I think I Solved the Vikings of Namborg Mystery.

How language and trade may explain why Nantes never rose to prominence as a Viking-controlled trade center.

The Viking presence in Nantes, France, which the Vikings called Namborg, presents a historical enigma that has long perplexed scholars. When Alain Barbetorte, a Breton nobleman, reconquered Brittany from the Vikings and retook Nantes in 937 A.S., he found a largely derelict city almost abandoned. This discovery remains puzzling. According to Lucien Mucet’s phases of Viking expansion and the similarities between Nantes and Jorvik in the British Isles, Nantes should have developed into a bustling trade hub like Jorvik. Why this disparity occurred remains unresolved, but I believe I have uncovered a key factor that explains it.

This mystery came up during a conversation on the Vikingology podcast with my co-host, Terri Barnes, and our guest, Dr. Tom Horne. Dr. Horne, a renowned scholar on Viking history, shared his research on the Great Heathen Army in Northern England, which sparked an intriguing discussion about Viking settlement strategies. Dr. Horne’s concept of the “nodal system” posits that the Vikings did not seek to conquer large territories but instead focused on controlling specific trade centers, or “nodes,” that acted as hubs of economic activity. This theory challenges the conventional view of Viking expansion as a widespread conquest of land and people. Dr. Horne’s insights inspired me to rethink the nature of Viking influence in Britain and continental Europe.

I questioned whether the prevailing narrative of the Danish conquest and population replacement in what became the Danelaw was an oversimplification. This theory, which explains the proliferation of Norse place names in England, suggests that the Danes intermixed with and often displaced the local Anglo-Saxon populations. However, was Dr. Horne suggesting an alternative interpretation? Could Norse control over the economy, rather than mass settlement, lead locals to adopt Norse as a lingua franca for trade? If this were the case, the proliferation of Norse place names would not result from population replacement but rather a product of cultural and economic exchange.

I considered a historical parallel with pre-Roman England. Before the Romans arrived, the inhabitants of Britain were not Celts, yet they had adopted the Celtic language and culture of Gaul through trade. Could Viking place names in England similarly reflect the impact of trade and language rather than the remnants of large-scale conquest?

In a previous Vikingology podcast episode, Dr. Claire Downham suggested that Norse had become the language of trade in the British Isles. This theory complements the idea that Viking place names did not necessarily signify territorial conquest but instead marked the influence of Norse traders over the region’s economy. Trade, not settlement, may have driven the spread of Norse language and culture. In no uncertain terms, the Vikings acquired that control through force, but they were strategic about allocating their resources given their small numbers.

Supporting this hypothesis, I recall a study from the early 2000s that investigated the presence of Norse DNA in modern English populations. The study concluded that the genetic makeup of Anglo-Saxons and Danes from the Viking Age was too similar to distinguish between them. This result led some scholars to question the extent of Viking genetic influence in England. But could this conclusion be based on a misunderstanding of the Viking impact? What if the Vikings did not leave a significant genetic legacy in England because they did not settle in as substantial numbers as previously thought? Instead, their influence might have been primarily cultural, transmitted through trade and language rather than biological exchange. This would explain the relatively low genetic impact despite the abundance of Viking place names.

Turning back to the mystery of Nantes in Brittany, the Viking occupation lasted approximately 30 years, yet the region lacks the abundance of Viking place names found in England. In fact, they have none. This raises a critical question: why did the Viking presence in Nantes fail to produce the same economic and cultural results as Jorvik? Previous scholarship has suggested the Vikings did not have the numbers they did in the British Isles, limiting their ability to impact the region. However, if force of numbers did not lead to the wealth of place names in England, that cannot be the answer. If trade and language played a critical role in the legacy of Norse place names in the British Isles, what prevented it from accomplishing the same in Nantes?

Linguistic differences provide a crucial clue. Breton and Frankish, the languages spoken in Nantes and broader Brittany, would have been far more distinct from Old Norse than Anglo-Saxon. The Vikings and Anglo-Saxons, scholars believe) could understand each other’s languages with relative ease, facilitating using Norse as a lingua franca for trade. In contrast, the linguistic gulf between Norse and the languages of Brittany and France would have made it far more difficult for Norse to become a common language of commerce. This linguistic barrier could explain why the Vikings in Brittany did not have the same long-term cultural influence as they did in England. They took over the nodes, such as the city of Nantes, but the local population did not buy into making Norse the defacto language of trade.

Moreover, the nature of Viking trade in the British Isles differed significantly from that in France. In England, much of the Viking trade flowed back to Scandinavia, creating a continuous economic exchange that reinforced the use of Norse as a trade language. In Brittany, however, the Vikings traded primarily with the Franks, establishing markets under royal charters and securing tax exemptions, as we had discussed with Christian Coojimans in a previous episode of Vikingology. For instance, salt producers on Noirmoutier were granted tax exemptions in 828 amid an alleged Viking occupation, and a market was set up on the island of Betia (near Nantes) in 853 by royal charter. The trade structure in Brittany did not facilitate the same kind of economic integration with Scandinavia that occurred in the British Isles, where Jorvik became a hub for the exchange of goods and culture across Britain and Scandinavia. As a result, Nantes did not become the vibrant trade center that Jorvik was, and the lack of a lingua franca like Norse further hindered the Vikings’ ability to exert lasting influence.

In conclusion, the mystery of Nantes and the Viking presence in Brittany challenges our conventional understanding of Viking expansion. Rather than seeing the Vikings as large-scale conquerors, it seems more plausible that they controlled key economic nodes through trade and language. The Vikings’ impact on place names in England likely stemmed from their control of trade rather than widespread settlement or conquest. This theory also helps explain why genetic studies have failed to uncover a significant Viking legacy in England—the Vikings’ influence was primarily cultural, transmitted through trade and language rather than biological exchange. By examining the Viking experience in Nantes, we gain new insights into how the Vikings shaped the economies and cultures of the regions they interacted with, and we begin to see the Viking Age not as a period of conquest but as an era of profound cultural and linguistic exchange.

OK, but there was a good amount of conquering. ;)

Entertained? Consider supporting my work. Or, in Viking-speak: buy my books, you filthy heathens!