SOCIETY, FUNCTIONING OF ANGLO-NORMANupon Meath, the ally of Muirchertach, by burning,
killing, and leading off many captives. The final blows
to Dál Cais supremacy were accompanied by great
predatory expeditions in 1115 and 1116, but the pris-
oners of the last campaign were released afterward as
an homage to God and to St. Flannán of Killaloe—the
patron saint of the Dál Cais.
What were the driving motives behind the massive
taking of prisoners by Irish kings of the eleventh and
early twelfth centuries? First, there was a striking sim-
ilarity between the warfare of Dublin and Irish kings.
Simple lessons of the humiliating function of massive
imprisonment to the prestige of any king were well
learned by the Irish, and it seems plausible that once
learned, they put it to their own use. Further, Irish cattle
raids and petty warfare between minor kings took on
a far larger and more devastating character when the
Irish invited Viking warriors for wars of conquest and
paid them in kind by the wealth of the enemy, includ-
ing prisoners of war. We know that the great struggles
of the over kings for supremacy were largely decided
by the use of naval fleets. These fleets were either
indirectly controlled by the over king as a consequence
of their control of Norse cities or they were hired from
Norse settlements in Ireland or the Scottish Isles. The
decline of Dublin’s political power forced many war-
riors either to settle or to take up freebooting, more or
less out of control of the Dublin king. These half-
independent warriors may have supplied the Dublin
slave market with captives that had not been taken
because of political complications, but simply for
profit. From the middle of the twelfth century, we
know that the Dublin fleet was hired for thousands of
cattle that were driven to the city in payment. It is also
conceivable that payment in the eleventh century was
in slaves.
As the evidence stands, there is, however, no way
to substantiate the hypothesis that the Irish captives of
war were in fact sold to Norse slave dealers. What
exists is a relatively clear-cut case that slavery became
more widespread during the course of the eleventh
century. We have much circumstantial evidence of the
importance of slavery to Irish kings in eleventh century
writings such as
Lebor na Cert
(Book of Rights) and
Cogadh Gaedhel re Gallaibh
. The distinction in these
texts between male and female slaves reveals some
functions of slavery. Female slaves are referred to as
“full-grown,” “swarthy,” “fair,” “graceful,” and “valu-
able;” and the Leinster king is obliged to give “eight
women whom he has not dishonored.” Male slaves are
described as “lads,” “hard working,” “strong-fisted,”
“willing,” “expensive,” and “spirited.” If we may
deduce anything from these descriptions, the slaves
seem primarily to have been intended for the house-
hold: as servants, concubines, mountebanks, and the
drabants
of the court. The old use of
cumal
for a
female slave was evidently obsolete by 1100, and
instead
mná (daera)
or the crude
banmog
were used.
In the Leinster list, Dublin is entitled to “thirty women
with large families”—an indication perhaps of the fur-
nishing of Dublin warriors with concubines. Further,
Lebor na Cert draws a clear distinction between native
and foreign slaves (“foreigners who do not know
Irish,” “women from over the great sea”), an indication
that not only were slaves recruited by internal warfare
but some were also supplied by foreign trade.
Ireland has no mineral wealth, and foreign luxury
goods could be bought by Irish kings mainly for two
export goods, cattle and people. Labor and concubines
were in demand wherever a new elite had established
itself, and hides for parchment were in strong demand.
Tenth and eleventh century wars and not least the
Norman conquest of Britain must have generated a
strong market for the Irish commodities. Very little is
known about the actual trade mechanisms and bal-
ances, but one indicator is the growing number of
instances recorded in the annals of the taking of slaves
by the Irish. In the eleventh century, Dublin was prob-
ably the prime slave market of western Europe, fur-
nishing customers in the British Isles, Anglo-Saxon as
well as Norse, and the Scandinavian countries. In
1102, however, Dublin’s slave trade to Bristol was
prohibited on religious grounds, while the trade also
seems to have been despised for its antisocial charac-
ter. Demand in Scandinavia declined for the same reli-
gious and social reasons as it did in Britain. The trade
and Irish slave raids seem therefore to have petered
out in the early twelfth century. However, some trade
must have continued, as indeed the Irish synod of 1170
welcomed the Norman Conquest as just punishment
for the abuses of the slave trade. Slavery as such was
not put to an end overnight, as we are well reminded
by the synod of Armagh of 1170. Even as late as 1235,
the mark of slavery was still felt by some people; in
Waterford a man was known as Philippus Leysing,
Philip the manumitted, or freed slave.
P
OUL
H
OLMSOCIETY, FUNCTIONING
OF ANGLO-NORMAN
Anglo-Norman, or English society, in medieval Ireland
was shaped by two distinct but related forces: one was
aristocratic, the other royal. The conquest was initially
effected by aristocratic adventurers who wished to
improve their fortunes by carving out lordships for
themselves in Ireland. From the royal expedition in
1171–72 of King Henry II (1154–89), however, royal
authority was stamped upon Ireland. As the trappings
of royal power in England grew during the thirteenth