Kaupang and Dublin

1 INTRODUCTION
Kaupang and Dublin were two nodal urban markets within the Scandinavian trade network.
Despite constantly shifting borders and fluctuating political situations amongst Scandinavian kings,
the ninth century experienced the growth of trade and network expansion, regardless of the ruling
powers and state consolidation. For a select group of Scandinavian elite, trade, and the wealth it
produced, evolved into a power more important than territorial rights. This paper proposes that
Viking Age Scandinavians were able to create a trade empire through a network of urban sites,
which they either settled themselves or conquered and expanded. This network was ruled over by an
elite class of traders and travelers who did not adhere to modern concepts of nationalism. While
there may have been self-identification amongst regional groups, and there were certainly warring
factions, this did not ultimately inhibit their collective economic prosperity. This Scandinavian trade
network never intended to be a united political entity, but nevertheless had a great impact upon the
places in which they traded and settled. Past scholarship has largely focused on comparing
Scandinavian Viking Age towns to one another, within a limited geographical frame, i.e. urban sites
within the North and Baltic Seas. Comparably, Irish history has remained the reserve of Irish and
British Scholars, who have carried out their research with nationalistic focus. The aim of this paper
is to open a discussion across modern borders, by comparing and contrasting two early Viking Age
towns, in order to provide a greater understanding of the political and economic system through
which a trade network was accomplished. More specifically, this discussion centers around
Kaupang, in modern southeast Norway, and Dublin in Ireland.
These two towns have been selected for a number of reasons. First, Kaupang’s recent
excavations have changed the way it is understood within the Scandinavian trade network; while
Kaupang was previously considered to be a major market center, past scholarship classified it as a
seasonal settlement. The Irish Sea has been acknowledged as a major trading partner with Kaupang,
yet the majority of Scandinavian archaeologists limit their theoretical approaches to within
Scandinavia and the Baltic Sea. Indeed, modern nationalism has proven to be limiting in
understanding how Scandinavian urban centers communicated and traded only amongst each other.
However, the Irish Sea is incredibly important to Kaupang’s economic growth as Scandinavian
migration to the west allowed Kaupang to shift ties from trade and raiding with/against the
Carolingian Empire to the Irish Sea during the ninth century. From then on, it was arguably also
dependent upon the North and Irish Sea, a rather understudied connection. It is therefore proposed
that the ultimate failure of Kaupang lay in its dependence on unstable political systems in flux.
Collapsing in the first half of the tenth century, Kaupang faced the failure of the Danish kingdom to
control the Vestfold area, as the Norwegian kingdom expanded and solidified its power and moved
its centers of control to non-Danish held sites. I chose to study Dublin because I found that Dublin
is often viewed as an Irish city that was founded by Scandinavians raiders, instead of a
Scandinavian town that grew gradually in to an Irish city. Few scholars have completed an in-depth
examination of the direct economic link of Dublin to the Scandinavian trade network in the early
Viking Age, preferring to discuss the politics of ethnicity and identity. In comparison to Kaupang,
Dublin began as a dependent colony-town, but ensuing generations ensured that it became a socio-
political and economically independent ‘city-state’ within Ireland. It is ultimately Dublin’s
independence from Scandinavian powers that allowed it to survive beyond the Viking Age.
1.1 Source criticism

While there are a variety of written sources throughout Europe, and even the Middle East,
during the early Viking Age, the Scandinavians pose a unique problem in that they do not write
about themselves until much later in their history. Because they are most often recorded as pirates,
slavers, and savage threats to the well being of the kingdom(s) recording their activities, bias
sometimes permeates the entries that reference them. The Royal Frankish Annals (Annales regni
Francorum) (ARF) is a contemporary chronicle which reveals Continental Europe’s earliest
encounters with the kingdom of the Danes and other Scandinavian pirates at the advent of the
Viking Age. The annals record events concerning the Carolingian Empire between 741 and 829, and
are generally trustworthy in their record of Danish activities, if not their motivations.1
Ninth century Ireland is able to offer a more thorough picture of Scandinavian activities in
the Irish Sea Region, although we face the same problem in that it is the Irish as heroes and victims
who record the invasion of a Scandinavian host. The most trusted Irish source is the Annals of
Ulster (AU). The Annals of Ulster detail events from the fifth century into the twelfth century, and
are generally believed to accurately record contemporary historical materia. For this reason, I have
chosen to rely more heavily on the Annals of Ulster, although I do make occasional use of the
Fragmentary Annals of Ireland (FA) and The Annals of Innisfallen (AI) in order to corroborate
certain events.
1 I have offered my own translations from the original Latin. The two translations from Old Norse and Old English are
also my own.
Because my use of the sources necessitates fact over narrative, I have chosen not to discuss
Ynglingatal as a textual source in reference to Kaupang. The poem was first recorded in
Heimskringla during the 1220s, and the debate over dating has not reached a satisfying conclusion.
Its unreliable and national bias towards the Norwegian kingdom suggests that it cannot be
considered a historical source through which to build the history of Kaupang in Skiringssal.2
1.2 Historiography/Stand der Forschung

In studying the archaeology of Kaupang, this paper will make use of Dagfinn Skre’s
extensive volumes in order to examine and analyze the archaeology of the town.3 Any assessment
made by previous excavations on site, such as Blindheims’s work between 1950-1974, or early
nineteenth and twentieth century archaeologists, will only be understood through Skre’s own
historiography and interpretations. As far as historical interpretation goes, early Viking Age
Scandinavia has long been viewed through a lens of prehistory, and the Scandinavians of the ninth
century have forever been at the mercy of how their contemporaries wrote about them. Modern
perceptions have been influenced by politically nationalistic approaches of the nineteenth century
and only recently have historians moved away from using the accounts written by Saxo
Grammaticus and Snorri Sturluson. In this way, a shift towards a stronger reliance in scientific
analysis of the archaeology has allowed historians to create a more accurate narrative in
Scandinavia during the early Viking Age.
The Viking Age in Ireland is perhaps more complicated to interpret, as it has always
functioned within the realm of insular nationalism, and Irish and British scholars have viewed the
Scandinavian invasion with measured distaste. As such, the archaeology of early Viking Age Dublin
has long suffered from heavy reliance on annalistic exegesis, which naturally leans towards a
decidedly anti-Scandinavian approach, thus limiting interpretation of the Scandinavians in their own
right. Only recently have scholars begun to move towards a more balanced approach, accepting that
Scandinavians were less of a plague and more an integral part of Ireland’s textured and colorful
history. Mary A. Valante’s 2008 book, The Vikings in Ireland, offers “a monograph-length study of
2For further reading see: Skre, Dagfinn, “The Dating of Ynlingatal,” in Kaupang in Skiringssal, ed. Dagfinn Skre,
(Aarhus: Aarhus University Press & the Kaupang Excavation Project, University of Oslo, 2007), 407-430.; Myre, Bjørn,
“Borre og Ynglingeætta i Vestfold,” in Før Viken Ble Norge: Borregravfeltet som religiøs og politisk arena, (Norsk
oldfunn XXXI: 2015), 113-132.
3Skre, Dagfinn, ed., Kaupang in Skiringssal, (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press & the Kaupang Excavation Project,
University of Oslo, 2007).; Skre, Dagfinn, ed., Means of Exchange, (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press & the Kaupang
Excavation Project, University of Oslo, 2008).; Skre, Dagfinn, ed., Things from the Town, (Aarhus: Aarhus University
Press & the Kaupang Excavation Project, University of Oslo, 2011).
the economy of Scandinavian urban centres in Viking Age Ireland,”4 which has helped to
contextualize why the Scandinavians went to Ireland in the first place and how they helped to build
Ireland through urban infrastructure and long-distance trade. Linzi Simpson has pushed for new
excavations and definitively found evidence of ninth century Dublin, resulting in a desire to
reinterpret both new and old annalistic and archaeological evidence within this recent context.5
Despite this new evidence, traditional scholars such as Howard B. Clarke continue to operate under
minimalist theory (under which the Scandinavians hardly impacted Ireland’s political structure and
focused only on economic advancement), positing that Ireland remained “a land with a minimum
trend towards urbanization” even at the turn of the eleventh century.6 In studying Dublin, it is
important to acknowledge its role as a Scandinavian town in Ireland, but also to examine Dublin’s
interactions with the Scandinavian elite that founded it.
Scandinavian urbanism has been a point of contention for many generations of scholars, and
the definition of what exactly constitutes a town in the early Viking Age is beyond the scope of this
paper. Instead, it will be easier to define the difference between a central place within a region, and
a nodal point within a scale-free network, and how Kaupang and Dublin come into focus once both
central place theory and network theory have been applied to their contextualization. Central place
theory was originally developed by the German geographer Walther Christaller in the 1930s, and
David Clarke first applied the theory to archaeology in 1972.7 Although it was created to function as
a geographical theory, by applying it to archaeology scholars suggest that the urban site was a
construction of local powers. In this way, economic, juridical, religious, and administrative
functions would have helped to define the site as a central place.8 Central place theory imagines the
site as the center, with focus moving inward. Søren M. Sindbæk has recently been a major advocate
of shifting away from central place theory and instead viewing urbanism as a product of network
theory, through which “a trading-place is not primarily a political or economic structure, but a
4 Valante, Mary A, The Vikings in Ireland, (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2008) 12.
5Linzi Simpson, “The first phase of Viking activity in Ireland: archaeological evidence from Dublin,” in The Viking
Age: Ireland and the West, Papers from the Proceedings of the Fifteenth Viking Congress, Cork, 18-27 August 2005,
edited by John Sheehan and Donnchadh Ó Dorráin, assisted by Shannon Lewis-Simpson, (Dublin: Four Courts Press,
2010) 418-429.
6Howard 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 and Ruth Johnson, (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2015), 253.
7 Clarke, David L., Models in Archaeology (London: Routledge, 1972).
8Callmer, Johan, “Urbanization in Scandinavia and the Baltic Region c. AD 700-1100: Trading Places, Centres and
Early Urban Sites,” in Development around the Baltic and North Sea in the Viking Age, Volume 3 , ed. Björn
Ambrosiani and Helen Clarke (Stockholm: Birka Studies, 1994) 50-90.
traffic junction - a point where certain networks or traffic convene.”9 Sindbæk considers Kaupang
as one of seven major nodes within a geographically Scandinavian network, but Dublin, an
undeniably Scandinavian node, is left out of consideration on the grounds of geographic placement
in the Irish Sea.10 Therefore, I am specifically interested in applying network theory to both
Kaupang and Dublin, as a means in which to bring Dublin into the playing field as a major actor in
the Scandinavian trade network. In addition, I suggest that instead of perpetuating an either/or usage
of central place and network theory, both can be applied to create a nuanced, layered approach. In
this way, it is possible that a site can be both a central place and a node as part of a larger network;
urbanism is a complex phenomenon, and undoubtedly developed through both intra-regional and
inter-regional influences.
1.3 The sequence of chapters

This paper has been broken down into two chapters and structured to offer a side-by-side
comparison of Kaupang and Dublin. The first chapter will be focused on the development and
decline of Kaupang in Skiringssal and the second will discuss ninth century Dublin. The chapters
will mirror each other, examining chronological history and different aspects of each site, such as
the physical layouts of the sites and the buildings that were present, the monetary systems in place,
the nature of their imports and exports, and the different peoples who inhabited both towns. In this
way, Kaupang and Dublin will be compared and contrasted, and ultimately they will be identified as
two nodal points linked together by the Scandinavian trade network.
9Sindbæk, Søren M., “Networks and nodal points: the emergence of towns in early Viking Age Scandinavia,” Antiquity,
81 (2007): 120.
10Sindbæk, Søren M., “Networks and nodal points: the emergence of towns in early Viking Age Scandinavia,”
Antiquity, 81 (2007): 121.
2 Kaupang
In this chapter, I argue that the Danish kingdom established Kaupang in order to create a
central traffic junction in the Scandinavian trade network, which linked Scandinavia’s western
routes to its eastern connections. I will begin by contextualizing the history and environmental
factors on a global scale that led to the beginning of the consolidation of the Danish kingdom during
the eighth century and the introduction of towns into Scandinavian society. A warming climate,
agricultural surplus, and silver circulation were clear factors in the growth of commercial activity
throughout Scandinavia, as well as its early contact with the Carolingian Empire and its subsequent
decline.
Next, I will address the nature of Skiringssal, including the royal hall of Huseby and the
importance of the thing site, which are both indicative of the site being a central place within the
Vestfold region. The lack of defenses surrounding the town will be addressed as evidence that
Kaupang was never a political center or a major military site. The town’s physical layout and the
archaeological finds associated with the town will be used to understand the character of the
settlement, including what sort of port Kaupang functioned as, what goods were imported and
exported from the town, and where these goods came from and went to. I will discuss the
inhabitants of the town, their purpose as craftsmen or traders, and how they came to arrive in
Kaupang. Essentially, I will discuss the aspects of the town that allowed it to link the Viken region
to long-distance trade and open communication between the Irish Sea and the Middle East. This
chapter will end by examining the decline of Kaupang during the first decades of the tenth century
and examine any connections this failure may have had to do with its contact with the Irish Sea.
2.1 Contextual Foundations

Kaupang was established in southeastern Norway around 800 as a nodal point within the
Scandinavian trade network. The Danish kingdom created this node in order to take control of and
expand upon preexisting trading routes in the North and Baltic seas, which dated back to the Roman
Empire. The four most important Scandinavian trading centers, Birka, Ribe, Kaupang and Hedeby
respectively, were founded between 770 and 810, during which time non-Scandinavian textual
sources note an increasing Scandinavian presence spreading throughout the known world. Yet the
network did not emerge from a vacuum, and Kaupang’s contextual foundations were laid over a
century prior, when the seventh century saw the return of economic and political stability to the
successor kingdoms of the northwestern Roman Empire. At the same time, the Eastern Roman
Empire began its decline and collapsed under pressure from the Sassanian Empire of Persia and the
growth of the Islamic caliphate. The Roman Empire had never ventured as far north as Scandinavia,
although archaeological evidence has explicitly linked contact between the two through trade and
also possibly with Scandinavians as mercenaries in armies either for or against the Empire.11 The
emergence of the Scandinavian runic script during the first century AD also points to contact with
the literate Roman Empire, as the runic characters both resemble the alphabet graphemically and
correlate to roughly the same sound values.12 Likewise, the collapse of the Roman Empire did not
signal the end of Scandinavian contact with the rest of Europe. A Merovingian coin was found at on
the shores of Kaupang, signifying contact during the seventh century, and the Carolingian Empire
became well acquainted with the rising Danish kingdom.13
Environmental factors contributed greatly to the reopening and expansion of trade networks
that faltered at the end of the western Roman Empire. The climate of northwestern Europe began to
warm beginning around the year 650 and continued for roughly a century.14 Scandinavia benefited
from this trend towards warming and became a surplus-producing economy at the beginning of the
eighth century. The majority of land within mainland Norway lay both unclaimed and untouched at
this time, while farming allowed for only a small percentage of agricultural cultivation of the land.
These uncultivated stretches of land, referred to as outlands, were where the surplus of cattle was
left out to graze.15 Based on a later law found in Gulathing, it can be suggested that the outlands
were common land intentionally left unclaimed, and the communal aspect of these outlands allowed
11The Prince in the Flag Mound, third century burial in Avaldsnes, Norway, was buried with a wealth of Roman
imports. These include, a board game with 31 blue and black glass gaming pieces, a tin-plated bronze mirror, a pair of
bronze scales, a complete set of bronze vases and platters, a silver cup, a silver fitting for a drinking horn, and a bronze
wine sieve, all of which link Scandinavian trade and communication to the Roman Empire. Most importantly, a double-
edged sword in a leather sheath, issued to members of the Roman army, was found buried with in the grave; such a find
may indicate that this man fought either for or against the Roman army somewhere to the south before returning to
Avaldsnes. (Vea, Marit Synnøve, “Roman Age (0-400),” Avaldsnes: Noregs eldste kongesete, acc. 20/04/17, http://
avaldsnes.info/en/historie/yngre-romertid-200-400-e-kr/.)
12Barnes, Michael P. “What is Runology, and Where Does It Stand Today,” in Futhark: International Journal of Runic
Studies: Containing proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Runes and Runic Inscriptions, Oslo, 9-14
August 2010, vol. 4, ed. James E. Knirk and Henrik Williams, ass. ed. Marco Bianchi, (University of Oslo & Uppsala
University: 2013), 12.
Pilø, Lars, “The Settlement: Extent and Dating,” in Kaupang in Skiringssal, ed. Dagfinn Skre, (Aarhus: Aarhus
13
University Press & the Kaupang Excavation Project, University of Oslo, 2007), 173.
14McCormick, Michael and et al., “Climate change during and after the Roman Empire,” The Journal of
Interdisciplinary History 43, no. 2 (2012): p. 200, doi:10.1162/JINH_a_00379.
15Sindbæk, Søren M., “Social Power and Outland Use in Viking Age Settlement,” in Settlement and Lordship in Viking
and Early Medieval Scandinavia, ed. Bjørn Poulsen and Søren Michael Sindbæk, (Brepols: Turnhout 2011), 106.
for a greater number of farmers to become wealthy.16 Past scholarship has envisioned the majority
of Scandinavian farmers as free peasants during the late Iron Age, in which landholders were
beholden to no one and maintained a significant degree of freedom, but recent research questions
the validity of this assertion. Despite a great degree of autonomy, the farming class relied on the
aristocracy to settle disputes and to protect them in times of unrest. Recent archaeological evidence
suggests that large manorial farms housed an aristocracy that oversaw smaller farms in its vicinity
and played a large role in the pre-urban economy. Indeed, it is highly likely that Viking Age estates
were organized through a system of magnate farms, similarly to Carolingian manors, and required a
large number of slaves to function.17 While the use of slaves faded from fashion in the tenth century
throughout central and western Europe, it did not disappear from northern Europe until much later,
which suggests two things: first that slaves would have been needed from outside of Scandinavia in
large portions in order to run these farms, and second that the population of thralls and non-free
peoples would have been higher in medieval Scandinavia than previously thought.18
The survival of a free farming farm class depended on the ability to graze their herds
unhindered, as well as an increasing slave class to work the farms. As such, aristocratic leaders were
needed to maintain the balance and also to ensure access to these slaves. A leader or chieftain’s
power would have been strongly based around his social relations and particularly around his ability
to lead in an agricultural area by distributing surpluses and keeping the peace surrounding land
rights.19 The leader of a stable economic region would also have the ability to create and organize
military opportunities; this manifested in the form of the oversea raids that came to define the
Viking Age. Aristocratic leaders could become war chiefs if they had not just the wealth of cattle,
but also portable wealth to present to his followers. The portable wealth transported back to
16Norges Game Love indtil 1387: Norges Love ældre end Kong Magnus Haakonssøns Regjerings-Tiltrædelse i 1263.
Compiled by P. A. Munch and R. Keyser, (Christiania, 1864), 41. Gulathing Law 84 Nu scal til sætra a fiall up væra
merti sem at forno fare hever verit. Fora eigi ór stað nema hann fore engum manne til meins. Sva scal þar f´tr at
Somme. (Now shall the boundary markers of the shieling pasture upon the mountain be moved to as they were of old.
Let no one possess/move their from places except him to go so that no one man comes to harm. So shall the pastures be
that same.)
17Skre, Dagfinn, “Centrality, Landholding and Trade in Scandinavia c. AD 700-900,” in Settlement and Lordship in
Viking and Early Medieval Scandinavia, edited by Bjørn Poulsen and Søren Michael Sindbæk, (Turnhout: Brepols,
2011), 202-203. See also: Iversen, Tore, “Thralls’ Manumission, Land Clearing, and State Building in Medieval
Norway,” in Settlement and Lordship in Viking and Early Medieval Scandinavia, ed. Bjørn Poulsen and Søren Michael
Sindbæk, (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), 263-276
18Poulsen, Bjørn and Sindbæk, Søren M., “Settlement and Lordship in Viking and Early Medieval Scandinavia.” in
Settlement and Lordship in Viking and Early Medieval Scandinavia, ed. Bjørn Poulsen and Søren Michael Sindbæk,
(Turnhout: Brepols, 2011) 15.
19 Sindbæk, Søren M., “Social Power and Outland Use in Viking Age Settlement,” 104.
Scandinavia from these successful raids opened up a new avenue for trade in a mainly agricultural
economy.
At the same time as the northwest of Europe began to warm, a series of events closed down
preexisting trade routes that connected the east and the west, and may have resulted in a
Scandinavian attempt to reopen these networks at the end of the eighth century. The rise of Islam in
the Middle East and its rapid expansion during the decline of the Eastern Roman Empire effectively
closed the eastern Mediterranean to the Christian West by the end of the seventh century. While the
sea had operated as a road during the height of the Roman Empire, the Mediterranean now became
a barrier. Conflict and isolation in China and East Asia also closed the Silk Road to the West,
limiting even more goods and luxuries which once progressed with limited obstruction from one
side of the world to the other. Towns, already devastated from the fall of the Western Roman
Empire, continued to decline. This was a crippling blow, and the entire economy of western Europe
suffered. Yet it may have worked to draw Scandinavians out of their northern homelands in search
of wealth; the slow trickling of goods northward suddenly ceased. Used to the flow of wealth to
Scandinavia from western Europe, the gift-giving socio-economies of the north were forced to seek
out capital and Scandinavians travelled long-distances to obtain their fortunes.
Scandinavian trade centers emerged in the Baltic Sea as new trade routes began to emerge
and expand. Goods from the east no longer filtered up to Scandinavia from Western Europe, and
thus Scandinavians cut a direct route from their homelands down to the East. In 761, the Abbasid
dynasty established their dominance in the Middle East and moved their capital to Baghdad in 762.
This brought the caliphate closer to the silver mines and resulted in a large exportation of silver
outside of the Middle East. Coin hoard patterns suggest that the silver made its way to Scandinavia
first through the Southern Caucasus and then up through Eastern Europe before reaching the Baltic
and North Seas.20 As large amounts of silver entered the local economies between the Middle East
and Scandinavia, this reintroduction of wealth stimulated long-distance trade once again. While the
Christian West had been closed to the Islamic East, the more neutral Swedish Rus, being of neither
religious faction, were allowed to explore and establish trade routes to Byzantium and Baghdad
through the eastern river-ways. Birka, established around 770, dates to this period of expansion, as
does Reric (Groβ Stömkendorf) and Truso in the Baltic Sea.
20Kilger, Christoph, “Kaupang from Afar: Aspects of the Interpretation of Dirham Finds in Northern and Eastern
Europe between the Late 8th and Early 10th Centuries,” in Means of Exchange: Dealing with Silver in the Viking Age,
edited by Dagfinn Skre, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press & Kaupang Excavation Project, University of Oslo, 2008,
199.
The Carolingian Empire was vital in both stimulating Scandinavian trade, but also in
provoking the Danes of the Jutland peninsula into territorial consolidation through military action in
order to protect their lands. Charlemagne had been actively expanding his empire north into
Germanic (Saxon and Frisian) lands during the 770s and 780s; Frisia and Saxony were finally
claimed by the Franks in 785, three years after the infamous Massacre at Verden.21 This no doubt
spurred the Danish kingdom to begin its unification during the second half of the eighth century and
encouraged military organization. Indeed, Charlemagne began his struggles with the Danish king
Godfrid during the first decade of the ninth century, and this would continue until the Frankish
emperor’s death. Godfrid reacted to Carolingian threats by first raiding off the Frankish coasts with
small parties and then appears to have set upon the Franks with larger fleets, exacting tribute from
these peoples. Charlemagne attempted to build a fleet in order to counter the Danish threat, but
Godfrid was not to be outdone. The king of the Danes destroyed the Frankish held Reric in the
Baltic Sea and forcibly moved its merchants to the newly created Danish town of Hedeby in 808.22
At the same time, the Royal Frankish Annals record that Godfrid began reconstruction on the
Danevirke, a fortification that was meant to define the territory between Danish Jutland and the
Frankish continent.23 Frankish expansion northwards was not welcomed by the Danes.
Despite their enmity, Godfrid appears to have been heavily influenced by Charlemagne’s
example in regards to monarchy, taxation, and expansion, though the Danish kingdom operated
more through a maritime system than along terrestrial borders. It is generally accepted that Kaupang
was founded by the Danish kingdom around 800, despite its separation from Jutland by a large body
of water. Skiringssal was already a traffic junction in the busy North Sea and Oslofjord, and Godfrid
was clearly keen on the wealth that trade in the Viken region produced. But it seems that Danish
overlordship was not entirely welcome. In 813, the Royal Frankish Annals record that two princes
of Denmark, Harald Klak and Reginfrid could not come as envoys to the Frankish court because
21 ARF 785 … et tunc tota Saxonia subiugata est. (And then all of Saxony was subdued.)
22 ARF 808 Godofridus vero, priusquam reverteretur, distructo emporio, quod in oceani litore constitutum lingua
Danorum Reric dicebatur et magnam regno illius commoditatem vectigalium persolutione praestabat, translatisque
inde negotiatoribus, soluta classe ad portum, qui Sliesthorp dicitur, cum universo exercitu venit. (But Godofrid
destroyed a trading place on the seashore before he returned, called Reric in the Danish language, which, because of the
taxes it paid, was of great advantage to his kingdom, and he transferred the merchants from Reric. He came with his
whole army and weighed anchor at the harbor, which is called Schleswig.)
23 ARF 808 Ibi per aliquot dies moratus limitem regni sui, qui Saxoniam respicit, vallo munire constituit, eo modo, ut ab
orientali maris sinu, quem illi Ostarsalt dicunt, usque ad occidentalem oceanum totam Egidorae fluminis aquilonalem
ripam munimentum valli praetexeret, una tantum porta dimissa, per quam carra et equites emitti et recipi potuissent.
(There he remained for several days at the border of his kingdom, where he secured/fortified the rampart against
Saxony, so that a protective bulwark stretched from the eastern sea, which in that place is called Ostarsalt, as far as the
western sea. The fortification borders entire north bank of the River Eider. There is only one gate through which wagons
and horsemen would be able to leave and enter.)
they had been sent to Vestfold in order to put down a rebellion against Danish overlordship there.24
Perhaps those in Vestfold saw their opportunity to gain freedom via the Danish kingdom
encountered a period of instability due to the struggle for succession after the death of both Godfrid
and Hemming, as well as subsequent skirmishes against the Franks.25 Whatever the reason, the
resistance was put down and the Danish kingdom retained control over the region.
2.2 Skiringssal as a Central Place

Skiringssal was a central place before Kaupang became a nodal point in the Scandinavian
trade network. The harbor at Kaupang indicates that the shore saw traffic long before the
establishment of the town. Evidence for an earlier seasonal market has been ruled out by
archaeologists, but the understanding that Skiringssal operated as a central place puts archaeological
finds from the harbor in greater context. The royal hall at Huseby, the thing site at Tjølling, and a
neighboring lake and mountain, whose names imply them to be associated with religious figures, all
assert that Skiringssal functioned as religious and governmental center in the Viken region prior to
the establishment of the town.26 With archaeological and naming evidence marking this site as a
central place as early as the Bronze Age, it would have been a logical location for the Danish king
to choose this junction as a new node in this network.
The thing site at Skiringssal served as a central place where many different groups convened
to conduct business. The medieval church Tjølling, which has survived from the Middle Ages, gets
its name from the old Norse Þjóðalyng, and can be roughly translated as, “the heath of the
peoples.”27 With þjóð in the genitive plural form, Þjóðalyng implies that the site served as a thing
site for more than its own district. The understanding that it served different peoples indicates that
Þjóðalyng was the principle thing site for the surrounding districts as well, and possibly for all of
24 ARF 813 Qui tamen eo tempore domi non erant, sed ad Westarfoldam cum exercitu profecti, quae regio ultima regni
eorum inter septentrionem et occidentem sita, contra aquilonem Brittaniae summitatem respicit, cuius principes ac
populus eis subici recusabant. (However, they were not at home at this time, but had set out to Vestfold with their army.
The region sits between the final limits of their northern and western royal authority, opposite the northern most part of
Britain. The leaders [of Vestfold] refused to submit to them.)
25 ARF 811 Nec multo post Hemmingus Danorum rex defunctus nuntiatur. Cui cum Sigifridus nepos Godofridi regis et
Anulo nepos Herioldi, et ipsius regis, succedere voluissent neque inter eos, uter regnare deberet, convenire potuisset,
comparatis copiis et commisso proelio ambo moriuntur. (Not long after, the death of Hemming, the king of the Danes,
was announced. Sigfrid, grandson of King Godfrid, and Anulo, grandson of Harold, himself a king, wanted to agree
amongst them which of the two should be king. [Before] they could agree, they gathered troops, and both were killed in
battle.
26 Skre, “Centrality, Landholding and Trade in Scandinavia c. AD 700-900,” 208.
27Brink, Stefan, “Skiringssal, Kaupang, Tjølling - the Toponymic Evidence,” in Means of Exchange: Dealing with
Silver in the Viking Age, ed. Dagfinn Skre (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press & Kaupang Excavation Project, Publication
Series, 2007), 57.
Vestfold. Tjølling sits quite close to a lake called Vítrir/Vettrir and a the mountain Helgefjell, and
the religious connotations of these names suggest that assembly sites also served as locations of
religious activity.28 Many people would have travelled to the site yearly for the assembly, and likely
drew a large gathering, resulting in heavy traffic throughout the region.
The royal house at Huseby also served to mark Skiringssal as a prime location for a new
node. The burial of a high-status woman from the fourth or fifth century beneath the Viking Age
hall indicates that the site was of some importance since at least the early Iron Age. Its prominent
position in the topography of the area, as well as its impressive size, suggest that Huseby housed
Skiringssal’s aristocracy. Further evidence of an elite presence includes upper-class drinking
vessels, Tating-ware jugs and bowls, a piece from a silver spiral (most likely broken from an
armring), an Irish buckle with an amber inlay, and a Frankish gilt bronze mount.29 These finds link
the royal hall to communication with the Irish Sea, the Frankish Empire, and other areas of
Scandinavia at this time.30
As a royal seat, Skre hypothesizes that a manorial estate must have existed within
Skiringssal.31 Burial evidence within Skiringssal’s cemeteries suggests that the estate was made up
of at least 10-15 farms, although the number of estates could have been larger if the cemeteries only
held the bodies of the king’s warriors.32 As discussed in the previous section, many of the laborers
at these manorial estates would have been worked by slaves, and these dead would not have ended
up in formal cemeteries. Such an estate would surely have needed a steady number of thralls to keep
it functioning, and thus Skiringssal functioned as a site where slaves were possibly brought in from
non-Scandinavian lands in order to work the land.
2.3 Kaupang in Skiringssal

In summation to the arguments above, the town of Kaupang is a product of Skiringssal being
a central place, but grew into its place as a major node as traffic increased and wealth passed
Skre, Dagfinn, “The Skiringssal Thing site Þjóðalyng,” in Kaupang in Skiringssal, ed. Dagfinn Skre, (Aarhus: Aarhus
28
University Press & the Kaupang Excavation Project, University of Oslo, 2007) 385.
Skre, Dagfinn. “Excavations of the Hall at Huseby,” in Kaupang in Skiringssal, ed. Dagfinn Skre, (Århus: Århus
29
University Press and the Kaupang Excavation Project, University of Oslo, 2007) 235.
Munch, Gerd Stamsø, “Borg in Lofoten: a chieftain’s farm in north Norway,” in Othere’s Voyages, ed. Janet Bately &
30
Anton Englert, (Roskilde: Viking Ship Museum, 2007), 102.; Tating-ware has only been found in one other modern-
Norwegian site, at Borg in Lofoten, thus connecting Skiringssal to the northwestern coast of Norway.
31Skre, Dagfinn, “Emergence of a Central Place: Skiringssal in the 8th Century” in Kaupang in Skiringssal, ed. Dagfinn
Skre, (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press & the Kaupang Excavation Project, University of Oslo, 2007), 431, 442.
32 Ibid.
through it from the outer points of the Scandinavian trade network. Having looked at Skiringssal
and the growth of Scandinavian trade in context, it is now time to look at the town itself and how it
built up the trade network around it.
2.3.i Comment on the archaeology

Because Kaupang does not have any contemporary textual sources that do more than
reference the location of Skiringssal,33 the entirety of our understanding of the site comes from the
archaeology. Unfortunately, continuous ploughing on the site since the medieval period has
destroyed much of the early settlement remains. It is therefore difficult to understand the character
of the settlement prior to 840/850.34 The soil itself is acidic and dry, and these conditions are not
conducive for the preservation of organic materials; fur, leather, textiles, and anything made from
wood have all disappeared from the archaeological record.35 Aside from building foundations, only
inorganic materials remain: most notably small objects in metal or stone. This has left significant
gaps in understanding the nature of the settlement, including how long the settlement lasted, who
lived in the town, where they came from, and why exactly they were there. The picture is
incomplete, but the available finds hint towards skilled craftsmen and merchant connections
throughout the known world.
2.3.ii Layout of the town

Kaupang was not an accident of commerce. The archaeology suggests that the town was
intentionally established and laid out with a deliberate planned design. Whoever had control over
Vestfold during this period meant to link this regional junction to a greater trade network. Situated
on the west side of a sound and protected from the open Oslofjord by a breakwater of islands,
Kaupang in Skiringssal began as a seasonal settlement sometime between 790 and 800. Within a
decade, the site transformed into a permanent settlement which operated around specialized
production and long-distance trade. There is no evidence to support the idea that Kaupang
functioned as a long-term seasonal settlement and trading center prior to 790, as compared to the
33From Othere’s Journey: Þonne is þis land oð he cymð to Sciringeses heale, ₇ ealne weg on þæt bæcbord Norðweg.
(Then there is this land until he comes to Skiringssal, and all the way on that port side Norway (the North Way).):
Orosius, Paulus, King Alfred’s Orosius, (Published for the Early English Text Society, by N. Trübner & Co. and Harvard
University, 1883), 19.
34Pedersen, Unn, “Urban craftspeople at Viking-Age Kaupang,” in Everyday Products int he Middle Ages: Crafts,
Consumption and the Individual in Northern Europe c. AD 800-1600, ed. Gitte Hansen, Steven P. Ashby and Irene
Baug, (Oxbow: 2015) 52-53.
35Skre, Dagfinn, “The Inhabitants: Origins and Trading Connexions,” in Things from the Town: Artefacts from the
Town, ed. Dagfinn (Århus: Aarhus University Press & the Kaupang Excavation Project, 2011) 421-422.
settlement at Ribe, which functioned first as a trading post and only later as a permanent urban
site.36
Kaupang’s layout evidences early city-planning, and was meant to be a permanent
settlement from the outset. Once firmly established, Kaupang quickly grew into a large settlement.
The borders of the town were defined by a mound cemetery to the north, a tall rocky outcrop to the
west, another mound cemetery to the south, and the sea again to the east. Due to variations in
modern-day sea-levels, the sea is currently 3.5 meters lower than during Kaupang’s occupation, and
the remains of the town were found no less than 1 meter above the ninth century sea level; the large
1 meter buffer was likely due to recurrent high tides.37 Its central area, which operated as its
residential sector, was divided into plots with houses. The plots are of asymmetrical shape, and
post-and-wattle fences define and divide the plots. These plots appear to have been laid
intentionally at a decided point and time. As there are no traces of occupation in the urban area
before the plot layout, this would indicate that Kaupang was purposefully created as a permanent
urban community, most likely by the ruling chief or monarch in control of the region.38
Evidence of skilled craftwork links Kaupang to the Scandinavian trade network through its
role in skilled craft production. Craft waste found inside domestic buildings indicates that craft-
making was just as much a part of daily life as domestic pursuits and trade, and it demonstrates that
craftworkers were well integrated into town life. They were not merely visitors who stopped
occasionally at an urban trading port but conducted business regularly.39 Most of the excavated
buildings appear to be domestic, mainly identified through evidence of a hearth. Many of the houses
also uncovered individual aspects of the occupying family’s life, including specialized craftwork
created in domestic homes. For example, Building A200 housed an amber-worker, while Building
A302 most likely was home to an ironsmith based on the iron slag found within the building.
Building A304 evidences glass production, and Building A301 offers ample artifacts of textile
production such as loom weights; both also functioned as domestic domiciles. Other buildings offer
up no explanation. Building A406 has no hearth and therefore the function must remain unknown.
Building A89947 most likely served as an animal pen, though Pilø suggests that only pigs would
36Pilø, Lars, “The Settlement: Character, Structures and Features,” in Kaupang in Skiringssal, ed. Dagfinn Skre,
(Århus: Århus University Press and the Kaupang Excavation Project, University of Oslo, 2007), 192.
37 Pilø, “The Settlement: Extent and Dating,” 163.
39 Pedersen, “Urban Craftspeople at Viking Age Kaupang,” 54.
have been reared in the town.40 Cattle and sheep would have been kept on the neighboring farms
and outlands. The layout of the town suggests that there were no distinct craft districts, i.e. textile
workers did not live in one part of town while the amber-workers were assigned to another section.
Archaeological evidence suggests that craft production commenced shortly after
establishment, thus indicating that skilled workers arrived almost immediately after settlement,
most likely from within the Scandinavian trade network. They brought their own tools, which mark
out their unique techniques and specialized ways of creating goods.
Other items found inside domestic homes designate artifacts that did not come to Kaupang
through trade, but as personal possessions, and this sheds light on the immigration patterns of the
inhabitants of the town. During the ninth century, western Scandinavians did not make pottery,
preferring vessels made of soapstone and whetstone. A large amount of pottery has been uncovered
in Scandinavia, all of which was not made locally and has been traced to Frankish, Frisian,
Slavonic, and southern Scandinavian origins.41 As western Scandinavians did not use pottery, it is
unlikely that these vessels were imported for trading purposes and therefore must have been brought
to Kaupang with foreigners who settled in the town. This raises important questions surrounding the
settlers: how many were locals of the Vestfold region, how many relocated from within Danish-held
land, and how many came from further abroad? Furthermore, it is possible that merchants were
forced to relocate to the site. The Royal Frankish Annals records that King Göttrik of Denmark
forced the merchants of Reric, also known as Groβ Stömkendorf, to relocate to Hedeby in 808, in
order to better control and tax the trade.42 Hedeby ultimately owes its success to this tactic and
considering Hedeby and Kaupang were most likely ruled by the same king, it is not a stretch to
imagine that a similar population transfer could have occurred.
House A301 in Kaupang is understood to be the household of a Frisian merchant who lived
in the house during the second quarter of the ninth century. This analysis has been surmised based
on the finds of Frankish or Frisian pottery, as well as the fact that three out four female dress
accessories found within the house are of Frankish origin.43 A Frisian family in Kaupang effectively
40 Pilø, “The Settlement: Character, Structures and Features,” 216.

41 Skre, Dagfinn, “From Kaupang and Avaldsnes to the Irish Sea,” in Clerics, Kings and Vikings: Essays on Medieval
Ireland in Honour of Donnchadh Ó Corráin, ed. Emer Purcell, Paul MacCotter, Julianne Nyhan, and John Sheehan,
(Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2015), 238.
42Kalmring, Sven, “Early Northern Towns as Special Economic Zones,” in New Aspects on Viking-age Urbanism:
Proceedings of the International Symposium at the Swedish History Museum, April 17-20th 2013, ed. Lena Holmquist,
Sven Kalmring and Charlotte Hedenstierna-Jonson, (Stockholm: Archaeological Research Laboratory Stockholm
University, 2016), 11.
43 Skre, Dagfinn, “From Kaupang and Avaldsnes to the Irish Sea,” 238.
determines it as a town of international importance and signals that foreigners migrated up from the
Carolingian Empire to southern Scandinavia in order to build their wealth. The house itself seems to
have been built in the 820s, although it was abandoned in the 840s or 850s, at which point the
Frankish town of Dorestad began its decline.44 This would signify that the livelihoods and successes
of Frankish immigrants in southern Scandinavia directly related to the prosperity of their homeland.
As the Carolingian Empire faded from international importance, so too did the opportunities for
Frankish/Frisian immigrants in Kaupang. When trade ended with the Carolingians, Kaupang began
to rely more heavily on trade to the west with the British Isles and the Irish Sea.
Kaupang’s trade expansion west and shift away from trade with the Carolingian Empire is
best exemplified through the presence (or lack thereof) of pottery. There is a distinct difference in
the classification of objects which were brought to Kaupang through trade and those which were
brought to Kaupang as personal possessions. Pottery, which was not indicative of southern
Scandinavian culture, can therefore be identified as a personal item, and give us greater insight into
the nature of the site. Pilø remarks on the marked presence of Badorf ware pottery and the total
absence of Badorf’s successor, Pinsdorf ware. Pinsdorf ware was the common pottery of the tenth
century in western Europe and if Kaupang’s inhabitants used Badorf ware, then it would be logical
to assume that Pinsdorf ware would find its way to the site. Pilø suggests that the death of Louis the
Pious in 840, and the increasing number of raids on the continent following this event may have
been a reason for the lack of Pinsdorf ware.45 The Viking raids against the Carolingian Empire
would have changed contact patterns and certainly affect trade routes. This is evident in the context
of the decline of Dorestad, whose ultimate disappearance proved crippling for Ribe and was felt in
Hedeby and Birka as well. It is clear that Kaupang only survived the end of Dorestad because of its
connection with present-day Norway, the British Isles, Ireland, and the Baltic.46 If Kaupang was not
dependent on the Carolingian Empire for its success, as Ribe was, it makes sense that Pinsdorf ware
would not have been used on site.
2.3.iii Population and hinterlands/outlands

Kaupang was a settlement of some size, indicating that it was an important site for trade and
traffic within southeastern Scandinavia. Based on grave finds in the several cemeteries and grave
44Skre, Dagfinn, “From Dorestad to Kaupang: Frankish Traders and Settlers in a 9th-Century Scandinavian Town,” in
Dorestad in an International Framework: New Research on Centres of Trade and Coinage in Carolingian Times, edited
by Annemarieke Willemsen and Hanneke Kik, (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010), 141.
46 Skre, “From Dorestad to Kaupang: Frankish Traders and Settlers in a 9th-Century Scandinavian Town,” 141.
clusters surrounding the settlement area, the population of Kaupang during its 150 years of
occupation is roughly estimated to have fluctuated between 200 and 500 people, though there may
have been as many as 800 residents when the town was at its peak. It is unclear whether the
population varied by season, though it seems likely that while Kaupang was a permanent settlement,
it hosted a larger population in the summer months. As an urban community by definition does not
produce its own food in an agricultural context, the town would have depended heavily on the
surrounding countryside. Skre hypothesizes that this would require somewhere between 600 and
800 surrounding farms to supply the population with food.47 The necessity for such a large number
of farms and extensive outlands links Kaupang and Kaupang’s long-distance trade routes to the
regional trade network. As discussed previously in this chapter, Skiringssal was not just a node in
intra-regional trade, but operated as a central place to the entirety of the Viken region. This indicates
that the farms directly related to Kaupang would certainly have conducted business with the people
living in the outlands, and Kaupang was in the position to dictate the terms of trade. While Kaupang
depended on the town for food and other necessities, the non-urban people of these hinter/outlands
would have become dependent on the ease of finding goods within the town. Further examinations
of the rural Scandinavian hinter/outlands would be beneficial in furthering the understanding of the
town’s economic and social influence on the surrounding areas.
2.4 What was traded in the town

The finds have prompted discussion on the nature of the settlement, and Axel
Christophersen has hypothesized that Kaupang was created as “a staple and transit port” in order to
grant the Danish kingdom access to iron, soapstone, and whetstones from eastern Norway.48
Unfortunately there is very little evidence in Kaupang, or Hedeby, or Ribe as import sites, to
corroborate this theory; no buildings have been discovered at the site which suggests massive
quantities could have been stored on site for transit. Further, whetstone and soapstone finds have
been found in large quantities but most objects appear to be of relatively low quality. This indicates
that Kaupang consumed whetstones and soapstones but did not function as a transit site, much like
Hedeby, Dorestad, and York. While Kaupang did not operate as a transit port for inorganic
materials, it is still possible that Kaupang was a massive exporter of walrus-skin ropes, furs, and
slaves.49 I would also suggest that Kaupang exported reindeer antler for the production of combs.
47 Skre, “Centrality, Landholding and Trade in Scandinavia c. AD 700-900,” 204.

48 Skre, “The Inhabitants: Origins and Trading Connexions,” 419.
49 Skre, “The Inhabitants: Origins and Trading Connexions.” 420-421.
The use of reindeer antler in comb production has recently been examined at Ribe and the results
imply that it was an important material for comb-makers in the last two decades of the eighth
century.50 While its use in the ninth century is difficult to distinguish, it is possible that access to the
arctic outlands of northern Norway might have been a motivating factor in Danish interests in
Vestfold. Whether the reindeer antler reached Ribe via Kaupang or from some either port, products
from the north of Norway were circulating within the southern Scandinavian trade network.
Kaupang as an antler exporter, however, is ultimately conjecture. Organic trade items, including
bone and antler, would have left next to no evidence on site but it is likely that at least a small
number of these goods passed through the port.
Kaupang were certainly dependent on selling products crafted in the town and the
inhabitants managed to survive as long as trade brought long-distance and regional traffic to these
centers.51 The tools and molds of non-ferrous metalworkers indicate that they participated in the
serial production of goods; serial production can represent two different aspects of mass-produced
items. They were either created for a consumer who had little or no contact with the craftsmen or
they were simply produced for an anonymous market.52 Although the concepts appear similar on the
surface, these aspects of production refer to very different market groups. In the former, as
suggested by Callmer in 1995, it implies that the goods were created to be traded away from the
market;53 the latter suggests that the goods were created and sold on site to those within the town or
to traveling visitors from the outlands or traders from farther afield. Pedersen believes that the latter
is much more likely, as evidence points towards non-ferrous metalwork being produced on
demand.54 Thus, this type of serial production indicates that buyers traveled to Kaupang specifically
to buy certain goods.
50 Ashby, Steven P., Ashley N. Coutu and Søren M. Sindbæk, “Urban Networks and Arctic Outlands: Craft Specialists
and Reindeer Antler in Viking Towns,” in European Journal of Archaeology, 18:4 (2015), 679-704, DOI:
10.1179/1461957115Y.0000000003. 686-688; the article suggests that the reindeer antler reached Ribe from the west
coast of Norway, and references Othere’s Journey, as the title character mentions that he own both six hundred reindeer
and knows the sailing route to Hedeby. The writers of the article fail to mention that Othere also references his
knowledge of Kaupang.
51Skre, Dagfinn, “Dealing with Silver: Economic Agency in South-Western Scandinavia AD 600-1000,” in Means of
Exchange: Dealing with Silver in the Viking Age, ed. Dagfinn Skre, (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press & the Kaupang
Excavation Project, University of Oslo, 2008), 343.
52 Pedersen “Urban craftspeople at Viking-age Kaupang,” 57.
53 Callmer, Johan, “Hantverksproduktion, samhällsförändringar och bebyggelse. Iakttagelser från östra Sydskandinavien
c. 600-1100,” in Produksjon og samfunn. Om erverv, spesialisering, og bosetning i Norden i 1. årtusen e. Kr. Beretning
fra 2. nordiske jernaldersymposium på Granavolden Gjæstgiveri 7-10 mai 1992, ed. Heid Gjøstein Resi, (Oslo:
Universitets Oldsaksamling, 1995) 66.
54 Pedersen, “Urban craftspeople at Viking-age Kaupang,” 57.
Kaupang must have been home to large slave market, many of whom would have been taken
from the Irish Sea. Kaupang, as a central node in the Scandinavian network, would most likely have
traded directly with Dublin, a Scandinavian town established in Ireland in 839. Indeed, Dublin was
most likely founded to feed the need for slaves in Scandinavia, and even beyond. Kaupang was
perfectly situated to operate as a halfway point within a human trafficking network. There appears
to be an increased demand for slaves in the Middle East during the eighth and ninth century. While
a large amount of slaves may have made their way up from the Irish and North Seas to end their life
in Scandinavia, many more may have been shipped on through the Scandinavian network to eastern
Europe and even as far as the Middle East. With the expansion of the caliphate, a large number of
slaves were needed in building projects and the fair-coloring of the female slaves made them exotic
luxury products to wealthy investors.55 Kaupang, positioned centrally within this expansive
Scandinavian trade network, would have been perfectly located as a midway point between the
British Isles and the eastern trade routes that led to the Middle East.
Slavery was indicative of Scandinavian culture during the Viking Age, as discussed in the
first section of this chapter. In addition to satisfying a need for free human labor on wealthy
Scandinavian manorial farms, slavery also served as a show of strength over conquered enemies.
Literary sources suggest that many of the slave raids undertaken by Scandinavians were targeted
against women and children.56 Slave women had the double benefit of working the fields and being
used for sexual gratification and procreation.
Kaupang links directly to the Middle East through the excavation of a startling number of
coins, thus adding support behind the idea of the site as a half-way point. Of the roughly 630 silver
dirhams found in modern-Norway, 92 of these Islamic silver coins were discovered at Kaupang.57 In
comparison, at Hedeby only 75 dirhams have been recorded. The majority of the coins found in
Kaupang were struck before 900, which fits well into the timeline of Kaupang’s existence, as well
as its contacts to the west; most hoards found in Southern Scandinavia cannot be dated earlier than
915. The dirhams found in Kaupang are unique, as 66% of coins found in hoards in both Norway
and Sweden come from the Samanid dynasty of Central Asia, while coins found in Kaupang come
primarily from the Abbasid dynasty, who minted coins in the Middle East, Central Asia and North
55 Valante, The Vikings in Ireland, 87.

56 Wyatt, Slaves and Warriors, 125.
57Kilger,“Kaupang from Afar: Aspects of the Interpretation of Dirham Finds in Northern and Eastern Europe between
the Late 8th and Early 10th Centuries,” 200.
Africa.58 It is significant that so many dirhams were found in Kaupang and especially that they
made their way to Scandinavia so early in the Viking Age. Kilger argues that Kaupang peaked as a
central trading place in the exchange of silver during the ninth century, based on the evidence of
these early dirhams.59 Thus Kaupang would not only prove to be a major hub in its connections to
the British Sea, but its trace access would stretch well to the east and the south. Kaupang would
have been a trading center that dealt in rich and exotic goods.
That does not imply that traders came all the way to Kaupang from North Africa and the
Middle East. It is much more likely that it served as a stopover or halfway site through which
filtered many of the goods acquired in gateway communities such as Dublin and York to the west,
and Novgorod and Kiev to the east.60 It is possible too that many items arrived in Kaupang
indirectly, possibly through trade with Hedeby, as it was the largest port under Danish control at this
period. Still, given the quality of goods that emerged from the soil, Kaupang must have functioned
as its own stand-alone trading center as well. Kaupang would then function as a gateway port
between Europe and the East.
2.5 The monetary system in Kaupang

The economy of Scandinavia was cultivated by long-distance trade and social
communications, as well as by its intricate matrix of trade routes. The substantive school, under the
direction of Karl Polanyi, has suggested a simplified economy in the early Viking Age, in which the
traditional gift-giving society did not have the ability to deal in a neutral and empirical trade, but
instead that “the price of an item was fixed by social conventions unaffected by supply and
demand.”61 It is only in the last fifteen plus years that archaeologists and numismatists have made a
concerted effort to approach the multiplex economy with the nuanced approach that these masters
of trade deserve, and reexamine the Scandinavians’ ability to practice complex market-exchange.
Sindbæk and Skre are both advocates for restructuring perceptions of monetary exchange, and
Sindbæk argues that “silver and other valuables were not pursued by Viking-age Scandinavians as
the Late 8th and Early 10th Centuries,” 200, 201-205.
Skre, “Introduction,” in Kaupang in Skiringssal, edited by Dagfinn Skre, (Århus: Aarhus University Press and the
61
Kaupang Excavation Project, University of Oslo, 2007) 10.
wealth in general, but because they had properties crucial for the maintenance of social networks.”62
In this way, the perception of a static gift-giving social economy, which operated on frangible linear
exchanges, can be expanded to examine how long-distance interaction influenced the way
Scandinavians dealt with the idea of money and the resulting trade interaction.
Kaupang grew out of the rise of silver circulation that filtered in from the Middle East, and
became rich through its intricate network connections (not least through connections with the
substantial ransoms that Scandinavian raiders were taking off the English and the Franks during the
ninth century). The entire Scandinavian trade network appears to have operated in a mixed-bullion
weight economy. Hoards uncovered in Scandinavia suggest that silver could move between various
systems of economy; for instance, silver jewelry could function as both displays of wealth and
operate though gift-exchange, but the weight of silver could also serve as bullion.63 Kaupang
specifically operated within a mixed-money weight system and did not mint its own coins. The
earliest silver weights were excavated from a layer that dates to the second quarter of the ninth
century.64 Christoph Kilger hypothesizes that dirham silver was weighed in both smaller and larger
units; Kaupang was then responsible in circulating larger ingots outside of Skiringssal, which
allowed it to become wealthy as a necessary distributary node.65
2.6 Kaupang as a geo-political threat

Despite its obvious importance as both a central place and a node in the Scandinavian trade
network, excavations at Kaupang have not revealed any defensive fortifications that would indicate
that the town proved to be a geo-political threat to rival factions. A defensive wall surrounded both
Ribe and Hedeby, but Kaupang appears to have remained unfortified throughout its existence.
Vestfold was modern-Norway’s most fertile, and therefore wealthiest, region and thus served as its
economic core. As the largest trading site in the Oslofjord region, Kaupang should have been a
major economic interest and point of conflict, and yet it was not. This may have to do with the
number of trade sites that are currently surfacing within the archaeological record. For instance, a
62Sindbæk, Søren M., “Silver Economies and Social Ties: Long-Distance Interaction, Long-term Investments - and why
the Viking Age happened,” in Silver Economies, Monetisation and Society in Scandinavia, AD 800-1100, edited by
James Graham-Campbell, Søren M Sindbæk and Gareth Williams, (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2001), 41.
63Sindbæk, “Silver Economies and Social Ties: Long-Distance Interaction, Long-term Investments - and why the
Viking Age happened,” 42.
64Skre, Dagfinn, “Markets, towns and currencies in Scandinavia ca. AD 200-1000,” in From One Sea to Another:
Trading Places in the European and Mediterranean Early Middle Ages, ed. Sauro Gelichi and Richard Hodges,
(Turnhout: Brepols, 2012), 61.
geo-physical survey at Gokstad in Vestfold has revealed a large number of houses or plot
boundaries. They appear neatly along two rows, clearly indicating the existence of a narrow street.66
The finds from the recent excavation at Gokstad evidence a large trading center, though the site was
most likely seasonal. Interestingly, most of the finds show eastern connections and thus the trade
most likely connected this Vestfold site to a separate trading network than the one created by the
Danish kingdom.
Kaupang did not pose a geo-political threat to local powers and therefore would not have
been a target for either destruction or advancement to local kings looking to regain control of
Vestfold during the ninth century. The proximity of Gokstad to Kaupang, barely four kilometers
apart, not only suggests that the two settlements knew of each other but potentially shared
hinterlands. Inhabitants of one site could even walk to the other in order to find goods found at one
but not the other. This indicates two important points concerning Vestfold: one, that the Oslofjord
had enough traffic in trade to generate at least two commercial sites within a four kilometer radius,
and two, that Kaupang itself was not necessary in order to maintain control of Vestfold. It was
indispensable to the Danes in order to preserve their empire trade network, but not a necessary
center of their territorial empire. Regional sites at Borre and Gokstad indPolitical seat of authority
could shift throughout the Vestfold region, which indicates that it was allowed to be prosperous
despite the origin of its overlords, but it was also allowed to fail in the tenth century when the
Danish influence waned in the region.
Kaupang does not seem to pose any kind of military threat through which it could gain
political advantage, thereby upsetting the Danish kingdom or disrupting the trade network. Beyond
weapons found in individual graves within the cemeteries, the only indications of a military
presence in Skiringssal are the remains of two arrowheads at the royal hall at Huseby. One was of
the Wegraeus’ type D style, which was created in order to pierce chainmail and armor, while the
other was most closely matched to the Wegraeus’ type A2 style and matches other arrowhead finds
in the graves in Kaupang.67 As the latter is often discovered in warriors’ graves dating to the tenth
century, which are characterized by the presence of equestrian objects and weapons, it is most likely
that both arrowheads were intended for warfare and would not have been used for hunting in the
area. This only serves to suggest that Kaupang’s military authority could be found at Huseby, and
66Jan Bill, “Preliminary interpretation of geophysics reveals dense settlement area,” Museum of Cultural History, pub.
31/01/13, http://www.khm.uio.no/english/research/projects/gokstad/news/preliminary-geophysics.html.
67 Skre, “Excavations of the Hall at Huseby,” 235.
the size of the hall suggests that the chief or king living there would be in charge of any military
operations. Any military operations must have been minimal.
It is likely that a jarl or petty king under the power of the Danish kingdom ruled over
Kaupang from the hall at Huseby. There are no written records discussing the political organization
of Kaupang, which would help to infer how the town was run and who oversaw the trade and all
that that entailed, but several sources discuss the hierarchical structures of Hedeby and Birka. As it
is likely that Kaupang operated under the same authority as Hedeby for much of its existence, it is
plausible that Kaupang may have functioned similarly. Anne Pedersen has compiled a list these
positions, which refer to town leaders as, exercitus, equitatu regni, duces copiarum, and primores
Danorum mark out clear military or social positions within the urban centers. In the Vita Anskarii,
Hedeby is said to have had a præfati vici, which Pedersen marks out as the jarl of the area, and
Birka had both a præfectus vici and a consiliarus to the king, who seem to have been in charge of
defense and trade.68 Thus whoever lived at Huseby must be seen as a ruler of considerate power,
even should he would have submitted to a higher authority.
2.7 Conclusion: Kaupang in decline or just declining to comment?

Kaupang’s importance in the Scandinavian trade network is unclear after the turn of the
tenth century. The last evidence of building in Kaupang can be dated to 860, although burials at the
cemetery appear to continue at a regular rate until the middle of the tenth century, indicating that the
settlement lasted until 930 or 960.69 This creates confusion in defining the nature of the settlement
following 860. While it is then difficult to analyze the town itself as a node, it is possible to place it
in context. Vestfold’s early conversion to Christianity may have had to do with its untimely decline.
Conversion to Christianity around the year 950 in the Viken area predates other parts of Norway by
50-100 years, at which time Skiringssal lost its central place function in a religious context; any
annual pre-Christian religious activities associated with the thing assembly would have ceased,
causing annual pilgrimage to the area to end for those who once traveled to Kaupang for both trade
and religious needs.70
68Pedersen, Anne, “Military Organization and Offices: The Evidence of Grave Finds,” in Settlement and Lordship in
Viking and Early Medieval Scandinavia, ed. Bjørn Poulsen and Søren M. Sindbæk, (Turnhout: Brepols, 2001), 46.
69 Pedersen, “Urban craftspeople at Viking-age Kaupang,” 54.; Pilø, “The Settlement: Extent and Dating,” 178.
70Skre, “Towns and Markets, Kings and Central Places in South-western Scandinavia c. AD 800-950,” in Kaupang in
Skiringssal, ed. Dagfinn Skre, (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press & the Kaupang Excavation Project, University of Oslo,
2007), 469.
The 870s and 880s were a time of great political turmoil in the Norwegian mainland
following the rise of Harald Fairhair. Indeed, the settlement of Iceland has long been associated
with Harald Fairhair’s so-called tyrannical rule due to claims made in the Íslendingasögur and the
Settlement Age is considered to have lasted from 870-930. Although there is no evidence to suggest
that Harald Fairhair ever took control of Vestfold or Kaupang, by taking possession of the south and
western coast of Norway, Harald Fairhair would have been able to control the Irish Sea trading
routes.
The inflow of silver in the form of minted Abbasid dirhams from the Middle East to the
Baltic and into Scandinavia also began to decline in the 870s, and appears to cease almost
completely in the 880s.71 This would have effectively crippled the Danish market, perhaps
weakening the strength of the nodal points in the long-distance trade routes. This especially would
have damaged Scandinavian relations with the Irish, who appear to have tolerated a Scandinavian
presence solely through their ability to pump silver and its accompanying wealth into the Irish
economy.
71Blackburn, “The Coin-finds,” in Means of Exchange: Dealing with Silver in the Viking Age, ed. Dagfinn Skre,
(Aarhus: Aarhus University Press & the Kaupang Excavation Project, University of Oslo, 2008), 39.
3 Dublin
In this chapter, I will address how Dublin came to be linked to the greater Scandinavian
trade network through its founding by a western Norwegian group, and how its success as a trade
center allowed it to become an independent city-state/kingdom free from home-rule politics. I will
begin by examining how western Scandinavians expanded the Scandinavian trade network across
the North Sea to Britain and the Irish Sea, and contextualize Irish politics and its economy prior to
the arrival of the Scandinavian invasion. Dublin was successful in Ireland because the Irish soon
came to depend on the wealth that the Scandinavian trade network brought to the island, even as the
Scandinavians pushed against Irish boundaries, raided Irish kingdoms, and took many Irish slaves.
As in the previous chapter, the layout of the town and the archaeological finds associated
with it will be used to argue that Dublin was an integral node within the Scandinavian trade
network. The Irish Annals record of the Scandinavian invasion will be referenced in order to
understand which Scandinavians founded Dublin, how rival Scandinavian groups and Irish forces
fought for control over the node within this larger network, and how its wealth allowed it to become
independent of Scandinavian politics while still remaining part of the Scandinavian trade network.
Ireland’s dependence on Dublin, as well as Dublin’s independence from Scandinavia quite early in
its existence, resulted in Dublin’s survival past the Viking Age.
3.1 The west coast of Norway and its interest in the Irish Sea
Western Scandinavia operated under its own trade network, which ran along the entire west
coast of Norway beginning in the northern region of Hålogaland. The route continued south down
the coast before connecting with the greater Scandinavian trade network, which was mainly
controlled by forces from the Danish kingdom. This ancient route evidences no towns that predate
the eleventh century, although five early royal farms, Urnes, Avaldsnes, Fitjar, Alrekstad, and Seim,
have been cited as important nodal points in a western Scandinavian network.72 Borg, in Lofoten,
must also be included as a node, given the impressive finds that link the royal hall to the Continent,
the British Isles, and southeastern Norway. Borg is specifically linked to Kaupang through the
appearance of sherds of Tating-ware at both sites, proving a clear connection between them.73
Western Scandinavians opened a trade network across the North Sea to Britain and Ireland
at the end of the eighth century. The grave goods excavated from grave sites along the western coast
72 Skre, “From Kaupang and Avaldsnes to the Irish Sea,” 243.

73 Munch, “Borg in Lofoten: a chieftain’s farm in north Norway,” 102-103.
of Norway corroborate the theory that Scandinavian expansion into the British Isles and the Irish
Sea began from there, not from Jutland as part of an expedition galvanized by King Godfrid and the
Danish kingdom. Grave sites from Rogaland, Hordaland, Sognefjord, Møre and Sogn all evidence a
large amount of insular metalwork from the ninth century.74 Some of the insular metalwork has
been cited as being exclusively Irish, and this indicates that the Scandinavians off the west coast of
Norway were interested in opening their own closed network between Norway and the Irish Sea.
Indeed, Egon Wamers concluded that “the rich, insular loot in western Norway indicates an
immense transfer of goods, people, and ideas in both directions.”75 Yet it is much more likely that
contact between the groups began with Scandinavian expansion.
The technological advancement of ships in the Avaldsnes region is ultimately what opened
up the Irish Sea to the Scandinavian network. The development in the structure of long-range ships
allowed for the Scandinavians to go west; the ships were created to be swift by using both sails and
the power of oars, and the shallow keel allowed them to navigate rivers as well as the open sea.76
The first ships known to be capable of sailing over the open ocean were built by the second half of
the eighth century along the western coast of Norway. The Storhaug ship, which was built in 770
and buried in 779, and the Grønhaug ship, which was built in 780 and buried between 790 and 795,
evidence the development of Scandinavian ship building techniques that prefaced the miraculous
engineering that allowed Scandinavians to travel further and further afield.77 This technology meant
that ships and fleets were able to leave the Baltic Sea and riverways which led them southeast and
allowed them to expand westwards, traveling into the open waters of the North Atlantic and down
to the Irish Sea.
Geographically, western Norway is better poised to make its advances on the Irish Sea than
the Jutland peninsula or other parts of southern Scandinavia. Indeed, the northern Scottish islands
are merely a hop, skip, and a jump away from modern Bergen. It is possible to sail from Hordaland
to Shetland in twenty-four hours with a good wind, although the journey would have taken two days
74Skre, “From Kaupang and Avaldsnes to the Irish Sea,” 245; Wamers, Egon, “Insular Finds in Viking Age Scandinavia
and the State Formation of Norway,” in Ireland and Scandinavia in the Early Viking Age, ed. Howard B. Clarke, Máire
Ní Mhaonaigh and Raghnall Ó Floinn, (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1998), 47-49.
75 Wamers, “Insular Finds in Viking Age Scandinavia and the State Formation of Norway,” 71.
on average.78 As Shetland lies directly west, these explorers would merely have to set their ships
south-southwest to reach the other islands of the North Sea. Once in sight of Shetland, one can
travel throughout the entire expanse of the Irish Sea without ever losing sight of land.79 Though the
first twenty-four hours may have been dangerous, the benefit would have ultimately out-weighed
the risk. By the end of the eighth century, the Irish Sea was thriving, and access to insular wealth led
these Scandinavians to open a network west and south to Ireland.
The Annals of Ulster record the first Viking raid in Ireland in 795,80 and the first half of the
ninth century marks the beginning of the Viking Age in the British Isles. The early raids on
established monasteries were clearly used as a means to obtain portable wealth, which was brought
back to Scandinavia for the benefit of the petty kings and chiefs who needed the riches to maintain
and to strengthen their standing through the political economy of gift-giving. As Scandinavians
continued their ventures in the Irish Sea, the flow of goods back to northern Europe caused further
consolidation of power through this direct avenue of wealth. As Scandinavians became dependent
on the Irish goods, it became prudent for a colony of raiders to remain in Ireland and thus the first
permanent Scandinavian settlements were established.
3.2 Ireland before the Scandinavian invasion

To understand how the Scandinavians were able to secure a foothold in Ireland in the middle
of the ninth century, it is necessary to give a brief overview of the geo-politics and economy prior to
the Scandinavian invasion. At the beginning of the ninth century the island was divided into at least
150 separate kingdoms, which were overseen by six provincial over-kings operating in Connaught,
Leinster, Munster, Ulster, and the Northern and Southern Uí Néill.81 Status was based on ownership
of cattle, and the economy was non-urban, kin-based, and highly localized.82 The kings were tied to
this system through their reliance in wealth in the form of farming and herding.83 As discussed in
78 Crawford, Barbara E, Scandinavian Scotland, (Avon: Leicester University Press, 1987), 12-13.; Gammeltoft, Peder,
“’Look now, stranger, at this island’. A brief survey of the island-names of Shetland and Orkney,” in Viking and Norse
in the North Atlantic: Select Papers from the Proceedings of the Fourteenth Viking Congress, Tóshavn, 19-30 July 2001,
ed. Andras Mortensen and Símun V. Arge, (Tórshavn: Føroya Fróðskaparfelag, 2005), 257.
79 Crawford, Scandinavian Scotland, 16.
80 AU 795.3 Loscadh Rechrainne o geinntib ₇ Sci ᵇ do [cho]scradh ₇ do lomradh. (The burning of Rechru by the
heathens, and Scí was overwhelmed and laid waste.)
81Downham, Clare, Viking Kings of Britain and Ireland: The Dynasty of Ívarr to A.D. 1014, (Edinburgh: Dunedin,
2007) 12.
83 Valante, Mary, The Vikings in Ireland, 23-25.
chapter one, the agricultural economy of Scandinavia was strikingly similar with its dependence on
cattle instead of grain. Indeed, Francis J. Byrne remarks that “the primitive characteristics of Irish
society, and in particular the archaic features of Irish kingship, find their nearest European parallels
in pre-Christian Scandinavia.”84 When the Scandinavians arrived in Ireland, they would not have
found a dissimilar society and this may have made it easier for them to form allies within the
various Irish kingdoms.
Ireland, like Scandinavia, was never occupied by the Romans and was left to develop in
relative isolation until the arrival of the Viking raiders. While it is clear that Ireland and Roman-
Britain communicated and traded, the island was able to maintain its own cultural and political
systems from the Iron Age. Because of its isolation, a coin-based economy and the urban system of
wics and emporia that sprung from the empire never made it to these lands laid beyond the borders
of the Roman Empire. It must be emphasized that when the Scandinavians arrived, there were no
towns. There were monastic villages, which could sometimes operate as large communities with
local markets, but they operated neither as central places nor as nodal points within a trade network;
monastic villages were religious destinations with inter-regional trade ties and they never extended
into sites focused around juridical or administrative functions.85 This has much to with the fact that
while the Irish were Christianized by the end of the fifth century, kingship and the politics of Ireland
were never secularized. Despite attempts to reform the political-religious system during the seventh
century, the kings of Ireland remained unshackled by their faith. This allowed them to focus their
interests outside of the religious sphere; namely, they set their sights on wealth and territorial
expansion. While they did not seek to gain influence outside of the Irish Sea, the arrival of the
Scandinavians opened them up to undreamed of opportunities of power and wealth. The
Scandinavians gave Ireland towns, and with towns came trade, taxation, and access to the treasures
of the outside world.
3.3 The longphort of Dublin and its development

In order to understand just how Dublin came to act as a major node in the Scandinavian
trade network, it is necessary to explain how and why the ship camp(s) of Áth Cliath and Duib-linn
grew up into the large and wealthy urban settlement of Dublin. It is first beneficial to comment on
the archaeological excavations, the evidence they have produced, and interpretations thereof.
Patrick F. Wallace’s Wood Quay and Fishamble Excavations between 1974 and 1981 uncovered
84 Byrne, Francis J, Irish Kings and High-Kings, (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2001), 12.
85 Valante, The Vikings in Ireland, 26-30.
extensive urban settlement, that dated Dublin’s activities to the 10th century. Extensive Viking Age
building foundations, plots, pathways and other artifacts indicative to the inhabitants’ daily lives
were excavated during this campaign, but nothing was definitively dated to the earliest phases of
settlement beginning in 841. Therefore archaeologists and historians have relied heavily on the
annals in order to fill in necessary gaps in the narrative.86 Indeed, Eamonn P. Kelly suggests the
dependence on the annalistic evidence between 902 to 917, during which time many scholars have
assumed the entire Scandinavian population was expelled from Dublin, has led to errors in dating.87
Interpretations of the archaeological evidence have also experienced difficulties through lack of
publishing and many of the earliest levels have not been excavated at several sites. It is only in the
last 20 years that Linzi Simpson’s Temple Bar West campaign uncovered ninth century structures
and Simpson conclusively establishes that there was no break in habitation between 902 and 917.88
This ultimately changes how we perceive the early settlement, and specifically how the Irish must
have relied on the economy of the Scandinavian town.
The Scandinavians were in Ireland for nearly forty years as hit-and-run raiders before the
annals first record the construction of a permanent longphort at Duib-linn in 841.89 The Irish Annals
actually refer to the Dublin settlement as both Áth Cliath and Duib-linn, which indicates that there
may have been two settlements on the Liffey estuary, which would later combine into one town.90
Excavations around the mouth of the River Liffey suggest that the Scandinavians took over a prior
ecclesiastical settlement and John Sheehan posits that the group may have modified the previous
site’s enclosures in order to create their fortified base.91 As the original longphort of Dublin has not
been uncovered, archaeologists have based their conjectures on the early settlement’s layout based
on excavations of other longphuirt throughout Ireland. Through these comparisons, they can be
distinguished by the presence of a large D-shaped enclosure on the shore of a river, a lake, or both.
86For further reading see: Clarke, Howard B. “Proto-Towns and Towns in Ireland and Britain,” in Ireland and
Scandinavia in the Early Viking Age, ed. Howard B. Clarke, Máire Ní Mhaonaigh, and Raghnall Ó Floinn, (Dublin:
Four Courts Press, 1998) 331-380.; Doherty, Charles, “The Viking Impact upon Ireland,” in The Vikings in Ireland, ed.
Anne-Christine Larsen, (Roskilde: The Viking Ship Museum, 2001), 29-36.; Ó Corráin, “The Vikings in Ireland,” in
The Vikings in Ireland, ed. Anne-Christine Larsen, (Roskilde: The Viking Ship Museum, 2001) 17-28.; Ó Floinn,
Raghnall, “The Archaeology of the Early Viking Age in Ireland.” In Ireland and Scandinavia in The Early Viking Age,
ed. Howard B. Clarke, Máire Ní Mhaonaigh and Raghnall Ó Floinn, (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1998) 131-165.
87Kelly, Eamonn P., “The longphort in Viking-Age Ireland: the archaeological evidence,” in The Vikings in Ireland and
Beyond, ed. Howard B. Clarke and Ruth Johnson, (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2015), 85-86.
88 Simpson, “The first phase of Viking activity in Ireland: evidence from Dublin,” 420-421.
89 AU 841.4, Longport oc Linn Duachaill asar orta tuatha ₇ cealla Tethbai. Longport oc Duiblinn as・rorta Laigin ₇ Oi
Neill etir tuatha ₇ ceallaª co rice Sliabh Bledhma. (There was a naval camp at Linn Duachaill from which the peoples
and Churches of Tethba were plundered. There was a naval camp at Duiblinn from which the Laigin and the Uí Néill
were plundered, both states and churches, as far as Sliab Bladma.)
90 Simpson, “The first phase of Viking activity in Ireland: evidence from Dublin,” 418.
91 Sheehan, John, “The Longphort in Viking Age Ireland,” Acta Archaeologica, vol 79, (2008): 289.
Often these enclosures were set near shallow waters or fords where the portage of vessels was
necessary. The longphuirt took advantage of the land’s natural defenses and the Scandinavian
groups felt secure enough in their temporary bases to either trade or raid as they willed. Sheehan
hypothesizes that the Scandinavians brought the developed concept of a fortified base with them,
but that these defensive structures had never been fully utilized against their enemies before the
Scandinavians encountered Irish aggression. The longphuirt of Ireland possibly developed their D-
shaped enclosed layout in close association to the early settlements of Birka and Hedeby, although
neither town experienced the level of hostility that the Scandinavian settlements received from the
Irish. In other words, the Irish were the first western Europeans that put up a big enough fight to
require such progressive fortifications.
The Scandinavians were also smart about where they chose to set up these camps, and
Dublin’s specific location ultimately allowed for its success and survival. The longphuirt tended to
be strategically located and often straddled the boundaries between Irish geo-political boundaries,
which allowed the Scandinavians to play off old rivalries.92 These strategic sites meant that
marauding Scandinavians could raid in one kingdom and sell of their booty to a neighboring, rival
kingdom. Dublin lay between Brega and Laigin, which indicates that when the Scandinavians
settled down on the River Liffey in 841, they knew exactly who their neighbors would be.
Dublin’s location on the bank of the River Liffey above the confluence of the Poddle River
granted the Scandinavians access to a major river network, which allowed for the inter-regional
Scandinavian trade network to spread intra-regionally throughout Ireland. The riverways proved to
be a direct route to inland Irish territories, which the Scandinavians needed to access for raiding and
trading. While Dublin was established between the kingdoms of Brega and Laigin, its central
location on the central east coast of Ireland and its position on the rivers allowed for them to move
into the heavily populated areas of Uí Néill territory farther inland, as well as in the kingdom of
Meath. This prime location granted the Scandinavian settlement access not only to wealthy and
populated regions in which to raid, but it gave them the best position from which to trade; their
position not only added a link to the sea network back to Scandinavia, but it allowed for the
network to spread inland down the river-ways to other Irish kingdoms as well.
3.3.i Hinterlands
The riverways opened up the area around the Dublin longphort, and this made it easier for
the Scandinavians to expand and access their agricultural territory. The hinterlands were the key to
92 Sheehan, “The Longphort in Viking Age Ireland,” 286.

Dublin’s success, as they effectively carved out a territory for Scandinavian expansion, allowing the
longphort to settle permanently and grow into a town. Several of the annals suggest that Dublin was
a site of massive proportions, even during the ninth century, and as such would have needed vast
hinterlands to feed its population. Archaeology has proved elusive in the process of trying to
understand the hinterlands of Dublin and the only textual records either only hint at the reach of its
hinterlands or were written down several hundred years after the fact. The first record in the annals
referencing the possible extent of the hinterlands appears in relation to the fort at Clondalkin, which
was burned in 867;93 Clondalkin lies ten kilometers from Dublin and was probably constructed in
order to secure the territory immediately surrounding the site. The fort overlooked the traditional
boundary between the kingdoms of the Uí Fergusa and the Uí Dúnchada, which suggests a geo-
political knowledge of the area, and cleverly aggressive militarization against a vulnerable border.94
Holm claims that command of the rivers may have gone as far as Leixleip, which lies 17 kilometers
to the west of Dublin.95 Given the astounding size of Dublin, a 17 kilometer radius from which the
Scandinavians could exploit the hinterlands may have indeed been necessary; these extensive
depths may have also helped the Scandinavians a buffer zone in order to remain relatively safe from
Irish aggression. It is also possible that Dubliners founded new longphuirt in an attempt to extend
their trade and agricultural reach, as evidenced by the establishment of Clon Andobuir in 845.96 The
extent of the hinterlands was most likely never fixed during the course of the ninth century.
Gareth Williams argues that the acquisition and long-term exploitation of hinterlands was
essential to the transition between the longphort phase and the wealthy trading center.97 Due to the
lack of archaeological evidence, it is unclear how the Scandinavians managed the agricultural
aspect of their new nodal operation; did the Scandinavian elite function as overlords to agrarian
Irish tenants, or did Scandinavian warriors trade in their swords for a plough? It is likely that a
93 AU 867.8 Loscadh duine Amhlaim oc Luain Dolcain la m. nGaithini ₇ la męl Ciaran m. Romain, ₇ ár .c. cenn di
airechaibh Gall in eodem die apud duces predictos in confinio Cluana Dolcain. (Amlaíb’s fort at Cluain Dolcáin was
burned by Gaíthíne's son and Mael Ciaráin son of Rónán, and the aforesaid commanders caused a slaughter of a
hundred of the leaders of the foreigners in the vicinity of Cluain Dolcáin on the same day.)
94Bradley, John, “Some reflections on the problem of Scandinavian settlement in the hinterland of Dublin during the
ninth century,” in Dublin in the Medieval World: Studies in the Honour of Howard B. Clarke, ed. John Bradley, Alan J.
Fletcher, and Anngret Simms, (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2009), 55.
95 Holm, Poul, “The Naval Power of Norse Dublin,” in Clerics, Kings & Vikings: Essays on Medieval Ireland in Honour
of Donnchadh Ó Corráin, ed. Emer Purcess, Paul MacCotter, Julianne Nyhan and John Sheehan, (Dublin: Four Courts
Press, 2015), 74.
96 AU 845.12 Dunadh di Gallaibh Atha Cliath oc Cluanaib Andobur. (An encampment of the foreigners of Áth Cliath at
Cluain Andobuir.); Valante, The Vikings in Ireland.)
97Williams, Gareth, “Viking camps and means of exchange in Britain and Ireland in the ninth century,” in The Vikings
in Ireland and Beyond: Before and After the Battle of Clontarf, ed. Howard B. Clarke and Ruth Johnson, (Dublin: Four
Courts Press, 2015), 104.
Scandinavian population settled amongst Irish locals, and quickly began the process of inter-
marriage and acculturation. Graves at the cemeteries of Kilmainham and Islandbridge evidence
farming tools buried in graves that also contain typical Scandinavian weaponry, which does suggest
that some of the Scandinavian settlers were more interested in cultivating land than warring with
their Irish neighbors.98 Taking into consideration the environment of the Dublin hinterlands, Alfred
P. Smyth suggests the hinterlands consisted of, “rich low limestone farmland offering excellent
conditions for cattle and horse-raising,” indicating that the agriculture would have proven fruitful.99
At the same time, burials in the rural areas around Dublin may suggest that the Dubliners set up a
series of dependent forts in order to secure the boundaries through military force; these forts
possibly also operated as a seat of administration to the inhabitants of the hinterlands.100
Unfortunately, the archaeology of the hinterlands is incomplete. John Bradley suggests that
archaeologists tend to focus on urban life and towns, while historians concentrate on war and
dynastic conflict, and suggests that a more interdisciplinary approach could aid in understanding of
the hinterland’s role in securing the settlement and how it served as a medium for intra-regional
trade.101 A more thorough investigation of the hinterlands would give a greater understanding of
how the economy of the hinterlands differentiated form the political and cultural aspects of Dublin,
and thus how the immigrated population learned to assimilate and influence trade with the Irish.
3.3.ii The layout of the town

Archaeologically, it is difficult to address the layout of the ninth century settlement. On the
basis of 20th century interpretations of the evidence, the earlier finds have been dated to the tenth
century, as archaeologists assumed that Dublin served as a military camp during the ninth century
and would have been the developed urban town which new evidence and interoperation now
suggests. The evidence was afforded a post-917 date, as archaeologists operated under the
assumption that there was a disruption in the occupation of the town between 902 and 917; no such
disturbance occurred. Therefore, I suggest that Wallace’s Fishamble and Wood Quay excavations,
can be used as a basis for deciphering the mystery of the ninth century longphort, and I must
98O’Brien, “The Location and Context of Viking Burials at Kilmainham and Islandbridge, Dublin,” in reland and
Scandinavia in the Early Viking Age, ed. Howard B. Clarke, Máire Ní Mhaonaigh and Raghnall Ó Floinn, (Dublin: Four
Courts Press, 1998), 221.
99Smyth, Alfred P., Scandinavian York and Dublin I: The History and Archaeology of Two Related Kingdoms, (Dublin:
Temlekieran Press, 1975), 21.
100Bradley, “Some reflections on the problem of Scandinavian settlement in the hinterland of Dublin during the ninth
century,” 55.
101Bradley, “Some reflections on the problem of Scandinavian settlement in the hinterland of Dublin during the ninth
century,” 39.
assume that at least some of the activity dated as tenth century finds are a continuation of the ninth
century longphort.102
Wallace’s excavations identified that 75% of the Viking Age structures were labeled as Type
1 buildings, and they bear a striking resemblance to building A200 at Kaupang in Skiringssal. This
building is also found at other Scandinavian settlements in Ireland, including Waterford and
Wexford.103 These Type 1 houses have low post-and-wattle walls, a roof supported by two pairs of
posts or groups of posts, and a centrally located stone-kerbed hearth. While Pilø believes that
Kaupang’s buildings may help archaeologists understand the context for how Dublin’s Type 1
houses developed, based on Wallace’s dating the buildings would not have been entirely
contemporary. Indeed, there may have been as much as a hundred year gap between A200’s
construction and the erection of Type 1 houses in Dublin. Whether or not inhabitants of Kaupang
immigrated to Dublin must remain a matter of conjecture, but I would posit that it is quite likely
that those with a knowledge of Kaupang’s layout did indeed make their way to the Irish Sea in order
to seek out their wealth, and built the Type 1 houses of Dublin using their own building techniques.
The craftsmen who operated within the town of Dublin most likely immigrated from
Scandinavia, and arrived as part of a multi-talented warrior group. Unlike Kaupang, Dublin
evidences segregated areas for different types of skilled workers, although this may reflect a later
dating than the ninth century. Finds along High Street reveal the presence of leather workers and
comb makers. Christchurch Place indicates that it served as the cobblers’ street. Fishamble Street
most likely housed the merchants, as can be surmised by the large houses of better quality, as well
as a high rate of coin discovery. Amber workers and possibly woodcarvers also found their homes
along the Fishamble Street. Other craftsmen, such as blacksmiths and boatbuilders, most likely
lived outside the town’s defenses.104 There was clearly an abundance of Scandinavians willing to
make their new homes in Ireland, and this can be evidenced through Irish sources. In 871, the
Annals of Ulster records that a fleet of 200 ships arrived in Dublin.105 If the entry is not hyperbolic,
then John Bradley has suggested that the summation of these ships contained a crew totaling
102 See: Wallace, Patrick F., The Viking Age Buildings of Dublin: Medieval Dublin excavations 1962-1981: Ser. A Vol. 1,
Pt. 1. (Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 1992.); Wallace, Patrick F., The Viking Age Buildings of Dublin: Medieval Dublin
excavations 1962-1981: Ser. A. Vol. 1, Pt. 2. (Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 1992.)
103Wallace, Patrick, “Ireland’s Viking Towns,” in The Vikings in Ireland, ed. Anne-Christine Larsen, (Roskilde: The
Viking Sip Museum, 2001), 45.
104 Wallace, “Ireland’s Viking Towns,” 41.
105 AU 871.2 Amhlaiph ₇ Ímar do thuidecht afrithisi du Ath Cliath a Albain dibh cetaibh long. ₇praeda maxima
hominum Anglorum ₇ Britonum ₇ Pictorum deducta est secum ad Hiberniam ª in captiuitate. (Amlaíb and Ímar returned
to Áth Cliath from Alba with two hundred ships, bringing away with them in captivity to Ireland a great prey of Angles
and Britons and Picts.)
between 5,000-10,000 men, not including the British, Welsh, and Pictish slaves that the entry
references as the purpose of this expedition.106 Even if the numbers are conflated, the total number
of the Scandinavians who arrived in Dublin alone would have been staggering. Although it is
unlikely that the entirety of these men would have stayed on in Dublin, it would indicate that
Dublin’s population was already quite large by the end of the ninth century. Linzi Simpson has
postulated that in 847 alone, over a thousand Scandinavian men alone were killed in various battles
throughout Ireland.107 Dublin continued to stand through this would-be devastating blow to the
population, which speaks to just how many Scandinavian men were in Ireland at this early date.
Within this population, a good number of these men may have had the necessary skills which would
enable them to move between being a member of a raiding crew and working as a craftsman during
the offseason. Thus it is most likely that these craftsmen were indeed Scandinavian immigrants, and
not local Irishmen who moved into the town.
3.4 Dublin as a central place

In order for Dublin to become a viable political site within a Scandinavian backdrop, it was
necessary for the town to create itself around the presence of three things: a royal seat, a judiciary
thing site and its possible religious associations. No evidence of royal quarters, an aristocratic hall,
or royal palace has yet been uncovered, but it is safe to assume that the later Norman castle was
built over the original site. It is also likely that the thing site resided close to the castle defenses.
This assumption is drawn from medieval records, which conclude that Henry II established his
court in an area that medieval sources refer to as the Thingmotte. The Thingmotte was most
probably associated with the Scandinavian thing, and Séan Duffy notes that, “King Henry built his
court where the Ostmen of Dublin had formerly held theirs and in so doing definitely established
himself as the city’s new master.”108 Ultimately the exact location is far less important than the
assumption that it existed at all. From this thing site judicial matters were settled and the price of
goods was fixed upon.
There is also textual evidence of a forest with cultic associations; just as Kaupang evidences
a holy lake and mountain within the Skiringssal area, so too does Dublin have its own forest. The
forest had the double advantage of religious connotations as well as supplying the settlement with
106 Bradley, “Some reflections on the problems of Scandinavian settlement in the hinterland of Dublin,” 56.
107 Simpson, “The fist phase of Viking activity in Ireland: archaeological evidence from Dublin,” 418.
108Duffy, Séan, “A reconsideration of the site of Dublin’s Viking Thing-mót,” in Above and Beyond: essays in memory
of Leo Swan, ed. Tom Condit and Christiaan Corlett, (Bray: Wordwell, 2005), 358.
timber, which could be used to build and fortify the town, as well as constructing and repairing
ships. Unfortunately, the first mention of Caill Tormair, or “Thor’s Forest,” appears in the Annals of
Innisfallen in reference to its burning by Brian Boru in the year 1000,109 and this late account must
thus be taken with a grain of salt. It would be fair to assume though that the forest was in existence
during the early Viking Age settlement, and continued into the end of the first millennium.
Therefore, I posit that Dublin’s development acted in reverse of Kaupang. It was first
created as a node in the Scandinavian trade network, but as it grew into a permanent town the
inhabitants chose to create it as a reflection of their urban values. In order for Dublin to be accorded
the importance of a central place, it needed a thing site, a royal home worthy of its overlords, and a
place to worship their pre-Christian religion. Dublin became a true Scandinavian town within its
Irish backdrop.
3.5 Dublin’s monetary system

The highest concentration of Scandinavian hoards outside of Scandinavia has been found in
Ireland, which indicates that an obscene amount of wealth in the form of silver was making its way
into Ireland via the Scandinavian network.110 Silver hoards found within the vicinity of Dublin
evidence connections from Anglo-Saxon England all the way to the Islamic caliphate, which places
Dublin as a definitive node. Based on the evidence of these hoards, which several scholars have
hypothesized as relating to the Dublin expulsion between 902 and 917, Dublin was a city of
incredible wealth at the beginning of the ninth century. The Lough Ennel hoards, a collection of six
hoards uncovered between 1981 and 1983, evidence the largest concentration of Viking silver in
western Europe. The Dysart Island (no.4) hoard contains coins, ingots and hack-silver, with
connections to the Irish Sea, Norway, and the Baltic.111 The Cuerdale hoard, excavated from
Lancashire in Britain, is the most valuable Viking hoard ever uncovered, including those from
109 AI1000.2 Indred Átha Clíath & doud & a loscud do feraib Muman & forbas doib and i Kl. Enair, & Caill Tomair do
loscud doib do chonnud, & rí Gall Átha Cliath d'élúd co Ultu asin chath & na fuair a dín in h-Erind co tarat a giallu do
Brian mc. Cennetich, & co tarat Brian a n-dún dona Gallaib. (The men of Mumu invaded Áth Cliath, set fire to it, and
burned it, and they invested it on the Kalends of January; and they burned Caill Tomair as firewood; and the king of the
foreigners of Áth Cliath escaped from the battle to Ulaid, but found no protection for himself in Ireland until he handed
over his hostages to Brian, son of Cennétig; and Brian gave the fort to the foreigners.)
110Sheehan, John, “Silver and Gold Hoards: Status, Wealth and Trade in the Viking Age,” Archaeology Ireland 9.3,
(1995), 20.
111 Sheehan, “The longphort in Viking Age Ireland,” 290.
Scandinavia, and has been linked to the Dublin elite.112 It is comprised of forty-plus kilograms of
bullion and coins, and showcases the dazzling wealth of Dublin at this early stage.
The hoards suggest that Dublin operated under a bullion economy, much as Kaupang did at
this time.113 Grave goods at the Dublin cemeteries imply that many of the inhabitants were warriors-
cum-merchants, as evidenced by a number of balance scales, weights, and purse mounts.114
Interestingly, the weights found in Kaupang appear to have been adjusted to a standard of 26.6 g,
which corresponds to a module of 26.4 g as early Scandinavian øre/weight units.115 This indicates
that Dublin’s trade operated on a Scandinavian weight system which links it directly back to
Kaupang. Howard B. Clarke argues that ninth century Dublin paralleled Kaupang at this early stage
in both economic activity and urban infrastructure, or lack thereof.116 While I agree with his
assessment that the economies mirrored each other, I suggest that neither site should be regarded as,
“a proto-urban trading settlement.”117 Indeed, I posit that the Scandinavians were only allowed to
stay in Ireland due to their urban-economic contribution and the wealth it brought to the island
through trade. Scandinavians pumped silver into Ireland, which was something that the Irish kings
could not ignore. Analysis has shown that silver arrived in its greatest quantities between 850 and
950, which indicates that the Scandinavian trade market was actually most beneficial to Ireland in
its earliest stages of development.118
112Graham-Campbell, James, “The Cuerdale hoard. Comparison and Context,” in Viking Treasure from the North West:
the Cuerdale hoard in its context, ed. James A. Graham-Campbell, (Liverpool: Occasional papers. National Museums
and Galleries on Merseyside, Liverpool Museum no. 5, 1992), 113-114.
113Sheehan, “The longphort in Viking Age Ireland,” 290; Dublin would not mint its own coins until the 990s, under the
rule of the Hiberno-Norse king Sitric Silkenbeard.
# 114 Ó Floinn, “The archaeology of the Early Viking Age in Ireland,” 163-164.
Kilger, Christoph, “Wholeness and Holiness: Counting, Weighing and Valuing Silver in the Early Viking Period,” in
115
Means of Exchange: Dealing with Silver in the Viking Age, ed. Dagfinn Skre, (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press &
Kaupang Excavation Project, University of Oslo, 2008) 283.
116 Clarke, “Proto-Towns and Towns in Ireland and Britain,” 341-342.
117Clarke,” “Proto-Towns and Towns in Ireland and Britain,” 342.; To be fair, his paper was written before both Skre
and Simpson undertook further excavations on either sites which indicated that the connected sites should be properly
labeled as urban towns with developing towns. That does not mean that Clarke does not appear to have a bias against
the Scandinavian invasion, and nor should his lack of ninth century interpretation lead him to suggest that Dublin
should be considered proto-urban. It must be noted that he continues his belief that Ireland remained distinctly un-urban
in comparison to England during the eleventh century, in his 2015 article, “King Sitriuc Silkenbeard: a great
survivor.” (The Vikings in Ireland and Beyond: Before and After the Battle of Clontarf, ed. Howard B. Clarke and Ruth
Johnson, (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2015) 254.)
118 Sheehan, “The longphort in Viking Age Ireland,” 290.
3.6 Trade
This massive inflow of silver begs the question: what was bringing Scandinavians and their
wealth to this obscure gateway node in the most western reaches Europe? Although the Roman
Empire had never seen Ireland as a necessary economic commodity, the Scandinavians must have
found something which not only drew them in, but kept them there. By the end of the eighth
century the Irish Sea had much to offer in terms of portable wealth, and evidence of the earlier
Viking raids has been uncovered in the form of grave goods with origins in the British Isles. In
southeastern Norway, insular finds have been distinguished in all settlement levels at Kaupang,
even during the first decades of the ninth century. In particular, three types of inorganic materials
have been identified in Kaupang as coming from the Irish Sea: silver, jet, and lead.119 23 jet objects
were excavated from Kaupang’s earliest layers, quantities only paralleled in Yorkshire for Irish Sea
trade at this time, which suggests that southeastern Scandinavia was trading with the Irish Sea
during the first half of the ninth century.120 Lead, which was linked to Cumbria or the southern
Pennines through isotopic analyses, suggests that Kaupang remained an Irish Sea trading partner
throughout its existence.121 Seven fragments of silver broad-band armrings, crafted in a distinct
Hiberno-Scandinavian style, are perhaps the most important indicators of Irish Sea Scandinavian
settlement and trade. This type of armring can trace its history of craftsmanship back to Denmark in
the middle of the ninth century, and developed stylistically within Ireland before being traded back
to the Scandinavian homeland.122
This still does little to explain the sheer amount of silver found in Ireland; while there is a
dearth of archaeological evidence, it is highly likely that slaves were Dublin’s most lucrative export.
Based on annalistic testimony, it appears that slave raids had been a regular feature of Viking
expeditions since the arrival of the Scandinavians in the Irish Sea at the end of the eighth century.
Hit-and-run affairs were especially popular in the 820s and 830s, and the lucrative slave trade may
121 Ibid.
122Sheehan, John, “The Huxley hoard and Hiberno-Scandinavian arm-rings,” in The Huxley Viking hoard:
Scandinavian settlement in the north-west, ed. J. Graham-Campbell & R. Philpott, (Liverpool: National Museums
Liverpool, 2009), 59–61.; Skre, “From Kaupang and Avaldsnes to the Irish Sea,” 238.
have been a leading factor in the permanent establishment of the longphort.123 Wealth and
expansion in the Middle East also brought about a growing demand for slaves in the Islamic
caliphate during the 8th and 9th centuries.124 Religion plays a part in understanding how the
Scandinavians came to supply the Middle East with their British Isles slaves; Christians were not
allowed to sell or own other Christian slaves, and it was especially frowned upon to sell Christian
slaves within Islamic markets. Therefore, the Scandinavian heathens, who had not yet converted to
Christianity en masse, operated as the perfect middle-man in the slave trade. In this way, Islamic
silver ended up in the hands of Irish kings, as the Scandinavians were able to spread their network
from the western reaches of Ireland all the way to the Islamic caliphate in the Middle East.
Slave raids became better organized and more effective as a means of political domination
once Dublin became more settled, and most likely assured the town’s survival. When Olaf, a king of
Dublin, returned to Dublin in 871 with an enormous fleet packed with Irish Sea slaves, it not only
meant a large amount of wealth would flow through the town due to the economics of human
trafficking, but it meant that Olaf and his co-king Ivar had a vested economic interest which tied
them and their decedents to Ireland permanently. The Irish already dealt heavily in human
trafficking on an intra-regional level, and the rural economy was thus dependent on slavery even
before the arrival of the Scandinavians. Once the Scandinavians began to exploit slavery on an
inter-regional level, there must have been little desire to stop it, because the economic advantage
was too great. Slaves from Britain would have been very popular in Ireland, and the Scandinavians
are cited as conducting raids all up and down the west coast of Britain and up into the Scottish
islands. Poul Holm suggests that slave raids connected to political alliances and allegiances as early
as the 880s.125 This thus created an allowance by the Irish kings for the Scandinavians to stay and
create a slave market that they could then benefit from. This also had its drawbacks, as kingdoms
123 AU 821.3 Orggan Etir o genntibh ; pręd mor di mnaibh do brid ass. (Étar was plundered by the heathens, [and] they
carried off a great number of women into captivity.); AU 831.7 Cath do madhmaim ∣ i nAighnechaib re genntib for
muinntir nAirdd Machae co n・arrgabtha sochaide móra diib. (The heathens defeated the community of Ard Macha in
a battle at Aignig, and great numbers of them were taken captive.); 832.1 Cétna orggain Airdd Machae o genntib fo tri i
n-oenmhís. (The first plundering of Ard Macha by the heathens tree times in one month.); 834. 9 Orgain Glinne da
Locha o genntib. Orgain Slane ₇ Finnubrach hAbę o gentibh. (Glenn dá Locha was plundered by the heathens. Sláine
and Finnubair Abae were plundered by the heathens.); 836.7 Prima praeda gentilium o deisciurt Bregh, .i. o Telcaibh
Droman ₇ o Dermaigh Britonum, ₇ captiuos tam f plures g portauerunt ₇ mortificauerunt multos ₇ captiuous plurimos
apstulerunt. (The first prey was taken by the heathens from southern Brega, i.e. from Telcha Dromáin and Dairmag of
the Britons; and they carried off many prisoners, and killed many and led away very many captive.); 840.1 Orggain
Lughmaidh di Loch Echdach o genntibh qui episcopos ₇ praespiterox ₇ sapientes captiuos duxerunt ₇ alios
mortificauerunt. (Lugbad was plundered by the heathens from Loch nEachach and they led away captive bishops and
priests and scholars, and put others to death.)
125 Holm, Poul, “The Slave Trade in Dublin: Ninth to Twelth Centuries,” Peritia 5 (1986): 321.
could just as easily suffer from the enslavement of their peoples. In 895, the Dubliners raided
Armagh and took 710 captives.126 It is likely that these captives were shipped overseas to an
unknown destination to the great profit of the Scandinavians and the terror of the Irish. Slavery was
how the Scandinavians guaranteed surety, and the fleet of 200 ships in 871 set a precedent which
resulted in the dominance of slavery in Dublin’s economy until the Norman invasion in the twelfth
century.
The men of Dublin also appear to have sold themselves in order to amass their fortune by
trading on their skills as warriors, and this was intrinsically linked to the slave trade. A warrior class
had developed within Scandinavia during the climate of agricultural surplus. At the same time as
slaves began to infiltrate the Scandinavian agricultural economy, there seems to be a greater focus
on a male-centric warrior society. As more slaves arrived to work the land, a greater number of men
were allowed to leave behind life as an ordinary farmer and choose a more glorified life as a
warrior. Warriors were highly respected, and David Wyatt suggests “that the cultural imperative to
produce male warriors was so powerful in early medieval Scandinavia that selective infanticide was
practiced through the exposure of female infants.”127 This over-population of males created through
the exposure of female infants, as well as the advent of a large warrior class, left a vacuum on the
farms. The number of people needed to run these manorial farms soon outpaced the number of
people either willing or able to work the lands and thus generated an increasing need for slaves.
Female slaves became especially necessary as commodities in order to balance the gender ratio; not
only were they needed to work the fields, but they were required to help repopulate a land where a
greater majority of healthy men were leaving to go abroad.
Once in Ireland, this warrior class was able to sell themselves as mercenaries. The annals
suggest that the Irish kings frequently employed Scandinavian warriors in order to advance their
own political gains, regardless of their distaste for Scandinavians in general. This was to the benefit
of both parties involved, and Poul Holm that mercenary activities were essential to the long-term
survival of the settlement. The Scandinavians became a powerful ally both economically and
militarily, and these alliances began as early as the 850s.128 More important than the manpower
itself, the Irish were able to rent the Scandinavian ships as weapon of war, and this proved to be a
powerful asset to any Irish king willing to pay for their services.
126895.6 Arc Macha do orcain o Ghallaib Atho Cliath, .i. o Glun Iaraind co ruscat deichenbur ₇ secht cet i mbrait. (Ard
Macha was plundered by the foreigners of Áth Cliath i-e- by Glún Iarainn, and they took away seven hundred and ten
persons into captivity.)
127 Wyatt, David, Slaves and Warriors in medieval Britain and Ireland, 800-12000, (Leiden: Brill NV, 2009) 169.
128 Holm, Poul, “The Slave Trade of Dublin,” 319-320.
But paying the Dubliners to go to war in Ireland was a dangerous move for the Irish. The
Scandinavians may have brought wealth, urbanism, and new technology in the form of ships to
Ireland, but there was always the looming threat that the Scandinavians would not be content to stay
within their cities; one day, the Scandinavians may try to extend their trade network into the geo-
political field. One day, the Scandinavians may come after their territory, their people, and their
kingships.
3.7 Dublin as a geo-political threat

Dublin quickly asserted itself as geo-political threat to the Irish kingdoms, and it seems that
the Danish kingdom and Norwegian territories were just as eager as the Irish to control and contain
the town. As indicated above, Dublin was incredibly wealthy, and thus proved itself to be an asset to
whomever had control over the gateway node. While we know very little about the political
hierarchy of southern Scandinavia at this time, and specifically the politics of Kaupang, the Irish
sources do allow us a glimpse of how Dublin was ruled by its Scandinavian overlords in the ninth
century, and who fought for control back in Scandinavia.
It is very likely that Dublin started out as a colonial prospect founded by a regional king of
western Norway. The Annals of Ulster suggest that the settlement was ruled over by a erell, which
can be traced to the Old Nose jarl. Therefore contemporary evidence indicates that the longphort
was ruled over by an aristocrat very early in its existence. Unfortunately, this said jarl, Tomrair,
would die in 848 fighting against Irish forces.129 This entry is significant for three reasons: first, the
use of the word jarl by Irish annalists proves an awareness of the political terminology within the
Scandinavian hierarchy very early in Dublin’s settlement. The use of his name demonstrates both
some form of recognition of rank on the side of the Irish, but also clear contact between the Irish
and Scandinavians at this early stage of the longphort. Second, that a jarl from Lochlann had been
killed. Scholars have argued over the location of Lochlann, with no satisfactory conclusions which
can be backed up with hard proof. Based on the archaeological evidence of insular finds discovered
in western Norway, I am in careful agreement with Colmán Etchingham that Laithlind/Lochlann
represents a polity somewhere on the west coast of Norway, and even more so with Egon Wamers,
129 AU 848.5 Bellum re nOlcobur, ri Muman, ₇ re Lorggan m. Cellaig co Laighniu for gennti ecc Sciaith Nechtai [n] in
quo ceciderunt Tomrair erell, tanise righ Laithlinne, ∣ ₇ da cet dec imbi. (Ólchobor, king of Mumu, and Lorcan son of
Cellach with the Laigin, won a battle against the heathens at Sciath nechtain, in which feel the Jarl Tomrair, tanist of the
king of Lochlann, and two hundred about him.)
that Laithlind/Lochlann did not represent Vestfold in the Oslofjord.130 Third, the longphort was run
by a jarl, named as the tanist (heir apparent) of the king. This reveals that a king from Scandinavia
had a vested interest in Dublin as a trading center. Furthermore, the establishment of the longphort
at Dublin was coordinated and overseen by an external power in Scandinavia, as opposed to being
founded by either Viking raiders overseen by an independent chief or leaderless pirates/outlaws.
Dublin was already important enough for the king of Lochlann to try to ensure that the node
stayed within the Scandinavian trade network. Just the next year in 849, 140 ships arrived from the
king of the foreigners, “to exact obedience from the foreigners who were in Ireland before them.”131
The identity of the the king of the foreigners remains conjecture, but this once against points to
Scandinavian interest in their colonial prospects abroad and the need to control the trade therein. It
is interesting to note this armada does not set its sights on Dublin alone, but is recorded as subduing
all the foreigners on the island of Ireland. At this time, the annals record a number of longphuirt
popping up all around Ireland, including Limerick and Waterford. These two would go on to
become major players in Scandinavia’s trading network as well.
Rival Scandinavian groups fought to control it as early as 851, indicating that there was
internal struggle for control over the Scandinavian trade routes.132 The dubgennti/dubgaill, or Dark
Foreigners, arrived at Dublin and slaughtered a great number of finngenti/finngaill, or Fair
Foreigners, and according to the annals plundered the encampment, taking both people and property
with them. It is necessary to briefly discuss the distinction between the dubgennti and the finngenti,
as their identification affects our understanding of how the politics of the trade network operated.
Traditional scholarship anachronistically applies the dubgennti as coming from Denmark, whilst the
finngenti had immigrated from Norway; as in the case of Lochlann, the identification actually
necessitates a more nuanced classification. I suggest that the meaning of dub and finn are much less
important than the fact that they divide the Scandinavians into separate groups. The dubgennti are
130Wamers, “Insular Finds in Viking Age Scandinavia and the State Formation of Norway,” 71.; Etchingham, Colmán,
“Laithlinn, ’Fair Foreigners’ and ’Dark Foreigners’: the identity and provenance of Vikings in ninth-century Ireland,” in
The Viking Age: Ireland and the West, Papers from the Proceedings of the Fifteenth Viking Congress, Cork, 18-27
August 2005, ed. John Sheehan and Donnchadh Ó Dorráin, assisted by Shannon Lewis-Simpson, (Dublin: Four Courts
Press, 2010) 84.
131 AU 849.6 Muirḟecht .uii.xx. long di muinntir righ Gall du thiachtain du tabairt greamma forsna Gaillu ro badur
ara ciunn co commascsat hErinnᵇ n-uile iarum. (A naval expedition of seven score ships of adherents of the king of the
foreigners came to exact obedience from the foreigners who were in Ireland before them, and afterwards they caused
confusion in the whole country.)
132851.3 Tetact Dubgennti du Ath Cliath co ralsat ár mór du Ḟinngallaibh ₇ coro [ṡ]latsat in longport eitir doine ₇
moine. Slat do Dubhgenntib oc Lind Duachail ₇ ar mor diib. (The dark heathens came to Áth Cliath, made a great
slaughter of the fair-haired foreigners, and plundered the naval encampment, both people and property. The dark
heathens made a raid at Linn Duachaill, and a great number of them were slaughtered.)
most often identified with Britain in Irish and Welsh sources, and thus Etchingham enforces the idea
that the finngenti can be loosely applied to Dublin-based Scandinavians from a Norwegian polity,
whilst the dubgennti generally apply to Scandinavians of Danish origin who also had a significant
interest in the rest of the British Isles.133 In this case, the finn are associated with the members of
Lochlann, which suggests that they are the earlier group, and most likely the founders of Dublin.
The dub must therefore be a second group, who sought to take control of a booming Scandinavian
market. The exact identity of the dubgennti is less important than the fact that they appear to have
arrived in order to disrupt trade-routes, and were successful in wreaking havoc throughout the
settlement of the finngenti, who must be assumed to be the subjects of the king of Lochlann.134 Yet
this act of violence was more than against a Viking ship camp, it was war against a Scandinavian’s
king colony. While the western Scandinavians may have carved out a trade route linking
Scandinavia to Ireland, it appears the Danish kingdom sought to extend its control over the western
trade routes linking the Scandinavian trade network.
Valante interprets that the Frankish annals suggest that there was unrest in the Danish
kingdom and the Norwegian mainland during the 850s, and therefore posits that a build-up to civil
war back in Scandinavia could have caused the Danes to send the Dubgennti to interrupt trade
between Dublin and the Dubliner’s links back to their home kingdom in Scandinavia.135 While I
agree with this assertion, her claim that Laithlind represented Vestfold in the annals lacks enough
evidence to support it. If the Danish kingdom lost control of Vestfold and its access to Kaupang,
they might have attempted to conquer trade routes and nodes unconnected to the new rulers of
Vestfold in an attempt to tap into new avenues of wealth. Dublin was proving to be an affluent
undertaking, and taking control could have helped the Danish kingdom without doing any harm to
the new rulers of Kaupang. Indeed, despite shifting borders back in their native lands and
skirmishes between rival Scandinavian groups within in Ireland, the continuity of insular finds in
Kaupang suggests that trade routes from the Irish Sea back to Scandinavia remained open
throughout these struggles for control. They Danish kingdom clearly wanted the wealth Dublin, and
could have used that revenue to finance military campaigns used in an attempt to reconquer
Vestfold.
133Etchingham, “Laithlinn, ’Fair Foreigners,’ and ’Dark Foreigners’: the identity and provenance of Vikings in ninth-
century Ireland,” 85.
134 For further debate see: Downham, Viking Kings of Britain and Ireland: The Dynasty of Ívarr to A.D. 1014, 14-15.
135 Valante, The Vikings in Ireland, 69-71.
It appears the finngenti retook control of Dublin two years later, in 853, when Olaf, the son
of the king of Lochlann, arrived with a large fleet and managed to reestablish dominance over the
town. Indeed, the annals state that he became king over all the foreigners in Ireland, which indicates
that he not only defeated the Dubgennti of Dublin, but established authority over the other
longphuirt on the island.136 Olaf proved to be very active in Ireland, and beyond the expansion of
the Dublin hinterlands discussed above, his creation of satellite longphuirt suggests that he had
ambitions to expand his geo-political and economic influence over the entire island. The Irish even
seem to regard him as a possible overking, in that the annals record him collecting tribute from the
Irish, which was a unique event prior to his arrival.137 Under Olaf’s direction, Scandinavian raids
against the Irish occur further and further away from Dublin, which suggests that the raids were not
merely used for plunder. The raids were used to establish and maintain an ever-increasing territorial
claim against the neighboring Irish kingdoms. The Scandinavians decided that they were in Ireland
to stay, and used military forced to aggressively carve out their own kingdom in Ireland in order to
pursue economic advancement.
The Scandinavians of Dublin were also able to establish themselves as a geo-political
presence through early alliances with Irish kingdoms. Not only could they sell themselves as
mercenaries, but bonds were formed through marriage and fosterage. Olaf ensured a formal alliance
for the town by marrying the daughter of an Irish king, Áed, and Scandinavian troops fought for
him in a battle in 862.138 A year later Olaf was referred to as king, so clearly his marriage had the
intended authoritative result.139
136 AU 853.2, Amhlaimª m. righ Laithlinde do tuidecht a nErinn coro giallsat Gaill Erenn dó ₇ cis o Goidhelaib.
(Amlaíb, son of the king of Lochlann, came to Ireland, and the foreigners of Ireland submitted to him, and he took
tribute from the Irish.)
137 AU 798.2 Combustio Inse Patraicc o genntibh, ₇ borime na crich do breith ₇ scrin Do-Chonna do briseadh doaibh ₇
innreda mara doaib cene eiter Erinn ₇ Albain. (The burning of Inis Pátraic by the heathens, and they took the cattle-
tribute of the territories, and broke the shrine of the Do-Chonna, and also made great incursions both in Ireland and in
Alba.)
138FA 862 (292) K. u. Aodh mc. Neill & a chlíamhain, .i. Amlaibh (ingean Aodha ro bhaoi ag Amhlaoibh) go slóghaibh
móra Gaoidhiol & Lochlannach leo go magh Midhe, & a ionnradh léo, & saorclanna iomdha do mharbhadh leo. (Áed
son of Niall and his son-in-law Amlaib (Áed's daughter was Amlaib's wife) went with great armies of Irish and
Norwegians to the plain of Mide, and they plundered it and killed many freemen.); AU 862.2 Aedh m. Neill co riga Gall
i mMide, ₇ la Flann m. Conaing do indriudh Midhe. (Aed son of Niall went with (?) the kings of the foreigners into
Mide, and plundered Mide with Flann son of Conaing.); Valante, The Vikings in Ireland, 53-54.
139 AU 863.4 Uamh Achaidh Alddai ₇ Cnodhbai ₇ uam Ḟeirt Boadan os Dubadh ₇ uam Mna Angobann ro scruidiset
Gaill, quod antea non perfectum est, .i. a fecht ro slatsat .iii. righ Gall fercnn Flaind m. Conaing, .i. Amhlaim ₇ Ímhar ₇
Auisle ; ₇ Lorcan m. Cathail leo occa, rí Mide. (The caves of Achad Aldai, and of Cnodba, and of Boadán’s Mound
above Dubad, and of Óengoba’s wife, were searched by the foreigners - something which had never been before. This
was the occasion when three kings of the foreigners, i.e. Amlaíb and Ímar and Auisle, plundered the land of Flann son
of Conaing; and Lorcán son of Cathal, king of Mide, was with them in this.)
Olaf is not the only ruler of Dublin at this time, and when he is proclaimed king in 863, two
other Scandinavians, Ivar and Ásl, are crowned co-king at his side. While some scholars associate
this Ivar with Ivar the Boneless of the Great Heathen Army which first invaded Great Britain in 865,
I believe that they are separate men.140 Ivar first appears in Ireland in 857 in alliance with Olaf
against Irish forces.141 Later chronicles suggest that Ivar and Olaf are brothers, and Alfred Smyth
advocated for this association, but I suggest that it is more likely that they are representative of the
two separate groups, with Olaf heading the finngenti and Ivar possibly a representative of the
dubgennti, who have learned to work in alliance in order to advance their trade separate interests
coincided. I base this conjecture around the idea that the two factions do not appear to be at odds
with another during this co-rulership, but begin to renew their struggles after the death of both
kings.142 Perhaps Olaf knew he could not beat the armies of the Danish kingdom, and instead
suggested that the two leaders ally; there was clearly enough wealth in Ireland for the both groups.
Little is known about the third king of Dublin beyond his name and status. Ásl does not
appear in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle or in later Íslendingasögur. Indeed, his identification in the
Irish records does not suggest to which he group he belonged, nor anything remarkable about his
presence beyond the idea that three potentially different groups were working in tandem to secure
Dublin’s fortunes. This triad of peace was shattered only four years later when the annals record
that Ásl was killed by his kinsmen.143
Olaf, Ivar, and Ásl also appeared to share the same vision of conquest in Scotland. Olaf and
Ásl raided Pictland in 866 on a slaving mission,144 and in 870, after Ásl’s treacherous death, Olaf
returned again with Ivar.145 “The two kings of the Norsemen,” Olaf and Ivar, laid siege to
Dumbarton for four months before it fell to them. This suggests that the two kings felt secure
140 For further discussion, see: Smyth, Scandinavian York and Dublin I, 16.; Valante, The Vikings in Ireland, 72.
141 AU857.1 Roiniudh re nImar ₇ re nAmlaiph for Caittil Find cona Gallgaedhelaibh hi tiribh Muman. (Ímar and
Amlaíb inflicted a rout on Caitil the Fair and his Norse-Irish in the lands of Munster.)
142 AU 877.5 Belliolum occ Luch Cuan eitir Finngenti ₇ Dubgennti in quo Albann, dux na nDubgenti, cecidit. (A
skirmish at Loch Cuan between the fair heathens and the dark heathens, in which Albann, king of the dark heathens,
fell.)
143867.6 Auisle, tertius rex gentilium, dolo & parricidio a fratribus suis iugulatus est. (Auisle, one of three kings of the
heathens, was killed by his kinsmen in guile and parricide.)
144 AU 866.1 Amlaiph & Auisle do dul i Fortrenn co n-Gallaib Erenn & Alban cor innriset Cruithentuaith n-uile & co
tucsat a n-giallo. (Amlaíb and Auisle went with the foreigners of Ireland and Scotland to Fortriu, plundered the entire
Pictish country and took away hostages from them.)
145 AU 870.6 Obsesio Ailech Cluathe a Norddmannis, .i. Amlaiph & Imhar, duo reges Norddmannorum obsederunt
arcem illum {folio & column H43vb} & distruxerunt in fine .iiii. mensium arcem & predauerunt. (The siege of Ail
Cluaithe by the Norsemen: Amlaíb and Ímar, two kings of the Norsemen, laid siege to the fortress and at the end of four
months they destroyed and plundered it.)
enough in their hold over Dublin to leave it behind for some time. It is likely that the Dublin kings
were inspired by the Great Heathen Army’s attempts to conquer Britain, and understood the
lucrative benefits of controlling a territorial empire. Perhaps they felt that Ireland could not be
conquered, and that Scotland was an easier undertaking. Whatever the case, the success against
Dumbarton ultimately ensured that the Irish Sea base at Dublin would be one of the Scandinavian’s
most remunerative investments, even should the rulers fail to secure a terrestrial kingdom.
A shift in how the Irish viewed Dublin’ can be felt when the annals record Olaf and Ivar’s
fleet sailing into Dublin in 871 with a total of 200 ships carrying between 5,000-10,000
Scandinavian warriors as well as a staggering number of slaves captured from throughout the
British Isles. Not only did a large number of Scandinavians assert their dominance by arriving with
such a large show of force, but they brought surety in the form of human cargo. These slaves
ensured two things: one, it was a political power play that told the Irish kings that they could, and
would, enslave the Irish population if need be; and two, it ensured that the Scandinavian presence
became a necessity of the Irish economy. If the Scandinavians were bringing back silver from the
Middle Eastern slave markets, then the Irish were getting just as rich as the Dubliners from these
efforts. If the Scandinavians had then opened up a market that sold goods brought from all areas
connected to a greater Scandinavian trade network, then the Irish came to depend on the goods
brought into Ireland from all corners of the world. While the Irish had traded throughout the Irish
Sea prior to the arrival of the Scandinavians, they now became accustomed to trading within a more
global market
3.8 Dublin’s weakening ties to Scandinavia

As mentioned at the end of the last chapter, political turmoil disrupted the economy of the
Scandinavian trade network during the 870s and 880s. This would have implications far outside of
Scandinavia, and indeed, Dublin was consequentially weakened. After a steady influx of young,
male warriors to replace any Scandinavians cut down against the Irish, it now appears that
reinforcements stopped sailing to the aid of Hiberno-Scandinavian forces during the last decades of
the ninth century. This most certainly has to do with Harald Fairhair’s consolidation of power in the
west of Norway, as well as Danish struggles both within their territories and against the rallying
Carolingian empire. Harald Fairhair is the most important figure at this time, as his control over the
southwest coast of Norway allowed him to manipulate the trade routes across the North Sea and
down into Irish waters. During the 880s, “the instability in Norway while Harald Fairhair fought for
dominion over other kings made it impossible for ties back to Ireland to be maintained.”146 There is
no archaeological to evidence to suggest that trade between the British Isles and Scandinavia
ceased, but the idea that there were kings of Dublin hints at the idea that the Dubliners saw
themselves as politically independent from Scandinavian home-rule even prior to Harald Fairhair’s
rise.
Olaf and Ivar both died in the 870s, and no strong leadership emerged from within to keep
Dublin’s trade ties secure. Indeed, with the death of Olaf, Dublin’s first generation link with western
Scandinavian disappeared. It appears that Olaf died shortly after his departure from Dublin; at the
very least he never returned to Ireland. Olaf’s son remained in Ireland, and the mention of his death
in the annals suggests that he was a man of some influence in Dublin and Ireland.147 After Olaf’s
departure from Dublin and subsequent death, Ivar became the sole ruler of Dublin, although he too
would die in 873. The annals refer to him as, “King of all Northmen in Ireland and Britain,”
indicating that Ivar could have been an active member in the Great Heathen Army, although this
may have been a liberal eulogy on account of the Irish annalists. Alas, neither his nor Olaf’s heirs
inherited such a moniker, and Dublin would not see a formal connection with Britain again until the
Dubliners took control of York in 919.
The successors of Ivar and Olaf struggled for control of Dublin between 875 and 896, and
the annals record violent infighting between the rival dynasties.148 Because of the success of the
Danelaw in 875, it is possible that the groups saw the possibility of territorial expansion in Ireland,
which disrupted the idea of shared investments. The Danes had the upper hand through their hold
on England, which allowed them to strengthen the trade routes through the North Sea and the
British Channel. Unfortunately, neither party was able to present a strong and viable candidate to
lead Dublin. With the large slave raid against Armagh in 895, famine conditions causing the rest of
Ireland to suffer in 898-900,149 and weak leadership unable to hold Dublin together, it was just a
matter of time before the Irish attempted to take the wealth of the town for themselves.

147 AU 875.4 Oistin m. Amlaiph regis Norddmannorum ª ab Alband per dolum occisus est. (Oistín son of Amblaíb, king
of the Norsemen, was deceitfully killed by Albann.)
148888.9 Sichfrith m. Imair, rex Nordmannorum,ᴶ a fratre suo per dolum occisus est. (Sigfrith son of Ímar, king of the
Norsemen, was deceitfully killed by his kinsman.); 893.4 Mescbaidh mór for Gallaibh Atho Cliath co ndechadur i n-
esriuth, indala rand dibh la m. nImair, ind rann n-aile la Sichfrith nIerll. (A great dissension among the foreigners of
Áth Cliath, and they became dispersed, one section of them following Ímar’s sons, and the other Sigfrith the jarl.) 896.3
Sitriucc m. Imair ab ali[i] s Nordmannis occisus est. Sitriuc son of Ímar was killed by other Norsemen.)
149 AU 898.2 Fros fola fluxit i nAird Ciannachta. (A shower of blood fell in Ard Cianachta.); 900.3 Ascolt mar for
cethraibh. (Great scarcity affected the cattle.)
3.8.i 902 expulsion from Dublin
In 902, the Scandinavian trade network was dealt a disastrous blow when an Irish army led
by Cerball mac Muirecáin, the king of Leinster, and Máel Findia mac Flannacáin, the king of Brega,
defeated the Scandinavian forces of Dublin. The Annals of Ulster recorded that the Scandinavians,
“abandoned a good number of their ships, and escaped half dead after they had been wounded and
broken.”150 The debate surrounding the expulsion of 902 has already been discussed in great detail
above, and it is important to point out that the 902 entry does not describe the destruction of Dublin,
nor does it describe the burning of ships or buildings. Indeed, the aim of the Irish to rid Dublin of
the Scandinavian elite would not have have allowed them to destroy the town, it would have been to
take it for themselves. Whichever Irish king ruled over the prosperous port would have added
power, wealth, and influence to their own kingdom. For the Scandinavians to lose control of Dublin
was lose a node in their network.
The Scandinavians were not inactive throughout the Irish Sea after their expulsion, and the
annals track the Grandson of Ivar, the ruling dynasty of Dublin, in the North Sea area. Other
Dubliners are said to have fled to Northwestern France (and possibly included Rollo of Normandy,
a direct ancestor of England’s William the Conqueror), and others made their way to the Isle of the
Man, where archaeological evidence suggests that the Scandinavian settlement began around
900.151 Nor is there any evidence, archaeological or annalistic, to suggest that the other longphuirt
and towns of Ireland were abandoned at this time. The longphort of Woodstown in Waterford
Harbor reveals continuous settlement between 850 and 1050, and would later prove vital in the
Scandinavian efforts to regain their hold in Ireland.152 In 914, a large fleet of Scandinavians arrived
in Waterford Harbor, and more would continue to join them throughout the next few years.153 In
917, Dublin was retaken by the Scandinavians.154 They cemented their hold over the port in 919
150 AU 902.2 Indarba ngennti a hEre .í. longport Atha Cliath o Mael Findia m. Flandacainc co feraibh Bregh ₇ o
Cerball m. Muiricain co Laignibh co farcabsat drecht mar dia longaibh co n-erlaasat lethmarba iarna nguin ₇ a
mbrisiuth. (The heathens were driven from Ireland, i.e. from the fortress of Áth Cliath, by Mael finnia son of Flannacán
with the men of Brega by Cerball son of Muiricán, with the Laigin; and they abandoned a good number of their ships,
and escaped half dead after they had been wounded and broken.)
Graham-Campbell, James and Colleen E. Batey. “Vikings in Scotland: An Archaeological Survey. (Edinburgh:
151
University Press, 2008), 110-111.
Maas, “The Viking Events of AD 902-919 and the Lough Ennel Hoard,” in Clerics, Kings and Vikings: Essay on
152
Medieval Ireland in Honour of Donnchadh Ó Corráin, ed. Emer Purcell, Paul MacCotter, Julianne Nyhan, and John
Sheehan, (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2015), 253.
153 AU 914.5 Nocoblach mar di gentibh oc Loch da Caech. (A great new fleet of the heathens on Loch dá Caech.)
154 AU 917.4 Sitriuc h. Imair do tuidecth i nAth Cliath. (Sitriuc grandson of Ímar entered Áth Cliath.)
when they won a major battle outside the town; many kings and nobles were recorded to have been
killed, including the son of Aed, the high king of Ireland.155
Reading between the lines, the activities in and around Ireland between 902 and 919
evidence several important factors concerning Scandinavian activities at this time. To begin with,
the port of Dublin was too important economically to be destroyed, and thus the Scandinavian
population was allowed to remain inside the town and continue practicing their trade under Irish
rule. The hinterlands were most likely left mainly untouched as well, as food must have continued
to reach the town in order for life to function normally. The Scandinavian trade network was now a
necessary part of the Irish economy, and the Irish could not afford to alienate the entire
Scandinavian population if they wanted to continue to trade outside of the Irish Sea. That does not
mean that the population felt connected enough to their heritage that they could return to
Scandinavia given the choice. Considering that the inhabitants of Dublin were most likely second or
third generation Hiberno-Scandinavians at this time, the laymen of Dublin may have been willing to
submit to Irish overlords in order to stay. This new Hiberno-Scandinavian population was possibly
too numerous or too interconnected with the Irish population that they could not be wholly removed
from the other longphuirt and hinterlands. The Scandinavian elite that was kicked out Dublin did
not return to Scandinavia. Only fifty years after Olaf, the son of the king of Lochlann, had arrived to
regain control of his father’s colony, its leaders had claimed independence from Scandinavian
overlordship. Dublin was no longer a dependent node, but a significant player in its own right. Its
necessity as a slave-port most likely gave it the necessary prestige needed to claim its independence.
Conclusion: Dublin as a weak but independent city-state

Dublin began as a naval base for marauding Scandinavian slavers, but in less than a century
it built itself up to become one of the most important towns in the British Isles, and perhaps the
continent. For the Scandinavians, Dublin served as the key to their access to the silver of the Middle
East, and the Irish saw it as a means to further their own interests through the wealth accumulation
and power consolidation within the island. As the authority of either the Danish or Norwegian
155 AU 919. 3 Bellum re ngentibh occ Duiblinn for Goidhelu ∣ 〈du i〉 torcair Niall c m. Aedho, ri Erenn, tertio anno regni
sui, 〈.xuii.〉 kl. Octimbris, .iiii. feria, ₇ du i torcair Aedh m. Eochocain r〈i Coici〉dh Conchobair,ᵈ ₇ Mael Mithid m.
Flannacain, ri Breg, ₇ Concobur h. Mael Sechnaill ridomna Temrach, ᵉ ₇ Flaithbertach m. Domnaill ridomna f ind
Ḟochlai, ₇ m. Duib Sinaigh, ᵍ .i. Mael Craibi ᵍ ri na nAirgiallu,ʰ ₇ alli nobiles multi. ᴶ Cath Atha Cliath le Gullo.ᴶ (The
heathens won a battle against the Irish at Duib-linn in which fell Niall Glúndub son of Aed, king of Ireland, in the third
year of his reign, on the fourth feria, the eighteenth of the Kalends of October [14 Sept.], and here fell also Aed son of
Eochucán, king of Conchobor’s Province, and Mael Mithig son of Flannacán, king of Brega, and Conchobor grandsom
of Mael Sechnaill, heir designate or king of Temair, and Flaithbertach son of Domnall, heir designate of the North, and
the son of Dub Sínaig, i.e. Mael Craíbe, king of Airgialla, and many other nobles. - The battle of Áth Cliath [won] by
the foreigners.)
kingdoms diminished over the Scandinavians in Ireland, so too did the power of Dublin weaken to
the point where they lost the city. Unfortunately for the Irish, the Scandinavians realized just how
important the town was for their network, and sacrificed everything to regain control. Indeed, John
Maas states that “the slaughter accompanying the campaign [to reclaim Dublin] (shocking even by
contemporary standards of warfare in Ireland) underlines the importance of Dublin and the other
Viking longphuirt at this early stage, and the price both sides were willing to pay for control of the
trade and wealth.”156 By the beginning of the tenth century, Dublin was arguably the Scandinavians
most important node.
The excavations of Dublin provide an ever-expanding picture of how the town operated, as
well as how the economy evolved to grant Dublin its own authority separate from the Scandinavian
homeland and the Irish. By contrasting Dublin to Kaupang and applying network theory to the
settlement, it is easy to see that Dublin operated as part of an intricate and prosperous trade network
operated by a group of ambitious Scandinavian merchants who eventually came to view themselves
as free from Danish or Norwegian political interference. The Scandinavians in Dublin had become
their own group, and Dublin had evolved from merely a node in the network into its own central
place. This multi-layered centrality, which gave it religious, administrative, and juridical powers,
allowed Dublin to evolve naturally into a major port city and to survive long past the Viking Age.
156 Maas, “The Viking events of AD 902-19 and the lough Ennel hoards,” 262.
Conclusion
My first question when beginning my research was thus: why did Kaupang fail and Dublin
survive? They both functioned as nodes in the Scandinavian trade network and evidenced
characteristics of operation as central places, so what was Dublin’s key to success? The more
research I did, the more complicated the answer became. In comparing and contrasting both sites as
central places and as a part of a greater network, the greatest difference between the two appears to
be Dublin’s control over its own naval fleet. These ships granted the Scandinavians access to
Ireland’s riverways, the Irish Sea, and to destinations further abroad that connected them back to the
trade network which had reestablished contact with the prosperous east. Dublin could never have
survived as a base camp, let alone a thriving urban settlement, without these ships. Poul Holm
asserts that by the tenth century, the kings of Dublin controlled their own militarized naval fleet,
which served as the key to their success over the neighboring Irish kingdoms.157 While the official
fleet cannot be traced back to the ninth century longphort, it certainly has its origins during the
earliest settlement periods. The annals made repeated references to the ships of the Scandinavians
and their heavy reliance on maritime expeditions. The Scandinavians not only sold themselves as
mercenaries, but their ships and crews could be rented out as well. The Irish allies and enemies
understood how important a naval fleet could be in determining the winning side. In addition, in the
need to maintain their fleets, it is probable that even the early kings of Dublin were able to place
taxes on any goods leaving the port and to exact tolls on foreign ships that entered the harbor of
Dublin, thus generating even more wealth for Hiberno-Scandinavian enterprises. In this way Dublin
was able to become a major player in its own right. By the end of the ninth century, the
Scandinavian trade network had become dependent on the Irish Sea trade, but Dublin was no longer
dependent on Scandinavian aid or authority. This ensured its survival through the political
upheavals in Scandinavia during the tenth and eleventh centuries.
In comparison, whilst Dublin relied on its fleet for military security and economic survival,
Kaupang evidences nothing to suggest that the authorities had control over a naval force. As a major
port, one must assume that Kaupang serviced ship repairs, but no evidence has emerged indicating
that ships were built on site. This once again may have to do with poor preservation conditions, but
even then there is little in the way of inorganic tools or materials to imply that ships were being
built within the vicinity. This once again demonstrates that while Kaupang acted as both a central
157 Holm, “The naval power of Norse Dublin,” 76-78.

place and a node, it lacked the political military presence that could be perceived as a threat to
neighboring powers. This may have contributed to its eventual collapse, as it had no means in which
to physically fight for its survival. It was not seen as a strong enough presence to continue once new
powers came into play. On the other hand, Dublin was viewed as both a threat and an asset, and the
Scandinavians in Ireland were conscious that their ships, and the connections which these ships
brought, acted as insurance against total destruction.
Based on parallel archaeological analysis, Sindbæk has managed to create remarkable
representations of the Scandinavian network, linking sites which share two or more artifact types.158
Unfortunately, his focus has been overwhelmingly on the Scandinavian network within the North
and Baltic Seas, and does not emphasize links to the Irish Sea. Based on this network analysis seven
sites have surfaced as the most connected within the network, and therefore have proven central to
our understanding of Scandinavian trade links: Ribe, Kaupang, Birka, Åhus, Truso, Groβ
Stömkendorf and Hedeby.159 Groβ Stömkendorf and Truso are included in his list of Scandinavian
nodal points, although this stretches conceptions of the geographical limits of Scandinavia. Based
on new interpretations surrounding the dating of Dublin’s excavations, I suggest that Dublin’s ninth
century analysis must be reexamined in conjunction with other ninth century Scandinavian emporia
so that it may be better contextualized as a nodal point. While it may not reach the status of the
seven listed above, the evidence laid out in this paper suggests that Dublin was a significant player
in the development of Scandinavian communication and trade. Indeed, while Kaupang’s location in
Scandinavia allowed the town to develop organically within a supportive frame for growth and
expansion, Dublin was the result of Scandinavian invasion into a foreign land. It developed out of a
Scandinavian understanding of how urban life should be after these groups had had time to travel
the known world and experience different aspects of urbanism. As Björn Ambrosiani and Helen
Clarke suggest that “whatever urban civilization was introduced by the Vikings was imposed on a
fresh sheet, and it is in Ireland that we can look to a blueprint of what Scandinavians would have
thought to be a ‘real town.’”160 That is to say, Skiringssal was a central place before Kaupang
became a node, but Dublin began as a node before it created itself as a central power. By the time
the Scandinavians founded Dublin, they had traded with or raided Frankish Paris and Dorestad,
English London and York, and other urban centers connected to their network. In addition,
Sindbæk, Søren M., “The Small World of the Vikings: Networks in the Early Medieval Communications and
158
Exchange,” Norwegian Archaeological Review, 40:1 (2007): 67, doi: 10.1080/00293650701327619.
159 Sindbæk, “Networks and nodal points: the emergence of towns in early Viking Age Scandinavian,” 121.
160 Helen Clarke and Björn Ambrosiani, Towns in the Viking Age (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1991) 102.
Scandinavian forces had practices establishing their own towns within Scandinavia. Dublin was the
product of urban awareness shared along a social network of seasoned travelers and traders.
Kaupang fades from the archaeological record between 930 and 980, suggesting that the
consolidation of power within the Norwegian kingdom necessitated new centers. Skre suggests that
the new towns that emerged, such as Trondheim and Oslo, “had a variety of functions - for their
hinterland, for the Church, and for the king” that the old centers did not.161 Olso, which was
established at the top of the Oslofjord around the turn of the eleventh century, served as both an
ecclesiastical and royal center that fit well with the quintessential Scandinavian conception of rex
iustus. The administrative and juridical aspects of the new town thence arose out of the unification
of church and state, and only then did the economy of trade come into play. Whereas Kaupang as a
central place gained its significance through trade, the new towns of Scandinavia were created as a
central place of authority by necessity. Thus Kaupang did not need to be physically destroyed,
because it had never posed a threat as an acting power to begin with.
Dublin, on the other hand, survived because it had to form as a seat of authority in order to
challenge the native powers it threatened by merely existing. Classical Irish scholarship suggests
that the Battle of Clontarf in 1014 served as a natural conclusion to the Scandinavian presence in
Ireland, but records continue to indicate that Dublin remained a thriving “Scandinavian” city until
the arrival of the Normans. The Dubliners of the eleventh century can hardly be considered as
authentically Scandinavian, yet the Irish still saw the inhabitants of the town as other, and as such
the group is best viewed as a city-state independently ruled by a Scandinavian diaspora.162 Dublin
was first and foremost a Scandinavian town, and is arguably the most successful city today that was
founded as part of the Scandinavian trade network.
Any two Viking Age urban sites from this network could have been examined for this paper,
but the recent reinterpretations of Dublin’s excavations and the relatively new publications on
Kaupang’s settlement make the direct connection of these two case studies unique. At the same
time, it is just as necessary to compare Dublin to the other central nodes of Birka, Hedeby, and
Ribe. Kaupang could further benefit from continuing studies of its intra-regional connections,
including its links to the Danish kingdom, as well as it relationship to its own hinterlands. It is
necessary to persist in the application of both network theory and central place theory within a
multi-disciplinary context to all of the urban sites of the Viking Age. Only then can we offer a more
complete picture of the Viking Age Scandinavian world.
161 Skre, “Centrality, Landholding, and Trade in Scandinavia c. AD 700-900,” 211.

162 For further reading see: Jesch, Judith, The Viking Diaspora, London: Routledge, 2015, 26, 163-165.

Kaupang and Dublin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kaupang and Dublin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kaupang and Dublin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Source criticism

1.2 Historiography/Stand der Forschung

1.3 The sequence of chapters

2.1 Contextual Foundations

2.2 Skiringssal as a Central Place

2.3 Kaupang in Skiringssal

2.3.i Comment on the archaeology

2.3.ii Layout of the town

40 Pilø, “The Settlement: Character, Structures and Features,” 216.

2.3.iii Population and hinterlands/outlands

2.4 What was traded in the town

47 Skre, “Centrality, Landholding and Trade in Scandinavia c. AD 700-900,” 204.

55 Valante, The Vikings in Ireland, 87.

2.5 The monetary system in Kaupang

2.6 Kaupang as a geo-political threat

2.7 Conclusion: Kaupang in decline or just declining to comment?

72 Skre, “From Kaupang and Avaldsnes to the Irish Sea,” 243.

3.2 Ireland before the Scandinavian invasion

3.3 The longphort of Dublin and its development

92 Sheehan, “The Longphort in Viking Age Ireland,” 286.

3.3.ii The layout of the town

3.4 Dublin as a central place

3.5 Dublin’s monetary system

3.7 Dublin as a geo-political threat

3.8 Dublin’s weakening ties to Scandinavia

146 Valante, The Vikings in Ireland, 76.

Conclusion: Dublin as a weak but independent city-state

157 Holm, “The naval power of Norse Dublin,” 76-78.

161 Skre, “Centrality, Landholding, and Trade in Scandinavia c. AD 700-900,” 211.

You might also like