Ancient and ArchaeologyΜύ permalink
Nechtansmere not historic enough
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Tuesday, 22nd February 2011
I've heard that Historic Scotland have decided to omit the battle of Nechtansmere (or Dunnichen as it is usually known is Scotland) from its list of important battlefield sites.
In terms of deciding the future course of the later kingdoms of Britain, Nechtansmere was perhaps as significant,as Bannockburn, if not more so, yet,once again, the Scottish establishment seek to downplay its role. Is this because it was a Pictish victory, not a Scottish one?
Most Scottish schools teach nothing about this period of history and Nechtansmere is already one of the least known battles among Scots. Historic Scotland seem determined to keep it that way. It seems a perverse attitude for an organisation which bears the name "Historic".
Their only justification from a historical perpective is the debate over the precise location of the battle but it seems that the decision is more political than historic. Having effectively conquered the Picts,the Scots seem determined to erase all memory of their achievements. A sad attitude in this day and age.
Tony -
Message 2
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Tuesday, 22nd February 2011
Have you seen this Tony?
I see that neither Nechtansmere or Mons Gaupius are on the the HS list for proposed protection, which I suppose makes sense given the dubiety about their location, but Stirling Bridge is. Do they know something I don't, like where it was actually fought? -
Message 3
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Tuesday, 22nd February 2011
Interesting that the precise site of any battle is not perhaps the prime consideration. Just as well, seeing as Bannockburn almost certainly did not take place on the site of the current visitor centre. I don't have a problem with that. If a battle is important, it should be commemorated. In myview, Nechtansmere ranks up there with the most important. If Bridei III had not won, there would probably be no Scotland now. Most of the east would be a part of Northumbria.
Other battles were of far less consequence. Prestonpans, for example, had no lasting effect on the course of history.
As for Mons Graupius, a group calling themselves Roman Scotland claim to have identified the probable site of the battle. It is not where most people think it is but they make a very plausible argument, even if they did set the criteria themselves. When you have a lot of time to spare it is worth having a look at romanscotland.org.uk
I am surprised Historic Scotland have not latched onto this as an excuse to commemorate a Pictish defeat. -
Message 4
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Tuesday, 22nd February 2011
As I understand it, the inventory is to identify sites and "provides information on the sites in it to raise awareness of their significance and assist in their protection and management for the future", so having a degree of consensus as to where they took place, at least approximately, seems reasonable. Nechtansmere has two good candidates and, although I'd be happy to see both Dunnichen and Dunachton listed as possibles, it would be, at the very least, confusing.
The answer is, as ever, archaeology and getting the evidence but with the Centre for Battlefield and Conflict archaeology at Glasgow being in the firing line ( they want to keep Tony Pollard however, celebrity is everything) as well as the whole Archaeology dept. being downgraded to a part of a proposed dept. of History, Archaeology and Classics - god help us, suggested to be called the Department of the Past - it'll soon be down to relying on the good will of the metal detectors.
Appologies for the rant but I'm not happy! -
Message 5
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Tuesday, 22nd February 2011
And apologies for the spelling.
-
Message 6
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Tuesday, 22nd February 2011
Most Scottish schools teach nothing about this period of history and Nechtansmere is already one of the least known battles among Scots.Μύ
This is very curious, Tony.
When I went to school in England in the 1940s we had to draw a map of Britain showing Nechtansmere with "685AD" and crossed swords, so we must have been taught something about it there. Then my family returned to Scotland. So, because I knew very little about Scottish history, I went to a night-school history class there, hoping to fill in the gaps. I was surprised to find that the course (to GCE level) covered exactly the same ground as my school in England had.
So I didn't learn about William the Lion (whoever he was) but we were taught about the victory of the Picts at Nechtansmere. Same map, same crossed swords. That would be around 1954.
Years later, around the time of the 1300-years anniversary in 1985, I was surprised to see a letter in 'The Scotsman' from someone bewailing the fact that he had never been taught about the battle at school - and hinting at some devious English plot to keep him in the dark about Scottish history.
The writer came from Forfar, of all places - three or four miles away from the (supposed) site of the battle at Dunnichen.
Maybe he'd simply been dozy in class, but if it was correct that he'd never been taught about it, Nechtansmere must have been dropped from the syllabus between the 1950s and the 1980s. Very strange! -
Message 7
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Tuesday, 22nd February 2011
Well, I never heard the word 'Nechtansmere' until about 5 years ago. I took History at school here in Scotland until I had to drop it at the end of 3rd year in about 1960. in fact I remember learning virtually nothing about Scottish history at all. I believe that the battle is now covered in the Advanced Higher syllabus but I suspect that it doesn't appear before that stage, up till then it all seems to be modern history. Our children know what Hitler had for breakfast on the 23rd of June 1937 but not much else since they finished their Viking project in primary.
-
Message 8
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Tuesday, 22nd February 2011
That's amazing, Ferval.
Thinking about it, my night-class in Fife - history to GCE (or "Highers") level, was in the winter of 1955/6. Having cycled to Aberlemno I'd been greatly taken with the Pictish standing stones there, became very interested in the Picts, so I was paying close attention in the class. And Nechtansmere was definitely covered.
Something odd seems to have happened to Scottish history teaching shortly thereafter. I'm very glad I was at school when I was, before the present system - projects on Hitler etc - became the norm. -
Message 9
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Tuesday, 22nd February 2011
I've been thinking back, through the mists, and I can vaguely remember the story of Catherine Douglas barring the door so we must have learned something, possibly Flora MacDonald as well. It is hard to separate out what was at school and what you just picked up elsewhere, I was such an avid reader that it may all have come from there.
Those Pictish stones are wonderful, i spent a very enjoyable, if chilly, day in Angus a few years ago going to Restenneth, Aberlermno, Meigle, Ardestie and other places. As so often, I'm embarrassed by how little of our past I've actually visited.
Tony, I'm intrigued by your hypothesis that there is an anti Pictish sentiment abroad, have you any other examples? And can you suggest why that might be? -
Message 10
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Tuesday, 22nd February 2011
Tony, I'm intrigued by your hypothesis that there is an anti Pictish sentiment abroad, have you any other examples? Μύ
One thing struck me a week or so back. In the paper there was a photograph of an island in the Forth, whose name "Inchkeith" was said in the caption to be from its original Gaelic name.
Now presumably it had a name in Pictish before that, and who can possibly say what that was? So maybe "Inchkeith" is derived from Pictish, and the Gaelic name quoted was a translation or a transliteration of that. But no, it had to be from the Gaelic.
The same applies to many placenames in Fife and southern and eastern Scotland - all claimed to have Gaelic origins, when who knows what the Pictish names might have been? Maybe something fairly similar to the Gaelic version?
And now we're to have Gaelic nameboards on all Scottish railway stations.
Ridiculous. -
Message 11
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Tuesday, 22nd February 2011
I was at school in the 60s and 70s and we definietly did not cover Pictish times at all. I dropped history in 3rd year because at that time it consisted of Mary Queen of Scots and a rather rose-tinted view of Robert Bruce. When I visited the excellent Pictavia Centre last year, I got talking to one of the staff who had been at school in Forfar and had only heard about Dunnichen from her parents.
I know about the dispute regarding the actual site and I personally believe that Alex Woolf's case for a northern location is probably more likely than the generally accepted Dunnichen site but still, there is a visitor centre at Pictavia and I am appalled that HIstoric Scotland do not consider the battle worthy of commemoration.
There is, sadly, an anti-History agenda among the decision-makers in Scottish Education. There are proposals to drop it as a separate subject altogether. While I found the subject less than inspriing when I was at school, I still think this is dreadful.
As for the anti-Pictish bias, that is my own pet conspiracy theory. The PIcts have had a bad press ever since the Declaration of Arbroath inwhich the Scots claim to have wiped them out. My personal (admittedly jaundiced) view is that when the Scottish ruling class eventually seized control, they were keen to play down the role that the Picts had played in forming the new nation. That view has, I believe, continued. We are told about Saint Columba and how he converted the heathen Picts and that is just about all we ever hear about them.
The revelation that Nechtamnsmere was on the school syllabus in the 1950s rather spoils my conspiracy theory. Perhaps it is just symptomatooc pf the way history is presented nowadays in Scotland.
As you can tell, I am not happy either. -
Message 12
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Tuesday, 22nd February 2011
And now we're to have Gaelic nameboards on all Scottish railway stations.Μύ
Another of my many frisky hobby horses. Why on earth would anyone think it appropriate to render Glasgow Queen's St station in Scot's Gaelic? Steisiun Sraid na Banrighinn,
Gaelic was never been the predominate language in Strathclyde, rather Brythonic or Scots, so why do we have to immerse ourselves in this misty, sentimental nonsense? Guilt for not being over welcoming to the Gaels? Why has a fascinating history been occluded by the hoochter teuchter mythology?
Maybe you're right Tony, it is the Gaelic mafia at work here as well.
Better be careful - my in laws are native speakers and trying to persuade my daughter that my granddaughter should learn as well. -
Message 13
Posted by Stoggler (U14387762) on Wednesday, 23rd February 2011
I'm surprised to read this about Gaelic nameboards on all Scottish railway stations.
Understandable in the Highlands and Islands of course, and even in Glasgow which has a Gaelic-speaking population and has done since the Industrial Revolution and Highland Clearances, and in Edinburgh as its the capital, but I can't imagine why somewhere like Dunbar or Dundee would need Gaelic signage.
As much as I want to see the Gaelic language supported and to thrive, it seems perverse to have signs in a language in locations where the language has never been spoken. The linguistic situation in Scotland has never been as straightforward as it is in Wales where Welsh was spoken in virtually all of modern-day Wales (and even across the border into England in some places in the past) - Gaelic, Scots, English, Brythonic, Pictish and Norse have all had a mark on the linguistic landscape. I understand the desire to back Gaelic, but a few signs in areas where the language has never been uttered is not going to help!
Out of interest, is Gaelic taught (or available to be taught) in Scottish schools outside the GΓ idhealtachd? -
Message 14
Posted by Stoggler (U14387762) on Wednesday, 23rd February 2011
but I can't imagine why somewhere like Dunbar or Dundee would need Gaelic signage.
Μύ
Hmm, it's possible the Gaelic was once spoken in Dundee:
It shows a map of the possible linguistic divide in Scotland in 1400.
Although it doesn't mention it on the map, the lighter coloured part in Caithness (and would also include Orkney and Shetland) refers to Norn, the North Germanic language derived from Old Norse. -
Message 15
Posted by ArweRheged (U14720560) on Wednesday, 23rd February 2011
I suppose one could argue that as the Gaelic language is still spoken, it is reasonable enough to provide for Gaelic speakers by having signs in more than one language.
However, we immediately hit a massive sand bar, in that we are all technically part of the United Kingdom - so why should Gaelic signs be limited to Scotland and Welsh ones to Wales? Should not all of our signs everywhere in the UK be written in English, Welsh and Gaelic? And if they are, surely we also need to include the languages of our more recent immigrant communities too - I assume that the number of people in the UK who speak Urdu or Punjabi as a first language far outnumbers those who speak Gaelic as a first language.
I suspect that it all comes down to the way we view history - and this also explains why battles like Nechtansmere (not to mention Catreath, Badon, Argoed Llwyfein, Winwaed etc etc) do not make the cut. It seems to me that there has been a tendency to favour the history of the perceived surviving groups and do do so in broadly nationalist terms - so we get the history of the English for English people, the history of the Scots for Scottish people and so on. We don't bother with the history of the Picts because there aren't any Picts left.
This is a shame, as it completely ignores the fact that we are all generally the product of a big genetic soup tureen and we are as Pictish as we are anything else - and so Nechtansmere is an important an event (in terms of armed conflict) as Bannockburn, Flodden, Trafalgar or Hastings.
Regards,
A R -
Message 16
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Wednesday, 23rd February 2011
This seems to be the most up to date for Gaelic medium education
It's harder to find info on schools offering Gaelic as a language to either fluent speakers or learners but in 2007 there were about 3500 secondary pupils studying Gaelic. -
Message 17
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Wednesday, 23rd February 2011
The Irish Republic has all it's road and street signs in both English and Irish Gaelic.
Dublin is of course, a city founded by the Vikings, and built up by the Normans, and ruled by the English ever since - no more connection to Irish Gaelic than Glasgow has to the Scots. An expensive way to assert your independence, but I suppose we are all entitled go mad in our own way!
We also have the Republican faction in N.Ireland, who are insisting on signs in Irish for 'their streets', even though Belfast is hardly a traditional Irish speaking area either! Of course, with the Peace Deal, we have to grant them 'parity of esteem', in all matters!
And then the craziest of the lot - some of the Ulster Protestants claim that Ulster-Scots is a seperate language, rather than a dialect of English, and insist on 'parity of esteem' as well! Government jobs have to be advertised in English, Irish, Ulster-Scots and Chinese in the local papers. There is even an Ulster-Scots Language Board, with a chairman getting an obscene salary, to promote this nonsense. All this while we are closing Hospital beds for lack of money!
The best one though was when they put up 'Ulster-Scots' street signs in Protestant East Belfast, to show the locals how well their heritage was being protected. The local Loyalist Hard-men tore them down, thinking they were in Irish, and the Council was trying to foist 'Foreign Language' signs on them! -
Message 18
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Wednesday, 23rd February 2011
A sad business, Giraffe47.
I was once in Dublin and saw these bilingual street names. A bright-looking lad of about 12 came out of a house to which the two street nameplates were attached, so I asked him what the street was called. ".... Street" he said. "But what does the other sign say?" I asked. "Oh, I dunno."
It all seems such a waste of money, better spent on useful things.
There aren't any Gaelic speakers in Scotland who don't understand English, so even at the (very few) railway stations in the far north-west, these Gaelic nameboards seem pointless. Maybe they'll make tourists feel they've arrived in really exotic foreign parts, but looking out of their carriage and seeing a strange name with a lot of mh...dh...bh (etc) may only make them wonder if they've arrived at their stop yet. Anyway, "Bed & Breakfast" and "Vacancies" will always remain in English.
The upcoming census will be interesting. I predict an immense upsurge in the number of people claiming to speak Gaelic. It's a pity there isn't an exam attached, just to see how much Gaelic they actually can speak. I wouldn't claim to speak French (only did it for 5 years at school) but I guess many enthusiasts who can barely translate a few simple sentences will eagerly tick the 'Gaelic' box.
More research needed, into the real language of our ancestors, the Picts! -
Message 19
Posted by Mick Mac (U5651045) on Wednesday, 23rd February 2011
Dublin is of course, a city founded by the Vikings, Μύ
Then why did they give it an Irish name!
no more connection to Irish Gaelic than Glasgow has to the Scots.Μύ
Ignorance is bliss.
We also have the Republican faction in N.Ireland, who are insisting on signs in Irish for 'their streets', even though Belfast is hardly a traditional Irish speaking area either! Μύ
Belfast is an Irish name. So is Derry, and Armagh, and Newry, and Portadown, and Tyrone, and Enniskillen, and Strabane, and Ballymena, and Carrickfergus, and Omagh, and Dungannon, and Downpatrick, and Bangor, and β¦β¦..!
Of course, with the Peace Deal, we have to grant them 'parity of esteem', in all matters!Μύ
I suppose itβs hard to βgrantβ parity of esteem to those beneath you.
And then the craziest of the lot - some of the Ulster Protestants claim that Ulster-Scots is a seperate language, rather than a dialect of English, and insist on 'parity of esteem' as well!Μύ
We can agree on something!
The best one though was when they put up 'Ulster-Scots' street signs in Protestant East Belfast, to show the locals how well their heritage was being protected. The local Loyalist Hard-men tore them down, thinking they were in Irish, and the Council was trying to foist 'Foreign Language' signs on them!Μύ
As I said, ignorance is bliss. -
Message 20
Posted by Mick Mac (U5651045) on Wednesday, 23rd February 2011
More research needed, into the real language of our ancestors, the Picts!Μύ
The irony is that you bewail the use of Gaelic which still lives in the minds and on the tongues of some people to this day but nobody at all speaks Pictish. In fact I challenge you, or anybody else, to translate the following into Pictish:
βHaving learned French for five years I cannot speak it. What a waste of money and time in education. I am ignorant of the Gaelic language and know absolutely nothing of Pictish. However, I can just about make an idiot of myself in one language β English.β -
Message 21
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Wednesday, 23rd February 2011
I am very sorry I brought up the subject of the ridiculous Gaelic nameboards which are about to appear on every Scottish railway station. It is really too silly for comment.
Wondering about the site of the battle of Nechtansmere is far more interesting. -
Message 22
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Thursday, 24th February 2011
Yes, the discussion has moved on a bit but the language issue is actually another symptom of the problem I wanted to highlight. I think this thread also shows how language, which is really just a tool for communication, can become an emotive subject and a political tool.
However, my point is that a visitor to Scotland, and even young Scots themselves, can quite easily infer that Gaelic is/was the ancient traditional language of the whole of Scotland. Pictish is indeed a dead language, which shows how successful the Gaels were in crushing Pictish culture. But this does not mean that the Picts were not important to the history of Scotland. I do not know what DNA evidence can show but I am convinced that many of us who regard ourselves as Scots are more than likely descendants of people who once regarded themselves as Picts (or whatever they called themselves - Cruithne? Pecht?).
Whether this is correct or not, the Picts have been relegated to become a footnote and Scottish officialdom seems determined to erase even that footnote. The continuing promotion of Gaelic culture as "the" traditional culture gives a very misleading picture of Scottish history. Down to the Middle Ages, the Gaels were dominant in the west and north until their semi-autonomy was crushed by James IV (I think). But their culture was never dominant in the whole of Scotland, although that is very much the impression that is handed down to modern Scots.
As for the Strathclyde Welsh, very few in Scotland have ever heard of them.
I think all of this is a very perverse form of nationalism. I have even heard a museum curator claim that the Romans were sent scurrying south "by the Scots". He said it rather tongue-in-cheek but most of his audience did not know that. Unfortunately, this view of "Scottishness" requires that the influence of the Picts, the Britons of Strathclyde and the Norse is ignored as far as possible. We call ourselves Scots now, so we must always have been Scots.
End of rant. -
Message 23
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 24th February 2011
Re: Message 22.
"Yes, the discussion has moved on a bit but the language issue is actually another symptom of the problem I wanted to highlight. I think this thread also shows how language, which is really just a tool for communication, can become an emotive subject and a political tool."
Well said Tony. We have some difficulties with languages too in Belgium.
"language,which is really just a tool for communication"
I said exactly the same on a French messageboard also frequented by Belgian contributors.
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 24
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Thursday, 24th February 2011
End of rant.Μύ
I see no rant!
What you say sums up my own feeling about all this exactly.
I have relations who have started learning Gaelic at night classes, and while I think they are doing so because they see it as "oor ancient tongue" I hope they persevere, and I'd encourage them - because it's always another language. Can't be bad.
But privately I think that learning Latin - which was spoken up here too, once - would be more useful. Or French, or German or...
But if they only learn a smattering, just enough to translate "Little Hamish is playing a pibroch on his chanter" and then pack it in, then it all seems a bit pointless. And I hope they won't be ticking the "Gaelic" box on their census forms.
After 5 years of French (sixty+ years ago) and the ability now to just about get by in the language, I wouldn't have the gall to say I actually spoke French. The same goes for any of the other languages I've had a stab at. But I suspect many enthusiasts will be claiming to speak Gaelic after a few lessons. So the census returns will be distorted.
It will be interesting to see. -
Message 25
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Thursday, 24th February 2011
As for the Strathclyde Welsh, very few in Scotland have ever heard of themΜύ
Maybe that's why I was initially sceptical about your defence of the Picts since most people have at least heard of the Picts but mention Al Clut and what comes to mind is a dishcloth, say Govan and it's football and shipbuilding.
Por old Dumbarton and Strathclyde, relegated to a footnote, whereas there's a map and a 'medieval trail' produced by the city council for Glasgow with precisely two medieval buildings on it and one, the Provand's Lordship, is so late 15th c that it barely qualifies and it's not even rendered. All the other buildings are post medieval. Don't mention the Bishop's Palace, all it needs is a big dipper. There is no similar map for either 18th or 19th c. Glasgow.
You could come up with all sorts of conspiracy theories to explain what gets the attention and the funding and, being Glasgow, these tend to be based on politics and religion, often the same thing.
Time to resurrect the Cymru, shall I recruit Minette?
Seriously though, the Early Historic period is fascinating and doesn't get nearly enough prominence. -
Message 26
Posted by ArweRheged (U14720560) on Friday, 25th February 2011
I'd be careful about this assertion that the Pictish language is dead.
The received wisdom is that Gaelic was introduced to what is now Scotland by the Dal Riadan Scots who came from Ireland. I am not at all sure that this tells us the whole story. I have argued elsewhere that there is evidence that the language which became modern Gaelic (Old Irish) was spoken in mainland Britain as well as in Ireland. It's less about people bringing a new language with them and more about OI representing an earlier version of one or more Brythonic tongues which were squeezed out by the language(s) which ultimately became Welsh.
At the time Wome became our Fwend, it is possible that OI was still widely spoken by some tribes in the south and east of what is now England - the name Boudicca is probably OI.
OI speech gradually retreated and by the end of the Roman period, had been pushed back to the north and west. It is therefore quite possible that out British friends in Strathclyde were still speaking a language which had OI elements at least and it is equally possible that the Picts were doing the same.
This whole area deserves further research, but I don't see the spread of Gaelic as necessarily being evidence of the eradication of other tongues. It might be, but it doesn't have to be.
Regards,
A R -
Message 27
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Friday, 25th February 2011
The received wisdom is that Gaelic was introduced to what is now Scotland by the Dal Riadan Scots who came from IrelandΜύ
It's certainly the view most commonly encountered but far from uncritically accepted in Scotland where Dal Riata has been seen as a communality around the Irish Sea coast rather than an Irish kingdom which expanded into Argyll and the Isles - see Ewen Campbell's paper
However it's only fair to say that this is disputed vociferously by, in particular, some Northern Irish academics. -
Message 28
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Monday, 7th March 2011
"OI representing an earlier version of one or more Brythonic tongues"-
- at what point does that not become a contradiction in terms?
I have read somewhere the suggestion that Pictish might had Q Celtic elements but it seems a big leap to say that Q Celtic was spoken in the south.
We are only just coming to terms with the notion that the Belgic southeast might even have been a bridgehead for Old English!
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 Μύto 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
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ 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.