I’m no archaeologist, but often enough I’ll read something related to archaeology and wonder to myself how their conclusions were or were not reached. In this case, here’s an article below that discusses certain links to Vikings in NE Scotland (Aberdeenshire / Moray).
The article below goes on to state that the Viking “exploits are more linked to the Northern Isles and the west coast of Scotland, with monastries raided, islanders murdered and gold and silver plundered. But new research – and a clutch of archaeological finds – has now suggested that the North East may not have escaped the fury of the Norsemen afterall.” (sic)
Like I said, I’m no archaeologist, but: No shit, Sherlock. The Vikings sailed from Norway and Denmark to Iceland and Ireland and France to everywhere else surrounding the North Sea for hundreds of years, of course some of their things will end up being found in NE Scotland. Maybe I’m missing why this isn’t obvious. And why does it have to be “fury” when “traders” or “explorers” is just as likely?