In my virtual compostelle Saint-Jacques, I have reached Figeac, and, as is my custom, I began to scout the sites and history of the town.
Several things struck me.
Figeac grew up around the Benedictine abbey of Saint-Sauveur founded by Pepin I of Aquitaine in 838.
According to a 19th century French historian, this abbey was built on the site of an earlier abbey. Vikings had destroyed this abbey and massacred sixty monks and refugees who had sought shelter in the church prior to 838AD. I am skeptical about this account. Its specificity gives me pause--sixty monks and refugees murdered by Vikings prior to 838--but I wonder how--if-- the Vikings could have gotten so far into the heart of France. In fact, why would they bother? Much richer pickings were more easily available. To reach the Abbey of Saint-Saveur in Figeac, the Vikings would have to travel up the Garonne (Toulouse was attacked in 844AD), then up the Lot, and then finally up the Célé. If I were in Figeac, I would try to learn more about this.
As I delved into google's resources on Viking raids in France to see what I could find from home, I came upon a surprisingly hot research controversy. An independent French historian--Joel Supery--argues that the Vikings had more extensive settlements in southwestern France than previously acknowledged. In fact, Supery points out that French scholarship has never researched the possibility of Viking settlements south of the Loire; for French historians, the Vikings settled in Normandy only.
However, Supery noted that in Normandy, place names classified as Norman have Scandinavian names as their roots--Bjorn, Asgeir, Stein--with the Latin "ville" tacked on at the end. For example, the modern Benneville can be understood as the modern French form of Bjorn-ville, the lands of Bjorn. He applied the same logic to placenames that end in "-os." These placenames are found uniquely in southwestern France (or ancient Gascony,) and they have stumped linguists; maybe the names were Basque? Maybe Indo-European? Maybe a sign of resistance to the Roman occupiers? However, Supery pointed out that because French historians and linguists ignored the possibility of Scandinavian settlements south of the Loire, they never thought to examine at the possibility that "os" might indicate a word of Scandinavian origin. In particular, Supery observed that the Scandinavian parallel to "ville" is "hus." From "hus" to "os" is an easy jump.
When Supery looked at southwestern place-names ending in "os," he found that nearly 100% took the same form as the names that were identified as Norman: a Scandinavian name name plus "os" (rather than ville.) Thus, Bayonnes derived from "Bjorn-hus", the lands of Bjorn.
The controversy arose because French academic historians did not take kindly to Supery's insight. They rejected Supery's basic argument--that the Vikings had more extensive settlements and trade routes in southwestern France than previously understood--and ridiculed his methodology and training. It was heated, but by 2018, evidently the credentialed academics were admitting that someone with the proper training should look at the possibility.
The first photo shows the abbey church of Saint-Sauveur today. Like most churches in France, this one has sustained damage--of the original 12th century monastery, only the church and the chapter house remain--but unlike most, the damage was inflicted during the 16th century Wars of Religion rather than during the 19th century, post-revolution.
The second image is a map of Vikings activity from wikipedia. Figeac is nowhere on that map, but neither is Toulouse so the map is too general. Supery's argument is that the Vikings had settlements in southern France that would trade with Vikings in southern Italy, and looking at the map, you can see his point.