Comprehensive Analysis of Ethnic Identity, Political Geography, and Archaeological Evidence#

1. Introduction: The Enigma of the “Tame Dwellers”#

The history of Anglo-Saxon England is frequently articulated through the lens of the Heptarchy—the seven great kingdoms that vied for supremacy between the retreat of Rome and the unification of England. Among these, the Kingdom of Mercia stands as a titan of the seventh and eighth centuries, a dominion that, under Kings Penda, Offa, and Cenwulf, stretched from the Welsh marches to the North Sea. Yet, the demographic and political nucleus of this expansive hegemony remains a subject of intense scholarly excavation. At the heart of the Mercian state, located in the fertile river valleys of the West Midlands, resided a tribal grouping known as the Tomsaete—the “dwellers of the Tame”.¹

Unlike the peripheral tribes recorded in the tribute lists of the era, the Tomsaete do not appear as a subjugated people paying tax to a distant overlord; rather, they appear to have constituted the “Original Mercia,” the ethnic substrate from which the Iclingas dynasty projected its power.¹ They occupied the landscape that hosted the royal seat of Tamworth, the ecclesiastical center of Lichfield, and the burial grounds of the warrior elite. To understand the Tomsaete is, therefore, to understand the genesis of the Mercian Supremacy itself.

This report offers an exhaustive examination of the Tomsaete, synthesising fragmentary documentary evidence from Anglo-Saxon charters, the complex hagiographical traditions of St. Editha, and the rich archaeological data emerging from Tamworth, Catholme, and the Staffordshire Hoard. By integrating the latest findings regarding the Princeps Humberht and the boundaries of the Lickey Hills, this analysis reconstructs the political identity of a people who, though subsumed into a kingdom, retained a distinct legal and territorial cohesion for nearly four centuries.¹

---

2. Ethno-Geography and the Landscape of Settlement#

2.1 Hydronymy and the “Dark River”#

The ethnonym Tomsaete is a compound construction typical of the Anglo-Saxon nomenclature system, fusing a topographical root with the suffix -saete (settlers/dwellers).¹ In this instance, the identity of the people is inextricably bound to the River Tame, the principal watercourse draining the West Midlands plateau before its confluence with the Trent.

The river name Tame itself offers profound insights into the nature of the Anglian settlement in this region. Etymologically, it derives from a Brythonic (Celtic) or even pre-Celtic root, cognate with the Sanskrit tamas, meaning “darkness” or “dark water”.² This linguistic heritage links the Tame to a wider family of ancient British river names, including the Thames, the Teme, the Team, and the Tamar.² The retention of this indigenous hydronym, rather than its replacement with a Germanic descriptor, suggests a complex interaction between the incoming Anglian migrants and the existing Romano-British population.

In the eastern coastal zones of England, place-names were frequently subjected to total Germanic replacement. However, in the West Midlands—the heartland of the Tomsaete—the survival of British topographical names (such as Lichfield, from Letocetum) implies a settlement process characterised not merely by displacement, but by the superimposition of a new military elite upon an existing landscape.⁵ The “dwellers of the Dark River” adopted the ancient geography of their new home, integrating the ancestral power of the landscape into their emerging identity.

2.2 The Migration Corridor: From Humber to Tame#

The origins of the Tomsaete are identified with the “Anglian Mercens,” a group distinct from the Saxons of the south or the Jutes of the southeast.¹ The trajectory of their migration followed the great riverine highways that penetrated the interior of Britain. Entering via the Humber Estuary, these groups navigated the River Trent—the “Trespasser” that divides the north from the south—and turned southwards into the valley of the Tame.²

This migration route was dictated by the physical geography of the Midlands. The Tomsaete settlement area formed a natural bowl or basin, protected by significant topographical barriers:

• To the West: The high, forested plateau of Cannock Chase and the distinct drainage basin of the River Penk (home to the Pencersaete).⁸
• To the East: The heavy claylands and the high ground of the Leicestershire wolds and Leicester Forest, which acted as a buffer against the Middle Angles.⁸
• To the South: The dense woodland of the Forest of Arden and the watershed of the Lickey Hills, which formed the frontier with the Hwicce.¹

Archaeological investigations at Catholme and Alrewas, near the Tame-Trent confluence, indicate that this was not a virgin wilderness. The area contains a “remarkable archaeological record” of Neolithic ritual monuments, Iron Age pit alignments, and Romano-British farmsteads.⁶ The Tomsaete did not merely find land; they occupied a “ritual landscape” that had been sacred for millennia. The placement of their settlements often respected these ancient features, suggesting a deliberate attempt to legitimise their presence by curating the monuments of the past.¹⁰

2.3 Defining the Boundary: The Evidence of Cofton Hackett#

While the core of the Tomsaete territory is easily identified as the Tame Valley, determining the precise extent of their political jurisdiction requires a forensic analysis of ninth-century land charters. One document, in particular, provides a “Rosetta Stone” for the internal geography of Mercia.

Charter Sawyer 1272 (S 1272), dated to 849 AD, records a grant of land at Cofton Hackett, located in the Lickey Hills south of modern Birmingham.¹ The text is explicit: the land is described as situated on “the boundary of the Tomsæte and the Pencersæte”.¹

This reference is of paramount importance for several reasons:

1. Legal Definition: It confirms that Tomsaete was not a vague poetic description but a legally defined territorial unit with recognised borders that persisted into the late Mercian period.
2. The Western Frontier: The Pencersaete, or “dwellers of the Penk,” occupied the region around Penkridge and Stafford to the west.⁷ The boundary between these two groups ran through the watershed of the Lickey Hills.
3. Archaeological Corroboration: The charter mentions that this boundary zone was marked by Late Iron Age hillforts, which likely served as collecting points for territorial produce and defensive mustering grounds.¹

The persistence of this boundary is further reflected in the ecclesiastical geography of the region. The Diocese of Lichfield, established to serve the Mercian kingdom, encompassed both the Tomsaete and the Pencersaete, whereas the territory immediately south of the Lickey Hills fell under the Diocese of Worcester, serving the Hwicce.⁷ Thus, the ancient tribal frontier between the Tomsaete and their southern neighbors was fossilised in the administrative structure of the English Church.

---

3. The “Missing” Tribe: The Tomsaete and the Tribal Hidage#

3.1 The Anomaly of the Tribal Hidage#

The Tribal Hidage is perhaps the most significant yet enigmatic document of the Heptarchy. Compiled between the seventh and ninth centuries, it lists thirty-five peoples and their assessed tax liability in “hides”.¹² The list includes obscure groups such as the Unecungga and the Sweordora, yet it notably fails to list the Tomsaete by name.¹⁴

This absence has confounded historians for generations. If the Tomsaete were the inhabitants of Tamworth, the royal capital, why are they not assessed? The answer lies in the structure of the list itself. The document is headed by the entry: “Myrcna landes is þrittig þusend hyda” (“The land of the Mercians is 30,000 hides”).¹⁶

3.2 The Theory of “Original Mercia”#

The prevailing scholarly consensus, supported by Cyril Hart and others, posits that the Tomsaete were not listed separately because they constituted the “Original Mercia”.¹⁴ Along with the Pencersaete, and possibly the peoples around Repton, the Tomsaete formed the Mierce—the “Border People”—who were the direct subjects of the Mercian kings.

• Subject Tribes: Peripheral groups like the Pecsaete (Peak District, 1,200 hides) or the Elmedsaete (Elmet, 600 hides) were semi-autonomous client kingdoms.¹⁶ Their tribute had to be quantified because it was extracted from outside the royal demesne.
• The Royal Core: The 30,000 hides assigned to “Mercia” represented the aggregate resources of the Tomsaete and Pencersaete heartlands. These lands were not subject to tribute in the same sense; rather, they were the source of the King’s direct revenue, the location of his royal vills, and the recruiting ground for his personal warband.¹³

Therefore, the Tomsaete were the “Mercians” proper. They were the extractors of tribute, not the extracted. This explains their invisibility in the tribute list while simultaneously explaining the massive hidage figure assigned to the Mercian entry.

3.3 The Iclingas Connection#

The Tomsaete territory was the stage upon which the Iclingas dynasty performed their rise to power. Tradition asserts that Icel, the great-grandfather of King Creoda, led the Anglian migration, but it was in the Tame Valley that the dynasty rooted itself.³

Tamworth, the “enclosed estate by the Tame,” became the sedes regalis (royal seat).¹⁸ From this base, kings like Penda (r. 626–655) and Offa (r. 757–796) projected power. The relationship between the Tomsaete and the Iclingas was symbiotic: the tribe provided the manpower and agricultural surplus, while the dynasty provided the martial leadership and protection that allowed the Tame Valley to flourish as a center of high culture and wealth.¹⁸

---

4. The Survival of Political Identity: The Princeps Humberht#

4.1 Charter S 197: A Window into Ninth-Century Administration#

While the Tribal Hidage obscures the Tomsaete under the generic label of “Mercia,” ninth-century charters reveal that the tribal identity remained politically potent. The most critical piece of evidence is Sawyer 197 (S 197), a charter dated variously to 835, 844, or 848 AD.¹

This document records a grant by King Berhtwulf of Mercia to the minster at Breedon-on-the-Hill. In exchange for privileges, the monastery provided a significant counter-gift:

• 180 mancuses of gold.
• 15 hides of land at Stanley and Belford.
• A “precious vessel” (vas pretiosum) given to Humberht, Princeps of the Tomsaete.¹

4.2 The Office of the Princeps#

The designation of Humberht as Princeps Tomsaete is of immense constitutional significance. The Latin title princeps was often used in Anglo-Saxon diplomas to translate the vernacular ealdorman or dux, but it carries a specific connotation of high status, often implying a leader of a distinct ethnic or territorial unit rather than a mere royal appointee.¹

Implications of Humberht’s Title:

1. Autonomy: The fact that the Tomsaete had a specific Princeps in the mid-ninth century indicates that they were not fully homogenised into a centralised bureaucracy. They retained a regional administration and a recognised leader who stood between the tribe and the King.
2. The “Precious Vessel”: The specific mention of a gift to Humberht suggests that his consent or patronage was necessary for the transaction to proceed. The minster at Breedon, though in Leicestershire, clearly fell within a sphere of influence where the goodwill of the Tomsaete leader was required.⁴
3. Survival of Confederation: Just as the Tomsaete had a princeps, other documents mention ealdormen of the Wreocensaete and the Gaini.¹⁴ This paints a picture of late Mercia not as a monolithic state, but as a confederation of ancient tribal units held together by the personal authority of the King and his relationships with these regional principes.

Humberht’s tenure (c. 835–866) coincides with the twilight of independent Mercia, just prior to the Viking Great Heathen Army’s invasion. His existence proves that the “Tribal Hidage” structure of distinct peoples persisted administratively until the very end of the kingdom.²²

---

5. Archaeology of the Heartland I: The Ritual Landscape of Catholme#

To understand the spiritual and social foundations of the Tomsaete, one must look beyond the charters to the soil itself. The confluence of the Tame and Trent rivers, particularly at Catholme, has revealed a landscape of extraordinary ritual complexity.

5.1 The “Catholme Ceremonial Complex”#

Excavations in this 72 square kilometer study area have uncovered a palimpsest of human activity stretching from the Neolithic to the Anglo-Saxon period.⁶ The Tomsaete settlement at Catholme did not exist in a vacuum; it was superimposed upon a “sacred geography.”

Key Features:

• Neolithic Monuments: A “Woodhenge” type monument consisting of multiple rings of post-holes and a “sunburst” monument defined by a central ring ditch with radiating pit alignments.⁶
• Continuity of Place: The Anglo-Saxon settlement at Catholme respected these ancient features. The placement of Early Medieval cemeteries and halls often aligned with or avoided prehistoric barrows and cursuses. This suggests a cognitive continuity—the Tomsaete settlers recognised the “ancestral” power of these monuments and appropriated them to legitimise their own presence.⁶

5.2 The Agricultural Base#

The intensive quarrying in the region has allowed for large-scale landscape archaeology, revealing the economic engine of the Tomsaete. The Tame and Trent valleys were not merely ritual centers; they were the breadbasket of Mercia. The archaeological record shows extensive evidence of mixed farming, with cattle rearing in the river meadows and grain cultivation on the terraces.⁶ This agricultural surplus was the prerequisite for the urbanization of Tamworth and the sustenance of the Mercian war machine.

---

6. Archaeology of the Heartland II: Tamworth and the Royal Economy#

If Catholme represents the rural and ritual continuity of the Tomsaete, Tamworth represents their technological and political zenith. As the sedes regalis, Tamworth was more than a residence; it was a complex of administration, defense, and industry.

6.1 The Tamworth Watermill: A Technological Marvel#

One of the most definitive archaeological discoveries regarding the Tomsaete is the Anglo-Saxon watermill excavated in Bolebridge Street in 1971 and 1978.²³ This structure revolutionises our understanding of Anglo-Saxon engineering.

Structural Analysis:

• Double-Mill Complex: The site contained evidence of two successive mills. The second phase has been precisely dated via dendrochronology to c. 855 AD.²³ This dating places the construction firmly within the reign of Burgred and the time of Princeps Humberht.
• Horizontal-Wheeled Design: The mill utilised a horizontal wheel driving a vertical shaft—a type often referred to as a “Norse” or “Greek” mill. However, the carpentry was of the highest Anglo-Saxon order, utilising sophisticated joints and massive timbers.²³
• The Millhouse: Perhaps most surprisingly, the excavations yielded lead window cames, indicating that the millhouse was a substantial structure with glazed windows.²⁴ In the ninth century, glass was a luxury usually reserved for high-status ecclesiastical buildings. Its use in an industrial structure underscores the royal nature of the estate.

Economic Implications:
The construction of such a mill required significant capital investment and specialised labor. It functioned as a centralised processing center for grain collected as feorm (food rent) from the surrounding Tomsaete territory.¹⁸ It represents a shift from domestic hand-milling (querns) to centralised, mechanised production—a hallmark of a sophisticated state apparatus capable of maximising the caloric output of its heartland.

6.2 The Evolution of the Burh#

Tamworth began as an “open meadow by the Tame” (Tomweorthig) but evolved into a fortified enclosure (Tomtun). The earliest defenses were likely a palisade surrounding the royal hall and the mill complex.¹⁸

However, the definitive fortification of the site occurred later, under Athelfleda, the Lady of the Mercians. Following the Viking conquest of eastern Mercia in 874, the western Tomsaete territory became a frontier zone. In 913 AD, Athelfleda refortified Tamworth, constructing the burh defenses that would integrate the town into the defensive network of the reconquest.²⁷ This transition marks the end of Tamworth as a purely Mercian royal vill and its beginning as a strategic fortress in the unification of England.

---

7. Material Culture: The Warrior Elite and the Staffordshire Hoard#

No discussion of the Tomsaete is complete without addressing the Staffordshire Hoard, discovered in 2009 near Lichfield, in the borderland between the Tomsaete and Pencersaete.²⁸

7.1 The Nature of the Hoard#

The hoard consists of over 3,500 items, almost exclusively martial in nature: sword pommels, hilt plates, and helmet fragments, crafted from gold, silver, and garnet.²⁸ Notably, the hoard lacks feminine items (dress fittings, jewelry) and domestic objects, identifying it as the treasury of a warrior elite.

7.2 Connection to the Tomsaete#

While the hoard’s burial (c. 650–675 AD) occurred during a period of intense warfare between Mercia, Northumbria, and East Anglia, its location in the Mercian heartland is telling.

• The King’s Companions: The quality of the goldwork (filigree, cloisonné garnet) rivals that of Sutton Hoo, suggesting these items belonged to the highest echelon of the aristocracy—the gesithas or royal companions of Kings Penda or Wulfhere.³⁰
• Tomsaete Wealth: The hoard demonstrates the immense wealth concentrated in the Tame Valley. Whether this was loot taken from defeated enemies or the “heriot” (death duties) of fallen Mercian nobles, it proves that the Tomsaete territory was a center of consumption for the finest metalwork in Europe. The elite who commanded the Tomsaete levies were men of staggering richness, capable of adorning their weaponry with the GDP of a small region.

---

8. Ecclesiastical Geography and the Hagiography of St. Editha#

The spiritual life of the Tomsaete was governed by the Diocese of Lichfield, the bishopric founded by St. Chad to serve the Mercian kingdom. The diocesan boundaries, as noted previously, confirmed the Tomsaete’s integration into the core Mercian polity.¹⁸ However, the local religious identity is dominated by the enigmatic figure of St. Editha.

8.1 The Three Edithas: A Historiographical Puzzle#

The dedication of the church at Tamworth to St. Editha presents a complex historical puzzle, as medieval sources conflate three distinct individuals into a single figure of veneration.³¹

1. Editha of Polesworth (c. 9th Century): Tradition identifies her as a daughter of King Egbert of Wessex, sent to the holy woman St. Modwenna for instruction.³³ She is said to have founded the abbey at Polesworth, located on the River Anker (a tributary of the Tame) just east of Tamworth.³⁴ This tradition likely reflects a later attempt to link the Mercian foundation to the genealogy of the West Saxon kings who eventually absorbed the region.
2. Editha, Sister of Athelstan (10th Century): A persistent 12th-century tradition asserts that Editha was the sister of King Athelstan (r. 924–939). In 926, Athelstan met with Sihtric Cáech, the Viking King of York, at Tamworth. To seal a peace treaty, Athelstan gave his sister in marriage to the Dane.²⁷ Following Sihtric’s apostasy and death, this Editha is said to have retired to Tamworth or Polesworth to live as a nun.
3. The Native Mercian Saint (7th/8th Century): Modern historians, including Alan Thacker, argue that the inclusion of St. Editha in the Secgan (an early list of saints’ resting places) points to a much earlier, native Mercian saint.³² This figure likely lived during the height of the Mercian Supremacy and was later conflated with the royal women of the 9th and 10th centuries to enhance the prestige of the Tamworth church.

8.2 The Sacred Network: Tamworth, Polesworth, and Breedon#

Regardless of the specific identity of the saint, the ecclesiastical geography reveals a “sacred network” underpinning Tomsaete power.

• Polesworth Abbey: Likely the primary monastic house for the region, serving as the burial place for the local nobility and perhaps the principes of the Tomsaete.³⁴
• Breedon-on-the-Hill: The recipient of the grant in charter S 197, Breedon was a minster of immense importance, housing the relics of saints and serving as a center of sculpture and learning. The fact that Princeps Humberht was involved in its patronage links the Tomsaete administration directly to this major religious center.⁴
• Tamworth Church: Serving the royal vill, this church legitimised the king’s rule. The cult of St. Editha, blending local holiness with royal genealogy, served to sanctify the authority of the Iclingas and, later, the West Saxon kings who succeeded them.³⁶

---

9. The Twilight of the Tomsaete: Viking Invasion and Unification#

The distinct political identity of the Tomsaete, maintained for centuries through the office of the Princeps and the stability of the Iclingas, faced its existential crisis in the late ninth century.

9.1 The Great Heathen Army and the Partition of Mercia#

In 874 AD, the Viking Great Heathen Army, having overwintered at Repton (the mausoleum of the Mercian kings), drove King Burgred into exile.³ This event shattered the Mercian state. The kingdom was partitioned:

• Eastern Mercia (Danelaw): The lands to the east of Watling Street fell under Danish control. This likely severed the eastern fringes of the Tomsaete territory and the minsters at Breedon and Repton from the political center.
• Western Mercia (English Mercia): The lands to the west, including Tamworth, Lichfield, and the Pencersaete territory, remained under the control of Ceolwulf II and later Athelred, Ealdorman of the Mercians (under Alfred the Great).³

9.2 Athelstan and the End of Autonomy#

The reconquest of the Danelaw by Edward the Elder and Athelfleda saw the Tomsaete territory transformed from a royal heartland into a militarised frontier. The construction of the burh at Tamworth in 913 was a defensive necessity, but it also marked the imposition of a new West Saxon administrative model.²⁷

The final act of the Tomsaete as a distinct political entity arguably occurred in 927 AD, when King Athelstan sat at Tamworth to receive the submission of the kings of the North. By this time, the office of Princeps Tomsaete had vanished, replaced by the shire system (Staffordshire and Warwickshire) that divided the ancient Tame Valley into new administrative units.⁷ The Tomsaete were no longer a tribe; they were Englishmen of the Midlands.

---

10. Conclusion#

The Tomsaete occupy a paradoxical place in history: they are the “missing” tribe of the Tribal Hidage, yet they are the omnipresent force behind the rise of Mercia. Through the forensic examination of charters, we discern a people who maintained a robust legal identity under their own Princeps well into the ninth century. The archaeological record at Tamworth and Catholme reveals a society of immense sophistication, capable of engineering marvels like the royal watermill and sustaining a warrior elite clad in the gold of the Staffordshire Hoard.

They were the “dwellers of the Dark River,” who took a British landscape and built upon it the most powerful kingdom of the Heptarchy. While their name faded with the shire-reforms of the tenth century, their legacy remains written in the boundaries of the diocese, the foundations of Tamworth Castle, and the very existence of the English Midlands.

---

Appendix: Comparative Data#

Table 1: Chronological Stratigraphy of the Tomsaete Territory#

Period	Key Event	Archaeological/Documentary Evidence	Source
Prehistoric	Ritual Landscape Formation	Catholme “Woodhenge” and “Sunburst” monuments.	6
c. 500-584	Anglian Migration	Settlement of Tomweorthig; Arrival via Trent/Tame corridor.	1
c. 650-675	Era of “Mercian Supremacy”	Deposition of the Staffordshire Hoard.	28
c. 675-700	Administrative Centralization	Compilation of Tribal Hidage; Tomsaete subsumed in “30,000 hides”.	16
835-848	Late Mercian Administration	Charter S 197: Humberht named Princeps Tomsaete.	1
849	Boundary Definition	Charter S 1272: Boundary with Pencersaete at Cofton Hackett.	4
c. 855	Royal Industrialization	Construction of Phase II Tamworth Watermill (Dendro-dated).	23
874	Viking Conquest	Fall of Repton; Exile of Burgred; Partition of Mercia.	3
913	West Saxon Fortification	Athelfleda builds the burh at Tamworth.	27
926/927	Unification	King Athelstan at Tamworth; Marriage of Editha; Submission of Northumbria.	27

Table 2: The “Missing” Tribes of the Tribal Hidage#

An analysis of the tributary structure versus the royal core.

Tribal Group	Location	Assessed Hides	Status
Tomsaete	Tame Valley (Tamworth)	Absent	Royal Core (“Original Mercia”)
Pencersaete	Penk Valley (Staffordshire)	Absent	Royal Core (“Original Mercia”)
Mercia (Myrcna landes)	Central Midlands	30,000	The Aggregate of the Core Tribes
Wreocensaete	Wrekin (Shropshire)	7,000	Buffer / Border Territory
Pecsaete	Peak District	1,200	Resource Extraction (Lead) / Client
Elmedsaete	Elmet (Yorkshire)	600	Conquered British Kingdom

 

Works cited#

1. Tomsaete - Wikipedia, accessed November 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomsaete
   
2. River Tame, West Midlands - Wikipedia, accessed November 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Tame,_West_Midlands
   
3. Kingdoms of the Anglo-Saxons - Iclingas & Mercians - The History Files, accessed November 21, 2025, https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsBritain/EnglandMercia.htm
   
4. About: Tomsaete - DBpedia, accessed November 21, 2025, https://dbpedia.org/page/Tomsaete
   
5. The Story of Walsall, accessed November 21, 2025, http://www.historywebsite.co.uk/articles/Walsall/origins.htm
   
6. Tales from the Enchanted Island: Where The Rivers Meet - Clas Merdin, accessed November 21, 2025, https://clasmerdin.blogspot.com/2015/06/where-rivers-meet.html
   
7. The Black Country – from the Stone Age to Domesday – Engineering, history and ecclesiology - Chris Baker, accessed November 21, 2025, https://profchrisbaker.com/2024/03/17/the-black-country-from-the-stone-age-to-domesday/
   
8. In Focus 2: Roman Occupation - Sir John Moore Foundation, accessed November 21, 2025, https://www.sirjohnmoore.org.uk/applebymagna/appleby_history/in_focus2_romans.htm
   
9. Saxon butter churn found in Staffordshire sheds light on life in Mercian Kingdom, accessed November 21, 2025, https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/saxon-butter-churn-found-staffordshire-sheds-light-life-mercian-kingdom-020363
   
10. Newsletter 143 May 2023 - STAFFORDSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HISTORICAL SOCIETY, accessed November 21, 2025, https://www.sahs.uk.net/_resources/_newsletter/sahs-newsletter-143-may-2023.pdf
    
11. THE EARLIEST ENGLISH KINGS - epdf.pub, accessed November 21, 2025, https://epdf.pub/download/earliest-english-kings.html
    
12. Portal:Anglo-Saxon England/Selected article/4 - Wikipedia, accessed November 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Anglo-Saxon_England/Selected_article/4
    
13. Tribal Hidage - Wikipedia, accessed November 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_Hidage
    
14. The Earliest English Kings, accessed November 21, 2025, https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781000086645_A39479279/preview-9781000086645_A39479279.pdf
    
15. SCHOOLS OF ANGLO-SAXON STONE SCULPTURE IN THE NORTH MIDLANDS. - White Rose eTheses Online, accessed November 21, 2025, https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/1807/1/DX189197.pdf
    
16. Anglo-Saxon England - The Mercian Tribal Hidage - The History Files, accessed November 21, 2025, https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesBritain/EnglandMerciaHidage01.htm
    
17. Mercia - Wikipedia, accessed November 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercia
    
18. Tamworth, Staffordshire - Wikipedia, accessed November 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamworth,_Staffordshire
    
19. Index of Charters by Date - The Electronic Sawyer, accessed November 21, 2025, https://esawyer.lib.cam.ac.uk/browse/ch_date/0800.html
    
20. Index of Kings by date - The Electronic Sawyer, accessed November 21, 2025, https://esawyer.lib.cam.ac.uk/browse/kingd/0800.html
    
21. S 197 - Electronic Sawyer, accessed November 21, 2025, https://esawyer.lib.cam.ac.uk/charter/197.html
    
22. Tomsaete - Wikipedia, accessed November 21, 2025, https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomsaete
    
23. CBA RESEARCH REPORT No 83 An Anglo-Saxon Watermill at Tamworth - Woolmer Forest Heritage Society, accessed November 21, 2025, https://woolmerforest.org.uk/E-Library/A/An%20Anglo-Saxon%20Watermill%20at%20Tamworth%20Excavations%20in%20the%20Bolebridge%20Street%20area%20of%20Tamworth%20Staffordshire%20in%201971%20and%201978.pdf
    
24. CBA Research Report No. 83 - Archaeology Data Service, accessed November 21, 2025, https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/cba_rr/rr83.cfm?CFID=573996&CFTOKEN=39545028
    
25. TAMWORTH CASTLE MILL Community Archaeological Evaluation (Phases 1 & 2 2023), accessed November 21, 2025, https://www.tamworthcastle.co.uk/sites/default/files/pdfs/Tamworth-Castle-Mill-Evaluation-Final-report.pdf
    
26. The parts of an Anglo-Saxon mill - Cambridge University Press, accessed November 21, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/anglo-saxon-england/article/parts-of-an-anglosaxon-mill/554F5F1EAD1E1096BDAD7A1364963C05
    
27. St Editha, Tamworth, Staffordshire - CRSBI, accessed November 21, 2025, https://www.crsbi.ac.uk/view-item?i=9732
    
28. The Staffordshire Hoard - Stoke Museums, accessed November 21, 2025, https://www.stokemuseums.org.uk/pmag/exhibitions/welcome-to-the-staffordshire-hoard/
    
29. Understanding the Staffordshire Hoard | Historic England, accessed November 21, 2025, https://historicengland.org.uk/whats-new/research/back-issues/understanding-the-staffordshire-hoard/
    
30. The Staffordshire Hoard research and conservation. | Birmingham Museums, accessed November 21, 2025, https://www.birminghammuseums.org.uk/resources/the-science-behind-the-staffordshire-hoard
    
31. St Editha’s history in Church Eaton, accessed November 21, 2025, https://churcheaton.org.uk/stedithas-history.php
    
32. Edith of Polesworth - Wikipedia, accessed November 21, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_of_Polesworth
    
33. The People and Places Important to King Egbert - RootsWeb, accessed November 21, 2025, https://freepages.rootsweb.com/~emty/family/People&Places_Important_to_Egbert_People.html
    
34. 3. History of the site and buildings - polesworth abbey pcc, accessed November 21, 2025, https://abbeypcc.weebly.com/uploads/5/3/9/4/53941565/polesworth_conservation_plan_section_b.pdf
    
35. St Edith of Polesworth and her Cult - ResearchGate, accessed November 21, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334846070_St_Edith_of_Polesworth_and_her_Cult
    
36. Who is St Editha of Tamworth???? - Elias Icons, accessed November 21, 2025, https://www.eliasicons.co.uk/who-is-st-editha-of-tamworth