Dr. Clarke proposes a rule of thumb in which complete replacement of place names can indicate destruction of the previous population, while adapted names can indicate continuity. He calls it an informal '90% rule', while acknowledging that it is not universal. The counterargument points to northern England, where Norse names coexist with evidence of subjugation and integration, and to Viking rule over Slavic populations at Novgorod and Kiev. People could flee during fighting and return after peace, while trade created further opportunities for integration. Trading settlements could also adopt an existing name or adapt it into Norse usage. These exceptions leave a disagreement about how confidently names can identify population destruction, with outcomes varying between neighbouring settlements.
Notable Point · 2:48:13-2:52:42
Debating what Viking place names reveal about settlement
Place-name replacement is proposed as evidence of population destruction, then tested against Viking integration, trading settlements and returning inhabitants.