what was the viking age and when did it happen

This article was downloaded by: [University of Oslo]On: 20 January 2014, At: 09:50Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Norwegian Archaeological ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sarc20

What Was the Viking Age and When did it Happen? AView from OrkneyJames Barrett , Roelf Beukens , Ian Simpson , Patrick Ashmore , Sandra Poaps & JacquiHuntleyPublished online: 06 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: James Barrett , Roelf Beukens , Ian Simpson , Patrick Ashmore , Sandra Poaps & Jacqui Huntley (2000)What Was the Viking Age and When did it Happen? A View from Orkney, Norwegian Archaeological Review, 33:1, 1-0, DOI:10.1080/00293650050202600

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00293650050202600

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

What Was the Viking Age and When did itHappen? A View from OrkneyJAMES BARRETT, ROELF BEUKENS, IAN SIMPSON, PATRICK ASHMORE,SANDRA POAPS AND JACQUI HUNTLEYDepartment of Archaeology, University of York, England; IsoTrace Laboratory,University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Environmental Science,University of Stirling, Scotland; Historic Scotland, Longmore House, SalisburyPlace, Edinburgh, Scotland; Department of Geography, University of Toronto,Ontario, Canada; Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, England

The Viking Age was an important watershed in European history, charac-terized by the centralization of authority, the adoption of Christian ideol-ogy, the growth of market trade, the intensification of production and thedevelopment of urbanism. Together, these phenomena mark the beginningof Scandinavian state formation. However, the dates at which each oc-curred and the unequal rates at which different state attributes wereadopted in cores and peripheries remain to be fully explored and ex-plained. These issues can be illuminated by world-systems theory andbrought into focus by studying the date at which key aspects of the VikingAge were adopted in a Scandinavian periphery the Norse Earldom ofOrkney and Caithness, northern Scotland. The present study questions notonly why peripheries change, but why they do not change, or change moreslowly than neighbouring cores.

CHIEFDOM/STATE, CENTRE/PERIPHERY

There can be little debate that the VikingAge, traditionally dated from AD 793 to1050 (Morris 1985:210), is perceived as awatershed in European history. Recent re-search has focused on isolating the earliestmanifestation of the period, moving it backto the mid 8th century (e.g. Myhre1993:199, 1998, Ambrosiani 1998:410). It isequally revealing, however, to investigatethe differing dates at which its attributesemerged. This approach is adopted here,using the Norse Earldom of Orkney, Scot-land, as a case study.

Although interpretations vary, the Viking

Age is often perceived as the fulcrum oftransformations from:

Decentralized to centralized authority(e.g. Randsborg 1980, Mortensen & Ras-mussen 1991, Lindkvist 1996, Berglund1997). Pagan to Christian ideology (e.g. Sawyeret al. 1987, Roesdahl 1993, Abrams 1995a,Solli 1996, Steinsland 1996, Urbanczyk1998). Non-market to market exchange (e.g.Hodges 1982, Bigelow 1989:188190,Hedeager 1994, Saunders 1995, Jansen1997). Moderate to high levels of surplus pro-duction (e.g. Myhre 1978, 1987, 1992,Christophersen 1991).

Norwegian Archaeological Review, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2000ARTICLE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Oslo

] at 0

9:50 2

0 Jan

uary

2014

Rural to urban settlement (e.g. Blindheimet al. 1981, Christophersen 1989, Clarke &Ambrosiani 1991, Broberg & Hasselmo1992, Callmer 1994, MacLeod 1998).

This list could be expanded or collapsed,but does isolate relevant issues. It is not-coincidental that these developments arecriteria marking the transition from chief-dom to state (Service 1971:163, Claessen &Skalnk 1978:640, Johnson & Earle1987:246247, Sanderson 1995:5657). Per-haps above all else, the Viking Age is re-cognized as the naissance of Scandinavianstate formation (e.g. Gurevich 1978, Rands-borg 1980, 1990:19, Andren 1989:88, Mor-tensen & Rasmussen 1991, Helle 1993:10,Lindkvist 1996, Berglund 1997:263, Thur-ston 1997).

Although there is some consensus thatthese developments were important elementsof the Viking Age, there is less agreementas to when they happened. One orthodoxyassociates them with the end of the period.This pattern is clear from traditional conver-sion dates: ca. 995 for Norway and NorseScotland, 1008 for Sweden and ca. 965 forDenmark (Sawyer & Sawyer 1993:101104,Morris 1996:187). The monarchs associatedwith these conversions have also been cred-ited with centralizing royal power (Rands-borg 1980:2, Helle 1993:10, Lindkvist1996:43). It could be argued that a similarchronology applies to the growth of perma-nent towns and large-scale trade (Christo-phersen 1989, Callmer 1994). Intensificationof production is less straightforward as ithas pre-Viking antecedents (Myhre 1978,1992, Hedeager 1992:180223,). Neverthe-less, agricultural and other resource (antler,steatite, hone-stone and iron) production in-creased in the centuries around the turn ofthe first millennium (Christophersen 1991,Myrdal 1997, Widgren 1997:186, Taavitsai-nen et al. 1998).

One might call this view the millennialmodel, or (after Solli 1996:90) the estab-lished narrative. There are also, however,

alternative perspectives. Elements of stateformation have been situated earlier in theViking Age, or even in the Roman Iron Age(Myhre 1978:254, 1987:186187, 1992,1993, Nasman 1991:177, Sawyer 1991a:283,Hedeager 1992:86, Axboe 1995:232, Solli1996:96). Other scholars place them wellinto the Middle Ages (Gurevich 1978:418,Helle 1993:11, Abrams 1995b:3031, Bagge1996:156157). For example, one school ofeconomic history would begin the commer-cial revolution of the Scandinavian MiddleAges around or after 1100 rather than withthe first appearance of ports of trade ortowns (Andren 1989:593594, Bigelow1989:188190; Nedkvitne 1993a:650 Saun-ders 1995:4250).

Much of this diversity rests on problemsof definition (cf. Randsborg 1980:710, He-deager 1992:86). Nevertheless, substantiveissues are also at stake. There is no simpleanswer to the question when did the VikingAge happen?. This ambiguity may resultpartly from the northsouth temporal clinein the emergence of the states of medievalEurope. Different elements of the VikingAge were adopted earlier in some placesthan in others, perhaps reflecting the distinc-tion between cores and peripheries (Rands-borg 1989, 1991:1321). This world-systems model provides part of the answer,but it is not a completely satisfying solution.World-systems theory suggests that periph-eries change either by adopting complex as-pects of a core (spread effects) or bysuffering destructive exploitation (under-development effects) (Chase-Dunn & Hall1991:28, Chase-Dunn & Mann 1998:15, seealso Bintliff 1997:29). However, it has notfully incorporated agency within peripheriesinto explanations of why they sometimeschange more slowly than neighbouring poli-ties (e.g. Urban & Schortman 1999). To ad-dress this question we will focus on aperiphery (Orkney) charting the chronol-ogy and circumstances under which innova-tions were accepted or rejected from itspresumed core (Norway). In concluding, it

2 James Barrett et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Oslo

] at 0

9:50 2

0 Jan

uary

2014

will then be possible to consider the role ofboth core and periphery in the timing ofViking Age socioeconomic change.

The Norse Earldom of Orkney1 at timescontrolled most of northern and westernScotland (Crawford 1982, 1985, 1987,1995). It was nominally an administrativeunit within Norwegian (the Northern andWestern Isles) and Scottish (Caithness in-

cluding what is now called Sutherland)states. However, the dates at which chieflysocioeconomic patterns were replaced withstate attributes must be established empiri-cally. In contrast to the hypothesis of Pictishcontinuity suggested by Ritchie (1974, 1993:2529), this paper begins from the assump-tion, based on linguistic (Fellows-Jensen1984) and subsistence change (Bond 1998,

Fig. 1. The joint earldom of Orkney/Caithness and important places mentioned in the text: 1. SandwickNorth and Sandwick South, 2. Quoygrew, 3. St. Boniface, 4. Pierowall, 5. Scar, 6. Westness, 7. Birsay,Birsay Parish Church, Beachview, Brough Road, Buckquoy and Saevar Howe, 8. Netherskaill, 9.Kirkwall, 10. Earls Bu, 11. Brough of Deerness, 12. Newark Bay, 13. Thurso, 14. Roberts Haven, 15.Freswick Links, 16. Bilbster, 17. Wick.

The Viking Age and When did it Happen? 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Oslo

] at 0

9:50 2

0 Jan

uary

2014

Nicholson 1998, Barrett et al. forthcominga, Barrett et al. 1999), that Orkney became aNorse polity in the Viking Age. Our primaryfocus is northern Scotland, rather than theWestern Isles and Argyll. The latter fol-lowed an independent trajectory in the Mid-dle Ages (characterized by Gaelic influence)and ultimately emerged as the Kingdom andLordship of the Isles (Andersen 1991,Brown 1997).

THE CENTRALIZATION OF POWERThe centralization of power in Viking Ageand medieval Norway was a protracted pro-cess open to multiple interpretations (Helle1993). Nevertheless, single kings such asHarald Sigurdarson achieved considerableauthority by the mid-11th century. The con-centration of power in Orkney both reflectsand diverges from this chronology.

Orkneyinga Saga describes the hegemonyof a single dynasty of earls under theauthority of Harald Fine-Hair of Norway(GuDmundsson 1965, Sawyer 1976). Takenat face value, it suggests that a local institu-tion of centralized power existed within awider Norwegian state by the beginning ofthe 10th century. Conflict occurred betweenthe contestants for the earldom, but its exis-tence was not questioned. Is this descriptionlikely to be accurate, however, and if so, forwhat period? Orkneyinga Saga is a contem-porary historical source for the 12th andearly 13th centuries (Jesch 1992), but likeother kings sagas its portrayal of earlierperiods is probably suspect (Helle 1993:5).How, then, can one interpret the structure ofpower in 9th11th century Orkney?

The 9th century remains somewhat ob-scure, but Viking Age silver and gold hoardsprovide one way to understand 10th and11th century developments. There are 25hoards in northern and western Scotland all the datable examples of which weredeposited between ca. 935 and ca. 1065(Graham-Campbell 1995:2, 8384). If asingle poorly recorded outlier is excluded,

they cease in the 1030s (Graham-Campbell1995:8384). Viking Age hoards have beeninterpreted in many ways (e.g. Bradley1987, Burstrom 1993, Hardh 1996, Gustin1997, Sheehan 1998), but the most parsimo-nious analysis is that of Gurevitj (brought toan English audience by Hedeager 1992:73).He identified two main types: hidden storesof wealth and ritual deposits associated witheschatological beliefs. Regardless of thereason for the final act of burial, however,one can ask what the silver was originallyused for? Based on Reuters (1985, see alsoHedeager 1994, Earle 1997:98) analysis ofthe use of plunder in early medieval Europeit is likely that at least the larger hoardswere assembled by chiefs to maintain mili-tary retinues. The Skaill hoard, totalling8.11 kg, deposited ca. 950 (Graham-Camp-bell 1995:83, 127) is a particularly clear ex-ample of a chiefly treasury. It is among thelargest Viking Age hoards of Scandinaviaand three times larger than any 10th centuryexample from Norway (Graham-Campbell1993:180). Some smaller hoards may repre-sent merchant activity or the wealth of thosereceiving chiefly largesse, but many wereprobably the stores of independent chiefs.The discovery of 24 hoards deposited in ageographically restricted area in a singlecentury thus implies the existence of multi-ple competing factions. The existence ofmany hoards indicates the existence of manychiefs, each with their own retinue to rewardwith silver.

Having rejected the strict legitimacy ofOrkneyinga Saga for the 9th and 10th cen-turies, it is tempting to give it some cre-dence for the 11th. There is corroboratingevidence for the events it describes incontemporary sources such as Adam ofBremens History of the Archbishops ofHamburgBremen (cf. Tschan 1959:216,GuDmundsson 1965:8081). The cessationof hoarding in the 1030s could then be inter-preted as a function of more peaceful timesand the centralization of power and wealthunder strong earls such as Thorfinn Sigur-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Oslo

] at 0

9:50 2

0 Jan

uary

2014

darson (died ca. 1065), who is said to haveruled nine earldoms of Scotland as well asthe Hebrides, Orkney and Caithness (GuD-mundsson 1965:81). This process could ex-plain the end of both large hoards (therewere no longer numerous independent chiefsand treasuries) and small ones (the conflictwhich necessitated burial of private wealthhad decreased). It is worth noting that a si-milar interpretation emerges if all hoardswere deposited for ritual reasons. Floruits ofritual expression in Iron Age Scandinaviawere most pronounced in periods of conflict declining in times of stability (e.g.Randsborg 1981:108, Jrgensen 1991:124125, Sawyer 1991b, Richards et al. 1995:68,Solli 1996).

The efficacy of this interpretation is sup-ported by the chronology of Danish andIrish silver hoards. In western Denmark,where the solidification of central authorityis associated with the late 10th century, al-most all datable hoards fall into Hardhs(1996:124) early period, AD 900969.Conversely, Skane, which was brought intothe Danish state more slowly (Thurston1997), has many hoards dating to Hardhs(1996:124) later periods: AD 9701019 andpost AD 1019. In Ireland, where powerremained fragmented until the Anglo-Nor-man conquest and later (Wailes 1995:57),silver hoards continued to be depositedthroughout the 11th century and into the12th (Graham-Campbell 1976:47, Kenny1987:511513).

Although the hoard evidence suggestssome centralization of power in Orkney bythe mid-11th century, this process was notcomplete. Independent magnates played animportant role in 12th century events, forwhich Orkneyinga Saga is most reliable. Themost illuminating example is Svein Asleifar-son, whose historicity is confirmed by inde-pendent sources (Barrett forthcoming). Hislifestyle was essentially that of an Iron Agechief. He regularly engaged in a plundereconomy, maintained a large military retinueby feasting, engaged in feud and paid little

attention to the authority of earls one ofwhom he deposed (Barrett forthcoming).Svein could be dismissed as an obstreperousnoble within a decentralized feudal state, butother aspects of 12th century Orcadian so-ciety were equally anachronistic. Importantexamples are the use of skaldic poetry(Bibire 1988, Bruhn 1993) and the impor-tance attributed to feasting and giving pres-tige gifts as mechanisms for maintainingsupport, creating obligations and building al-liances (GuDmundsson 1965:151, 180, 183184, 201, 286). If taken at face value, theseactivities are virtual signature criteria ofchiefly social organization (Friedman &Rowlands 1977:206215, Earle 1987:294296, 1994:953955, Dietler 1996:97). What,therefore, are they doing in an account of aprovince within the Norwegian state?

One solution, proposed by Bruhn (1993),is that 12th century Orcadians consciouslyattempted to recreate the past in the presentin reaction to new external pressures in-cluding Norwegian claims to power. His ar-gument is built in specific reference to thelate use of scaldic poetry, but feasting andgift-giving could be construed as part ofthe same anachronistic package. Althoughelegant, Bruhns solution cannot entirelyaccount for 12th century politics. This isevident in the continued acceptance of feudby the Earl of Orkney (e.g. GuDmundsson1965:178, 207). The key distinguishing fea-ture between chiefdom and state is the exis-tence of a monopoly on the use of violence(Service 1971:163, Sanderson 1995:56).Feud as legal use of force by kin and othergroups is an explicit contradiction of stateauthority (Fenger 1991:164). It can surviveas an illegal activity within weak state struc-tures (e.g. Gilman 1995:242), but its officialsanction is incompatible with the state as aninstitution.

A similar pattern of fragmented authorityemerges from the study of Orkneys relationswith Norway and Scotland. Sawyer (1976)argues that the earldom was first brought un-der Norwegian royal control at the end of the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Oslo

] at 0

9:50 2

0 Jan

uary

2014

Description Burial Lab Date bpa

Atmosphericcalibration(2 range)

Atmosphericcalibration modeor modes 13C (0.2%)

Estimated %marine carbon incollagen

Mixed atmospmarine calibra(2 range)

Late Iron Age burials Galson GU-7400 1770 60 89415 245, 310, 315 19.8 10 132427Galson 2 GU-2115 1710 70 132531 265, 267, 341, 375Buckquoy TO-6695 1740 40 217411 260, 281, 291, 297, 322 20.2 5 232418Sands of Breckon 55 AA-11691 1731 73 128526 261, 278, 295, 324, 333,

33518.8b

Buckquoy M12 TO-6693 1580 40 402597 437, 454, 457, 522, 527 20.5 1 404596Brough Road AN GU-1550 1640 70 242597 417Brough Road AS TO-7047 1520 50 424644 542 21.2 0 423646Brough Road IO TO-6696 1430 40 543665 640 20.9 0 548668Newark Bay 68/33 TO-7176 1460 40 537659 605, 610, 616 19.8 10 551671

Newark Bay 69/11 TO-7180 1380 30 617687 658 20.7 0 616685

Hermisgarth F003 GU-4232 1480 80 416685 600Hermisgarth F003 GU-4233 1580 100 242658 437, 454, 457, 522, 527Hermisgarth Combined GU-4232&4233 252677 Sandwick SWC1 GU-1291 1530 110 258687 540Sandwick SWC1 GU-1291B 1485 110 342770 599Sandwick Combined GU-1291&1291B 257762 Bay of Skaill GU-7245 1410 50 543688 646Upper Scalloway 5380 AA-13808 1280 60 650890 693, 699, 715, 749, 764 20.8bDunrobin GU-1039 1335 110 534960 670Dunrobin GU-1039B 1135 140 6441211 895, 924, 939Dunrobin Combined GU-1039&1039B 5331151 Westness 7 TO-7196 1540 40 423620 538 19.9 8 432642

Westness 15 TO-7198 1200 40 691960 782, 790, 815, 842, 859 19.6 12 775985

Viking Age pagan burials(with grave-goods, flexedor adjacent to the above)

Westness 1963A TO-7194 1200 40 691960 782, 790, 815, 842, 859 19.4 14 777989

Cnip D GU-3486 1200 50 687977 782, 790, 815, 842, 859Cnip E GU-3487 1180 50 692982 885Cnip B GU-3489 1150 50 731998 892 18.4 26 8901041

Cnip C GU-3485 1150 50 731998 892 18.7 23 8851035

Machrins GU-1114 1170 110 6561148 887Kintra GU-1624 1120 65 7321023 899, 920, 958Kiloran Bay OxA-6604d 1110 45 7821019 902, 917, 962Brough Road BJ TO-7048 1320 50 642780 683 20.1 6 650863Brough Road DT TO-6691 1120 40 7821016 899, 920, 958 19.5 13 8901026Brough Road CU GU-1552 1040 60 8891157 1000Scar 133 AA-12597 1155 60 6931016 891 21.6bScar 134 AA-12596 1040 60 8891157 1000 21.1bScar 135 AA-12595 940 75 9781260 1040, 1100, 1116, 1141,

115121.1b

Scar Combined AA-1259512597 7741209 Viking Age & medievalChristian burials (inchurchyards)

Newark Bay 71/3 TO-7193 1200 40 691960 782, 790, 815, 842, 859 19.3 15 778990

Newark Bay 69/x TO-6942 1180 30 776960 885 20.2 5 778974

Newark Bay 68/16A TO-7174 1190 40 693964 784, 787, 833, 836, 877 20.5 2 720972

Newark Bay 71/5 TO-6933 1170 50 694985 887 19.7 10 7761012

Newark Bay 69/104B TO-7189 1130 50 7771017 897, 922, 942 17.4 37 9701163

Newark Bay 69/36 TO-7182 1090 40 8861020 979 19.3 15 9011038

Newark Bay 69/99 TO-7187 1060 40 8931026 991 18.5 25 9951166

Newark Bay 69/9 TO-7179 1030 30 9781031 1004, 1008, 1017 16.3 50 11291270

Newark Bay 69/4 TO-7177 1010 30 9831149 1020 19.3 16 10171165

Table 1. Radiocarbon dates, atmospheric calibrations, 13C values, % marine carbon esti-mates, mixed atmospheric/marine calibrations and grave characteristics for Iron Age tomedieval burials from northern Scotland. All analyses were on human bone collagen unlessotherwise noted. Calibrations were performed using CALIB 4.1.2 (Stuiver & Reimer 1993)and the data sets of Stuiver et al. (1998).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Oslo

] at 0

9:50 2

0 Jan

uary

2014

tmosphericlibration modemodes 13C (0.2%)


Mixed atmospheric/marine calibration(2 range)

Mixed atmospheric/marine calibrationmode or modes

Grave-goods? Position

Approximateorientation(head-feet) References

5, 310, 315 19.8 10 132427 261, 280, 325 No Right side WE T. Neighbour pers. comm.5, 267, 341, 375 Noc Supine WE Ponting & Bruce 19890, 281, 291, 297, 322 20.2 5 232418 267, 274, 334 ? Disturbed ? this study1, 278, 295, 324, 333,5

18.8b No Disturbed ? Carter & Fraser 1996

7, 454, 457, 522, 527 20.5 1 404596 440, 454, 462, 516, 522 No Supine SWNE this study7 No Supine SWNE Morris 19892 21.2 0 423646 545 No Right side SWNE Morris 1989; this study0 20.9 0 548668 641 No Supine SSENNW Morris 1989; this study5, 610, 616 19.8 10 551671 642 No Supine WE D. Brothwell pers. comm.;

Barrett et al. forthcoming a8 20.7 0 616685 657 No Supine WE D. Brothwell pers. comm.;

Barrett et al. forthcoming a0 No Supine WE Downes & Morris 19977, 454, 457, 522, 527 No Supine WE Downes & Morris 1997

No Supine WE Downes & Morris 19970 No Left side NS Bigelow 19859 No Left side NS Bigelow 1985

No Left side NS Bigelow 19856 No Prone WE James Forthcoming3, 699, 715, 749, 764 20.8b No Disturbed ? Sharples 19980 No Supine SWNE Close-Brooks 19805, 924, 939 No Supine SWNE Close-Brooks 1980

No Supine SWNE Close-Brooks 19808 19.9 8 432642 550 No ? ? A. Sheridan pers. comm.;

this study2, 790, 815, 842, 859 19.6 12 775985 891 No ? ? A. Sheridan pers. comm.;

this study2, 790, 815, 842, 859 19.4 14 777989 893 Yes Disturbed ? A. Sheridan pers. comm.;

this study

2, 790, 815, 842, 859 No Supine NS Dunwell et al. 19955 Yes Flexed EW Dunwell et al. 19952 18.4 26 8901041 995 No Flexed SN Dunwell et al. 1995; T.

Neighbour pers. comm.2 18.7 23 8851035 988 No Supine EW Dunwell et al. 1995; T.

Neighbour pers. comm.7 Yes Flexed SWNE Ritchie 19819, 920, 958 No Left side EW RCAHMS 19842, 917, 962 Yes Flexed ? Sheridan 19983 20.1 6 650863 689 Yes Disturbed WE Morris 1989; this study9, 920, 958 19.5 13 8901026 985 Yes Disturbed WE Morris 1989; this study00 No Flexed WE Morris 19891 21.6b Yes Supine WE Owen & Dalland 199900 21.1b Yes Flexed WE Owen & Dalland 199940, 1100, 1116, 1141,51

21.1b Yes Supine NWSE Owen & Dalland 1999

Yes Flexed/Supine WE Owen & Dalland 19992, 790, 815, 842, 859 19.3 15 778990 893 No Supine WE D. Brothwell pers. comm.;

Barrett et al. forthcoming a

5 20.2 5 778974 889 No Supine WE D. Brothwell pers. comm.;Barrett et al. forthcoming a

4, 787, 833, 836, 877 20.5 2 720972 881 No Supine WE D. Brothwell pers. comm.;Barrett et al. forthcoming a

7 19.7 10 7761012 896, 927, 936 No Supine WE D. Brothwell pers. comm.;Barrett et al. forthcoming a

7, 922, 942 17.4 37 9701163 1026 ?e Supine WE D. Brothwell pers. comm.;Barrett et al. forthcoming a



04, 1008, 1017 16.3 50 11291270 1213 No Supine WE D. Brothwell pers. comm.;Barrett et al. forthcoming a

20 19.3 16 10171165 1038 No Supine WE D. Brothwell pers. comm.;Barrett et al. forthcoming b


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Oslo

] at 0

9:50 2

0 Jan

uary

2014

11th century, but even this episode wasshort-lived. The mid-12th century was theheight of Orcadian independence, marked inideological terms by the promotion of apatron saint, Magnus, and construction of acathedral in Kirkwall (perhaps made all themore necessary by its founders Norwegianassociations) (Crawford 1988, Brunsden1997). As late as 1195 many Orcadianssupported a rebellion against King Sverrirof Norway (Sephton 1899:146152,GuDmundsson 1965:297). Earl Harald Mad-

dadarsons excuse to Sverrir following thefailure of this campaign (as interpreted bythe kings contemporary biographer) alsoshines additional light on the limits of powerwithin the earldom at this time:Less blame is mine in this business than is im-puted to me. I did not plan the rising of thatband. It is true I did not fight against it, for Icould not be hostile to all the people in the landas long as I should be Earl over it. The men ofOrkney do not always act as I wish. (Sephton1899:156)

Table 1. Continued.

Description Burial Lab Date bpa

Atmosphericcalibration(2 range)

Atmosphericcalibration modeor modes 13C (0.2%)


Mixed atmospmarine calibra(2 range)

Newark Bay 70/1 TO-7192 1010 60 8961162 1020 19.1 17 9871221

Newark Bay 12 TO-6943 960 50 9881210 1034 16.8 45 11601298

Newark Bay 69/34 TO-7181 930 40 10191214 1043, 1091, 1119, 1140,1155

21.8 0 10171213

Newark Bay 68/12 TO-7173 930 40 10191214 1043, 1091, 1119, 1140,1155

17.6 35 11681291

Newark Bay CC4 TO-6941 920 40 10211217 1061, 1086, 1123, 1138,1156

16.7 46 12171306

Newark Bay 69/69 TO-7184 910 40 10221219 1071, 1079, 1128, 1136,1158

20.8 0 10231219

Newark Bay 69/8 TO-7178 830 30 11611276 1218 19.4 14 12131289

Newark Bay 70/6 TO-6937 700 40 12611388 1290 18.8 21 12911414

Newark Bay 1968/2 TO-6940 550 40 13031438 1406 19.7 10 13301449

Birsay Parish Church C2 GU-1631 1120 60 7761022 899, 920, 958Deerness BS TO-6697 940 40 10171211 1040, 1100, 1116, 1141,

115119.4 14 10301249

Medieval burials outsideknown churchyards

John OGroats 19 GU-2654 1020 60 8931160 1018

John OGroats 17 GU-2655 930 90 9011279 1043, 1091, 1119, 1140,1155

John OGroats 16 GU-2652 730 50 12171385 1282Sandside GU-1067 865 110 9801380 1190, 1202, 1206Skaill House 42 GU-7242 820 60 10391291 1221Skaill House 61 GU-7244 790 70 10421379 1259Skaill House 41 GU-7240 750 70 11611391 1278Skaill House 35 GU-7243 710 60 12171396 1287Skaill House 65 GU-7241 700 50 12421394 1290West Murkle 1 GU-2135 640 60 12751418 1301, 1369, 1382Upper Scalloway 13 GU-2952 540 50 13021443 1409Upper Scalloway 6 GU-2953 500 60 13101483 1426

a Includes an error multiplier of 1.4, with a minimum of 110 years, for Glasgow lab numbers below GU-1500 (Ashmore 1997:240).

b 13C values from samples without known collagen yields were not used to assess diet or marine reser-voir effects. Samples from Scar may be contaminated, as the three contemporary burials yielded statisticallydifferent radiocarbon assays.

c Contained only midden material.d On bone from a horse included as grave-goods.e Either burial 69/104A or 69/104B contained a jet-like bracelet.f Contained an iron bracelet.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Oslo

] at 0

9:50 2

0 Jan

uary

2014

On the mainland, Scottish royal authoritywas also slow to develop. King William wasforced to fight a military campaign againstHarald Maddadarson in 1196 in order to se-cure any royal authority in northern Scotland(Crawford 1985:31), and it was not until 1375that control of Caithness was fully ceded tothe Scottish crown (Crawford 1982:72).

In sum, centralization of power was a late,variable and slow process in ScandinavianScotland. The mid-11th century can be seenas a turning-point perhaps consistent with

the millennial model but it is not the endof the story. Chiefly behaviour patterns sur-vived in Orkney more than a century laterand Norwegian and Scottish state authoritywas very poorly developed until at least theend of the 12th century.

CHRISTIAN IDEOLOGYThere is little question that Christianityserved as an important tool in the creationof states throughout post-Roman Europe. Its

tmosphericlibration modemodes 13C (0.2%)


Mixed atmospheric/marine calibration(2 range)

Mixed atmospheric/marine calibrationmode or modes

Grave-goods? Position

Approximateorientation(head-feet) References



43, 1091, 1119, 1140,55

21.8 0 10171213 1046, 1092, 1118, 1139,1153

No Supine WE D. Brothwell pers. comm.;Barrett et al. forthcoming b

43, 1091, 1119, 1140,55

17.6 35 11681291 1253 No Supine WE D. Brothwell pers. comm.;Barrett et al. forthcoming b

61, 1086, 1123, 1138,56

16.7 46 12171306 1281 No Supine WE D. Brothwell pers. comm.;Barrett et al. forthcoming b

71, 1079, 1128, 1136,58

20.8 0 10231219 1129, 1131, 1158 No Supine WE D. Brothwell pers. comm.;Barrett et al. forthcoming b


90 18.8 21 12911414 1322, 1356, 1387 No Supine WE D. Brothwell pers. comm.;Barrett et al. forthcoming b


9, 920, 958 No Supine WE Barber 199640, 1100, 1116, 1141,51

19.4 14 10301249 1164 No Supine WE Morris & Emery 1986; thisstudy

18 No Supine WE Driscoll 1993

43, 1091, 1119, 1140,55

No Supine SWNE Driscoll 1993

82 No Disturbed ? Driscoll 199390, 1202, 1206 No Supine NNWSSE Hedges 197821 No Supine WE James forthcoming59 No Supine WNWESE James forthcoming78 No Right side ? James forthcoming87 No Supine WE James forthcoming90 No Supine WE James forthcoming01, 1369, 1382 No ? ? Batey 199309 Yesf Supine WE Sharples 199826 No Supine WE Sharples 1998


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Oslo

] at 0

9:50 2

0 Jan

uary

2014


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Oslo

] at 0

9:50 2

0 Jan

uary

2014

Fig. 2. 1 and 2 confidence intervals for radiocarbon dates of Late Iron Age to medieval burials fromnorthern Scotland. (a) Calibrations using the 1998 decadal atmospheric (terrestrial) data set. (b)Results for dates which could be calibrated using the 1998 mixed atmospheric/marine data set andestimates of % marine carbon (Stuiver & Reimer 1993, Stuiver et al. 1998, see text and Table 1). Blackshading indicates the presence of grave-goods (sample TO-7189, from Newark Bay grave 69/104B, isambiguous in this regard). Grey shading indicates that the burial was flexed. Both suggest thecontemporaneity of pagan and Christian practice in the Viking Age.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Oslo

] at 0

9:50 2

0 Jan

uary

2014

role in Norway, Denmark and Sweden hasbeen emphasized on many occasions. Mon-archy was legitimized by Christian doctrineand it provided a new ideology with whichambitious rulers could peripheralize en-trenched pagan power-structures (Stevenson1996:173, 182). Christianity first appears inNorway in the 10th century, but plays itsmost important political role in this contextin the 11th (Sawyer 1987, Abrams 1995a,1995b, Solli 1996). When, however, wasthis potential element of state formationadopted in Scandinavian Scotland? TheWestern Isles may have been characterizedby religious syncretism from early in theViking Age (Crawford 1987:48, Andersen1991, Brown 1997:223). Northern Scotland,however, presents a more complex problem.Any attempt to date the introduction ofChristianity in Orkney must consider alter-native models outlined by Morris (1990,1996). One takes the traditional date of EarlSigurd Hlodvissons forced conversion byKing Olaf Tryggvason in AD 995 as a start-ing-point, but emphasizes the sound histori-cal evidence that a bishopric was establishedby Earl Thorfinn Sigurdarson around 1048.The alternative model assumes that theNorse adopted Christianity from the indigen-ous Pictish population early in the VikingAge. Setting aside sites that remain unexca-vated, early excavations for which crucialdetails are unknown and Christian sculpturedated only by art history (cf. Stevenson1981, Morris 1996, Fletcher 1997:375) themost tangible evidence with which to ad-dress these models comes from burials, ec-clesiastical architecture and a 9th centuryhagiography, the Life of Findan.

The identification of pagan and Chris-tian graves presents epistemological diffi-culties (Abrams 1998:115116). Eastwestorientation is of little value as it occurred inpre-Christian Scandinavia (Roesdahl 1987:3). Grave-goods probably do indicate non-Christian belief, given that they are rarelyfound in churchyards (see Geake 1997:133134). The only examples from north-

ern Scotland are an axe from St. Olaschurchyard, Whiteness, Shetland (Shetelig1945:4), a jet-like bracelet from grave 69/104A or 69/104B at Newark Bay in Orkneyand an antler comb ca. 40 cm from the skullof burial 70/28 also at Newark (Brothwell1977:186, pers. comm.). Flexed inhumationsare probably also pagan, given their virtualabsence from churchyards (only one occursin the cemetery of ca. 250 otherwise supineburials at Newark) and their association withgrave-goods (see Table 1). The absence ofgrave-goods, however, could relate tostatus in addition to worldview (Nielsen1991:251) and is thus an ambiguous indica-tor of Christian practice unless a burial isalso associated with a church.

Given their lack of grave-goods, indivi-dual Christian burials can only be dated byradiocarbon assays. For purposes of chrono-logical comparison this study thus focuseson non-Christian graves which have been si-milarly dated, making only occasional men-tion of burials dated by artefact typologyalone (see Graham-Campbell & Batey 1998:113142). The dates currently available,30 of which were determined as part ofthis study, are collated in Table 1 and illu-strated in Figs. 2a and 2b. Additional dataregarding the important Pictish and VikingAge cemetery at Westness, Rousay have justbeen published (Sellevold 1999:7), but be-came available too late for inclusion in thispaper. The three dates from this site in Table1 are of samples kindly provided by the Na-tional Museums of Scotland.

Westness provides the earliest archaeolo-gical evidence for Christianpagan relations.It was used between the 7th and 9th cen-turies, initially for a number of extendedburials without grave-goods that have beeninterpreted as Pictish (and by implicationChristian) (Kaland 1993:312314, 1996:66).A series of pagan graves, which do not cutthe earlier burials, were added in the 9thcentury (Kaland 1973:9397, 1993:312,1996:66). This evidence could imply somereligious syncretism early in the Viking


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Oslo

] at 0

9:50 2

0 Jan

uary

2014

Age, but is equally consistent with the re-placement of Christianity by paganism.

No other single cemetery has yielded suchclear evidence of contemporary pagan andChristian graves, but the presence of aflexed burial, a grave with a jet braceletand, possibly, a burial with an antler combin the Christian cemetery at Newark Bay arealso suggestive. Moreover, if radiocarbondates on human bone are calibrated using anatmospheric curve (that is assuming a 100%terrestrial diet) it appears that the two burialpractices were used concurrently at differentsites (Table 1, Fig. 2a). Christian burials as-sociated with ecclesiastical architecture atNewark Bay (see below) and Birsay parishchurch (Barber 1996) appear contemporarywith 9th10th century pagan graves, such asthose found at Westness, the Brough Road(Morris 1989), Scar (Owen & Dalland 1999)and Buckquoy (Ritchie 1977:190). Burials71/3, 69/X and 68/16A from Newark Bayare particularly suggestive. If one assumesno marine reservoir correction is necessary,they are unlikely to post-date the mid 10thcentury (Table 1).

It must be asked, however, whether thesedates are biased by marine reservoir effects.Fish was an important component of theViking Age and medieval Orcadian diet(Barrett et al. 1999). Unless corrected, bonecollagen from humans with a mixed marineand terrestrial diet will appear older than ter-restrial samples of the same age (Mangerud& Gulliksen 1975, Tauber 1983, Stuiver &Braziunas 1993, Stuiver et al. 1998, Arne-borg et al. 1999). Nevertheless, after marinereservoir corrections are taken into account2the radiocarbon evidence for contemporane-ity of pagan and Christian burials in Orkneyremains convincing for at least the 10th cen-tury (Fig. 2b). Christian Viking Age burialsfrom Newark Bay probably overlap the lat-est known pagan burials of Orkney. Conver-sely, the early Christian grave under Birsayparish church (and ecclesiastical architecturewhich may be associated) (Barber 1996:2728), can be discounted as it relies on a 14C

date for which marine reservoir correctionhas not been possible. A marine componentin the diet of this individual could place thisdate well into the 11th century.

By the middle of the 10th century smallchapels were built at Newark Bay (Broth-well 1977:182) and the Brough of Deerness(Morris & Emery 1986), both on the eastMainland of Orkney. The upstanding phasesof both are dated by mid-10th century coinsfound under their floors (Brothwell 1977:182, Morris & Emery 1986:356358, Steven-son 1986:339340, Brothwell pers. comm.)and by the radiocarbon-dated burials justmentioned.

The Brough of Deerness coin foundbetween the upstanding stone structure andan earlier stone-clad wooden chapel wasminted under Eadgar (reign 959975), butwas well worn prior to deposition (Steven-son 1986:339, Morris 1996:192). Only a fewgraves were associated with this site, butboth building phases had altars at their east-ern ends (Morris & Emery 1986:315, 322,359). Morris (1996:191) suggests that theyrepresent private chapels rather than foci ofmonastic activity as once thought. Theystand on a small coastal stack surrounded byca. 30 unexcavated rectilinear structures thatare likely to be broadly contemporary (Mor-ris & Emery 1986:311, 365366). It is easyto envisage this high-density settlement inan easily defensible location as the strong-hold of a chief or earl and an associated re-tinue.

Only one burial was sufficiently preservedfor radiocarbon dating. Skeleton BS, whichstratigraphically post-dates construction ofthe stone phase (Morris & Emery 1986:350,MF3:E10), yielded assays of AD 9961260(GU-1574, 920 65 BP) and AD 10171211 (TO-6697), both calibrated at 2. The2 estimate after reservoir correction is AD10301250.

In sum, the upstanding (stone) phase ofthe Brough of Deerness was built between959 and the 13th century, but probably inthe earlier end of this range. This date is


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Oslo

] at 0

9:50 2

0 Jan

uary

2014

entirely consistent with the AD 995 conver-sion tradition or with mid 11th century de-velopments under Earl Thorfinn. The samecannot be said, however, for the earlierwooden chapel stratigraphically below theEadgar coin. It is unlikely to be more re-cent than the mid-10th century. The crucialpoint is that it probably precedes OlafTryggvasons alleged mission of 995 andthat it certainly pre-dates Thorfinn Sigurdar-son. Morris (1990:13, 1996:192) cautionsthat the timber chapel could conceivably re-present a much earlier Pictish structure, butargued on architectural grounds that it ismost consistent with a Norse milieu. Hehesitated in assigning it definitively to theViking Age based on a radiocarbon date ofmammal bone (from the same phase as theEadgar coin) which included pre-Vikingcenturies in its error range, AD 6511015(GU-1558, 1220 90 BP, calibrated at 2;no marine reservoir correction is possiblefor this sample) (Morris & Emery1986:357, Morris 1996:192). However, thefact that the two buildings were virtuallyidentical in size and alignment (Morris &Emery 1986:314) is more easily explainedif the stone church immediately succeededits timber predecessor. The date of con-struction of the wooden phase remains un-certain, but it must have been in use by themid 10th century.

Newark Bay includes a complex sequenceof late medieval and postmedieval structuraldeposits (Brothwell 1977, pers. comm.,Brothwell et al. 1986:56). Under these, how-ever, there was a rectangular stone buildingoriented approximately eastwest, with in-ternal dimensions of 4.2 m 9.5 m andwalls ca. 0.85 m thick. It is possible a chan-cel of later construction extended to the east,but had been considerably disturbed.

This building immediately overlaid a sou-terrain of Iron Age date and, most impor-tantly, was surrounded by approximately250 burials (Brothwell 1977:182, Brothwellet al. 1986:56). The latter respected thestructure, with the exception of two graves

inserted into its floor. They also reflected itsapproximate eastwest orientation and allbut one of the graves were supine. The exca-vation has not yet been fully published, buton gross stratigraphic grounds it would ap-pear that most of the burials were contem-porary with use of the structure (Brothwellpers comm.; see below).

The coins beneath the flagstone floor ofthis building were minted under Eadred(reign 946955) and Anlaf Sihtricsson(York, reign 941944 and 948952) (Smyth1978, Stevenson 1986:340). They provide amid 10th century terminus post quem and,as discussed above, radiocarbon dates of theassociated graves are consistent with a 10thcentury origin followed by use into the 14thor 15th centuries (Figs. 2a, 2b). Only asingle chapel has been exposed thus far, buttwo skeletons dating to the 7th centurysuggest the existence of an earlier Pictishphase (Table 1).

The existence of two 10th century Norsechapels in Orkney is particularly illuminat-ing, given that they corroborate the contem-poraneity of Christian and pagan practiceimplied by the graves alone. One of thelatest pagan burials from Orkney is Buck-quoy in Birsay. A sample provided forradiocarbon dating contained insufficientcarbon, but a cut silver penny of Eadmund(AD 940946) included among the grave-goods provides a terminus post quem (Ritch-ie 1977:190). This burial is probably con-temporary with at least the wood chapel atthe Brough of Deerness. Two other gravesfrom Birsay, Brough Road CU and DT mayalso represent 10th century pagan burials(Morris 1989, Table 1). All three exampleslack the extraordinary wealth of some 9thcentury Orcadian graves (e.g. Kaland1993:314316), but retain distinctive pagancharacteristics such as grave-goods (Buck-quoy and DT) and/or flexed position (Buck-quoy and CU).

Two interpretations, not mutually exclu-sive, follow from these observations. First,the possible contemporaneity of chapels and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Oslo

] at 0

9:50 2

0 Jan

uary

2014

semi-pagan burials at single sites such asNewark Bay probably indicates some syn-cretism during the emergence of a Christianworldview or mentalite (see Crawford1975:16, Lonnroth 1987:27). Second, thecontemporaneity of Christian chapels andpagan burials at different sites may indicatethat competing factions employed differentideologies a well known scenario else-where in Viking Age and medieval Scandi-navia (Stevenson 1996:182). For example, itis possible that some occupants of Birsay,now thought to be a Viking Age elite centre(Hunter et al. 1993:273, Morris 1995), werepagan in the 10th century while the inhabi-tants of another chiefly settlement andstronghold, the Brough of Deerness, wereexplicitly Christian. The establishment of abishops seat at Birsay in ca. 1048 underEarl Thorfinn (Morris 1996:188) could thenbe seen as a symbolic act by the first Chris-tians to achieve absolute power in the earl-dom. Viewed in this light, Adam ofBremens 11th century observation that itwas Thorfinn who brought Orkney intoEuropean Christendom (Morris 1996:188)may take on new resonance.

Having discussed the 10th century evi-dence in some detail, it remains for us toconsider the 9th century. The Life of Findanindicates the existence of an Orcadianbishop around AD 850 (Omand 1986,Thomson 1986:279), implying that the coex-istence of Christian and pagan chiefs was al-ready established. No early medieval bishopcould function without secular patronage(Stevenson 1996), but the concurrent exis-tence of a pagan elite is clearly evidencedby 9th century burials with extravagantgrave-goods (e.g. Kaland 1993:314316).The bishop in the Life of Findan has occa-sionally been identified as a Pict and his ex-istence equated with the continuity ofPictish authority in Orkney (Lamb 1995:23,Lowe 1998:8). As Thomson (1986:280) hasnoted, however, since the Life describesOrkney as lying next to the land of the Picts(iuxta Pictorum gentem), it was clearly not

regarded as part of Pictland, and so mustalready have been under Norse control.

MARKET TRADE, STAPLES AND THEINTENSIFICATION OF PRODUCTIONThe association of market trade, intensifica-tion of production and state formation inNorth-western Europe has a long historywhich need not be rehearsed here. Much ofthis discussion was once framed in terms ofsubstantivist economics, which assumes thatnon-state societies employ reciprocity (gift-giving) and redistribution rather than marketexchange, and that a state monopoly on theuse of violence is a prerequisite for marketexchange and its ultimate corollary, urban-ism (e.g. Skovgaard-Petersen 1981:12,Hodges 1982, 1989). It has become increas-ingly evident, however, that market andnon-market trade coexisted in both theViking Age and medieval period throughoutEurope (e.g. Miller 1990:104105, Gaimster1992:21, Ingimundarson 1992:222, Hedea-ger 1994, Hardh 1996:165, Gustin 1997:147).

If market trade was well established inthe Viking Age, what contrast, if any, canbe drawn with later exchange? In studies ofthe emergence of the modern world-system,Wallerstein (1974, 1980, 1993) has success-fully side-stepped the substantivist issue, fo-cusing instead on the distinction betweeninter-regional trade of low-bulk, high-value,luxury goods and low-value, high-bulk,-necessities (hereafter called staples). The lat-ter may move freely within a polity, but thegrowth of long-range trade in staples is akey to understanding socioeconomic trans-formations.

It is a commercial revolution of thiskind which probably marks the Viking Agemedieval transition in the Scandinaviannorth (Lopez 1976:9495, Andren 1989,Nedkvitne 1993a). A few low-value goods,soapstone and hone-stones, were exportedfrom Viking Age Norway (Christophersen1991) and perhaps Shetland (Crosby &


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Oslo

] at 0

9:50 2

0 Jan

uary

2014

Mitchell 1987:502, Buttler 1991), but itseems likely that these travelled incidentally,perhaps as ballast (see Buckland & Sadler1990), with luxury cargoes like the walrusivory described in the 9th century accountof Ohthere (Fell 1984:20).3 When can onefirst identify the long-range trade of true sta-ples such as dried cod, fish oil, grain, butterand wool? These developments are easiestto observe in historical sources, but shouldalso require intensification of production thatmay be detectable using zooarchaeological,stable isotopic, archaeobotanical and pedolo-gical evidence (e.g. van der Veen & OCon-nor 1998). Intensification could also implyan increase in population size or in the scaleof a non-producing elite, which may in itselfbe a corollary of state formation (Morrison1994:118130).

Dried fishDried fish (particularly of the cod family)was one of the most important exports fromthe North Atlantic region in the MiddleAges. It has been suggested that it wastraded as early as the 9th century (Hagen1995:160), but this assumption is based ex-clusively on an anecdote in Egils Saga,written in the mid 13th century (Nordal1933:4142). Convincing evidence regard-ing the Norwegian fish trade first emerges inthe 12th century (Helle 1968:102, Nedkvitne1976, Bertelsen 1992:179, Urbanczyk 1992:133139, Nedkvitne 1993b:195, Sorheim1997:109, Perdikaris 1998:135) and Ice-land began to export this staple around theturn of the 14th century (Gelsinger 1981:183).

Unlike Norway and Iceland, little histori-cal documentation exists regarding trade inmedieval Orkney (see Barrett 1995:3743).Moreover, most dried fish traded from NorseScotland during the Middle Ages probablytravelled via Bergen, becoming indistin-guishable from Norwegian exports in Eng-lish and continental records. The antiquityof this arrangement is unknown, but theNorwegian crown prevented foreigners from

trading directly with its North Atlanticcolonies between 1294 (Urbanczyk 1992:76) and the 15th century (Friedland 1983:8788). The few historical sources that doexist regarding Norse Scotland have been re-viewed elsewhere (Barrett 1995:180183,1997:633634). The earliest evidence is a12th century anecdote describing Orcadiansat Grimsby (GuDmundsson 1965:130), amedieval fish market and port of call forNorwegian vessels (Helle 1968:103, Rigby1993). Following this laconic record, how-ever, the surviving historical evidence forfish trade from northern Scotland dates tothe 14th and 15th centuries (Friedland 1983,Barrett 1997:634).

Given the paucity of historical evidence,the antiquity of fish trade is an archaeologi-cal problem. It can be addressed by studyingthe methods of fish processing employed,changes in the intensity of fishing activityand the relationship between local diet as re-flected by stable carbon isotopes (see below)and fishing intensity. The first and secondmethods have been considered in detail else-where (Barrett 1995:193273, 1997, Barrettet al. 1999) and will thus be reviewed onlybriefly. The third method is presented herefor the first time.

Historical, pictorial and zooarchaeologicaldata provide a model of how cod family fishwere butchered prior to drying or dry saltingin the Norse North Atlantic (Barrett 1995:222236, 1997:619620). Cranial bonesand the anterior portion of the vertebralcolumn were typically removed and dis-carded at processing sites, whereas appendi-cular elements (immediately behind thecranium) and posterior caudal vertebrae re-mained in the dried and exported product.Thus, both the processing and consumptionof dried fish can be tentatively identifiedbased on distinctive patterns of cut marksand skeletal element frequencies (Barrett1997, Barrett et al. 1999). Data of thesekinds suggest that dried fish were being con-sumed locally, at the elite residence ofEarls Bu, Orkney, for example (Barrett


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Oslo

] at 0

9:50 2

0 Jan

uary

2014

1997:628633), by the 11th12th centuries.The best-known production centres arePhase 8 at St. Boniface, Orkney, (Ceron-Carrasco 1994, 1998) and Phase 1 atRoberts Haven, Caithness (Barrett 1997).The former probably began to accumulate inthe 12th century (Lowe 1998:207), the latterat some point in the 13th century (Barrett1997:620). They both exhibit zooarchaeolo-gical characteristics consistent with driedfish production and are large middens (Phase8 at St. Boniface was estimated to total over5650 m3 (Carter 1998:195)) dominated bycod family fish bone, marine shell and peatash. The shellfish probably served as baitbased on postmedieval analogy (Fenton1978:542), and Ceron-Carrasco (1994:210)has suggested that the ash could relate to therendering of fish oil. This product, which isextracted from fish livers by boiling(McGregor 1880:145), was exported fromNorway to England by 1230 (Helle 1968:106).

Two other fish middens of this kind areknown in the region: Freswick Links andQuoygrewNether Trenabie (hereafterQuoygrew). Sandwick South, also inter-preted as a possible fish processing site

(Bigelow 1985:123124, 1989:189191)may be reassessed on the basis of ongoingpostexcavation analysis (Bigelow pers.comm.). The relevant phases of the northerncliff areas of Freswick Links, Caithness,probably date to the 12th14th centuries(Barrett 1995:99103, 326, Morris et al.1995). However, the selective procedureused to subsample bone from the enormousassemblage (Jones et al. 1995:153) preventsdetailed analysis of the butchery strategyemployed. Quoygrew, Orkney, was sampledby Colley (1983:208217, 1984) in 1978and is now under further excavation (Barrettet al. 1998, Simpson et al. 1998a). Onlyzooarchaeological data from 1978 are cur-rently available, but these are consistentwith cured fish production (Colley 1984:127, Barrett et al. 1999). Work on this sitein 1997 established the existence of a fishmidden ca. 40 m 15 m in dimension,which probably accumulated in the 11th13th centuries, based on radiocarbon assaysfrom upper and lower strata.4

These sites, and other less specialized de-posits, suggest that fishing activity began tointensify at some point in the 11th12th cen-turies. Figure 3 illustrates the total number

Fig. 3. Temporal trends in the intensity of fishing based on the number of identified fish bone specimensrecovered during excavations in northern Scotland (after Barrett & Oltmann 1998, Barrett et al. 1999and references therein). Abbreviations are used to indicate the quality of recovery on an ordinal scale:no sieving (n), minimal sieving (m), partial sieving (p), substantial sieving (s) or total sieving (t). Otherpotential biases are discussed in the text.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Oslo

] at 0

9:50 2

0 Jan

uary

2014

Fig. 4. Temporal trends in the marine contribution to the northern Scottish diet based on 13C and 14Cassays of human bone. More positive 13C values imply a greater reliance on marine foods. (a)Calibrations using the 1998 decadal atmospheric (terrestrial) data set. (b) Calibrations using the 1998mixed atmospheric/marine data set and estimates of % marine carbon in the collagen samples(Stuiver & Reimer 1993, Stuiver et al. 1998, see text and Table 1).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Oslo

] at 0

9:50 2

0 Jan

uary

2014

of fish bone specimens recovered fromnorthern Scottish zooarchaeological assem-blages dating between the Middle Iron Ageand the Middle Ages after collections quan-tified using unusual procedures have beenomitted (Barrett & Oltmann 1998, Barrett etal. 1999, and references therein). The impor-tance of fish probably increased in the Vik-ing Age (a pattern also observable in theavailable stable carbon isotope data, seeFigs. 4a, 4b), but the most notable intensifi-cation occurred in the 11th12th centurieswith the appearance of fish middens andother fish-rich sites such as Earls Bu (Bar-rett 1997) and Beachview (Rackham 1996).Inter-site differences in recovery methodscould bias this pattern (Barrett et al. 1999),but there is almost as much variability ofthis kind within each period as betweenthem (Fig. 3). The data are also biased bydifferences in sample size, but this factor ac-tually underestimates the increasing abun-dance of fish bone in medieval assemblages.Open area excavations at Iron Age andViking Age phases of sites such as Howe(Smith 1994), Pool (Nicholson 1998),Brough Road Areas 1, 2 and 3 (Morris1989), Svar Howe (Hedges 1983) andSkaill (Buteux 1997), produced less fishbone than the small (1 m 2 m, 0.5 m0.75 m and 0.5 m 0.5 m) sample columnsused to investigate medieval fish middensat Roberts Haven (Barrett 1997), St.Boniface (Lowe 1998:1617) and Quoygrew(Colley 1983:209, Barrett et al. 1998).

If fishing intensified in the 11th or 12thcenturies, how might one determine whetheror not the resulting product was exported? Itis clear from the zooarchaeological recordjust discussed that dried fish were produced,but equally clear that they could be con-sumed locally. One option is to compare thechronology of fishing intensification withtemporal trends in the ratio of marine to ter-restrial protein in human diet as indicated by13C assays. If the intensity of fishing in-creased between the Viking Age and theMiddle Ages with no corresponding change

in stable carbon isotope values, it could beargued that the larger catch was intended forexport rather than local consumption.

The available 13C values for graves ofLate Iron Age to medieval date from north-ern Scotland are presented in Table 1 andFigs. 4a4b.5 The dietary implications ofstable carbon isotope signatures (expressedas 13C in parts per mil relative to the stan-dard Pee Dee Belemnitella) for human bonecollagen are relatively well understood (Tau-ber 1981, Johansen et al. 1986, Ambrose &Norr 1993, Liden & Nelson 1994, Richards& Mellars 1998). In environments, such asthose of Scotland, which lack C4 plants, themore positive the 13C value the greater theamount of marine protein in a diet. Endpoint13C values for 100% marine and 100% ter-restrial diets appropriate for Scotland havebeen estimated as 12.0% and 20.6%, re-spectively (Barrett et al. forthcoming b).Precise dietary reconstruction is proble-matic, but more positive 13C values do in-dicate a greater reliance on marine foods(Ambrose & Norr 1993; Ambrose et al.1997).

Students t-tests comparing the 13C va-lues of Viking Age and medieval samples(defined by the presence of grave goods andthe modes of calibrated 14C dates) show nosignificant difference between the twogroups (Table 2). It does not matter whetherthe burials are classified by period using themodes of 14C dates calculated with the at-mospheric curve or by the mixed atmo-spheric/marine calibration. These results areconsistent with the hypothesis that the ap-parent increase in fishing in the Middle Ageswas intended to supply export trade ratherthan local demand, but larger sample sizeswill be required in the future to control forpossible age, sex and/or geographical biases.

CerealsBy the 12th century, Norway was importingcereal products (e.g. Sephton 1899:129).Orkney may have been both exporting andimporting grain around the same time. The


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Oslo

] at 0

9:50 2

0 Jan

uary

2014

earliest record of grain export appears in the13th century historical work, IslendingaSaga. An Orcadian merchant took a cargo ofmeal to Iceland in ca. 1203 (Johannesson etal. 1946:240, Gelsinger 1981:118). Anotherreference, in Bandamanna Saga, mentionsthe purchase of Orcadian malt and grain byan Icelander (Jonsson 1936:358359). Thissaga is a fictional work, set in the 11th cen-tury, but its incidental details are probablyapplicable to the late 13th century when itwas composed (Magery 1993:35). Aspeech attributed to Sverrir of Norway in1186 has also been interpreted as evidencefor the export of grain (Thomson 1987:110).The king thanked Orcadians, Shetlandersand others for such things as make this land[Norway] the richer, and we cannot do with-out (Sephton 1899:129). The Orcadiangrain trade is next recorded in ca. 1424,when the export of nine or ten shiploads toScotland in a year of dearth contributed to adispute between the people of Orkney anda royal administrator (Clouston 1914:3637).

Archaeobotanical evidence for the exportof cereals from northern Scotland is not yetforthcoming. The widespread cultivation ofbarley and oats in the Viking Age and Mid-dle Ages is well established (e.g. Donaldson& Nye 1989, Huntley & Turner 1995, Nye1996, Bond 1998), but it is presently impos-sible to identify the origin of importedcereals recovered in consumer regions suchas Iceland (e.g. Amorosi et al. 1992:182).

The best evidence for agricultural intensi-fication that can be associated with the de-velopment of trade derives from the study offossil and relict soil properties using fieldcharacteristics, lipid biomarkers and thinsection micromorphology of resin-impreg-nated soil samples. The productivity ofarable land in northern Scotland was main-tained and improved by the addition of sea-weed, animal dung and turf stripped fromuncultivated land (Simpson 1997:365,Davidson & Carter 1998:828). This processcreates deepened anthropogenic cultivationhorizons, known as plaggen soils, recogniz-able by their thickness and constituents.They began to form in the Iron Age orearlier (Dockrill & Simpson 1994, Lowe1998:204206, Simpson et al. 1998a, b, c,Barrett & Simpson unpublished), but themost extensive expression of this processcan be tentatively dated to the Middle Ages.The Soil Survey of Scotland (1981) hasidentified approximately 7 km2 of deepenedtopsoil located in the West Mainland ofOrkney and (to a much lesser degree) on theisland of Stronsay. This is not a comprehen-sive survey, given that small plots of plag-gen soil have since been identifiedelsewhere (e.g. Barrett et al. 1998, Davidson& Carter 1998, Lowe 1998, Simpson et al.1998c), but it does isolate an important fo-cus of agricultural intensification in the WestMainland. Here, soils composed of redepos-ited turf, ruminant manure, pig manure andseaweed (Simpson 1997, Simpson et al.

Table 2. T-test comparison of 13C values for Viking Age and medieval burials from north-ern Scotland. The absence of a significant difference could imply that the increase in fishingevident in the zooarchaeological record (Fig. 3) was partly intended to supply an exporttrade.Calibration Method Viking Age Medieval Variance1 t-value Degrees of

FreedomSignificancelevel

Difference inmeans?

Atmospheric n = 17 n = 8 equal 0.577 23 0.569 noMean =18.95 Mean =19.28

Atmospheric/marine n = 15 n = 10 unequal 0.870 11 0.403 noMean =19.27 Mean =18.73

1 Based on Levenes test for equality of variances. Pooled t-test only used if variances are equal.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Oslo

] at 0

9:50 2

0 Jan

uary

2014

1999) cluster around Norse farm nameswhich are late in a relative chronological se-quence established on onomastic groundsand thus probably post-date initial Scandina-vian colonization (Simpson 1993:7). Bulksamples from the Netherskaill soil profile atMarwick provided (2) calibrated dates ofAD 9991222 (SRR-4115, 930 55 BP) at6570 cm and AD 14051522 (SRR-4114,440 55 BP) at 2530 cm in depth. Soildates must be treated cautiously, given reju-venation effects and uncertainties regardingthe age of redeposited material (Simpson1993:78, 1997:367368), but these assaysdo imply that accumulation began duringthe Middle Ages in at least one location.Although more dates on plaggen soils arecalled for, this evidence is broadly consis-tent with the earliest historical records ofgrain export.

Historical evidence for importation of cer-eals begins in the reign of Robert I of Scot-land (13061329), when an annual render ofgrain was made to St. Magnus Cathedral,Orkney (Crawford 1982:63). Although nottrade in the strict sense, this cargo probablyreflects the products of more mundane trans-actions that did not enter the royal accountbooks. Rare grains of bread wheat type (Tri-ticum aestivum) recovered from medievaldeposits in Orkney and Caithness may alsoimply that cereals were imported (Huntley1994, Huntley & Turner 1995:222). Thismaterial has not yet been directly dated, butcomes from sites with associated radiocar-bon assays. Seventeen Triticum aestivumgrains (plus 11 grains identified only as Tri-ticum sp.) were recovered from ca. 12th14th century deposits at Freswick Links(Huntley & Turner 1995:222), two more(plus two cf. Triticum specimens) came from13th14th century deposits at RobertsHaven and three (plus one cf. Triticum aesti-vum, two hexaploid Triticum sp. and oneTriticum sp. grain) were found in 11th12thcentury deposits at Earls Bu (Huntley un-published). Given the potential economicimplications of trade in wheat, it is neces-

sary to address the arguments for andagainst this interpretation in some detail.

Records of wheat production in the farnorth of Scotland are extremely rare. Mostaccounts indicate that only barley (Hor-deum) and oats (Avena) were produced (e.g.Anon. 1760:56, 70, Buchanan 1733:41, Hall1807:530, Withrington & Grant 1978, Pen-nant 1979:174, 177, Hewison 1997). More-over, the few references to wheat growingthat do exist are associated with experimen-tation (Anon. 1814:3536, Anon. 1845:28,65, Withrington & Grant 1978:280, Nayloret al. 1987). In the first Statistical Accountof Scotland (Withrington & Grant 1978:280), for example, wheat was grown in onlyone of 28 recorded Orkney and Shetlandparishes. An estate owner in Shapinsay at-tempted to introduce wheat along with otherimprovements to his land. A mid 1980s ex-periment of the Aberdeen School of Agricul-ture involved planting two plots of winterwheat at Bilbster (a sheltered river valleysite in the Caithness interior), but only oneof them successfully matured (Naylor et al.1987).

Although it is impossible to reconstructthe environmental tolerances of past wheatpopulations (Hillman et al. 1995:197), it isnevertheless instructive to compare the mini-mum requirements of modern and earlymodern wheat with climate data from Or-kney (which are also relevant to the north-east coast of Caithness where FreswickLinks and Roberts Haven are located, seeDry & Robertson [1982:912]) (Fig. 5).Low summer temperatures and poor condi-tions in the harvest season are critical limit-ing factors. Average summer temperaturesdo not reach Percivals (1974:5) minimumof 13148C and are well below the idealrange of 18198C (Wheeler & Mayes1997:231). Wheat grown in northern Scot-land is unlikely to mature until mid-Septem-ber or October (Pennant 1979:170, Naylor etal. 1987) when average temperatures dropeven further below the published minimumand rainfall increases dramatically (Meteoro-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Oslo

] at 0

9:50 2

0 Jan

uary

2014

logical Office 1989:6). Precipitation at theend of the season hinders ripening andmakes harvesting difficult (Hall & Russell1909:17, Nuttonson 1955:30, Thomson et al.1992:343). Moreover, the rising number ofgusty days in September and October(Davidson & Jones 1985:1719) would in-crease the chances of lodging, shaking and/or damage from sea spray (see Anon.1845:45, Withrington & Grant 1978:147,169, 225, 339340).

In sum, the early modern historical recordand 20th century climate data imply thatwheat cultivation is unlikely to be successfulin northern Scotland, supporting the hypoth-esis that it was imported. However, equallystrong alternative lines of evidence suggestthat it could have been produced locally.First, wheat might have been grown withgreater success in the putative MedievalWarm Period thought by some to character-ize the Viking Age and early Middle Ages

(cf. Hughes & Diaz 1994, Ogilvie & Farmer1997:130). Second, five Triticum sp. rachisinternodes were recovered at Freswick Links(Huntley & Turner 1995:222) and one Triti-cum aestivum rachis internode was exca-vated at Earls Bu (Huntley unpublished).One might expect this chaff at a cereal pro-duction rather than consumption site (Hill-man 1984). Third, emmer wheat, Triticumdiccocum, is a trace find at several sites dat-ing from the Neolithic to the Iron Age(Lynch 1983:172, Boardman 1992:MF2:A5A12, Dickson 1994:128, Carter et al.1995:458, Bond 1998:86). It may be moresuited than bread wheat to the climate lim-itations of northern Scotland,6 but does indi-cate that wheat could be grown on a smallscale in prehistoric Orkney. Lastly, the cur-rent lack of direct AMS dates on the wheatitself makes the hypothesis that this cerealwas imported as early as the 11th or 12thcenturies speculative.

Fig. 5. Limiting factors for wheat cultivation in the far north of Scotland based on modern climate datafrom Kirkwall, Orkney.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Oslo

] at 0

9:50 2

0 Jan

uary

2014

Butter and woolMoving to the products of pastoralism, it isknown that butter was traded from Norway(Sephton 1899:129), and that wool wasexported from Iceland (Ingimundarson1995:333), by the 12th century. Wool mayhave been exported from Norway severalcenturies earlier as textiles of the Veka andBirka types (Bender Jrgensen 1992:138140). It has also been argued, however, thatpre 11th century trade in textiles focused onhigh value weaves and materials (includingsilk), with local production of utilitarian fab-ric (Walton Rogers 1997:18261830).

Typically, the evidence regarding NorseScotland is more ambiguous. The clearestpicture emerges for butter. A dispute in1222 between the bishop and people ofCaithness involved an increase in the buttertax or tithe (GuDmundsson 1965:298299,Crawford 1985:28). Butter also appears inthe earliest surviving secular rent and tax re-cords from the 15th and 16th centuries(McNeill 1901:325327; Thomson 1996).Some of the butter was probably intendedfor consumption by elites and their retainers,but ecclesiastical and secular payments wereoften destined for trade in better-documen-ted regions and centuries (e.g. Shaw1980:165166, 173, McNeill & MacQueen1996:237). Contrary to Gelsingers (1981:111115) claim, wool was probably notan important export from Norse Scotland.Wadmel (wool cloth) does appear in 16thcentury Shetlandic rentals (McNeill 1901:325327), but is not found in recordsfor Orkney and Caithness (e.g. Thomson1996).

Butter or wool export should theoreticallyinfluence the management of cattle andsheep herds and thus lead to changes in theage structure of faunal assemblages (Legge1981, McCormick 1992, Ingimundarson1995:5797). Dairying is likely to leave theclearest pattern the most important signa-ture criterion being a cull of surplus calves(Legge 1981, McCormick 1992). When thiswas first recognized in medieval phases at

Sandwick South in Shetland, Bigelow(1989:188189, 1992:19) suggested thatthere may indeed have been an intensifica-tion of dairying around the 12th century (beit to support an elite superstructure or trade).Recently, however, this pattern has alsobeen identified at earlier Viking Age andmedieval sites (Rackham 1996:164167,Barrett & Oltmann 1998, Bond 1998:85). AtPool, Orkney, the mortality of young calvesappears to have increased at the Iron Age/Viking Age transition (Bond 1998:85). Thiseconomic pattern may thus represent a cul-turally defined herd management strategy(introduced during Scandinavian coloniza-tion) rather than the growth of trade or in-creased demand from a hierarchy of non-producers.

URBANISMThe earliest Norwegian port of trade, Kau-pang in Vestfold (Blindheim et al. 1981),flourished in the 9th century, but it was fol-lowed only slowly by formal urban organi-zation elsewhere in Norway. Archaeologicalevidence dates the development of townssuch as Nidaros, Oslo and Bergen to the11th century (Herteig 1985, Schia 1987,Christophersen 1989). In Orkney, Brgger(1929:121, see also Owen 1993:332,Graham-Campbell & Batey 1998:56) onceargued that the Viking Age cemetery atPierowall, Westray, provided evidence for atrading centre, which he equated with theplace-name Hofn (haven) in OrkneyingaSaga. As Small (1968:15) and Morris(1985:233) have observed, however, it isdifficult to sustain the hypothesis. The sagareference is to the 12th century and does notimply trade (GuDmundsson 1965:162163).Moreover, the 17 identified graves comparepalely with the hundreds near Kaupang inNorway (cf. Thorsteinsson 1968:164172,Blindheim et al. 1981).

There is some evidence that Thurso(Dasent 1894:155) and Wick (Pryde 1965:28,47) in Caithness may have functioned as


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Oslo

] at 0

9:50 2

0 Jan

uary

2014

towns by the 13th or 14th centuries. However,Kirkwall in Orkney was undoubtedly the pri-mary urban focus of the earldoms. Its devel-opment can be dated to the 12th century basedon both historical and archaeological evi-dence. A mid 13th century account of thetranslation of the relics of Magnus, the patronsaint of Orkney, to Kirkwall in ca. 1135 re-cords that the market town of Kirkwall hadonly a few houses but since then it has grownconsiderably (Palsson & Edwards 1987:37,45, Thomson 1987:6162). Two years laterSt. Magnus Cathedral was founded in thistown by the Earl of Orkney (Cruden 1988:78).Kirkwalls subsequent role as an administra-tive and economic centre is clear from the his-torical record (e.g. Dasent 1894:365369,Donaldson 1974:36, Thomson 1987:114115).

Archaeological evidence for Kirkwallsurban status is also unambiguous. Substan-tial portions of St. Magnus Cathedral andthe Bishops Palace date to the 12th and

13th centuries (Simpson 1961:72, Cruden1988, Fawcett 1988) and McGavin(1982:401402; see also Cox et al. 1998)identified a possible jetty sealed by depositsincluding Scottish and English pottery of13th to early 14th century date. The settledarea expanded considerably from the 13th14th centuries on (McGavin 1982:430431;Lamb 1993:4548). At the 57 Albert Streetsite, ca. 33 m of shore had been reclaimedby the 15th16th centuries (McGavin1982:430431).

DISCUSSIONOur understanding of the Orcadian VikingAge remains imperfect. Nevertheless, it isnow possible to construct a tentative chron-ology of its five main socioeconomic attri-butes (Fig. 6), to contrast this model withthe timing of similar developments in Nor-way and to interpret the results vis-a`-vis thetenets of world-systems theory.

Fig. 6. A tentative chronology for the adoption of state attributes in Norse Orkney.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Oslo

] at 0

9:50 2

0 Jan

uary

2014

The centralization of authority in Orkneyis best attributed to the end of the VikingAge and later in the Middle Ages. Like Nor-way, the first clear consolidation of powerwithin the earldom probably began in the11th century, before which multiple compet-ing chiefs vied for authority. However, someelements of this heterarchy continued intothe 12th century when chiefly feastingand gift-giving were still practised and inde-pendent magnates engaged in feud with im-punity. The incorporation of the earldominto Norwegian (and Scottish) state struc-tures was also a slow process. Althoughthere was a short-lived attempt at directNorwegian interference in the 11th century(Sawyer 1976), Orkney remained largely im-mune from external authority until the endof the 12th century.

In contrast, Christianity was an earlyfeature of Norse Scotland possibly pre-dating Norwegian developments by approxi-mately a century. It is likely that competingViking Age factions espoused differentideologies given archaeological and histori-cal evidence for the concurrent existence ofboth Christian and pagan elites in the 9thand 10th centuries.7 The more hierarchicalChristian worldview may have achievedlasting dominance during Earl Thorfinn Si-gurdarsons 11th century efforts to consoli-date central authority. Later, this ideologyserved to emphasize Orcadian independence the clearest example of which is the mid12th century creation of a patron saint, themartyred Earl Magnus, as a consciousequivalent of the royal saints of Norway andDenmark (Brunsden 1997).

More research is necessary before the in-tensification of production in Norse Scotlandcan be fully understood and compared withNorwegian analogues. Economic changesassociated with the beginning of the VikingAge, such as increases in the importance offishing and dairying, may represent the in-troduction of new subsistence strategies dur-ing Scandinavian colonization rather thanintensification of production to support an

elite hierarchy or trade. The use of plaggensoils to enhance agricultural productivityprobably expanded in the Middle Ages, butthis phenomenon is not yet closely dated.One pattern of intensification does stand out.Distinctive fish middens, created by prepar-ing cod and related species for drying andperhaps fish oil extraction, first appeared inthe 11th or 12th centuries. Fish middenscould represent increasing demand from amore centralized elite hierarchy or evenpopulation increase. However, the lack of aclear difference in the marine carbon contentof human bone collagen from Viking Ageand medieval burials suggests that any in-crease in production may have been in-tended for export.

The earliest historical evidence for thegrowth of trade in staples such as fish, grainand butter dates to the 12th and 13th centu-ries. The development of urbanism wouldappear to parallel this chronology. Kirkwall,the principal town of Norse Scotland, was inexistence by the 1130s, and probably grewrapidly thereafter. Both developments mayslightly post-date similar events in Norway.

How can this chronology be interpreted?The first observation of importance is thatthe five characteristics of the Viking Ageunder consideration did not occur as a con-temporary state-formation package. Norwere they adopted simultaneously in a Nor-wegian core and Scottish periphery. Whywas this so? World-systems spread and un-derdevelopment effects (Chase-Dunn & Hall1991, Bintliff 1997, Chase-Dunn & Mann1998:15) may provide part of the answer,but cannot explain Christianity which wasprobably adopted in Norse Orkney a centuryor more before Norway. Given the politicalimplications of Christian ideology (Steven-son 1996), its espousal in Norse Scotlandquestions the likelihood of Norwegian suzer-ainty and argues against consolidation of ahierarchical core-periphery relationship inthe Viking-Age.

A core-periphery relationship probablydid emerge between Orkney and Norway


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Oslo

] at 0

9:50 2

0 Jan

uary

2014

during the 11th century transition to theMiddle Ages, when the earldom was brieflysubjected to direct Norwegian control (Saw-yer 1976). Spread effects may then have ledto the growth of trade in staples, as Orca-dians were influenced by the slightly earliergrowth of Norwegian commerce in productssuch as dried fish. Moreover, the 11th cen-tury towns of Norway must have served asmodels for the later development of Kirk-wall. World-system underdevelopment ef-fects may also have played a role in thiscase. The delay between the growth of ur-banism in Norway and Orkney could relateto unequal relationships between the two particularly if Scottish products such asdried fish were exported to European mar-kets via Norwegian ports, as later legal evi-dence suggests (Friedland 1983).

It could also be argued that effects of under-development explain why chiefly socioeco-nomic patterns continued in Orkney well intothe 12th century. Impeded complexity andfactional competition have resulted from theexploitation of peripheries during recent epi-sodes of European colonization (Frank 1966,Fried 1967, Chase-Dunn & Mann 1998:15). Itis evident from the historical record, however,that this explanation does not work in the Or-cadian context. The continuity of chiefly orga-nization complete with feasting, giftexchange, scaldic poetry and feud into the12th century was concurrent with a delay ineffective incorporation of Norse Scotland intothe Norwegian (or Scottish) state. Orcadianindependence was manifested both symboli-cally (with the creation of a patron saint andconstruction of a cathedral dedicated to him,see Brunsden (1997), Crawford (1988)) andmilitarily (in acts of aggression against Nor-wegian and Scottish kings, see GuDmundsson(1965:297), Crawford (1985:31)).

The late survival of chiefly organizationin peripheries has been recognized cross-cul-turally (e.g. Yoffee 1993:71). In a study ofthe Scottish highland clans, Dodgshon(1995:101) argued that this is due to oppor-tunity costs:

Seen from Edinburgh, the difficult and isolatednature of the region made the costs of incorporat-ing it into the wider state high. At the same time,the rewards of such incorporation would not havebeen attractive given the regions low potentialfor extracting surplus.

This explanation is convincing from the per-spective of an expansionistic core, but doesnot address why the occupants of peripheriesmake the choices they do. When the issue isframed in these terms it becomes evidentthat the late survival of chiefly organizationin Orkney (and perhaps similar contexts) re-presents a peripherys success in maintain-ing an indigenous form of social organi-zation. This success was achieved by ensur-ing that the costs of expropriation by acore remained higher than potential bene-fits through the exercise of militarypower, ideology and diplomacy. The careerof Earl Thorfinn Sigurdarson, mentionedabove, is a clear example of this process. Heeffectively manipulated diplomacy (with po-tential Norwegian and Scottish overlords),military power (using a retinue supported byfeasting and plunder) and Christian ideologi-cal support (solicited from as far a field asRome) (GuDmundsson 1965:2883). Return-ing to the question posed at the outset of thispaper, it is possible that peripheries do notchange, or change more slowly than neigh-bouring polities, because they may some-times represent successful resistance to coreexpansion.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis study was funded by the SocialSciences and Humanities Research Councilof Canada as a component of the VikingAge Transitions Project. It was inspired bythe Troms Arctic Archaeology SeminarThe North Atlantic and Northwest RussiaAD 8001400 organized by Reidar Bertel-sen in 1996. Human bone samples werekindly donated by Anne Brundle of the Tan-kerness House Museum, Orkney, Theya


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Oslo

] at 0

9:50 2

0 Jan

uary

2014

Molleson of the Natural History Museum,London, and Alison Sheridan of the NationalMuseums of Scotland. Sarah King assistedwith collecting the samples; 13C wasmeasured for all TO sample numbers by theEnvironmental Isotope Laboratory (EIL) ofthe University of Waterloo. Stable isotopemeasurements for Galson and Cnip were de-termined by Michael Richards of the Uni-versity of Oxford and kindly provided byTim Neighbour. Don Brothwell, Sarah Col-ley, Magnar Dalland, Heather James, OlwynOwen, Sophia Perdikaris, Alison Sheridanand Steffen Stummann Hansen are alsoowed special thanks for permission to in-clude their unpublished data. IAS gratefullyacknowledges the contributions of SteveDockrill, Richard Evershed, Ian Bull andPim van Bergen in developing the analysisof anthropogenic soils in the Northern Isles.Work at Quoygrew received support fromthe Orkney Islands Council, the Hunter Ar-chaeological Trust, the Society for MedievalArchaeology, the University of Glasgow andHistoric Scotland. The assistance of HeatherJames, the excavation supervisors and thecrew is gratefully acknowledged, as is thelocal support of George and MargaretDrever, James Drever, Linda and StephenHagan, Julie Gibson and Anne Brundle. By-ron Moldofsky drafted Fig. 1 and Nicole Or-etsky assisted with library research. Duringthe writing of this paper we have benefitedfrom suggestions, offprints and unpublishedreports received from Diane Alldritt, Col-leen Batey, Gerald Bigelow, Julie Bond,Ruby Ceron-Carrasco, Axel Christophersen,Gordon Cook, Tony Davis, Steinar Gullik-sen, Daphne Lorimer, Christopher Morris,Rebecca Nicholson, Terry OConnor, Mi-chael Parker Pearson, Berit Sellevold andNiall Sharples.

NOTES1 More accurately the joint earldoms of Orkney and

Caithness, but Orkney will be used for convenience.2 For samples with appropriate data available, marine

reservoir corrections have been calculated using CALIB4.1.2 (Stuiver & Reimer 1993), the mixed atmospheric/marine calibration data set of Stuiver et al. (1998), a DRvalue (which accounts for local variation in the marinereservoir) of 1 8 years (Heier-Nielsen 1995:881) andpercent marine carbon estimates based on staple carbonisotope analysis. The methodology is discussed in moredetail elsewhere (Barrett et al. forthcoming b). Althoughthis method provides the best approximation currentlyavailable, it may result in dates that are too young.Humans do not eat shell carbonate, the material on whichthe corrections are based (Harkness 1983). Carbon in thesoft tissues of marine organisms may come from adifferent source (probably their food, ultimately derivedfrom phytoplankton), which may appear younger inradiocarbon terms than the dissolved inorganic carbonused in shell production (Dyke et al. 1996; Barrett et al.forthcoming b). For these reasons, the difference betweendates calibrated using the atmospheric and mixed atmo-spheric/marine models must be viewed as a maximumpossible offset. Atmospheric calibration will tend toproduce dates that are too old, whereas marine reservoircorrections may produce assays that are too young.

3 Other Viking Age trade goods, such as antler combs(Weber 1993) and iron (Martens 1992:45), whichoccupy a grey area between high and low-value areomitted from the present discussion. The status of wood,which must have been transported to treeless northernScotland (e.g. Crawford 1995, Owen 1993:332), is also anambiguous indicator of trade in staples. MedievalNorwegian law allowed Icelanders to cut all the woodthey want in the kings forests (Gelsinger 1981:7172)and it is likely that Orcadians could also collect their ownsupplies in Norway or further south in Scotland.

4 Barley from immediately under the homogenized surfacelayers, yielded 2 calibrated dates of AD 11591291 (TO-7117, 800 50 BP) and AD 10391264 (TO-7530,860 40 BP). Bone from a calf skeleton excavated nearthe base of the midden provided a 2 assay of AD 9961162 (TO-7529, 970 40 BP).

5 As samples, with less than 5% of their originalprotein (equivalent to less than 1% collagen yield bybone weight) sur

what was the viking age and when did it happen

Documents