Wittenberg University

What’s in a Name;

An Examination of Scandinavian Groups and their Interactions in Viking Age

Ireland

A Thesis Submitted to

the Faculty of the History Department

by

Anna-Claire Crichton

Springfield, Ohio

April 2021

Crichton 2

In 1014, Brian Boru, a subordinate king in Ireland from the Munster family, became a famous figure of Irish history when he was struck down in a battle against a king of

Scandinavian descent in a supposed attempt to unify Ireland under Boru’s rule. It is an idealistically triumphant story: one where Boru stands up for his people against the heathens, claiming Ireland for the native population. Later chroniclers of texts such as the Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh would use this moment to paint a shining figure of unification, with Boru gaining high kingship for his descendants within the political sphere of Ireland.1 Boru was “the royal champion…he was the last man that had true valor in Erinn.”2 But, just as every hero needs a martyrdom, they also require an enemy. The obvious antagonist for a battle later interpreted in such a way, would fall upon Sitric Silkenbeard—a King of Dublin who happened to be of

Scandinavian descent. This battle would later begin to be portrayed as a fight for ethnic and nationalistic integrity as that concept developed in the nineteenth century, along with the

Romantic period notions of describing “the Vikings” as one conglomerate group of raiders and aggressors. 3 Ultimately, Silkenbeard and a general discussion of “foreigners” has been used to describe the opposition to Brian Boru. Silkenbeard would be described as the adversary against

Boru’s attempts at unification while simultaneously being identified as “the foreign” king and aggressor, aiding in the purpose behind Boru’s political actions.4 Boru’s attempts at liberation from the Vikings were framed with intentions of unification for Ireland, rather than personal gain on Boru’s behalf.

1 The Annals of Ulster [1014] (Dublin: Dublin Inst. for Advanced Studies, 1983), 449. 2 Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh, 187. 3 John Bradley, “Some Reflections on the Problem of Scandinavian Settlement in the Hinterland of Dublin during the Ninth Century,” in Dublin in the Medieval World (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2009): 47. 4 The Annals of Inisfallen, s.a. [1000] (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1988). Crichton 3

While this dichotomy is heavily portrayed and has been interpreted thusly, the narrative of Boru and Silkenbeard’s tension stemming from ethnic boundaries becomes quite complicated.

Despite being referred to as the king of the foreigners of Dublin, a title given to Scandinavians throughout various Irish sources such as the Annals of Ulster, the Annals of Inisfallen, and the

Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh, Silkenbeard’s background as well as political connections were not strictly one identification.5 His alliances and family connections were a mixture of both Irish and Scandinavian, demonstrating a lack of ethnic boundaries. His own mother, Gormflaith, was an Irish woman, connecting Sitric Silkenbeard with political support from Irish origins. For Sitric

Silkenbeard, his family was the first place he sought out aide from when Brian Boru and his political lust for high kingship began encroaching on Dublin. Preceding the Battle of Clontarf,

Sitric sought out allies from his Irish mother’s family. His uncle, Máel Mórda mac Murchada,

King of Leinster, would form an alliance with him against Brian throughout various conquests leading up to the Battle of Clontarf.6 For a battle allegedly based upon ethnic distinctions, these strict boundaries were further skewed when, at the Battle of Clontarf in 1014, both sides strayed from that idea of distinct Irish and Scandinavian identities and loyalties. Viking mercenaries were recruited by both Brian Boru and Sitric Silkenbeard from the Scottish isles and potentially even the Isle of Man.7 Therefore, the supposed ethnic battle was actually fought using individuals from a mirage of ethnic backgrounds—Celtic, Norse…even Anglo-Saxon.8 It seems the “king of the foreigners” found allies outside of his supposed ethnic distinction, though political alliances through his mother were not the only multicultural bonds formed around the

5 Ibid., [1000]. 6 Benjamin Hudson, Viking Pirates and Christian Princes: Dynasty, Religion, and Empire in the North Atlantic (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2005):86. 7 Ibid., 65. 8 Wendy Davies, “States and Non-States in the Celtic World.” In Der Frühmittelalterliche Staat - Europäische Perspektiven, (Austrian Academy of Science Press, 2009): 160. Crichton 4

Battle of Clontarf. Brian Boru—the great defender of Ireland—was no different, drawing support from individuals with a variety of backgrounds.

After subordinating Sitric Silkenbeard and his allies during initial conflicts such as the

Battle of Glen Máma in 999, Boru chose to not only restore Silkenbeard to his throne in Dublin, but also formed a marriage agreement.9 Boru married Silkenbeard’s mother, Gormflaith, and

Sitric took on Brian Boru’s daughter as one of his wives.10 Perhaps Boru felt that creating marriage ties between the two kings would help perpetuate some amount of subordination from

Silkenbeard. Either way, it would seem that ethnic integrity did not weigh too heavily on the mind of the supposed great defender of Ireland when this agreement was made. Through these mixed alliances and marriage agreements, the whole affair seems less of a battle for the “native right” of land and more of a family squabble for power.11 While Boru has been given the basic descriptor of an Irishman fighting for control and kingship of his land—it could be considered that Silkenbeard was simply functioning with similar intentions.

Though Silkenbeard would continue to rule in Dublin after the conflict, with his city prospering in wealth from continued trade, the Battle of Clontarf has been widely perceived as a moment of liberation from Viking involvement in Ireland.12 With national significance attributed to the Battle of Clontarf, in addition to the inflated political idea of Brian Boru “as the liberator of Ireland from Viking oppression,” the Battle of Clontarf has been “hugely influential on later scholars and ultimately popular imagination.”13

9 Clare Downham, “Viking Ethnicities: A Historiographic Overview,” History Compass 10, no. 1 (2012): 6. 10 Benjamin Hudson, Viking Pirates and Christian Princes, 95. 11 CGG71 12 John Haywood, Northmen: the Viking Saga, 793-1241 AD. (London: Head of Zeus, 2015): 159. 13 Andy Halpin and Claire Anderson “The Battle of Clontarf,” Irish Arts Review, (Irish Arts Review: 2002): 131. Crichton 5

Despite its complexities and political biases, it has ultimately become a significant event relating to the perception around Scandinavian presence in Ireland, shaping ideas about the nature of the Viking influence and involvement with the native population. Consequently, it is also one of the most misinterpreted and largely generalized events.14 It has been cited as an example of a supposed tension-filled relationship between the Irish and the Scandinavians, largely perpetuated by the CGG.15 This primary text, which will be examined in detail later, acted as political propaganda in favor of Brian Boru and his family, using a narrative style to write about the events of Ireland with Boru’s family acting in the role of protagonists whilst the

Scandinavians are broadly labeled as the antagonists. While the understanding of the Battle of

Clontarf is certainly its own topic of discussion, this battle sets the stage for ethnic perceptions of

Scandinavians in Ireland. Due to the conflict involving a king with Scandinavian descent and a king with strictly Irish origins, sources like the Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh and later historical interpretations would use stereotypes of Vikings and misconceptions regarding ethnic boundaries to serve as the primary causation for the famous battle. Emphasizing this difference in ethnic background while ignoring the mixed political connections and allies between Vikings and Irish has construed a particular notion and generalization of the Vikings in Ireland, one which typically involves strong imagery of raiding, invasion, and general disruption of Irish life. While the Battle of Clontarf certainly cannot be pinpointed as the sole reason for misunderstanding the

Viking presence within Ireland, when examining the conflict in an objective way, questions begin to arise about the nature in which Scandinavians actually interacted within Irish society.

Did ethnic boundaries exist to such an extent that Irish kings felt compelled to liberate their

14 Ibid., 130. 15 Howard B. Clarke “The Vikings in Ireland: A Historian’s Perspective” In Archaeology Ireland, (Wordwell Ltd, 1995): 7. Crichton 6 territories from the Vikings? Perhaps modern perceptions of ethnicity, misconstrued notions of

Vikings, and an over inflation of the significance of conflicts such as the Battle of Clontarf have all contributed to a misunderstanding of what it truly meant to be a Scandinavian residing in

Ireland.

Introduction

Famous historical events like the Battle of Clontarf, perceptions of which have been shaped throughout time under different lenses of motivation, have attributed to creating an overarching idea surrounding the Vikings in Ireland—one that is ethnically centered and divided.

While newer research has been done to unpack the cultural influence within the Viking settlements, their presence has historically been attributed and tied to the notion of invasion and decline in the cultural wealth of Ireland. Therefore, when looking at the history of Ireland, it is difficult to know what to do with the Vikings. What did it mean to truly be a Scandinavian in

Ireland? How does one account for both the documented raids by the Vikings, as well as the material culture evidence for settlement and integration of culture with the native Irish population?

Despite a vast amount of interaction and corroboration occurring between the Irish and

Scandinavians, the presence of Vikings have consequently been tied to the notion of antagonization and oppression. Acknowledged by modern Irish historians is the common stereotype regarding Vikings and how they are: “Inveterate plunders and psychopathic thugs who terrorized the Irish, and Irish monks in particular.”16 This idea has been clung onto and perpetuated by generations—both medieval and more modern—establishing the idea of Vikings

16 Howard B. Clarke, “The Vikings in Ireland: A Historian’s Perspective”, 7. Crichton 7 in the context of Ireland that is popularly referenced; Vikings act as the aggressors within the medieval world.17 While one trend of historical thought tends to assign the role of aggressor to the Vikings, newer perspectives have begun to dissect the role of Scandinavians within Ireland under a more neutral lens—one which involves studying the cultural influences and exchanges held between the native and foreign populations. While both take different stances, there is value in each argument. To negate one perspective is to ignore reasonable primary evidence. Biases and misinterpretations are unavoidable when examining primary documents and material culture, but they should still actively be considered, just as the cultural exchanges between the

Scandinavians cannot be disregarded.

When the Scandinavians first began arriving in Ireland near the end of the eighth century, they were documented as attacking monasteries, pillaging, and then ultimately returning to their native lands. By the ninth century however, Viking cities such as Dublin had become settled.

“Ports and harbours, forts and trading stations were established, and some grew and developed into towns,” and the Scandinavians became a more permanent part of society. 18 Their cultural transfer with the native Irish population became more frequent and connected as their art entered into the designs of woodwork and metalwork, and as the Scandinavian technology of ships opened up the rivers and seas for trade from Ireland throughout the Irish Sea Zone. Their political involvement also increased as their cities became a part of the individual Irish polities constituting Ireland, known as Tuatha. 19 Thusly, Scandinavians and those of Scandinavian descent had become fixed features within Irish society, becoming important contributors to the history of medieval Ireland. In order to factor in all of this—both the accounts of raiding and

17 Ibid. 18 John Bradley, “Some Reflections on the Problem of Scandinavian Settlement in the Hinterland of Dublin during the Ninth Century”: 39. 19 Wendy Davies, “States and Non-States in the Celtic World”: 160. Crichton 8 cultural collaboration—reaching a point that accommodates reasonable perspectives from both arguments is necessary.

Perhaps the middle-ground—one in which both perspectives of Vikings hold merit—can be found outside of Ireland. Though a more recent movement in scholarship, studying Ireland in the context of the Irish Sea Zone allows for more insight into the interactions occurring within

Ireland between the Vikings and native populations. After the ninth century, when Scandinavians were settling within Ireland, trade networks were being established that connected Ireland and the Scandinavian settlements to the rest of the Irish Sea Zone.20 Though Irish sources tend to just document what was occurring inside its territories, annals and chronicles from Scotland, Wales, and England all include mention of the Scandinavians interacting with their own lands as well as what important contemporary interactions were taking place within Ireland.21 Ireland was heavily connected to the Irish Sea Zone through trade interactions, and that is evident through the sources. With its network of trade promoted by the introduction of Scandinavians into western

Europe, “at times during the tenth and eleventh centuries in the Irish Sea province could resemble a Scandinavian lake.”22 Therefore, studying the Vikings and their impacts on society is accessible through primary sources from around the Irish Sea Zone. Most particularly worth noting within these sources are different classifications given to the Scandinavians. Though a further examination will reveal a variation of names titling the Vikings within Irish sources, noting the same differences in classifications of the Scandinavians throughout outside sources affirms the suggested conclusion. This consistent variation in name assists in explaining why such discrepancies exists in how the Vikings were interacting with the Irish.

20 Mary A. Valante, “Viking Kings and Irish Fleets During Dublin’s Viking Age.”In Dublin in the Medieval World, edited by John Bradley, Alan Fletcher, and Anngret Simms (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2009):75. 21 Benjamin Hudson, Viking Pirates and Christian Princes, 39. 22 Ibid, 43. Crichton 9

In order to reach this point of conclusion regarding the Viking presence in medieval

Ireland, several steps must be taken in order to examine all evidence of past study relating to the topic in order to reach a better understanding of why the Vikings interacted with the native Irish population in their varied ways. To begin, the historiography must be examined. Notable scholarship has been done with both arguments in their portrayals of Vikings in both negative and positive ways. These differing perspectives must be taken into consideration, and their evidence evaluated in order to examine the topic in its full context. Afterwards, the next step is to then break down the primary sources utilized in order to understand how the Scandinavians were being documented in more contemporary manners. Irish annals will first be examined, looking at sources such as the Annals of Ulster, the Annals of Inisfallen, and the Cogadh Gaedhel re

Gallaibh. These three sources tend to be the most heavily discussed in scholarship regarding the

Vikings in Ireland, and they serve as an important starting point for understanding how the

Vikings were labeled and recorded in interaction with the native Irish population. From there, the source base will be expanded to Scotland, Wales, and England, where the same approach will be taken. The manner in which the Vikings interact with these populations, the exact names that are being used to describe them, and the examination of how that contributes to the idea of different

Scandinavian groups will be considered. Particularly with the sources from the Irish Sea zone, special attention will be paid to how the Scandinavians are being described in order to examine the apparent differentiation in groups of Vikings. Once that is established, it is then necessary to examine ethnicity within a medieval context, as well as looking at specific cultural interactions between the Irish and Scandinavians. With the argument being made that different interactions were occurring because of a variation in apparent intentions with the Scandinavians, it becomes important to examine moments of cultural cohesion for the settlements that were more fixed in Crichton 10

Ireland, rather than just focusing on the more politically motived interactions. With a consideration of the different groups of Scandinavians, as well as the variation in cultural and political interactions occurring, a conclusion can be drawn about the nature of the Scandinavian presence within Ireland; there is value in both perspectives because they were different family units functioning within Ireland. Ethnicity was not the motivator or defining factor within society. Kinship, alliances, and overarching lordship held more weight in determining the cohesion of people. Thus, while raiding and more violent interactions did occur, so did a variety of cultural exchanges and developments that allowed for a multi-cultural society to progress throughout the Viking Age. Through broadening the scope of perspective throughout the Irish

Sea zone to observe the different units of Scandinavians, the ethnic perceptions and corroborations occurring between the native Irish populations and the Vikings can be more fully understood.

Historiography

As Irish historian Howard Clarke astutely states, “Like the poor, the Vikings are always with us and, as with the poor, we still hardly know what to do with them.”23 The Vikings are certainly an integral part of studying the medieval world yet understanding them becomes a difficult task. With their cultural complexities and variations of interactions within Ireland, what it truly meant to be a Viking seems to have no apparent answer. Arriving near the end of the eighth century, their presence would bring a variety of interpretations involving their interactions with the societies they encountered. The popular perception of Vikings arriving in places such as

Ireland with the intentions to “behave badly, steal land, and teach the natives some new words.

Then, sportingly, they convert to Christianity and disappear from view” is entirely persistent

23 Howard B. Clarke “The Vikings in Ireland: A Historian’s Perspective”, 7. Crichton 11 throughout study of the time period.24 While this may not be exactly what some historians have claimed, the general idea of Vikings arriving with a level of violence and destruction remains present within their analyses. Yet, there is a movement within scholarship to more closely examine the interactions taking place between the Irish and the Scandinavians, allowing the idea of a strictly raider-archetype to be removed from the Vikings.

Raiding and violence stemming from the Scandinavians does appear within the Irish annals and should be considered. It was a factor of their interactions. While there is reasonable mention of the moments within sources that Vikings brought destruction and violence against the native populations, summing up those moments as the entire nature of their presence is perhaps too much of a generalization. Particularly with previously mentioned Battle of Clontarf, the idea of reclaiming Irish land over the oppressive forces of an invader is one that is widely celebrated in the historiography in Ireland. The significant Scandinavian presence within Ireland exists up until the infamous Anglo-Normans invaded Ireland in 1169, which has been regarded as the beginning of Irish oppression by the English.25 Therefore, the invasion of Vikings gets lumped into that era of history—and not in a favorable light. Yet, with evidence pertaining to culture cohesion within the cities they occupied, the idea of a strictly divided society based purely in violence is hard to conceptualize. The blurred lines of shared cultural elements, marital ties, and political allies allow for historians to conceptualize a more dynamic relationship between native and foreign populations. In more modern scholarship, these elements have been more widely investigated and incorporated into discussions of the Vikings within Ireland. While modern perceptions and generalizations of Vikings has certainly shaped the discourse surrounding the

24 Benjamin Hudson, Viking Pirates and Christian Princes, 4. 25 John Haywood, Northmen: the Viking Saga, 162. Crichton 12 time period, a deeper, more detailed insight is needed when examining the primary sources and material culture.

Part of the difficulty in approaching the topic of Vikings is therefore the array of opinions and popular perceptions regarding the role of a Scandinavian in Ireland. The historiography is therefore essential to understanding why modern conceptions have developed regarding the

Scandinavians in Ireland, and how those theories challenge or advance the understanding of

Ireland during the Viking Age. Once acknowledged, a further examination of the Scandinavian role in Irish society can be examined, including their political and cultural interactions as well as perceptions of ethnicity. These common stereotypes have created an idea surrounding Vikings that tends to be overgeneralized and focused on the political history of Ireland, much of which is influenced by later chronicles and ideas set forth by anachronistic impressions of ethnicity and the linguistic descriptor of “the Vikings” as an overarching term.”26 Therefore, breaking down these perceptions is imperative to approaching the topic of Scandinavians in Ireland in order to gain a well-rounded perspective regarding their influence and relationship with the Irish. In an effort to better understand the narrative surrounding the Vikings in Ireland, it is necessary to understand what historians have done with the Vikings, and how they have cast them in the historiography of Ireland—as Viking raiders or Scandinavian settlers.

Viking Raiders

Though newer scholarship is oriented towards broadening the scope of perspectives on

Vikings, historians like John Haywood, Arthur Kingsley Porter, and Alfred Smyth provide excellent examples of the more negative perspective on Vikings and their role in Irish society.

26 John Bradley, “Some Reflections on the Problem of Scandinavian Settlement in the Hinterland of Dublin during the Ninth Century”: 47. Crichton 13

Their viewpoints are essentially more basic in understanding the role of Scandinavians within society. Whilst there were certainly moments of cultural cohesion, these scholars propose that the arrival of Scandinavians on the shores of Ireland was ultimately an invasive presence. They are not studied as individuals migrating into a study—they are assigned the role of antagonist, and the language used to describe them follows suit. The various unexplained phenomenon occurring during the time period, such as the decline in certain artistic features, are reasoned through the usage of the Vikings in their negative role. This is found particularly with Smyth’s work, though Porter and Haywood also make claims of a similar accord. While these perspectives do question an over-zealous approach at viewing the Vikings in a more sympathetic light, which is indeed a fair point to at least consider, they do run the risk of overgeneralizing the interactions between Scandinavians and the Irish. Regardless, they are works which have contributed to the overall understanding of Vikings in Ireland. Though this paper attempts to provide a more complex understanding of their arguments and perceptions, their overall work poses important counterarguments; could the Viking presence in Ireland have been nothing more than an invasion on the Irish people?

John Haywood

John Haywood is a British historian and author who graduated from the University of

Lancaster, where he presently serves as a lecturer and continues his scholarship on early Europe.

Specializing in the early history of Europe and Vikings, his book Northmen, discusses the Viking presence throughout Europe. His perception on the Scandinavian involvement is made quite clearly in his chapter on Ireland, where he opens by stating “few places suffered more at the hands of the Vikings than Ireland.”27 This type of rhetoric continues throughout Haywood’s

27 John Haywood. Northmen: the Viking Saga, 136. Crichton 14 discussion, though he does provide useful context over the survey of Viking Age Ireland. With emotionally-filled language, Haywood constructs a narrative around the Vikings that involves a two hundred year span in which they “systematically milked Ireland of its people to supply the slave trade,” all with the expectation that it was a seemingly weak “target” for the Vikings to attack.28 Haywood does not try to ignore the political and cultural involvement of the

Scandinavians with the Irish, but instead reframes it in a way more suitable to explain an invasive Viking presence. When considering the political system of Ireland, Haywood praises it for being “incredibly resilient, well able to absorb the shock of Viking invasions and constantly renew[ing] resistance.”29 Instead of noting the way in which rulers of Scandinavian origin were able to fit into the political system of Ireland, Haywood claims the system simply adjusted and remained resilient until the Viking invasions had ceased.

Perhaps one of the most interesting perspectives brought on by Haywood’s disdain for

Vikings in Ireland is how he attempts to explain the Battle of Clontarf. While noting it as a great

(albeit not completely successful) attempt at unification, Haywood describes this event as if it was an attempt supported by the rest of the kings within Ireland. He uses this to explain the allegiance between Sitric Silkenbeard and Máel Mórda as an act of simple rebellion—one of many in fact—that Boru had to deal with during his efforts in “unifying” Ireland.30 Though rebellion is certainly an interesting perspective to take on the mixed allegiances (rather than simply a difference in opinion regarding the “unification” brought on by Boru), Haywood describes it as the clear explanation for the interactions between the Irish and Scandinavians.

28 Ibid. 29 Ibid., 137. 30 Ibid., 157. Crichton 15

Rather than natural alliances occurring as a result of an active political system that the

Scandinavians were involved in, these were acts of rebellion.

Focusing in on well-known Scandinavian individuals, Haywood does acknowledge the more complicated aftermath that occurred after the Battle of Clontarf—one in which Boru died but Silkenbeard continued to rule within Ireland. The way he describes this is once again in a negative light. The wealth that Silkenbeard would continue to grow as Dublin became a more and more powerful trading port is noted, yet, Haywood still chooses to describe Silkenbeard in a more contentious light. Nearing the end of his rule, Silkenbeard embarked on a pilgrimage to

Rome. Rather than remarking on the meaning of his conversion, Haywood instead describes that despite it, Silkenbeard would continue to raid monasteries as he pleased, ending his remarks on the Viking king and his pilgrimage by remarking that “Sitric no doubt had much to be penitential about.”31 Once again, Haywood is not shy in expressing his views on the Scandinavians within

Ireland. Even as they were established rulers, their intentions were still to gain personal advancements at the expense of the Irish.

While Haywood provides effective contextual information relating to the Scandinavians in Ireland, it is largely delivered with emotional wording and perceptions that clouds the general scholarship of Vikings. Though he does not neglect the varying interactions held by

Scandinavians within Ireland, he frames them in such a way that the same message is still received: the Vikings were invasive. This perspective is particularly intriguing, and perhaps telling of why the topic in question is so complicated. Haywood is not ignoring evidence. But, his interpretations are so emotionally charged and opinionated that they do not offer as nearly an objective historical analysis that is desired.

31 Ibid., 159. Crichton 16

Arthur Kingsley Porter

Arthur Kingsley Porter, a twentieth century historian who taught at Harvard University, pursued his studies of Vikings around the time that archaeological material was being newly introduced into the field of study. He tends to focus heavily on the material culture of Ireland, noting changes throughout the time period, particularly with the introduction of the Scandinavians. To set up his perspective, Kingsley Porter argues that “The Vikings swept down on the coast of all northern Europe, but no lands were more exposed to their fury than Britain and Ireland.”32 From this moment of their arrival, Kingsley Porter goes on to detail the raiding and destruction of monasteries by the Vikings, explaining their settlement in Dublin as a “Viking base…[which] became a center from which expeditions were conducted, especially against Yorkshire and the east coast of England.”33 Rather than Dublin serving as a settlement, Kingsley Porter views it as base or hub from which the Viking destruction can have a more permanent location.

Historians like Porter have taken these examples of raiding and looting as examples of

Vikings wreaking havoc on the Irish and in fact, destroying their own cultural history such as monasteries and art styles like illuminated manuscripts.34 Porter provides an interesting discussion on the connection between the decline of illuminated manuscripts with the rise of sculptured stone crosses. Porter attributes this to the invasion of the Vikings, and an apparent need to protect art from being stolen or destroyed: “a stone cross is not conveniently either burned or stolen”.35 Kingsley Porter does not try to deny the presence of Scandinavian art

32 Arthur Kingsley Porter. The Crosses and Culture of Ireland (New York: Arno Press, 1979): 105. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid. Crichton 17 interacting with Irish art, though he does claim that Irish art was not as influenced as

Scandinavian art. While more modern scholarship has tended to view an exchange of artistic designs and features as indications of cultural cohesion, Kingsley Porter acknowledges the exchange, but at a much lower level: “In Ireland, there are certainly Norse elements to be detected, but they are less striking, and frequently of comparatively late date.”36 This analysis of work is an interesting differentiation from that of later thoughts regarding the Viking presence in

Ireland and art. Overall though, Kingsley Porter’s work serves as an example of the types of perceptions that surrounded the scholarship of Ireland in relation to the Vikings, particularly as more archaeological material was used in the study of the topic nearing the later part of the twentieth century. Additionally, his overall analysis of the artwork within Ireland opens up an important avenue of study in terms of considering the Vikings. While primary sources are indeed helpful, considering the material culture and artwork of the time period is also helpful in understanding the everyday society of Ireland during the Viking age.

Alfred Smyth

Dr. Alfred Smyth, an Irish-born historian named Dean of Arts and Humanities at the Canterbury

Christ Church University College dedicated his career to studying medieval history of the British

Isles. Though more traditionalist in his views on the impact of Vikings in Ireland, Smyth’s work raises fair and interesting points regarding the topic of Scandinavians and their presence within

Irish society. In fact, he counters revisionists ideas directly through stating that in their efforts to equate Vikings to that of similar nature to the rest of Medieval Europe, they have in fact created

“polarizing historical arguments in relation to the destructive power of the Northmen.”37 Smyth

36 Ibid.,106. 37 Alfred P. Smyth “The Effect of Scandinavian Raiders on the English and Irish Churches: a Preliminary Reassessment.” In Britain and Ireland, 900-1300, edited by Brendan Smith, (Cambridge University Press, 1999): 1 Crichton 18 remarks quite passionately that revisionist attempts to ignore these occurrences have minimalized the: “negative effects which Vikings wrought on Western society.”38 The dichotomous trend being noted by this historiography would in fact be argued by Smyth as a result of an attempt to describe a less-violent relationship between the Scandinavians and the

Irish. While he does not attempt to disregard the evidence pertaining to cultural influence, Smyth does not believe it to be substantial enough to justify this reexamination of perceptions regarding the Vikings. In fact, he refers to them only as one conglomerate group—" Scandinavian raiders.”39

The violent attacks and raids in question were deliberate and purposeful directly against the Irish, in an attempt of invasion akin to colonization: “they were unquestionably the result of dynastic rivalry and economic tension at a secular level within the church and in society at large.40 Smyth goes further to say that many of the attacks were in fact attacks based around the

Christian Irish. Noting that annals document certain raids on specific religious holidays, Smyth hypothesizes that “there is evidence for captives being taken away from monastic and church centres on major church festivals when many unarmed worshippers would be expected to be there.”41 Smyth seems to take this as no coincidence or other motive for placing such an event on a well-recognized event for medieval people, but attributes it directly to the invasive and destructive manner of the Vikings in Ireland. Ultimately, Smyth uses an interesting analogy to express his ideas of the Scandinavians and their impact on Irish society, comparing their presence and impact on Irish society as comparable to that of the European colonists on the

38 Ibid. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid, 2. 41 Ibid, 21. Crichton 19

American West during the nineteenth century.42 Rather than simply arriving and interacting with the native populations, the foreign populations (in Smyth’s analogy, relating Vikings and colonizers), brought only destruction and havoc. With this statement alone, Smyth’s perspective is clearly stated. While the Vikings certainly had some level of cultural impact on the society they entered into, it was more akin to that of destruction and forced interaction rather than a culturally cohesive society that Smyth views as a naïve approach to understanding the time period.

Scandinavian Settlers

While certain factors of Viking engagement with Irish society cannot be ignored, historians such as Howard Clarke, Clare Downham, Sean Duffy, Ruth Johnson, Donnachadh Ó

Corráin, and Benjamin Hudson offer new perspectives to the study of Vikings in Ireland. The

Scandinavians interacted with Irish society in a multitude of ways, and these scholars work to highlight those exchanges. Through looking at Viking-settled cities such as Dublin, political engagements and marital bonds, as well as bringing in the study and analyses of material culture, these historians attempt to portray a more dynamic conception of what it meant to be a

Scandinavian in Ireland. It is not that they discredit the accounts of raiding and violence that occurs within the sources—they do not attribute the entirety of the Viking Age to that general theme. Instead, the nature of the Vikings in relation to their settlement, as seen in places such as

Dublin, and the cultural connections that developed between the Scandinavians and native Irish are all more closely examined to reach a better understanding of the Viking presence within

Ireland.

Howard B. Clarke

42 Ibid., 3. Crichton 20

Alongside teaching within the history department of the University College Dublin, Dr.

Howard B. Clarke is a present-day scholar of primarily medieval Dublin, offering insightful research into the influential trade city that dominates conversations regarding Ireland.

Particularly in the case of Sitric Silkenbeard (the king of Dublin) and Brian Boru, while Brian

Boru has been identified as a great unifier of Ireland, Howard B. Clarke looks at him and the role he played within Irish society more critically. Offering useful insight into the political nature of primary sources such as the Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh, Clarke illustrates the way in which

Brian Boru’s image and family legacy benefited from creating a scenario involving Vikings as an invasive force only able to be removed by the Munster king. Clarke notes an interesting distinction within his work: “In assessing the consequences of the Battle of Clontarf, it is essential to distinguishes the military from the political.”43 Essentially, it is important to consider the political motives of Boru and how they would have been perceived by the rest of the kings in

Ireland, in addition to further examining the reasoning behind some of the motives Boru had.

Rather than looking at Sitric Silkenbeard as a Scandinavian, Clarke considers him as one of the many kings in the multi-polity Ireland, who would have possibly felt that “oppressive overlordship was soon to be resented and resisted, both in Dublin and in Leinster at large.”44

Examining it from this perspective, and noting the variety of ethnic allegiances that were established by both Sitric Silkenbeard and Brian Boru, Clarke constructs an Ireland at the time of

The Battle of Clontarf that was more politically charged in an effort to maintain independent kingship rather than dispelling “invaders”.

43 Howard B. Clarke “King Sitriuc Silkenbeard: a great survivor.” In The Vikings in Ireland and beyond: before and after the Battle of Clontarf, edited by Howard B. Clarke, Ruth Johnson, & R. A. Hall, (Dublin, Ireland: Four Courts Press, 2015): 253. 44 Ibid., 259. Crichton 21

This is further emphasized by Clarke’s continued critique of the Cogadh Gaedhel re

Gallaibh, which he described as being written with politically charged rhetoric that could imply that “the object of its unknown author had more to do with contemporary O’Brian politics, which included the governorship of Dublin, than with the proper study of the Viking age.”45 While

Clarke focuses specifically on The Battle of Clontarf, his understanding of texts such as the

Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh and the insight into Brian Boru from a political sense helps to add a more insightful approach to the Vikings in the tenth century. Through his work, one can begin to conceive of kings with Scandinavian descent such as Sitric Silkenbeard as just another king within Ireland who would have engaged within the political sphere just as others with pure Irish descent did.

Clare Downham

Dr. Clare Downham, currently a lecturer at the University of Liverpool and well-known historian on Irish medieval history, provides the topic of Vikings with critical and finely examined research, looking at the commonly cited primary sources with new perspectives. While some of her work has already been mentioned, it is relevant to include some of the closer studies she has done on the changing nature of the Viking presence within Ireland. While she maintains her work of studying the primary sources and noting the changes in how Vikings are mentioned,

Downham also brings in relevant information regarding the actual nature of the Scandinavian presence—as well as the frequency of it. Downham notes the volume of Viking attacks in Ireland remaining low around the 860s and 870s within the chronicles.46 Noting this in the tenth century with the return of the Ivar Dynasty, and a subsequent increase in violence being recorded,

45 Howard B. Clarke “The Vikings in Ireland: A Historian’s Perspective,” 7. 46 Clare Downham. “Irish Chronicles as a Source for Rivalry between Vikings, A.D. 795–1014.” (Aberdeen: The Centre for Anglo-Saxon Studies and the Centre for Celtic Studies, University of Aberdeen, 2013): 77. Crichton 22

Downham notes that this has been considered a time of “zenith of Viking-power in Ireland.”47

Yet, she points out that many of the campaigns being recorded took place between the Vikings of

Dublin and Limerick.48 As Downham details these moments of military engagement, she identifies the Vikings of Dublin as being separate entities from other Viking towns, noting that

Irish allies were utilized throughout. This, as well as the work Downham has down with identifying the differences between “fair foreigners” and “dark foreigners” creates a depiction of

Ireland that is more layered and politically motivated rather than ethnically charged. Through her analysis of the terms, Downham is able to establish a distinction between Viking groups, with

“fair” potentially meaning newer and “dark” relating to the concept of older. While there is still debate about this, Downham ultimately conveys the concept that through name distinctions, a difference in Viking groups can be understood throughout the primary sources. The conflicts recorded within the chronicles are indeed examples of struggles for power, but the rivalries and alliances developed seem less specific to a nationalistic cause and seem to just depict the trends of the Irish political scene.

Sean Duffy Dr. Sean Duffy, a current medieval and political historian from Trinity College Dublin also tends to focus on the political interactions had between those of Irish descent and those of

Scandinavian descent. By the tenth century, the Vikings had been in Ireland for quite some time, therefore the individuals in question living within cities such as Dublin were descendants of the Vikings who had settled there.49 This is an important point to highlight, when considering the claim of land that those living in Scandinavian-dominant lands would have felt, particularly considering the family-based political system within Ireland. Though

47 Ibid., 79. 48 Ibid. 49 Seán Duffy. “Irishmen and Islesmen in the Kingdoms of Dublin and Man.” (Ériu, 1992): 93. Crichton 23 highlighting the twelfth century more with the invasion of the Anglo-Normans in 1169,

Duffy notes the change in political interaction between Irish kings and the Scandinavian cities such as Dublin: “In the eleventh century, Irish provincial kings increasingly came to dominate the affairs of the towns established there by the Vikings.”50 He goes on to describe the employment of Viking mercenaries by Irish kings in their foreign affairs, which would continue with the Anglo-Normans after 1169.51 It seems that Duffy’s views of

Scandinavians in Ireland, at least during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, was more of a military one benefiting the Irish kings—yet another interesting role given to Scandinavians within Irish society. Yet, this mercenary role is not as reflected upon, perhaps due to Duffy’s observation of the lack of international affairs being mentioned by annalists: “Irish annals generally refrain from detailing the activities of Irishmen abroad. The only witness to this activity, therefore, is the diligent annalist at the receiving end.”52 While this takes a different approach and albeit a later time period than what has previously been discussed,

Duffy highlights some important questions to consider: was the role of a Viking in Ireland to be employed as mercenaries, and if not in Irish sources, does this show up in sources from the kingdoms that would interact with the Irish and their Scandinavian allies?

John Bradley John Bradley was an Irish-born historian and archaeologist at the NUI Maynooth, publishing works throughout the twentieth and twenty-first century. Though writing before more revisionist ideas around Viking involvement in Irish society became popular in scholarship of the time period, his ideas reflect notions that scholars such as Clare Downham and Benjamin Hudson. His

50 Ibid. 51 Ibid., 129. 52 Sean Duffy.“Ireland and Scotland, 1014-1169: Contacts and Caveats.” In Seanchas: Studies in Early and Medieval Irish Archaeology, History, and Literature in Honour of Francis J. Byrne, edited by Alfred P.Smyth. (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1999):348. Crichton 24 work tends to focus more on Scandinavian settlements of Ireland and provides archaeological as well as textual evidence pertaining to the longphorts that would become well-known Viking cities such as Dublin, Waterford, and Wexford.53 While his work tends to focus more on the origins of these sites, it is helpful noting the way in which these settlements evolved and the apparent interactions with the native Irish populations as they were developing.

Within his examination of the longphorts, or initial settlements, Bradley notes the complex association with ethnicity and ethnic attributes involved with studies of these areas. To

Bradley, ethnicity as we know it today is not in fact how medieval people viewed their identifications. Instead, Bradley proposes that “Lordship is the key to understanding the workings of early medieval society.”54 The perception of Vikings Bradley provides then coincides with this idea of Lordship, as he details Scandinavians operating within warbands or groups that acted upon “fictive kinship”.55 Because of this, when explaining settlement features such as burials, Bradley notes the complexity in assigning ethnicity to particular graves. With these encampments occurring around Ireland, sometimes temporary and sometimes more permanent, a blend of cultures and artifacts find themselves in graves, and archaeological sites.

While historians may try to prescribe ethnicity to such finds and settlements, Bradley argues that it is nearly impossible to do as its presence in a multicultural society might be “a treasured heirloom broken and discarded”, or simply a result of trading between cultures.56

While Bradley’s article goes deeply into the specifics of each settlement, his main arguments lend the most help to understanding the concept of Vikings within Ireland. Through

53 John Bradley, “Some Reflections on the Problem of Scandinavian Settlement in the Hinterland of Dublin during the Ninth Century”: 39. 54 Ibid, 44. 55 Ibid. 56 Ibid, 49. Crichton 25 pointing out the difference in ethnicity from our own conception of it, to detailing the difficulties in assigning ethnicity to sites, Bradley introduces the idea of a multicultural society that Vikings might have found themselves in through the concept of Lordship. While ethnicity might have played a minor factor in the interactions being held between the Scandinavians and native Irish populations, Lordship would have been a defining features of society.

Ruth Johnson

Dr. Ruth Johnson, a City Archaeologist for Dublin, enters the discussion of Scandinavians in

Ireland through the approach of looking at their art and the influence that occurred within their culture. While her particular article focuses on the overall idea of art, her approach of looking at trends and perceptions that developed later in the historiography of Scandinavians in Ireland is extremely useful. Johnson cites that supposed hiatus in Irish art during the tenth century as being

“developed in the early twentieth century, in line with contemporary historical thinking concerning the impact of the Viking invasions on Irish society.”57 Through her work, Johnson creates a historiography pertaining to the influence of Irish art in an attempt to dispel the idea that the Scandinavian presence caused a decline in Irish art, a point made by Arthur Kingsley

Porter. Perhaps most interestingly, and in line with Howard Clarke’s proposal of the problematic nature of the Cogadh Faedhel re Gallaibh, is the notion that Johnson describes in which the lack of manuscripts within Ireland was attributed to a particular line within the text that Brian Boru specifically asked for books to be bought after the “plunderers” had destroyed them in the beginning.58

57 Ruth Johnson “Mind the Gap: the Supposed Hiatus in Irish Art of the Tenth Century.” In The Vikings in Ireland and beyond: before and after the Battle of Clontarf, edited by Howard B. Clarke, Ruth Johnson, & R. A. Hall, (Dublin, Ireland: Four Courts Press, 2015) 206. 58 Ibid., 220. Crichton 26

In an effort to examine this gap more thoroughly, Johnson sites material evidence from

Dublin, specifically the motif pieces, which provide evidence of “adoption and adaption for

Scandinavian artistic traits.”59 Through looking at art in different capacities and noticing the influence of Scandinavian attributes versus simple looking at the lack of manuscripts within the tenth century, Johnson is able to complicate the idea of a hiatus in Irish art during the tenth century, attributing it to a largely biased view created within the twentieth century.

Donnachadh Ó Corráin

Dr. Donnachadh Ó Corráin, Irish historian at the University College Cork spent his career focusing on the study of Vikings in an attempt to provide answers to the subject area. Ó Corráin dissected common arguments and emotional statements made by multiple scholars, whose perspectives by Ó Corráin’s standards have ultimately led to a grossly inaccurate depiction of the

Viking presence within Ireland. Additionally, he poses intriguing questions to the nature of their inhabitation which, once asked, seem very obvious and disregard many of the points made by scholars that Ó Corráin mentions. Most astutely put, Ó Corráin makes the point that “the fundamental problem about the historiography of the Vikings in Ireland had been the absence of serious source criticism. Good data from the contemporary annals, some poorly edited, were interwoven with sagas written long after the events they purport to record, sometimes centuries later.”60 Ó Corráin uses this point to construct his essay, one in which he dissects the choices of sources that scholars have decided to use and criticizes the application of their information.

Tying in the work done by scholars such as Ruth Johnson and Howard B. Clarke who look at more examples of cultural cohesion, Ó Corráin ultimately comes to the conclusion that at

59 Ibid., 225. 60 Donnchadh Ó Corráin. “Vikings in Ireland: the catastrophe.” In TheVikings in Ireland and beyond: before and after the Battle of Clontarf, edited by Howard B. Clarke, Ruth Johnson, & R. A. Hall, (Dublin, Ireland: Four Courts Press, 2015): 488. Crichton 27 least on a political level, the Viking presence was dealt with far more differently than is commonly portrayed: “Literary, historical, and archaeological evidence tells a different tale. Irish kings, as others elsewhere, encouraged trade and taxed it.”61 In an article specifically written to challenge opposing scholarship regarding the Vikings in Ireland, Ó Corráin poses a very basic yet essential question: if the Vikings were truly these oppressive invaders, why were they ultimately unsuccessful in conquering the Irish territory?62 Ó Corráin draws an interesting comparison to the Anglo-Norman invaders who would fully conquer Ireland in 1169.63 They were successful in conquering and subordinating the Irish kings. Yet, the Scandinavians were not. While Ó Corráin does not offer a clear solution, the idea of unification—or lack thereof in terms of Vikings—could perhaps be an avenue of exploration.

Benjamin Hudson

A medievalist at Pennsylvania State University, Benjamin Hudson’s scholarship on Vikings in the western European world, particularly in Ireland, is dynamic and thorough in analyzing the various ways in which Scandinavians interacted with the societies they became involved in.

Particularly his book, Viking Pirates and Christian Princes, Hudson attempts to create a clearer conception of the Viking presence in Ireland through examining political interactions, family relationships, and the development of society as impacted by the Viking Age. His title provides the purpose for his work, as he attempts to examine the changes in the role of Scandinavians as they progressed from their initial role as raiders to their more integrated positions within the societies they settled in.

61 Ibid., 493. 62 Ibid., 497. 63 Ibid. Crichton 28

One of the most useful considerations provided by Hudson is that observing the Viking presence in Ireland as a static one is not beneficial to the study of its history: “change accompanied the passage of time, sometimes dramatically so. The successful prince was the one who recognized that fact.”64 It is worth considering that the relationship between the

Scandinavians and the Irish was an everchanging one, and furthermore, the Scandinavian princes who adapted to those changes were the most successful in maintaining their power. Throughout his work, Hudson does not shy away from mentioning the distinctions that did occur between the

Scandinavians and Irish, stating that “from their first appearance they are described variously as

‘heathens’ ‘shipmen’ ‘Northmen’ ‘Lochlands’ and ‘Summer warriors’.”65 Yet, he does not allow this to shape a narrative within his work of a society based in division. In fact, Hudson chooses to focus on the “ties of dependency” forged upon family connections and alliances, mentioning the addition of artificial fosterage and sworn friendships.66 Instead of othering Scandinavian rulers within Ireland as invaders, he instead chooses to look at them as participants within a political system they involved themselves in—not simply as invaders. Their presence was not static, as previously stated. It was complex and varied, with moments of cultural cohesion and collaboration, as well as tension. To explain this, Hudson describes the kings of Scandinavian descent within Ireland as being, “like their contemporaries throughout Europe, [who] married for diplomatic purposes of their families…they are important in understanding the seemingly random attacks of individuals who were actually fighting for their inheritance.”67 Hudson’s approach to understanding Vikings in Ireland is a very effective one. He does not avoid discussions of cohesion, he acknowledges the divisive components of Irish and Viking relations,

64 Benjamin Hudson, Viking Pirates and Christian Princes, (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2005): 5. 65 Ibid, 6. 66 Ibid, 7. 67 Ibid, 13. Crichton 29 noting religious hostility between pagans and Christians and other factors.68 Hudson notes that

“the geography of the Irish Sea lent itself to colorful individuals and empire building.”69 By including Scandinavians as an active part of this, instead of just placing them in the role of invader, their presence becomes more dynamic in the overall depiction of their history. Alliances and familial ties were made, just as conflicts occurred, perhaps as a result of both the

Scandinavian kings and Irish kings all functioning together in a multi-polity system within

Ireland.

Primary Source Analysis

With the various interpretations of Vikings in Ireland provided by the historiography, it then becomes necessary to closely read the primary sources in order to understand the origin of their analyses. It is helpful in reviewing the sources after the interpretations, as it becomes easy to see how the language of the texts themselves can be shaped around the individual biases and interpretations of scholars. While sources from Ireland naturally provide evidence for understanding the role of Vikings in Irish society, a further expansion will be done with sources from the Irish Sea zone. Through this, the idea of different Viking groups and interactions will be affirmed, as well as a better understanding of some of the biases surrounding the sources themselves.

Ireland

To begin analyzing the Scandinavian presence within Ireland, the Annals of Ulster, the

Annals of Inisfallen, and the Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh are three sources that are typically used. These texts document events such as conflicts between Irish kings, religious events,

68 Ibid., 7. 69 Ibid., 15. Crichton 30 famines and sicknesses, and of course—the arrival and involvement of the Vikings. While the annalistic entries contain a multitude of interactions between the Vikings and the Irish population, more propaganda-based works such as the Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh provide a narrative perspective on the history of Ireland. Entries within the annals, as well as the heavily politicized language of the Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh have indeed contributed to the generalization that Vikings were an entirely invasive presence. While they can certainly be utilized in such a way, a more careful and subjective reading into them provides a more complicated insight into their interactions with the Irish. While the expansion into sources from the Irish Sea Zone helps to diversify the Scandinavian population, those same trends can be found within the Irish annals. In contrast, while the Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh does not provide this same diversification, examining it in its political context provides insight into why the Scandinavians have been perceived in such an aggressive and monolithic way. Before expanding into sources bases outside of Ireland, there is much to be gained from closely reading and understanding the directly relevant sources.

The Annals of Ulster are a compilation of Irish events beginning with the description of

St. Patrick in 431 and ending during the sixteenth century.70 It is in fact the most complete version of any Irish annals, and is consequently cited frequently within scholarship.71 This document was recorded by various monks throughout time, therefore the exact authorship of the entries are largely unspecified—the only consistent feature of authorship is the relationship with the church and Christianity. It is important to note that “violence involving the Church is very much better documented than violence in lay society.”72 Essentially, with the authorship coming

70 Kathleen Hughes, Early Christian Ireland: Introduction to the Sources (London (U.A.): Camelot Press, 1972): 99.. 71 Ibid. 72 Ibid., 152. Crichton 31 directly from a monastic source, the information being provided is likely going to involve a religious bias or focus. That being said, the content of the source itself does focus heavily on the political occurrences within Ireland. Mentions of kings, battles, and of course, the appearance of

Vikings, are all features found within the Annals of Ulster. While the entries do gain more length and detail around the fifteenth century, the entries around the time period in question— specifically the eighth to eleventh century—are consistent in style. This could potentially imply consistency in authorship regarding the specific time periods which will be examined.

The first mention of Scandinavians entering into Ireland within the source occurs around the end of the eighth century, specifically 794. The entry is vague in announcing their presence, and there are not references to specific individuals or groups of Scandinavian origin. It is simply stated that they arrive. This is before Viking towns such as Dublin would have been settled, and therefore the nature of the Vikings entering onto the shores of Ireland is more oriented towards the stereotypical “raider” archetype. They were new and unknown individuals that appeared on the shores of Ireland and had not yet integrated or involved themselves with the society they were engaging with. Typically, they are referenced as “heathens” within these first few entries:

“Devastation of all the islands of Britain by heathens.”73 Seeing as these were the first interactions with the Scandinavians, the term heathen is indicative of the author’s perspective regarding the nature of their presence. Later this will change as their terms diversify, but at least within their initial encounters, the Scandinavians were considered in a broad sense of “heathen.”

As the Viking presence first started making itself known in Western Europe, they appeared on the shores of the territories they invaded, pillaged, and left. These moments of violence were not exclusive to the Vikings—similar instances appear in the annals with Irish as the aggressors—

73 The Annals of Ulster [794.7] . Dublin: Dublin Inst. for Advanced Studies, 1983. Crichton 32 but they are still documented in interacting this way. Similar entries can be found in sources from other regions, such as The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which captures the infamous 793 raid on Lindisfarne.74 That particular occurrence remains consistent in describing the interactions taking place within Ireland; it seems that the Vikings first interactions with the native Irish were more violent and temporary in nature. The Vikings came and went, bringing some amount of chaos with them: “The heathens plundered Bennchor at Airtiu, and destroyed the oratory, and shook the relics of Comgall from their shrine.”75 This repeated theme occurs heavily during the mid-ninth century, where many of the entries involve violence, plundering, and even kidnapping brought on by the heathens: “The first plundering of Ard Macha by the heathens three times in one month.”76 Seeing as Ard Macha (or Armagh) is situated within Ulster, and the head church of the North of Ireland throughout the ninth century, any interaction with this location are heavily documented by the monastic annalists.77 While attacks on these specific territories, churches, and even particular individuals are recorded as being affected by the heathens, the exact title of the aggressors stays general and consistent, until the year 828. It should also be noted that within the first twenty-five years of the Viking presence within Ireland, there was actually more internal Irish violence than that brought on by the Scandinavians.

This year marks the first occurrence of when the term “foreigner” is introduced: “a great slaughter of porpoises on the coast of Ard Cianachta by the foreigners...”78 While contextually, it is not exactly known whether or not these exact “foreigners” in question are in fact

Scandinavian, it would seem that a new group of individuals began to become involved in Irish

74 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles [793]. 75 The Annals of Ulster [824.2]. 76 The Annals of Ulster [832.1]. 77 Kathleen Hughes, Early Christian Ireland: Introduction to the Sources, 131. 78 The Annals of Ulster [828.3]. Crichton 33 society. It becomes clearer, through distinction of particular Scandinavian names and figures, that the term of foreigner became associated with the Scandinavians. Sitric Silkenbeard is an example of this, who is specifically referred to as “Sitriuc son of Amlaíb, i.e. king of the foreigners.”79 While foreigner tends to be the broader term used to describe Scandinavians later on in the source, there are cases of earlier specificity regarding names of Scandinavians and how they are referenced as more sea-faring men began to situate themselves within Ireland.

Additionally, the Annals of Ulster begins to discuss the naval forces of the Norsmen: “a naval force of the Norsemen was on the Bóinn at Linn Rois. There was also a naval force of the

Norsemen at Linn Sailech in Ulaid.”80 These Norsemen, though mentioned in earlier contexts with their naval capabilities, would also be noted as settling in Ireland: “In this year below the

Norsemen first came to Ireland, according to the senchus.”81 This is prior to the entry noting them as officially coming to Ireland, yet it is a very specific classification that is used while foreigner and heathen are simultaneously being used. Additionally, in 987, it is documented that

“a great slaughter of the Danes who plundered Í, and three score and three hundred of them were slain.”82 Yet again, another more specific term for the Scandinavians who were engaging with the Irish.

While there are moments of specificity found to describe the Vikings—the term

“foreigner” consistently continues to be used within the Annals of Ulster. The term heathen is not lost either, even with the addition of the descriptions involving the Norsemen and Danes. In fact, it is noted that “the heathens still at Duiblinn” in 842—marking the settlement of the Viking city

79 The Annals of Ulster [999.3]. 80 The Annals of Ulster [837.3]. 81 The Annals of Ulster [840.8]. 82 The Annals of Ulster [987.3]. Crichton 34 of Dublin.83 Yet, while those terms of continuously used, a distinction begins to occur even within the title of “heathen.” The heathens from “Duiblinn” (Dublin) are titled thusly, just as it is mentioned that there are heathen from Linn Duachaill.84 Prior to this, the heathens had always been mentioned in one description. After the settlement of Dublin, this changes as the annalists become more specific with which group of heathens they are mentioning, in addition to the inclusion of foreigners.

While foreigner becomes the most frequently used term to describe the Scandinavians within Ireland, the same sort of distinction is made within that title. Whilst recording the previously mentioned conflict of the Battle of Clontarf in 1014, the annalist acknowledges a difference in foreigners: “foreigners of Áth Cliath, and a like number of the foreigners of

Scandinavia, i.e. to the number of 1,000 breastplates.”85 While both groups being described are in fact fighting against Brian Boru, it at least becomes clear that some amount of distinction— foreigners of Áth Cliath (Dublin) and foreigners of Scandinavia—existed. This relates to the idea that Scandinavians would have associated themselves with the individual Tuaths and kings they were living under, rather than being assigned an overarching classification of “Viking”.

The Annals of Inisfallen are also commonly cited in scholarship of medieval Ireland. It is believed that the entries dating from the beginning to 1092.5 are all recorded under one hand— potentially that of Diarmait Ó Flainn Chua who was the bishop and lector of Emly around the late eleventh and early twelfth century.86 After that, the manuscript was continued by a supposed eighteen other writers, before coming into the hands of Sir James Ware in the seventeenth

83 The Annals of Ulster [842.2]. 84 The Annals of Ulster [842.6]. 85 The Annals of Ulster [1014.2]. 86 Kathleen Hughes, Early Christian Ireland: Introduction to the Sources, 130. Crichton 35 century where it was fully compiled under the name “Annales coenobii Innisfallensis in agro

Kerriano”—The Annals of Inisfallen. Just as in the Annals of Ulster, the Scandinavians are first mentioned as “heathens”: “The invasion of Bennchor by the heathens and the shrine of Comgall was broken by them, and its learned men and its bishops were put to the sword”.87 This similarity in origin affirms the idea that at least on first encounter, the Scandinavians arriving in Ireland in the eighth century are described in the stereotypical role of sacking monasteries and raiding.

While this role is certainly not a sustainable one to place upon all Scandinavians throughout Irish history, it is conceivable that this would have been their first (memorable) impressions of the

Vikings.

Just as it is in the Annals of Ulster, a development occurs in terms of how the

Scandinavians are described. They first make their appearance in 796 with the simple entry of:

“The heathens in Ireland.”88 This short entry serves as an example of the nature in which the

“heathens” are discussed throughout the source. Unlike the Annals of Ulster, the Annals of

Inisfallen do not actually spend a significant amount of time discussing the Scandinavians. While it picks up around the ninth century, similar to the other source, they are not as frequently mentioned. In fact, Dublin and its settlement is never acknowledged as being established in the same way that the Annals of Ulster discusses it. This could be due to their geographic difference.

While the Annals of Ulster were penned in the northern part of Ireland (closer to Dublin), Emly is situated much further south.89 When the Scandinavians are referenced though, in the early years of their arrival, it is once again in the same stereotypical manner: “the invasion of

Bennchor by the heathens and the shrine of Comal was broken by them, and its learned men and

87 The Annals of Ulster [823]. 88 The Annals of Ulster [796.1]. 89 Kathleen Hughes Crichton 36 its bishops were put to the sword.”90 Again, the circumstances surrounding their descriptions is likely indicative of the nature within their initial interactions with the Irish populations.

It is not long before the introduction of the heathens into Irish society in which they are first referenced as the “foreigners”: “The battle of Sciath Nechtain in Laigin [gained] by

Ólchobar over the foreigners, in which Tomrair the Jarl fell.”91 While they could certainly be the same group of individuals, just with a different name, it is explicitly state that in the year 893, the heathens “depart from Ireland.”92 Yet, descriptions continue detailing events involving the foreigners, all whilst the heathens are not mentioned: “the slaying of Gébennach son of Aed, king of Gabair, by foreigners” took place.93 It would seem then that at least a simple level, the foreigners and heathens recorded within the Annals of Innisfallen are of two different distinctions.

As the source progresses throughout the Viking Age, distinctions begin to appear between the groups of Scandinavians: “A slaughter of the foreigners of Port Láirge [was inflicted] at Cell Mo-Chellóc by the men of Mumu and by the foreigners of Luimnech.”94 Within this particular entry, there is a distinction between the foreigners of Port Láurge and the foreigners of Luimnech. Not only is there a distinction, there is aggression between the two sides, demonstrating a lack of unification between the two groups of Scandinavians.

Approaching on the era of Brian Boru and Sitric Silkenbeard, the Vikings were once again referenced as foreigners, but differences in names are also made, and in quite an intriguing way.

In 999, during the initial siege of Dublin by Brian, the Annals of Inisfallen documented that “the

90 The Annals of Ulster [823.1]. 91 The Annals of Ulster [848.2]. 92 The Annals of Ulster [893.1]. 93 The Annals of Inisfallen [916.2]. 94 The Annals of Inisfallen [927.2]. Crichton 37 best part of the foreigners of Ireland fell therein, i.e. in the battle of Glenn Máma.”95 This could be interpreted in several ways. With Dublin being a well-known hub of trade and established city, could Dublin foreigners have been considered the “best part” of the foreigners? Does this establish them as different from other groups within Ireland? Within that description itself— noting them as the foreigners of Ireland, does that indicate the Irish recognition of the annalists of the Vikings being integrated into society by this point?

In continuing the focus on the Battle of Clontarf, looking at the entry for 1014, “the foreigners of Áth Cliath” are mentioned, as well as “the foreigners of the western world were slaughtered in the same battle.”96 Again, this demonstrates an acknowledgement of separation within groups. Though, interesting is the usage of describing the foreigners of the western world.

The Annals of Inisfallen were written in an entirely different location, and there is some difference in how the sources choose to reference the Scandinavians, but there is still consistency with the concept that Vikings were being classified differently rather than as one broad ethnic group.

For the final Irish source considered, the aforementioned Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh is useful in understanding what image of Scandinavians in Ireland was created as a result of the

Battle of Clontarf in 1014 and the political interpretations that stemmed from it. While the previous texts were annalistic in nature, the Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh is a work responding directly to the Viking presence in Ireland in relation to Brian Boru—as it was written around

1111, nearly one hundred years after the Battle of Clontarf and in direct response to it.97 Though exact authorship is not known, it was more than likely commissioned by Boru’s great-grandson,

95 The Annals of Inisfallen [999.4]. 96 The Annals of Inisfallen [1014.2]. 97 “'Cogadh Gaedhel Re Gallaibh': The War of the Irish with the Foreigners: Battle of Clontarf,” 'Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh': The War of the Irish with the Foreigners | Battle of Clontarf Crichton 38

Muïrchertach.98 Because of the motivations for his own kingship, the Cogadh Gaedhel re

Gallaibh is a highly politicized source which works to glorify the legacy of Boru.99 Using long passages to describe the “great” Irish king as compared to the disastrous foreigners, this text draws upon events in Irish history, inflating them with favor towards the legacy of Boru and his sons as “sophisticated propaganda for Brian's descendants, specifically his great grandson,

Murchertach Ua Briain.”100 Understanding those strong political biases and motivations is absolutely essential when considering the information provided by the Cogadh Gaedhel re

Gallaibh in relation to Scandinavians.

The Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh introduces the Scandinavians in similar fashion to the previous Irish sources, albeit in a more narrative style: “There came after that a fleet on Loch

Derg…and they plundered Inis Celtra, and they drowned Loch Derg its shrines, and its relicks, and its books; and they plundered the Shan- dered Muc-Inis of Riaga U.”101 This amount of detail, in which relics and books are specifically mentioned as being destroyed, sets up the theme involving the Scandinavians that the Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh would continue throughout its entirety. One feature that is interesting within this particular section of the source though, is the subtle claim it makes regarding the previously mentioned annals. While it does not regard them directly, the source states that the atrocities committed by the Scandinavians—the plundering, battles, and violence in its full extent—were not properly documented or “enumerated in books.”102 While this claim may not ultimately have much merit, seeing as it was written later than that of the Annals of Ulster and the Annals of Inisfallen, it does provide the audience with

98 Ibid. 99 Ibid. 100 Maire Ni Mhaonaigh “A Man of Two Faces: Mael Sechnaill mac Domnaill in Middle Irish sources.” 233 101 Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh, 39. 102 Ibid. Crichton 39 an understanding of how the source chose to view the Scandinavians and their presence within

Ireland. It was so immensely destructive, that not even the annals captured the full extent of the terror. While this certainly hints at the more biased tone in which the source writer intends on discussing the Scandinavians, it provides insight into the villainous role that they will play in the narrative.

Though the source eventually unfolds to describe the involvement of Brian Boru with the

Scandinavians, the source initially spends a lot of time setting up the overall impression of the

Scandinavians within Ireland. While differences will start to occur later on, initially, they are just identified as a conglomerate group of foreigners. The author describes the influx of

Scandinavians as invasive, riddling Ireland with their forces: …became filled with immense floods, and countless sea-vomitings of ships, and boats, and fleets, so that there was not a harbour, nor a landing-port, nor a Dun, ' nor a fortress, nor a fastness, in all Mumhain, without fleets of Danes and pirates”.103 This description lends to the idea of how invasive the

Scandinavians were (according to the source), and proposes the issue of Scandinavian involvement that would be addressed by Brian Boru.

While previous Irish sources would at least make a distinction between heathen and foreigner, dark and fair foreigner, etc. the descriptions utilized by the Cogadh Gaedhel re

Gallaibh tends to highlight no difference between the Scandinavians. In describing the appearance of a particular Scandinavian king, the source simply describes that “There came after that an immensely great fleet, more wonderful than all the other fleets, (for its equal or its likeness never before came to Erinn).”104 Rather than signaling a difference in Scandinavian groups by name or specificity, it is just noted that there were various amounts of fleets. It is not

103 Ibid., 41. 104 Ibid., 49. Crichton 40 until later that some amount of distinction is made, noting a separation between two groups of foreigners “…the crown prince of the foreigners of Erimi, defeated. and Cuilean, the son of

Echtighern, and four thousand along with them, of the best of the foreigners of Erinn.”105 In an interesting comparison, the Annals of Inisfallen also document some foreigners as being “the best”. While this could be perceived in a variety of different ways, the main thing to consider is the nature in which the Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh chooses to describe the Scandinavians.

Though largely attempting to depict them in a negative manner, there is still some level of distinction made within the source. Perhaps it is its own way of acknowledging the

Scandinavians utilized by Boru in the conflict. Regardless, a distinction still finds a way to surface even within the polarizing text of the Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh.

Leading into the discussion of Brian Boru and the Scandinavians, it is hard to ignore his involvement and importance within the text, as it was written as a propaganda-based piece in order to secure the legacy of his family. While the Scandinavians are painted as the villains, Boru is undoubtedly the hero within this text. The text introduces Boru as choosing a path vastly different from the rest of the Irish kings, and not accepting the Scandinavians presence in

Ireland. Not only does it state that “Brian…was not willing to make peace with the foreigners”, it is described that Boru in fact preferred violence and action against them “to peace, and though all others were silent on that head he would not be so.”106 According to the Cogadh Gaedhel re

Gallaibh, Boru was very much relentless in his goals. While other kings sat passively by and allowed the Scandinavians to coexist, Boru made sure that “when he inflicted not evil on the foreigners in the day time, he was sure to do so in the next night and when he did it not in the

105 Ibid., 111. 106 Ibid., 61. Crichton 41 night he was sure to do it on the following day.”107 The motivation for Boru’s violence towards the Scandinavians is explained through the apparent desire of protecting native inheritance of land from the Vikings, rather than a grab for power. Boru’s justification is found through the claim that “it was better and more righteous to do battle and combat for their inheritance, and for their native right, than for land acquired by conquest and the sword.” 108 From this, one can begin to see where a claim was being made by the Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh —one in which the idea of natural ownership of the land was taken away through violence and invasion from the

Scandinavians. This is where a true ethnically divided motive is explained within the sources. In the annals, though conflict is mentioned with the different groups of Scandinavians and Irish, there are also moments detailed in which the Irish are fighting each other, or they are fighting with the aid of Scandinavians. This statement, allegedly made by Boru, details the first clear account of desiring to rid Ireland of the Scandinavians for the purposes of heritage and ethnic integrity.

The overall response to the Scandinavians in Ireland found within the Cogadh Gaedhel re

Gallaibh demonstrates the antagonist vs. protagonist narrative approach that is taken within this source. While this adds an interesting historiographical element to the primary sources of

Ireland, it does provide a more dramatic and polarized interpretation of the Scandinavians—one that has influenced the perception of Vikings overall. It is an important document, to be sure. But ultimately, less needed for understanding the contemporary conceptions of Vikings in Ireland as it was heavily biased against the Scandinavians. Certainly, the negative interactions of Vikings should be noted. But the Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh is largely a source that skews perceptions of their involvement and should be navigated carefully. Yet, even throughout the heavy bias of

107 Ibid., 61. 108 Ibid., 71. Crichton 42 the Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh, what should be taken away from it, is that even through the political propoganda, the source still marks some differentiation between groups.

Through examining the Irish primary sources, it becomes evident that distinctions of

Scandinavians do appear throughout the sources. In a broader sense, there is a noted difference between calling those of Scandinavian origin “heathens”, “foreigners”, “Norsemen”, and

“Danes”. On a slightly subtler level, there is place-distinction, with references to foreigners and heathens from different areas around Ireland. Yet again, another way in which the sources describe some level of difference between the Scandinavians. Finally, there is the particular description of noting the “best” foreigners. This distinction even appears, though briefly, within the highly polarized document of the Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh. While the Irish sources are frequently used and cited to perpetuate an agenda of stereotypical Vikings, further examination of them helps to affirm the idea of Scandinavians interacting with Irish society in different ways.

Those of Scandinavian origin are noted as being from different places within Ireland, or given different classifications by the annals, which helps support the notion of a less ethnically bound society.

Scotland

While the focus on Irish sources is certainly necessary, it becomes important to consider the perspectives of other territories and their connections with Ireland and the Scandinavians.

Such is the case of Scotland, a component of the Irish Sea zone that would have been connected to Ireland through its trade networks. While sources are scarce from Scotland, there are accounts such as the Pictish Chronicles which offer insight from that particular area of the Irish Sea Zone.

The Pictish Chronicles, also known as the Chronicle of the kings of Scotland, is the only primary Crichton 43 source available from Scotland written during the ninth and tenth centuries.109 Chronicling the reigns of various Scottish kings, the source itself informs of the legal, political, and ecclesiastical transformations occurring within Scotland during the reigns of specific kings.110 The manuscript specifically dated around the reign of Kenneth II of Scotland, during the late tenth century, though it extends its records to the end of the eleventh century with the reign of Malcolm III.111

Yet, while the focus is on the Pictish kings, Scandinavians and Ireland are both mentioned throughout in detail. Seeing as Scotland was connected through trade to Ireland, heavily influenced by the Scandinavians, it would make sense that some form of documentation would occur within the Scottish sources.112

What becomes particularly pertinent throughout this source is the distinction and variation of names and groups of Vikings—which can be found in singular entries as well as scattered throughout the entire source. Just as the Irish sources show some differentiation between how the Scandinavians are referenced, the Pictish chronicles follow suit. Looking at the classifications given to these individuals outside of Irish sources offers perhaps a better idea understanding of how the groups of people were recognized within society. In one particular entry, in which an attack against the Picts are mentioned, distinct groups of Scandinavians are recorded. One of the first occurrences of this is from the entry of Constantine I (or known by his

Pictish name as Causantín), from the years 862-877, where it is noted that “Olaf, with his foreigners, laid waste to Pictavia…In his 14th year, [a little while after a battle was fought] at

Dollar between the Danes and the Scots….The Norsemen spent a whole year in Pictavia.”113

109 Benjamin Hudson, “The Scottish Chronicle,” The Scottish Historical Review LXXVII, no. 2 (October 1998): 1. 110 Ibid. 111 Ibid. 112 Hudson, Ben. "The Family of Harold Godwinsson and the Irish Sea Province." The Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 109 (1979): 43. 113 The Pictish Chronicles [Constantine II] Crichton 44

While this short entry includes a sufficient amount of information regarding the rule of

Constantine I, and even mentions of Ireland, it ultimately serves as an example of the distinctions made between Scandinavians, mainly Olaf (with his foreigners), and then the Danes as well as the Norsemen. This is the first time within the source that a differentiation is made between two

(potentially three) groups of Scandinavians in relation to events of Pictavia. This classifiation is continued later, with the entry of Donald II, somewhat affirming a consistent recognition of differences between groups of Scandinavians—a concept that is largely ignored when studying the Scandinavian during the Viking Age: “At that time the Norsemen laid waste to Pictavia.

During his rule a battle was fought at Innisibsolian, between the Danes and the Scots: the Scots were the winners. Dunottar was destroyed by the foreigners”.114 While these differences in names tend to span out to different entries within Irish sources, it is an interesting observation that these three distinct groups are all mentioned in one event pertaining to the Picts. This could affirm that, rather than simply interchanging words to describe Scandinavians, the chronicler was identifying different groups that they were interacting with in one scenario. The exact translation notes the “Normanni”, “Danarios”, translating respectively into Norsemen, and Danes. The

Norsemen were perceived as being different than that of the Danes, similar to how Irish sources note the difference between fair and dark foreigners—or even in some cases, notes a difference between Norsemen and Danes as well. While the Irish sources also contained these descriptors, they were largely in individual entries. Therefore, it could be speculated that annalists were just using interchangeable words to describe the Scandinavians. This idea changes though with the evidence provided by the Pictish Chronicles in which the same types of descriptors were being used, but in the same entry.

114 The Pictish Chronicles [Donald II 889-900] Crichton 45

Later on in the source, around the tenth century in which Scandinavians were firmly established in Irish society, the Pictish Chronicles still document the different Scandinavian presences as being temporary, noting that they arrive in Scotland, interact with the native populations, and then leave: “Constantine the son of Áed held the throne for 40 years. In his third year the Norsemen raided Dunkeld, and all of Albany. Certainly in the following year the

Norsemen were beaten in Strathearn.”115 The idea of a more raider Scandinavian is present within these descriptions, despite it being later on in the Viking Age, where settlement had occurred within Ireland. This could potentially be seen as the Scandinavian mercenaries and naval forces that circulated around the Irish Sea Zone, appearing within the Pictish Chronicle.116

Still, it is interesting to note that while they were having these types of interactions consistently with the Scandinavians, there had been major settlements occurring within Ireland—perhaps indicative of the motives of different groups of Scandinavians as they interacted within the Irish

Sea Zone.

Wales

In addition to interactions with Scotland, as Ireland became involved with the Irish Sea

Zone, connections with the Welsh were made and documented accordingly.117 The Brut Y

Tywysogyon, or the Chronicles of the Princes is considered to be one of the most important

Welsh sources, beginning its annalistic entries in 682 and ending in 1332.118 This source has been thought to have been written at Strata Florida Abbey, but could have also potentially been kept at Llanbadarn Fawr. Authorship is a bit difficult with this text, seeing as there were several

115 The Pictish Chronicles [Constantine II] 116 Benjamin Hudson, “The Changing Economy of the Irish Sea Province: AD 900-1300.” In Britain and Ireland, 900-1300, edited by Brendan Smith, 39–66. (Cambridge University Press, 1999): 43. 117 Valante, Mary A. “Viking Kings and Irish Fleets During Dublin’s Viking Age”: 43. 118 Thomas Jones, Brut y Tywysogyon or the Chronicle of the Princes: Peniarth MS. 20 Version (Wales: University of Wales Press, 2015): 1. Crichton 46 different manuscripts written and compiled together around the sixteenth century.119 It has been suggested that it had been written by Caradog of Llancarfan, a Welsh cleric, at least down until the year 1156, but that has ultimately been questioned in its accuracy.120 While it focuses mainly on death and important events throughout Wales, the Brut Y Tywysogyon actually contains a decent amount of insight into the Scandinavians within Ireland. Mentioning the first occurrence in which the Scandinavians appear in Ireland, the Brut Y Tywysogyon documents the

Scandinavians as the pagans, noting their arrival in entries 790-795—similar to how the Irish annals document the arrival of the heathen into Ireland It is interesting in of itself that the chronicle from Wales documents the arrival of Scandinavians to Ireland—indicating perhaps the importance of the event, but also the connectivity in which the Irish Sea Zone exists through its extensive trade networks.121

After this particular mention, the source continues to mention the activities of the Vikings throughout different places within the Irish Sea Zone. While pagan is occasionally used, the major title given to the Scandinavians is either “ Kenedloed” or “Kenedloed Duon”, meaning

“Gentiles” or “Black Gentiles”. In addition to those classifications, they are also referenced as the “Normanyeit” or Normanyet Duon”—the “Norsemen” or “Black Norsemen.” While these color descriptors could certainly fall in line with Downham’s analysis on “dark” and “fair” foreigners, overall, a clear distinction was made between these groups.122 Interestingly enough though, when recounting events occurring within Ireland, the way it is discussed is quite different. To begin, in the year 1000 (potentially referencing the Battle of Glen Máma in 999),

119 Ibid., 4. 120 Ibid., 21. 121 Benjamin Hudson, “The Changing Economy of the Irish Sea Province: AD 900-1300.” 41. 122 DOWNHAM Crichton 47 the Brut Y Tywysogyon notes that “Dublin was ravaged by the Irish.”123 This is an interesting distinction to make, and perhaps telling of the nature of Dublin. Dublin is referenced as being separate to that of Irish land. It is not presented as the Irish attacking the Scandinavians within an

Irish city. Therefore, there was more recognizable unity from Dublin within itself rather than from Ireland as a whole.

Additionally, the Battle of Clontarf is recounted in a different manner than sources such as the Cogad Gáedel re Gallaib. Rather than it being portrayed as Brian Boru making a stand against the invasive Vikings, it simply states that “Brian, king of all Ireland, and Murchadh, his son, and many other kings moved against Dublin, where Sitriuc, son of Amlainh, was king.”124

Firstly, it is interesting that the Brut Y Tywysogyon identifies Brian Boru as the king of all

Ireland. But more importantly, Sitric is not narrowed out as the “king of foreigners” as he is in other sources. He is simply the king of Dublin being attacked by other kings. The Brut Y

Tywysogyon also notes that alliances are made on both sides. Brian Boru seeks allies from other kings and Scandinavians, just as Sitric hires “armed long ships full of mailed men”, and “the men of Leinster, with Malemordea as king over them.”125 Not only is this describing an instance in which Sitric is aligning himself with an Irish king, more importantly—he is hiring Scandinavian mercenaries. Rather than ethnic bonds creating those alliances between them, it is signaled that

Sitric bought this assistance. Once again, potentially detailing that the Scandinavians within

Ireland were different.

England

123 Brut Y Tywysogyon [1000] 124 Ibid., 1014. 125 1bid. Crichton 48

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is an important source relating to the study of Vikings, likely written in the ninth century around the time of Alfred the Great, though it was continued long after his reign. The original manuscript was then spread to different monasteries and continuously updated by independent sources and has been noted for being the first “continuous national history of any western people in their own language.”126 There exist about nine copies of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, all of which originated from the original one penned in Wessex.

This collection of entries all written in Old English details, like the other annals, the political, religious, and social happenings involving the Anglo-Saxons.127 While this source of course deals with the happenings of Anglo-Saxon England, there is also relevant information concerning the Scandinavians and the Irish.

Beginning in 793, the Viking presence becomes known, being mentioned among other great travesties of that year: “the harrowing inroads of heathen men made lamentable havoc in the church of God in Holy-island, by rapine and slaughter.”128 It is of no surprise that the

Scandinavians are cited in this manner, seeing as it is the general trend from the time period when the Viking age first begins. In terms of comparison overall, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles is most reminiscent to that of the Irish Annals. While there may be brief mentions of other regions, the general focus tends to be on England itself, whereas the content of the Pictish Chronicles and the Brut Y Tywysogyon contains information regarding the Irish Sea Zone in its entirety.

In terms of the Scandinavians themselves, they are mostly mentioned in moments of conflict, identified largely as the heathens, though that changes later on around the mid-ninth century. One interesting occurrence that begins around this same time period is the mention of

126 Michael J Swanton, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles (New York, NY: Routledge, 1998): xx. 127 Ibid, xvi. 128 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles [793]. Crichton 49 the heathens beginning to stay in the Anglo-Saxon territory, rather than simply raiding and leaving: “This year the heathen men for the first time remained over winter in the Isle of

Shepey”.129 From this point on, there are more occurrences of this prolonged period in which the heathens are staying, and even making peace agreements with the native kings. It is also around this time that a new label is given to the Scandinavians: the Danes. The usage of heathen becomes a more generalized term to describe the Scandinavians, whilst the Danes is more specific: “And the Danish-men were overcome; and they had two heathen kings, Bagsac and

Halfdene, and many earls”.130 These two classifications, while offering some similarities to the types of names given by records from Wales and Scotland, does not provide as much detail involving the Scandinavian groups. The Scandinavians are treated more broadly and viewed in a more antagonistic manner, rather than the other sources which simply record them as more individuals functioning within the Irish Sea Zone.

While these distinctions are not as clearly depicted within the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, it is still worth considering in helping to understand the potential differences in different

Scandinavian groups. While the Anglo-Saxon chronicles do not mention Ireland, the source is helpful in understanding what kinds of people they were interacting with. While only one name is given to the heathens mentioned in specificity—the Danes—perhaps those were the particular

Scandinavians that began to settle amongst the English land, rather than leaving like other groups. Therefore, the reason for the vague term of heathen being used and only one specific term is because the Danes happened to be the group in which the Anglo-Saxons were having the most contact with.

The Question of Medieval Ethnicity

129 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, 854. 130 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles 871. Crichton 50

Throughout the analyses of the primary sources, different names describing

Scandinavians appeared within the annalistic entries, such as Norsemen, Danes, dark foreigners, fair foreigners, etc. While one can begin to conceive of a separation between these types of

Scandinavians, the question of ethnicity is raised—which is by no means an easy concept to approach when considering it in the context of the medieval world. Yet, it becomes a necessary discussion in order to understand the theory that Scandinavians were not one conglomerate group of raiders, but instead smaller groups with different intentions and interactions between the native populations they became involved with. Ethnicity itself as a modern concept is considered to be the identification of a group based on a common national or cultural tradition. While medieval thoughts on ethnicity can never truly be known, through examining components of ethnicity in relation to Viking age Ireland, a better conception of how it might have factored into society can be achieved.

To begin breaking down the idea of ethnicity and how medieval people would have conceptualized it, the term itself must first be defined and understood in the context of

Scandinavians living within Ireland. While “Viking” can be a useful umbrella term for modern scholars to describe the Scandinavian presence that begins to occur around the ninth century, caution must be taken that the broad term runs the risk of downplaying the “range and diversity of plural Viking cultures.”131 Using the term “Viking” to describe the groups of Scandinavians who interacted with the rest of the Medieval world within the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries is in fact a more modern take, stemming from the nineteenth century.132 While we perceive

Vikings as one group, and in fact an ethnic descriptor, that idea did not develop until much later.

131 Ibid., 8. 132 Clare Downham, “Viking Ethnicities: A Historiographic Overview,” History Compass 10, no. 1 (2012):1. Crichton 51

As Downham notes, the exact translation of the noun víkingr translates into ‘sea warrior’ and is in fact not an ethnic description.133 It would have been more of a role or profession that a

Scandinavian would have engaged in, not necessarily a distinction of their ethnic background.

Yet, more modern studies of this period in conjunction with politically polarizing documents such as the Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh have transformed that word and the many mentions of

Scandinavians throughout history as a conglomerate group of raiders.

This is problematic in nature, as it lumps together a group of people under a generalized and uniform identification. The misconception would not have necessarily been how medieval people would have viewed the Scandinavians they encountered. It thusly complicates how we view their variety of presences in the civilizations they entered into. While we tend to view the appearance of Vikings on other shores as one group—even detailing it as the “Viking Age,” it was not as if they were all of one background spreading out throughout the medieval world.

They were different populations with equally varying goals and intentions for their time spent on foreign land.

In addition to dispelling the idea of Vikings as one group with the same motivations, the case for Scandinavians in Ireland is further complicated through the emergence of groups such as the Gall-goídil. The Gall-goídil, a group of Norse and Celtic populations during the mid-ninth century, presents a case for some level of integration and the creation of new identities within the social and cultural world of Ireland.134 This is referenced only briefly within the Annals of

Ulster, yet it can still be seen as an example of a shared identity between the Irish and

Scandinavians, rather than two distinct ethnic groups residing together. Downham discusses this

133 Ibid. 134 Clare Downham. “Viking Ethnicities: A Historiographic Overview.” History Compass 10, no. 1 (2012): 6. Crichton 52 idea in her research on ethnicity, noting that “the appearance of groups called Gall-goídil

(‘Foreigner-Gaels’) in Ireland in the mid-ninth century suggests that the immigrant groups might quickly assimilate elements of their host culture and develop new hybrid identities.”135 For the

Scandinavians that chose to reside within Ireland (rather than raiding and leaving), there was a sense of integration evident by Downham’s example that presents the idea of an attempt at coexisting. Through doing so, this sense of collaboration and coexisting would create an acceptable space for “polyethnic affinities” that ultimately enabled the Scandinavians to “bridge the divide between their host societies and external networks.”136 Therefore, ethnicity was not a

“static” feature of the Viking Age in Ireland.137 Certainly it can be understood there was a difference in cultural elements at the first introduction of Scandinavians to Irish society, but “the distinction is blurred in the tenth and by the eleventh it is clearly a Hiberno-Scandinavian community.”138

As mentioned previously, the Battle of Clontarf has been historically portrayed as an ethnically-based battle through later primary sources and some modern interpretations. Yet, when examining it, ethnicity becomes more difficult to pinpoint when examining the specific alliances made. For a battle allegedly based upon ethnic distinctions, it would seem that each side would draw from those with the same heritage the Vikings would draw from more Vikings and the Irish families would band together. Yet, it seems that these ethnic distinctions were skewed when both sides strayed from that ideal. Viking mercenaries were recruited by both

Brian Boru and Sitric Silkenbeard from the Scottish isles and potentially even the Isle of Man.139

135 Ibid. 136 Ibid. 137 Bradley, John “Some Reflections on the Problem of Scandinavian Settlement in the Hinterland of Dublin during the Ninth Century.”: 44 138 Ibid. 139 Ibid., 265. Crichton 53

Therefore, the supposed ethnic battle was actually fought using individuals from a mirage of ethnic backgrounds—Celtic, Norse…even Anglo-Saxon.140 Allies were drawn from a variety of places, therefore potentially implying that it was more so a political battle than an ethnic battle.

Traditionally speaking, when looking at the sources in other situations as well, Irish rulers, as well as other rulers throughout the Irish sea zone, tended to use Viking mercenaries for their conflicts.141 Brian Boru—the great defender of Ireland—was no different, drawing support from individuals with a variety of backgrounds.

Looking at the attacks against Boru in which Silkenbeard would participate in, the motivations behind the conflict can be questioned, once again dispelling the idea of The Battle of

Clontarf as one of ethnic division. Howard Clarke notes this potential for variation in motive by examining a particular attack on Cork made by Sitric Silkenbeard against Brian Boru. Cork was a rival trading town of Dublin, one of which that Boru had control over. Rather than detailing it as an attacked based in ethnic distinction, Clarke describes a different motive; could it have been that “Sitric's initial motive for rebellion against his father in law was economic, but it became political with the involvement of his uncle Mael Morda?”142 Was the attack on Cork and any movement against Boru, with the assistance of his Irish uncle, simply a way for Silkenbeard to gain more agency for his own kingdom in the multi-polity system of Ireland? While the idea of motive is a study in of itself, the overarching conclusion that can be drawn in terms of The Battle of Clontarf is just how complex it is. Thus, the involvement of ethnicity within the conflict cannot be reduced to Boru simply wishing to dispel invaders from his country. Why would he have bound himself and his daughter to Sitric Silkenbeard, as well as used the forces of other

140 Wendy Davies, “States and Non-States in the Celtic World.” 160. 141 Ibid. 142 Ibid., 260. Crichton 54

Scandinavians in his confrontation against the Dublin king? On a larger scale, when looking at the overarching theme of how Scandinavians interacted with the Irish, one major point can be construed: political engagements within Ireland did not necessarily define themselves through ethnicity. Marriage alliances, and even allies were forged between both Irish and Scandinavian individuals, reflecting a more complex relationship than has been previously perceived.

Modern interpretations of ethnicity tend to complicate the conception of Vikings and how they engaged with Irish society. The emergence of the Gall-goídil during the ninth century certainly indicates the emergence of a blended culture. Additionally, the variety of political engagements complicates the idea of a Scandinavian versus Irish society. Drawing from the primary sources and distinctions made in describing the Scandinavians, there appears to be a separation in how the Scandinavians were identified, which can be explained perhaps through a reframing of how ethnicity impacted medieval people. Noting that ethnic categories and perceptions during the Middle Ages is largely different from modern conceptions, it is suggested that “political ties were thicker than blood and not the other way around.”143 While kinship should certainly not be disregarded, perhaps it is considered too much in terms of ethnically bound allegiance, rather than political allegiance. This would help to explain the variety of interactions taking place during the Viking Age. Rather than ethnically-bound loyalties, with the migration of Scandinavians into Ireland, relationships were formed based upon Lordship.144 With this idea of lordship being a priority, it would then mean that allegiances and identifications would be based upon groups of families, rather than bound in an identity of being strictly

Scandinavian—hence why groups such as the Gall-goídil developed within Dublin. Particularly

143 Bradley, John “Some Reflections on the Problem of Scandinavian Settlement in the Hinterland of Dublin during the Ninth Century.”: 44. 144 Ibid. Crichton 55 in the case of Scandinavians, as they settled within towns such as Dublin, Wexford, Waterford, and other influential trade-based towns, it could explain why primary sources identified foreigners from these specific areas as being separate from each other: “bonded by métier or fictive kinship, and the loyalty of followers to chief.”145 This could also help to explain why Irish kings sought control of the Viking-established towns—to gain such kingship and allegiance in order to have access to the international trade brought on by such ports: “Irish kings…were attempting to become ‘players’ in the Irish Sea trade.”146 Ethnicity was not necessarily the motivation for collaboration, which is why political alliances did not necessarily differentiate based upon ethnic background (though it would later be depicted in such a way). Instead, one could imagine Viking Ireland as subsisting off of family unities with presiding Lordship—which different groups of Scandinavians were able to become involved in. Ultimately, while it is helpful to use umbrella terms such as “Viking” to describe those of Scandinavian origin within

Ireland, the ethnic assumptions relating to it are too broad. Additionally, distinctions based upon ethnicity would not have necessarily been factors in how the Irish and Scandinavians interacted with each other throughout the Viking Age. Coincidently, lordship and allegiances would have been more influential than ethnic background.

Communicative Culture

If in fact ethnic boundaries were not necessarily divisive features of society, then it becomes important to consider the day-to-day interactions held between Irish and Scandinavian individuals. If lordships were indeed the way in which relationships were established, rather than distinct ethnicity, then it could be conceived that common cultures would develop between the

145 Ibid. 146 Mary A. Valante “Viking Kings and Irish Fleets During Dublin’s Viking Age”: 41. Crichton 56 ethnic groups in order to create a fluid society. Though these types of interactions are found throughout Ireland, Dublin will be used as a case study and examined in closer detail in order to conceive of a multi-ethnic society functioning under lordship versus ethnic distinction. Vikings were engaged in Irish society on more than just a political level. Battles, kings, and the connections formed between key historical individuals all carry their own importance within a conversation of the Viking age, but they were not the only factors that can or should be considered. While primary sources can document the political interactions of the elite, art, language, and other cultural components of society can be studied to gain some understanding of how the different Scandinavian groups fit into Irish society. Dublin tends to be the city that is most reflected upon in these investigations involving the cultural developments during the

Viking Age, seeing as it was a hub for trade, and an area of residence for both Scandinavians and

Irish. With cultural implications of two different ethnic groups merging together, one can begin to notice the Viking combining with Irish cultural elements, rather than rigid ethnic boundaries creating a dichotomous society.147 If Dublin were to exist within the Irish Sea Zone as a successful trading city, then the culture surrounding it would need to exist in support of the

Tuath’s individual goals. Considering these changes within society as examples of a culture developing together helps to perpetuate the idea that multi-ethnic cities existed within medieval

Ireland, and therefore the different groups of Scandinavians migrating would have the ability to become a part of those societies in all the different ways that the annals mention.

To begin this analysis, Dublin must first be understood in relation to the rest of Ireland.

Beginning as a longphort (or Viking settlement), Dublin is one of the earliest and objectively

147 Patrick F. Wallace, “Irish Archaeology and the Recognition of Ethnic Difference in Viking Dublin.” In Evaluating Multiple Narratives: Beyond Nationalists, Colonialist, Imperialist Archaeologies, (Springer, 2008):168 Crichton 57 most important Scandinavian-based originated site in Ireland.148 It is mentioned as being settled in 842 by the Annals of Ulster, though it would have been a site of Scandinavian residence

(though temporary) before then. In terms of Dublin as a Tuath, it quickly became a highly lucrative trading port and connection to the Irish Sea Zone. At the beginning of the tenth century, under the rule of Sitric Silkenbeard, Dublin produced its own coinage, and heavily interacted with both Irish kings and kingdoms within the Irish Sea Zone.149 Nearing the end of

Silkenbeard’s reign—after the Battle of Clontarf—it is believed that the city itself had gained enough power and control that allowed Silkenbeard to “behave like a minor Irish princeling”.150

Yet, in order for such advancements to occur, particularly in a town whose main motivation was trade, peace was essential as “attacks on Dublin would not entice merchants to bring their wares to the town.”151 By the end of the ninth century, cities such as Dublin had been settled by

Scandinavians, and trade networks connected with the Irish Sea Zone had become established.

Seeing as “organized long-distance trade had clearly become more lucrative than mere raiding,

Therefore, while some groups of Scandinavians within Ireland may have had continued motivations to raid, or be utilized by Irish kings for their naval forces, the Dublin Scandinavians would have been interacting within their society in a way that supported the motivations of their

Tuath and supported this network of trade.152 This would not only explain the variation in

Scandinavian interactions taking place throughout Ireland, but also help in understanding the examples brought forth by more revisionist scholars previously mentioned. Motivations were

148 Bradley, John “Some Reflections on the Problem of Scandinavian Settlement in the Hinterland of Dublin during the Ninth Century.”: 41. 149 Benjamin T. Hudson Viking Pirates and Christian Princes: Dynasty, Religion, and Empire in the North Atlantic: 110. 150 Ibid., 108. 151 Ibid. 152 Mary A. Valante “Viking Kings and Irish Fleets During Dublin’s Viking Age”: 75. Crichton 58 based on individual Tuaths and lordships that the Scandinavians associated with, which contributes to the variety of interactions had throughout Ireland.

Supporting this idea of cultural cohesion is therefore found through the examination of cultural elements throughout society. Though less of a physical representation, changes within language, the adoption of names, and even the creation of a new language begins to appear in

Dublin as a result of existence between those of Scandinavian and Irish origin. The emergence of a “gioch gach” language is representative of how the two ethnic backgrounds in Dublin were able to forge a connection that allowed them to communicate with each other. This language— which would have likely been a “pidgin of mixed Irish, Norse, and possibly English that was spoken in Dublin” is mentioned by Irish annalists and adds interesting insight into the lives of those residing within Dublin.153 The mixture of languages provided its own form of communication for the residents of Dublin, merging the cultural boundaries between the Irish and the Scandinavians. Though Dublin was dominantly Scandinavian, it was still an international trading port with a prominent Irish presence residing and mixing in the city, therefore creating a need for some level of cultural coexisting to occur—made evident by the adaption of a language.

In speaking on the language that was developed between the Irish and Scandinavians,

Donnchadh Ó Corráin breaks down the two different languages and discusses the combined language that was created as a result of their collaboration. Interestingly enough, though both languages (Irish and Old Norse) are members of the Western Indo-European family of languages, the relationship between the two is not close, creating a barrier for assimilation and bilingualism.154 Therefore, it was not as if it was an easy task for the residents of Dublin to create

153 Ibid., 171. 154 Donnchadh Ó Corráin, “Old Norse and Medieval Irish: Biligualism in Viking-Age Dublin.” In Dublin in the Medieval World, edited by John Bradley, Alan Fletcher, and Anngret Simms, 63–72. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2009): 63. Crichton 59 their own language. In order for that language barrier to be breached, a reason for creating a system of communication seems relevant. Another factor of this language barrier being breached is the name borrowing that begins to occur in the ninth century—at least in terms of the aristocracy, name borrowing begins to occur, with Irish borrowing Norse names, with Irish surnames attached to them. The Scandinavians also participated in this, though earlier, bearing very Irish names. It is not to say that a new common language was established, but perhaps this is evidence of the collaboration that would have been occurring between the general populations of Dublin. Whether it be because Dublin was a highly important trade town within the Irish Sea

Zone, an attempt by the Scandinavians to involve themselves in the political world of Ireland, there was a presence of Irish individuals choosing to reside within the town—or perhaps a combination of it all, the two ethnicities were bridged together through linguistics in order to coexist together. This assists in promoting the importance of the Tuath that would have been present in Irish society—more so than ethnic distinction. Creating a mutual language would not have been an easy task. Yet, in order to sustain a successful Dublin, such collaborations were necessary.

Verbal communication is not the only indication of cultural conversations occurring between Scandinavian groups and the Irish. Art and craftsmanship has also provided insight into the cultural exchanges between the Irish and Scandinavians. Metalworking, silversmithing, and motif designs are all used to compile examples of cultural cohesion. While these skills and techniques were being shared, a need for communication in order to teach those methods would have stimulated the previously discussed common language, particularly as the increase of

Dublin’s trade progressed throughout the Viking age. Patrick Wallace notes that even through the emergence of silver brought by the Vikings, Irish silversmiths were able to use this to Crichton 60 produce jewelry, and furthermore, develop a “silver weight economy”, which provided the basis for coin usage to begin occurring near the end of the tenth century.155 Ruth Johnson sites evidence that metalworking was occurring throughout the tenth century in Dublin, of which strongly indicated a presence of mixed Hiberno-Norse style.156 Benjamin Hudson even notes the actual construction of Dublin itself, particularly the homes in which the residents would have lived in. According to Hudson, they “were constructed more similarly to structures built by Irish carpenters rather than the Vikings.”157 The materials and building styles within the Scandinavian city were strikingly more Irish than the Viking long houses would have been considered traditional for a Scandinavian settlement.158 Even smaller features, such as combs that would have been worn develop in style throughout the involvement of Scandinavian and Irish traditions in Dublin: “The Scandinavian composite comb replaced the single-piece indigenous type, although the composite combs found in the Dublin excavations had the unique local trait of using red deer antler pins rather than the metal rivets found in other parts of the Viking world.”159 It is not that the traditional comb was removed from cultural traditions, but rather it evolved to represent the merging of traditions occurring within Dublin.

More specific artistic objects that are heavily studied in relation to medieval Dublin are motif pieces, and they serve as great representations of the collaborative culture that developed.

These pieces hold invaluable information, though interpretive, at the cultural boundaries that might have existed. For Wallace, these eleventh and twelfth century motif pieces from Dublin

155 Patrick F. Wallace, “Irish Archaeology and the Recognition of Ethnic Difference in Viking Dublin”: 167. 156 Ruth Johnson “Mind the Gap: the Supposed Hiatus in Irish Art of the Tenth Century.” In The Vikings in Ireland and beyond: before and after the Battle of Clontarf, edited by Howard B. Clarke, Ruth Johnson, & R. A. Hall (Dublin, Ireland: Four Courts Press, 2015):226. 157 Benjamin Hudson, Viking Pirates and Christian Princes, 94. 158 Ibid. 159 Patrick F. Wallace, “Irish Archaeology and the Recognition of Ethnic Difference in Viking Dublin”: 175. Crichton 61 indicated that the craftsmen responsibly for them were “at best recently converted and at worst still adhering to the beliefs of their pagan fathers.”160 This concept of communicative styles within artwork, based upon interaction between Scandinavians and Irish is continued specifically in Dublin, even into the twelfth century after the Anglo-Norman invasion. These craftsmen from

Dublin would continue to create artwork with a strong artistic influence by Nordic traditions: “If metalwork masterpieces like the Lismore crozier were not made in Dublin, they were probably made by someone who at least trained in the workshops of the eleventh-century town.”161 The

Scandinavian and Irish art styles held distinct qualities that began to be identified with Dublin specifically. Craftsmen who were training within the town would carry evidence of cultural collaboration throughout their art, even after the Viking Age had ended, rather than ridding themselves of it once the presence of Scandinavians had drastically lessened. Focusing in on the motif pieces specifically, Jessica McGraw notes them as being not just art forms, but signs of communicative pieces and activities. While the stylistic features themselves offer insight into the decorative elements of both cultures, it also indicates that the craftsman making them “achieved

[his] level of skill through the embodiment of style and practical knowledge”162 Put plainly, it is not an individual artistic approach but rather an embodiment of skills taught to the craftsman— hence McGraw’s usage of the word “communicative.” In her opinion, and as observed in the changing styles of the motif pieces themselves, when there is knowledge being transmitted and reinterpreted within new contexts, an evolution will occur within it to demonstrate change.163

160 Ibid. 161 Ibid. 162 Jessica L. McGraw, “Practice Makes Perfect? Motif-Pieces as Tools of Communication and the Exchange of Tactic Artistic Knowledge in Viking Age Dublin.” In The Vikings in Ireland and beyond: before and after the Battle of Clontarf, edited by Howard B. Clarke, Ruth Johnson, & R. A. Hall, (Dublin, Ireland: Four Courts Press, 2015): 403. 163 Ibid., 405. Crichton 62

These motifs mark the interesting combination of both Scandinavian and Irish cultural themes, containing distinct features of both combined into one artistic piece: “Whether it is the interplay of ribbons, animals or abstract renderings and metamorphosis, all artistic styles are embodied by structure, which in turn displays specific behaviours.”164 These similarities and combinations found within the Dublin carving motif-pieces suggest that the act of creating them symbolize an organized activity with a communication between the art and the artist.165

Essentially these motif pieces demonstrate the idea that collaboration was occurring between the two ethnic groups, culminating in shared skills and art styles. It was not that rigid ethnic boundaries were being formed between the two. In fact, quite the opposite. Considering art styles and skills as reflection of culture and self-identity, the pieces themselves potentially reflect a way in which communication was facilitated, and furthermore, “reflecting a time of ambiguity and cultural awareness.”166 A culture was being created within Dublin as a response to the types of people that were living within the city, as well as whose leadership they existed under. While motivations of medieval people cannot be assumed, through looking at evidence provided by research done on the everyday life of Dublin, it could potentially be conceived that cultural cohesion developed within the society to perpetuate a functioning Tuath. Rather than a rejection of Scandinavians into Irish society, there was collaboration within the communities they became a part of to perpetuate success in the individual societies they were a part of, rather than protecting a unified Ireland which did not exist.

These types of exchanges between cultures potentially suggest the cultural cohesion that has previously been questioned by different scholars throughout the studies of the Scandinavians

164 Ibid., 406. 165 Ibid., 414. 166 Ibid., 415. Crichton 63 in Ireland. Contemporary thinking has alluded to the idea that the Viking presence was a negative impacted the Irish art.167 Through considering examples such as that of the motif pieces, while it perhaps influenced the art itself, to say that it negatively impacted it seems a bit of a dramatization. In understanding the art and cultural influence occurring, it has not been until recently that the skewed perceptions of Scandinavian involvement have been challenged, partially through looking at the material culture such as motif pieces in order to determine the exchanges that were occurring between the two cultures residing together.168

It should certainly be noted that understanding ethnicity from archaeology, or really understanding past perceptions of it at all, is certainly a difficult thing. In terms of the more material items, both the skills and artifacts mentioned do not have the source documentation to definitively mark them as ethnically Irish or Scandinavian.169 But perhaps, that in itself is a good explanation of the cultural exchanges occurring in Dublin and possibly throughout Ireland.

People lived together, around each other, formed relationships, learned skills, and even just— liked certain artistic qualities. The greatest crux of determining whether or not a Viking burial had been found in Ireland is perhaps the greatest piece of evidence of the cultural ambiguity that was occurring. Likely, the Dublin population was “derived from a blending of the Scandinavians with the local population from the outset.”170 Wallace notes that overall homogeneity of the

Scandinavian population would have declined, even linguistically, purely from the lack in numbers of Scandinavian women that would have been present to prevent a decline.171 The society the Scandinavians joined were impacted by their arrival, but they certainly were not

167 Johnson, Ruth “Mind the Gap: the Supposed Hiatus in Irish Art of the Tenth Century.” 206. 168 Ibid., 219. 169 Patrick F. Wallace, “Irish Archaeology and the Recognition of Ethnic Difference in Viking Dublin” 172. 170 Ibid., 173. 171 Ibid. Crichton 64 colonized as has been suggested. Conceptually, an ethnically dichotomous society would not share the similarities and ambiguities that cities such as Dublin do display. Even on a larger political scale—if Brian Boru was the savior of the Irish from the foreigners, as often depicted, it seems strange that these cultural sharings would continue after the supposed battle of unification into the eleventh and twelfth centuries.172 Overall, it seems that in an attempt to represent the arrival of Scandinavians in Ireland during the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries, the complexities and impacts of their presence has largely been overlooked.

The study of cultural elements such as language and art allow for insight into the cultural sharings of the two groups as they resided together in cities such as Dublin. Both of these features provide an understanding of communication that was occurring between the Irish and

Scandinavians, once again adding evidence against the perception that the presence of the

Scandinavians in Ireland was purely destructive or ethnically divided. Through looking at these various factors of ethnicity, it is easier to comprehend the Viking age in Ireland as one involving more integration and collaboration between the Scandinavians and Irish, rather than the rigid, ethnically defined society that is perpetuated in stereotypical narratives. As a way to participate effectively throughout the Irish Sea Zone, multicultural cities such as Dublin had to find ways to exist peacefully. Perhaps, the cultural exchanges mentioned were the means in which Dublin was able to function as a lucrative and overall successful Tuath.

Conclusion

It is possible that vivid images of horned helmets, raiding men, and destruction of churches will always cloud perceptions of Scandinavians during the Viking Age. They have become iconic, novelistic characters set within the medieval world. While further study has been

172 Ibid., 168. Crichton 65 done on examining the Battle of Clontarf within its contemporary context, the image of Brian

Boru that has been created from perceiving the Scandinavians in an antagonistic way and a separation from that is difficult indeed. Perceived ethnic boundaries and popular perceptions of

Vikings have all contributed to skewing the contemporary understanding of what it meant to be a

Viking in the medieval ages.

On one hand, it is difficult to ignore the annal entries which document the raiding that occurred throughout Ireland and were brought on by the Scandinavians. It did occur. Monasteries were raided and destruction around Ireland persisted. Yet, not only was this largely occurring in the ninth century prior to Scandinavian settlement within Ireland, it does not serve as the descriptor for all interactions taking place between Scandinavians and the Irish. This has been perpetuated by misinterpretations of events such as the Battle of Clontarf and has created a sense of one type of Viking interaction—that of hostility and violence—to permeate discussions involving the Viking Age within Ireland. So, while it is unwise to say that they were a completely peaceful presence, the misconstrued conception that it was their only means of interaction is not helpful. Therefore, more revisionist approaches attempt to unpack the

Scandinavian presence and their interactions with the native Irish populations in a more thorough way, but their efforts tend to be rejected by traditionalist theories that still advocate for stereotypical interpretations of Vikings.

Therefore, in order to reach a middle-ground between these two notions, it was proposed that both types of interactions—that of a Viking raider and Scandinavian settler—were occurring because the Vikings were not one conglomerate group. Ireland and its multiple polity system of

Tuaths functioned with the presence of many different territories, kings, and people living within said communities. Going along with John Bradley’s proposition regarding medieval ethnicity, Crichton 66 lordship and fabricated kinship would have held more weight in medieval society, rather than that of ethnic distinction.173 Therefore, when the Scandinavians began settling in Ireland, such as the detailed case study of Dublin, they proceeded to resemble a traditional Irish Tuath. Cultural communication and collaboration occurred as an attempt to benefit the Tuath and promote the success of a multicultural city, or merely as an adaption to living and forming kinships with individuals from foreign backgrounds.

While these adaptions and integrations were taking place in cities such as Dublin,

Scandinavians settled throughout Ireland continued to follow suit with more traditional Viking roles as Irish kings began expanding into the Irish Sea Zone. With the increase of trade and desire to use technology introduced by the Scandinavians, the employment of Viking mercenaries and naval forces began to occur. In fact, Benjamin Hudson goes as far as to claim that this phenomenon “leads to another aspect of Irish Sea economic history that could require study: the exploitation of the Vikings by the natives.”174 With an increase of involvement within the Irish Sea Zone, as evident through lucrative trade towns such as Dublin, it would make sense that Irish kings would seek out the forces and skills of Scandinavians in their own personal efforts for power. While settlement had occurred within Dublin, with a Scandinavian population existing even past the Viking age, it is possible that there were Vikings whose intentions were to continue the ninth century lifestyle of raiding as a profession—hence the origin of the name

“viking” which is related to the notion of a profession rather than ethnic distinction.175

In order to better understand this potential differentiation in group, exploration into the primary sources within Ireland as well as the expansion of sources from the Irish Sea Zone aided

173 Bradley, John “Some Reflections on the Problem of Scandinavian Settlement in the Hinterland of Dublin during the Ninth Century.”: 44 174 Benjamin Hudson. "The Family of Harold Godwinsson and the Irish Sea Province" 44. 175 Clare Downham, “Viking Ethnicities: A Historiographic Overview” 1. Crichton 67 in discussions of identifying what it might have meant to be a Viking in Ireland. Through examining the Irish primary sources, particularly the annals, Vikings were described using different names: “Fair foreigner”, “dark foreigner”, “Dane”, “Norsemen”, and even specific territories attached to the basic descriptor of “foreigner”. Dark and fair could be used to describe the same groups that Dane and Norsemen are, or they could be completely separate. That within itself is a topic open to a wide variety of interpretation, but the basis remains the same. There is a notable distinction between said groups that the sources are documenting, even if more modern interpretations have glazed over that component. While these sources have been used to broadly state the nature in which Scandinavians interacted with the Irish, these distinctions in names provide reason to believe that the annalists were writing about different groups of Vikings within

Ireland. While one could certainly conceive of it as simply an example of interchangeable terms, the expansion into the Irish Sea Zone dispels this idea. Scottish, Welsh, and English sources all follow this trend of using different descriptors for the Scandinavians, sometimes even within the same entries. At least to the individuals penning the primary sources, there was at some level a separation in identity between Scandinavians.

Noting the difference provided by the Irish primary sources as well as the annals from the

Irish Sea Zone helps to explain why cities such as Dublin could be settled, political alliances and interactions could take place within Irish society, yet there were still Vikings raiding throughout the Irish Sea zone and causing conflict within Ireland. Instead of trying to understand Vikings as an entire entity, it makes sense to understand them within the context of the civilizations they were a part of. During the Viking Age, Ireland existed in a system of small polities, based in groups of families or kinship. Perhaps understanding the Vikings in Ireland means considering that Scandinavians were able to become a part of these individual kingdoms because they had Crichton 68 already previously been existing under the concept of kinship and lordship. The Vikings may have eventually been given the broad term of “viking”, but that is not how they or the native

Irish would have viewed them as they began to settle in Ireland during the Viking Age.

Crichton 69

References

Primary Sources

Todd, James Henthorn, ed. Cogadh Gaedhel Re Gallaibh. The War of the Gaedhil with the Gaill, or, The Invasions of Ireland by the Danes and Other Norsemen. Kraus Reprint Corp, 1965.

The Annals of Inisfallen: (Ms. Rawlinson B. 503). Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1988.

The Annals of Ulster. Dublin: Dublin Inst. for Advanced Studies, 1983.

Brut y Tywysogyon, or, The Chronicle of the Princes: Peniarth MS. 20 Version. Aberystwyth: University of Wales Press, 2015.

Chronicles of the Picts. Montague Township, ON: Harold S. MacGregor, 2015.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. London: Phoenix Press, 2003.

Secondary Sources

Bradley, John. “Some Reflections on the Problem of Scandinavian Settlement in the Hinterland of Dublin During the Ninth -Century.” In Dublin in the Medieval World, edited by John Bradley, Alan Fletcher, and Anngret Simms, 39-62. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2009.

Clarke, Howard Brian, and Ruth Johnson. The Vikings in Ireland and beyond: before and after the Battle of Clontarf. Dublin: Four courts Press, 2015.

Clarke, Howard B. “The Vikings in Ireland: A Historian’s Perspective.” Archaeology Ireland , 1995.

Clarke, Howard B. “King Sitriuc Silkenbeard: a great survivor.” In The Vikings in Ireland and beyond: before and after the Battle of Clontarf, edited by Howard B. Clarke, Ruth Johnson, & R. A. Hall, 232–259. Dublin, Ireland: Four Courts Press, 2015.

Davies, Wendy. “States and Non-States in the Celtic World.” In Der Frühmittelalterliche Staat - Europäische Perspektiven, edited by Walter Pohl and Veronika Wieser, 155–70. Austrian Academy of Science Press, 2009.

David Griffiths. “Irish Sea Identities and Interconnections During the Viking Age.” In The Vikings in Ireland and beyond: before and after the Battle of Clontarf, edited by Howard B. Clarke, Ruth Johnson, & R. A. Hall, 470–85. Dublin, Ireland: Four Courts Press, 2015.

Downham, Clare. Medieval Ireland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. Crichton 70

Downham, Clare. “Viking Ethnicities: A Historiographic Overview.” History Compass 10, no. 1 (2012): 1–12.

Downham, Clare. “Irish Chronicles as a Source for Rivalry between Vikings, A.D. 795–1014.” Essay. In No Horns on Their Helmets? Essays on the Insular Viking-Age. Aberdeen: The Centre for Anglo-Saxon Studies and the Centre for Celtic Studies, University of Aberdeen, 2013.

Duffy, Seán. “Irishmen and Islesmen in the Kingdoms of Dublin and Man.” Ériu 43 (1992): 93– 133.

Duffy, Sean.“Ireland and Scotland, 1014-1169: Contacts and Caveats.” In Seanchas: Studies in Early and Medieval Irish Archaeology, History, and Literature in Honour of Francis J. Byrne, edited by Alfred P.Smyth. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1999.

Halpin, Andy, and Claire Anderson. “The Battle of Clontarf.” Irish Arts Review, 2002.

Haywood, John. Northmen: the Viking Saga, 793-1241 AD. London: Head of Zeus, 2015

Holm, Poul. “The Naval Power of Norse Dublin”, In Clerics, Kings and Vikings: Essays on medieval Ireland in honour of Donnchadh Ó Corráin Edited by E. Purcell, P. MacCotter, J. Nyhan, J. Sheehan, & D. Ó Corráin, (pp. 67-78). Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2015.

Hudson, Benjamin. “The Changing Economy of the Irish Sea Province: AD 900-1300.” In Britain and Ireland, 900-1300, edited by Brendan Smith, 39–66. Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Hudson, Benjamin. “The Scottish Chronicle.” The Scottish Historical Review , 204, LXXVII, no. 2 (October 1998): 121–69.

Hudson, Ben. "The Family of Harold Godwinsson and the Irish Sea Province." The Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 109 (1979): 92-100. Accessed January 20, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25508756.

Hudson, Benjamin T. Viking Pirates and Christian Princes: Dynasty, Religion, and Empire in the North Atlantic. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2005.

Hughes, Kathleen. Early Christian Ireland: Introduction to the Sources. London (U.A.): Camelot Press, 1972.

Johnson, Ruth “Mind the Gap: the Supposed Hiatus in Irish Art of the Tenth Century.” In The Vikings in Ireland and beyond: before and after the Battle of Clontarf, edited by Howard B. Clarke, Ruth Johnson, & R. A. Hall, 470–85. Dublin, Ireland: Four Courts Press, 2015.

Jones, Thomas. Brut y Tywysogyon or the Chronicle of the Princes: Peniarth MS. 20 Version. Wales: University of Wales Press, 2015. Crichton 71

McGraw, Jessica L. “Practice Makes Perfect? Motif-Pieces as Tools of Communication and the Exchange of Tactic Artistic Knowledge in Viking Age Dublin.” In The Vikings in Ireland and beyond: before and after the Battle of Clontarf, edited by Howard B. Clarke, Ruth Johnson, & R. A. Hall, 470–85. Dublin, Ireland: Four Courts Press, 2015.

Mhaonaigh, Maire Ni. “A Man of Two Faces: Mael Sechnaill ma cDomnaill in Middle Irish sources.” In The Vikings in Ireland and beyond: before and after the Battle of Clontarf, edited by Howard B. Clarke, Ruth Johnson, & R. A. Hall, 232–252. Dublin, Ireland: Four Courts Press, 2015.

Porter, Arthur Kingsley. The Crosses and Culture of Ireland. New York: Arno Press, 1979.

Jones, Thomas. Brut y Tywysogyon or the Chronicle of the Princes: Peniarth MS. 20 Version. Wales: University of Wales Press, 2015.

Smyth, Alfred P. “The Effect of Scandinavian Raiders on the English and Irish Churches: a Preliminary Reassessment.” In Britain and Ireland, 900-1300, edited by Brendan Smith, 1– 38. Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Swanton, Michael J. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. New York, NY: Routledge, 1998.

Valante, Mary A. “Viking Kings and Irish Fleets During Dublin’s Viking Age. ”In Dublin in the Medieval World, edited by John Bradley, Alan Fletcher, and Anngret Simms, 73–82. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2009.

Valante, Mary A. The Vikings in Ireland: Settlement, Trade and Urbanization. Dublin: Four court Press, 2008.

Wallace, Patrick F. “Irish Archaeology and the Recognition of Ethnic Difference in Viking Dublin.” In Evaluating Multiple Narratives: Beyond Nationalists, Colonialist, Imperialist Archaeologies, 166–82. Springer, 2008.

Ó Corráin, Donnchadh. “Old Norse and Medieval Irish: Biligualism in Viking-Age Dublin.” In Dublin in the Medieval World, edited by John Bradley, Alan Fletcher, and Anngret Simms, 63–72. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2009.

Ó Corráin, Donnchadh. “Vikings in Ireland: the catastrophe.” In The Vikings in Ireland and beyond: before and after the Battle of Clontarf, edited by Howard B. Clarke, Ruth Johnson, & R. A. Hall, 470–85. Dublin, Ireland: Four Courts Press, 2015.

Crichton 72