PDA

View Full Version : Iron Age Galloway - was it really different from the rest of Scotland?



Jean M
09-30-2016, 06:24 PM
If you can read this and make up your mind, you are doing better than me. :biggrin1:

Making sense of Iron Age settlement patterns in Scotland
http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/09/2016/making-sense-of-iron-age-settlement-patterns-in-scotland


Recent research by GUARD Archaeology into Iron Age settlement patterns in Galloway raises the question of whether the right perspective has been taken when trying to make sense of Iron Age settlement patterns across Scotland.

Iron Age Galloway is a bit of a conundrum, difficult to clearly differentiate from the Iron Age characteristics of other regions of Scotland but often treated as somewhat distinct nonetheless. On the face of it, a distribution map of the various different classifications of site draws a ready distinction between Galloway and Dumfriesshire, the latter area often understood as sharing common traits with south-east Scotland, while the former area is seen as sharing more in common with Atlantic Scotland. To a certain degree these two areas encapsulate the perceived differences between the Iron Age settlement patterns of north-western and south-eastern Scotland.

However, many of the distinctive settlement patterns in Galloway, such as the marked distribution of promontory forts along its coast, or the abundance of crannogs within its lochs, do not reflect cultural conditions; rather they reflect the topography of the region. Promontory forts and crannogs are widely distributed across Scotland, where local topography allows. There are simply more promontories and lochs in Galloway in comparison to areas like Dumfriesshire and the archaeology reflects this.

But there is a potentially significant caveat to this....

and so on and on, twisting round a dizzing number of hair-pin bends. If you are interested, the people of the region were the Novantae, according to Ptolemy. http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/celticscotlowlands.shtml

11912

zamyatin13
09-30-2016, 07:22 PM
There's maybe not many people who would get excited by a report on Iron Age Galloway, but I'm one of them, this is pure catnip for me. It's a pet obsession of mine and a region that I love. This is great, thanks.

The reason why there are no crannogs in the Lake District has always bothered me. It looks almost as if you could walk across the Solway some days. The same difference persists in the neolithic to an extent, with court cairns etc. The tyranny of geography in all likelihood, for some reason the SW Scotland-N Ireland pull has been the historically stronger.

Jean M
09-30-2016, 08:51 PM
The reason why there are no crannogs in the Lake District has always bothered me.

Both crannogs and brochs suggest to me a certain distrust of the neighbours. (One could say the same of hillforts, though these could hold a lot more people.) So where and when we see crannogs popping up, times were probably relatively tough, as I see it, with competition for scarce resources.

Jean M
09-30-2016, 08:58 PM
Turney et al., Holocene climatic change and past Irish societal response, Journal of Archaeological Science 33 (2006) 34-38 found that in the Bronze and Iron Ages across Ireland periods of increased wetness coincided with the episodes of crannog construction.


The assumed defensive nature of such sites indicates the defence/protection of limited resources (probably due to reductions in land productivity) that led to a disruption in socio-economic conditions.

Saetro
10-03-2016, 01:38 AM
Both crannogs and brochs suggest to me a certain distrust of the neighbours. (One could say the same of hillforts, though these could hold a lot more people.) So where and when we see crannogs popping up, times were probably relatively tough, as I see it, with competition for scarce resources.

After that statement, I was going to note that Galloway is close to Ireland: when some Plantation settlers left for Ireland in the early 1600s, they used to come back each week on Sundays to go to church! But then you followed up with:

Turney et al., Holocene climatic change and past Irish societal response, Journal of Archaeological Science 33 (2006) 34-38 found that in the Bronze and Iron Ages across Ireland periods of increased wetness coincided with the episodes of crannog construction.

So 1) Ireland is close and 2)During wet times in Ireland, people there sought to move to Galloway, but this was not welcome to those already there.

zamyatin13
10-03-2016, 07:33 PM
Turney et al., Holocene climatic change and past Irish societal response, Journal of Archaeological Science 33 (2006) 34-38 found that in the Bronze and Iron Ages across Ireland periods of increased wetness coincided with the episodes of crannog construction.
I've mused on this recently while watching the increase in flooding in Britain. While Galloway has had it's share, Cumbria seems to be the worst affected of all. It might follow that in previous wetter times the location of Cumbria, coupled with the steep hills unsuitable for crops and sheep (pre-herdwick) meant that it was lightly populated. A few quotes from Wikipedia (sorry) could reinforce this:

However, securely dateable evidence of Iron Age activity in Cumbria is thin...climate deteriorated to the extent that, in Cumbria, upland areas and marginal areas of cultivation were no longer sustainable...lack of evidence for low-lying settlements...There is sparse evidence for the Late Iron Age and early Romano-British periods

Jean M
10-03-2016, 08:21 PM
I've mused on this recently while watching the increase in flooding in Britain. While Galloway has had it's share, Cumbria seems to be the worst affected of all. It might follow that in previous wetter times the location of Cumbria, coupled with the steep hills unsuitable for crops and sheep (pre-herdwick) meant that it was lightly populated.

Hmmm. So we would expect crannogs. I'm joining you in puzzlement.

David Mc
10-03-2016, 08:42 PM
I was surprised by the Wikipedia quote:
However, securely dateable evidence of Iron Age activity in Cumbria is thin...climate deteriorated to the extent that, in Cumbria, upland areas and marginal areas of cultivation were no longer sustainable...lack of evidence for low-lying settlements...There is sparse evidence for the Late Iron Age and early Romano-British periods

Actually Cumbria has a significant number of hill forts... I myself have stood within the ruins of one of them on Carrock Fell. Most Cumbrian hill forts are ill-suited to long-term habitation, suggesting that there were in fact habitations in the valleys or the lower slopes of the fells, and with enough of a population to build and then make use of the forts.

alan
10-03-2016, 11:28 PM
Hmmm. So we would expect crannogs. I'm joining you in puzzlement.

Just guessing but crannogs would generally be built where the water is not too deep for some distance out from the shore so that they provide defense but are still possible to build using modest timber piles. Perhaps these glacial lakes in Cumbria steeply fall to deep water not far from the shore? Or maybe the near-shore part of the lakes in Cumbria are rocky and lack deep silt/mud which I imagine makes driving timbers in hard/impossible. Just a guess because I dont know much about the Cumbrian lakes apart from the fact that they seem to be flooded upland glacially scoured u-shaped valleys to my untrained eye. In some places with crannogs like SW Scotland and Ireland the crannogs seem to be more located on bodies of water in the hollows between rolling lowland boulder clay lowland hills.

alan
10-03-2016, 11:36 PM
After that statement, I was going to note that Galloway is close to Ireland: when some Plantation settlers left for Ireland in the early 1600s, they used to come back each week on Sundays to go to church! But then you followed up with:


So 1) Ireland is close and 2)During wet times in Ireland, people there sought to move to Galloway, but this was not welcome to those already there.

They are very good as defensive boltholes for chiefs during wars. There was a major reoccupation of crannogs in Ulster during the native Irish's final wars with Elizabeth. There are pictorial maps of battles and attempts to take the crannogs in the late 16th to early 17th century. Many of the loughs were small and not accessed by large rivers which meant the option of bringing naval forces in to take the crannog was problematic.

Dubhthach
10-04-2016, 09:13 AM
They are very good as defensive boltholes for chiefs during wars. There was a major reoccupation of crannogs in Ulster during the native Irish's final wars with Elizabeth. There are pictorial maps of battles and attempts to take the crannogs in the late 16th to early 17th century. Many of the loughs were small and not accessed by large rivers which meant the option of bringing naval forces in to take the crannog was problematic.

http://www.mcmahonsofmonaghan.org/bartlettmap_monaghan.jpg

Specific image is supposedly in Monaghan, in general Crannog's in Ireland appear to have an association with Royal/nobility sites. The most famous examples of this been Lagore in Meath (site of Kingship of "South Brega" within the Southern Uí Néill) and Lough Hackett in Galway (kingship site of Uí Briúin Eola before Norman conquest of North Galway under De Burgh/Burkes)

Interesting PDF here: (PhD thesis)

THE SOCIAL AND IDEOLOGICAL
ROLE OF CRANNOGS
IN EARLY MEDIEVAL IRELAN
http://eprints.maynoothuniversity.ie/5079/1/Aidan_O'Sullivan_Vol_1_20140624090451.pdf

Dubhthach
10-04-2016, 09:17 AM
On that theme there is at least one Crannóg that has a tower house on it, namely the one in Ballynahinch lake in Conemara

http://thefunstons.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/P8020167.jpg

there's also some debate that island that Cloughoughter Castle is situated on in Cavan started out as a Crannóg as well, this castle is where Eoghan Rua Ó Néill (Owen Roe O'Neill) died in 1649.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Clogh_Oughter_Castle_Cavan_Ireland_geograph_140585 1_by_Oliver_Dixon.jpg

Again emphaise on Crannóg's been linked to ruling lineages either as major point of power or place of refugee.

Jon
10-04-2016, 02:36 PM
[QUOTE=zamyatin13;189974]There's maybe not many people who would get excited by a report on Iron Age Galloway, but I'm one of them, this is pure catnip for me.

Me too :)

My earliest male line folks are right on the border of Ayrshire and Galloway. So far they disappear without trace pre-1740's. I've long suspected a name change. There were a whole range of wonderful Galloway surnames, many an amalgamation of Gaelic and Brythonic, and most now sadly lost. Presumably the people didn't disappear, so the names must have changed. It's a rich, mixed region and always has been. My HG, L193, is found down there in pretty large numbers. So far I think the main players were probably Strathclyde Brits, and the mysterious Gall Gaidheal, of whom I've read conflicting accounts and who led to the name of the region itself. Even the elusive 'southern Picts' are part of the mix. A Pictish engraved stone was found at Trusty's Hill recently:

http://gallowaypicts.com/wordpress/sample-page/

JMcB
10-04-2016, 04:16 PM
[QUOTE=zamyatin13;189974]There's maybe not many people who would get excited by a report on Iron Age Galloway, but I'm one of them, this is pure catnip for me.

Me too :)

My earliest male line folks are right on the border of Ayrshire and Galloway. So far they disappear without trace pre-1740's. I've long suspected a name change. There were a whole range of wonderful Galloway surnames, many an amalgamation of Gaelic and Brythonic, and most now sadly lost. Presumably the people didn't disappear, so the names must have changed. It's a rich, mixed region and always has been. My HG, L193, is found down there in pretty large numbers. So far I think the main players were probably Strathclyde Brits, and the mysterious Gall Gaidheal, of whom I've read conflicting accounts and who led to the name of the region itself. Even the elusive 'southern Picts' are part of the mix. A Pictish engraved stone was found at Trusty's Hill recently:

http://gallowaypicts.com/wordpress/sample-page/


This may or may not be of interest to you but as coincidence would have it, I just finished reading something about the mysterious Gall-Ghàidheil.


Outsiders, Vikings, and Merchants:
the context dependency of the Gall-Ghàidheil in medieval Ireland and Scotland

Roderick W. McDonald University of Iceland

Abstract

The identity, geography, and politics of the Gall-Ghàidheil have been re-visited by scholars in recent decades, principally through close contextual analyses of the Irish Annals. However, this scholarship has tended to steer clear of their literary representation, however sparse that is. This paper looks at the implications of their characterisation in the Middle Irish Airec Menman Airard Mac Coisse, and suggests that their association with merchants in that text may give an indication of their social status and economic role, and the possible prejudices of the author of that text.

https://www.academia.edu/27263472/Outsiders_Vikings_and_Merchants_the_context_depend ency_of_the_Gall-Ghàidheil_in_medieval_Ireland_and_Scotland

Jean M
10-04-2016, 04:49 PM
This may or may not be of interest to you but as coincidence would have it, I just finished reading something about the mysterious Gall-Ghàidheil.

Thanks. I have put it in the Vault.

Jon
10-04-2016, 05:36 PM
[QUOTE=Jon;190682]


This may or may not be of interest to you but as coincidence would have it, I just finished reading something about the mysterious Gall-Ghàidheil.

Thanks a lot. I've been trying to find out more about these guys as I feel there might be a link in with L193 (heavy in the Hebrides as well as the south west). I read somewhere else (can't remember where) that the name simply means 'foreign Gael', and could also have referred to mixed Picto-Gaels as well. But most scholarship seems to accept that there was a Norse element in there.

alan
10-04-2016, 09:24 PM
It is sometimes said that the term Galloglass or Galloglach has the term gall or foreigner because these heavily armed soldiers of Medieval Ireland were recruited from the Hebrides of Scotland. It is true their ancestors came from the Hebrides. However, the term Galloglach was also used in Highland Scotland for heavily armed soldiers in the same period. So somehow the Gaelic Scots also considered them 'gall' or of foreign extraction in some way. The term Gall in the Medieval period in the Gaelic world was primarily given to the Anglo-Normans and Vikings. The most likely explanation IMO is that Galloglachs were originally mercenaries hired from elements within the Hebrides who were still seen as Norse in some way as some were in Lewis etc.

As a sidenote, not only were Galloglachs noted in both Ireland and Scotland but the lighter skirmisher/raider soldiers known in Gaelic as Ceithern appear both in Scotland where it was phonetically rendered Cateran in non-Gaelic sources and in Ireland where it was rendered Kern in non-Gaelic sources. So it is clear that the entire Gaelic world of Highland Scotland and Ireland had the same two classes of warriors and used the same Gaelic terminology.

Saetro
10-05-2016, 01:26 AM
It is sometimes said that the term Galloglass or Galloglach has the term gall or foreigner because these heavily armed soldiers of Medieval Ireland were recruited from the Hebrides of Scotland. It is true their ancestors came from the Hebrides. However, the term Galloglach was also used in Highland Scotland for heavily armed soldiers in the same period. So somehow the Gaelic Scots also considered them 'gall' or of foreign extraction in some way. The term Gall in the Medieval period in the Gaelic world was primarily given to the Anglo-Normans and Vikings. The most likely explanation IMO is that Galloglachs were originally mercenaries hired from elements within the Hebrides who were still seen as Norse in some way as some were in Lewis etc.

As a sidenote, not only were Galloglachs noted in both Ireland and Scotland but the lighter skirmisher/raider soldiers known in Gaelic as Ceithern appear both in Scotland where it was phonetically rendered Cateran in non-Gaelic sources and in Ireland where it was rendered Kern in non-Gaelic sources. So it is clear that the entire Gaelic world of Highland Scotland and Ireland had the same two classes of warriors and used the same Gaelic terminology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gallowglass_-_D%C3%BCrer.png
This illustration is derivative, but illustrates the difference in armament.
Also note the heavier-armoured soldier requires a servant of his own to carry gear, the lighter ones share a servant.
(From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallowglass (Re-posting the illustration probably contrary to copyright law in my country.))

JMcB
10-05-2016, 03:05 AM
[QUOTE=JMcB;190689]

Thanks a lot. I've been trying to find out more about these guys as I feel there might be a link in with L193 (heavy in the Hebrides as well as the south west). I read somewhere else (can't remember where) that the name simply means 'foreign Gael', and could also have referred to mixed Picto-Gaels as well. But most scholarship seems to accept that there was a Norse element in there.

Hello Jon,

If you're interested in the subject, you might also like taking a look a these.


From Dál Riata to the Gall-Ghàidheil

Andrew Jennings and Arne Kruse

The distinctive pattern of Norse settlement names in western Scotland, together with two seemingly unrelated historical events, the disappearance of Dál Riata from contemporary records and the mysterious appearance of a new ethnic group, the Gall- Ghàidheil, in the Irish annals, appear to be inter-linked phenomena. By examining the extent and nature of Norse place-names it becomes possible to suggest a geographical origin for the Gall-Ghàidheil, which we would suggest was the territory of Dál Riata.

http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/files/15134418/From_D_l_Riata_to_the_Gall_Gaidheil.pdf



The break up of Dál Riata and the rise of Gallgoídil
Clare Downham

http://www.academia.edu/19596633/The_break_up_of_Dál_Riata_and_the_rise_of_Gallgo%C 3%ADdil



Gall-Gaidhil and Galloway
Daphne Brooke

During the latter years of Kenneth's reign (AD 844-60) a people appear in close association with the Norwegian pirates joining their plundering and expeditions, who are termed Gallgaidhel. This name was formed by the combination of the word gall, a stranger, a foreigner, and Gaidhel, the national name of the Celtic race. It was certainly first applied to Galloway and the proper name of the province, Galwethia, is formed from Galwyddel, the Welsh equivalent of Gallgaidhel. - W. F. Skene Celtic Scotland

The hypothesis that the Gall-Gaidhil settled and ruled Galloway and gave its name has dominated the historical thinking about the region for nearly a century. A generation after Skene wrote the passage just quoted it received added authority from W. J. Watson and has been accepted ever since. Yet the acceptance has become increasingly uneasy. Not only is the logic of the Gall-Gaidhil story as argued from the Irish annals difficult in places to follow, but any critical study of the Scottish and English medieval documentation suggests inferences which are scarcely compatible with the Gall-Gaidhil thesis at all. A fresh look at both bodies of evidence is needed and the Conference of the Scottish Society for Northern Studies, at which this paper was presented, provided an admirable opportunity to initiate that reappraisal.


http://ssns.org.uk/resources/Documents/Books/Galloway_1991/07_Brooke_Galloway_1991_pp_97-116.pdf

Jon
10-05-2016, 09:32 AM
Many thanks. Very interesting. You don't happen to have links to any of Thomas Clancy's articles on Galloway do you? Can't seem to trace them...

Dubhthach
10-05-2016, 11:18 AM
It is sometimes said that the term Galloglass or Galloglach has the term gall or foreigner because these heavily armed soldiers of Medieval Ireland were recruited from the Hebrides of Scotland. It is true their ancestors came from the Hebrides. However, the term Galloglach was also used in Highland Scotland for heavily armed soldiers in the same period. So somehow the Gaelic Scots also considered them 'gall' or of foreign extraction in some way. The term Gall in the Medieval period in the Gaelic world was primarily given to the Anglo-Normans and Vikings. The most likely explanation IMO is that Galloglachs were originally mercenaries hired from elements within the Hebrides who were still seen as Norse in some way as some were in Lewis etc.

As a sidenote, not only were Galloglachs noted in both Ireland and Scotland but the lighter skirmisher/raider soldiers known in Gaelic as Ceithern appear both in Scotland where it was phonetically rendered Cateran in non-Gaelic sources and in Ireland where it was rendered Kern in non-Gaelic sources. So it is clear that the entire Gaelic world of Highland Scotland and Ireland had the same two classes of warriors and used the same Gaelic terminology.

Gall while technically translating as "foreigner" and used as such today, often had context-specific usage depending on era. In context of 10th-13th century Gall specifically meant Norse/Viking, so for example the Hebrides to this day are called Inse Ghall -- the islands of the Gall. In such a context someone from Hebrides might thus have been just described as been a Gall.

Later of course the word Gall specifically meant English person, so during the 16th century, you would never call a french person a Gall, but a Francach (which funny enough is also the word for "rat" in Irish from "Luch Francach -- french mouse)

Anyways Gallóglach = Gall + Óglach

Óglach these days tends to mean "Volunteer" in context of historic Irish Volunteers, and used by the Irish Army (Óglaigh na hÉireann) and illegal organisations such as the IRA (who in Irish use the term Óglaigh na hÉireann illegally) -- this usage dates back to the foundation of the Irish Volunteers in 1913.

The word itself is combination of Óg + lach (young + addjective suffix) -- basically means "Young warrior"/"Young man" and thus warrior in general:

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/oglach.png

So Gall+Óglach could be glossed to mean "Warrior from Hebrides", which make sense given that first probable mention of them in Irish context is to do with marriage of daughter of Dubhghall mac Ruaidhrí (King of the Isles) to Aedh mac Felim Ó Conchobair (aka. Aedh na nGall -- Aedh/Aodh of the Gall) future King of Connacht in 1259. The dowry consisted of 160 Óglaigh (Óglaigh = plural of Óglach), the term Gallóglach isn't used until about 1290. So it's probable though given Aedh nickname that this reflects his usage of Hebridian (Gall in this linguistic context) soldiers

Jon
10-05-2016, 11:44 AM
so for example the Hebrides to this day are called Inse Ghall -- the islands of the Gall. In such a context someone from Hebrides might thus have been just described as been a Gall.

Very good point - and may support the theories in the articles above that they may have been different groups of people in different places. L193 is in the Hebrides and in Galloway/Ayrshire, but not so much in Ireland itself. Again, Campbell's point about related Gaelic communities on both sides of the sea would seem to be relevant here. Given that Brythonic was probably spoken in Galloway before Gall Gaidheal incursion, perhaps they brought Gaelic into the area. Watson makes the point that the Gaelic of Galloway bears more similarities with Irish and shows less of the 'Norsified' elements of Gaelic elsewhere in Scotland. One presumes that the Gall Gaidheal, if from the Hebrides, would have brought Norse linguistic elements with them, if not genetic elements. Therefore perhaps there was another, earlier, Gaelic incursion from western Scotland/Ireland, which pre-dated the Gall Gaidheal?

Dubhthach
10-05-2016, 12:12 PM
Very good point - and may support the theories in the articles above that they may have been different groups of people in different places. L193 is in the Hebrides and in Galloway/Ayrshire, but not so much in Ireland itself. Again, Campbell's point about related Gaelic communities on both sides of the sea would seem to be relevant here. Given that Brythonic was probably spoken in Galloway before Gall Gaidheal incursion, perhaps they brought Gaelic into the area. Watson makes the point that the Gaelic of Galloway bears more similarities with Irish and shows less of the 'Norsified' elements of Gaelic elsewhere in Scotland. One presumes that the Gall Gaidheal, if from the Hebrides, would have brought Norse linguistic elements with them, if not genetic elements. Therefore perhaps there was another, earlier, Gaelic incursion from western Scotland/Ireland, which pre-dated the Gall Gaidheal?

Well the Norse influence in Gáidhlig is more prononunced in the northern dialects particually on Lewis, when I listen to it personally I think their vowels almost sound Scandinavian.

More southern dialects are closer to Irish, historically people talk about a division of Gáidhlig dialects into a Northern and Southern collection of sub-dialects. In case of Galloway the language was extinct before modern era, but given geographic proximity the connections to Irish could just be down to location in the "dialect chain" after all region became cut off linguistically from Argyll etc, whereas NE Ulster and Isle of Man were close enough.

Leaving that aside there is question about when Irish and Scottish Gáidhlig diverge from each other. Generally it's accepted that "Old Irish" (stage of language from 600-1000AD) doesn't show any dialectical boundaries when it comes to written evidence. It's generally regarded as common ancestor stage for all three Goidelic languages, some would push it more into the Middle Irish stage (100-1200).

Leaving that aside common literary language was used in both Ireland and Scotland in period 1200-1600, this is what is known as "Early Modern Irish" (the difference between EMI and "Modern Irish" is akin to difference between Chaucer and modern spoken english). It's during this stage really that divergence kicks in, even than I imagine right up until the 16th century that it wasn't that hard to understand each other (perhaps a interesting parallel is Scots and "standard" English).

The parallel comparison I often use is to look at divergence of Scandinavian languages, which basically branched off Old Norse in similiar timeframe (1000-1300AD)

With regards to Hebrides it's quite possible that they were actually Norse speaking during period 900-1100, evidence kinda points to a "re-Gaelicisation", now other than Inner Hebrides which would have formed part of historic Dál Riada, it's quite possible that the Outer Hebrides (like Orkney) was Pictish speaking in period before 800.

Jon
10-05-2016, 02:54 PM
You don't then subscribe to the 'indigenous' Scottish Gaelic population theories as expounded by Ewan Campbell and others? Before reading that I had learned the accepted version that Gaelic was brought in largely by Irish groups (e.g. Dal Riada), but I'm no expert...

Dubhthach
10-05-2016, 03:36 PM
You don't then subscribe to the 'indigenous' Scottish Gaelic population theories as expounded by Ewan Campbell and others? Before reading that I had learned the accepted version that Gaelic was brought in largely by Irish groups (e.g. Dal Riada), but I'm no expert...

Wasn't it Ewan Campbell who based his ideas around stuff like lack of Ringforts in Argyll? Problem of course with this is that Ringforts in Ireland probably post-date 700AD. Personally I thing that Dál Riada was actually Scottish based with outpost into Ireland, and in reality what you are seeing is extended contact zone leading to dialect convergence. A situation that would be repeated a thousand years later with the McDonalds and the isles, extending from Hebrides into Glens of Antrim etc.

You have to remember that Goidelic and Brythonic are closely related to each other, obviously they both underwent major changes in the post-roman period (sound changes etc.) but if you wind back couple hundred years they are closely related languages and wouldn't been that hard to switch between them. (No harder than say a Italian learning Portuguese)

Jean M
10-05-2016, 05:11 PM
Wasn't it Ewan Campbell who based his ideas around stuff like lack of Ringforts in Argyll?

Ewan Campbell, Were the Scots Irish? can be found on Electric Scotland? http://www.electricscotland.com/history/articles/scotsirish.htm

Extract:


There had never been any serious archaeological justification for the supposed Scottic invasion. Leslie Alcock is one of the few to have looked at the archaeological evident detail, coming to the conclusion that 'The settlements show very little sign of the transportation of material culture to Dalriadic Scotland or to Dyfed' (Alcock 1970: 65). This lack of archaeological evidence has led some younger archaeologists to adopt a more cautious approach, suggesting that perhaps there was an elite takeover of the local ruling dynasty, rather than a mass migration of peoples, and that contact may have taken place over a longer time-scale than the conventional view (Foster 1995 13-14). The paradigm of Irish migration remains strong however, bolstered by the evidence from other areas of western Britain. During the expansion of interest in 'Dark Age Britain', scholars familiar with the historical and genealogical accounts of Irish origins of some western kingdoms explicitly searched for, and believed they had found, archaeological evidence for these migrations. Examples can be quoted for ogham stones in Dyfed, Brecon, Gwynedd and Dumnonia (Macalister 1949); placenames in Dyfed (Richards 1960), Galloway (Nicolaisen 1976) and Cornwall (Thomas 1973); settlement forms in Somerset (Rahtz 1976); and pottery in Cornwall (Thomas 1968). This illustrates that there was a climate amongst scholars working in this area who saw cultural explanations terms of an historical/linguistic paradigm which they applied to all areas of western Britain.

Archaeological evidence

If there had been any substantial movement of people into Argyll, there should be some sign of this in the archaeological record, even though few would now accept a simplistic equation of material culture and population groups. One reason why no evidence has been brought forward in the past is the relative lack of archaeological investigation in Argyll, and also in Antrim. However, since Alcock produced his 1970 paper there has been substantial progress in understanding early medieval Argyll, giving us the opportunity to re-examine the archaeological evidence. The areas of material culture where we might expect to see signs of incomers from a different cultural group are in personal jewellery such as brooches and pins and settlement forms. Both areas were aceramic at this period.

Saetro
10-05-2016, 08:23 PM
[QUOTE=Jon;190700]

http://ssns.org.uk/resources/Documents/Books/Galloway_1991/07_Brooke_Galloway_1991_pp_97-116.pdf

Interesting reflection on the origin of "Caledonia".

fridurich
10-06-2016, 05:51 PM
Ewan Campbell, Were the Scots Irish? can be found on Electric Scotland? http://www.electricscotland.com/history/articles/scotsirish.htm

Extract:

To get it from another perspective so we can make a better decision about who has it right, be sure and read https://www.academia.edu/7174193/A_critical_analysis_of_Dr._Ewan_Campbells_paper_We re_the_Scots_Irish_?auto=download where Mrs. Brennan mentions the ringfort question, basically saying there were similar structures in Argyle to the ringforts. She does seem to agree that Gaelic may have been there before Dal Riata, but she mentions some things Mr. Campbell neglected. Such as that there are a couple of Ogham stones in Argyll, which Campbell had mentioned before but not in the Electric Scotland Article and also that there appears to be a stone inaugural footprint, similar to the ones in Ireland. Also, that a particular type of brooch present in Ireland that Campbell said wasn't in Argyll, had been found in Argyll. I just want to know the truth.

Jean M
10-06-2016, 06:28 PM
I just want to know the truth.

I don't back Ewan Campbell myself. Extract from Blood of the Celts:


Archaeologist Ewan Campbell suggested that the people west of the mountain spine of Scotland, isolated by geography from the linguistic changes elsewhere in Britain, had simply retained the ancient Gaelic language of the British Isles. That idea founders on the fact that Scottish Gaelic is a descendant of Old Irish. Geography does seem crucial though. Kintyre reaches out to the northeast tip of Ireland. Around it are islands, so transport by boat would be commonplace. Trade, marriages and alliances could weave an invisible web across the water.

Dubhthach asked what Ewan Campbell's case was, so I linked to his article. Nothing more. :)

fridurich
10-07-2016, 05:34 AM
I don't back Ewan Campbell myself. Extract from Blood of the Celts:



Dubhthach asked what Ewan Campbell's case was, so I linked to his article. Nothing more. :)

Jean, sorry I don't mean to sound critical of you in my previous post. I posted it when in a hurry, typing fast because I had to leave soon from my lunch hour to get back to work (Central Standard Time in Texas).

You make a good point, with Irish Gaelic being ancestral to Scottish Gaelic, how could Gaelic have already been in Argyll before any Irish people were there? On the other hand, there appears to be no trace in place names of any language other than Gaelic, almost as if there was never another language there, or the former language was completely eradicated by the arrival of Gaelic speakers. However, I have heard it said before that some thought the Anglo-Saxons completely wiped out the Celtic tribes in England because there are very few Celtic place names in England. However we know from DNA studies and the POBI study, that the Celts must have been plentiful after the arrival of the Anglo Saxons.

In the POBI study, even though they don't have a large number of samples from western Scotland and Northern Ireland, what they have shows an autosomal dna similarity between parts of Western Scotland and some of the Northern Irish. They believe these represent the Gaelic Ulster Irish, and the Gaelic Scots of the Western Isles and Argyll, etc.

I believe on the YDNA aspect, there are M222>df85 and/or M222>df97 men in both Ireland and Scotland, probably some in Argyll. My O'Hair cousin is M222>s588>s603>by3347 and is related to descendants of Henry Hare (b. about 1780 in County Cavan, Ireland), some Ewings (their ancestors may have been from Ottar in Argyle) who are ultimately Scottish, a Morrison, and some Robertsons (Clann Donnachaidh) of Struan in Perthshire, who are M222>S588>s603

As more and more advanced YDNA tests and other autosomal tests take place, hopefully it can eventually shed additional light on which direction(s) migration went between Ireland and Argyll, if that is possible to show, out of all of the back and forth movement between those two places.

Jon
10-07-2016, 09:06 AM
Interesting points Jean. But Fridurich mentioned the place-name evidence, which for me is the most compelling. Watson's Celtic Placenames of Scotland is of course the main text here. It is still astonishing that Gaelic, more than any other language, forms the vast majority of all Scottish place names, and not only in 'Gaelic' areas. Clearly the Gaels of the west became dominant so that their language took the firmest hold. But in Perthshire, for example, there's a clear trace of the older Pictish linguistic layer (e.g. in the 'Pit-' names), interestingly often combined with Gaelic. So 'Pitlochry' would be 'Lochry's share'; often the names involved were Gaelic, indicating the settlement of Gaels in the area. But in Argyll there is no 'previous layer' like that (nor indeed down in Galloway I think), suggesting that Gaelic was spoken there much much earlier than the rough dating of Dal Riata (c. 500 AD). I don't contest that Scottish Gaelic is a derivative of Irish, but the question is how did it get there, and when. I think the idea of it being brought in suddenly around 500 AD cannot be sustained. But then the whole idea of Dal Riata as a big, one-off invasion from Ireland in 500 has, as far as I'm aware, been abandoned?

Jean M
10-07-2016, 09:12 AM
I think the idea of it being brought in suddenly around 500 AD cannot be sustained. But then the whole idea of Dal Riata as a big, one-off invasion from Ireland in 500 has, as far as I'm aware, been abandoned?

Yes indeed. I say as much in Blood of the Celts.

Helgenes50
10-07-2016, 10:10 AM
Yes indeed. I say as much in Blood of the Celts.

A very interesting book, without comparison with the French books on this topic.
Always next to my bed, with the horse, the wheel and the language of Anthony
and a good raison for me to improve my english

Dubhthach
10-07-2016, 10:10 AM
Jean, sorry I don't mean to sound critical of you in my previous post. I posted it when in a hurry, typing fast because I had to leave soon from my lunch hour to get back to work (Central Standard Time in Texas).

You make a good point, with Irish Gaelic being ancestral to Scottish Gaelic, how could Gaelic have already been in Argyll before any Irish people were there? On the other hand, there appears to be no trace in place names of any language other than Gaelic, almost as if there was never another language there, or the former language was completely eradicated by the arrival of Gaelic speakers. However, I have heard it said before that some thought the Anglo-Saxons completely wiped out the Celtic tribes in England because there are very few Celtic place names in England. However we know from DNA studies and the POBI study, that the Celts must have been plentiful after the arrival of the Anglo Saxons.

Terminology can be confusing in English in this regard. So in Ireland the stages of the Irish language are known as follows

Archaic/Primitive Irish (as written on Ogham) -> Old Irish -> Middle Irish -> Early Modern Irish -> Late Modern Irish (what is spoken today)

In an english language context the language was called Irish from an early stage (thus the use of term "Erse" in Scots), whereas "Gaelic" as a term was coined in 18th century Scotland for if any reason to differenate the language there from Irish (Erse was a derogatory term in Scots), this ties in with the Scottish Gaelic translation of bible etc. (up until than they used the "Early Modern Irish" translation from 17th century Ireland). Funnily enough in Ireland using the term "gaelic" for the Irish language is often seen as derogatory and by default Irish people call the language "Irish" (unless they've got an axe to grind)

So in Scottish context you will often people use following terms for progression of language

() -> Old Gaelic -> Middle Gaelic -> Classic Gaelic -> Scottish Gaelic

With "Classic Gaelic" been basically a literally koine that encompasses both "Early Modern Irish" and variation in Scotland.

So anyways my point (laboured no doubt) is that terminology can cause confusion, so if you say that "Old Irish" is ancestor of Scottish Gaelic, people might infer that those speakers had to come from Ireland. Now if we switch to terminology based on words used within the various languages it's actually "Country neutral"

Goídelc (600-1000AD) -> Gaoidhealg (100-1300) -> Gaedhealg

Given modern:
Gaeilge (Irish) -- genitive of Gaelig -- in pre-spelling reform: Gaedhilge, the genitive of Gaedhealg
Gaelg (Manx)
Gáidhlig (Scottish Gaidhlig)


In all three cases basically the language of the Gael's, which as a term is actually borrowed from Old Welsh into Old Irish. What this in sense points to is that identity at time was basically "trans-national" (compare to today's boundaries) people didn't regard themselves as necessary irish or scottish as long as their genealogy pointed to them as been "Gael" (eg. with titular descent from the fabled sons of Míl), thus wider Gaeldom was a contact zone with easy movement back and forth.

We see this in the literary tradition where alot of the stories of Fianna are actually where Fionn ⁊ companions have gone travelling into Scotland etc. So modern Scottish Gáidhlig derives out of a common contact zone, just as modern Irish does, with divergence basically occuring due to intrusions first by Norse into Scotland and than arrival of Cambro-Norman's and seperate outcomes in both Ireland and Scotland.

Even in Ireland we have three dialects of Irish, and 100 years ago one could argue that some of divergence going on was on verge of splitting language into three (mainly due to lack of contact as each dialectical area was spilt from each other by "sea" of English speakers)

Jean M
10-07-2016, 04:26 PM
Jean, sorry I don't mean to sound critical of you in my previous post.

Don't worry. You can be critical if you like! :)

But actually I opened this thread to see what other people thought about Iron Age Galloway, rather than to state a position myself either on Galloway (I'm stumped) or Argyll (I'm all talked out). I'm following the conversation and adding anything that might help to keep it going. But I don't actually have any new ideas myself. What a terrible confession! :biggrin1:

zamyatin13
10-07-2016, 08:16 PM
Just guessing but crannogs would generally be built where the water is not too deep for some distance out from the shore so that they provide defense but are still possible to build using modest timber piles. Perhaps these glacial lakes in Cumbria steeply fall to deep water not far from the shore? Or maybe the near-shore part of the lakes in Cumbria are rocky and lack deep silt/mud which I imagine makes driving timbers in hard/impossible. Just a guess because I dont know much about the Cumbrian lakes apart from the fact that they seem to be flooded upland glacially scoured u-shaped valleys to my untrained eye. In some places with crannogs like SW Scotland and Ireland the crannogs seem to be more located on bodies of water in the hollows between rolling lowland boulder clay lowland hills.

Yes, I think you're maybe onto something there, the nature of the lake itself would have made a difference. Loch Tay, which gets deep about 30m from shore has lots, Loch Ness, which is steeper I believe, has much less.

In Britain BC, Francis Pryor talked about crannogs as a part of a farming pattern, with lowland pasture in winter and highland pasture in summer. All the elements might have had to be present in workable order for the whole system to work.

Dubhthach
10-08-2016, 01:03 PM
In Britain BC, Francis Pryor talked about crannogs as a part of a farming pattern, with lowland pasture in winter and highland pasture in summer. All the elements might have had to be present in workable order for the whole system to work.

Lowland pasture in winter/highland pasture in summer, was the traditional transhumance system in Ireland. In most of west of Ireland it survived right up to the second world war, and was was called "booleying" in English. It still survives in the Burren in county Clare see:

http://atriptoireland.com/2013/11/07/the-winterage-tradition-in-the-burren/

http://www.burrenwinterage.com/about-winterage

With regard to Ráth's (Ringforts) one of probable usages in an Irish context in early middle ages is to keep cattle herds at night so as to protect them from Wolves etc.