problem with this hypothesis is straightforward. As noted above, the onomastic evi-
dence is mostly very late and thus illuminates the end result of a lengthy process rather
than events in (for the sake of argument) the ninth century. Languages can die over time,
typically due to the adoption of a higher-prestige alternative by their former speakers
(Dorian 1981 ).
The Laithlind hypothesis is almost equally improbable. It argues that Laithlind
(variously spelled) of the Irish annals – from which the early royal dynasty of Dublin
came – was a Viking kingdom in Atlantic Scotland which was fully established by the
840 s and probably had its centre in Orkney (Ó Corráin 1998 a; Sawyer 2003 : 31 ). This is
a departure from the traditional interpretation that Laithlind and related terms referred
to Norway – which they clearly did by 1058 (Etchingham 2001 : 153 ).
There are three problems with this hypothesis. The first is that its historical basis is
controversial (e.g. Etchingham 2001 : 153 ). More definitive, however, is the observation
noted above that there is no independent historical or archaeological evidence that
Scandinavian settlement occurred in Atlantic Scotland any earlier than in Ireland
(Barrett 2003 ). Lastly, archaeology has provided a clear picture of the material correlates
of royal and chiefly power in Viking Age Scandinavia. These include ship (rather than
boat) burials, very large feasting halls and landscapes of power incorporating major
earthworks (see elsewhere in this volume). None of these exist in Atlantic Scotland, even
in nascent form.
An alternative hypothesis, speculatively raised by Bjørn Myhre ( 1993 , 1998 ), has
been both influential and controversial (cf. Solli 1996 ; Morris 1998 : 91 ; Ambrosiani
1998 : 411 – 14 ; Owen 2004 : 22 ). It assumes a long tradition of Scandinavian, Gaelic
(i.e. Irish or Gaelic Scottish) and Pictish mobility in the North Atlantic followed by
crystallisation of ethnic tension and expression in the early Viking Age (variously
defined) due to ‘Christian’ expansionism around the North Sea (Myhre 1993 ). In other
words, some Scandinavian migrants were present in Scotland before the Viking Age, but
were not making a point of signalling their identity with material culture. Following
Barth’s ( 1969 , 1994 ) widely adopted interpretations of ethnicity, Myhre suggested that
this only became necessary at a time of political and ethnic tension.
The four main arguments behind this hypothesis included: possible early pagan
graves in Atlantic Scotland, early insular objects in Norwegian graves, possible evidence
for pre-Viking Age settlement in the Faroe Islands and/or Iceland and combs from
Orkney made in indigenous styles that were arguably of reindeer antler (and thus
imported from Scandinavia). The first of these arguments has since been shown to be
incorrect (Graham-Campbell and Batey 1998 : 152 – 4 ) and the second is better inter-
preted as evidence of Viking Age raids on monastic treasuries containing centuries of
accumulated wealth (Ó Corráin 1998 b: 433 ; Wamers 1998 : 42 – 51 ; Gaut 2002 ). The
third argument, that there is evidence for pre-Viking Age settlement elsewhere in the
North Atlantic, may now be corroborated in the Faeroe Islands based on new palyno-
logical evidence (Hannon et al. 2005 ; Prof. K. Edwards, Univ. of Aberdeen, pers.
comm.).
Myhre’s fourth argument – the ‘Pictish’ combs made of reindeer antler – has not been
widely accepted due to scepticism regarding whether (native) red deer and (imported)
reindeer antler can be distinguished when worked (e.g. Graham-Campbell and Batey
1998 : 23 ; Smith 1998 : 131 ; Owen 2004 : 26 ). This problem was exacerbated by the
fact that although the identifications were made by a very experienced Norwegian
–– James H. Barrett––