PLACE-NAMES AND THE ANGLIAN TAKEOVER OF ELMET The late sixth and early seventh centuries saw profound transformation in Britain. Over a period of two or three generations, post-Roman British power was replaced in the eastern parts of the island by various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. I use the term British to describe a cultural affiliation with Roman Britain; Celtic or Latin speaking, Christian and indigenous. Anglo-Saxon is a catch-all term to describe an affiliation with Germanic speech, heathenism and external, north-west European connections. There has been much debate on the nature of this cultural contrast and its meaning. To some, it reflects the arrival by migration of significant numbers of Germanic immigrants (Frere 1967, Myers 1969, Alcock 1971, Morris 1975, Dark 1994, Henig 2002), while to others, it seems to be a cultural change brought about through diffusion of language and cultural traits, involving a much smaller number of high status migrants (Bassett 1989, Esmonde Cleary 1989, Reece 1980, Arnold 1984, Swift 2000, Faulkner 2000). Some archaeologists have portrayed Anglo-Saxons as migrants coming to an empty land awaiting colonisation and taming, carving out new settlements and territories (Arnold 1984: 140 , Carver 1998: 104). Although few scholars still talk of the possibility of the genocide of the natives, the possibility of population displacement is still discussed (Ausenda 1997: 420-422). Coates has come out strongly in favour of population displacement and enslavement in the south and east of Britain as a way of explaining the lack of British influence on Old English (Coates 2007: 190). While there may have been colonisation of new lands and some population displacement, it is surely wrong to see Britain as being some kind of analogue of the mythical American frontier; with pioneers carving out civilisation from a wilderness inhabited by a few lowly natives. Germanic immigrants or conquerors, came to an inhabited land with its own values, civilisation, and social and political structures; with natives of equal or higher culture and politics. The land they came to was one carved out into landholdings, with rents and taxations, fields and boundaries. The Anglo-Saxon kingdoms that emerged into the light of history in the sixth and seventh centuries had mixed origins. Many would in time become known by racial designations: East, Middle, South and West Saxons, East Angles. Others adopted more geographical names, e.g. Mercians (the marches), Northumbrians. However, a few had names of undoubtedly British origin: Kent, Deira, Bernicia and Lindsey. The name of Kent goes back to the Roman civitas unit of the Cantiaci or Cantii. Deira is thought to have covered the eastern part of Yorkshire, as evidenced by the early Anglian burials in the East Riding, and the wood of Deira near Beverley. The name has been linked to the River Derwent (Higham 1993: 81), while Jackson (1953: 419-420) could find no convincing derivation for the name. More recently, Breeze has suggested that it may be a self-enhancing name applied to by inhabitants of the area, meaning the bold or valiant ones, related to modern Welsh dewr (Breeze 1997: 36-37). Bernicia may derive from a British name for a region encompassing the passes through the northern Pennines (Jackson 1953: 70) and was centred on the area of modern Northumberland. Lindsey formed the northern half of Lincolnshire and was the area dependant on the Roman city of Lindum (Eagles 1989: 210-211). These regions most likely originated as British political units taken over as going concerns by a new Anglo-Saxon ruling class. Even some of the units designated as Angle or Saxon may have a similar origin as their areas coincide quite well with earlier units, e.g. the East Angles with the Roman civitas of the Iceni (Yorke 1990: 61), or the South Saxons with the Regni. In rare cases, information about the take over of a British unit may have been passed down orally for preservation in later documents. In the case of Kent, we have the statement in the early ninth century Historia Brittonum that Germanic mercenaries were granted the kingdom of Kent by the British ruler Vortigern over the head of its native king Gwyrangon (Faral 1929: 29, Morris 1980: 28, Dumville 1985: 88). Farther north, the same source named Ida as the first English king in Bernicia, although how this came about was not known (Faral 1929: 39, Morris 1980: 36, Dumville 1985: 105), and Soemil as the first to set up Deira as a separate unit (Faral 1929: 41, Morris 1980: 37). The reliability of this type of information has often been questioned (Yorke 1990: 26) and we have no way of testing its accuracy. The transition from post-Roman to Anglo-Saxon rule in Deira is very obscure, even archaeologically. Likewise, the history of Lindsey is too poorly documented to say how it came under Anglo-Saxon control. However, the archaeological evidence for this period is becoming better understood and we can begin to peer behind the curtain and the see the development of Anglo-Saxon control in the material record (Leahy 1993). Post-Roman political authorities in Lindsey seem to have been strong enough to determine the settlement locations of incoming Germanic settlers for some time into the 5th and 6th centuries (Leahy 1993: 38). We would dearly love to know more about the details of the transformation from Britain to Anglo-Saxon rule in all these kingdoms. The Annexation of Elmet In the case of one British unit, the take over by the English was late enough for it to be recorded more reliably, even though it did not survive as a separate area for very long. This was Elmet, situated in what would later be the West Riding of Yorkshire, covering the area from the River Don in the south to the River Wharfe in the north (Figure 1). Its existence is securely, if somewhat sparsely, attested in early British and English sources. The Historia Brittonum is our source for the take over of Elmet by the Angles (Faral 1929: 43, Morris 1980: 38, 79). This was attributed to King Eadwine of Northumbria: ‘Et ipse occupavit Elmet, et expulit Certic, regem illius regionis’ (‘He occupied Elmet and expelled Ceretic, king of that country’) (Faral 1929: 43). The Welsh Annals of the tenth century (Faral 1929: 46, Morris 1980: 46, 86) seem to confirm this by placing under 616 ‘Ceretic obiit’ (‘Ceretic died’), but they then place in the following year ‘Etguin incipit regnare’ (‘Edwin begins to rule’). This may be no more than the confusion of a tenth century writer taking information from various different sources with differing dates. That dates of this period could be misplaced is amply demonstrated by Harrison who has cogently demonstrated the confusing task faced by chroniclers in reconciling different methods of dating in different sources (1976: 54-55). Eadwine's accession should be placed in late 616 or early 617. If Eadwine's death on 12 October 633 was in his seventeenth regnal year and his baptism on 12 April 627 in his eleventh, as stated by Bede, then his first year should begin between 13 October 616 and 11 April 617. It is during his first year that Elmet ceased to exist as an independent political unit, sometime either late in 616 or during the course of 617. The earliest evidence for Elmet may be found on a memorial stone of probably fifth to seventh century date at Llanaelhaearn in Gwynedd (Nash Williams 1950: 88). This has an inscription - ‘ALIORTVS ELMETIACO HIC IACET’, translated by Nash Williams as 'Aliortus the Elmetian lies here' (and followed by Jones 1975: 3), Elmetiaco being assumed to be a Late British form of nominative Elmetiacos, cf. Morris Jones 1913: 150). The stone therefore commemorated someone originally from Elmet. If the stone were of the 7th century, it would be tempting see Aliortus as an Elmetian refugee expelled along with his king. However, there is a Welsh commote (cwmwd) of Elfed (the later Welsh form of Elmet) in Cantref Gwarthaf in Dyfed, south Wales, so Aliortus could be from either this or the northern Elmet. The early Welsh poem Y Gododdin has a reference to a Madog of Elmet in verse 22 of the B manuscript. “adwythig sgwydog, Madog Elfed” “the deadly shield bearer, Madog of Elfed” (Modern Welsh translation by Jarman 1990: 62-63) “atuuïthic scetoc Matoc Elmet” “the vengeful shield-bearer Madawg of Elmet” (reconstructed Archaic Neo-Brittonic version by Koch 1997: 50-51) The poem survives in a copy of about 1250 from a manuscript original of between 800 and 1100, but with a probable oral history before this (Williams 1947: 50-51, Jackson 1969: 59-63, Jarman 1990: lxxiv-lxxv). This particular verse is accepted as being based on genuine 6th century verse material relating to northern Britain (Koch 1997: xi-xii) . In the so-called Canu Taliesin (Williams 1968), there are two poems about a ruler named Gwallawg. In one of these (XII, Williams 1968: 14), Gwallawg was described thus ‘aeninat yn ygnat ac eluet’. This is probably best amended to ‘ae riuat/a enwat yn ygnat ar eluet’, meaning 'who was esteemed/named as judge over Elmet' (Williams 1968: 14 & 132), although Koch (2006: 859) prefers 'aeninat un ygnat a[r] eluet', 'anointed ruler/judge over Elmet'. These poems survive in manuscripts from about 1275, but their language and diction may reflect genuine 6th century linguistic practices (Koch 1988: 38). The Welsh Triads (Y Trioedd Ynys Prydein) are found in thirteenth century manuscript copies and may also be of early origin. They are lists of bardic reference material grouped in threes. Certain of the triads seem to have been first compiled no later than the ninth or tenth centuries, with a period of oral transmission before being committed to a manuscript (Bromwich 1991: cxxi). Triad 5 refers to Gwallawg as ‘a Gwallavc mab Lleennavc', triad 6 as ‘a Gwallavc mab Llaennawc', and triad 25 as ‘a Gwallavc ap Llennavc' (Bromwich 1991: 10, 11, 44). They all translate as ‘and Gwallawg son of Lleenawg'. This genealogy is extended in a version of triad 41 in the Llyfr Gwyn (Bromwich 1991: 103), giving us a son of Gwallawg, Ceredig: ‘Keredic ap Gvallavc' and ‘Caredig ail Gwalloc' (Ceredig son of Gwallawg). From these sources, we could reconstruct a pedigree of the three men: Lleenawg, father of Gwallawg, father of Ceredig (the last two of which were remembered as Kings of Elmet). This is slender evidence, whose links to Elmet are not uncontested (Clarkson 1999), yet is hard not to accept as a dim trace of a lost royal family. The lives of all three could cover the period c.500/50-616, depending on Ceredig's age. None of these kings of Elmet are linked in the medieval pedigrees with the other major royal families of the north, and Dark (1994: 152) has suggested that Elmet’s origins lie as a sub-kingdom within the civitas of the Brigantes rather than as a separate kingdom in its own right. The earliest English document to mention Elmet is the Tribal Hidage (Dumville 1989). The eleventh century manuscript lists territories with their hidage rating, presumably for tribute purposes. The date of the original version is much disputed. Dumville (1989) would attribute it to King Wulfhere of Mercia, c.670. Hart (1977) would rather see it as a Mercian document of King Offa (757-96). Higham (1995) has produced the most radical suggestion that it was produced c.625/26 for King Eadwine of Northumbria. Fifth on the list is ‘Elmedsætna syx hund hyda’ (‘of the Elmet dwellers, six hundred hides’). A further direct mention of Elmet was made by Bede (Colgrave & Mynors 1969: 188-189). In his Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum, written in 731, he referred to ‘monasterio reuerentissimi abbatis et presbyteri Thrythuulfi, quod est in silua Elmete’ (‘the monastery of the most famous abbot and priest Thrythwulf, which is in the forest of Elmet’). This monastery was built on the site of a former royal palace at Campodunum. This may be the earlier Romano-British Cambodunum of the Antonine Itinerary, and has been sited at Leeds (Faull 1980: 22, Faull & Moorhouse 1981: 157-163), but is perhaps more likely to be Doncaster if we follow Higham (1993: 86) in reading Bede to imply that Campodunum and Leeds were separate locations and the name to mean the field by Danum, i.e. the River Don. Bede also referred to Ceredic (Colgrave & Mynors 1969: 410-411): ‘Heriric exularet sub rege Brettonum Cerdice, ubi ut ueneno periit’ (‘Hereric was living in exile under the British king Cerdic, where he was poisoned’). The Hereric in this passage was the father of Abbess Hild of Whitby who died in 680, aged sixty six. Hereric was the nephew of Eadwine, later King of Northumbria. Eadwine and his family had been expelled by Æþelferð of Bernicia who had annexed their kingdom of Deira to his own in 604, creating the Kingdom of Northumbria. Hereric’s death was between 613/14 (Hild's conception/birth) and 616 (Æþelferð's death). Eadwine returned to take over the kingship of Northumbria in 616 and clearly proceeded as one of his firsts acts to annex the state of Elmet, thus avenging his nephew’s death. The episode reveals Elmet to have ended its days in the shadow of the power of Æþelferð, Anglian King of Northumbria. The Extent of Elmet The extent of Elmet as a territorial unit can be assessed using various lines of evidence: documentary, place-names and archaeological. The Tribal Hidage rated the Elmedsæte at 600 hides, listed after the Pecsæte (people of the Peak District) and before the Lindesfarona mid Hæþfeldlande (Lindsey with Hatfield) (Dumville 1989: 227). A rating of 600 hides would give Elmet a similar size only to relatively minor regions like the North or South Gyrwe in the Fens, or the Wihtgara, taken to be the Isle of Wight. Certain townships lying within the old West Riding of Yorkshire were recorded in later medieval contexts as “in Elmet”, which seem to indicate that Elmet covered the southern half of the Riding. These townships include Sherburn, Barwick, Saxton, Clifford, Kirkby Wharfe, Micklefield, Burton Salmon and Sutton, which all lie between the River Wharfe and the River Aire. To the south of this are others “in Elmet”: South Kirkby, near Hemsworth, and High Melton on the River Don. The authenticity of the two latter names is not unquestioned. Smith (1961: 2) felt that the reference to High Melton must have been due to scribal confusion or error, although this is convincingly refuted by Jones (1975: 15-16). The reference to South Kirkby as Kirkby in Elmet has also been doubted on the rather dubious grounds that it seems unlikely the name needed to be differentiated by being described as part of Elmet when it could have been simply called South Kirkby, as it was later (Parker 1992: 65). However, a ‘large’ Elmet would form a natural geographical area, and a southern boundary on the River Don was advocated by Faull (1980: 21). It would be bounded on the west by the Pennines and on the east by the low-lying, marshy, and often flooded, Humberhead Levels. The Wharfe would form a sensible northern border as any extension north of this would have to take in the Rivers Ure and Nidd with their headwaters in the Yorkshire Dales. In addition, the Wharfe forms the last river barrier on the road to York from the south. On the southern border, below the Don, the rivers and valleys are oriented southwards into the Trent which was part of Mercia. Taylor (1992: 112) points to place-names on the southern border as indicating its early origin. The border would include Dore (the door or gate between Mercia and Northumbria), Whitwell Gap and the River Sheaf, to which we may add the Shirebrook and Meersbrook, which formed the traditional southern border of the Sheffield area; the dividing line between Northumbrian Yorkshire and Mercian Derbyshire. The River Sheaf takes its name from the Old English sceað, meaning division or boundary. The Shirebrook is the stream marking the shire boundary and the Meersbrook has the simple meaning of the boundary stream (Ekwall 1960: 320, Smith 1961-63 Part VII: 131-132, Part VII: 137). These are three river names deriving from Old English all meaning the same thing and marking what must be an ancient border. Objections have been raised to identifying the whole of this area between the Wharfe and the Don as Elmet. A ‘lesser Elmet’ has usually been restricted to the land between the Wharfe and Aire, covered in medieval times by Barkston Ash and Skyrack wapentakes (Faull and Moorhouse 1981: 158-159). A smaller Elmet would be supported by the small rating of 600 hides given to it in the Tribal Hidage (Jones 1975: 13). The date and political context of the original document that lies behind the eleventh century manuscript copy of the Tribal Hidage have been hotly disputed. It is usually accepted as being seventh century, as its political geography does not fit that of any later period. A date later in the seventh century would fit political domination by Mercia. In particular, the reign of King Wulfhere (657-674) has found favour as a probable context for the survey (Stafford 1985: 94, Dumville 1989: 133, Yorke 1990: 10). On the other hand Brooks (1989: 159) and Higham (1993: 115-116) have raised the possibility of it being a Northumbrian document from the reign of King Eadwine (616-633). If this were so, then the Tribal Hidage would show subject territories owing tribute to Northumbria, not itself mentioned in the document. The amount of such tribute could be varied according to political need. For instance, Higham points out that the high rating of 100,000 hides for Wessex might be a punitive rate following their war against Eadwine in 626. The rating of 600 hides for Elmet could then be a beneficial rate for a newly acquired province, whose loyalty needed to be secured. The rating would thus bear little relation to geographical size. A remission of tribute due to war damage is an additional possibility put forward by Taylor (1992: 115). Both arguments would serve to support a larger Elmet. The presence of linear dykes within the ‘lesser’ Elmet area has also been used to argue for narrower borders to Elmet. The best discussion of the northern set of these – the Aberford Dykes on the Magnesian Limestone ridge, and Grim's Ditch to the east of Leeds - is to be found in Faull and Moorhouse (1981: 172-174). Their layout may be related to the Roman road system but this does not tell us whether they were created during or after the Roman period, or even before it, relating to pre-Roman tracks followed by the later roads. Even so, they are usually thought to be associated with the defence of Elmet against the Angles. Faull (1980: 174) saw Grim's Ditch as being sited for the defence of Leeds, and therefore early medieval in date. Interestingly, there are also linear earthworks near the southern border of the West Riding, the Roman Ridge and Grey Ditch (Taylor 1992: 113), which would point by analogy to a ‘greater’ Elmet. However, there has been no study of the nature and purpose of linear defensive dykes in general. If they were to be effective as a defensive border then they would need a permanent garrison with bases attached, otherwise they would be easily overrun before the defenders could be mobilised from their homes, spread over the hinterland. The nearness of the Iron Age hillfort at Barwick to the Aberford Dykes, and the supposed hillfort of Carl Wark to the Grey Ditch, may be significant in this (Taylor 1992: 113). Unfortunately, these sites have yielded no evidence of habitation from the sixth and seventh centuries, and the rocky, boulder strewn surface of Carl Wark makes it singularly unsuitable as a site for settlement. Although some archaeologists have been happy to ascribe an early medieval date to Carl Wark (e.g. Piggott 1951: 210), an iron age date has also been favoured, and similarities with other sites more recently excavated even suggest a late bronze age origin (Bevan 2006: 8-9). If the dykes were not to be permanently manned, then they would need to be sited well within the political border to be effective. Forces would have to be mobilised once the enemy crossed the border and would only be able to man such dykes once the enemy had advanced a certain distance within the border. This is assuming that the purpose of such dykes was defensive rather than having other purposes like restricting border crossing to easily controlled access points for the regulation of tolls, or making it more difficult to take animals like cattle across the border and so discourage armed raids (or acting as warning lines to allow mobilisation against invaders, pers. comm. Kevin Leahy). Dating evidence for the dykes, has been lacking until recently. Excavations by the West Yorkshire Archaeology Service yielded evidence for an Iron Age date at Grim's Ditch (Wheelhouse et al 2000), and the West Yorkshire dyke systems are now thought to be Brigantian rather than medieval. Some people have doubted whether fixed borders would have occurred at all in the early medieval period (Davies and Vierck 1974: 228-229). However, it is in the nature of power structures to seek defined rights over territory and the river names south of Sheffield show an awareness of sharp boundaries. It is inconceivable that kingdoms could establish rights to service and to rents or taxes without some idea of which lands lay within their kingdom and which did not. Borders for Elmet should be sought in administrative rather than physical boundaries. For the purposes of this study, I will take Elmet to be the wider area from the Wharfe to the southern border of Yorkshire. By the time of Domesday, this part of the West Riding was divided into the wapentakes of Barkston Ash, Skyrack, Agbrigg, Morley, Osgoldcross, Staincross and Strafforth (Figure 2). These were divided in turn into 471 townships as follows (with a further 99 townships first appearing in records after 1086 placed in brackets): Barkston Ash 62 (3), Skyrack 73 (9), Agbrigg 51 (15), Morley 60 (30), Osgoldcross 46 (17), Staincross 44 (13), and Strafforth 135 (12). In later sources, Strafforth was divided into Upper and Lower divisions. This may or may not have been the case also in Domesday. Place-Name Strata A great difficulty in studying the early medieval period in Elmet is the sparseness of the archaeological evidence for the fifth to seventh centuries. The problems of recognising and dating fifth and sixth century activity at late Roman period towns, forts and villas are well known (Dark 2000: 48-56, 105-116), and are compounded in Elmet by the lack of any appreciable Germanic (Anglo-Saxon) cultural remains until the 7th century (Faull & Moorhouse 1981: 179-180). Roman period sites where continuity might be expected could include forts and vici at Castleford, Doncaster, Ilkley, Newton Kyme and Templeborough (although the extent to which forts continued in use much after the fifth century is questionable, Dark 2000: 48). Some slight evidence of activity in the 6th and 7th centuries has been found at Doncaster (WYAS 2007: 13) and Templebrough (Armitage 1905: 47). There may also be continuity at the civil settlements at Adel, at Tadcaster, and the villas or farmsteads at Dalton Parlours, Ferry Fryston, Rothwell Haigh and Wentbridge, while there are late Roman period burials at Hunslet and Glasshoughton (Faull & Moorhouse 1981: 156-157). A sixth century Anglian brooch from near Templeborough is a rare find (Jones 1975: 24). Other sixth century finds are two coins of Emperor Justinian from Great Horton and Osmondthorpe, neither from secure contexts. Anglo-Saxon material culture of the seventh century is represented by burials such as those at Dalton Parlours, Pontefract, North Elmsall, Ferry Fryston, Leeds, Womersley and Upton, and by finds of annular brooches at Kippax (Faull 1974: 7, Faull & Moorhouse 1981: 180). Surviving fabric in the church at Ledsham has been compared with that at Monkwearmouth and may be late seventh century in date (Taylor 1965: 383). Anglo-Saxon activity at sites of Roman occupation or with British place-names would seem to suggest some kind of continuity between the fourth/fifth and seventh/eighth centuries. The burial at Dalton Parlours might signal continuity at or near the old villa, while similar continuity may occur at Ferry Fryston. Anglo-Saxon stone crosses are found at the old Roman fort at Ilkley, and an early minster church was founded at Conisbrough, the site of a Roman villa. While the crosses and minster church are far later in date than Elmet, it is possible (though not likely) that they signal some kind of continuity between late Roman and middle Saxon activity. Archaeological evidence can tell us little about the transition from Roman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England within Elmet, and even historical evidence can only take us so far. Faull (1980: 21) made the point that “place-names constitute almost the entire corpus of evidence for the nature of the kingdom of Elmet”. Place-names have long been considered useful evidence for both historians and archaeologists. They cannot, of course, be used without extreme caution and a clear methodology (Cameron 1977: 17-26, Faull 1979: 34-43, Gelling 1988: 11-14). The analysis of topographical place-name elements has been well developed, yielding a great deal of information about landscapes along with some understanding of early medieval and post-Roman settlement or land ownership (Cameron 1977, Gelling & Cole 2000). It would seem sensible to separate township names as a class for study on their own. Townships were the basic units of community, where the community exercised rights or had defined responsibilities within boundaries (Winchester 2000: 21-22, 25-26). They were the basic social and economic units of society, and therefore had an element of built-in stability over time (O'Hare 1993: 17). Townships were political ,legal, social and economic units, and township names should be considered as separate from settlements and settlement names (Michelmore 1979: 7, Faull 1979: 39). Some township boundaries may have been created in very early times, at least by the middle Saxon period and perhaps in Roman Britain or even earlier; although this is contested and probably not the case in all parts of Britain (Michelmore 1979: 1-2, Winchester 2000: 34-36). Unlike topographical and minor settlement names, the township names would have an ‘official’ recognition at a wider level than the township itself. The usage of township names might be more likely to be formed in political contexts than as part of purely settlement contexts. The known changes of some English township names to Viking ones is an example of this, as in Derby replacing Northworthy. It is the lesser names within the township that would be more subject to the speech of the inhabitants, and changes in actual settlement by individuals and families. A glance at any township in the West Riding (Smith 1961-63) will show a great many lesser names of only recent occurrence and a great many of medieval occurrence but no longer current. The impression is one of constant change in name giving due to changes in settlement and agricultural practice within the township. This contrasts strongly with the overall stability of the township names themselves since the early medieval period. This field of the political and social context of place-name giving has yet to be fully explored and I cannot pretend that my model used here is anything but a preliminary attempt. Place-names in any area represent a patchwork of different strata. The basic account of place-names at township and sub-township level in the West Riding is that of Smith (1961-63) and the data that follow are taken from this. In the case of townships in Elmet, several strata can be identified, beginning with the most recent. a. Later medieval These are new townships formed in the twelfth or thirteenth centuries at a time of increasing population and expanding settlement. Their names did not appear in the Domesday Survey of 1086. They may have been missed by the survey, and some undoubtedly were, but it is highly likely that such names as Newland (in Barkston Ash), which first appeared in 1234, represent genuinely new townships. Having been carved out of an existing township, they may have adopted an existing minor settlement name, perhaps like Collingham in Skyrack; an early minor place-name which appears as a township only after 1166, and so might have been newly created in the 12th century out of an existing township. b. Norman The Norman take over of the north had some effect on place-names, albeit on a lesser scale than earlier changes in political control. There are a few township names of either Latin or French origin, or modified by adding French personal names. The classic new name is Pontefract in Osgoldcross, first occurring in 1100 and based on Latin, but with a local pronunciation based on the Norman French, Pomfret. The adding of French personal names as endings to existing township names is exemplified by Hooton Pagnell in Lower Strafforth. c. Viking The Vikings had a profound effect on place-names in the east and north of England. There is debate as to how far this represents settlement of people or political take over (Gelling 1978: 215-219). For myself, I find the evidence of the field names and adoption of elements from everyday speech to be persuasive in favour of some settlement alongside political takeover. Many Viking names probably represent the re-naming of an already existing township and will have replaced an English name. In other cases, the name might be translated from the English using the nearest appropriate Norse word, e.g. using -vað for -ford. Often only the pronunciation might be affected, as in Stainton (Old Norse steinn) replacing Stanton (Old English stan) in Upper Strafforth. Viking names do occur in Elmet, but not in significant numbers, e.g. Denby in Staincross and Rogerthorpe in Osgoldcross, with the characteristics Norse elements -byr and -thorp. d. Anglo-Saxon Most township names in Elmet seem to date from the eighth to the tenth centuries (Gelling 1988: 69-70), as part of the reorganisation of landholding into small scale clerical and secular lordships. This resulted in an overwhelming number of names in -tūn (-ton) and -lēah (-ley), as well as other less common elements. However, these elements were used for forming place-names over a long period, continuing alongside later strata. This is not to say that these names cannot yield information about earlier periods; see Walton and Bretton names below. e. Migration Identifying the earliest English settlement names has occupied a great deal of research time in place-name studies, and the current position is admirably summarized by Gelling (1988: 106-126). The earliest names tended to be topographic rather than habitative (referring to landscape features rather than to types of settlement). However, some habitative names could be early and include the important early element -hām (estate). Topographical name elements have received exhaustive study (Gelling 1984). Particularly early elements were -dūn (hill), -burna (stream), -ēg (island), -wella (spring), -hlāw (burial mound), -feld (open land) and -ford (river crossing). Most of these elements continued in use in later periods, especially -feld and -ford which are very common. To be added to this may be names in -ingahām, -ingalēah etc. (inga generally denoting belonging to). It is possible that some early names are hidden behind a later Viking façade but the only case in Elmet of an early element that may have been replaced by a Viking equivalent is -hlāw (-low), replaced by -haugr (-haw or -how). Likely early English township names in Elmet are given in Table 1. One problematic early name element was -wic, deriving ultimately from the Latin vicus (Coates 1999). This is a very long-lived element with a rather chequered later history. In the form wichām, it may well represent very early place-names (Gelling 1988: 67-70). Other names with wic- as the first element may also be early and represent late Romano-British rural administrative units (Balkwill 1993: 11, Coates 1999: 111). In Elmet, Wistow and Wyke may well belong to this earlier layer of naming, with wic- as simplex or prefix. Whether names with -wic as the last element were equally early is less likely but not impossible. They have a long life and seem to have been compounded with terms denoting association with food, goods or materials production, trade or processing (Cameron 1977: 147-148). There are examples of such likely later names in -wic in Elmet, such as Barwick the barley farm, Keswick referring to cheese production or Hardwick referring to herds of sheep. One special type of township name is that showing a racial designation of Germanic peoples, e.g. Frisians and Saxons, which might belong to the early phases of the Anglo-Saxon take-over in which the named peoples would stand out from the dominant Anglian identity. There are four such names in Elmet, three in Barkston Ash (Monk Fryston, Saxhall, Saxton) and one in Osgoldcross (Water Fryston). They all occur in areas where other early English names are common. The Saxons are of course one of the founder ethnic groups identified by Bede and accepted by historians and archaeologists as a component of the Germanic migration to Britain. The Frisians are less noticed and accepted. There were Frisian merchants and students in Northumbria in the 8th century (Whitelock 1968: 725). Faull and Moorhouse (1981: 197) make the case for a Frisian trading centre in the area of Ferry Fryston. On the other hand, Bede does refer to Frisians as participants in the settlement of Britain (Colgrave & Mynors 1969: 476-477), as does the Byzantine writer Procopius (although this may be a literary convention, Pohl 1997: 14-15). Archaeological evidence also seems to support the presence of Frisians within the early Germanic settlers in Britain (Myers 1977: 116-117). f. British Of great interest are the survivals of British words, Latin words with a British pronunciation or English names indicating British occupation (Table 3). These place-names are of various types. Racial terms applied by the English include Wala- and Bretta- (‘of the Welsh’ and ‘of the Britons’). British or Latin words for particular habitative sites survive in Eccles- and -caster (British *eclēs and Latin castra, church and fortress; in modern Welsh eglwys and caer). Eccles- places must have been native British churches in use at the time of the Anglian take-over. Not all eccles- names will indicate the church centre. Attempts to establish the presence of settlement traces in soil chemistry at three non-township eccles- sites in Yorkshire only proved positive in one case (Faull & Smith 1980: 35-36). Further, not all Romano-British churches will have survived with an eccles- name. It is entirely possible that some will have been taken over and continued as churches into the later Anglo-Saxon period under an English name. Proving this would be hard, although it has been suggested that Bramham is one such example, based on the oval shape off its churchyard (Faull & Smith 1980; 35). The term castra referred to Roman fortified sites or walled towns, borrowed possibly directly from Latin into Old English (Gelling 1988: 151-153, Coates 2006: 8) and later applied occasionally to non-Roman and non-fortified sites. Not all indigenous name elements are still visible. In the case of Castleford, castra, preserved in Old English as Ceasterford (Cubbin 2006: 44), was later replaced by the Norman castel. Some British topographical words may have been adopted into English, making it difficult to decide whether the names containing them are genuinely British survivals (Welsh cwm- may appear as OE cumb-, meaning a vale, and Welsh -pwll as -pol, meaning a pool). However, some British topographical words undoubtedly survive in Elmet place-names, identifiable by their modern Welsh counterparts as crug (mound), crwm (curved), rhos (moor), cefn (ridge), cemais (bend in a river) and possibly camlais (crooked stream). The one certain British personal name to survive is Dewi, while others may be Cumbra and Camela. Although Cumbra may be a personal name, it could also be an English reflex of a native British word of ethnic self-designation, surviving in modern Welsh as Cymro (Welshman). In the case of Leeds, we may have a preserved original name for the River Aire, derived from late British Lōdēses based on Celtic Lāt, meaning the violent or raging river (Jackson 1946: 210, Eckwall 1960: 293). More details of particular names are given in the Appendix. The place-names in this stratum are those which would have escaped later renaming in English. Those in Bretta- and Wala- (and perhaps Cumbra-) ought to show where pockets of British speech were hanging on by the middle of the eighth century (Cameron 1979-80: 33-34), or even later, since they were often compounded with the name element -tun. The development of the word Wealh to mean slave rather than Briton seems to have occurred between the eighth and ninth centuries (Faull 1975: 35, Cameron 1979-80: 4, Gelling 1988: 94). The other British names need not signify late retention of speech, merely the respect for a traditional name perhaps promoted by the continuance of British landowning, or the regional importance of the site, e.g. Leeds (Jones 1975: 16-17). It is strata e. and f. that may help us to understand the transition from post-Roman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England. Only those townships known to have existed by 1086 will be included on the maps and in the analysis, although later names will be added to the tables for the sake of completeness. This will not be an exact listing of all early names, as the Domesday account itself is incomplete (e.g. townships in Sherburn have to be reconstructed using charter evidence from before 1066). We do not know how many townships were newly created in the centuries leading up to the survey and how many are original from the seventh century. Furthermore, most place-names are formed of two elements which may themselves belong to different strata. We can never be sure that each part of a name was coined at the same time or whether one was used to replace an earlier element while keeping its partner. For instance, Eldwick in Skyrack probably comes from Helgi-wic. Does the Norse first element mean that this is a new township formed in the ninth or tenth century, or is Helgi a replacement of an earlier name following a change in landownership? Arguments could be made for both explanations. For all these reasons, we can never be wholly convinced by any analysis of early township names. However, the attempt is worth making as, given enough data, any strong overall pattern should not be critically affected by any inaccuracies of detail. The Distribution of British Township Names The surviving British township names are plotted in Figures 3a and 3b. Work on township boundaries in the early medieval period is far from complete (Le Patourel et al. 1993). The metropolitan county of West Yorkshire has been well researched (Faull and Moorhouse 1981) but this covers only a part of the wider Elmet. The basis for the maps used in Figures 3b, 4b and 5b is the Historic parishes of England & Wales: an electronic map of boundaries before 1850 (Kain & Oliver 2001). Apart from the three castra names, which are all on the major river crossings along the Roman road north-south to York, the distribution pattern of Romano-British township names shows very little ordered patterning. The castra names reflect the naming of former Roman fortified sites by the incoming English (no such fort existed at Tadcaster but the Roman archaeology of this town is poorly explored). Names other than those with castra are scattered randomly throughout the area, from the low-lying Humber levels to the upland Pennines. The only possible concentration of names is a small group between the River Calder and the upper River Dearne (Walton, Chevet, Crigglestone and West Bretton). This area is at the geographical centre of Elmet, well away from any of its borders. There is no concentration of names near any of the three castra sites. The pattern seems best explained by chance random survival of British speech during the Anglicisation of the area during the seventh and eighth centuries, perhaps in pockets where British landowners remained under the new regime. If so, then British landowners may have been more tolerated in the middle of Elmet, away from its potentially sensitive borders. However, there are a few British names near the borders so this idea should not be stressed too much. The Distribution of Early English Township Names In contrast with the British names, the earliest English place-names are not evenly distributed throughout Elmet. The earliest Anglian settlement, or land grants in Elmet, would have been made within the framework of native British administrative arrangements. It has been suggested that these were based on obligations of rents and services to official centres governing territories of several townships. There are some who would even push back the origin of such administration into late prehistory (Proudfoot & Aliaga-Kelly 1998), something highly conjectural and hard to prove. These administrative arrangements have been described in an idealised model termed the 'multiple estate' (Jones 1975: 18-24). Jones's model has proved hard to apply in details and has raised more questions than it has solved (see Gregson 1985 and Jones 1985 for a debate on this). It seems that there are several scales of organisation in which lands and people can owe services and rents to 'manorial' centres, from small manors to large regional areas (Winchester 2008: 20-21). Early kings needed some way of mobilising labour, raw materials and food, as well as dispensing justice and keeping order. Large kingdoms would have needed second tier units of some kind, such as the cantrefau in later medieval Wales and hundreds in England. There are those who have accepted early that British administrative practices could leave traces well into the later Middle Ages (e.g. Barrow 1969: 18, Winchester 2008: 18). Some early governance may have survived into later times underneath later arrangements, known in northern England as sokes or shires (although the latter especially is a general term that could be applied to units of widely differing scale). Remnants of these second tier units may be traced through large estates with dependant townships (both berewicks and sokelands) owing rents and services to a centre that can be identified for 1066 in the Domesday Book, some 450 years later than the Anglian take-over. Of course, not all large estates recorded in the later medieval period will have earlier British origins (Hadley 1996: 10-11). Michelmore (1979: 7-8) also rightly cautions us to beware that estates were constantly changing over time through partible inheritance and recovering original boundaries of estates is not straightforward. Remnants of multiple estates have been widely identified in Yorkshire and elsewhere in northern England, albeit in a broken up or altered form (Hall 1993: 37-38, Winchester 2008: 21). Multiple estates would be of various kinds, some resulting from the granting away of lands to the king's officials and followers. Being kept in the king's hands or being granted away to the king's officials might help to keep the estates intact for longer without partible inheritance destroying their integrity, albeit with the loss of individual manors to thanes over the years. We should not expect to see long-term continuity in the exact boundaries of estates (Mark Gardner pers. comm.), but if traces of early British administration still existed in attenuated form in 1066, we might expect to see certain characteristics. At the very least, we should still see a manorial centre and dependants over a wide area, represented by 'official' multiple estates confined within former cantref boundaries. It is interesting then that the evidence of Domesday Book suggests that the wapentakes existing in the former area of Elmet were paired; tied together by large estates whose lands occurred only in the two wapentakes: Agbrigg with Morley, Osgoldcross with Staincross, Barkton Ash with Skyrack, leaving the large wapentake of Strafforth on its own (but known to have had higher and lower divisions in later documents). Each large estate was placed under the control of the king, an earl or the Archbishop of York, in other words, people who could be considered public officials. Osgoldcross and Staincross wapentakes were linked by the Tanshelf estate, and Agbrigg and Morley by the Wakefield estate. In Barkston and Skyrack, each had an important estate of the archbishop, Sherburn and Otley, while Skyrack also had the Earl's estate of Kippax. Strafforth was a large wapentake later split into two, and had two multiple estate complexes held by Earls, Laughton-Hexthorpe-Conisbrough and Hallam. The Laughton, Hexthorpe and Conisbrough estates were intermingled such that they shared lands within certain townships and could be regarded as split from one original estate. Conisbrough was one of the estates mentioned in the will of the powerful Mercian thane, Wulfric Spot, which he left to his brother Ælfhelm (Sawyer 1979). The estate would have reverted to the crown on Ælfhelm's disgrace in 1006. The original large estate may well have been granted away very early to the Earls of Northumbria, and thereafter split between different claimants to the earldom and its lands. We cannot say with conviction that the wapentakes themselves are of early origin, or that their pairing is a genuinely early administrative feature. There are those who would place the wapentakes, as their name suggests, squarely within the context of Viking political control and administration, in the late ninth or early tenth centuries (Hall 1993: 30, O'Hare 1993: 16). Nevertheless, the arrangement of estates does seem to echo native British administrative arrangements of two commotes (cymydau) joined in hundreds (cantrefi), and the linking of upland with lowland resources (Jones 1979: 9-11). Jones (1975: 16-17) suggested Barkston Ash and Skyrack had been a local government unit of British origin. The occurrence of early Anglian place-names in paired wapentake units is given in Table 5, counting all the names in -hām, -burna, -dūn, -ēg, -wella, -inga-, -hlāw, and adding those in -wic, along with townships whose names have elements describing a Germanic ethnic group that existed by 1086. This gives the impression that the central part of Elmet was not favoured in the early Anglian take over but that the margins were, particularly the northernmost two wapentakes. If we plot the early names onto a map of Elmet, the pattern begins to make more sense. Figures 4a and 4b show the distribution of place-names in -hām, -dūn, -burna, -ēg, -hlāw, -inga- and -wella. Those in -wic (but not the likely later names of Barwick, East Keswick and West Hardwick) are added in a different shading and conform to the general pattern as the rest. Indeed, most of them lie immediately next to townships with early names, suggesting that at least of these may be broadly contemporary with the earliest names. Eldwick is adjoining and between Baildon and Bingley, Wike adjoining and south of Wibsey, Adwick le Street adjoining and between Bentley and Pickburn, Adwick on Dearne adjoining Wath on Dearne (which may be an early -ford name). Wike lies between Bardsey and Burden and is north of Wigton, a later township name whose name leaves open the possibility that it was carved out of Wike itself; the combined borders of which then adjoin Bardsey and Burden. In the case of -ford and -feld, the pattern is not so clear. Names in -ford do tend to occur in the same areas as early names. However, there is a scatter of them in the Humberhead levels, in which early names do not occur. Their occurrence in the levels would be expected to have a long functional life given the importance of water crossing points in this area. Names in -ford from the levels are excluded from Figures 4a and 4b but -ford names elsewhere are included, since they tend to occur in exactly those area which have early township names. Names in -feld show a wider general scatter with a group along the River Calder as well as the Humber levels. The Calder is a conspicuous gap in the distribution of early names. Although there are some -feld names that are found in the early name areas, it seems more likely that -feld was a generally longer lived element in place-names as it has a general topographical application in all areas, and is therefore excluded from the map. The element -feld is plotted separately in Figures 5a and 5b. One important -feld name is Hatfield, known from early sources (Bede), and applied to a region as well as to a particular township. Hatfield was important enough to warrant separate identification in the Tribal Hidage, albeit alongside Lindsey as part of its hidage rating. The original region of Hatfield covered the northern part of Nottinghamshire, but seems to have included townships later placed in Yorkshire, including Hatfield township (Parker 1992: 53-60). At its greatest extent, Hatfield may have included the eastern edges of Strafforth wapentake (Figure 7), and we must accept that Elmet's original borders may not have gone as far east as the later West Riding did. The place-names in Figures 4a and 4b are not distributed randomly but make perfect sense in relation to the strategic needs of defence as seen from York. Sites in Morley and western Skyrack cluster around the River Aire, within and facing the Aire gap. This is the major east-west crossing point of the Pennines. There is a further cluster along the Roman road south of the River Wharfe leading to Tadcaster. The southward approach to Tadcaster is also covered by sites along the Roman road and by a cluster around the major crossing point of the Aire where it meets the River Calder, at Castleford. In the south, there is a line of townships covering the roads running northwards out of Doncaster and along the River Dearne where it reaches towards the River Don. There is also a small cluster around the meeting point of the two Roman roads running southwards and south-westwards from where the Don and River Rother meet, near Rotherham (an Anglian -hām name with a British river element as prefix). There are few townships with early Anglian names outside these clusters. The most obvious isolated name is Meltham, in the middle of the Pennines. Others are Wyke, Keresforth, East and West Ardsley. West Hardwick is also isolated but lies in the approaches to Castleford from the south while Braithwell and Todwick lie between the approaches to Rotherham and Doncaster. Early Anglian names are strategically sited for the defence of York from the south and west. The most obvious context for this non-random distribution would be after the take over of Elmet by Eadwine in 616/17. At this time, Mercia lay to the south of Elmet and was potentially hostile (it was certainly so later under King Penda). The area to the west of the Pennines may still have been under the control of the British kingdom of Rheged, and the defences around the Aire gap might have been aimed at this independent British power. Its ruling family was important enough to provide a marriage partner for the Northumbrian King Oswiu a generation after 616/17. The bulk of the Aire gap lies in Craven, another district name of British origin within what was later to be Yorkshire. Indeed, it contains both the Aire and Ribble watershed and is the major east-west crossing point of the Pennines south of Stainmore. Within Craven itself, there are eighteen identifiably early English township names out of 121 recorded in the Domesday survey of 1086. This is a rather high figure, 14.9 per cent, similar to the high figure for Barkston and Skyrack. It is not known when Craven became part of Northumbria, although shortly after 655 has been suggested (Wood 1996: 20). The position of early names in Elmet facing the Aire gap would suggest that Craven was absorbed later than 616/17 and that Anglian landowners were established in Barkston-Skyrack between c. 616 and c.655. Placing loyal Anglian lords in control of selected townships would be an obvious military strategy for the new Northumbrian kings. It would foreshadow the policy of the Norman William I in his settlement of loyal followers on strategically important estates some 450 years later (Kapelle 1979: 143-145). The practicalities of political and military strategy would have dictated similar solutions. As a simple exercise in speculation, we could assume that the distribution of early Anglian township names was the result of kings granting lands to loyal Anglian followers of particular townships which were then removed from the multiple estate structures. Some support for this comes from the distribution of the early Anglian township names, where eight of them occur within the Domesday large estates that cross Wapentake boundaries, but twenty six occur outside of these. If early names were randomly distributed within and without the multiple estates, then we should expect thirteen to occur inside the estates, and twenty one to occur outside. Of course, this assumes that the boundaries of the estates as preserved in Domesday reflect their composition in the seventh century; a somewhat dangerous assumption. A simple Chi Square test (see Gregory 1963: 117-130 for a dated but lucid account of the Chi Square method) yields an 8 per cent probability of the actual distribution of names being due to chance. Although this seems a low figure, this is uncomfortably high for a statistical probability (Gregory 1963: 115-117) and we should not press the distribution of names too far, merely note it as being suggestive. The survival of British elements in place-names is more equally distributed, twelve within and thirteen outside of the estates. This is even more likely due to chance (21 per cent probability). Whether 'official protection' played a role in the survival of British speech is therefore less likely, although worth further study. We do not know whether there was a major settlement of Anglian peoples in Elmet as followers of new Anglian lords and their families. At the least, there would have been a few military families as part of the new lords’ retinues or households. So far, archaeology has provided precious little evidence for early Anglian settlement (Faull and Moorhouse 1981: 179-188). However, it is the minor names and field names within the townships that may reflect such actual settlement. When early Anglian minor and field names are plotted on the map (Figure 6, with names plotted at the township centre to which they belong), it can be seen that there is a general scatter throughout Elmet rather than any clustering in areas of the early township names. This may suggest a widespread infiltration of Anglian settlers throughout the area, but could just as well signify the adoption of English speech over the next two centuries. Caution must always be exercised in the case of these minor names as they are not as well documented as the township names and many are only recorded in late forms. An intriguing possibility is that Anglian soldiers were even brought in by British lords before 616/17. There are two features of the distribution of these minor place-names that need further investigation and explanation. This is the concentration of early place-names in the upper Calder, where it cuts through the Pennines, and the existence of Mercian dialect features in the area south of the Wharfe, not just in place-names but in the traditional English dialect of the area (Smith 1961-63 Part VII: 39-42). This has led to some suggesting that Elmet was once under Mercian political control (O'Hare 1993: 12), a suggestion that is hard to reconcile with the historical evidence. Smith identified particularly Mercian name elements as including -worð and especially -worðign (enclosure), -wælla instead of -wella (spring), -rod (clearing), -pihtel (croft) and -wang (meadow, although a derivation from ON vangr is also possible). Other features include alor (alder) becoming owler (e.g. Owlerton), ‘o’ for ‘a’ before nasals (e.g. Honley), scēp (sheep) instead of Northumbrian scīp (e.g. Shepley), and the inflected -byrig rather than -burh (fortification, e.g. Horbury). Smith noted that although Mercian forms were widespread in the area south of the Wharfe, the core of their distribution was to be found in Agbrigg and Morley wapentakes. It is also in Morley where the upper Calder crossing of the Pennines lies. Indeed, the upper Calder gap is where Mercian place-names in -wælla are to be found (Smith 1961-63 Part VII: 41 and map 5). The minor place-names of Morley wapentake themselves may contain evidence of early date in that they have the only examples in Elmet of heathen elements (albeit preserved in much later documents): Thunerton (Sowerby), Pike Law (Mytholmroyd), Killop Lawe, Miller Lowe (Todmorden) and Elm Lawe (Bradford). Four out of these five occur in the upper Calder gap. Smith proposed that Elmet had been settled in the time of Penda by Angles from Mercia rather than Northumbria. It is difficult to believe that Anglian settlers from Mercia would have been brought into Elmet after its absorption into Northumbria. Mercia and Northumbria were long-standing enemies from the time of Penda and Eadwine. Given that their presence is revealed by minor names, not township names, it would seem perhaps more likely that the settlers were brought in by the British kings of Elmet to settle under established British lords. Mercians were not given townships as landowners, they were settled as followers within townships. From the perspective of a king of Elmet, the upper Calder gap leads into what is now southern Lancashire, below the Pennines. It does not face northwards against Rheged but westwards where the nearest known centres of political power would have been Chester and the kingdom of Powys. It may be that relations between the British rulers of Elmet and what would later be Powys were less than cordial. This may explain the survival of Elmet during Æþelferð's expansion of Northumbria, especially as his campaign against Powys, culminating in battle at Chester, would have meant that he would have had to pass through Elmet. Elmet may have been willing to accept Anglian overlordship as protection against its own enemies. Northumbria would gain a loyal ally guarding its south-western flank. Ceredic's poisoning of Hereric, Æþelferð's enemy, would be set in context, as would Eadwine's take over of Elmet as soon as he came to power. This is only a suggested hypothesis to explain Mercian linguistic features in Elmet. Against it may be cited the lack of archaeological evidence for Anglian settlement at this date. Conclusion To sum up, while Elmet passed from British to Anglian rule in 616/17, the actual process whereby Elmet became part of the Anglo-Saxon area of Britain was more complex than this simple transfer of political power. The British kings of Elmet might well have sought Anglian protection under King Æþelferð of Northumbria. Paradoxically, this could have preserved their British character under a king noted by Bede for his annexation and harrying of British lands. Possibly at the same time, the British kings were allowing Anglian settlers from Mercia within selected areas of Elmet. These might have been placed strategically in areas which were weak in British population in order to guard a key border against other British rulers. Perhaps when fighting British enemies they felt that Anglian soldiers would be more reliable. Perhaps, there was a pressure wave of migrant settlers looking to expand beyond Mercian borders and this was a way of safely accommodating them. We may never know the true answer. Elmet’s alliance with Æþelferð was, of course, the cause of its downfall. Eadwine’s defeat of Æþelferð spelt the end of British rule as he took vengeance for the slaying of his nephew Hereric. The transfer of rule involved no wholesale migration of Anglian settlers from Deira, otherwise we should see a dialect more obviously Northumbrian in the area. What it did see was the planting of new Anglian lords over key estates, designed to secure Elmet as a shield between York and potential enemies to the south and west. The estates would have been vacated by fleeing British nobles but a few British landowners might have remained. Over the years, the local population would have taken on Anglian material culture as the area was tied to Northumbrian social and economic networks. The speech of the people would have switched to the new English language, but over a period of time and at different rates in different areas, with pockets of British speech surviving probably well into the eighth century. What we do not see in the tale of Elmet is an ethnic war between Angle and Briton. We do see a tale of politics and military strategy, which had ethnic consequences; not at all the same thing. While a great deal has been achieved by studies of place-names in their geographical context, and in determining the chronological strata of place-names, it is time to move on from this to consider place-names as political and social entities in their own right. Place-names are used by real people within a living political society. It is time to begin to look at the behaviour behind the place-names, rather than just the names themselves. Hooke (1997) is an excellent example of this new approach. When so considered, they can reveal information about political events that reveal early medieval kingdoms as sophisticated organizations, not as random exercises of personal power. Moreover, they reveal a landscape that was organized and capable of political manipulation, not a vacant environment waiting to be colonized. Historical evidence, where it exists, may be used, but with care. Crude notions of racial conflict between Briton and Angle should never be assumed. The evidence from Elmet is valuable in providing us with possible glimpses into the mechanics of ethnic and political interaction and how the transition from Britain to England was a confused and complicated affair. Above all, it shows the potential for place-name studies to progress further and make an even more valuable contribution than hitherto.  TABLES Wapentake -hām -burna -dūn -ēg -wella -inga- -hlāw racial Barkston Ash Bramham Ledsham Fairburn Sherburn Monk-Fryston Saxhall Saxton Skyrack Baildon Burden Rawdon Yeadon Shadwell Bingley Cottingley Headingley (Collingham) Agbrigg Meltham Methley Morley Manningham Rothwell (Churwell) E Ardsley W Ardsley Chellow Osgoldcross Arksey Knottingley Water-Fryston Staincross Strafforth, Lower Bilham Pickburn Billingley Strafforth, Upper Rotherham Braithwell Wombwell (Gildingwells) (Letwell) Tinsley Grimeshou * those in italics contain Norse elements that may have replaced early English equivalents * those in brackets are later townships not attested until after 1086 (not plotted in Figures 4a and 4b) Table 1 Early English Township Names in each Wapentake Wapentake Township in 1086 Township later than 1086 -wic- -ford -feld -wic- -ford Barkston Ash Wistow Camblesforth* Gateforth* Cowthwaite N Milford* S Milford Clifford Micklefield Skyrack Barwick Eldwick East Keswick Wike Garforth Horsforth Wigton Aberford Agbrigg Warmfield Wakefield Huddersfield Morley Wyke Bradford Mirfield Stansfield Longfield Heckmondwike Luddenden Foot Osgoldcross Adwick le Street West Hardwick Castleford East Hardwick Fenwick Huntwick Staincross Keresforth Strafforth, Lower Adwick on Dearne Stainforth* Tudworth* Warmsworth Hatfield Austerfield Darfield Strafforth, Upper Todwick Brinsworth Wath Ravenfield Sheffield Bradfield Ecclesfield * those marked * are not plotted in Figures 4a and 4b, nor are the townships later than 1086, shown in brackets * those in italics contain Norse elements that may have replaced early English equivalents Table 2 Possible Early Township Names Wapentake Bretta- Wala- Cumbra- -caster- Eccles- other Barkston Ash Tadcaster Camblesforth Skyrack Birkby Leeds Ilkley Compton Agbrigg West Bretton Walton Cumberworth Crigglestone Morley Eccleshill Dewsbury Cruttonstall Osgoldcross Castleford Campsall Staincross Monk Bretton Chevet Strafforth, Lower Doncaster Hampole (Rossington) Strafforth, Upper Wales Ecclesfield Ecclesall Rotherham * names in -caster- are need not indicate surviving British identity, but English recognition of Roman origin * those in italics are formed from British words borrowed into English * those in brackets are later townships not attested until after 1086 (not plotted in Figures 3a and 3b) Table 3 British Township Names in each Wapentake Wapentake Estate Bere-wicks Soke-lands Owner Skyrack Kippax 3 14 Earl Eadwine Otley + Sherburn 17 – Archbishop Barkston Morley Agbrigg Wakefield 7 10 King Staincross Osgoldcross Tanshelf 2 9 King Strafforth (later in 2 halves) Laughton + Hexthorpe + Conisbrough 2 7 Earl Eadwine + Earl Tostig + Earl Harold Hallam 19 – Earl Walþeof Table 4 - ‘Official’ estates in the West Riding in 1066 Wapentakes Early names All names % Barkston-Skyrack 20 135 14.8 Agbrigg-Morley 8 111 7.2 Osgoldcross-Staincross 5 90 5.6 Strafforth 10 135 7.4 Table 5 Early Anglian township names by wapentake APPENDIX - Early Anglo-Saxon and British Place-names In the lists of township names below, the earliest recorded form is given as found in Smith 1961-63, Faull and Stinson 1986 or Watts 2004. Townships in parentheses, ( ), = townships recorded only after 1086. Place-Names more likely to contain early English elements (see Table 1) italics = possible Norse renaming of an earlier English name Present Name Earliest form Present Name Earliest form Bilham Bileham (Churwell) Cherlewell Bramham Brameham (Gildingwells) Gildanwell (Collingham) Collingham (Letwell) Lettewelle Ledsham Ledesham Rothwell Rodewelle Manningham Mayningham Shadwell Scadewelle Meltham Meltham Wombwell Wanbuelle Rotherham Rodreham E Ardsley Erdeslau Fairburn Farenburne W Ardsley Erdeslau Pickburn Picheburne Chellow Celeslau Sherburn Scirburne Grimeshou Grimeshou Baildon Baeldun Tinsley Tineslaw Burden Burgedun Billingley Bilingelei Rawdon Roudun Bingley Bingelei Yeadon Iadun Cottingley Cotingelei Arksey Archesei Headingley Hedingelei Bardsey Berdesei Knottingley Notingelai Methley Medelei Monk Fryston Fristun Pudsey Podechesai Water Fryston Friston Wibsey Wibetese Saxhall Saxehale Braithwell Bradewelle Saxton Saxtun Notes These are place-names that contain elements which were common in the early period of settlement naming (Gelling 1984) or elements referring to ethnic Germanic settlers. Many of the topographic names continued in use into later times, so not all of these names can be proven to be early: merely that they can be seen as likely to be early. This is well explored for the West Riding by Smith (1961-63 Part VII: 36-37). Place-Names less likely to contain early English elements (see Table 2) italics = Norse name possibly replacing an earlier English name Present Name Earliest form Present Name Earliest form Adwick on Dearne Hadewic Keresforth Creuesford Adwick le Street Adewic North Milford Mileford Barwick Berewit South Milford Mylenford Eldwick Helguic Stainforth Stenford West Hardwick Harduic Tudworth Tudeford East Keswick Chesinc Warmsworth Wermesford Todwick Tatewic Wath Wad Wike Wich (Aberford) Ædburford Wistow Wicstow (Luddenden Foot) Luddingdeneforth Wyke Wich Austerfield Ouestræfeld (Fenwick) Fenwic Bradfield Bradesfeld (East Hardwick) Herdewic Darfield Dereweld (Heckmondwike) Hedmundewic Ecclesfield Eclesfeld (Huntwick) Huntwic Hatfield Heathfelth (Wigton) Wigdon Huddersfield Odresfelt Bradford Bradeford Longfield Langefelt Brinsworth Brynesford Micklefield Miclanfeld Camblesforth Camelesford Mirfield Mirefeld Clifford Cliford Ravenfield Ravenesfeld Cowthwaite Cudford Sheffield Scafeld Garforth Gereford Stansfield Stanesfelt Gateforth Gæiteford Warmfield Warnesfeld Horsforth Horseford Wakefield Wachefeld Place-Names containing British elements or indicating British settlement (see Table 3) italics = may contain English loanwords from British Present name Earliest form Present name Earliest form Birkby Bretebi Camblesforth Camelesford Monk Bretton Bretton Campsall Cansale West Bretton Bretone Chevet Cevet Wales Wales Compton Conton Walton Waletun Crigglestone Crigestone Cumberworth Combreword Cruttonstall Crumbetonestun Castleford Ceasterford Dewsbury Deusberie Doncaster Doneceastre Hampole Honepol Tadcaster Tatecaster Leeds Loidis Ecclesall Eccleshale (Rossington) Rosingtun Ecclesfield Eclesfeld Rotherham Rodreham Eccleshill Egleshil Notes to names not otherwise explained in the text (based on Smith 1961-63, Watts 2004) Camblesforth may contain an OE personal name *Camel, although no such name is found in OE documents, or the Welsh river name Camlais, meaning crooked stream. Watts regards the latter as unlikely for a small stream in marshland (Watts 2004: 111), and holds that in any case there is no stream in or near the village. On the other hand, the modern township of Camblesforth makes use of various widening streams as for its boundaries. Campsall most likely contains Pr W *camm, meaning crooked or bent, since the village lies at a sharp bend in a stream. Chevet contains the equivalent of modern Welsh cefn, meaning a ridge of land. Compton is based on OE cumb. This may itself be based on Pr W *cumbo, a name for a type of valley, although Gelling has suggested it could equally as well be a proper English word meaning a cup or steep sided vessel, used for a simlarly shaped valley (Gelling & Cole 2000: 107). Crigglestone contains Pr W *crüg, a hill, mound or barrow. Cruttonstall contains OE crumb with the meaning crooked, but could just as easily be based on Pr W *crumbo, also meaning crooked. Dewsbury has the Welsh personal name Dewi (David), perhaps a reference to the saint. Hampole contains either OE pol (a pool or deep stream), or a British word found in modern Welsh as pwll (pit, pool, creek). Rossington has at its root the Pr W ros with the meaning of a moor or promontary. Rotherham takes its name from the River Rother, itself from Pr W *ro-duβr, meaning the chief river.  References Alcock, L 1971 Arthur's Britain: history and archaeology AD 367-634, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Alcock, L 2003 Kings and Warriors, Craftsmen and Priests in Northern Britain AD 550-850, Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Armitage, E S 1905 A key to English antiquities: with special reference to the Sheffield and Rotherham District London: J.M. Dent Arnold, C J 1984 Roman Britain to Saxon England, Buckenham: Croom Helm Ausenda, G 1997 “Current issues and future directions in the study of the early Anglo-Saxon period”, in J Hines (ed.) The Anglo-Saxons from the Migration Period to the Eighth Century: 411-450, Woodbridge: Boydell Press Balkwill, C J 1993 “Old English wic and the origin of the hundred”, Landscape History 15: 5-12 Barrow, G W S 1969 “Northern English society in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries”, Northern History 4: 1-28 Bassett, S 1989 The Origins of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, Leicester: University Press Bevan, B 2006 From Cairns to Craters: conservation assessment of Burbage, Edale: Moors for the Future Breeze, A 1997 “The origin of the name Deira”, Transactions of the Yorkshire Dialect Society 19 (97): 35-39 Bromwich, R 1991 Trioedd Ynys Prydein, Cardiff: University of Wales Press Brooks, N 1989 “The formation of the Mercian kingdom”, in S Bassett (ed) The Origins of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms: 159-170, Leicester: University Press Cameron, K 1977 English Place-Names, London: Batsford Cameron, K 1979-80 “The meaning and significance of Old English walh in English place-Names”, Journal of the English Place-Name Society 12: 1-53 Carver, M H 1998 Sutton Hoo: burial ground of kings?, London: British Museum Press Clarkson, T 1999 “The Gododdin revisited”, The Heroic Age 1 (online at http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/1/hatf.htm) Coates, R 1999 “New light from old wicks: the progeny of Latin Vicus”, Nomina 22: 75-116 Coates, R 2006 “Chesterblade, Somerset, with a reflection on the element chester”, Journal of the English Place-Name Society 38: 5-12 Coates, R 2007 “Invisible Britons: the view from linguistics”, in N Higham (ed.) Britons in Anglo-Saxon England: 172-191, Woodbridge: Boydell Press Colgrave, B & Mynors, R A B 1969 Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People, Oxford: University Press Cubbin, G P 1996 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: a collaborative edition, Volume 6: MS D, Cambridge: D S Brewer Dark, K R 1994 Civitas to Kingdom: British political continuity 300-800, Leicester: University Press Dark, K R 2000 Britain and the End of the Roman Empire, Stroud: Tempus Davies, W & Vierck, H 1974 “The contexts of Tribal Hidage: social aggregates and settlement patterns”, Fruhmittelalterlicher Studien 8: 223-293 Dumville, D 1985 The Historia Brittonum, 3: the Vatican recension, Cambridge: D S Brewer Dumville, D 1989 “Essex, Middle Anglia, and the expansion of Mercia in the south-east Midlands”, in S Bassett The Origins of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms: 123-140, Leicester: University Press Eagles, B 1989 “Lindsey”, in S Bassett The Origins of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms: 202-212, Leicester: University Press Ekwall, E 1960 The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English place-names, Oxford: University Press Esmonde Cleary, A S 1989 The Ending of Roman Britain, London: B T Batsford Faral, E 1929 La Légende Arthurienne, Études et Documents, Première Partie, Les Plus Anciens Textes, Vol. III: 2-62. Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion. Faulkner, N 2000 The Decline and Fall of Roman Britain, Stroud: Tempus Faull, M L 1974 “Roman and Anglian settlement patterns in Yorkshire”, Northern History 9: 1-25 Faull, M L 1975 “The semantic development of Old-English wealh”, Leeds Studies in English 8: 20-44 Faull, M L 1979 “The use of place-names in reconstructing the historic landscape; illustrated by names from Adel township”, Landscape History 1: 34-43 Faull, M L 1980 “Place-names and the kingdom of Elmet”, Nomina 4: 21-23 Faull, M L & Moorhouse, S A 1981 West Yorkshire: an Archaeological Survey to A.D. 1500, Wakefield: West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council Faull, M & R T Smith 1980 “Phosphate analysis of three possible Dark Age ecclesiastical sites in Yorkshire”, Landscape History 2: 21-38 Faull, M L & Stinson, M 1986 Domesday Book: 30 Yorkshire, Chichester: Phillimore Frere, S 1967 Britannia, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Gelling, M 1979 “The evidence of place-names I”, in P H Sawyer 1979 English Medieval Settlement: 9-34, London: Edward Arnold Gelling, M 1984 Place-Names in the Landscape, London: J M Dent Gelling, M 1988 Signposts to the Past, London: Dent & Sons Gelling, M 1988 “Towards a chronology for English place-names”, in D Hooke Anglo-Saxon Settlements: 59-76, Oxford: Basil Blackwell Gelling, M & A Cole 2000 The Landscape of Place-Names, Stamford: Shaun Tyas Gregory, S 1963 Statistical Methods and the Geographer, London: Longman Gregson, N 1985 “The multiple estate model: some critical questions”, Journal of Historical Geography 11: 339-351 Hadley, D 1996 “Multiple estates and the origins of the manorial structure of the northern Danelaw”, Journal of Historical Geography 22: 3-15 Hall, K M 1993 “Pre-conquest estates in Yorkshire”, in Le Patourel, H E J, M H Long & M F Pickles Yorkshire boundaries: 25-38, Leeds: Yorkshire Archaeological Society Harrison, K 1976 The Framework of Anglo-Saxon History to A.D. 900, Cambridge: University Press Hart, C 1977 “The kingdom of Mercia”, in A Dornier Mercian Studies: 43-61 Henig, M 2002 “Roman Britons after AD 410”, British Archaeology 68:8-11 Higham, N J 1993 The Kingdom of Northumbria A.D. 350-1100, Stroud: Alan Sutton Higham, N 1995 An English Empire: Bede and the early Anglo-Saxon kings Hooke, D 1997 “The Anglo-Saxons in England in the seventh and eighth centuries: aspects of location in space”, in J Hines (ed) The Anglo-Saxons from the migration period to the eighth century: 65-99, Woodbridge: Boydell Press Jackson, K H 1946 “On the name 'Leeds'”, Antiquity 80: 209-210 (with typographical corrections in Antiquity 81: 9) Jackson, K H 1953 Language and History in Early Britain, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Jackson, K H 1969 The Gododdin: the oldest Scottish poem, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Jarman, A O H 1990 Aneirin: Y Goddodin: Britain’s oldest heroic poem, Llandysul: Gomer Press Jones, G R J 1975 “Early territorial organization in Gwynedd and Elmet”, Northern History 10: 3-27 Jones, G R J 1979 “Multiple estates and early settlement”, in Sawyer, P H (ed.) English Medieval Settlement: 9-34, London: Edward Arnold Jones, G R J 1985 “Multiple estates perceived”, Journal of Historical Geography 11: 352-363 Kain, R J P & R R Oliver 2001 Historic Parishes of England & Wales: an electronic map of boundaries before 1850, Colchester: History Data Service Kapelle, W E 1979 The Norman Conquest of the North: The Region and its Transformation 1000-1135, London: Croom Helm Jones, G 1985 “Multiple estates perceived”, Journal of Historical Geography 11: 352-363 Koch, J T 1988 “The Cynfeirdd poetry and the language of the sixth century”, in B F Roberts Early Welsh Poetry: Studies in the Book of Aneirin: 17-42, Aberystwyth: National Library of Wales Koch J T 1997 The Gododdin of Aneirin: text and context in dark age north Britain, Cardiff: University of Wales Koch, J T 2006 Celtic Culture: a historical encyclopedia, Santa Barbara, California: ABC-Clio Ltd Le Patourel, H E J, M H Long & M F Pickles (eds.) 1993 Yorkshire Boundaries, Leeds: Yorkshire Archaeological Society Leahy, K 1993 “The Anglo-Saxon settlement of Lindsey”, in A Vince (ed.) Pre-Viking Lindsey, Lincoln: City of Lincoln Archaeology Unit Michelmore, D J H 1979 “The reconstruction of the early tenural and territorial divisions of the landscape of northern England”, Landscape History 1: 1-9 Morris, J 1975 The Age of Arthur, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson Morris, J 1980 Nennius: British History and the Welsh Annals, London: Phillimore Morris Jones, J 1913 A Welsh Grammar, Historical and Comparative, Oxford, Clarendon Press Myers, J N L 1969 Anglo-Saxon Pottery and the Settlement of England, Oxford: University Press Myers, J N L 1977 A Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Pottery of the Pagan Period, Cambridge: University Press Nash Williams, V E 1950 The Early Christian Monuments of Wales, Cardiff: University of Wales Press O'Hare, P 1993 “Yorkshire boundaries and their development”, in H E J Le Patourel, M H Long & M F Pickles (eds.) Yorkshire Boundaries, Leeds: Yorkshire Archaeological Society Parker, M S 1992 “The province of Hatfield”, Northern History 28: 42-69 Piggott, C M 1951 “Notes and news”, Antiquity 25: 210-212 Pohl, W 1997 “Ethnic names and identities in the British Isles: a comparative perspective”, in J Hines (ed.) The Anglo-Saxons from the Migration period to the Eighth Century: an ethnographic perspective: 7-40 Proudfoot, E & C Aliaga-Kelly 1998 “Aspects of Settlement and Territorial Arrangements in South-east Scotland in the Late Prehistoric and Early Medieval Periods”, Medieval Archaeology 41: 33-50 Reece, R 1980 “Town and country: the end of Roman Britain”, World Archaeology 12.1: 77-92 Smith, A H 1961-63 The Place-Names of the West Riding of Yorkshire, Cambridge: University Press Stafford, P 1985 The East Midlands in the Early Middle Ages, Leicester: University Press Swift, E 2000 The End of the Western Roman Empire, Stroud: Tempus Taylor, C M 1992 “Elmet: boundaries and Celtic survival in the post-Roman period”, Medieval History 2: 111-129 Taylor, H M & J 1965 Anglo-Saxon Architecture, Volume 1, Cambridge: University Press Watts, V E 2004 The Cambridge Dictionary of English Place-Names, Cambridge: University Press Wheelhouse, P, M Whittingham & R O'Neill 2000 Grim's Ditch at Colton Mill, Colton, Leeds: West Yorkshire Archaeology Service Whitelock, D 1968 English Historical Documents c. 500-1042, London: Eyre & Spottiswoode Williams, Sir I 1947 “The Earliest Poetry”, The Welsh Review 6: 238-243 Williams, Sir I (trans. J E C Williams) 1968 Canu Taliesin, Dublin: Institute for Advanced Studies Winchester, A 2000 Discovering Parish Boundaries, Princes Risborough: Shire Publications Winchester, A 2008 “Early estate structures in Cumbria and Lancashire”, Medieval Settlement Research 23: 14–21 Wood, P N 1996 “On the little British kingdom of Craven”, Northern History 32: 1-20 WYAS (West Yorkshire Archaeological Services) 2007 Doncaster, South Yorkshire: archaeological desk-based assessment volume 1: town survey, Doncaster: Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Yorke, B 1990 Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England, London: Seaby