Talk:Origins of the Kingdom of Alba

Untitled

"Germanic-speaking subjects of the Scottish king" - germanic is a too loose term, what does it mean? Norse speaking people, germans, dutch og perhaps english? --85.165.109.247 15:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Essentially it means English. However, it may include Flemings. When Fordun talks about language in later 14th century Scotland, he lists "Scottish" (i.e. Gaelic) and "Teutonic"; maybe he doesn't want to call Scottish English "English", and he can't call it Scottish, because that then meant Gaelic, so maybe that's why; or maybe he was grouping English, Flemish and Norse. Who knows. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Goths, Gaels and Celts..

This has really come up as a side issue in some study I'm doing, but the bonkers Mr Pinkerton is described in William Ferguson's The Identity of the Scottish Nation as having more basis for his racist fantasies than the article admits. Bede identified the Picts with "Scythians" from Scandinavia (not to be confused with Scythians), the Goths may have originated there, so several 18th century historians had these sort of ideas. Pinkerton had begun as an enthusiast for the "Celtic" fantasies of the time before turning against the dodgy scholarship and being even more dubious, indeed fraudulent, in promoting his ideas. The odd irony is that the Keltoi seem to have been from around south Germany and the Danube, and application of their name to the native Britons / Pretani apparently began with Edward Lhuyd in 1707. An interesting guddle not well covered yet in Wikipedia, as far as I've found so far... And by the way, Ferguson makes some mentions of "Teutonism" in the context, rather than Germanic, though in one quote Pinkerton praises "the German". ..dave souza, talk 23:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC) retract a bit.. dave souza, talk 20:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Clancyen citation

^[1] = Scotland's earliest poetry, 550-1350 / edited by Thomas Owen Clancy; [with] translations and notes. Please amend.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Spoken English in the Lowlands

By the Lowlands, I take it that it is Angus, Aberdeenshire etc., north of Forth/Clyde that is being inferred when suggesting that St Margaret introduced it? Lothian and the Marches were English speaking since the 8th century at least, a long time before. Placename evidence reinforces this. Brendandh (talk) 09:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite. The Anglo-saxon Kingdon of Bernicia, later part of Northumbria, ran at least as a far north as the Firth of Forth; it was established some 1,500 years ago, perhaps even before the Scots tribe ever arrived in northern Britain. Hence lowland 'scots' ( Saxons, or 'sassenanchs' in Gaelic) have been speaking 'English' for a millenium and a half. This isn't merely a theory of 'popular historians' as mentioned in the main text, it's just a simple undisputed fact of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.15.97 (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Your arithmetic seems a bit out, the Gododdin were displaced by Northumbrian Angles c. 600, and by that time Scoti had already settled in Dál Riata. . dave souza, talk 12:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about the arithmetic. The Wiki page on Anglian Bernicia says it goes back to 420 AD - which is indeed well before the Scots arrived in the 6th century. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.161.222 (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Scotland is NOT Alba

Alba and Scotland are 2 distinct and unrelated terms. The Highlanders (Gaelic speakers of Northern Scotland) have never referred to themselves as Scots, using the terms Albanach and Alba. The term is distinctive to the South of Scotland only. Scotland came into existence in the 11th century AFTER Strathclyde "merged" with the Northern Kingdom and the control of Government etc, moved to the Southern region of Scotland - as Simeon of Durham put it the "son of a king of Strathclyde" Malcolm Canmore defeated MacBeth.

Strathclyde was NOT a British kingdom - that relies on a very obvious late 16th century fake trying to claim a link between Dumbarton, a 5th/6th century settlement, to the Alcluith mentioned by Bede in his Ecclesiastical History. This was probably to promote James VI as a "new Arthur" after his birth in 1566 - a celebration of his birth took place around a specially constructed Arthurian round table. The link between Dumbarton and Alcluith only starts to appear in the years following his birth.

The archaeological evidence from the 6th century BC until the 1st century AD shows clear evidence of Irish settlement in the Solway-Clyde region as far north as Perth, with axe head find and the construction of "Irish" style crannogs. In addition to this we have Gaelic named settlements, some dating from as early as the 3rd/4th century - Ayr, Dalry, Kilmarnock, Cumnock, Troon, Ardrossan, Stranraer, Cairnryan etc,. This was clearly in line with Bede, Nennius etc. claim that the sequence of settlement was first Britons, then Picts and the Scots AND then Romans. This means that the Scots settlement that Bede was referring to took place before the Romans arrived, and quite clearly this was the Solway-Clyde migration from Ireland that took place between the 6th century BC - 1st century AD. It was after all around Nithsdale that the Roman General Agricola encountered the exiled Irish prince.

A few brief points can be summarised as follows.

Dumbarton town is in completely the wrong location - It sits on the River Leven and not the Clyde. and most importantly it is on the North side of the Firth of Clyde - Bede clearly indicates that Alcluith was on the South side of the Bay and the Scots occupied the North. The hill fort on Dumbarton Rock was a post Roman construction built in 5th/6th century AD, with no evidence of any earlier settlement. The Firth of Clyde where Dumbarton Rock is located, was not called the Firth of Clyde until the 17th century at the very earliest - it only starts to appear with a name in the late 16th century when it appears as the Firth of Dunbriton or Dumbreton. The Firth of Clyde was only linked to the Clota estuary of Ptolomey in 1607 on William Hole's map, but like the Novantum Promontory on Bishop John Leslie's 1578 map, he clearly put this in the wrong location, writing the name directly alongside the Kintyre coastline - Ptolomeys co-ordinates actually located the Clota Estuary underneath( i.e South of) The Epidium Promontory. There is no link between Dumbarton and the "Cluith" whatsoever. Dumbarton's first appearance on any map was as early as 1360 in the Gough map when it was called Dombre Tayne - tayne being a gaelic word for spoil, plunder or cattle. It appears on several other maps with a similar name, It does not appear as Dun Britain until 1578 on Bishop John Leslie's map, when he clearly moved the Novantum Promontory from Ptolomey's (2nd century AD) Geographia from Galloway up to the Kintyre peninsula - a peninsula that Ptolomey had actually called The Epidium Promontory. In other word Bishop Leslie deliberately created a northern Alcluith by doing 2 things - 1. moving the Novantum promontory north and changing the name of Dumbarton to fit. In 1583 Nicolas de Nicolaye, a Frenchman with his own independent sources - produced his sea charts and called the town Dumbreton - the same name as appeared on the 1360 Gough map, so it is clear that the name was altered by Bishop Leslie in 1578 and he introduced the Dun Briton "fort of Britons" claim by "adjusting" the geography and changing place-names to suit. In 1250AD Matthew Paris constructed a map of Britain and did not name the river clyde flowing fro the sea and past Glasgow - he called it the "River that became Clydesdale" and gave it a date of 1208. He named another river Clyde (or rather Clud) - fl clud - fluvius clud - river clyde, and located it in Cumbria at the end of Hadrian's wall. The Roman Fort at Maryport formed the furthermost region of the Harian's wall defences and was constructed as early as the 1st century AD - so it meets the criteria of being an ancient fort, and being on the south side of the "Bay" and near the river clud named by Matthew Paris. Maryport was also known as Alauna in the Roman period - a Roman word indicating a harbour and which derives from the river Ellen - but ellen itself derives from the word Aln (Alauna) so may not be the original name, and clud itself probably means a crossing point. so Maryport, formerly Ellenfoot, formerly Alauna, was a harbour near a river where there was a crossing point, and Bede's nominis illus statement was not the river "of that name" but the river "named ill" - a river named Ellen. and petram cluith should have been portum cluith - the Harbour cluith.

There is very, very good evidence for Maryport being Bede's Alcluith. It's certainly got a far more substantial claim than Dumbarton. Maryport has evidence dating from the 1st century AD - 700 years before Bede even started writing - an analysis of Dumbarton proves it's "evidence" is highly dubious and only dates from the late 16th century - 700 years after Bede stopped writing.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviefd (talk • contribs) 10:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviefd (talk • contribs) 22:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of whether your assertions have any merit, Wikipedia is not a forum on which to present your original research. See WP:OR. As an encyclopedia it is supposed to represent and accurately summarise the academic position on the subjects it covers. We can cover controversy, if it genuinely exists in academia. We have to back up statements with reference to reliable sources WP:RS. We're really looking for work from peer-reviewed journals, books published by university presses or publishers of similar reputation or university level textbooks, ideally current ones. A good example would be Alex Woolf's From Pictland to Alba: Scotland 789-1070, published by the Edinburgh University Press in 2007. Self published work is almost never of any value for reference. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and accept your point regarding academic research and the reliability of self published work. I am happy to remove the statement regarding it being a controversial claim and the self published work can be replaced with the references to the primary Sources, as well as that of academics if need be. Primary Sources are

Sources - Bede "Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation" & Nennius - "The Historia Brittonium" - Sequence of settlement of Britain was Britons, Picts, Irish and Romans after them. Extensive arm of the Sea separating Alcluith from the Irish settlers & Irish settled on the North side of the Bay Gildas - On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain - Britain 800 miles long - Picts described as from the North, Scots from the North West Tacitus - The Agricola - Exiled Irish prince met at Nithsdale in South West Scotland Irish Annals - Lebor Gabala by TF O'Rahilly, The 4 Masters etc. Scottish Chronicles, Fordun, Wyntoun etc. Maps from British Library - Matthew Paris 1250, 11th century Anglo Saxon Cotton map, 1360 Gough map etc. 16th and 17th century maps from National Library of Scotland. 11th century Anglo Saxon Cotton Map - Antrim facing directly at the Solway Irish Language - Irish name of Solway is the Tracht Romha. From Bede the leader of the Irish that arrived in Scotland was Rueda. Location of Clota Estuary & Epidium promontory - Ptolomey - The Geographia (2nd century AD) etc. Archaeology of Strathclyde & Argyll - various academic works - Lloyd & Jenny Laing, Alfred Smyth etc. Archaeological reports are found in various academic journals. The research material is freely available in multiple publications, and history articles. Physical evidence - Irish style Crannogs at Oakbank in Perthshire and axeheads dating from the prehistoric period found in the Solway-Clyde region.

As far as I can tell there is not a settled academic position regarding this period of Scottish history - most contain multiple points of contention and disagreement. The Earliest Academic studies by Bede, Nennius, Gildas are at odds with the much later academic sources by Skene, etc. The archaeology supports the earlier sources and places the "Irish" settlement in the Solway Clyde not the latter. Due to the discrepancies and inconsistencies of the modern academic approach, My recommendation to anyone interested in this period of British and Scottish history is to ignore academic sources and look at the primary source material instead which is more widely available than ever before, before coming to a conclusion.

I had several newspaper articles published from 1996 regarding St Mernoc and his relationship to Kilmarnock where I established the clear evidence for Irish settlers in the Solway-Clyde region and a Gaelic Strathclyde. I also provided a genealogy for St Mernoc, that was used by the same journalist/editor that published my newspaper articles, in their later book about the History of Kilmarnock. These articles were not self published and were peer reviewed prior to publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviefd (talk • contribs) 19:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that all that falls into the realm of original research WP:OR. You cannot create syntheses of primary sources without due reference and support from reliable secondary sources. Newspaper articles do not constitute peer review... you would need to get it into a journal like The Scottish Historical Review or the like for it to be taken seriously as a reliable source. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - I may well do just that.

Scotland is not Alba - incorrect statement.

Scotland was a Roman name for Ireland, a Scot as found within Saxon ancestry was a Gael, Scoti in Latin.

Scotland (Gaeland) existed in two locations.

The ancestors of the Irish as a whole may not have identified as all Scots, however, Scotlands (Irelands) High King did indeed identify as the Emporer of Scots meaning Gaels.

The Gaels indeed identified as Scots because it was Latin for Gael, and existed before the Gaelic languages first invented in written form.

The gael written language did not exist before the influence of Latin, and Scotland again retains evidence the Gaels accepted Scoti in Latin, Scots in English as references towards them which was adopted within the middle ages (Scots), now we don't know if "all" the Scots alive identified as Scots, that up for debate, however early kings identified as Scots, its natural the people follow on.

In fact, Italian records prove both the root ancestry of the name Scotland, and also identify when the name Scotland was removed from Ireland and handed to modern Scotland in the 15th century.

You say the Irish existed in the era of the Picts (false).

Hibernia was another Roman name for Ireland, however the "first" records that referred to the Irish as Irish dates to the 13th century, Ireland was not officially called Ireland until the 18th-19th century, so no the Irish did not exist with the Pictish & the Irish did not exist at the time of Roman Britain or the creation of the Kingdom of Alba, but they did have some Gaelic names for themselves which were never official, we don't know of the Picts called themselves Picts.

King Robert the Bruce also referred to Ireland as greater Scotland, yet Scottish records identify the Kingdom of Scotland as the Kingdom of Alba, which does include the Angle Nort Northumbria who did not speak any Gaelic at the time the kingdom of Alba was established.

Alba is Gaelic, not Angle, Ingis, Saxon and no records exist showing mid-lands, low-lands to be a part of Alba at the time, nor is there real evidence the Gaels existed within the Lowlands of Scotland.

Argue & bicker all you want, this is factual information that's taught within universities in Ireland & Scotland as you need historical records that are agreed upon by actual historians, not those who public news articles.

Reading the above, I get the sense you have a bias in your heart because near all you have said is not accepted or taught within the university in this day.

2A02:C7F:C7A:4A00:70E3:6904:BDBF:2C87 (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Ddsouter.

Page not accurate or factual - Please add reliable sources.

This page lacks reliable sources & factual information which needs improvement.

Looking upon other Wikipedia pages, such as Scotia and the provided sources linked to historians PhD, university's and cited Roman records, this page translates as pure opinion or speculation.

For example, the Romans did call Ireland Scotland, Scotia is Roman Latin, a Scot meaning a Gael. This has been proven within Irish ancestry, so I believe a Mythology heading would.be appropriate at there is no know evidence the Gaels came from Egypt, or a Scotia ever existed.

There are historical errors also regarding the Pictish in Ireland, Picti was another roman name for natives of Pictland/ Caledonia, there is no evidence the Pictish people or painted ones lived within Ireland, please attach a reliable source. 2A02:C7F:C7A:4A00:70E3:6904:BDBF:2C87 (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Ddsouter