Conclusion

Summary

The writing of a book is a journey, composed of many paths, companions and dead ends. The text that the reader now has in their hands is a distilled version of this journey. The original idea for this research was an analysis of all the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, reading state-building as the organism responsible for the production and reproduction of the ruling class (the aristocracy). However, contact with recent historiography and with the available evidence proved that the original idea was overwhelming –. It was necessary to narrow the scope.

The questions that were asked of Anglo-Saxon reality also needed to be reframed and reworked, considering the evidence available for the period and region selected. The main question was no longer state-building (a question that would require a longer study), but the mechanisms that produced social differentiation and dominance. Northumbria was selected because of the heterogeneous evidence available for the period, which would contribute to the holistic approach desired. The reframed question and hypotheses of the research still demanded I study a time span of longer than a few decades, so the long eighth century was chosen since changes in social hierarchy may be better spotted and analysed in this durée. Furthermore, the narrative proposed throughout the research is that the long eighth century is the stage in which the aristocracy rises and falls. In this sense, the eighth century might not start the process of social difference, but it can be seen as revealing a reasonable part of its development and its ‘conclusion’.

The theoretical approach used for this research is also responsible for the originality of the arguments in this book. Although the word ‘class’ is not unusual as a label for either the aristocracy or the peasantry, it is rarely considered as a concept. For this reason, ‘class’ is generally not discussed theoretically and does not have a significant impact on research. In the current book, however, it is the lens through which the data and evidence are scrutinised. In this sense, the book insists on the similarities over the differences between the lay and ecclesiastical aristocracy, though acknowledging the nuances (for example, the differences in terms of consumption).