of Ireland and especially Britain. In respect of western Britain and the Irish Sea, it was
indeed the case that two Norwegian royals, Magnús Haraldsson in 1058 (Stokes 1993 ,
vol. 2 : 291 , annal 1058. 4 ; cf. Welsh chronicles – Williams 1860 : 25 ; Jones 1952 : 14 )
and Magnús berfœttr Óláfsson in 1098 – 1103 , presented problems for all the major
parts of the region. In 1066 Haraldr harðráði Sigurðarson famously sought conquest in
England, as his son Magnús had attempted in 1058. (We should note also the activities
of Magnús góði Óláfsson, recorded in ‘The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’ 1046 – 9 D.) After the
Norman conquest Sveinn Úlfsson or Ástríðarson, king of Danes, presented problems
for the Anglo-Norman realm (Bolton 2005 ). Even in the 1150 s, Eysteinn Haraldsson
gilla plundered eastern Scotland and England with a Norwegian fleet (Dumville 2006 :
18 and n. 63 ). And as late as the 1260 s a Norwegian royal fleet might arrive in Scotland
with hostile intent. All these events were recorded by writers of history, now Insular,
now Scandinavian. But where are the various lines of definition to be drawn? On
the evidence of the First Viking Age, earlier Scandinavian adventurers of unknown but
royal and aristocratic origin had dreamt of and sought widespread conquest in Britain
and Ireland: what power and resources any of them may have enjoyed in Scandinavia
itself is wholly unknown. When the spread of Christianity and Latin-letter literacy
in Scandinavia had changed the character of the source material available to us, we
inevitably have a rather different perception of the resources and outlook of Northern
rulership. This, together with the effects of modern history, has encouraged historians
(and, more recently, archaeologists) to view the history of the Second, or Later, Viking
Age according to a national paradigm. Scandinavian archaeologists have also tended
to be prey to another paradigm, in which the word ‘state’ is used prematurely and
inappropriately to describe socio-political structure in the Viking Age. It must be said
that the contemporary chronicle-evidence does not straightforwardly encourage out-
looks of this sort. For example, we can still gain the impression of significant Insular
ignorance of the basic political structures of Scandinavia (this is suggested, for example,
by the description of eleventh-century Norway as Germania in Welsh chronicles, and
confusion of Denmark and Norway: Williams 1860 : 31 ; Jones 1952 : 11 , 13 , 15 , 21 ,
24 , 25 ).
The Viking Age in Insular chronicles inevitably ends au courant, with a lack of
hindsight. The annalistic chronicle, as by definition ‘a history without an end’, deals
in general with origin and development rather than closure. Across Britain and
Ireland, what removed Scandinavians and locally based vikings from chroniclers’ inter-
ests and writing was the advent of a new and more dangerous breed of invader, the
French-speaker. In the chronicling traditions of England, Wales and Ireland, these
newcomers were identified first in terms of their speech (‘The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’
1050 D [Whitelock et al. 1961 : 115 ]; Annales Cambriae 1071 [Williams 1860 : 26 ; Jones
1952 : 16 ]). In Irish chronicles we find evidence for a rapid semantic shift mimicking
that which took place at the beginning of the Viking Age: as I have already noted,
the word Ga(i)ll, ‘Foreigner(s)’, which around 800 came conclusively to mean vikings,
now around 1200 shifted to mean ‘French-speakers from Britain’ (and eventually
simply ‘English’). These were the new vikings – and Normans of course had
been trained by their own historians to think of themselves as reformed, civilised,
ex-vikings, still endowed with the strength and adventurousness of vikings but
fully absorbed within a French, Christian cultural paradigm (Davis 1976 ; Shopkow
1997 ).
–– David N. Dumville––