# Talk:Scotland in the Early Middle Ages

A lot of work is going into this article, but much of it will be wasted if James E. Fraser (historian)'s recent highly praised work is [largely] ignored, as is currently. Also, there is no correspondence just now between the reference section and the notes section. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps then, can we call it a good pass, with improvement to follow? This article has languished for a very long time, and we now have something of value on which to base improvements (including material using From C to P). Any of the rest of us with the requisite interest might have spent the time and energy to get things going, but we didn't, so now we have a basis from which to iterate to an optimal solution, thanks to Sabrebd. There is some correspondence between notes and references, though it might be enhanced and formatted differently (or not). And it looks like the map recently tagged "dubious" is based on McNeil and MacQueen, p62 (though they say 'Britons' where the map says 'Strathclyde'). And a ps—nice to be in contact again, Deacon. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I have tried to make a positive effort here, following guidelines and assuming good faith, but I clearly it both here and elsewhere it has been insufficient to meet the standards necessary, so I have restored the previous uncontroversial and largely untagged version. Perhaps in another four or five years someone else will make take on the dubious task of trying to improve this area on Wikipedia and if so I wish them luck.--SabreBD (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
@ Notuncurious ... indeedie! Re Britons, Strathclyde is a kingdom only attested post-Vikings, and refers to the Strath of the river Clyde, it has nothing to do with this era. Also, as Alt Clut its centre should be Lennox, not Glenken [where it is lightest]. There's nothing connect either Alt Clut or Strathclyde to Galloway; the map also gives too little territory to Dal Riata at its peak, but is within the realm of argument I guess. The p. 62 map does not have Britons splashed across Galloway anyway, but over the Clyde and the head of the Annan. @ Sabre, don't be so sensitive. Your efforts are appreciated. Editorial review is just editorial review, and is part and parcel of editing Wikipedia. :) All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The lead seems to suggest that so-called "Celtic Christianity" and the Roman Catholic Church were two distinct entities. See the discussion in the article "Celtic Christianity" ..."As Patrick Wormald explained, “One of the common misconceptions is that there was a ‘Roman Church’ to which the ‘Celtic’ was nationally opposed.” Celtic-speaking areas were part of Latin Christendom as a whole at a time in which there was significant regional variation of liturgy and structure with a general collective veneration of the Bishop of Rome that was no less intense in Celtic areas." Mannanan51 (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)mannanan51

The lead doesn't mention Celtic Christianity, but the Celtic Tradition. As the opening of the Celtic Christianity article indicates, some have seen this as a seperate church and some as distinct practices. This article probably isnt the place for a long discussion of the historiographical issues, but neutral language should get us around the problem. Accordingly, I will change the one reference to a Celtic church that I can find, as this (I think) implies a seperate organisation.--SabreBD (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to draft a short, separate introductory section on what academics have written on the legal system(s) during this period? --Mais oui! (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

We definitely should have such a section if it is possible, given the importance of the topic, but it is extremely difficult area, mainly due to the almost total lack of contemporary sources. I will go back and see what I can put together unless someone steps forward with greater expertise.--SabreBD (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
This is not going as well as I hoped (so far I have about one sentence), but I am still working on it. It might be a long term project unless someone else can help.--SabreBD (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Irish legal texts for this era make up one of the biggest bulks of vernacular source material in Europe for this era. Sadly Scottish legal texts are non-existent. So far as day-to-day "legal" systems existed, the two regions probably wouldn't have differed very much, so maybe there is some room for some speculative/comparative intro (certainly some of the main concepts in early Irish society are well documented in later medieval Scottish society). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I find much of this anachronistic since 'caledionia' wasn't then todays Scotland, nor did todays England exist. In very simplistic terms 'Scotland' was originally the land of the Scots, whilst the Kingdom of Scotland eventually included one of the'lands of the  English'. In simple terms the Scots Gaelic folk were highlanders, whilst the 'English' lowlanders also became part of the 'Kingdon of Scotland'. The consequece seems to be that in the long term, despite the name being 'Scotland' the kingdom actually became a dominantly Anglo-saxon English speaking kingdom.

Caledonia is also anachronistic in this period and to be accurate includes everything north of Hadrian's Wall. There was one instance of the use of Anglo-Scottish border that may have been a bit confusing, but that is (I believe) clear now. It would be very cumbersome to say "the area now known as Scotland" every time, but it pretty much appears like that at the start of each section. I think the location is clear from the lead and context of each section.--SabreBD (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Caledonia probably isn't anachronistic, but wouldn't have the meaning anyone uses it for now (probably a good term for the area around Dunkeld c. 400). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree, its the modern meaning that would not fit, since there was a different meaning in this period.--SabreBD (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure its not intentional, but isn't describing the Angles as 'Germanic invaders', but not the Scots, unconscious racial discrimination? Were not the Gaelic-speaking Scots in fact equally invaders, 'Irish invaders'? I do find that in most of the Wiki pages concerning Scotland and its history there is a something of a common thread: the implicit denial and avoidance of acknowledging the country's very real (and it seems to me, mainly) ethnic, linguistic and cultural Anglo-saxon heritage. Steve  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.10.72 (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC) 

No it is not racist and just makes clear their relatively recent arrival at this point and where they came from. Please be careful before making serious accusations like racism on Wikipedia or in expressing conspiracy theories for that matter.--SabreBD (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Scotland in the Early Middle Ages/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 16:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Lead

"Scotland has an extensive coastline and large areas of difficult terrain and poor agricultural land, with more becoming marginal due to climate change, leading to relatively light settlement, particularly in the interior and Highlands." - I presume the climate change is climate change during the Middle Ages, but this is unclear.
 Done I think, but please check.--SabreBD (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
"North Britain lacked urban centres..." - it seems odd to use the term "North Britain", which is rather archaic - indeed, I believe the only recent usage was a brief attempted resurgence in the Thatcher era. If you mean what is now Scotland and Northern England, briefly glossing the term on its first use would help.
Although it had a specific usage from the 18th century, it is used by early medieval historians as a means of getting around the problem of not being able to use Caledonia or Scotland in this period. Would northern Britain get around those associations?--SabreBD (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
"Initially influenced by the Celtic tradition originating from what is now Ireland, by the end of the era it had become integrated into the structures of Rome." - This is confusing. I presume you mean that it had become integrated into the Catholic Church's organizational structure.
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
History

"By the time of Bede and Adomnán" - it might be helpful to briefly identify them - Bede is pretty well known, but Adomnán much less so. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 Done I added a general period, what they wrote is briefly summarised in the section above.--SabreBD (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
" from which they brought with them the name Scots." - it would be worthwhile to be clear at this point that "Scots" was originally a term used to describe the Irish, which changed definition over time.
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
"North Britain" crops up again; see above.
Dál Riata

"Some scholars have seen a revival of Dál Riata under Áed Find" - can we phrase this differently than "have seen"? It's a somewhat awkward phrasing.
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Alt Clut

The opening paragraph should identify the region Alt Clut was the capital of. I have provisionally edited it to say "the Strathclyde region". I've also put the explanation of the name in parentheses, in an attempt to make things a little clearer. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
OK--SabreBD (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
"The kingdom suffered a number of attacks [...]. All of which were rebuffed, losing the region of Kyle in south-west modern Scotland to Northumbria, and the last of which may have forced the king Dumnagual III to submit to his neighbours." - This is contradictory - it claims they rebuffed attacks, then says they lost territory because... they won?
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Bernecia

"It is possible that in 638 Edinburgh fell to the English," - it might be worth being clearer on what the evidence for and against is, and setting the point by which it definitely fell. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Vikings and the Kingdom of Alba

Is it necessary to use "AD" when the whole article has been AD dates? Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
This gets us to "Geography", from where I will continue shortly. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

A useful source on the later history of Al Clud is T. M. Charles-Edwards' Wales and the Britons 350-1064. This is the first volume of the Oxford History of Wales, published in 2013, but he covers Britons in other areas. On pp. 480-481 he states that in 870 the Vikings destroyed the fortress of Dumbarton, and two years later Arthal, king of Strathclyde, was killed at the instigation of the Picts. He states that this was the first use of the name Strathclyde, reflecting the fact that the kingdom could no longer be called Al Clud, because this meant Dumbarton which they no longer controlled, and the successor kingdom of Strathclyde had a major centre at Govan. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


### Will catch up
Sorry, I hit a period where I'm really busy; will finish this ASAP. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, thats great.--SabreBD (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Settlement

I'm afraid this secton's comments are a little nit-picky. I'd feel bad, but I presume this is going to FAC, so...

"peripatetic monarchies and aristocracies" - I know what "peripatetic" means, but, unless that's a standard way of describing that specific kind of monarchy, it might be better to use a better-known term like... is "nomadic" precise enough?  In any case, since the term's basically defined immediately thereafter, I wouldn't worry about this one too much.
I think I would rather stick to peripatetic than nomad, as I can see someone at FA asking if they had tents. Is "itinerant" any better? That is also used in the literature.--SabreBD (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
"In the areas of Scandinavian settlement in the Islands and along the coast..." should "Islands" be capitalised? I could see arguments for both sides.
Tricky one. Looking at all the uses I decided to remove the cap except on "Highlands and Islands". It is at least consistent now.--SabreBD (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The map of Pit-place names isn't explained sufficiently. It says "once thought to indicate" - If I remember rightly, it's one of those things where it's partial evidence, but imitation muddies the water a bit? If the theory's completely discredited, I'm going to have to question what the image contributes; if you meant to say that there's confounding factors, you'd be better off saying that and naming them than discrediting your own image.
Its a complex issue. Most name place experts still accept this. I removed the conditional clause from the caption and put some explanation in the text, but I don't think I can really explain the whole issue, as it is so complex.--SabreBD (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
"...the heaviest areas of Pictish settlement were in modern Fife, Perthshire, Angus, Aberdeen and around the Moray Firth," etc, etc. I'd suggest either a map, or combining this with the descriptions of the kingdoms up a few sections.
The map is the Pit name map - hopefully this is a bit clearer now.--SabreBD (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
"Bernicia" - this is dropped in the middle of a list of modern place names. Perhaps you meant something like "There was also extensive Bernician settlement..." which would be a bit clearer.
 Done I think this is the one you mean. This was Viking settlement.--SabreBD (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Kingship

The first half of the first paragraph is a little disorganised. Some more linking phrases would help smooth out the line of thought.
 Done I think. Unfortunately there are no obvious articles to use as links. I have tried to expand this a little to help with understanding of the concepts, which are a bit alien to those familiar only with later monarchy.--SabreBD (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
"putting their foot in a footprint in stone" - This would be clearer - presuming this revision is accurate - if this was phrased "putting their foot in a footprint carved in stone"
 Done Yes, that is what it needs, although I don't know if it was carved by humans or hydraulic action.--SabreBD (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
"However, it was Iona, the early centre of Scottish Christianity, which became the burial site of the kings of Scotland" - this sentence doesn't quite follow on from the rest of the paragraph. Also, it might be best to specify "early kings of Scotland"; I believe that the later mediaeval kings started to gravitate to Dunfermline?
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
And I'll save here; sorry this is taking so long; I'm in two operas. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Right. Will finish tomorrow. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Reluctantly I have self-failed the review and will renominate. Hopefully any new reviewer will take a look through all the work done here. Thanks for all your efforts.--SabreBD (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Scotland in the Early Middle Ages/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 16:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Will review within 48 hrs.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

History
Link Alt Clut
--SabreBD (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Done
Picts
Can you source "It probably developed out of the tribes of the Caledonii (whose name continued to be used for at least part of the confederation), perhaps as a response to the pressure exerted by the presence of the Romans to the south."
--SabreBD (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Done
"The Picts appear to have reached the heights of their influence" - I think height of their influence is correct here rather than heights.
--SabreBD (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Done
Bernicia
"The island monastery of Lindisfarne was founded in 635 and became the seat of the Bishop of Lindisfarne." -Can you elaborate a little?
--SabreBD (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Done
Vikings
"This situation was transformed in 793" Can you briefly recap what situation again for the start of a new section.
--SabreBD (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Done
Delink Picts
--SabreBD (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Done
Kingship
"Kingship could be multi-layerws " -typo?
--SabreBD (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Done
Warfare
"Sea power may also have been important. Irish annals record an attack by the Picts on Orkney in 682, which must have necessitated a large naval force,[67] and also they lost 150 ships in a disaster in 729." I think a colon and then "they also lost 150 ships would be better here.
--SabreBD (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Done
sea-power - no slash needed.
--SabreBD (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Done
Early Christianisation
Delink Hadrian's Wall and pagans.
--SabreBD (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Done
Viking paganism
" and more recently uncovered archaeological evidence,"  -when and what? please elaborate a little.
 Done I, hopefully, made this section a bit more explicit, but still trying to keep it concise--SabreBD (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Art
Delink Picts.
--SabreBD (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Done
Can you convert|0.5|m "over 0.5m long" for those of us who still work in feet :-]
--SabreBD (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Done
Architecture
Quite a lot of overlinks here including Edinburgh, Gaelic, Dunadd and Highlands.
--SabreBD (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Done
Excellent work, will pass once you've addressed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
B. MoS compliance: 
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
C. No original research: 
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Great job, a pleasure to read as always.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is true to say "In 867 the Vikings seized Northumbria, forming the Kingdom of York"
As I understand it the Vikings seized only the southern half of that English Kingdom. The northern half became thereafter the Kingdom of Lothian, subsequently becoming part of the Kingdom of the Scots.   Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You are right. I will try to find a reliable source and fix it.--SabreBD (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Certainly there are hoards of hacksilver, and raids or diplomatic gifts / "protection" payments are probably some sources. But why was it not even considered that Scotland also has its own sources of silver? Loch Lomondside was anciently mined (surface remains are visible) and still has enough silver for more mining to be considered feasible.  There were also very old lead mines (thought to be Roman) along with recovery of some other metals, in the southern uplands around Leadhills (hence the placename).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.174.178 (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC) 

It should be pointed in this section out that the obscurity of this period is not inherent in the society or culture of Scotland itself at the time. It had had literate clerics and written records of various kinds since at least the 5th century.  Scotland's early Medieval history was not always obscure, it was actively, indeed tactically, obscured by an external force.
Scotland's history literally disappeared when Edward I of England invaded with the primary objective of locating and comprehensively plundering it, and destroying what could not be carried away. His army's tour of Scotland's main cultural, ecclesiastic, civic-administrative centres and baronial seats/estates had this as its central rationale. The aim was twofold: one was to destroy any cultural / historical narrative that could undermine to England's claim to overlordship of and incorporation of Scotland into Edwards realm; the other was to enable Edward to collate a Domesday-like record of everyone's land-titles and taxable income.
Much was destroyed on the spot. Most of the rest was exported to England's archives where, as it turned out, it mouldered apparently unread until the 1600s.   When it was proposed to return what remained, it was finally and comprehensively destroyed in one episode when the ship supposed to be returning Scotland's land records, State records, ecclesiastical chronicles, burgh records and family/clan charter chests was sunk.  This is not obscure or contentious.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.174.178 (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC) 
We actually have a few texts thought to have been composed in Scotland during this period. The main problem is that we lack context for them. 

Y Gododdin (composed between the 7th and 11th centuries). Old Welsh poem commemorating the fallen soldiers of Gododdin (area covering south-east Scotland and north-east England). Likely composed in Southern Scotland by a bard. Its historical accuracy is debatable because it commemorates an "elite" force of about 300 men besieging a city. The force seems tiny even by period standards.
Gweith Gwen Ystrat (composed in the late 6th century, though likely modified in later centuries). Old Welsh poem apparently commemorating a victorious campaign of Urien of Rheged (a kingdom covering areas of southern Scotland and northern England) against some kind of invading force. We know who Urien was, but the vague description of his opponents in the poem leaves it unclear what kind of foes he was facing.
Elegy for St Columba. Late 6th-century Gaelic text, written in commemoration of then recently-deceased Columba (d. 597), an Irish missionary active in Scotland. Not that helpful as a historic source, though it is among the earliest surviving Gaelic texts.
"In Praise of St Columba" . 7th-century Gaelic text, praising Columba and apparently written several decades following his death.
"Prayer for Protection". Latin prayer, dating to the 6th century. Possibly written by clerics educated in Latin.
Altus Prosator. 6th-century Latin hymn to the Creator, possibly written by clerics educated in Latin. Mentions no human names, and seems to be a defence of the Trinity doctrine. Linguists have noted that some of the Latin terms used in the text were neologisms.
Dream of the Rood. Old English poem, composed between the 7th and the 9th centuries. Possibly written within the Kingdom of Northumbria (southern Scotland and northern England), and one of the oldest surviving texts in Old English. Dimadick (talk) 12:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Given that the relevant Wikipedia page prefers Alex Woolf's Dunnachton over the more traditional Dunnichen as the site of the battle in 685 it is incompetent to assert the Angus site with no caveat. Freuchie (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The section headed Physical Geography includes the sentence: Its east Atlantic position means that it has very heavy rainfall: today about 700 cm (276 in) per year in the east and over 1,000 cm (394 in) in the west.
It's not clear where these figures come from but they are nonsense. The article on Fort William, one of the wettest places in Scotland, includes average rainfall data; it gives average annual rainfall for that location of 1883mm (74.1 inches). And yet this section is suggesting that rainfall in the west of Scotland is more than five times greater than that experienced in Fort William, one of its wettest locations. I'm guessing (but can't be certain) that centimetres have been confused with millimetres somewhere along the line and will remove the second half of the offending sentence, especially as it is unreferenced.Freewheeling frankie (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:England in the Late Middle Ages which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 23:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)