Urban genesis in early medieval Ireland

Journal of Historical Geography, 13, 1 (1987) 3-16

Urban genesis in early medieval Ireland B. J. Graham

This paper examines the evidence for the pre-twelfth-century town in Ireland. Recent research, prompted by continental studies and Wheatley's notion of the ceremonial centre, has emphasized an indigenous origin dependent upon the post-seventh-century development of monasteries. This is in direct contrast with traditional theories of exogenous imposition. It is argued here that insufficient attention has been paid to conceptualization and definition and thus that the case for the monastic town has been subject to exaggeration and unwarranted assumption. The evidence for early medieval urbanization is examined under a number of headings which in turn reflect the Weberian inclinations of those promoting the neo-orthodoxy of the monastic town. That evidence is found to be extremely enigmatic. The paper concludes that the most probable explication is that only a most primitive, limited, urbanization developed in early medieval Ireland prior to the arrival of the Anglo-Normans in 1169.

The study of urban origins inevitably precipitates issues which extend beyond the merely academic nature of the enquiry. As Hilton observes, the enormous influence of writers such as Pirenne has promoted a metaphysical vision of the role of towns, one which is incompatible with his Marxist perspective. Eq Again, Abrams criticizes virtually the entire corpus of urban history for its reification of the town, excepting only the work of Max Weber who, he argues, placed towns, through the concept of a complex of domination, in societies rather than regarding them as generic social objects, t2~Despite such well-found critiques, the assumption that towns were cradles of innovation and the progenitors of the civilizing process, a perception denounced by Hilton as "unhistorical", has been intrinsic to the substantive reinterpretation of urban origins which has occurred throughout Europe in recent years. Contemporary research stresses the concept of indigenous origin, explanations which are compatible with postwar ideological and nationalistic demands. Further, they are held to provide necessary correctives to traditional theories which ascribe urban genesis to colonization by more advanced and thus inevitably urbanized cultures. The Irish example discussed here can be placed within this general context and in particular has been influenced by an analogical template derived from eastern European studies. Clarke believes that the most convincing parallel to the early development of the town in Ireland is to be found in the Slav lands east of the Elbe and Saale. c31 The justification for this lies in contemporaneity of events, the common lack of a R o m a n heritage and the shared if recently rejected traditional explication of urban genesis through colonization. The orthodoxy which held that urban origins in eastern Europe could be ascribed to the Germanic colonizations which occurred from the tenth century onwards is no longer acceptable, although the 0305-7488/87/010003 + 14 $03.00

3

9 1987 Academic Press Inc. (London) Ltd

4

B.J. GRAHAM

degree of rejection tends to vary with the nationality and ideological disposition of the researcher. [41It is this particular analogous context which in the introduction to a recently published set of essays, prompts Clarke and Simms to argue that the urban experience of Ireland has therefore much in c o m m o n with that of other parts of n o n - R o m a n Europe. [51While one could immediately question the presumption that urban origins elsewhere in Europe can be attributed to the Romans, the importance of this conclusion lies in its emphatic contradiction of the long-standing insular orthodoxy which held that "Ireland possessed no native urban tradition . . . [a] . . . factor largely attributable, as elsewhere in the moist cool fringe of Atlantic Europe, to the pastoral and tribal nature of society". L6]Such viewpoints stem in part from the parochialism and indifference to conceptualization which long characterized the study of Irish history, historical geography and archaeology. Nevertheless, the proponents of comparability confuse superficial similarity with explanation. Analogy is not a substitute for the conceptualization necessary to produce more potent explanations of Irish urban origins which, in Wheatley's terms, lie within the realm o f " t h e nexus of social, political and economic transformation which resulted in the emergence of urban forms". [71 The outcome of the analogical process and,its frequent disregard of theory and definition is a belief that a substantive indigenous Irish urbanization developed in the early medieval period, perhaps from the tenth century onwards. The aim of this paper is to critically examine the foundations of this neo-orthodoxy and to attempt to place limits upon its applicability. Theoretical constructs and the monastic town

Traditionally, town life in Ireland has been attributed to what Butlin calls "invasion hypotheses" in which urban origins are held to be consequent upon the arrival of the Vikings from the very late ninth century onwards, followed in turn by the Anglo-Normans in the years after 1 169. I81Obviously, if this type of explanation is to be eschewed, we must in turn accept that the indigenous society possessed the attributes to induce urbanization. The evidence is almost entirely documentary, taking the form of monastic annals, hagiographies and law tracts. Much is inevitably circumstantial and unreliable, while sources are only very rarely contemporaneous with the events recorded. Although there is no agreement on the primacy of particular social, economic and political factors, the literature on urban origins is at least characterized by a number of recurring themes. To Carter, for example, the crucial process was the metamorphosis of a kin-structured tribal organization into a class-based territorial one, the catalyst for change being the intricately related roles of temple, fortress and market place. E91Harvey, following Polanyi, sees the critical change as the emergence of redistribution and class stratification from a reciprocal society because this involved the alienation of a surplus by an elite and its subsequent investment in monumental built forms such as the town. [1~ In Wheatley's sagacious arguments concerning ceremonial centres, the mediators between gods and men become the alienating elite and thus the shrine emerges as the urban focus. I~l As Carter observes, however, the argument concerning primacy of alienation and mediation inevitably develops a circularity as any one group expropriating a surplus is bound to exploit the irrationality of the expropriated in order to legitimize the process. I121 Some recognition has been given to such theory in the study of Irish urban

IRISH URBAN GENESIS

5

origins. Doherty in particular touches upon the complex of changes involved in the macro-shift of the mode of production from reciprocity to redistribution. I~31 Although he provides ample evidence for the latter form of organization, he maintains that reciprocity was still the principal mechanism by which Irish society was held together in the twelfth century, a conclusion contradicted in a later paper in which he argues that "proto-urban sites . . . at the hub of a redistributive system" existed by the tenth century, t~41He further contends that developments in the mode of economic integration were accompanied as early as the ninth century by the emergence of significant elements of what Fried calls a rank society, I151 exemplified in the Irish context by a quasi-feudal system, features of which include the emergence of a mass of peasant rent payers, lordship and centralized power, f~61Byrne would place the gestation of feudalism at a somewhat later period, arguing that the twelfth-century creation of a diocesan system under the influence of continental ecclesiastical reformers was coincident with a recognizable feudalization of Irish society. E~71 Emergent feudalism was dependent upon the existence of secular elites and incipient polities but in Ireland, the precise nature of these is enigmatic. 6 Corrfiin argues that the concept of dynastic overlordship already apparent by 800 produced the characteristic eleventh- and twelfth-century structure of a handful of overkings controlling territorial lordships which bore a "striking resemblance to the feudal kingdoms of Europe". t181 However, apart from the well-known strongholds such as Athlone and Galway built by the King of Connacht, Turlough O C o n n o r , after 1124, there is remarkably little documentation describing the incastellation of these kingdoms and the development of permanent settlements, t191 Some larger raths were also used as elite residences but that settlement form is so ubiquitous that we do not possess a sufficiently discerning classification system to identify particular instances. Initially, secular and spiritual power had merged territorially for, as Hughes points out, the early Christian church was characterized by tribal bishoprics, corresponding to the tuatha or territories of the petty kings. E2~ However, this diocesan structure collapsed in the sixth century and thus a potent factor in the urbanization of other parts of Europe was absent in Ireland. Instead, the dominant ecclesiastical structure between the seventh and twelfth centuries was the monastery and Hughes argues that a system of federations developed, jurisdictional authority resting in the hands of abbots who were not necessarily bishops. A point of crucial importance in a discussion of the gestation of urbanization is that, unlike the early Irish bishoprics, no territorial contiguity was involved in these federations; as Hughes notes, "the monastic paruchia consisted of scattered houses". I2q Doherty, citing Wheatley's notion of the ceremonial centre, believes that the origins of Irish urbanization are to be found in the evolution of the monasteries and that the elite in whose interest redistribution developed was thus an ecclesiastical o n e . [221 It has been noted by several writers that monasteries are occasionally referred to as civitates in the hagiographies. For example, in the life of Carthach, a seventh-century abbot and saint, the monasteries of Rahan (Co. Offaly), Clonard (Co. Meath) and Lismore (Co. Waterford) are all referred to in this fashion although, given the retrospective nature of the life, such descriptions are of hindsight. I231 However, Doherty argues that by 900 some monasteries had developed on the model of a sanctuary core with peripheral suburbana--including a market place--a complex which he regards as being

6

B.J. GRAHAM

i L Knoch ~. ~

o

~

I

.J

L,~

Downpatrick

A

~v-"

~

.,ua=

~ L c~.~/w'9 ""-%~e J" ~ ~ j "~J~' (. oGalway ~ ~

Te.ow~;,,~J

~.L.

\'"",~ Du,;~VL~

LC~At e hlone 9 Dunshaughlin ~e' Clonard C onmacnoise 9Durrow ~DUBLIN ~ . 1 o'~ ~ eRahan / DarkeyIsland

./

SJ f

~

"Tj - -

~ ~ . L i m e r J c k

,

.

~

'~

/

-J

/

]

\

o,.n~

9

,1

'~

~ F .... ;

I'Cas.e, ~ v

> / i~q

o

i

k.,

so

Figure 1. Ireland: places referred to in the text

urban. I241 Clarke would concur with this chronology, arguing that "extreme caution should be exercised in thinking o f . . . [the monasteries] ... as towns earlier than the tenth century"J251 Despite the evidence from other regions of Europe, there are apparently no further possible nuclei for indigenous towns. Butlin tentatively suggested that the Iron Age Irish hill-forts, about 50 examples of which have been identified, might be similar to the oppida that occur widely in Europe and which are generally accepted to be at least proto-urban c o r e s . [261 However, the idea has been dismissed in the Irish context, not least because the archaeological evidence fails to substantiate such a conclusion. It is not at all clear why the settlements remained as cult centres.

IRISH URBAN GENESIS

7

A further issue which must be addressed at this stage is the relationship between the monasteries and the Viking settlements established from the ninth century onwards. Five of these--Dublin, Wexford, Waterford, Cork and Limerick have traditionally been regarded as the earliest Irish towns. Simms has argued that monastic town life was a response to the Viking settlement, the most significant element of which was Dublin, which she regards as having been an emporiumJ 271Conversely, Wallace sees it as an example of the portus-vicus tradition, a tenth-century new foundation. E281He disputes Clarke's claim of an indigenous origin for the urban settlement but agrees that the longphort founded on the banks of the Liffey in 841 was "not so much a town as a complex pre-urban core or proto-town". E291However, the defended settlement or d~n established on the south bank of the Liffey c. 9 17 is regarded by its excavator as a town. E3~Like Simms, Hodges regards the Norse settlements as emporia which possessed no organized interaction with Ireland, I3q a point also made by De Paor who strongly implies that the island lacked a regional space economy which might have sustained an urban network based on monastic towns, t321 Certainly, the Annals portray economic interaction between Vikings and Irish as almost entirely warlike, although doubtless this is an exaggeration, particularly in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Nevertheless, it is probable that the only, albeit vague, conclusion which can be sensibly advanced on the nature of interaction is summed up in Doherty's statement that the Norse and monastic settlements "each thrived as a result of the existence of the other", t331 Definitions and evidence

Before dealing with the evidence of the monastic town, the question of definition has to be discussed, not least because this constitutes one of the critical deficiencies in the case advocated by the proponents of the concept. Doherty appears to be in favour of a multi-functional (kriterienbiindel) mode of definition, although he avoids specifying precise limits. L341The features which he mentions--there is no attempt to apply a scheme--have something in common with the listing of twelve criteria contained in The Erosion of History, the document produced by the C.B.A. in 1972.I351 This stipulates economic characteristics, including market, mint and central-place roles, social criteria such as a relatively large and differentiated population in diversified employment, morphological features amongst which are planned street systems, house plots and defences, and institutional phenomena including a complex religious organization and juridical functions. If urbanizationis assumed to be a generative, evolutionary process, the critical operational difficulty with composite definitions of this form--apart from a sufficiency of data concerns the impossibility of specifying a point at which a settlement becomes definitively urban. Thus the literature is littered with qualifications such as "proto-towns", "pre-urban cores" and "incipient towns". However, a further solution has been found to the problems and complexities of definition: ignore them. An excellent example of what might be termed urbanization by assertion is provided by 6 Corrfiin who writes of "busy and bustling towns" and "great towns" in post-seventh-century Ireland, the sole evidence for which is the occasional use of civitas in the hagiographic sources. [361 Hughes also describes monasteries as "cities" in the ninth century but again the word is used without conceptual or definitional qualification and unfortunately

8

B.J. G R A H A M

Doherty, despite the explicit use of concepts, is equally culpable. E371The issue of definition is critical because the scheme adopted obviously provides limits within which discussion can be formulated. Although there are numerous definitions of "urban", it is proposed to discuss--with certain modifications--the criteria listed in The Erosion of History in relation to the early medieval Irish evidence, principally because this is the scheme which appears to be implicit in Doherty's conclusions and to underlie Clarke and Simms' Weberian claim that urbanization can only be defined by "multi-functional phenomena", t38j The criteria used provide a means of operationalizing Weber's scheme, discussed in Economy and Society, where in order to constitute a full urban community, a settlement had to possess the following features; fortification, market, court and a degree of autonomous law, a related form of administration and at least partial autonomy and autocephaly. I391

Economic characteristics." market, mints and central-place functions Some confusion attends the role of the monasteries as economic centres because it is difficult to clarify the various types of exchange involved and the relationship of these to settlement form is still more problematical. Long-distance trade--for instance with Gaul, Aquitaine, even the Mediterranean--predated the postulated development of the monastic proto-towns and did not require urbanization. E4~ Hodges points to the example of Dalkey Island in Dublin Bay which may have been a sixth- or seventh-century trading p o s t - - a n embryonic emporium--and also argues that coastal monasteries, for example Nendrum in Co. Down a n d even promontory fortresses such as K n o c k d h u in Co. Antrim, performed similar functionsJ 4q No suggestion of urbanization is involved. As Hodges points out, Viking towns when they did develop were at classic emporia locations but it is unclear exactly how they traded with the interior. E421One mechanism to which Doherty alludes is the tribal 6enach, often held at the boundaries of territories. Byrne describes this as simultaneously a political assembly, market-fair and an occasion for jollification. I43j Probably the most famous was at Tailteann (Teltown) in Co. Meath, a site untainted by any claims of urbanization. Perhaps the most crucial point in Doherty's argument is that from the eighth century onwards, the 6enach was increasingly located at monasteries, a development which he sees as a response to the need for local exchange. E44J Obviously, however, the 6enach was an infrequent, probably annual, event, served by itinerant traders, some of whom came from the continent and, as such, did not require urbanization. However, Doherty believes that a fixed market emerged out of the 6enach at major church sites sometime between the tenth and early twelfth centuries. ~451This is by no means proof of urbanization, particularly as we lack evidence of merchants based at and operating from these settlements; further, it is impossible to isolate any role played by marketing circuits. Indeed, any development of primeval central-place relationships would have been severely inhibited by the lack of territorial contiguity which characterized the monastic federation. In continental Europe it was the territorial diocese which supported the civitas. The involvement of several centres in exchange of some form is demonstrated by the occurrence of Anglo-Saxon and Hiberno-Norse coins and the possibility of native mints at Clonmacnoise, Ferns and Cashel. The insuperable difficulty remains, however, that the evidence for marketing is

IRISH URBAN GENESIS

9

exceedingly limited although it would be naive to believe that the limited documentary references are indicative of the totality of events. An 6enach was held at a number of monasteries, including Clonmacnoise, Armagh and Glendalough while twelfth-century market-places are recorded at Cashel and Kells (Co. Meath). t461Cashel, the crowning-place of the Kings of Munster, is one of the very few sites--Ferns in Co. Wexford is another possibility--where secular influences may have been more important than monastic ones. The market-places at Armagh, Glendalough and Kells were marked by crosses according to documentary references although that at Kells is the only example extant, if not perhaps in its original location. A full market-based system orientated around supply and demand is associated with central authority and develops through a lengthy period of gestation. Given the nature of the monastic paruchia, a secularization of the sites would have been essential to permit the development of central-place functions. Doherty argues that a fusion of monastic and secular power was occurring by the tenth and eleventh centuries, some of the major monasteries, including Kildare and Clonmacnoise, serving as the capitals of particular kingdoms, t47] Nevertheless, the dynastic histories demonstrate the nature of these unstable polities, their transience irreducibly militating against the morphogenesis of scattered market-places into a hierarchical and interlocking central-place network. Writers such as Smith regard an urban system in this latter form as the culmination of a long period of development, a p h e n o m e n o n associated with a fully commercialized competitive market. E481However, the monasteries may represent a much earlier phase, of what Smith calls "solar central places" which she defines as partially commercialized settlements operating in partially stratified societies. Urban centres, the homes of an elite, are few and dispersed in a rural landscape. Exchange operates through an administered market and the centres are principally bureaucratic nodes; competition between them is lacking. Hodges, who adopts Smith's arguments, consequently refers to '"nascent urbanisation", presumably because solar central places represent a very immature f o r m . [49] Economically, there is thus a case for monastic towns but the critical point is that if they are considered to have been solar central places, they may have been very few in number and their function was to service the requirements of an elite. As Smith says, "most exchanges among food producers and among non-food producers were direct non-market exchanges"J 5~ A consideration of economic functions alone points to very significant limitations in the notion of the monastic town. The concept itself is supportable but must be restricted to a very few proto-urban centres which displayed no significant development of hierarchical central-place relationships. Social characteristics When the other sets of definitional criteria are considered, there is some support for this explication. In addition to economic considerations, almost all interpretations of urbanism stress the importance of a large, concentrated and socially differentiated population which is involved in a significant degree of non-agricultural employment. The Annals contain some information concerning the size of populations associated with monasteries although it is open to several interpretations. One example suffices to demonstrate the type of

l0

B.J. GRAHAM

problem which occurs. When the monastery of Killeshin in Co. Laois was burned and the oratory broken in 1042, "100 persons were slain and 400 taken out it" (700 in another account)J 511Not only must the accuracy of such figures be highly suspect but the question arises as to who these unfortunate people were. Did they constitute a permanent population of the monastic settlement or were they merely seeking sanctuary within it? It is not inconceivable that in instances such as these, the monasteries were acting as refuges--apparently physically u n d e f e n d e d - - i n times of danger and thus the annalistic references may not relate to permanent populations. Virtually all the entries describing large groups of people take this form and Lucas believes that they are indicative of sanctuary in the sacred sense of that word. Incidentally, he also shows that the concept extended to goods, one of the reasons why a raid on a monastery was a sound economic proposition to Vikings and Irish alike. I52J Turning from the problem of numbers to an assessment of the degree of social differentiation introduces major difficulties because of a lack of evidence. Theoretically, the development of a redistributive society should have markedly increased the degree of social differentiation, the emergence o f an alienating elite being symptomatic of the evolving class system. Urbanization and urban forms inevitably reflect this. Doherty believes that the populations of the monastic settlements were highly stratified but the evidence is hopelessly circumstantial. E531 Essentially, the existence of a social differentiation more sophisticated than a simple binary elite and non-elite form has to be presumed. Certainly, the monasteries demanded the often sophisticated products o f craft industry, especially metalwork, and were also the centres of literacy but the influence of such factors upon agglomeration is obscure.

Morphological .features Within a multifunctional definition of urbanization morphological features, including a planned street system, plots with houses of urban type and defences, are considered important. Herity has discussed the layout of the monastic sites, the most obvious feature of which was the circular wall or vallum which enclosed the sanctuary core. This could be of stone, earth or even wattle. I54~In addition to churches and the vallum, prominent extant remains at these sites include round towers and high crosses. The most convincing evidence for the former existence of a street system concerns Armagh where frequent entries in the Annals also refer to the suburbs as "thirds" or trians. Similar if considerably less detailed annalistic evidence survives for a handful of other sites including Clonmacnoise, Downpatrick and Kildare. Direct evidence of houses is similarly confined to a few sites. For example, around 70 buildings were burned at Duleek in Co. Meath in 1 123, I551but perhaps the most intriguing entry concerns Derry where 80 or more houses were demolished in 1162 to permit the construction of an enclosing wall. E561 No evidence appears to exist at any site of a formal relationship between house and plot. Bearing in mind that houses were no more than flimsy huts and that the documentary references are of dubious accuracy to say the least, the evidence implies the existence of settlements of some size, although the qualification must again be made that it relates to very few sites. Nevertheless, Doherty extrapolates such uncertainties into a statement that there must have been hundreds of houses in the larger monastic towns, although this raises major

IRISH U R B A N GENESIS

11

problems of comparability if other studies of early medieval towns in Europe are taken into account. L571 To take but one example, Randsborg shows in his discussion of towns in Denmark that populations in excess of 1,000 would have been rare. [58] Consideration of the third morphological criterion, defence, points to a curious deficiency in the development of the monastic town theory. It has long been central to European studies that the stronghold was a critical feature in the evolution of the urban form and defence is a customary--if secondary--causative process in discussions of urban origins. In the work on the region east of the Elbe and Saale, much favoured as an analogical context for Irish studies, great stress is placed upon the role of the stronghold in Slavic urban origins. Again, Weber emphasizes the role of the seigneurial castle in urban development, an influence achieved through the focus of power which it represents; in particular, he emphasizes the fusion of fortress and marketJ 591 However, the major Irish monasteries did not contain strongholds nor could the sites be regarded as defensive. Certainly, the sanctuary was marked off by the vallum and in the case of Armagh, for instance, the word rfith, used in the Annals to denote this feature, has been translated as "fort". However, this is a commonplace rendering and "rfith" need not convey a substantial defensive function. Wallace states, without any supporting evidence, that the monastic enclosures were defensiveI6~ but extant physical remains scarcely suggest that they constituted a sufficient defence in a society in which it can be argued that warfare was the most significant form of socio-economic interaction. I611Indeed, Herity convincingly suggests that the function of the vallum may have been to separate the sacred from the profane world outside, t621As Lucas demonstrates, that world frequently intruded upon the monastery, Irish as well as Norse disregarding any notions of religious sanctuary in their commonplace assaults. I631Given the fallibility of this theory and assuming that the sites were in fact secular political capitals, centres of power and concentrations of wealth, it is inexplicable that the so-called monastic towns remained undefended either by walls or stronghold, particularly in the twelfth century.

Institutional characteristics Institutional complexity is a commonplace criterion in urban definitions and is fundamental in Weber's analysis for example. However, it is one which very few monastic sites can fulfil. While some writers hold that the monastic elite operated de facto as a secular elite, Doherty stresses the emergent role of kingship in the tenth and eleventh centuries, t641He notes that monasteries such as Kildare and Clonmacnoise were dynastic capitals but there is no physical evidence that this role was translated into an urban form. Pre-Norman references to strongholds or palaces which could be equated with the emergent power of a secular feudal elite exploiting the monastic agglomerations are very rare. One instance is the capital of Dermot MacMurrough at Ferns, the site of a substantial monastery where MacMurrough's "stone house" was demolished in 1166[65] Again Rory O Connor built a castle at Tuam, Co. Galway, a major ecclesiastical site, in 1164.lo~j However, these references date from the twelfth century and substantive earlier evidence of a correlation of stronghold and monastery which would be consistent with institutional complexity is absent. However, monasteries do appear to have been centres of juridical

12

B.J. GRAHAM

organization. I671Kings were able to enforce their law but whether the sites were the centres or simply places of juridical control within a peripatetic system is unclear, a conclusion which reflects the recurring problem that the ecclesiastical documentation devotes little attention to secular sites. There is no evidence of autonomous urban law, administration or autocephaly.

Synthesis In summary, considerable evidence exists of characteristics which can be considered as urban occurring at monastic sites, although as Doherty observes no one site demonstrates all the requisite features. E681 Nevertheless, the assessment of that evidence has had to be qualified continuously by two recurring factors. First, the total of possible monastic towns which can be identified from the written sources is minute. Obviously a multifunctional method of definition is heavily circumscribed by the availability of evidence but it is curious that this relates so consistently to the same small number of sites, a factor unlikely to be explained by the provenance of the Annals alone. Secondly, the evidence is restricted in most cases to one or two criteria and in only a very few instances can a case for urbanization be sustained through the interlinkage of a number. Table 1 provides a summary of the type of evidence extant by site. (It should be stressed that the summary is merely illustrative.) It is clear that places such as Armagh, Clonmacnoise, Kildare and Glendalough, and perhaps Downpatrick, possessed indisputable urban features as did Cashel and possibly Ferns. Cashel could not be termed a monastic town. Conversely, severe doubts must be held against those sites such as Ardbraccan and Killeshin which are included because of population size alone and again, the occurrence of houses at Derry and Duleek is insufficient to demonstrate urbanism. So too is the market at Kells, given the difficulties that surround the definition of that term. Conclusions

The explication offered here is that the argument supporting the concept of the Irish monastic town has been characterized by overstatement. Three factors which account for this can be isolated. First, analogies must be recognized for what they are--unique regional outcomes of social, political and economic transformations, interpretations that are ideologically dependent. The selection of analogies in the monastic town theory frequently rests upon no, greater a justification than their contemporaneity to events in Ireland. Paradoxically, analogy is to be encouraged as a necessary antidote to Irish academic insularity but it has to be recognized that comparison can induce contrast. The monastic town is common in Europe but the theory of an urbanization founded almost entirely on monasticism has no direct continental parallel. Even in Wales, which shared some of the features of Celtic monasticism, Davies concludes that the evidence points not only to minimal urbanization but also to "a minimal trend towards urbanization". I691The lack of evidence of urban defensive features and secular strongholds constitutes a further substantive contrast with Europe. In Carter's terms, one major element of the catalyst of change--the fortress--is absent. The second factor which has induced a degree of exaggeration is the confusion of analogy with conceptualization, important because the former when transferred has emphasized the empirical entity--the town--at the

Ardbraccan Armagh Cashel Clonard Clonmacnoise Derry Downpatrick Duleek Dunshaughlin Durrow Ferns Glendalough Kells Kildare Killeshin Lusk

fair

Markets, including 6enach Possible mints

Economic characteristics

(8th century)

Social characteristics population of some size

*?

Streets *

Houses

gate

hill-fort

rfith

Defences

Morphological features

TABLE 1 Summary of evidence for urban criteria at selected monastic sites

Institutional complexity

Z

Z C~

ZZ

14

B.J. GRAHAM

expense of the societal structures to which that was a response. Further, the neglect of conceptualization encompasses both macro-theories of social change and what might be termed operational theory--marketing, defence and indeed ceremonial centres. Finally, the inadequacy or even absence of definition compromises the concept of the monastic town. Only one scheme has been applied in this argument, although reference has been made to Weber, but it is unlikely that a more satisfactory conclusion could have been inferred from any of the numerous alternatives. The evidence remains ambivalent; urbanization can only be sustained by an intuitive leap. This caveat characterizes even Doherty's work where, despite the incorporation of concept, notably the ceremonial centre, definition is unclear. Thus the emergent orthodoxy of the monastic town is at least as contentious as the former belief in exogenous imposition which it replaces. Two critical presumptions underlie the arguments advanced by the proponents of the theory. They contend that early medieval Irish society could have sustained urbanization, a conclusion that Doherty develops from an analysis of its structure and one with which Clarke and Simms, inspired by their analogical stance, concur. This is succeeded by what might be termed the "extension hypothesis" which holds that an unspecified but substantial number of monasteries became towns or "proto-towns". The latter term is defined by Clarke and Simms in a classic piece of circular confusion as "settlements which possessed some of the attributes of genuine towns". [v~ Three possibilities occur with respect to these assumptions: first, neither can be validated by the evidence; secondly, that there was a very limited number of "solar central places" but that the "extension hypothesis" is invalid; thirdly, that both assumptions are sustainable. The conclusion offered here, and it must perforce be an interim one, is that the second possibility is the most likely. There is sufficient evidence to underpin a case that, structurally, Irish society could have supported primitive urbanization before the Anglo-Norman invasion. A valuable if limited analysis has been advanced by Doherty but a sustained discussion of the relationships between marketing, defence and temple and the broader societal processes such as the emergence of incipient feudalism has yet to be developed. Conceptually and empirically, the "extension hypothesis" cannot be sustained. The evidence points to no more than a small number of primeval, immature solar central places, lacking any degree of hierarchical sophistication. To designate points as "proto-urban" does not obviate this conclusion. It thus appears that after 1169 the Anglo-Normans encountered a form of urbanization which had not developed beyond a nascent state. ITq Hence, the development of an urban network only occurred after their invasion and colonization. While the notion of the monastic town is a welcome advance, it is in an early state of development. The limitations of the model must be carefully explicated, above all to avoid exaggeration and assumption which the exceedingly limited evidence cannot sustain. The specificity of area which characterizes urban genesis in Ireland has yet to be adequately explained.

Department of Environmental Studies, University of Ulster

IRISH U R B A N GENESIS

15

Acknowledgements I am grateful to the Twenty-Seven Foundation and the Royal Irish Academy for financing the research project of which this paper is part.

Notes [1] R.H. Hilton, Towns in English feudal society Review 3 (1979) 3 20 [2] P. Abrams, Towns and economic growth: some theories and problems, in P. Abrams and E. A. Wrigley (Eds), Towns in societies (Cambridge 1978) 9-34 [3] H. B. Clarke, The topographical development of early medieval Dublin Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 107 (1977) 29-51 [4] See the discussion in R. H0dges, Dark Age economics." the origins o f towns and trade AD 6 0 ~ 1000 (London 1982) 6-28 [5] H.B. Clarke and A. Simms (Eds), The comparative history o f urban origins in non-Roman Europe BAR International Series 255 (Oxford 1985) XXVI [6] T. Jones Hughes, The origin and growth of towns in Ireland University Review II (1957-62) No. 7 (1960) 8-15 [7] P. Wheatley, The pivot oftheJbur quarters (Edinburgh 1971) 318 [8] R.A. Butlin, Urban and proto-urban settlements in pre-Norman Ireland, in R.A. Butlin (Ed.), The development o f the Irish town (London 1977) 1157 [9] H. Carter, An introduction to urban historical geography (London 1983) 1-17 [10] D. Harvey, Social justice and the city (London 1973) 21640; G. Dalton (Ed.), Primitive, archaic and modern economics: essays of Karl Polanyi (Boston 1968) [11] Wheatley (1971) op. cit. [12] Carter (1983) op. cit. 8 [13] C. Doherty, Exchange and trade in early medieval Ireland Journal o f the Royal Society o f Antiquaries o f Ireland l l 0 (1980) 67 89 [14] C. Doherty, Some aspects of hagiography as a source for Irish economic history Peritia 1 (1982) 300-28 [15] M.H. Fried, The evolution oJpolitical society (New York 1967) [16] Doherty (1982) op. cir. [17] F.J. Byrne, Irish kings and high kings (London 1973) 12 [18] D. 0 Corrfiin, Nationality and kingship in pre-Norman Ireland, in T.W. Moody (Ed.), Nationality and the pursuit o f national independence (Belfast 1978) 1 35 [19] D. 6 Corrfiin, Ireland before the Normans (Dublin 1972) 156 [20] K. Hughes, The church in early Irish society (London 1960) 77-8 [211 Ibid. 63 [22] C. Doherty, Monastic towns in Ireland, in Clarke and Simms (Eds) (1985) op. cit. 45-76 [23] C. Plummer (Ed.), Vitae Sanctorum Hiberniae (Oxford 1910) vol. 1, 170 99; Hughes (1966) op. cit. 84 [24] Doherty (1985) op. cit. [25] Clarke (1977 op. cit. 47 [26] Butlin (1977) op. cit.; see also for example, D. Nash, The growth of urban society in France, in B. Cunliffe and T. Rowley (Eds), Oppida in barbarian Europe BAR Supplementary Series II (Oxford 1976) 95 133 [27] A. Simms, Medieval Dublin: a topographical analysis Irish Geography 12 (1979) 25-41 [28] P. F. Wallace, The origins of Dublin, in B. G. Scott (Ed.), Studies on early Ireland. essays in honour of M. V. Duignan (Belfast 1981) 129-43 [29] Clarke (1977) op. cit. 46 [30] P. F. Wallace, The archaeology of Viking Dublin, in Clarke and Simms (Eds) (1985) op. cit. 103-46 [31] Hodges 0982) op. cit. 194--5 [32] L. de Paor, The Viking towns of Ireland, in B. Almquist and D. Greene (Eds), Proceedings of the 7th Viking congress, Dublin 1973 (London 1976) 29 37 [33] Doherty (1985) op. cit. 68 [34] Doherty (1985) op. cit. [35] C.M. Heighway (Ed.), The erosion o f history: archaeology and planning in towns (London 1972)

16

B.J. GRAHAM

[36] D. 0 Corrfiin, The early Irish churches: some aspects of organisation, in D. 0 Corrfiin (Ed.), Irish antiquity: essays and studies presented to Professor M. J. O'Kelly (Cork 1981) 327-41 [371 Hughes (1966) op. cit.; Doherty (1985) op. cit. [38] H.B. Clarke and A. Simms, Towards a comparative history of urban origins, in Clarke and Simms (Eds) (1985) op. cit. 669-714 [39] M. Weber, Economy and society (Los Angeles 1978, re-issue) Vol. 2, 1212-25 [40] See the discussion, for example in R. Doehaerd, The early Middle Ages in the West." economy and society (Amsterdam 1978) [41] R. Hodges et al., Ports of trade in early medieval Europe Norwegian ArchaeologicalReview II (1978) 97-117; Knockdhu promontory fortress Ulster Journal o f Archaeology 38 (1975) 19-24 [42] Hodges (1982) op. cit. 194-5 [43] Byrne (1973) op. cit. 30 [44] Doherty (1985) op. cit. [45] Doherty (1980, 1985) op. cit. [46] Doherty (1980) op. cit. [47] Doherty (1985) op. cit. [48] C.A. Smith, Exchange Systems and the spatial distribution of elites: the organisation of stratification in agrarian societies, in C. A. Smith (Ed.), Regional analysis, volume II, Social systems (New York 1976) 309-74 [49] Hodges (1982) op. cit. 195 [501 Smith (1976) op. cit. 339 [51] W. M. Hennessy (Ed.), The Annals o f Loch CO (2 vols, Dublin 1871) 1 43; W. Stokes (Ed.), Annals of Tigernach Revue Celtique XVII (1896) 380 [52] A.T. Lucas, The plundering and burning of churches in Ireland 7th to 16th century, in E. Rynne (Ed.), North Munster studies (Limerick 1967) 172-229 [53] Doherty (1985) op. cit. 66 [54] M. Herity, The buildings and layout of early Irish monasteries before the year 1000 Monastic Studies 14 (1983) 247-84 [55] Hennessy (Ed.) (1871) op. cit. I 115-17 [56] W. M. Hennessy and B. MacCarthy (Eds), Annals o f Ulster, 4 vols (Dublin 1887-1901) II 141 [57] Doherty (1985) op. tit. 66 [58] K. Randsborg, The Viking Age in Denmark: the formation of a state (London 1980) [59] Weber (1978) op. cit. [60] Wallace (1985) op. cit. [61] Hodges (1982) op. tit. 194 [62] Herity (1983) op. cit. 248-9 [63] Lucas (1967) op. cit. [64] Doherty (1985) op. cit. [65] W. Stokes (Ed.), Annals of Tigernach Revue Celtique XVIII (1897) 271 [66] Ibid. 195 [67] Doherty (1985) op. cit. 70 [68] Ibid. 68 [69] W. Davies, Wales in the early Middle Ages (Leicester 1982) 58 [70] Clarke and Simms (1985) op. cit. 673 [71] See the discussion on continuity in B. J. Graham, Urbanisation in medieval Ireland c 900e 1300 A.D. Journal o f Urban History (forthcoming)