been taken to mark a sea-change in those kings’ outlook in the context of Anglo-
Scandinavian England under Cnut and his sons ( 1016 – 42 ) (Gwynn 1992 ).
‘The Chronicle of Æthelred and Cnut’ offers a more varied diet than its ninth-century
predecessor, while remaining largely concerned with military activity and high politics
(Clark 1971 ). Those who wrote the original text of ‘The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’ drew
on various sources for the years since the beginning of the Viking Age. The resulting
annals give little sense of consistency of vikings’ purposes, with a very fragmentary
record of what they did, and no sense of who led the vikings in their actions, until 865.
Then, suddenly, a marked consistency and named leaders become apparent: while the
narrative from 865 to 892 is by no means without problems attracting questions, it does
convey some sense of purpose on either side (but especially the Scandinavian). It is quite
possible that all the annals 865 – 92 were written by one chronicler in a single authorial
campaign (Dumville 1982 : 333 – 4 ). The author(s) focused relentlessly on the most
dangerous armies and their political effects: the ecclesiastical results of their activities
seem to have been of no compelling interest. This gives the record of the First Viking
Age in England a uniquely secular character among the west European chronicling of
that era (Dumville 2002 c).
In Insular chronicles, vikings are very variously referred to, and this has led to
problematic interpretations of their ethnicity, geographical origins and religion. In
general, in Latin chronicling of Viking Age date, vikings are Nordmanni, sometimes
Nortmanni and (later) Normanni: ‘Northmen’ is a credible and sensible translation (while
‘Norsemen’ is variously problematic and best avoided: see Dumville 2002 c: 209 ). When
not ‘Northmen’ or piratae, ‘pirates’, they are usually Dani. To translate as ‘Danes’ may
seem obvious but is in fact unwise, as has long been recognised. It seems clear that, in
the usage of latinate writers of the era, both Dani and Nordmanni (and its variants) have
the same semantic force and were used in free variation.
In Old English, when an ethnonym was used, Dene was usual; and (unlike Latin Dani)
it has typically been translated ‘Danes’. In the absence of Anglo-Latin chronicling of this
era, until the work of Æthelweard in the last quarter of the tenth century (Campbell
1962 ; Van Houts 1992 ; on his latinity see Riley 1857 , Winterbottom 1967 , Howlett
2000 ), Nordmanni have not been an issue. The appearance of Old English Norðmenn
has therefore caused excitement and sometimes been translated ‘Norwegians’ (Mawer
1923 seems to have been important), but whether this is an anachronism needs to be
considered. Norðmann (not an Old Norse form) and Norðmenn appear in English place-
names, another complicating factor. What is more, Norðmann is attested as a personal
name, alongside Wiking and Sumarlidi (and Old and Middle Gaelic Dubgall, it might be
added); this suggests that it might have meant ‘viking’ rather than bearing any geo-
graphical or ethnic significance (cf. Hermann Pálsson 1981 ). ‘Danes’ were late and brief
entrants to Gaelic chronicles (Middle Gaelic Danair in the 980 s) and the reasons are not
yet clear (cf. Downham 2007 ). When we turn to Old Norse (viz Old Scandinavian)
usage, it is highly significant that dönsk tungu is not ‘the Danish language’ but that of all
ethnic Scandinavians (cf. Amory 1980 ).
It has often been observed that in Old English an army of vikings would be called here
while that of the natives would be fyrd (Plummer 1892 / 9 , vol. 1 : 338 , 360 ). (We should
also note that folc could be used to mean an army: cf. John 1966 : 121 – 2 , 142 , 292 – 3 .)
H.G. Richardson and G.O. Sayles ( 1963 : 55 ; cf. John 1966 : 132 – 50 ) protested against
this, arguing that the two words were semantically equivalent. Their concerns were
–– David N. Dumville––