Wednesday, April 20, 2005

The Scots did not come from Ireland

David Steele:

THE belief that the Scots are descendants of Irish settlers who crossed from Antrim in the sixth century is being dismissed as a myth by an eminent archaeologist.

In a detailed research paper published by Glasgow University yesterday, Ewan Campbell argues the claimed migrations of the Irish into Argyll can be attributed to "a set of elite origin myths, finding no support in archaeological evidence".

For many years Dr Campbell has been concerned that the received truth that Scots kings were descended from Irish invaders was not the truth at all.

He has concluded any migration between the west coast of Scotland and north east Ireland was in the opposite direction to that previously thought.

The doubts were planted in his mind when he took part in a excavation at the royal fort at Dunadd in Argyll in the 1970s. The dig uncovered strong evidence that this was the inauguration site of the early Scottish kings but gave little indication of any Irish influence.

At this time, the kingdom of the Scots - Dalriada, consisting of Argyll and some of the west coast islands - was a centre of civilisation and trade.

Dr Campbell said: "Looking at the site made us wonder, how did it start? It made us look at the original legends. If they were true you would expect to see Irish types of settlements and artefacts. When we looked for evidence of the Irish origin, there was none.

Dr Campbell said of the accepted belief: "This apparently incorrect account was done by medieval spin doctors for political reasons - to further the claims to the Scottish throne of descendants of Kenneth MacAlpine. It was an early example of an Orwellian rewrite of history."

More on the so-called Irish invasion of Scotland:

The foundation myths of Scotland state that the Scottish Gaels originated from the Dal Riata tribe in Antrim, north-east Ireland. Around AD 500, or so the story goes, Fergus Mor mac Eirc supposedly established a new Dal Riata in Argyll because of dynastic competition at home (Foster, 1996: 13). According to this view, they displaced a previous British or Pictish community from Argyll - a process which eventually ended with the takeover of the entire Pictish kingdom in the 9th century to create the united kingdom of Alba that became Scotland.

Leslie Alcock (1970) examined the archaeological evidence in detail and concluded that there was very little to support the idea that there was a 4th/5th century invasion from Ireland. Similarly, Foster finds no archaeological evidence for this migration. However, she concludes that distribution of artefacts and similarities in monument construction show close links between Antrim and Kintyre from the Neolithic onwards. The evidence also supports an extensive Gaelic-speaking presence during this period along Britain's western coast, including Cornwall, Devon, Dyfed, Anglesey and south-west Scotland.

Very litle archaeology had taken place in Argyll and Antrim prior to Alcock's review, but this was no longer the case by the end of the 20th century. Nevertheless, Campbell (2001) could summarise the current state of knowledge in the following words:

'There is ... no evidence of a change in the normal settlement type at any point in the 1st millennium AD and no basis for suggesting any significant population movement between Antrim and Argyll in the 1st millennium AD. At best, the evidence shows a shared cultural region from the Iron Age, with some subsequent divergence in the later 1st millennium AD. Any cultural influences could be argued as likely to have been going from Scotland to Ireland rather than vice versa.'

Campbell (2001) goes on to examine evidence for an 'elite takeover', similar to the Norman invasion of England. Using comparative dating of brooches as an example, again he finds no support for the notion of dominant arrivals from Ireland. If anything, the influence is (yet again) in the opposite direction.

Wormald (1996: 142-3), referring to an earlier article of his, states:

'I have recently argued that Bede and Alfred provided the ideological charter of a new English kingdom by adapting the Israelite model to Anglo-Saxon experience of the Britons and the Vikings (1994). And, yes, I now venture the same proposal for the Scots, their compeers in ninth century statecraft.'

Campbell (2001) unpicks the written evidence and arrives at a similar conclusion. The Irish Annals of Tighernach provides the following entry for around 500 AD (cited in Campbell, 2001):

`Feargus mor mac earca cum gente dalriada partem britania tenuit et ibi mortus est' - `Fergus Mor, mac Erc, with the nation of Dal Riada, took (or held) part of Britain, and died there'.

But the names Dalriada, Feargus and Earca are Middle Irish. If they had been written at the time, they would have been in the Old Irish forms: Dalriata, Fergus and Erca. This entry could not have been made before the 10th century. In fact, the Annals appear to contain a number of insertions from the 10th century. Campbell cites a similar modification in the Senchus Fer nAlban (History of the Men of Scotland) - thought to have been originally composed in the 7th century and amended in the 10th century. This states `Erc, moreover had twelve sons .i. six of them took possession of Alba' and goes on to list the Dalriadan kings from Fergus Mor to the middle of the 7th century. But there is no reference to a migration so Campbell concludes that it refers to a Royal takeover, not an invasion. Tellingly, the use of the word Alba betrays its 10th century origins as it was not a term used before then for Scotland.

Bannerman (1974) compared the explanation for the Irish in Britain provided by Bede. This was quite different, ascribing their presence to an invader from Ireland called Reuda - hence Dalreuda. Bannerman suggested that this older tradition had been replaced by the Fergus Mor version in the 10th century for 'political reasons'. Campbell agrees: 'These sources, and some other later material, are clearly origin legends of a type common to most peoples of the period, constructed to show the descent of a ruling dynasty from a powerful, mythical or religious figure. Such genealogies, could be, and often were, manipulated to suit the political climate of the times ...'

I think that it is safe to say that we can relegate the so-called Irish invasion of Scotland to the realm of fairy tales.

17 Comments:

At 3:54 PM, Blogger Anselm (Not the Saint) said...

Great Blog! I read it most days.

I linked to the story on the decolonisation of Northern Ireland.

Go raibh maith agat

 
At 5:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have the same obsession with Scots as Hitler had with the Jews. You blame them for a political situation you don't like, so yo want to deport their genetic 'race' back to their country of origin. I am sure that one day there will be a democratic majority in the north which will unify the country, and perhaps it is something to be welcomed.

I only hope for the sake of the country that racist cavemen like yourself are as far away from the island as possible.

 
At 9:37 AM, Blogger Diarmid said...

Anselm:

Tá fáilte romhat! And thank you for the kind words about my blog.

 
At 9:41 AM, Blogger Diarmid said...

You have the same obsession with Scots as Hitler had with the Jews. You blame them for a political situation you don't like, so yo want to deport their genetic 'race' back to their country of origin. I am sure that one day there will be a democratic majority in the north which will unify the country, and perhaps it is something to be welcomed.

I only hope for the sake of the country that racist cavemen like yourself are as far away from the island as possible.


The Jews did not come to Germany as invaders and colonists but that is how the Scots came to Ireland and that is how they live in the north of Ireland today. Being against British colonialism does not make me a racist or a Nazi.

 
At 4:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Scots did not conquer NI or Ireland. There were given farming land (just like the Jews were in Europe by certain nations) by the English crown (just like the American colonisers at the same time).

As I said, you are no better than one of those odious Bosnian Serb ethnic cleansers who believes that their ethnically unpure (as you try to show again and again on here), politically uncomfortable neighbouring population should be 'sent back where they came from'.

 
At 9:42 AM, Blogger Diarmid said...

The Scots did not conquer NI or Ireland. There were given farming land (just like the Jews were in Europe by certain nations) by the English crown (just like the American colonisers at the same time).

In other words, they were in receipt of stolen property which means that the Scots who came to Ireland were criminals.

As I said, you are no better than one of those odious Bosnian Serb ethnic cleansers who believes that their ethnically unpure (as you try to show again and again on here), politically uncomfortable neighbouring population should be 'sent back where they came from'.

How you can see it as immoral to support the right of an indigenous people to reclaim land stolen from them by foreign invaders is beyond me.

 
At 11:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In other words, they were in receipt of stolen property which means that the Scots who came to Ireland were criminals."

Are you suggesting that all the Europeans who live in America are criminals?

"How you can see it as immoral to support the right of an indigenous people to reclaim land stolen from them by foreign invaders is beyond me."

It happened 400 years ago. Move on. Your logic would have fully endorsed the ethnic cleansing of the muslims in Bosnian (they were given land by the Ottomans 400 years ago), Slavs in the Sudeten land. And so on and so forth.

I suppose what is quite sad about your quite horrifying racism is that you really see nothing wrong with it.

A sad caveman living in some enthnically pure neverland.

 
At 2:48 PM, Blogger Diarmid said...

Are you suggesting that all the Europeans who live in America are criminals?

Perhaps they are. That is something for Native Americans to decide.

It happened 400 years ago. Move on. Your logic would have fully endorsed the ethnic cleansing of the muslims in Bosnian (they were given land by the Ottomans 400 years ago), Slavs in the Sudeten land. And so on and so forth.

You obviously feel a great deal of sympathy for the British colonists living on stolen land in the north of Ireland, but I don't. I reserve my sympathy for the indigenous Irish population of the Six Counties. It doesn't matter to me whether that land was stolen 400 hundred years or minutes ago, it is still stolen land.

I suppose what is quite sad about your quite horrifying racism is that you really see nothing wrong with it.

It is not "racist" to want to see the indigenous Irish regain land that had been stolen from them through British colonialism.

A sad caveman living in some enthnically pure neverland.

Being against British colonialism and supporting the right of the indigenous Irish to regain their land does not make me a "caveman" sad or otherwise.

 
At 1:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I should like to see more history and less politics; what research is out there that will provide some additional support for this theory. (On the face of it a "reverse" migration makes sense, as opposed to the traditional Ireland to Scotland theory, and one might expect more evidence from digs in Ireland to support such a "reverse" migration).
"CRZYPOPMAC@aol.com"

 
At 8:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ulster-Scots will be here to stay,better get used to it.

 
At 9:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Scots did not come from Ireland ? thank god lol

 
At 9:03 PM, Anonymous Malcolm said...

Ulster-Scots will be here to stay,better get used to it.

The Irish should treat the "Ulster-Scots" as you call them the same way you would treat any other vermin such as rats and cockroaches.

 
At 11:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

British crown, not English crown, thank you! And they were not all Lowland Scots, there were also some English settlers. If you have to place blame, blame all the religious and therefore political troubles on the English Monarchy and then the British Monarchy. Their religious beliefs caused enough deaths in both Ireland and the United Kingdom. Poor Wales was lost centuries ago - though not through the religious belief of Edward the First, but by his greed!

 
At 11:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peoples or tribes cannot own land. I never met a people or a tribe or even a government. Only individuals can own land. There isn't any reason why Scots cannot own land in Ireland, north or south, and any democratic government in the North would be majority Scot. So how are the Scots thieves?

 
At 9:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maith an fear Diarmid - when are you going to kick out the Normans and the Vikings? Fool

 
At 2:53 PM, Blogger john said...

Irish Wolfhounds were mentioned by Julius Caesar, in his treatise, The Gallic Wars(58–50 BC), and by 391 AD, they were written about by Roman Consul, Quintus Aurelius Symmachus, who received seven of them, "canes Scotici", as a gift to be used for fighting lions, bears, that in his words, "all Rome viewed with wonder".

 
At 2:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Make ireland one again

 

Post a Comment

<< Home