his 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 ofprints 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). lANdscApes Volume 12 Number 1 spring 2011 Editors: Graham Fairclough and Paul Stamper Windgather press © Oxbow Books 2011 ‘Windgather press’ is a wholly owned imprint of Oxbow Books ltd. issn 1466–2035 contents contributors editorial c. Henry Warren: A contented countryman? Geof Warren polders and politics: new agricultural landscapes in Italian and dutch Wetlands, 1920s to 1950s Hans Renes and Stefano Piastra Vikings in the prehistoric landscape: studies on Mainland Orkney Alison Leonard palaeolithic Geoarchaeology: palaeolandscape Modelling and scales of Investigation Martin R. Bates and Francis F. Wenban-Smith Reviews Zoran Roca, paul claval and John agnew (eds), Landscapes, Identities and Development Graham Fairclough david c. cowley (ed.), Remote Sensing for Archaeological Heritage Management Keith Challis v vii 1 24 42 69 97 98 Jan Klapste and petr sommer (eds), Medieval Rural Settlement in Marginal Landscapes Angus J. L. Winchester 100 Terry O’connor and naomi sykes (eds), Extinctions and Invasions: A Social History of British Fauna Polydora Baker 101 homas Faulkener, Helen Berry and Jeremy Gregory (eds), Northern Landscapes: Representations and Realities of Northern England Caron Newman 103 david short (ed.), An Historical Atlas of Hertfordshire Christopher Taylor 104 Timothy Mowl and Marion Mako, Historic Gardens of Somerset Bob Croft 105 Martin carver, he Birth of a Borough – An Archaeological Study of Anglo-Saxon Staford Nigel Baker 106 Jane laughton, Life in a Medieval City: Chester 1275–1520 Nigel Baker 108 Vikings in the prehistoric landscape: studies on Mainland Orkney Alison Leonard Abstract norse colonists in Orkney contended not only with the islands’ existing occupants, but also with a foreign landscape illed with visible ancient monuments. his paper provides a brief synthesis of the results of research on the landscapes of Viking-age and late-norse Orkney which explored the strategies undertaken by the norse settlers to re-model their social identities in their adopted environment. he study focuses on Mainland Orkney between the late eighth and fourteenth centuries. In two distinct case study regions, the archaeological record for norse settlement and activity was mapped against the ‘backdrop’ of prehistoric monuments and integrated with toponymic evidence. he studies suggest that integration and continuity at landscape level were important ways of promoting a norse ancestry on Orkney, based on responses to the new landscape as well as to traditional scandinavian practice. late Iron age sites often informed norse settlement location, and dwellings were rebuilt over centuries, creating deep sequences of occupation. physical interaction with neolithic monuments was more occasional, although they were often integrated into the contemporary landscape through naming and reference. Eventually most of Orkney’s landscape features, including its more ancient monuments, were familiarised, becoming part of the norse Orcadian landscape. Introduction: Orkney and Viking archaeology late eighth-century Orkney was a group of islands rich with physical testaments to millennia of previous inhabitants. standing stones, stone circles and chambered cairns from neolithic times sat prominently in landscapes littered with barrows, cairns and mounds from the Bronze age and later periods. Broch settlements from the Middle Iron age punctuated the region with crumbling stone fortresses which, after the fourth century, gave way to the symbol stones and ‘igure-of-eight’ dwellings of the late Iron age. he latter were still occupied at the turn of the ninth century when scandinavians, predominantly norse,1 came to settle the islands. hese hopeful colonists therefore had to contend l andscapes (2011), 1, pp. 42–68 © Alison Leonard 2011 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). his 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). his is changing however (e.g. Allen 1995 and especially Griiths 2006; 2011a; 2011b), and the number of general landscape studies of Orkney is also steadily growing, e.g. WickhamJones 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). he data from wellknown sites such as Buckquoy inevitably forms a key component of the following discussions. An efort 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. häte 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; häte 2007 on Scandinavians), less attention has been paid to Scandinavian interaction with the British landscape and its monuments (although see häte 2007). his 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 speciic group of people. his perspective understands that people are subject to various inluences 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 monumentladen 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. häte 2007). Memory theory is often applied to the interpretation of mortuary practice (e.g. 44 Alison Leonard figure 1. Norse activity in Orkney shown against background of known pre-Norse features visible in the contemporary landscape. Sites of Mainland Orkney mentioned in the text are also shown. All maps by the author with data supplied by RCAHMS and Ordnance Survey. © CROWN COPyRIGHt/DAtABASE RIGHt 2011. AN ORDNANCE SuRVEy/ EDINA SuPPLIED SERVICE; DERIVED FROM INFORMAtION COMPILED By AND/OR COPyRIGHt OF RCAHMS (RCAHMS.GOV.uk) Van dyke and alcock 2003; Williams 2006; Devlin 2007) and burials do form an important component of the following discussions on reuse and memory. his paper also evaluates other aspects of the archaeological record in a similar light, however. Monuments, structures and even graiti are physical safeguards of the actions and beliefs of communities or individuals, while place-names and superstitions provide more abstract ways of preserving information. Both theoretical perspectives identify the range of strategy involved in selecting or avoiding speciic places. Vikings in the Prehistoric Landscape 45 figure 2. Mainland Orkney showing Norse activity by type. he case study regions of Birsay and Brodgar are shown inside the dotted squares. Sites outwith the case study regions mentioned in the text are also shown. © CROWN COPyRIGHt/DAtABASE RIGHt 2011. AN ORDNANCE SuRVEy/ EDINA SuPPLIED SERVICE; DERIVED FROM INFORMAtION COMPILED By AND/OR COPyRIGHt OF RCAHMS (RCAHMS.GOV.uk) Approaches to the Orcadian landscape: methodology here has been good reason not to attempt a landscape study of Orkney. As has been said of northern Britain as a whole, high levels of current land use and the poor rate of survival of Norse sites make comparative studies of landscape settlement ‘unrealistic’ (Hunter 2003, 245). With regards to Orkney speciically, most excavations have been carried out in response to coastal erosion (e.g. the Scar boat burial, Sanday (Owen and Dalland 1999)) and there is a coastal bias in our knowledge of Norse life on the islands. he islands are heavily cultivated 46 Alison Leonard so that many norse settlements are either ploughed-out or hidden beneath current farmhouses and villages. here are never the less several opportunities for studying norse Orkney from a landscape perspective (e.g. allen 1995; Griiths 2011b). One efective 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). hese 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 ield of archaeology (see, for example, Semple 2007; Brink 2008). hey 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). he present study uses Hugh Marwick’s work on the farm-names of Orkney (1952; 1970) as well as more recent research (Nicolaisen 1976; homson 1995; Sandnes 2006). Marwick’s analysis relied on the late ifteenth- 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; Griiths 2011a on Marwick). Vikings in the Prehistoric Landscape 47 Local landscapes: Birsay he Birsay case study region is based around the Loch of Boardhouse and the north-western coast of Mainland Orkney. his 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. he 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). he 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 he 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)  table 1. Birsay Bay case attest to a Norse presence from the early stages of Viking settlement into the   study region: associations  Medieval period.2 of Norse sites with earlier sites. Several site excavations revealed Norse settlement mounds – sometimes called                                                                                                                  48 Alison Leonard figure 3. he Birsay Bay case study region showing norse sites (numbered in relation to Table 1), preNorse sites by type and place-names mentioned in the text.. © CROWN COPyRIGHt/DAtABASE RIGHt 2011. AN ORDNANCE SuRVEy/EDINA SuPPLIED SERVICE; DERIVED FROM INFORMAtION COMPILED By AND/OR COPyRIGHt OF RCAHMS (RCAHMS.GOV. uk) figure 4. Birsay Bay looking east, viewed from the Brough. he Point of Buckquoy is used as a car park. he Loch of Boardhouse is visible just before the distant hills to the right. PHOtO: AutHOR Vikings in the Prehistoric Landscape figure 5. Replica Pictish symbol stone, smaller than the original found on the Brough of Birsay. Late Iron Age. PHOtO: AutHOR 49 ‘farm mounds’ – with multiple phases of earlier occupation developed over centuries of continued rebuilding and inilling 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). his 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 (Griiths 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). he majority of Norse reuse along Birsay Bay is associated with some form of presence in the Late Iron Age. his is signiied through type-dated artefacts such as combs, igure-of-eight dwellings, and sculpture stones (Figure 5). Radiocarbon dates have also evidenced several cases of VikingAge 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 illing 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 inal discussion. taken as a whole, the excavated sites at Birsay Bay reveal a coastal community that established long sequences of continuity at ixed locations. his 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 inal 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- 50 Alison Leonard skaill landscape archaeology project suggest that a settlement mound had been formed by phases of norse occupation and midden inill (Griiths 2011a). A probable chapel and burial ground are located nearby. Marwick is approximately ive kilometres from Birsay Bay, and though only a short walk around Marwick Head, the precipice ensures no inter-visibility between the two. his 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 he 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. he 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). he accompanying sixteenth-century church with its probable Viking-Age foundations overlies a burnt mound which, if conirmed 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 sufered 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 suicient 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 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. he broch was probably named for its shape, after the On haugr, ‘mound’ (Marwick 1970, 35). he 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. he Brodgar study region is based around a ‘bowl’ formed by the surrounding hills (Figure 10). his 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. hese include hoard deposits and solitary runic inscriptions. he Maes Howe inscriptions, farmnames, and the Stenness burial are alone reminders that groups lived in and travelled through the region. 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. he norse settlement was found toward the south end of the bay, while langskaill lay inshore toward the foot of the promontory. 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 lateNorse structural origins (Barrett 2005a, 336–41). PHOtO: AutHOR figure 8. he ‘Wheebin’ standing stone. he nearby farm, stanger, was named from this neolithic monument. pHOTO: auTHOR figure 9. Brodgar study region showing Norse sites (numbered in relation to table 2), pre-Norse sites by type and place-names mentioned in the text. © CROWN COPyRIGHt/DAtABASE RIGHt 2011. AN ORDNANCE SuRVEy/EDINA SuPPLIED SERVICE; DERIVED FROM INFORMAtION COMPILED By AND/OR COPyRIGHt OF RCAHMS (RCAHMS.GOV. uk) table 2. Brodgar case study region: associations of Norse sites with earlier sites.                                                                                  54 Alison Leonard 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. he region is surrounded by hills on all sides, enclosing the impressive landscape. PHOtO: AutHOR Runic inscriptions and hoard depositions several runic inscriptions have been identiied within the Brodgar landscape. he 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 graiti, such inscriptions nevertheless attest to Norse visitors to the Ness of Brodgar (Figure 11). he two ring hoards are another example of interactions with the Brodgar landscape. he ‘Stenness’ hoard was possibly a ritual deposition placed in the marshy land on the Loch-shore; its exact provenance is unknown (GrahamCampbell 1995, 61). he 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). his 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 conidence in the future survival of the monuments, and demonstrate an awareness of their great age. his ancient ‘sacred’ landscape continued to exude a hallowed air suicient to inspire secret and perhaps ritualised actions, such as hoard deposition. hese 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. he 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). he bridge might have been actively used to control access to the Ness, thus enhancing the importance of the feature. Vikings in the Prehistoric Landscape figure 11. he 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 55 56 Alison Leonard figure 13. he ‘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 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’) suix (crawford 2006, 33, after Marwick 1952, 235). Maes Howe: ‘Mound in a Meadow’ he 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. his 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; Vikings in the Prehistoric Landscape 57 Robertson 1991, 309–20) and he is not the irst 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). his landscape was rife with possibilities for reuse in the Norse period, yet little evidence remains. here 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). he inscriptions indicate that at least some Norse conquered any fear of the ancient burial mound and congregated within the chambered tomb. he mound would undoubtedly have stood as an important landmark if not a meeting-place in the Norse period. he 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 efective 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 he 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). he precise location of the site is now unknown, but it was accompanied by a bronze ringed-pin that dates the burial irmly to the Viking Age (Fanning 1983). he 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). he 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. he 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. 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. he house burial outlying the area of neolithic activity might relect 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). he 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’. here is good intervisibility with the Stones of Stenness and Ness of Brodgar. PHOtO: AutHOR 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? he various examples of reuse, naming, and interaction with the prehistoric landscape presented here are key to this question. he following discussion is organised to address three diferent 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. hese patterns will be interpreted in the light of local beliefs, Norse traditions, and examples of similar practice within the Viking world. Burials and reuse figure 15. he Ness of Brodgar looking south toward Stenness. he burial at upper twatt was located toward the foot of the hills to the south of the study region. PHOtO: AutHOR In ninth- and tenth-century Scandinavia ancient barrows were often reused for burials. häte 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; häte 2007, 276). It is argued that these burials were linked to legitimating land ownership, proclaiming ancestry, and status (häte 2007, 277). Burial mound practices in the Viking Age were generally diverse, yet the variations involving midden mounds on Orkney, as exempliied at Buckquoy and the Brough Road burials appear exceptional (häte 2007). Mainland Orkney 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). here was certainly a practical aspect involved in using middens. Mainland Orkney’s midden burials are all located along the coast (Figure 16). Although häte 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; häte 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. he 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. hese 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). he agenda behind the creation of midden settlement-burial mounds was distinctly related to the presence of earlier activity. he 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 (häte 2007, 127). hese were deliberate decisions, linking the deceased to a longer past and proclaiming rights to the location. While the Buckquoy inhumation may seem unceremonious at irst, it efectively 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 ailiates. he 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 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. he 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; häte 2007, 125). he situation in Orkney therefore relects a response to a previously occupied landscape, as seen across the whole of Viking-Age Atlantic Scotland (GrahamCampbell 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 relected the earls’ independence (Crawford 2006, 42). häte suggests that overlaying houses on older ones might have been an eicient 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. his 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 speciic 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. he maintenance of ties to a speciic 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 (Griiths and Harrison 2011). he 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. 62 Alison Leonard Orkney was a new frontier; ritualising physical connections to one place was an efective land-claim strategy in an uncertain milieu. Integration through referencing he 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 anglosaxon 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. he 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 (‘barrowdweller’, häte 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. he graiti 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 ainity 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. heir 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. he 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). homson 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. he 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-VikingAge structures (Hunter 1986, 173). PHOtO: AutHOR Vikings in the Prehistoric Landscape 63 64 Alison Leonard Conclusion his 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. his 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 difered 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. hese 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. he 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 his 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. hanks also to the RCAHMS for providing the data. All errors are my own. Vikings in the Prehistoric Landscape 65 Bibliography allen, a. (1995) he 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 EarlyHistoric and Viking-Age Atlantic Scotland. Medieval Archaeology 53, 1–33. Ashmore, P. (2003) Orkney burials in the irst millenium AD. In J. Downes and A. Ritchie (eds) Sea Change: Orkney and Northern Europe in the Later Iron Age AD 300–800. he Pinkfoot Press, Balgavies, Angus, 35–50. Bäcklund, J. (2001) War or peace? he relations between the Picts and the Norse in Orkney. Northern Studies 36, 33–47. Barnes, M. P. (1994) he Runic Inscriptions of Maeshowe, Orkney. uppsala universitet, uppsala. Barnes, M. and Page, R. I. (2006) he Scandinavian Runic Inscriptions of Britain, Institutionen för nordiska språk. uppsala universitet, uppsala. Barrett, J. (2005a) Farming and ishing on medieval Westray. Current Archaeology 199, 336–41. Barrett, J. (2005b) Economic intensiication 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 intensiication 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) he Past in Prehistoric Societies. Routledge, London. Brink, S. (2008) Naming the land. In S. Brink and N. Price (eds) he Viking World. Routledge, Abingdon, 57–66. Card, N. (2005) he 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 hrough 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 heory in Archaeology and History. Archaeopress, Oxford, Downes, J., Foster, S. M. and Wickham-Jones, C. R. (2005) he 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) he People of Orkney. he Orkney Press kirkwall, 137–74. Forster, A. k. (2004) Steatite vessels in the Norse North Atlantic 800–1400, he Finds Research Group AD 700–1700, Datasheets 25–40 (34), 1–8. Gammeltoft, P. and Jørgensen, B. eds (2006) Names hrough the Looking-Glass: Festschrift in Honour of Gillian Fellows-Jensen. C. A. Reitzel, Copenhagen. 66 Alison Leonard Garrow, d., Raven, J. and Richards, c. (2005) he 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) he 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. Griiths, 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. Griiths, 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. Griiths, D. (2011b) he Archaeology of Sand Landscapes: looking for an integrated approach. In D. Griiths and P. Ashmore (eds) Aeolian Archaeology: the Archaeology of Sand Landscapes in Scotland, Scottish Archaeological Internet Reports 48. he Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Edinburgh, 9–23. Griiths, 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: he 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) he 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. Vikings in the Prehistoric Landscape 67 Jesch, J. (2005) Literature in Medieval Orkney. In O. Owen (ed.) he World of Orkneyinga Saga. he 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, he 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, he City university of New york. Marwick, H. (1952) Orkney Farm-Names. kirkwall. Marwick, H. (1970) he Place Names of Birsay. Aberdeen university Press, Aberdeen. Milner, N., Barrett, J., and Welsh, J. (2007) Marine resource intensiication in Viking Age Europe: the molluscan evidence from Quoygrew, Orkney. Journal of Archaeological Science 34, 1461–72. Morris, C. D. (1989) he Birsay Bay Project. university of Durham, Durham. Nicolaisen, W. F. H. (1976) Scottish Place-Names: heir Study and Signiicance. Batsford, London. Orkney Islands Council (2010) he 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. he Society of Antiquaries of London, London. Richards, J. D. (2002) he 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) he 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) he place-names Maeshowe, Orkney and Brodgar. Some Orkney placenames. http://www.nordic.uhi.ac.uk/?q=node/65 , accessed 6 July 2011. Sandnes, B. (2010b) From Starajall 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/Starajall.pdf, accessed 6 July 2011. 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) Deining 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. he South African Archaeological Bulletin 42(146), 140–52. Simpson, I. A. (1997) Relict Properties of Anthropogenic Deep top Soils as Indicators of Inield Management in Marwick, West Mainland, Orkney. Journal of Archaeological Science 24(4), 365–80. häte, E. S. (2007) Monuments and Minds: Monument Re-use in Scandinavia in the Second Half of the First Millennium AD. Gleerup, Lund. häte, E. S. (2009) Barrows, roads and ridges – or where to bury the dead? he 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. homson, 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. homson, W. P. L. (2001) he 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) he 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) he landscape of a Swedish boat-grave cemetery. Landscapes 11(1), 1–24. Wilson, D. M. (2008) he 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. he 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. he ‘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 he dating and ine complexities of these sites cannot be addressed in proper detail here but Morris (1989) ofers a thorough overview of the Birsay Bay excavations, Griiths (2006) the results of geophysical survey at the Point of Buckquoy, and Leonard (2010) a justiication 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.