1. This pdf of your paper in Landscapes 121.1 belongs to the
publishers Oxbow Books and it is their copyright.
As author you are licenced to make up to 50 offprints from it,
but beyond that you may not publish it on the World Wide
Web until three years from publication (November 2014),
unless the site is a limited access intranet (password protected).
If you have queries about this please contact the editorial
department at Oxbow Books (editorial@oxbowbooks.com).
4. Contents
Contributors v
Editorial vii
C. Henry Warren: A Contented Countryman? 1
Geoff Warren
Polders and Politics: New Agricultural Landscapes in Italian
and Dutch Wetlands, 1920s to 1950s 24
Hans Renes and Stefano Piastra
Vikings in the Prehistoric Landscape: Studies on Mainland Orkney 42
Alison Leonard
Palaeolithic Geoarchaeology: Palaeolandscape Modelling
and Scales of Investigation 69
Martin R. Bates and Francis F. Wenban-Smith
Reviews
Zoran Roca, Paul Claval and John Agnew (eds), Landscapes, Identities
and Development 97
Graham Fairclough
David C. Cowley (ed.), Remote Sensing for Archaeological
Heritage Management 98
Keith Challis
Jan Klapste and Petr Sommer (eds), Medieval Rural Settlement
in Marginal Landscapes 100
Angus J. L. Winchester
Terry O’Connor and Naomi Sykes (eds), Extinctions and Invasions:
A Social History of British Fauna 101
Polydora Baker
Thomas Faulkener, Helen Berry and Jeremy Gregory (eds), Northern
Landscapes: Representations and Realities of Northern England 103
Caron Newman
5.
David Short (ed.), An Historical Atlas of Hertfordshire 104
Christopher Taylor
Timothy Mowl and Marion Mako, Historic Gardens of Somerset 105
Bob Croft
Martin Carver, The Birth of a Borough – An Archaeological Study 106
of Anglo-Saxon Stafford
Nigel Baker
Jane Laughton, Life in a Medieval City: Chester 1275–1520 108
Nigel Baker
7. Vikings in the Prehistoric Landscape 43
not only with a native population, but also with a diverse built environment
that promoted the endurance of Orkney’s ancient past, to which the Norse had
no ancestral claim (Figure 1). This paper explores the concessions made and
strategies enacted which enabled the Norse settlers to develop their presence
on Orkney such that their legacy remains to this day.
Orkney has been the setting for a great deal of innovative research on the
Viking Age (e.g. research on diet (Milner et al. 2007); bone combs (Ashby
2009); steatite (Forster 2004); and parish formation (Gibbon 2008)), but
Norse settlement on the islands has on the whole enjoyed less attention from
a landscape perspective, in comparison to other areas of the Viking world (e.g.
Wilson 2008; Maher 2009; Halstad-McGuire 2010). This is changing however
(e.g. Allen 1995 and especially Griffiths 2006; 2011a; 2011b), and the number
of general landscape studies of Orkney is also steadily growing, e.g. Wickham-
Jones 2001; Downes 2005). Increasingly, too, questions about Norse settlement
and identity in Scotland are being addressed through environmental research
and other analyses (e.g. Simpson 1997; Barrett and Richards 2004).
Orkney is characterised by iconic sites, notably Buckquoy and other sites
in Birsay Bay, which for many years have been at the forefront of the debate
regarding native-Norse interaction (see Bäcklund 2001). The data from well-
known sites such as Buckquoy inevitably forms a key component of the
following discussions. An effort is made, however, to address such sites within
their wider environment, and their interpretation is informed by additional
sources including place-names and traditional folklore.
Landscape, memory and the past in the past
Place is an important factor in the creation of memory and identity; in
Scandinavia topography and the location of ancient monuments was especially
important to kings, earls, aristocrats and even lesser landholders (e.g. Thäte
2007). Whilst detailed research has been carried out on Anglo-Saxon and
Scandinavian monument reuse and the role of place (e.g. Bradley 1987; Semple
1998; Lucy 2002; Williams and Sayer 2009 on Anglo-Saxons; Hållans Stenholm
2006; Pedersen 2006; Thäte 2007 on Scandinavians), less attention has been
paid to Scandinavian interaction with the British landscape and its monuments
(although see Thäte 2007). This paper will approach the topic through
overlapping theories of memory and inhabitation of past landscapes.
Studies of ‘the past in the past’ are a means of addressing chronological
diversity in a landscape from the viewpoint of a specific group of people. This
perspective understands that people are subject to various influences of natural
and ancient features present in their contemporary landscape (e.g. Bradley 2002).
It is appropriate to apply this notion from the Norse perspective to monument-
laden Orkney, where it is possible to compare immigrant (and indigenous)
attitudes to landscape with ‘homeland’ practice, where Scandinavian attitudes
to their monumental landscapes are better understood (e.g. Thäte 2007).
Memory theory is often applied to the interpretation of mortuary practice (e.g.
10. 46 Alison Leonard
so that many Norse settlements are either ploughed-out or hidden beneath
current farmhouses and villages. There are never the less several opportunities
for studying Norse Orkney from a landscape perspective (e.g. Allen 1995;
Griffiths 2011b).
One effective way of accessing patterns in settlement and activity comes
from adjusting the scales of analysis (e.g. Williams et al. 2010). Ideally, the study
region would be wider, comprising Orkney and Caithness, but it was necessary
to limit this project to a single island. Mainland Orkney was selected as the
regional landscape upon which to map the Norse archaeological record. GIS
mapping enabled a visual synthesis of Norse occupation against the backdrop of
prehistoric monuments and the natural landscape. It highlighted local densities
of Norse activity and intriguing relationships with other features. Two clusters in
particular presented contrasting examples within naturally coherent landscapes
of Norse interaction with pre-Norse archaeology: the area around Birsay Bay
and that surrounding the Ness of Brodgar (Figure 2). These local regions,
based on an existing analysis of Orcadian ridgelines (OIC 2010), were therefore
selected as case studies for analysis on a larger scale, and it is these results that
are presented here.
To fully explore the Norse legacy in these regions, datasets were created that
included portable artefacts and, following critical reassessment, antiquarian
research. Other sites in the Viking homeland and diaspora are referred to as
appropriate, and toponymy was introduced as a means of balancing the probable
extent of Norse settlement against coastally-biased and limited archaeological
evidence. Oral traditions and superstitions recorded by Orcadian folklorists, and
Scandinavian historical documents such as Historia Norwegie and Orkneyinga
Saga were of value for interpreting the archaeological record. Complementary
lines of evidence such as these provide a holistic picture of Norse activity within
the select landscapes, and reveals several diverse settlement strategies.
Place-name studies are beginning to enjoy more creative attention in the
field of archaeology (see, for example, Semple 2007; Brink 2008). They provide
insight into past uses and histories of an area. Topographic names in particular
help shed light on past perceptions of landscape, and are attracting increasing
academic interest in the Northern Isles (Gammeltoft and Jørgensen 2006; Sandnes
2010b). The present study uses Hugh Marwick’s work on the farm-names of
Orkney (1952; 1970) as well as more recent research (Nicolaisen 1976; Thomson
1995; Sandnes 2006). Marwick’s analysis relied on the late fifteenth- and early
sixteenth-century charters, treating the earliest documented place-names as
the strongest candidates for Viking-Age origins (Marwick 1952). In the present
paper, emphasis is placed less on chronology than on ‘naming’ as both device
and product of colonisation.
Natural topography was also an important part of the research (see Leonard
2010), but is not treated fully here. Environmental data was taken as a more
informative means of analysing natural determinants of site location than simple
topographic analysis (e.g. Simpson 1997; Griffiths 2011a on Marwick).
11. Vikings in the Prehistoric Landscape 47
table 1. Birsay Bay case
study region: associations
of Norse sites with earlier
sites.
Local landscapes: Birsay
The Birsay case study region is based around the Loch of Boardhouse and
the north-western coast of Mainland Orkney. This area seems a natural focus
for settlement, where some of the most-studied Norse sites in Orkney lie in
close proximity to lesser-known sites of Norse activity, such as Oxtro broch,
with its Viking-Age pin, the kirk and probable longhouse at Kirbuster,
‘-skaill’ settlements and other place names. The sites analysed within this study
region are shown in Table 1 and Figure 3, and a brief summary of sites of key
importance is presented here (for detailed inventory, dates and sources refer to
Leonard 2010).
The Birsay study region is just over seven kilometres at its widest point.
All sites within the region would have been mutually accessible by foot or by
water. Birsay Bay inevitably contributes to the majority of the archaeological
data presented here, but place-names also provide valuable insight into Birsay’s
non-coastal farms of Norse origin.
Birsay Bay, Marwick and the archaeological record
The Brough of Birsay (Hunter 1986), Buckquoy (Ritchie 1977), Saevar Howe
(Hedges 1983), Red Craig, Brough Road, and Beachview (Morris 1989) reveal
centuries of Scandinavian occupation within a diverse coastal community set
along Birsay Bay (Figure 4). Viking-Age halls (at Beachview and Saevar Howe),
longhouses (Brough of Birsay) and other dwellings (Buckquoy) as well as
individual burials (Buckquoy) and cemeteries (Brough Road and Saevar Howe)
attest to a Norse presence from the early stages of Viking settlement into the
Medieval period.2
Several site excavations revealed Norse settlement mounds – sometimes called
13. Vikings in the Prehistoric Landscape 49
‘farm mounds’ – with multiple phases of earlier occupation
developed over centuries of continued rebuilding and
infilling with midden in a single location. At Beachview
and Buckquoy, for example, primary phases of occupation
date to at least as early as the Bronze Age (Morris 1989, 102,
259). This appears to have been a common practice along
coastal Orkney as for example at Pool, Sanday (Hunter et
al. 2007) and the Bay of Skaill, Sandwick (Griffiths and
Harrison 2011). In addition to the creation of mounds
through reuse, pre-Norse structures were sometimes directly
incorporated into the fabric of Viking-Age buildings, as on
the Brough of Birsay (Hunter 1986). Norse-period burials
and cemeteries at Birsay Bay also overlay Late-Iron-Age
burials (Brough Road) or earlier Viking-Age or Late-Norse
structures (Buckquoy, Saevar Howe).
The majority of Norse reuse along Birsay Bay is associated
with some form of presence in the Late Iron Age. This
is signified through type-dated artefacts such as combs,
figure-of-eight dwellings, and sculpture stones (Figure 5).
RadiocarbondateshavealsoevidencedseveralcasesofViking-
Age burials directly overlaying Late Iron Age inhumations
at the Brough Road sites (Ashmore 2003). Norse activity is
frequently determined typologically through distinctive construction types (i.e.
longhouses), artefacts and coins. While the artefactual and architectural evidence
is derived from Scandinavian precedents, several of the Orcadian sites, often due
to the incorporation of midden as a filling material, appear to combine seemingly
new practice with the traditional. For example, the Viking-Age inhumation at
Buckquoy was inserted into a midden over the disused structure (Ritchie 1977,
190). Midden-insertion is also apparent in several of the Brough Road burials
(Graham-Campbell and Batey 1998, 58).
Iron Age settlements and burials appear to have actively informed Norse site
selection in Birsay Bay, as is noted elsewhere in Scotland and often attributed
to Norse taxation strategy (e.g. Bäcklund 2001, 36). Alternative explanations for
this phenomenon are explored in the final discussion.
Taken as a whole, the excavated sites at Birsay Bay reveal a coastal community
that established long sequences of continuity at fixed locations. This time-depth
was often linked to previous Iron-Age occupation but was strongly reinforced
throughout the Norse period. At Saevar Howe, for example, three hall-houses
dating to the Viking-Age overlay one another (Hedges 1983). In this respect,
physical narratives of Norse occupation were constructed along Birsay Bay,
probably complemented by oral histories as the final discussion will address.
Birsay Bay clearly showcases a thriving Norse community, but is not unique
in creating deep sequences of occupation through site reuse. Marwick, to the
south of Birsay Bay, hosted an apparently smaller but nonetheless important
settlement (Figure 6). Recent geophysical survey and excavation by the Birsay-
figure 5. Replica Pictish
symbol stone, smaller
than the original found
on the Brough of Birsay.
Late Iron Age.
Photo: author
14. 50 Alison Leonard
Skaill Landscape Archaeology Project suggest that a settlement mound had been
formed by phases of Norse occupation and midden infill (Griffiths 2011a). A
probable chapel and burial ground are located nearby. Marwick is approximately
five kilometres from Birsay Bay, and though only a short walk around Marwick
Head, the precipice ensures no inter-visibility between the two. This natural
separation may have encouraged the development of an independent regional
centre at Marwick, despite its proximity to Birsay Bay. Less physical examples
of the persistence of place are found further inland in Birsay, primarily through
place-names.
Kirbuster and the toponymic record
The sixteenth-century farmhouse, and church from which it draws its name, at
Kirbuster (ON kirkja and bólsta∂r, ‘kirk (church) – farm settlement’) mirrors a
traditional Scandinavian-style longhouse. The earliest foundations were probably
constructed in the Viking Age (Figure 7). At Quoygrew, Westray (Barrett 2005a
and b) and Quoys, St. Andrew and Deerness (RCAHMS) longhouse relics are
preserved in the layouts of early modern farmhouses. It is likely that Kirbuster
underwent centuries of reuse and reincorporation as did Quoygrew, with its
multiple phases of occupation spanning the tenth to nineteenth centuries
(Barrett 2005a, 336–41). The accompanying sixteenth-century church with its
probable Viking-Age foundations overlies a burnt mound which, if confirmed
as Bronze-Age, would make Kirbuster church the only example of Norse reuse
of an earlier prehistoric site without an Iron Age interface.
Few other indications of settlement from either the Norse or pre-Norse
periods are found immediately surrounding the kirk and farm. On the map,
Kirbuster appears distant from the hubs of activity along the coast. It would
not have suffered from isolation however, the loch providing good visibility and
ease of transport to the coast and perhaps further inland along loch-to-loch
waterways (see Crawford 2006).
Both the structure of Kirbuster and its name are indications of a Norse
foundation. Settlement names preserving Old Norse origins are often considered
sufficient on their own to indicate Scandinavian settlement. In Birsay, names
ending in -skaill, indicating a Viking-Age hall-house (from ON skáli, meaning
‘house’ or ‘hall’) are especially notable. Situated at the base of Marwick Head,
the original Langskaill (‘long-hall’) property was once so extensive that it was
later divided into two primary, and several smaller properties, hence the current
‘Netherskaill’ and ‘Langskaill’ (Marwick 1970, 74). Another Langskaill is also
recorded along the Burn of Boardhouse leading from Birsay Bay to the Loch.
Several farms in the Birsay landscape were named for associated landmarks
of prehistoric origin. For example, two -quoy place-names in Marwick, Mid
Comloquoy and Cumlaquoy, indicate the presence of a mound (ON kuml,
‘mound’ and kví, ‘enclosure’), while Stanger (ON steins-gar∂r = ‘stone-farm’)
was named for the nearby ‘Wheebin’ or ‘Quoybune’ standing stone overlooking
15. Vikings in the Prehistoric Landscape 51
the Loch of Boardhouse (Figure 8). Apart from these examples, however, little
evidence suggests that the Norse settlers interacted with any other prehistoric
mounds or standing stones in the Birsay region.
Beyond Stanger, towards Birsay Bay, Oxtro broch overlooks the Loch of
Boardhouse to the east and the Brough of Birsay to the northwest. The broch
was probably named for its shape, after the ON haugr, ‘mound’ (Marwick 1970,
35). The broch settlement had origins in the Middle Iron Age, but was also
used in the Late Iron Age as a cist cemetery and possibly also for settlement.
A Viking-Age ringed-pin indicates at least a limited degree of interaction with
the broch in the early Norse period. It has been suggested that the pin and
a possible Viking-Age brooch may even have accompanied a burial prior to
antiquarian excavation (Graham-Campbell 1984, appendix).
Birsay: landscapes of continuity
Several place-names in the study region make reference to standing stones and
ancient mounds. Although Kirbuster kirk may be situated over a Bronze-Age
burnt mound, there are no other examples of direct association with sites
pre-dating the Iron Age. Birsay indicates that Late-Iron-Age settlements often
informed Norse construction. Once sites were founded, long phases of occupation
seemed to follow, adhering strictly to previous land use. Burials followed similar
practice and were often placed over earlier structures or graves.
Local landscapes: Brodgar
Brodgar does not enjoy the same number of well known Norse sites as Birsay,
nor Birsay’s degree of inter-relatedness between sites; archaeological evidence
for Norse settlement is tentative around Brodgar, and only one burial is known
in the region (see Table 2 and Figure 9). Several key components of the Norse
archaeological record in Scotland are nevertheless situated within the study area,
and these can be taken to represent physical acts of interaction with some of
Orkney’s most prominent Neolithic monuments; they therefore reward analysis
in light of attitudes to Orkney’s longer past in the Norse period.
The Brodgar study region is based around a ‘bowl’ formed by the surrounding
hills (Figure 10). This natural depression around the lochs of Stenness and Harray
provided inspiration for the establishment of many prehistoric monuments
(Bradley 1987; Garrow et al. 2005).
As opposed to Birsay, much of the data from Brodgar is based on individual
responses to the landscape, rather than communal actions. These include hoard
deposits and solitary runic inscriptions. The Maes Howe inscriptions, farm-
names, and the Stenness burial are alone reminders that groups lived in and
travelled through the region.
16. figure 6. Marwick is
a small bay sheltered
by a large promontory
to the north, dividing
the region from Birsay
Bay which lies beyond
Marwick Head. The
Norse settlement was
found toward the south
end of the bay, while
Langskaill lay inshore
toward the foot of the
promontory.
Photo: author
figure 8. The ‘Wheebin’
standing stone. The
nearby farm, Stanger,
was named from this
Neolithic monument.
Photo: author
figure 7. Kirburster
farmhouse today.
It is well-sheltered,
overlooking the Loch of
Boardhouse to the west
and is adjacent to a burn.
Its origins are probably
similar to the farmhouse
at Quoygrew, Westray,
which evolved around
Viking-Age and Late-
Norse structural origins
(Barrett 2005a, 336–41).
Photo: author
18. 54 Alison Leonard
Runic inscriptions and hoard depositions
Several runic inscriptions have been identified within the Brodgar landscape.
The non-portable inscription on the Ring of Brodgar standing stone is the most
legible.3
A small cross is incised below the Ring of Brodgar twig-runes, which
have been loosely translated as a personal name (Ritchie and Ritchie 1995,
40). Even if little more than self-commemorating graffiti, such inscriptions
nevertheless attest to Norse visitors to the Ness of Brodgar (Figure 11).
The two ring hoards are another example of interactions with the Brodgar
landscape. The ‘Stenness’ hoard was possibly a ritual deposition placed in the
marshy land on the Loch-shore; its exact provenance is unknown (Graham-
Campbell 1995, 61). The Salt Knowe hoard of nine silver arm-rings was very
probably deposited atop the great mound northwest of the Ring of Brodgar
(Wallace 1700; Graham-Campbell 1995). This latter recalls the Skaill hoard,
Sandwick, which was also found in a mound and dates to a similar time period
in the tenth-century (James 1999, 771).
By entrusting monuments with the safekeeping of their actions, visitors to this
landscape thus made physical statements of confidence in the future survival of
the monuments, and demonstrate an awareness of their great age. This ancient
‘sacred’ landscape continued to exude a hallowed air sufficient to inspire secret
and perhaps ritualised actions, such as hoard deposition. These interactions also
convey an intimacy with Orkney’s prehistoric features that is not evidenced in
Norse Birsay (Figure 12).
Notwithstanding extensive geophysical survey of the area (e.g. Card 2005),
there is a paucity of evidence for settlement on the Ness of Brodgar which
points strongly to limited Norse occupation. Nevertheless, place-names such
as Brodgar (‘bridge-gardr’: enclosure/farm near the bridge (Sandnes 2010a))
denote a degree of permanent occupation. The point of access to the Ness of
Brodgar, determined by the bridge, was probably as important a route through
the landscape then, as it is today (Figure 13). The bridge might have been actively
used to control access to the Ness, thus enhancing the importance of the feature.
figure 10. Stenness is an
example of the imposing
monuments found within
the ‘Heart of Neolithic
Orkney’ that includes
the Ness of Brodgar and
Maes Howe. The region
is surrounded by hills on
all sides, enclosing the
impressive landscape.
Photo: author
19. Vikings in the Prehistoric Landscape 55
figure 11. The Ring of Brodgar inscription
would have involved some deliberation as to
which, of approximately sixty stones, was ideal
for a permanent signature.
Photo: author
figure 12. Salt Knowe is an impressive
prehistoric mound to the west of the Ring of
Brodgar. A hoard buried here suggests that
theft was not feared – perhaps due to the risk
associated with disturbing a mound.
Photo: author
20. 56 Alison Leonard
More extensive settlement is found south of the lochs, farther from the heart of
the monumental landscape, as attested by the farm-names Tormiston, Unstan
and Clouston, possibly personal names with a -sta∂ir (‘farm’) suffix (Crawford
2006, 33, after Marwick 1952, 235).
Maes Howe: ‘Mound in a Meadow’
The prominent Neolithic chambered cairn of Maes Howe (Figure 14) is found
on the south side of the Bridge of Brodgar, and stands in proximity to the
Barnhouse stone, the Watchstone and its missing twin, the Stones of Stenness,
and the Odin Stone (now destroyed). Although the Odin Stone is popularly
portrayed as a relic of the ‘pagan’ Vikings (Robertson 1991, 309), its name is
unlikely to originate in the Viking Age, although the stone itself, like others
surrounding it, was Neolithic in origin. This does not mean that it was not
an important monument in the Viking Age. Firth suggests that oath-taking
traditions associated with the stone could have derived from before the
Norse settlement but that the newcomers maintained the practices (1986, 157;
figure 13. The
‘Watchstone’ guards
the bridge to the Ness
of Brodgar and the
monuments lying
beyond it. A twin
stone once stood to its
right. Legends about
the standing stones on
Orkney envision them as
giants turned to stone.
Photo: author
21. Vikings in the Prehistoric Landscape 57
Robertson 1991, 309–20) and he is not the first to suggest that it might in fact
have marked a thing site (1986, 157). Others have suggested that the nearby Maes
Howe was also used for meetings (Graham-Campbell and Batey 1998, 62).
This landscape was rife with possibilities for reuse in the Norse period, yet
little evidence remains. There are many runic inscriptions on the walls of the
inner chamber of Maes Howe, but they are disappointingly unenlightening on
this point (see Barnes 1994). Radiocarbon dates suggest that part of the outer
bank was rebuilt in the ninth or tenth centuries (Renfrew 1979, 37), but there
is little to indicate the reasons behind this. Mention of the mound ‘Orkahaugr’
in Orkneyinga Saga, and inscriptions referencing the crusades indicate that by
the twelfth century at least, the mound was a familiar feature to travellers as
well as to Norse Orcadians (Hermann and Edwards 1978; Jesch 2005, 15). The
inscriptions indicate that at least some Norse conquered any fear of the ancient
burial mound and congregated within the chambered tomb. The mound would
undoubtedly have stood as an important landmark if not a meeting-place in the
Norse period.
The eventual name-change that Maes Howe underwent, from Orkahaugr
(‘mound of the Orcs (native Orcadians)’) to its present name probably meaning
‘mound in a meadow’ (Sandnes 2010a), could be a further indication of its
effective integration into the contemporary Norse landscape. Disassociating it
from its previous inhabitants and original use as a burial chamber, and linking
it it instead to its natural setting, perhaps made it less intimidating to the new
local community.
House burial near the Heart of Neolithic Orkney
The house burial at Upper Twatt, south of Stenness, situated close to a burn on
open land toward the foot of the southern hills surrounding the study region
was excavated in the early twentieth century (Figure 15). The precise location of
the site is now unknown, but it was accompanied by a bronze ringed-pin that
dates the burial firmly to the Viking Age (Fanning 1983).
The house building, on the other hand, raises questions because we have
no record of its shape or method of construction: its state of disrepair did not
present any features of ‘special interest’ to the excavator (Charleson 1905, 94–5).
The inhumation was discovered ‘immediately above the very dilapidated remains’
of a structure (Charleson 1905, 94–5, my italics), which therefore suggests a date
no earlier than the Late Iron Age for its construction. Whether the structure has
Late Iron Age or Viking Age origins, however, Charleson’s description indicates
intentional reuse in the form of house burial, similar to that at Buckquoy; it is
the only non-coastal instance of house burial so far known on Mainland Orkney.
The burial and structure are located conspicuously on the fringe of the ‘sacred
landscape’ that dominates the Ness and surrounding area, although the site enjoys
views to the lochs and monuments.
22. 58 Alison Leonard
Brodgar: landscape of interaction
Although the archaeological record for Norse occupation is scant in Brodgar,
several acts involving selection and deliberation in the Norse period are
evidenced in this study region. Once again, place-names attest to more
widespread settlement than archaeology reveals, including a farm across the
bridge on the Ness of Brodgar. Apart from Maes Howe, revisited by groups or
individuals, the actions taking place in the heart of the monumental landscape
were seemingly independent of previous settlement. The house burial outlying
the area of Neolithic activity might reflect reservations regarding occupation
and burial within such an ancient setting.
Landscape, memory, and the importance of place in Norse Orkney:
discussion
Maintaining a personal narrative in Orcadian society was a critical part of
remembering and understanding identity: one’s personal narrative is tied to
many others’, creating a network of shared and overlapping memories (Devlin
2007, 6–7). In the eighteenth century, some Orcadians and Shetlanders claimed
to trace their inheritance back to over twenty-four generations, and the relic of
an odal system of inheritance ‘made it necessary to keep an oral pedigree very
strictly’ (Firth 1986, 137, but following a suggestion by the Orcadian folklorist
and novelist J. Storer Clouston). Intrinsic to this mnemonic exercise is the
importance bestowed on place.
One might expect that new settlers in previously occupied land would need
to make concessions in their practices and beliefs in order to accommodate the
new situations they faced (see, for example, Redmond 2007; Halstad-McGuire
2010). Some concessions were indeed made in Orkney, but it was not to the
extent seen in England, for example, where a noticeable ‘Anglo-Scandinavian’
culture developed (e.g. Richards 2002).
The results of this project have shown that a strong connection with ‘homeland’
practice was maintained on Orkney, manifested in many ways: the deliberate
figure 14. Maes Howe
lies at the edge of the
‘Heart of Neolithic
Orkney’. There is good
intervisibility with the
Stones of Stenness and
Ness of Brodgar.
Photo: author
23. Vikings in the Prehistoric Landscape 59
construction of houses in the Scandinavian style over the course of generations,
the creation of burial mounds over disused structures, the long-term maintenance
of a shared language, the coining of place-names, and through portable material
culture such as bronze ringed-pins (Fanning 1983), and Scandinavian type combs
(Ashby 2009). On the other hand, there are indications that certain practices did
not directly emulate Scandinavian traditions, but rather were adaptive responses
to the local environment. Some were strategic acts of manipulation to establish
claims to land; others were simply practical reactions to the foreign landscape.
In what way can the archaeological and toponymic record inform us about
Norse creation of memory as a settlement strategy? The various examples of
reuse, naming, and interaction with the prehistoric landscape presented here
are key to this question. The following discussion is organised to address three
different patterns of Norse interaction with the Orcadian landscape that would
have contributed to the shaping of memory: burial reuse, structural reuse and
the less physical means by which the landscape was incorporated into Norse
contemporary society. These patterns will be interpreted in the light of local beliefs,
Norse traditions, and examples of similar practice within the Viking world.
Burials and reuse
In ninth- and tenth-century Scandinavia ancient barrows were often reused
for burials. Thäte has argued that this selection of monuments for reuse was
deliberate and conveyed a keen sense of the past (2007). In Norway especially,
Viking period monument reuse was limited to Early and Middle Iron Age
features; in Denmark, it was Neolithic and Bronze Age burial mounds, both
avoided in Norway, that were actively reused in the Viking Age (Pedersen 2006;
Thäte 2007, 276). It is argued that these burials were linked to legitimating land
ownership, proclaiming ancestry, and status (Thäte 2007, 277).
Burial mound practices in the Viking Age were generally diverse, yet the
variations involving midden mounds on Orkney, as exemplified at Buckquoy
and the Brough Road burials appear exceptional (Thäte 2007). Mainland Orkney
figure 15. The Ness of
Brodgar looking south
toward Stenness. The
burial at Upper Twatt
was located toward the
foot of the hills to the
south of the study region.
Photo: author
24. 60 Alison Leonard
has not as yet yielded any grand Viking-mound burials in the style of the Isle of
Man or Scandinavia (Wilson 2008 and Price 2010) and even the few known boat
burials were not capped with a cairn or mound as in Norway (Halstad-McGuire
2010, 176). Mound burials occur instead by incorporating recognisable elements
of Scandinavian practice (in that they were accompanied by artefacts) while also
responding to Orkney’s earlier constructed features and natural environment
(through insertion into disused structures and refuse).
Midden burials are not uncommon in other cultures worldwide (e.g. Laughlin
and Aignre 1974; Simon 1987), but in the Viking Age they provide a seemingly
stark contrast to the great layers of turves of which burial mounds such as that
at Ballateare, Man were composed (Wilson 2008, 32). There was certainly a
practical aspect involved in using middens. Mainland Orkney’s midden burials
are all located along the coast (Figure 16). Although Thäte has suggested that
the refuse could denote wealth based on consumption (2007, 124), the middens
were probably simply the most convenient material along the shore, and their
use was rather a natural response to the immediate environment.
Natural settings are often sought to explain burial locations (e.g. Bradley
2000; Harrison 2007; Thäte 2009). With limited evidence of Norse burials on
Orkney, a comparative topographic study would only reveal what we know to be
the case: that most of them are located on the coast. But when we examine their
immediate context, these burials do share similarities which suggest a desire for
prominence and display. The Saevar Howe cemetery, the Buckquoy inhumation
and probably the Bay of Skaill burial (Graham-Campbell and Batey 1998, 59), all
topped extensive coastal settlement mounds. These may have been visible from
the sea, and were certainly impressive within their surrounding settings.
In Orkney, however, burial mounds were not simply created for the sake of
prominence, as appears to be the case elsewhere (e.g. Wilson 2008, 38). The
agenda behind the creation of midden settlement-burial mounds was distinctly
related to the presence of earlier activity. The Brough Road burials incorporate
Late-Iron-Age cairns while the other burial examples, including that at Upper
Twatt (Graham-Campbell and Batey 1998, 127–8), overlay older structures. In
Southern Scandinavia, houses were sometimes destroyed or burnt down prior
to the erection of an overlying barrow (Thäte 2007, 127). These were deliberate
decisions, linking the deceased to a longer past and proclaiming rights to the
location. While the Buckquoy inhumation may seem unceremonious at first,
it effectively capped a mound created by a sequence of activities that spanned
centuries, making a strong statement of legitimation.
Insertion of burials into older settlement or burial mounds was not about
‘common economy’ as Ritchie and others have suggested (1977, 190; Pedersen
2006, 350–1). It was about founding a place as a reminder to others, and
creating mnemonic landmarks for family or affiliates. The prominence of these
mounds would have implicitly advertised the time-depth involved in each site.
As Pedersen explains, an essentially oral society would have relied on visual
markers to communicate and even document statements about a person, family or
25. Vikings in the Prehistoric Landscape 61
community. Furthermore, the creation of a memory based on a physical place or
monument served as a ‘record’ to be transmitted to others (Pedersen 2006, 351).
Structural reuse
In a similar way, structural reuse by Norse settlers in Orkney was an adaptation
that integrated older sites into the colonised landscape, and formalised bonds
with an otherwise foreign land. The reuse of older houses for the construction
of new ones had not been common in Scandinavia, although new halls often
overlaid older versions (Hållans Stenholm 2006, 343–4; Thäte 2007, 125). The
situation in Orkney therefore reflects a response to a previously occupied
landscape, as seen across the whole of Viking-Age Atlantic Scotland (Graham-
Campbell and Batey 1998, 80). Such reinterpretation of rights to land is likely to
have occurred across many levels of society; even the taxation system eventually
established in Orkney and Shetland did not follow Scandinavian precedent, but
rather reflected the earls’ independence (Crawford 2006, 42).
Thäte suggests that overlaying houses on older ones might have been an efficient
way of dispossessing the local inhabitants in Orkney (2007, 129). It is also possible
that overtly referencing such a distant past would have increased prestige, despite
the fact that its owners might have had no real claim to that heritage (Figure 17).
Destruction or collapse of the underlying features characterises most instances
of structure reuse in the study regions. This might indicate ritualised attitudes
to construction, again evidencing the reinvention of Scandinavian traditions in
response to a new land.
Building reuse in Orkney conveyed continuity at a specific place, regardless
of whether it also involved dispossession. Challenges regarding ownership and
inheritance were probably more likely to come from fellow settlers than indigenous
Orcadians. In this way ‘respect’ for native patterns of land-use as on the Brough
of Birsay, and linking possession through deep sequences of reuse as at Buckquoy,
were both tools for reinforcing legitimacy to land claims.
The maintenance of ties to a specific place through construction was not simply
a preliminary settlement strategy, but was an established practice throughout
the period of Norse occupation into the late medieval period. Structures at
Beachview and Saevar Howe were rebuilt generation upon generation. Similarly,
the newly-excavated longhouse at Skaill Bay might overlie earlier Viking-Age
structures, if not Late-Iron-Age (Griffiths and Harrison 2011). The same sense
of continuity occurs where foundations and walls are reused and rebuilt over
centuries, as at Quoygrew, probably Kirbuster, and Quoys. Further evidence for
the longevity of reverence for a place exists in the persistence of farm-names,
passed down along with the location itself. Place-names serve as an indicator of
physical location, but can also act as chronological landmarks in one’s personal
and ancestral narrative.
As with the construction of house-burials and mounds, the erection of
buildings was a tangible means of linking people, inheritance, and memory.
26. 62 Alison Leonard
Orkney was a new frontier; ritualising physical connections to one place was an
effective land-claim strategy in an uncertain milieu.
Integration through referencing
The results from the research indicates a strong association between Norse and
Iron Age sites. Why did the settlers opt for these settlements and cairns to build
and bury upon? Why do we not see barrow burial reuse of the kind in Anglo-
Saxon England and Denmark (e.g. Lucy 2002 and Pedersen 2006)?
Folklore and literary tradition may be of value here, providing insight into
beliefs related to the Orcadian landscape during the Norse period. Late-Iron
and Viking-Age Scandinavian society maintained a close connection between
house and mound burial. Icelandic sagas often used ‘mound’ as a trope for
‘house’ (see Williams (2006, 172) for an example in Grettir’s Saga). ‘Breaking’
an ancient mound would disturb the spirits dwelling within, and was therefore
something to fear. The persistence of the ‘hogboy’ tradition in Orkney supports
this theory. He is a spirit associated with ‘any large mound’ (Robertson 1991,
266–7) whose name originates from the Scandinavian haugbúi (‘barrow-
dweller’, Thäte 2007, 45).
The Orcadian trow probably has a similar history, coming from the
Scandinavian troll; as stories were retold, the creature diminished in size from
giant mountain-dweller to the small mound-dweller known today (Robertson
1991, 260). Memory adjusted the legend to conform to the Orcadian landscape.
Although the new settlers may have feared Orkney’s distant past, the barrow
mounds and other features – despite not being physically integrated – nevertheless
enjoyed an active role in the evolving Norse perception of their surrounding
landscape and the accompanying legends.
Not everyone in the Norse period feared the ancient monuments, as the
examples of Maes Howe and the Salt Knowe hoard indicate. The graffiti and
hoard depositions, demonstrate appreciation for the legacy of the monuments
they interact with, and a desire to be associated with them.
Norse settlers must have felt a closer affinity to Orkney’s most recent
inhabitants given that Late Iron Age sites informed so much of Norse settlement.
Perhaps this was simply because they were the sole living community with a
knowledge of the islands with whom the Norse could interact (whether it was
friendly interaction or not). Native Orcadians did not, however, ultimately form
an important part of Norse communal memory. Their land and burials aided
Norse site selection, but time, and quite probably selective memory, ensured
that any predecessors to Norse inheritance of the islands were not venerated.
The account of the Picts in the Historia Norwegie, as people ‘only a little taller
than pygmies’ provides one clue as to their legacy (Ekrem and Mortensen
2003, 65). Thomson suggests, ‘it was forgotten that they had been human ...
they became thoroughly confused with the trows’ (2001, 1). Indeed, in Norse
tradition the trows with their burial mound-dwellings enjoyed a position of
prominence relative to the Picts.
figure 16. The coast
along Birsay Bay would
have once housed a
thriving community and
exhibited an impressive
constructed landscape
of settlement mounds,
cemeteries, and other
structures.
Photo: author
figure 17. Reuse of
Late-Iron-Age structures
took the form of
integration, as well as
overlaying, as at the
Brough of Birsay where,
rather than making
use of the surrounding
unoccupied land, new
longhouses deliberately
incorporated pre-Viking-
Age structures (Hunter
1986, 173).
Photo: author
28. 64 Alison Leonard
Conclusion
This paper has shown that Norse settlers in Orkney undertook diverse strategies
in order to solidify and justify their presence on the island. Preservation
of personal narratives and communal memories would have been aided by
references in the landscape. This included physical interaction with structures,
mounds and graves, and mnemonic or toponymic association with landmarks
such as barrows or standing stones.
Acts of building and reuse, naming and integration, and avoidance and oblivion
served to assimilate select aspects of Orkney’s landscape and history into the sphere
of Norse colonisation. In this way, land claims were strengthened, beginning
the process of linking place to memory and thence to Norse posterity. Strong
links were established particularly with Iron Age sites which were previously
occupied by the native Orcadians. Irrespective of relationships with the existing
occupants, it was especially important that the idea of Norse ownership was
conveyed to fellow settlers, and maintained. In several cases, settlement and
burial mounds with origins in Orkney’s Iron Age past were reintegrated into the
contemporary landscape and eventually monumentalised. Although the resultant
mounds differed in construction and content from those found elsewhere in the
Viking world, they nevertheless conveyed a similar sense of commemoration
and ownership.
Other settlers made their own way, founding vacant spots which were then
built, rebuilt and lived upon for generations to come.Time depth was created and
valued within standing architecture and foundations, as well as within mounds.
These places were material records of a community or family’s presence and
inheritance; place-names and oral traditions were the accompanying testaments.
Other aspects of the prehistoric landscape that were not physically incorporated
were integrated into Norse memory and thought in other ways, through naming
and narrative. Superstitions were tailored to the local landscape, and stories
punctuated with physical mnemonic place-markers. In this way even the remnants
of Orkney’s ancient, pre-Norse past eventually became familiar. The new settlers
both maintained the language and many practices of their homeland and evolved
a new mixed identity based on the heritage they brought with them but also
informed by the landscape to which they came.
Acknowledgements
This article is drawn from the results of a Master’s dissertation completed at
the University of York, 2009–10. I would like to thank those who inspired and
helped with this research, especially Mark Edmonds, Aleks McClain, Julian
Richards, Caroline Wickham-Jones, Julie Gibson, Caz Mamwell, Stuart West
(of Orkney Islands Council) and Anne Brundle. Special thanks to Steve Ashby
for his encouragement, comments and supervision, and thank you to the editors
and anonymous referee for their valuable notes. Thanks also to the RCAHMS
for providing the data. All errors are my own.
29. Vikings in the Prehistoric Landscape 65
Bibliography
Allen, A. (1995) The maritime cultural landscape of Viking and Late Norse Orkney.
unpublished PhD thesis, University of Durham.
Ashby, S. P. (2009) Combs, contact and chronology: reconsidering hair combs in Early-
Historic and Viking-Age Atlantic Scotland. Medieval Archaeology 53, 1–33.
Ashmore, P. (2003) Orkney burials in the first millenium AD. In J. Downes and A.
Ritchie (eds) Sea Change: Orkney and Northern Europe in the Later Iron Age AD
300–800. The Pinkfoot Press, Balgavies, Angus, 35–50.
Bäcklund, J. (2001) War or peace? The relations between the Picts and the Norse in
Orkney. Northern Studies 36, 33–47.
Barnes, M. P. (1994) The Runic Inscriptions of Maeshowe, Orkney. Uppsala Universitet,
Uppsala.
Barnes, M. and Page, R. I. (2006) The Scandinavian Runic Inscriptions of Britain,
Institutionen för nordiska språk. Uppsala universitet, Uppsala.
Barrett, J. (2005a) Farming and fishing on medieval Westray. Current Archaeology 199,
336–41.
Barrett, J. (2005b) Economic intensification in Viking Age and medieval Orkney,
Scotland: excavations at Quoygew. In A. Mortensen and S. V. Arge (eds) Viking and
Norse in the North Atlantic. Faroese Academy of Sciences, Torshavn, 264–83.
Barrett, J. and Richards, M. P. (2004) Identity, gender, religion and economy: new
isotope and radiocarbon evidence for marine resource intensification in Early
Historic Orkney, Scotland, UK. European Journal of Archaeology 7, 249–71.
Bradley, R. (1987) Time regained: the creation of continuity. Journal of the British
Archaeological Association 140, 1–17.
Bradley, R. (2000) An Archaeology of Natural Places. Routledge, London.
Bradley, R. (2002) The Past in Prehistoric Societies. Routledge, London.
Brink, S. (2008) Naming the land. In S. Brink and N. Price (eds) The Viking World.
Routledge, Abingdon, 57–66.
Card, N. (2005) The heart of Neolithic Orkney. Current Archaeology 199, 342–7.
Charleson, M. M. (1905) Some anthropological notes from Orkney. Saga Book 4, 81–102.
Crawford, B. E. (2006) Houseby, Harray and Knarston in the West Mainland of
Orkney: toponymic indicators of administrative authority? In P. Gammeltoft and
B. Jørgensen (eds) Names Through the Looking-glass: Festschrift in Honour of Gillian
Fellows-Jensen. Reitzels, Copenhagen, 21–44.
Devlin, Z. (2007) Remembering the Dead in Anglo-Saxon England: Memory Theory in
Archaeology and History. Archaeopress, Oxford,
Downes, J., Foster, S. M. and Wickham-Jones, C. R. (2005) The Heart of Neolithic
Orkney World Heritage Site: research agenda. Historic Scotland, Edinburgh.
Ekrem, I. and Mortensen, L. B. eds (2003) Historia Norwegie. Museum Tusculanum
Press, Copenhagen.
Fanning, T. (1983) Some aspects of the bronze ringed pin in Scotland. In A. O’Connor
and D. V. Clarke, John Donald (eds) From the Stone Age to the ’Forty-Five.
Edinburgh, 324–42.
Firth, H. (1986) Traditions and Customs. In R. J. Berry and H. N. Firth (eds) The
People of Orkney. The Orkney Press Kirkwall, 137–74.
Forster, A. K. (2004) Steatite vessels in the Norse North Atlantic 800–1400, The Finds
Research Group AD 700–1700, Datasheets 25–40 (34), 1–8.
Gammeltoft, P. and Jørgensen, B. eds (2006) Names Through the Looking-Glass:
Festschrift in Honour of Gillian Fellows-Jensen. C. A. Reitzel, Copenhagen.
30. 66 Alison Leonard
Garrow, D., Raven, J. and Richards, C. (2005) The anatomy of a megalithic landscape.
In C. Richards (ed.) Dwelling Among the Monuments: the Neolithic Village of
Barnhouse, Maeshowe Passage Grave and Surrounding Monuments at Stenness, Orkney.
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, 249–59.
Gibbon, S. J. (2008) Medieval parish formation in Orkney. In B. Ballin Smith, S. Taylor
and G. Williams (eds) West over Sea: Studies in Scandinavian Sea-borne Expansion
and Settlement Before 1300. Leiden, Brill, Leiden, 235–50.
Graham-Campbell, J. (1984) Two Viking-age silver brooch fragments believed to be
from the 1858 Skaill (Orkney) hoard. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries in
Scotland 114, 289–301.
Graham-Campbell, J. (1995) The Viking-Age Gold and Silver of Scotland, AD 850–1100.
National Museums of Scotland, Edinburgh.
Graham-Campbell, J. and Batey, C. E. (1998) Vikings in Scotland: An Archaeological
Survey. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Griffiths, D. (2006) Birsay and Skaill Orkney, Landscape Survey 2003–04. In R. Jones
and L. Sharpe (eds) Going over Old Ground, Perspectives on Archaeological Geophysical
and Geochemical Survey in Scotland. Archaeopress, Oxford, 213–224.
Griffiths, D. (2011a) Birsay-Skaill landscape archaeology. Department for Continuing
Education, University of Oxford. http://www.conted.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/
birsay-skaill/index.php, accessed 6 July 2011.
Griffiths, D. (2011b) The Archaeology of Sand Landscapes: looking for an integrated
approach. In D. Griffiths and P. Ashmore (eds) Aeolian Archaeology: the Archaeology
of Sand Landscapes in Scotland, Scottish Archaeological Internet Reports 48. The Society
of Antiquaries of Scotland, Edinburgh, 9–23.
Griffiths, D. and Harrison, J. (2011) Settlement under the sand: new Viking discoveries
in Orkney. Current Archaeology 253, 12–9.
Hållans Stenholm, A.-M. (2006) Past memories: spatial returning as ritualized
remembrance. In A. Andrén, K. Jennbert and C. Raudvere (eds) Old Norse Religion
in Long-Term Perspectives: Origins, Changes, and Interactions. Nordic Academic Press,
Lund, 341–5.
Halstad-McGuire, E. (2010) Sailing home: boat-graves, migrant identities and funerary
practices on the Viking frontier. In E. Anderson, A. Maddrell, K. McLoughlin and
A. Vincent (eds) Memory, Mourning, Landscape. New York Rodopi, Amsterdam,
165–87.
Harrison, S. H. (2007) Separated from the foaming maelstrom: landscapes of insular
‘Viking’ burial. In S. Semple and H. Williams (eds) Early Medieval Mortuary
Practices. Oxford University School of Archaeology, Oxford, 173–82.
Hedges, J. (1983) Trial excavations on Pictish and Viking settlement at Saevar Howe, Birsay,
Orkney. Glasgow Archaeological Journal 10, 73–123.
Hermann, P. and Edwards, P. G. (1978) Orkneyinga Saga: The History of the Earls of
Orkney. London, Hogarth Press.
Hunter, J. R. (1986) Rescue Excavation on the Brough of Birsay 1974–82. Society of
Antiquaries of Scotland, Edinburgh.
Hunter, J. R. (2003) The early Norse period. In K. J. Edwards and I. B. M. Ralston
(eds) Scotland After the Ice Age. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 241–54.
Hunter, J., Dockrill, S. J., Bond, J., Smith, A. N. and Nicholson, R. A. (2007)
Investigations in Sanday, Orkney. Orcadian/ Historic Scotland, Kirkwall.
James, H. F. (1999) Excavations of a medieval cemetery at Skaill House, and a cist
in the Bay of Skaill, Sandwick, Orkney. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries in
Scotland 129, 753–77.
31. Vikings in the Prehistoric Landscape 67
Jesch, J. (2005) Literature in Medieval Orkney. In O. Owen (ed.) The World of
Orkneyinga Saga. The Orcadian, Kirkwall, 11–24.
Laughlin, W. S. and J. S. Aigner (1974) Burial of an Aged Chaluka Adult Male. Arctic
Anthropology 11(1), 47–60.
Leonard, A. (2010) Landscapes of Viking-Age and Late-Norse Orkney: memory and identity.
Unpublished MA dissertation, The University of York.
Lucy, S. (2002) Burial practice in early medieval eastern England: constructing local
identities, deconstructing ethnicity. In S. Lucy and A. Reynolds (eds) Burial in Early
Medieval England and Wales. Maney, Leeds, 72–87.
Maher, R. A. (2009) Landscapes of life and death: social dimensions of a perceived landscape
in Viking Age Iceland. Unpublished PhD thesis, The City University of New York.
Marwick, H. (1952) Orkney Farm-Names. Kirkwall.
Marwick, H. (1970) The Place Names of Birsay. Aberdeen University Press, Aberdeen.
Milner, N., Barrett, J., and Welsh, J. (2007) Marine resource intensification in
Viking Age Europe: the molluscan evidence from Quoygrew, Orkney. Journal of
Archaeological Science 34, 1461–72.
Morris, C. D. (1989) The Birsay Bay Project. University of Durham, Durham.
Nicolaisen, W. F. H. (1976) Scottish Place-Names: Their Study and Significance. Batsford,
London.
Orkney Islands Council (2010) The Heart of Neolithic Orkney World Heritage Site:
Supplementary Planning Guidance consultative draft. Orkney Islands Council,
Kirkwall.
Owen, O. and Dalland, M. (1999) Scar: Viking Boat Burial on Sanday, Orkney. Tuckwell,
East Linton.
Pedersen, A. (2006) Ancient mounds for new graves: an aspect of Viking Age burial
customs in southern Scandinavia. In A. Andrén, K. Jennbert and C. Raudvere (eds)
Old Norse Religion in Long-Term Perspectives: Origins, Changes, and Interactions. Norse
Academic Press, Lund, 346–53.
Price, N. (2010) Passing into poetry: Viking-Age mortuary drama and the origins of
Norse mythology. Medieval Archaeology 54, 123–56.
RCAHMS Quoys. Canmore. http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/site/3030/details/quoys/,
accessed 6 July 2011
Redmond, A. Z. (2007) Viking Burial in the North of England. John and Erica Hedges,
Oxford.
Renfrew, C. (1979) Investigations in Orkney. The Society of Antiquaries of London,
London.
Richards, J. D. (2002) The case of the missing Vikings: Scandinavian burial in the
Danelaw. In S. Lucy and A. Reynolds (eds) Burial in Early Medieval England and
Wales. Maney, Leeds, 156–70.
Ritchie, A. (1977) Excavation of Pictish and Viking farmsteads at Buckquoy, Orkney.
Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland 108, 174–227.
Ritchie, A. and Ritchie, G. (1995) The Ancient Monuments of Orkney. HMSO,
Edinburgh.
Robertson, J. D. M. ed. (1991) An Orkney Anthology: Selected Works, Earnest Walker
Marwick. Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh.
Sandnes, B. (2010a) The place-names Maeshowe, Orkney and Brodgar. Some Orkney place-
names. http://www.nordic.uhi.ac.uk/?q=node/65 , accessed 6 July 2011.
Sandnes, B. (2010b) From Starafjall to Starling Hill: An investigation of the formation
and development of Old Norse place-names in Orkney. Scottish Place-Name Society.
http://www.spns.org.uk/Starafjall.pdf, accessed 6 July 2011.
32. 68 Alison Leonard
Semple, S. (1998) A fear of the past: the place of the prehistoric burial mound in
the ideology of middle and later Anglo-Saxon England. World Archaeology 30(1),
109–26.
Semple, S. (2007) Defining the OE Hearg: a preliminary archaeological and topographic
examination of hearg place names and their hinterlands. Early Medieval Europe 15(4),
364–85.
Simon, H. and Binneman, J. (1987) Later Stone Age Burial Variability in the Cape: A
Social Interpretation. The South African Archaeological Bulletin 42(146), 140–52.
Simpson, I. A. (1997) Relict Properties of Anthropogenic Deep Top Soils as Indicators of
Infield Management in Marwick, West Mainland, Orkney. Journal of Archaeological
Science 24(4), 365–80.
Thäte, E. S. (2007) Monuments and Minds: Monument Re-use in Scandinavia in the
Second Half of the First Millennium AD. Gleerup, Lund.
Thäte, E. S. (2009) Barrows, roads and ridges – or where to bury the dead? The choice
of burial grounds in late Iron Age Scandinavia. In D. Sayer and H. Williams (eds)
Mortuary Practices and Social Identities in the Middle Ages. University of Exeter Press,
Exeter, 104–22.
Thomson, W. P. L. (1995) Orkney farm-names: a reassessment of their chronology. In B.
E. Crawford (ed.) Scandinavian Settlement in Northern Britain. Leicester University
Press, London, 42–63.
Thomson, W. P. L. (2001) The New History of Orkney. Mercat, Edinburgh.
Van Dyke, R. and Alcock, S. E. eds (2003) Archaeologies of Memory. Blackwell
Oxford.
Wallace, J. (1700) An Account of the Islands of Orkney. London.
Wickham-Jones, C. R. (2001) The Landscapes of Scotland: A Hidden History. Tempus,
Stroud.
Williams, H. (2006) Death and Memory in Early Medieval Britain. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Williams, H. and Sayer, D. eds (2009) Mortuary Practices and Social Identities in the
Middle Ages: Essays in Burial Archaeology in Honour of Heinrich Härke. University
of Exeter Press, Exeter.
Williams, H., Rundkvist, M. and Danielsson, A. (2010) The landscape of a Swedish
boat-grave cemetery. Landscapes 11(1), 1–24.
Wilson, D. M. (2008) The Vikings in the Isle of Man. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus.
Notes
1 I use the term ‘Norse’ throughout: although there were exceptions, most Scandinavian
settlers to the Northern Isles came from the region that is now Norway. I also intermittently
use the term ‘Scandinavian’ to denote provenance and origins more generally. The periods
‘Viking Age’ (c.AD 800–1100) and ‘Late Norse’ (1100–1300) are referred to as indicators
of early or later settlement; otherwise ‘Norse’ is used as a general indicator of the period
of Scandinavian occupation on Orkney. The ‘native’ Orcadians of the Late Iron Age
encountered by the Norse are also known as the ‘Picts’, although this latter term is not
much used here.
2 The dating and fine complexities of these sites cannot be addressed in proper detail here but
Morris (1989) offers a thorough overview of the Birsay Bay excavations, Griffiths (2006) the
results of geophysical survey at the Point of Buckquoy, and Leonard (2010) a justification
for the inclusion of older excavations in the dataset.
3 Barnes and Page have reservations about many of the inscriptions found on portable stone
blocks (2006) but see Leonard (2010) for more on those included in the dataset.
