NORWICH B
y THE TI:-'1E of William the Conqueror Norwich was one of the
three or four most important cities in England. For over seven
hundred years it retained this position and for considerable
periods was second only to London. To seek to explain its long pros­
perity is to realize how little is known of the economic history- of ,Eng­
land. Explanations of a very general kind, trite yet compelling, are
indeed at hand. :\ natural route-centre with good communications by
land and excellent communications by water, Norwich had a rich hinter­
land and b\" the fourteenth century was a manufacturing centre of much
more than local importance. So far, so good; but the more precise
explanation of the city's function and success in any particular period is
not at present to be had. The greatness of Norwich ends in the late
Hanoverian period as it begins in the late Anglo-Saxon, mysteriously.
Norwich has been very well served by its local historians; others have
given it less than due attention. l From early in the nineteenth century
Norwich ceased to be of major national importance: the principle on
which economic historians have worked is, vae rictis.
In the darkness which obscures the histor~" of Korwich two things
show clearly. One is how ear0' the city developed; the other is how
remarkable its environment was. Norwich was very big b\O 1066. This is
certainly true of its area. But what is more, the cit~o in the reign of the
Conqueror was probably more populous than it was in the reign of
Richard II and not impossibly more populous than it was in that of
Henry VIII. There is at least a plausible case for supposing of Norwich,
as of much of England, that the most important economic developments
before the Industrial Revolution took place in the late Anglo-Saxon
period. The most obviously remarkable thing about the environment of
Norwich is the densit,o of its population. By the time of Domesday Book
the area of east Norfolk surrounding Norwich looks as if it was the most
populous part of rural England. The rise of Great Yarmouth in the early
Middle Ages ensured that this area contained not one, but two great
towns. Nowhere else in medieval England were two places of such im­
portance so close together. The history of the city must be seen as part
of that of a quite extraordinary area, linked to it above all b~o the water­
ways of the Yare, the Waveney, the Ant, the Bure and the Thurne. 2
Kirkpatrick and Hudson were scholars who desenoe, though they have hardly
received, national rather than merely local recognition. Much of what is written
below depends heavily on their work and that of Blomefield. In addition to
Kirkpatrick's published works his notes, and extracts from and summaries of his
unpublished works, in Norfolk Record Office ::\lss 5 and 45 3 and Rye 9 and NCM
2 I (f) have been used. Among modern scholars I am particularly indebted to Miss
Barbara Green, Keeper of Archaeology at the Castle ::\luseum, Norwich, whose
generosity is one of the many exemplary things about that museum. She has sup­
plied me with a great deal of information and I owe a lot to discussions with her.
I am similarly obliged to Mr Alan Carter, whose archaeological '.,"ork for the
Norwich Survey is making discoveries of fundamental importance for the early
history of Norwich. Miss Rachel Young, formerly Deputy Director of the Norwich
Museums, very kindly read a draft of the present paper and made helpful sugges­
tions. Mr A. B. Whittingham and Mrs H. Dunn have supplied useful information
and comments.
2 For water communications see below pp. 20- I.
1
THE SITUATION AND SITE
The Cit," of l\:orwich lies on either bank of the River Wensum, just
abm-e its confluence with the Yare. The site is such as has often helped a
town to prosperity: at a low crossing point on a navigable river, some
wa,' inland but with easy access to the sea. At present Norwich is some
twenty. miles from the North Sea. But it is clear that at some time the flat
alluvial lands of the valleys to the east were under water so that the site
of the town stood near the head of a great estuary. From the first century
AD the water began to recede and by the later Roman period mean sea
level rna," have been about what it is now, though there was more open
water near the mouth of the estuary than at present. The sea continued to
recede until the later thirteenth century but thereafter rose once more. 3
The precise chronology of the recession of the estuary is uncertain; the
effects of that recession so far inland as the Wensum valley are little
studied; and the century in which there was first an important settlement
at Norwich is uncertain. It follows that discussion of some of the geo­
graphical determinants of the city's rise has to be tentative.
Land communications were in general good. Although Norwich's
relationship to the Roman road system is not yet fully understood, it is
possible that it was at a nodal point. 4 The principal medieval road from
Norwich was that to London Ilia Thetford, Newmarket and Ware.
Modern road maps of eastern Norfolk show numerous roads converging
on Norwich which do not merge with one another before they reach, or
approach very near to, the city. Such a configuration indicates heavy
traffic from many places round about. That the pattern is an old one
appears, for example, from the numerous bridges over the Yare south of
Norwich and from a map of Mousehold Heath of 1588 which shows
several roads from places to the east and north-east running very close
together but converging only in or near the city.s
Korwich lies at a point where areas of different soils meet. 6 To the
east lie the alluvial flats which Defoe described as 'a long tract of the
richest meadows and the largest, take them altogether, that are anywhere
in England' and which were by the time of Domesday extensively used
for grazing. 7 The remainder of the environment is of clay, loam, sand
and gravel, overlying chalk. The northern segment, the 'Loam Region',
has lighter soils than the remainder with considerable stretches of sand
and gravel, one of which runs north-eastwards from Norwich, forming
until recent times an area of heath and common about six miles by three­
~10usehold Heath. To the west and north-west lie areas of heavier soil,
fertile and in the past probably carrying much timber. Until the eight­
.
J. ::\1. Lambert and others, Afakinf', of the Broads (Royal Geog. Soc. 1960); C. Green,
Antiquity, xxxv(1961), 21-8.
4 The Roman roads on map I are based on the OS map of Roman Britain (3rd edn)
and ex. inf. 11iss Barbara Green. For such roads within Norwich see below p. 2.
5 For land communications see also below p. 2 I ; for the map of I 585, Streets, I 19.
6 J. E. G.Mosby, The Land ofBritain (Part 70): J\"orfolk(1938).
7 Defoe, Tours (Everyman edn 1962), i, 63; Lambert, op. cit. 141; Regesta iii, no. 175
for extensive sheep-rearing on these marshes in the early 12th century.
3
Copyright text
NOR \\"ICI-I
eenth centun~ there was a contrast between the largeh~ pastoral agricul­
ture of this 'wood and pasture' area and the largeh' arable agriculture of
the lighter soils of the 'corn and sheep' area to the north. 8 ~of\vich had
good arable land, even~ kind of grazing, timber, fish, chalk, flint and iron
fairly near at hand. 9 It is likely that its development as a centre of
regional trade was aided b,' its position at the meeting point of areas
whose various soils and resources led to economic specialization.
The cit" gre\\' up where gravel and chalk plateaux and ridges approach
the Wensum valle,'; a site of a kind which often proyed attracti,~e to
early settlers. The southern plateau has a yery steep eastern slope which
almost reaches the river. Streams, of which the most important was
probably the later Great Cockey, ran into either bank. The ease with
which the river could have been crossed and the availabilit\, of the \'alle\'
for settlement would have depended on the water-level; at present there
is little precise knowledge of its fluctuations. By the eleyenth centun'
settlement appears to have spread to some areas little above the modern
sea-level, but it is likely that the extensive occupation of the lowest-lying
areas took place somewhat later. The early topographical names indi­
cated on map 5 show how modest an eminence could be described in
Norwich as a 'hill'. In historic times there was a great deal of woodland
in Thorpe and one early name (,Mereholt') suggests that it extended into
what became the medieval city. I 0
Bridge going westwards towards St Benedict's Gates and on is known.
The course of any north-south road or roads there may have been is a
matter for guesswork. The most likely crossing points for such roads are
Fye Bridge and Coslam·. In I 896 there was found a massive timber cause­
way, a hundred yards long, linking the higher ground on either side of
the river at Fye Bridge. If, as is possible, this was Roman, then a major
Roman road ran here. But the causeway remains undated and such faint
evidence as there is suggests a late Saxon date. Two Roman roads may
have run to Norwich from the south. One could ha,~e come from the
neighbourhood of Venta, crossing the Yare at Trowse. 13 Another could
have come along the line of the later London road ria Thetford and would
presumably have crossed the Yare at Cringleford. The framework for
h,'pothesis about north-south Roman roads through :\orwich is thus set
b\~ two possible crossing points on the \V' ensum and two on the Yare. 14
Roman finds have been made in and near the medie,~al cit,,; nearh' all
ha,'e been of coins and of stray sherds. 1i Such tlnds permit only the most
resen~ed interpretation. Their distribution is such as to strengthen the
alread\' strong case for the east-west road. It does not suggest a settle­
ment of any size within the area of the medienl cit\, but it would be con­
sonant with parts of this and of its environs haying been frequented or
even settled in the Roman period. So far as the evidence goes the nearest
thing there was to a concentration was at Thorpe. I h
Little evidence has been found for occupation on or very near the site
of "Korwich in the Saxon period before the ninth century: a cemetery of
unknown size a little to the north of St Augustine'S Gates (Eade Road);
a few small finds and sherds; and possibly a small number of eighth­
century coins.li It seems that one must look to a later period for anything
more than rural settlement. But it is prudent to recall that for the earlier
Anglo-Saxon (as for the Roman) period there is only archaeological
evidence, which cannot prove a negative, especially in a town. Very
little is known of the kingdom of East Anglia in the eighth and ninth
centuries; for example, the site of its mint or mints is unknown. There­
fore the possibility that there was some centre of royal power at or by
Norwich cannot be excluded. I 8
THE SITE FROM PREHISTORIC TO LATE
ANGLO-SAXON TIMES
The distribution of finds from the Palaeolithic period onwards indicates
settlement within a few miles of Norwich but there is nothing to suggest
that the site of the later city was of special importance. The most im­
portant prehistoric site in the area is that of the Neolithic henge monu­
ment at Arminghall, a mile south of the city. During the Roman occupa­
tion the town of the region was not Norwich, but the cantonal capital of
Venta Icenoru!JJ (Caistor St Edmund), three miles to the south. It seems to
have been founded in about 70 AD. Its walls (which may be dated to
approximately the middle of the third century) enclosed about thirty-four
acres; and the inhabited area at its maximum extended further. The fate of
Venta Icenoru!Jl is mysterious. The site has for long been deserted, but
when it became so is not clear. Evidence which it was once thought
might indicate that it was sacked and abandoned towards the end of the
Roman period now seems inconclusive. Two i\nglo-Saxon cemeteries,
one of them very large, lie beside the Roman town. They show that
Anglo-Saxon settlement beside (or conceivably in) Caistor continued at
least into the seventh century. 11 Nevertheless, the town is not mentioned
in any written source after the Roman period.
When a considerable town appears again in central :t--:orfolk it is not on
the site of the former cantonal capital, but at "Korwich. Why "Korwich
should have succeeded Venta as the regional centre is uncertain. The site
of Norwich can fairly be supposed to have been a route centre of some
importance in the Roman period. The approximate route 12 of an east­
west road which almost certainh' crossed the Wensum near Bishop
\X". Hudson, N A xiii (1895-97),217-32; NA xxxv (1970-73), 446. Cf NA xxii (1923-25),379. For Trows bridge see belo,,' p. 13. H Efforts have been made to take knowledge somewhat further by using medieval
nomenclature. Only two roads in Norwich were commonly called 'street' (a usage
which sometimes, but not always indicates a Roman road, see P. 1\~. Gloucs (EPNS),
ed. A. H. Smith, i, 15-21): Holme St which lies on the E.-\X'. Roman road and
Ber St. It has therefore been suggested that Ber St is also of Roman origin (Streets,
104) ; if so it could have linked a crossing at Trowse to one at Coslany (c]. l"\~ A xxxv
(1970-73),454). There are instances of 'street' being used for other roads in early
medieval Norwich: 'Fibriggestrete' (DCl\[ charters, nos. 847, 855, 867); 'Wimeres
Street' (DC~1 charter, no. 1752). These roads may also have been of Roman origin.
There are many other possibilities.
" Roman finds are recorded VCH Nor]. i, 3 I 3-23, N A, the annual reports inJnl
Rom. stlldies, the CBA Bulletin and Bibliography and in the annual bulletins issued by
CBA Regional Group 7 and by the Norfolk Research Cttee. I have also made use of
the card indices in the Castle Museum.
16 Including a quay on the left bank of the Yare just below its intersection with the \\"ensum: Jnl Rom. Studies, lii (1962), 176; see also e.g. VCH Nor]. i,3 16,32 1. 17 A. ::-leaney, Gazetteer of Anglo-Saxon Burial Sites (1964), 180; NA xxxiii (1962-65), 134, 14 5-7; Med. Arch. iii (1959), 298; Numismatic Chron. 6th ser. ii (1942), 56; Ipswich ware found in Norwich (below p. 4) could be as early as the 7th or the 8th century. 18 If there was such a centre it may have been at Thorpe. Thorpe as described in
Domesday, with its far flung members at Lakenham, Arminghall and Catton gives
the impression of having once been an important royal manor, though by 1066
Stigand held it. One of the Roman sites at Thorpe has also produced (although the
evidence comes from unreliable 19th-century excavations) Pagan Saxon and Late
Saxon material: R. Clarke, N A xxvii (1939-41),23 I; J. Hurst, Proc. Cambridge
Antiq. Soc. 1(1956),49-50. In Old Norse and Old Danish, and commonly in Old
English, Thorp means a small or secondary settlement: E. Ekwall, Concise Dictionary
of Eng/isb Place Names (1960),468-9; K. Cameron, jfediaeval Scandinavia, iii (1970),
35-49. But the Old English word is also found in early glosses as the equivalent of
cross-roads, estate, villa and place of assemblv: A. :\1awer, Tbe Chief Elements used
in Eng/isb Place Names (1924), 59. The important roval estate at Kingsthorpe (in
Domesday simply Torp) two miles from Northampton invites comparison.
13 Thirsk, The Agrarian History of England and If"ales, iv (1967),40-49.
See below pp. 7-8. NCM Enrolled Deeds, Ro1l9,m.20 (I 5 E I I) refers to
Le Irinpittes at Hellesdon, suggesting iron deposits near the city; cj. "\~ A xxxi"
(1966-69),187-214.
10 See map 2. The early topographical names are discussed in Appendix IV (c). For
further discussion of the extent of settlement in the "alley and of water-leHls, see
above and p. I; for river-crossings see above and below p. 13.
11 For Venta Icenorum and the adjacent cemeteries, J. 1\:. L. ::-Iyres and B. Green, The
Anglo-sa)wn Cemeteries at Caistor-by-Xoru·icb and Marksbal/, Xorfolk (I 973), which
has a full bibliography.
12 Growth, 8. An indication of the original line of Bishopgate (medieval Holme St)
may be given by the N. boundary of the Bishop's palace before the extension of
13 I 8 (see map 7) ; c]. below p. 8, n. 98. Houses in Palace Plain 'next the river' were
said to be in Holme St in the 14th century: Streets, 70.
8 ].
q
2
Copyright text
0!OR \VIOl
THE LATE ANGLO-SAXON PERIOD
were of Saxon or earh' Norman onglO. In many cases there is more
direct evidence. Domesday names seven churches and a pre-Conquest will
The historian moves on to firmer ground in the earh" tenth century.
one more. 25 Structural evidence dates another five or six before about
I 100, while dedications suggest an early date for a further ten. 26
Then, for the first time, the name Norwich occurs, and it is as a mint
signature on coins, so showing that the place was already of some im­
The distribution of the early churches indicates that the extreme limits
portance. It is a fair deduction that Norwich owed its legal status as a
of the built-up area were much the same in ro66 as in 1789: from St
borough to Edward the Elder, after his subjugation of the East Anglian
Augustine's in the north to beyond St Etheldreda's in the south; from
Danes in about 9 I 7.!9 Coins apart, there are only five references to the
St Helen's in the east to St Benedict's in the west. Although development
city in written sources earlier than 1066. The earliest describes a little
was by no means continuous the number of the ~hurches and their
scene which took place when Abbot Brihtnoth of Eh" (abbot 970-996 x
frequent proximity to one another suggests that in considerable areas it
999) went to Cambridge to bm' some land, and demanded sureties for his
was dense. Although the limits of the built-up area hardly changed in
purchase, whereupon 'all said in reply to him that Cambridge and
seven centuries its shape did. In the map of 1789 its approximate sym­
Norwich and Ipswich and Thetford were of such liberty and dignity that
metn' is disturbed by the Cathedral and Castle, which take great bites out
if anyone bought land there he did not need witnesses'.20 The second
of it on the south east. This reflects Norman activity. To build the Castle
reference is in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: '1004 . . . and in this \'ear
the\' destroyed part of the cin'; traces of those who lived there and the
Swegn came with his fleet to Norwich and completely burned and rav­
road which served them still lie under the Castle moundY Similarly,
aged the borough', and the third appears to refer to Cnut's taking part in
when Bishop de Losinga built the Cathedral he cleared an extensive site
some battle at l\;orwich, which may be guessed to have taken place at
in the eastern part of the cit,:. A Saxon parish church probablY lies under
about the end of the reign of Ethelred IL2! The remaining two are in
or nearly under the Cathedral; four others survived on the margins of
wills: one (1035- I 038) mentioning a houseplot (haga) and the other (c.990­
the Close. The extraordinan' size and curious plan of the Close reflect its
1066) the churches of St Mary and Christ Church. 22
very distant past as part of the Saxon town.28 If some areas were lost
This handful of references goes oddly with the importance of Norwich
after the Conquest, others were newly developed: for example Newport,
as Domesdav reveals it. The recorded population for 1066 is between
St Paul's and Newgate. 29
one thousand three hundred and twenty and one thousand five hundred
How did so extensive a city grow up before ro66? Crucial develop­
and eighteen. The real population cannot therefore have been less than
ments may have taken place in the Roman and early Saxon periods. In
five thousand and could just possibly have been as high as ten thousand.
the present state of knowledge there is nothing to be said about these
That is to say Norwich mqy have had as many inhabitants in ro66 as in
except to note the possibilities (above all of a major river-crossing at
any later period until the sixteenth centun'.23 The city was not only
Fye Bridge and a royal viii at Thorpe) and, in the desperation of ignor­
ance, to pass on. More is known of the later Anglo-Saxon period, largely
thanks to archaeology and especially to the recent work of the Norwich
Survey.30 Even so the known facts are very few in relation to the size of
the city and the likely complexity of its pre-Conquest history. It is neces­
sary to proceed by hypothesis.
The size and shape of Norwich have long suggested the possibility
that it grew b\' the merging of a number of separate settlements; for
example that the names of quarters of the medieval city, Conesford,
Westwick and Coslany, were those of early settlements which in the end
grew together with a fourth, Norwich, which gave its name to the
whole. 3! That some such development took place is likely, though this is
populous, but also very extensive. Parish churches pro\'ide the best evi­
dence of how far it had spread. Lists of the later thirteenth centun' record
sixty-one churches, omitting two or three destrm'ed soon after the Con­
quest. No churches were founded after these lists were made. Domesday
refers to between forty-nine and fifty-four churches and chapels in 1086.
Only some ten of those listed in the thirteenth centurY are known or
strongly suspected to have been of post-Conquest foundation. 24 These
figures argue strongly for the supposition that nearh' all the churches
The first appearance of the name is on a single example of the' St Edmund' pennies
struck at some time between c.892 and C.9IO: C. E. Blunt, Proc. Suffolk Inst. of
Archaeology, xxxi (1969),245-6. It is a common mint signature of coins of Athelstan
(924 or 925 to 939). Cj. Antiquity, xxxiii (1948), roO-I02. \~'m \,\'orcester alleges
that Norwich was called Bllrgchester by the Saxons and that it was restored by
Edward the Elder: Itineraries, ed. J. H. Harvey (I 969), 210.
20 Liber Eliensis, ed. E. O. Blake (Camd. Soc. 3rd ser. xcii, 1962), 100. 21 T1VO Saxon Chrons. ed. Plummer, 134-5; Enp,lish and Sorse DOCliments relating to the Reign olEthelred the Unready, ed. ;\1. Ashdown (1930), 139. 22 Anglo-Saxon Wills, ed. D. \'('hitelock (I 930), nos. xxvi, xxxviii. 23 Dom. Bk ii, f. I I6a states that there were I,FO burgesses T.R.E. But for 1086 it records in the English borough (i) 665 burgesses, (ii) 480 bordars (apparently
impoverished burgesses), (iii) 2 I 7 (or, on other assumptions, 298) empty
messuages and houses, (iv) 75 messuages and houses from which the king was not
'receiving his custom' and which appear to be additional to the others recorded.
On the assumption that all the burgesses and bordars of 1086 were occupying
messuages in existence in ro66 and that the empty tenements of 1086 were there
and tenanted in 1066 (and one house '-,,'hich had been built since 1066 is mentioned
separately, f. I I7b) then Domesday records a population for 1066 offrom 1437 to
1518. Certainty is impossible; but IFo is so fOund a figure(11 X 120) that it is in
any case open to suspicion of being nominal, antiquated or merely fiscal. That
Norwich's mint was one of the four most important after London is a further
indication of the city's significance in the late Anglo,Saxon period: Anp/o-Saxoll
Coins, ed. R. H. M. Dolley (1961), 133; cj. 144.
24 In particular St Peter l1ancroft (Dam. Bk ii, f. I I 8); probably St Giles (First Reg. 82);
St Paul(A. Saltman, Tbeobald, J4rcbbisbop o{CanterbllrY(1956), no. 188); St John,
Timberhill (Nor/. iv, 126); St Stephen (because of its site and dedication);
St \'Cinwaloy (below n. 26). The dedication of the two St George's churches suggests
a date after the First Crusade, though this dedication rna\' have been in use some­
what earlier; that of the three St ~Iargaret's may indicate a date towards 1100.
Losinga may have founded a further unidentified church: First Reg. 32.
19 All Saints (uncertain which); St Martin (? at Palace); St Michael, Tombland; Holy
Trinity; St Laurence; St Simon and St Jude; St Sepulchre. SifHaed's will (see above
p. 3 n. 22) mentions St Mary (unclear which) and Christ Church (for which see
below Appendix II).
26 Structural evidence: St Julian, St "'[ary Coslany, St Vedast (not structural precisely­
a pre,Conquest carved stone), St Gregory, St Benedict, St Augustine:
A. B. Whittingham and E. M. Jope, NA xxx (1947-52),32-2; H. M. and J. Taylor, Anf!.Io-Saxon Arcbitecture (1965), ii, 470-5; A. Carter and P. Roberts, N A xxxv (197°-73),455-7; work of pre-c. 1100 survives also in two of the churches mentioned in Domesday (St Sepulchre and Holy Trinity) and in St John, Timberhill. Dedications: St Olave (Pitt St), St Olave (King St), St Clement (Conesford), St Clement (Colegate), St Swithin, St Botolph, St Edward, St Etheldreda, St Edmund, St Ethelbert (also St Vedast and St Julian where there is architectural evidence). It has been suggested that the dedication to St Winwaloy indicates early date (SA xxx (1947-52), 32 I). It is more probably post,Conquest: see my forthcoming [as of 1975] article in Studia IIibernica. 27 E. J. Tench, J,\~A xvii (19°8-10),42-5; Shape, 19.
28 ",\~A XXX\', 447-8; cf. below p. 4 and for the site of Christ Church, Appendix II.
Z9 See below p. 9.
30 The key articles on the archaeology of early Norwich are: E. ;\1. Jope,
'Excavations in the City of Norwich 1948', NA xxx(1947-SZ), 287-323; J. G. Hurst
and J. Golson, 'Excavations at St Benedict's Gates Norwich, 1951 and 1953', NA
xxxi (195 5-57), 5-1 12; J. G. Hurst, 'Excavations at Barn Rd, Norwich 1954', NA
xxxiii (1962-65), 131-79; A. Carter, 'Excavations in Norwich, 1971', N A xxxv
(197°-73),410-15; A. Carter and P. Roberts, 'Excavations in Norwich, 1972',
443-68 .
31 See Appendix IV (c).
25 3
Copyright text
NORWICH
not to say that one settlement, presumably 'Korwich', was not in all
probability much more important than the others.
j\rchaeology has so far revealed two settlements Yen" probabh" going
back to the ninth century. The more important lal" on the north-eastern
edge of what was to become the Close. Sites in or hl- Palace St, Palace
Plain and the far western end of Bishopsgate ha,"e produced both
Ipswich ware (used in East j\nglia from the seventh to the ninth centun")
and a series of sherds of imported potten", beginning ,vith Badorf ware,
which came from the Rhineland in the ninth or tenth centun".32 It looks
as if there was an important trading settlement here, at a point where a
granl terrace extends in a slight spur towards that part of the ri,'er
where lay what was probabh" in earh' medieyal times the main qua,". The
second early. settlement la,'- immediateh". inside and outside St Benedict's
gates. Here too a little Ipswich ware, and imported potten' from the
ninth or tenth centun' on have been found. The nature of the settlement
is uncertain. 33 Fragments of Ipswich ware ha,'e been found elsewhere: b,'
Blackfriars and east and west of the Castle. 34 The,' rna," indicate no more
than minor settlements, if that. But caution is required. Onh" a tiny
proportion of the cit",s surface has been scientifically excavated. The
recognition of odd sherds of potten- on building sites and else\vhere is a
random affair. Ipswich ware is both the onl~' fairly common artefact
(coins apart) which identifies settlement between the seventh and the
tenth centuries, and also seems to have been less widely available than
Thetford ware. It follows that there may have been much eighth or ninth
century settlement in Norwich of which no trace has been found. In
particular it would be surprising if there were not some early settlement
in south Conesford. 35
The archaeological record for the next two centuries is more extensive.
Thetford ware, the pottery used in East Anglia from the ninth century
until the twelfth, has been found on a series of sites. ~-\ considerable pro­
portion of the Thetford ware found is of types likely to have been in
use during the earlier rather than the later part of the long period during
which pottery of this kind was made. Its distribution suggests, though it
does not prove, that settlement became much more extensive in the
tenth and eleventh centuries. The most important discover~' is that pot­
tery was manufactured on a large scale in 0:orwich. Very large numbers
of sherds (including wasters), kiln waste and the remains of a kiln have
been found in the area immediately north-west of the Castle. 36 There is
little doubt that this was a specialized industrial area and the discovery in
kiln waste of newly minted coins of immediately after the Conquest
shows that it was in being by then. By the thirteenth century there is no
slgn of pottery making in Norwich. So Pottergate has kept its name
from an activity unlikeh' to have been carried on there for eight hundred
,'ears.
,\ crucial question is that of whether earh, 0:orwich was fortified, and,
if so, where. It has attracted much speculative attention. For example,
Stephenson, observing the curious re-entrant of the medieval wall by
Ber St Gates suggested that an earh, fortification nla" have run north­
wards from there to the river, along Ber St and to the east of the Great
Cockey.37 Recently ?vir Carter has put forward the ven' interesting theory
that the line of streets and property boundaries suggests a Imrh fortifica­
tion of roughly rectangular shape immediateh- south of the river and
enclosing the later Close area in its eastern part. 3 ' Cnfortunateh", when
Professor Jope dug on the line of Stephenson's fortification, and when
:\Ir Carter dug on that of his own, neither found what he sought. ;\ new
possibility has been raised by the disconn' of a ditch under St .i\Iartin's
I.ane in the north-west. A relativeh' earh- fortification here would be in
accordance with documentary evidence. 39 0:eyertheless if there was, as is
likeh", an earh- tenth-century burh fortification at Korv.:ich it is probable
that it lal- largely south of the river, that it was in close association with
fIe Bridge, Whitefriars Bridge, or both, and that it included St Michael's,
Tombland, which Domesday shows to have been the richest and probab­
ly therefore the most important church in the city.40 It has always to
be borne in mind that Norwich grew greatly in the late Saxon period and
also suffered at least one disaster, the assault b~' Swegn in 1004. It may
have had more fortifications than one, either simultaneously or in
succession. 41
Parish and other boundaries do a little to reveal the stages by which
the city grew before the Conquest. The clearest instance is in the north­
west. The map of parish boundaries makes it seem very likely that the
parish of St Clement's was once continuous from the river to north of the
line of the medieval walls. There is documentary evidence indicating that
the parishes of St Augustine's and St Martin's at Oak were cut out of it
and the same may be true of other parishes in the area. 42 St Olave's (Pitt
Street) must be late, for St Olaf was no martyr until 1°30. There is other
evidence to suggest that development north of St Martin's Lane was
relatively late. Domesday describes a fair-sized place in Forehoe Hundred
called Toketop. No village of that name can be found at a later date.
C. Stephenson, Borough and Town (I933), facing I98; E. M. Jope, N A xxx (1947-5 2),
29 2. 38 l\"A xxxv (I970-73), 444, 447-8. The suggested line is (1789 names): Elm Hill St, E. along the N. side of St Martin's Plain and World's End Lane, turning S. so as
just to include St Helen's (first) church, then W. in the line of and along Seven Coal
Rowand along Blue Boar Lane and St Michael's St.
'9 For knmdedge of this I am obliged to Mr Carter and Miss Green. For documentary
evidence see below pp. 4-5. If the line is extended E. it comes near St Botolph's
church, a dedication commonly found near gates; and if. Appendix IV (c) for
Mereholt.
<0 If most of the burh lay S. of the river it may still have extended far enough N. to
cover the bridges. That St Martin's parish extended N. of Whitefriars Bridge is
suggestive. There may have been quays on the N. as well as the S. bank W. of that
bridge as the name Fishergate suggests. A large anchor was said to have been found
when a cellar was dug in St Edmund's parish in I686: Norwich Public Libr., Rye
:\[s 9 (2), last item, f. I 35'; cf. below p. I4. It may be that the Spiteldike (Streets,
88-9) marked the N. limit of the burh.
41 If Norwich was of Scandinavian foundation a fort beside the main settlement, replacing or supplementing circumvallation, may have to be reckoned with, if. G. Jones, History ofthe Vikings (I 968), 167, I69.
42 See map 4. Two-thirds of the tithes of those parts of the Gildencroft lying in the
parishes of St Augustine and St Martin at Oak ,Yent to St Clement's church in the
medieval period. The arrangement is analagous to that required in Edgar's second
code when a thegn founded a church on his own bookland; two thirds of the tithes
were to be retained by the 'old minster': Sorj. iv, 453 n., 484-5; Laws of the Kings of
l'.nglandfrom Edmund to Henry I, ed. A. J. Robertson (I 92 5), 2 I. (In I 8th-century
maps the name Gildencroft was applied to a smaller area than in the medieval
period when it denoted everything between St Martin's Lane and the walls.)
St Clement's also received two-thirds of the tithes from the old Dominican site
(if. below p. I I) which suggests that it antedates St John's (Colegate) and St Mary's
Unbrent.
37
32 Med.
Arch. i (I957), I48; iii (I95 9), I 59; viii (I 964),267; J. G. Hurst, SA xxxiii
(I962-65), I47-50; A. Carter and P. Roberts, NA xxxv, 4I4, 443-68; J. G. Hurst,
Proc. Camb. Antiq. Soc. I (I95 7), 35. (On the 1789 map modern Palace St and Plain
are called St Martin's Street and Plain).
33 J. G. Hurst and J. Golson, N A xxxi (I95 5-57), 5-II 2; J. G. Hurst, ."\' A xxxiii(I962­
65), I 3 I-79. The traces of late Anglo-Saxon settlement extended oyer a considerable
area and period. They included remains of a large timber building with at least
three rooms over 20 ft long, and dated with some confidence to before I IOO, and
iron-smelting residues of, probably, before the mid-I2th century. The nature of
this site is uncertain. If the Fye Bridge causeway, which leaves only a 6 ft gap for
boats, was already there this area would have been above the head of navigation
and the imported pottery may indicate consumption rather than commerce.
34 This and other statements about the distribution of pottery are based on a map
prepared for an interim repol! of the Norwich Survey, to which I was kindly given
access.
35 If so it may well have centred on St Etheldreda's, whose extensive tithe rights (Norf. iv, 75) suggest an early date. Early Conesford may have extended to the E. bank of the river, see Appendix 1.
36 The finds of Thetford ware are most numerous S. of the river: the main
concentration is in the central area N. of the Castle, but they have been made as far
\Y/. as St Benedict's Gates, as far E. as Bishopsgate and as far S. as the S. end of
Ber St. Finds N. of the river are much scarcer, but occur nearly as far!'.". as
t\[agdalen Gates. That Thetford ware has not been found in large areas N. of the
river and of S. Conesford is likely to be by chance. The industrial area is that lying
on either side of Pottergate (as named in 1789) approximately from N. of the Castle
to S. of St Gregory's church.
4
Copyright text
.
----------------------------""':.~.,~:;:,;,;,""'.=,;~
NORWICH
picture is one of extensive though not necessarily continuous growth
between the early tenth and the mid-eleventh century. As the evidence
stands it looks as if the crucial period for the emergence of Norwich
from being something more than a merely rural settlement or settlements
was c.8 50 to c.925.
If so, then this took place under the Danes who started to invade East
Anglia by 865, and from c.870 to 917 ruled it. There is evidence for con­
siderable Scandinavian settlement, especially in the Broadland area. In
Norwich itself Scandinavian influence is apparent, notably in the almost
invariable employment of 'gate' for 'street' in the medieval period.
Granted that the Danes, in England and elsewhere, centred their rule on
bases such as the Five Boroughs, or Dublin, Waterford, Wexford and
Cork, which were both strongholds and commercial centres, one may
wonder whether Norwich did not fulfil the same role in the Danish
kingdom of East Anglia and owe its rise to this. There is no direct
evidence at all to support this hypothesis. The archaeological record has
no trace of Danes in Norwich at this periodY But it contains precious
few traces of Danes anywhere in East Anglia or even in Lincoln, one of
the Five Boroughs, and so its blankness need not mean very much. The
other great East Anglian town of the late Anglo-Saxon period, Thetford,
which seems to have originated at much the same time as Norwich, and
resembled it in several ways, is known to have been a Danish base. 48
Three processes seem to have coincided in East Anglia in the later ninth
and the early years of the tenth century: Danish conquest and rule, the
emergence of Thetford and Norwich which were to become the greatest
towns of the area, and the appearance of Thetford ware, a new type of
pottery which was produced in quantities apparently exceeding those in
which any ware had been produced since Roman times, and which was
manufactured at both Thetford and Norwich. It is tempting to connect
these processes. It has been suggested that Thetford ware was first made
in England by potters from the Rhineland, who came in shortly after the
Danes settled in Thetford and elsewhere. 49 If this is true, then the Danes
may have been largely responsible for introducing to East Anglia an
industry which could have had very important effects on the economy of
the region. 50 It is worth observing that in the contemporary Danish
trading town of Hedeby there was a specialized manufacturing quarter
and that pottery was produced there on a large scale. 51 In this unsatis­
factory state of hypothesis the connexion between the Danes and the rise
of Norwich has at present to be left.
Whatever the causes of its rise, Norwich had risen to great importance
before 1066. What made it prosper so? Partly it was its position as centre
of government in the late Anglo-Saxon period. The city's position in the
post-Conquest governmental system suggests that for the Normans, and
probably for their predecessors, it was the capital of all East Anglia. The
castle built there immediately after the Conquest was the only royal
Castle in East Anglia until c. I 166. 52 In Edward the Confessor's reign, for
much of the Norman period, and for long afterwards, Norfolk and
Suffolk shared a sheriff and Norwich was the administrative centre for
both counties. 53 In the Anglo-Norman period the county courts of
l':orfolk and Suffolk seem generally to have met together at NorwichY
Blomefield identified it with a medieval manor called Tolthorpe or
Tokethorpe lying partly inside and partly outside the walls of Norwich,
including the open space called the Gildencroft where the manor court
met. The general case for this area's having been outside the eleventh­
century hundred of Norwich is strengthened, though Blomefield's case
confused, by a statement made in the late thirteenth century that the
hundred court of Taverham Hundred met in the Gildencroft. 43 It looks
as if St Augustine's and St Olave's churches were associated with subur­
ban development of the kind found in other English towns at the end of
the Saxon period. 44 The three churches of St Margaret's Fyebridgegate,
All Saints' Fyebridgegate and St Botolph's may represent a late-Saxon
development of a similar kind in the north-east. Neither development
seems to have been notably successful. Much of the Gildencroft remains
open today. In the Middle Ages the area of northern Fyebridgegate seems
to have been· thinly inhabited; it was devastated by fire at some early
date, for by the thirteenth century St Margaret's, and also St Mary's
somewhat to the south were called In Combusto 45 (in the burned area).
A comparable, but more successful, development has been traced by
Mr Carter in the central area. He has pointed out that the parishes of
St Laurence, St Margaret, St Swithin and St Benedict look as if they have
been cut out of that of St Gregory. The foundation of St Laurence's can
be dated to between 1038 and 1066 and excavation of St Benedict's
church suggests that it was built in the late eleventh century. It therefore
appears that the development of this area took place to a large extent in
the eleventh century, though it may have started somewhat earlier.
In short, notwithstanding the great limitations of the evidence from
written and other sources, it is consistent in indicating the great size and
importance of Norwich by the end of the Anglo-Saxon period. The
archaeological evidence suggesting development and foreign contacts
from the ninth century accords quite well with the first appearance of the
borough, and name, of Norwich in the early tenth. 46 The general
Dom. Bk ii, f. 145 b; Norj. iv, 453-5,478, 491; if. J. C. Tingey, NA xv (19°2-4),
115-25 and E. A. Kent, NA xxix (1946),222-7. The 13th-century source is the
narrative of the founding of Norwich Cathedral found in a Binham cartulary
(Dugdale, Mon. iv, 14). It must be of about 12.72, for Binham's only connexion with
Norwich was when its prior had charge of the Cathedral Priory for a few months in
that year: Cal. Pat. I 266-72,679,682. The problems of the N\'\'. are complicated
by the fact that in the Middle Ages some of the city's agricultural land lay immedi­
ately outside the walls in the area under discussion. Perhaps Tokethorpe was not so
much a rural settlement included in Norwich as the city expanded but rather an
estate carved out of the borough fields (by the Toki whom Domesday records with
land there?); if. ]. Tait, The Medieval English Borough (1936),72.-3; Dom. Bk ii, f.145 b •
There is additional evidence for an ancient and complex relationship between
Norwich and Taverham Hundred.
44 E.g. H. M. Colvin in Medieval England, ed. A. L. Poole(1958), i, 53,56;]. W. F. Hill,
Medieval Lincoln (I 948), 57; W. G. Urry, Canterbury under the Angevin Kings (1967),
186.
45 ;V A xxxv (197°-73), 453-4. St Gregory's early significance is suggested by its
having been regarded in the 1Iiddle Ages as a sanctuary of special importance:
NA ii (I 849),267-9. There is evidence to suggest that expansion was relatively late
on much of the E. side of the city. In 1286 it was claimed that the parishes of
St Mathew, St Martin (at Palace), St Helen and St Paul were not in Norwich but in
Blofield Hundred: Norj. iv, 375. This puts some of the area in which very early
development took place outside the early hundred of Norwich and the claim could
be dismissed as being part of the Priory's campaign against the citizens were it not
that there is earlier evidence that some of the area in the loop of the Wensum,
including St Mary's in the Marsh had been part of Thorpe : First Reg. 36; Dugdale,
Mon. iv, 13. The claim that St Paul's was or had been outside the city has some
force. It was stated on another occasion in the 13th century to be in Forehoe
Hundred and was certainly developed late: Rot. Hund. i, 452" and if. below p. 9.
The parish of St ] ames in the Middle Ages extended far outside the walls; it was
the church of Pockthorpe, which consisted mostly of a home farm for the Cathedral
Priory with an extensive fold-course and run from the Monks' Grange (alias the
Lathes), possibly the unidentified Letha of Dom. Bk and to be distinguished from
another Lathes in the Gildencroft: A. B. Whittingham, Arch. Jnl cvi (1949),75.
The indications are that the NE. of the city approximately E. of Rotten Row (later
Peacock St) and N. of Fishergate may have lain outside the early bounds of Norwich.
46 The 9th-century date depends on the dating of Badorf ware to this century. It may be somewhat later. 43 With the exception ofa cross-shaft of Anglo-Danish type; W. Hudson, NA xiii
(1895-97), II6-2.6. 48 Two Saxon Chrons. ed Plummer, i, 70-71. 49 Clarke, East Anglia, 172.. Thetford ware does seem to imitate Rhineland pottery (S. C. Dunning, Med. Arch. iii (1959),34); and the Danes certainly brought other
Frankish technicians, moneyers, to the Danelaw: l\I. Dolley, VikingCoinsoftke
Danelaw and of Dublin (1965), 17-2.0.
50 Cj. below pp. 7-8. 51 H. ]ankuhn, Haithabu, ein Handelsplatz der Wikingerzeit (1956),2.08-2.15, esp. 2.15. 52 King's Works, ed. H. M. Colvin, i (1965), 69-70. 53 W. A. Morris, Medieval Sheri!J(192.7), 2.3-4,47,76,79-81;]. H. Round, EHRxxxv (192.0),481-96; M. H. Mills in Studies Presented to Sir Hilary Jenkinson (1957), ed.]. Conway Davies, 2.54. 54 See below p. 8 n. 92.. 47
5
Copyright text
NORWICH
dustrial activity in :'\'orwich. 61 The evidence from Thetford, probably a
similar town, and much more extensi\-eh' excavated, is comparable. 62
A,dd to this the much greater abundance of Thetford ware than of any
earlier Anglo-Saxon potter~' in East Anglia and its appearance on a large
number of rural sites, and it becomes a reasonable assumption that
making consumer goods for peasants was a major activity at Norwich
and Thetford. 63
The commerce of Norwich certainh- extended far beyond East Anglia.
But how important distant trade was in relation to local trade or how it
was connected with local trade is not known. l\;orwich was one of a
series of major towns in eastern England which, although they lay con­
siderably inland, were for long the main, and probably the only ports:
London, Ipswich, Lincoln, York, Cambridge and perhaps Thetford. All
the ports of eastern England lying on or nearer to the coast were de­
yeloped later, their history beginning after, or not long before, II 00:
Dunwich, Great Yarmouth, Lynn, Boston, Barton, Hull. Cntil Yar­
mouth started to grow, and Yarmouth was nothing much at the time of
Domesday, Norwich was the principal port for much of East Anglia.
Our eyidence for its foreign trade is meagre. The foreign pottery pre­
vioush- mentioned indicates some trade with the Rhineland from, it may
be, the ninth century and with France probably at latest from the
eleyenth. 64 The dedication of a pre-Conquest church to St Vaast and
St ~\mand suggest a Flemish colony in Norwich. 65 It is likely that there
was trade with Scandinavia and this probably accounts for the Domesday
requirement that Norwich should furnish the king with a bear. The only
direct evidence for contacts with England outside East Anglia in the
eleventh century is the presence of Stamford and St Neots wares and the
use of some Midland stone. 66 The most important unknown factor is the
wool trade. If wool exports were important in the eleventh century they
were probably important for Norwich, for Domesday records numerous
sheep in the area. 67
Domesday Book indicates that in 1066 the agricultural land within the
hundred of Norwich amounted to at least six hundred and twenty-nine
and a half 'acres' and one and a half ploughlands of arable, pasture, and
meadow. 68 The largest holdings were those of the king and the earl, who
together held 180 'acres' and of St Michael's church, with I 18 'acres';
most of the others were small. It is unlikely that any of these lands lay in
Thorpe or Heigham and by 1066 the built up area had extended up to or
into these manors in the areas immediately south of the Wensum. 69 It is
therefore likely that the city'S agricultural lands lay mainly (i) in the
south-west in the quadrant bounded by the Wensum on the east and
Heigham on the north, including the lands on which the French borough
and Carrow Abbey 70 were later built; (ii) north of the Wensum in the
area bounded by the river on the west and by the western boundary of
Thorpe on the east and extending northwards perhaps to the northern
boundary of St Clement's parish; there were certainly what appear to
The other paired counties of England were relatively small and/or thinly
populated. 0Iorfolk and Suffolk were neither. That one castle, and often
one sheriff, and both at l\;orwich should have sufficed in ~orman eyes
for two big, rich and populous shires is testimony not onh' to the
geographical advantages of the city but, probably, to its role before the
Conquest. 5 \
The most important cause of the remarkabkprosperit,- of0:orwich in
the late Saxon period was presumably its function as a centre providing a
market, goods and services for an important hinterland. Domesday Book
makes it appear likely that the area within t\vent,- miles of ;'\orwich was
the most densely populated in England. Seven of the hundreds within
this range had recorded populations of over twenty to the square mile.
Only three other hundreds in England had so dense a population. \6 The
Domesday figures are open to question in so far as the same man may
often have been recorded in more than one vi/i, but there is good reason
to accept the general impression they give as true. \ 7
It seems that early Norwich not only had an unusualh' thickh' popu­
lated hinterland but also an unusually large one whose area owed more to
political than to strictly economic or geographical causes. According to
Domesday, while people were ven' numerous in East Anglia, towns
were very few. Norfolk had the highest recorded population among the
English counties, Suffolk the third highest. Yet l\'orfolk had only three
places with burgesses in 1086 and Suffolk seven, and four of the ten
were very small and probably of recent foundation. Contrast the number
of boroughs in the much more thinly peopled shires of the South West:
Wiltshire ten, Dorset five, Somerset five, Devon five. 58 The explanation
of the fewness of the towns of East A,nglia in proportion to the popula­
tion is probably political. Very many of the to\vns of southern and
Midland England owed their burghal pri"ileges, and many their origin,
to the wars between the kings of Wessex and the Danes. In the old
kingdom of Wessex they formed part of a system of defence and in the
Midlands they were often part of a system of attack. But East Anglia was
conquered too quickly by the Danes for a burghal system of defence to
have been organized th.ere and it was conquered too quickly from the
Danes for Edward the Elder to have needed to build burhs in relation to
his offensives as he did in the Midlands. In short, there would have been
no need for the establishment of burhs at regular and fairly close intervals
as there was in more bitterl,- contested areas. It ma,' be supposed that
this was why relatively few places received burghal privileges in East
Anglia. 59 If the legal limitations on trade outside a bllrh were effective
such towns would have been able to grow to a larger size than those
elsewhere in so far as the,' would have had wider areas to serve and
exploit. 60 Recent excavation has provided powerful evidence for in­
There may have been a series of earls of East Anglia from fairly early in the loth century; see H. l\1. Chad",-ick, Studies on Anglo-Saxon Institutions (190 5), 174, 179; E. A. Freeman, ""-orman Conquest, 2nd edn, ii (1870), 555-7. It ",-as alleged (c. 1272) that Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk in the Conqueror's reign, had a
palatium by Tombland: Dugdale, Mon., iv, 13; cf. above p. 5 n. 43. \X'hether or not
this was so, late Saxon earls of East Anglia probably had a substantial establish­
ment somewhere in Norwich.
56 H. C. Darby, The Domesday Geography orEastern En.Rland(3rd edn 1971), 117. The
comparison with the rest of England is based on the other volumes of Domesday
Geography, by Darby and others. The hundreds referred to are Darby's rationalized
hundreds.
57 Recorded settlements and plough-teams are also unusually dense: Dom. Geog. E.
England, I 12-1 I 3, 353, 355. A map of parish boundaries in the 19th century shows
an extraordinary concentration of small parishes in parts of E. Norfolk. It is likeh­
that all but a few parishes in this area were established before I I 50, \X'hen next we
have population ligures, in the 14th century, T\orfolk is the most densely populated
county in England: J. c. Russell, British ,Hedieral Population (1948),3 I 3.
" These ligures are taken from the relevant volumes of Dam. Geog. 59 See above p. 2. 6[) C[. ;\1. \\. Beresford, "ell' TOll'ns (1967), 279, 284, 277; it looks as if the dominance of established towns in East Anglia \,-as sufficient to pre\'ent new ones growing up,
The difficulty of determining hO\,' far settlements had the economic functions but
not the legal status of towns imposes caution in interpreting these tigures,
55 See above pp. 4-5 ; N A xxxiii (1962-65), 171; Aled. Arch. ix (1965), 173.
Clarke, East Anglia, 169-72; B. K. Davidson, Aled. Arch. xi (1967), 189-95.
63 Proc. Camb. Antiq. Soc. 1(1956),46-5°. Thetford ware has since been found on
many further rural sites. Not all such pottery was, however, made in towns.
64 The size of some of the vessels indicates that they may have contained wine. The
most imposing evidence for trade between East Anglia and the Rhineland c. 1100
comes from Great Yarmouth, where the lower part of the tower of St Nicholas
church is partly built of stone thought to be Andernach lava: A. W. Morant, NA
viii( I8 72),216.
65 The church was dedicated to the Flemish St Amand as well as to the Flemish St
Vaast (Vedast): NA xvii (I 908-10), 107.
66 ""A xxxiii (1962-65), 154-5 ; Proc. Camb. Antiq. Soc. Ii (1957), 5 I ; CBA Group 7
Bull. xiii, 5; N. Pevsner, North East Norfolk (I 962),2°7.
67 P. Sawyer, Trans. RHS 5th ser, xV(1965), 161-4; Dam. Geo,g. E. England, 142-5;
Rej;esta iii, no. 175.
68 On other assumptions about the meaning of the text the total rises to 717 'acres'
and I ~ ploughlands; in either case the land in Humbleyard Hundred and Toke­
thorpe is not included.
69 See above pp. 3,4-5.
70 ReJ!,fJta iii, no. 6 15.
61
62
6
Copyright text
,
NOR\,(ICH
have been city fields here later but the relationship between this area and
and the city in the late .\nglo-Saxon period is, as has been shown,
uncertain. 71 Much of the city's agricultural land was probably scattered
within the built-up area and some mal' have lain immediateh' east of the
Wensum in the Conesford area. 72 .\t a later date, and possibh' b" 1066,
the citizens had grazing rights extending be,'ond the cit" fields in the
south-west into Lakenham and Eaton. 73 Perhaps hereabouts lay the
eight" 'acres' of arahle and three of pasture which Domesday records as
held b," burgesses (hunzenJeJ) in Humhle,"ard Hundred. 74 The situation of
the city fields in the south-west may afford some explanation of the shape
of the built up area in the elel'enth centun".75 One thing is certain: there
can he no question of agriculture having been dominant in the economic
life of the cit,". A population so large and so dense, even in relation to
that of the ven" densely inhabited rural areas round about, cannot for
the most part have sustained itself by digging its own land or keeping its
own sheep. 71>
Fish, especialh' herring, may have formed a major source of wealth for
ele\"enth-century l\;orwich. There are a number of earh' references to
herring. Thorpe owed a rent of two thousand herring. 77 The abbe,' of
Hurl' drew a last of herring from its Norwich propertL 7, ,\ charter of
between I I 14 and I 160 records a render of at least two thousand herring
owed b\' a house in the city.7Q Among the renders which ~or\\"ich owed
to the Crmvn, certainly in the thirteenth centun", and ven' possihh in the
eleventh, were herring pies. 80 Fish, like potten' and iron-ware, was a
basic commodity needed, but not produced, in e\"ery village.
The presence of various other natural resources may have been im­
portant for the early growth of the city. The adjacent wood at Thorpe
was the largest in East Anglia and prm"ided large quantities of fuel as
late as the seventeenth century. 81 The great peat diggings which were to
form the Broads, and whose product could easih- come to ~orwich by
water, may have been in operation by 1100'2 though the earliest e\"idence
for them is from the twelfth centun-. Ven" extensive chalk mines lie
under much of the city. and in the vicinit,".
. .The,"
. . have not been fulh".
explored or studied and there is no certain e\"idence for their use before
the thirteenth century. They produced flint, and chalk which could be
used for building and for making lime. If they were in use in the .\nglo­
Saxon period (and for all that is known they may ha\"e been in use \"ery
much earlier) then their presence was probably important. 83 Domesday
records water-mills at l'\orwich. It gives no certain information on their
number, importance or site (though it is a fair guess that the more im­
portant of them laIc on either bank of the Wensum immediately up­
stream of the later St Benedict's Gates).84 The:" may have played a con­
siderable part in the development of the city, The number of mills
recorded in Domesda,", the ,-en- large revenues accruing from some and
the extensive engineering work associated \vith some make it certain that
water mills were of major importance in the late Anglo-Saxon urban
econom\-. so
)Jot enough is known about how ~orwich began to justify an attempt
to fit its origins into a categon-, It is uncertain when there was first a
fortification, a centre of government or a bridge there. The evidence is
sufficient to suggest the ninth centun' as that in which urban develop­
ment began but it is b," no means enough to exclude the possibility that
its roots were earlier, e\-en concei\-abh" Roman. It ma,- be that Norwich
\vas like some of the towns of northern Germam" and that commercial
acti\"in' de\"eloped in and near the agricultural villages on its site and
created something like a town before there was either a fortification or a
centre of g<wernment there. 8(, In Denmark it seems that Hedeby may
have del'eloped from the eighth centun' b\- the growth and merging of
perhaps three small communities. On the other hand it may be that
~orwich began as a fortified centre of East .\nglian or Danish power or
that it was of no consequence until Edward the Elder or .\thelstan built
a (h\-pothetical) !mrh fortification there. The fanc:- that the city first
became important as a Danish base has certain charms, and accords with
what evidence there is, but the positi\'e evidence in favour of this view
would hang no dog. It will be perceived that the study of the origins of
:\orwich has hardh- progressed to a point at which it can assist the
historian who is concerned to discover when in the Dark Ages settle­
ments of an urban complexion became established round the shores of
the ~orth Sea.
For the tenth century our evidence is better and for the eleventh very
much better. It becomes possible to draw conclusions which have some
degree of general significance. The most important of these is perhaps
that which is to be drawn from the nature of the evidence itself. Were it
not for Domesda\" Book and for the pottery which has been dug up and
studied in the present generation we should have no idea of how im­
portant a city Norwich was by the time of the Conquest. Without this
evidence historians might well have been inclined to date the city's rise
to the ~orman period and to associate it with the magnetic effects of the
new Castle and the new Cathedral. One may wonder how much urban
de\-elopment there was on the Continent unrecorded in written sources
and not so far traced by archaeologists. There can be little doubt that the
cin- grew a great deal in the century and a half before the Conquest. To
explain this growth attention can be drawn to the city's geographical
position, the great likelihood that it was an important centre of govern­
ment in the late\nglo-Saxon period, to the foreign trade, and to the
relationship between the city and its immediate environment. It is the
last factor which may most deserve notice for it is a tenable hypothesis
(though no more than that) that the rise of Norwich was connected with
economic changes of the greatest importance. As has already been
indicated it looks as though there may have b~en a correlation between
the emergence of Korwich and Thetford as important towns and the
appearance of new kinds of pottery, produced in the towns in quantities
and widel,-. used in the countryside.
There are indications of other forms
.
of manufacture on a considerable scale in these towns. The evidence
affords considerable support to those who lay great stress on the role of
artisans in the towns of late Anglo-Saxon England. s7 It also suggests a
See above pp. 4-5. See below Appendix I. 73 See below p. 15. 74 Dom. Bk ii, f. 118. 75 The holdings seem at a later date to haye been scattered: see below p. 13. The smallness of some of the Domesday holdings suggests open fields as does a reference
to terram eXCIIltibilem in campis: Regesta iii, no. 615. Early references to 'crofts':
'l\[annecroft' (the site of the market and St Peter's Church) and 'Theodwardscroft'
(later Newgate) may indicate enclosed land between City and open fields. ''.[anne­
croft' may be derived from an OE or O~ personal name with 'croft'; a morc
interesting possibility is that the first element derins from OE (ge)mcene (common,
communal) for which see A. H. Smith, EII/!,lisb Place ."\'ame Elements ii, 33, who
comments that many places containing this element are found on the outskirts of
parishes.
76 C]. Tait, iHedieval Borol(l!b, 71; his footnote admits that the emphasis of his statement
is exaggerated. ;; Dom. Bk ii,f. 137". 78 Dom. Bkii, f. 112"; C. R. Hart, Em'l), Cbarters o(Eastem bl/!,lalld(1966), 82. 79 Carttll. de Rameseia (RS) ii, 3 I 7-8. 80 Rot. Htlnd. i, 531"; Rec. ii, p. xiii. B1 Dom. CeoE. h. EII,?land., 127; \X'. R. Supple, Tborpe(1918), 64. R2 J. l\I. Lambert, Makin/I. of tbe Broads, 70-89. 8.1 ;\-or]. iv, 428, 'surprising caYCfl1s'; \X. Rye, SA x,' (19°2-4), 194-5, photograph of
a gallery; S. \'V'oodward, Arcbaeolopia xxiii (183 1),41 I -2, account of mines near
St Giles's Gate (\Iiss Barbara Green informs me that the plan to \\'hich \X'oodward
refers is not of I 571 as he states but much later) ; J. Arderon, Pbilosophic. Trans.
Royal Soc. no. 486 (March 1747-8), p. 244. Eastern Counties Col/ectanea (1873), 195
and N A vii 1872, 369, deer antlers found in workings, which is suggestive of early
use. There is evidence to suggest prehistoric chalk-mining very near Norwich: NA
xxviii (1942-45), 23.
71
72
" For the mills see Appendix IV (b). " E.g. R. Lennard, Rural J-:ngland 1086-11} J (1959),278-87; H. E. Salter, Medieval O:\.jord(193 6),14- 15·
86 D . .\1. 0:icholas, Studies in Aledieval and Renaissance History, vi (1969),99-100.
,; Review by E. V. Sutnova ofY. A. Levinsky, T OJl'11S and Urban Handicraft in
l:np!and (translated title) in J. F. Benton, Town Origins (1968), 37-40.
7
Copyright text
NORWICH
major economic change. The production of consumer goods on a new
scale and the concentration of such production in towns in association
with the widespread use of silver coin, rna,' have been part of a set of
economic circumstances which required and produced towns of a size
unknown since Roman times. These changes may have been more im­
portant than an" which were. to come over the English economy until
the eighteenth century. Norwich would have been in a position to profit
greatly from such changes. It had a quite exceptionally populous and
prosperous hinterland and one which probably was, or had recently been,
developing greatly. The immense, and rich, area of marshland grazing
in what had been the 'Great Estuary' probably became for the most part
available for agricultural use in the later Anglo-Saxon period. Norwich
was probably also helped by the effectiveness of royal power in tenth­
century England, which may have given it advantages over a wider
catchment area than it would 'naturally' have had.
and the 'Castle i\feadmv' (the eastern bailey) may have been just what
its name suggests.
The building of the Norman Cathedral transformed another large part
of Norwich. Until 1072 the seat of the East Anglian see was at North
Elmham. It was then moved to Thetford. But in about 1095 Herbert de
Losinga moved it again, to Norwich. There he began to build a great
Cathedral and a Cathedral Prior\' for sixt\' monks in the area immediately
to the south and west of the bend in the Wensum. The monastic build­
ings lay to the south of the Cathedral, to the north de Losinga built a
palace for himself, which included a small stone keep, the oldest known
in East Anglia. 93 It looks rather as if de Losinga was concerned to carve
out a citt! episcopale of a kind familiar on the Continent since Carolingian
times,94 and the site he acquired was ven' large. It came from several
sources. Part already belonged to the see. 95 Tombland with part of the
adjoining area (terra Sancti Michaelis) was obtained from Roger Bigod by
exchange. 96 The eastern part of the site was part of Thorpe and given by
Henry I. 97 The remainder, the land 'from the bishop's land to the water
and from St Martin's Bridge to the land of St l\fichael' was obtained, in
form, from the king, probably in fact from others. 98 Much of the site was
meadow but the western part was alread\' built up and at least two
churches there had to be demolished: St Michael's (the most important
in the city) and another (probably Christ Church). 1\'ot all the urban area
which de Losinga acquired was incorporated into the monastic precinct.
Holme Street, Tombland and Ratten Row formed throughout the Middle
Ages a built-up fringe to the Close, distinct from the rest of the city
chiefly in that their inhabitants lived under a different jurisdiction. 99
De Losinga's ambitions were by no means limited to the immediate
environs of his new Cathedral. 'They extended to the new sea-ports of
Lynn and Yarmouth; the former he made an episcopal town, in the latter
he did all he could to gain power. He established cells of the Cathedral
Priory in different places in East Anglia. Thus he built not only a great
cathedral but also a very considerable ecclesiasticalempire and turned the
hitherto poor see of East Anglia into a power in the land. The conse­
quences of his success for Norwich were lasting. Besides establishing a
powerful monastery with franchisal jurisdiction within the city, he
acquired the greater part of the rural environment of Norwich for the
church. In the Anglo-Saxon period Norwich had only one ecclesiastical
neighbour, the abbot of St Benet's of Holme, who owned Heigham.
Otherwise the lands surrounding the city were mainly either royal
demesne or in the hands of relatively small proprietors. This may have
done much to explain the ease with which it seems to have expanded into
the surrounding countryside. But de Losinga acquired for the Cathedral
NORM.AN j\1\D EJ\RLY ;\NGEVIN NORWICH
The Normans, by building the Castle, the Cathedral and the French
borough did more in fifty years to change the topograph,' of Norwich
than their successors were to accomplish in five hundred. A castle was
built there before 1075.88 It lay, and lies, at the northern end of the ridge
along which Ber Street runs, so having the English borough to the east
and north and the new French borough to the west. The only royal
castle for the two great counties of 1\orfolk and Suffolk, it had to be a
big one. Even now it is an impressive sight with its stone keep (probably
built c. I I 20-C. I 130) standing on a partly artificial mound which rises over
sixty feet from the surrounding ditch. In the ~fiddle Ages it was more
impressive still: the mound was more extensive and was surrounded by a
system of great earthworks. These earthworks may nearly all have been
made immediately after the Conquest, for Domesday Book implies that
ninety-eight burgages had been taken over to make room for the Castle;
but it is possible that they were extended in the twelfth century. 89 The
'Castle Fee', the area within the jurisdiction of the Castle, did not be­
come part of the borough in a legal or administrative sense until 1345. 90
Norwich Castle, like some other Norman castles, enclosed as much
g.round as a small Roman town, and its size demands some explanation.
In the first generations after the Conquest the permanent garrison was
probably of some size. 91 It is possible that urban castles such as this were
a substitute for a town wall and intended to accommodate burgesses and
their goods in time of trouble. The Castle was the base for sheriffs and
other royal officials who had to accommodate livestock, collected or dis­
trained upon in accordance with, or not infrequently in contravention of,
their duties. 92 Space, and perhaps grazing, for many animals was needed
Dodwell, Trans. RHS 5th ser. vii (195 I), I -18; J. \\C'. Alexander, Studies in ,Hedieval and Renaissance History, vi (1969), 131-8. The plan of the Cathedral, palace and Priory is based on A. B. Whittingham's (Arcb. Jnl cvi (1949),86), on The EarlY Communar and Pitancer Rolls of Norulicb Catbedral Priory, ed. A. B. Whittingham and E. C. Fernie (Norf. Rec. Soc. 1972) and on information kindly supplied by Mr Whittingham. The abbot of Ely also had a fortified house at Norwich by c. 1082: Regesta i, no. 153. J. Hubert, Settimane di studio del centro italiano di studi suiI' alto medioevo, vi (1959), 93 B.
GlIenta, where, according to \Villiam of Poitiers, there was a castle in 1067 has
sometimes, but wrongly, been identified with 1\orwich: F. Barlo\\', Antiq. Jnl xlh'
(19 64), 217-9·
89 Dom. Bk ii, f. I 17; D. F. Renn, 1,'orman Ca.itles (1968), 3 I, 39. The reconstruction of
the earthworks (whose disposition has long been controversial) on the map is the
work of Col. Johns and is based on the evidence presented in B. Green, Norwich
Castle (1970); Streets; F. R. Beecheno, 'l\iotes on the Ditches of Norwich Castle'
(1908) (Ms in the Castle ;,Iuseum); H. Harrod, Gleanings among the Castles and
Convents of Norfolk (I 857); \'C Rye, lYorJl'icb Castle (Holt, 192 I); S. \\'oodward,
The History and Antiquities of Norwich Castle (I 847); J. Kirkpatrick, History of the
Religious Orders in Norwicb (1845) and Sotes Concerning Xorwicb Castle (1847)
together with information on observations and unpublished excavations kindly
provided by :\Iiss Green, who does not necessarily agree with our conclusions,
which are to a considerable extent based on hypothesis.
90 See below p. 12. 91 Regesta iii, no. 757. 92 Rot. Hund. i, 448", 450t, 45 1",466",491.,492",5 12b. In the 1\orman and early Angevin period the County Court was not held (or not inyariably held) in the
Castle, but sometimes in the churches of St Giles or St Stephen and once in the
bishop's garden: St Benet,nos. 120,178,2 I 7 and Tbe Pincbbeck Re,~ister, ed. F. Hervey
(19 25),297.
8' 94
549-54· First Reg. 37,44; Regesta ii, no. 762. Possibly the site of 14 mansiones given by William I to the Bishop of Elmham ad principalem sedem episcopatus: Dom. Bk ii, f. 117. 96 First Reg. 26; T. Martin, Thetford(I779), 36. 97 First Reg. 30; Regesta ii, 548; aboye, p. 5 n. 45. 9B First Ret. 44-5; Regesta ii, no. 762; First Reg. 24 (a late text stating that part of the site came from (the ?) citizens of Nondch). :-Iany details of the acquisition of the
site are obscure. There is some doubt on how much of the~. part of the area of the
bishop's palace was obtained by de Losinga. In 13 I 8 Bishop Salmon was licensed to
acquire land there to extend the palace. Its terms suggest that all or most of the
area bevond the' 13 I 8 boundar\" indicated on map 7 \\'as inyolved (H. Harrod,
",'A vi (1864), 136; Cal. Pat. 1 J J 7-21, 573). The boundary is taken from Harrod's
map. On the other hand c. I 272 the precinct was held to include illam vacuam
placeam terrae iacentem ante portas palacii episcopi versus aqllilonem.
99 See below pp. 14-15.
95 8
Copyright text