New Excavations at the Brough of Deerness: Power and Religion in Viking Age Scotland James H. Barrett1,* and Adam Slater2 Abstract - The grass-covered top of the Brough of Deerness, a small sea stack in Orkney, Scotland, holds the remains of a substantial Viking Age settlement and associated chapel. The chapel was excavated by Christopher Morris in the 1970s and discovered to have two phases, one above and one below an Anglo-Saxon coin minted between 959 and 975. New excavations of two buildings from the surrounding settlement aim to illuminate the function of the site, and to inform our understanding of the relationship between power and religion during the Viking Age diaspora. At least one of the buildings was a domestic dwelling, of typical Scandinavian style, abandoned in the 11th to 12th centuries. However, both structures represent only the top of a long stratigraphic sequence, with underlying middens radiocarbon dated to as early as the 6th to 7th centuries A.D. In its latest phases, the site was probably a chiefl y stronghold (as previously suggested by Morris) with a symbiotic relationship with surrounding farms. In this preliminary report on new research, several models are tentatively proposed to account for the role of such a settlement within the political economy of late Viking Age Scotland. 1McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3ER, UK. 2Cambridge Archaeological Unit, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, UK. *Corresponding author - jhb41@cam.ac.uk. Introduction The Brough of Deerness is a sea stack in Deerness (east Mainland), Orkney, Scotland (Figs. 1–2). The site is connected to the coast at beach level, but the summit is only accessible by climbing a narrow cliff-side path. It was probably equally (or more) inaccessible in antiquity as the gap from the adjacent promontory is the result of a geological fault rather than erosion in historical times (Donna Surge, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 2009 Journal of the North Atlantic 2:81–94 Figure 1. The Brough of Deerness under excavation in 2008. Large Burra Geo, the bay to the west (top), is suitable for landing boats and was used as a fi shing harbour in the early 20th century. Photograph © Vicki Herring. 82 Journal of the North Atlantic Volume 2 USA, pers comm.). The Brough’s grass-covered top, surrounded by ca. 30-m cliffs, holds the remains of an enigmatic settlement—including a chapel and approximately 30 associated buildings—traditionally interpreted as a monastery or chiefl y stronghold (Fig. 3). Despite evidence that the stack was used for target practice in the First and Second World Wars (Morris and Emery 1986 and references therein), the outlines of many house foundations remain at least superfi cially intact. Past archaeological excavation, directed by Christopher Morris (Morris and Emery 1986), focused on the area around the partially upstanding stone chapel (Fig. 4). Under it was discovered the remains of an earlier timber chapel, predating a layer containing an Anglo-Saxon coin (of Eadgar) minted between A.D. 959 and 975. This chapel is thus among the earliest known evidence for Viking Age Christianity in the Scandinavian North Atlantic region—possibly predating the traditional conversion date of A.D. 995 (Barrett 2002, Morris 1996a). At least the timber phase was potentially founded in the 10th century, accepting that the coin could have been old when deposited. The overlying stone phase may have been built in the 11th or 12th centuries, based on a radiocarbon date of A.D. 1030–1249 (calibrated at the 95% probability level) on human bone from a grave that post-dated its construction (see Barrett 2002). The stone chapel is unlikely to date as late as the 13th century because the entire site seems to have been abandoned by then. For example, most of the medieval pottery known from the Brough of Deerness came from the decay and collapse phases of the chapel (Barrett and Slater 2008, Morris and Emery 1986). Although unique in many respects, the site belongs to a group of early historic (defi ned as the 6th to 12th centuries A.D. for present purposes) islet, promontory, and stack settlements known from the Northern Isles, other parts of coastal Scotland, and the Irish Sea province. A simple typology might classify them along scales of size and accessibility on the one hand and secular versus ecclesiastical function on the other. In terms of size and access, they range from small low-lying islands such as Iona (O’Sullivan 1999) to tiny inaccessible stacks such as the “Castle” of Burrian in Orkney (Fig. 5; Moore and Wilson 1998). In terms of function, interpretations tend to vary from aristocratic strongholds to monasteries—with the interrelatedness of power and religion in the early historic period allowing for ambiguity between the two (cf. Barrowman et al. 2007, Morris 1996b). It is clear that some sites served as centers of chiefl y power. Examples include Burghead and Dumbarton Rock in Scotland and St. Patrick’s Isle, Peel, on the Isle of Man. These settlements have been associated with the kings of Pictland (Ralston 2004), Strathclyde (Alcock 2003), and Man (Freke 2002), respectively. Others were clearly monastic in focus. Well-known Scottish examples include Iona (O’Sullivan 1999) and Inchmarnock (Lowe 2008). In the Northern Isles, the bestknown site is the Brough of Birsay (Fig. 6). It is a relatively large tidal islet off the northwest coast of Mainland, Orkney. Historical evidence indicates that in the 11th century it was either the primary seat of the earls and bishops of Orkney or part of a multi-focal settlement (including mainland sites) that collectively included these funcFigure 2. Northern Scottish sites mentioned in the text. tions (e.g., Crawford 2005, Morris 2009 J. Barrett and A. Slater 83 1996b). Based on archaeological evidence, its role as a central place may have begun in Pictish times. It has seen a series of major excavation campaigns (e.g., Curle 1982, Hunter 1986, Morris 1996c). At the other end of the scale, the small inaccessible sites of the Northern Isles have only occasionally been the focus of excavation—for understandable reasons given the logistical problems they Figure 3. The Brough of Deerness as surveyed by Fred Bettess during the 1970s excavation (Morris and Emery 1986), when grazing by sheep revealed the outlines of more buildings than can be seen today. The 2008 excavation areas are superimposed. (We are grateful to the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland and Christopher Morris for permission to reproduce this plan). 84 Journal of the North Atlantic Volume 2 present. The Kame of Isbister in Shetland, where the outlines of approximately 20 small buildings have been recorded, was even investigated as part of the television series Extreme Archaeology, which sponsored excavation in difficult locations (Anonymous 2003). This work produced a Viking Age radiocarbon date on charcoal, but no artifacts were found to further aid interpretation. Raymond Lamb (1973), once the Orkney Archaeologist, resolutely surveyed many sites of this kind and was a particular advocate of a religious model—interpreting them as isolated monastic hermitages (either of the Figure 4. The stone chapel at the Brough of Deerness, as consolidated following excavation by Christopher Morris from 1975 to 1977. Photograph © James Barrett. Figure 5. The Castle of Burrian—a rock stack in Westray, Orkney, that has two house foundations perched on top. It is an example of the smallest of such sites in Atlantic Scotland. Photograph © James Barrett. 2009 J. Barrett and A. Slater 85 early “Celtic” or later medieval traditions). However, other interpretations are also possible. Some small sites may actually, as Lamb (1980) conceded, represent earlier Iron Age occupation of limited relevance to the present discussion. Others may have functioned as defensive refuges and/or “watch-towers” of early historic date. Small promontories were used for this purpose in the 12th century based on both the Orkneyinga saga (composed ca. 1200) (Guðmundsson 1965) and surviving ruins such as the castle of Old Wick in Caithness (Gifford 1992). This tradition continued for centuries. Bucholie Castle, near Freswick in Caithness, is a good example. It is a 15th-century fortifi cation on a tiny promontory that may also be the site of the stronghold and lookout post known as Lambaborg in the Orkneyinga saga (Barrett 2005, Batey 1991, Gifford 1992; cf. Barrowman 2008 regarding Dùn Èistean in Lewis). These northern promontory, stack, and islet sites—large and small—have the potential to offer important clues regarding the relationship between power, religion, and migration (perhaps better understood as transnationalism—allowing for complex movement to and fro along networks; see Barrett 2008a, and references therein) in the early historic period. This is so whether they were centers of “Scandinavian” lordship, often with associated churches (as at the Brough of Birsay and St Patrick’s Isle), or earlier monastic communities welcomed by chieftains or kings inspired by the example of Christianized regions such as Ireland and Gaelic Dál Riata in western Scotland (cf. Carver 2008, Dumville 2002). In order to realize this potential, it is necessary to answer two basic questions: what was the chronology and function of these sites, singly and as classifi ed groups? Only with these answers in hand will it be possible to address more complex issues. For example, did early monasticism precede or follow other possible “Irish” cultural infl uence—such as ogham writing (Forsyth 1995) and fi gure-ofeight buildings (Ralston 1997)—in pre-Viking Age Orkney? Or later in time, was the adoption of an indigenous religion—Christianity—by chieftains of Scandinavian descent of central importance to the creation of powerful principalities such as the Earldom of Orkney and the Kingdom of Man? More holistically phrased, what was the role of religion in the processes of migration, transnationalism, and the resulting emergence of new polities? These questions need to be addressed one site at a time, setting the evidence from careful stratigraphic excavation into its wider regional and international context. The Brough of Deerness is a promising case study given the combination of a chapel and approximately thirty associated buildings. During fi ve weeks of fi eldwork in June and July of 2008, we set out to explore the state of preservation, chronology, and function of the site—focusing on the buildings around the chapel. These have never before been excavated. What follows is a preliminary description and interpretation of what was found. It must be read as an interim statement regarding work in progress. The Excavation The Brough is not presently grazed and is thus overgrown with thick tussocks of turf that hide low-relief surface topography. Nevertheless, a Figure 6. The Brough of Birsay—a tidal islet off the north-west coast of Mainland, Orkney. In the 11th century, it was either the primary seat of the earls and bishops of Orkney or part of a multi-focal settlement including these functions. Photograph © James Barrett. 86 Journal of the North Atlantic Volume 2 reasonable guide to the location of structures was provided by aerial photographs from the 1970s, the 1977 earthwork survey (Fig. 3), and both gradiometer and resistance surveys conducted by the Orkney College Geophysics Unit in 2006 (Moore 2007, Ovenden 2008). It was therefore possible to locate probable building foundations, two of which were selected for excavation in consultation with Historic Scotland and the Orkney Archaeologist. Area A, an intervention of approximately 13.6 m by 5.8 m, was opened over Structures 23 and 24 as recorded in 1977 (Fig. 3). Structure 23 was not visible on the surface in 2008, but Structure 24 was clear as a raised semicircular feature with a diameter of ca. 4 m. Area A was chosen to: 1) include a building (Structure 23) on the eastern side of the main trackway running through the settlement; 2) section what was thought might be a large shellhole from use of the Brough for target practice during the First or Second World Wars (Structure 24); 3) include a region of intense geophysical anomaly and “busy” topography towards the north end of the Brough. This area clearly has multi-phase settlement, so it was considered a good place to begin to look for any pre-Viking Age evidence; and 4) be well placed for possible later extension, either southward to include Structures 18 and 19 or eastward to include Structure 25. Structures 18 and 19 are centrally located within the settlement and oriented at 90 degrees to most of the other ruins on the Brough. Together they comprise one of the longest visible house foundations. The building they represent may thus have held special importance within the settlement. Structure 25, if not two contiguous shell-holes, appears to be curvilinear and may thus represent a building of Iron Age/Pictish style. Area B, an intervention of approximately 14.6 m by 9.8 m (Fig. 3), was opened over Structure 20, one of a series of parallel buildings along the main path running through the settlement. Before excavation, it was thought likely to be single-phase, based on the clarity of its outline in the earthwork survey, resistance survey, and aerial photographs. It was chosen to: 1) include a building on the western side of the trackway; 2) represent a region of less intense geophysical anomaly and less uneven topography towards the west and south of the Brough; 3) rescue archaeology close to the cliff edge which could nevertheless be made safe for both excavators and visitors; and 4) uncover a house that might be immediately interpretable after a brief trial-excavation, rather than obscured by many superimposed phases. Area A The 2008 excavation of Area A revealed the general outline of Structure 23 and demonstrated that what was recorded in survey as Structure 24 was a palimpsest of superimposed ancient features rather than a single building or a large shell-hole from the First or Second World Wars (Figs. 7–8.) Structure 23 appears irregular in plan, partly due to post-abandonment collapse but apparently also because it was inserted into a space framed by pre-existing buildings and/or ruins. It was approximately 7.2 m by 3.5 m in internal dimensions. It had an inner wall face of unbonded masonry, partly cut into pre-existing deposits and partly set in what was Figure 7. Plan of Area A showing the destruction phase of Structure 23 and the earlier (radiocarbon dated) middens and features beyond its eastern end. Image © Vicki Herring. 2009 J. Barrett and A. Slater 87 otherwise an earth and rubble foundation (presumably for a turf superstructure). Its bioturbated upper fl oor level included much charcoal. A single small shell-hole was discovered near the middle of the building, associated with fragments of shell-casing. Structure 23 may have had two opposing doorways near its western gable, but it was not excavated after we exposed its general outline, so this interpretation is conjectural. Most work in 2008 focused on the eastern end of Area A and on Area B (see below). Structure 24 turned out to be a series of in situ features of differing dates. The lowest of these were midden deposits (with good preservation of animal bone) into which Structure 23 was inserted. The middens were examined within the constraints of a small 2-m by 1-m sondage, and were found to overlie earlier structural features. No diagnostic artifacts were recovered from Area A, but two samples of animal bone have been radiocarbon dated to help guide ongoing excavation. They came from the uppermost and lowermost excavated contexts of the middens into which structure 23 was built. These samples produced dates of A.D. 660 to 870 (sample SUERC-23655, 1260 ± 35bp) and A.D. 570 to 665 (sample SUERC-23654, 1420 ± 35 bp), respectively, at the 95% probability level. Neither of the dates requires marine reservoir correction, being on pig and cattle bones having δ13C values of -20.7‰ and -21.6‰ (cf. Barrett and Richards 2004). They imply the existence of a pre-Viking Age Pictish settlement on the Brough of Deerness. It remains to be established, however, whether or not there was continuity between this ca. 6th- to 9th-century use of the Brough and the later settlement. Area B The 2008 excavation of Area B demonstrated that Structure 20 (hereafter “House 20”) was a multi-phase house of Viking Age Scandinavian style that was abandoned in the 11th to 12th centuries (Figs. 9–10). It was approximately 10.4 m by 4.1 m in internal dimensions (after narrowing from a probable original width of approximately 4.9 m). House 20 overlaid an earlier feature—possibly another building—the remains of which were found extending from under its southeastern corner. The earliest construction and occupation phases of House 20 itself have not yet been excavated. In its penultimate configuration, however, the building was a threeaisled house with two rows of roofsupporting posts and probably also an internal cross-wall of perishable material dividing its internal space into eastern and western rooms. Its eastern room contained a central hearth, side aisles (marked out by the roof-supporting posts and small edge-set stones) and niches in the northeast and southeast corners (also demarcated by edge-set stones). At some point, a second hearth was also established near the eastern end of the building. The western room was mostly featureless, but may originally have had side-aisles. The fl oors associated with this penultimate phase of the building’s use produced a glass bead of 11th-century date. Additional fi nds from the exterior of House 20, or from the destruction of its walls, may be broadly contemporary with use of the building (if not residual from earlier Viking Age occupation). These included a soapstone Figure 8. The destruction phase of Structure 23 from the southeast. Photograph loom weight and a soapstone vessel © Brian Rahn. 88 Journal of the North Atlantic Volume 2 of the northern wall (Fig. 13). The northern wall itself was a rebuild, the original having collapsed earlier in the life of the house. shard—the latter of Norwegian style (Figs. 11–12). It is probable that there were originally two entrances into the building, in the northwest and northeast ends Figure 9. Plan of Area B showing the penultimate occupation phase. Note the eight decommissioned post-holes (some packed with stones) from the original internal roof supports. Image © Vicki Herring. Figure 10. House 20 in Area B. Photograph © Brian Rahn. 2009 J. Barrett and A. Slater 89 north and south walls. Thus, the life of this single building encapsulates a change in Scandinavian architectural fashion dated to the 10th–11th centuries in Denmark and Norway (if a few centuries later in Iceland, at least in outbuildings) (Gestsson 1959, Hvass 1993, Norr and Fewster 2003). Concurrently, a new entrance was inserted in the center of the south wall, and a new earth floor with occasional paving slabs was laid. At this time, or shortly after, a copper alloy pin of 11th to 12th century date Late in the use-life of House 20, the internal posts were removed and their post-holes filled in. At the western end of the building, this entailed digging and refilling relatively large and irregular robbing pits—suggesting that the upright timbers were very substantial in this part of the house. Elsewhere the removal of the roof supports left more discrete post-pipes that were backfilled with earth and stone. The internal posts seem to have been replaced with timbers along the inside edge of the Figure 11. A soapstone loom weight from outside House 20 (scale in cm). Photograph © James Barrett. Figure 12. A soapstone vessel shard from outside House 20 (scale in cm). Photograph © James Barrett. 90 Journal of the North Atlantic Volume 2 Figure 13. Northeast entryway to House 20, with internal and external threshold stones and fl agstone path. Photograph © Vicki Herring. Figure 14. A selection of fi nds from House 20, including an 11th–12th-century copper alloy pin, a soapstone spindle whorl, and the single piece of pottery from the building (spindle whorl diameter = 3.5cm). Photograph © James Barrett. 2009 J. Barrett and A. Slater 91 far), small, and discrete. In areas of deep stratigraphy (where cultural deposits buffer the natural soil acidity), bone is well preserved. Secondly, the settlement was long-lived. The uppermost layers of House 20 probably date to the 11th to 12th centuries, but it has numerous successive fl oor layers and was remodelled at least twice. Although we have not yet reached the earliest levels of this house, its multiple phases point to a long period of use. Moreover, it appears to have been built on top of an earlier building, part of which extends from under its southeast corner. House 23 has not yet been investigated in such detail, but it too overlies pre-existing deposits. It appears to have been dug into middens of ca. 6th to 9th century date. Thirdly, the settlement was a focus of domestic occupation. In addition to beads and pins, the site produced a soapstone vessel shard, a soapstone loom weight, spindle whorls of both soapstone and sandstone, and a variety of other domestic objects (Figs. 11–12, 14–15). These are consistent with “normal” occupation, perhaps by both men and women, rather than use as either a temporary refuge or a monastery. Textile making is associated with women in late Viking Age sources such as the poem Darraðarljóð incidentally set in Scotland in Njáls saga (Magnusson and Pálsson 1960, Poole 1993). The absence of elaborate stone sculpture incorporating Christian motifs, even from the previous excavation in the churchyard, should also be noted (albeit with the weakness of negative evidence). Excavated early medieval monasteries in Scotland produce monuments of this kind (e.g., Carver 2008, Lowe 2008). Lastly, the burial evidence from the cemetery is inconsistent with an exclusively ecclesiastical function. Of the six excavated graves, fi ve were of children, one of which was newborn (Morris and Emery 1986). At least two of these infant graves are associated with the earliest phase of the chapel.It seems likely that families were living in the settlement on the Brough of Deerness. The number of burials around the chapel is unusually small. It could therefore not have been in use for the full duration of occupation on the Brough of Deerness (given that the latter is now known to potentially extend from the 6th to the 12th century). A date before the 10th century is also unlikely for a chapel of this kind, based on comparative grounds (cf. Blair 2005). If it was only used during the last two cen- (Fig. 14) and a roughly incised spindle whorl (Fig. 15) were lost in the building. There were no shell holes in Area B, although occasional pieces of possible shell casing were recovered. Bone was not preserved in this area, with the exception of a few pieces in the ash of a hearth. The sediments were probably too acid—presumably because the cultural deposits are shallower in Area B than in Area A and thus do not adequately buffer the naturally high pH. It may also be relevant, however, that House 20 is so close to the cliff-edge. Presumably, much household refuse would have been discarded directly into the sea. Discussion The 2008 trial excavation at the Brough of Deerness set out to explore the state of preservation, chronology and function of the site and thus to evaluate its implications for the study of power, ideology, and migration/transnationalism in the early historic period. The preliminary results are illuminating. Firstly, the settlement is remarkably well preserved despite records of shelling for target practice during both the First and Second World Wars. Wall foundations, house fl oors, and middens are largely intact. In the excavated areas, shell holes are few (only one thus Figure 15. A roughly incised spindle whorl from House 20 in Area B (scale in cm). Photograph © James Barrett. 92 Journal of the North Atlantic Volume 2 might speculate that these hypothetical chieftains espoused different religions as their ideological bases of power (Barrett 2002). The latest possible pagan burials in Orkney Mainland—particularly one at Buckquoy coin-dated to the mid-10th century (Ritchie 1977)—come from the Birsay area. Following this third hypothesis, it would have been highly symbolic that Birsay became Orkney’s episcopal center in the mid-11th century. The bishopric was established by Earl Thorfi nn (Guðmundsson 1965, Tschan 1959), the son of Sigurd Hlodvisson, who is the fi rst Orkney earl whose existence is historically indisputable. Sigurd died, perhaps under a (pagan?) raven banner, at the Battle of Clontarf in Ireland in 1014 (Guðmundsson 1965, Hennessy 1998). Regardless of whether this third hypothesis is correct, it is clear from the Brough of Deerness and the Brough of Birsay that the adoption of Christianity, rather than the maintenance of paganism, was an important corollary of chiefl y power in Orkney by the late Viking Age. Of course, this observation applies for most areas of Northern Europe at much the same time (e.g., Carver 2002). Depending on how early it began, however, the association between chieftains and Christian practice may be the most lasting evidence for indigenous infl uence on migrant Scandinavian elites in early historic Scotland. Acknowledgments Further details regarding the 2008 Brough of Deerness excavation can be found in the on-line annual report (Barrett and Slater 2008) and in a popular article on the results published in issue 228 of the magazine Current Archaeology. The excavation was conducted with the permission of Historic Scotland and the Orkney Islands Council. It was jointly funded by the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, the Orkney Islands Council, the Royal Norwegian Embassy (London), and the Norwegian Consulate General (Edinburgh). Contributions in kind were generously provided by Orkney College and the Orkney Museum. Special thanks are owed to Julie Gibson (Orkney Archaeologist), Christine Skene (Orkney Islands Council), Anne Brundle (Orkney Museum), Anne Billing and Isobel Gardner (of The Friends of St Ninian’s), Allan Rutherford (Historic Scotland), and Christopher Morris (University of the Highlands and Islands Millennium Institute) for helping make the project happen. The excavation crew included Tom Blackburn, Fiona Breckenridge, Pieterjan Deckers, Paul Ewonus, Katie Hall, Vicki Herring, Janis Mitchell, Brian Rahn, and Leanne Zeki. James Graham-Campbell kindly assisted with interpreting the artifacts. Donna Surge and Michael Mobilia of the University of North Carolina provided valuable observations regarding the geology of the Brough. Judith Jesch and Clare Downham helped encourage this work in its early stages. Lord Wallace of Tankerness, Morag Robertson, Stein Iversen, and Mona Røhne generously assisted with fund-raising. Last but not least, the residents of Deerness have generously welcomed us onto their lands and into their heritage. turies (plus or minus) of occupation, as seems likely, the small number of associated graves implies either that the late Viking Age settlement on the Brough was not continuous, that only a select few (perhaps members of a single elite family) had burial rights there, or a combination of these factors. Given these observations, how might one interpret the function of the settlement? Hypotheses regarding possible pre-Viking Age monastic occupation of “Celtic” type would be very premature, given that we have just begun to clarify the top of the sequence which is late Viking Age. The deep stratigraphy and radiocarbon dates do indicate earlier occupation levels, but nothing can yet be said about the character of these phases. Conversely, monasticism is unlikely for the excavated Viking Age settlement because the archaeological record from both the past and present excavations suggests habitation by family groups and lacks ecclesiastical sculpture. If not monastic, what was the nature of the settlement? Christopher Morris (e.g., 1990, 1996a) has suggested that it should be interpreted as a chiefl y stronghold with a private chapel, a possibility that is supported by the new excavation and the obvious defensive qualities of the site’s location. But how would a settlement of this type have functioned within its wider community? Three tentative models can be proposed. First, it is possible that the site was one of several centers used by the earls of Orkney in a peripatetic system by which they lived off the proceeds of scattered estates (cf. Alcock 1988, Ralston 2004). Produce could have been brought to the stack from, for example, neighboring Viking Age settlements such as those known at Skaill (Buteux 1997) and Newark Bay (Barrett et al. 2000, Brothwell 1977). In this eventuality, the Brough of Deerness would presumably have been permanently garrisoned, but only occasionally fully inhabited. If this hypothesis is correct, the site can perhaps be seen as a rough equivalent of the better- known elite center of the Brough of Birsay, with its church and associated settlement. Second, the site could represent the stronghold of a wealthy magnate below the level of earl, of the kind well known from the Orkneyinga saga (Barrett 2007). In this event, the Brough of Deerness might be imagined as an imitation or emulation of Birsay. Alternatively, if the earldom of Orkney was not established until the early 11th century, as is possible based on the contemporary historical and archaeological evidence rather than the later Orkneyinga saga (Barrett 2008b, Woolf 2007), the Brough of Birsay and the Brough of Deerness could represent the strongholds of competing independent chieftains. Given the possible 10th-century foundation of the chapel on the Brough of Deerness, and of a nearby Christian cemetery at Newark Bay, one 2009 J. Barrett and A. Slater 93 tations of so-called souterrains. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 14:179–90. Buteux, S. (Ed.) 1997. Settlements at Skaill, Deerness, Orkney. British Archaeological Reports British Series 260. Archaeopress, Oxford, UK. 276 pp. Carver, M. (Ed.) 2002. The Cross Goes North. Boydell Press, Woodbridge, UK. 602 pp. Carver, M. 2008. Portmahomak: Monastery of the Picts. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. 232 pp. Crawford, B.E. 2005. Thorfi nn, Christianity, and Birsay: What the saga tells us and archaeology reveals. Pp. 88–110, In O. Owen (Ed.). The World of Orkneyinga Saga: “The Broad-cloth Viking Trip.” The Orcadian, Kirkwall, Scotland, UK. 232 pp. Curle, C.L. 1982. Pictish and Norse Finds from the Brough of Birsay 1934–74. Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Monograph Series Number 1. Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. 141 pp. Dumville, D.N. 2002. The North Atlantic monastic thalassocracy: Sailing to the desert in early medieval insular spirituality. Pp. 121–30, In B.E. Crawford (Ed.). The Papar in the North Atlantic: Environment and History. St. John's House Papers No. 10, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, Scotland, UK. 447 pp. Forsyth, K. 1995. The ogham-inscribed spindle whorl from Buckquoy: Evidence for the Irish language in pre-Viking Orkney? Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 125:677–96. Freke, D. (Ed.) 2002. Excavations on St Patrick’s Isle, Peel, Isle of Man, 1982–88: Prehistoric, Viking, Medieval, and Later. Liverpool University Press, Liverpool, UK. 405 pp. Gestsson, G. 1959. Gröf í Öræfum. Árbók hins íslenzka fornleifafélags 1959:5–87. Gifford, J. 1992. The Buildings of Scotland: Highlands and Islands. Penguin Books in association with The Buildings of Scotland Trust, London, UK. 688 pp. Guðmundsson, F. (Ed.) 1965. Íslenzk fornrit 34. Orkneyinga saga. Hið íslenzka fornritafélag, Reykjavík, Iceland. 428 pp. Hennessy, W.M. (Ed.) 1998. Annals of Ulster, Volume I. Éamonn de Búrca, Dublin, Ireland. 269 pp. Hunter, J.R. 1986. Rescue Excavations on the Brough of Birsay 1974–82. Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Monograph Series Number 4. Society of Antiquaries, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. 230 pp. Hvass, S. 1993. Bebyggelsen. Pp. 187–94, In S. Hvass and B. Storgaard (Eds.). Da Klinger i Muld: 25 års arkæologi i Danmark. Aarhus Universitetsforlag, Aarhus, Denmark. 312 pp. Lamb, R.G. 1973. Coastal settlements of the north. Scottish Archaeological Forum 5:76–98. Lamb, R.G. 1980. Iron Age promontory forts in the Northern Isles. British Archaeological Reports British Series 79, Oxford, UK. 102 pp. Lowe, C. (Ed.) 2008. Inchmarnock: An Early Historic Monastery and its Archaeological Landscape. Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. 313 pp. Magnusson, M., and H. Pálsson. 1960. Njal's Saga. Penguin, London, UK. 384 pp. Literature Cited Alcock, L. 1988. The activities of potentates in Celtic Britain, A.D. 500–800: A positivist approach. Pp. 22–46, In S.T. Driscoll and M.R. Nieke (Eds.). Power and Politics in Early Medieval Britain and Ireland. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. 200 pp. Alcock, L. 2003. Kings and Warriors, Craftsmen and Priests in Northern Britain A.D. 550–850. Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. 460 pp. Anonymous. 2003. Extreme Archaeology: Kame of Isbister, Shetland Islands. HU 38279152 Archaeological Evaluation Data Structure Report. Mentorn TV, London, UK. Barrett, J.H. 2002. Christian and pagan practice during the conversion of Viking Age Orkney and Shetland. Pp. 207–26, In M. Carver (Ed.). The Cross Goes North. Boydell Press, Woodbridge, UK. 602 pp. Barrett, J.H. 2007. The pirate fi shermen: The political economy of a medieval maritime society. Pp. 299-340, In B.B. Smith, S. Taylor, and G. Williams (Eds.). West Over Sea: Studies in Scandinavian Sea-borne Expansion and Settlement Before 1300. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands. 586 pp. Barrett, J.H. 2008a. What caused the Viking Age? Antiquity 82:671–85. Barrett, J.H. 2008b. The Norse in Scotland. Pp. 411–27, In S. Brink, and N. Price (Eds.). The Viking World. Routledge, London, UK. 717 pp. Barrett, J.H., and M.P. Richards. 2004. Identity, gender, religion, and economy: New isotope and radiocarbon evidence for marine resource intensifi cation in early historic Orkney, Scotland. European Journal of Archaeology 7:249–271. Barrett, J., and A. Slater. 2008. The Brough of Deerness Excavations 2008: Research context and data structure report. Unpublished report. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, UK. Available online at www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/projects/ Deerness/Brough_of_Deerness_2008.pdf. Accessed September 21, 2009. Barrett, J.H., R.P. Beukens, and D.R. Brothwell. 2000. Radiocarbon dating and marine reservoir correction of Viking Age Christian burials from Orkney. Antiquity 74:537–43. Barrowman, R.C. 2008. Splendid isolation? Changing perceptions of Dùn Èistean, an island on the north coast of the Isle of Lewis. Pp. 95–111, In G. Noble, T. Poller, J. Raven, and L. Verrill (Eds.). Scottish Odysseys: The Archaeology of Islands. Tempus, Stroud, UK. 180 pp. Barrowman, R.C., C.E. Batey, and C.D. Morris. (Eds.) 2007. Excavations at Tintagel Castle, Cornwall, 1990–1999. Society of Antiquaries of London, London, UK. 370 pp. Batey, C.E. 1991. Archaeological aspects of Norse settlement in Caithness, North Scotland. Acta Archaeologica 61:29–35. Blair, J. 2005. The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 604 pp. Brothwell, D. 1977. On a mycoform stone structure in Orkney, and its relevance to possible further interpre94 Journal of the North Atlantic Volume 2 Moore, J. 2007. Brough of Deerness. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland, New Series 7:125. Moore, H., and G. Wilson. 1998. Orkney Coastal Zone Assessment Survey 1998. EASE Archaeological Consultants, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. 344 pp. Morris, C.D. 1990. Church and Monastery in the Far North: An archaeological evaluation. Jarrow Lecture 1989. St Paul’s Church, Jarrow, UK. 43 pp. Morris, C.D. 1996a. Church and monastery in Orkney and Shetland: An archaeological perspective. Pp. 185–206, In J.F. Krøger and H. Naley (Eds.). Nordsjøen: Handel, Religion og Politikk. Karmøy Kommune, Kopervik, Norway. 211 pp. Morris, C.D. 1996b. From Birsay to Tintagel: A personal view. Pp. 37–78, In B.E. Crawford (Ed.). Scotland in Dark Age Britain. Scottish Cultural Press, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK. 160 pp. Morris, C.D. (Ed.) 1996c. The Birsay Bay Project Volume 2: Sites in Birsay Village and on the Brough of Birsay, Orkney. University of Durham, Department of Archaeology Monograph Series Number 2. University of Durham, Durham, UK. 302 pp. Morris, C.D., and N. Emery. 1986. The chapel and enclosure on the Brough of Deerness, Orkney: Survey and excavations, 1975–1977. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 116:301–74. Norr, S., and D. Fewster. 2003. Borg II. Pp. 109–18, In G.S. Munch, O.S. Johansen, and E. Roesdahl (Eds.). Borg in Lofoten: A Chieftain’s Farm in North Norway. Tapir Academic Press, Trondheim, Norway. 309 pp. O’Sullivan, J. 1999. Iona: Archaeological investigations 1875–1996. Pp. 215–43, In D. Broun and T.O. Clancy (Eds.). Hope of Scots: Saint Columba, Iona, and Scotland. T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. 314 pp. Ovenden, S. 2008. Geophysical survey. Pp. 7–8, In J. Barrett and A. Slater (Eds.). The Brough of Deerness Excavations 2008: Research context and data structure report: 7–8. Unpublished report. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, UK. Available online at www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/projects/ Deerness/Brough_of_Deerness_2008.pdf. Accessed September 21, 2009. Poole, R. 1993. Darraðarljóð. Pp. 121, In P. Pulsiano (Ed.). Medieval Scandinavia. Routledge, London, UK. 792 pp. Ralston, I. 1997. Pictish homes. Pp. 19–34, In D. Henry. The Worm, the Germ, and the Thorn: Pictish and Related Studies Presented to Isabel Henderson. The Pinkfoot Press, Balgavies, Angus, Scotland, UK. 200 pp. Ralston, I. 2004. The Hill-forts of Pictland since “The Problem of the Picts.” Groam House Museum, Rosmarkie, Scotland, UK. 53 pp. Ritchie, A. 1977. Excavation of Pictish and Viking-Age farmsteads at Buckquoy, Orkney. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 108:174–227. Tschan, J. (Ed.) 1959. Adam of Bremen. The Archbishops of Hamburg Bremen. Columbia University Press, New York, NY, USA. 288 pp. Woolf, A. 2007. From Pictland to Alba 789–1070. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. 320 pp.