The buildings and other structures in Hiberno-Norse Dublin and no doubt other contemporary urban settlements in Ireland used very large quantities of wood, especially hazel coppicing, but also alder, oak and ash. We cannot be certain of the number of houses in Dublin, in mid 11th century, or of its population, but one estimate, used by Gerahty (Gerahty, S. 1996 Viking Dublin: Botanical Evidence from Fishamble Street) is 900 houses giving a population of about 4,500 which would have required 2,700 hectares of managed woodland just to supply fuel for the hearths!! In addition some 4000 hectares of arable would have been required to feed the population. Some 20 tons of moss would also have been required per annum for use as toilet paper.
Even if these figures are estimates and prone to inaccuracy, there can be little doubt that the settlement could not have survived without control of its hinterland. Wild fruits and nuts were collected from the Wicklow Hills to the south and beef and mutton joints from mature animals were brought into Dublin. Pigs and goats were kept in the settlement. Later documentary evidence shows that Dyflinarskiri or Dublins shire, was probably the area controlled from Dublin. It included some 100 kms of coast stretching from the Skerries in the north, mentioned in later medieval documents as the Fine Gall (land of the foreigners) to south of the Wicklow Mountains, mentioned as the land of the sons of Torkill. Here, then is a good example of an urban settlement interreacting with and dependant upon its territory. One theme of the later part of the early middle ages in Europe is the increasingly close relations between towns and their territories and the reduction in the importance of long -distance trade. Local trading patterns became more important. How did the leaders of Dublin control their territory? Coppicing wood, raising cattle, collecting moss, growing arable crops could hardly be done successfully in an atmosphere of plunder and raiding. Co-operation is much more likely and again this suggests the term Hiberno-Norse is apt.
Similar territories surrounded other coastal settlements, including the Gaultier Gall Tere (land of foreigners) around Waterford. Names with Norse elements are fairly common within Dyflinarskiri though far less frequent outside the hinterlands. Some 50 or so Norse loan words into Irish are known, dominated by words for farming practices and not surprisingly, ship building, though these could have come into the language, after the Norman Conquest, 1171. Some monasteries within the hinterlands can be shown to continue through the period so they enjoyed the protection of whoever was in control.
How do we interpret all this evidence? At the very least these new proto-urban settlements were Norse inspired. Construction did not begin until the Norse arrived back in Ireland. How far they were a development out of the longphortsis not known and cannot be known until a longphort has been excavated and this is a crucial gap in our knowledge. The Irish had monastic and royal sites which operated in some ways like these settlements, that is they acted also as commercial and market centres, though the planned element was largely missing. Yet there is a puzzle in that the Norse homelands and the areas in which they settled did not have equivalent settlements. The nearest comparison in Scotland, would be the high status site on the Brough of Birsay where some elements of planning are known, though this certainly developed out of an existing native Pictish site. Otherwise so far what we have from Scotland of the period are rural settlements consisting of isolated farmsteads, or at best very small groups of farmsteads. In the homelands proto-urban development in the ninth and early tenth centuries was largely confined to a few sites in Denmark.
The Norse would have had opportunities to witness planned settlements, however, in England and on the continent. Alfred had encouraged the building of burhs or fortified sites in England in the last quarter of the ninth century, some of which grew into large defended settlements. On the continent ex- Roman defended towns with planned street grids would have been seen and Dublin’s close connections with Chester might also have suggested planning to the founders of Dyflin. However, both types were to an extent imposed upon the site and do not display the organic growth seen at Dublin, where the street pattern followed the contours. Only in York is it possible to see Viking Age streets following the contours.
Irish sites - raths, cashels, monasteries were enclosed and perhaps the earliest ramparts at Dublin were like the earthworks around some of the raths. But the buildings also require explanation: rectangular buildings are known from some of the enclosures in Ireland, though not with internal posts supporting the roofs and they were usually entered from the side, not the end. Side benches and central hearths are known however. The few houses discovered in Scotland, the unaisled hall houses or the later aisled longhouses with side benches and central hearths have something in common with the Dublin houses, but their lower walls were stone built. The houses in Viking Age York are of similar dimensions but crucially different in that the weight of the roofs was taken on more substantial posts in the walls. It is surely better to see the Dublin houses, present on the Dublin site from the earliest period, as an amalgam of ideas from different sources, but developed in Ireland. Hence the term Hiberno-Norse for the populations of these developing towns (the Roman (Latin) term for Ireland was Hibernia!!).
Whatever the arguments, what were certainly being developed here were the first truly urban sites in Ireland the first time a range of activities had been brought together on the one site. Irish kings were slow to realise the potential of commerce, long-distance contact and workshop activities to enhance their positions, but it is noticeable that with the foundation of these towns they became increasingly aware of what they were missing. They made repeated attempts thereafter to gain control and especially when Mail Sechnailll gained control of Dublin and again in 1000 when Brian Boru, high king gained control and then gave the fort of Dublin to the foreigners ie Norse, that is they held the settlement from now on from him. No wonder Egil’s Saga sings the praises of Dublin in the tenth century in. Irish kings were content to allow Vikings to remain in charge of the towns, but largely under their suzerainty.
Finally, we should attribute to the Viking leaders in Ireland the same ambitions and goals that we see elsewhere. What were their long-term aims in Ireland? Did they aim to colonise on the pattern of the Scottish Northern or Western Isles. Did they seek to dominate as the Earls of Orkney did over a mixed population? Were they content to occupy longphortsand later towns? Did they use Ireland merely as a base from which to trade, perhaps largely in slaves, and perhaps to indulge in activities elsewhere? Did they aim for political power as the Viking kings of York did or the Vikings of Normandy after 911? Or are these the wrong questions to ask. Might we be better asking, how did the Irish confront the Viking problems in Ireland? How well organised were Irish leaders and Irish society to deal with Viking activities in Ireland? A number of spectacular Irish defeats of Viking war-bands are recorded - in 902, 948, 980, 1014 as well as lesser ones. Did Irish resistance blunt Viking aims in Ireland?
Questions for you to think about
- Why would it have been difficult for Hiberno-Norse towns to have existed without controlling their hinterlands?
- Where might the Norse have learned about planned towns?
- In your opinion what were the main aims of Viking leaders in Ireland?
Quiz
Now click here to try a quiz which tests your knowledge of this unit.