Proc. Field Club Archaeol. Soc. 60, 2005, 154-169 (Hampshire Studies 2005)

WHY ? REFLECTIONS ON ANGLO-SAXON KINGSHIP IN A HAMPSHIRE LANDSCAPE

By RYAN LAVELLE

ABSTRACT jargon may have been undesirable), it is evident that what he refers to are regiones, the This paper focuses on the context of the promulgation ofthe quasi-'proto-kingdoms' of early Anglo-Saxon first 'national' lawcode of King Atlxelstan at Grateley . The relicts of such a landscape are there- (c.925x30; probably 926x7). A localised context allows a fore useful for understanding manifestations of consideration of the arrangements of the royal resourcesroyal control of the landscape. Although this which supplied the Anglo-Saxon 'national' assembly, the article may not concur with Wood's tentative des- witangemot. In so doing the paper looks at royal estate ignation of Andover and Grateley as separate organisation in Andover hundred in north-western Hamp- territories, each focused on hillforts, it is intended shire, making a case for the significance of Andover itself. to build on his proposition, addressing the Finally, the role of the landscape in the political ritual of question of the royal territory - arguably an early laxomaking is discussed. royal territory - in the expression of authority on a 'national' scale. This paper uses a specific event as a focal point INTRODUCTION for die examination of the landscape. During the first few years of his reign, King Athelstan issued This paper addresses the exercise of Anglo-Saxon what was probably his first lawcode at a place kingship, manifested in land organisation in the which is toponymically identifiable as Grateley, hundred of Andover (see Fig. 1). For the most some 8 km west of Andover (Gover 1961, 166). part, die area under discussion is an undulating Known as // Atlielstan, the lawcode, and subse- chalk downland landscape to which some distinc- quent references to it provide the only tive character may be ascribed (Crawford 1922, documentary indications of Grateley's appear- 10-11). It is dominated by pasture and the River ance in Anglo-Saxon history (Liebermann 1903, Anton and its tributary, the Pilhill Brook. Field 150-67; Whitelock 1979, 417-22). The lawcode names indicate diat the area was formerly charac- can be located on the basis of the epilogue to its terised by woodland; indeed in the twelfth Latin version, recorded in the early century die region was part of the Forest of twelfth-century Quadripartitus text, which referred Chute, which may have had pre-Conquest origins to a 'great assembly at Grateley1 (magna synodo apud (Bond 1994, 122). Greateleyam) (Liebermann 1903, 167). There was Michael Wood has suggested that north-west no reason for this clause to have been fabricated Hampshire can be seen as areas organised initially in the twelfth century, as the primacy of a lawcode from hillforts and later from royal vills, with from Grateley can be ascertained by references to relicts of that organisation surviving in the land- it in Athelstan's later codes (Liebermann 1903, scape over at least a millennium (Wood 1986, 166-7, 170-1, and 173). 76-9; see also Hase 1994). Although Wood was IIAthebtan included a variety of clauses associ- writing before the term became common currency ated with the direct implementation of justice in amongst archaeologists and historians (and, given criminal law and a reorganisation of the burghal the wide audience for whom he wrote, specialist system. Even by the high standards of the West LA VELLE: WHY GRATELEY? ANGLO-SAXON KINGSHIP IN A HAWSHIRE LANDSCAPE 155

Fig. 1 Location map of Grateley and Andovcr in Hampshire

Saxon dynasty, in which the promulgation of leg- Grateley compares poorly with the more prolific islation was one of the central tenets of the location of Andover. expression of Christian kingship, it was an impor- This leads to the question proposed in Uiis tant and ambitious text, the 'major "official" paper's tide, to which a simple response could be statement of the reign', as Patrick Wormald made: why not Grateley? After all, the peripatetic described it (Wormald 1999, 300). Such a legisla- nature of Anglo-Saxon kingship is well docu- tive statement is hardly unsurprising in view of mented, probably including the use of tents (see Athelstan's later achievements. However, one below, p. 157), and Athelstan's travels are better might be more surprised at the choice of Grateley, recorded than most (Hill 1981, 87). It seems only now an unassuming village, for the site of such a natural that the king would have been docu- lawcode. The reference to die 1133 grant of a mented as staying in 'minor' places of the nature chapel (capella) at Grateley alongside a church at of Grateley just as much as, if not proportionately in a charter of Henry 1 (Farrer 1914, more than, in such important royal/ecclesiastical no. 132) does not fill one with confidence for the centres as Winchester. However, die promulga- site of an important royal vill and minster church tion of the Grateley lawcode was an event of a complex of the sort associated with, for example, calibre which required more than an overnight Cheddar (Blair 1996). Certainly, as will be sojourn of a king and his family. Assemblies addressed below, the amount of evidence for which resulted in lawcodes were evidently major 156 HAMPSHIRE FIELD CLUB AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY political events. In view of the manner in which addition to Grateley, assemblies known to have early medieval kings operated with a sense of involved lawmaking (although of course we do ritual and drama, the landscape in which die law not know if they excluded land transactions) were could have been promulgated should not be over- held at Exeter, Thunderfield (Surrey), Faversham looked, just as the landscape in which the law (Kent), London and Whittlcbury (Northants.) operated was an important part of its 'meaning' (Liebermann 1903, 150-83). Therefore, Grateley (Reynolds forthcoming). In the process of investi- was the only such Athelstan assembly that is gating this, I hope to address the manner in which known of in the Wessex 'heartlands', although royal power could be expressed in the landscape with Chippenham, Worthy, Wellow, , and the question of how such assemblies could be Wilton, Winchester, Frome and Dorchester resourced through the organisation of West amongst die locations of other assemblies, such Saxon royal estates. West Saxon locations were hardly uncommon in what was otiierwise a relatively even geographical distribution. In terms of assemblies at non-urban KINGS AND ASSEMBLIES: GRATELEY locations, probably in the open air, such as at AND THE MANIFESTATIONS OF ROYAL Lifton, Thunderfield and Whittlebury, die mani- POWER festation of Anglo-Saxon kingship at Grateley does not appear to have been extraordinary. The Grateley lawcodc can be usefully considered Given die need for Anglo-Saxon kings to take as a manifestation of die peripatetic nature of counsel and to be seen to take good counsel, Anglo-Saxon kingship. In calling for a legislative assemblies were an integral part of Anglo-Saxon assembly, Adielstan, like his predecessors and kingship, an issue of Old Testament significance. indeed his successors, was showing that he could As some of the better-recorded witness lists show command resources and feed his people (or at (e.g. for Hampshire, Sawyer 1968, nos. 370, 413, least those people who were important). The king 425, 779, 876), particularly large assemblies could called his council to a range of different places in result in attendances of some forty or more order to conduct the affairs of state, the locations nobles, many, if not all of whom, were presum- of some of which were recorded in charters and ably accompanied by their respective retinues. Of lawcodes (Fig. 2). The purpose of an assembly course, it is not entirely possible to estimate how may have determined its scale, with 'legislative' many such 'hangers-on' this would have entailed assemblies requiring greater logistical attention but, if we consider an arbitrary ratio of ten to due to higher attendance. Although the disposi- every one notable, a very rough estimate of at tion of land may only have been one relatively least some four hundred cannot be unrealistic. unimportant element of the business conducted at Assuming that a well-fed, wealthy man would some assemblies, locations of assemblies at what need some 2,000-2,500 calories per day and that seem to be a 'national' level are mostly known a large portion of meat would provide a sizeable from land charters, which due to the assiduous element of that intake, such a large party could work of a scribe known to diplomatists as easily have been supported by a render including 'Athelstan A' are comparatively well recorded the likes of the two cows or ten wethers, and 300 during the reign of Athelstan. Such assemblies are loaves which are specified in King Ine's lawcode known from Exeter, Buckingham, Lyminster from every ten hides (Liebermann 1903, 119-20; (Sussex), Chippenham, Colchester, Worthy Whitelock 1979, 406). While this is not the place (Hants.), Wellow (Hants, or Somerset), Lifton to discuss the relationships between a seventh- (Devon), Milton (Kent or Dorset), Amesbury, century lawcode and late Anglo-Saxon estate Wilton, Winchester, Nottingham, Frome organisation (See Lavelle 2003), it should suffice (Somerset), Cirencester, Dorchester, Abingdon here to say that a large royal estate at Andover and Hamsey (Sussex) (Keynes 1995, tables 36-9; was more than capable, should it have been neces- Sawyer 1968, nos. 1208, 1211), a mixture of rural sary, of providing enough to supply a royal estates, urban and ecclesiastical centres. In assembly. IJVVELLE: WHY GRATELEY? ANGLO-SAXON KINGSHIP IN A HAMPSHIRE LANDSCAPE 157

• Nottingham

Whittleburv

Colchester • Buckingham •_ Cirencester

London Chippenham

?Miltorf 1 ^AmesburyS ^ ThgndgrSf^|cj Faversham w 0 m Worthy •

Wilton • #Winchester • Hamsey Wei low ^ ^ # EX3ter Dorchester _jWftt ^^^^7 Lyminster •Litton

Fig. 2 The locations of royal assemblies during die reign of King Athclstan (92*1—39). The locations of assemblies which resulted in a lawcode are underlined

There is precious little evidence on the where necessary, and in high quality tents this did practicalities of Anglo-Saxon assemblies. How- not have to be a Spartan existence. Presumably ever, with regard to a rare record of the Bishop of the manner in which resources from die sur- Chester-lc-Street staying in a tent south of rounding royal lands (of which Grateley was Woodyates at Oakridge (Dorset) in 970, Worm- probably a part) could be brought together made aid (1999, 437) suggested that such conditions Grateley a practical location, whether or not those could have been standard practice for most of the summoned to die assembly were also required to Anglo-Saxon nobility. While Grateley's proximity supply part of the render. It is especially interest- to Andover (about an hour's ride) offered advan- ing that die legislative assembly was held at tages, an assembly did not necessarily require the Grateley rather than the assumed hundred permanence of a royal palace: large numbers of meeting-place at Andover. people could be accommodated under canvas In terms of the context of the Grateley lawcode, 158 HAMPSHIRE FIELD CLUB AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY wc must turn once more to die epilogue recorded his probable absence. Athelstan may have been in in the Quadriparlilus text: a precarious position in the first few years of his All this was established [totum hoc histitutuni\ at reign: the 926 peace agreement between Athelstan the great assembly at Grateley, at which Arch- and Sihtric, the 'King of the Northumbrians' bishop Wulfhelm was present [ad archiepiscopus (Whitclock et al. 1961, 68), may have relied more Wulftxelmus mterfu'u\ and all the chief and wise men upon the survival of Sihtric than a broader level of [onmes optimaks ct sapiences] whom King Athelstan Northumbrian consent. Moreover, widi a king could gather [congregate potuit] whose childhood influences may have been more Although the phrase congregatepotuit may hint at Mercian than West Saxon, the West Saxon limited attendance, the naming of Wulfhelm, the nobility can hardly have been entirely supportive, Archbishop of Canterbury from 925 or 926 to especially when their interests had been invested 941, lends authority to the lawcode. This even led in the very short reign of Athelstan's step-brodier, Patrick Wormald, ever aware of the elcvendi- jfclfweard (Mynors etal 1995, 210-11 and 224-9; century importance of Archbishop Wulfstan of sec here Miller 2001, xxviii-xxx, although he is York, to wonder whether here the archbishop of understandably cautious in drawing conclusions Canterbury was acting in lieu of the king himself from William of Malmesbury). Athelstan's {Wormald 1999, 295); certainly the term mterfuit achievements may have been directed northwards which is applied to Archbishop Wulfhelm of Can- and indeed across Britain in 927, if not before, but terbury hints at more activity than Whitclock's equally he needed to consolidate the West Saxon translation 'was present' allows. However, taking face of his kingship. If the Grateley lawcode was into account the prominence of royal authority in directed towards such a consolidation and a the making of Anglo-Saxon law and the implicit welding of southumbrian administration with that agency of die king in the phrase congregate potuit, of the royal heartlands of Wessex, its promulga- die presence of the king in person cannot be ruled tion in Hampshire close to - but not out. uncomfortably close to - the seat of power of Furthermore, while the brief Quadripartitus West Saxon episcopal authority may have served addition may have been the work of a twelfth- as part of this function at a significant time. Like a century scribe under conditions similar to those number of other assemblies, Grateley was which led to the mutilation of the witness list of emphatically within Wessex. This may have the Whittlebury lawcodc (Wormald 1999, 438), stood in contrast to the locations of other meeting had the archbishop of York as well as all those places in the Wessex/Mercia 'boundary' zone, at British kings who submitted to Athelstan after 927 Chippenham, Kingston and Cirencester. also been present at Gratclcy, it is likely that they However, as will be discussed below, it may even would have been at least noted (Wliitelock et al. be stiggested that the part of the estate in which 1961, 68-9; Sawyer 1968, nos. 399 and 400; Grateley lay allowed a degree of visual unity Keynes 1995, table 36). After all, attestations in across northern Wessex to the Thames basin. charters wliich can be dated to before 928 in Athclstan's reign do not compare with the number of attestations in charters from after this GRATELEY AND THE ANDOVER ESTATE date. The archbishop of York is noticeable by his absence in many of these pre-928 charters By contrast with Grateley, references to Andover (Keynes 1995, tables 37-9), perhaps indicating the are far more prolific in Anglo-Saxon sources. King relative weaknesses of Athelstan's kingship north Edgar (959-75) declared a lawcodc at Andover of Mercia during this period - or indeed the (Liebermann 1903, 195-206; Whitelock 1979, strength and independence of the archbishop of 431-3) and along with and Kingsclere York (Rollason 2003, 228-30). it is also recorded in King Eadred's will, dating Even if we cannot ascribe a precise date to the from between 946 and 955, as part of the bequest promulgation of laws at Grateley, die political to die New Minster. Although this donation does interests of the archbishop of York may explain not seem to have lasted or even to have been LAVELLE: WHY GRATELEY? ANGLO-SAXON KINGSHIP IN A HAMPSHIRE LANDSCAPE 159 enacted, as Aiidover remained in royal hands , of which some late Anglo-Saxon fabric thereafter (Sawyer 1968, no. 1515; Miller 2001, remains (Taylor & Taylor 1965, 500-1), may also 78-81), Keith Lilley has made a good case for the equate with the Godwinist appropriation of promontory on the being the area of property in this vill, in a similar manner, though the grant, and if this part of Andover was indeed a lesser scale, to their appropriation of land in the significant minster church, it was one which was neighbouring Wallops - which also had a close to royal control (Lilley 1999, 26-7; sec also hillfort - and probably commensurate investment Hase 1994, 63-5). Royal presence in Andover is in the church at (Gem et al 1981). indicated by a salacious record of King Edgar's , to die east of Grateley and recorded as sexual exploits in William of Malmesbury's Gesta in royal hands in 1086, was held from royal Region Aiighrum (Mynors et al 1998, 258-61). demesne in 1066 by a certain Wulfgifu, a woman According to the Narratio Metrica de Sancto who also held land at Fyfield which had been Sxoithww, jfctiielred IPs councillors assembled at granted to a royal diegn years before, in 975 Andover in October 980 before moving on to (Sawyer 1968, no. 800). Land at Winchester for the dedication of die New Minster was held by Queen Edith in 1066; tiiis land may tower (Campbell 1950, 67). A peace treaty, II have been especially significant considering that it JEthelred, which can be located by its record in the included , a place known from at least the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, was also made between a sixteendi century as the site of a fair (Page 1911, group of Vikings and King ^thelred and his 396-7), witii the place-name element weoh record- councillors at Andover in 994 (Whitelock 1979, ing a pagan temple or shrine (Gover 1961, 169). 437-8; Liebcrmann 1903, 220-5; Whitelock et id. Edith was also the tenant-in-chief of a manor at 1961, 83). Shoddesdcn, a land whose subtenant was a royal The Domesday evidence shows that Andover agent recorded amongst die royal thegns' (tairti can be considered as the centre of a royal hundred regis) holdings (see Lavelle 2004). Given the pro- (Fig. 3), which may well be coterminous with the pensity of royal lands to be closely controlled in royal territory under consideration here. With six the ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries, the mills and one hundred people recorded on the evidence for a well-established royal estate in estate by 1086 (Munby 1982, 1:41), the Domesday Andover hundred is collectively persuasive. manor of Andover clearly commanded consider- It is possible that some land in Andover able resources. Arguably, and perhaps crucially, as hundred beside that in the vill of Andover may be suggested by the absence of an entry for remained part of the Andover estate as late as Grateley in Domesday Book, this included a 1086 and therefore went unrecorded under any control of the site of Grateley. otiicr manor. To address this, comparisons have Domesday Book also indicates that many of the been made between die acreages of productive manors in Andover hundred surrounding the land in each of the Andover parishes and the royal vill of Andover (i.e. those between Andover appropriate Domesday hidages and monetary val- and Grateley) were manors with royal connec- uations (Table 1, Fig. 4). The acreages have been tions. It seems likely that, like Nether Wallop, the taken from die nineteendi-century measurements land at Quarley was one such manor and diat its for tithe assessment and glebe land - in effect, the private ownership - by the Godwine family sum of productive land - in each parish (H.R.O. before the Conquest - was relatively novel, espe- 21M65/F7). The graph shows the relationship cially in view of Robin Fleming's suggestion of between the acreage of the parishes and the value what could be perceived as a privatised defensive of the manors, as well as their liability for geld (i.e. policy. Quarley may have been one of many nidation) in Andover hundred recorded in southern English 'official' lands formerly under Domesday Book for 1065-6. In some cases, royal control containing strategically placed and because the precise locations of manors are not potentially useful hillforts which were alienated to known, the sums of hidages within certain the Godwine family (Munby 1982, 1:40; Fleming manors have been used to make a total assess- 1991, 94). The material investment in a church at ment which can be compared with the acreage of 160 HAMPSHIRE FIELD CLUB AND ARCHAKOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Tanglay Hurstboume Tarrant 2 miles

3 km W I LTS St Mary Bourne

Kings Enham Ponlon Weyhill fMawsoy, (wilh Ponton GiaflDi^ South

Fylif

Shipton Bellinger

Am port (weiEasiCtwUHrtofi!

Upper Clatfofd Quarley Goodworth

Grate ley

Fig. 3 The constituent parishes of Aiidover hundred and its neighbours (after Hase li)!>4). 'Hie positions of Foxcotic and Kings Lnham arc marked widiin the parish boundaries of Andovcr. a whole parish. These are and Determining a number of acres per hide is a with East , Kimpton witli Littleton longstanding issue amongst medieval historians. and Shoddesdon, and the later parish of Weyhill, Therefore, where die number of acres per hide is which covered the Domesday manors of Penton high, yet the number of acres needed to yield one Grafton and . The Victoria County pound of revenue for the estate is proportionately History's record of 's acreage has also lower, taken here as fifty per cent or less, we may been used to distinguish the area from the nine- be able to surmise beneficial nidation for the land- teenth-century parish of And over-cum-Foxcotte holder. This is the case for the manors at Quarley, (Page 1911, 345). Penton Grafton, , and probably LAVELLE: WHY GRATELEY? ANGLO-SAXON KINGSHIP IN A HAMPSHIRE I-ANDSCAPE 161

600

500

400

Q acres/hide 300 Qacres/E 200 In* 100 ljr0

J ^ ' . / < / / / « / «

Fig. 4 Graph showing ihc relationship between die areas of parishes md Domesday hidagc assessments and values of estates Andovcr hundred

also for (Knight's) Enham. However, of greater some land within the bounds of the later parish significance for the purposes of this study, where was still uncultivated at the edge of the demesne the number of acres per hide is relatively high and of course a characteristic of the succeeding (taken as 200 acres or more) and the number of centuries across Western Europe was the process acres to provide a pound's worth of revenue is of bringing such land under cultivation. However, also high, we may be able to surmise diat liability given that the assessment for hidage included for geld was either based upon the quality of the waste land within the estate, some equality can be land or that not all the land in a nine- claimed across all of the calculations. There is teenth-century parish was under the cultivation of another possibility, especially evident in the case the eleventh-century vills in that area. Areas to of Foxcotte, the post-medieval area of which does which this can be applied are Foxcotte, Kimpton not appear to have been commensurate with the (here including Littleton and Shoddesdon), manors recorded there in Domesday Book (for Abbots Ann, and Fyfield. Although at first glance remarks on the area of Foxcotte, see Russel 1985, this may also have applied to South Tidworth, if a 150-1). In view of its proximity to Andover, it is third manor recorded under neighbouring likely that part of Foxcotte was part of the royal Broughton hundred (Munby 1982, 28:3) is estate at Andover in Domesday Book. included in the calculations, the levels of hides This is therefore a potentially significant aspect and pounds per acre are brought to lower propor- of the study of the royal estate at Andover. The tions, and therefore South Tidworth should be limits of the parish of Andover itself may not discounted here. provide the complete picture of the royal estate of Such calculations may result from the fact that Andover. As there are only two entries for Enham Table 1 Domesday lands in Andover hundred and their relative acreages from nineteenth-century parishes

Land Phillimore 1066 holder 1086 holder Hidage 1066 Parish acreage Acres/hide Acres/£ code assessment hides value (£) • (h), virgates (v)

Abbotts Ann 6.11 New Minster New Minster 15 h £14 3195 213 228.2 Amport 23.44 Eadric Hugo de Port 10 h £4 4378 177.8 202.5 (including 655 acres in Appleshaw) Amport 29.15 Eadric Robert fitz Gerald 5 h 100s 23.46 Eadric Hugo de Port (Ralph 3 h 30s subtenant) East Cholderton 50.02 3 free men de William fitz Baderon 3 h, 2.5 v £4 10s rege East Cholderton 68.10 2 free man de Robert fitz Murdoch 3 h, 1 v + 1.5 60s rege acres East Cholderton 43.01 4 free men de Gilbert de Breteuil 4 h, 3 v 67s 6d x4 rege (Ralph sub-tenant) Andover 1.41 King K^g 72 s 6 d 7332 n/a n/a (for mills) Enham 69.27 Alwin Sseric 1.5 h 60s 785.5 261.8 130.9 Enham 69.28 Wulfeva Alsige, valet 1.5 h 60s (berchenistrius) Foxcotte (2 45.03 2 free men de Waleran, huntsman 3 h 50s 1290 430 516 manors) rege (uenator) Fyfield 35.09 Wulfgifu William Mauduit 5 h 100s 1078 215.6 215.6 Kimpton 23.47 Wynsige Hugo de Port 2 h 60s 2664 322.9 296 Litdeton 23.45 Azur Hugo de Port 5 h 100s Table 1 (cont.) Domesday lands in Andover hundred and their relative acreages from nine teen th-century parishes

Land PhiUimore 1066 holder 1086 holder Hidage 1066 Parish acreage Acres/hide Acres/£ code assessment hides value (£) (h), virgates (v)

Shoddesdon 45.04 Godric de rege Waleran huntsman 1 v 5s Shoddesdon 69.26 Aghmund Aghmund de rege lh 15s from Queen Edith Monxton 1.39 Wulfgifu King 10 h 100s 1108 110.8 221.6 Penton Grafton 13.01 Queen Edith Grestain Abbey 3h £10 1834.5 407.7 159.5 Clanville 23.48 Azor Hum de Port 1.5 h 30s o 8h 21.03 Osmund Earl Roger (Turold a 1008 126 144 subtenant) Quarley 1.40 Earl Harold King 5h £12 1673 334.6 139.4 South Tidworth 28.06 Earl Harold Robert fitz Gerald 7h £io 2220.5 246.7 185 (Cuthwulf subtenant) South Tidworth 60.01 Alwin Croch 2 h 40s Thruxton (Ann) 61.01 Saxi Jocelin de Cormeilles 10 h £13 1852 185.2 142.5 Upper Clatford 1.25 Saxi King from Earl 4.5 h £20 2071 460.2 103.6 Roger 164 HAMPSHIRE HELD CLUB AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY in Domesday yet both are identified with Knight's Tidwordi and Clatford indicate that there may Eiiham, we can be reasonably certain that Kings have been some subdivision on edges of the Enham - die royaJ estate of the 1 008 lawcode and hundred, for the most part the hundred of known as such in the later middle ages - was also Andover was relatively coherent in die eleventh included under the Domesday record for century (more so than the many Hampshire Andover (Hase 1994, 64). As mentioned above, hundreds which were characterised by detached there was no entry for Grateley in Domesday portions). If land at Andover was bequeathed by Book, which Peter Sawyer saw as one reason for King Eadrcd to New Minster as bookland including it in his gazetteer of royal htm (Sawyer (Sawyer 1968, no. 1515), it may not necessarily 1983, 294) but in diese circumstances Grateley have been alienable land; the evident failure (or may also be better considered as part of the royal refusal) of his successor, KingEadwig, to fulfil the estate of Andover. bequest may reflect such a 'protection' of inalien- The Anglo-Saxons' memorialisation of the name able land designated for the royal family's feorm of die local place of Grateley rather dian the (Sawyer 1968, no. 1515; Lavelle 2002). In the nearest major setdemcnt is an interesting aspect of early tenth century, therefore, it can be posited the sense of mental geography within die land- diat there were well organised, flexible renders of scape. While the significance of recording a food and drink provided by estates in this area, location of an assembly at, for example, which would have allowed provision for a group Woodyates in Dorset or Woolmer in Hampshire, of nobles even similar to the size of the assembly not to mention the Sussex 'hoary apple tree' of 14 recorded later in Athelstan's reign, in the massive October 1066 (Batde, Senkic, and Hastings are all witness list of a charter associated with die royal later coinages for the battle's location), could vill at Kings Wordiy (Sawyer 1968, no. 413). provide an interesting aspect of study, it does not bear particularly heavily upon our discussion here. What is perhaps significant is die fact diat like THE LANDSCAPE IN CONTEXT Grateley in Athelstan's reign, during die reign of yEthelred II, a lawcode was promulgated at Enham In considering the perception of the landscape by (Liebermann 1903, 260-2), again close to those moving dirough it, die presence of the Iron Andover. As widi Grateley, Andover itself was not Age hillfort on warrants mention, named in the lawcode, despite die fact that Enham lying only 1.5 km to the north-west in a direct line was part of die estate organisation of Andover. of sight from what is now Grateley parish church. This may suggest that while the royal manor was Although witliin the parish of Quarley rather dian important in practical terms for die organisation of Grateley, it should also be noted diat the hillfort lay this event, the memory of the local place in the directly on die boundary between die two parishes. landscape is equally significant, perhaps, as we The domination of the hillfort over the landscape shall see, because of its 'ancient' aspects. here is remarkable and provides a prominent The five royal agents in Andover Hundred landmark -.as was indicated on John Ogilby's sev- recorded in Domesday Book as royal thegns and enteendi-century road maps of Hampshire - right sergeants {tabii regis and seruienti regis) may have by die Roman Road, die Portway (Ogilby 1675). It been at similar levels to diose around the estates was via this road diat participants in die assembly recorded as providing die 'Farm of One Night1 would have had to travel from Andover or from (Lavelle 2004), Many of the estates in Andover die royal estate at Amesbury. Quarley hundred seem to have been alienated from royal Hill's antiquarian identification and indeed its territory for royal service. Coupled with pre-1938 identification seem to have been Roman. Andover's non-hidation, it may even be surmised In his seventeenth-century Momtmentia Britwtnica, that Andover had formerly been part of such John Aubrey identified it as a Roman camp royal estate organisation and perhaps had only (Hawkes 1939, 138) and as late as 1915, J.P. ceased to provide such renders relatively soon Williams-Freeman described it in a similar fashion, before the Norman Conquest. Although considering it. on die basis of its entra nee ways, to LAVELLE: WHY GRATELEY? ANGLO SAXON KINGSHIP IN A HAMPSHIRE LANDSCAPE 165

Fig. 5 A view across northern Hampshire to the Thames basin from Quarley Hill (photo by author). be 'a British camp being adapted for Roman occu- die West Saxon burhs were reflections of such a pation' (Williams-Freeman 1915, 122). Roman past, and thus hillforts, formerly the A Roman villa was excavated at Grateley in the preserve of British power in the landscape (Dark early twentieth century (Williams-Freeman 1910) 1994, 178-81), could be appropriated for state- and while we cannot expect West Saxons to have ments of control of the landscape. While not been aware of its former existence, the possibilities necessarily perceived as Roman per se, Quarley of its visibility as a ruin in the early medieval land- Hill's connotations of Roman grandeur could not scape should not be overlooked. As was the case have been lost on an Anglo-Saxon audience, espe- elsewhere in Anglo-Saxon England, the presence of cially when coupled with the Portway, remarked such monuments in the landscape may also have upon in the seventeenth century as a paved Roman manifested itself as part of an Anglo-Saxon aware- road (Gough 1789, 192). It certainly seems plausi- ness of their past. By the tenth century, at least in ble that this would have been the Anglo-Saxon courtly circles, the civilisation and Christian association - an association useful for die political imperium cognate with the Roman past had moved ends of Adielstan, the aspiring 'King of the whole beyond the simple wonderment at the work of of Britain' {Rex Totius Britannia) (Wood 1981, 'giants' expressed in the poem Tlw Rum. Arguably, 126-50; Dumville 1992). 166 HAMPSHIRE FIELD CLUB AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

To take this argument further than may be nec- scape. Even if this was purely as functional as a essary here, Quarley Hill itself provides a clear, convenient place in die landscape, in the manner uninterrupted viewshed of the landscape all of the possible re-use of die site of Walbury Hill around it, more than other hillforts in the area, (Berks.) suggested by eighth-century Anglo-Saxon including those which are actually higher (Fig. 5). coin finds (Metcalf 1974, 2-3), the significance of As C.F.C. Hawkes observed, while being 'charac- hillforts for assemblies in an Anglo-Saxon land- teristic of many such hillforts ... few of the same scape is worthy of consideration. natural elevation can command such wide unin- Under tiiese circumstances we may logically terrupted views in all directions'(Hawkes 1938, question why Quarley should not have been 138). This allows one to see north as far as the named as the site of the promulgation of the Thames basin on a clear day, a matter of near lawcode, rather than Grateley. However, equally, visual unity wliich does not appear out of place one may conjecture that Quarley Hill had been with Athelstan's Mercian background and considered as part of the land at Grateley, being northern ambitions. on the edge of both parishes. Nonetheless, there Such a place could usefully have symbolised are also other considerations for the significance kingship for Atiielstan at die point of issuing the of the landscape in the promulgation of the laws. It may not be unreasonable to speculate - Gratcley lawcode and the organisation of its indeed it would be unreasonable not to speculate - assembly. Although Norman kings are much that the site of the hillfort itself would have been associated with the pleasures of the chase, we the most suitable assembly place for a large should not overlook its significance for number of people, as assemblies and die proce- Anglo-Saxon kingship. In Domesday Book, rights dures of law often appear to have been held in die of pannage were not recorded with the woodland open air, at a significant landscape site, rather than at Quarley, suggesting that if this was not land cul- necessarily in a hall (Meaney 1994, 35-7; tivated for pollarding it was probably used for Reynolds, 1999, 78-80). It should be noted that die hunting, especially as there were otherwise few hillfort at Badbury Rings in Dorset played such a wooded areas in northern Hampshire (see role for the assertion of West Saxon royal power Colebouni 1983, 8-13). The landscape here was against the rebellious West Saxon (etheling probably dominated by woodland, as perhaps ^dielwold (Whitelock et at. 1961, 58-9) and in a evinced by the later hunting grounds of Chute, forest landscape not entirely unlike the one under and local place-names and place-name elements consideration here, die east midland royal estate at indicate woodland, including those of Grateley Whitdebury (Northants.), at wliich Athelstan held and Quarley themselves: Furze, Morrells, another assembly resulting in a lawcode (c.935), is Eastover, Stonehanger, Hurst, Groves and also characterised by the presence of a hillfort Oakleigh arc amongst the field names recorded in Jones k Page 2001, 23). Records of legal cases parishes in die hundred (Gover 1961, 162-70). from the tenth to die twelfth centuries regarding Although of course, Grateley's accessibility by the jurisdiction of lands in 'nine hundreds' decided road from both Andover, Winchester and at die Iron Age hillfort at Wandlebury, Cam- Amesbury attests to Wormald's judgement that bridgesliire, may also fall under such a context accessibility was what counted in the choice of (Halt 1966, nos. 54 & 73). For such a lawcode as assembly places (Wormald 1999, 438-9), that of Grateley, which highlights - or Grateley's location suggests that in this case one re-emphasises - the significance of the repair of Anglo-Saxon king was as interested in the burghal defences and die importance of moneyers 'passions of die chase' as his post-Conquest coun- in burhs (Liebermann 1903, 156-9; Whitelock terparts. Such hedonistic pleasures were 1979, 419-20), a place perceived as a former significant elements in die king's ability to bring Roman camp could hardly have been insignificant togetiier large assemblies and provide diem with in an Anglo-Saxon sense of the 'drama' of law. food and entertainment; die very essence of the Anglo-Saxon notion otjevrm, no less. Such suggestions have implications for the reuse of hillforts in die southern English land- In such terms, comparison may be made once LAVELLE: WHY GRATELEY? ANGLO-SAXON KINGSHIP IN A HAMPSHIRE LANDSCAPE 167 more with Enham, a place which may have arid in terms of what the landscape could provide; reflected die Pentecostal nature of iEtiielred IPs it was a royal landscape which could display all the lawcode VIII JElhelred. As M.K. Lawson has indications of a sophisticated state despite its observed, the intended rebirth of the English non-urban nature (Reynolds forthcoming). None kingdom under God's grace, which consciously of these aspects are individually overwhelming but used the Pentecostal symbolism of the lamb of collectively they represent the control of die land- God, Agnus Dei, was reflected in the new-born scape by Anglo-Saxon kings. Grateley was one of a lambs in the north Hampshire downs. The place number of assemblies, perhaps a number of assem- was either previously known as - or became blies which had to be called and had to take place known as - 'place of the lambs', Ean-ham, in a around the countryside each year, and as a king reflection of the importance of place in the politi- akin to a tenth-century Henry II, Adielstan may cal events of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom, seen also have been more active than most in the variety of in the issue of the commemorative Agnus Dei places which he chose. The finer points of die penny (Lawson 1992, 576; however, cf. Wormald king's strategies in choosing his sites may remain 1999, 453). The fact that both Enham and unknown to us. However, the analysis of one Grateley were in Andover hundred and thus, as lesser-known place within its wider landscape has been suggested, within a royal territory, may context allows a view of die level of die intense show the arrangements of royal estates for the control and logistical organisation which were an provision of such large assemblies. integral part of die kingship of die later West Saxon rulers.

CONCLUSION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To return once more to die question posed in this paper's tide, such a response as was addressed in Work on this paper has benefited greatly from discus- perhaps overly facetious terms at the beginning of sions with a number of people, to whom I owe a debt of the paper - why not Gratcley? - can still stand as a thanks. I am grateful to colleagues at the University of valid one. Athelstan used Grateley as a location for Winchester, Clive Bond, Richard Greatorex, Mark his lawcode because he could: it represented his Stcdman, and Barbara Yorke for discussions, as well as to David Hinton of the University of Soutiiampton, control over a West Saxon landscape which was Andrew Reynolds of University College London, and such an important element to the consolidation of Janine Shepherdson for reading earlier versions of this his kingship in the early years of his reign. Grateley paper. I also wish to thank Mark Page for information was a location witliin a large royal estate focused on excavations at Whittlebury (Northanls.) and on Andover, an estate which in die tenth century Stephen Goddard of Albedale Farms, Manor Farm, was able to provide a surplus large enough for a Grateley, for his kind permission in allowing me to visit sizeable group of Anglo-Saxon nobles and their Qiiarley Hill in order to take photographs for this respective entourages. Grateley was conveniendy article. located, both in terms of ease of communication

REFERENCES

Primary Soun Printed Sources

Manuscript Sources Campbell, A 1950 Frithegodi monadri Brtndlw/uium vita HRO: Hampshire Record Office. Beati Wilfredi, ct Widfstani cantoris Narratio HRO TA 21M65/F7/ Tithe Apportionment Records mctrica dc Sando Sioithuno, Zurich. for parishes in Andover Hundred. Fairer. W (ed.) 1914 Earty Yorkshire Charters: Being a 1 6 8 HAMPSHIRE FIELD CLUB AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Collection of Documents anterior to the Tlurteenth Fleming, R 1991 Kings and Lords in Conquest Engfawl, Century made from the Public Records, Monastic Cambridge. Quirtularies, Roger Dodsruorths Manuscripts Gem, R & Tudor-Craig, P 1981 A 'Winchester School1 ami other Available Sources, vol. 1, Edin- Wall-Pain ting at Nether Wallop, Hamp- burgh. shire, Anglo-Saxon Eng/9 115-36. Gough, R (ed.) 1789 Britannia: or, A Chorographical Gover, J E B 1961 Tfie place-names of Hampshire, Unpub- Description of the Flourishing Kingdoms of lished typescript, held in Hampshire England, Scotland, and Ireland, aiul the Islands Record Office, Winchester. Adjacent, vol. 1, London. Hase, P H 1994 The Church in the Wessex Heartlands, Hart, C R (cd.) 1966 The Early Charters of Eastern in Aston. M & Lewis, C (eds.), Tlic Medieval England, Leicester. Landscape of Wessex, Oxford, 47-81. Liebermann, F (cd.) 1903 Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, Hawkcs, C F C 1939 The Excavations at Quarley Hill, vol. 1, Halle. 1938 Proc Hampshire Fid Club Archaeol Soc 14 Miller, S M (ed.) 2001 Qiarters of the Mao Minster, 136-94. Wincliester, Oxford. Hill, D 1981 An Atlas of Anglo-Saxon England, Oxford. Munby, J (ed.) 1982 Domesday Book: Hampshire, Keynes, S D 1995 An Atlas of Attestations in Anglo-Saxon Chichester. Charters,670-1066, University of Cam- Mynors, R A B, Thomson, R M & Winterbottom, M bridge, working edition. (eds.) 1998 William of Malmcsbury's Lavellc, R 2002 Royal Estates in Anglo-Saxon Wessex, Uni- Gesta Regum Anglorum: T/ie Histoty of the versity of Southampton, unpublished PhD English Kings, vol. 1, Oxford. thesis. Ogilby,J 1675 Britannia: Volume the First. Or, An Illustra- Lavclle, R 2003 'Hie 'Farm of One Night' and the tion of the Kingdom of England and Dominion of Organisation of Royal Estates in Wales: By a Geographical and Historical Anglo-Saxon Wessex, Haskins Society Description of the Principal Roach Thereof Journal 14 53-82. London. Lavelle, R 2004 All the King's Men? Land and Royal Sawyer, P (ed.) 1968 Anglo-Saxon Charters: an Annotated Service in Eleventh- Century Wesscx, List and Bibliography, London. Southern History 26 1-37. Whilelock, D, Douglas, D C k Tucker, S 1 (eds.) 1961 Lawson, M K 1992 Archbishop Wulfstan and the The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Revised Transla- Homilctic Element in the Laws of tion, London. ^thelred II and Cnut, English Hist Rev 107 Whitelock, D 1979 English Historical Documents 565-86. 550-1042, London, 2nd edn. Lillcy K D 1999 Norman Imvm in Soutfiem England: Urban Morphogenesis in Hampshire and the Isle of Secondary Sources Wight 1066-1215, Birmingham. Margary, I D 1967 Roman Roads in Britain, 2nd edition, Blair, J 1996 Palaces or Minsters? Northampton and London. Cheddar reconsidered, Anglo-Saxon Engl Meaney, A 1995 Pagan English Sanctuaries, 24 97-121. Place-Names and Hundred Meeting Bond, J 1994 Forests, Chases, Warrens and Parks in Places, Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and Medieval Wessex, in Aston, M & Lewis, C History 8 29-42. (eds.), Tlie Medieval La/ulscape of Wessex, Metcalf, D M 1974 Sccattas found at die Iron-Age Hill Oxford, 115-58. Fort of Walbury Camp, Berkshire, Brit Colebourn, P 1983 Hampshire's Countryside Heritage: MmisJte\-\2. Ancient Woodland, Winchester. Jones, R & Page, M 2001 Medieval Settlements and Crawford, O G S 1922 The Aruhvcr District: an account of Landscapes in the Whittlewood Area: sheet 2S3 of the one-inch Ordnance map {small Interim Report 2001-2, Medieval Settlement sheet series), Oxford. Research Group Annual Report 16, 15-25. Dark, K R 1994 Civitas to Kingdom: British Political Continu- Page, W (cd.) 1911 The Victoria History of the County of ity 300-800, London. Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, vol. 4, Dumville, D N 1992 Wessex and England from Alfred to London. Edgar: Six Essays on Cultural, Political and Reynolds, A R 1999 Later Anglo-Saxon England: Life and Ecclesiastical Revival, Woodbridge. Latuhcape, Stroud. I.AVKIXE: WHY GRATELEY? ANGLO-SAXON KINGSHIP IN A HAMPSHIRE I.ANDSCAPE 169

Reynolds, A R forthcoming Anglo-Saxon Law in the Land- Williams-Freeman, J P 1910 Roman Villa at Grateley scape, Oxford. near Andover, Proc Hampshire Fid Club Rollason, D 2003 Northumbria, 500-1100: Creation and ArchaeolSoc 6 34-1-2 Destruction of a Kingdom, Cambridge. Williams-Freeman, J P 1915 An Introduction to Field Russel, A D 1985 Foxcotte: The Archaeology and Archaeology as Illustrated by Hampshire, History of a Hampshire Hamlet, Proc London. Hampshire Fid Club ArdiaeolSocM 149-224. Wood, M 1981 In Search of the Dark Ages, London. Sawyer, P 1983 The Royal tun in pre-Conquest Wood, M 1983 The Making of King Aethelstan's England, in Wormald, P, Bullough, D k Empire: an English Charlemagne? in Collins, R (eds.), Ideal and Reality in Wormald, P, Bullough, D k Collins, R FrankLih ami Anglo-Saxon Society, Oxford, (eds.), Ideal and Reality in Prankish and 273-99. Anglo-Saxon Society, Oxford, 250-72. Smyth. A P 1979 Scandviavian York OJUI Dublin, vol. 2, Wood, M I98(i Domesdccy: A Search for the Roots of Dublin. Englaiul, London. Taylor, H M & Taylor, J 1965 Anglo-Saxon Architecture, Wormald, P 1999 'the Making of English Law: King Alfred vol. 2, Cambridge. to t/te "twelfth Century: Volume I: Legislation Thorn, C & Thorn, F (eds.) 1979 Domesday Book: and its Limits, Oxford. Wiltshire, Chichester.

Author: Ryan Lavelle, History Department, University of Winchester, Winchester, Hants. S022 4NR, 01962 827137; 01962 827604 (fax); [email protected]

© Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society