Adam Lee 15599412

Assessing the Boundaries of Cultural Coexistence: The Extent of Anglo-Danish and Anglo-
Viking Relations During the Danelaw Period.

The Anglo Saxon Chronicle eludes to a Danish invasion in the year 1001, stating that the

Danes ‘spread terror and devastation wheresoever they went, plundering and burning and

desolating the country’.1 This phenomenon is compelling when compared to the fact that,

one hundred years prior to this invasion, the outlines of a proposed peaceful coexistence

between Anglo-Danish and Anglo-Saxon’s were implemented via the a treaty between King

Alfred of Wessex and the Danish King Guthrum of East Anglia, referred to by modern

scholars as the Danelaw. This essay will examine the extent of Anglo-Danish and Anglo-

Danish relations after the implementation of the Danelaw within England. With reference to

both modern and contemporary scholars, I will examine the movement of the initial border

and the attempts of Danish subjugation and control.

The first addressment should be the definition of the Danelaw within the scholarly context.

Katherine Holman refers to the 1998 Encyclopaedia Britannica description of Danelaw,

which describes Danelaw as a period in which, during the 11th and 12th centuries, ‘all of

eastern England between the Rivers Tees and Thames entertained the prevalence of Danish

customary law in local courts’. This Danish law was ‘distinctive from southern Mercian and

Western Saxon law’.2 Holman argues that this definition fails to address the extent and

impact of Scandinavian settlement.3 Gwyn Jones offers a somewhat complementary

definition, agreeing with the summation of the prevalence of Danish law within Northern

1
‘The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’-Britannia.com
https://www.britannia.com/history/docs/1000-06.html
2
‘Danelaw’- Brittanica.com
https://www.britannica.com/place/Danelaw
3
Katherine Holman. ‘Defining the Danelaw’ in Vikings and the Danelaw: Select Papers from the Proceedings of
the Thirteenth Viking Congress (1997),14.
Adam Lee 15599412

and Eastern England. Jones, however, argues that the treaty’s main effect was to divide

England into thirds, separating Wessex, English Mercia and the Danelaw.4 In this

summation, Jones presents here the Danelaw not simply as a treaty outlining boundaries

and local legislation, but as a region comparable with those of the aforementioned

established English kingdoms. The overarching narrative presented by Holman and Jones is

that the Danelaw is still not understood in its entirety. In order to gauge the impact of

Danelaw, we must therefore examine the most concretely defining factor prevalent in all

the aforementioned definitions, the autonomy of Danish law. Holman argues for a degree of

Danish autonomy during the Danelaw, suggested by the contemporary law code known as

the IV Edgar. Contained within the law code are letters from King Edgar to the rulers of

Northumbria, Mercia and East Anglia outlines clauses. The most notable reads that, by

Edgars will, ‘secular rights be in force among the Danes according to as good laws as they

can best decide on’. Holman argues that this permittance of secular self-governance by

Edgar presents evidence of Scandinavian legal distinctiveness and possibly even acceptance

of co-habitation in the form of legal recognition. Yet Holman argues that the clauses convey

the ‘legislative authority’ of the Wessex King, suggesting the partial subjugation of the

Danish settlers was present by the late 10th Century. 5

It is arguable that attempt by Wessex to subjugate the Danish as a method of containment

was implemented and practised as far back as Alfred the Great, following his defeat of the

Danish king Guthrum’s army at Edington. The subjugation of Guthrum took the form of his

concession to be baptised. The terms of Danish surrender after Edington can be summated

to two major conditions; that the Danish army would leave Alfred’s Kingdom and their king

4
Gwyn Jones. A History of the Vikings (Oxford, 2010),421.
5
Holman, Defining the Danelaw (1997),15.
Adam Lee 15599412

would receive baptism at the town of Aller. In order to guarantee theses terms were met,

the Danes gave Alfred hostages and swore oaths binding them to their promise.6 Thomas

Charles-Edwards argues that the chronicle’s descriptions of the Baptism of Guthrum

portrays Alfred’s wish to exude unity between the two cultures and also the superiority of

his position over the Danes. The chronicle goes on to recount how the Danish host remained

in Alfred’s company for twelve days after the Baptism, during which Guthrum and his

retinue were honoured with gifts from the Saxon lords. Charles-Edward’s argument here is

that the process of Guthrum’s baptism was designed to express Scandinavian dependence

of the Wessex kingdom, notably in the imagery of Guthrum arriving and departing from the

baptism by the will of Alfred, and the acceptance of gifts bestowed upon them by the

Wessex kingdom.7 The extent to which this subjugation prevailed in its containment of the

Anglo-Danish is alluded to by R. H. C. Davis.

The broader impact of the battle of Edington came from its legislative consequences,

namely the Treaty of Alfred and Guthrum. This treaty established firm frontier and would

eventually be called the Danelaw. In terms of relations, the Alfred-Guthrum treaty contains

a number of clauses that suggest at least an initial attempt to prevent aggression from

either party. For example, if a man was killed, both parties would permit to paying a penalty

of ‘8 half-marks of pure gold’ as compensation.8 The Alfred-Guthrum treaty can also be seen

to legitimise the territory for both the English and the Danes, according to Ryan Lavelle.9

However, there is evidence that territorial boundaries established within the treaty

6
Thomas Charles-Edwards. ‘Alliances, Godfathers, Treaties and Boundaries’ in Kings, Currency and Alliances:
History and Coinage of Southern England in the Ninth Century (Woodbridge, 1998), 47.
7
Charles-Edwards, Alliances, Godfathers, Treaties and Boundaries (Woodbridge, 1998), 47.
8
‘The Peace of Wedmore’-Britannia.com
https://www.britannia.com/history/docs/danelaw.html
9
Ryan lavelle, Alfred’s Wars: Sources and Interpretations of Anglo-Saxon Warfare in the Viking Age
(Woodbridge, 2010), 326.
Adam Lee 15599412

disintegrated by 912. Davis proposes this argument, suggesting the heavy manipulation of

borders within twenty years of the treaty taking effect. His evidence resides in the

comparison of the Treaty of Alfred and Guthrum with other contemporary literature and

charters, most notably the 926 Charter of King Athelstan, son to Edward the Elder. Within

the charter, Athelstan grants his servant Ealdred the right to purchase the towns of

Chelgrave and Tebworth from the Danes. These towns, according to the Treaty of Alfred and

Guthrum, were positioned within English territory, two miles west of the border. The

implications this presents are compelling, as the evidence from the charter implies that

between 899 and 911, these towns shifted into Danish control, suggesting further Danish

expansion into English territory.10 In terms of English retaliation, Frank Stanton concurs with

Davis, promoting the concept of a planned and implemented Anglo-Saxon policy of re-

conquest. Stanton argues that Edward endorsed a policy of ‘compelling thegns’ under his

allegiance to ‘settle in districts still in the occupation’ of the Danes.11 Davis also takes issue

with the lack of information provided within the Anglo Saxon chronicle, which makes no

mention of such substantial border movements. This prompts a debate into the legitimacy

of the Treaty of Alfred and Gurthrum in their supplementation of crucial historiographical

evidence. Davis argues in favour of the treaty over the Anglos Saxon chronicle. Although the

original Alfred and Guthrum treaty document is lost, the earliest copies survive within an

1100 manuscript emanating from St Pauls Cathedral. Placing the location in London is

significant for the case of the treaties validity as it would be expected that the Bishop of

London, whose diocese ran through much of the frontier, would have kept a copy. The

language is also deemed authentic, as well as the lack of anachronistic inaccuracies within

the clauses of the treaty. Conclusively, Davis argues in favour of the validity of Alfred and
10
R. H. C Davis, ‘East Anglia and the Danelaw’, Royal Historical Society (1955), vol: 5, 803.
11
F. M. Stenton, Types of Manorial Structure in the Northern Danelaw (Oxford, 1910), p. 74)
Adam Lee 15599412

Guthrum’s treaty, questioning instead the ‘seriously deficient’ information of the Anglo

Saxon-chronicle.12

The second part of this investigation will look at the later Danelaw period of the late tenth

century and early eleventh century, assessing the problems faced the English as a result of

Danish raiding. We will also examine the ineptness of the enacted solutions to this problem

of raiding, the most severe of which was the Massacre on St. Brice’s Day. The St. Brice's Day

massacre was the killing of Danes in the Kingdom of England on 13 November 1002, ordered

by King Æthelred the Unready.13 The Anglo Saxon Chronicle mentions that Æthelred’s ‘gave

an order to slay all the Danes that were in England’ as an act of protection, for fears the

Danish raiders would ‘beshrew him of his life, and afterwards all his council, and then have

his kingdom without any resistance’.14 This extract no doubt exemplifies Æthelred’s

paranoia and fears of a complete Danish takeover. This is evident again in the chronicle,

which firstly explains how the Danish raiders slew two of Æthelred’s high-stewards, Loefric

and Leofwin, and how they were aided by the traitor Paley ‘against all the vows of truth and

fidelity which he had given [Æthelred]’, prompting internal fears of betrayal.15 This paranoia

was somewhat justified then, coupled with the fact that, despite the large population of

Danes living in England during the reign of King Æthelred, England was still under constant,

debilitating attack by Danish raiders. Peaceful attempts were attemted by Æthelred before

his resorting to the massacre, with the chronicle detailing a tribute of ‘24,000 pounds’ being

paid to the Vikings in return for peace.16 This formed part of a longstanding practise of

bribery in return for peace, and is referred to as the Danegeld, meaning the ‘Dane Tribute’.

12
Davis, East Anglia and the Danelaw, 804.
13
David Hughes, The British Chronicles: Volume 1 (Maryland, 2007), 294.
14
‘The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’-Britannia.com
15
‘The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’-Britannia.com
16
‘The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’-Britannia.com
Adam Lee 15599412

However Charles D Stanton suggests in Medieval Maritime Warfare that Æthelred’s

subsequent ordering of Anglo-Danish genocide unsurprisingly expunged ‘any possible

benefit from the transaction’. Stanton believes that in paying such tributes, Æthelred was

simply funding his own conquest and inviting further ‘violent extortion’.17

In terms of intended victims of the St. Brice’s Day Massacre, there is some debate. Angela

Boyle argues that the ‘Danes slaughtered on St Brice’s Day were not an invading army but a

settled civilian population’.18 The counter argument presented by Levi Roach suggests the

massacre’s true victims were Danish raiders hired to aid Æthelred in the defence of his

kingdom. The evidence of the remains of possible victims of the massacre can be used to

assess the plausibility of each argument, and will in turn be helpful to the investigation of

the massacres ultimate role in the coexistence debate. Levi Roach refers to excavations at

Ridgeway Hill in Dorset, carried out by Oxford Archaeology. The finds associated with this

site are the remains of fifty skeletons, found together in a mass burial. The individuals within

the mass grave where all male, their ages ranging from late teens to mid-twenties. Stable

isotope analysis was implemented on the bodies to discover that at least thirty-one were

likely to have originated from Scandinavia, suggesting they had settled in the area after

immigrating from the north. The age of the skeletons also contributes to the assumption

that the men arrived in England as raiders.19 Their relevance to the St Brice’s day massacre

debate is argued by Roach, who suggests the possibility that the men met their end by

execution due to the signs of trauma around the head and necks. Kristina D. Williams

concurs with Roach’s assumption, arguing that such trauma suggests the causes of death

was beheading, due to evidence of clean cuts to the neck vertebrae achieved with a sharp

17
Charles D Stanton. Medieval Maritime Warfare (Barnsley,2015).
18
Angela Boyle. Death on the Dorset Ridgeway, 32.
19
Levi Roach, Æthelred the Unready (Yale, 2016), 197.
Adam Lee 15599412

weapon. She negates the counterargument that the men died during the 991 battle of

Maldon, a contemporary confrontation mentioned in the Anglo Saxon chronicle, due to the

lack of battle injuries present elsewhere on the skeletons.20 The carelessness of their

disposal also correlates to the burial of criminals or non-Christians. It cannot be affirmed

that these men were victims of the massacre, indeed their status as raiders may be

testament to their end. However Roach admits the temptations of the association. William’s

concurs with Boyle, suggesting that the evidence of the apparent beheading of the victims

does not correlate with the trend of known St Brice’s Day Massacre victims, who tend to

exhibit multiple stab wounds and cuts to their heads.21

Although impossible to affirm, the Dorset burial site’s possible relevance to the examination

of Danish and Anglo-Saxon relations is interesting. The assumed identity of the victims as

males of fighting age could, as Roach suggests, place their identity as mercenaries hired by

Æthelred to combat the growing issue of Viking raids. Simon Keyes makes reference to such

services, mentioning Æthelred’s hiring of Danish mercenaries to protect the country against

other Viking raiders, stationing them on the Isle of Wight. However, these hired bands

‘turned against their paymaster’ in 997, reverting again to raiding. This phenomenon

repeated itself after another band of mercenaries broke faith with the king in 1001. Keyes

summates that the massacre was intended to target these ‘untrustworthy Danes’,

explaining the actions of Æthelred and the English as a result of ‘deep-rooted anger’

towards the perpetrators of their decade-long suffering.22 The implications of Æthelred’s

paranoia and mistrust, exemplified in the Anglo Saxon Chronicle, could have prompted the

20
Kristina D. Williams, Ridgeway Hill Burial, 5.
21
Williams. Ridgeway Hill Burial, 5.
22
Simon Keyes. An Abbot, an Archbishop, and the Viking raids of 1006-1007 and 1009-12, Anglo-Saxon England,
vol:36, 154.
Adam Lee 15599412

king to pre-emptively turn on those men under his employ of questionable allegiance, first

with their imprisonment and subsequently through their execution. This explains the lack of

physical evidence present of the skeletons that would indicate signs of a struggle or violent

conflict, implying their detainment and thus explaining the apparent ease of their killing.

Keeping in mind the larger context of this essay, any large genocide of a minority group

enacted under the orders of an authority such as that state’s king undoubtedly presents a

complete adverse of relations. Yet there is a significant difference between the execution of

a civilian population, who posed a limited threat to Æthelred’s kingdom, and the execution

of a mercenary body fickle in loyalty and versed in the art of military prepotency. These men

were after all employed to exercise deadly military force, providing Æthelred’s treasury

could sustain them. Although it can’t be definitively proved for certain that any of the

remains found were victims of the massacre, the evidence of large numbers of

predominantly male Skeletons of fighting age do heavily weighs heavily in favour of Roach’s

hypothesis. Alternatively, it is possible that both arguments are partially true, with

Æthelred’s design being to exterminate both Danish groups. The clarity of the debate in

relation to the examination of Danish and Anglo Saxon relevance is vital, if unobtainable.

In conclusion, the evidence presented within this essay suggests that Anglo-Danish and

Anglo-Saxon relations throughout the period defined as the Danelaw were poor, if non-

existence. The limited success of Danish subjugation, attempted by Alfred, coupled with the

swift break down of borders by both parties, as highlighted by Davis, conveys the extent of

unwillingness from both parties to coexist peacefully. The resorting of Æthelred to no less

that genocide provides further proof of a broken and fractured country, highlighting the

inability of the English kings to fully deal with the problem of Danish raiding. It is evident
Adam Lee 15599412

that ultimately the Anglo-Saxons resented the Danish presence, with many English natives

simply viewing their Danish neighbours as the benefactors of their misery.

Bibliography

 Angela Boyle. Death on the Dorset Ridgeway (2013), 32.

 Charles-Edwards, Thomas. ‘Alliances, Godfathers, Treaties and Boundaries’ in

 Davis, R. H. C. East Anglia and the Danelaw, Royal Historical Society (1955), vol: 5,
803-4.

 ‘Danelaw’- Brittanica.com https://www.britannica.com/place/Danelaw

 Holman, Katherine. ‘Defining the Danelaw’ in Vikings and the Danelaw: Select
Papers from the Proceedings of the Thirteenth Viking Congress (1997).
 Hughes, David. The British Chronicles: Volume 1 (Maryland, 2007).

 Jones, Gwyn. A History of the Vikings (Oxford, 2001).

 Keyes, Simon. An Abbot, an Archbishop, and the Viking raids of 1006-1007 and
1009-12, Anglo-Saxon England, vol:36.

 Lavelle, Ryan. Alfred’s Wars: Sources and Interpretations of Anglo-Saxon Warfare

 Roach, Levi. Æthelred the Unready (Yale, 2016), 197.

 Stanton, Charles D. Medieval Maritime Warfare (Barnsley,2015).

 Stenton, F. M. Types of Manorial Structure in the Northern Danelaw (Oxford,

 ‘The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’-Britannia.com

 ‘The Peace of Wedmore’-Britannia.com

 Williams, Kirstina D. Ridgeway Hill Burial (2015).