A Selective History of Scotland

Blackadder · A Selective History of Scotland

Okay, the first episode just finished ...

What did you all think?

Let me sum up my thoughts in one word ...... appalling!!!

I'll elucidate somewhat after I've calmed down! Evil or Very Mad

Jimbo

Hi BA,

I didn't watch it right through. I got as far as Aed, son of Kenneth and switched over.

I was disappointed that it started with the Romans. The battle of Mons Graupius then a quick flight to Hadrian's Wall. No mention of the Stone Age, Iron Age, Bronze Age, Skara Brae, brochs, stone circles, Ogham, The Atecotti, how and when the Celts arrived here. They omitted a large portion of our history that would have been of great interest. Maybe they want to keep it secret.

The impression was also given that Columba brought Christianity to Scotland. No mention of Ninian. No mention of Kentigern who was operating independently in Strathclyde at the same time (as Columba).

Oliver claimed that it was Columba who was responsible for getting fifty kings to agree to laws being introduced for the care of women and children. It was always my understanding that these rules already existed in the Celtic world pre-Roman times.

I could ramble on, but to what purpose?

In fairness to Oliver, who condensed 900 years into the forty minutes I watched, the agenda may have been set to comply with the BBC budget.

Aventinian

Blackadder

For starters, Oliver could have done with a few lessons in presentation skills. I can't stand lecturers who can't talk and keep you interested. Oliver's variation in his vocal skills lacked the ability to hold an audience. Probably because of the subject matter. more viewers stuck with it,. but otherwise, I think this programme will haemmorhage viewers by the week, partly because of the presenter.

Then we get to the subject matter. The History of Scotland. Oh yeah ... let's just start after the arrival of Fergus Mor mac Erca and talk about an already established kingdom. Whate went before? Pfft, give it ten minutes and then consign it all to the histyory books! I was INCENSED!!! For the history of our country, there could have been at least ONE entire episode (55mins) on the state of our country, before the Romans arrived.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get the idea that it's about the Scots coming from Ireland ... but the state of the country leading up to that fateful time ... is in itself a fascinating study. It's not like they arrived in a vacuum!!! The political strife above the wall of Hadrian was every bit as interesting as that in the patchwork of emerging kingdoms after the Romans departed. There's nothing about the theory that the Scots were invited, by Cunedda, to settle and extend the land they were in to a buffer state between the "civilised" Strathclyde and the Picts of the North.

There was not a single mention of the Arthurian Matter of Britain, in which the Men of the North (Gwyll y Gogledd) played an enormously significant role ... there has been a lot of research in the last 100 years on this 5th & 6th century period ... but no, Oliver (and by extension the Beeb) was not interested.

We got a long section on Aed and then Constantine II. Nothing really about any others preceding. So, did anyone notice how the tale of Aed and his two sons, mirrored that of Vortigern, Ambrosius and Uther ... even up to the burning of the enemy's stronghold???

Sorry, I have to finish there cos of a doctor appt ... but I'll return to this later!

Dave Coull

Dave Coull

Dave Coull

My wife has just been reading this topic here on Our Scotland, and she says the presenter of that television programme is called Neil Oliver, not Neil Munro. While this may seem like a minor detail to some of us, it is probably quite important to the person most directly concerned. Besides, he, and the BBC, might take the stuffy attitude "Why should we have to accept any criticism of historical inaccuracy from folk who can't even remember a name they were told last night correctly?"

So we have to consider the possibility that my wife could be right about this.

Blackadder

Your wife is completely right ...

Don't know what the hell I was thinking!!!

My bad!!! Embarassed

I'll be back on this subject later!!!

Runaway Weegie

Neil Munro was the author of Para Handy.

Neil Oliver isn't a historian, he qualified as an archaeologist before getting into journalism. Unfortunately I've not seen the programme yet, but I wonder just how much of the script he wrote. Probably not much of it. So it's perhaps a bit unfair to lay all the shortcomings of the programme on his shoulders.

I think one reason for the lack of discussion of the Scottish neolithic and Iron Age in the programme was that these periods are not technically a part of Scottish history, they belong to pre-history. History in the strict sense is the study of the past from contemporary documents. There are no historical documents referring to Scotland which date to before the Roman period, so as far as a historian is concerned, Scottish history starts in Roman times. The study of pre-Roman Scotland is the field of archaeologists and the like.

When there are budget and time constraints, and 900 years of the past has to be shoe-horned into 40 minutes, the first things a historian is cut out is everything which belongs to someone else's academic discipline.

Jimbo

Blackadder

Please note I have amended the title to Mr Oliver's name, as a nice, kind member of the forum PM'd me who knew how to do it.

There was no need for a certain individual to open up another thread, in a thinly veiled attempt to make an attack on me!!! Evil or Very Mad

schawaldowris

Whilst I agree with the general consensus of the previous posts may I be permitted to make some general observations.

In the first instance, it is less than accurate, to state it is "Neil Olivers History of Scotland". The person in question is certainly the presenter of the programme but the content was agreed by a committee of eminent Scottish historians under the chairmanship of Prof.Tom Devine.

Indeed there was a hour programme some months ago showing Prof.Devine and his collegues debating on what should be included in the series.

Prior to the making of the programme the BBC invited members of the public to submit their suggestions on what the "History" should include. They also asked that all suggestions should be accompanied by the reasons behind each suggestion!

I have no doubt many individuals interested in the story of Scotland contributed, myself included.

In conclusion I am in complete agreement with Jimbo. There was no mention of St Ninian, who according to Bede was undoubtably the first historically recognised "bishop" of the country later to be called Scotland.
The records indicate his missions were responsible for establishing the Christian religion thoughout Lowland Scotland and certainly in the kingdom of the Picts, at least 150 years before St Columba. Yet Neil Oliver stated "The Picts had remained resolutely pagan! If that is the case why did St Patrick in his letter to Coroticus call the Picts apostate. This can only mean that in the opinion of Patrick the Picts had already been christianised but had possibly been guilty of backsliding. There is further evidence on the conversion of the Picts prior to the arrival of St Columba.

I can not understand that despite the evidence to the contrary the media and others persist in the erroneous assertion that St Columba was the premier missionary to "Scotland"

One must ask, why there are more places in Scotland named after St Ninian than St Coumba?

Dave Coull

Dave Coull

Jimbo

Dave Coull

Blackadder

Runaway Weegie

It's not implausible that Calgacus said the immortal phrase. The ancient Celts were famed for their skill at rhetoric. Would Tacitus have invented such an anti-Roman comment? Well yeah, because Tacitus was skilled at rhetoric too, and he doesn't actually say he's quoting Calgacus verbatim. I'd like to think Calgacus said it, but the evidence is inconclusive. I think we have to admit that at best Tacitus gives us a fairly liberal interpretation of what Calgacus said.

It doesn't really matter whether Calgacus spoke Latin. Interpreting was work for slaves and servants. Slaves rarely rate a mention in historical documents. A Roman would take the words as Calgacus' own, even if they had actually issued from the mouth of a slave interpreter.

On other other hand Calgacus came from a culture which prized verbal skill, and one way to display that was by acquiring languages. Ancient Celtic and Latin were not so very different, it would not have been difficult for a Celtic speaker to acquire good Latin, especially if he started learning young. A person of high status like Calgacus would certainly have had the opportunity. A knowledge of Latin would have spread along trade routes, well ahead of the advance of the Roman armies.

Calgacus could have been fluent in Latin, or ignorant of even a single Latin word. Either scenario is equally plausible, but the evidence is still inconclusive. It's one of the most frustrating things about ancient history and prehistory, so often questions must remain unanswered. But that wouldn't make for good TV.

By the way, one derivation of the name Calgacus is from proto-Celtic *kalgakos meaning "has a big wullie". I bet you Neil Oliver never mentioned that either.

Blackadder

Apparently several historians distanced themselves from this programme and labelled it "unwise". Did they see it, as some posters would have it ... a piece of propaganda for a Union, under pressure from Scots turning to the SNP?? I would give a fortune to find out!

The trouble with any history programme on TV these days, is that they are full of "modern ideas" and revisionism while a PC doctrine ensues throught the media, politics and academia.

I don't think we were ever going to get a balanced programme. Whether the opinions given on air were the front-man's or of a panel of "distinguished historians" ... they were going to polarise somebody somewhere! To say they were going to sort out what was myth and what was history ... was a breathtaking claim indeed. Who were the judges? What were their qualifications?

I know it was only the first episode ... but I have to say ... I am NOT looking forward to the next ... even though I'll watch it. If I change my mind, I'll be honest and say so ... but I'm not holding much hope!!!

Blackadder

Squeegee ... regarding your ... "one derivation of the name Calgacus is from proto-Celtic *kalgakos meaning "has a big wullie". I bet you Neil Oliver never mentioned that either."

He certainly did not!!! But then, apart from his story of Constantine, he never mentioned much of anything else!!! Evil or Very Mad

Dave Coull

Dave Coull

Jimbo

One or two posters have pointed out that technically, history is the stuff that has been written down, which in Scotland basically started with Tacitus. That's all good and well, and I understand their point of view, but having said that, quite a lot after Tacitus was ignored, but time was taken to visit an archaeological site where they had rebuilt a crannog.

If they intended to stick to written history, that time could have been given to Ninian or to the contribution the kingdom of Strathclyde (many people are unaware it existed) made to the formation of the part of North Britain which would one day be called Scotland.

If they were going to deviate from written history, was a crannog considered to have more status than Skara Brae, Maes Howe or brochs? I wondered if perhaps the crannog was possibly a pet project of some-one who helped set the programme's agenda.

If the comments of Professor Allan Macinnes of Strathclyde University, who resigned from the programme's advisory board, saying it was flawed and "Anglocentric" are anything to go by, it doesn't auger well for those who take their history seriously.

Dave Coull

Dave Coull

Dave Coull

Dave Coull

Dave Coull

Although this programme made claims to "explode some myths", there was one thing that Neil Oliver said that I found a bit old-fashioned, and a bit questionable, that nobody has so far commented on.

In this programme, Neil Oliver stated as a fact "The Scots came from Ireland".

Well, if you believe some of the old stories, that's so. However, if you believe some of the old stories, we are all descended from the daughter of an Egyptian Pharoah.

On the other hand, there has been considerable archaeological evidence found over the past fifteen years or so that casts doubt on the old stories.

The BBC's own Education web site, http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/edu...m/scots/teachers/background.shtml , intended to help teachers teach, has a section on "History and Background to Scots and Picts" in which it says "The Scotti have until recently been thought to come from Ireland and settled in the lands around Dunadd in Argyllshire. NEW EVIDENCE MAKES US QUESTION THIS IDEA, but as the coast of Northern Ireland is so close to Scotland’s west coast there must have been frequent travelling between the two islands."

In those days, travelling by sea was far easier than travelling by land. On land, practically everywhere that wasn't a mountainous obstacle was a bog that you would get bogged down in. And of course, roads were non-existent. So it was much easier to cross sixteen miles of water than it was to cross Scotland. But "frequent travelling" means a two way traffic. It does NOT prove "the Scots came from Ireland". On the available evidence you could, with as much (or as little) justification, say "The Irish came from Scotland".

Blackadder

From the pages of The Scotsman this morning ...

By Stephen McGinty

A HISTORY of Scotland attracted more than 600,000 viewers on Sunday night, with one in four Scots watching TV switching on to BBC Scotland’s new landmark documentary which explores the past 2,000 years.

Broadcast at 9pm on BBC 1, the documentary, which is presented by Neil Oliver, attracted 170,000 more viewers than normally watch then.

At the time of transmission, it was the most-watched programme in Scotland, with a share of 28 per cent of viewers. The series is part of Scotland’s History, a multi-platform project spanning a raft of radio programmes, audio walks, events and the website bbc.co.uk/ scotlandshistory.

Last night, Maggie Cunningham, joint Head of Programmes at BBC Scotland, said: “We are delighted that A History of Scotland has pulled in such an impressive audience for its first episode. The production team has delivered a terrific series, and we hope the audiences will enjoy the rest of the journey through Scotland’s history.”

And these are the readers comments ...

1 Argyll on line,Strachur 11/11/2008 06:06:17
It has been generally very satisfactory and enjoyable. There has been some new eveidence found on the demise of Pictland and the appearance of Scotland.The new eveidence is in Paris,at least not in London.

2 Hugo of Garven,11/11/2008 07:19:56
I have tried to access the site bbc.co.uk/ scotlandshistory but it cannot be found. Anyone else been successful?

3 Vincent-W,11/11/2008 08:01:29
Hugo of Garven, go in through the BBC homepage - took me about 10 seconds from start to playing Sunday's episode. It's available for another 35 days free from now.

4 itsnomarooned,11/11/2008 08:01:43
#2 - try www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/history

5 Boy Wonder,11/11/2008 09:58:26
Well, let's see if they continue to watch it next week - because I sure won't! Apart from the too intrusive loud music, Mr Oliver's breathless and "edgy" melodramatic presentation which would not have been out of place in a school production of MacBeth, and the omission of 90% of the "history", this programme, deserted in droves by other historians who deemed it "unwise", was nothing more than a Unionist's wet dream!
It was absolute rubbish from start to finish and I think it will lose viewers as it continues!

6 Vincent-W,11/11/2008 10:49:19
Boy Wonder,
Please validate your statement "Unionist's wet dream".
Also I'm aware of one historian who disagrees, could you furnish us with the names of the "droves".
I have to agree with you concerning the loud music and the 'edgy and breathless' delivery - it seems to be the norm these days. I think it's totally unnecessary and actually detracts from the content.

7 sm753,11/11/2008 11:12:39
5
What exactly was wrong with it?
As always, with telly things get compressed. E.g. I think there was no mention of the Roman occupation of southern Scotland, or the Antonine Wall.

Dave Coull

Regarding the forwarded comment from "Boy Wonder" about "too intrusive loud music", I said the same thing myself. But as for "nothing more than a Unionist's wet dream" - did I miss something? There are plenty of legitimate criticisms which could be made of the programme, but what was particularly "Unionist" about it? Maybe there will be things in FUTURE episodes which make the series look like "a Unionist's wet dream", but could somebody please explain to me what was so "Unionist" about THIS episode?

Jimbo

I wondered about that comment too Dave. Has this guy had access to programmes we have yet to see - or does he just have an anti- unionist fixation that materialises in everything that occurs in his everyday life?

There were no doubt many things that people could have said about this programme, IMO unionist propaganda was certainly not one of them.

There has been a lot of criticism about this programme which has detracted from the plus side. I have to say that the camera work when it came to the scenery was superb and a great advert for Scotland/tourism.

Blackadder

Have to agree with you on the photography, Jimbonecomb. Superb ... but then again ... I think you'd have to be a real buffoon to spoil the stills or motion camera-work of our beautiful, rugged countryside and the North.

I wondered too about "Boy Wonder"'s comments ... Maybe he knows something the rest of us don't??

I do know he/she (?) posts regularly on The Scotsman.

schawaldowris

If a nations history starts with the written word, then in Scotland's case this usually means the Tacitus account of Agricola. For centuries the Tacitus presentation has been slavishly accepted by the majority of historians. It has to be said that Neil Oliver is no exception. Yet just how accurate is this history?

It is well known that Gaius Cornelius Tacitus was the son in law of Agricola, consequently his "history" had clearly a political agenda. In respect of the Battle of Mons Graupius we are assured the army of the Caledonians amounted to 30,000 fighting men. At the end of the conflict, according to Tacitus, the Caledonians suffered 10,000 losses to the Romans meagre 360. Yet prior to the battle the Caledonians had surprised the Legio IX Hispana in a night attack. Even Tacitus admits it was a very severe assult and the Caledonians were only repulsed after Tacitus sent reinforcements. Are we to believe the Legio IX did not suffer any casualties? Tacitus assures us the Caledonians were soundly defeated and after Mons Graupius had disappeared into the tracklesss wastes. Archeology would advise otherwise!

After the battle, Agricola constructed a line of forts along the highland line. No doubt a defensive measure to contain a conquered people! One of these forts was to be a legionary base, apparantly for Legio XX Valeria Victrix, previously based at Chester (Deva). The fort was built at Inchtuthill and the evidence suggests construction started circa 83 AD but was abandoned about 86 AD. So if the Caledonians had been completely defeated, why was this fort deserted after only three years?

It has been suggested it was due to the fact Legio II Adiutrix, had been sent to reinforce the Danube line prompting a reorganisation of Britannia's defences. This sounds reasonable until one looks at legionary disposition throughout the western empire. In North Africa and Spain there was one legion each. There was no legion actually based in Gaul. Most of the others were based along the line of the Danube. With four legions there can be little doubt Britannia was overmanned.

At Inchtuthil, archeologists discovered an enormous horde of hand made iron nails. They had been buried in a pit, obviously to prevent the valuable iron falling into the hands of the Caledonians. it is obvious the last cohort of Legionaires left in a hurry, for the transportation of over 7 tons of iron would have considerably slowed the "strategic withdrawal". Yet why bother to conceal the nails, after all according to Tacitus, the Caledonians were a defeated race and had vanished into the trackless wastes!

So this is a brief account of Mons Graupius and its aftermath. With regret there is no other contemporary account of the events to compare with the Tacitus story.

It has to be asked however, if Osama bin Ladens son in law wrote an account of his relatives justification on the 9/11 attack, how much credence would be given by western observers?

agentmancuso

I watched the first episode on Catch-Up TV last night. On the whole it was very enjoyable, thought I don't much care for Oliver's manner.

I think that starting from Tacitus was perfectly valid. Not because prehistory isn't "really directly relevant to the creation of Scotland"- it is very relevant - but because you have to start somewhere and the first written reference is at least a meaningful choice.

There were a couple of other things that struck me as odd. It's absolutely startling to dwell on the wall built by Hadrian and then ignore the wall built by Antonius. The Romans were intermittently kicking around the lands between the walls for hundreds of years, whereas as Oliver portrayed them as a purely external power, which is deeply misleading. Oddly enough the biggest objections raised so far on the forum all relate to the same geographical area - Ninian, Mungo, the Matter of Britain, happenings within the British Kingdom of Strathclyde. Perhaps the next programme will focus on this area in greater detail.

Normally, the Irish settlers on the western seaboard are referred to as Scots, rather than Gaels. The programme doggedly followed an historically intelligent line, attempting to avoid the teleology that afflicts popular history - maybe the use of 'Gaels' was related to this. But I see that Mr Coull now informs us that the very arrival of the Scots is disputed. Perhaps the natives of Scotland learned to speak Gaelic by following a correspondence course?

Dwelling on Constantine II to such an extent was unusual, but, I think, correct. The significance attached to the Battle of Brunanburh was new to me, but quite convincing.

The maps? Little fluffy clouds? s***e. But as far as prime-time viewing on the BBC goes, the programme as a whole could have been very much worse.

schawaldowris

Hi Agent

I hate to be pedantic but the Roman wall built circa 139AD between the Clyde and Forth was not actually built by Antoninus Pius! It was constructed by the legions of Quintus Lollius Urbicus, the Governor of Britannia. It is believed Antoninus actually ordered the construction of the wall and it was named after him, hence the Antonine wall .

Runaway Weegie

Archaeologists nowadays tend to favour immobilist theories of cultural change, but the cultural complexes which archaeologists can identify are not the same thing as languages. In general, archaeologists have a very poor grasp of models of language change. Don't start me on so called cumulative Celticity. It's fine if they restrict themselves to talking about broken crockery. But it's a pile of crock when archaeologists think they can apply it to language. Then there's that whole Celtic denial thang some of them have got going on, but that's another rant entirely.

In order for Gaelic to be spoken in Scotland, some Irish speakers must have brought it to Scotland from Ireland. In that sense, the Scots came from Ireland. Though of course it doesn't mean that Old Irish speakers wiped out or replaced the existing population.

Scottish Gaelic is a direct descendant of a late stage of Old Irish, not Proto-Goidelic, not Archaic Irish, not even Ogam Irish. It's indisputable. There is absolutely nothing in Scottish Gaelic which can only be explained by a linguistic separation from an earlier phase of Irish. You'd expect to see features like this if Scottish Gaelic and Irish evolved in situ out of a common Proto-Goidelic phase as the immobilist theory demands.

If, and it's a big if, some of the Celtic speakers of the West Coast of Scotland participated in the linguistic changes which gave rise to Old Irish, then their dialects were minor and peripheral. If these early Scottish-Goidelic dialects existed, they were replaced later by dialects from Ireland. I don't think it's unreasonable to ignore a controversial theory about the dialectal diversification of proto-Goidelic when you've only got 40 minutes to get through 900 years of history.

Strange but true; the word "Irish" is not attested once in the entire body of Old English literature. It's believed to be a later borrowing from Norse írsk. There are numerous mentions of Ireland and the Irish in Old English chronicles and texts, but the Irish are invariably called Scottas or Scottisc and Ireland is called Scotland. In early mediaeval Latin documents, Scotia usually meant Ireland.

agentmancuso

agentmancuso

Dave Coull

The largest country in the world which is entirely or predominantly English speaking is the USA. We also speak English over here. People regularly travel between the USA and here. The language which we speak here shows distinct signs of Americanisation. Therefore, English must have arrived here from the USA, yes?

Dave Coull

Dave Coull

My son flew to Oakland, California, a few months ago. There was a flight to San Francisco the same day. You know something funny? They both arrived about the same time! On opposite sides of the Bay! Would you believe it???!!!

Mind you, my son did later make a trip across the bay to SF. People make that short crossing, in both directions, all the time.

Runaway Weegie

It only takes a change of rulers for one language to replace another. Sometimes it doesn't even take that much. One language supplanting another is not incompatible with unbroken cultural development in the archaeological record. The old hippies from Time Team would be unlikely to find anything in a Dalriadan dig to tell them the language of the locals had shifted from a type of Brittonic or Pictish to Old Irish. The 'coming of the Scots' was the arrival of an Irish ruling class, it was not a mass migration. The events of the post Roman period brought Dalriada very firmly into the Irish cultural and political orbit. This led to the fairly rapid replacement of the local language by a variety of Old Irish. A language can vanish like snaw aff a dyke in three generations.

Latin, Old English, Old Irish, Old Welsh and Norse sources all agree that modern Scotland was originally inhabited by non-Gaelic speaking people. They also all agree that the Gaelic language was first and foremost associated with Ireland. Some Old Irish sources mention the need for interpreters when Irish saints preached to the Highland population.

Goidelic is characterised by a number of developments which distinguish it from other varieties of Celtic. None of the Celtic names recorded in Scotland in Roman times shows any evidence of specifically Goidelic features, but many do show evidence of specifically Gallo-Brittonic developments. There is no evidence for Goidelic in Scotland before late Roman times. In his major study of Scottish place names, Nicholaisen dates the oldest Goidelic names in Scotland to the 5th or 6th century. Some major linguistic changes took place in Goidelic around this time, no Scottish Goidelic names show evidence that they date to before these sound changes.

In Ireland there is no clear evidence for anything except Goidelic. When Ireland first appears in historic sources, it is entirely Goidelic in language. There is some slight evidence which points to the possible existence of a non-Goidelic language as well, but it is disputed, and capable of alternative explanation. Goidelic gives every indication of being natively Irish and having been widespread across Ireland from an ancient date.

Although Scottish Gaelic is dialectally diverse, there is even greater diversity amongst dialects of Irish. Scottish Gaelic and Manx show features which link them to Ulster Irish. The most distinctive Goidelic dialect is Munster Irish, which combines grammatical conservativism with phonetic and lexical innovations. You can explain modern Scottish Gaelic dialects by deriving them from an earlier form of Ulster Irish. You can't explain Munster Irish by deriving it from an earlier form of Scottish Gaelic.

Independent strands of evidence lead to the same conclusion. Goidelic evolved in Ireland and was brought to Scotland around the 5th century.

It is of couse possible that in a tiny corner of Scotland close to Ireland, the local Celtic dialect shared in the developments which led to Old Irish. But there's no evidence for it. The only reason for positing an earlier Scottish Goidelic is to solve the archaeologists' problem that there was an unbroken cultural sequence in the West of Scotland. However this is only an apparent problem. If archaeologists had a more sophisticated understanding of processes of language contact and replacement they would realise it's not a problem at all.

As for the point about the USA. Yes, it's the largest English speaking country, but no one calls it England. However in the Dark Ages everyone called Ireland Scotia or Scotland. (Well, everyone except the Welsh.) Of course, a part of the USA is called New England. And a part of Scotland was called New Ireland. Athol comes from Old Irish Ath-Fotla, 'New Ireland'.

Blackadder

Jimbo

The Atecotti.

Runaway Weegie

I meant that Old Irish, Old English, Old Welsh, Norse and Latin sources all agree that Scotland was inhabited by non-Goidelic Picts and Britons. They don't clearly tell us there were pre-Celtic peoples in Scotland in late Roman times or the Dark Ages. That's a topic that has been argued about for hundreds of years and we're no closer to a resolution.

It's not inherently implausible though. If pre-Celtic cultures were going to survive anywhere in the British Isles, it would be in the remote Scottish Highlands. Some of the Pictish Ogam inscriptions may not be Celtic, though they do contain Celtic elements.

All peoples have myths about "Old Ones", even when it's certain that no other human grouos previously lived in their territory. The Maori and Hawaiians and other Polynesian people had myths of the Menehune, who were supposedly a short dark people who lived on the Polynesian islands before the arrival of the Polynesians. But there is no archaeological evidence for pre-Polynesian settlement on these islands.

Blackadder

So that lets out the Cthulhu and Yog-Sothoth worshippers then, eh??? Pity ... I always though of the Grampians as the Mountains of Madness!!! Twisted Evil

Runaway Weegie

There's a lot of argument about who the Attacotti were. It used to be believed they were the Irish Aitheach-thúath. This association was based on a document called De Situ Britanniae which purported to be a history of Roman Britain written in Roman times, but in fact is an 18th century forgery. This is the only source which explicitly places the Attacotti in modern Scotland.

The Notitia Dignitatum is a genuine 5th century document which details the administration of the Roman Empire. It tells us there were several units of the Roman Army called Attacotti, which were apparently made up of barbarian mercenaries in the service of Rome. A 4th century funerary inscription of a soldier of a "unit of Attacotti" was discovered in Hungary, where the Notitia Dignitatum tells us that Attacotti units were based.

Attacotti was probably not an ethnic name, despite St Jerome's description of them as gentem Britanicam 'a people of Britain'.

Runaway Weegie

Dave Coull

Blackadder

After the Conquest of 1066, the Normans became the aristoctratic class in England. Their manners and speech did not filter down to the Saxons who became the lower tier nobility and then serfs. Then there was Holy Mother Church, where Latin was still the preffered mode of communication ... possibly up to the point where Henry VIII annexed the religious institutions with some vigour! The common people continued to speak Anglo-Saxon ... or lower Germanic ... interspersed with British words, because there were still Brits mixed in with them. Just prior to the Norman Conquest, the language would already be an admixture of both ... a mongrel tongue if you will!

This is what normally happens with conquerors who dispossess the conquered. Their language is kept to themselves, because it is another weapon against the commons who don't understand it. It is only much later that the "lower orders" language percolatec up to the now bilingual masters ... and finally ... a language if spoken by the masses still ... returns to become the common tongue.

The Young Men's Reformed-Cultists-of-the-Ichor-God-Bel-Shamharoth Association, eh?? Is that your lot then, Squeegee?? I'm signed up to Holy Mary, Mother of God, Our Lady of Perpetual Motion myself!!! Very Happy

Runaway Weegie

By 'the coming of the Scots' I mean the arrival in Scotland of a language which originated in Ireland. High status individuals speaking Old Irish settled in parts of Scotland and as a result of their influence the local population adopted the socially prestigious Old Irish as their vernacular. There are high status individuals and socially prestigious languages even in societies without overtly or formally marked social stratification.

I'm a wee bit miffed that you leap to the assumption that I'm so ill informed that I don't know about the linguistic effects of the Norman Conquest. That's Linguistics for Wee Weans that is. But I'll just harrumph a bit and get over it. I didn't say that all changes in rulers necessarily result in language substitution, but a change in rulers is one common way for a change in language to occur. The point being made was that the substitution of one language by another is not always visible in the archaeological record. In fact, in preliterate societies it's almost never visible in the archaeological record.

If you want an opinion on archaeological cultural complexes, ask an archaeologist. If you want an opinion on the development of Celtic languages, the people to ask are historical linguists who specialise in Celtic languages, and they universally reject the notion of an ancient Scottish Goidelic. So on the basis of having asked the experts, I can dismiss the tentative explanations of archaeologists who are trying to explain things which lie outside their area of expertise. The cultural continuity identified on the West Coast of Scotland by archaeologists does not require a continuity of vernacular language to explain it. Their findings do not challenge the linguistic evidence.

I am not missing your point at all. I'm trying to tell you that the evidence does not support it. Historical linguists can tell an ancient name is Goidelic if it contains certain diagnostic features. There are several dozen relevant early names recorded for Scotland, and you'd expect some of them to display a diagnostic feature that would allow them to be positively identified as Goidelic, but not a single one does. However many of these names do display Gallo-Brittonic diagnostic features, and they are found evenly distributed all over Scotland. The name of the tribe who lived in Argyll, the Epidii, is one of them. There is no big gaping hole in the Scottish onomastic map which could provide a space for an ancient Scottish Goidelic. If such a language existed, it was marginal in the extreme.

However let's suppose that despite the absence of positive evidence (and assuming we explain away the inconveniently P-Celtic name of the Epidii), the Celtic of Argyll evolved into a type of Goidelic and this ancient Goidelic then spread to Ireland. As it did so, regional differences in accent, vocabulary and grammar would have arisen. After developing for a few hundred years, the Goidelic of Ireland emerged as Old Irish.

The Goidelic of Scotland would have continued to develop along its own lines. It would not have shared every single one of the developments which occurred in Ireland, and it would have developed some changes of its own which did not spread to Ireland. If modern Scottish Gaelic was descended from an indigenous Scottish branch of proto-Goidelic, it would show grammatical, lexical or phonological features which could be traced to these early Goidelic dialectal developments. But Scottish Gaelic contains nothing of the sort. Scottish Gaelic is a run of the mill descendant of Old Irish. If there was an ancient Scottish Goidelic, Old Irish totally obliterated it. Your archaeologists still need to explain how Old Irish got to Scotland.

You are free to speculate about the possible existence of an ancient Scottish Goidelic for which there is no positive evidence, but doing so solves no problems and causes conflicts with other evidence. Occam's razor applies to such circumstances.

I wouldn't call the people who brought Gaelic to Scotland Old Irish chancers. I prefer the term 'glamorous Old Irish speaking divas'.

I'm not a member of The Young Men's Reformed-Cultists-of-the-Ichor-God-Bel-Shamharoth Association no. But I always was a fan of Terry Pratchett. I did think about joining the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence though, they have some wickedly bad habits.

Blackadder

I'm of the opinion that "Atacotti" was a name given to units of native auxilliaries to the Roman Legions. Much like native British troops were termed the "Areani".

Don't like Terry Pratchett. Met him and he's an a*se!! I thought it was just me till I found out it's a general opinion.

Dave Coull

Dave Coull

Blackadder

Brief aside ... re: Terry Pratchett. A few moments in a bookshop is not like working on a documentary with him in Borneo for three weeks. His name was mud with the whole film-crew by the end of the period. He is an unpleasant girny old man, fond of getting his own way. I thought the sound-man, Guy S, was going to crown the old b*st*rd at one point! Met that type too often!!! Evil or Very Mad

Okay ... back to the topic ...

schawaldowris

Hi Weegie

I would certainly not claim to be a historical linguist or an individual who specialises in Celtic languages. I am however, interested in your assertion that Goidelic Celtic originated in Ireland. If this is indeed the case, perhaps you could educate me on the reasons why the Galician language of north west Spain contains words which clearly have a strong similarity to Gaelic. Indeed I am led to understand historical linguists believe Galician has P-Celtic origins.

I take it you are not an adherent to the legend of the Sons of Mil?

Runaway Weegie

The statement "It only takes a change of rulers for one language to replace another" (especially in the wider context of the passage it came from) does not imply:

a) All changes of rulers provoke a change of language.
or
b) All changes in language are provoked by a change in rulers.

My statement did not contradict what what I said. Your interpretation is mistaken. But there is no point in continuing to beat this particular argument to death.

Whether or not the late Iron Age inhabitants of Scotland and Ireland formed part of the same archaeological cultural complex is irrelevant to the question of what languages they spoke. I have given a definition of Gaelicisation in linguistic terms, which I maintain is the only valid definition. If there is an alternative definition I'd like to see it. If this 'new theory' is not suggesting that Goidelic developed indigenously in Scotland, then what exactly is being suggested and how is it a new theory? In linguistic terms it looks pretty much like the established theory to me.

It is highly unlikely that the population of the west of Scotland adopted Gaelic because of the influence of a couple of Pictish princes who had gone to Ireland and acquired Old Irish. Even were this to be the case, the language these Pictish princes brought back with them was Irish, so Gaelic in Scotland still originated in Ireland. In any event, by the time of Giric in the 9th century, Old Irish had already been established in what is now Scotland for several centuries. It was already spoken in much of Pictland by this date and was very firmly established in the south west and along the west coast. You appear to be confusing a later spread of Gaelic across Pictland with the original introduction of Gaelic into Argyle and Galloway in the 5th century.

The theory that all modern languages descend from an original language spoken in Africa some 100,000 years ago or so has no relevance to the statement "the Goidelic language originated in Ireland". The linguistic features which define Goidelic originated amongst a community speaking an older form of Celtic in Ireland. Before this suite of linguistic features arose in Ireland in the late Iron Age, there was no such thing as Goidelic.

The Celtic speakers who first brought Celtic to Ireland were small in number, and persuaded (by whatever mechanism) the indigenous community to take up speaking Celtic. The Celtic speakers were assimilated into the general population. It was only after many generations of indigenous development of Celtic language amongst a population which was overwhelmingly genetically descended from the Mesolithic population, that the linguistic features defining Goidelic arose. After this long process of indigenous development of Goidelic amongst an indigenous population, a small number of Old Irish speakers went to Scotland, and the whole process started all over again. I would not describe the Goidelic speaking population as being Celtic wanderers who had stopped off for a while in Ireland.

Well OK, maybe Terry Pratchett is an unpleasant individual at times. (Aren't we all.) I dunno the guy. His books are funny though.

schawaldowris - I've just seen your post as I was about to post this reply to Dave. I'll reply to you this evening when I have more time.

Dave Coull

Surely the statement "It ONLY takes a change of rulers for one language to replace another" implies that is ALL it takes?

It does in my language anyway, which is why I disagreed, and gave an example which disproves the idea, even though that change of rulers was permanent.

agentmancuso

Runaway Weegie

Well that's annoying... I just lost the post I was going to make. Anyway... here it is again.

Dave, I already said it was pointless to continue picking over my previous comment. Any further discussion of it will generate heat but not light. And no, I don't believe Tom Devine is confused. I believe your understanding of Devine is confused.

Agentmancuso is quite correct. Galician is a Romance language, descended from Vulgar Latin. Portuguese is a southern offshoot of Galician. Modern Galicians understand Portuguese without difficulty. Galician contains a small amount of vocabulary borrowed from ancient Celtic, but most of these words are shared with other Romance languages and were borrowed into Vulgar Latin from Gaulish.

The pre-Roman people of Galicia were called the Gallaiki. They spoke a Celtic language usually called Celtiberian, which died out in late Roman times. Like Goidelic, Celtiberian was a so called Q-Celtic language. Q-Celtic languages preserve a kw sound which occurred in proto-Celtic, in P-Celtic languages this kw changed into a p. The famous example is Gaelic mac, *makkwos in older Goidelic and proto Celtic, but Welsh map comes from Brittonic *mappos where the kw had changed to p. Traditionally kw was written Q by Celtic philologists, hence the terms Q-Celtic and P-Celtic.

The theory that Goidelic came from Iberia is very popular amongst Galicians, as you might expect. Unfortunately it's not true. Although Goidelic and Celtiberian were both Q-Celtic languages, this doesn't mean they were especially closely related to one another within Celtic. All it means is that Goidelic and Celtiberian descend from peripheral Celtic dialects which happened to remain unaffected by a sound change which occurred in more central Celtic dialects.

In order to prove a close genetic relationship between Celtiberian and Goidelic within Celtic, we need to find innovations in pronunciation or grammar or vocabulary (preferably all three) which Celtiberian and Goidelic share and which are not found in other Celtic languages. However Celtiberian and Goidelic do not share any innovations, each has its own independent developments from proto-Celtic. They are independent branches of the Celtic tree, as distinct from one another as they are distinct from Gaulish and Brittonic.

There were certainly a lot of maritime contacts all along the Atlantic coasts of Europe. But if the Sons of Mil came to Ireland from Iberia, they didn't bring Celtiberian with them, or it didn't survive long.

There was later Celtic influence in Galicia and neighbouring Asturias. After the fall of the Roman Empire, when the Bretons were migrating to Armorica, groups of Romano-Britons migrated even further south, and settled on the north coast of Galicia and western Asturias. They had a high degree of autonomy, and founded their own bishopric, the Bishopric of Britonia. The Britons of Galicia remained a distinctive part of the population for several centuries. Their bishopric was destroyed in the 10th century by the events of the Viking and Moorish invasions. The little village of Bretoña in the Galician province of Lugo is the site of the former ecclesiastical capital.

If you fancy a holiday in Spain, forget about the Costas. Go to Galicia and Asturias. Both are very proud of their Celtic identity and Scottish people get an especially warm welcome. Celtic music is very popular, they have their own bagpipes called the gaitas. The food's great too, and that orujo they drink is like rocket fuel.

agentmancuso

schawaldowris

Hi Agent

Thank you for your observation on the origins of Galician. I was of course aware that Galician was a Romance language with similarities to Portugese. Let me explain however, the reason behind my question on its possible Goidelic Celtic origins.

Two months ago I was in the city of Almeria where I met with two Galicians who were clearly proud of their Celtic ancestry. In the course of conversation I raised the subject of the "Sons of Mil". It was their contention that "Gaelic" was exported to Ireland prior to the Roman invasion of the Iberian peninsular. In order to provide substance to their argument, I received a barrage of Galician words they insisted were pre Latin and the basis of the Galician language. Hence my question in this post !

Hi Weegie

Your presentation was most illuminating and the argument convincing. I am happy to accept your comprehensive explanation on the differences between Galician and Gaelic. I would also concur with your comments on the Galician peoples. With perhaps one notable exception. Whilst they do indeed have their own culinary delights and "fire water", their pan celtic allegiance certainly extends to J&B which they can consume in copious quantities.

In conclusion gentlemen. Whilst I concur with your views on this occasion, don't expect the truce to last !!!

Dave Coull

agentmancuso

agentmancuso

schawaldowris

Hi Dave

On a point of information, even if Weegie is resident in southern Spain, provided he has satellite reception, all BBC programmes are easily available. In fact not only BBC Scotland but all the other UK stations. Oh yes and not just ITV but STV! Just think wall to wall educational programmes.. Eastenders, Coronation Street, Emerdale, Jonathon Roth..

Dave Coull

With reference to myself,

Runaway Weegie

Actually we do get British telly, thanks to a 2 metre diameter satellite dish on our roof. We can also use it for communicating with passing UFOs. Unfortunately we don't get good reception on BBC1 and BBC2 Scotland although we get a perfect picture on STV and BBC Alba. Usually we can pick up BBC1 and 2 Scotland after about 6pm, but it depends on metereological conditions in the upper atmosphere, or something. Last Sunday the picture was breaking up too much, so I only saw a wee bit of the programme. So I switched over and watched South Park in Spanish on TVE2 instead. ¡Dios mio! ¡Han matado a Kenny! ¡Hijos de puuuuttaaaaa! Fingers crossed reception will have improved next time. All the other BBC regions come through fine, so I'll see the episodes I missed when they're repeated on BBC England.

AM, you'd expect to see substratal influence (influence from a language previously spoken in the area) to be reflected as vocabulary items, or in features of pronunciation, or in syntax (word order rules). Morphology or grammatical endings are rarely borrowed between languages, although it does sometimes occur.

Although I'm not prepared to vouch for the accuracy of any of these, supposedly Goidelic words in Galego (which is what Galicians call their language) include:
bar - summit G. barr
bea - mountain G.beinn
bruire - to fart G. braim
duna - fort G. dùn
godallo - male goat Old Irish.godhar

One Galician nationalist of my acquaintance swears blind that the tribal name Gallaiki is from the same Celtic word as Gaelic caileach 'old woman', and meant "followers of the mother goddess" or somesuch. She's batsh!t crazy, but in a nice way.

Most of the other Celtic words I've seen cited for Galego are either not Celtic at all, or are also found in other Romance languages. There are some four or five dozen or so, but they usually come from Gaulish, not Celtiberian. These words include camisa 'shirt', carro 'cart', cervesa 'beer', legua 'league' (measure of distance), bragas 'breeches', camino 'path'.

By the way, it's a chicken coop. A chicken coup would be a gang of chickens taking over the government by force.

Dave Coull

Runaway Weegie

Dave, I can quantify exactly my interest in the nature of the storage facilities from which you fly your saltire. It's the square root of minus one. I'm sure you will appreciate that is not a number which exists in this universe.

I was making a general point about the words coup and coop. Not everything is about you you know.

Dave Coull

Blackadder

This thread has petered out because it got personal. I've looked back over the whole thread to see where it began and it comes as no surprise to see where the rot started. The same individual who tried to set up his own thread on this subject ... has struck again!

Frankly, it looks like he can't help himself and he sets out to just to make waves ... the wrong sort of waves.

I've had absolutely no probs with the other posters on this thread ... and I've learned a few things I didn't know ... even had my mind changed on a few things! But not by the last poster preceding me. He's managed to bore me out of the thread and then started his usual nonsense with the other contributors. And now it's all about him! His last paragraph is extremely telling about him!!! He's right ... and the rest of us are all wrong.

I won't post on this thread again ... and I wouldn't blame the other posters for not posting on it again either. This thread is now dead to me!

agentmancuso

agentmancuso

Dave Coull

Holebender

agentmancuso

Dave Coull

Runaway Weegie

That's what I get for trying to be a smart@rse at 1.40am on a Saturday morning. I bow to your superior mathematical knowledge Holebender. (I still think it's a good put-down line. Maybe it could do with a bit more work.)

Incidentally Dave - DO NOT INVOLVE ME IN YOUR PERSONAL DISPUTES. Is that clear and unambiguous enough for you? Do not mention me in connection with this ridiculous matter again. I do not give a flying f@ck about your history with the News of the World - got that? And thanks for ruining the thread for the rest of us.

Agentmancuso - That would be phonology. But yeah, the change of f > h is often said to be due to Basque influence in Spanish. The same change occurred in the Gascon dialect of France on the other side of Basque where the word for son in hilh. The h in Gascon is still pronounced, it's been lost from Spanish and dialects of Basque in Spain - but is still pronounced in French Basque dialects.

However there's nothing in Iberian Romance phonology that could be attributed to Celtic influence. A History of the Spanish Language by Ralph Penny is a good modern work on the history of Iberian Romance. The Spanish Language by WJ Entwistle also deals with Portuguese, Galician, Catalan and Basque, but it's very dated nowadays - the first edition was published in 1933.

There are several of features of Scots and English which could be due to Celtic substratal influence. I'll waffle on about those another time if anyone's interested. Right now I'm just annoyed that this thread has turned into another episode of the Dave Coull Show.

Dave Coull

Jimbo

This was a great thread. Informative as well as educational. Lots of great posts from Runaway Weegie, Schawaldowris, Agentmancuso, Blackadder and Dave Coull.

Sadly it is now starting to degenerate.

Runaway Weegie wrote:

agentmancuso

Runaway Weegie

So aye... deep breath, thinking happy calming thoughts of fluffy kittens.

Celtic influence in English and Scots. Borrowed words are the most obvious way one language can influence another, but consider the English sentence "The man is singing". Every single word in "The man is singing" is of native Old English Germanic origin, the grammatical ending -ing is also of Germanic origin. However sentences like this are not typical of Germanic languages. In other Germanic languages you have to say "the man sings" - "De man zingt" in Dutch, in Norwegian it's "Mannen singer".

(There is a Dutch construction "De man is an zingende", but it's recent in Dutch and has a restricted usage. It specifically means "the man is right now in the act of singing." It's probably due to English influence, but while English "The man is singing tomorrow" is perfectly acceptable, Dutch doesn't allow *de man is an zingende morgen.)

Verbal forms made with the verb to be and and -ing ending are characteristic of English and Scots within Germanic, but they are typical of Celtic languages. The English constructions I am going, I was going, I will be going are direct word for word translations of the Celtic pattern illustrated by Gaelic tha mi a' dol, bha mi a' dol, bithidh mi a' dol. The only difference is that English keeps the order Subject Verb, in Celtic languages the verb comes first in a sentence.

Some varieties of Scots and Irish English have an additional set of 'tenses' made with be and -ing. I am (just) after seeing him meaning "I have just seen him" is a direct translation of Gaelic tha mi air a dh'fhaicinn, "I am after his seeing". This particular construction is called a recent perfective. These kinds of loan translations are called calques.

Another English innovation due to Celtic is the use of the verb to do as an auxiliary. It's obligatory in questions and negatives - I go, but Do I go? I don't go. English speakers can also say I do go, which is contrastive or emphatic compared to the simple I go. There's nothing like this in other Germanic languages, but a remarkably similar use of the verb to do is found in Brittonic languages, and to a lesser extent in Goidelic. It's a widespread feature in Breton just as much as Cornish or Welsh. This is important, as it proves that the use of do as a 'helper verb' isn't due to English influence in Celtic.

There are many other examples of these translations of Celtic syntax into English and Scots. "He broke his leg" isn't paralleled outside Celtic or English and Scots. Other European languages demand you say "he broke to himself the leg" - as in Spanish se rompió la pierna. The English construction is exactly paralleled in Celtic. Gaelic has Bhris e a chas. Linguists call the English and Celtic construction 'external possession' and it's very rare amongst languages of the world. Again it's found in Breton, proving it's not due to English influence on Celtic but to Celtic influence on English.

One of the most interesting things about these Celtic features is that they are absent from Old English. They don't start to put in an appearance until Middle English (conventionally dated to after 1066), and they are first found in the dialect spoken in northern England and south eastern Scotland. In this region contacts between Celts and Saxons were unusually long and protracted, and there was also considerable Norse settlement.

Now I'm off to continue the discussion on the General Banter about Scottish History thread, where I hope there will be a more pleasant atmosphere. I hope to see (most) of you there.

Reluctant Hero

Right guys, there has been some brilliant discussion on this thread, but it has gone a wee bit off topic of late. Please get back on topic or else it will be locked.

Blackadder

Lock it off if you like, RH ... some of us are pissed off enough with the way this thread has gone as it is!

And that was definitely my last post post here!!! Evil or Very Mad

Rinty

"some of us are pissed off enough with the way this thread has gone as it is!"

Blackadder, you once again refer to 'some of us' while still claiming there is no 'group'. When you are confident enough, as are others to speak for a group how can you insist that none exists.

There was nothing wrong with this thread until it got personal. It got personal when a NOTW hatchet job against Dave and others was brought into it, and also when mental health was used as stick to beat someone with.

Mental health is not a throwaway trivial insult, whether the person in question suffers from mental health problems or not, it is not acceptable to use it in this way.

Any quick flick thorugh our excellent history forum would show that it has been a first class and informartive forum. Now that it has been abandoned by so many users of the site in favour of 'banter', it is under threat as is the whole forum.

Rinty

Back on topic!

I think many of the problems with any TV history programme is the limitations of time, leaving the producer with choices to make on what to concentrate on. The BBC have tried to augment the programme with some excellent web resources to accompany it.

I am looking forward to Oliver's next programme tonight.

Blackadder

The problem here is that you are now OBVIOUSLY siding with "Coolio" against other posters.

And if can't see that or won't acknowledge it, this is worse than I first thought!

Rinty

lets keep it on subject Blackadder. And it is clear from previous posts that Dave has asked you not to use the name 'coolio' your insistence on coninuing use of it is childish.

In the case of this thread then I see it as attacks on dave that made it personal. There is little we can do about people being unfriendly or nasty or ridiculing others points, but the reference to the NOTW story and using its insinuation of mental health problems is where the thread became a matter for moderation, nothing else.

There is no pioint i continuing this, there has been no moderation in this site other than RH's clear message that it would be locked if the personal stuff didnt stop.

Lets keep it on subject and that won't happen.

Dave Coull

Jimbo

agentmancuso

agentmancuso

Rinty

The quiet before the storm, I have had this place to myself for an hour as I couldnt watch the programme, and I bet this thread is buzzing in a few minutes as all OS members are glued to the TV getting ready to slate or champion Olivers latest episode.

Jimbo

It should be renamed 'A selective History of Scotland'.

Rinty

I think any hour TV programme has to be selective, due to time and budget, it's a question of what they select and what they see as the important events.

Runaway Weegie

Spanish and Portuguese have a direct equivalent to English and Celtic verbs of the "I am singing" type - "estoy cantando" in Spanish. It's used like the Dutch construction I mentioned earlier, you can't say "estoy cantando mañana", only "canto mañana" (I sing tomorrow) or "cantaré mañana" (I will sing tomorrow). It appears to be an independent development in Iberian Romance as it doesn't show up in texts until the High Middle Ages by which time Iberian Celtic had been extinct for several hundred years.

What may be due to Celtic influence is the Portuguese and Spanish distinction between ser and estar, both of which translate as "to be" in English. Roughly, ser is used of permanent states and conditions: es alto - he is tall, estar is used of impermanent or transient states or conditions: está alto he is high up. This is directly parallel to the Gaelic distinction between is and tha.

The origin of the word Attacotti isn't known. I think you may be thinking of the proposed derivation from Old Irish aitheach tuath which apparently referred to tribes who were politically subject to other tribes and who some identified with "older tribes" who lived in Ireland but were then made subjects of Goidelic speakers. The name means "the plebian people", "the commoners". Specialists in Old Irish rule out any possible connection with Attacotti. I'm not aware of any proposed derivation from P-Celtic (Brittonic, Gaulish or Pictish).

As a name it has a short life span, found only in documents dating to a few decades of the 5th century, then it vanishes as mysteriously as it appeared. You'd expect an ethnic name to have a longer life-span.

I've just watched the programme, reception was good tonight. My first reaction is to agree with Jimbo, it's a highly selective history.

Jimbo

Rinty

Totally agree Jimbo.

I havent seen the programme so I cant comment on whether the producers made the right choices, but, in general, history is too often summed in Battles and Kings.

Dave Coull