The Saxon period, poorly documented in comparison to the medieval period and the subject of less intensive excavation than the Roman period, is crucial to the understanding of the evolution of England. In AD 500 the region had no major focus and lay at the boundaries of a number of competing petty kingdoms and yet by the mid 11th century London was the most populous and important city, of an emerging nation state. It attracted trade from the Continent and the Baltic and its inhabitants were the most vocal and expressive at articulating their rights and opinions as Englishmen and as Londoners.
Currently knowledge of the transition from the late Roman period (from the end of Imperial rule in 410) to the return of Christianity in the London region in the 7th century is extremely limited. Few sites have been identified, and so less recent or small-scale and poorly dated excavations of isolated features assume an exaggerated importance. An improved understanding of what happened in the late 4th to early 5th century, and the so-called ‘migration period’ when Germanic people moved from their Continental homelands to England, will be critical for clarifying this transition. In contrast to other cities, no structures of this early Saxon or pagan Saxon era have been found. Instead, excavations have yielded substantial deposits of incompletely understood ‘dark earth’. It is not clear whether the gap in occupation is apparent or real, and, if real, what its causes may have been.
The middle and late Saxon periods are better understood than the early Saxon period. Archaeological work has shown that the middle Saxon period was characterised by a trading centre known as Lundenwic, in Covent Garden, north of the Strand, and that Saxon strata survive over much of the settlement (Blackmore and Cowie 2001). The late Saxon period, beginning in the mid 9th century (AD 839 or AD 842), is characterised by the onset of Viking attacks on London (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 1859), and the shift of the Covent Garden settlement from the Strand to the walled area of the former Roman city in AD 886 (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 1859). Theories behind the reasons for this have altered with each new piece of evidence.
In order to understand inter- and intra-site relationships, however, a better control of chronology is required. A high priority should be assigned to developing a framework of absolute dates. Pottery from the Saxon period is not closely datable so emphasis should be placed on refining the chronology by use of high precision radiocarbon determinations linked to material culture typologies.
Analysis of early Saxon deposits indicate environmental conditions similar to those of the pre- Roman era and a regenerating mixed deciduous forest. Evidence from a site at West Drayton indicates that there was regional forest cover in west London in the early post-Roman period, with some evidence for arable cultivation and grassland/pasture (AGL 2000, 180–1). Agricultural settlement is mainly concentrated on the brickearths and gravels.
The most important factor in the landscape was the Thames, which provided access to markets, routes for settlement and migration and barriers for defence. From the 9th century onwards the river was also a vulnerable artery for attacks. Although hardly an advantage, this did act as a stimulant to social and military countermeasures which have left an enduring mark on the whole country. Compared with the Roman and later medieval periods the tidal regime is poorly understood. Among the specific points to be clarified is whether the Thames was tidal at the sites of recently discovered fish traps at Lundenwic and further upstream. Recent work has considered the reasons for the siting of the main settlement areas at Covent Garden and then in the City in terms of tidal scouring and silting (Cowie et al 1998).
The presence of both Roman ruins and infrastructure, such as roads, were important features within the Saxon landscape. The degree to which these affected subsequent occupation and landscape exploitation requires further study, particularly with regard to the hinterland of London. The results will be comparable to Continental studies of cities like Huy, Trier, Tournai and Metz where more information of the transition from Roman to Frankish rule has been preserved, providing a valuable model for comparison with London (Nicholas 1997).
Known early Saxon settlements consisted of dispersed, undefended villages and farmsteads (eg the communities at Mitcham (Bidder and Morris 1959) and Mucking (Hamerow 1993, 90–1)), with slight evidence for hillfort reuse. Cemeteries and occupation sites are concentrated along the River Thames and its tributaries. These may provide evidence for determining issues concerning the ‘Saxon migration’. A number of 5th-century settlements and cemeteries have been found close to late Roman villa sites (eg Keston, Orpington and Beddington (AGL 2000, 178, Gz BY4, BY9, ST15)) or with Roman field systems (eg Mortlake and Rainham (AGL 2000, 178, RT13, LSA98)). Continuity in the use of certain boundaries implies much about the relationship between the indigenes and the immigrants. Most excavated settlement sites have consisted of small numbers of sunken-featured buildings and other associated features but there is little evidence for settlement layout. This may be factor of small-scale fieldwork interventions. The only early Saxon settlement to have been investigated on any scale is Prospect Park in Hillingdon (Andrews 1996). As in other parts of England, known sites concentrate on free-draining soils near watercourses, possibly on the outward bend of meanders.
Rural settlements of middle Saxon date are scarce in Greater London, as elsewhere, although this may be partly a factor of their generally undiagnostic finds assemblages. Topographical models, and the correlation of Roman and later road systems with parish boundary and tenurial evidence, place name evidence, documentary evidence (especially sites in Domesday) and archaeological finds may help to trace continuity predict the location of rural sites. Without a better sample of excavated sites and finds assemblages, wider questions of land use and economy remain difficult to examine.
London comprised two elements during the middle Saxon period, an extramural mercantile settlement which grew into a major trading port known as Lundenwic and the intramural area of the former Roman town, occupied by a small number of buildings including churches and possibly a royal hall (Vince 1990, 54). The archaeological discovery of the extramural settlement is one of the great triumphs of archaeological investigation during the last twenty years, radically altering perceptions about the focus of settlement in London (Biddle 1989; Vince 1990). The most notable gap in knowledge is the nature of intramural occupation before AD 886. A number of hypotheses about the nature of settlement within the walled area have been postulated (Vince 1990, 50–7; AGL 2000, 182–7) but archaeological evidence is so far absent. A study of sites in the area between St Paul’s and the Thames and the area between Kingsway and the Fleet, especially in the waterfront zone and around St Andrew’s, Holborn, which at present are little understood, might prove fruitful.
Many questions remain to be asked of Lundenwic, from the reasons for its foundation, to the development and the spatial organisation of the settlement. Patterns of rubbish disposal have already been studied at site level (Malcolm and Bowsher 2003), but the results have wider application for understanding the distribution and use of open space within the settlement and how the concepts of public and private areas were articulated. The routes of several major Roman roads radiating from London survived through the period. It has been suggested that Lundenwic had a gridded street pattern (Malcolm and Bowsher 2003), but the evidence is very limited.
Archaeological evidence suggests that some of Lundenwic was formally laid out in the late 7th or early 8th century (Cowie 1988), but the mechanism behind this is obscure, and the extent of the planned area (and the settlement as a whole) at different times remains to be determined.
Building and population density seem to have increased dramatically during the middle Saxon period, probably reaching a peak around the end of the 8th century (Malcolm and Bowsher 2003). It has been noted that the London of this time appears to be similar in character to 12th- century London in a number of respects, including building density, susceptibility to fire and development of infrastructure (D Keene, pers comm). A more detailed comparison might help to refine models to predict structural and social consequences which can be tested archaeologically.
Within the city several lengths of pre-Conquest waterfront have been excavated but very little of it published, and dendrochronological dating and detailed publication are needed to study how and why rates of riverside development differ, chronologically or in terms of construction. No overall synthesis of archaeological evidence exists for the period, and the mass of information on 9th to 11th-century urban topography and roads should be collated in order to analyse patterns of development. It is also important to elucidate the development of road systems leading from London, and river crossing points.
The location of the settlement focus was not the only major change during the late Saxon period. Concepts of group affiliation and loyalty, economic dependence and opportunity and, in particular, the emergence of the nation state of England were all important developments.
The resettlement of the walled city may have begun as early as the mid 9th century. The nature and extent of occupation in the City in this period has proved difficult to establish, but the settlement was initially small, possibly sited between the Thames and Cheapside (Vince 1990, Burch and Treveil in prep). Subsequent development of the burh must have been rapid, as the walled area was the site of a major town by the late 10th century, although the organised settlement may not have extended far to the north of Cheapside until the early 11th century (Vince 1990, fig 65). It seems that another fortified town, or burh, was established in Southwark in the late 9th or early 10th century, and that London Bridge may have been rebuilt to connect the burhs and prevent Viking raiders from sailing upstream (Watson et al 2001, 52–3). This remains to be confirmed but would have major implications for understanding how the later settlement functioned.
We do not know whether Lundenwic continued to function as a market or settlement in the late 9th and/or 10th centuries, or what the effect of becoming part of the estate of Westminster Abbey may have been.
Within the walled area there have been many archaeological advances, most notably the creation of a ceramic dating framework, but more evidence is needed to help establish the relationship between the latest activity on the site of Lundenwic and the first 9th-century occupation within the Roman walls. It is still unclear whether there was a Viking presence in the City when Alfred founded Lundenburh in AD 886, and whether the general population had begun to move back into the walled city before that date. Queenhithe was selected as the first market (Ayre and Wroe-Brown 1996), and the 10th- and 11th-century development of the waterfront and the street pattern is now becoming clearer (AGL 2000, 192–4), but we do not know the boundaries of the Alfredian burh or to what extent the town was planned. Archaeology may be able to define the expansion of the burh, and the role of the church in the development of London. The relationship between Wessex and Mercia and the role of the Bishops of Worcester deserves closer attention.
Virtually nothing is known of occupation in Southwark in this period and whether it is the burh listed in the Burghal Hidage (Hill 1969). Current knowledge of the settlement pattern in the hinterland is largely based on what may be surmised from documentary sources. It is important that rural sites are identified in order to establish if and how they developed from earlier Saxon settlements, how different types of site were organised and when the region’s settlement pattern took on its medieval form. Kingston and Chelsea in particular merit closer attention as they may have had a continuing religious and political significance (Cowie and Blackmore in prep).
A number of different types of building has now been excavated although the majority of these date to the late Saxon period in the City (Horsman et al 1988; Hill and Woodger 1999). Two principal building types have been recorded consisting of surface laid structures and sunken- featured buildings. During the early Saxon period the rectangular buildings are generally post-built and probably functioned as halls or general living quarters. Sunken-featured buildings may have served primarily for storage and other ancillary functions. Evidence of timber halls has also been found at four rural settlements, including Barking Abbey and the Treasury, Whitehall (AGL 2000, 186). Buildings in the urban areas were generally rectangular in plan. Relatively little is currently understood about functional specialisation at the building, neighbourhood and settlement levels, although some progress is being made as a result of the excavations at the Royal Opera House (Malcolm and Bowsher 2003) and with pre-Conquest buildings from 1 Poultry (Burch and Treveil in prep). To an extent this may be a factor of modern construction patterns and the limited number of wide-area studies in the wic. There are currently no archaeologically identified churches or other important administrative buildings from the period before 1000 and very few from pre-Conquest deposits.
There is no evidence to suggest that the Roman walled city continued to be occupied for long after AD 410. A handful of finds from central London are of a Germanic type but the question of the role of foederati in the Saxon settlements is now treated with some caution. The fate of the British population remains uncertain (Barber and Bowsher 2000, 208, 305–6).
Osteological remains are currently too few to sustain a more in depth study of the people of the period. Many issues relating to the changes in population and social and ethnic hierarchies remain obscure. The scale of the Saxon migrations and the relationship between the settlers and the existing population has yet to be established. The evidence suggests that the indigenous population remained in the area but most cemeteries provide evidence for a Saxon material culture. There has been little excavation of cemetery sites using modern techniques and current information is principally related to sites away from the urban core in areas for which there is little other evidence of Saxon occupation. A few burials from around Covent Garden relate to a cemetery predating the Lundenwic settlement (Malcolm and Bowsher 2003). These may document a change in the beliefs of the inhabitants since the burials, with grave goods, were disturbed by the expansion of the purportedly Christian settlement. Limited excavation of an early mixed inhumation and cremation cemetery at 82–90 Park Lane, Croydon led to the recording of several graves and associated grave goods, but the human remains were poorly preserved (Welch 1997). London has the potential to inform on many interesting themes including the process of conversion and apostasy, the competing influences of ideas from the surrounding kingdoms, the Continent and later the Vikings.
The middle Saxon settlement is described as an international emporium by Bede (AD 673–735) but identifying ethnic traits from material remains has proved immensely difficult. The homogeneity of north European material culture at this time has obscured ethnic distinctiveness and only a few finds can be attributed as ‘foreign’ with confidence. One of these is the foreshore burials at Queenhithe in the City, where unusual Scandinavian (probably Finnish) rites were used (Ayre and Wroe-Brown in prep). There is some evidence for ethnic distinctiveness at Guildhall Yard where Scandinavian bulwerk construction techniques are associated with a pre- Conquest building (Bateman 2000, 57–8). Frisian boat fragments provide indirect evidence for the presence of Frisian merchants in London. Evidence of diet displays a similar homogeneity except for that from one building at the Royal Opera House which is associated with an unusually high percentage of rye (Malcolm and Bowsher 2003, Building 31). Whether this is a result of ethnic or personal preference is questionable.
Social status is more clearly defined in terms of grave goods from early Saxon cemeteries and the variety of domestic cultural assemblages. The most obvious difference is between town and country. In the former there is growing prosperity throughout the period reflected in both the variety and quality of goods available. Even the economic decline of the early 9th century and the subsequent Viking wars do not seem to have affected the types of goods available or the ability of Londoners to acquire them to any great extent. In the countryside and small rural settlements the limited information currently available suggests a markedly inferior standard of living and an absence of quality imported pottery and metalwork.
A number of artefact studies have been completed but these have tended to result in catalogues which have either been of discrete assemblages or on artefact types which have often failed to explain their presence in terms of for example literacy, leisure pursuits or fashion and ethnicity. Although parallels have often been noted for artefacts which seem to be ethnically distinct, their implication has tended to be overlooked. Thus Frisians and Vikings, in particular, are usually credited with having a major impact on the development of London but up to now they have proved to be archaeologically elusive.
The mechanisms of the economy and the acquisition and dispersal of wealth are currently assumed to mirror the social hierarchies that developed, but archaeological evidence suggests a burgeoning economic diversity and independence in the 8th century which needs to be explored as part of the production-distribution-consumption cycle.
The basis of the Saxon economy was agricultural, but evidence is sparse. A number of landscape features such as ditches have been found across London but there is often little to which they can be related. The site at LESSA Sports Ground, in east London has provided more information with evidence for the development of a field system (Sankey in prep). Virtually nothing is known about the farms that supplied London (Cowie and Blackmore in prep; Pickard in prep), or the rural settlements of the region, or how diet in the country compared with that in the town. Almost all the evidence comes from consumption sites in the middle and late Saxon towns. This evidence points to an organised supply and distribution network based around a few staple commodities. Diversity of taxa is more narrow than at monastic sites possibly suggesting supply in the form of food rents from dedicated estates in the middle Saxon period. There was more variety in the late Saxon period, particularly with regard to fruits and wild vegetable foods. Fish bones indicate sea and freshwater fishing, and on the Thames foreshore single rows of vertical posts are thought to be the remains of fish traps.
There is almost no evidence in London of production or trade in the early Saxon period, but it seems likely that the exchange of prestige items acted as a stimulant to the development of more formalised trade at the start of the middle Saxon period. Initially this may have been based around long distance networks linking England to the Continent. Kent was the main beneficiary at first but the political dominance of Northumbria and Mercia encouraged links beyond the south east. Lundenwic may have been one of the consequences of this; able to exploit its access to both Continental shipping and roads and rivers leading inland.
Very few remains of the middle Saxon waterfront at Lundenwic have been found. A number of other settlements along the Thames such as Barking (Redknap 1992), where Continental imports have been found, may also have possessed ‘beach-markets’ for riverborne trade. The only known vessel of middle Saxon date is a dugout canoe found next to the Lea at Walthamstow (Marsden 1994). In contrast to the late Saxon waterfronts of Lundenburh, virtually nothing is known about the ports of Lundenwic or Barking Abbey. Much more information is needed on the extent and nature of the waterfront, and what kind of boats it served. Further work is also needed to locate ‘beach-markets’, including the location of administrative and ancillary buildings, which of the tributaries of the Thames were navigable at this time and what kinds of craft were used.
The role of the kings of Mercia and the Frisians in the development of trade also deserves attention, especially with regard to the organisation, provisioning and reward for manufacturing labour within the settlement. In order to understand how goods were redistributed from the wic there is a need to investigate how Lundenwic related to contemporary sites and whether the known trading connections with Minster in Thanet, Rochester and Worcester can be demonstrated archaeologically. There is also a need to understand the actual process of trade and commerce at this date. Simple exchange seems to have given way to a trading shore then more formalised markets. Documentary sources mention the rights to weights and measures together with tolls and exemptions from them, so by the 8th century trade possessed its own infrastructure which should be detectable archaeologically. Some of the wharves and warehouses associated with this have been identified at Queenhithe (Ayre and Wroe Brown 1996) but artefacts associated with shipping are poorly known.
Outside Lundenwic, Barking Abbey is the only site in the region with significant evidence of trade and is thus of key importance (Sloane 2001). In particular the role of monastic sites in glass production and consumption warrants further study.
By the mid 7th century London was already an important mint and by the close of the period it had eclipsed all the other towns of England in terms of its economic muscle and financial strength.
Evidence for production in the middle and late Saxon periods is more widespread, with manufacturing taking place at a number of levels related both to direct trade goods and secondary support industries (Malcolm and Bowsher 2003). Amongst the latter are smithies carrying out repairs and turning recycled metal into useful artefacts. There was a complex interdependence between the various industries, which made maximum use of the raw materials available. Cattle provided meat for food and hides for tanning. Bone, and more usually antler was also used for the production of household goods and personal artefacts. Handles were a common product and thus antler/boneworking establishments are found in association with smithies. There is very little evidence for manufacturing industries in late Saxon London: smithing, weaving, wool preparation and woodturning were probably all carried out on a local community or household scale. The range of clothing and footwear suggests that the manufacture and/or import of goods for the clothing trade was important. Evidence for manufacture elsewhere in the region is sparse, consisting of possible fibre-retting pits at West Drayton and glass-making kilns at Barking Abbey (AGL 2000, 196).
Pottery was obtained from the surrounding regions, notably East Anglia. Continental imports included lava quernstones, schist honestones, glass and pottery. The diet at Barking Abbey was more varied, and it too obtained goods through long-distance trade.
We do not know which activities took place on a permanent or seasonal basis, whether different crafts and industries were zoned, or how they interacted. Other questions to be explored include what factors governed the location of industrial sites and the scale, and market for, the output needs to be calculated.
There is documentary evidence for the harbours and markets at Queenhithe, Billingsgate and Dowgate (Dyson and Schofield 1984). All the pottery used in London was imported; from the late 9th century onwards it came from the Chiltern area, changing in the mid 11th century to more local sources in north Surrey, north Kent, Middlesex and Essex.
It is known from historical sources that Saxon kingdoms were administered from royal centres or vills with documentary evidence pointing to the existence of several royal vills in the London region. One may have been sited within or close to the Roman fort at Cripplegate, and another in the wic. There may also have been palaces at Brentford and Chelsea, and Fulham Palace may have been established by the middle Saxon period. In the late Saxon period a royal palace was built at Westminster by Edward the Confessor, but its precise form, location and original founding date remain unknown. Later documents suggest the presence of a minster by the middle of the 10th century and Westminster Abbey may have originated as a minster founded as early as the 8th century (Thomas et al in prep). There is currently no systematic comparison with other English and Continental wics. Collaboration between archaeologists and historians may help identify the location of rural estate centres, royal vills and religious estates. Archaeologists should also consider how they can draw on and add to the recent work by numismatists on the complex territorial and administrative relationships between the kingdoms of Mercia and Wessex (Blackburn and Dumville 1998).
Early Saxon settlements were mostly undefended but some Iron Age works may have been reused and more extensive earthworks such as Grim’s Dyke may date to this period. Whether this was a defence or a boundary is not clear but it certainly marks a political division in the landscape expressed in terms of the power to organise labour on a large scale. It is generally accepted that for most of its history Lundenwic was not defended. However, ditches at Maiden Lane and the Royal Opera House, both appear to have been defensive. Dating suggests that these were 9th century in date and that they were probably dug in response to external threats. Despite any short-term success these defences ultimately proved inadequate and the walled city was reoccupied (Malcolm and Bowsher 2003).
The move to the walled city marked a major change in defensive philosophy since the population were inexperienced at masonry construction and were apparently forced to adopt new building techniques. The refounding of London within the walled city was thus as much a statement of power as a practical defensive measure.
The identification of any Alfredian defensive work will be of great importance, especially the date and function of the western ditch to the city. Confirmation that there was a burh in Southwark is much needed, and the location of its defences should be a priority.
Religion played a particularly important role during this period but it is often understated in the archaeological record. There are few objects displaying either pagan or Christian iconography and little is known about early churches. Place names and documents provide some clues where to look but modern land use has tended to restrict investigation at these sites. Nothing is known of the first church, ancillary buildings or associated cemetery of St Paul’s, or of the other potentially early church sites, either in the wic or the region. An important area requiring detailed appraisal is the location of early churches such as St Martin-in-the-Fields, St Bride and St Andrew, Holborn, found by Roman roads and just outside the city gates. The well-preserved deposits at Barking Abbey (MacGowan 1987) may aid the understanding of the more ephemeral remains at Chertsey, and permit comparison of these twin foundations.
Part of the Research Frameworks Network