Chapter XXIV: Section VII

_Chief Tribes of the Country from the Fifth Century
to the Foundation of the Monarchy._

In the preceding section we have seen that the Roman occupation of a portion of the country must have in some degree affected the Celtic inhabitants within the walls. In fact, the tribes from the southern borders of modern Scotland to the wall between the Forth and Clyde were greatly affected by their subjection to the Romans; but whether they were improved as men is another matter. A little Roman blood may have been infused into the veins of the natives during the two centuries and a half of contact with their masters; but it seems that they retained their own language, and were not in that relation Latinised. In short, it is certain that they soon ceased to have any Roman institutions, and that when the legions departed and left them to their own resources, they were comparatively helpless. They struggled, however, to preserve themselves from destruction though not with much success, for the independent tribes tormented and robbed them, in spite of the great advantage which the walls should have afforded to them for defence against their outside enemies. But new historic conditions then came rapidly into operation, though unfortunately we have no detailed records of them, and must interpret partly by the light of prior and subsequent results.

In the third section the affinities of the tribes inhabiting Britain prior to the Roman occupation were clearly indicated. It was then apparent that the tribes in the south of Scotland and those in the north of England were of one race――Celtic people speaking Aryan dialects. But long before the Romans left the island, another race, the Saxons, had appeared upon the coasts of Britain, and repeatedly attacked the Roman province.¹ After the final departure of the Imperial troops, the Saxons and Angles invaded the southern parts of Britain in force, and commenced a fierce and ruthless war with the Britons to obtain the possession and dominion of the country. But only confused, incomplete and traditional accounts of this struggle have been preserved, which were subsequently coloured according to the view considered necessary to justify existing conditions from time to time. In the circumstances it was natural that the Britons in the south of Scotland should assist their kindred in the north of England. As many of the Britons in the southern and south-eastern parts of the island were either massacred or driven northward by the invaders; at last the cruelly oppressed Britons made a stand for life or death in the north. The result, however, as far as can be seen, was that the Britons in the north of England were cut off from their kindred in the south-west of Scotland by the advance and success of the Angles.

¹ Dr. W. F. Skene has stated that tribes of Frisians, people
akin to the Saxons, had made settlements on the shores
of the Firth of Forth, and extended along the shore of
Forfarshire, and perhaps as far as Stonehaven in the fourth
century, and also in Dumfriesshire. But such evidence as
he adduces, is indeed far from conclusive. See _Celtic
Scotland_, Volume I., pages 145‒146, 191‒192, 231; and also,
_Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_,
Volume IV., pages 174‒175, 179, where he discusses the
matter at length.

The Britons who occupied the portion of the country subdued by the Romans in Scotland, formed the small kingdom of Strathclyde, which comprised the counties of Ayr, Lanark, Renfrew, Peebles, Dumbarton, portions of Stirling and Dumfries. Their chief stronghold was the fortified rock on the right bank of the Clyde, now known as Dumbarton Castle. Their kingdom was exposed to the attacks of the Angles or Saxons from the south, and to those of the Scots from the west and the Picts from the north. The Angles of Northumbria at times reduced the Britons to the position of a tributary people, and for centuries portions of Strathclyde were often plundered and wasted by the other tribes. Still the Britons of Strathclyde struggled hard and long to preserve their kingdom, it passed through many vicissitudes, and it finally became absorbed in the rest of Scotland early in the eleventh century. The body of the people, however, long retained their Celtic speech, and as late as the twelfth century were sometimes called Welsh.¹

¹ _Chronicles_; Robertson’s _Scotland under her Early Kings_,
Volume I., pages 16‒19, 54‒55, 70‒72.

The Picts were of the same race of tribes as those whom the Romans called Caledonians, simply Celtic tribes. They were first called Picts by a Roman orator, Eumenius, in a panegyric on Constantine in the year 296, and in the succeeding century the term Picts was frequently applied to the tribes beyond the wall by Roman writers. The name Picts, as used by the Romans, is thus an external one, and there is no evidence whatever that these Celtic tribes themselves then knew that they were called Picts, so entirely is the name an outside one, in the sense in which it was applied to them by the Romans. The earliest native record relating to the Picts is the Pictish Chronicle, which seems to have been composed about the end of the tenth century. Two separate editions of it are preserved, one of which is supposed to have been compiled in Abernethy and the other in Brechin, and it is plain that the opening sentences about the Picts in this chronicle were drawn from Roman sources. There is no evidence that these tribes called themselves Picts, and consequently there never was a Pictish language in Scotland, for these tribes which were first called Picts by the Romans simply spoke Celtic dialects; and this is all that we are ever likely to discover about their language.

For a century after the departure of the Romans there is little definite information about the northern tribes of Britain. It has been conjectured that the Pictish monarchy was founded in the fifth century; but it is extremely doubtful if their political organisation can in any sense be called a monarchy. So far as can be ascertained, the Picts seem rather to have been living under a rude and half-developed confederacy than a settled hereditary monarchy. They had no settled form of succession to the kingship. In short, it is more than probable that the king or chief was elective, and dependent on his followers for his position. The Picts were never united as one organised political society, they were always divided into tribes, for we read of the southern Picts, the Picts of Galloway, and the northern Picts. The truth seems to be that they were merely a number of strong but separate Celtic tribes.

In the sixth century these Celtic tribes, called Picts, occupied the whole of Scotland on the north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde, excepting the district of Argyle, then called Dalriada, which was held by the Scots. The Pictish and Scottish tribes were separated from each other by the Drumalban range of mountains, which separates the modern counties of Argyle and Perth. To the north of the mountain range, called in early times the “Monuth,” which extends from Ben Nevis to near the east coast between Stonehaven and Aberdeen, the country northward of this, from sea to sea, was occupied by the northern Picts, while the region thence extending southward to the Forth, was occupied by the southern Picts; but beyond the Forth, in the district of Galloway, the inhabitants, Celtic tribes, were called Picts. Thus it appears that the tribes which were called Picts were not living under a monarchy or one king. There is no evidence whatever to show that Galloway had not been continuously occupied by Celtic tribes from prehistoric times down to the Middle Ages. It is said that St. Ninian, who began his mission in Galloway and founded a church there, converted the southern Picts to Christianity.¹

¹ _Historians_, Volume VI., pages 25, 58, 71, 77, 87, 258;
Volume V., pages 14, 274‒281; Dr. Skene’s _Celtic Scotland_,
Volume I., pages 131, 238. Professor John Rhys, in his
course of Rhind Lectures, has recently treated at length
of the ancient peoples of Scotland, with much learning
and discrimination. So far as he touches on the Picts, his
remarks and suggestions are interesting and instructive,
though mainly based on philological grounds.

The Saxons (or the Angles as they were sometimes named) reached the southern parts of Scotland in force about the middle of the sixth century, and before the end of it they had established themselves in Lothian. They pressed severely on the Britons of Strathclyde, as already mentioned, and extended their conquests on every side, and at last ventured into the territories of the Picts. In 685, Egfrid their King attempted a bold stroke, advanced with his followers and crossed the Forth at Stirling, and penetrated into the heart of the Pictish territory; continuing his advance, he crossed the Tay and marched fearlessly onward. But on the 20th of May, in a narrow pass of the Sidlaw Hills at Dunnichen, the Picts faced him, and a great battle ensued, in which Egfrid himself was slain, and few of his army escaped from the fatal field. The victory was complete; and it had the effect of severing the district between the Tay and the Forth from the influence which would have tended to make it a part of England. The Saxon clergy fled from their chief seat at Abercorn and thence removed to Yorkshire; from this date the power of the Northumbrian state began to wane.¹

¹ Bede, B. IV., Chapter 26; _Chronicles_, pages 72, 351.

But the body of the people south of the Forth in Lothian remained essentially Saxon throughout all the subsequent conflicts and changes, perhaps even more Saxon than in any part of England, in speech and custom. It is certain that they absorbed and superseded the Celtic Britons in this region at a comparatively early period, and ample evidence of this will appear as the narration proceeds.

The Scots whom we know came from Ireland, appear to have come and gone at different times. They were mentioned among the assailants of the Roman province in Britain in 360; and it may be presumed that a pretty close intercourse between them and the Celtic tribes of the west of Scotland had prevailed for long before this date. There may have been several migrations from Ireland to Scotland at different periods, but their final settlement in Argyleshire occurred about the end of the fifth century. When the three sons of Erc, Lorn, Fergus, and Angus, with their followers, obtained possession of Argyle, which they called Dalriada. They sometimes came into conflict with the Britons of Strathclyde, and with the Picts. It seems highly probable that the language of the Scots was more developed than the cognate speech of the Picts, seeing that Ireland had not prior to this time been invaded and harassed by external enemies as the Pictish tribes had been. If this was the case, it would partly account for the disappearance of the dialects spoken by the Celtic tribes called the Picts.¹ These Irish settlers were already Christians. The kings of the small state were all descended from the race of Erc, and there is in the Chronicles and Irish Annals a long list of them; but such details as exist concerning their reigns yields comparatively little real historic results.²

¹ Although I believe there is no satisfactory evidence
of writings in native Irish before the introduction
of Christianity, still the Irish branch of the Celtic
language had no doubt reached a considerably higher stage
of development than the Celtic dialects then current among
the Pictish tribes in northern Britain. On a matter of this
nature, however, it must always be remembered that prior to
the introduction of printing, there were only an extremely
small fraction of people who could read or write, or
appreciate the difference between a literary language and
the dialect of their own local district. To imagine anything
else, is simply to throw back the ideas and appliances of
a latter age into periods when the known conditions and
circumstances of society exclude the possibility of their
existence or application. See Dr. Todd’s _St. Patrick_,
pages 346‒351, 391‒399, 506‒513; _Ancient Laws of Ireland_,
Preface to Volhne I., pages 8‒12, _et seq._, and the general
Preface to Volume III., pages 148‒163.

² An elaborate “Genealogical Table of the Dalriadic Kings,
and of the principal Highland families in Scotland descended
from them,” will be found in Dr. Wm. Reeves’ edition of
Adamnan’s _Life of St. Columba_; and in a note to the table,
he says, “The authorities here followed are:――The Tract
on the Men of Alba, in the Book of Ballymote, and the
Genealogical manuscript of MacFirbis; and the Duan Albanach;
all manuscripts in the library of the Royal Irish Academy.
Some supplemental matter is borrowed from the Pedigrees
printed in the Collectanea de Rebus Albanicis; and the
chronology is chiefly based on the Annals of Tighernach and
Ulster.” According to this Table the Marmaers of Moray, the
clans Maclean, Mackenzie, and Mackinnon, were descended from
the Kings of Dalriada.

Aidan was the first of the Dalriadian rulers who manifested real ability and character. He was solemnly inaugurated as King of Dalriada by St. Columba in the Island of Iona. It appeared that the Scots in Dalriada (Argyle) had as yet been merely considered as a colony dependent on the King of Ireland; but the newly crowned Aidan and St. Columba attended a convention held at Drumnceat in 575, and in which the King of Ireland agreed to recognise the independence of Scotch Dalriada and its princes; so Aidan was the first independent king of the Irish-Scottish kingdom in Argyle and the neighbouring Isles. Aidan became associated with the Britons of Strathclyde, and in 603 the Scots and Britons united their forces and resolved to try issues with the advancing Angles, who were led by their king, Aedilfrid. Aidan advanced and entered the territory of the Angles by the vale of the Liddel; and at a place called Dawstane the opposing armies encountered each other. After a severe battle, Aidan was completely defeated, and many of his followers slain, but he retreated with the remainder of his army. He died in 606, after a reign of thirty-one years, and was succeeded by his younger son, Eocha Buide.¹

¹ Reeves’ _Adamnan_, edited 1857, pages 197‒203, 436;
_Chronicles_, page 17. “The house of Lorn furnished a few
provincial kings, produced a powerful race of Thanes (among
whom was the ever-famous Macbeth), and finally became
represented by a group of great Highland chieftains, whose
descendants still abound in those isles, the historical
vestiges of thirteen hundred years’ succession.” _Ibid._,
page 438.

Another new historic condition came into operation which had an important influence on the subsequent history of the island. This was the appearance of the bold and vigorous race variously described as Danes, Norwegians, Norsemen, Scandinavians, and Vikings. These names all refer to one kindred race, but in the subsequent pages I will in general follow the common collective name of Norsemen when referring to them. They were not only exceedingly brave in attack and in battle, but also very skilful in constructing small vessels, and in steering them through the raging seas, running them up the inlets and through the narrow channels, and into the firths and estuaries, and out again, with a mastery of seamanship unapproached by any other people of that period. Thus they attained to a power and influence in Europe for several centuries which their mere numbers otherwise could never have commanded. At first their inroads and expeditions were usually undertaken for plunder, but by-and-bye, when they came upon a locality which seemed a desirable possession, their instinct prompted them to occupy it if they thought themselves able to hold it. Thus their views of conquest and of empire developed with their success, and they established themselves in several parts of Europe as the ruling power for a time, and in some places permanently. They began to infest the Northern and Western Isles and the coasts of Scotland toward the close of the eighth century, and persistently continued not only to subdue and occupy many of the islands but also to make attacks upon the mainland at many points along the coasts.

While the Norsemen were feeling their way amongst the Isles, and eagerly casting their eyes on Scotland as they steered round it in their vessels at no great distance from the shores, and occasionally landing whenever they found an opportunity, the chief tribes in the country――the Picts, the Scots, the Britons, and the Saxons――were intently engaged in an intermittent warfare with one another, which seemed to be producing little result. In the seventh and eighth centuries these tribes often met in conflict, on debatable territory, between the Tay and the Forth, and between the Forth and the water of Almond, in the counties of Stirling and Linlithgow; in these districts many of their battles were fought. In short, it had become apparent in the seventh century that the banks of the Tay would be the original centre of the historic kingdom. This was mainly owing to a series of causes, which may be briefly indicated thus:――1. The unsubdued Celtic tribes still occupied Perthshire and Fife and Kinross, and the natural advantages which arose from the possession of this extensive region were very great, from every point of view. 2. To the northward and the eastward of the Tay the whole country was in the possession of the Celtic tribes. 3. While the region to the south of the Forth had been subdued and occupied by the Romans, and since their departure from the island the advance and success of the Angles on the south of the Forth, and their firm settlement in the Lothians, even though Pictish tribes still held Galloway, the existing conditions and circumstances clearly pointed out the banks of the Tay as the original centre of the historic kingdom. Accordingly Scone had become the chief seat or the capital of the Pictish tribes at the beginning of the eighth century. While Perth, in its immediate vicinity, became an important town, and Dunkeld, fourteen miles farther up the Tay, the ancient stronghold of the Caledonians, and the very gate to the central Highlands, became for a time the chief religious centre of the kingdom. Farther down below Scone, on the estuary of the Tay, there had long before this been an important settlement where the city of Dundee now stands. There can be no reasonable doubt that the famous Coronation Stone was in Scone, at the beginning of the eighth century, on which the kings were installed to the throne.

But the struggle between the different tribes continued till a pretty complete nationality was evolved. In reality the formation of a nation is often a much longer process than the creation of an empire, for mere force can never produce it, or a single great man, as it must have time to grow and form affinities, assimilate adverse elements and features, and subdue opposite interests and influences, till at length that unity on which combined action and organisation for common ends and the safety of the whole community comes into being, and then national life begins to operate. It took more than two thousand years to form the Scottish nation, and we have yet to note the most important stages of the process.

Angus, son of Fergus, appears to have fought his way and mounted the Pictish throne about the year 731. He attacked the territory of the Scots in Argyle and wasted the whole country in the year 736. It is said that he founded the monastery of St. Andrews. After a reign of thirty years he died in 761; and he was succeeded by his brother, Bruide, who reigned two years, and died in 763. A number of Pictish kings follow, but the events of their reigns are of little historic value. Constantine, who fought his way and ascended the throne of the Picts in 790, founded the church of Dunkeld; and after a reign of thirty years died in 820. His brother Angus, son of Fergus, succeeded him, and for five years he ruled over the kingdoms both of the Picts and Scots, and he died in 834. This was followed by a contest for the throne of the Picts, in which Alpin the Scot, who attacked the Picts, was slain.¹

¹ _Chronicles_, 138, 201, 209; Dr. Skene’s _Celtic Scotland_,
Volume I., pages 288, 296, 299; _A Sketch of the History of
Fife and Kinross_, by Sheriff Æ. J. G. Mackay, pages 8‒9.

But Kenneth, son of Alpin the Scot, succeeded his father in the small kingdom of Argyle in the year 839. The same year the Norsemen invaded the territories of the Picts and inflicted a crushing defeat upon them. This may have afforded the opportunity to Kenneth M‘Alpin to make a supreme effort to obtain the Pictish throne. Bred appears as the last of the line of Pictish kings, and Kenneth M‘Alpin placed himself upon the Coronation Stone at Scone in 844, thus becoming the real founder of the historic kingdom of Scotland. This great event, however, must be interpreted as the result of the long struggle of the chief tribes, as the accumulating force of circumstances and the necessities of life, and the new influence of a common religion, naturally tended to a greater concentration of power under some one of the leading tribes. Thus the foundation of the monarchy marked two distinct stages: 1, it concentrated more power in the original centre, whence the historic kingdom was gradually extended outward; 2, it supplied a continuous influence which operated effectively, though slowly, in developing the loose elements of separate tribal communities into a nationality. Henceforth the internal and external causes and agencies which have contributed to the formation of the kingdom, the development of the nation, and the progress of civilisation, may be continuously traced.

The actual kingdom which Kenneth M‘Alpin obtained, only comprised a limited portion of modern Scotland. It consisted of the district of Argyle, the counties of Perth, Fife, and parts of Forfar, Dumbarton and Stirling, with Scone as its chief seat of royalty, and Dunkeld as its centre of religious influence. The districts beyond this centre on the north-east, the west, and the south, were only gradually, and with extreme difficulty subdued, as the nation developed to its ultimate limits. After the establishment of the monarchy, under M‘Alpin, the reigning rulers were called Kings of the Picts, then Kings of Alban, and not till the tenth century was any part of the country called Scotland, but from the opening of the eleventh century this name gradually came to be applied to the whole country.

Kenneth M‘Alpin was a brave and able prince; but the circumstances in which he was placed needed all his energy, as the newly acquired territories were surrounded by bold and hostile foes; but he heroically faced all his enemies, and stifled in the bud any questions of his right to the kingdom, throttled the claims of all competitors, and asserted his supremacy. After a brilliant reign, according to the ideas of his time, having governed the Picts and the Scots jointly for sixteen years, he died in his dun at Forteviot, on the river Earn, in 860. It appears he had two sons, Constantine and Aed, and three daughters.¹

¹ _Chronicles_, pages 9, 21, 64, 65, 84, 135, 154, 361, 362.