Search

The biography of the Anglo-Saxon bishop Wilfrid (d. 710) has always been prized as a rare window onto the 'real world' of the seventh- and eighth-century Church. It offers us stories of bishops arranging bribes in monastic treasuries, describes factional infighting among churchmen, and imagines ecclesiastical leaders as rulers of 'kingdoms of churches'. Its tone is so unlike that of other contemporary writings that its testimony, partisan though it may be, has always seemed a valuable corrective to the more idealised character of our other major sources. This article argues that in our enthusiasm to use the Life of St Wilfrid in this way, we have misunderstood the uses for which the text was originally written. Through a re-examination of the Life's account of Wilfrid's final years, it reconsiders the motives of the text's patrons: Tatberht, abbot of Ripon, and Acca, bishop of Hexham. The two men played an active role in the text's creation, and a great deal of the Life rests on the acceptance of secretive events to which only they could testify. Those events, in turn, underpinned their own claims to be the designated heirs of the recently deceased Bishop Wilfrid. The Life's defensively partisan tone has typically been understood as the product of a beleaguered 'Wilfridian' faction anticipating criticism from outside opponents. This article argues instead that it reflects a moment of profound disunity within the 'Wilfridians' themselves, and reveals the strategies by which ambitious ecclesiastics might sometimes seek to gain and secure their positions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses new archaeological discoveries at a royal palace site close to Sutton Hoo, England, that can change the people's understanding of early English history. The discoveries have raised questions about the nature of the early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. The archaeological investigations used different methods, including magnetometry, aerial surveys and targeted excavation. The investigations have produced data about the origins of Rendlesham's importance.

The treatment of fractures is a relatively simple and logical procedure mastered by many cultures worldwide, so it seems likely prima facie that the Anglo-Saxons would have had some means for treating such injuries as well. To investigate this matter, we shall first describe the modern standards of fracture treatment. Fractures can occur in any type or size of bone, but this paper will focus on long bone fractures, i.e., fractures of the arms and legs, since these were the most likely to be diagnosed correctly by Anglo-Saxon physicians, and hence most likely to received successful treatment. Then, after we describe common methods for treating these injuries in modern medicine, we will next turn to Anglo-Saxon medical literature and its classical sources. Finally, we shall analyse archaeological evidence of fractures in order to gauge the practice of treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]