Kingdom of Haestingas | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6th century?–771? | |||||||||
| Capital | Hastings | ||||||||
| Common languages | Old English (Englisc) | ||||||||
| Religion | Paganism? Western Christianity (Roman Catholicism) | ||||||||
| Government | Monarchy | ||||||||
| History | |||||||||
• Established | 6th century? | ||||||||
• Disestablished | 771? | ||||||||
| |||||||||
TheHaestingas,Heastingas orHæstingas were one of the tribes ofAnglo-Saxon Britain. Not very much is known about them. They settled in what becameEast Sussex and its principal town ofHastings, which bares their name, sometime before the end of the 8th century. A 12th-century source suggested that they were conquered byOffa of Mercia, in 771. They were also recorded in theAnglo-Saxon Chronicle (ASC) as being an autonomous grouping as late as the 11th century.
The foundation legend of theKingdom of the South Saxons is given by theAnglo-Saxon Chronicle, which states that in the year AD 477Ælle arrived at a place calledCymenshore in three ships with his three sons.[a] Traditionally Cymenshore is thought to have been located around the Selsey area, in the south west of Sussex. However the archaeological evidence indicates that the principal area of settlement in the 5th century, for the South Saxons, has been identified as between the lowerOuse andCuckmere rivers in East Sussex, based on the number of Anglo-Saxon cemeteries there.[1]
To the east ofPevensey, beyond theSaxon Shore fort ofAnderitum, on the other side of the estuary and marsh and from there to the border with theKingdom of Kent, lived a group known as the Haestingas.[2][3] They gave their name toHastings.[2] Not very much is known of the Haestingas but they were believed to be a separate people to the South Saxons; however, there is no archaeological evidence for occupation by Anglo-Saxons in that area of Sussex between the 5th and 8th centuries. Medieval sources and place name evidence suggest that people had begun living there by the late 8th century.[4] Some of the Saxon charters that date from the Kingdom of Sussex provide evidence which suggests the existence of two separate dynasties in Sussex. The charters ofKing Northelm (or Nunna), who ruled Sussex in the late 7th and early 8th century regularly attest a second king by the name ofWatt (or Wattus).[5][6][7][8] The historian C.T. Chevalier has suggested that Watt may have ruled the Haestingas. This is because place-names with the nameWatt orWhat occur in the Hastings region, but are not found in western Sussex.[1][9] The theory has been seen as plausible by other historians.[1][10] Chevalier goes on to suggest that the Haestingas may have been of Frankish origin; however, other historians have rejected this, arguing that it is based on a misinterpretation of place-name evidence.[1][9][10][11]
Towards the end of the 8th century, Kent did not have a secure leadership and thekingdom of Wessex was pursuing an expansionist campaign underCædwalla; the result was that Kent found itself being raided frequently by the West Saxons.[12] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for 686 reported that Cædwalla ravaged Kent with his brotherMul.[b] The following year it said that the people of Kent killed his brother Mul by "burning" him and that Cædwalla overran Kent (presumably in response to his brother's violent death).[c] In 688 Caedwalla went on a pilgrimage to Rome, why he did this is not reported but he died while he was there.[d][13] Stability was then returned to Kent under the new kingWihtred and also withIne becoming king of Wessex.[14] The people of Kent agreed to pay compensation (Weregild) to Wessex for the taking of Mul's life.[e] The agreement may have included some ceding of border territory,[14] and it has been hypothesized that the overlordship of Haestingas would have been ceded to Ine as part of this treaty.[15] The southern kingdoms lived in relative peace for the next quarter century.[14]
The peace was shattered by the ascent of Mercian power; the chroniclerSimeon of Durham records the defeat of thegens Hestingorum (the people of Hastings) by Offa of Mercia in 771.[16][17] Mercian overlordship was ended when they were defeated in 825, byEgbert of Wessex, at theBattle of Ellandun. Egbert went on to annex the territories of Essex, Kent, Surrey and Sussex, suggesting that by this time the Haestingas had been subsumed into Sussex.[f][18] However it is known that the Haestingas retained a distinct identity till the 11th century as theAnglo-Saxon Chronicle records the Haestingas as having been harried by the Danes in 1011.[f]
The 19th century writer,Grant Allen argued that the Hastings region was predestined to be a separate region between the rest of Sussex and Kent, to later join with Sussex.[19] Effectively isolated, the region was separated from the rest of Sussex and England by the marshland of thePevensey Levels lying to the west and the forest of theWeald to the north, whileRomney Marsh separates the region from Kent to the east.[4] The kingdom of the Haestingas went on to join Sussex and become therape of Hastings.[19]
It has been suggested that the Haestingas were ofFrankish origin, based on Watt being a sub-king to the South Saxons and there being a place-name ofWatten in northern France.[4][9] However, the more probable explanation is that the Haestingas wereJutes who migrated from Kent.[10] The Frankish princessBertha had arrived in Kent around 580 to marry the kingÆthelberht of Kent. Bertha was already a Christian and had brought a bishop,Liudhard, with her across the Channel. Kent was the earliest Anglo-Saxon kingdom to be evangelized and it would have been at this time the simplified Christian burial was introduced. As there is little archaeological evidence for the Haestingas, it is likely that they were already Christian when they moved to Sussex.[20][4]
Haestingas is fromOld English and means settlement of Haesta's People. Haesta would have been the chieftain or ruler and -ingas means People.[21][22] It is possible that the founder may have been a forebear of the Viking leaderHastein (who invaded Kent in 892), but there is no evidence to support this hypothesis.[9]
