Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T17:31:53.734Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The urban networks of Anglo-Norman Meath and the Teutonic Order's Kulmerland: a comparative analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2021

Anna Maleszka Open the ORCID record for Anna Maleszka [Opens in a new window]  and
Roman Czaja Open the ORCID record for Roman Czaja [Opens in a new window]
Anna Maleszka
Affiliation:
Faculty of History, Nicolaus Copernicus University 87-100 Toruń, ul. W. Bojarskiego 1, Poland
Roman Czaja*
Affiliation:
Institute of History and Archival Sciences, Faculty of History, Nicolaus Copernicus University 87-100 Toruń, ul. W. Bojarskiego 1, Poland
*
*Corresponding author. Email: rc@umk.pl
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents comparative research on the role of towns and urban networks in the process of constructing space during conquest and colonization in selected ‘non-Roman’ regions of Europe in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It focuses on Kulmerland in Prussia and Meath in Ireland. In both regions, the creation of urban networks and new regional spaces entailed the use of pre-existing settlement. However, reception intensity was determined by both the state of preservation of the earlier settlement and the needs of territorial authorities. This comparison shows ways of using symbolic potential (names, central places) and former settlement points for the construction of cities. In both territories, the functions of central places were particularized due to subinfeudation.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Urban History , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , November 2022 , pp. 672 - 689
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press.

This article is a contribution to the discussion of the spread of the European model of culture in the High Middle Ages, or ‘the Europeanization of Europe’. This process, often called ‘the Bartlett thesis’ after its key recent architect, Robert Bartlett, has given rise to much debate and comprises two distinctive elements for European civilization of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, expansion (or conquest) and colonization at the European peripheries.Footnote 1 Essentially, Bartlett's key thesis is that a culture shaped in the centre of Europe was being transferred through military conquest and colonization to the countries on the then European periphery. Historical discussion has focused on the ways and reasons for acceptance of the new model of culture that reached the regions subjected to this expansion, as well as the model's relation to previous, indigenous cultural models. The terms used to discuss the relations between old and new cultural models – ‘clash of cultures’, ‘compromise’, ‘adaptation’, ‘infiltration’, ‘reception’ – are indicative of different possible interpretations.Footnote 2

We focus here, within this European model of culture, on one transformative element of Europeanization, the new town, formed in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and its impact on changes in the perception of space in selected ‘non-Roman’ regions of Europe. Space, wherein the towns in which we are interested were founded, is treated hereafter as a construct resultant of certain historical conditions. It was based on creating places of specific symbolic and utilitarian value. For the introduction of any new cultural model, it was the process of constructing space, taking into account the needs of new rulers and new settlers, that was of key importance.Footnote 3 Thus, this present article focuses on towns and urban networks, as one of the essential elements of this process.

As we know, only taking into account the wider European cultural context enables a proper understanding of the ‘conquest and colonization’ paradigm in any one area. Publications demonstrating the merits of comparative research, in various methodological contexts, on the colonization and urbanization of countries on the outskirts of Europe in the Middle Ages have been an important strand of historiography since the 1980s.Footnote 4 Hence, it is reasonable to employ here methods of comparative analysis that allow us to transcend regional or local interpretations and to see general or universal phenomena. This article goes beyond structural analysis, instead aiming at comparing the dynamics of the development of urban networks under specific conditions.

The conditio sine qua non for the application of comparative analysis is the existence of the tertium comparationis premise, or several indisputably common features of the examined phenomena. We focus our attention on two relatively small territories, Kulmerland in Prussia (currently in northern Poland, 4,650 km2) and Meath in Ireland (2,500–4,500 km2),Footnote 5 which have three common features:

  • • in both of them, a settlement network with central places, some fulfilling religious, commercial and/or residential functions, had existed prior to the conquest;Footnote 6

  • • both areas were subjected to processes of colonization in the first phase of their respective conquests (Meath: from the 1170s;Footnote 7 Kulmerland from the 1230sFootnote 8), with towns used as elements of a reimagined landscape, one intended to strengthen the new power in the area and to give the landscape a new character;Footnote 9

  • • both areas were treated as bases for further conquests.Footnote 10

Kulmerland is a geographically separate area between the Vistula, Drwęca and Osa rivers. In the second half of the tenth century, this area was included in the Piast state and, until the beginning of the 1220s, Kulmerland maintained the status of a border region between the Polish monarchy and the areas inhabited by pagan Prussians. In the 1220s, the settlement network of Kulmerland, consisting of over a dozen castles and over one hundred villages, was destroyed as a result of Prussian invasion.Footnote 11 In 1231, the Teutonic Order, with the support of a Piast prince, Konrad of Masovia, began to build its territorial authority at the Baltic Sea, starting with the conquest of Kulmerland.Footnote 12

Early medieval Meath, shaped in the eighth century, covered the area of today's County Meath (thanks to the absorption of Brega),Footnote 13 County Westmeath (formerly Mide, particularly Tethba and Delbna Ethra),Footnote 14 as well as parts of County Offaly and County Longford.Footnote 15 As an area subject to the kings of Clann Cholmain, it retained a political identity, which is also visible in the twelfth century, when the rulers of the Breifne (Tigernan Ua Ruairc),Footnote 16 Tir Eoghain (Muirchertach Mac Lochlainn) and Connacht (Ua Conchobair) competed for influence over Meath due to its central location on the island,Footnote 17 indirectly reinforcing the centrifugal tendencies of the subkingdoms.Footnote 18 In 1172, King Henry II of England granted Meath, within its borders from before the divisions of 1153, ‘sicuti Murcardus Ha Mulachlyn melius eam tenuit’,Footnote 19 to Hugh de Lacy,Footnote 20 who would launch its colonization.

The aim of this comparative analysis is to show to what extent the new towns and urban networks created during the conquest and colonization of Kulmerland and Meath changed the character of each space. In doing so, we examine the relationships between the newly established towns and the earlier elements of the settlement networks, i.e. strongholds, urban settlements, roads and routes, river fords as well as the symbolic potential of places and toponyms. Particular attention is paid to three groups of issues: central points which hierarchize the functions of space and its perception; communication factors affecting the selection of places for urban settlement; and territorial and administrative divisions.

The content arrangement is thematic and each of the three parts of the text presents the phenomena in chronological order. The first part of this article discusses the role of towns as central places in creating a new spatial order. It indicates that in the process of urbanization of both regions the symbolic value of central places was noticed but dealt with in a different manner. The second part of this article discusses the first phase of urban network formation in Kulmerland (until the 1270s) and Meath (until around 1200), arguing that it was the using and repurposing of pre-conquest structures, including communication routes, that was of key importance. The third part is devoted to the second phase of the urbanization of these territories, until around 1320 and around 1240, respectively, arguing that new factors came to the fore, such as administrative needs, internal divisions and the rural colonization of areas, that changed the dynamics of both urban networks. It is concluded that despite obvious regional differences, including the differing character of territorial authority and different states of preservation of settlement potential, the processes are comparable at the level of defining and transforming space and in the key role played by cities in that process.

Central points

Continuity of settlement at the central point of Kulmerland, Culmine, dates back to the Neolithic period. Its attractiveness was determined by its characteristic terrain as well as its location at a crossing point on the Vistula, on the route leading from the Baltic Sea through Kulmerland, Masovia and Ruś to the Black Sea. A hill rising there from flat terrain called Chełm (in Slavic languages this name referred to the prominent hill in the area) or Culm/Kulm, it had been a cult centre, giving its name to both the immediate and surrounding area (terra Culmensis). In the tenth century, the Piasts erected a castle – castrum in Culmine – in this place, which became the centre of a castellany (an administrative unit covering entire Kulmerland). A settlement of an urban character developed under the castle, with production and trade functions. In the 1030s, an attempt was made to found a centre of ecclesiastical administration there as well.Footnote 21

Meath had had a more extensive structure of central places. The first to be distinguished was Tara, the symbolic significance of which grew from the fifth century onwards.Footnote 22 This high mountain,Footnote 23 ‘the place from which you can see’, in prehistoric times was the burial site of Irish kings.Footnote 24 Although uninhabited and later less important – as its magical significance eroded with the spread of Christianity – Tara functioned in the consciousness of the Irish people as a central place, control over which guaranteed access to the position of High King of Ireland.Footnote 25 Several rulers of Meath had wielded the title of King of Tara.Footnote 26 Apart from that, the place was identified with the point where the Five Roads of Tara converged.

A second centre, Clonard, being the residence of the kings of Meath,Footnote 27 could have been interpreted as the main political centre in the province. Its importance as a central place was strengthened by the establishment of an episcopal see there, formally created in 1111.Footnote 28 A third political centre was Trim, at that time the principal seat of the rulers of Loegaire, the Ua Caindelbain,Footnote 29 a fording place on the Boyne,Footnote 30 and the site of an episcopal church.Footnote 31 Additionally, in the mid-twelfth century, Kells and Duleek were raised to the rank of diocesan centres.Footnote 32 As well, the erstwhile seats of local kings, such as Granard (Cairpre) and Ardagh (Maine), Knowth and Lagore (Síl nÁeda Sláine),Footnote 33 used to be central places for their respective territories. However, the range of influence of each of these central places – with the exception of Tara – was limited due to internal divisions within the kingdom of Meath. Therefore, these centres formed neither a coherent network, nor a simple hierarchy.Footnote 34 To sum up, the structure of central places in pre-Norman Meath had been characterized by functional dispersion, unlike Kulmerland, where all central functions had been concentrated in one place.

Contrary to the situation in Meath, elements of the pre-conquest settlement of Kulmerland had been devastated by the Prussian invasions. Thus, upon arriving, the Teutonic Order could make use of the Slavic places and strongholds to a very limited extent. Although the first town on the conquered territory was founded in 1231 on the border between Kulmerland and Kuyavia, for the creation of the central place the Teutonic Knights tried to exploit the symbolic value of the central place of Slavic Culmine. The construction of the castle and foundation of a town in the area of Culmine began in 1232.Footnote 35 Both were given the name of the former Slavic centre. However, a significant spatial modification was made; namely, the site chosen for the construction of the new settlement complex was a promontory on a moraine plateau, rising steeply above the Vistula valley, located about 1 km south of Slavic Culmine. This relocation resulted from the obsolescence of the spatial values of the former place – the ford on the Vistula near the old site had lost its importance – and priority was given instead to the new site's defensive features. Nevertheless, convenient natural conditions for the castle were not useful for the town, which needed access to the Vistula. For this reason, over the next 20 years, a better location was sought for the town. Eventually, at the beginning of the 1250s, the town was moved to the hills located near the bifurcation of the Vistula and Fryba rivers.Footnote 36 It is significant that the name Culmine followed the town, while the Teutonic Order's castle gained a new name afterwards – Althausen, or ‘old castle’.Footnote 37 The plan of the Teutonic Order to designate Culm as a centre of all Kulmerland is expressed in the town charter of 1232, which states as follows: ‘quia eandem civitatem metropolitanam esse volumus aliarum, si que adhuc in dicta provincia construentur’.Footnote 38 Culm was to be not only a model for future towns, but also to perform other central functions. The town received standards for weights and measures and the city law of Magdeburg, whereas its council was intended to become the court of appeal for other Prussian towns. In the mid-thirteenth century, the Teutonic Order planned to create a cloth warehouse in Culm. These plans were only partially achieved, as the more convenient location of Thorn (10 km south on the Vistula), on the border with Poland, made it a major centre of long-distance trade.Footnote 39

Another example of using the symbolic potential of the name Culm to create a central point in Kulmerland is the creation of a cathedral city incorporating the place-name element. At the beginning of the 1250s, Bishop Heidenreich founded the town Culmsee/Kulmsee (‘Culm at the lake’) as a venue for a new cathedral.Footnote 40 This name, referring directly to the castrum in Culmine, is further evidence of the symbolic potential of the former Slavic centre and its significance in the process of creating new space.

Similar to the Teutonic Order, Hugh de Lacy, in Meath, decided to choose one place as the central point of control, using one of the previously functioning central places. However, instead of Tara, or Clonard, de Lacy selected Trim.Footnote 41 Several years later (1202), the seat of the bishop was transferred there as well.Footnote 42 The choice of Trim was determined by a number of factors, the most important of which seem have been communication links and its central location in the area subordinated to de Lacy.Footnote 43 It has been demonstrated that the internal organization of territories acquired by the Anglo-Normans was generally based on pre-Norman land divisions.Footnote 44 However, from the point of view of the central places discussed here, the land grant that de Lacy received treated Meath as a discrete space for the first time in many years. The choice of Trim for his headquarters meant that de Lacy also perceived it that way, striving to create one centre for the whole of his territory.

The process of creating a new centre entailed the marginalization of most previously existing centres, especially Clonard, which, under these new political conditions, was reduced to a merely defensive function.Footnote 45 Unlike the Teutonic Order in Kulmerland trying to make use of the symbolic potential of the name Culmine in the construction of new space, Hugh de Lacy decided to minimize the symbolic significance of another central place, namely Tara. Neither its name nor the place itself was used in the process of organizing the reformulated political space of Meath. Tara was not even included in de Lacy's demesne territories, while the closest urban settlement was established in Skryne, about 5 km away.Footnote 46 Tara was bestowed upon the de Repentini family, and later utilized as the venue for a church taken care of by the Kilmainham Hospitallers, as evidenced in 1212.Footnote 47 Still, the structure of central places in Meath was quickly undergoing modifications, especially due to the foundation of Drogheda.Footnote 48 Initially founded as a base for the conquest of Ferrard and Uriel, Drogheda quickly developed and became a trading post due to its maritime location in the Lordship of Meath, which enabled direct contact with other possessions in the de Lacys’ ‘territorial portfolio’, in Wales and England and Normandy.Footnote 49 The significance of Drogheda was noticed by Walter de Lacy, son of Hugh, who in 1194 granted a charter to the fast-growing town. Between 1194 and 1199, charters of liberties were given also to Trim, Kells and probably also Duleek;Footnote 50 thus, Hugh de Lacy's descendant decided to reinforce not only the economic position of these towns in the newly formed lordship, but also his tendency to expand the structure of the central places.

Beginnings of urban networks

In about 70 years, the space of both Kulmerland and the Anglo-Norman Lordship of Meath was redefined by the urban network that was created in each under conditions of conquest and colonization. The urban network of Kulmerland consisted of 13 towns, which were founded from 1231 to 1320s. In the first years of the conquest, only three towns were founded – Thorn, Kulm and Rheden.Footnote 51 The pace of town foundation was accelerated in the 1270s after the pacification of the Second Prussian Uprising.

When choosing the locations of the three oldest towns in Kulmerland, military and communication needs were the most important. Thorn was founded at a north–south crossing point on the Vistula, ensuring communication with the Teutonic Order's lands in Kuyavia and the Polish princes who supported the Order. The foundation of the town in 1231 and its relocation to a less flood-prone position in 1236 entailed similarly relocating the main crossing over the Vistula; as a result, the main meridian trail leading through Kulmerland was also changed.Footnote 52 The foundation of Kulm was also associated with a crossing point on the Vistula, but on the east–west axis.Footnote 53 The establishment of Rheden, on the other hand, was supposed to provide control over the isthmus between two lakes, which was a part of the route leading from the north to the centre of Kulmerland.Footnote 54 All three towns were founded next to castles erected by the Teutonic Order. In the case of Kulm and Rheden, the Teutonic Order's strongholds were founded near old Slavic gords (fortified settlements),Footnote 55 taking over their names as well. The siting of the Teutonic Order's castles resulted primarily from their striving to optimize natural defensive features of the landscape.Footnote 56 In the context of creating regional space, the location of the town and castle of Rheden is of particular significance. The Slavic stronghold was located on an island in the lake, which provided security for the castle itself. However, the Teutonic Order's castle and the town were erected on two separate hills in unity with the whole area.Footnote 57 Therefore, the foundation of Rheden can be understood as a measure taken to ensure the security of the first northern frontier of Kulmerland. Also in the case of further foundations in Kulmerland (see Schönsee and Fredeck) the foundation of towns and castles at geographically sensitive points on communication routes may indicate that the territory of Kulmerland started to be treated as a whole, discrete space.Footnote 58

The Anglo-Normans founded or developed at least 20 boroughs of various sizes in the Lordship of Meath – the majority of them in the last quarter of the twelfth and first quarter of the thirteenth century (see Figure 1).Footnote 59 It may be assumed that the development of at least four settlements was at an advanced stage before Hugh de Lacy's death in 1186, as they were given charters very early: Drogheda in 1194, and Trim, Kells and probably Duleek between 1194 and 1199.Footnote 60 However, as Murphy and Graham have each pointed out,Footnote 61 before towns could come into existence, Hugh de Lacy had a more urgent process to carry out. He proceeded to build structures that would enable him to defend his grant and to arrange defence by means of subinfeudation,Footnote 62 which involved the division of land between the de Lacys and their supporters.Footnote 63 Being de Lacy's tenant or baron, one would be granted lands in diverse parts of Meath and by this means engaged proportionately both in organizing settlement in more secure areas and in defending the frontier.Footnote 64 Both processes, conquest and urban colonization, were – at least initially – based on pre-Norman forms of settlementFootnote 65 and spatial organization.Footnote 66 The locations of mottes can indicate the position of successive lines of defence on the advancing western frontier.Footnote 67 Initially, a hub of Anglo-Norman power would be located in the extreme eastern part of the territory, at two demesne manors, Ratoath and Duleek, and baronial manors, such as Slane, Skreen and Dunboyne. The very first frontier ran from Nobber and Kells through Navan and Trim to Clonard.Footnote 68

Figure 1.

Towns and communication routes in the Lordship of Meath in the thirteenth century. Prepared by Radosław Golba, based on Veach, Lordship, xv, map no. 3; Graham, ‘Anglo-Norman settlement’, 250–1; Doran, ‘Communication routes’, 59, 74; C. O Lochlainn, ‘Roadways in ancient Ireland’, in J. Ryan (ed.), Féil-sgríbhinn Eóin Mhic Néill: Essays and Studies Presented to Professor Eoin MacNeill on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, May 15th 1938 (Dublin, 1940); Potterton, ‘The archaeology’, 42.

  1. 1 Pre-Norman settlements of various functions (residential, market, religious, etc.).

  2. 2 Towns adapted from pre-Norman structures of various function.

  3. 3 Anglo-Norman towns founded in cruda radice.

  4. 4 Old routes (horizontal: Slighe Assail, vertical: Slighe Mhidhuluachra).

Three out of four early urban initiatives – Kells, Trim and Duleek – were also a continuation of earlier settlement points, which, however, were formally and functionally adapted to the needs of the new ruler and his supporters. The westernmost early towns – Kells and Trim – apart from being located near the mottes, were additionally walled.Footnote 69 These factors – an early location next to the castle, in a place previously inhabited, and the addition of defensive walls – predisposed these boroughs to the role of important points of defence, control and exchange in Anglo-Norman Meath. Lacy apparently was determined to keep them and to invest in them, as he decided to rebuild and repopulate them after the Irish attacks in the 1170s.Footnote 70 A fourth town, Drogheda, was established in a brand new place.Footnote 71 The foundation of this large, walled town may be interpreted as the first evidence of a readiness to develop a settlement network in Meath. The foundation of Drogheda motte was intended to create a base for the conquest of the northern parts of Meath. Given that the site chosen for Drogheda was economically and militarily advantageous for the entirety of Meath,Footnote 72 as it connected the lordship to the sea, the development of the borough proceeded quickly. Other fast-growing urban centres in the territory of modern Meath, such as Duleek, Ratoath and Skryne,Footnote 73 although located in places utilized before the conquest, were not surrounded by defensive walls,Footnote 74 probably due to their location in safer areas away from Meath's western and northern frontiers.

It is believed that upon Hugh de Lacy's death he controlled territories extending north and east of the castles of Killare and Durrow.Footnote 75 Following the line of control in the north, there was a fortress at Granard, built by Risteard de Tiuit, granted land by de Lacy.Footnote 76 In the middle of the line of control, the border was strengthened by Kilbixy, where in 1192 Walter de Lacy built a castle,Footnote 77 around which a borough not associated with any pre-Norman settlement developed.Footnote 78 A little further to the east there was Fore, where the motte was built during the reign of Hugh de Lacy.Footnote 79 The borough created there referred to an older monastic settlement.Footnote 80 Another of de Lacy's barons, Petit, organized a manor in Mullingar, where a town established cruda radice was mentioned as early as in 1201.Footnote 81 Due to its location between the lakes, in a straight line between Dublin, Trim and Lough Ree, the town was the entrance to the Lordship of Meath. Interestingly, although Fore was situated directly on the Slighe Assail route,Footnote 82 it was Mullingar, located south of this route, that became a successful urban centre in that period, though it did not refer to any settlement tradition. Similarly, although Granard referred back to an old residence of an Uí Néill kingdom of Cairpre,Footnote 83 the location is not listed as an urban settlement until the thirteenth century.Footnote 84 Perhaps the relatively quick development of Mullingar and other towns established in new places – as opposed to pre-existing centres – should be associated with the new communication system introduced in the space of Meath, especially the town's proximity to the crossing on the Shannon river, also initially under the authority of de Lacy's subordinate.Footnote 85 We can also assume that centrally located places were situated at a comfortable distance from the frontier.Footnote 86

Formally the lord of the whole area, de Lacy treated the land subjected to him as a whole,Footnote 87 similar to the way the Teutonic Order treated Kulmerland. Hence, the settlement points of this area were treated as elements of the whole, not only as independent centres whose development depended solely on their respective owners and whose success was for their benefit only. The evidence of such a tendency is the practice of granting charters to several early developed towns in various parts of Meath at the same time and the act of fortifying only selected ones; also, the fact that de Lacy used to give his vassals land all over the Lordship of Meath indicates that he was interested in developing the entire territory. The success of pre-Norman points was possible only when they became part of a new system or a new spatial order, which, during the first decades of the conquest, underwent modifications mainly due to the extension of controlled areas and subinfeudation. However, when the position of pre-Norman settlement and nodal points did not integrate with the new space, whether at the micro (barony) or macro (lordship) level, they were marginalized or had their functions transformed.

Thus, the early stage of urbanization under Hugh de Lacy's rule and in the subsequent few years is characterized by the following features: (1) limiting the range of the well-developed municipal network to the areas from the coast to the western frontier on the Kells–Trim–Clonard line of control; (2) the differing functions of towns dependent upon their relative proximity to the frontier: walled towns were closer to frontier areas, whereas unwalled ones were in safer areas, remote from the frontier; (3) the development of towns nearby the seats of local authorities; (4) the reuse of only some pre-Norman settlements points, that is, those whose situation corresponded to the expectations and needs of the new authorities and settlers.Footnote 88

Development of urban networks

At the turn of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the Teutonic Order undertook efforts to strengthen the defence system of the eastern border of Kulmerland, along the Drwęca river. This was the purpose of the construction of castles and the foundation of three towns, Strasburg, Gollub and Neumark (see Figure 2).Footnote 89 The towns and castles of the Drwęca river (Löbau, Kauernick) were also erected by the bishop of Kulmerland and the cathedral chapter.Footnote 90 Simultaneously, the towns of Graudenz and Lessen were founded on the northern frontier.Footnote 91 Most of these cities were established at river crossings or on major land routes (Lessen, for example, on the route to Pomesania and further to Marienburg).Footnote 92 All these towns were created in places without an earlier settlement tradition. There is a noticeable connection between the creation of these towns and the development of rural settlement in their vicinity. Thus, just as in the Lordship of Meath, the foundation of most towns under the authority of the Teutonic Order was preceded by the establishment of administrative units (commanderies).

Figure 2.

Towns and communication routes in Kulmerland, from the thirteenth century to the beginning of the fourteenth century. Prepared by Radosław Golba, based on Czaja and Radzimiński (eds.), The Teutonic Order in Prussia and Livonia, map 1; Chudziak, ‘Wczesnośredniowieczny szlak’, map 1.

  1. 1 The boundaries of the state of the Teutonic Order.

  2. 2 The boundaries of the commanderies.

  3. 3 The main communication routes in the eleventh century.

  4. 4 The bishops’ territories.

It should be emphasized, however, that neither the presence of a castle, nor an administrative unit, necessarily entailed the foundation of a town. It can therefore be assumed that at the foundation of individual towns, the Teutonic Order took into account the settlement potential of the entire land, trying to avoid excessive concentrations of urban foundations within the urban network. Towns were created, on average, at a distance of 15–20 km from each other. The only disruption to the regularity of this urban network, in the area under study, resulted from the alienation of four complexes of lands subject to the territorial authority of the bishop and cathedral chapter of Kulmerland. The territorial ecclesiastical authority established its own town in each of these complexes. Within them, it was the particular interests of individual land estates that prevailed in the settlement activity of the ecclesiastical powers. For this reason, the town of Kauernick was created only 3 km from the Teutonic foundation of Neumark. In the last phase of the urbanization of Kulmerland, only small towns were created, acting as trade centres for the villages around them. Only towns founded on the second northern frontier and in the east, on the river Drwęca, were intended to strengthen the defensive potential of the country.Footnote 93

In the first half of the thirteenth century, the Anglo-Norman Lordship of Meath would come to include Westmeath, the northern part of Offaly and a part of Longford (as of 1244).Footnote 94 De Lacys and de Nangles attempted to gain control over the fringes of eastern Breifne, resulting in the construction of several mottes and castles in the territory of the modern county Cavan.Footnote 95 The external frontier was also moved west, marked by a series of mottes from the late 1190s and early 1200s.Footnote 96 However, the urbanization of new western areas was much less dynamic. Although the conquest entailed the creation of a number of castles and new lands were distributed among vassals,Footnote 97 the urbanization was negligible. The slow pace of urbanization could have two main reasons, the riskiness of urban initiatives, due to their location on the frontier, and the area's relative topographical inaccessibility (e.g. containing numerous bogs). An example of hazardous investment on the remote western frontier is Ballyloughloe, a borough six miles east of Athlone, attacked in 1206 by Maelachlainn's descendants.Footnote 98 Athlone was certainly the best-developed town in this area after 1210, but it remained in royal hands from that time.Footnote 99 Apart from the abovementioned town of Granard, held by Richard de Tuit, Linda Doran named two other boroughs in the area of modern Co. Longford – Lissardowlan and Lanesborough, both established during the reign of Walter de Lacy and granted charters in the mid-1230s.Footnote 100 The establishment of Lissardowlan may have been associated with several mottes in the vicinity,Footnote 101 whereas Lanesborough was the northernmost fording point on the Lough Ree section of the Shannon, the importance of which was already appreciated in the pre-Norman period.Footnote 102 The timing of both investments seems to coincide with ‘the beginning of an effective Anglo-Norman colonization west of the Shannon’, especially in the Roscommon part of the former kingdom of Connacht, as launched in 1235 by de Burgh.Footnote 103

In the first half of the thirteenth century, in the strongly urbanized eastern part of Meath, the urban–rural network was developed mainly by setting up rural boroughs, while the group of medium and large towns was supplemented by the foundation of Navan, Athboy and Nobber. The erection of a stone castle at Athboy filled a gap in the early frontier running from Trim to Kells, and the development of a settlement there, already referred to as a borough in the thirteenth century,Footnote 104 probably took place thanks to its convenient location at the river crossing. Athboy and Navan were both walled baronial towns,Footnote 105 whose development resulted from their advantageous locations – in the centre of the by then well-developed settlement network, near other large towns of the region, on important rivers. Nobber developed between 1215 and 1227 around the manorial centre of Morgallion;Footnote 106 the latter date indicates when the townspeople received a charter from Walter de Lacy.Footnote 107 From their location, we may infer that Nobber, like Syddan, a mid-thirteenth-century foundation, and Slane, probably founded in the fourteenth century, served the trade route leading north. In the latter period, the Lordship of Meath's centre of gravity seems to be have shifted back to the east, towards Drogheda and the coastline, where the market settlement of Mornington had appeared before 1235, later followed by Colpe in the fourteenth century.Footnote 108

Generally, the characteristic feature of the siting of urban centres in Meath, with respect to geography, was a tendency to select areas of moderate terrain and average altitude. This clearly demonstrates a will to erect settlements for the purposes of economic development and communication.Footnote 109 Despite great diversity of ownership structures in the eastern part of Meath, the entire space of this area, unlike frontier territories, gained a special character due to the regular urban network, with large- to medium-sized towns generally created at a distance of 10–12 km from each other. An element disturbing this regularity is, for example, Newtown Trim, founded before 1206 by the bishop of Meath, who sought to build a residence separate from de Lacy's Trim.Footnote 110

Conclusion

Although the creation of space was influenced by contemporary political, social and economic needs, the pre-existing symbolic potential associated with specific places – along with the topography of previous cultural formations – was used in this process. However, this potential was modified and gained new meanings. Referring again to the Bartlett thesis, one can observe that Europeanization – in the case of Ireland, referred to as AnglicizationFootnote 111 – proceeded in both regions with the urban form utilized as an element of the new socio-political structures employed to construct the settlers’ own space. Therefore, we believe that in discussing Europeanization, in addition to the transference of cultural patterns, such as the chartered town, greater account should be taken of their reception on site, as determined by local needs and conditions. A comparison of Meath and Kulmerland makes it possible to distinguish two models of how an ‘old’ spatial order was related to a ‘new’ one.

In both regions under study, the construction of towns next to castles built during the conquest is the most characteristic phenomenon. However, there was a significant difference between regions with respect to the sites chosen for these castles. In Meath, Anglo-Normans could build on previously known settlement points (monasteries, residences, churches, proto-towns). In Prussia, however, only four towns were erected in the vicinity of former castles. The fact that the Teutonic Order relied on the existing network to only a small extent was conditioned by the degradation of the importance of the pre-Teutonic settlements in the administrative and defensive system of the Piast monarchy at the turn of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries and by the destruction of most such sites due to Prussian attacks. As a result, the Teutonic Order could more freely choose optimal places for the construction of castles and foundation of towns, unlike the Anglo-Normans in Meath. It seems that the Anglo-Normans in Meath could not ignore the existence of organized settlements; they could only redefine them with borough privileges and reorientate their political space, adapting some of them to the broader needs of the new settlement network within the Lordship. In Kulmerland, early towns developed only on the outer border zones. In Anglo-Norman Meath, they developed simultaneously at the frontiers and in the safe interior areas of the country, as Anglo-Normans took advantage of opportunities to conquer, defend and colonize at the same time, as afforded by their preservation of an earlier settlement tradition.

This comparison of processes of creating new regional spaces shows different ways of using the symbolic potential of former central places. Admittedly, in Ireland, the Anglo-Norman towns retained their former names, but the new rulers did little to exploit the symbolic potential of the central places. Whereas in Prussia, where the majority of towns received new names, the potential of the principal central place (Culmine) was used to a much greater extent.

In both territories, we can observe the particularization of the functions of central cities in the later period. In Meath, this phenomenon was influenced by subinfeudation, whereas in Kulmerland, it was influenced by the creation of church structures and new territorial authorities. The factor that influenced the particularization of functions in both regions was the development of the economic potential of towns.

Footnotes

†

We are very grateful to Prof. Dr Matthew Stevens for insightful comments and his help in proofreading the text. The article is a result of research implemented thanks to the funds allocated upon the PRELUDIUM grant agreement no. UMO-2016/23/N/HS3/00660 by the National Science Centre, Poland. The shortened version of this article was presented at the ‘Space and Settlement’ conference on 22–3 March 2019 in Trinity College Dublin.

References

1 Bartlett, R., The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change 950–1350 (Princeton, 1993)Google Scholar. See also R.R. Davies who put forward the idea of the Anglicization of the British Isles as a distinctive type of the Europeanization process, The First English Empire: Power and Identities in the British Isles, 1093–1343 (Oxford, 2000), 170.

2 N. Blomkvist, ‘Culture clash or compromise? The medieval Europeanisation process of the Baltic Rim region (1100–1400 AD). Problems for an international study’, in N. Blomkvist (ed.), Culture Clash or Compromise? The Europeanisation of the Baltic Sea Area 1100–1400 AD (Västervik, 1998), 9–36; Blomkvist, N., The Discovery of the Baltic. The Reception of a Catholic World-System in the European North (AD 1075–1225) (Leiden and Boston, 2005), 30–4Google Scholar, 71–2; M. Dygo, ‘Europäisierung des Ostseeraums im Hochmittelalter. Anmerkungen am Rande neuer Untersuchungen’, in M. Ščavinskas (ed.), Kultūra – ekonomika – visuomenė: sąveika ir pokyčiai viduramžiais ir ankstyvaisiais naujaisiais laikais Baltijos rytinėje pakrantėje – Culture – Society – Economy: Interaction and Changes in Medieval and Early Modern Times on the Eastern Baltic Coast (Klaipeda, 2015), 7–36.

3 Rau, S., History, Space and Place (New York, 2019), 7–16Google Scholar; A. Classen, ‘Urban space in the Middle Ages and the early modern age: historical, mental, cultural, and social-economic investigations’, in A. Classen (ed.), Urban Space in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Age (Berlin, 2009), 27–33.

4 H.B. Clarke and A. Simms (eds.), The Comparative History of Urban Origins in Non-Roman Europe: Ireland, Wales, Denmark, Germany, Poland and Russia from the Ninth to the Thirteenth Century, vols. I–II (Oxford, 1985); P. Erlen, Europäischer Landesausbau und mittelalterliche deutsche Ostsiedlung. Ein struktureller Vergleich zwischen Südwestfrankreich, den Niederlanden und dem Ordensland Preußen (Marburg, 1992), 2–7.

5 The modern area of Meath is 2,342 km²; however, the early medieval Meath, as well as the Lordship of Meath, also included the area of modern Westmeath (1,840 km²) and some parts of Longford and Offaly counties, which doubles the size of the area; for the estimated borders of cantreds around 1200 in the Lordship of Meath area against the modern counties, see MacCotter, P., Medieval Ireland: Territorial, Political and Economic Divisions (Dublin, 2008), 258–9Google Scholar; Paradowski, J., Osadnictwo w ziemi chełmińskiej w wiekach średnich (Lwów, 1936), 51–66Google Scholar.

6 On settlement sites in pre-Norman Meath, see C. Downey, ‘Literature and learning in early medieval Meath’, in A. Crampsie and F. Ludlow (eds.), Meath: History and Society (Dublin, 2015), 101–30; E. O'Flynn, ‘Mael Sechnaill Mór, Mide and the high-kingship of Ireland’, in Crampsie and Ludlow (eds.), Meath, 131–48; Graham, B.J., ‘Urban genesis in early medieval Ireland’, Journal of Historical Geography, 13 (1987), 6–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 C. Veach, Lordship in Four Realms: The Lacy Family, 1166–1241 (Manchester and New York, 2014), 245; F.J. Byrne, ‘The trembling sod’, in A. Cosgrove (ed.), A New History of Ireland, vol. II: Medieval Ireland 1169–1534 (Oxford, 2012), 36; F.X. Martin, ‘Allies and an overlord, 1169–72’, in Cosgrove (ed.), A New History of Ireland, vol. II, 96; M. Murphy, ‘Rural settlement in Meath, 1170–1660: the documentary evidence’, in M. Deevy and D. Murphy (eds.), Places along the Way: First Findings on the M3 (Bray, 2009), 158.

8 T. Jasiński, ‘Die Rolle des Deutschen Ordens bei den Städtegründungen in Preußen im 13. Jahrhundert’, in U. Arnold (ed.), Stadt und Orden. Das Verhältnis des Deutschen Ordens zu den Städten in Livland, Preußen und im Deutschen Reich (Marburg, 1993), 94–111; M. Dygo, Studia nad początkami władztwa zakonu niemieckiego w Prusach (1226–1259) (Warsaw, 1992), 159–87.

9 The idea of comparing the processes of conquest and colonization in Ireland and the areas subjected to the German colonization has been pointed out by scholars investigating the history of the towns and urban networks in the High Middle Ages, who tend to observe particularly that each of these individual processes should be analysed as a part of a pan-European process; see e.g. A. Simms, ‘Core and periphery in medieval Europe: the Irish experience in a wider context’, in W.J. Smyth, K. Whelan and T. Jones Hughes (eds.), Common Ground: Essays on the Historical Geography of Ireland Presented to T. Jones Hughes (Cork, 1988), 22–40; B.J. Graham, ‘The High Middle Ages: c. 1100 to c. 1350’, in B.J. Graham and L.J. Proundfoot (eds.), An Historical Geography of Ireland (San Diego, 1993), 59–61; K. Hoare, ‘The evolution of urban oligarchies in Irish towns, 1350–1534’, in L. Klusáková and L. Teulières (eds.), Frontiers and Identities: Cities in Regions and Nations (Pisa, 2008), 91–2; C.A. Empey, ‘Conquest and settlement: patterns of Anglo-Norman settlement in North Munster and South Leinster’, Irish Economic and Social History, 13 (1986), 29; C.A. Empey, ‘The evolution of the demesne in the lordship of Leinster’, in J. Bradley, C. Ó. Drisceoil and M. Potterton (eds.), William Marshal and Ireland (Dublin, 2016), 74; F.H.A. Aalen, Man and the Landscape in Ireland (London, New York and San Francisco, 1978), 117; Erlen, Europäischer Landesausbau; C. Higounet, Die deutsche Ostsiedlung im Mittelalter (Berlin, 1986).

10 Veach, C., ‘Henry II's grant of Meath to Hugh de Lacy in 1172: a reassessment’, Ríocht na Mídhe, 18 (2007), 76–7Google Scholar; F.X. Martin, ‘John, lord of Ireland, 1185–1216’, in Cosgrove (ed.), A New History of Ireland, vol. II, 130; M. Dygo, ‘Początki i budowa władztwa zakonu krzyżackiego (1226–1309)’, in M. Biskup and R. Czaja (eds.), Państwo zakonu krzyżackiego w Prusach. Władza i społeczeństwo (Warsaw, 2008), 64–72.

11 W. Chudziak, Zasiedlenie strefy chełmińsko-dobrzyńskiej we wczesnym średniowieczu (VII–XI wiek) (Toruń, 1996), 191–8; D. Poliński, ‘Zagadnienie funkcjonowania grodów ziemi chełmińskiej od połowy XII do połowy XIII wieku’, Archaeologia Historica Polona, 3 (1996), 41–3.

12 M. Biskup and G. Labuda, Die Geschichte des Deutschen Ordens in Preußen. Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft, Staat, Ideologie (Osnabrück, 2000), 161–6; W.L. Urban, The Prussian Crusade (Lanham, 1980), 114–49; R. Czaja, ‘Die Formung der Städtelandschaft im Kulmerland im 13. und 14. Jahrhundert’, in D. Bulach and M. Hardt (eds.), Zentrum und Peripherie in der Germania Slavica (Stuttgart, 2008), 247–8.

13 Downey, ‘Literature’, 101; P. Byrne, ‘Mide (Meath)’, in S. Duffy (ed.), Medieval Ireland. An Encyclopedia (New York and London, 2005), 330.

14 B. Jaski, ‘Kings and kingship’, in Duffy (ed.), Medieval Ireland, 251 (map).

15 B.J. Graham, ‘Medieval settlements in County Meath’, Riocht na Midhe, 5 (1974), 40.

16 Veach, ‘Henry II's grant’, 76.

17 E. O'Byrne, ‘Mac Lochlainn, Muirchertach (c. 1110–1166)’, in Duffy (ed.), Medieval Ireland, 296; Byrne, ‘Mide’, 330.

18 M. Clinton, ‘Settlement dynamics in Co Meath: the kingdom of Lóegaire’, Peritia, 14 (2000), 375.

19 ‘as Murchad Ua Máel Sechlainn held it’, Veach, Lordship, 245; see also J. Lydon, The Lordship of Ireland in the Middle Ages (Dublin, 2003), 49; see also K. O'Conor and C. Fredengren, ‘Medieval settlement in Leitrim, c. 1169–c. 1380’, in L. Kelly and B. Scott (eds.), Leitrim: History and Society. Interdisciplinary Essays on the History of an Irish County (Dublin, 2019), 82.

20 On de Lacys’ lordship in Ireland and elsewhere, see Veach, Lordship, 21–70.

21 A. Bańkowski (ed.), Etymologiczny słownik języka polskiego PWN, vol. I (Warsaw, 2000), 128; Chudziak, W., ‘The early romanesque building from Kałdus, voivodeship of Toruń: chronology and function’, Quaestiones Medii Aevi Novae, 4 (1999), 197–209Google Scholar.

22 A.P. Smyth, ‘Tara: a place for All Ireland’, in Crampsie and Ludlow (eds.), Meath, 1.

23 On the geographical location and topographical significance of Tara, see T.W. Freeman, Ireland: A General and Regional Geography (Frome and London, 1950), 277–80.

24 Smyth, ‘Tara’, 1.

25 O'Flynn, ‘Mael’, 133; cf. Byrne, ‘The trembling sod’, 31.

26 Smyth, ‘Tara’, 7–9.

27 Byrne, ‘The trembling sod’, 21; Downey, ‘Literature’, 105; Graham, B.J., ‘Urbanization in medieval Ireland, ca. A.D. 900 to ca. A.D. 1300’, Journal of Urban History, 13 (1987), 183–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 T.W. Moody, F.X. Martin and F.Y. Byrne (eds.), A New History of Ireland, vol. IX: Maps, Genealogies, Lists (Oxford, 1984), 25.

29 Clinton, ‘Settlement’, 373.

30 M. Hennessy, Irish Historic Towns Atlas (IHTA), no. 14: Trim (Dublin, 2004), 2 (map).

31 Moody, Martin and Byrne (eds.), A New History, 23.

32 A. Simms with K. Simms, IHTA, no. 4: Kells (Dublin, 1990), 1; French, N., ‘Duleek: monastic influence on urban development’, Riocht na Midhe, 26 (2015), 36, 42–3Google Scholar; Graham, ‘Urban genesis’, 9; Bradley, J., ‘The medieval towns of County Meath’, Riocht na Midhe, 8 (1988–89), 30Google Scholar; Moody, Martin and Byrne (eds.), A New History, 25.

33 Byrne, ‘The trembling sod’, 19; D. Ó Cróinin, ‘Ireland, 400–800’, in T.W. Moody, D. Ó Cróinin, F.X. Martin, F.J. Byrne and A. Cosgrove (eds.), A New History of Ireland: Prehistoric and Early Ireland (Oxford, 2005), 206–8.

34 Cf. Hoare, ‘The evolution’, 87–9.

35 Petrus de Dusburg, Chronicon terrae Prussiae, ed. J. Wenta and S. Wyszomirski, in Pomniki Dziejowe Polski, series 2, vol. XIII (Cracow, 2007), 56; M. Löwener, Die Einrichtung von Verwaltungsstrukturen in Preußen durch den Deutschen Orden bis zur Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts (Wiesbaden, 1998), 47–70.

36 S. Jóźwiak, ‘Translokacje Chełmna a powstanie komturstw staro- i nowochełmińskiego’, in R. Czaja and J. Tandecki (eds.), Studia nad dziejami miast i mieszczaństwa w średniowieczu (Toruń, 1996), 83–94; R. Czaja, ‘Die Anfänge preussischer Hansestädte im Lichte der historischen und archäologischen Quellen: Danzig/Gdańsk, Elbing/Elbląg, Thorn/Toruń’, in F. Opll (ed.), Stadtgründung und Stadtwerdung: Beiträge von Archäologie und Stadtgeschichtsforschung (Linz, 2011), 61.

37 S. Jóźwiak, Powstanie i rozwój struktury administracyjno-terytorialnej zakonu krzyżackiego na Kujawach i w ziemi chełmińskiej w latach 1246–1343 (Toruń, 1997), 24–7.

38 ‘which is to be the capital city for other towns that will be founded in this province’, G. Kisch, Forschungen und Quellen zur Rechts- und Sozialgeschichte des Deutschordenslandes, vol. II (Sigmaringen, 1978), 114; Z.H. Nowak and Z. Kozieł, Atlas historyczny Miast Polskich, vol. I: Prusy Królewskie i Warmia, fasc. 3, Chełmno (Toruń, 1999), 2–3, map 2.

39 R. Philippi (ed.), Preußisches Urkundenbuch, vol. I, 1 (Königsberg, 1882), nos. 172 and 188; R. Czaja, ‘Die Kulmer Handfeste, das kulmische Recht und die Stadt Kulm. Ein Beitrag zur Gestaltung der Städtelandschaft im Ordensland Preussen’, in R. Czaja and C. Jahnke (eds.), Städtelandschaft im Ostseeraum im Mittelalter und in der frühen Neuzeit (Toruń, 2009), 75.

40 C.P. Woelky (ed.), Urkundenbuch des Bisthums Culm, vol. I (Leipzig, 1886), no. 18; J. Powierski, ‘O początkach miasta Chełmży i kapituły chełmińskiej (chełmżyńskiej)’, in J. Chrobaczyński, A. Jureczko and M. Śliwa (eds.), Ojczyzna bliższa i dalsza (Cracow, 1993), 101–23.

41 N. French, ‘Hugh de Lacy's legacy’, in Crampsie and Ludlow (eds.), Meath, 181.

42 Brady, J., ‘Anglo-Norman Meath’, Riocht na Midhe, 2 (1961), 44Google Scholar.

43 French, ‘Hugh’, 181, 188.

44 Ibid., 184–5, but also outside Meath, see Empey, ‘Conquest’, 12; Flanagan, M.T., ‘Strategies of lordship in pre-Norman and post-Norman Leinster’, Anglo-Norman Studies, 20 (1997), 112Google Scholar; Graham, ‘The High Middle Ages’, 67; discussion on Connacht, see Holland, P., ‘Anglo-Normans in Co. Galway: the process of colonization’, Journal of the Galway Archaeological and Historical Society, 41 (1987/88), 78Google Scholar.

45 French, ‘Hugh’, 190; Graham, ‘Urbanization’, 183–4.

46 Smyth, ‘Tara’, 9–10.

47 J. Bradley, ‘Tara’, in Duffy (ed.), Medieval Ireland, 446. Cf. Courcy's actions in bailwick of Lecale, who ‘chose the time-honoured way of neutralising the main centre of potential Irish disaffection by giving it to the church’, T.E. McNeill, Anglo-Norman Ulster. The History and Archaeology of an Irish Barony, 1177–1400 (Edinburgh, 1980), 13; see also B. Smith, Colonization and Conquest in Medieval Ireland. The English in Louth, 1170–1330 (Cambridge, 1999), 20.

48 A. Hogan, ‘The lands of Llanthony Prima and Secunda in Ireland 1172–1541: the settlement of Meath’, Riocht na Midhe, 20 (2009), 129.

49 N. McHugh, IHTA, no. 29: Drogheda (Dublin, 2019), 1; Veach, Lordship, 21; see also Davies, The First English Empire, 138, 147.

50 French, ‘Hugh’, 188; Graham, ‘Medieval settlements’, 54; see charters for Kells, Trim and Drogheda: G. Mac Niocaill (ed.), Na Buirgeisi Xii – Xv aois (Dublin, 1964), 172; Chartae, Privilegia et Immunitates, Being Transcripts of Charters and Privileges to Cities, Towns, and Other Bodies Corporate…1171–1395 (Dublin, 1829–30), 10.

51 R. Czaja, ‘Towns and urban space in the state of the Teutonic Order in Prussia’, in R. Czaja and A. Radzimiński (eds.), The Teutonic Order in Prussia and Livonia. The Political and Ecclesiastical Structures 13th–16th Century (Toruń, 2015), 81–2; Czaja, ‘Die Formung’, 247–64; Jasiński, ‘Die Rolle’, 97.

52 W. Chudziak, ‘Wczesnośredniowieczny szlak komunikacyjny z Kujaw do Prus – studium archeologiczne’, in W. Chudziak (ed.), Wczesnośredniowieczny szlak lądowy z Kujaw do Prus (XI wiek). Studia i materiały (Toruń, 1997), 24; T. Jasiński, ‘Początki Torunia na tle osadnictwa średniowiecznego’, Zapiski Historyczne, 46 (1981), 5–34; K. Mikulski, ‘Problem tzw. “Wyspy” toruńskiej w świetle źródeł podatkowych z końca XIV i pierwszej połowy XV wieku’, Zapiski historyczne, 61 (1996), 7–24; J. Tandecki and Z. Kozieł, Atlas historyczny Miast Polskich, vol. 1: Prusy Królewskie i Warmia, fasc. 1, Toruń (Toruń, 1995), map 2.

53 W. Chudziak, ‘Chełmno/Kulm: Genese und Funktion einer frühmittelalterlichen Stadt’, Acta Praehistoria et Archaeologica, 42 (2010), 19–40.

54 Dusburg, Chronicon, 59; Philippi (ed.), Preußisches Urkundenbuch, I, 1, nos. 50, 82.

55 After Polish ‘gród’, to denote fortified settlements in medieval Slavic countries; usually earth-and-wooden, located in strategically crucial sites, well defended by means of natural conditions, they fulfilled mainly residential functions; see D. Poliński, ‘Gród czy zamek? Desygnaty terminów oraz konsekwencje ich stosowania w archeologii historycznej i ochronie zabytków’, Archaeologia Historica Polona, 26 (2018), 43.

56 B. Wasik and M. Wiewióra, ‘Castra Terrae Culmensis: the results of new studies of castles in Chełmno Land (Starogród and Unisław)’, Castellologica Bohemica, 18 (2018), 191–209; P. Molewski, B. Wasik and M. Wiewióra, ‘An attempt to reconstruct selected elements of the original site topography of the Teutonic castles at Unisław and Starogród (Chełmno Land, Northern Poland) based on archaeological and cartographic data’, Bulletin of Geography. Physical Geography Series, 15 (2018), 15–26.

57 A. Kola and R. Boguwolski, Region Radzynia Chełmińskiego w pradziejach i wczesnym średniowieczu (Wąbrzeźno, 1996), 5–6; T. Torbus, Die Konventsburgen im Deutschordensstaat Preussen (Munich, 1998), 595–6; B. Wasik, Budownictwo zamkowe na ziemi chełmińskiej (od XIII do XV wieku) (Toruń, 2016), 117–18.

58 Jóźwiak, Powstanie, 90–1; M. Wiewióra and B. Wasik, ‘Zamek w Kowalewie Pomorskim: dzieje warowni w świetle wyników badań archeologiczno-architektonicznych’, Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici. Archeologia, 35 (2017), 130–3; R. Czaja, ‘W cieniu średniowiecznego zamku (1246–1534)’, in K. Mikulski (ed.), Historia Wąbrzeźna (Wąbrzeźno, 2005), 80–1.

59 As many as 18 in the territory of modern Meath County; see Murphy, ‘Rural settlement’, 158. The remaining towns were established in Westmeath; see below.

60 Graham, ‘Medieval settlements’, 54; French, ‘Hugh’, 188.

61 Murphy, ‘Rural settlement’, 157; B.J. Graham, ‘Anglo-Norman settlement in County Meath’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy: Archaeology, Culture, History, Literature, 75 (1975), 226.

62 So-called subinfeudation and encastellation; see Veach, Lordship, 247; Graham, ‘Anglo-Norman settlement’, 226; Murphy, ‘Rural settlement’, 157.

63 Noel French indicated that de Lacy retained six areas as his demesne manors: Trim, Duleek, Kells, Clonard, Killare and Fore; see French, ‘Hugh’, 184; Margaret Murphy mentioned only the ones within Co. Meath, but included also the manor of Ratoath; see Murphy, ‘Rural settlement’, 157. The areas granted to Lacy's vassals; see Brady, ‘Anglo-Norman Meath’, 39.

64 Hogan, ‘The lands’, 123–6.

65 French, ‘Duleek’, 36; Downey, ‘Literature’, 103–14; O'Flynn, ‘Mael’, 135; Graham, ‘Urban genesis’, 6 (map).

66 Murphy, ‘Rural settlement’, 157.

67 It is probable that the grant of Meath to Hugh de Lacy was supposed to create a border zone protecting Dublin; see Veach, ‘Henry II's grant’, 75.

68 Graham, ‘Medieval settlements’, 42–3.

69 Graham, ‘Anglo-Norman settlement’, 226.

70 F.X. Martin, ‘Overlord becomes feudal lord, 1172–85’, in Cosgrove (ed.), A New History of Ireland, vol. II, 105, 110, 117–18; Brady, ‘Anglo-Norman Meath’, 39.

71 J. Bradley, ‘Planned Anglo-Norman towns in Ireland’, in Clarke and Simms (eds.), The Comparative History, vol. II, 422, 437.

72 McHugh, IHTA, no. 29: Drogheda, 2.

73 On the early development of Ratoath and Skryne (before 1200), see Graham, ‘Medieval settlements’, 54; French, ‘Hugh’, 190.

74 Graham, ‘Anglo-Norman settlement’, 226.

75 Veach, Lordship, 249.

76 On this and other mottes and/or stone castles in the Lordship of Meath, see particularly French, ‘Hugh’, 185; Brady, ‘Anglo-Norman Meath’, 39–40; on Ardnurcher, Ballyloughboe and Athleague, see Veach, Lordship, 84 and 184.

77 Veach, Lordship, 84.

78 G. Martin, ‘Plantation boroughs in medieval Ireland, with a handlist of boroughs to c. 1500’, in D. Harkness and M. O'Dowd (eds.), The Town in Ireland. Historical Studies XIII. Papers Read before the Irish Conference of Historians – Belfast 30 May–2 June, 1979 (Belfast, 1981), 43.

79 French, ‘Hugh’, 185.

80 Ibid., 190; Veach, Lordship, 249; on the history of Fore, see e.g. R. Masterson, ‘The early Anglo-Norman colonisation of Fore, Co. Westmeath’, Riocht na Midhe, 8 (2002), 44–60; R. Masterson, ‘The church and the Anglo-Norman colonisation of Ireland. A case study of the Priory of Fore’, Riocht na Midhe, 11 (2000), 60.

81 J.H. Andrews with K.M. Davies, IHTA, no. 5: Mullingar (Dublin, 1992), 1–2.

82 L. Doran, ‘Communication routes through Longford and Roscommon and their associated settlements’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Section C: Archaeology, Celtic Studies, History, Linguistics, Literature, 104 (2004), 71.

83 Byrne, ‘The trembling sod’, 19.

84 L. Doran, ‘Aspects of Anglo-Norman secular settlement in Longford c. 1300’, 12, unpublished, accessed in Dec. 2019 via www.academia.edu/28289459/Aspects_of_Anglo-Norman_Secular_Settlement_in_Longford_c._1300.

85 Martin, ‘John’, 132; cf. H. Murtagh, IHTA, no. 6: Athlone (Dublin, 1994), 1.

86 G. Cunningham, The Anglo-Norman Advance into the South-West Midlands of Ireland, 1185–1221 (Roscrea, 1987), 62.

87 Cf. B. Graham, ‘Anglo-Norman colonization and the size and spread of the colonial town in medieval Ireland’, in Clarke and Simms (eds.), The Comparative History, vol. II, 359.

88 See also ibid., 361.

89 R. Czaja, ‘Dzieje miasta w średniowieczu (XIII wiek – 1466 rok)’, in J. Dygdała (ed.), Brodnica. Siedem wieków miasta (Brodnica, 1998), 82–3; Jóźwiak, Powstanie, 192–3; J. Powierski, Dobra ostrowicko-golubskie biskupstwa włocławskiego na tle stosunków polsko-krzyżackich w latach 1235–1308 (Gdańsk, 1977), 151–2; A. Radzimiński, ‘Nowe Miasto Lubawskie w średniowieczu’, in M. Wojciechowski (ed.), Nowe Miasto. Zarys dziejów (Lubawa, 1993), 27–8.

90 Czaja, ‘Towns’, 82.

91 R. Philippi (ed.), Preußisches Urkundenbuch. Politische Abteilung, vol. I, 2 (Königsberg, 1909), nos. 581 and 860; X. Froelich (ed.), Geschichte des Graudenzer Kreises, vol. I (Graudenz, 1868), 86–92, 185–6; W. Sieradzan and Z. Kozieł, Atlas historyczny Miast Polskich, vol. I: Prusy Królewskie i Warmia, fasc. 4, Grudziądz (Toruń, 1997), 3, map 2.

92 From 1309, the castle in Marienburg was the main residence of the grand masters of the Teutonic Order.

93 Czaja, ‘Die Formung’, 261–3.

94 Graham, ‘Medieval settlements’, 40; M. Potterton, ‘The archaeology and history of medieval Trim, County Meath’, vol. I, National University of Ireland in Maynooth Ph.D. thesis, 2003, 55.

95 O'Conor and Fredengren, ‘Medieval settlement in Leitrim’, 79, 82; L. Shine, ‘Frontier settlement in Cavan in the high medieval period (1169–1550)’, in J. Cherry and B. Scott (eds.), Cavan: History and Society (Dublin, 2014), 127–38.

96 Doran, ‘Aspects’, 11.

97 Ibid.; Veach, Lordship, 249–51.

98 Cunningham, The Anglo-Norman Advance, 62.

99 Murtagh, IHTA, no. 6: Athlone, 1; O'Brien, N.C.E.J., ‘Constables of Athlone Castle, Co. Roscommon’, Historical and Archaeological Society Journal, 13 (2016), 122Google Scholar.

100 Doran, ‘Aspects’, 21.

101 Doran, ‘Communication routes’, 74 (map).

102 Doran, ‘Aspects’, 13.

103 Graham, B.J., ‘Medieval settlement in County Roscommon’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Section C: Archaeology, Celtic Studies, History, Linguistics, Literature, 88 (1988), 19Google Scholar.

104 Bradley, ‘The medieval towns’, 34–6; cf. French, ‘Hugh’, 188, who claims that burgesses at Athlone were mentioned already in the late 1180s.

105 French, ‘Hugh’, 185; Graham, ‘Medieval settlements’, 43.

106 Bradley, ‘The medieval towns’, 45.

107 Dargan, P., ‘Nobber: an Anglo-Norman village’, Riocht na Midhe, 9 (1998), 27Google Scholar.

108 Bradley, ‘The medieval towns’, 44–5.

109 Graham, ‘Anglo-Norman colonization’, 361.

110 Graham, ‘Medieval settlements’, 54.

111 Davies, The First English Empire, 137–9; on the results of town formation in Ireland, see Campbell, B., ‘Benchmarking medieval economic development: England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, c. 1290’, Economic History Review, 61 (2008), 911–24Google Scholar.

Figure 0

Figure 1. Towns and communication routes in the Lordship of Meath in the thirteenth century. Prepared by Radosław Golba, based on Veach, Lordship, xv, map no. 3; Graham, ‘Anglo-Norman settlement’, 250–1; Doran, ‘Communication routes’, 59, 74; C. O Lochlainn, ‘Roadways in ancient Ireland’, in J. Ryan (ed.), Féil-sgríbhinn Eóin Mhic Néill: Essays and Studies Presented to Professor Eoin MacNeill on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, May 15th 1938 (Dublin, 1940); Potterton, ‘The archaeology’, 42.1Pre-Norman settlements of various functions (residential, market, religious, etc.).2Towns adapted from pre-Norman structures of various function.3Anglo-Norman towns founded in cruda radice.4Old routes (horizontal: Slighe Assail, vertical: Slighe Mhidhuluachra).

Figure 1

Figure 2. Towns and communication routes in Kulmerland, from the thirteenth century to the beginning of the fourteenth century. Prepared by Radosław Golba, based on Czaja and Radzimiński (eds.), The Teutonic Order in Prussia and Livonia, map 1; Chudziak, ‘Wczesnośredniowieczny szlak’, map 1.1The boundaries of the state of the Teutonic Order.2The boundaries of the commanderies.3The main communication routes in the eleventh century.4The bishops’ territories.