First compiled in around the eighth century, the 'Tribal Hidage' lists thirty-five Anglo-Saxon 'tribes' (i.e. peoples/kingdoms) and their respective sizes/wealth measured in units of land called 'hides'. How many of the Anglo-Saxon peoples recorded in the Tribal Hidage can you name?
Modern English equivalents of names are accepted as answers where applicable.
The map is based on the map included in Hart, 1970. "?"s indicate tribes whose locations are still a mystery - their positions on the map are a result of Hart's educated guesswork. See the stickied comment for more info.
The Tribal Hidage was primarily an economic assessment. One 'hide' was defined as enough land to support one homestead - therefore the greater a group's number of hides, the greater their territory and wealth.
The list likely originated in Mercia, although some historians think the absence of the Northumbrian kingdoms (Bernicia and Deira) indicates a Northumbrian perspective. Were there more tribes that the compilers ignored? Were all the groups included in the list seen to be equally distinct and independent? We do not know.
Also, the term Anglo-Saxon should not be taken entirely literally. Elmet and the Cilternsætna are known to have had native British rulers at various times.
There is a spectrum of certainty regarding the geographical positions of groups mentioned in the Tribal Hidage. Major kingdoms that we know a lot about or groups whose names have been preserved in modern place-names can be placed on a map with a high degree of certainty. Others, however, have been lost to time. These were the Dark Ages, after all.
The tribes that we know basically nothing about are the Hendrica, the Ohtgaga, the Noxgaga, and the Unecung-ga. The names of some, particularly the Unecung-ga, have probably been corrupted by the medieval scribes who copied the originals. The Færpinga, Herefinna, Widerigga, and Wigesta have been linked to modern place-names, but are still pretty mysterious.
The boundaries on the map are all approximate and are again based on Hart’s educated guesswork. The idea of borders on a map itself is entirely anachronistic to this period! So, just think of the map as a fun visual aid that will nevertheless be wrong in many ways.
The list likely originated in Mercia, although some historians think the absence of the Northumbrian kingdoms (Bernicia and Deira) indicates a Northumbrian perspective. Were there more tribes that the compilers ignored? Were all the groups included in the list seen to be equally distinct and independent? We do not know.
Also, the term Anglo-Saxon should not be taken entirely literally. Elmet and the Cilternsætna are known to have had native British rulers at various times.
The tribes that we know basically nothing about are the Hendrica, the Ohtgaga, the Noxgaga, and the Unecung-ga. The names of some, particularly the Unecung-ga, have probably been corrupted by the medieval scribes who copied the originals. The Færpinga, Herefinna, Widerigga, and Wigesta have been linked to modern place-names, but are still pretty mysterious.
The boundaries on the map are all approximate and are again based on Hart’s educated guesswork. The idea of borders on a map itself is entirely anachronistic to this period! So, just think of the map as a fun visual aid that will nevertheless be wrong in many ways.