CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Æthelwine of Abingdon

abbot

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionDec 17, 2024
Entity authorityQ8077393 ↗
Source-derived summary

Ethelwine (or Æthelwine) was Abbot of Abingdon.

Æthelsige died in 1018 and was succeeded by Æthelwine (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, version E), who is said to have died in 1030 (Kelly 2000). Æthelwine enjoyed a close relationship with King Cnut. His skills as a goldsmith were illustrated by his production of a reliquary for Cnut and for the abbey.

References

Hudson, John, 2007. Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis:The History of the Church of Abingdon,

Kelly, S. E. 2000. Charters of Abingdon, part 1. Anglo-Saxon Charters 7.

Editorial summary

Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Æthelwine of Abingdon” is abbot. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Æthelwine, Abingdon and abbot, not as a finished interpretation.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1018, 1030, 2000, 2007—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. For this dossier, Æthelwine, Abingdon and abbot is the immediate research focus.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The phrase “abbot” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.

Evidence profile

Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Dec 17, 2024. The linked authority identifier is Q8077393. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1018, 1030, 2000 and 2007.

Critical limits

The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Æthelwine of Abingdon”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Æthelwine of Abingdon primary sources, Æthelwine of Abingdon archive and Æthelwine research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Æthelwine of Abingdon”?
  2. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
  3. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Æthelwine of Abingdon” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.