As outlined in previous chapters, the emerging urban communities in Viking-age Scandinavia would not have been an integral part of the rural agrarian society that surrounded them. Instead, they coexisted only on the fringes of these otherwise traditional societies. This was not only true in Scandinavia but also in the Carolingian Empire, as described by Verhaeghe (2005: 283): ‘But on the whole, the urban world was still very much a sideline in an essentially rural- and land-based economy and power structure.’ As indicated in the Introduction, Viking-age towns were not characterised by local populations but by their vast multi-ethnic ones. This is evident in the town of Birka, which seems to have had its own assembly site, a clear indication that it was separated from the surrounding rural communities. Another important dissimilarity is the continuous engagement in market trade and involvement in long-distance trade as a primary purpose, instead of seasonal fairs. How these emerging towns – as expressions of ‘supermodernity’ (Augé 1995) – were embedded in this environment and managed to coexist with a traditional society will be demonstrated by discussing the duality of early towns and royal estates, as well as their geographical position in relation to the existing power structures.

After a brief introduction to the topic and its objectives (see Chapter 1), Towns and Commerce in Viking-Age Scandinavia opened with a general orientation on the debate about terminology and its associated concepts that have been proposed – distinct from the definitions formulated by historians – in order to try to capture the specific nature of Viking-age urbanisation on the eve of the rise of the classical medieval town (see Chapter 2). With this aim, to date two main research avenues have been pursued: on the one hand, through the initial attempt to find an appropriate definition for the phenomenon, along with a corresponding conceptual designation (the what – a focus on the result), and, on the other, through the later application of central place and network theory, focussing on the interconnectivity of Viking-age towns as ports for maritime trade and urban production (the how – a focus on the process). Since each concept or theory is associated with a number of different aspects of Viking-age urbanisation, urbanism and urbanity, this review simultaneously introduces the reader to the most distinctive features of Viking-age towns. This aim of this volume, however, is not merely an attempt to recapitulate the current debate but above all to address the hitherto unanswered core problem of why Viking-age towns emerged. In this way, the focus is shifted towards their distinct economic and societal purpose for Viking-age society at that particular point of development in European history.

When envisioning the Viking world in the Scandinavian homelands, enigmatic sites such as Ribe, Kaupang, Hedeby and Birka come to mind. The research about these sites fills monographs, essay collections and exhibition catalogues. Yet none of these places was truly representative of a society that in most ways still remained very traditional, rural and agrarian. Traces of everyday society emerge in the mundane, routinely made rescue excavations performed by heritage services and contract archaeology, which seldom make the headlines or attract scholarly attention. Another limiting factor for a more profound understanding of this society is the often poor preservation conditions at such sites: the remains of building features are often reduced to a series of postholes situated immediately below the modern plough layer, and often such features are merely accompanied by an ever-repeating canon of household artefacts.

Mogren (2013: 81–3) emphasised the distinctly maritime character of these trading sites and the importance of an advanced nautical technology, enabling the transport of certain volumes of commodities. Interestingly, it seems increasingly apparent that the tentative introduction of the sail coincides with the establishment of seasonal trading sites (Mogren 2013; Zagal-Mach Wolfe 2013: 272–3; Kastholm 2014). Hence, a closer study of the anatomy of harbours is central to the discussion of urbanisation.

The harbour excavation of Hedeby from 1979/80 (Kalmring 2010a, 2011) up until today must be regarded as one of the very few examples of large-scale harbour surveys in Northern Europe. Its significance for the understanding of the strongly maritime Viking world, as well as its impact on the scientific community at the time, can be best compared to the significance of the recent excavations in the Theodosian harbour of Constantinople (Kocabaş 2012).

In their article Assembly Sites for Cult, Markets, Jurisdiction and Social Relations, Nørgård Jørgensen et al. (2010) argued for similarities between the large pit house sites of the Viking Age and the early modern period’s so-called church towns (Swd. kyrkstäder) in northern Sweden. Church towns are large agglomerations of occasionally inhabited cabins gathered around churches that were used for gatherings during major religious festivals in otherwise sparsely populated areas. In addition to baptisms, weddings and funerals, these gatherings simultaneously provided one of the few opportunities during the year for parliament meetings, tax collection, jurisdiction, market trade at fairs and even social events (Nørgård Jørgensen et al. 2010: 99). Based on these activities, the authors argued for a reinterpretation of larger Viking-age pit house agglomerations as possible temporary accommodation for family groups attending seasonal assemblies (things). Even more important in this context is that religious and judicial assemblies in sparsely populated societies were important social events, where a large gathered crowed likewise engaged in trade and exchange.

The previous chapters have outlined the special topographical locations and distinct characteristics of the Viking-age towns, which were sharply contrasted with the main features of the surrounding rural Viking-age society. The case was made for a deliberate separation of the towns from the surrounding local societies not only geographically by their strategic locations in no man’s land but also legally through their own things and a separate jurisdiction and finally by the exclusive, restricted and controlled alien presence at these sites. Since these few Viking-age towns, actively developed and promoted by their respective rulers, were thus clearly the exception to the rule defined by the surrounding social structures, it was certainly not the result of, as Randsborg (1989: 191) suggested, ‘the economic and social development [that] led e.g. to the growth of market towns on the coasts’, reversing cause and effect in his conclusion. On the contrary, as will be demonstrated in what follows, their establishment took place against a background of economic backwardness and tenacious social development as instruments to accelerate local economic development. In other words, the towns became political, administrative and economic tools for a controlled influx of funds and innovations from abroad.

The Viking Age – traditionally framed by the historic raid on the monastery at Lindisfarne in Northumbria in 793 and the battles of Stamford Bridge and Hastings in 1066, and nowadays archaeologically set to c.750–1050 – was an era of major societal changes in Scandinavia that has fascinated generations of scholars and laypeople. This sweepingly transformative period led to the integration of this formerly pagan periphery of the European North into occidental Europe, as these societies became unified Christian kingdoms. One of the most central fields to Viking-age archaeology – alongside research problems relating to the Christianisation of Scandinavia and the intertwined processes of state formation, or more specifically the development ‘From Tribe to State’ (Mortensen & Rasmussen 1991) – is the initial and unprecedented dawn of urbanisation in Scandinavia, which was distinctly different from the archetypes of ancient towns of the former Roman Empire. As novel centres of trade and crafts, these emerging Viking-age towns were inseparably linked to the spheres of economy, maritime connectivity, and patronage.

Finally, one might ask why Hedeby, after such a successful transformation as described in the previous chapter, which enabled the town to persist well into the eleventh century, was abandoned after all and finally relocated to present-day Slesvig. Despite comparable topographical conditions – just as Hedeby was located by the Haddeby Noor, Slesvig emerged by the (today silted) Holmer Noor – it is striking that the old town of Slesvig, which was delimited by its 12-hectare pocket-shaped peninsula on the northern shore of the inner Schlei fjord, was in fact only half the size of the urban area of Hedeby. Previously, three partly interdependent main hypotheses for the shift from Viking-age Hedeby to high medieval Slesvig had been put forward: (1) two subsequent devastating attacks in 1050 and 1066 recorded in the written sources; (2) the spatial integration of economical, administrational, and ecclesiastical functions, together with the assumption that the latter two already pre-existed at Slesvig and constituted a pull factor within a ‘second wave of urbanisation’; and (3) the assumed preceding economic decline of Hedeby as an emporium, which had already commenced in the late tenth century (cf. Hilberg 2007: 189–90; 2016).

One of the primary proto-urban centres of the early medieval world in Northern Europe was without a doubt Hedeby. Hedeby was situated on the border between Scandinavia and Continental Europe, connecting the North Sea with the Baltic Sea by a portage. Its success as a trading hub is inseparably connected to the destruction of the emporium Reric – situated in an area controlled by the West Slavic Obotrites – by the Danish king Godfred in 808 (Tummuscheit 2003). In order to control and tax the ongoing trade, Reric’s merchants were relocated to Hedeby. However, while in the contemporary historical sources Reric was addressed as an emporium, Hedeby was rather referred to as a portus (Kalmring 2010a: 42–7).