Re: [albanach] Review of David Dale _The History of the Scots, the Picts, and the Britons_ (was: Pictland/Albanach discussion)
- I thank you both Mrs.Krossa,Collins,
In pointing out Mr.Dale's
unreliability as a resourse, His writtings will no longer be referenced.nor
referred by me.
>From: "Collin" <wking3@...>_________________________________________________________________
>Subject: Re: [albanach] Review of David Dale _The History of the Scots, the
>Picts, and the Britons_ (was: Pictland/Albanach discussion)
>Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 23:30:05 -0400
>Wow this thing is still up? Man I though this was 86ed years ago I saw that
>some one had taken it printed it to hard copy and put it in a Clan tent ant
>a highland game in Ga. a few years ago,and the person who was manning the
>tent was qouting it almost verbatem..Sigh...when some one questioned him
>about Dales wrtings and itts various
>...eckkkuhmmmm "Questionble takes on Scottish history
>'(and no it wasnt Me.......for once) the guy was very defensive...My
>beef if him Using Petter B Ellis as primary source...Crimney....whats next
>Brigadoon as a example of Real highland culture?????
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Sharon L. Krossa" <skrossa-ml@...>
>Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 11:15 PM
>Subject: [albanach] Review of David Dale _The History of the Scots, the
>Picts, and the Britons_ (was: Pictland/Albanach discussion)
> > At 12:51 AM -0600 5/27/03, Charles Penland wrote:
> > >May I suggest a resource.that will go along way in answering your
> > >questions.It is a book by David F.Dale called "The History of The
> > >Picts and The Britons.This book can also be veiwed online at
> > >http//ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/David Dale1/Hisco.htm .
> > The actual URL is
> > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DavidDale1/Hisco.htm
> > And the "book" (really just web pages) is not in the least reliable
> > -- I recommend seeking out sound academic historians (whose works are
> > the result of considerably more than "approx. 4 years of hard study".)
> > Just as an example of some of the mistakes Dale makes on very simple
> > information, he claims Manx is a P-Celtic language (like Welsh), when
> > Manx if very clearly a Q-Celtic language (even in the Early Modern
> > period Irish, Manx, and Scottish Gaelic were all mutually
> > intelligible, while before the start of the Middle Ages Welsh and
> > Gaelic weren't not). If he can't get this right, he can't be trusted
> > to get anything more complicated right. (In general whenever he
> > starts trying to argue based on linguistic or onomastic [names]
> > evidence -- which he does a lot -- he demonstrates that he doesn't
> > have much knowledge of linguistics or onomastics, but it isn't only
> > the linguistics and onomastics he gets wrong. He also makes simple
> > errors such as confusing matriliny with matriarchy, and misrepresents
> > both the evidence and arguments both for and against supposed
> > "Pictish matriliny". And we won't even get into the nonsense in the
> > Arthurian section...)
> > The web pages also has no footnotes and, when he says such things as
> > "It is thought that they most likely originated from Spain and
> > Portugal.", doesn't explain exactly _who_ "thinks" that. Is it some
> > gullible nutcase who thinks that, or most respected academic
> > historians who think that?
> > With few exceptions, the only historians he appears to cite and quote
> > are ancient and medieval ones -- whom he frequently takes at face
> > value, without examining the reliability of their information and
> > reporting. So far in my reading of his book, he hasn't cited or
> > quoted any modern historian unless he agrees with that modern
> > historian (and he does this very rarely).
> > This is a significant problem since in his introduction he sets out
> > his goal as to show that the medieval historians' version of early
> > Scottish history is more reliable than the modern Scottish
> > historians' version -- you can't do that without explicitly examining
> > what modern historians say and explaining exactly why your own theory
> > makes more sense than theirs.
> > A related problem is that his main direct attacks on "modern"
> > historians are on Thomas Innes and William Skene -- that is, on 18th
> > & 19th century historians. In other words, his dismissal of the work
> > of modern historians in favour of taking the claims of ancient and
> > medieval historians at face value is based on the works of Innes and
> > Skene and the 18th & 19th century contemporaries not being reliable.
> > That's like saying the work of late 20th and 21st century physicists
> > isn't as reliable as the work of ancient and medieval natural
> > philosophers because the work of 18th & 19th century physicists isn't
> > entirely reliable.
> > Good modern (late 20th and 21st century) Scottish historians don't
> > trust Innes and Skene without question any more than they trust the
> > claims of ancient and medieval historians without question.
> > In short, David Dale's whole book is based on attacking a strawman,
> > gullibility, and ignorance, and the result is no more reliable (and
> > probably considerably less reliable) than the works of Skene and
> > Innes that he so dislikes. And he certainly hasn't presented any
> > reason to prefer his interpretations over that of current academic
> > historians.
> > I recommend avoiding David Dale's web pages as far more harmful than
> > helpful to those with an interest in real Scottish history -- and
> > likewise not trusting any claims made that are based on David Dale's
> > interpretations.
> > Sharon, ska Effrick
> > --
> > Sharon Krossa, skrossa-ml@...
> > Resources for Scottish history, names, clothing, language & more:
> > Medieval Scotland - http://www.MedievalScotland.org/
> > This is Albanach, a group devoted to the study and re-enactment of
> > Scotland c. 503-1603 AD. Post messages to email@example.com. Alter
> > your account or view the archives at www.egroups.com/list/albanach
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
- I apologize for the faulty information that I referred to you.In answer to
your question. Dalriada was indeed a seperate Kingdom.But For most of it's
existance.It owed it's allegience to the king of the Picts.On occation it
would revolt and through off the Pictish control for short periods of
time.only to have them return and regain control.The royal houses of both
people interacted extensively.They intermarried,Fostered their children with
each other,allied in battles against the Britons,Anglo-Saxons,Other
Picts,and Vikings.for hundereds of years.It has been shown that the Scottish
takeover of the Picts.Was not one of conquest,But of mutual assimilation.As
the Scots only made up but 10% of the Population.If they did conquer
Pictland it would have been a desert.and the Norse,Britons,and
Anglo-Saxons.Would have taken the whole thing away from the Scots.This would
not be a case of Martial prowess.The shear number of rivals would have seen
to their demise.so we are left with a merger of the two peoples.In the south
this was the case.In the North the Pictish nobility had merged with that of
the Norse.In a seperate Northern Pictish Kingdom.
>Subject: Re: [albanach] Pictland/Albanach discussion
>Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 22:58:15 EDT
>In a message dated 5/25/03 3:22:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > The gael Immigrants were not invaders,Settlers yes.But not
> > invaders.they had lived as subjects.
>They how come they came conquering the locals, and maintained a separate
>kingdom, with a distinct and separate language, as attested by the records
>day? Dalriada was independent of the Pictish kingdom.
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
- At 2:43 AM -0600 5/28/03, Charles Penland wrote:
>I apologize for the faulty information that I referred to you.In answer toWhat is the source for this claim?
>your question. Dalriada was indeed a seperate Kingdom.But For most of it's
>existance.It owed it's allegience to the king of the Picts.
>On occation itWhat is the source for these claims, especially the figure of "10%"?
>would revolt and through off the Pictish control for short periods of
>time.only to have them return and regain control.The royal houses of both
>people interacted extensively.They intermarried,Fostered their children with
>each other,allied in battles against the Britons,Anglo-Saxons,Other
>Picts,and Vikings.for hundereds of years.It has been shown that the Scottish
>takeover of the Picts.Was not one of conquest,But of mutual assimilation.As
>the Scots only made up but 10% of the Population.
>If they did conquerAgain, what is the source for these claims?
>Pictland it would have been a desert.and the Norse,Britons,and
>Anglo-Saxons.Would have taken the whole thing away from the Scots.This would
>not be a case of Martial prowess.The shear number of rivals would have seen
>to their demise.so we are left with a merger of the two peoples.In the south
>this was the case.In the North the Pictish nobility had merged with that of
>the Norse.In a seperate Northern Pictish Kingdom.
While it is true that there was a complex history between the Scots
of Dal Riata and the Picts, and the Picts did not disappear (as their
language and culture did well before the advent of the Anglo-Normans)
simply due to straight forward conquest and extermination, from
reading this post and your earlier posts, it sounds to me like you
may have been getting your interpretations too much from unreliable
popular books and web pages and not enough from sound, reliable
history books on the subject of early Scotland.
In particular, note that when the Gaelic kings consolidated their
acquisition of Pictland, the Pictish language and culture rapidly
disappeared, replaced by the Gaelic language and culture. Yes, it is
unlikely (in the extreme!) that this happened by killing off all the
Picts -- but after a couple generations of the descendants of the
Picts speaking Gaelic and not Pictish, and intermarrying with Gaels
from elsewhere (who themselves might have British or Norse ancestors
as well as Gaelic ones), it is a little strange to keep talking of
Picts as if they still existed. Likewise in Orkney and Shetland,
etc., where Pictish language and culture was replaced by Norse
language and culture. (So, for example, by the time of the
Declaration of Arbroath -- in the early 14th century -- there hadn't
been any Picts in Scotland for a number of centuries, so it can
hardly have given authority to anybody to seize anything from the
Picts, as suggested in one of your earlier posts.)
Having Pictish ancestors is not the same thing as being Pictish.
(This can sometimes be a hard concept for we USAmericans and others
from immigrant nations to keep in mind, given the common US practice
of using nationality terms to refer to ancestry rather than current
nationality/citizenship/culture/etc, as when a USAmerican speaks of
being "Scottish" in reference to their ancestry rather than to their
citizenship or where they themselves were born and raised. But even
most USAmericans agree that a Scot born in Scotland, raised in
Scotland, and with UK citizenship is "Scottish" in quite a different
way than a USAmerican whose ancestors left Scotland a century ago,
whether or not they also have German, French, and/or Italian
ancestors.) In the context of discussing history, it is vitally
important to keep clear the distinction between ancestry and
contemporary culture, nationality, etc.
Sharon, ska Africa
PS BTW, please note that it is very hard to read text when there no
spaces after punctuation marks like periods and commas.
Sharon L. Krossa, skrossa-ml@...