Medieval Scotland E-Book

Alan MacQuarrie

• Herausgeber: The History Press
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 508

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2004

Beschreibung

Of all the Celtic peoples once dominant across the whole of Europe north of the Alps, only the Scots established a kingdom that lasted. Wales, Brittany and Ireland, subject to the same sort of pressure from a powerful neighbour, retained linguistic distinctiveness but lost political nationhood. What made Scotland's history so different?

Leseprobe

For John and Andrewand in memory of Hazel

KINGSHIPAND NATION

ALAN MACQUARRIE

First published in 2004 by Sutton Publishing

The History PressThe Mill, Brimscombe PortStroud, Gloucestershire, GL5 2QGwww.thehistorypress.co.uk

This ebook edition first published in 2013

All rights reserved© Alan Macquarrie, 2004, 2013

The right of Alan Macquarrie, to be identified as the Author of this workhas been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

This ebook is copyright material and must not be copied, reproduced, transferred, distributed, leased, licensed or publicly performed or used in any way except as specifically permitted in writing by the publishers, as allowed under the terms and conditions under which it was purchased or as strictly permitted by applicable copyright law. Any unauthorised distribution or use of this text may be a direct infringement of the author’s and publisher’s rights, and those responsible may be liable in law accordingly.

EPUB ISBN 978 0 7524 9488 3

Original typesetting by The History Press

Contents

Preface

Introduction: Medieval Scotland: Kingship and Nation

1.   THE ROMANS IN SCOTLAND AND THEIR LEGACY

2.   EARLY KINGDOMS AND PEOPLES

The Scots of the West: a Warrior Kingdom?

The Picts: a Dark Age Enigma, AD 500–800

The Britons, AD 500–800: Largely Ignored

The Angles of Northumbria: a Nation of Scholars and Heroes?

3.   THE COMING OF CHRISTIANITY

Early Saints: Patrick, Ninian and Kentigern

Early Saints: Columba and the Achievement of Iona

Christianity in Scotland after the Age of Saints

4.   THE MAKING OF SCOTLAND

The Vikings in Scotland: the First Hell’s Angels?

The Unification of Scotland: the Ninth Century

The Church after the Viking Raids

Southward Expansion: the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries

5.   THE TWELFTH CENTURY

New Kings and New Families, 1093–1153

New Kings and New Families, 1153–1214

6.   REFORM OF THE CHURCH

The Church: Bishops and Parishes

The Church: the New Monasticism

7.   ECONOMY AND SOCIETY IN MEDIEVAL SCOTLAND

Feudalism: a New Way of Life?

Burghs: Townsmen and Traders

8.   THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY: THE ‘ALEXANDRIAN AGE’

The Reign of Alexander II, 1214–49

The Reign of Alexander III, 1249–86

9.   SCOTLAND’S GREAT WAR

The ‘Great Cause’ and the Reign of King John

King Robert I, 1306–29

The Reign of David II, 1329–71

10.   A CHANGING SOCIETY

Highland and Lowland in Late Medieval Scotland

War and Plague

Lords, Townsmen and Other Men

11.   THE SCOTTISH CHURCH IN THE LATER MIDDLE AGES

Church and State in Scotland, 1329–1469

The Condition of the Scottish Church in the Later Middle Ages

12.   NADIR AND RECOVERY: THE HOUSE OF STEWART, 1371–1460

The Early Stewarts and Governor Albany

James I and the Minority of James II

Unsung Hero: James II and His Legacy

Notes

A Note on Further Reading

Preface

This work presents an overview of Scottish medieval history from the Roman invasion to the death of James II in a way that attempts to be accessible and non-controversial, while hoping to stimulate the curious to explore the subject more deeply. I hope that this book will help many people to understand Scotland better through a better understanding of our past.

My thanks are due to many colleagues and friends for their help and support while this work has been in progress. I owe a debt to the Department of Adult and Continuing Education at Glasgow University, and to my students there for their many helpful and astute comments. I must thank my son Andrew Macquarrie, whose computer skills have made this task infinitely easier and faster. My colleague Anne Clackson has read the entire manuscript and made many helpful corrections. My wife Hazel read and commented on the first third of the manuscript, and helped to make comprehensible to the general reader many concepts which were difficult enough for a specialist. Sadly, she became seriously ill while this work was in progress, and did not live to see its completion. Her courage in the face of illness has been an inspiration to me.

I alone am responsible for faults and errors which remain despite their best efforts. This book is dedicated with pride to my sons John and Andrew, who helped me through difficult times, and to Hazel’s memory.

ALAN MACQUARRIEUniversity of Strathclyde, Glasgow

Introduction

Medieval Scotland: Kingship and Nation

The Celtic peoples were once dominant across the whole of Europe north of the Alps. By the central Middle Ages, the Scots were the only Celtic people who had established a lasting unified kingdom. Wales and Brittany, subject to the same sort of pressure from a powerful neighbour, retained linguistic distinctness but lost political nationhood; Ireland became a patchwork of petty kingdoms. So why is Scotland’s medieval history so different from theirs?

Themes

There are a number of contributory factors to Scottish distinctness which this book will explore. One of these is kingship. In most Celtic nations, very strikingly in Ireland, kingship tends to become fragmented and debased. Heads of quite small clans and kin-groups were entitled to be called rí, king. This does not happen in Scotland, where from an early time kingship represented power and prestige. We will seek to explore the origins and development of Scottish kingship, and to explain how the fact of being a self-consciously unified kingdom contributed to Scotland’s struggle for freedom in the Middle Ages.

Another factor is national identity. The Scots were a not so much a pure Celtic race as an admixture of Celtic peoples – Gael, Picts and Britons – with strong non-Celtic elements blending in, notably Norse and English. There was perhaps no more hybrid nation in the north-west of Europe. Did this identity, transcending ethnic and linguistic divisions, give Scotland some kind of mongrel robustness?

Another consideration, perhaps a contrast to these, is the fact of regional and local identities and social cohesion. Scots today have a strong sense of attachment to their locality as well as to their nation, and this may always have been the case. Sometimes these local attachments have transcended hierarchical ones, and there is evidence that medieval Scotland was a more open society, with better opportunities for social mobility, than some others. It would be an exaggeration to say that medieval Scotland was egalitarian or democratic; but the striking success of presbyterianism in Scotland has to be explained somehow. Regional and local loyalties may also help to explain how the struggle for identity continued even at times when monarchy and central government were weak.

Like all its medieval neighbours, Scotland was a Christian society. Although English, Gaelic and British elements all went together to make up Scottish Christianity, the resulting Church was a coherent and homogeneous blend. Until the very end of the medieval period, Scotland did not have its own archbishop; but it had a self-consciously national Church, an Ecclesia Scoticana, which powerfully preached the virtues of national defence, freedom and patriotism in times of crisis. The Scottish Church has always been notably loyal to Scotland.

Periods

The history of medieval Scotland can be conveniently divided into three periods:

1.   Between the end of Roman Britain and the coming of the Vikings, there was a long period of equilibrium between the different races occupying Scotland – Picts, Gael, Britons and Angles. This period saw the conversion of Scotland to Christianity. The shock of the Viking onslaught shattered this balance, and prepared the way for the unification of these disparate peoples, plus the Norse, into a single kingdom under a new and successful dynasty. By the middle of the eleventh century Scotland had recognisably taken on the geographical and ethnic form that it has today.

2.   The ‘High Middle Ages’ was a period of creativity and relative prosperity for Scotland. The descendants of Queen Margaret transformed their Celtic kingdom into a cosmopolitan feudal state within the unity of Western Christendom. Relations with Scotland’s most powerful neighbour, England, were for the most part harmonious through the recognition of distinctness and independence, to the advantage of both kingdoms.

3.   After 1286, Scotland’s history becomes the story of a struggle against successive attempts at conquest and incorporation. The story is one of spectacular triumphs and dismal failures on both sides. The monarchy was at times strong, at other times weak; but always the struggle for national identity was unremitting. There were modest successes as well. Scotland developed distinctiveness in education, architecture and literature, and at the end of the period enjoyed a remarkable cultural renaissance.

Geography

Much early and later history is determined by geographical factors. These determine the nature of an economy and the pattern of trade and settlement. Important factors include the relationship of land and water masses, altitude and climate.

The most obvious point about the area which we now call Scotland is that it occupies the northern third of an island, some 550 miles long and varying in breadth between 300 miles and 50 miles. There is no natural boundary between Scotland and England, but the narrowest point or ‘waist’ of Britain is formed by the great sea inlets of the Firths of Forth and Clyde, and this isthmus has at times formed an important boundary between political divisions in Britain. It was here that the Roman emperor Antoninus chose to mark the northern frontier of the Roman empire by a solid wall guarded by a network of roads and forts. But the other, more substantial, Roman wall built by Hadrian shows that the line of the Tyne and Solway could also be regarded as a defensible frontier. The present Anglo-Scottish border, having hardly changed since the twelfth century, represents something of a compromise between the two Roman attempts to find a frontier for the island of Britain.

The important point is that, even if it took centuries to establish the Border, Britain always has been divided in two – northern third and southern two thirds – and no serious attempt was made to abandon a political frontier before the eighteenth century. Modern political developments suggest that the Border still has relevance.

This fundamental divide has always existed, and has been determined by a number of factors. The first of these is the shape of Britain, long with a narrow waist; the second is its climate, mild and temperate in the south, cooler and harsher in the north; the third is the quality of land, with fertile plains and broad river valleys in the south, but increasingly broken by ranges of rough mountains further north. In Scotland, much land is over 250 metres above sea level. This is cool and windswept, and unsuited for agriculture, though it provides reasonable rough pasture for cattle, goats and sheep. Such land is best adapted to pastoral farming, not necessarily sedentary, and minimal cultivation mostly of oats on the lower and more sheltered hillsides. The lowlands of the east coast were not ipso facto better suited for sedentary agriculture, because the river valleys contained much heavy clay soil which could not be exploited because of the poor technology of draining and ploughing.

This was a land dominated by castles, of which Edinburgh, Dumbarton and Stirling are well-known examples. Natural eminences with artificial fortifications were the bases of Celtic warrior aristocracy. In the later Middle Ages, rocky outcrops crowned with great stone castles continued to be of great strategic importance.

Language

One way by which people are defined is language. Early and medieval Scotland was a land of several languages; some are now extinct or receding, and no language current in Scotland today occupies exactly the same area that it did a thousand years ago. Some explanation is required of the terminology which will be used of these various languages.

All the languages known to have been spoken in medieval Scotland belong to the Indo-European family. The most important group of Indo-European speakers in the European Iron Age were the Celts, who in prehistoric times spread from the Black Sea to the Atlantic seaboard. Within the British Isles, the Celtic languages show a major divergence into Goidelic and Brettonic, now represented by Irish and Scots Gaelic on the one hand and Welsh and (extinct) Cornish on the other. The Britons of the south spoke a Brettonic language akin to Old Welsh. The Dál Riata of the west spoke Old Irish, from which modern Scots Gaelic is descended. The language of the Picts is more problematic, largely because so little of it has survived. It was certainly Celtic, possibly with a closer affinity to continental Celtic (Gaulish) than to Old Welsh. The hypothesis that the Picts preserved in addition a non-Indo-European language for ritual purposes rests on slender evidence and is no longer widely accepted.

But not all the peoples of Dark Age Scotland were Celtic-speakers. The Angles of Northumbria spoke Old English, an Indo-European language of the Germanic branch. The Vikings, irrupting on the scene at the end of the eighth century, also spoke a Germanic language, Old Norse.

The common language of the Christian Church was Latin. Latin was the administrative language of the Western division of the Roman empire, and the liturgical language of western Christianity. In the Middle Ages Latin was the language of law, diplomacy, education and high culture as well as of the Church. It was never, however, a spoken language of the laity.

Latin has many modern descendants, including French. French was the language of the Norman Conquest, and many of the Anglo-Norman knights who settled in Scotland in the twelfth century will have known and spoken French. But French never made significant inroads in Scotland. One Norman-French romance, the Roman de Fergus, probably composed in Galloway at the beginning of the thirteenth century, has survived, and there is some evidence that Robert Bruce and his contemporaries were familiar with Norman-French ‘courtly’ poetry; but French never became the language of court, administration, or Church.

In this work, some compromises over the use of language and spelling of names have been necessary. As far as possible, names are presented in a form that is most likely to be familiar and recognisable. Absolute consistency has not been possible.

Identity

There is a fashionable tendency nowadays to treat Scottish history as an extension of the history of other peoples. Thus English historians writing about Dark Age Scotland treat Scotland as an extension of Northumbria, and Irish historians regard Celtic Scotland as a land that is essentially like Ireland. There are even Welsh historians who argue that Scotland’s identity was secured by the British buffer-state of Strathclyde, and that Scottish history is therefore really an extension of Welsh history. Some English historians of the later Middle Ages see Scottish success in the Wars of Independence as a freakish accident, an aberration which delayed the inevitable union of Great Britain by four hundred years. But this is to write ‘optative’ history, to view the past as one would have liked events to turn out. Above all, it cannot explain why Scotland today is so distinct from the other nations of the British Isles; and the historian has to explain why things turn out as they do.

Many people living in Scotland today, though by no means all, are racially Celtic, linguistically English, and politically British citizens. Yet many also have a consciousness, howsoever vague, of belonging also to something different from these racial, linguistic and political loyalties. It is very difficult to define what that is, and if you ask several Scots what constitutes Scottishness, you will get a variety of answers. National identity is an elusive concept.

This has perhaps always been the case. Yet we can see the development of some kind of national identity from an early time. This is not to view history through the wrong end of the telescope, as it were, to try to explain the past in terms of the present; rather, we must use our past to make sense of the present. It is my hope that this book will help many Scots, and many others, to understand Scotland better.

CHAPTER 1

The Romans in Scotland and their Legacy

Although archaeology can throw light on prehistoric societies, the Celts are the first peoples documented by classical writers. History tells us nothing of the Stone Age and Bronze Age inhabitants of Scotland, or of the builders of the unique type of fortification known as brochs, found mostly in the Northern and Western Isles and the north and north-west mainland. It is not until the people of northern Britain came into contact with classical writers that they emerge into history, and even then they are largely seen through the eyes of their enemies.

Ptolemy’s Geographia

The starting point for any discussion must be the Geographia of the early second-century Greek scholar Ptolemy.1 In his map of north Britain he names a number of rivers and islands which can be identified, and others whose identification is less certain. He also makes northern Britain the home of a number of tribes. It is clear that we should view these tribes as kin-groups presided over and exploited by warrior aristocracies in competition with one another, occasionally forming alliances against powerful enemies. The name of the Caledonii is given prominence in the central Highlands, possibly indicating that some other tribes were subordinated to them.

Much of Ptolemy’s information about the British tribes came from accounts of the campaigns of Agricola, the first Roman general to invade what is now Scotland. Julius Caesar had carried out exploratory raids into Britain in 55 and 54 BC, and Claudius had carried out a full-scale invasion and established Britain as a Roman province in AD 43 and the years following. By AD 78 two major revolts of British tribes had been suppressed and the frontier extended as far north as the Tyne–Solway line. There were major Roman bases at York and Chester to service the army. The stage was set for the campaigns of Agricola.2

Agricola

Julius Agricola was fortunate in having for his son-in-law the historian Tacitus, who wrote a vivid account of his life and campaigns. Before his posting as governor of Britain (AD 77–84), Agricola had previously served there, and was familiar with the terrain and the tactics of the Britons.

Scotland according to Ptolemy, c. AD 140.

In 79 Agricola made his first foray into what is now Scotland, advancing as far as the Firth of Tay. In the following year Tacitus states that he fortified the Forth–Clyde isthmus with a string of forts along the line later to be used for the Antonine Wall, although little archaeological evidence has been found to confirm this. In 81 he crossed the Firth of Clyde (probably from the Roman fort at Barochan near Houston) and explored the west coast, contemplating a raid into Ireland. In 82, ‘fearing a general confederacy of the peoples beyond the Firth of Forth’, he crossed into Fife. As long as his troops had cover from their ships, they were able to cow the enemy; but when they entered the lands of ‘defiles and passes’ of the Caledonii in the central Highlands they ran into difficulties and were forced to withdraw.

During the winter of 82/3 Tacitus says that the Caledonii ‘held public conventions of their separate states, and with solemn rites and sacrifices formed a league in the cause of freedom’. He had previously commented that the Britons were usually easy to defeat because they could not come together in such alliances. The army faced by Agricola in the summer of 83 probably represented the massed might of most of the tribes north of the Forth–Clyde line, led by the Caledonii. Tacitus hints that Agricola was able to keep in touch with his ships as he advanced, so his march must have been close to the east coast. Traces of marching camps have been detected as far as Aberdeenshire, never more than a few miles from the coast. Agricola engaged the enemy on the slopes of Mons Graupius, somewhere in north-east Scotland.

The Caledonii were commanded by ‘chieftains distinguished by their birth and valour, among whom the most renowned was Calgacus’. Calgacus is the first Scotsman whose name is recorded for posterity, and Tacitus attributes to him a suitable speech of exhortation to his assembled troops. ‘We are the men who never crouched in bondage,’ he told them. ‘Beyond this place there is no land where freedom can find a refuge.’ Of the Romans, he says: ‘They make a desolation, and they call it peace.’ Thus inspired, his troops attacked from the higher ground, but the Romans kept their nerve, and in the end the Caledonian army became scattered, and was driven back with heavy losses.

Summer was far advanced, so Agricola was unable to follow up his victory. He made a show of force on land and sea, taking hostages, before withdrawing into winter quarters. The following year he was recalled to Rome; according to Tacitus, the emperor Domitian was jealous of his success. Tacitus talks up Agricola’s triumph at Mons Graupius; but his silence tells us that most of the Caledonian army, including Calgacus, escaped to fight another day. Agricola’s attempt to conquer Scotland had been a failure.

Archaeological evidence fills out this narrative with identifiable places, and confirms that Agricola was indeed an able strategist when it came to positioning camps and forts. Southern Scotland was criss-crossed by a network of roads and forts, at Newstead, Inveresk on the Forth, Barochan near the Clyde and Dalswinton in Dumfriesshire, dominating the southern tribes; the road north from Camelon by Falkirk is more confused. Inchtuthil in Strathmore was intended as a major legionary stronghold to check the power of the Caledonii, and the line of marching camps indicates the route which ultimately led to the battlefield at Mons Graupius. This hill, which has by a misreading given its name to the Grampian Mountains, has not been certainly identified.

Among his achievements, Agricola sent his navy on a circumnavigation of Scotland, thus proving for the first time that Britain was an island. His troops sailed round the Orcades (Orkney Islands) and saw Thule, probably Fair Isle, in the distance. Tacitus does not mention the Western Isles at all, but Ptolemy’s Geographia names several of them in the Oceanus Deucaledonius, the ‘Ocean of the two Caledonii’.

Even had Agricola not been recalled in 84, it is doubtful how much more success he could have expected. His campaigns were not a defeat for Roman arms, but they ensured that Scotland would never be part of the Roman empire. It was decided to retain the Forth–Clyde frontier, with only Inchtuthil as a major outpost beyond. Within a few years this fort too was abandoned, carefully dismantled with more than a million iron nails buried to keep them from the enemy. Some ten years later there is evidence of a major rebellion by the tribes of southern Scotland in which the forts at Newstead, Dalswinton and Glenlochar were burned, and evidence too of a Roman withdrawl to the Tyne–Solway line. In about 120 the emperor Hadrian decided upon a solid stone wall at this point, with a great ditch and mile-castles evenly spaced. It seemed as if the conquest of Scotland had been permanently abandoned.

The Antonine Wall

But about twenty years later the Agricolan frontier was recommissioned by the emperor Antoninus Pius, and a new wall was built on the Forth–Clyde isthmus.3 The Antonine Wall consisted of a footing of dry stones covered by a turf rampart surmounted by a timber parapet, with a large ditch in front. The wall ran 40 Roman miles from Bridgeness on the Forth to Old Kilpatrick on the Clyde and was guarded by forts at an average distance of a little over two miles. For the most part it marches across the brow of low north-facing hills dominating the valleys of the Kelvin and Carron. The objective seems to have been to control the tribes whose territories straddled the Wall, and to give the Romans access to the farmlands beyond.

The Late Roman Empire and North Britain

The Antonine Wall seems not to have succeeded in its objective. There is little documentary evidence, but archaeology points to the abandonment of the northern wall c. 155, with one or more brief reoccupations later in the second century. By 197 the historian Dio Cassius described how the Roman governor had to buy peace from a tribe called the Maeatae, who were being aided in rebellion by the Caledonii.4 A decade later the Romans were making progress against their confederation, but not fast enough for the emperor Septimius Severus. In 208 Severus arrived in Britain, carrying out an extensive campaign in Scotland in the following year, and marching so far north that he saw the midsummer sun at night; but he could not bring the Caledonii to battle. By the time he died at York in 211, Severus had fought in Scotland more extensively than anyone since Agricola; but his son Caracalla decided to recommission the Hadrianic frontier. Thereafter the northern frontier of the Roman empire was at peace for almost 100 years.

anti-clockwise from top, the Antonine Wall:Bridgeness Distance Slab, Bo’ness. (Historic Scotland)Croy Hill. (Historic Scotland)Ditch, Watling Lodge. (Historic Scotland)Stone base of rampart, New Kilpatrick. (Historic Scotland)

One name not mentioned until the very end of the third century, although it becomes common thereafter, is that of the Picti, Picts. A writer in 297 mentioned the achievements of Julius Caesar, who conquered Britain when ‘the nation of Britons was still uncivilised and used to fighting only Picts and Irish, both still half-naked enemies’. A clue to the identity of these Picts is found in a poem of 310, which refers in passing to ‘the forests and swamps of the Caledonii and other Picts, neighbouring Ireland or far-distant Thule’. The name Picti appears to mean ‘painted people’, but by the fourth century it had become common for all the people dwelling beyond the Antonine Wall.

A writer in the 360s states that the Picts were divided into two tribes, Dicalydonae and Verturiones. Dicalydonae clearly incorporates the name Caledonii. The Verturiones presumably were Picts living between the Caledonii and the Roman walls. Although the name no longer survives, for many centuries there was a district of Scotland, including Strathearn and Gowrie, called Fortrenn, and this is probably connected with Verturiones. It may be that the pressure exerted by the Romans contributed to a degree of unification of the Picts into these two big groupings.

The peaceful relations between Roman Britain and the Pictish tribes beyond the frontier which prevailed during the third century did not long survive into the fourth. In 306 the emperor Constantius and his son Constantine (later the first Christian emperor) responded to renewed outbreaks of trouble in north Britain by crossing the Wall and marching as far as the Tay; but they again withdrew to the Hadrianic frontier, retaining some fortified outposts beyond. In the 360s the Picts were again attacking the Roman province, and from this time the situation never seems to have been totally restored. In the 380s the northern frontier was stripped of troops by the ambitious general Magnus Maximus in his bid for the imperial throne. By c. 400 Hadrian’s Wall had been abandoned. The last Roman attempt to hold back Pictish incursions into north Britain was by the general Stilicho in 400–2, who returned from the campaign with his legion ‘which curbs the fierce Scot, and while slaughtering the Pict scans the devices tattooed on his lifeless form’.

Thereafter Constantine III made another attempt to seize the imperial throne by withdrawing British troops and leaving the frontier exposed, in 407–11; in 410 the province of Britain was instructed to undertake its own defence, as all available imperial troops were required in other places. In the winter of 406/7 hordes of barbarians had swept into Gaul. That province was in an unsettled state for much of the fifth century; Britain must very quickly have become isolated from Roman civilisation. Archaeology suggests a rapid deterioration in British culture, with coinage for trafficking having gone out of use by c. 430. Britain passed into the hands of local ‘tyrants’ who carved up the imperial province and ruled tribal areas from hilltop fortresses.

Northern Britain after the Roman Withdrawal

There is great obscurity about Britain after the Roman withdrawal, and its degree of continuity with the old province. Germanus bishop of Auxerre came to Britain c. 429 and was met by a sophisticated and Romanised aristocracy led by a man ‘of tribunician power’.5 About ten years later he revisited Britain and was again preaching to the British aristocracy when a report of a raid by Picts and Saxons reached them. The contrast between the relative peace of Germanus’ first visit and the unsettled conditions of his second suggests changed times.

One British tyrant, called Vortigern in later sources, is said to have called in Saxon mercenaries to repel Picts and Scots, and found that these Germanic warriors stayed to carve out settlements for themselves in eastern England. In c. 446 the remnant of the Roman province appealed to the Roman general Aetius for help against the Saxons; but he was too preoccupied with Goths and Huns in Gaul.

It is in this obscure age, perhaps around the year 500, that moves the shadowy figure of Arthur, ‘leader of battles’, who fought against the Saxons and held up their progress for a time. Who he was is uncertain, and so is his sphere of action; a number of northern places seem to commemorate him, but it is not clear that he was a northerner. Arthur is so obscure and surrounded by legend that it is difficult to perceive him as a historical figure at all.

Finds of pottery, coins and precious metals do not suggest a profound influence by the Romans on the tribes beyond the Wall. But the tribes enumerated by Ptolemy between the two walls, the Novantae, Selgovae, Votadini and Damnonii, would be expected to have had the closest contacts and to have felt the greatest influence. Beyond them, influence on the Verturiones, Maeatae and Caledonii appears to have been slight.

The best archaeological evidence for Roman contact comes from Traprain Law in East Lothian, a tribal fortress of the Votadini.6 Here, within the enclosure of a Dark Age hillfort has been found a hoard of Roman silver objects – plates, cups, cutlery, bowls, flagons, and the like – which had been broken up and flattened and then hidden in a shallow pit. Coin finds among the hoard date it to c. 425. Among the objects were some with Christian symbols. Because the objects are portable and appear to have been in preparation for being melted down, they hardly represent evidence for the tastes and religious beliefs of a Votadinian prince of the early fifth century. The burial and abandonment of the hoard are suggestive of troubled times.

The abandonment of Traprain suggests that the Votadini were under pressure by the mid-fifth century, less than half a century after the Roman withdrawal. Further west, a tribe called the Damnonii formed themselves into a powerful war-band under a dynasty of tyrants ruling from Dumbarton Rock. It was probably this semi-Romanised, semi-Christianised band that St Patrick described as allies of Scots and renegade Picts, ‘a foreign race which does not know God’.

Those who claimed to be the heirs of the Roman province of Britain were gradually driven back into the mountains and marginal regions of Britain, Cornwall, Wales and southern Scotland. Southern and eastern England was settled in the fifth and sixth centuries by Germanic peoples – Angles, Saxons and Jutes. North of the Antonine Wall were the Picts, still in Patrick’s time a foreign, heathen and renegade race. In the west, Scots from Ireland were raiding and settling; c. 500 a Gaelic dynasty from County Antrim seized power in Argyll. The Scots, the people who were ultimately to give their name to the country, were among the last to settle permanently in Scotland.

Britons, Scots, Picts and Angles – these, according to the historian Bede, were the four races who inhabited the island of Britain; by 500 they had all arrived and in the following centuries were to work out their destinies in competition and cooperation.

Silver tableware from the Traprain Law Hoard. (National Museums of Scotland)

CHAPTER 2

Early Kingdoms and Peoples

THE SCOTS OF THE WEST: A WARRIOR KINGDOM?

In AD 1249, the boy king Alexander III was installed as king of Scots at Scone. The ceremony began in the abbey church, where the king heard mass and was consecrated by the bishop of St Andrews. Then he was led outside to the ‘moot-hill’ of Scone, on which had been set the ancient enthronement stone of the Scots. The earl of Fife led Alexander to the stone and set him upon it; homage was paid to him, and he swore an oath to defend his people and rule justly. Then, the last act of all, a Gaelic seanchaidh stepped forward and proclaimed the new king’s ancestors: ‘Here is Alexander king of Alba, son of Alexander, son of William, son of Henry, son of David, son of Malcolm, son of Duncan, son of Bethoc, daughter of Malcolm, son of Kenneth, son of Malcolm, son of Donald, son of Constantine, son of Kenneth, son of Alpin, son of Eochaid, son of Áed Finn, son of Eochaid, son of Eochaid, son of Domangart, son of Domnall Brecc, son of Eochaid Buide, son of Áedán, son of Gabrán, son of Domangart, son of Fergus Mór, son of Erc.’ The seanchaidh did not stop there; he could go back many generations to Goidel or Gaythelos, founder of the Gael, husband of Scota, daughter of Pharaoh king of Egypt.1

Of course, the pedigree has no historical validity for most of its length, and the tacking on of biblical figures is an obvious fabrication for a race that had only been converted to Christianity during the fifth century. But it shows the tremendous pride in ancestry which was a hallmark of early Gaelic kingship.

The Dál Riata

Fergus Mór is said to have been the first of the people of the Dál Riata to have held sway in part of Britain, and to have died in Britain c. 501. The Dál Riata were a small Irish tribe inhabiting the coastal regions of County Antrim, within sight of Islay and Kintyre. Gael had probably been settling in these areas for some time before AD 500, and there were probably Gaelic settlements elsewhere in south-west Scotland as well.

The reasons for Gaelic settlement in Kintyre and surrounds are not difficult to find. The fifth century witnessed the rise in Ireland of a powerful new dynasty, the Uí Néill. Their expansion must have put great pressure on existing northern kin-groups. One of these, the Dál Riata, sought their fortunes in Scotland.

Sources

Historical sources for the late fifth and early sixth centuries are sparse and unreliable, and all dates must be treated as to some extent approximate.2 Annals were not at first kept contemporaneously, but were entered retrospectively in the margins of Easter tables in monasteries. The Dál Riata are the subject of a group of annal entries which contain information about Picts, Britons and Angles as well, but their main concentration is on the Scots. They contain information about kings, their battles and followers, and also about the monastery of Iona, which was almost certainly the place of compilation. So there was an Iona Chronicle, a contemporary document in the seventh century and remaining so until the middle of the eighth.

We are also fortunate in possessing for the Dál Riata a genealogical tract and military survey called Senchus Fer nAlban, ‘Lore of the Men of Scotland’. This falls into two parts, the first a genealogy of the descendants of Fergus Mór in Scotland, the second a survey of the ‘houses’ of the Dál Riata and their assessment for military purposes. The Dál Riata were divided into three tribes, called after Gabrán, grandson of Fergus Mór, and after Loarn and Oengus, supposedly brothers of Fergus. The Senchus states that the tribe of Oengus occupied Islay, and by inference the tribe of Loarn occupied Lorn and adjacent islands (Kerrera, Lismore, Mull, Coll and Tiree), and the mainland areas of Morvern and Ardnamurchan. The tribe of Gabrán, by elimination, occupied Kintyre and Knapdale.

Each tribe is divided into houses, which were units of exploitation based on the cultivation requirements of a single extended family. Usually these are grouped in multiples of five (5s, 10s, 20s, 30s, etc.). An idea of the size of the Gaelic ‘house’ is provided by the historian Bede, who states that the island of Iona was not large, being about five households. Each group of houses was required to provide a certain number of armed men for mobilisation in time of war, plus two galleys per twenty houses in a sea expedition. The Senchus shows a society of systematic aristocratic exploitation geared for war, with groups of peasant households under the sway of aristocrats, paying them tribute so that they and their sons, retainers and foster-sons could go on plundering raids and military campaigns.

At the head of these aristocrats were the leaders of their kin – the principal families of the Dál Riata. Within these families succession did not normally pass from father to son, but usually by alternation between brothers and cousins or other aristocrats within a certain degree of kinship with the king, so that the chosen king was always an adult male. Thus Domangart, son of Fergus Mór, was succeeded by his two sons in turn, Comgall and Gabrán, Gabrán was succeeded by Comgall’s son Conall, and he by Gabrán’s son Áedán; thereafter the succession was vested in the descendants of Áedán, sometimes by alternation among descendants of his different sons, sometimes by succession of brothers, until with the rise of the tribe of Loarn in the late seventh century members of that kin-group enter a system of alternation with the tribe of Gabrán. It may sound orderly, but the system legitimised the ambitions of any aristocrat within a certain degree of kinship, and made at times for internal disputes, bloodshed and survival of the fittest. The result was that kings were ambitious, tough and militaristic; but damaging internal disputes could weaken the kingdom. Military failure usually resulted in death, overthrow, exile, or forcible retirement into a monastery.

The Inauguration of King Alexander III, 1249, from a fifteenth-century manuscript. A seanchaidh kneels before the boy king and proclaims his genealogy in Gaelic. (The Master and Fellows of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.)

Dunadd: Inauguration stone on the summit, showing carved footprint. (Historic Scotland)

The best-known monk-aristocrat from this society is St Columba. His Life was written by Adomnán abbot of Iona (d. 704). The Life has much important evidence about secular politics of the period 563–97 and later; for although Columba is portrayed throughout as a devout and conscientious churchman, he also appears as an important councillor of king Áedán son of Gabrán, in contact with neighbouring aristocrats and the kings of the Picts and Britons. Much of what Adomnán says can be accepted as historically accurate.

The Early Kings of the Dál Riata

The earliest kings of the Dál Riata are no more than names. Conall son of Comgall (c. 560–74) is the first king to be more than this. When Columba sailed to mainland Britain in 563, he was welcomed by Conall, accommodated for a time at his court (perhaps at Dunadd), and given by him the island of Iona for the site of his monastery. One military exploit is credited to Conall, a campaign in the Hebrides in company with the king of the southern Uí Néill of Meath, in 568.

His death c. 574 was followed by a disputed succession. There was a battle in Kintyre c. 574, in which Conall’s son Donnchad and ‘many allies of the sons of Gabrán’ were killed. The successful competitor was Áedán son of Gabrán, who may earlier have carved out for himself a lordship on the upper Forth. His first move as king was to associate himself with Columba and the legitimacy of Christian inauguration. But Adomnán implies that Columba was at first reluctant to inaugurate Áedán, preferring his brother:

He saw one night, in a mental trance, an angel of the Lord who had been sent to him, having in his hand a book of glass of the ordination of kings. And when the saint had received it from the hand of the angel, at the angel’s command he began to read. But when he refused to ordain Áedán as king, as it was commanded in the book, because he had more love for his brother Eoganán, the angel quickly stretched out his hand and struck the saint with a scourge. . . . ‘Know surely that I am sent to you from God with the book of glass so that, as you have read in it, you will ordain Áedán as king. If you refuse to obey this command, I will strike you again.’ . . . The saint submitted to the Lord’s word. He sailed to the island of Iona, and there, as he had been bidden, he ordained Áedán as king, who arrived about the same time. . . . And laying his hand upon Áedán’s head he ordained and blessed him.3

This is the first recorded example of a Gaelic king being inaugurated with Christian rituals, and it may have gone some way towards legitimising Áedán’s position.

Áedán son of Gabrán

Áedán is the best documented, and probably the most successful, of the kings of the Dál Riata. A later source states that ‘Áedán son of Gabrán seized Alba by force’. The annals attribute a number of battles to him, most of them victories. In about 580, he mounted an expedition to the Orkneys. About two years later, he fought a campaign against Mano, probably a territory around the headwaters of the Firth of Forth. Adomnán mentions a battle against the Miathi, probably the same campaign, which Áedán won with heavy losses. Áedán won another victory at the Battle of Lethreid (unidentified, possibly in Strathclyde) c. 590. One of his rare setbacks was a battle in Mearns, c. 598. His last great battle was fought against the Angles of Northumbria and their king Æthelfrith in 602 or 603 at an unidentified place called Degsastan; English and Scottish accounts of this battle differ, with both sides claiming victory with heavy losses on both sides. As well as his campaigns against Picts, Britons and Angles, Áedán also was active in Ireland. At some point in his reign, counselled by St Columba, he met the king of the northern Uí Néill at a rígdál or ‘assembly of kings’ to discuss the relationship of the Dál Riata in Ireland and Scotland with the kings of the northern Uí Néill.

Áedán’s Successors

When Áedán died c. 608 he was succeeded (as prophesied by Columba) by his son Eochaid Buide, who was also called king of the Picts. During his reign there is no sequence of successful campaigns to match his father’s. He seems to have allowed some of his authority over the Dál Riata, probably in Ireland, to devolve on his son Connad Cerr, who was killed along with other grandsons of Áedán in battle in Ireland in 629.

Eochaid’s son and successor Domnall Brecc fought a series of battles; but with a single exception at the beginning of his reign, he was always on the losing side. In 642 he was defeated and killed in the Battle of Strathcarron (near Falkirk) by Ywain king of Strathclyde. The defeats and death of Domnall Brecc reversed the successes of his grandfather Áedán; commenting on these disasters, an abbot of Iona remarked c. 660: ‘since that time [the Dál Riata] have been held down by foreigners; which causes the heart to sigh with grief’.4

Sources for the subsequent period are much more sparse. For nearly half a century after the death of Domnall Brecc, the kingship of the Dál Riata continued with the tribe of Gabrán, while at the same time the power of the tribe of Loarn seems to have been increasing. In c. 678 the tribe of Loarn under their leader Ferchar Fota (‘the tall’) was defeated by the Britons of Strathclyde; but this is perhaps symptomatic of their rise, for Ferchar Fota figures prominently in the annals thereafter. He was recognised as king of the Dál Riata by the time of his death c. 697. Thereafter three of his sons held the kingship. Selbach (c. 701–23 and 727–30) was perhaps the most successful of these; he fought several battles against the Britons of Strathclyde, and at one point intended to end his life in monastic retirement. But he was faced by internal disputes as well, both from the tribe of Gabrán and within his own tribe of Loarn. In spite of his proposed retirement, he is found fighting at the head of a war-band again in 727, and may have returned to power before his death in 730.

The Dál Riata also faced external threats. The second quarter of the eighth century is dominated by the towering figure of Onuist son of Uurguist, king of the Picts. In 736 Onuist invaded the lands of the Dál Riata, took Dunadd, and ‘bound with chains two sons of Selbach’; an attempt by his nephew Muredach to assert his position was defeated soon after. The tribe of Loarn was virtually wiped out, and the Picts ruled supreme in Dalriadic territory.

Some interpretations of the subsequent period suggest that the Dál Riata were in a state of subjection to the Picts from this time until the rise of Kenneth son of Alpin a century later. But these do not account for the poorly documented but significant reign of Áed Finn son of Eochaid (c. 748–78). He appears to have been of the tribe of Gabrán, reviving the fortunes of that house after the dominance of the tribe of Loarn. Unfortunately, of his actions we know little. By 768 he fought a battle against the Picts; the result is unknown, but apparently Áed was the aggressor. Late writers imply that there was a series of campaigns between Áed Finn and the Picts.5 He died c. 778 and was succeeded by his brother Fergus son of Eochaid; such a succession implies the restoration of the old system of succession among the tribe of Gabrán.

After the death of his successor Domnall c. 805, there is a series of short reigns and confused succession for much of the first half of the ninth century. The fortunes of the Gael of the west, temporarily revived by Áed Finn, were once again imperilled. Not until the rise of Kenneth son of Alpin in the 840s were these fortunes revived.

THE PICTS: A DARK AGE ENIGMA, AD 500–800

The Picts seem now to have been wiped out, and their language so wholly destroyed, that now it seems a fable when mention of them is made in the writings of the ancients. And to whom will it not suggest the love of heavenly things and the dread of earthly things, when he considers that not only their kings and princes and people have perished, but even their whole stock, their language and the recollection of them have failed altogether? And if the rest were no wonder, yet it seems marvellous concerning the language, which from the beginning of languages God established as one among the rest.6

Thus commented a twelfth-century English historian on the obliteration of Pictish as a spoken language; it had disappeared completely before he wrote.

Who Were the Picts?

The Picts have always been regarded as a mysterious and enigmatic people. There are no extant Pictish chronicles, poems or religious manuscripts such as the other ancient peoples of Britain have left, no lives of Pictish saints or verses about Pictish heroes. All that survives, glorified under the title of the Pictish Chronicle, is an origin-story and king list with names of kings and their patronymics and reign-lengths. This list survives in two main versions, one of which has spellings of names showing Gaelic influence, but the other showing many strange forms which must reflect the Pictish language.7

The Picts are mentioned in other sources, and so are not a complete blank to us. The Irish annals have many references to Picts, particularly in the period 670–740. Adomnán’s Life of Columba, written c. 700, has much information about Columba’s dealings with the Picts, and incidentally their relations with the Dál Riata. Bede in his Ecclesiastical History, composed c. 730, names the Picts as one of the four peoples occupying Great Britain, and has some information about their conversion to Christianity, with occasional glimpses of political structure and customs.8

These sources locate the Picts as a people in Scotland, living north of the Antonine Wall in the east and north. Non-literary evidence, such as archaeological finds and place-names, fills out this picture. In archaeological terms, we can plot the distribution of brochs, souterrains and vitrified forts; we can look at the spread of other certainly Pictish archaeological sites; and most significantly, we can look at the pattern of Pictish symbol stones, by far the most important and considerable remains of the Picts. These stones are of different sizes and styles and are fashioned by different techniques, but have in common that they bear unique symbolism found in Pictland and nowhere else. This is partly apparently abstract, as in such symbols as the crescent and V-rod and double-disc; partly representative of identifiable objects, like the mirror and comb; and partly zoomorphic, as in the fine representations of horses, bulls, birds, fish, stags and serpents, but also of mythical beasts and monsters. The area of distribution of the stones helps us to define the area of Pictland.

Likewise, in place-names we have an element which is unique to a certain area of central, eastern and north-east Scotland. In these areas are found places which incorporate the word pett, now Pit-, as in Pitlochry, Pittenweem, etc., which seems to mean a settlement or township.9

It has been suggested that some Pictish social or governmental institutions survived into a later period. In later centuries there are references to an official called the thane, and his jurisdiction over a thanage. Almost all thanages are found in an area which corresponds to the distribution of uniquely Pictish archaeological and place-name elements. Likewise the oldest Scottish earldoms are also mostly found in the east and north. So a case can be made for earldoms and thanages being in origin Pictish institutions. Eleventh-century documents from north-east Scotland mention local office-holders called mormaer (‘great steward’) and toisech (‘leader’), and there is a temptation to connect earls and thanes with these.10

Pictish Symbol Stones

We have seen that the word ‘Pict’ first appears in AD 297, when it was used to distinguish the people of northern Britain from the British tribes within the Roman province and from the Irish. Subsequently, it was used to mean all northern tribes beyond the Roman frontier. The name appears to mean ‘painted people’, ‘pictured ones’, a description which almost certainly refers to the well-recorded practice of tattooing among the peoples of Britain; Isidore of Seville, c. AD 600, states that the Picts are so-called because their bodies bear designs made by subcutaneous pricking with needles. The Picts seem to have called themselves by the Celtic name Priteni.

Place names containing ‘pit’. (W.F.H. Nicolaisen; by permission of the Trustees of the Historical Atlas of Scotland)

Thanages. (Richard Muir; by permission of the Trustees of the Historical Atlas of Scotland)

Could the tattoos with which they adorned their bodies be the same images as they carved on their stones? There is no universal agreement on this point. It has been argued that the earlier symbol-stones occur with greater frequency than coincidence would allow in or near later burial grounds, and are likely to be funerary monuments. Other suggestions are that the stones are boundary markers or proclamations of marriages or alliances.11

It is clear that the symbols represent a system of statements intelligible to the society which caused the monuments to be set up; but the symbolism is no longer intelligible to us. The stones themselves fall into three classes which represent a chronological sequence. The earliest, or Class I, stones are rough-hewn boulders or undressed slabs with a few symbols incised on one face. A development from this is the second phase, Class II, which consists of shaped and dressed stones with carving in relief: usually a Christian cross on one side and symbols, or a mixture of symbols and scenes from life, on the other. The latest group, Class III, consists of stones with a cross on one face and naturalistic carving on the other, but none of the characteristic symbols; it is usually assumed that these come after the Pictish period, and it may be doubted whether it is correct to call them ‘Pictish’ at all.12

The symbols hardly ever appear singly, but usually in groups of two, three, or (more rarely) more. The pairings and groupings appear to have some significance; for example, it is rare to find more than one zoomorphic figure on a stone. Some symbols appear very frequently, such as the ‘crescent and V-rod’, others seldom or once only. There is sometimes superimposition; the crescent symbol sometimes appears alone, but much more frequently with a V-rod superimposed; likewise the double disc with connecting bar (‘Pictish spectacles’) often appears with a superimposed Z-rod, and sometimes zoomorphic images have a Z-rod superimposed.

The relative dating of the stones can be reasonably established; but do we have any absolute chronological framework in which to set them? There is an approximate final date limit in the extinction of the Pictish dynasty c. 850, at the hands of Kenneth son of Alpin. Although we should probably not assume that the carving of Pictish symbols stopped abruptly in 850, we may guess that relatively few of the Class II stones date from much later. There are close parallels between the artwork of the best Class II stones and the early free-standing crosses on Iona and elsewhere in Argyll, which probably date from before 807. Class II stones then belong mostly to the eighth century, with the latest continuing into the middle of the ninth century. It has been suggested that the great churchyard stone at Aberlemno, stylistically early among the Class II stones, commemorates the Pictish victory at the Battle of Dunnichen in 685.

Class I stones are also difficult to date. A relative date is provided by the Class II stones; if it is accepted that these run from the late seventh to the mid-ninth century, then the bulk of Class I stones must be earlier. There are almost no symbol stones in Argyll, so presumably at the time when the Dál Riata settled, c. 500, the Picts had not yet begun the practice of setting up symbol stones.

The bulk of Class I stones are found in the north, around the Moray Firth and in the Great Glen, and in the valleys of the Spey, Don and Urie. By contrast, the bulk of Class II stones are found further south, especially in Angus and Mearns and the valleys of the Tay and Earn. Bridei son of Mailcon was a powerful Pictish king north of the Mounth, with an important royal centre near the River Ness; his reign should probably be placed c. 556–86. Later, the sources lay greater stress on the kingship of Fortrenn, i.e. Strathearn and Gowrie. So there may be grounds for thinking that the Class I stones date from a time when Pictish hegemony was held by northern kings. The main centres of Pictish power and patronage may have shifted south to a kingship based in Fortrenn, giving rise to the great bulk of the Class II stones in Strathearn, Gowrie and Angus, probably datable to between the end of the seventh and the middle of the ninth centuries.13

A very small number of stones has inscriptions as well as symbols. These are mostly in Irish ogams, a script produced by setting marks at diagonal or right angles to a central line and assigning letter values to different groups of marks. Sadly, the ogams can be transliterated to make phonetic sense, but are not easily intelligible. Personal names appear on some of the inscriptions, and some Gaelic loan-words. It used to be suggested that the Celtic Picts took over a non-Indo-European language from an earlier people and continued its use for ritual purposes; but it is more likely that the inscriptions are difficult to read because of scribal mistakes and weathering. The hypothesis of a non-Celtic Pictish language is based on slender evidence and is no longer widely accepted.14

Matrilineal Succession?

One odd feature which has been attributed to Pictish society was the custom of matrilineal succession. The evidence for this is not nearly so conclusive as was once believed. Bede, writing c. 730, knew of a strange custom of succession to the Pictish kingship through female descent and lineage, but he stated that this was practised ‘when the matter comes into doubt’, and he quotes an origin-legend to explain it. This stated that when the Picts came to Ireland first they had no women of their own, so they asked the Irish to give them wives, and the Irish agreed, on condition that they settle in Scotland and always choose their kings through the female line. A Gaelic poem of the eleventh century, recording the same origin-legend, states that the Picts were sworn always to choose their kings through female lineage.15

The Pictish king list is the only historical document that the Picts have left us about themselves. From Bridei son of Mailcon to Bridei, predecessor of Kenneth son of Alpin, it contains the names of thirty kings, covering nearly three centuries. Of these thirty kings only two, and none before the ninth century, can be even arguably the son of a person who had previously been king. But if paternity was not apparently a determining factor, other relationships were important. Six of the kings succeeded a brother. A number of fathers of kings can be demonstrated to have come from outside Pictland; some fathers of Pictish kings are certainly or probably identifiable as outsiders, and others have names which do not appear to be Pictish. Could there have been an element of exogamy in Pictish royal lineage? At least 20 per cent of the kings appear to have had non-Pictish fathers. The question must remain open, for there is not really enough evidence for certainty.

Pictish Class I Stones. Top left: Aberlemno roadside stone, Angus. (Historic Scotland). Top right: Easterton of Roseisle, Moray. (Historic Scotland). Bottom: Birsay, Orkney, showing a group of Pictish warriors.

Pictish Class II Stone: Maiden Stone, Chapel of Garioch, Aberdeenshire. (Historic Scotland)

Pictish Class III Stone: Meigle, Angus. Daniel in the Lions’ Den is at the centre. (Historic Scotland)

Pictish Class I stones. (Isabel Henderson; by permission of the Trustees of the Historical Atlas of Scotland)

Pictish Class II stones. (Isabel Henderson; by permission of the Trustees of the Historical Atlas of Scotland)

THE PICTISH KING LIST

King

Probable Dates

Galam Cennalaph 1 yr, and with Bridei for 1 yr

578–80

Bridei son of Mailcon, 30 yrs

554–84

Gartnait son of Domelch, 11 yrs

585–97

Necton grandson of Uerb, 20 yrs

597–620

Ciniod son of Lutrin, 19 yrs

612–31

Gartnait son of Uid, 4 yrs

631–5

Bridei son of Uid, 5 yrs

635–41

Talorc his brother, 12 yrs

641–53

Talorc son of Enfret, 4 yrs

653–7

Gartnait son of Donuel, 6½ yrs

657–64

Drest his brother, 7 yrs

664–71

Bridei son of Bili, 21 yrs

671–92

Taran son of Enfidich, 4 yrs

692–6

Bridei son of Deilei, 11 yrs

696–706

Necton son of Derilei, 15 yrs

706–21,

728–9

Drest and Elpin together, 5 yrs

721–8

Onuist son of Uurguist, 30 yrs

729–61

Bridei son of Uurguist, 2 yrs

761–3

Ciniod son of Uuredech, 12 yrs

763–75

Elpin son of Uuroid, 3½ yrs

776–80

Drest son of Talorgen, 4 or 5 yrs

780–5/6