Sometimes the sheer inanity of some of the pronouncements of archaeologists boggles the mind. The implication that Viking artifacts should only be found in areas “settled” by Vikings is a good example. People travel, they trade, etc. - what is so difficult to grasp about this...? /g
Could have been made by the Vikings (or whomever they dragged along to do such work), and sold or traded at one of the interfaces, then wound up deep off into a non-Viking area. Or, it could have been taken as booty, and lost or concealed at some point later. So IOW yeah, I do appreciate the validity of your comments. :’)
You could draw many conclusions from the find. I like my first thought, a really rich, powerful Viking on the run hiding in a place they’ll never think to look.
That sort of thing happens in all the disciplines. It makes interesting reading—except when politicians get involved.