034/1056, 1040/1062, 1050/1072, ed. G. Waitz, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores 5 (Hannover, 1844), 481–562, at 556, 557, 558.
24 Chronicon ex Chronicis, s.aa. 1034, 1050, ed. Darlington and McGurk, ii, 520–1, 552–3
25 D. Broun, Scottish Independence and the Idea of Britain: From the Picts to Alexander III (Edinburgh, 2007), chapter 9.
26 Walter Bower, Scotichronicon, iv.43, ed. and trans. J. MacQueen and W. MacQueen, Scotichronicon by Walter Bower in Latin and English: Volume 2, Books III and IV (Aberdeen, 1989), 400–3.
27 D. Broun, ‘The Welsh Identity of the Kingdom of Strathclyde c.900–c.1200’, IR 55 (2004), 111–80, at 130–5.
28 Opposite Carham, on the ‘Scottish’ side of the Tweed, lay Birgham. Very tenuously, perhaps the source the thirteenth-century chronicle encountered had referred to a battle of Birgham that was ‘corrected’ as part of the narrator’s Cumbrian agenda. If so, the change was not the result of a simple scribal error; the spellings of the two places in twelfth- or thirteenth-century documents are not any more similar than the modern spellings and the separate etymologies would have been transparent to any medieval Anglophone. E.g. for Birgham, Bricgham in RHC, s.a. 883, ed. Stubbs, i, 45; but for Burgh-by-Sands, Burgo c. 1160, Burch c. 1180, etc., for which see A. M. Armstrong et al., The Place-Names of Cumberland, English Place-Name Society 20–2 (Cambridge, 1950–2), i, 126–7.
29 The text is Ða rad se æþeling Eadmund to Norðhymbron to Uhtrede eorle, 7 wende ælc mon þæt hi woldon fyrde somnian ongean Cnut cyng. Þa fyrdedon hi into Stæffordscire 7 into Scrobsæton 7 to Legceastre, 7 hi heregodon on heora healfe, 7 Cnut on his healfe wende him ut þuruh Buccingahamscire into Bedanfordscire 7 ðanon to Huntadunscire swa into Hamtunscire andlang fennes to Stanforda 7 þa into Lindcolnescire þanon, ða to Snotingahamscire 7 swa to Norðhymbran to Eoferwicweard. Ða Uhtred geahsode þis, ða forlet he his hergunge 7 efste norðweard 7 beah ða for nyde 7 ealle Norðhymbro mid him, 7 he gislode, 7 hine mon ðeah hwæþere ofsloh ðuruh Eadrices ræd ealdormannes, 7 Þurcytel Nafenan sunu mid him. 7 þa æfter ðam gesette se cyng Yric into Norðhymbron him to eorle eal swa Uhtred wæs. . .; see ASC MS C 1016, ed. K. O’Brien O’Keeffe (ed.), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition. Volume 5, MS C (Cambridge, 2001), 100–1; trans. D. Whitelock, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Revised Translation (London, 1961), 94–5.
30 For a fairly recent discussion of its sources, see Rollason, LDE, introduction, lxvi–lxxvi.
31 F. M. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, 3rd edn (Oxford, 1971), 418, n. 2.
32 J. Hodgson, History of Northumberland, in Three Parts, 3 vols (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1820–58), i, 162–3; E. W. Robertson, Scotland under Her Early Kings: A History of the Kingdom to the Close of the Thirteenth Century, 2 vols (Edinburgh, 1862), i, 95–7; W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland: A History of Ancient Alban, 3 vols (1876–80), i, 393, and n. 15; E. Freeman, The History of the Norman Conquest of England, 6 vols (1867–79), i, 738; H. Maxwell, The Early Chronicles Relating to Scotland (Glasgow, 1912), 120. Notably John Pinkerton, An Inquiry into the History of Scotland Preceding the Reign of Malcolm III, 2 vols (London, 1789), ii, 189, does not seem to have noticed the issue.
33 RHC, s.a. 952, ed. Stubbs, i, 57; HR, s.a. 1072, ed. Arnold, ii, 197; DPSA, 383; DOD, 218, trans. C. J. Morris, Marriage and Murder in Eleventh-Century Northumbria: A Study of ‘ De Obsessione Dunelmi’, Borthwick Papers 82 (York, 1992), 3. It is worth noting that Offler, ‘Hexham and the Historia Regum’, 57, was sceptical about Eadwulf ’s leadership.
34 A. A. M. Duncan, ‘The Battle of Carham, 1018’, SHR 55 (1976), 20–8. An additional complication is that Eadric died in 1017; i.e. he died at least a year before his advice could have killed Uhtred. Duncan argued that Eadric’s role as arch-villain in these episodes explained this.
35 Not all historians have accepted Duncan’s explanation. Christopher Morris, for instance, thought it ‘more likely that the Historia Regum is mistaken’ (Marriage and Murder, 11); it should be pointed out, however, that Duncan did not rest his case for this analysis on the dating of Carham, the case for ‘parenthetical commentary’ is possible without the evidence relating to Carham. See also T. Clarkson, Strathclyde and the Anglo-Saxons in the Viking Age (Edinburgh, 2014), 136–7.
36 Thietmar of Merseburg, Chronicon, viii.29, trans. D. A. Warner, Ottonian Germany (Manchester, 2001), 281.
37 AU 1018.7; ALC 1018.5.
38 Clarkson, Strathclyde, 136; Rollason, LDE, 156, n. 17.
39 Annales Cambriae, ed. J. Williams ab Ithel, Rolls Series 20 (London, 1860), 22.
40 Broun, ‘Welsh Identity’, 128, n. 66, provides perhaps the fullest recent discussion of this issue. See also Woolf, From Pictland to Alba, 789–1070 (Edinburgh, 2007), 236; and, in this volume, Fiona Edmonds, ‘Carham: The Western Perspective’, 79–94. The survival of a nickname might indicate there was more than one prominent Owain in the family of the time, as it suggests that disambiguation was thought useful.
41 One advantage of a pre-1015 date is that we might be able to link Carham to the battle of Clontarf. We seem to know that the Scots and the ‘Northern English’ fought against each other at Clontarf in 1014. See Cogadh, c.87, 150–2, for the ‘Northern English’ in the ‘Dublin army’; and for the participation of the Scottish mormaer of Marr, see AU 1014.2.
42 Offler, ‘Hexham and the Historia Regum’, 57.
43 In notes added to genealogy, printed and translated by D. Broun, ‘The Genealogy of the King of Scots as Charter and Panegyric’, in J. R. Davies and S. Bhattacharya (eds), Copper, Parchment, and Stone: Studies in the Sources for Landholding and Lordship in Early Medieval Bengal and Medieval Scotland (Glasgow, 2016), c.7, appendix, 21–4, at 21, 23 (online at <http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/128834/1/128834.pdf>)
44 AU 1006.5.
45 Woolf, From Pictland to Alba, 233.
46 The Inner Hebrides appear to be styled Innsi Alban in the 900s: AFM 961.2. For Argyll and Scotland c. 1000, see recently P. Wadden, ‘Dál Riata c. 1000: Genealogies and Irish Sea Politics’, SHR 95 (2016), 164–81, and 178, for suggestions of taxation.
47 For recent overviews, see Woolf, From Pictland to Alba, 275–311; B. Crawford, The Northern Earldoms: Orkney and Caithness from AD 870 to 1470 (Edinburgh, 2013), 80–144; A. MacNiven, The Vikings in Islay (Edinburgh, 2015), 105–20.
48 AU 1020.6, for Findláech mac Ruaidrí (only mormaer Moreb at AT 1020.8); AT 1029.5 for Máel Coluim mac Maíl Brigte (without title at AU 1029.7); see also N. Evans, ‘Alasdair Ross, The Kings of Alba c.1000–c.1130’, IR 63 (2012), 101–10, at 105–6, responding to A. Ross, The Kings of Alba: c.1000–c.1130 (Edinburgh, 2011), 90.
49 Anderson, Kings and Kingship, 267, 275, 283, 288; AU 967.1. Forres was the death place of Domnall mac Causantín (d. 900) according to one king-list (i.e. Anderson, Kings and Kingship, 274).
50 AU 1085.1.
51 A. Woolf, ‘The “Moray Question” and the Kingship of Alba in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries’, SHR 79 (2000), 145–64; Woolf, From Pictland to Alba, 223–4, 240–2.
52 J. G. Kyd, Scottish Population Statistics, Scottish History Society, 3rd Ser. Vol. 44 (Edinburgh, 1952), 82.
53 We know from Aelred of Rievalaux’s famous Relatio de Standardo that Orcadians fought for David I at the battle of the Standard in 1138, despite a very loose political connection (the perhaps recently appointed infant earl, Harald Maddadsson, was a member of David I’s dynasty). For this text, see R. Howlett (ed.), Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, Rolls Series 82, 4 vols (London, 1884–9), iii, 181–99, at 181.
54 See below, Edmonds, ‘Carham: The Western Perspective’, 79–94.
55 ASC MS A 945, ed. Bately, 74; ASC MS D 945, 1000, ed. O’Brien O’Keeffe, 80, 88; ASC MS D 945, 1000, ed. Cubbin, 44, 50.
56 AU 975.2; AU 997.5; CKA, 149, 150; Corpus genealogiarum sanctorum Hiberniae, ed. P. Ó Riain (Dublin, 1985), c.722.100, at p. 180. Use of Bretain Tuaiscirt may have been based on analogy with the Gaelic term for Northumbria, Saxain Tuaiscirt.
57 A. Woolf, ‘Reporting Scotland in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’, in A. Jorgensen (ed.) Reading the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: Language, Literature, History (Turnhout, 2010), 221–39, at 235.
58 Corpus genealogiarum sanctorum Hiberniae, ed. Ó Riain, c.662, at p. 80.
59 See F. Edmonds, ‘The Expansion of the Kingdom of Strathclyde’, Early Medieval Europe 23 (2015), 43–66, and, further, her contribution to this volume, at 88–90.
60 See, in particular, Broun, ‘Welsh Identity’, 111–80, and Edmonds, ‘Expansion of the Kingdom of Strathclyde’, 43–66.
61 See N. McGuigan, ‘Ælla and the Descendants of Ivar’, NH 52 (2015), 20–34; and ‘Bamburgh and the Northern English Realm’, this volume, 95–150.
62 CKA, 151, 161.
63 B. Hudson, Kings of Celtic Scotland (Westport, 1994), 112, was inclined to dispute its status as an inaugural crech-ríge based on his belief that the 1006 invasion was aimed at Durham.
64 DOD, 215–16, trans. Morris, Marriage and Murder, 1–2.
65 See McGuigan, ‘Bamburgh and the Northern English Realm’, this volume, 130–2.
66 Particularly good discussion relevant to Scottish armies in this regard can be found in D. R. Wyatt, Slaves and Warriors in Medieval Britain and Ireland: 800–1200 (Leiden, 2009).
67 Good introductions to war and musters relevant to this place and period can be found in N. Aitchison, The Picts and Scots at War (Stroud, 2003) and S. Davies, Welsh Military Institutions, 633–1283 (Cardiff, 2004).
68 AClon 931 [937], ed. Murphy, 151.
69 Jordan Fantosme, Chronique de la guerre entre les Anglois et les Écossois, c.47, lines 473–4, ed. and trans. R. C. Johnston (Oxford, 1981), 36–7.
70 There is an excellent description of this in William of Newburgh, Historia rerum Anglicarum, ii.33, ed. and trans. P. G. Walsh and M. J. Kennedy, History of English Affairs Book II (Oxford, c. 2004), 134–9.
71 For the latest edition of these notes, see Deer Notitiae, ed. R. Ó Maolalaigh, trans. K. Forsyth, T. Clancy and D. Broun, in K. Forsyth, D. Broun and T. Clancy, ‘The Property Records: Text and Translation’, in K. Forsyth (ed.), Studies on the Book of Deer (Dublin, 2008), 136–43; see also K. Jackson, The Gaelic Notes in the Book of Deer (Cambridge, 1972), 110–11.
72 Caddonlee was a mustering point for Scottish armies in the later Middle Ages and a natural place for an army for a group originating north of the Forth to meet another originating in Clydesdale or Tweeddale, or beyond – however, in 1018 it may have lain in Northern English territory and a meeting there would have allowed the natives more of an opportunity to tackle each army separately; see Woolf, From Pictland to Alba, 238. In later sources, the pre-Norman monastery of Falkirk is known to have been positioned on the royal road linking Lothian and Clydesdale. It would have offered the early arrivers better facilities, and made it more difficult for the Northern English to ambush either party in the coalition. The same location hosted a meeting between Robert Curthose and Máel Coluim III in 1080. See The Knights of St John of Jerusalem in Scotland, ed. I. B. Cowan, P. H. R. Mackay and A. Macquarrie, Scottish History Society, 4th Ser. Vol. 19 (Edinburgh, 1983), no. 3; and HR, s.a. 1080, ed. Arnold, ii, 211.
73 Woolf, From Pictland to Alba, 236–9.
74 For a survey, see A. Mawer, The Place-Names of Northumberland and Durham (Cambridge, 1920), 39, s.v. ‘Carham-on-Tweed’.
75 HSC, c.7, 48–9; LDE, iii.5, 156–7; HR, s.a. 1018, ed. Arnold, ii, 155.
76 The word carr is used in several glosses to the Book of Mark in the Lindisfarne Gospels; see Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. ‘carr’, online at <http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/28210>
77 He also provides two names for Carlisle, and so it is worth quoting more fully for this context: Similiter et David rex Scottiae, eiusdem dominae avunculus, in provincia Norþamymbrorum v. oppida, scilicet Lugabaliam, quod Anglice Carlel dicitur, et Carrum, quod ab Anglis Werch dicitur, et Alnawic et Norham et Novum Castellum, mox circa Natale Domini cum magno exercitu praeoccupavit ac tenuit; this text is from the Rolls Series edition by Richard Howlett, for which see Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, ed. Howlett, iii, 145.
78 HSC, c.7, 48–9.
79 The established account of Norman penetration in the north is W. E. Kapelle, The Norman Conquest of the North: The Region and its Transformation, 1000–1135 (London, 1979). For the Norman conquest of the north-west, see now R. Sharpe, Norman Rule in Cumbria, 1092–1136, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society Tract 21 (Kendal, 2006). The importance of the 1090s horizon for this region will be discussed more fully in N. McGuigan, Máel Coluim III Canmore (Edinburgh, forthcoming).
80 David I Chrs, no. 14.
81 I. M. Smith, ‘Patterns of Settlement and Land Use of the Late Anglian Period in the Tweed Basin’, in M. L. Faull (ed.), Studies in Late Anglo-Saxon Settlement (Oxford, 1984), 177–96, at 186; see also I. M. Smith, ‘Sprouston, Roxburghshire’, PSAS 121 (1991), 261–94.
82 David I Chrs, no. 150, but possibly prefigured by the grant of the glebe, David I Chrs no. 14.
83 RRAN, ii, no. 1143; North Durham, Appendix no. 785. See also K. H. Vickers, A History of Northumberland, Volume XI: The Parishes of Carham, Branxton, Kirknewton, Wooler, and Ford (Newcastle upon Tyne, 1922), 12.
84 RRAN, ii, no. 1459. See also J. E. Burton, Kirkham Priory from Foundation to Dissolution, Borthwick Papers 86 (York, 1995), 2–6. As late as the second half of the twelfth century, Walter Corbet, overlord of Makerston in Roxburghshire, and the Tironensians of Kelso, competed with the canons of Kirkham for Kirknewton. For the problems caused by Kirknewton, see English Episcopal Acta, Volume 24: Durham, 1153–1195, ed. M. G. Snape (Oxford, 2002), nos. 80–7.
85 English Episcopal Acta, Volume 24, ed. Snape, no. 82; cf. Vickers, A History of Northumberland, Volume XI, 13.
86 See this volume, ‘The Diocese of Lindisfarne’, 231–9, at 234, n. 14.
87 See David Petts, ‘Early Medieval Carham in its Landscape Context’, this volume, 151– 73, at 151–2.
88 DOD, 217–18, trans. Morris, Marriage and Murder, 3
89 DOD, 218, trans. Morris, Marriage and Murder, 3.
90 Hume Brown, History of Scotland to the Accession of Mary Stewart, i, 206. For Hume Brown Carham stood alongside the battle of Harlaw in 1411 where ‘the victory of Saxon over the Celt’ preserved Carham’s legacy, a legacy that was in the early 1400s, apparently, under threat.
91 For ethnicity and Scottish historiography, see M. H. Hammond, ‘Ethnicity and the Writing of Medieval Scottish History’, SHR 85 (2006), 1–27; for the general struggle between Anglo-British ‘Teutonic’ identity and the Celtic ‘other’ among Scottish and Irish intellectuals of the modern era, see also M. Pittock, Celtic Identity and the British Image (Manchester, 1999).
92 See contribution in this volume for further discussion, Broun, ‘Southern Scotland’, 33–49.
93 See the wording in ESC, nos 12 and 18 (=North Durham, Appendix, nos 1 and 8).
94 See English Episcopal Acta V: York, 1070–1154, ed. J. E. Burton (Oxford, 1998), no. 6; E. Craster, ‘A Contemporary Record of the Pontificate of Ranulf Flambard’, Arch. Ael. 4th Ser. 7 (1930), 33–56, no. 6. For discussion of this and other sources that make such a chronology likely, see N. McGuigan, ‘Neither Scotland nor England: Middle Britain, c.850–1150’, PhD thesis (University of St Andrews, 2015), 128–31, 198–200.
95 DPSA, 382–83; Chron. Wallingford, 54; RW, s.a. 975, ed. Coxe, i, 416.
96 Orderic Vitalis, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. and trans. M. Chibnall, 6 vols (Oxford, 1969–80), iv, 268–71.
97 McGuigan, ‘Neither Scotland nor England’, 141–55, 263–8. A fully published version of this work is intended for the near future.
98 Woolf, From Pictland to Alba, 235–6; N. McGuigan, ‘Cuthbert’s Relics and the Origins of the Diocese of Durham’, forthcoming (but see also McGuigan, ‘Neither Scotland nor England’, chs 3 and 6).
99 HR, s.a. 1072, ed. Arnold, ii, 198; RHC, s.a. 952, ed. Stubbs, i, 58.
|
Full Complete This Book Epub File Download 10 Usd |
Note :- This Download File Is Epub Format So This File Open For Download EPub File Viewer Software. This Software Download For Go Website https://calibre-ebook.com/ Or Second Website Is (www.epubfilereader.com)
Thanks for commenting on Magazine All World. If you have any doubt, please let us know.