• Standard style
• Easy Read

The Saxon Origins of Bristol

This great city was born in Saxon times. But when exactly? And where was the first settlement?

Bristol's Saxon name speaks for itself. Brycg stowe means the place by the bridge. Yet little is known for sure about its origins. When was it founded? And by whom? Fine minds have argued this way and that over the years. 

Part of the problem is the lack of documentation. The Domesday Book barely mentions Bristol. Like Winchester, Bristol has no Domesday entry of its own, though scraps about it can be deduced from entries for related places. There are no Anglo-Saxon charters for the town. A thin sprinkling of references in The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is just enough to reassure us that Bristol existed as far back as 1051. In fact the earliest evidence for Bristol comes not from records, but from coins. A coin of Aethelred was issued from Bristol probably in 1009 or 1010.^{1L.V.Grinsell, The History and Coinage of the Bristol Mint (Bristol 1986), p.25.} That proves that it was a market town by then, for by law coins could only be issued in such places.^{2 English Historical Documents, ed. D. Whitelock, vol. 1 (1955), p.384.} Archaeology holds out hope of swelling these slim pickings, but not by much. The heart of Bristol has been rebuilt over and over again, with foundations being dug ever deeper, destroying the evidence of Bristol's past. Excavations have yielded widely scattered scraps of evidence of Saxon settlement, little of it easily datable.^{3For a recent resume see R.Jackson, Excavations at St James's Priory Bristol, Bristol and Region Archaeological Services Monograph (2006), p.5.}

It has long been thought that the Norman walled town of Bristol, criss-crossed by High Street, Corn Street, Broad Street and Wine Street, had Saxon origins. Then Saxon remains discovered on the site of the Norman castle, now Castle Park, led one archaeologist to argue that Saxon Bristol lay outside the walled town, which he saw as a Norman creation.^{4Bristol Library, M.W.Ponsford, Bristol Castle: Archaeology and the history of a royal fortress. (M. Litt thesis 1979), vol.1, pp. 23-27.} That has been strongly disputed by those who point to the layout of the walled town as typically late Saxon.^{5 Roger H. Leech, The medieval defences of Bristol revisited, in L. Keen (ed.), "Almost the Richest City": Bristol in the Middle Ages, British Archaeological Association Conference Transactions vol. 19 (1997), pp. 18-19.} The site of Bristol's first bridge has likewise been debated. Was it on the site of the present Bristol bridge or further east?

If the development of Saxon Bristol was a two-phase process, that might explain the dual nature of the settlement. As we shall see, the walled town and the extra-mural area to its east may have different origins, and were apparently in different hands at the time of the Norman conquest.

The topography of the town tells its own story. Anglo-Saxon Bristol was a river port. The River Avon shaped its existence. Bristol was not only sited at the lowest convenient bridging-point, but on a site naturally protected by the Avon and its curving tributary the Frome. A ridge of high ground ran between the rivers from roughly where Corn Street now stands to the area now Castle Park. This ridge rose clear of the riverside marshes and formed the ideal site on which to build. It is there we find what evidence survives of pre-Norman Bristol.^{6R.Jackson, Excavations at St James's Priory Bristol, Bristol and Region Archaeological Services Monograph (2006), p.5.} The site was also well-placed to make use of the Roman road system, which included a road between Roman settlements at Bath and Sea Mills. For centuries the Avon acted as a boundary between the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of Mercia and Wessex. Anglo-Saxon Bristol lay on the north bank, in Mercian territory. So it is to Mercia that we should look for clues to its beginnings.

The puzzle of St Peter's

The key to Bristol's first phase is the Church of St Peter, which now stands in ruins in Castle Park. Simon, Bishop of Worcester (1125-50), noted that St Peter's was locally recognised as the first and foremost church of Bristol.^{7Bristol Record Office 5139/487: undated deed of S., Bishop of Worcester. It can be dated 1143x50 by its witnesses Robert, abbot of Winchcome (1138-1152) and Thomas, Abbot of Pershore (1143x53): D. Knowles, C.N.L. Brooke and V.C.M. (eds.) Heads of Religious Houses, 2nd edn. (London 2001), pp.59, 79.} It was the mother church to Mangotsfield chapel.^{8W. Dugdale, Monasticon Angicanum, ed. and trans. J. Caley, H. Ellis and B. Bandinel (1817-30), vol. 2, p. 79, no. lxxx; Annales de Theokesburia, Annales Monastici, vol. 1, (Rolls Series 1864), p.81.} At the time of the Domesday survey The church of Bristol held three hides of land (half of the manor of Barton Regis) - a greater endowment than a parish church would normally have. The church is not named, but the land can be traced to St Peter's.^{9Domesday Book: Gloucestershire ed. J.S.Moore (1982), 1,21 and related note.} These are indications that St Peter's was a minster.

Before the system of parish churches developed, minsters cared for the souls of the faithful. It seems that they were religious communities of both monks and priests, responsible for a wide area. Within these great minster parishes, manorial lords began to build their own chapels from around the 10th century, which gradually became parish churches. The minster could retain certain privileges, which make its status as the mother church clear. The great burst of minster-creation came in the period 670-750. Early minsters tended to have huge endowments, far more than St Peter's possessed in 1068. So if it was a minster, it was probably a late one.^{10J. Blair, The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society (Oxford 2005), chapter 2.}

The evidence suggests that St Peter's lay outside the walls of Saxon Bristol. Properties within the walls were held by borough tenure, whereas those in St Peter's Parish were initially held by knight service to the Crown or its tenants.^{11 E.W.W. Veale, The Great Red Book of Bristol part 1: Burgage Tenure in Medieval Bristol, Bristol Record Society vol.2 (1931), p.5; Roger H. Leech, Aspects of the medieval defences of Bristol, in M. Bowden et al (eds.), From Cornwall to Caithness: Some aspects of British field archaeology, British Archaeological Reports, British Series 209 (1989), pp. 235-250. Leech argued that the eastern stretch of the town wall was aligned with the west end of St Peter's. The present paper views the wall as further west, following the parish boundary.} So was the minster built before the town? Did it stand in glorious isolation? Or did the church serve a settlement?

In the time of Offa

Who founded St Peter's? The likely candidate is the mighty Offa, King of Mercia from 757 to 796. This powerful ruler absorbed neighbouring kingdoms into Mercia or exerted control as an overking. His expanded Mercia covered the Midlands, East Anglia and the South-East.^{12Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England, pp.340-1.} We know that he founded monasteries dedicated to St. Peter.^{13W. Levison, England and the Continent in the Eighth Century (Oxford, 1946), pp.29-31.} Unfortunately there is no record of their locations. Offa's life and deeds are poorly documented. However in recent decades archaeological evidence has helped to flesh out his achievements. A pattern emerges.

Offa was determined to guard the borders of Mercia. He built the massive Offa's Dyke for protection against the Welsh of Powys.^{14David Hill and Margaret Worthington, Offa's Dyke: History and Guide (2003).} That staggering feat illustrates the work-force at his command. It seems he also kept a weather eye on other potential enemies. On his southern border Wessex was a strong rival kingdom. Offa made a prudent alliance by marrying his daughter Eadburh to its king in 789. But in the same year the Vikings began raiding England.^{15The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle} Offa apparently created defended bridges on Mercian rivers to block access upriver to the dreaded Viking longships.^{16 J. Haslam, Market and fortress in England in the reign of Offa, World Archaeology, vol. 19, no. 1 (June 1987), pp.76-93.}

Offa also took over control of religious houses in sensitive locations, including Bath Abbey, which he claimed together with 90 hides north of the Avon. 90 hides would be a very large estate. To the north-west it seems that there was another large royal estate in the time of Aethelbald of Mercia, who granted Westbury-on-Trym to Offa's grandfather Eanulf.^{17P.H.Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters (1968), nos. 146, 1257; D. Whitelock (ed.) English Historical Documents, vol.1 (1955), pp. 466-68.} The original charter by Aethelbald does not survive. However Anglo-Saxon grants of such an early date tend to be for large tracts of land, not just one manor. So it is possible that a large part of what is now Bristol was in royal hands in Offa's day. Certainly Barton Regis was held by the last Saxon king of England. This manor stretched over what is now the eastern half of Bristol as far as Mangotsfield and included Easton and Stapleton.^{18Domesday Book: Gloucestershire ed. J.S.Moore (1982), 1,21, EvK 7.} If St Peter's was the church serving this extensive manor, it would make perfect sense for the chapel of Mangotsfield to be dependant upon it.

The minster at Westbury-on-Trym is surmised to have been founded earlier than Offa's time, around 716.^{19 The Victoria History of the County of Gloucester, vol.2 (1907), p. 106.} Yet surviving charters of Westbury do not mention a minster there until a grant of 804 to Westmynster.^{20P.H.Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters (1968), nos. 139, 146, 1187.} Directional names compounded with church or minster may indicate ecclesiastical dependencies, just as names like Easton suggest a town to the east of an existing settlement.^{21J. Blair, The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society (Oxford 2005), p.215.} So it is possible that the minster at Westbury was originally seen as secondary to St Peter's in Bristol. Though it lies to the north-north-west of St Peter's rather than due west, it could have served a large parish lying west of Barton Regis.

Most ministers were built near water. A peninsula, easily guarded by defences across its neck, made an ideal location. The inland version was an area enclosed by converging rivers.^{22J. Blair, The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society (Oxford 2005), p.193.} Bristol provides just such a site, guarded by the Rivers Frome and Avon. Yet St Peter's stands on the site's narrow neck, rather than being placed safely within the easily defended area. This makes it less likely that the minster stood alone.

Instead we may picture a Mercian proto-town similar to those at Hereford, Worcester and other riverine sites. The common features of these settlements were a fortified enclosure and a bridge or ford.^{23J. Haslam, Market and fortress in England in the reign of Offa, World Archaeology, vol. 19, no. 1 (June 1987), p.86.} It is significant that the first mention in England of the public duty of defending fortresses and maintaining bridges comes in Mercian charters. It occurs first in 749 along with the older duty of military service, making the three common burdens or Trinoda Necessitas. Bridges and defences need not necessarily be linked, but the phraseology of some later charters hints that they were treated as one unit for the purpose of public service. So it seems that Offa's predecessor had seen the value of defended crossings even before the Viking incursions. However Offa had both the power and the incentive to expand the system. He certainly spread the Trinoda Necessitas into Kent in 792, specifically to guard against the pagans.^{24N. Brooks, The development of military obligations in eighth- and ninth-century England, in P. Clemoes and Kathleen Hughes (eds.), England Before the Conquest (Cambridge 1971), pp. 72, 76, 79.} The thinking of kings faced with the Viking menace becomes explicit in the Edict of Pîtres issued by Charles the Bald of Francia in 864. Among the defensive measures it promulgated was the building of fortified bridges at all towns on rivers.^{25 Capitularia regum Francorum, ed. A.Boretius and V.Krause, vol. 2 (1897), p.322.}

Former Roman towns such as Gloucester and Worcester already had stone walls. Where Offa built new defences he would not have used masonry. Mid-Saxon defences can be recognised at Hereford, Tamworth and Winchcome; they took the form of a ditch enclosing a timber rampart. ^{26 Steven Bassett, Divide and rule? The military infrastructure of eighth- and ninth-century Mercia Early Medieval Europe vol. 15, issue 1 (February 2007), pp. 61-77.}

A fortified site would make a useful royal command post. Kings of this era moved from one royal manor to another in an endless cycle. It is argued that Offa also used these key sites to create and control markets. So Offa's burhs had features in common with those laid out a century later by Alfred the Great and his children. However there were significant differences. There is little sign at this date of a full street layout within the defended area, and markets are extra-mural, often associated with churches.^{27 J. Haslam, Market and fortress in England in the reign of Offa, World Archaeology, vol. 19, no. 1 (June 1987), pp.87-8.}

So at Bristol there could have been a defended enclosure on the western end of the ridge. A plan close to circular, following the brow of the ridge as far as possible, would be convenient for defence. It would contain a royal administrative centre. In times of danger it could provide a refuge for the populace of the hinterland; able-bodied men among them would be responsible for its defence. Further east the minster of St Peter's presumably lay within its own precinct. That would leave a gap between fort and minster, which could act as a market area. Within it we find the Church of St Mary le Port, which lies now in ruins at the west end of Castle Park. The Old English port could mean a gate, or a market (town), or a port in its modern meaning. Here the meaning was clearly market, since the name was sometimes translated in medieval Latin documents as Beate Marie in Foro (St Mary in the market).^{28For example The Great Red Book of Bristol, text part 1, Bristol Record Society vol. 4, p.79.} So this could have been a Saxon church beside the market. There was probably a wharf in this area too. The line of Temple Street, continued on the north bank of the Avon by the former Dolphin Street, suggests that the earliest bridge at Bristol crossed the Avon higher up than the present Bristol Bridge, and led to the market rather than the fort.

In the time of Alfred

Alfred the Great (871-99) faced an even more alarming threat from the Vikings than raiding. A great army invaded England in 865. The story of Alfred's desperate resistance is well-known. Alfred himself saw to that. He commissioned the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and his own biography. So his defences are far better documented than those of Offa.

East Anglia, Northumbria and Mercia were all overcome by the Danes. Alfred was determined to prevent the collapse of his own kingdom of Wessex. A Viking army led by Guthrum drove Alfred into hiding in 878, but he fought back so decisively that he was able to force Guthrum to accept baptism.^{29 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; Alfred the Great: Asser's Life of King Alfred and other contemporary sources, ed. S. Keynes and M. Lapidge (London 1983), pp. 83-5.}Alfred immediately began creating a chain of burhs which formed a defensive network around Wessex. The survival of an administrative document - the Burghal Hidage - provides a useful list of these forts and fortified towns.^{30 D. Hill and A.R. Rumble (eds.), The Defense of Wessex: The Burghal Hidage and Anglo-Saxon Fortifications (Manchester 1996); J. Haslam, King Alfred and the Vikings - strategies and tactics, 876-886 AD, Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History, vol. 13 (2006), pp. 122-154 provides a new interpretation of the dating and purpose of the Burghal Hidage.} It includes Bath, but not Bristol. Bath seems to have been transferred from Mercia to Wessex at this time and is today in north Somerset rather than south Gloucestershire. Bristol evidently remained in Mercia.

Alfred's hand also spread over Mercia, but in a more distant way. The Danes had placed a puppet-king, Coelwulf, on the throne of Mercia and divided up this great kingdom into a Danish east and English west. The latter was under the control of Coelwulf, but under humiliating terms. He acknowledged Danish overlordship. This was not tamely accepted by the Mercians, who were ready to support one Æthelred in freeing English Mercia from Danish shackles. It would make sense for Æthelred to seek the backing of Wessex. Alfred's price was dominance. Mercia and Wessex were to be welded into one kingdom of the English. Æthelred married Alfred's daughter Æthelflaed and the pair ruled Mercia as the Lord and Lady of the Mercians, rather than king and queen.^{31 Alfred the Great, ed. S. Keynes and M. Lapidge (London 1983), pp. 37-8.} They too created burhs. A datelist of towns fortified by Æthelflaed after 902 was woven into one version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.^{32The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ed. and trans. M. Swanton (1996), p. xxiv.} Again Bristol is not included.

Yet the layout of the walled borough of Bristol follows the pattern of the walled towns created by Alfred and his children. Two main streets crossing each other led to town gates, and supported a grid of side-streets. Along the streets were long, narrow, burgage plots, laid out initially by a plough, which left a slight sinuous curve found also in Saxon field systems. The whole was surrounded by an intramural lane, allowing defenders access to the walls, which survives in large part as Tower Lane, St. Leonard's Lane and St. Nicholas Street. This was a true town, intended to provide permanent housing for a significant population. That created a need for more churches. A typical pattern in towns of late Saxon origin is multiple churches, some over gates. This is exactly what we find in medieval Bristol.^{33 M. Biddle and D. Hill, Late Saxon planned towns, Antiquaries Journal, vol. 51 (1) (1971), p.70; Roger H. Leech, The medieval defences of Bristol revisited, in L. Keen (ed.), "Almost the Richest City": Bristol in the Middle Ages, British Archaeological Association Conference Transactions vol. 19 (1997), p. 24.} Furthermore late Saxon occupational debris was found in excavations at Tower Lane.^{34Eric J. Boore, Excavations at Tower Lane, Bristol (Bristol 1984), p.11.}

So the finger points to Æthelred and Æthelflaed as creators of the borough sometime before 902. If Offa had built a ditch and rampart at Bristol around 790, then it had plenty of time to decay before Guthrum's army took Mercia in 873.^{35 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.} At Hereford, Tamworth and Winchcome late Saxon defences were built over the top of the Middle Saxon ones, but in much the same form. A timber rampart could be thrown up more quickly than a masonry wall. At Hereford though the defended area seems to have been considerably enlarged on the eastern side.^{36 Steven Bassett, Divide and rule? The military infrastructure of eighth- and ninth-century Mercia, Early Medieval Europe vol. 15, issue 1 (February 2007), pp. 61-77.} This also might have been the case at Bristol. An almost circular mid-Saxon fort could have been enlarged to take in St Mary-le-Port, which might explain why this church was not aligned with the street frontage. By contrast the churches of St Werburgh, All Saints, Christ Church and St Ewens respect the street lines of the late Saxon burgh. They are all placed prominently on or near cross-roads and were probably founded early in the process of settlement. The line of the High Street suggests that the street led to a bridge on the site of the present Bristol Bridge, which perhaps replaced an older one further east. The late Saxon bridge was probably built in timber and replaced in stone in 1247. Certainly when Bristol Bridge was rebuilt in 1763, a pier of oak was found within the stone pier on the Redcliffe side.^{37W.Adams, Chronicle of Bristol, trans. E. Salisbury (Bristol 1910), p.21; W. Barrett, The History and Antiquities of Bristol (Bristol 1789), p. 77.} Likewise Broad Street, lying on a different alignment, presumably led to a bridge over the Frome on the site of the later Frome Bridge.

The real innovation was the creation of true towns, with a new class of occupants - the burgesses. (Bristol's burgesses are mentioned in the Domesday Book.^{38Domesday Book: Gloucestershire ed. J.S.Moore (1982), 1,21.}) Fortified towns would generate income for their own defence. It seems that some of the smaller forts created at speed by Alfred in his first push to defend Wessex were later replaced by fortified market towns sited more advantageously. For example the isolated fort at Halwell, Devon, was superseded by Totnes, better sited for trade, and with its bridge guarding against attack from the sea. Jeremy Haslam argues that this second wave of burh-creation on navigable rivers in Wessex took place in the 880s and 890s.^{39 J. Haslam, King Alfred and the Vikings - strategies and tactics, 876-886 AD, Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History, vol. 13 (2006), pp. 137-8.} Meanwhile Æthelred and Æthelflaed were following a similar policy in Mercia. Their charter of Worcester, written between 884 and 901, reveals the workings of the boroughs which were being planted in this period. The market is mentioned, as is the contribution to the borough wall, presumably a special tax for the maintenance of the defences.^{40 D. Whitelock (ed.), English Historical Documents vol. 1 : c.500-1042 (1955), no. 99 (pp. 540-1).}

From Æthelweard Mæw to Beorhtric

After the deaths of Æthelred (911) and Æthelflaed (918), Mercia lost even a semblance of independence from Wessex. Alfred's son Edward the Elder was King of England. The idea of separate kingdoms re-emerged in 955, when Edwy succeeded to Wessex and his brother Edgar to Mercia, but after the death of Edwy in 959, Edgar ruled all England.^{41 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.} The Avon became the boundary between the shires of Gloucester and Somerset, rather than between kingdoms.

This helps to explain how a scion of the House of Wessex came to be lord of Bristol. We have to piece together the story from confusing scraps of information. According to a local inquiry in 1318, Bristol belonged before the Conquest to Aylward Mean and his son Bristric.^{42 The Little Red Book of Bristol ed. F.B. Bickley (Bristol 1900), vol. 1, p.207; translated into English in English Gilds ed. L. Toulmin Smith, Early English Text Society (1870), p.287.} Though the names and the relationship are mangled, these are real people. The founder's book of Tewksbury Abbey, compiled in 1476 from earlier sources, provides another piece of the puzzle. It tells us that

Again the tale is somewhat garbled, but we can translate Haylward Meaw into Æthelweard Mæw, the founder of Cranborne Abbey, Dorset, mother house of Tewkesbury Abbey, whose wife Ælfgifu and son Ælfgar made further grants to Cranborne.^{44C.R. Hart, Early Charters of Eastern England (Leicester 1966), pp. 253, 254.} We shall see the connection between Bristol and Tewkesbury Abbey in the Norman period, but for the moment let us pursue this elusive family. The author of the founder's book would be on safe ground where he had monastic charters to work from, but the idea that Æthelweard Mæw flourished 50 years before his foundation of Cranborne Abbey is probably based on a misreading of 980 for 930, or perhaps a confusion with another Æthelweard; the date would make an implausibly long span for the three generations. Nor can we trust this late source on the reason for Æthelweard's nickname. Mæw meant seagull. This seemed so unlikely to later writers that they transformed it into more comprehensible nicknames. The 19th-century edition of Dugdale's Monasticon edited the name as Snew, possibly under the influence of Bristol historian Samuel Seyer, who explained that this was the local pronunciation of snow, which made more sense to him as a name meaning fair.^{45 W. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, ed. and trans. J. Caley, H. Ellis and B. Bandinel, vol. 2 (1819), p.53; Samuel Seyer, Memoirs Historical and Topographical of Bristol and its Neighbourhood, vol. 1 (1821), p. 245.} Whatever the genesis of the name, it reveals nothing of Æthelweard's parentage. Yet the royal ancestry claimed for him seems plausible, since his grandson Beorhtric (often written Britric) was a notable magnate in the time of Edward the Confessor, holding over 350 hides of land in Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Worcestershire.^{46 A. Williams, A West-country magnate of the eleventh century: the family, estates and patronage of Beorhtric son of Ælfgar, in K. S. B. Keats-Rohan (ed.), Family-Trees and the Roots of Politics (1996), pp.41-68.}

The Viking menace returned in the reign of Æthelred, this time better organised and more powerful than before. By right of conquest Sweyn of Denmark made himself king of England before his death in 1014. There followed a desperate attempt by the English to regain an English king. At this point Ælfgar, son of Meaw, turned traitor. He followed Eadric Streona, Ealdorman of Mercia, in joining the Danish army under Cnut against Edmund Ironside in 1016.^{47The Chronicle of John of Worcester ed. R.R. Darlington and P. McGurk, trans. J. Bray and P. McGurk, vol. 2 (Oxford 1995), pp. 486-7.} We shall never know his reasons, but he certainly ended up on the winning side. Further turbulence followed the death of Cnut in 1035, but it would seem that Ælfgar and his son Beorhtric weathered the storms with their patrimony intact until the Norman Conquest.

Since Bristol is given only a glancing mention in The Domesday Book, it is naturally not listed among the pre-Conquest manors of Beorhtric (or anyone else), but we can trace a connection. Many of the lands of Beorhtric were given to Queen Matilda after the Conquest. The founder's book of Tewkesbury Abbey accounts for this by a romantic story taken from Norman chronicles, which may or may not have the slightest truth in it:

Matilda the wife of the Conqueror hated the said Brihtric Meaw because when sent abroad on an embassy for the affairs of the realm he refused her hand in marriage. She afterwards married William, and having sought opportunity stirred up the king's wrath against the Saxon nobleman so that he was seized by the king's order in the manor of Hanley and conveyed to Winchester, where he died and was buried leaving no heir.^{48W. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, ed. and trans. J. Caley, H. Ellis and B. Bandinel, vol. 2 (1819), p.60. Hanley Castle, Worcestershire, formed part of the manor of Tewkesbury: Domesday Book: Gloucestershire ed. J.S.Moore (1982), 1,34.}

After the queen's death the former estate of Beorhtric formed the Honour of Gloucester,^{49G.E.C., The Complete Peerage, new edn. ed. V. Gibbs and H.A. Doubleday, vol. 5 (1926), p. 682.} to which Bristol was certainly attached (see below). So it is almost certain that Beorhtric held Bristol, which makes it quite credible that the town was also held by his grandfather Æthelweard Mæw. This would be the walled burh. If Bristol became a planned town in the reign of Alfred, then Æthelweard Mæw could have gained Bristol anything up to a century later. It is therefore plausible that he was responsible for another entrance to the town which appears to be a later addition to the plan and bears his name. In Saxon planned towns, main streets lead to the main town gates and so they did in Bristol. By contrast Aylward's Gate lay off the north-eastern intramural lane now Tower Lane. It gave access to Pithay, formerly known as Aylward's Street, which led to Alyward's Bridge over the Frome.^{50The Great Red Book of Bristol ed. E.W.W. Veale, text part 1, Bristol Record Society vol. 4 (1933), p. 100, text part 4, BRS vol. 18 (1953), p.26; William Worcestre, The Topography of Medieval Bristol ed. F. Neale, Bristol Record Society vol.51 (2000), nos. 60, 62, 97. The Place-Names of Gloucestershire, part 3, English Place-Name Society vol. 40 (1964), p.92 gives the derivation of Aylward's Bridge as a local surname. Aylward is certainly found as a Bristol surname in the 13th century, when Aylward's Bridge is recorded. However a town gate and bridge are more likely to be constructed by a town authority, in this case its Saxon lord.}

The manor of Barton Regis was held by King Edward the Confessor; it presumably included St Peter's Church and the extra-mural settlement around it which has left traces in the archaeological record. The lands of Edward came into the hands of William I at the Conquest, which meant that the king had a convenient site for a Norman castle east of St Peter's, guarding the entrance to the town. Elsewhere the Normans did not hesitate to raze large areas within walled towns in order to create castles. However that was destructive of future revenues and there was no reason to do so here.

Bristol and the Honour of Gloucester

Queen Matilda died in in 1083,^{51The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle} so at the time of the Domesday survey in 1086 her former estates were in the hands of the Crown, which would explain why the chief revenues of Bristol were at that point being paid to the king along with his income from Barton Regis.^{52Domesday Book: Gloucestershire ed. J.S.Moore (1982), 1,21.} William II used his mother's lands to form the Honour of Gloucester, which he granted to Robert Fitz-Hamon, as a reward for his loyalty.^{53G.E.C., The Complete Peerage, new edn. ed. V. Gibbs and H.A. Doubleday, vol. 5 (1926), p. 683.} One of the most important manors of this great estate was Tewkesbury. There Fitz-Hamon, under the influence of his wife Sibilla, rebuilt the monastery which had been a cell of Cranborne Abbey to such good effect that the monks of Cranborne were able to move to Tewkesbury in 1102, leaving Cranborne as a dependent cell. Fitz-Hamon also increased the endowment of what had become Tewkesbury Abbey.^{54 Victoria History of the County of Gloucester, vol. 2 (1907), p. 62.} Among his gifts and those of his chaplain were St Peter's Church, Bristol, with all that pertained to it within and without the town and a tithe of the lordship revenues of Bristol.^{55 Calendar of Charter Rolls vol. 2, p. 490; Bristol Record Office 5139/238, published as The Earldom of Gloucester Charters ed. R.B. Patterson (Oxford 1972), p. 161, no.179.} Here is evidence that Fitz-Hamon held both the town and castle of Bristol.

Fitz-Hamon's heir was his daughter Mabel, who brought the Honour of Gloucester to her husband Robert, illegitimate son of Henry I. In 1121 Robert was created Earl of Gloucester. The revenues of Bristol were the largest item in the earl's income.^{56The Earldom of Gloucester Charters ed. R.B. Patterson (Oxford 1972), pp. 3-4.} Robert continued his father-in-law's patronage of Tewkesbury Abbey. About 1137 he founded the Priory of St. James at Bristol as a dependent cell of Tewkesbury. It would be easier for the priory than its more distant mother house to administer the property within Barton Regis which had once belonged to St Peter's Church. So it is not surprising that we find among the possessions of the priory at the Dissolution the rectories of Stapleton, Mangotsfield and SS Philip and Jacob, Bristol. The priory was subsequently sold together with its possessions including land in Stapleton, Mangotsfield and elsewhere in the Hundred of Barton.^{57W. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum vol. 2, pp.61, 70, vol. 4, pp.333, 336; Letters and Papers of Henry VIII, vol. 19, pt. 1, no.80(4).}

Robert of Gloucester and his son William, 2nd Earl of Gloucester fought long and loyally for Empress Matilda during the civil wars that followed Henry I's death. Bristol became the foremost stronghold of resistance to King Stephen. Ironically their ultimate success led to the royal seisure of Bristol Castle. When Matilda's son came to the throne as Henry II, his policy was to protect his hard-won authority by destroying or controlling castles throughout his realm. Although Earl William managed to expel the royal garrison of Bristol Castle in 1174, he surrendered the castle in 1175 and it remained in royal custody thereafter, supported by the profits of Earl's Barton.^{58The Earldom of Gloucester Charters ed. R.B. Patterson (Oxford 1972), p.4; P. Fleming, Bristol Castle: A political history (2004), pp.2,7.}

Conclusion

It would seem that the defended town of Bristol was an important part of an estate dating back to the 10th century, held until the Norman conquest by a minor branch of the house of Wessex. Æthelweard Mæw probably gained Bristol by grant from one of his royal relatives, many years after the town was laid out. The walled town probably formed part of the ring of defences around Wessex and Mercia created by Alfred the Great and his children. However the extra-mural position of St Peter's Church suggests that there was an earlier settlement, perhaps dating from the late 8th century, fitting the pattern of Mercian proto-towns elsewhere.

Acknowledgements

This article has benefited from discussion with Mick Aston, Joseph Bettey, Robert Jones and Roger Leech.

Notes

If you are using a browser with up-to-date support for W3C standards e.g. Firefox, Google Chrome, IE 8 or Opera, hover over the superscript numbers to see footnotes online. If you are using another browser, select the note, then right-click, then on the menu click View Selection Source. If you print the article out, or look at print preview online, the footnotes will appear here.