The Picts remain an enigmatic people. According to a fable, which seems to have Irish origins, the eponymous founding father of the Picts was Cruithne (Cruithni being the Irish name for the Picts), who had seven sons: Fib, Fidach, Floclaid, Fortrenn, Got, Ce, Circinn (the spellings vary - these are as they appear in the Pictish king list from the 'Poppleton Manuscript'). They divided the country, and their provinces were named after them. This is a typical foundation myth, but the divisions were real enough, for instance: Got equates to Caithness, Fib to Fife. Fortriu (after Fortrenn) corresponds to the Verturiones - a division of the Picts known to 4th century Romans, and mentioned in connection with the, so called, Barbarian Conspiracy. The 12th century tract 'De Situ Albanie' (also found in the 'Poppleton Manuscript') describes seven regions, but in 12th century terms, so the sons' names are not used: Angus and Mearns (identified with Circinn), Atholl and Gowrie (Floclaid), Strathearn and Menteith (Fortriu), Fife and Fothreue (Fib), Mar and Buchan (Ce), Moray and Ross (Fidach), Caithness this side of the mountain and Caithness beyond the mountain (Got). From this information, geographical descriptions in 'De Situ Albanie', and other references, it is possible to have a stab at placing the seven sons on the map.
| The Picts have left a legacy of elaborately carved standing stones, some apparently engraved with inscriptions. Dr. Richard Cox of the University of Aberdeen explains:
"The inscriptions are written in ogam, a writing system using a series of straight slashes on, through or below a central stem line. We think it was developed in fourth century Ireland and later brought to Scotland. While the system was used to write Gaelic in Ireland, no-one has been able to make sense of the inscription in Scotland."
Dr. Cox, in 'The Language of the Ogam Inscriptions of Scotland' (1999), however, has controversially claimed to have solved the riddle:
"... using Old Norse, the inscriptions can be translated meaningfully. Many are memorials, recording who carved the stone and in whose memory it was erected... In Scandinavia, memorial inscriptions like these would be carved in runes not ogam. The question is why are these stones carved in Old Norse but using a system of writing developed in the Gaelic speaking world? The evidence suggests strong links in language and learning and in religious custom between Norse and Gaelic-speaking communities."
Needless to say, Dr. Cox's is not the only theory. Dr. Anthony Jackson of Edinburgh University ('The Symbol Stones of Scotland', 1984):
"It is clear that the Ogam inscriptions are numerically based and not linguistic."
Others have claimed that the inscriptions are in the Basque language (which existed before the arrival of Celtic languages). It is not only the ogam aspect of Pictish carved stones which has been the subject of scrutiny. Toby D. Griffen of Southern Illinois University Edwardsville:
"... the most extensive and most identifiably Pictish artifacts that these people left behind are the symbols that they carved on a number of stones and other articles. These display a remarkable degree of consistency ... Where the interests of linguistics enter the picture is in the enigmatic combinations of these symbols throughout Pictland. Usually in pairs, one over another, these combinations strongly suggest the 
communication of some form of information adhering to a set of rules... The greatest hindrance to a linguistic interpretation of the symbol stones has been a lack of appropriate context... there has been some recent evidence that may shed light upon the intended context of situation for these symbols and hence upon the appropriate level of grammar for analysis." |
'De Situ Albanie' also has something to say on the way the regions were governed. This, however, seems to be open to interpretation. In 'Kings and Kingship in Early Scotland', Marjorie O. Anderson writes: "Each region consists of two parts which the author says (with what truth we do not know) were originally ruled by a king and a sub-king." In 'Warlords and Holy Men: Scotland AD80-1000', Alfred P. Smyth writes: "... the De Situ Albanie informs us that each of the seven Pictish kingdoms (septem regna) was ruled by a king who was himself the overlord of seven under-kings!"
Anglo-Saxon chronicler, Bede reports that, in his time, the Pictish nation was divided into southern provinces and northern provinces. Though there is room for speculation that Brude, son of Maelchon (who Bede described as being, around 565, "the powerful king of the Pictish nation"), was actually over-king of the northern Picts only; when Bede refers to Nechtan, son of Derile, as (in 710) "King of the Picts, who inhabit the northern parts of Britain", it seems pretty clear that Nechtan was over-king of all the Picts. Both of these rulers appear in Pictish king lists, which show just one line of succession - presumably over-kings of the whole Pictish nation. By the time of Brude, son of Bile (Brude famously defeated the Northumbrian Angles in 685), it seems that Fortriu was the dominant Pictish kingdom, and their kings were over-kings of the Picts. Bede indicates that Pictish royal succession was via the female line (matrilineal), and this seems to be substantiated by Pictish king lists, in which, until the 780s, there isn't even the possibility of a king being the son of a previous king. Indeed, some kings of the Picts appear to have had non Pictish fathers. Two that can be identified with some certainty are Talorcen (653-657) and Brude (672-693). Talorcen's father was Eanfrith (son of Northumbrian king Æthelfrith), who, briefly (around 633), was king of Bernicia. Brude's father was Bile, king of Strathclyde. What language the Picts spoke (like every other aspect of Pictish history) has long been the subject of conjecture. There is little information to go on - mainly place and personal names - but it has been suggested that Pictish was: a P-Celtic dialect (probably the favourite); a pre Celtic remnant language; a mixture of the previous two.
Did the Scots come to Britain from Ireland? The conventional view is that, after many years of piecemeal migration, Fergus Mor, son of Erc, around the year 500, transferred the royal seat of the kingdom of Dál Riata from Antrim, in Ireland, to Argyll in, what is now, Scotland. The 'Annals of Tigernach', in an entry corresponding to 503, note:
"Fergus Mor mac Erc accompanied by the race of Dalriada [Dál Riata] occupied a part of Britain and died there."
There must have been traffic between Ireland and the Argyll coast since Neolithic times (it is only about 12.5 miles/20 kilometres at the narrowest point), but there is actually a lack of archaeological evidence to support colonisation from Ireland. Alan Lane writes, in 'British Archaeology' (Issue 62, December 2001):
"... there is real uncertainty about how Irish Scottish Dál Riata was. In short, we don't really know... Since at least the 1970s archaeologists have noted the contrasts between early medieval Argyll and Ireland rather than showing any archaeologically recognisable invasion or migration... Ewan Campbell, an early medieval specialist at Glasgow University, has ... argued that the historical evidence can be dismissed as dynastic propaganda by the later Scottish kings. He explains the well-attested prevalence of Gaelic (or Goidelic, the Irish form of the Celtic language) in early medieval Argyll as a form of language conservatism on the western seaboard rather than as evidence of population movement into the area from Ireland."
Be that as it may, the historical evidence suggests that Fergus was succeeded by his son, Domangart. The meaning of an entry in the 'Annals of Ulster', for the year 507, is somewhat obscure, but it seems to imply that Domangart (possibly aged 35 - once more, it is not clear) abdicated the throne to devote himself to religion. Domangart's successor was his son, Comgall, whose death the 'Annals of Ulster' place in the year 538 ("in the 35th year of his reign"), and again in 545 ("as some say"). Comgall was succeeded by his brother, Gabrán. The announcement of his death appears in both 558 and 560.
This indecisiveness on the part of the 'Annals of Ulster' is caused by drawing from sources which propose different chronologies. It refers to one of its sources as "the book of Cuanu".
The 'Senchus fer nAlban' (Census of the Men of Alba), which possibly has its origins in the 7th century (but has, almost certainly, acquired later accretions), states that the territory of British Dál Riata was occupied by three kin groups (cenéla), each of which took their name from the groups' founding father. The eponymous founder of the Cenél nOengusa, who occupied Islay, was Oengus. The descendants of Loairn were the Cenél Loairn, who, by implication, occupied Lorn. Oengus and Loairn are said to be brothers of Fergus. In 'Scotland: The Making of the Kingdom', A.A.M. Duncan asserts that: "There are good reasons for rejecting this relationship as a late invention and for regarding these two cenéla as ruling kindreds from an earlier migration of Dal Riata to Scotland; the Cenél nOengusa at least seems to be found in Ireland before the time of Fergus, who, on this view, cannot have been the first of the Dal Riata to conquer Kintyre." The third kin group, the Cenél nGabráin (from Gabrán), occupied Kintyre and Cowal, with its islands. The 'Senchus' appears to include the territories occupied by the Cenél Comgaill (after Comgall - and after whom the name of Cowal is derived) with the territory of the Cenél nGabráin.
In the same year as Gabrán's death, though not necessarily associated with it, Dál Riatan expansion appears to have suffered a setback, at the hands of the Pictish king, Brude, son of Maelchon. The 'Annals of Ulster' also record this event in 588 and 560. The earlier of the two entries is in Latin, and it refers to the "flight before Máelchá's son", whereas the later entry is in Irish, and it reports the "migration before Máelchú's son". The notion of migration does tend to imply that the Picts had forced the Scots to abandon territory they had previously occupied. Anyway, Gabrán's successor was his nephew (Comgall's son), Conall. The 'Annals of Ulster' record, in 563:
"The voyage of Colum Cille to the island of Í in the 42nd year of his age."
Colum Cille, literally 'dove of the church', was an Irish missionary, probably more familiar as St.Columba, and the island of Í is now known as Iona. Bede (who dates Columba's arrival at 565), reports that:
"... there came into Britain from Ireland a famous priest and abbot, marked as a monk by habit and manner of life, whose name was Columba, to preach the word of God to the provinces of the northern Picts, who are separated from the southern parts belonging to that nation by steep and rugged mountains. For the southern Picts, who dwell on this side of those mountains, had, it is said, long before forsaken the errors of idolatry, and received the true faith by the preaching of Bishop Ninias [St.Ninian], a most reverend and holy man of the British nation ... Columba came into Britain in the ninth year of the reign of Bridius [Brude], who was the son of Meilochon [Maelchon], and the powerful king of the Pictish nation, and he converted that nation to the faith of Christ, by his preaching and example. Wherefore he also received of them the gift of the aforesaid island [Iona] whereon to found a monastery."
Although Bede says it was the Picts who gave Iona to Columba, the 'Annals of Ulster' and the 'Annals of Tigernach' say that it was Conall of Dál Riata who made the gift. (Up to about 911, it is apparent that the 'Annals of Ulster' and the 'Annals of Tigernach' made use of a common, now lost, source). Indeed, St.Columba's biographer, St.Adomnán (d.704), the ninth Abbot of Iona, mentions that Columba visited Conall when he first arrived in Britain. It may be that Columba prudently secured permission to settle in Iona from both the Picts and Scots - it is not possible to be certain just who would have held sovereignty over Iona in 563. At any rate, Adomnán relates that:
"... when the saint made his first journey to King Brude, it happened that the king, elated by the pride of royalty, acted haughtily, and would not open his gates on the first arrival of the blessed man. When the man of God observed this, he approached the folding doors with his companions, and having first formed upon them the sign of the cross of our Lord, he then knocked at and laid his hand upon the gate, which instantly flew open of its own accord, the bolts having been driven back with great force. The saint and his companions then passed through the gate thus speedily opened. And when the king learned what had occurred, he and his councillors were filled with alarm, and immediately setting out from the palace, he advanced to meet with due respect the blessed man, whom he addressed in the most conciliating and respectful language. And ever after from that day, so long as he lived, the king held this holy and reverend man in very great honour, as was due."
The 'Annals of Ulster' place Brude's death in 584. Both the 'Annals of Ulster' and the 'Annals of Tigernach' also carry an earlier notice of Brude's death which is wildly misplaced. The 'Annals of Ulster' assigning it to 505. Further, the 'Annals of Tigernach' has an entry, in the year equating to 752, which says: "Battle of Asreth in the land of Circinn between Picts on both sides, and in it Brude son of Maelchon fell."
Adomnán's 'Life of St.Columba' contains the first recorded sighting of the Loch Ness monster! "On another occasion also, when the blessed man was living for some days in the province of the Picts, he was obliged to cross the river Nesa [Ness]; and when he reached the bank of the river, he saw some of the inhabitants burying an unfortunate man, who, according to the account of those who were burying him, was a short time before seized, as he was swimming, and bitten most severely by a monster that lived in the water; his wretched body was, though too late, taken out with a hook, by those who came to his assistance in a boat. The blessed man, on hearing this, was so far from being dismayed, that he directed one of his companions to swim over and row across the coble that was moored at the farther bank. And Lugne Mocumin [Luigne moccu Min] hearing the command of the excellent man, obeyed without the least delay, taking off all his clothes, except his tunic, and leaping into the water. But the monster, which, so far from being satiated, was only roused for more prey, was lying at the bottom of the stream, and when it felt the water disturbed above by the man swimming, suddenly rushed out, and, giving an awful roar, darted after him, with its mouth wide open, as the man swam in the middle of the stream. Then the blessed man observing this, raised his holy hand, while all the rest, brethren as well as strangers, were stupefied with terror, and, invoking the name of God, formed the saving sign of the cross in the air, and commanded the ferocious monster, saying, "Thou shalt go no further, nor touch the man; go back with all speed." Then at the voice of the saint, the monster was terrified, and fled more quickly than if it had been pulled back with ropes, though it had just got so near to Lugne, as he swam, that there was not more than the length of a spear-staff between the man and the beast. Then the brethren seeing that the monster had gone back, and that their comrade Lugne returned to them in the boat safe and sound, were struck with admiration, and gave glory to God in the blessed man. And even the barbarous heathens, who were present, were forced by the greatness of this miracle, which they themselves had seen, to magnify the God of the Christians."
In 574, the 'Annals of Ulster' record the:
|
"Death in the sixteenth year of his reign of Conall son of Comgall ..."
The choice of Conall's successor seems to have been between Eoganán and Aedán, two sons of his predecessor and uncle, Gabrán.
It seems likely that the kings of Dál Riata were chosen following the Irish system known as tanistry. A king's heir was chosen during his lifetime, and was the most suitable candidate of the same blood - not necessarily the king's son.
According to Adomnán, Columba:
"... was staying in the Hinba island, he saw, on a certain night, in a mental ecstasy, an angel sent to him from heaven, and holding in his hand a book of glass, regarding the appointment of kings. Having received the book from the hand of the angel, the venerable man, at his command, began to read it; and when he was reluctant to appoint Aidan [Aedán] king, as the book directed, because he had a greater affection for Iogenan [Eoganán] his brother, the angel, suddenly stretching forth his hand, struck the saint with a scourge, the livid marks of which remained in his side all the days of his life. And he added these words: "Know for certain," said he, "that I am sent to thee by God with the book of glass, that in accordance with the words thou hast read therein, thou mayest inaugurate Aidan into the kingdom; but if thou refuse to obey this command, I will strike thee again." When therefore this angel of the Lord had appeared for three successive nights, having the same book of glass in his hand, and had repeated the same commands of the Lord regarding the appointment of the same king, the saint, in obedience to the command of the Lord, sailed across to the Iouan island [Iona], and there ordained, as he had been commanded, Aidan to be king ... laying his hand upon his head, he consecrated and blessed him."
According to the 'Annals of Ulster', in the following year, i.e. 575, Columba and Aedán travelled to Ireland, to take part in, what Adomnán calls:
"... the convention of the kings at the Ridge of Ceate [Druim Cett] ..."
Details of the meeting at Druim Cett (identified as the Mullagh, also known as Daisy Hill, near Limavady, County Derry) exist in the preface to the 'Amra Choluim Chille'. One of the items on the agenda was to clarify Dál Riata's political standing in Ireland. Although Dál Riata was based in Argyll, it still retained its Irish territory, and it appears that it was the Irish Dál Riata who were the point at issue. The outcome of the talks between Aedán and Aed, son of Ainmire, a future high-king of the powerful Ui-Néill (and, incidentally, Columba's cousin), was that, although the Irish Dál Riata would owe their military service to the Ui-Néill, they would pay their dues to Argyll.
The only dating reference for Druim Cett is the one provided by the 'Annals of Ulster'. The problem is that, until after the death of his cousin, Baetán, son of Ninnid, which the 'Annals of Ulster' place in 586, Aed does not seem to have been a king. Richard Sharpe, in his edition of Adomnán's biography of St.Columba, suggests that this entry was made retrospectively against the wrong year. He proposes that a date c.590 would be more appropriate.
The 'Annals of Ulster' date a battle, at an unlocated site ("bellum Telocho" - battle of Teloch) in Kintyre, to 576 (and mentions it again in 577):
"In which fell Dúnchadh son of Conall son of Comgall and many others of the followers of Gabrán's sons fell."
Neither the 'Annals of Ulster' nor the 'Annals of Tigernach' (which calls it the "Cath Delgon" - battle of Delgu) mentions any other detail, but the phraseology and site of the battle might possibly suggest an internal dispute. Indeed, given the chronological confusion which seems to exist, it may even be that Aedán's succession involved warfare, and the battle in Kintyre was the decisive engagement. Marjorie O. Anderson ('Kings and Kingship in Early Scotland), who accepts the dating of Druim Cett at 575 (though she does question Aed's status), is "pretty sure" that the treaty made, between the Dál Riata and the Ui-Néill, was designed to make Dál Riata independent from any claim of overlordship that the formidable Baetán, son of Cairell, king of the Ulaid (from which the name of Ulster derives) might make. She suggests that the aggressor in Kintyre may have been Baetán. The 'Annals of Ulster' place Baetán's death in 581 or 587.
The 'Annals of Ulster' comment that Aedán mounted an expedition to Orkney. The expedition is mentioned once in 580 and again in 581. Both the 'Annals of Ulster' and the 'Annals of Tigernach' double-up an entry which says that Aedán was victorious in a "battle of Manu" (582 and 583). Opinions are divided over whether this means the Isle of Man or the area of Manau, in the British kingdom of Gododdin.
There is mention, placed in the year 577 by the 'Annals of Ulster', of the "first expedition" of the Ulaid to the Isle of Man, and the 'Annales Cambriae' has an entry, assigned to 584, which records: "Battle against the Isle of Man", so it does seem possible that the Isle of Man was being contested for at this time. Bede claims that the Northumbrian king, Edwin (616-632/3) "subjected to the English" the Isle of Man.
The "battle of Manu" is another event where both the 'Annals of Ulster' and the 'Annals of Tigernach' also carry another, wildly misplaced, record. In the 'Annals of Ulster', this misplaced entry is assigned a date of 504.
In 590, Aedán is recorded as being the victor at the, unlocated, battle of Lethreid, whilst Adomnán also mentions a "battle of the Miathi" in which Aedán was victorious, though with the loss of "three hundred and three men", including two of his sons - Artuir and Eochaid Find.
The Miathi are almost certainly the same people, the Maetae, who are mentioned in connection with the Roman emperor, Septimius Severus. Richard Sharpe ('Life of St.Columba') opines that: "The very obscurity of the term Miathi, a whole tribal group beyond the grasp of history, suggests more an isolated highland group than a branch of the Pictish or British kingdoms."
According to Adomnán, thirty four years after his first arrival on British shores (i.e. in 597, although the 'Annals of Ulster', inconsistently, say in 595: "in the 76th year of his age"), St.Columba died on Iona. Assigned to the year following Columba's death (so, though appearing in 596, it might well belong to 598), the 'Annals of Ulster' mention the "slaying" of a further two of Aedán's sons - Bran and Domangart. Adomnán doesn't mention Bran at all, but says that Domangart was "defeated and slain in battle in Saxonia".
The 'Annals of Tigernach', on the other hand, claim that Artuir, Eochaid Find, Bran and Domangart were all killed when Aedán was defeated in a battle which took place in the Pictish province of Circhenn (Circinn - Angus and the Mearns). Aedán may well have lost a battle in Circhenn, but the combination of Adomnán and the 'Annals of Ulster' have greater authority in the matter of the death of his sons.
It seems that Aedán was concerned by the expansionist activities of Æthelfrith, king of Northumbria, who, according to Bede "conquered more territories from the Britons than any other chieftain or king". Bede writes that, in 603, Aedán (presumably in alliance with the Britons, whose land he must have crossed):
|
|
"... came against him [Æthelfrith] with a great and mighty army, but was defeated and fled with a few followers; for almost all his army was cut to pieces at a famous place, called Degsastan, that is, Degsa Stone... From that time, no king of the Scots durst come into Britain to make war on the English to this day."
The 'Annals of Ulster' have an entry for the year 600 which records: "... the battle of the Saxons in which Aedán was vanquished." It seems reasonable to assume that this battle is the same one mentioned by Bede (but, like other entries during this period, placed too early). The 'Annals of Tigernach' add that Æthelfrith's brother, who it calls Eanfrith, was killed by Mael Umai, son of Baetán (a member of the Cenél nEogain branch of the Ui-Néill). It is, perhaps, a little ironic that, when Æthelfrith was overthrown and killed, in 616, his sons "lived in banishment among the Scots or Picts" (Bede). Indeed, one of these sons, Oswiu, had a son (known, in English, as Aldfrith, but to the Irish as Flann Fína) whose mother was said to have been the daughter of Mael Umai's brother. Aldfrith obviously had the reputation of a man of learning, and various literary works in Old Irish, notably the 'Bríathra Flainn Fhína maic Ossu' (Sayings of Flann Fína son of Ossu), are attributed to him.
The 'Annals of Ulster' is, once more, probably a couple of years early in assigning Aedáns death to 606. He was succeeded by his son, Eochaid Buide. Eochaid Buide, whose death is placed in 629 (probably correctly), was succeeded by one Connad Cerr (who might have been a son of Conall or a son of Eochaid Buide). In 627 Connad Cerr had led the Dál Riata to victory against the king of Ulaid (Ulster), Fiachna, son of Demmán.
The 'Annals of Tigernach' refer to Connad as "king of the Dál Riata". This may indicate that, at that time, he was ruler of Irish Dál Riata, or may simply be an anachronistic attribution. Fiachna (son of Demmán) was the nephew of Baetán (son of Cairell), whose activities may have prompted the treaty agreed between the Dál Riata and the Ui-Néill at Druim Cett. The 'Annals of Clonmacnoise' say that the action against Fiachna (son of Demmán) was in revenge for the killing, in 626, of his predecessor, Fiachna Lurgan. Following the death of Fiachna (son of Demmán), Fiachna Lurgan's grandson, Congal Caech, bacame king of Ulaid.
After a reign of just three months, Connad Cerr was killed in battle.
The battle, at a site called Fid Eóin (presumably in north-eastern Ireland), appears to have been a dispute between different factions of Congal Caech's people (the Cruithni). The 'Annals of Tigernach' provides more detail than the 'Annals of Ulster'. It says that two of Aedán's grandsons were killed, and it also reports the death of "Osric son of Albruit prince of Saxons with very great devastation to his men". The identification is far from certain, but there is speculation that Albruit is Æthelfrith, and therefore Osric is one of his sons who, at this time, were still in exile. Although Scottish king lists give Connad Cerr a reign of three months after Eochaid Buide, both the 'Annals of Ulster' and the 'Annals of Tigernach' report the death of Connad Cerr before the death of Eochaid Buide. (Actually, the 'Annals of Tigernach' also carries a short entry, after its record of the death of Eochaid Buide, which again announces Connadd Cerr's death at Fid Eóin, adding: "as some say, in the first year of his reign".
Connad Cerr was succeeded by Eochaid's son, Domnall Brecc. Domnall Brecc sided with Congal Caech (who might have been Domnall Brecc's nephew), against Ui-Néill high-king, Domnall, son of Aed. (It was Aed who agreed the treaty of Druim Cett with Domnall Brecc's grandfather, Aedán). In 637, at the decisive battle of Mag Rath (Moira, 16 miles south west of Belfast), Congal Caech and Domnall Brecc were defeated - Congal Caech was killed.
On the same day as Mag Rath, the battle of Sailtire was also fought - either in Kintyre, or at sea nearby - which was also won by the forces of Domnall, son of Aed. Congal Caech's alliance also included the Cenél nEogain branch of the Ui-Néill (Domnall, son of Aed, was of the Cenél Conaill branch).
In the so called 'A text' of Adomnán's 'Life of St.Columba' is a passage apparently taken directly from a book written by Cumméne, seventh abbot of Iona (657-669, though it seems likely that he wrote his book in the 630s or 40s):
"Cummene the Fair, in the book which he wrote on the virtues of St.Columba, states that St.Columba commenced his predictions regarding Aidan [Aedán] and his children and kingdom in the following manner: "Believe me, unhesitatingly, O Aidan," said he, "none of thine enemies shall be able to resist thee, unless thou first act unjustly towards me and my successors. Wherefore direct thou thy children to commend to their children, their grandchildren, and their posterity, not to let the sceptre pass out of their hands through evil counsels. For at whatever time they turn against me or my relatives who are in Hibernia [Ireland], the scourge which I suffered on thy account from the angel shall bring great disgrace upon them by the hand of God, and the hearts of men shall be turned away from them, and their foes shall be greatly strengthened against them." Now this prophecy hath been fulfilled in our [i.e Cumméne's] own times in the battle of Roth [Mag Rath], in which Domnall Brecc, the grandson of Aidan, ravaged without the slightest provocation the territory of Domnall, the grandson of Ainmuireg [Ainmire]. And from that day to this they have been trodden down by strangers - a fate which pierces the heart with sighs and grief."
It is difficult to see, from the annals, quite how Aedán's descendants were "trodden down by strangers", though, after Domnall Brecc's death, there does appear to have been "warfare" ('Annals of Ulster" 649) between them and one Garnait, son of Accidán. In 'Kings and Kingship in Early Scotland', Marjorie O. Anderson comments that: "Cumméne's evidence suffers from the indefiniteness that comes of writing for contemporaries who know the facts too well to need explanation." Perhaps the influence that the kings of Dál Riata could exert in Ireland was much reduced, or, as is sometimes suggested, the Irish lands were lost altogether. On that score, Dr. Anderson writes: "It is possible to argue for a severance of the Irish DálRiata from those in Britain at various times from the battle of Mag Rath (ca. 637) onwards... I am inclined to think that the territories of the "kings of DálRiata" still included the territory in Ireland when the annalists accorded the title to Aed Find and his brother, that is in 781 or later." Dr. Anderson suggests that the British/Irish link was severed when pressure from the Vikings (whose raids began in 794) eventually forced the British Scots eastwards."
The year after Mag Rath (i.e. in 638), the 'Annals of Tigernach' note that, in the battle of Glenn Mairison (unidentified), "the family of Domnall Brecc was put to flight", presumably (though not necessarily) by the Picts.
A wildly misplaced annal, in both the 'Annals of Tigernach' and the 'Annals of Ulster' (in which it is dated 678), notes a further defeat suffered by Domnall Brecc. Presumably this battle (Calathros - identified with Callander) was also against the Picts.
Domnall Brecc was killed, c.642, in battle (at Strathcarron, Stirlingshire) against Owen, king of the Strathclyde Britons. A surviving fragment of British verse commemorates the event:
I saw an array that came from Pentir [Kintyre],
And bore themselves splendidly around the conflagration.
I saw a second one, rapidly descending from their township,
Who had risen at the word of the grandson of Nwython.
I saw great sturdy men who came with the dawn,
And the head of Dyfnwal Frych [Domnall Brecc], ravens gnawed it.
Meanwhile, Bede notes that Oswald (d.641/2), king of Northumbria, had:
And bore themselves splendidly around the conflagration.
I saw a second one, rapidly descending from their township,
Who had risen at the word of the grandson of Nwython.
I saw great sturdy men who came with the dawn,
And the head of Dyfnwal Frych [Domnall Brecc], ravens gnawed it.
"... brought under his dominion all the nations and provinces of Britain, which are divided into four languages, to wit, those of the Britons, the Picts, the Scots, and the English."
The British kingdom of Gododdin seems to have fallen to the Northumbrian Angles c.638 ....
The 'Annals of Ulster' place the "besieging of Etin" in 638. Etin is rendered Etaín in the 'Annals of Tigernach', but, either way, it is generally agreed to be Din Eidyn i.e. Edinburgh. It seems reasonable to assume that this event marks the fall of Edinburgh to the Northumbrians, and the end of British Gododdin, however, the evidence for this is entirely circumstantial. The annals do not say who was doing the besieging, and tack their mention of the it onto the end of their record of the battle of Glenn Mairison (one of, Dál Riatan king, Domnall Brecc's defeats), so it may be that those two are connected.
.... and subsequent events suggest that they crossed the Forth - into Pictish territory. Bede reports that, Oswald's brother and successor, Oswiu (d.670):
"... subdued the greater part of the Picts to the dominion of the English."
According to Eddius Stephanus (who wrote his 'Life' of St.Wilfrid between 710 and 720), in the first years of the reign of Oswiu's successor - his son, Ecgfrith - "the vicious tribes of the Picts" rebelled against Northumbrian overlordship. Ecgfrith rode to engage the Pictish army:
"Host upon host of the enemy fell before him. He filled two rivers with the slain and his men crossed dry-shod over the corpses to slay the fugitives. Thus the Picts were reduced to slavery ..."
Presumably, the ignominious defeat suffered by the Picts was the reason that, in 671, their king, Drest, was expelled. Drest was replaced by Brude, son of Bile. Between 679 and 682, the 'Annals of Ulster' mention four sieges. Although their sites are given, nothing else is! Perhaps, following the humiliation of his predecessor, Brude found it necessary to assert his authority, since, in 681:
"The Orkneys were destroyed by Bruide [Brude]."
In 685, Bede reports that Ecgfrith:
"... rashly led his army to ravage the province of the Picts ..."
The 'Historia Brittonum' notes that:
"Egfrid [Ecgfrith] is he who made war against his cousin Brudei [Brude], king of the Picts ....
 This Pictish carved stone, standing in Aberlemno churchyard, is believed to depict the battle of Dunnichen. |
.... and he [Ecgfrith] fell therein with all the strength of his army and the Picts with their king gained the victory ..."
An Irish source, often referred to as the 'Three Fragments' carries a verse which, though misplaced, obviously refers to Dunnichen:
- Today Bruide [Brude] fights a battle
over the land of his ancestor,
unless it is the wish of the Son of God
that restitution be made. - Today the son of Ossa [Oswiu] was slain
in battle against gray swords,
even though he did penance
and that too late in Iona (?). - Today the son of Osa [Oswiu] was slain,
who used to have dark drinks;
Christ has heard our prayer
that Bruide would save the hills (?).
"From that time the hopes and strength of the Anglian kingdom [i.e. Northumbria] began to ebb and fall away for the Picts recovered their own lands, which had been held by the English; and the Scots that were in Britain, and some of the Britons, regained their liberty, which they have now enjoyed for about forty-six years. Among the many English that then either fell by the sword, or were made slaves, or escaped by flight out of the country of the Picts, the most reverend man of God, Trumwine, who had been made bishop over them, withdrew with his people that were in the monastery of Aebbercurnig [Abercorn], in the country of the English, but close by the arm of the sea [i.e. the Forth] which is the boundary between the lands of the English and the Picts."
Brude's death is placed in 693 by the 'Annals of Ulster'. He is styled "king of Fortriu".
Though the Northumbrians had lost their foothold in Pictish territory, Bede notes that Ecgfrith's successor, Aldfrith (Oswiu's illegitimate son - d.704):
"... nobly retrieved the ruined state of the kingdom [i.e. Northumbria], though within narrower bounds."
But, apparently, not without loss. Bede mentions that:
"In the year 698, Berctred [Berhtred], an ealdorman of the king of the Northumbrians, was slain by the Picts."
In 711, however, the 'Annals of Ulster' report:
"A slaughter of the Picts by the Saxons in Mag Manonn ..."
This battle, which, according to the 'Anglo-Saxon Chronicle', took place between the rivers Avon and Carron (a plain formerly known as Manau Gododdin) - which join the Forth, on its southern bank, about twenty miles west of Edinburgh - may well have prevented the southwards expansion of the Picts.
The king of Northumbria was Aldfrith's son, Osred. However, since he was only about fourteen years old at this time, the Northumbrian commander at the battle was an ealdorman called Berhtfrith. Incidentally, Bede also places the battle in 711, but the 'Anglo-Saxon Chronicle' prefers 710.
| Since the arrival of the pagan Anglo-Saxons, Christianity in Britain had been isolated from developments on mainland Europe. In 597, St.Augustine arrived in Kent (during the reign of Æthelberht), and the process of converting the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity got underway in earnest. However, the Christian doctrine introduced by St.Augustine was not quite the same as that which was practised amongst the Britons, Scots and Picts. The main difference between the newly arrived Roman Catholic Church and the indigenous, so called, 'Celtic Church' was the way in which Easter was calculated. From the writing of Bede, it is clear that fierce passions were aroused by the debate. At the Synod of Whitby (663/4), King Oswiu of Northumbria (where the doctrines coexisted) listened to the arguments, and decided that the Catholics were correct. In 703, St.Adomnán (St.Columba's biographer), in his capacity of Abbot of Iona, spent some time in Northumbria on official business. During his stay, Adomnán adopted Catholicism. He failed, however, to convince his colleagues on Iona to change their ways (although he did have some success in Ireland), and died in 704. Bede says that, in 710, the Pictish king, Nechtan (son of Derile):
"... renounced the error whereby he and his nation had been holden till then, touching the observance of Easter, and brought himself and all his people to celebrate the catholic time of our Lord's Resurrection."
Then, just a few years later:
"... those monks also of the Scottish nation, who lived in the isle of Hii [Iona], with the other monasteries that were subject to them, were by the Lord's doing brought to the canonical observance with regard to Easter, and the tonsure [another area where the two doctrines differed]. For in the year of our Lord 716, when Osred was slain, and Coenred [Cenred] took upon him the government of the kingdom of the Northumbrians, the father and priest, Egbert [Ecgberht], beloved of God, and worthy to be named with all honour ... came to them from Ireland [although he was actually an Anglo-Saxon], and was honourably and joyfully received. Being a most gracious teacher, and most devout in practising those things which he taught, and being willingly heard by all, by his pious and diligent exhortations, he converted them from that deep-rooted tradition of their fathers ..." |
"... Alpin was routed, and deprived of all his territories and people ..."
What isn't quite so clear, however, is who defeated him. The phraseology used by the 'Annals of Ulster' suggests it might have been Oengus, but, whoever it was, the 'Annals of Tigernach' continue:
"... and Nechtan, son of Derile, took the kingship of the Picts."
It is possible that, at this stage, Oengus was acting on behalf of Nechtan. However, two decisive encounters, in 729, would see Oengus emerge as the ultimate victor. The 'Annals of Tigernach', which has preserved the most detail of these events, surprisingly, has no reference to the first encounter. The 'Annals of Ulster' record:
"The battle of Monid Carno near Loch Laegde between the hosts of Nechtan and the army of Oengus, and Nechtan's exactors [i.e. tribute collectors] fell i.e. Biceot son of Monet, and his son, Finnguine son of Drostan, Feroth son of Finnguine, and many others; and the adherents of Oengus were triumphant."
Drust then tried to regain the kingship, but, at the battle of Druim Derg Blathug [unidentified], he was defeated and killed by Oengus - on the 12th of August, say the 'Annals of Tigernach'.
Bede writes that, at the time of his completing the 'Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation' (731):
"The Pictish people also at this time are at peace with the English nation, and rejoice in having their part in Catholic peace and truth with the universal Church. The Scots that inhabit Britain, content with their own territories, devise no plots nor hostilities against the English nation. The Britons, though they, for the most part, as a nation hate and oppose the English nation, and wrongfully, and from wicked lewdness, set themselves against the appointed Easter of the whole Catholic Church; yet, inasmuch as both Divine and human power withstand them, they can in neither purpose prevail as they desire; for though in part they are their own masters, yet part of them are brought under subjection to the English."
According to legend, in the mid-4th century, St.Regulus (also known as St.Rule) is supposed to have landed on the coast of Fife (at the place now called St.Andrews) with some relics (three fingers of the right hand, one humerus, one tooth, and a knee cap) of St.Andrew. The Pictish king at the time, who became Regulus' benefactor, was Ungus (or Hungus), son of Urguist (or Forso). He is variously identified as the Oengus, son of Fergus, who died in 761, or as another Oengus, son of Fergus, who died in 834. The favourite contender is the latter (Oengus II). He is named, in Pictish king lists, as founder of a church at Kilremont (as St.Andrews was previously known), but, since it is known that there was already a religious foundation there in 747, the first Oengus cannot be entirely ruled out. Clearly, neither Oengus is consistent with a date in the 4th century. Inventive Scottish chronicler, John of Fordun, in an attempt to reconcile the chronology, creates a Hurgust, son of Furgso, in the fourth century and then leaps forward almost five hundred years, to Hungus, son of Fergus, i.e. Oengus II. Oengus II is purported to have prayed for deliverance when his army was surrounded by that of an Anglo-Saxon king, Athelstan. Oengus' prayers were answered by St.Andrew, and a white diagonal cross appeared in the blue sky to encourage his forces. Athelstan was duly defeated, and killed. The place of the battle is said to be Athelstaneford, East Lothian. In his telling of the tale, Fordun equates this Athelstan with the son of Æthelwulf, king of Wessex. The 'Anglo-Saxon Chronicle', however, notes Æthelwulf's son being alive and well in 851 - almost twenty years after Oengus himself had died. Be that as it may, the legacy of the legend lives on. The following is taken from a BBC News report for 8th October, 2002:
"Scotland's justice minister has been sent homeward to think again about the colour of the country's national flag. Jim Wallace told MSPs on Tuesday that it would be expensive and difficult to enforce an exact shade of blue on the Saltire... MSPs insisted he should at least fix a recommended colour for flag manufacturers and others so that all Scottish flags could start out the same colour... MSPs had argued that the issue - which was raised by Edinburgh man George Reid - was a matter of national honour... Mr Reid took his case to Holyrood after becoming fed up seeing the Saltire paraded in an array of blues.
"It is a matter of regret that this flag, with its proud origins, should be devalued by being made and flown with varying background shades,"
he said.
"No other country's flag is made with varying backgrounds. If you watch TV pictures of Murrayfield or Hampden Park, you will see every shade of blue, from duck egg to navy blue. It's something we should be quite ashamed of."
Mr Reid said the flag should be the colour of a clear, blue sky... He urged the Scottish Executive to invite the Scottish Flag Trust to take the lead in drafting a new flag code and specify the colour."
To George Reid's reported delight, on 18th February, 2003, the Scottish Parliament's Education, Culture and Sport Committee made a recommendation that the blue of the flag should be Pantone 300. |
"Oengus son of Fergus, king of the Picts, laid waste the territory of Dál Riata and seized Dún At [Dunadd] and burned Creic [unidentified] ..."
In the same year, Oengus' brother, Talorgan, routed a Dál Riatan army ("many nobles falling in this encounter"). And in 741:
"The smiting of the Dál Riata by Oengus son of Fergus."
In fact, Oengus is not referred to in the annals as king of Dál Riata (nor does he appear in any king list as such), but it is apparent that he did rule both the Picts and Scots. He also seems to have set his sights on the Strathclyde Britons. Symeon of Durham notes that, in 744:
"A battle was fought between the Picts and the Britons."
And, in 750, the 'Annals of Ulster' record:
"The battle of Catohic between Picts and Britons, in which Talorgan, son of Fergus and brother of Oengus, fell."
A later entry for the same year (750) would seem to leave little doubt that Oengus lost the overlordship of the Dál Riata he had won in 741. It states simply:
"End of the reign of Oengus."
750 also saw the Northumbrian king, Eadberht, capture territory, including Kyle, from Strathclyde. One of the annalistic entries tagged onto Bede's 'Ecclesiastical History', makes a passing reference to Eadberht, "with his army, being employed against the Picts", in 740. However, in 756, Eadberht and Oengus (called Unust by Symeon of Durham), as allies, attacked Alcluith (Dumbarton), capital of Strathclyde. The Britons capitulated on 1st August. However, Symeon says that, on the 10th August, almost all of Eadberht's army "perished", but fails to provide any further illumination. Is it possible that, having used him to gain the submission of Strathclyde, Oengus then double-crossed Eadberht? Such a theory may explain a comment in the additions to the 'Ecclesiastical History':
"In the year 761, Oengus, king of the Picts, died; who, from the beginning to the end of his reign, continued to be a blood-stained and tyrannical butcher ..."
Providing no further information, the 'Annals of Ulster' report that, in 768, the Scots, under their king, Aed, invaded Fortriu, and fought a battle against the Picts, under their king, Cinaed.
Aed is known as Aed Find i.e. 'the White'. The 'Annals of Ulster' note his death in 778. Cinaed died in 775.
The 'Annals of Ulster' has an entry for the year 794 which simply says:
"Devastation of all the islands of Britain by heathens."
The Vikings had arrived.
The reason for the sudden explosion of Scandinavian expansionism is not known for certain, although it is thought that overpopulation of their own lands may be a factor. It was predominantly the Norwegians who, en route for Ireland, established settlements in the Orkney and Shetland Islands, Caithness and Sutherland, and the Western Isles. The Orkney and Shetland Islands were Norwegian dependencies until 1472.
In 839, the 'Annals' record a battle between the Picts ("the men of Fortriu") and the Vikings. The Picts were defeated, their king, Eoganán, was killed, and:
"... others almost innumerable fell there."
Comparison between Pictish and Dál Riatan king lists seem to show that Eoganán was actually king of both the Picts and the Scots, as had been his uncle, Constantine, and father, Oengus, before him.
Constantine and Oengus (Oengus II) are sons of Fergus. The Pictish king list in the 'Poppleton Manuscript' renders these names Castantin and Unuist, sons of Uurguist. Eoganán appears as Uuen.
Both Constantine (d.820) and Oengus (d.834) are called "king of Fortriu", when their deaths are recorded by the 'Annals of Ulster'. But whether this should be seen as a takeover of the Scots by the Picts, or vice versa, has long been the subject of debate. Marjorie O. Anderson, in 'Kings and Kingship in Early Scotland', writes:
"In Constantine and Oengus II, sons of Fergus, we have, so far as we can tell, the first instances of one man holding both kingships simultaneously, by hereditary right in both kingdoms according to their different systems... A blending of royal lineages was, one would think, bound to happen sooner or later, when a matrilineal society (or at least a society with a royal matrilineage) was in contact with, and was intermarrying with, a vigorous patrilineal society. DálRiatan Scots may have fathered some potential and a few actual kings of Picts as early as the first half of the seventh century."
However, in 'Scotland: The Making of the Kingdom', A.A.M. Duncan states:
"Indeed there seems little doubt that for a century from 741 the periods in which Dal Riata was free from Pictish overlordship were short."
On the other hand, Alfred P. Smyth, in 'Warlords and Holy Men: Scotland AD80-1000', asserts:
"It is inconceivable if the Picts were the dominant military faction in the century after 740 that the Scots could suddenly emerge under Kenneth mac Alpin precisely at the end of that period in such a strong position as to impose their Gaelic language and institutions on the Picts. Dál Riata ascendancy was much more likely to have evolved as a gradual process of infiltration of the Pictish east, which must have escalated under pressure from Vikings in the Hebrides and Argyll in the early ninth century... Skene may well have been wrong in seeing a Pictish takeover of the Scots, but he was basically correct in viewing the situation in terms of conquest and overlordship rather than a mere blending of genealogies by that sleight of matrilinear succession. There does indeed seem to have been a takeover process at work perhaps as early as the late eighth century, but it was the Scots who were taking over Pictish kingship and not the other way round."
Perhaps, the chaos following the defeat of "the men of Fortriu", in 839, allowed one Alpin to secure the throne of Dál Riata. He is not mentioned by the 'Annals of Ulster' at all, and his rule may be a later invention to give a degree of legitimacy to the accession of his son, Kenneth (Cinaed), who came to power around 840. According to the 'Scottish Chronicle' preserved in the 'Poppleton Manuscript', it was two years later that Kenneth mac Alpin (i.e. Kenneth son of Alpin) secured the throne of the Picts:
"And so Kenneth, the son of Alpín, the foremost of the Scots, ruled that kingdom of Pictavia successfully for 16 years. However Pictavia was named after the Picts; whom, as we said, Kenneth destroyed. For God, to punish them for the fault of their malice, deigned to make them estranged and indifferent to their heritage: because they not only scorned the Lord's mass and injunctions; but also were unwilling to be reckoned equal to others in the law of impartiality. Indeed, two years before he came to Pictavia, he took over the kingdom of Dál Riata."
A somewhat unlikely source, the 'Chronicle of Huntingdon', suggests that it took Kenneth rather longer than two years to impose his authority on the Picts:
"In the seventh year of his [Kenneth's] reign, when Danish pirates occupied the shores and crushed the Picts, who were defending themselves, with a great slaughter. He, passing into their remaining territories, turned his arms against the Picts, and, having slain many, compelled them to take flight, and was the first king of the Scots who acquired the monarchy of the whole of Alba, which is now called Scotia, and ruled in it over the Scots."
The above passage, very similarly phrased, is worked into John of Fordun's 'Chronica Gentis Scotorum'. The following passage, here in Fordun's rendition, is also common to both sources:
"... in the twelfth year of his reign, he [Kenneth] engaged them [the Picts] seven times in one day, and swept down countless multitudes of the Pictish people. So he established and strengthened his authority thenceforth over the whole country ..."
John of Fordun travelled to England (probably 1363x1385), and may have visited Huntingdon. At any rate, he follows the 'Chronicle of Huntingdon' in placing Kenneth's succession to "his father's throne" (i.e. Dál Riata) in 834. In an attempt to reconcile his sources, Fordun says that Kenneth succeeded to the Pictish throne "when they had been overcome, in A.D. 839 ... Kenneth reigned nearly sixteen years as sole monarch of these kingdoms." Fordun places Kenneth's death in 854. The 'Chronicle of Huntingdon', on the other hand, gives Kenneth a reign of twenty-eight years - placing his death in 862. Incidentally, Fordun and the 'Chronicle of Huntingdon' also share an account of the death of Alpin, Kenneth's father. During Easter time, 834, Alpin had resoundingly defeated the Picts. Full of confidence, he engaged them again, on the 20th July. This time, he lost and was beheaded. According to Fordun, the Scots' chiefs were reluctant to pursue a war of revenge against the Picts, so Kenneth hatched a plan whereby an accomplice wrapped himself in a cloak adorned with "scaly fish skins ... so that it flashed as with the flaming wings of an angel". The "angel" visited the chiefs' bedchambers and persuaded them to obey Kenneth "in all things ... and particularly that they should in nowise be afraid to destroy the Pictish kingdom."
The Stone of Scone in place beneath the Coronation Chair in Westminster Abbey.
The 'Stone of Scone', also known as the 'Stone of Destiny' (and in Irish: Lia Fail - 'the speaking stone'), is the subject of many legends, both ancient (it is purported to have been Jacob's pillow - as mentioned in 'Genesis') and modern (it disappeared for four months after it was taken from the Coronation Chair, by Glasgow University student nationalists, on Christmas Day 1950 - some say that the stone which was returned is a fake). The sandstone block is also supposed to have been brought to Britain, from Ireland, by Fergus Mor mac Erc, for his coronation c.500, and then moved to Scone by Kenneth mac Alpin for his own coronation. The Stone, famously "stolen" by Edward I in 1296 (or was it? another yarn says that the stone which Edward took was actually one used to secure a cesspit cover), was returned to Scotland in 1996. It is displayed at Edinburgh Castle. |
"It seems possible in view of the lack of contemporary evidence of severe conflict. On the other hand, the Pictish lists do suggest that Kenneth may have had to eliminate other claimants before he could establish his own kingship."
Whatever the truth about his takeover of the Picts, the 'Scottish Chronicle' records the remainder of Kenneth's reign:
"In the seventh year of his rule, he transferred the remains of Saint Columba to the church which he built [at Dunkeld], and he attacked Saxonia six times; and he burnt down Dunbar and captured Melrose. However the Britons [of Strathclyde] burnt down Dunblane, and the Danes laid waste to Pictavia, as far as Clunie and Dunkeld. He finally died of a tumour, before the Ides of February on the third day of the week in the palace of Forteviot.
The 'Annals of Ulster' place Kenneth's death in 858 - he is called "king of the Picts". His reign marks the final unification of the kingdom of Dál Riata and the kingdom of the Picts. Inexorably, the laws, language and customs of the Scots superseded those of the Picts. The Picts would simply fade into history, and the kingdom become known by the Gaelic name for the country: Alba.
English chronicler, Henry of Huntingdon (writing c.1130) notes that: "The Picts, however, have entirely disappeared, and their language is extinct, so that the accounts given of this people by ancient writers seem almost fabulous."
In the meantime, however, Kenneth was succeeded by his brother, Donald (Donald I), who ruled for four years. The 'Scottish Chronicle' mentions that:
"In his time, the Gaels [i.e Scots] established the rights and laws of the kingdom of Aed the son of Eochaid, with their own king at Forteviot."
Aed, son of Eochaid (also known as Aed Find), king of Dál Riata, died in 778. He must have made quite an impression for Dál Riatan law (meaning customs, rather than legislation) to be referred to in this way, when it was imposed in the newly integrated kingdom of Picts and Scots. When Donald died, in 862, he was succeeded by Kenneth's son, Constantine (Constantine I). In 866, the 'Annals of Ulster' report that:
"Amlaíb [Olaf] and Auisle went with the foreigners [i.e. Vikings] of Ireland and Alba to Fortriu, plundered the entire Pictish country and took away hostages from them."
The 'Scottish Chronicle' says:
"Olaf, with his foreigners, laid waste to Pictavia, and dwelt there, from the Kalends of January until the feast of Saint Patrick."
At the time, there appear to have been three Viking kings based in Ireland, with Dublin as their headquarters: Olaf, Ivar and Auisle. Olaf is usually equated with Olaf 'the White' of Norse tradition. The 'Eyrbyggja Saga' says: "Ketil Flatneb gave his daughter Auth [Aud 'the Deep-minded'] to Olaf the White, who at that time was the greatest war-king West-over-the-sea ..." Ivar might possibly be the same Ivar (usually equated with Ivar 'the Boneless' - son of Ragnar Lothbrok) who was a leader of the Danish army that invaded England in the autumn of 865. There are no annalistic clashes that would prevent the Ivar in Ireland and the Ivar in England from being one and the same, but the record is so inconclusive that such identifications must necessarily be exercises in speculation. The 'Three Fragments' (a source noted for its legendary accretions) claim that Olaf, Ivar and Auisle were actually brothers: "Óisle [Auisle] was the least of them in age, but he was the greatest in valor, for he outshone the Irish in casting javelins and in strength with spears. He outshone the Norwegians in strength with swords and in shooting arrows. His brothers loathed him greatly, and Amlaib [Olaf] the most; the causes of the hatred are not told because of their length." The 'Annals of Ulster' record that, in 867: "Auisle, one of three kings of the heathens, was killed by his kinsmen in guile and parricide." The 'Three Fragments' say that Auisle had visited Olaf: "This is what he said: 'Brother,' he said, 'if your wife, i.e. the daughter of Cináed [Kenneth], does not love you, why not give her to me, and whatever you have lost by her, I shall give to you.' When Amlaib heard that, he was seized with great jealousy, and he drew his sword, and struck it into the head of Óisle, his brother, so that he killed him." Could the Kenneth mentioned be Kenneth mac Alpin? If so, this might imply that, actually, when Olaf "laid waste to Pictavia", he was acting on behalf of Constantine, in order to strengthen Constantine's dominion over the Picts. Indeed, it has been suggested that the house of Kenneth mac Alpin may have risen to power with Viking support, or, at least, by profiting from their activities.
The 'Annals of Ulster' note that, in 870, Olaf, this time in cahoots with Ivar, turned his attention to Strathclyde:
"The siege of Ail Cluaithe [Alcluith - Dumbarton] by the Norsemen: Amlaíb [Olaf] and Ímar [Ivar], two kings of the Norsemen, laid siege to the fortress and at the end of four months they destroyed and plundered it."
In 871:
"Amlaíb and Ímar returned to Áth Cliath [Dublin] from Alba with two hundred ships, bringing away with them in captivity to Ireland a great prey of Angles and Britons and Picts."
And in 872:
"Artgal, king of the Britons of Strathclyde, was killed at the instigation of Constantine son of Cinaed [Kenneth]."
According to the 'Scottish Chronicle', Olaf was killed, by Constantine, in Constantine's third year (i.e. 864/5). This is plainly not possible, and it must be assumed that thirteenth (874/5) was intended. The 'Three Fragments', though, say that, c.871: "Amlaib went from Ireland to Norway to fight the Norwegians and help his father, Gofraid [Guthfrith], for the Norwegians were warring against him, his father having sent for him." In old Norse sources, however, Olaf 'the White' does not equate with Olaf, son of Guthfrith. In the Icelandic 'Landnamabok' (Book of Settlement), whose author, Ari 'the Learned' (1067-1148), claims descent from Olaf 'the White' and Aud 'the Deep-minded', Olaf is said to have fallen "in battle in Ireland". If Olaf was killed in the British Isles it might be considered remarkable that no Irish source recorded the event. Olaf and Aud had a son - Thorstein 'the Red'. The 'Landnamabok' relates that: "Thorstein became a war-lord; he entered partnership with Sigurd the Mighty, the son of Eystein Glumra; they conquered Caithness, Sutherland, Ross and Murray, and more than half Scotland, and Thorstein became King thereover, until the Scots betrayed him, and he fell there in battle." Ivar's death is recorded by the 'Annals of Ulster' in 873.
In its annal for 875, the 'Anglo-Saxon Chronicle' notes that Danes based on the Tyne:
"... oft invaded the Picts and the Strathclydwallians."
The leader of these Danes was Halfdan, brother of Ivar 'the Boneless'.
The 'Scottish Chronicle' says that, in Constantine's 14th year (i.e. 875/6), there was a battle between the Danes and Scots at Dollar, and that:
"... the Scots were annihilated at Atholl."
Whilst, in an entry for 875, the 'Annals of Ulster' report that:
"The Picts encountered the dark [i.e. Danish] foreigners in battle, and a great slaughter of the Picts resulted."
In its next entry for 875, the 'Annals of Ulster' record that Olaf's son and successor, Eystein, was "deceitfully killed by Albann". Albann is generally believed to be Halfdan. In 876, Halfdan carried out the partition of Northumbria, which established the Danish kingdom of York (roughly corresponding to the county of Yorkshire). According to Symeon of Durham, in his 'Historia Ecclesiae Dunelmensis' (History of the Church of Durham), Halfdan "... was attacked at the same time by mental insanity and the severest bodily suffering; the intolerable stench exhaling from which made him an object of abomination towards the whole army. Thus despised and rejected by all persons, he fled away in three ships from the Tyne, and shortly afterwards he and all his followers perished." The 'Annals of Ulster' mention that "Albann, king of the dark heathens" (i.e. Danes) was killed fighting "the fair heathens" (Norwegian Vikings) at Strangford Loch in 877.
The 'Scottish Chronicle' also states:
"The Norsemen spent a whole year in Pictavia."
Constantine was killed in battle against the Vikings at Inverdofatha - a site usually identified with Inverdovat, north-east Fife. The Vikings are said to be Danes in some sources, Norwegian in others.
In 'Warlords and Holy Men: Scotland AD80-1000', Alfred P. Smyth writes: "According to the Irish saga, The Wars of the Irish with the Foreigners, Constantine was slain by the remnants of Hálfdan's army who were returning through Scotland after their defeat at the hands of the Dublin Norsemen at Strangford Lough in 877. It is unlikely that this unusual information was invented by a twelfth-century Munster compiler, and it almost certainly derives from the earlier annalistic material used by him."
The 'Annals of Ulster' place Constantine's death in 876, though 877 does seem more appropriate. Constantine's reign was followed by the brief rule of his brother, Aed. The 'Scottish Chronicle' simply states:
"Aed held the throne for 1 year. The shortness of his rule has left nothing memorable to history; but he was killed in the town of Nrurim [identified with Strathallan]."
The 'Annals of Ulster' report that, in 878:
"Aed son of Cinaed, king of the Picts, was killed by his own associates."
The 'Verse Chronicle' is more specific. It says Aed:
... perished by the sword of Grig [Giric], son of Donald [Donald I],
After he had completed his first year of kingship,
In Strathallan he ended his life with wounds.
After he had completed his first year of kingship,
In Strathallan he ended his life with wounds.
The 'Verse Chronicle' refers to Aed as 'albipes' i.e 'White-foot'. John of Fordun (who had clearly had access to a copy of the 'Verse Chronicle'), however, says that Aed was known as 'alipes' i.e. 'Wing-foot': "... for he had earned a name for swiftness above all others of his day."
So Giric succeeded to the throne of Alba. Well not quite, as the 'Scottish Chronicle' explains:
"... Eochaid the son of Rhun the king of the Britons [of Strathclyde], grandson of Kenneth by his daughter, ruled for 11 years. Admittedly others say that Giric the son of another ruled at that time; because he became teacher and 'prime minister' [possibly foster-father and guardian is meant] to Eochaid."
Eochaid's other grandfather was Artgal, the king of Strathclyde whose death had been instigated by Aed's brother, Constantine I, so perhaps his alliance with Giric was not surprising. Little is known of the rule of Eochaid and Giric. The 'Scottish Chronicle', without further explanation, says they were "thrown out of the kingdom". Eochaid does not feature in the couplets of the 'Chronicle of Melrose' (as, indeed, he doesn't in several king lists). Giric is presented as something of a hero:
In Dundurn, he was grasped by honourable death.
He gave liberties to the Scottish church,
Which had been brought under Pictish law.
He gave liberties to the Scottish church,
Which had been brought under Pictish law.
John of Fordun: "For, until then, the church had been subject to servitude, according to the custom of the Picts."
To his empire was added the whole of Anglia.
Only because he had been worn out by war did
destiny readily surrender him.
John of Fordun asserts that Giric (whom he calls Gregory):
Only because he had been worn out by war did
destiny readily surrender him.
"... brought the whole of Ireland, and nearly the whole of England, under his yoke. And although Ireland belonged to him by right of succession, he did not get possession of it without war on the part of some who withstood him. The sovereignty of his possessions in England he won partly by arms, and partly by kindness."
These nationalistic claims have, of course, to be taken with a large pinch of salt. Even allowing for exaggeration, they are not substantiated by any English or Irish source. Following the partition of Northumbria by the Danes, it is possible that the Scots may have been able to make some territorial gains, or that northern Englishmen, isolated as they were, had sought allegiance with the Scots. Symeon of Durham, in the 'History of the Church of Durham', reports that, during the reign of Guthfrith, king of York (d.895):
"... the nation of the Scots collected a numerous army, and among their other deeds of cruelty, they invaded and plundered the monastery of Lindisfarne."
Before Guthfrith could engage the enemy, "the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them all up alive".
Also, Strathclyde may have begun to extend its southern border with Northumbria. Certainly, by 927, it seems that the border had advanced to the river Eamont, just below Penrith. At any rate, in 889, Eochaid and Giric appear to have been overthrown ....
The 'Scottish Chronicle' says they were "thrown out of the kingdom". John of Fordun, however, insists that "glorious King Gregory ... closed the last of his days at Donedoure, and lies buried in the island of Iona".
.... and replaced by Donald (Donald II), the son of Constantine. The 'Scottish Chronicle':
"Donald the son of Constantine held the throne for 11 years. At that time the Norsemen laid waste to Pictavia. During his rule a battle was fought at Innisibsolian, between the Danes and the Scots: the Scots were the winners. Dunottar was destroyed by the foreigners."
In their obituaries, the 'Annals of Ulster' had referred to Kenneth mac Alpin and his successors - Donald I, Constantine I and Aed - as "king of the Picts". In its notice of the death of Donald II, in the year 900, however, Donald is called "king of Alba". The 'Verse Chronicle' says that Donald was:
The king who perished in the town of Forfar
In the eleventh summer of his reign.
In 900, another Constantine (Constantine II, son of Aed) ascended to the throne of Alba. Possibly his most remarkable feat was to reign for more than forty years, before abdicating to become a monk at St.Andrews. The 'Scottish Chronicle' reports that:
In the eleventh summer of his reign.
"In his third year the Norsemen raided Dunkeld, and all of Alba. Certainly in the following year the Norsemen were beaten in Strathearn ... "
Presumably the battle at Strathearn is the one mentioned by the 'Annals of Ulster' in 904:
"Ímar grandson of Ímar, was killed by the men of Fortriu, and there was a great slaughter around him."
In his sixth year, according to the 'Scottish Chronicle', "on the Hill of Credulity, near to the royal city of Scone", Constantine and bishop Cellach (of St.Andrews), promulgated that the practices of the Pictish church should be brought into line with those of the Scots. The 'Scottish Chronicle' also notes:
"There also died during his rule Donald the king of the Britons [of Strathclyde], and Donald the son of Aed [presumably, Constantine's brother] was chosen as king ..."
The decade following the defeat of Ivar, grandson of Ivar, in 904, appears to have been peaceful - at least there are no chronicled incidents - but all things come to an end ...
