Regiones (singular:regio) orprovinciae,(singular:provincia),[1] also referred to by historians assmall shires orearly folk territories,[2] were early territorial divisions ofAnglo-Saxon England, referred to in sources such asAnglo-Saxon charters and the writings ofBede.[3] They are likely to have originated in the years before 600, and most evidence for them occurs in sources from or about the 7th century.[3]
Regiones were self-sufficient units of mixedsubsistence agriculture[4] consisting of scattered settlements producing the range of foodstuffs and other forms of produce necessary to support their population.[5] They formed the defined territories of tribes or similar social groupings and were the building-blocks around which the largerAnglo-Saxon kingdoms were governed.[6]
Regiones gradually fragmented in the later Anglo-Saxon period as land was granted into private or ecclesiastical ownership bycharter, and the smallermanors that emerged were gradually re-organised for military purposes intohundreds and the largershires that later evolved intocounties. The patterns of obligation that characterisedregiones were often retained between successor manors, however, and their traces can be seen in many of thesokes,thanages,liberties,baronies and other administrative and ecclesiastic divisions that characterised later medieval society.[7]
Some historians have identifiedregiones with the concept of theAnglo-Saxon multiple estate. Others have argued that, while similarly organised, multiple estates represent a later stage of territorial organisation, after the concept offolkland or tribal occupation and obligation began to be replaced by that ofbookland or documented private ownership.[8]
Primary historical sources refer to these areas exclusively inLatin asregiones orprovinciae and it is not known what the equivalent contemporaryOld English term would have been.[1] Several different terms were used when original Latin texts were later translated, including-ge, which meant "district" and survived as the second element of the names of severalregiones includingEastry andEly;[1] andmeagth, which meant "kindred", suggesting the areas had tribal origins.[1]
In areas ofJutish settlement - such as theKingdom of Kent and the area around theSolent -regiones often took the name of a topographical element with the Old English suffix"-wara" meaning "-dwellers".[9] Examples include theWihtwara of theIsle of Wight, theMeonwara of the area around theRiver Meon in south Hampshire, theLimenwara around theRiver Rother (formerly known as the Limen) in Kent.[10]
Similar units with names ending in "-ingas" meaning "people of..." can be found in areas ofSaxon settlement.[9] Examples inWessex include the areas of theReadingas,Sunningas andBasingas aroundReading,Sonning andBasingstoke.[9] In theKingdom of Essex examples have been identified including theBerecingas aroundBarking, theHaeferingas of modernHavering, theUppingas ofEpping and theHrothingas that occupied the area of the modernRodings.[11]
Examples in areas ofAnglian settlement include theBlithingas aroundBlythburgh in theKingdom of East Anglia.[12] Many of the smaller areas mentioned in theTribal Hidage are likely to have beenregiones.[13]
Within the area of theKingdom of Northumbriaregiones were often named after their central place with the Old English suffix"-scīr" – for exampleHallamshire orHexhamshire – which has led historians to refer to them as "small shires" to distinguish them from the latershires that evolved into thehistoric counties of England.[14]
Various explanations exist for how these territorial units may have formed in the 5th and 6th centuries.[15] The first elements in names ending in-ingas have often been interpreted as personal names, and the territories have often been seen as the areas settled by families or tribes led by those named individuals, or perhaps with them as their earliest known common ancestor.[15] This view seesregiones as the areas of previously autonomous tribal groupings, that retained their identity when absorbed into larger kingdoms in the later 6th and 7th centuries, coming to pay tribute to a king rather than an earlier tribal chieftain.[16]
Alternativelyregiones may have formed from earlier units based around centres such ashillforts in the aftermath of theend of Roman rule in Britain, subsequently transferred to Anglo-Saxon rulers.[17] Someregiones carry evidence of continuity with earlier Roman or pre-Roman subdivisions, including that of theBrahhingas, which was based aroundBraughing in modernHertfordshire, the site of both an earlierIron Ageoppidum and a large Roman town.[18] This would suggest thatregiones succeeded the Roman subdivisions ofcivitates known aspagi.[19]
Many small shires have been identified in the area of the south east of modernScotland that was underNorthumbrian control during the early medieval period, but many with identical features have also been identified north of theRiver Forth in areas that were never under Anglo-Saxon or Roman rule, suggesting that the territories may have even earlierCeltic origins.[20]
Regiones were characterised by well-defined areas,[21] generally of the order of 100 square miles (26,000 ha)[20] and often made up of 12vills.[22] They generally conformed to local topography, occupying a geographically coherent area such as a defined stretch of a river valley.[23] They constituted self-contained and organised economic units ofsubsistence agriculture[24] including a diverse range of scattered settlements practising a mix ofarable andpastoral farming[23] and sharing common grazing land.[25]
Regiones were typically centred upon aroyal vill.[21] Anglo-Saxon England lacked the high volume trade in essential foodstuffs necessary to sustain a large royal household in a single location.[26] Royal vills therefore formed a network of halls and accommodation across a kingdom through which a royal household would tour in an itinerary, where eachregio would providefood renders to support the royal household and from where theregio and the wider kingdom would be administered.[27]
Where they are recorded in charters or by Bede the rulers ofregiones are referred to asprincipes (princes),reguli (kings) orsubreguli (sub-kings).[28]
Theregio as a basic territorial unit gradually fragmented during the later Anglo Saxon period as the concept of tribal ownership and organisation declined and was replaced with the concept of private land-holding.[29] The smallermanors that characterise theDomesday Book emerged from withinregiones through the endowment of churches with land, the rewarding of officials and the division of a family's land among inheritors.[30]
In Kent the areas of theregiones survived as thelathes into which the latercounty was subdivided.[31] Therapes ofSussex, which similarly each included severalhundreds, may also reflect theregiones that made up the earlier Kingdom.[32]
Away from those areas traces of earlierregiones can be found where later groups of hundreds contributed to a single royal manor.[33] In 1066 the 19 hundreds ofOxfordshire were annexed in this manner to 7 royal manors that includedHeadington,Kirtlington andBensington.[34] InBerkshire and northHampshire theregio centres ofReading,Sonning andBasingstoke remained centres of distinctive groupings of hundreds throughout the Middle Ages,[15] with the "Six hundreds of Basingstoke" and the "Seven hundreds of Cookham and Bray" referred to in medieval records closely resembling the earlier territories of theBasingas andSunningas.[35] TheSurrey hundreds ofChertsey andWoking correspond to the earlier territory of theWoccingas.[14]
The defined territories ofregiones also formed the basis for later ecclesiastic geography. Conversion tochristianity was frequently followed by the establishment of aminster for the tribe, with the boundaries of the tribe's territory frequently defining theminster parishes which the minsters served.[21]