The Highlanders of Scotland - Clan Strachan Society

The Highlanders of Scotland - Clan Strachan Society The Highlanders of Scotland - Clan Strachan Society

clanstrachan.org
from clanstrachan.org More from this publisher
08.03.2013 Views

40 THE HIGHLANDERS [parti must have been descended either from the Scottish or the Pictish Hnc. But the name of Scotland appears never to have been applied to North Britain before that date, but rather to have subsequently extended itself gradually over the whole country, and to have at last superseded the more ancient appellation of Albion or Albania. It is consequently to be inferred that the later kings were of the Scottish race, and that the Scots had obtained a preponderance over the Picts ; besides this inference, which results naturally from the argument, the whole authorities for the early history of Scotland concur in establishing the fact, that Kenneth, the first monarch who ruled over the whole country, was of the Scottish race. Third.—When we consider that the name of Scotland did not spread rapidly over the country, but that it was many centuries before that appellation comprehended the whole of Scotland, and also that the first four or five kings of the line of Kenneth are termed by the Irish annalists kings of the Picts, and not of the Scots, or of Scotland, we must infer that the effects produced by the conquest did not extend to the whole of the Picts, but that a very considerable part of them must have remained altogether unaffected by the invasion, and that the name of Scotland must have spread over the country, rather from the fact of its kings being derived from that race, and of their political pre-eminence, than from an actual subjugation of all the Pictish tribes, as feigned by the Scottish historians ; a theory the absurdity of which it is impossible not to perceive, if we look at the state of Scotland in 731, and the very great superiority of the Picts over the Scots in power, extent of territor)', and in numbers. Fourth.— If we find, subsequent to the year 843, or the date of the supposed conquest, any part of the Pictish nation appear- ing as a body, under a peculiar national name, and apparently distinguished by that name from the rest of Scotland, it is manifest that that tribe could have formed no part of the Scottish conquest, and must have retained their territory and their independence, notwithstanding the subjugation of the rest of the countr)^ But we find from the Irish annalists, that as late as the year 865, the northern Picts appear as a distinct

CHAP. Ill] OF SCOTLAND 41 people from the rest of Scotland, under their ancient peculiar and name of Cruithen tuath, or CruitJuie of the North. We must consequently conclude that the Cruithne were not affected by the conquest, but remained a peculiar and distinct people for many years afterwards. The northern Picts, however, are not the only exceptions ; for the Strath Clyde Britons exhibit a parallel instance of the same thing. They are frequently mentioned after the date of the conquest, by their peculiar national appellation. i\nd we know from history that they were not included in the conquest, but remained for a long period independent, and under the government of their own kings. Not only, however, do the northern Picts appear as a distinct body under their peculiar appellation of Cruithne, as late as the year 865, but we even find that their territories, consisting of the whole of Scotland north of the Grampains, retained the appellation of Pictavia as late as the year 894. This appears very clear from the Pictish Chronicle, for in 865, when the annals of Ulster mention that the Northmen ravaged the Cruithen tuath, or northern Picts, the Pictish Chronicle, in relating the same event, uses the expression Pictavia, instead of Cruithen tuath. After- wards, in 894, the Pictish Chronicle mentions that the Norwegians conquered Pictavia, but we know from the Norse Sagas that this conquest was confined to the country north of the Grampians. Wherever the Norwegians ravaged other parts of the country, the Pictish Chronicle invariably uses the expression Albania instead of Pictavia. If the northern Picts appear as a distinct people, retaining their ancient appellation so late as the year 865, and if their territories also retained the name of Pictavia as late as the end of the ninth century, it is evident that that territory could not have been comprised within those conquered by the Scots, and that the name of Scotland must have spread over that part of the country from other causes than that of conquest. This result is confirmed by all the native writers of Scotland, who invariably confine the Scottish conquest to the country south of the Grampians, although they err in supposing that the country north of that range had been previously in possession of the Scots.

40 THE HIGHLANDERS [parti<br />

must have been descended either from the Scottish or the Pictish<br />

Hnc. But the name <strong>of</strong> <strong>Scotland</strong> appears never to have been<br />

applied to North Britain before that date, but rather to have<br />

subsequently extended itself gradually over the whole country,<br />

and to have at last superseded the more ancient appellation<br />

<strong>of</strong> Albion or Albania. It is consequently to be inferred<br />

that the later kings were <strong>of</strong> the Scottish race, and that<br />

the Scots had obtained a preponderance over the Picts ;<br />

besides this inference, which results naturally from the argument,<br />

the whole authorities for the early history <strong>of</strong> <strong>Scotland</strong><br />

concur in establishing the fact, that Kenneth, the first<br />

monarch who ruled over the whole country, was <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Scottish race.<br />

Third.—When we consider that the name <strong>of</strong> <strong>Scotland</strong> did<br />

not spread rapidly over the country, but that it was many<br />

centuries before that appellation comprehended the whole <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Scotland</strong>, and also that the first four or five kings <strong>of</strong> the line<br />

<strong>of</strong> Kenneth are termed by the Irish annalists kings <strong>of</strong> the Picts,<br />

and not <strong>of</strong> the Scots, or <strong>of</strong> <strong>Scotland</strong>, we must infer that the<br />

effects produced by the conquest did not extend to the whole <strong>of</strong><br />

the Picts, but that a very considerable part <strong>of</strong> them must have<br />

remained altogether unaffected by the invasion, and that the<br />

name <strong>of</strong> <strong>Scotland</strong> must have spread over the country, rather<br />

from the fact <strong>of</strong> its kings being derived from that race, and<br />

<strong>of</strong> their political pre-eminence, than from an actual subjugation<br />

<strong>of</strong> all the Pictish tribes, as feigned by the Scottish historians ;<br />

a theory the absurdity <strong>of</strong> which it is impossible not to perceive,<br />

if we look at the state <strong>of</strong> <strong>Scotland</strong> in 731, and the very great<br />

superiority <strong>of</strong> the Picts over the Scots in power, extent <strong>of</strong><br />

territor)', and in numbers.<br />

Fourth.— If we find, subsequent to the year 843, or the date<br />

<strong>of</strong> the supposed conquest, any part <strong>of</strong> the Pictish nation appear-<br />

ing as a body, under a peculiar national name, and apparently<br />

distinguished by that name from the rest <strong>of</strong> <strong>Scotland</strong>, it is<br />

manifest that that tribe could have formed no part <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Scottish conquest, and must have retained their territory and<br />

their independence, notwithstanding the subjugation <strong>of</strong> the rest<br />

<strong>of</strong> the countr)^ But we find from the Irish annalists, that as<br />

late as the year 865, the northern Picts appear as a distinct

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!