THE DEVELOPMENT OF LONDON BY KING ALFRED: A REASSESSMENT Jeremy Haslam SUMMARY has been generally recognised as a process which was begun in or soon after AD 886 as A model is presented which characterises the physical, a new beginning after London had been spatial and functional development of London occupied for some years by Viking forces as a new burh of King Alfred in or soon after late (Stenton 1971, 258—9; Dyson 1990; Clark AD 879, when he assumed control of the whole of 1999; Clark 2000; Keene 2003; Ross & Clark Mercia after Guthrum’s Vikings had retreated to an 2008, 56). This view, however, has begun to independent kingdom in East Anglia. The hypothesis be modified, both by detailed work on the of the creation of a burh within the Roman walls at coinage of the period, and by a reassessment this time, rather than the generally held paradigm of Alfred’s relationship with Mercia that this took place in AD 886, is supported by recent (Blackburn 1998; Keynes 1998). This new reinterpretations of the coinage of the period, and by a work, in which several entrenched paradigms detailed re-examination of the archaeological record. It are challenged, has made it possible to is argued that it is at this time that the basic pattern formulate a new model for the political and of the medieval and later street system was established historical development of London and its within the new burghal space, though this probably area in the late 870s and early 880s, which had earlier antecedents. This process would have is presented elsewhere (Haslam forthcoming included the restoration of London Bridge, which a). This is itself based on a reassessment of would have functioned as a strategic device against the date and context of King Alfred’s burghal access up the Thames to Viking warships, and which system in Wessex as belonging to the period Alfred had arguably inherited from earlier periods. AD 878—9, immediately after Alfred’s victory This interpretation also puts into proper historical over Guthrum’s forces at Edington, as well context the prior development of Southwark (as well as the date of the Burghal Hidage document as of other sites listed in the contemporary Burghal which describes this system, with which it is Hidage document) as a burh, and casts a new light seen as being contemporary (Haslam 2005; on developments relating to London in the 880s, such Haslam 2009; Haslam forthcoming a). In this as the involvement of ealdorman Aethelred in AD 886, reassessment it is argued that a new burh was and the creation of the soke of the bishop of Worcester created at London by King Alfred in late AD in AD 889. 879 or early 880, following on immediately from the retreat both of Guthrum’s Vikings INTRODUCTION to a new state in East Anglia and the Viking army based at Fulham to the Continent, and The political and historical context for the that this was essentially a development of the development of late Saxon London has been system established in Wessex and eastern a matter of debate for some time. Recent Mercia only a year or two before. The studies have focused on the development of development of this new burh at London the burh by King Alfred, which until recently is seen as the key to Alfred’s control at this 109 110 Streets: Jeremy Haslam Ae — Aetheling Street Ag — Aldgate Street B — Bishopsgate Street BoL — Botolph Lane Br — Bread Street Bro — Broad Street BL — Bow Lane Bu — Bucklersbury C — Cannon Street (Candlewick Street / Candelwryhttstrete) DH — Dunstan’s Hill E - Eastcheap F — Fenchurch Street FSH — Fish Street Hill GaH — Garlick Hill Gr — Gracechurch Street Lo — Lombard Street M — Mincing Lane Mi — Miles Lane MH — St Mary’s Hill N — Newgate Street P — Paternoster Street /Row Po — Poultry RL — Rood Lane W — Wood Street WFM — West Fish Market Gates: Asg — Aldersgate Ag — Aldgate Fig 1. London in the time of King Alfred Bg — Bishopsgate Cr — Cripplegate Churches: St H — St Helen’s Bishopsgate Hithes: G — Garlickhithe Lg — Ludgate HT — Holy Trinity Aldgate St M — St Martin le Grand B — Billingsgate Q — Queenhithe Ng — Newgate St Au — St Augustine St Ma — St Martin BW — Botolph Wharf (Aethelred’s hithe) StPg — ‘St Peter’s Gate’ St G — St Gregory St P — St Peter ad Vincula D — Dowgate The Development of London by King Alfred: a Reassessment 111 time over the former kingdom of Mercia. 851, as well as the occupation of London This basic model provides the key to why by the Viking army in AD 871—2, can only London was not included in the Burghal have shown that the safety of London, with Hidage document, which as it stands is its long history as an economic, political, likely to be complete (Hill 1996a, 93). The commercial and indeed symbolic royal hub, answer is straightforward: the creation of the would have to be protected by its recreation document in the context of the setting out within the safe space of the Roman walled of the system, which has been argued by the area as a new burh, the security of which writer as being created in the period AD 878— would be guaranteed not only by refurbished 9 (Haslam 2005; 2009, 111—13), precedes defences but also by a functioning garrison. by a year or two the occasion when London Furthermore, King Alfred’s assumption of itself was set out as a burh, which thesis is control over Mercia on the departure of argued in this paper. the Vikings in late AD 879, creating a new political entity (Haslam forthcoming a), The development of a model also meant that London, positioned at its approaches from the east, would have been It is the purpose here to examine the seen as a site of high strategic importance. topographical, archaeological and historical It would be expected therefore that Alfred evidence which will allow the detailed devel- would have provided both the physical and opment of a hypothesis or model character- the institutional framework within and by ising both the physical and functional which these functions could be implemented development of the new burghal space of as part of its establishment as a new burh London, which in the writer’s view supports from its beginnings. As well as refurbished the basic premise of the formation of a defences and gates, this framework within this burh within the former Roman defences defended enceinte – which it is convenient of London at this time. This model will to characterise here as the ‘burghal space’ hopefully serve, in Derek Keene’s words, – would have included a market or markets to connect these details ‘in sufficiently and a new layout of streets which connected coherent yet flexible hypotheses, which will wharfs or hithes on the river to the markets interact and be capable of correcting each and gates, would have provided for the other as more material comes to hand’ layout of associated hagae and burgage plots, (Keene 1992, 108) – as well as reflecting and would also have included some features the new insights derived from a reassessment inherited from the past. A further element of the political and historical background. of this new institution would have been a The methodology of this paper is to test the new or reconstructed bridge over the river. hypothesis of the development of a burh in This framework had already formed the London in AD 879—80 (which is indicated by a pattern of those new urban foundations consideration of the wider political context) which Alfred had set up as part of the system by establishing whether this hypothesis is or of fortified towns of just a little while earlier is not consistent with this evidence, and to (it is argued in AD 878—9; see Haslam 2005) in suggest ways in which this evidence can be Wessex and eastern Mercia which are listed re-evaluated in relation to the model as a in the Burghal Hidage, of which Winchester, whole. In doing this, reasons will be given with its new regularly-planned street system, for modifying the model for London’s early is in many respects the type. Martin Biddle development (Milne 1990; Milne 2001), argued persuasively some time ago that the and for questioning the current paradigm street system of Winchester (as of other burhs relating to the origin of London Bridge. listed in the Burghal Hidage) was laid out to implement a ‘policy of urban formation The new burghal space … which was a deliberate expression of the organisation and apportionment of land for The reasons which lay behind the creation permanent habitation’ (Biddle 1973, 251; cf of the burh at London in late AD 879 or also Biddle & Hill 1971, 78—85; Biddle 1976b). early 880 are not far to seek. The attacks Although Biddle sees this as ‘a response to by the Vikings on London in AD 842 and the military situation at the end of Alfred’s 112 Jeremy Haslam reign’ (Biddle 1973, 251), the arguments put tailed and specific enough to enable the forward by the writer for the formation of construction of a conceptual model char- these burhs in the period AD 878—9 can only acterising the development of this new mean that their street systems (including the burghal space which is capable of standing intramural street) were established – though alongside that derived from those historical not necessarily fully completed – at this time. and strategic factors. Some (though not all) The primacy of the intramural ‘walkway’ or elements of the model put forward in this street in the process of the setting out of all paper were anticipated by Gustav Milne four sides of the defences of the burh shown (Milne 1990); this is critically appraised in excavations at Cricklade (Haslam 2003, per below.