Its been a good year in general for me, and a new years resolution will be to write this ruddy history in full. So there, you have a promise. Probably.
No stories today, I'll pick up the history again in 2016 ( blimey, where did the year go?) but I just wanted to wish everyone a Happy and Peaceful New Year.
Its been a good year in general for me, and a new years resolution will be to write this ruddy history in full. So there, you have a promise. Probably.
0 Comments
The most interesting things of note for the period start around 400AD. We have no record of how deep the Mersey inlet ( the ‘pool’) was, or how accessible, but we know that the tidal range of the Mersey meant it probably wouldn’t have been particularly attractive to sailors, but two events happened around this time which may have changed things. In 387 A.D. and again in 415 A.D. we have records of two ‘great floods’, or inundations, in the River Dee. Floods which were important enough to be recorded in one case as having caused ‘great destruction’, and in the other of having ‘drowned 40 families’. It has been postulated that these could have been the result of an earthquake, and that this quake may have opened up ‘the pool’ inlet for the first time, creating the future Liverpool harbour, but I think logic dictates the application of a little common sense here. A quake in the Irish sea is quite possible, as is a resulting tsunami into the Dee and Mersey, but it would have had to be a hell of an earthquake, and even something large enough to cause a major rockslide at Liverpool would have been felt and surely recorded in the more populated Wirral, and even Warrington and Chester if it had enough force to shift landmass. And it isn’t.
Where these events were noted, they were referred to as floods, not major earthquakes. As the Mersey was still a maritime route to Warrington, utilised less than the Dee but still used, you’d also think that a passing sailor might have noted the sudden appearance of a new natural harbour suddenly appearing as he floated upriver. The Mersey doesn’t get a mention in these records, but there are probably reasons for that. First, the Mersey is a more powerful river, with its own tidal bore, and depending on the season and tide, the effects could have been far less catastrophic than the open and placid lower Dee, and second that the coastal population was far less ( and less exposed), with no significant settlements until you reach Warrington, by which time the effects could have been much subsided. It is worth pondering if there was ‘some’ effect however, even if it is purely speculative. The riverside of Liverpool sits on boulder clay, flat and floodable before rising to slightly higher ground where the castle was later to sit, with sandstone forming the higher ground above. If there ever was a wooden fishing settlement in pre-Christian Liverpool, it could have been totally washed away by a high tide tsunami like flood. Highly unlikely but not beyond the realms of possibility. Second, a similar high tide flood in a tidal opening like ‘the pool’ could have washed away a portion of the alluvium that surrounds the boulder clay of the higher ground, ‘cleaning out’ the natural harbour for easier use. We’ll never know of course, but one of the mysteries that does remain is what such a practical inlet, identified by King John as suitable for a port, has no recorded use by the mariners and settlers of Roman and Celtic times. Unless something changed after the Roman settlements and ports were established… The next major changes to Britain were with the coming of the Romans. And what did the Romans ever do for us? Well, in the case of Merseyside, sod all, not even a road. There was allegedly a track from Otterspool to Aiburth, presumably linking the proto-Toxteth and Proto-Smithdown, but nothing that could be claimed as an actual road.
With a major port at Chester ( Dewa), a Mersey crossing and significant settlement at Warrington (Wilderspool), and a major centre at Wigan (Coccium), like many before them, the Romans seemingly didn’t see much worth bothering with in Sefton. There have been some finds of Roman coins at Otterspool ( 1863) and Sefton Park ( 1871), but no indications that there was anything of note happening. Apart from taxes going to a different overlord and different coinage, it is unlikely that life changed a great deal for Merseysiders. Again, without natural defenses or tradeable resources, there was no great gain in doing much with Merseyside, so the Romans seemed to leave it as it was. As some defenses against Irish raiders were placed on the Wirral (Meols) it wouldn’t have been surprising if a garrison had been placed somewhere like Formby, but there hasn’t been any evidence found, and it may be that with the lack of roads ( or things worth protecting), the Romans had better things to do with their time than worry about an obscure beach or fishing settlement having the occasional raid. Ok, so probably no posts till next week now, but that gives you time to check out my lovely exhibition doesn't it!
One thing I had promised was a link or two to source material. One fascinating book is by the Liverpool Archaeological Society and is called The Changing Face of Liverpool 1207-1727. I'd recommend it regardless of this as its a really interesting read. Slight diversion from the early history of Liverpool to announce the launch of the online 'Confederates of Abercromby Square' exhibition at the LowCountry Digital History Initiative in Charleston.
I may be slightly biased but its really rather good, and gives lots of information on the Square and Britain's role in the American Civil War. Its an exhibition put together between myself, Joe Kelly and Jim Powell from the History department at the University, and well worth a read. While details of pre-Roman slavery are scarce in written records, the practice is known to have continued right up to the Viking occupations, with several references to the lands around the Mersey. Indeed, according to one legend, St Patrick ( born in either Scotland or Wales depending on who’s agenda your following) was taken to Ireland from Liverpool by human traffickers in the fifth century AD.
Liverpool’s later trade in salt is a useful fact here as you need a lot of pinches with that particular story. It also says that St Patrick preached in Liverpool before his kidnapping, on the site where St Patrick’s cross later stood in the Town centre. This would have been a challenge, even for a Saint’s who’s powers included repelling snakes out of a country, as the Liverpool settlement he supposedly preached in didn’t exist for another seven hundred years. More next week... The maritime invasions of the first millennium BC did bring another particular trade with them, one which would later be closely associated with Liverpool; slavery.
Like the Vikings after them, like the raiding Irish, like the Romans, and like the later situation British traders found in West Africa, the Celtic tribes would raid other settlements for slaves, for profit, for work, for procreation. And the Mersey and Sefton coasts were quite good targets ( Formby was a particular favourite of the Norse raiders before they settled there). Having a long coastline for easy access, little in the way of natural defences, little if any infrastructure or townships to group together in, it would have been easy pickings. So in its earliest days, rather than being the one to profit, it is perhaps ironic that the Liverpool area was actually a victim of the slave trade. |
Archives
March 2024
Categories |