'Look now, stranger, at this island'. A brief survey of the island-names of Shetland and Orkney

Viking and Norse in the North Atlantic Select Papers from the Proceedings of the Fourteenth Viking Congress, Tórshavn, 19-30 July 2001 Edited by Andras Mortensen and Símun V Arge Annales Societatis Scientiarum Færoensis Supplementum XLIV Torshavn 2005 Published by Føroya Fróðskaparfelag - T he Faroese A c a d e m y of Sciences Debesartroð, Postrúm 209, F O - 1 1 0 Tórshavn, F A R O E I S L A N D S fff@frodskaparfelag.fo- ww\v. Frodskaparfelag.fo in collaboration with Føroya Fomminn i s s a v n Historical M u s e u m of the Faroe Islands www.natmus.fo © 2 0 0 5 by Føroya Fróðskaparfelag and the individual authors, 2005 I S B N 99918-41 -44-X International distribution: Bokasølan i S M S e-mail: bokasolan@bokasolan.fo www.bokasolan.fo All tights reserved. N o part of this publication m a y be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or b y any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without written permission of the publishers. Typesetting: Føroyaprent Printed in the Faroe Islands at Føroyaprent Chapter 26 ‘L o ok now, stranger, at this island’.1A brief survey of the island-names of Shetland and Orkney Peder Gammeltoft Th e Northern Isles comprise two archipelagos, Shetland a nd Orkney. O r k n e y is situated just off the north-eastern tip of Scotland. A further 100 k m or so north-northeast of O r k n e y lies Shetland. To the east of the Northern Isles lies Norway. T h e normal starting point from Scan­ dinavia for a journey to the Scottish colonies w o u l d have been Western Norway. If one sailed from Western N o r w a y it w a s ‘only’a matter of sailing west or west-southwest for a couple of days until the Northern Isles were reached. A n d from there one could steer south-southwest an d reach other Scandinavian colonies in the British Isles. O w i n g to the relative proximity of Shetland and O r k n e y to N o r w a y they were probably a m o n g the first of the North Atlantic islands to have received a Scandinavian influx. Within the field of place-name research there has been a long tradition of placing various place-name types into chronological sequence. In this respect, it has long been recognised that the n a m e s of islands m a y range a m o n g the oldest layers of place-names. In Scandinavia the very oldest layers of island n a m e s are generally recognised to be simplex or derived c o n ­ structions, such as the Norwegian n a m e s Lovunda (< poss.*Laufund, T h e foilaged one’,cf. N G 16: 154), Sula (< *Súla ‘T h e cloven o ne’, from O N súla, f. ‘a cleft’,cf. N G 13: 61) a n d Tjøtta (< *Þjótta, f. ‘T h e thigh-like one’, cf. N G 16: 60). In the C o m m o n Scandinavian period a n e w type of construction appeared, namely that of a c o m p o u n d consisting of a specific + the generic ey,f. ‘island’or holmr, m. ‘islet’,etc. (cf. N S L 1997:47-49), as in e.g. Bastøy (< O N bast, n. ‘bast’,cf. N G 6 : 111-12), Flatøya (< O N ß a t r , adj. ‘flat’,cf. N G 6 : 330) and H å ø y a ( < O N hdr, adj. ‘high’, cf. N G 2: 84). This n e w type of construction even seems to have been found so appropriate that a n u m b e r of the origina.ly u n c o m p o u n d e d island n a m e s in the course of time have been supplied with a similar epexegetic or descriptive element. A n example of this is the Danish island of S a m s ø which is recorded by A d a m of B r e m e n in c. 1075 as Sa mse but as S a mpsø in c.1200 (DS 1: 1; Jørgensen 1994: 244). By the time of the Scandinavian conquest and settlement of the Scottish Isles, the construction specifying element + ey, holmr, etc., seems to have b e c o m e the standard one and almost all the Scottish island-names of Scandinavian origin conform to this structure. This is also very m u c h the case with the Northern Isles and only a few exceptions to this type of construction exist. Most of these exceptions are so-called 258 Peder Gammeltoft comparative names, such as e.g. Noss in Shetland (1490 N w s ( D N VIII, no. 426), and Wyre in O r k n e y (c.1350 Vigur DI III: 50n). Noss derives from O N nös, f. ‘a nose, nostril’, whereas W y r e originates from O N vigr, m. ‘a javelin, spearhead’, the former having been n a m e d so because of its steep cliff sides resembling the shape of a nose and the latter owing to it’s apparent likeness to a spear or a spearhead. Since islands are likely to be a m o n g the first localities to be named, they constitute an important group in so far as they might be able to convey information about the nature and intention of the colonisation of the area, or possibly what or w h o m the colonisers e n c o u n ­ tered. There are at least 3 0 0 n a m e d islands, holms and skerries in the Northern Isles but not all of these can be reckoned to be of Scandinavian Viking-Age origin. About 4 0 % are m o d e r n names, mostly of the type Holm of x a nd Isle of x. Island-names of this type usually relate the situation of the island in relation to a better k n o w n location, be it a larger island or a large settlement, etc. In total, there are s o m e 160-180 n a m e s which m a y be reckoned to be of Scandinavian Viking-Age origin, although, owing to the lack of substantial and early written sources from the area, s o m e n a m e s of islands m a y have been formed in the post-Norse period. T h e general character of this place-name material is, however, distinctly Viking-Age. Th e fact that the island-name material generally appears to belong to an older layer of n a m i n g m a y be viewed through the 18 island-names in Shetland and O r k n e y which contain a personal n a m e as the specific, all of which are of Old Norse origin. O f these personal n a m e specifics, 7 are of an ancient type of original c o m p o u n d e d personal names, e.g. O N Kolbeinn, m., Rögnvaldr, m. and Vémundr, m., which are reflected in the island-names of Copinsay, O r k ­ ney (c. 1350 kolbeinzey (DI III: 51n.)), South Ronaldsay, O r k n e y (c.1300 Raugnvallzey (Orkn 3251: 163)), an d Vementry, Shetland (1577 Vehementrie (SheDoc2, no. 246), 1582 Wemenderø (SheDoc, no. 42)), respectively. This type of personal n a m e is typically found in the very oldest layers of place-names in Scandinavia, usually dating to the Iron Age, i.e. the period prior to the Viking A ge (cf. K L M N 8: 217-18). However, this name-type also continued well into the Viking A g e and I a m in n o w a y trying to imply that the Shetland a nd O r k n e y islandn a m e s of Scandinavian origin are in any w a y pre-Viking-Age in origin. During the Viking Age a n e w type of personal n a m e became increasingly popular, namely hypocoristic personal names, n a m e s w h i c h have originated as short-forms or pet-forms of original dithematic or monothematic personal names. It is striking to note that there are only a couple of islandn a m e s which m a y contain this type of personal name, such as possibly O N Balti, m., as in the n a m e Balta, Shetland (1558-59 Balta (SheDoc2, no. 115), 1599 Baltay (SheDoc, no. 280), cf. Jakobsen 1936: 121 a nd Stewart 1987: 2). I, therefore, feel that the generally old character (probably early Viking-Age) of the personal n a m e stock found in the specifics of the islandn a m e s serves as a fairly reliable age-indicator of this name-group as a whole. If the personal n a m e s e m b e d d e d have the appearance of being relatively early in character, the remainder of the island-name specific material is normally straight-forward O ld Norse word-stock.2 Place-names only serve one function in life a nd that is to single out one locality from all other localities. T h e most appropriate or relevant w a y to single out a locality is to describe it b y m e a n s of readily available word-stock. Relevance should in this respect only be seen as the n a m e r ’s subjective opinion of what is the most noteworthy aspect of the locality. It is, therefore, perhaps not surprising that the most potent n a m i n g motive relates to what the islands m a y be used for, in particular w h e n it com e s to the smaller islands. This utilisation m a y be described in terms of which domestic animals were being kept or reared on the is­ ‘Look now, stranger, at this island’. A brief survey of the island-names of Shetland and Orkney 259 lands. F r o m O r k n e y alone, island n a m e s such as Fara (c. 1350 færey (DI III: 50n.), Hunda (1550 Hunday (REO: 243), L a m b Holm, Swona (c.1300 Sviney (Orkn 3251: 130, 167)), c o n ­ tain the elements O N fær, n. ‘a sheep’, O N hundr, m . ‘a d o g ’, O N lamb, n. ‘a l a m b ’ and O N svin, n. ‘a pig’, respectively.3 Sometimes, the reference is also to wild creatures o n or around an island, as is the case with the Shetland islands of Foula (1490 Fogle ( D N VIII, no. 426)) a nd Whalsay (1490 Hwalsøy ( D N VIII, no. 426)), the former specific of w h i c h is derived from O N fogl, fugl, n. ‘a bird’, whereas the latter contains O N hvalr, m . ‘a whale’. Between one-fifth a n d one-sixth of the Viking-Age island-name material reflects this n a m i n g motive. Marginally less popular seems to have been the need to describe islands in terms of the vegetation found there. For instance, there are n o less than 11 Lingas in the Northern Isles. These all derive from an original *Lyngey, (< O N lyng, n. ‘heather’) ‘Heather island’.4 W h y heather should feature so prominently in island-names of Shetland a nd O r k n e y is not k n o w n , but considering the various uses to w h i c h heather could be applied, such as grazing, brooms, roofing, etc., it is perhaps not so surprising that there should have been a need to n a m e islands after this vegetation. O f other examples of specifics describing the plant-growth, there are Braga a n d Rysa Little (1492 Ryssay (Sound) ( H S R O : 72)) in Orkney, where the reference is to M o d . Norw. brake ‘a juniper-tree’, a nd O N hris, n. ‘b r u s h w o o d ’ or Bigga (1581 Biggay SheDoc, no. 27)), Shetland, whi c h contains the crop designation O N bygg, n. ‘barley’. Quite often the shape, size or colour of the island is also recorded in the specific, e.g. O N hår, adj. ‘high’, O N flatr, adj. ‘flat’, O N grœnn, adv. ‘green’, as reflected in the Shet­ land n a m e s of Hoy (1601 Hoy (SheDoc, no. 308)), Flotta (c.1350 fflatey (DI III: 51n.)) a nd Gruney (15th c. Grønøy ( D N XII, no. 190)). As is evident from the above, the majority of island-names in Shetland and O r k n e y relate to the m o r e m u n d a n e aspects of life, that is surviving and getting by. O n l y in such n a m e s as those c o m p o u n d e d with personal n a m e s d o w e catch a glimpse of s o m e of those Scandinavians w h o m a y have been a m o n g the first to settle in these parts of the North Atlantic. But what about those w h o m they encountered, the original inhabitants of these islands? T h e indig­ enous population of Shetland and O r k n e y was probably Pictish. Later Scandinavian refer­ ences certainly suggest that Piets lived in these islands before the arrival of the Scandinavians. T he Piets were usually termed pettar by the Scandinavians, and this designation is found forming part of the Old Norse n a m e for the Pentland Skerries, which is recorded as Petlandz skær in 1329 ( D N II, no. 170). Petland is a Scandinavianized form of the n a m e Pictland (i.e. the northern and eastern parts of the Mainland of Scotland at the time of the Scandinavian colonisation), the skerry being situated halfway between O r k n e y and the Mainland. It would, therefore, not s e e m unreasonable to assume that the tribal designation pettar might form the specifying part of place-names in the Northern Isles. Reality, however, is different. Not a single island-name contains a reference to the Piets by their tribal designation, and this is a general feature of the Northern Isles’place-name material. In fact, there are only four place-names in total in the Northern Isles whi c h contain the tribal designation pettar an d these all s e e m to be m o r e recent. O f the four primary Pet-formations (Petta Dale, Petta Water, Petta Dale and Pettifirth), only Pettifirth seems to have been recorded prior to the 17th century (cf. Stewart 1987: 284). It is, therefore, doubtful whether place-names in Pet- can be used as evidence of a Pictish presence. In fact, the only possible glimpse w e might catch of a Pictish presence in the island-names of the Northern Isles is in Unst, Yell and Fetlar in Shetland, wh o s e n a m e s are either impossible to interpret or only with great difficulty accounted for as being Norse.5 If 260 Peder Gammeltoft anything, they appear to have been given a thin layer of Scandinavian ‘varnish’,not to conceal the fact that they are not Scandinavian - after all, a place-name only needs to function, not to m e a n anything - but rather to fit t h e m into the framework of Scandinavian phonology and m o r phology It is, however, worth noting that place-names of pre-Norse origin s e e m to exist in Shetland, as such transfers of place-names from one language into another rely solely o n s o m e extent of prolonged peaceful contact. But whether these island-names are Pictish or not is impossible to say, as our knowledge of the Pictish language is virtually non-existent. There has long been a general consensus in academic circles that the element Pap- in island-names like Papa Stour in Shetland a nd Papa Westray in O r k n e y referred to an ethnic and religious grouping called papar b y the Scandinavians. T h e designation papar is ultimately related to the s a m e w o r d as pope, and appears to refer to Christian - probably Irish - monks; they did not, in other words, constitute an indigenous population (cf. Macdonald 1977: 109; Gammeltoft 2004: 39-41). Island-names of the *Papaey-type are fairly c o m m o n throughout the North Atlantic, and at least ten place-names of this type are k n o w n (cf. Macdonald 2002: 26-29, Fellows-Jensen 1996: 116-17). In the Northern Isles alone, there are five such islandnames. I mentioned earlier that w h e n an element occurs as a constituent of a place-name it is because it is significant within its context. O n these grounds, it w o u l d be tempting to argue that the papar m o n k s were of relevance and well k n o w n to the Scandinavian settlers at the time of the n a m i n g of these particular islands. O n the other hand, the status of Piets does not s e e m to have been the s a m e to the Scandinavian settlers. T h e only indication of a Pictish presence in island-name material is found in the few apparently pre-Norse n a m e s of islands in Shetland. W h a t is the cause of this difference? A s I see it, these differences m a y contain s o m e important clues to the contact and interaction of these peoples and the incoming Scandinavians. It has earlier been argued that the *Papaey-type island-names m a y originally have been given to islands abandoned b y m o n k s (Fellows-Jensen 1996: 116), but w h y should it be m o r e relevant to n a m e abandoned papar-sites than abandoned pettar-sites, especially considering that the broch-structures of the latter population are considerably m o r e distinctive than the remains left by the papar? Instead, I think w e should consider that the papar lived alongside the Scandinavians in the Northern Isles for s o m e period of time. This ties in well with the fact that a large n u m b e r of papar-sites are associated with post-Viking-Age chapels or graveyards, which presupposes a prolonged period of Christian worship at these sites. W h e t h e r this m e a n s a continuous clerical presence from pre-Viking-Age times or not, is uncertain. However, if this is the case, then the presence of the Christian papar might represent early attempts at convert­ ing the heathen Scandinavians. T h e majority of island-names in the Northern Isles are of Scandinavian origin, which shows very aptly with what linguistic force a nd might the Scandinavians settled in the area. There are apparently, however, the notable exceptions of Unst, Yell and Fetlar, which are us u ­ ally taken to be of Pictish origin. A s our knowledge of the Pictish language is extremely sparse w e are not even able to give a suggestion to the etymology of these names. This is as such not the important issue in this respect. W h a t is important is to recognise that these pre-Norse n a m e s actually m a n a g e d to survive in spite of the total annihilation of their source language. This indicates that there must have been a prolonged period of contact between the incoming Scandinavians a nd the indigenous population. O n e possibility is that these islands consti­ tuted the first trading posts between the Scandinavians and the Piets, trading posts that could ‘Look now, stranger, at this island’. A brief survey of the island-names of Shetland and Orkney 261 then later have developed into early settlement bridgeheads. T h e Piets, although probably good trading-partners, did not fit into the colonisation equation and thus b e c a m e ex pend­ able. T he different character in which the papar appear in the island-name material, m a y o n the other h a n d suggest that they do not appear to have threatened the expansion process an d that they m a y have been allowed to live alongside the Scandinavians. If the n u m b e r s of converted Scandinavians in the Landnámabók are correct, the Scandinavians and the m o n k s might have enjoyed a relatively close relationship in the Scottish Isles. Whe r e a s the above suggestions relate only to a fraction of the entire island-name material, the vast majority of island-names are described from an every day perspective. Here, islands constituted a potential economic resource - they could be used for storing livestock in the s u m m e r to keep t h e m well a w a y from the sparse arable land, or their vegetation w a s of a certain importance to the household. In other cases, the reference is to the appearance of the island, where its shape, size or colour must have been of prime importance, perhaps as a m e a n s of identification for sailors and fishermen. T h e prime intention behind the n a m i n g of islands in the Northern Isles thus seems to be intricately linked to the aspects of survival and getting b y in the n e w environment. But w hat is perhaps most important to note is the fact that w h e n most of the islands of the Northern Isles were named, the system a nd culture in which these n a m e s were bestowed w as almost entirely Norse in character. A n d all foreign cultural reflections in the island-name material only survive today because they were an integral part of the Norse cultural and linguistic systems at the time of naming. Bibliography a n d abbreviations Auden, W H . 1936: O n This Island. N e w York. DI = Diplomatarium Islandicum: íslenzkt fornbréfasafn, sem hefir inni ad halda bréf og gjömínga, dóma og máldaga, og aðrar skrår, er snerta Island eða íslenzka menn. Gefið út af hinu íslenzka bókmenntafélagi. Kø b e n h a v n 1857-72. 16 vols. D N = Lange, C.C.A., Unger, C.R. &Huitfeldt-Kaas, H.J. (eds) 1847-: DiplomatariumNorvegicum: Oldbreve til kundskap o m Norges indre og ytre forhold, sprog, slegter, seder, lovgivning og rettergang i middelalderen. Kristiania, vol. 1-. D S = Danmarks Stednavne, Udgivet af Stednavneudvalget/Institut for Navneforskning 1-. København, 1922-, Fellows-Jensen, Gillian 1996: ‘Language Contact in Iceland: the Evidence of N a m e s ’,in Ureland, P. Sture & Clarkson, Iain (eds), Language Contact Across the North Atlantic. Proceedings of the Working Groups held at University College, Galway (Ireland), August 29 - September 3,1992 and the University of Göteborg (Sweden), August 16-21,1993. Tübingen, 115-24. Gammeltoft, Peder 2004: ' A m o n g Dimons and Papeys: W h a t kind of contact do the n a m e s really point to?', Northern Studies 38. Edinburgh, 31-49. H S R O = T h o m s o n , WP.L. (ed.) 1996: Lord Henry Sinclair’s 1492 Rental of Orkney. Kirkwall. Jakobsen, Jakob 1936: The Place-Names of Shetland. C o p e n h a g e n and London. Jørgensen, Bent 1994: Stednavneordbog. København. K L M N = Kulturhistorisk leksikon for nordisk middelalder. København, 1956-78. 22 vols. Macdonald, Aidan 1977: ‘Old Norse “Papar” N a m e s in N. and W Scotland: S u m m a r y ’, in Lang, Lloyd (ed.), Studies in Celtic Survival. British Archaeological Reports 37, 107-11. Macdonald, Aidan 2002: T h e Papar and s o m e Problems; a brief Review’,in Crawford, Barbara 262 Peder Gammeltoft E. (ed.), The Papar in the North Atlantic: Environment and History. The Proceedings of a Day Conference held on 24th of February 2001, 13-29. N G = Rygh, Oluf 1897-1936: Norske Gaardnavne. Kristiania. 19 vols. Nes, O d d v a r 1970: ‘S t a d n a m n s o m er lata till ei germansk s t a m m e *Streun-\ Maal og Minne. Oslo, 1-25. N S L = Norsk Stadnamnleksikon. Redigert av Jørn Sandnes og Ola Stemshaug. Oslo 1997. O r k n = Nordal, Sigurðr (ed.) 1913-16: Orkneyinga saga. Reykjavik. R E O = Clouston, J. Storer 1914: Records of the Earldom of Orkney, 1299-1614. Edinburgh. Retours = Inquisitionum ad Capellam Domini Regis Retornatarum quae in publicis archivis Scotiae adhuc servantur. Abbreviato. Printed by command of his majesty King George III. 1811-6, 3 vols. S h e D o c = Ballantyne, J o h n H. & Smith, Brian 1994: Shetland Documents, 1580-1611. Lerwick. S h e D o c 2 = Ballantyne, John H. & Smith, Brian 1999: Shetland Documents, 1195-1579. Ler­ wick. Stewart, J o h n 1987: Shetland Place-Names. Lerwick. Notes 1 2 3 4 5 Quotation from W H . A u d e n ’s p o e m ‘Look, Stranger!’from 1936 (published in America as: ‘O n This Island’). Not all specfic elements forming part of the island-name material are attested in O N . The O r k n e y n a m e of Stronsay, for instance, (i Strionsey c.1300 O r k n (p. 130 (Orkn 3251)); Straumsey c.1350 (c.1640) DI (III, p. 50n.); Strjónsey c.1387-95 O r k n (p. 172); Stronsay 1535 R E O (p. 219)), seems to contain the genitive sg. of an otherwise unattested O N appellative *strjón, m. ‘a current’. Although unattested as an independent appellative in O ld Scandinavian, it does, however, feature in a n u m b e r of Scandinavian place-names, of which the island-names Strøno (Hordaland fylke, Norway) a nd Strynø (Svendborg Amt, D e n m a r k ) are direct parallels (Nes, 1970, pp. 1-25). Alternatively, Old Norse island-names containing animal designations such as pig, hog, ox or d og m a y in s o m e cases be used of islands which are difficult or perilous to navigate, cf. N S L 1997: 440. Shetland: Linga, Aithsting; Linga, Delting, Lyngaholm 1561 (SheDoc2, no. 131); Linga, Delting, Linga 1560 (SheDoc2, no. 119); Linga, Tingwall; Linga, Walls, Linga 1576 (SheDoc2, no. 229); Linga, Yell, Linga 1605 (Retours O&S., no. 1); East Linga, Whalsay; Little Linga, Whalsay, lesser Linga 1560 (SheDoc2, no. 119); Urie Lingey, Fetlar. Orkney: Linga Holm, Stronsay; Little Linga, Stronsay, Lingalitle 1639 (Retours O&S., no. 28). Unst is first recorded as Aumstr (c. 1387-95 Orkn, p. 137n.), whi c h might reflect an origi­ nal subst. O N ömstr, m. ‘a stack, heap’ (Stewart 1987: 1). Elowever, since O N [ö] does not develop into Shetl. [u] under normal circumstances, this is s o m e w h a t untenable. N o other formal O N linguistic possibilities s e e m to exist. Yell has been taken to derive from ala, plural of O N dll, m. ‘a deep furrow in a stream or s o u n d ’ (Stewart 1987: 3), o n the basis of the form Alasund (c.1300 Orkn: 159 (Orkn 3251)), the earliest reference to Yell Sound. Later, independent recordings of Yell are: 1405 lala ( D N I, no. 606), 1485 laale, Zaill, etc. (REO: 72), seemingly reflecting a pronunication with initial [j-].This m a k e s the suggested origin very problematic, as breaking in O N only occurs with short e followed b y a or u in the ensuing syllable. ‘Look now, stranger, at this island’. A brief survey of the island-names of Shetland and Orkney 263 Fetlar, 1490 Føtalare ( D N VIII, no. 426), 1587 Fetlair (SheDoc, no. 102), might for­ mally originate from fetlar, the plural of O N fetill, m. la carrying-strap’, albeit entirely unprecedented.