她认为，在独立的爱尔兰国王控制的领土上，有更多的猪被发现，它们与诺斯定居的模式没有关系。其次，与硬币相比，非硬币的维京工艺品在爱尔兰内部与维京人的活动有更好的关联。Dolley关于硬币和其他人工制品空间分布的理论是硬币使用的一个不可靠的指标。许多因素，包括当代暴力的模式和现代经济活动的分布，都偏向于发现的模式。如果假设在都柏林附近的爱尔兰领土上的硬币是由爱尔兰的雨水所掠取的，或者是爱尔兰王国的维京人遗失的，那么爱尔兰没有使用硬币的假设仍然可以得到支持。尽管在爱尔兰领土上丢失的一些猪可能是战利品的战利品，但许多人却不太了解，根据Gerriets记录的记载的战利品。[29]爱尔兰地区在其最强大的时期有更多的人，而爱尔兰人则是控制而不是维京人。Gerriets认为，对于早期的爱尔兰社会，人们对爱尔兰人如何使用硬币，或者他们是否使用硬币的争论，所知甚少。
美国匹兹堡大学论文代写:爱尔兰国王
She argues that hoards do not correlate with patterns of Norse settlement but rather more hoards are found in territories controlled by independent Irish kings. Secondly, non-coin Viking artefacts are better correlated with Viking activity in the interior of Ireland than are coins. Dolley's theory of spatial distribution of coin hoards and other artefacts is an unreliable indicator of coin use. Many factors, including the pattern of contemporary violence and the distribution of modern economic activity, bias the pattern of finds. The hypothesis that the Irish did not use coin still could be supported if the assumption was made that coins founds in Irish territories bordering Dublin arrived as plunder from rains on Dublin or were lost by Vikings resident in Irish kingdoms. Although some hoards lost in Irish territory could have been the booty of plunder, many hoards correlate poorly with instances of plunder recorded in the Annals according to Gerriets. [29] Irish regions have more hoards during their periods of greatest power when Irish natives were in control instead of Vikings. Gerriets argues that too little is known about early Irish society to support the argument regarding how the Irish might have used coin, or whether they used it at all.
