The late tenth-century defences of Oxford and the towers of St George and St Michael

ABSTRACT

The hypothesis of the redevelopment of the defences of the earlier burh at Oxford by King Æthelred in the late tenth century is critically analysed in the light of the recently-published excavations at the castle site. It is argued that the rebuilding of the north gate, which involved the creation of a new defended enceinte on its eastern side and the construction of the tower of St Michael’s Northgate, was concurrent with, and as an integral part of, this new defensive initiative. St George’s tower, which sits within the western line of these late tenth-century defences, is also argued from the structural and topographical evidence as belonging to this same phase of the reconstruction of the defences. This is supported by comparisons of the towers’ architectural features with other church towers in England, and reflects similar developments in northern France. The evidence of this new defensive system from Oxford complements and extends the historical and other evidence from the country as a whole, providing a revealing insight into the scale and nature of the strategic response of King Æthelred to the new Viking incursions during his reign.

Acknowledgments

I am indebted for suggestions and assistance with various points of interpretation to Julian Munby, Michael Hare, Jon McNeill, Michael Shapland, Alan Crossley, Brandon M. Bender and Edward Impey, as well as two anonymous referees, all of whom have offered useful comments at various stages of the writing of this paper. John McNeill has kindly allowed the use of his photos of the church of St Pierre at Jumièges, and he, Michael Hare and Edward Impey have helpfully provided some relevant references – though their use has been somewhat restricted by the limitations on library access in 2020 and 2021. The plan of the North gate in Figure 6 has been kindly provided by Julian Munby. Reproductions of ordnance survey maps are derived from Edina Digimap.

Notes

1. A similar build-up of street surfaces was observed and partially recorded under salvage conditions along part of the 40-metre length of Castle Street to the west of this section, destroyed at the same time (Hassall et al. 1989, 125, site SEL fig. 15; pl. 24). This stretch, marked A-B in Figure 1 above, is described as ‘Old line of Castle Street’ in Hassall (1976), fig. 5. This arguably extended westwards from point A before being diverted round the south side of the castle ditch on the occasion of the construction of the castle in 1071.

2. Shapland divides the tower-nave churches in England between ‘monastic’ and ‘lordly’. While the two towers at Oxford clearly belong with the latter group, a case could be made for including these, together with others at Daws Castle, Oldaport, South Cadbury, Hastings, Dover, Portchester, and probably Guildford, as comprising a distinct class directly associated with the construction of royal burhs. From a functional point of view, these show characteristics which are shared with the more ubiquitous gate churches of burhs of this period. See Shapland (2013), ch.4.

3. These figures are not exact, and are based on the section drawings of St George’s in Munby et al. (2019) 80 fig. 3.4, and of St Michael’s in Durham (2003), figs 4.13-15. They include the negative volumes of window and door openings, which are greater in St Michael’s.

4. The exception appears to have been at, and to the east and west of, the site of the medieval Littlegate, where the thirteenth-century defences took an alignment slightly to the south, as suggested both by the topography and by the excavated evidence – see Durham (1989).

5. Oxford becomes prominent in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle near the end of Æthelred’s reign. In 1009 (after Æthelred’s massive fleet falls apart and the remnants are sent to guard London), the vikings attack London and are repelled. They end up moving to Oxford instead, which they ‘burn down’. Oxford is one of the places mentioned as overrun by Thorkell’s vikings the next year (1011) and in 1012, the town submits to Sweyn Forkbeard. In 1015, now back in Æthelred’s hands, it is the site of a ‘great assembly’ where two northern nobles are assassinated, apparently with the king’s approval.