City of London Series III
The Anglo-Saxons- New Settlers but not new occupants.
So, after much thought, and reports from fellow wanderers, Eadweard and his new wife, agreed to take the plunge and cross the Sea to this new land which others had settled in, and which held much promise. It could not be worse than their present conditions in Angeln.
Thus, it was that they set off, with a group of fellow settlers, across the Sea in their boat. They found a nice wide mouth of a mighty river and the group agreed that it would be worthwhile sailing and rowing up into the heartland of this new country, rather than settling on the coast.
They rowed against the tide where necessary, and sailed where possible, for a day or so, until they decided they had almost gone far enough. However, as they turned a bend in the river they say an amazing site. There were great high walls of stone, with ruined buildings, also of stone behind them. No one, in their experience, built houses of stones except giants, wizards or the Gods. So, they sailed on for a short distance and then sought somewhere to land.
To their amazement, the giants had also built a stone road alongside the riverbank, creating a good landing site. Hence, they all agreed to set up camp on the land side of this stone roadway. Far enough from the giants’ stone homes, but close to the best point on the river to land.
Thus, it was that over time, once they had felled some trees to form posts and branches to twist into walls, the settlers created a small village. Over time, other settlers arrived and soon a town was created north of the river and the stone road. But what to call this town? It was mainly a trading town, so in their language it meant the suffix “wic”, and with the giants having apparently called their city Londinium, the town became Lundenwic. The rest is history.
Now, before you rightly complain that I have just written a load of made up nonsense. Yes, I fully accept that what I have written above is pure fantasy from my own imagination.
HOWEVER, I wrote this so as to outline what appears to have actually occurred. The settlers did sail and row up the Thames and did avoid the Roman remains. They did settle north of the westerly Road the Romans had built going from Londinium to Calleva Atrebatum via Pontes (moder-day Staines), which initially followed the Thames Valley. This road, sometimes referred to as the Devil’s Highway, was constructed on the northern bank the Thames. The Roman road left from the bottom of Ludgate Hill up to present day Trafalgar Square, just as the Strand and Fleet Street do today. This is no coincidence as Fleet Street and the Strand are believed to be built on top of the original Road foundations.
The eastern section of the road, about half a mike to a mile west of Londinium, was still very much visible when the Anglo-Saxon settlers arrived. In addition, it was so close to the river that it formed a good foreshore and safe barrier for those on the northern side. Thus, it was, in the Anglo-Saxon vocabulary, a solid “strond”. Which, over the years, became todays Strand.
Thus, when the Anglo-Saxon settlers set up their village north of their strond, or strand, they founded Lundenwic. The word “Strand” being a derivative of the old English/Anglo Saxon word for ‘beach’ or bank’ of a river. As in my fable above, the suffix “wic” was used when a town or village was a trading point. This is further born out by the writings of the Venerable Bede (c.673-735) where he describes Lundenwic as an “emporium” or “wic”. He further says Lundenwic was an open, unfortified settlement focused on trade, (national and international), and craft production. He also says Lundenwic was a “mart of many peoples”. Which both suggests not only that it contained Anglo-Saxon setters and, potentially, some ‘indigenous’ Britons, but also that it was indeed a thriving international port.
It is worth quickly pointing out at this point that Historians appear to differ on the juxtaposition of the Strand and the Thames. Some suggest the Strand was in effect an embankment wall, with the river hard up against its foundations. Others that it was the edge of solid ground and that the Thames was actually several meters away over marsh like ground. Whilst I am no expert, (obviously), I wonder if both could be correct. The Thames was, like today, tidal in Saxon days. So, given the range between high and low tides may well have covered a much greater area of land, it may be that at High Spring Tides the Strand and its banks were lapped by the Thames but in other cycles of Tides the river did nt reach the Strand. In fact, in Spring Low Tides, the water could have been a significant distance from the banks of the Strand.
Whatever the case with the relative positions of the Strand and the river, the settlement grew. However, it was not until fairly recently that the site of Lundenwic was confirmed.
Up to the late 1970’s, there was a belief that the settlers had occupied the Roman City. However, this concept became unsustainable as, excavations in the 1970’s and early 1980’s found no significant proof of occupation by the Saxons prior to the 10th Century. In 1984[1] two archaeologists surmised that, based on some written evidence and a few chance finds, that the initial location was near the Strand. Although this theory suggested two settlements. The trading village near the Strand and the elite living in the Roman City. It is no longer believed that there was any significant occupation of the walled City until Alfred the Great in the late 9th Century.
However, it is acknowledged that a Church of St Paul was built in around 604 AD on the site of the present St Paul’s church.
Thus Lundenwic was part, initially of the East Saxons. Due to finds at, or under, the both St-Martin-in-the-field, near Trafalgar Square and The Royal Opera House.
At St Marin’s archologists from the Museum of London discovered two key finds. First a stone sarcophagus of a middle-aged man which was carbon dated to 390-430 AD. Thus, Roman. Followed by an Anglo Saxon pot of the 6th century and high status grave goods from the 7th century.
Then when the Royal Opera House was undergoing extensive work in 1996, initially Saxon inhumation burials were discovered and then further finds.
With these two major set of finds and other smaller discoveries, it is now understood than Lundenwic stretched from the East of present day Trafalgar square to Aldwych.
Lundenwic grew over time and it is speculated that in the reign of Wulfhere, the Mercian King who reigned in the late 7th century, when Mercia had control of Lundenwic, the population was some 10,000. Further that archaeology suggests a grid of streets with timber buildings, forges and all the expected paraphernalia of a wealthy 7th and 8th century town.
However, whilst the Thames was the source of Lundenwic’s wealth and success, it was also the source of its demise. The first major Viking raid chronicled is in 842 AD and is referred to a period of “great slaughter”. A decade later in 851, a fleet, said to be of 350 Viking ships sailed and rowed up the Thames, looted Lundenwic and burnt it. Razing it to the ground. The Saxons rebuilt, but twenty years later the Vikings returned. Using the old Roman ruins as a base they raided Lundenwic over the spring of 872.
In the 886, it is estimated, Alfred the Great decided that enough was enough, and moved the settlement inside the walls of the Roman City. He fortified the walls and created a new town of Lundenburh, (aka Lundenburgh) which means fortress London. Whilst this was not Alfred’s only fortified town across southern England, it soon became one of, if not the, most important one. Winchester remained, nevertheless, the centre of political power.
At this point, I might add a little note of interest, it was during Alfred’s reign, in the 9th century, that Shire-reeves were appointed. These became Sheriffs of counties, and the City of London’s Shire-reeves and Sheriffs have held office ever since. It was also in around this time, I understand, that the remains of the old trading town, (or Wic), was referred to as just that, the “eald-wic”. Thus, it was that the entrance to this ‘old town’ became known as Aldwych. Although the first written record I can find is from 1211.
During Alfred’s son Edward the Elder’s reign, a second protective settlement was growing on the southern side of the bridge, “Suthringa Geworc” (“defensive work by men of the southern province”), and thus Southwark was born.
Edward’s son Ethelstan, is commonly thought to be the ruler who moved political control , in part, to Lundenburh, but it was Ethelred the Unready who used London as his Capital. It was in the reign of Ethelred, in 1013, that Sweyn Forkbeard of Denmark raided and captured Lundenburh, Ethelred was forced abroad, but within a year, with the assistance of the Norwegian King Olaf, he reclaimed Lunderburg. This act of reclaiming, it is believed, is the source of the old child’s song, “London Bridge is falling down”. This is because Forkbeard had placed his force on the bridge so they had a good line of sight on the attackers coming up the river. The idea, it seems, was to pelt the Saxons and Norwegian force with spears and arrows. However, the reinvading force took roves from houses as the approached, which sheltered them from these spears. They then attached ropes and cables to the wooden supports. Then, by backing oars and rowing hard, they collapse the bridge. The remaining Danish soldiers were then split between the north and south banks. Giving the Saxon and Norse men the ability to attach each separately. This led to the eventual recapture on Lundenburh. Ethelred thus reclaimed his throne and kingdom.
When Ethelred died in 1016 his son, Edmund Ironside was crowned, but it was Forkbeard’s son, Cnut the Great, who advanced out of Danelaw to take control of all of England. Finally, being crowned King of all England in London at Christmas that year.
Cnut’s sons, first to succeed him was his son by his second wife Emma, the Widow of Ethelred, who was called Harthacnut, but he had troubles in the Scandinavian part of Cnut’s kingdom. Harold I, (also known as Harold Harefoot), Cnut’s first son by his first wife, seized power when Harthacnut was dealing with a rebellion from Norway in Denmark.
So, Harold summoned the Great Council, the Witengemot, in Oxford and had himself crowned king. This left the sons of Emma and Ethelred, Alfred Atheling, (‘Atheling’ meaning crown prince), and Edward, disinherited. When they heard of Cnut’s death and Harold’s seizing of power not only did Alfred and Edward return from their mother’s lands in Normandy, but Emma joined forces with Earl Godwin to take back Wessex.
Godwin, spotting that Harold had the upper hand, switch sides, and trapped Emma’s sons and bound and finally killed Alfred. Edward escaped. Harold, however, was only king for a short time. Dying of an illness in Oxford March 1040. Harthacnut returned to power. He too had a short lived reign. He died in 1042. Before he died, however, he invited Edward, his half-brother, back from exile in Normandy and recognised him as his successor.
Hence Edward became England’s King in 1042. His claim was contested by several Danish kings, successors to Harthacnut in Denmark and Norway.
It was one such claimant, Haral Hardrada, son of Magnus the Good who Harthacnut had proclaimed as his heir in Denmark and Norway, that was to play such a pivotal part in what happened after Edward, (yes, we are talking about Edward the Confessor).
Edward’s reign was not peaceful. He spent most of it in a constant fight with the Earl of Wessex, the same Earl Godwin who had initially helped then turned against Edwards mother, Emma. Even stranger was the fact that Edward had married Godwin’s daughter and thus was his Son-in-law.
In 1051, Godwin and his sons were ordered to appear before the Witan of the land in Lundenburh. Godwin, his sons and their combined force sailed down the river and camped in Southwark intending to intimidate Edward, the other English Earls and the Londoners, (if I may now refer to them), remained loyal. Godwin, his sons and his daughter, Queen Edith, wife of Edward, were sent into exile. Nonetheless, his ambition remained and almost a year after his banishment, he sailed up the Thames camped again in Southwark and this time succeeded in making Edward back down. One result of this climb down was Godwin’s eldest son, Harold, was made ‘under-king’, thus heir apparent to Edward.
Harold Godwin, upon his father’s death set up his household a mile and a half upstream of London. Where he could oversee the construction of the new Westminster Abbey. This is when the seat of Government and of Royalty left London.
So it was that Harold Godwin became Harold II in 1066, and 9 months later a whole new chapter in English, and London, history began.
[1] Biddle & Vince-independently- https://www.academia.edu/90482245/Lundenwic_the_archaeological_evidence_for_middle_Saxon_London
