I believe that the Vikings gave our town its name as the "Place to moor the boats", or as they would have said, "Vǫrr-ing-tun".
But before we get to my theory, let's have a look at the existing theories.
A quick Google search or the first few pages of any Warrington local history book will provide you with the standard explanations for the name "Warrington".
- "Waer" the personal name of a local ruler or chieftan, and "tun" a homestead or settlement. These together form "Waerstun" or Waer's settlement. This is certainly a feasible explanation for the name.
- "Werid", "Weryt", or "Gweryt" and other permutations are possible words from Brythonic languages (the languages spoken in the British Isles before the Roman conquest, and represented nowadays by Welsh). These words are listed as meaning "ford" as in a river crossing. When combined with "tun", as above, we get various versions of "Weritun" or the settlement on the river crossing. This is a very good theory due to the clear importance of the river crossing in the development of the town.
- The final popular theory is based on the Anglo-Saxon word "Waering" meaning a weir or dam. There have no doubt been various fish weirs on the river throughout history, indeed there is written historical data to prove the presence of fish weirs on the River Mersey. "Waering", again, combined with "tun" gives us "Waeringtun", the settlement of the weirs on the river. A very compelling theory, especially as it fits the idea of the importance of the river and looks, to our modern eyes, very close to the modern spelling of Warrington.
If we take a closer look at the surrounding towns and villages along the Mersey shoreline, we can see a distinct Nordic influence. Starting at the mouth of Mersey estuary and working our way inland along the northern shoreline we can see places such as: Formby, Crosby, Kirkdale, Aigburth, Oglet, and Widnes - all Scandinavian in origin. Along the southern shoreline we have: Bromborough, Eastham, Ellesmere, Helsby, Frodsham - again, Scandinavian in origin.
This abundance of place-names of Scandinavian origin suggests strongly a high incidence of people who spoke a Scandinavian language. Works such as Viking DNA: The Wirral and West Lancashire Project by Steve Harding, Mark Jobling, and Turi King provide clear evidence of a Viking presence in the Wirral. Indeed, the huge number of Scandinavian place-names within the Wirral is testament not only to the fact that Vikings came to our shores, but also that they stayed. This is also supported by the genetic evidence presented in the book.
But what about Warrington?
It seems more than a little strange to me that the Vikings should have such key presence in the Wirral, and obvious influence along the Mersey shoreline, but not leave their mark on the most important Mersey-coastal town of the age - Warrington!
The proof is in Warrington's location on the mersey. The Mersey has always been a difficult river to navigate because of silting and its large tidal range. This was not a problem to the Vikings due to the ingenious design and construction of their longboats, which had a draft (the amount of a ship's hull that is submerged) of only 40 - 50 cm (approx 18 inches). This design allowed them to navigate seaworthy long boats far upstream and inland.
However, there were limits; and these limits are what gave Warrington its name.
The Vikings, both Norwegian and Danish, spoke dialects of a language that we know today as Old Norse. As they sailed further and further inland along the Mersey, they would eventually have come to a place where the water was too shallow, or the river too marshy to continue. This place would have also been the site where the river was fordable. This place was the site of modern Warrington.
Old Norse had two words that were related to each other: Vǫrr - meaning a wave or the sea; and Vör - meaning a landing space for a boat. The latter is still present in modern Icelandic place names (Icelandic being the closest modern language to Old Norse).
It is perfectly reasonable to assume that the Vikings, having sailed as far as they could up the Mersey, would have moored their boats somewhere in the vicinity of Latchford. As more and more Vikings used this site as a landing place to enter the established settlement near the ford, they would have begun to call it by a name. In their native Old Norse, that name would have been "Vǫrr" or "Vör" or something related. They would have added the particle "ing" to that name, as all modern Scandinavian languages do, to describe the place where the event happens, and then the "tun", which simply means a town or settlement.
So we are left with Vikings calling our town "Vǫrringtun" or Vöringtun", simply meaning, "The place to moor the boats".
What do you think? Do you have a theory? Tell me your thoughts.
The Viking theory makes a lot of sense. The area where Warrington now stands must have been a natural location for boats to reach, being at the tidal limit of the Mersey. The high tides will have been useful means of overcoming obstacles such as shifting sands as far as Latchford,and may have led to establishing a larger than average settlement in the vivinity.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments, Tim.
ReplyDeleteI don't see any reason why the Vikings wouldn't have explored all the rivers, inlets, etc, along the coasts of England. In the North West, the Vikings in question would have been Norwegian. The Norwegian coastline is such that moving from one area to another is easier via the sea than it is overland due to the high mountains between the fjords. The Vikings were highly-skilled seamen who were used to navigating the North Sea and the ubiquitous fjords along the Norwegian coast. Sailing up the Mersey would have been a simple task for them, and the long boat design would have allowed them to do it, even at low tide.
During my research on the theory, I came up against one possible problem. In another book by Steve Harding, called "Viking Mersey", he states that the Vikings believed the Mersey to be cursed. This troubled me because the Vikings were such skilled seamen, and there culture of bravery in battle and fearlessness so well known, that I wondered why would they be afraid of the Mersey? I approached Steve about the claim, and his response was that it was folklore and his own research had not revealed any evidence to support the claim that the Vikings actually did consider the Mersey cursed. Once I had cleared this up, I did not see any obstacle to the new theory.
Now that the basic theory is "out there", I can continue working on the more detailed linguistic theory about how the name evolved from the Old Norse to Modern English.
Hiya Wirelector. One thing that has stuck in my mind about the Vikings is the term "warriors of the seas".So I imagine these sturdy animal skinned clad fair haired men armed with spears and axes allways looking set for battle. Add to this their massive coloured war ships sailing the rivers and seas just as easily (if not easier) than the folks of the British Isles could walk down a rough track and with the surprise of an attack comming from the water its not surprising the farmers of the time initially didnt stand a chance.
DeleteLike you say there is too much evidence to be found to think they didnt settle near the Mersey and they probably didnt meet much resistence.Do you think its possible that the site of Latchford was a mooring place and nothing more?
Hi Gaynor.
DeleteThere is a huge amount of evidence to indicate that the Vikings settled in the area. It's true that we have this image of them as raping, pillaging, and killing indiscriminately, and there is evidence to support those claims, but there is another side to the Vikings that we often tend to ignore. The "pillaging" Vikings, for want of a better word, were only one section of society that was beginning to migrate from the Scandinavian countries. There was also a large amount of farmers and tradesmen and various skilled people who came to England in search of a new life. These people were settlers in the true sense of the word, and probably made a big effort to fit in and live a normal life. The genetic evidence I alluded to in the original post is evidence of the settlers who stayed in the area and their subsequent offspring.
With regard to Latchford, I think it is a much older site than the Vikings. Many historical texts refer to Latchford as the site of an ancient ford or river crossing, and the etymology of the name "Latchford" indicates that it could well be the site of a crossing point. My comment about the Vikings mooring their boats in Latchford is simply representative of the geography of the river. Wherever the crossing point was, the river was obviously too shallow to be navigable and therefore that point would be the place to moor the boats.
Hiya Wirelector. I hope you didnt misunderstand my comment about Latchford. It was a suggestion I was asking your opinion on not a pointed question.
DeleteHi Gaynor.
DeleteI understood your comment. I just wanted to elaborate on the Latchford point a bit.
My maiden name is Warrington, I live in the US. Recently did a DNA test with Ancestry.com which came back 10% Scandinavian with rest pretty much Great Britain and Ireland.
ReplyDelete