Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
Picts and Strathclyde British
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Thursday, 27th April 2006
At the start of the 9th Century both of these peoples existed as separate nations but both disapeared. The Picts eventually ended up as part of Scotland and the Strathclyde British was divided between England and Scotland.
Why did these peoples loose their identities in the way that the Welsh dispite conquest or the Cornish, to an extent have not?
When the Picts stopped speaking Pictish would they then have spoken Gaellic or did they change directly to some form of English?
Why did the Picts, in particular, disapear to such an extent that people referred to the 'Problem of the Picts' and the declaration of Arbroath declared that 'the Picts we utterly destroyed'? -
Message 2
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 27th April 2006
No one agrees as to how unified a 'race' the Picts (a Roman apellation that was a general term even when it was coined) ever were. An amalgam of tribes who counted themselves enemies of the Scots (Irish) and British (variously Celts/Romano-Celts/Angles/Saxons) survived in various forms right up to the time of the Vikings. By then they had to an arguable extent been absorbed into the Gaelic milieu. An army fighting as 'picts' lost heavily to a Viking force, and from that point they seemed to just fade out. Their separate identity and language might already have faded out long before that. Their proximity to Irish enemies which kept them on their military mettle and their inclination to throw themselves literally against Roman walls suggests a culture defined by its military prowess. When that prowess proved insufficient to sustain the culture it folded.
-
Message 3
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Friday, 28th April 2006
Because here are so few written records, there are loads of opinions about this. What is certain is that the Picts spoke Gaelic, as did the Scots, so they could at least understand each other despite some variances.
The legend is that the Pictish nobility were treacherously slaughtered by Kenneth MacAlpin who became the first King of Scotland, although there are, apparently, records of other kings before him being named as "King of the Picts and Scots" and there is no actual evidence that he did actually kill all the Pictish nobles. From what I have read, it seems to me to be more likely that it was a gradual assimilation into a common culture rather than the Picts being wiped out. Indeed, there is still a fairly distinct East ./ West rivalry within Scotland, certainly at what is usually referred to as "grass roots" level within Scottish society.
I have not heard of anyone claiming to have wiped out the Picts. What is the source of that quote?
As for the Kingdom of Strathclyde, it was indeed a rival kingdom and there is strong support in Scotland for the theory that the legendary Arthur was a leader of the Strathclyde Britons who fought against the Picts. Over the centuries, however, the kingdom weakened and some claimants to the throne turned the Kings of what was becoming Scotland for support. From becoming client kings, it was only a matter of time before the kingdom was absorbed when the royal line failed.
Interestingly, Edinburgh was once English (the Scots don’t teach this in school) but Northumbria was beset by problems of Viking invasion and the Scots gradually moved in to the Lothians and kept pushing southwards as the Northumbrians, beset on several sides, retreated. Edinburgh became the royal seat because it was conveniently sited close to the borders with Scotland's southern neighbours. -
Message 4
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Saturday, 29th April 2006
Tony
the quote concerning the Picts comes from the Declaration of Arbroath which was made by the Scots in 1320 AD, I think, to the pope that they should be free o0f the English.
This is the relevant section.
"Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today. The Britons they first drove out, the Picts they utterly destroyed, and, even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the English, they took possession of that home with many victories and untold efforts; and, as the historians of old time bear witness, they have held it free of all bondage ever since."
I got involved in a debate with a Scot who claimed that it declared that the Picts and scots had intermarried, which they may have, but the declaration does not say that. -
Message 5
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Monday, 1st May 2006
Thanks, Tim. I am sadly lacking in knowledge of the Declaration of Arbroath other than its existence. However, from that extract you have quoted, it is clear that a lot of it is based on legend. The Scythian homeland may be true, but it is pure legend, nothing more. I suspectthe eclaraiton has a very political spin on it. "Look how tough we are; we've conquered a whole kingdom all by ourselves!" Why let historical accuracy get in the way of your manifesto?
The kingdoms of Fortriu, which grew into Alba, which grew into Scotland had a very chequered history in terms of who ruled. The kingship was held by various people of various lineages who called themselves King of Scots and Picts. As both were celtic peoples, I think it is more likely that inter-marriage and ultimate dominance by the royal houses of the Scots caused the Picts to "disappear".
Apart from the legend of Kenneth MacAlpin slaughtering the Picish nobility (for which there is no evidence as far as I know) there is no real mention of the Picts being wiped out. Yes, there was warfare, as there ws between Picts and Strathclyde Britons, Scots and Britons, Picts and Norse (who held omst of what is now northern Scotland, and although the records are scant, mostly coming from Irish monasteries, something as dramatic as an indiginous race being destroyed would surely have been mentioned in older texts than the Declaration of Arbroath.
Personally, I think the mystery of the Picts is that they are still here, but just don't call themselves that any more. Do some Englishmen still call themselves Saxons while others claim to be Jutes, Mercians or Northumbrians? People living in England today must be descendants of people who did use these labels to name their society, but nowadays they all regard themselves as English, albeit with local dialects and traditions which may differ from other regions of England. The same is true of Scotland. -
Message 6
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 1st May 2006
"Apart from the legend of Kenneth MacAlpin slaughtering the Picish nobility (for which there is no evidence as far as I know) there is no real mention of the Picts being wiped out"
Yes and no. If one views modern day Scotland by locality one finds various local references to Pictish extinction, and not always for the same reasons. For example, tradition (supported by archaeological excavation) has it that the Orkneys were home to a thriving Pictish community that was superseded in the ninth century by Norse invaders. While some amount of assimilation into the new dominant culture must be allowed for, there are significant grounds to assume that the transition was as violent as it was sudden, and that the indigenous population was severely depleted by Norse aggression in the 'take-over'. Norwegian texts make hardly any mention of the people whose land they took, and monastic texts speak glowingly of a christianised and powerful Pictish people who 'disappear' quite comprehensively after the invasion. Perhaps not an extinction in the genetic sense, but an eradication (and a presumably traumatic one at that) of a whole culture almost overnight by an invader who had little interest in or respect for the community they had absorbed.
Other areas relate similar accounts with Scots replacing Norse as aggressors, and while some leeway must always be made for history written by victors, it does seem that Pictish society found itself under onslaught from diverse quarters over a significant period of time, and always to its detriment. Your point that some genetic survival must have taken place is of course quite believable and undoubtedly true, but culturally and historically the Picts seem indeed to have been 'wiped out' in stages and over time, and unmistakeably as a result of an organised elimination of their race by their various enemies. -
Message 7
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Wednesday, 3rd May 2006
Tony
I think there is an important difference between the disapearance of Picts and Strathclyde Britons and Angles, Saxons and Jutes. The Angles, Saxons and Jutes all seemed to consider themselves English whatever they called themselves and spoke basically the same language. the laws of Ine king of Wessex have laws for the English and for the Wealas. The Picts and Britons did not considere themselves Scots and did not speak Gaelic. Pictish is believe to be related to Welsh. In both cases their cultures and languages seem to have been wiped out as previously commented -
Message 8
Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Friday, 5th May 2006
Am I right in thinking that Galloway was a Pictish Kingdom yet Gaelic was spoken there till the C13 or so?
The Norwegian/Irish Vikings must have been a very major factor in the decline of Strathclyde Briton culture. -
Message 9
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Friday, 5th May 2006
Galloway was part of the kingdom of the Strathclyde Britons, I think.
The vikings did indeed attack the old kingdom of Alba, but were defeated by Constanine II in the early years of the 10th Century. There were no other attempted invasions of Alba after that. They did settle in parts of Galloway and, of course, in the far north of Scotland which was effetcively viking territory until around the 11th cebtury.
As for the claims about extermination of the Picts, a recently published book, "Lords of Alba" by Ian Walker paints a very different and more believable picture. According to this research, Kenneth I MacAlpin is called King of Scots and Picts in the middle of the 9th century (although others have the same title before him). By 900, the Kingdom of Alba is recorded in Irish annals. Annihilation of the Picts must therefore have taken place during the latter half of the 9th century, but there seems to be no record of this. It is far more likely that Alba was a fusion of the two societies, albeit with a predominantly Gaelic ruling class. -
Message 10
Posted by Our Man in Mexico (U1661159) on Thursday, 11th May 2006
Dear Tim,
The Norwegians also contributed to the decline of the Pictish in the Shetland and Orkney Islands as well as Northern Scotland. It is not known when the Norwegians began to shift from using the Shetland and Orkney Islands as raiding bases for subsequent raids upon Irish and English eccliesiastical sites to settlement and colonisation.
Orkneyinga Saga claims the the Jarldom of the Orkneys was established by King Harald 'Finehair', whom in order to halt Norwegian raids from the Orkneys and Shetlands upon Norway, lead a military expedition to the Islands and subsequently subjegated them and proceeded to give them to Jarl Rognvald as compensation for the death of his son whom had died on King Harald's military expedition. Whilst Egil's Saga (one of the thirty or so Icelandic Family Sagas), in a similar vein, claims that Norwegians on the Orkneys and Shetlands had arrived escaping from the 'tyranny' of King Harald. Snorri Sturluson in Heimskringla claims that King Harald 'Finehair' sanctioned a military expedition lead by Jarl Rognvald to subjegate the Norwegians on the Orkney and Shetland Islands.
Whatever the reasons for colonisation, settlement of the Orkney and Shetland Islands it is clear that the Norwegians assumed total authority and control of the Islands at some point. Archaeology has yielded Pictish goods and items at Saint Ninans in the Shetland Islands which suggests social instability and that the Norwegians were regarded as a threat. Furthermore archaeological excavations at Jarlshof in the Shetlands and Birsay in the Orkneys highlight a sharp break in Pictish culture which suggests that these settlements and deposed and dislodged the Pictish. Eytomology has also revealed that geographical landmarks and also settlements in the Orkenys and Shetlands have Norwegian forms of nomenclature such as 'Westness', 'Egilsay' and 'Buckquoy'; the language of the Orkney Islands became Norse and the Norn dialect survived into the Eighteenth Century.
Furthermore the Jarls of the Orkneys (Sigurd I, Sigurd II and Thorfin) expanded into Caithness and Sutherland in Northern Scotland (through a combination of marriage alliances and military offensives) to the Riverl Oykell and varous Norwegians settlements were established in these areas. These areas being originally occupied by the Pictish.
What happened to the Pictish? It has been suggested that the Pictish were exterminated, enslaved (by controlling the River Oykell the Norwegians had commercial access to Dublin the dominant slaving port in Europe), they lost authority or influence they had or the Norwegians married and assimilated into Pictish Society? Perhaps the Norwegians overwhelmed the Pictish populous of the Shetland and Orkney Islands?
Cheers,
Craig -
Message 11
Posted by Alaric the Goth (U1826823) on Friday, 12th May 2006
By the time that the Picts emerge into history (around the 5th century), they seem to have spoken a 'P-Celtic' language, related to Welsh. Traces of what seem like non-Celtic words have led some to argue that they were 'original Britons' and had become somewhat Celticised.
There was certainly a period before Kenneth mac Alpin when the Picts and Scots interacted so that sometimes a single ruler with a Pictish name ruled over both peoples, and vice versa.
Galloway was under Strathclyde British control till a Norse-Irish people, the so-called Gael-Gaill settled there, I think in the 10th century if not before, and gained a fearsome and lawless reputation. -
Message 12
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Friday, 12th May 2006
Graig, re message 10,
The Norse certainly controlled much of what is now northern Scotland, down as far as th emoray Firth. The original inhabitants (whether Picts or other natives) were certainly totally dominated, if not wiped out by the Norse. The Picto-Scottish kingdom of Alba did not control MOray until Malcolm I came to the throne in the 10th century. -
Message 13
Posted by GreenDoctor (U3913526) on Saturday, 13th May 2006
This period of history is not taught at school at all. When I was at school, Scottish history was not taught. All we learned was WW1, WW2, Russian Revolution and mainly 20th century history.
There is probably political reasons for this. -
Message 14
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Saturday, 13th May 2006
Galloway...
Was it ever under Strathclyde British control? Prior to the Gall-Gaedhil settlement it appears to have been dominated from the South & East rather than the North. The place name 'Dunragit' has led some to conclude that the region was part of the shadowy British kingdom of Rheged, centred on Westmoreland. Rheged certainly came under the control of the Bernician Angles in the C7th, & so did Galloway, there being an Anglian bishop based at Whithorn. In his seminal study 'Land of the Cumbrians: A Study in British Provincial Origins AD 410-1120' (1996), Charles Phythian-Adams demonstrated that the kingdom of the Cumbrians established in the C10th was a Scottish creation rather than representing any expansion of the Strathclyde British, who were effectively knocked out of the competition for dominance in northern Britain by the Viking assault of 870-71. -
Message 15
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 14th May 2006
QUOTE This period of history is not taught at school at all. When I was at school, Scottish history was not taught. All we learned was WW1, WW2, Russian Revolution and mainly 20th century history.
There is probably political reasons for this.QUOTE
I agree. it is still not taught at school. Just about the only Scottish history taught is a bit about Mary Queen of Scots and Culloden. In best politically correct terms, children are taught that Culloden was fought between Jacobites and Hanoverians. The early history of Scotland is not taught at all. -
Message 16
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Monday, 15th May 2006
At school in Scotland in the 80s we were taught about early Scotish history. Including about the Picts, Scots and Strathclyde Britons. Is this no longer the case?
PS Hallo I am new to the Boards -
Message 17
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Monday, 15th May 2006
Tony
How much Anglo-Saxon history is taught in Enghlish schools these days? How many would have any idea who Athelstan was?
I saw a poll in which a fair percentage thought that Cromwell had won the battle of Hastings when we all know it was prince Rupert!
regards
Tim -
Message 18
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 15th May 2006
Welcome to the boards Colquhoun. Glad to hear that someone was learning about Scottish history in school - I was beginning to think we Irish were getting a much more comprehensive education of your country's history than you were!
(And judging by some of the weird opinions expressed sometimes - especially when it comes to what happened to the Picts - I was beginning to gloomily think I could be right!). -
Message 19
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Monday, 15th May 2006
Thanks, I hope to enjoy my stay.
My understanding of what happened to the Strathclyde Britons was that after being weakened in some wars with the vikings they were conqured by the Scots in the 9th century.
After which their kingdom continued to exist as a client kingdom ruled by the younger brother/son of the Scots king until the mid 11th century when it was formally subsumed within the kingdom of Scotland.
Their language (close to Welsh) continued to be spoken up until the 11th century or a possiblely little later. -
Message 20
Posted by Alaric the Goth (U1826823) on Monday, 15th May 2006
Thanks for that, DrkKtn
I knew that Rheged had included lands both sides of the Solway, but I have read it was probably centred on Carlisle rather than Westmoreland. That seemed to make sense. I knew that there had been an Anglian presence (C7th/8th) at least in the very south of what is now 'Scotland' (e.g. around Whithorn, as you mention, and at Ruthwell). But I was wrong to assume Strathclyde had taken over the lands after Northumbrian power waned.
It is interesting what you say about the 'Scottish' creation of a Land of the Cumbrians. I should try and get hold of that book. -
Message 21
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Monday, 15th May 2006
QUOTE At school in Scotland in the 80s we were taught about early Scotish history. Including about the Picts, Scots and Strathclyde Britons. Is this no longer the case?
PS Hallo I am new to the Boards QUOTE
Colquhon,
Welcome to the Boards. I have three kids and as far as I can glean from talking to them and their teachers at, there is very little Scottish history taught. You seeem to have been in a fortunate minority as I was at school in the 60s and 70s and there was not much Scottish history taught then either. -
Message 22
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Tuesday, 16th May 2006
Thanks,
Admittedly at Higher we concentrated on general British and European history in the 19th century but prior to that we went through Scottish history from the Romans to ww1 -
Message 23
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Tuesday, 16th May 2006
QUOTE [(And judging by some of the weird opinions expressed sometimes - especially when it comes to what happened to the Picts - I was beginning to gloomily think I could be right!).] QUOTE
Nordmann,
I take it you are referring to some of my earlier posts? Actually I think we are more or less in agreement. Unfortunately for me, if you learned all this at school, you have me at a disadvantage as I have had to read about it for myself. However, I agree that, culturally and historically, the Picts did indeed cease to exist, just as you say. My assertion is that they were not exterminated through ethnic cleansing by the Scots but were assimilated.
Interestingly, I'm currently reading a book about pre-conquest England which touches on relations with Scotland and mentions MacBeth, who seized the throne in the early 11th century. His title was "Mormaer" of Moray. This is an old Pictish title and was later replaced by the anglicised title of "earl". I think this does show that there were some vestiges of Pictish culture even as late as the 11th century. -
Message 24
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Wednesday, 17th May 2006
I don't know about Mormaer being a Pictish title, the earliest use I can find is describing the Mormaer of Angus in 937 in a reference to the battle of Brunanburh some time after Kenneth MacAlpine's takeover which would imply that it is a Gaelic title.
-
Message 25
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Wednesday, 17th May 2006
Cheers, Alaric. You're largely correct about Carlisle - I was being slack. The royal dynasty of Rheged appears to have emerged from the Lyvennet valley in Westmoreland, coming to dominate the Solway plain & fill the power vacuum left by the bloody battle of Arthuret in 573. By the time Rheged was subjugated by Northumbria, the political centre of gravity had shifted to Carlisle.
The Kingdom of the Cumbrians is a very interesting beast. My own take on its Brythonic 'public face' is that this was the propaganda aspect of the process by which the Scots detatched the area from Bernician rule - they couldn't realistically claim it was a Gaelic area, but could play up the British aspect of its identity that had lain beneath the surface during its Anglian period. Interestingly, the first (early C10th) mentions of the Kingship of the Cumbrians coincide with the last references to the rulers of Bamburgh as 'kings'. -
Message 26
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Wednesday, 17th May 2006
Dark kitten
when the Normans pushed the English border up to Carlisle are you saying that the people there would have been gaelic speakers rather than 'Welsh' speakers.
I thought that there was evidence of a few p-Celtic words such as crag? entered English via Cumbria. The very name is p-Celtic. -
Message 27
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Wednesday, 17th May 2006
Tim,
I'm saying that the upper crust in the C10th would've spoken Gaelic, but I don't suggest it ever really took hold & filtered down or that there was any large scale Q-Celtic settlement.
The people Rufus conquered in 1092 were, I believe, a mixed bunch: Britons whose communities had survived since the days of Rheged, Angles, Norsemen who appear to have settled peacefully under the aegis of the Scots &, perhaps, a few Gaels. -
Message 28
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Wednesday, 17th May 2006
QUOTE [I don't know about Mormaer being a Pictish title, the earliest use I can find is describing the Mormaer of Angus in 937 in a reference to the battle of Brunanburh some time after Kenneth MacAlpine's takeover which would imply that it is a Gaelic title.}
That will teach me to post a message without checking my sources. Having checked the book I got that from actually says that the title is Gaelic but that the position is unique to the kingdom of Alba and thus "probably derives therefore from Pictish origins". Sounds more like opinion than fact, I know.
I believe there is a new book out accompanying a TV series called "Before Scotland". It will be interesting to see what it says on the subject, although I doubt there will be too much in-depth research if it is for a TV series. -
Message 29
Posted by U3153557 (U3153557) on Friday, 19th May 2006
It is worth reading early 'Welsh'literature. Edinburgh, we are sometimes told, was 'English' - but it is referred to as Caer Eiddin earlier. The Gododdin who lived round there seem to have been Roman allies, who were invited to drive invaders out of Gwynedd, which is why the poem survives with us, not in Scotland. There are poems about the battles of Golau (I think it is) and Rheged with the Angles. My own feeling is that all these 'wipings out' and 'massacres' people talk about never happened. Who'd destroy a good workforce? Only the kings and aristocrats mattered and, lacking any real 'national' feeling, people would gradually have picked up the language of their 'betters'.
-
Message 30
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Friday, 19th May 2006
'Fraid I'm in 'spotter' mode at the mo'...
...Edinburgh was 'Din Eidynn' - 'Caer' placenames appear to be C10th phenomenon. -
Message 31
Posted by U3153557 (U3153557) on Saturday, 20th May 2006
TonyG - you write -'Interestingly, I'm currently reading a book about pre-conquest England which touches on relations with Scotland and mentions MacBeth, who seized the throne in the early 11th century. His title was "Mormaer" of Moray. This is an old Pictish title and was later replaced by the anglicised title of "earl". I think this does show that there were some vestiges of Pictish culture even as late as the 11th century.'
'Mormaer' would presumably be 'great steward'. If it is a Pictish title, it is worth noting that our 'little Moscow' in the Rhondda was called Maerdy - steward's house'. It is suspiciously like the English 'mayor' though. -
Message 32
Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Monday, 22nd May 2006
Slightly tangentially,
I've always been puzzled by the Gaelic 'Lough' placenames in western Northumberland and the use of the bagpipes in that area.
Can anyone cast any light on that?
Cheers -
Message 33
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 22nd May 2006
If by bagpipes you mean the Northumbrian pipes (three drones in one stock) then it most likely came into the region via Newcastle which traded closely with the Germanic Baltic states. A precursor to this instrument would have been the German 'Hummelschein', almost identical in appearance and quite unlike the Scottish 'bagpipes' which were a later import and designed for outdoor use. These began to make their way over the North Sea towards the end of the 17th century.
The survival of 'lough' is probably merely to do with the county's proximity to the Gaelic speaking culture north of it and the fact that for much of the region's history since Romano-British times the inhabitants were regarded by their eastern and southern English neighbours with the same distrust and suspicion as was reserved for the Scots, especially during the hayday of the 'border reivers'. There must have been a tendency therefore amongst the natives to be as open to Scottish nomenclature as to English, and it persisted long enough for the placenames to become 'set' so fast that they survive today. -
Message 34
Posted by Alaric the Goth (U1826823) on Monday, 22nd May 2006
So, the Northumbrian pipes are not that old, but older than the Scottish ones!
I'll have to dig out my Katherine Tickell tape again!
What you said about Gaelic influence still doesn't explain why e.g. Crag Lough has that 'Irish' spelling and not Scots Gaelic. Is the Norse-Irish settlement of Galloway connected, perhaps?
Alaric (descendant of Border Reivers) -
Message 35
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Monday, 22nd May 2006
I've always been puzzled by the Gaelic 'Lough' placenames in western Northumberland Β
Dark Age Gaelic imperialism extended south of the medieval/modern Anglo-Scottish border - see, e.g.
Charles Phythian-Adams, 'Land of the Cumbrians: A Study in British Provincial Origins AD 410-1120' (1996) [once again]. -
Message 36
Posted by U3153557 (U3153557) on Monday, 22nd May 2006
DrkKtn -
"'Fraid I'm in 'spotter' mode at the mo'...
...Edinburgh was 'Din Eidynn' - 'Caer' placenames appear to be C10th phenomenon."
Absolutely right - my mind was in neutral! -
Message 37
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 22nd May 2006
"What you said about Gaelic influence still doesn't explain why e.g. Crag Lough has that 'Irish' spelling and not Scots Gaelic."
'Lough' is an anglicisation and not Irish Gaelic. In Irish Gaelic the spelling is 'loch', just as in Scotland. It seems that those areas administered by the English acquired the harder 'gh' sound and spelling due to an inability on the part of the English to accurately pronounce the places that they controlled (which is why poor Ireland has been inflicted with so many bally Ballys), and this linguistic shortcoming unfortunately coincided with the mushrooming of printed material relating to such administration around the 15th and 16th centuries so that the term 'stuck'. The Scots, who escaped such administrative interference for that crucial bit longer managed at least to have the correct spelling established by the time of administrative union, so at least there has the correct spelling survived the switch to English.
Northumbria, being English administered of course, merely paralleled the pronunciation and spelling across the water rather than across the border. -
Message 38
Posted by GreenDoctor (U3913526) on Monday, 22nd May 2006
The English never administered any part of Scotland at any time, certainly not in the highlands. As for Ireland, part of it was under English control for about 800 years, whereas Scotland has never been under English control.
The Clan names, etc are in the anglicised format because English was the language of trade and business. Wallace and Bruce both spoke a form of English. So the language was already being used. English is the language of the Scots, not Gaelic or Pictish. Its like saying that Americans are dominated by english culture, which is not the case for a long time.
Many Scottish words have Scandanavian origin, not English. -
Message 39
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 22nd May 2006
Apologies - I meant 'administered through' English and not 'by the English' in the case of Scotland at the stage in history I spoke of, whereas both terms were synonymous in the case of Ireland and Northumbria at the same time.
-
Message 40
Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Wednesday, 24th May 2006
So the Germans have bagpipes! they've gone up in my estimation.
Is the German Baltic link well attested? Just seems a bit unlikely to me (not that I'd know) -
Message 41
Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Wednesday, 24th May 2006
I must say I find these Northumbrian Gaels, like so much history rooted in the dark ages frustratingly fascinating.
The population must have been quite large for such placenames to linger for so long.
The thing is this population is a long way from Galloway or from the Forth-Clyde line. This area seems the sort of place where an old population such as P-Celts would linger and not the sort of place where Q-Celt raiders would stay, especially so close to a dominant Angle population.
Guess we'll never know.
I was looking at a copy of Muirs historical Atlas tonight and this area was covered by something called "Franchise of Tynedale" held by Scots Kings till 1295. Nothing about it on Google at all. A connection there perhaps?
Thanks for all your informative posts. -
Message 42
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 25th May 2006
In answer to the previous post - yes, North Sea trade links in the 17th century were well established and very much still a continuation of the routes and commodities-trading defined under the Hanseatic League. Newcastle in particular depended very much on this trade for its prosperity and almost all of the ports it traded with were still as German in the late 17th century as at the height of the League. Bergen, for example, though never politically affiliated with any German country was built by German Hanseatic traders. German, and not Norwegian, was the business language of the town and to this day the locals speak with an accent that owes as much to this Turtonic heritage as to their Norwegian. The same was true of several other ports around the North Sea and Baltic of course. Hence the bagpipes.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.