The Simple Story
Lynn is situated on an estuarine lake. The name probably comes from the Celtic word “lyn” meaning pool reflecting its proximity to the Wash (the same element in Lincoln and Dublin). During the early and mid eleventh century there wasn’t yet a town of Lynn, but there was activity.
We know that salt production was the major industry – so necessary to preserve food. Sand was heaped into wooden containers and sea water was poured into them to increase the salt content. The outflow water was then boiled in pans over peat fires to produce salt. The waste from the salt works was discarded, raising the level of the land, pushing the tide level back and shrinking the lake. European and British merchants would arrive in the Wash to obtain salt and wool from local and inland traders. There were clearly people living and trading on the edge of the Wash, even though there was no town.
After the Domesday Book the establishment of the town is clearer. We know that the Bishop of Norwich (Herbert Losinga) recognised the settlement and responded to pressure from the pope to build a church (The Sinner and the Dragon). For some, the arrival of Losinga has been the traditional starting point for the town. However, in an important article by (A. R. J. Hutcheson’s paper, “The Origins of King’s Lynn? Control of Wealth on the Wash Prior to the Norman Conquest.”), the author contends that this “document-led, and even legalistic conceptualisation” risks overlooking the deeper historical and economic contexts that made the area ripe for urban development.
He proposes that Losinga’s foundation was more of a centralisation and relocation of existing structures rather than a completely de novo creation.
What I have done below is provide both a direct link to the article itself and a briefing document (created by Google Labs) to support readers who wish to engage with the details.
A. R. J. Hutcheson (2006) “The Origins of King’s Lynn? Control of Wealth on the Wash Prior to the Norman Conquest”, Medieval Archaeology, 50, 2006
© 2006 Society for Medieval Archaeology DOI: 10.1179/174581706×124220
Listen to a Podcast on this material. Click HERE
Briefing Document: The Origins of King’s Lynn and Pre-Norman Control of Wealth in the Wash
This briefing document reviews the main themes and important ideas presented in A. R. J. Hutcheson’s paper, “The Origins of King’s Lynn? Control of Wealth on the Wash Prior to the Norman Conquest.” The paper challenges the traditional view of King’s Lynn’s origin as a wholly new foundation in 1090 by Herbert de Losinga, Bishop of Norwich. Instead, it argues for a longer, more complex development rooted in pre-existing systems of estate administration, taxation, and wealth control in western Norfolk, particularly around the Wash. Hutcheson utilises archaeological evidence, including metal-detected finds (especially coins), pottery distribution, place-names, and later documentary records like Domesday Book, to support this re-assessment.
Main Themes:
- Re-evaluating the “Birth” of King’s Lynn: The paper argues against the strict historical marker of 1090 as the absolute beginning of King’s Lynn. Hutcheson contends that this “document-led, and even legal-istic conceptualisation” risks overlooking the deeper historical and economic contexts that made the area ripe for urban development. He proposes that Losinga’s foundation was more of a centralization and relocation of existing structures rather than a completely de novo creation.
- “The historical date of birth of the town of King’s Lynn is usually set at 1090, when Herbert de Losinga, Bishop of Thetford, established the priory of St Margaret at Lena (Bishop’s Lynn, later King’s Lynn) on the NW. coast of Norfolk.”
- “In itself such a conceptualisation of the origin of the town is not unreasonable, but it is potentially a limiting view over-dependent upon a document-led, and even legal-istic conceptualisation of medieval urban places and their development.”
- The Significance of “Productive” Sites: Hutcheson focuses on “productive” sites – locations yielding significant quantities of portable artefacts, particularly metal-detected finds like coins – as indicators of pre-urban central places. He suggests these sites were not necessarily markets in a modern sense but rather centres of estate administration, tax collection, and the rendering of obligations. Bawsey, near King’s Lynn, is highlighted as a particularly important “productive” site with a substantial coin assemblage.
- “In particular, the nature of ‘productive’ sites is discussed, and it is suggested that these places were centres of estate administration and tax collection.”
- “Administrative, trading, judicial and taxation roles that later came to be located within the town may in this earlier period have been spread between a number of locations, Bawsey being one of the more prominent of these.”
- Coinage as Evidence of Administration and Obligation: The paper challenges the purely commercial interpretation of Early-medieval coinage finds. Hutcheson leans towards a “substantivist” view, arguing that sceattas and other early coins may have primarily functioned within systems of tribute, taxation, and the fulfillment of social obligations rather than representing a fully developed market economy. The distribution of coin loss across the East Anglian landscape is seen as potentially reflecting tax collection networks linked to “multiple estates.”
- “If that were the case here, it could be that ‘productive’ sites rich in coin-finds in East Anglia are not all markets, although it is certainly true that a number may have been, but rather were estate or administrative centres for the collection of dues.”
- “So, we are not looking at the footprint of a monetised economy at ‘productive’ sites but rather at an element in the agrarian economy that is specifically turning goods into coin for the specific purpose of paying tax and fulfilling other types of obligation.”
- Ipswich Ware and Royal Power: The widespread distribution of Ipswich Ware pottery, exclusively produced in Ipswich, is interpreted not just as evidence of trade but potentially as a material manifestation of the East Anglian kingdom’s “extensive lordship” and a system of render and tribute (“feorm supply chain”) controlled from the royal wImc (trading and administrative centre) at Ipswich.
- “If we accept that the wImc was under the control of the king, then so would the production of Ipswich Ware have been.”
- “I would argue that this pattern represents an elaborate and widespread, render and tribute system or feorm supply chain.”
- Continuity and Centralisation: Hutcheson argues that the institutions for controlling surplus existed in western Norfolk prior to the Norman Conquest. Losinga’s actions in establishing the priory and market at Lynn are viewed as a centralisation of these pre-existing administrative and exploitative systems. The decline of some “productive” sites by the time of Domesday may reflect their fiscal redundancy as wealth became concentrated in the emerging centre of Lynn.
- “Instead, it will be suggested that this was a development that in effect centralised a pre-existing system of administration and exploitation.”
- “Losinga’s foundation was, it will be argued, more of a relocation and further centralisation of resources than an act of creation.”
- The Impact of the Danelaw: The paper notes the relative lack of Scandinavian place-names in north-western Norfolk compared to other parts of East Anglia. This is tentatively linked to a more conservative approach to centralisation and urban development in the region, suggesting a possible continuity of pre-existing administrative structures even under Danish rule.
- “Notably, there are very few Scandinavian derived place names in north-western Norfolk and the southern parts of the Wash. This place-name pattern seems to mirror the distribution of ‘productive’ locations. It may be significant that where there is apparently little direct effect on place-names during the course of Danish rule, such as here in Western Norfolk, there also seemed to be a relatively conservative approach to centralisation and the creation of urban places.”
- Urbanisation as Centralisation of Governance: Hutcheson proposes that urbanisation in Anglo-Saxon East Anglia was primarily driven by the centralisation of governmental roles rather than solely by economic factors in a formal sense. He suggests that north-western Norfolk was slower to centralise compared to areas around Norwich and Thetford.
- “Rather, urbanisation seems to have consisted of trends towards the centralisation of governmental roles, which had previously been distributed throughout a number of foci.”
- The Role of Stigand and the Bishop’s Interests: The significant landholdings and soke of Archbishop Stigand in the area before the Norman Conquest, which later passed to various Norman figures including the Bishop of Thetford (Losinga), are seen as crucial to understanding the tenurial context for the development of King’s Lynn. The Bishop’s manor at Gaywood and its potential connection to the “productive” site at Bawsey highlight the pre-existing power structures in the locality.
- “His combined land and soke holdings may provide additional ‘fossilised’ evi-dence for an earlier ‘estate’ here.”
- “Pestell has made the connection between the Bishop’s manor at Gaywood and the ‘productive’ site at Bawsey.”
Important Ideas and Facts:
- The traditional founding date of King’s Lynn is 1090 with the establishment of St Margaret’s Priory by Herbert de Losinga.
- The King’s Lynn Survey, initiated in the 1960s, aimed to examine the town’s origins through archaeology, architecture, and documents.
- “Productive” sites in western Norfolk, like Bawsey, show evidence of significant activity and wealth accumulation between the 7th and 9th centuries through large assemblages of metal-detected finds, particularly sceattas. Bawsey yielded 109 Anglo-Saxon coins, 92 dating before 850 AD.
- The distribution of Ipswich Ware (c. 720-850 AD), exclusively produced in Ipswich, covers a wide area of East Anglia and beyond, suggesting a strong degree of central control or a well-established system of exchange/tribute.
- Coin loss patterns in East Anglia, particularly the high number of sceattas, may reflect systems of tax collection and the fulfilling of obligations rather than solely market activity.
- Western Norfolk appears to have been a relatively decentralised region compared to other parts of East Anglia in the Early-medieval period.
- The Danelaw’s impact on place-names is less pronounced in north-western Norfolk, potentially indicating a degree of administrative continuity.
- By the time of Domesday Book (1086), north-western Norfolk lacked a major urban centre as defined by the presence of burgesses.
- Herbert de Losinga’s establishment at Lynn may have capitalised on pre-existing tolls, markets, and administrative structures in the area, possibly linked to the Bishop’s manor at Gaywood and the earlier importance of Bawsey.
- Archbishop Stigand held significant land and soke in the Freebridge Hundred (where King’s Lynn is located) before the Norman Conquest, indicating a concentration of power and obligations in the region.
- The strategic location of King’s Lynn at the opening of the Wash, a crucial communication and trade route, was likely a key factor in its eventual growth.
- The rise of King’s Lynn seems to coincide with the decline of Thetford, both events orchestrated by Bishop Herbert de Losinga.
Conclusion:
Hutcheson’s paper provides a compelling argument for a more nuanced understanding of King’s Lynn’s origins. By examining the archaeological and historical evidence through the lens of pre-existing systems of wealth control and administration, he suggests that the town’s foundation in 1090 was not an isolated event but rather the culmination of a longer period of development centred on the strategic location of the Wash.
The “productive” sites of western Norfolk, particularly Bawsey, played a crucial role as earlier administrative and economic foci, the functions of which were eventually centralised and consolidated at King’s Lynn under the impetus of the Bishop of Norwich. This re-evaluation highlights the importance of considering broader regional contexts and challenging document-centric views when studying the origins of medieval towns.