Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
NEW RESEARCH HAS found that the population of Ireland was decline for 300 years before the Vikings came here.
Scientists from Queen’s University Belfast have analysed data from the years 400 to 1200 and found that human activity in Ireland varied greatly during the period.
The data comes from radiocarbon dating taken from archaeological objects found during the construction of motorways and other projects.
Published in the Journal of Agricultural Science, the research has formed along-term population model has been developed for Ireland and found that the arrival of Vikings came following three centuries of population decline.
This model challenges the previously held understanding that population in Ireland grew steadily until the Famine in the 1840s.
Speaking RTÉ’s Morning Ireland, one of the lead researchers Rowan McLaughlin of QUB’s School of Natural and Built Environment says the Irish population went into decline around the year 700 before the first Viking settlements came around the turn of the new millennium.
“What we do know is that the decline happened very gradually. It was a serious decline but it happened year-on-year and so there was no one cause. So it wasn’t like the potato famine or a catastrophic war or any one-off event,” he explains.
But rather there was a whole series of different things that worked in society that really reduced fertility rates and reduce the number of children that women were able to have and made society in general go into a kind of downturn that was gradual but nonetheless series and persistent.
McLaughlin outlines that Vikings built settlements and brought new technology to Ireland and that their population growth was both among themselves and with native people.
“When the native society was in recession, so to speak, the Vikings enabled a different kind of growth and steered society in a different society altogether,” he says.
There was definitely trouble with these new settlers but there was also a degree of cooperation. The Vikings were perhaps more successful than the native Irish in having children of their own but there’s also plenty of evidence to state that they intermarried with the native population and really caused quite a big splash over the next centuries.
Guarding against giving all the credit to Vikings, McLaughlin added the native Irish population was always “relatively healthy” and had survived other population declines previously.
He also noted that there are also Irish genes in Scandinavia due to the “dark history” of Irish slaves being brought back by Vikings.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
The original Irish the Celts were nomadic tribes, they moved around, so information on them will be scattered. Also there was a mini Ice Age that lasted for about 400 years. The soil in Ireland was largely in a state of permafrost so was not of much use for farming.
Why is this not mentioned in the article?
The Celts came to Ireland , settled moved to Scotland and North of England… Meanwhile the Breton Celts were moving into Southern England and Wales…… Then the Vikings came to Ireland. , the Romans went conquered England and Wales. Then the Anglo Saxons came to Britain and became the English who in turn invaded Ireland.
Sorry about the history lesson, but we must accept that humans move around quite a lot… We are all the heritage of all that….. Probably a lot more I could post on this,
@Paul O’Sullivan: you forgot the beatles and of course busted.
@Paul O’Sullivan: Don’t.
Were not the Romans were in situ well before the Anglo-Sax and Vikings ?
@Paul O’Sullivan:
‘Celtic’ was more a culture than a people – and spread across Europe way way after the first folk came to Ireland.
A lot of our pre-history is not Celtic.
@Paul O’Sullivan: Vercingetorix deserves a mention.
@Michael Kavanagh: the point is all our blood is mixed…. you are no more related to the original Irish as much as Angus from Aberdeen or Gustav from Gdansk you’re probably more related to Dave from Derby….
@Paul O’Sullivan:
How can the celts be the ‘original Irish’ when plenty of people were here before the celts arrived / invaded?
@Paul O’Sullivan:
I agree with the general thrust of your point though.
@Paul O’Sullivan: Paul your comment is a historian’s nightmare.
Just stop.
@Rebecca De Stanleigh: I was having a nightmare when I wrote the post ….:)
@Paul O’Sullivan: the celts werent nomadic they built fortresses as can be seen in the placenames rath (fort) also the celts didnt replace native bronze age setters they were integrated into the society as the ruling class. Ireland was also raiding and settling in wales, isle of mann, england and scotland post roman era and many artifacts including writing comes from the pre viking era. Also it was the welsh normans who invaded ireland not anglo saxon kingdoms although it did result in english supremacy in ireland .. sorry for the actual history lesson
@Dermot Donnelly: The Celts are really the forerunners of “The Gaels” who would have been how Irish described themselves to distinguish themselves from “Gall” or foreigner. There has been references in old Gaelic manuscrpts to “GalOglaig” or foreign mercenaries.
The separation and enmity between “gael” and “gall” foreigner means that the Irish Gael were very aware of their not only cultural but ethnic differences from way back.
During the early plantations “degeneracy” or marrying or speaking gaelic as it was termed was forbidden by English law to English settlers. My point being that Gaelic blood lines remained separate from English for a long time and the Reformation copperfastened these divisions even to this day. After 1690 the possibilty of intermarriage between Gael & Gall was nil
@Dermot Donnelly: piffle, I did not type the Anglo Saxons invaded Ireland. I said the English did. And that was done plantation from the 1600s . I also said at the end of my post I could have written a lot more, but I think your actual ‘history lesson’ has more gaps than mine. It is not a competition.
@Bryen O Murchu: your point would be from post norman invasion? Or at least post the swearing of fealty to english kings where as i was refering to post/pre viking invasion as i said there is little evidence of supplanting of pre celtic people in ireland there was intermarrage similar to norman invasion. See below genetic study https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/12/22/1518445113
@The Great Unwashed: because the Celts are what give Ireland it’s Heritage. The people that were here before the Celts very little is known and is only circumspect. The Celts are the original Irish it is where our Irish culture comes from. How are people calling the people that here before that as Irish when they would not even know the concept or the meaning of what being Irish is. You can call them original settlers but not call them original Irish.
@Dermot Donnelly: I think you will find that the Celts originated from India and although it was probably centuries by the time some of them came to Ireland. If you do not call that nomadic they came and they settled eventually…
@Dermot Donnelly: also its worth noting that noone really refered to the irish as celts pre 1840 establishment of genetic differences between the irish and english was very much linked to the rise of eugenics across europe (ie and excuse for penal laws etc)
@Paul O’Sullivan: the Little Ice Age was not cold enough to develop widespread permafrost in Ireland.
@Paul O’Sullivan: celts definitly didnt originate from india they came from bronze age switzerland you might be confusing indo european and indian there
@Paul O’SullivanThere had been attempts at plantations before 1600 from 1300 onwards but not as sectarian as the later ones after Henry viii . However most of these plantations went “native” much to the chagrin of the people who planned them. English married Gaelic speaking Irish women whose only mother tongue was Gaelic., The first words the children learned at their mothers breast was Gaelic , After one or two generations the “planters” went completely “native” to such an extent that the English brought out a document (in Norman French) forbidding the adoption of Gaelic dress and the use of the Brehon law courts to adjudicate disputes over land
@Paul O’Sullivan:
Did the Celts come to Ireland in any great number?
Some experts say they didn’t. They say native tribes mostly adopted Celtic culture.
@Paul O’Sullivan: the English never invaded Ireland .
@Paul O’Sullivan: the English never invaded Ireland .
@Paul O’Sullivan: when did the English invaid Ireland ..
@Paul O’Sullivan: There is no evidence for a large scale “Celtic” invasion in Ireland. The Breton “Celts” originated from Britain and moved to northern France in the wake of the Germanic invasions to post Roman Britain.
All them celibate monks and nuns perhaps!
@Michael Kavanagh: More likely the Christian sinnification of sex.
@Michael Kavanagh: many of those were not born in Ireland,
@Michael Kavanagh: Celibate didn’t mean that they didn’t have children. It only means that they can’t marry.
McLaughlin states his case with certainly but offers little evidence beyond fewer pots at archeological digs. There could be many other variables that contribute to this pots phenomenon (ice age, population movement, different eating/hunting habits, wildlife migration, etc). He’s guessing.
@lambda sensor: of course it’s a guess. It’s all bloody guesswork. Sure they had us believing in school that Neanderthals were all idiots who died out long before the modern human and it was all a load of baloney. Genetic studies later showed that there was a significant amount of interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans and that all modern humans carry a percentage of Neanderthal DNA. There is only so much you can tell from studying pottery shards and stroking your beard.
@Sean: Good point but not all humans carry Neanderthal DNA. Those who stayed in Africa never met them and hence they have none today. Similarly, Denisovan Hominids interbred with Asian humans but not European or African, so many Asians have Denisovan DNA.
@Denis McClean: You’re absolutely correct Denis and the winner of today’s star prize but I just wanted to keep it simple to avoid confusing the layman or laywoman that might be perusing the Journal comments.
(damnit I’ve met someone who knows more than me on this subject!!)
@lambda sensor: Maybe have a go at reading the article first? It has literally nothing to do with pots. The research is based a model derived from the set of radiocarbon dates we have for the period.
Thank god for immigrants!
@James Wallace: Thank Leo fir rhem.
@Paul Whelan: was Leo around at the time of the Vikings?
@James Wallace: No thank god , or we just woukd have git young men arrivaling like now ha ha
@Paul Whelan: I wonder are they any good at spelling or grammar?
@Nathan Carr: At pool in Portugal , sorry , with the Foreigners.Ha ha ha
Ireland population stayed relatively steady for a long period but showed a gradual decline culminating withe the Viking invasion 700A.D.
There were Famines such as happed in 1741-2 where due to a heavy cold spell over Europe generally harvests were poor so.
These years were known as “blian an Air” or year of starvation.
But the population at that time was nothing in comparison to the 1840s so starvation death tolls were not as high.
The reality was that standing at 8 million souls in 1880 and with a dependance on one food source Ireland was a disaster waiting to happen for years before “the hungry ‘80s.
@Bryen O Murchu: what?
@Bryen O Murchu:
Ireland was not dependant on one food thats a pure lie from historians and the English
All of the food was shipped to england everything
@James Grant: You are correct. It was genocide but technically, Murphy has a point. It was the forced exporting of other foods that made the people dependent on what was left.
@Rebecca De Stanleigh: what what?
@James Grant: Irish Entrepreneurs saw a chance here to make a “killing in the markets” so wheat and corn prices went through the roof while groweres exported (Irish Growers) and stockpiled wheat in barns so as to create further shortage and drive priced sky high. Irish peasants never could afford meat. It was Irish farmers exporting live cattle to English markets that and holding back on harvesting pushing up grain prices to make a bigger profit that created a situation wherby none of these were affordable by starving Irish Peasants.The famine was worsened by the mean actions of IRISH businessmen who cared more for profit than human starvation.. The same IRISH merchants made forrunes during the famine and there was no shortage of money to buy auctioned farms after the Famine. By who do
@James Grant: see my reply below. The ruth is never pure and seldom simple. We have been sold a”pup” regarding the Irish who profited immensely from the misery if tgeir own countrymen . Blaming it all on England is much easier than facing the truth.
@Denis McClean: By the way MCLean my name is O Murchu am proud of my Irish name and certainly don’t need a translation from such as your West Brit attempt to Anglicise it.
Julius Caesar writing of his Gallic Wars mentions Celtic Tribal customs and rather than them being blood thirsty, barbarians. He wrote that Celts had no death penalty for crimes like murder. Rather they favoured restitution if possible. The final sanction if restitution was refused was to be ostracised from the tribe which usually saw a high compliance with the judgement of the Celtic Judges or Brehons. Celtic women had property rights and could take with them what goods they brought into a marriage if it should break up.,The use of Brehon laws in Ireland which are of Celtic origins gave more freedom to women than is realised. A Celtic woman could own her property, and purchase more if she could afford it .,This was not introduced into English law until the early twentieth century.
That’s Sasanach research. Holds no uisce down here.
Imigine if our population had stayed low: no famine, loads of space and place to relax, no homeless, no queues , no racism no ethnic strife, little polurion. No bio loss…oh the joys of a packrd land.
@John Farrelly: The land of Tir Na nOg Perhaps
It is now accepted by the scientific community that modern humans (Homo Sapiens) spread out around the world from sub-saharan Africa. We are all in effect Africans who found new places to live. Our physical traits changed because we had to adapt to the environment our ancestors moved to. Europeans adapted to drink cows milk. Asians adapted to rice being their staple diet. Northern people’s adapted to living in the cold. African people immigrating to Ireland today are in effect our long forgotten cousins whose ancestors stayed at home.
Hahahahaha, lived in Norway for a while. All the Norwegians laugh about this. Mighty banter about coming over and r*d*ng our women to keep the population going.
@Kath Noonan: Yeah the whole male population of Ireland were queer. Is that it?
@Kath Noonan: I rode a few of their women so that’s paying THEM back and I said each time “This ones for Ireland”
@Paul Whelan: They count for less than 1% of our population, your point?
@SaveTheTrees: its our new source if ebricement , and i tbink yiur 1 percent is fairy tale sruff . Your telling me there only one non national in Ireland in every hundred ? . If thats the case why do we have 30,000 non nationals on a housing waiting list ?
@Paul Whelan: citing anything from the liberal is your first mistake.
@Paul Whelan: Still fail to see the connection to Vikings
@Paul Whelan: I wasn’t referring to all immigrants, your original post was about Asians and Nigerians (which was deleted)
@Paul Whelan: the full figure is around 15% which is still pretty low, if there wasn’t a housing crises no one would give hoot, economic racism
So I guess it was all that pillaging those bloody Vikings did that caused the population to rise.. I mean, what else could it have been?
Ok, so christianity killed the Irish, got it
Reading the comments I find it hard to believe anyone picked up on the fact that Harold the Hairy (The first King of Norway) was actually a Dublin Lad whose dad was a Viking lord and Mum was a high ranking Celtic princess. When his father died he became leader of his tribe in Norway.
Harold then went to Norway and brought with him the Celtic kingship model and he didnt cut his hair until he had united Norway under one high King.
It may well be that the article is right but the context is wrong.
Culture actually became shared. Roving celts centred around Viking settlements (Dublin, Limerick etc) as a point of trade (not just the slave trade).
When I told my in -aws in Norway this , they laughed until they did the research. I tried to claim Helvic (as it has many Irish artifacts) as a descendent of the high kings of Ireland, but thy wouldnt have any of it.. Gits!! So, i did a bit of raping and pillaging and hopped on the plane back to Ireland :)
Slaving was a two way thing as both cultures participated in it, ask St Patrick and other brits :).
@sean mcgee: I heard it on good authority that “Harold the Hairy” was not a name he liked . He preferred “follically challenged instead.
@Bryen O Murchu: :) Yes! you are right.. or specifically utfordret follisk (in Norwegian)
This seems like a perfect opportunity to blame religion. Saints and scholars and all that. Could Celebacy be the reason for the pre viking decline in population?
@Daniel O’Neill: Monks and nuns were celibate as they are now,but the ordinary priest was still able to marry.Celibacy for secular priests didn’t come into force until a few centuries later.
have your say