Section V.

Norwegian Names of Places, near Dublin.—Norwegian Burial—Places.—Norwegian Weapons and Ornaments.

The few Scandinavian names of places in Ireland are, with the exception of the previously-mentioned provinces, confined to the coasts, and there particularly to the names of islands and fiords. On the west coast there are only two rather doubtful ones; namely, Enniskerry, an island (the first part of which is the IrishInis, an island, whilst the latter part seems to include the Scandinavian name “Sker,” orSkjær, a reef); and the harbour, Smerwick. Several places on rivers are still calledLaxweir, as for example on the Shannon near Limerick and Killaloe, where salmon are caught in a net stretched across the river. The word “Lax” (salmon) is unknown in the Irish language, but appears, as we have seen, in several Scandinavian names of places in Scotland. On the south coast, besides Waterford, we can mention at most only the Isle of Dursey (Þorsey?) with the small adjoining island of Calf. The greatest number of Scandinavian names appears on the east coast. In some names of places situated on the finest fiords we may trace the Scandinavian ending “fjörðr;” as, for instance, to the south of Dublin in Wexford (in Irish, Loch Garman), and to the north of Dublin, in Strangford and Carlingford (in Irish, Cuan Cairlinne). But in general, all the names of places of Scandinavian origin, or with Scandinavian terminations, are collected round Dublin as the central point.

At the southern entrance of the bay of Dublin is the Island of “Dalkey” (in Irish, “Delg Inis”), and at the northern entrance the high and rounded cape Howth (in Irish, “Ceann Fuaid,” or “Beann Edair”), which in ancient letters is also called Hofda, Houete, and Houeth. This is clearly the Scandinavian “höfud,” or “Hoved” (head), a name particularly suited to the place. In the immediate neighbourhood is also the old Danish town Baldoyle, and the district of Finngall, colonized by the Norwegians. Directly north of Howth rises “Ireland’s-eye” (in Irish, “Inis Eirinn” and “Inis Meic Ness-áin”); and still farther to the north the islands of “Lambay” (in Irish, “Rachrainn”) and “Skerries,” or the Skjære (reefs). Close to the west side of Dublin is the little town of Leixlip, where there is a famed salmon-leap in the river Liffey. In old Latin epistles the name of Laxleip is translated by “saltus salmonis,” which is plainly neither more nor less than the old Norsk “lax-hlaup” (Dan., Laxlöb;Eng., salmon-leap): which name reminds us again of the salmon fishery, so highly cherished by the ancient Norwegians. It is doubtful whether the county of Wicklow, which adjoins that of Dublin, derived its name from the Norwegians; though it is not improbable that it did, as in Irish it is called Inbhear Dea, but in old documents Wykynglo, Wygyngelo, and Wykinlo, which remind us of the Scandinavian Vig (Eng.,bay) or Viking.

At all events the decidedly Scandinavian names of places around Dublin sufficiently indicate the predominance of the ancient Norwegians and Danes in that city. Discoveries made by excavations in and around Dublin have also, in recent times, very remarkably contributed towards placing this matter in a still clearer light.

In constructing a railway close by Kilmainham, now the most western part of Dublin, the workmen some years ago laid bare a number of ancient tombs. In these lay whole rows of skeletons, each in its own grave, and by the side of them many kinds of iron weapons and ornaments. Fortunately several of the specimens thus discovered were preserved, principally for the museum of the Royal Irish Academy in Dublin; by which means Irish archæologists had an opportunity of convincing themselves that these antiquities must be a good deal older than the English conquest of Ireland; yet that they are by no means of the kind usually found in Ireland, and belonging to the period of the Irish iron age. It is thus placed beyond all doubt, that they are not Irish remains, but derived from the Norwegians and Danes at that time settled in Ireland. The few illustrations here annexed will present to every Scandinavian archæologist mere well-known objects, corresponding so exactly with the antiquities of the iron age preserved in our Scandinavian museums, that we might even believe them to have been made by the same hands.

[++] Swords: Fig. 1 to Fig. 3.

The swords (Figs. 1-3), which very much resemble the Scandinavian swords found in England (described at p. 45,) are from twenty-four to thirty-two inches long. Some have two edges, others only one. The pommel and guard of the hilt are in several of them ornamented with very neatly inlaid pieces of gold, silver, and other metals. On one of them some engraved Latin letters have been found, which may also be seen on a sword of the iron age in the Museum at Copenhagen. Even the old Irish chronicles relate that the Norwegians placed inscriptions on their swords. Thus an ancient Irish poem says: “Hither was brought, in the sword sheath of Lochlan’s king, the Ogham across the sea. It was his own hand that cut it.” It is most probable that by the Ogham writing is here meant “the Norwegian’s Ogham,” or runes, with which, as our Sagas state, the old Northmen’s swords were frequently ornamented.

[++] Scandinavian Antiquities, Fig. 1. to Fig. 12.

[++] Sword: Irish Iron

Several genuine Irish iron swords of that ancient period have been discovered in Ireland at various times, both in the river Shannon and in old Irish castle-yards, or on the sites of castles. They are much smaller than the Norwegian swords, and in general want both the guard and the large pommel at the end of the hilt, as the annexed figure of those most frequently found shows. On the whole the Irish iron swords are of an older and more imperfect kind, and very strikingly resemble the bronze sword used in Ireland in the age of bronze. On placing the short and ill-formed Irish sword by the side of the much larger, better, and handsomer Norwegian one, we may almost say that we obtain, as it were, a living image of the degenerate and miserably-equipped Irish people in comparison with the strong and well-armed Norwegians.

The Norwegian warriors who found their last resting-place at Kilmainham, were evidently buried with all their arms, from the renowned “Danish battle-axe” (Fig. 4), and the lance (Figs. 5, 6)—which must have been deposited with the entire shaft, since the ferrule (Fig. 7) has been found—down to the shield. But as the last was mostly of wood, nothing more remains of the whole shield than the large iron boss (Figs. 8, 9), which was placed in the middle, and which served to protect the hand which bore the shield.

Among all the things discovered at Kilmainham, scarcely any more decidedly indicate their Norwegian, or Scandinavian, origin, than the bowl-formed brooches (Figs. 10, 11), already mentioned when speaking of the coasts of Scotland, and which are not found in any other part of Ireland. There are also some very peculiar small bone buttons (Fig. 12), having a small hole in the flat side, penetrating the button for some way without entirely piercing through it. Buttons of this form have not been before found in Ireland, though they are very well known in the Scandinavian North. They are discovered in Sweden and Norway, in graves of the period of the iron age, or times of the Vikings. It is highly probable that in those times they served as men, or counters in some game, as they are generally found, especially in Norway, collected together in great numbers, and in conjunction with dice. To judge from the holes in the bottom, they have certainly been used in a sort of game of draughts; for, till late in the middle ages, nay, almost down to our own times, the Icelanders were accustomed to furnish their boards with small pivots, on which they placed the men, that they might not by any accidental shaking of the table be mixed with one another, and the whole game thus suddenly disturbed. The Irish also seem to have had a somewhat similar mode of proceeding at that time, as among a great number of things undoubtedly Irish, discovered at Dunshauglin, there was found a bone button or knob, certainly a draughtsman, which, instead of a hole, is furnished with a metal point at the bottom, by which it was evidently intended to be fixed in the board. But for the Scandinavian Vikings, who were so much at sea, and who, it seems, liked to while away the time by playing draughts, such a precaution was doubly necessary, as the rolling of the vessel would otherwise have thrown the draughtsmen together every moment. It is remarkable that at Kilmainham, as well as in Scandinavia itself, the draughtsmen are found deposited in the graves, by the side of the arms and ornaments of the warriors. This affords an instructive proof that the old Northmen must have been very fond of gaming; and consequently that the picture drawn by Tacitus of the passion of the ancient Germans for play, which at times even led them to gamble away their personal freedom, might apply to their neighbours, the Scandinavians.

We can scarcely err in referring the antiquities found at Kilmainham to the ninth, or at latest to the tenth century. The mode of burial is heathenish rather than Christian; and, as is known, the Norwegians settled in Ireland were converted to Christianity in the tenth century at latest, and probably still earlier. It is not at all probable that the graves are to be attributed to an isolated band of heathen Vikings, who came over at a later period, and who, after a battle, buried their dead on the field. The great number of graves, and the careful manner in which each is said to have been set or enclosed with stones, rather show that they were made in all tranquillity by the Norwegians and Danes, who at that time dwelt in Dublin, or its immediate neighbourhood, and who probably had a common burial ground there. Scandinavians appear also to have been buried in an adjoining churchyard, which at that time belonged to a convent dedicated to St. Magnen, but which afterwards became the burial-place for a hospital of the knights of the order of St. John, founded at Kilmainham. It has at length become one of the largest churchyards in Dublin. In corroboration of the conjecture that Scandinavians were buried in it, it may be mentioned that a tall upright stone with carved spiral ornaments stands there—a sort of monumental, or bauta-stone, under which, several years ago, various coins were discovered, minted by Norwegian kings in Ireland; and near them a handsome two-edged iron sword, with a guard and a longish flat pommel. Some have, indeed, thought that this sword must have belonged to Murrough, a son of Brian Boru, or to Murrough’s son Turlough, as both these warriors, having fallen in the battle of Clontarf, are said to have been buried in this churchyard. This, however, is only a vague conjecture; whilst it is quite certain that the above-mentioned sword agrees most accurately in form with the many swords of the Vikings’ times found in the North. There is, therefore, reason to suppose, that the sword was formerly deposited there with the body of a Norwegian warrior; and this supposition is strengthened by the discovery of the Norwegian-Irish coins.

Other old Norwegian, or Scandinavian burial-places, have been discovered in the Phœnix Park, near Dublin, where a pair of bowl-formed brooches were found near a skeleton. In making, a few years ago, some excavations in Dublin itself, in “College Green,” which formerly lay outside the city, the workmen met with several iron swords, axes, lances, arrows, and shields, of the well-known Scandinavian forms. It is probable that this also was a burial-place similar to that at Kilmainham. With the exception of the burial-place on the coast of Lough Larne, the ancient Ulfreksfjord, no other decidedly Norwegian graves are hitherto known to have been discovered in Ireland.

Just as the proportionally numerous Norwegian graves near Dublin prove that a considerable number of Norwegians must have been settled there, so also do the peculiar form and workmanship of the antiquities that have been discovered in them afford a fresh evidence of the superior civilization which the Norwegians in and near Dublin must, for a good while at least, have possessed in comparison with the Irish. The antiquities hitherto spoken of only prove, indeed, that the Norwegians and other Northmen were superior to the Irish with regard to arms and martial prowess. But there are other Norwegian antiquities, originating in Ireland, and found both in and out of that country, which also prove that the Danes and Norwegians formerly settled there contributed, like their kinsmen in England, by peaceful pursuits, to influence very considerably the progress of civilization in Ireland.

Ancient Irish Christianity and Civilization.—Trade.—No Irish, butNorwegian Coins.—Sigtryg Silkeskjæg.—Norwegian Coiners.

Ancient Irish Christianity and Civilization.—Trade.—No Irish, but

Norwegian Coins.—Sigtryg Silkeskjæg.—Norwegian Coiners.

Centuries before the introduction of Christianity into the Scandinavian North (in the tenth and eleventh centuries)—nay, centuries before the actual commencement of the Viking expeditions—the Irish people had been Christianized. At a very early period numbers of churches and convents were erected in Ireland, which was also celebrated for its many holy men. It was a common saying that the Irish soil was so holy that neither vipers, nor any other poisonous reptiles, could exist upon it. Numerous priests set out from Ireland as missionaries to the islands lying to the west of Scotland; nay, they even went as far as the Faroe Islands and Iceland, long before those islands had been colonized. Thus, when the Northmen first discovered Iceland (about the year 860), they found no population there; but on “Papey,” in “Papyli,” and several places in the east and south of the country, they found traces of “Papar,” or Christian priests, who had left behind them croziers, bells, and Irish books; whence they perceived that these priests were “Westmen,” or Irishmen; for just as the Irish called the Scandinavians “Ostmen,” because their home lay to the east of Ireland, so also did the Scandinavians call the Irish “Westmen.” The most southern group of islands near Iceland is called to the present day “Vestmannaeyjar” (the Westman Isles), because, at the time of their colonization, a number of Irish serfs, or Westmen, were put to death there for deceiving their masters.

Not even the Norwegian expeditions into Ireland, and the destruction of churches and convents by which they were accompanied, were able to annihilate the influence of the Irish clergy on the diffusion of Christianity in the north-western part of Europe. Not only were the Norwegians and Danes settled in Ireland and the rest of the Western Isles soon converted from heathenism by Irish monks and priests, but Christianity was communicated through these converts to many of their Scandinavian countrymen, who visited Ireland partly as Vikings and partly as merchants. Thus the Norwegian king Olaf Tryggvesön was baptized by an abbot on the Sylling Isles near Ireland, or, as other Sagas state, “to the west over in Ireland;” whence we may probably conclude that the Sylling Isles are not, as was before supposed, the Scilly Isles near England, but the Skellig Isles on the south-west coast of Ireland, on one of which there was at that time a celebrated abbey. At all events, it is certain that Olaf Tryggvesön, during his long abode with his brother-in-law, King Olaf Kvaran, in Dublin, must, by his constant intercourse with the Irish Christians, have been strengthened in his determination to christianize Norway. Another proof of the influence of Christianity in Ireland on the North is, that an Irish princess, Sunneva, was at a later period worshipped as a saint in Norway. Her body is alleged to have been deposited in a large and handsome shrine over the high altar in Christ Church, in Bergen, and on the 8th of July the Norwegians celebrated an annual mass in her honour. Even in Iceland there is a fiord, or firth, on the north-west coast, called “Patreksfjorðr,” after St. Patrick, the patron saint of Ireland.

As we have before stated, the commencements of a national Irish literature were also developed among the clergy at a very early period; which, together with the numerous ecclesiastical buildings in Ireland, prove that the Irish clergy of those times must have attained no mean degree of civilization, and that with regard to education they must, in certain respects, have been a great deal in advance of the heathen Scandinavians. But not to speak of the Icelandic literature—which developed itself in the remotest North immediately after the heathen times, and contemporaneously with the Norwegian dominion in Ireland, and which both in form and substance was undoubtedly far superior to the Irish—there is reason enough to doubt whether the Irish people of that time, although christianized, were really more educated or more advanced in true civilization than the certainly too much decried heathen Norwegians and their Scandinavian kinsmen. It is true, indeed, that the Norwegian Vikings made their way with fire and sword, that they destroyed a number of churches and convents in Ireland, and that in this manner they often occasioned the most violent intestine commotions, which for a time, at least, could not but tend to hinder the progressive development of Christian civilization. But the Irish chronicles themselves teach us that the Christian Irish acted precisely in the same manner at the same period. In their mutual contentions they often burnt ecclesiastical buildings, plundered the shrines of saints, and maltreated the clergy, besides, as is well known, constantly perpetrating amongst themselves the most horrible butchery. Lastly, in Ireland, as in England, we must certainly distinguish between the Vikings, who came to the country for the sake of war and plunder, and the colonists, whose aim it was to obtain a new home in Ireland. The latter brought with them not only great skill in the forging and management of arms, as well as in building and navigating ships for expeditions, both of war and trade, but likewise had their own runic writing; and by the readiness with which they imbibed the newer Christian civilization, soon acquired the ascendancy in the most important Irish cities, so as to become perceptibly enough, not only the equals, but the superiors of the Irish.

What particularly warrants us in doubting the alleged early and extensive civilization of the Irish, is the very striking circumstance that, previously to the arrival of the Norwegians, they do not appear to have carried on any very great trade, or on the whole to have had any very extensive intercourse with the rest of Europe. This appears particularly from the fact that the Irish at that time (about the year 800) had not yet minted any coins of their own; although their Celtic neighbours in Britain and Gaul had for centuries—that is, from about the birth of Christ—minted a great number, mostly in imitation of Greek and Roman coins. And though the Romans, Franks, and Anglo-Saxons, after their conquests of France and England, had made very considerable coinages in those countries, we do not even find in Ireland any trace of the coins of these neighbouring people being brought over the sea in any considerable quantity before the period mentioned. Yet in other countries, where the minting of coins also came late into use—as, for instance, in the Scandinavian North—so great a quantity of older foreign coins, together with all sorts of foreign valuables, is continually dug up as to show that even at a very early period active connections of trade must have existed between the Northmen and more southern nations. Neither Phenician nor Celtic coins are known to have been found in Ireland, and discoveries even of Roman and the more ancient Anglo-Saxon coins are very rare.

That Ireland should have remained for so long a period and to so great an extent unconnected with the neighbouring nations, was undoubtedly caused partly by its remote situation, partly by the indolence of the Irish and the disinclination so general among the Celts to traverse the sea, to which an old author (Giraldus Cambrensis) expressly alludes. It must partly also be ascribed to the peculiar hostile position which the Irish were obliged to assume towards the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, and Franks; since these people having gradually conquered the Celtic countries, France and England, naturally only awaited a favourable opportunity to make themselves masters of Celtic Ireland also. According to this we might even, perhaps, regard the isolation of Ireland as a necessary system of self-defence adopted by the Irish.

But no sooner were the Norwegians and Danes settled in the chief cities of Ireland, than Irish trade and navigation obtained an extent and importance before unknown. An active commerce was opened with England and Normandy through the numerous and influential Scandinavian merchants settled in those countries, as well as, of course, with the mother countries of Scandinavia. In Ireland, therefore, as well as in England, Arabian coins, minted in countries near the Caspian Sea, are here and there found buried, which have evidently been imported by Scandinavian merchants. The Sagas mention regular trading voyages to Ireland from Norway, and even from Iceland; where there was, for instance, a man named Rafn, who was commonly called Rafn Hlimreksfarer (Eng.,Limerick trader), on account of his regular voyages to Limerick (Limerick being called by the old Northmen, Hlimrek). The Sagas further mention, under the head of Ireland, “Kaupmannaeyjar” (Eng.,the merchant islands), probably what are now called “Copeland Islands,” on the north-eastern coast, where there may have been a sort of rendezvous for the ships of Scandinavian merchants. The Icelandic and Norwegian ships brought fish, hides, and valuable furs to the English and Irish coasts; whence, again, they carried home costly stuffs and clothes, corn, honey, wine, and other products of the south.

These accounts of the old Northmen, respecting their commerce in Ireland, are far from being unsupported. The Welsh author, Giraldus Cambrensis, who visited Ireland during the English conquest, whilst the Ostmen were still living there in considerable numbers, says in plain words that they had settled near the best harbours in Ireland, where they built themselves towns, and that they had by no means come to the country as enemies, but with the design of carrying on a peaceful trade. He adds that for this reason the Irish chiefs, who clearly saw the importance and advantages of commercial connections with other countries, had not at first in any way opposed the establishment of these foreign towns in their country; but that, after the Ostmen had very much increased, and after their towns had become well fortified, the old dissensions between them and the Irish revived.

In perfect accordance with this are the statements of the Irish themselves respecting the many Scandinavian merchants in the towns of the Ostmen. An old Irish manuscript relating to the battle of Clontarf (“Cath Chluana Tarbh”) states that, after the battle, “no Danes were left in the kingdom, except such a number of artisans and merchants in Dublin, Waterford, Wexford, Cork, and Limerick, as could be easily mastered at any time, should they dare to rebel; and these King Brian very wisely permitted to remain in these seaport towns, for the purpose of encouraging trade and traffic, as they possessed many ships, and were experienced sailors.” Duald Mac Firbis also says in his chronicles that in his time (1650) “most of the merchants in Dublin were the descendants of the Norwegian-Irish king, Olaf Kvaran.”

That the Norwegians and Danes must really have possessed themselves of the Irish trade, and given it a new impulse, clearly appears from the circumstance that the Norwegian kings in Ireland were the first who caused coins to be minted there. One of these coins, which formerly belonged to the Timm’s collection in Copenhagen, but which is now in the collection of M. von Römer, in Dresden, seems (according to the opinion of that distinguished numismatologist C. J. Thomsen, of Copenhagen) to have been minted by a Scandinavian king of Dublin, as early as the eighth or ninth century. It is an imitation of the ancient Merovingian coins, and has a remarkable inscription on the obverse, half in runes and half in Latin letters, but which can scarcely be read otherwise than “Cunut u Dieflio,” or, Canute in Dublin.

[++] Coin: Canute in Dublin

The Old Northmen call Dublin “Dýflin,” whence the surrounding district also obtained the name of “Dýflinarskiri,” as appears in the Sagas. This legible inscription encircles the bust of a royal warrior, clad in scale armour. On the reverse are seen the letters ENAE, and under them two figures, both turning their faces upwards in the same direction, and each extending a very large hand, whilst in their other hands, joined together, they hold a ring, as if they were taking an oath on the holy ring. They are, besides, represented as standing before, or sitting on, an elevated platform (perhaps an altar?), under which is a mark (∾) like the letter S placed on its side. These figures probably contain an allusion to some treaty concluded between an Irish king and the Scandinavian king Canute.

By the kindness of Mr. C. F. Herbst, of Copenhagen, I have been enabled to give a woodcut of this silver coin, the only one of its kind, and never before copied. The drawing was made from a cast taken in Dresden. If the preceding explanation, which is certainly by no means far-fetched, be the right one, we shall consequently have a proof that other Scandinavian kings, besides Olaf the White, the first-mentioned in the Sagas, reigned at a very early period in Dublin, if only for a short time. But all the rest of the Norwegian coins minted in Ireland are of the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries. They are of silver, and undoubtedly coined in various towns of Ireland besides Dublin, as in Limerick, Cork, Waterford, and several other towns where the Ostmen had settled.

The most remarkable of all are the Dublin coins, especially those with the legend “Sihtric rex Dyfl,” or, Sigtryg king of Dublin. It is true that there were several kings of Dublin of this name in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries; but the coins alluded to, to judge from the impressions, all of which are imitations of contemporary Anglo-Saxon dies, and especially of those of King Ethelred the Second, must for the most part have belonged to Sigtryg, surnamed “Silkbeard,” who reigned in Dublin at the close of the tenth and beginning of the eleventh century, and who was one of those who fought the battle of Clontarf against Brian Boru. It is very remarkable that on Sigtryg’s coins, as well as on several of the Danish coins minted in the north of England, we find not only the Latin title “Rex,” but also the Scandinavian “Cununc” (king), as, for instance, on the annexed coin (in Mr. C. F. Herbst’s collection), which has never before been copied:—

[++] Coin: Sigtryg King of Dublin

On the obverse is the legend “Sihtric cunuic dyn,” or Sigtryg king of Dublin; and on the reverse, “Byrhtmer mo on Vin;” whence we see that the coiner had an Anglo-Saxon name, and was certainly an Anglo-Saxon, particularly since he is said to have been “on Vin,” that is, of Winchester. Among the coiners’ names on the Norwegian-Irish coins, we meet, indeed, with several Scandinavian names, such as Stirbirn (Styrbjörn), Azcetel (Asketil), Ivore (Ivar), Colbrand, Tole (Tule), and Oadin (Odin?); whence we may reasonably conclude that the Norwegians in Ireland soon learned to coin, and were not, therefore, always compelled to avail themselves of foreign coiners. But most of Sigtryg’s coiners were Anglo-Saxons; and not a few of his coins are, like that above delineated, even struck by coiners in England; as, for instance, in “Efrweec,” or “Eofer (wick)” (York), “Veced” (Watchet, in Somersetshire), “Vilt” (Wilton), “Vint” (Winchester), and “Luni” (London). This admits of two explanations; either that these comers at Sigtryg’s request minted coins for him, or that Sigtryg, who at one time was driven from his kingdom, resided in some at least of the above-named places, and caused coins to be minted there(?). The origin of several coins minted in Dublin about Sigtryg’s time by the Anglo-Saxon king Ethelred the Second—as well as by the Danish-English king Canute the Great, and which for the most part are struck by the same Dublin coiner, Færemin, who minted most of Sigtryg’s own coins—is involved in no less obscurity. Although history is silent, we might be almost tempted to believe that Ethelred and Canute were acknowledged by Sigtryg as his liege lords, or that possibly they ruled in Dublin for a short time; but in weighing these probabilities it must be remembered that neither Ethelred nor Canute calls himself on these coins king of Dublin, but simply “Rex Anglorum,” or king of the English.

The great number and variety in which Sigtryg’s coins appear, and the comparatively good stamp that distinguishes them from the rest of the Norwegian-Irish coins, seem to show that the years of Sigtryg’s reign must have been a period very favourable to Scandinavian trade and power in Ireland. In later times the Norwegian-Irish coins became worse, as the coiners did not confine themselves to imitating coins of the older Norwegian-Irish kings, and of the later English kings, Canute the Great, Hardicanute, Edward the Confessor, William the Conqueror, and others, but even copied copies to such a degree that the stamp and inscriptions of the original coins were very frequently not to be recognised. Of the coins current in Ireland in the last half of the eleventh, and in the whole of the twelfth, century, pretty large quantities have been dug up, both in and out of Ireland, and particularly in the neighbouring Isle of Man.

It must, however, be regarded as very doubtful how far this deterioration of the coins affords any reasonable confirmation of the justness of the usual conviction among the Irish, that after Sigtryg’s time, or rather after his defeat in the battle of Clontarf, the power of the Norwegians in Ireland was completely broken. For, in that case, we might expect, among other things, that the victorious Irish kings, during the long period of more than a hundred and fifty years, which elapsed from the time of the battle of Clontarf until the English conquest of Ireland, would have minted their own coins. But during the whole of this period there are very few coins that can possibly be regarded as having been minted for native Irish kings. For the rest, the whole of the coins minted in Ireland, from the commencement of minting there (at latest in 950) till the English conquest (1171), seem to owe their existence exclusively to the kings and bishops of the Ostmen, who ruled in the most important trading towns of Ireland[10].

10. SeeAppendix, No. II.

The Battle of Clontarf.—Power of the Ostmen after the Battle.—TheirChurches and Bishops.—Their Land and Sea Forces.—The EnglishConquest.—Remains of the Ostmen.—Their Importance for Ireland.

The Battle of Clontarf.—Power of the Ostmen after the Battle.—Their

Churches and Bishops.—Their Land and Sea Forces.—The English

Conquest.—Remains of the Ostmen.—Their Importance for Ireland.

The cause of the battle of Clontarf, so celebrated in song and legend, or, as it is called in the Sagas, “Briánsbardagi” (Brian’s battle, after King Brian, who fell in it in 1014), is not precisely known. All that we are acquainted with is, that Brian, who was connected by very close ties of relationship with the Norwegian royal family in Dublin, had long availed himself of the assistance of the Norwegians to subdue other Irish princes, until, at length, after gaining victories in that manner, he came to a rupture with King Sigtryg of Dublin. The prospects of Sigtryg, and of the Norwegian power in Ireland, seem really to have been threatening enough; at least it is said that Scandinavian warriors hastened in numbers to Sigtryg’s assistance from the Scandinavian kingdoms in England, the Isle of Man, the Syder Isles, and Orkneys. From the last, in particular, came Jarl Sigurd the Stout, with a chosen force, in the midst of which waved a flag with the image of Odin’s holy raven. Sigurd’s own mother had woven this raven, which, with fluttering wings, had often before led the warriors to victory and glory.

This time, however, the raven was checked in its flight. After many of the standard bearers had been killed, Sigurd Jarl himself took the flag from the staff, and wrapt it about his body. He seemed to foresee, what really happened shortly afterwards, that the raven-flag would be his winding-sheet. The Norwegians were at length forced to give way, even if the battle was not so entirely lost as the exaggerated Irish accounts represent. The Scandinavian auxiliaries withdrew to their ships, and King Sigtryg retired with the remnant of his army to Dublin.

But, as the Irish chronicles contain nothing about Sigtryg and his men having been afterwards expelled from Dublin, or about the Norwegian dominion there having been entirely destroyed, we cannot conclude from them that the power of the Ostmen in the rest of the Irish cities was annihilated in consequence of Sigtryg’s defeat in the battle of Clontarf. It would, besides, have been singular enough if the power of the Norwegians in Ireland had been perfectly destroyed so early as the year 1014, since it was just after that time that the Northmen in the neighbouring countries acquired their greatest power by means of their victories. Instead of the Norwegian influence in Ireland having ceased, we not only find, long after this battle, King Sigtryg of Dublin fighting bravely with his Ostmen, though at times with varying fortune, against several Irish kings and chiefs, but we further behold the Ostmen displaying a very remarkable degree of strength and independence in various places in Ireland.

About five-and-twenty years after the battle of Clontarf (say the Irish chroniclers themselves), Sigtryg, king of the Ostmen in Dublin, and Donat (Dunan), their bishop, built, in the middle of that city, the church of the Holy Trinity, also called Christ Church. That the Ostmen should then have founded one of the principal churches of Dublin, which even lay without their own town (Ostmantown), in the very heart of ancient Dublin, is highly significant. After the church was built, Bishop Donat presented several relics to it, amongst which are mentioned “pieces of the clothes of King Olaf the Saint.” The great respect in which the name of the Norwegian Saint Olaf was held in Dublin is also manifest from the circumstance that a church consecrated to St. Olave, or, as the Irish common people gradually corrupted the name, to “Tulloch” (compare the name of Tooley Street in London, corrupted from St. Olave Street), was to be found there till at least far into the sixteenth century. This church adjoined the northern end of Fishshamble Street, near Wood-Quay; but originally, perhaps, it was just outside the city.

In the same year (1038) that Christ Church was, partly through the exertions of Bishop Donat, erected in Dublin, he likewise built the chapel of St. Michael. Half a century later (1095) another “Ostman” built Saint Michan’s Church in the “Ostmen’s” town in Dublin; and about the same time the cathedral in Waterford, dedicated to the Holy Trinity, was founded and erected by the Ostmen there.

The “Ostmen” in Ireland thus possessed not only their own churches, but likewise, as the Irish records also mention, their own bishops, who were consecrated in England by the archbishop of Canterbury; whilst the Irish bishops were consecrated in Ireland itself by the Irish archbishop of Armagh. The Dublin “Ostmen’s” first bishop Donat, or Dunan, died in the year 1074, and was buried in Christ Church, to the erection of which he had himself so considerably contributed. After him, by desire of the Dublin king Godred, or Godfred, another “Ostman,” Patrick, was chosen bishop of the Ostmen in Dublin, but perished by shipwreck on his voyage home from Canterbury (1084). He was succeeded by the “Ostman” Donat O’Haingly (+1095); whose cousin, Samuel O’Haingly, previously a monk in the convent of St. Alban’s in England, afterwards filled the see of the “Ostmen” in Dublin until the year 1121. His successor, Gregorius, was the first of these Ostmen’s bishops in Dublin who was made archbishop. This probably arose from the circumstance of the “Ostmen” in the other Irish towns having in the meantime obtained bishops, who were now to have a common superior in the Archbishop of Dublin. In the year 1096 the “Ostmen” in Waterford are said to have obtained a bishop, Malchus, who is stated to have been a native of Ireland. In the year 1136 Waterford had an “Ostman” named Toste (Tuistius, or Tostius) for its bishop. A few years later (1140) Gille, or Gilbert, the “Ostmen’s” bishop of Limerick, died; after whom the “Ostmen” chose a certain Patrick. In the year 1151 the “Ostman” Harald, bishop of Limerick, died, and was succeeded by his countryman Thorgils (“Thorgesius”). Twenty years previously (1131) the death of the “Ostman” Everard, or Eberhard, abbot of the convent of St. Mary, near Dublin, is mentioned; which confirms, what is indeed almost a matter of course, that the Ostmen, who had their own churches and bishops, must also have had their own convents partly filled with Scandinavian monks and abbots. At length, in the year 1161, Gregorius, archbishop of Dublin, died; and from his time until the present Dublin has constantly been the seat of one of Ireland’s principal archbishops. But precisely because this archbishopric was originally founded by Ostmen, or foreigners, the archbishop of Dublin did not afterwards become the primate of all Ireland, as, from the importance of Dublin, we might otherwise have expected. That dignity, on the contrary, has constantly been reserved for the genuine old Irish archbishopric of Armagh, in the north-east of Ireland. Even Gregorius’ successor in the archiepiscopal see is said to have been consecrated in Dublin by the archbishop of Armagh. It has lately been discovered (compare P. Chalmers in the Journal of the Brit. Archæol. Assoc., Oct., 1850, p. 323, &c.) that these archbishops of Dublin not only administered their own diocese, but, at least at times, acted as superintendents of the Norwegian bishoprics in the Isle of Man and the Sudreyjar. There is a letter of Pope Honorius of the beginning of the thirteenth century, from which it appears that the archbishop of Dublin at that time consecrated a bishop of Man and the Sudreyjar, a privilege which in more ancient times belonged to the archbishops of York, and afterwards (from 1181 to 1334) to the archbishops of Trondhjem. It is quite certain that this was a result of the lively intercourse which undoubtedly took place between the successors of the Ostmen in Ireland and their near kinsmen in the Norwegian kingdoms in Man and the Sudreyjar.

It was, above all, a very fortunate circumstance for the independence of the Irish Ostmen that such powerful Norwegian kingdoms continued to exist on the west coast of Scotland. From these they could usually obtain assistance in their battles with the Irish; and by means of them they also kept up a constant connection with their Norwegian fatherland. That they were able to maintain their peculiar independent position in Ireland for more than a century after the Danish dominion in England had ceased to exist, was clearly not so much owing to their military skill and compact force, in comparison with the internal dissensions and perfect want of union among the Irish, as to the considerable wealth and power which they constantly derived from their extensive trade and navigation, and the influence which by such means they must necessarily have exercised in Ireland. The Irish chronicles and pedigrees teach us that friendly connections and reciprocal marriages increased more and more between the Irish and the Ostmen, both in Ireland and Norway, so that the Irish aristocracy became mixed in a considerable degree with Norwegian blood. We also learn from the same documents that the Ostmen and their kings constantly continued to ally themselves with Irish princes, whose power they often essentially contributed to support. The Irish king Konofögr gained a naval battle in Ulfreksfjord against Einar, jarl of Orkney, because, as it is stated, the Norwegian Viking, Eyvind Urarhorn, had joined the former with his ships. When King Magnus Barfod of Norway undertook his expedition to Ireland, he concluded an alliance with Myrjartak, King of Connaught (O. N., “Kunnáktir”), whose daughter, Biadmynja, was married to Magnus Barfod’s son Sigurd. But when Magnus fell in Ulster (in 1103), Sigurd abandoned Biadmynja. Yet the connections formed in Ireland by Magnus through this expedition produced important results for Norway. An Irishman named Harald Gille came forward and passed himself off for a son of that monarch by an Irishwoman; and after proving his descent by walking over red-hot iron, actually became king of Norway, and left its throne as an inheritance to his family.

The Ostmen settled in Dublin and other places in Ireland were more and more induced to form connections with native Irish princes, nay, even sometimes to submit to them, as the support which they derived from their own country continually decreased during the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Shortly after the battle of Clontarf, Christianity was introduced into the Scandinavian North, and thus an end was put to the Vikings’ expeditions, which had hitherto incessantly brought colonists and auxiliary forces into Ireland. Even the reinforcements which the Ostmen were able to obtain from their countrymen in Man, the Sudreyjar, and the Orkneys, were naturally not so important as before; since on these islands also Christianity gradually annihilated the bold Viking spirit of the people.

Under such circumstances it is surprising that Godfred (or Godred) Merenagh, king of the Ostmen in Dublin, had in the year 1095 a naval force of not fewer than ninety ships in the harbour of Dublin; and that the land forces of the Ostmen in that city were proportionately powerful. The Irish chronicles mention many battles in the eleventh and twelfth centuries in which the Dublin Ostmen brought numerous warriors into the field, and in which they often suffered very considerable loss, without, however, being entirely annihilated or driven out of the town. Even in the year 1167, and consequently a hundred and fifty years after the battle of Clontarf, a great meeting of the Irish people was held by Athboy of Tlactga, at which, the Irish themselves say,thousandsof the first Ostmen in Dublin were present.

That this account is not exaggerated, and that the number of Ostmen in Dublin, as well as in the other Irish cities, was really very considerable at the close of the twelfth century, is clearly shown by the notorious fact, that when the English, under Earl Strongbow and Miles de Cogan, obtained, in the years 1170 and 1171, a firm footing in Ireland, the Ostmen in Dublin, Limerick, and Cork, were able to offer a very powerful resistance. Respecting the conquest of Dublin by the English we find the following statement in the “Dublin Annals” (by O’Donovan):—

“The year 1170. The Danes of Dublin were treacherously slaughtered in their own garrison by Mac Morough and the English; and they carried away their cattle and their riches. Asgal, the son of Reginald, king of the Danes in Dublin, fled from them.

“1171. A battle was fought at Dublin, between Miles de Cogan and Asgal, son of Reginald, king of the Danes of Dublin. Many fell on both sides, both of the English archers and of the Danes; among whom was Asgal himself, and Hoan, a Dane from the Orkney Isles.”

On this occasion Asgal, or “Hasculph,” is said to have returned to the city with sixty ships. His warriors, say the chronicles, were accoutred, according to the usual custom of the Danes, in armour and coats of mail, and had red circular shields bound with iron. But though these men were “just as steeled in soul as in arms” (homines tam animis ferrei quam armis), and though, as well as their brethern in Limerick and Cork, they fought the fight of desperation in defence of their property and liberties, yet they were not able to withstand the English. Thus these new conquerors succeeded in annihilating the dominion of the Ostmen in Ireland, or rather in the most important cities of that country, after it had lasted above three hundred years.

Nevertheless we must not believe that the Ostmen were even now wholly expelled from Ireland, or that their influence there was entirely at an end. After the taking of Dublin by the English, so many Ostmen still remained in the city that “the Galls of Dublin” continued to have their own separate army, which even seems to have acted pretty independently of the English conquerors. An Irish chronicle (Annals of the Four Masters) states that Mulrony O’Keary, Lord of Carbury, was treacherously slain by the “Dublin Ostmen” in the year 1174, and consequently some years after the taking of Dublin. In the same year the English themselves were forced to obtain the assistance of the “Dublin Ostmen” against the Irish; and it is expressly stated that in a subsequent attack of the Irish on this united Anglo-Norwegian army not far from Dublin, there fell no fewer than “four hundredOstmen.” The contemporary author, Giraldus Cambrensis, to whom we owe this account, also speaks of the Ostmen, after the conquest of Ireland, as a peculiar and decidedly separate people, who carried on trade and navigation (“gens igitur hæc, quæ nunc Ostmannica gens vocatur,” &c).

Even more than a century afterwards we can still trace many Ostmen in the chief cities of Ireland, where, it seems, they continued to preserve those Scandinavian characteristics which distinguished them from the Irish and English. In the year 1201 a verdict was pronounced by twelve Irishmen, twelve Englishmen, and twelve Ostmen in Limerick, concerning the lands, churches, and other property belonging to the church of Limerick; which shows that the Ostmen were sufficiently numerous there to be placed on an equal footing with the English and Irish. There is in the Tower of London a document of the year 1283, issued by the English king Edward I., ordering that the Ostmen in Waterford (“Custumanni,” Oustumanni, Austumanni?) should, pursuant to King Henry the Second’s ordinance, have, and be judged by, the same laws as the English settled in Ireland, which clearly indicates that the Ostmen at that time still formed a distinct and separate people. We might almost believe that the Ostmen in Waterford had even refused to observe the English laws, or that at least there was a doubt how far these laws could be applied to them; since King Edward found it necessary to enforce Henry the Second’s ordinance, and to enjoin his chief justice and magistrates in Ireland that the three men named in the document should, “like other Ostmen in Waterford,” be judged, and as far as possible (“quantum in vobis est”), punished, according to the laws in force for Englishmen in Ireland. (See the Latin document in the Appendix.) The striking historical account that in the year 1263 the Irish applied to the Norwegian king Hakon Hakonsön, then lying with his fleet on the south-west coast of Scotland, for assistance against the English, will now no longer be inexplicable or improbable; for it is placed beyond all doubt that amongst the Irish who thus in vain implored King Hakon for help, there must have been a number of the Ostmen still living in Ireland, who naturally continued to maintain a connection with their countrymen in the Norwegian kingdoms on the south-west coast of Scotland, until these kingdoms also were destroyed in the middle ages.

But from this time forward the “Ostmen” do not play any prominent part in the history of Ireland. Their political independence was annihilated; and their national characteristics were not sufficiently supported by fresh arrivals from the mother-country, to enable them in the long run to maintain a distinct position in face of the rapidly advancing English nationality. Their descendants continued, nevertheless, to dwell in Ireland; where they gradually became amalgamated partly with the English conquerors and partly with the native Irish. The Irish chronicles point out various clans in Ireland which were either of Norwegian descent, or at all events had been much mixed with Norwegian blood. In the annals and pedigrees of the middle ages we also meet with both laymen and clergy in Ireland bearing Scandinavian names. For instance, in Christ Church in Dublin, built by the Norwegians, canons and monks are spoken of in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries called “Harrold,” “Olof,” “Siwird” (Sivard), “Regenald,” (Ragnvald) “Iwyr,” &c., names entirely unknown in Ireland previously to the arrival of the Norwegians. The often-mentioned Irish chronicler makes use of a highly remarkable expression. In stating that most of the merchants’ families in Dublin in his time (about the year 1650) were descendants of the Norwegian-Irish king Olaf Kvaran, by Brian Boroihma’s (Boru’s) daughter Save, he adds: “and the descendants of that Amlave Cuaran are still in Dublin opposing the Gadelians of Erinn:” whence we clearly see that national distinctions and national disputes between the descendants of the Irish and of the Norwegians, were still very prominent only two hundred years ago, or full six hundred years after the battle of Clontarf (1014).

Even to the present day we can follow, particularly in Leinster, the last traces of the Ostmen through a similar series of peculiar family names, which are by no means Irish, but clearly original Norwegian names; for instance, Mac Hitteric or Shiteric (son of Sigtryg), O’Bruadair (son of Broder), Mac Ragnall (son of Ragnvald), Roailb (Rolf), Auleev (Olaf), Mánus (Magnus), and others. It is even asserted that among the families of the Dublin merchants are still to be found descendants of the old Norwegian merchants formerly so numerous in that city. The names of families adduced in confirmation of this, as Harrold (Harald), Iver (Ivar), Cotter or Mac Otter (Ottar), and others, which are genuine Norwegian names, corroborate the assertion that Norwegian families appear to have propagated themselves uninterruptedly in Dublin down to our times, as living evidences of the dominion which their forefathers once exercised there.

It is thus satisfactorily proved, by notorious facts of the most various kinds, that for more than three hundred years the Norwegians lived according to their own manners and customs, and under their own bishops and kings, in the most important towns of Ireland, which they in part ruled, down to the time of the English conquest (1170); that they were the first who minted coins, and carried on any considerable trade and navigation in Ireland; and lastly, that great numbers of their descendants continued to reside in that country even after it had long been conquered by the English. No impartial person, therefore, will be able any longer to deny that the settlements of the Ostmen, although commenced by the frequent demolition of churches and convents, were ultimately in the most essential matters particularly fortunate for Ireland; since, by introducing trade and navigation to an extent before unknown, they opened for that sequestered country channels of animated communication and intercourse with the rest of Europe and its continually advancing civilization. The Irish towns occupied by the Ostmen, which have continued to be the principal depots for foreign merchandise, and consequently also the central points of intercourse with foreign countries, may with justice be said to be indebted chiefly to that people for their present greatness, wealth, and power.

Nor, on a larger historical survey, will it appear less evident that, as the Norwegians first opened the way for peaceful connections between Ireland and the rest of Europe, so they also facilitated the English conquest. In consequence both of their frequent wars, and of their frequent alliances with Irish kings, party feeling had rather increased than diminished among the Irish chiefs; whilst numerous Irish families, even the greatest in the land, had by degrees become so much mixed with Norwegian blood, that the strength of the Irish as a nation was not a little weakened and divided. This was particularly the case in those districts of the east coast of Ireland where the English or Norman power afterwards obtained its chief seat. Add to this that the Irish, through the long dominion of the Norwegians in their chief towns, and the advantages which they reaped from it, had become more and more accustomed to behold with indifference the sway of strangers in their country; a circumstance which contributed to the powerful support given to the English on their first invasion of Ireland by several of the native chiefs.

It may possibly be said that the Norwegians in Ireland, by thus preparing the way for the Norman or English conquest, rendered a far greater service to England than to subjugated Ireland. But all the chronicles, it must be recollected, bear witness that the Irish were neither strong enough to govern their own country independently, nor capable of keeping pace with the advance of European civilization by means of an active commerce. We have seen that even in later times the same baleful and sanguinary spirit of dissension which weakened Ireland in ancient days is yet scarcely extinct among the original Irish race. It is manifest, therefore, that Ireland, which would otherwise have been divided from the rest of Europe, and devastated by terrible intestine contentions, has been much benefited by being united to so great and powerful a country as England, which has both the ability and the will to promote the true welfare of the Irish people. England will, by degrees, employ the great advantages afforded by the excellent soil and situation of Ireland, and thus conduct that country, torn as it is by all possible distresses and misfortunes, to a happier existence.

Back to Index Next