Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’; at 902 in Annales Cambriae and Brenhinoedd y Saeson ( 900 )
(Dumville 2002 b: 14 ; 2005 : 32 – 3 ).
In Irish chronicling, groups of vikings then began to be distinguished by (Gaelic)
names, Findgenti and Dubgenti (Dumville 2004 ) from 851 (cf. 849 ), for example ( 853 ,
followed by 866 and 890 in the Welsh chronicles: Dumville 2002 b: 12 – 13 , and 2005 :
24 – 5 , 30 – 1 ), and then Gall-Gaedil from 856 (Dumville 1997 : 26 – 9 ). Norse words
begin to appear in the Gaelic chronicles (cf. Stokes 1892 : 115 – 23 ): erell ( 848 ), and as a
Gaelic dual na da iarla ( 918 ), both from Old Norse jarl, are the first examples (Mac Airt
and Mac Niocaill 1983 : 306 , 368 ).
The use of names of vikings’ leaders is effectively coincident with settlement: there
was now no option but to recognise that Scandinavians were no longer hostile transients
but instead hostile neighbours with whom it might be necessary or profitable sometimes
to ally. These were in principle new permanent local competitors for status and
resources, and ones about whose habits, language and patterns of thought it was
necessary to learn fast. Just as vikings sought to – and did – exploit political differences
between the natives of territories in which they operated, so the natives would have
to find ways to profit from, and indeed encourage, dissension between or within
viking-groups (on Ireland see Downham 2006 ; for the Scandinavian situation see
Maund 1994 ).
How much settlement took place is very difficult to assess from the records offered by
Insular chronicles – and impossible to quantify. However different from one another the
various chronicling traditions may be, what they share is a level of selectivity – deter-
mined in great part by criteria of relevance – which largely excludes longer-term trends
and events or processes lacking a strictly military or ecclesiastical character. In 1969
Peter Sawyer published a discussion-paper, with critical responses from a variety of
colleagues, entitled ‘The two Viking Ages of Britain’ (Sawyer et al. 1969 ). In fact, this
dealt almost exclusively with England, but it is a concept which can be expanded within
Britain and to Ireland. Much of the criticism turned, however, on the extent and depth
of Scandinavian settlement and in particular on the bearing of toponymic evidence
on these issues. The problem was (and is) that ‘The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’ has very
little to say on the subject, beyond noting that armies – whether after success ( 876 and
probably 877 ) or after their ambitions had reached a high-water mark ( 880 ) – divided
land and settled among the Northumbrians, Mercians and East Angles. But was that
all? Did subsequent settlement of Scandinavians take place in these areas of England
controlled by Scandinavian rulers and armies? – in the southern and eastern ‘Danelaw’
until the 910 s, and in the northern ‘Danelaw’ until (first) the creation of the
kingdom of England in 927 and (even then) during the period of contested rule from
939 / 40 to 954.
After the defeat and death of Eiríkr, king of Scandinavian York, in 954 (Downham
2004 a), and the permanent end (as it turned out) of the rule of the vikings of Dublin
in England (cf. Dumville 2006 : 51 ), there was a marked pause, lasting for a generation,
in chroniclers’ reporting of vikings’ activities in England. This has long been noted and
probably represents a historical reality. Historians’ perception has been that, when
raiding by (external rather than settled) Scandinavians resumed in England, it was of
a distinctly different character. From this perception was developed the concept of the
two Viking Ages. Although this concept has never been popular among Scandinavian
academics, for it has not been identified as a phenomenon in Scandinavia itself (where
–– David N. Dumville––