Page images

the river, and connected the two boroughs by a bridge, which must have included a causeway or a wooden stage across the marshes of the Leen. It is not surprising that the frequent floods of the Trent have carried away all trace of this second borough. The important

? position of Nottingham was maintained in subsequent times, and it was still a borough at Domesday.

ThelwALL.—According to Camden, Thelwall explains by its name the kind of work which was set up here, a wall composed of the trunks of trees. This was another attempt to defend the course of the Mersey, which was once tidal as far as Thelwall. No remains of any

fortifications can now be seen at Thelwall, which was not one of the boroughs which took root. But the Mersey has changed its course very much at this point, even before the making of the Ship Canal effected a more complete alteration.

MANCHESTER.— The burh repaired by Edward the Elder was no doubt the Roman castrum, which was built on the triangle of land between the Irwell and the Medlock. Large portions of the walls were still remaining in Stukeley's time, about 1700, and some fragments have recently been unearthed by the Manchester Classical Association. It was one of the smaller kind of Roman stations, its area being only

Manchester is not mentioned as a borough in Domesday, but the old Saxon town was long known as Aldportton, which literally means “the town of the

5 acres.

1 I am indebted for much of the information given here to the local antiquarian knowledge of Mr Harold Sands, F.S.A. He states that the old borough was 1400 yards from the Trent at its nearest point, and that the highest ground on the south side of the Trent is marked by the Trent Bridge cricket ground, the last spot to become flooded. Here, therefore, was the probable site of Edward's second borough.

2 See Appendix F.



old city.” This is its title in mediæval deeds, and it is still preserved in Alport Street, a street near the remains of the castrum. The later borough of Manchester, which existed at least as early as the 13th century, appears to have grown up round the Norman castle, about a mile from the Roman castrum.”

BAKEWELL.—The vagueness of the indication in the Chronicle, “nigh to Bakewell,” leaves us in some doubt where we are to look for this burh, which Florence calls an urbs. Just outside the village of Bakewell there are the remains of a motte and bailey castle (a small motte and bailey of 2 acres), which are always assumed to be the burh of Edward. But the enclosure is far too small for a borough, and Edward's burh would certainly have enclosed the church; for though the present church contains no Saxon architecture, the ancient cross in the graveyard shows that it stands on a Saxon site. It is more reasonable to suppose that Edward's borough, if it was at Bakewell, has disappeared as completely as those of Runcorn, Buckingham, and Thelwall, and that the motte and bailey belong to one of the many Norman castles whose names never appear in history. There is no conclusive evidence for the existence of a Norman castle at Bakewell, but the names Castle Field, Warden Field, and Court Yard are at least suggestive. S Bakewell was the seat of jurisdiction for the High Peak Hundred in mediæval times.

1 Whitaker's History of Manchester, i., 43.
2 Trans. of Lanc. and Chesh. Hist. and Ant. Soc., V., 246.

3 “Castle" in combination with some other word is often given to works of Roman or British origin, because its original meaning was a fortified enclosure ; but the name Castle Hill is extremely common for mottes.

4 We may remark here that it is not surprising that there should be a number of motte castles which are never mentioned in history, especially as it is certain that all the “adulterine” castles, which were raised without royal permission in the rebellions of Stephen's and other reigns, were very short-lived. 1 Medieval Military Architecture, i., 18. See Mr Round's remarks on Mr Clark's vagueness in his “Castles of the Conquest,” Archeologia, 1902.



We must now inquire into the nature of the fortifications built by the Danes in England, which are frequently mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. It has often been asserted, and with great confidence, that the Danes were the authors of the moated mounds of class (e); those in Ireland are invariably spoken of by Lewis in his Topographical Dictionary as “ Danish Raths.” This fancy seems to have gone somewhat out of fashion since Mr Clark's burh theory occupied the field, though Mr Clark's view is often so loosely expressed as to lead one to think that he supposed all the Northern nations to be makers of mottes; in fact, he frequently includes the Anglo-Saxons under the general title of “Northmen”! We must therefore endeavour to find out what the Danish fortifications actually were.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle mentions twenty-four places where the Danes either threw up fortifications (between 787 and 924) or took up quarters either for the winter, or for such a period of time that we may infer that there was some fortification to protect them. The word used for the fortification is generally geweori,



a work, or fæsten (in two places only), which has also the general vague meaning of a fastness. There are ten places where these works or fastnesses are mentioned in the Chronicle :

1. NOTTINGHAM.—We have already seen that the Danish host took up their winter quarters here in 868, and that there is the highest probability that the borough which Edward the Elder restored was first built by them. We have also seen that it was a camp of roughly rectangular form, and enclosed a very large area, necessary for great numbers. "

2. ROCHESTER.—This city was besieged by the Danes in 885, and they fortified a camp outside. As the artificial mound called Boley Hill is outside the city, most topographers have jumped to the conclusion that this was the Danish camp. But the character of the Danish fortification is clearly indicated in the Chronicle :

they made a work around themselves,” that is, it was an enclosure. They could hardly have escaped by ship, as they did, if their camp had been above the bridge, which is known to have existed in Saxon times. But Boley Hill is above the bridge.

3. Milton, in Kent (Middeltune).—Hæsten the Dane landed at the mouth of the Thames with 80 ships, and wrought a geweorc here in 893. Two places in the neighbourhood of Milton have been suggested as the site of it, a square earthwork at Bayford Court, near Sittingbourne, and a very small square enclosure called Castle Rough. Neither of these are large enough to have been of any use to a force which came in 80

1 The A.-S. C. speaks of this Danish host as “a great heathen army.” 866.

2 “Worhton other fæsten ymb hie selfe.” The same language is frequently used in the continental accounts of the Danish fortresses : “Munientes se per gyrum avulsæ terræ aggere,Dudo, 155 (Duchesne): “Se ex illis (sepibus et parietibus) circumdando munierant.” It., p. 81.




ships. Steenstrup has calculated that the average number of men in a Viking ship must have been from 40 to 50; Hæsten therefore must have had at least 3200 men with him.

It is therefore probable that the camp at Milton has been swept away.

4. APPLEDORE.—A still larger Danish force, which had been harrying the Carlovingian empire, came in 250 ships, with their horses, in 893, and towed their ships “up the river” (which is now extinct) from Lymne to Appledore, where they wrought a work. There are no earthworks at Appledore now, but at Kenardington, 2 miles off, there are remains of “a roughly defined rectangular work, situated on the north and east of the church, on the slope of the hill towards the marsh, a very likely place for an entrenchment thrown up to defend a fleet of light-draught ships hauled up on the beach.” The enclosure was very

2 large, one side which remains being 600 feet long.

5. BENFLEET.—Here Hæsten wrought a work in 894 ; here he was defeated by Alfred's forces, and some of his ships burnt. Mr Spurrell states that there are still some irregular elevations by the stream and about the church, which he believes to be remains of the Danish camp. “As the fleet of ships lay in the Beamfleet,

1 The earthworks at Bayford Court must belong to the mediæval castle which existed there. See Beauties of England and Wales, Kent, p. 698. Castle Rough is less than an acre in area.

? Mr Harold Sands, Some Kentish Castles, p. 10.

* See the plan in Victoria History of Kent, paper on Earthworks by the late Mr I. C. Gould. Hasted states that there was a small circular mount there as well as an embankment, and that there are other remains in the marsh below, which seem to have been connected with the former by a narrow ridge or causeway, Kent, iii., 117. The causeway led to a similar mount in the marsh below, but Mr Gould inclined to think the mounts and causeway later, and possibly part of a dam for “inning” the marsh. V. C. H., p. 397.

4 “Hæsten's Camps at Shoebury and Benfleet,” Essex Naturalist, iv., 153.


« PreviousContinue »