In c. 1225 the prior of Tynemouth founded a settlement of fishermen to provide fish for the priory. Developed W from Pow Burn close to shore, some houses on piles, each with a quay, 100 houses by 1292. Pressure from Newcastle persuaded king to order ships not to call, so leading to period of decay until c. 1390 when redevelopment began with reclamation of land below HWM, to be covered with 200 houses. In 1530 Newcastle again checked commerce, and for rest pf C16 Shields was in decay. Township was a long narrow strip along the river, carved out of Tynemouth, and without fields. The actual town came to consist of a long narrow street parallel with the Tyne, between Low Lights (E) and the Bull Ring (W), called Low Town Street. On N side there were houses on the steep slope with flights of stairs between; on the S short lanes and quays to the water's edge. The E half of the S side has been cleared to form large quays. Most of the houses on the N side were cleared in slum clearance and the banks landscaped. In the 19th century the 'Low Town' with its warren of tightly packed houses, streets and alleyways was described by the Shields Daily News thus 'Who can estimate the amount of immoral conversation that passes, the unlawful schemes plotted, or the low filthy literature read in the common lodging houses and the temperance that prevails in this nest of vice?'. The buildings on Ropery Banks were later demolished. There were over 100 inns and taverns in 'Low Town'. Many were described in their day as 'dirty, seedy drinking dens of vice and intemperance, where drunkenness and prostitution were commonplace and many immoral schemes were plotted'. Maitland's Quays ran behind Bell Street from Maitland's Lane to Mullin's Quay. The Low Town was sketched by William Henry Charlton, who was born in Newcastle in 1846. He visited North Shields many times over a period of over a decade to sketch the busy vibrant port. When the lower town became too overcrowded in the 18th century, buildings began to built on the plateau 60 feet above the low town. The upper and lower parts of the town were linked by a series of steep stairs. One of the first development of the upper town was the elegant Dockwray Square in 1763. Howard Street and Northumberland Square further north were the flagship developments of the 'new town'. They were laid out in Georgian tradition and pre-dated Newcastle's Grainger Town by over a quarter of a century. John Dobson designed many of North Shields buildings. Dated C13th.

Symondsett (with Preston), property of the prior and convent of Durham, is first mentioned in a lease of 1260. By 1464 it was on its own, Preston (whether site or merely name) having disappeared, and was paying a rent larger than some of its neighbours. In 1489 the priory's tenants of Southwick Fulwell, Wearmouth, Harton, Westoe, Monkton and Hedworth divided the territory of Simonside between them so that it ceased to exist as a township, and paid separate rent for this land for the rest of the Middle Ages. Note that Hodgson believed Simonside was the township and Preston the village with in it, and if this were so and Preston had been deserted in the C15, that might explain the 1489 split. Simonside was, however, named among the endowments of the new dean and chapter of Durham, and a number of sites called Simonside, including the hall which Hodgson believed to be the first enclosure of part of the common fields, existed into the C20. Parish was formed in 1875; church was consecrated in 1880. Dated C13th.

Preston (Preostun) is first mentioned in 1074-80 when it and the other vills dependent on Jarrow were given by Bishop Walcher to Aldwin and his companions. It subsequently became the property of the prior and convent of Durham, and was leased before 1186 to Hugh de Morewyc. From at least as early as 1260 it was coupled with Symondsett (Simonside), and it came to be described as a manor, the latest reference being 1442. The name eventually disappeared, and it seems to be assumed that it was subsumed into Simonside. John Hodgson, in his Collectanea Topographica Vol. II, p. 45 (?early C19), wrote "Preston...was situated on the east side of the Don, as that stream passes by the grounds of Hedworth and Monkton...There are grass-grown irregularities on the surface of the ground in the fields adjoining the right bank of the Don, nearly opposite to Jarrow, which seem plainly to point out the site of the tofts and crofts of this old and forgotten village". Dated C11th.

Two sculptured stones, for long thought to be Roman, were found at Blake Chesters and presented to the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle on separate occasions by Cuthbert and George Rippon (2). One is a shoulder of a bust in armour, "definitely post-Roman and probably...of 18th century date", (5). The other is the "head of a colossal statue, in laurel wreath; the lower part of the face is broken off. The features, with protruding eyeballs and hooked nose, seem intended to be grotesque. The work is of good quality". Wrongly provenanced as from Carvoran (4). "Obviously not Roman and probably dates from the 18th century", (5). Coins are also reported to have been found in the vicinity (1).

Brand quotes a document of 1320, "...usque ad culturam que vocatur Blake Chestres in campo de est Chirton", and in the early 19th century it was said that a Roman station called Blake Chesters could still be seen at Chirton (2). Two fragments of sculpture, for a long time thought to be Roman and still extant, were found at the site in the C19, and it was reported that coins had been recovered from the neighbouring fields. The actual site, however, cannot be located. Source 6 believed it was north or west of Preston Colliery, near Billy Mill farm, and the O.S. that it was somewhere in the vicinity of "Camp Terrace" on the west edge of North Shields. The latter site, however, is not within the boundaries of Chirton (probably the medieval East Chirton) on 1st ed. O.S. map. The matter is now rather academic since the area today is densely built up.

Earliest reference to the well is by Brand (1), who associated it with Bede, and said it was customary as late as 1740 to dip diseased children in the well in the hope they would be restored to health. It was also the centre of jollifications on Midsummer Eve. He implied that both activities had ceased long before his book was published.
While most subsequent authors have repeated Brand, usually verbatim, James Wood of Lincoln's Inn wrote to the clerk to Monkton Parish Council (8) suggesting the well had nothing to do with Bede, but was a wishing well or "bedes-well" (bed=prayer). a type known from pre-Conquest documentary sources.
In the early19th century Cuthbert Ellison of Hebburn Hall placed a Latin inscription over (or round) the well, and this has now been renewed. From the late19th century until recently it was in danger of burial from tipping of slag etc., and in the early 20th century it was surrounded by a brick wall and iron railings in an attempt to protect it.

Rectilinear double-ditched enclosure. MPP classification: Enclosure / Rectilinear / Asymmetric / Sub-rectangular / Not elongated / Corners curved / Straight sides 2 / Ditches 2 / Incomplete / Internal features none / Entrance (terminal defined, aspect E). Line of ditch on N side is partly obscured by the sike.
The enclosure is defined by two ditches, and east facing entrance and has a pit or hollow in its south-east corner. Internally this enclosure measures 45x37m. The northern side of this enclosure probably coincides with the banks of the burn and is not visible. A ditch that is visible as a cropmark on the north side of the burn on the same air photos is likely to be the remains of a post medieval field boundary and it has not been mapped (Alison Deegan AP Interpreter).

Rectilinear enclosure. MPP classification: Enclosure / Rectilinear / Symmetric / Rectangular / Not elongated / Corners curved / Straight sides 2 / Convex sides 2 / Ditches 1 / Length / Breadth / Complete / Internal features structural (hut circle) / Entrances 1 (terminal defined, aspect E). Thus much is reasonably clear, and there is a ring ditch just west of the site. I do not, however, feel that the APs support the following: "Two successive phases, one enclosure underlying part of a later and clearer one, both enclosures containing one large round house. Fainter crop-marks elsewhere in the vicinity suggest that this site too may have had a more complex pattern of occupation". Concentric ditches of probable late Iron Age - Romano British were identified during an evaluation to the north-east of the site in 2012. The ditches were located immediately to the east of the SAM.

Trapezoidal ditched enclosure. MPP classification: Enclosure / Rectilinear / Asymmetric / Trapezoidal / Not elongated / Corners curved / Ditches 1 / Length 70 m / Breadth 50 m / Complete / Internal features none / Entrances 1 (terminal defined, aspect SE) {1}. Rectangular enclosed settlement, visible as crop mark. Their similarity to comparable excavated sites in the north east indicates that it is of late Iron Age or Romano-British date. Further settlement remains, including hut circles, lie outside the enclosures. The settlement is trapezoidal in plan, and is thought to be defined by a single ditch. Each of the sides measure 60m, except for the western side which measures 50m. The area within and immediately around the enclosure retains the complex remains of a palimpsest of settlement activity, evidenced as geophysical anomalies. The remains of settlement activity include a series of seven intercutting hut circles, a pair of intercutting hut circles, a lone hut circle, a ditch and a curvilinear ditch. Five of the seven intercutting hut circles are located within the trapezoidal enclosure, with the remaining two either cutting or cut by the northern side of the enclosure. The hut circles range from 7m to 20m in diameter and are thought largely to be non-contemporaneous {2}.

Rectilinear double-ditched enclosure. MPP classification: Enclosure / Rectilinear / Symmetric / Rectangular / Not elongated / Corners curved / Straight sides 2 / Convex sides 2 / Ditches 2 / Length 80 m / Breadth 60 m / Complete / Internal features (EITHER structural (hut circles 3) OR traces of mining) / Entrances 1 (terminal defined aspect E). Rectangular enclosed settlement, visible as crop mark. Their similarity to comparable excavated sites in the north east indicates that it is of late Iron Age or Romano-British date. Further settlement remains, including hut circles, lie outside the enclosures. The settlement is sub-square in plan, with rounded corners and two close set ditches. The outer of the two ditches encloses an area 75m by 75m, with an inner ditch set 10m inside it. The site has been investigated by geophysical survey and anomalies interpreted as the remains of two hut circles lie in close proximity to the enclosure. The first, immediately to the north of the northern side of the enclosure, measures 16m in diameter. The second, 30m to the south east of the south eastern corner of the enclosure, measures 14m in diameter {2}.