Burhs

Edward was formative in the creation of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom. His burhs were important strategic locations but they were also ideological centres, used to convince locals of his strength and therefore also his legitimacy as king. This is presented convincingly in his annals, which could have been used as a vehicle to make his policies widely known. Taken with the literary developments of Edward’s reign, this points to a comprehensive ideological policy being developed and propagated. It is as much this policy which led the path to a unified England as that of Edward’s father, King Alfred, before him. This article therefore argues for a re-evaluation of early tenth-century kingship, with the Edwardian annals as a central source for Edward’s concept of kingship.

Discusses the archaeological, topographical, historical and landscape evidence for five burhs (defended urban settlements) of the late ninth century in Somerset, England. Four of these are included by name in the Burghal Hidage document of c.880.

The strategic context of new burhs created by the West Saxon King Edward the Elder at Buckingham, Newport Pagnell, Towcester and probably Aylesbury in the period 914 to 917, is examined to determine the ways in which the foundation of these burhs as new fortified settlements was associated with the formation of new burghal territories to maintain their strategic functionality. These were arguably divided into units of around 300 hides, here termed 'proto-hundreds', in the late ninth and early tenth-century programmes of burghal formation. These in turn were divided into vills or estates, in most cases as 5-and 10-hide units. These developments are compared with processes which can be inferred from similar evidence from neighbouring shires of Bedfordshire, Huntingdonshire and Cambridgeshire, where similar proto-hundreds of between 200 and 400 hides formed primary landscape divisions within their burghal territories. All these are argued as comprising elements of a major reorganization of the administrative landscape as part of the essential infrastructure of the formation of the burhs. These new cadastral redevelopments demonstrate the organizational precocity of the West Saxon state at this period. These proto-hundreds were subsequently divided into 100-hide units as a development which was arguably concurrent with the creation of the shires, formed by fusion of the earlier burghal territories, in probably the third quarter of the tenth century. The course of development of burhs and burghal territories, and of hundreds, wapentakes and shires, as new elements in the administrative landscape of late Saxon England, raises fundamental issues about the ways in which both the Mercian and West Saxon states set about organising themselves to put in place the administrative infrastructure which was needed to meet their strategic and social agendas, in different historical contexts. While the shires of central Wessex were established well before the ninth century, those of western and central Mercia were later developments. It is argued in this paper that a crucial factor in these developments in Mercia was

This article puts forward a new context and chronology for the development of the two parts of the
late Saxon burh at Oxford, using archaeological, topographical, and historical evidence. It argues that
the original burh was created in c.878–9 and that the eastern extension – effectively a second burh –
was added in the early tenth century. Both dates are earlier than those usually proposed. The results
of recent excavations on the site of the Norman castle have made it possible not only to establish the
original extent of the primary burh, but also to identify a phase of the re-defence in probably the early
eleventh century as a response to renewed Viking raiding.

Reasons are given for questioning the identification of the defended site of Castle Toll in Kent with the late ninth-century Burghal Hidage burh of Eorpeburnan, in eastern Sussex, as has been widely assumed. A new historical narrative is therefore required. A consideration of the relevant topographical, landscape, archaeological, and documentary evidence supports the case for identifying the burh of Eorpeburnan with Rye, East Sussex. Recent palaeogeographic and geomorphological evidence relating to the development of the Romney Marsh area gives a new perspective to this hypothesis, and a new context for the development of Rye in the historic landscape. Some aspects of the historical relationship of Rye with Hastings and with Old Winchelsea are also explored. keywords

The consensus regarding the entry for the borough of Southwark in Domesday is that it is partial and incomplete. The author demonstrates that by using strict textual analysis and forensic techniques utilising a themed grid and cross referencing this abstract wth a topographic aide against a close attention to discreet Statements within the entry allows far more to be explicated than previously realised. A review of the later history of the religious establishments and lay territorial ownership along side the key physical and riverine features of the area clarifies certain confusions arising from the Statements which appear at first repetitive and/ or contradictory. The author also gives a strict attention to the Latinised forms representing Middle English to demonstrate that there is a unitary narrative and this can be referenced to Anglo-Norman legal and administrative arrangements in Domesday as a whole and in relation to the borough of Southwark.  Also a palaeographic treatment of the entry within the Book can also clarify some of the misapprehensions, repeated by scholars as eminent as Maitland, Tait and Round.

A new view is put forward concerning the course of the early development of Stamford in southern Lincolnshire in its wider geopolitical context, through an analysis of its topography, archaeology and early history. It is concluded that a Mercian royal centre on the site of St Peter's church and the later castle was refortified by the Scandinavian forces in the late ninth or early tenth century, and that it was this stronghold which was taken over by the forces of King Edward the Elder in c. 918. The king thereupon built two burhs e defended quasi-urban settlements e on the two sides of the river Welland. These were linked by a bridge, forming a single strategic unit, on the West Saxon model. Each of these burhs was assigned a burghal territory, the inhabitants of which owed a range of services to the king at the burh. This process can be seen as the origin of what has been called the 'Danish burh' on the north bank. These burhs, with their associated territories, became the instruments for a new level of control of the area by Edward and subsequent West Saxon kings. This reassessment enables a new model to be articulated concerning the temporal and functional development of burhs and their associated cadastral units-shires, burghal territories, wapentakes, hundreds and town fields-in the context of the political changes involved in the early tenth-century conquest and reabsorption of the Viking-held territories in the eastern Midlands by the West Saxon king.

A model for the development of Hastings immediately prior to the Norman Conquest in 1066 is put forward, which explores the new thesis that a burh or citadel was created on the castle site at Hastings by King AEthelred in c.990 as one element in a possibly systematic defence of southern England against the new Viking invaders. This was associated with the establishment of a mint, and led directly to the development of the town of Hastings from this time, together with a probable port and associated shipbuilding industry. This defended site, provided with defences, a tower-nave church and a monumental gateway, survived to be used by Duke William for two weeks in the autumn of 1066 as his military command centre, in preparation for the battle which made possible his subsequent conquest of England.

The survey, designed and conducted as a fieldwork project for the author's MA dissertation for the University of Southampton was successful in locating a number of anomalies. These features indicate that the extent of occupation within the fort was much more than previously thought, though excavation is needed to elucidate and date them.

The author examines the consensus position regarding the documents scholars now call the Burghal Hidage as adumbrated in The Defence of Wessex eds Hill and Rumble - Manchester University Press 1996 (the keystone essays on this text) and the discrete sections of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle known by scholars as the Mercian Register (The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition eds Bately, Brewer, Dumville et al Cambridge 1986 - 2013).

The First Part: The Defence of Wessex Revisited, reviews the classic and now standard interpretation of Hill and Rumble (and subsequent papers by the contributors) which arguments are tested against the original texts and also in relation to the evidence of two other documents of near contemporary standing:- the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and the Alfred and Guthrum Treaty (English Historical Documents c.500-1042 D. Whitelock 1955).

The paper does not seek to be polemical or contrary but nevertheless offers a major revision of the position set out by the contributors and editors of ‘The Defence ...’ in regard to both the dating of the production of the Burghal Hidage and the system it represents.

The paper is cast in sections discussing:
i) the Great Army’s destruction of the existing insular kingdoms; the nature of the conquest of Mercia in particular;
ii) the issues relating to the ‘survival’ of Alfred and Wessex;
iii) a discourse on the relationship of Kent and London to these events and to the silence of the Burghal Hidage regarding them;
iv) the analysis of the variants of the Burghal Hidage and their alternative appendices;
v) the nature of the agreements and arrangements between Alfred and Guthrum;
vi) the circumstances of Guthrum’s removal to ‘East Anglia’ as well as a review of the reasons for and the route of that removal;
vii) offers an alternative hypothesis regarding the Alfred and Guthrum Treaty
viii) and a sequel chapter on the use of the burhs in the the so called ‘Last War of King Alfred’.

The paper then proposes a reconciliation of what appears as contradictory evidence from the three sources.
An Appendix treats in extenso with the status of Essex, in response to Dumville’s suggestions.

The Second Part : The Mercian Re-conquest, is an analysis of the discrete ASC interpolation the Mercian Register to contrast this in relation to the principal texts discussed in the first part of the essay and to review the current scholarship in regard to:

i) the identification and possible location of the obscure burhs in these annals;
ii) queries the foundation of three of the principal known burhs in the documents – Chester, Shrewsbury and Warwick;
iii) the general dating of the Statements in the annals;
iv) the course of the campaigns of the re-conquest in western Mercia as undertaken by Æthelred, Æthelflaed and Edward;
v) and the parties and the intent of the treaties referenced in regard to these campaigns.

This is a completely revisionist exercise which gives a more coherent account of the course of the Re-conquest.
The author has prepared digital maps ad novo for the essays and offers his own translations of the relevant annals and documents to assist in a simplified analysis of their Statements.

Over the recent decades, historians and archaeologists alike have greatly enhanced modern understanding of the urban development in early medieval Britain. However, as of now, there seems to be a lack of a meta-analytical synthesis of the collected information, i.e. scholars have so far not put forward any concise framework to collate this information with, the need for which is especially acute in the light of the multifaceted Anglo-Scandinavian interaction. For instance, the contribution of the Danish settlement to the English urban landscape has on multiple occasions been emphasised, but it remains hard to evaluate in the absence of a comparison with both native Scandinavian urban development and parallel late Anglo-Saxon urbanisation.
The suggested paper aims at presenting one of the possible typologies of the post-Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Scandinavian urban centres and communities up until the beginning of the High Middle Ages. The expected framework, built on the firm chronological principle, shall categorise them on the basis of:
1. origins: (post-)Roman settlements, early Anglo-Saxon wīcas/emporia, later Scandinavian fortresses, West Saxon burhs, etc.;
2. functions: royal centres, territorial capitals, commercial hubs, etc.;
3. regionality: Southern England, Western Mercia, and the Danelaw.
Of a special interest is the integration of the pre-existing urban settlements in the Danelaw into the West Saxon administrative system, particularly when compared to the parallel process in English Mercia to the west.
It is anticipated that the resultant analytical scheme can find application beyond the British Isles and can contribute to the multidisciplinary Scandinavian research just as much.