How well portrayed are the Indigenous Scottish tribes
According to history, how well do you think they were portrayed?
shareWell,I am a Scot but am no historian.
As has been pointed out more than once on here, the Seal people did not exist, just a figment of the author's fervent imagination. The only indigenous Scots around this time, c.120AD, would be the Picts in the north and west, largely, and other tribes in the eastern and southern areas of the nation we now call Scotland. Over the many years, other tribes migrated in, as they did in the rest of this island State.
Let's remember this is a work of fiction only, and on that basis, I did very much enjoy this film,a good story, great scenery and good acting.
How the Seal people were shown in the movie by the director was his creation,and no doubt assisted by the production team and it worked well enough ;not how I might have shown ancient tribes, but that is a minor point of detail, and I was no more unhappy with how we were shown the tribe of the book and film in "Scotland" than if the book had been set in Wales or Ireland or England (ok, it was earlier and later)or even in what is now Europe. As I said, a children's story adapted for the wide screen, that's all and on that basis, I sat back and enjoyed it. Now I have written this, time to watch it again this weekend. Thanks OP!
In understanding the history of the British Isles, its important to take into account that the demographics and culture of England were the legacy of a series of foriegn invasions, beginning with the Romans. The inhabitants of Briton in the times of the Romans were a very loose confederation of primative tribes and small chiefdoms.
There is evidence that there were many small primitive tribes (possibly peoples that predated the "Picts") scattered along the coast lines of northern Scotland from Roman times and continuing for hundreds of years. These pre-iron age peoples were easy prey for the Vikings, who were the best iron casters and navigators in the world around 900 AD. By 500 AD, the expansion of the Romans onto the British Isles had paved the way for immigration from many Germanic peoples as well as the Celts, who began settling portions of the British Isles including Ireland by 500 AD. The fall of the Roman Empire and the ensuing chaos over western Europre was a further catalyst for immigration to the Britsh Isles. There is evidence to suggest the indigenous of remote areas of Scotland were all but wiped out by the Vikings and other marauding peoples, and what ever was left of them were forced to assimilate into the greater culture or die off. There was no political correctness in Medieval Britain.
"Civilization" migrated to England beginning with the Romans and continuing with the Celts, Vikings, Saxons, Angles, Normans and others. This "civilization" process generally came in the form of invasion, then assimilation. Its actually a very similar historical pattern as occured in Continental Europe and Western Asia. This is also the reason that England has a very diverse gene pool for an island Nation.
You raise an interesting question as to how ancient, primitive peoples should be depicted. In the film, many of the tribes appear almost like primitive Native Americans. How accurate this is can probably never be known. These stone age peoples were probably no more technologically advanced than early Native Americans. The depiction of the Woad Warriors in the one ambush scene is a bit off, as it appears that the warriors have bronze or iron weapons. However, these weapons could well have been taken off Roman Legionaries that were slaughtered. The warriors of the Seal Clan people appear more like primitive warriors which used stone age weapons, although I have my doubts as to whether these people were master horsemen, as is shown in the film.
After doing some minor research, it seems unclear whether Roman Legions which wandered in to northern Scotland encountered Picts (early Celts) or more primative tribes who predated the Picts, or (most likely) both. It seems plausible that Eska's tribe were Picts (early Celts) and that the Seal Clan People were meant to represent peoples who predated Celts, but were influenced by Celt/Pict culture and language.
I need to go dust off some old history texts.
The Celts came to Britain before England and the English (Saxons Normans) etc existed. cheers :)
shareThere is nothing in my post indicating otherwise. See where I refer to early Celts as predating the Romans.
Save me from the people who would save me from myself
There was no England back then, but a collection of individual kingdoms, such as Mercia, Wessex. The people there were the Britons.
Saxons and Angles came much later, flooding in as the Romans pulled out in the early 5thC.
Whoops, careful, ronfirv! Mercia was an Anglian kingdom and Wessex was a Saxon one (the clue's in the name).
I'm not sure that pre-Roman British kingdoms had names as such; at any rate I've only ever seen them referred to as 'the kingdom of the Belgae/Trinovantes/etc'.
I think I stand corrected! (ooops).
I must admi,t that now I am a shade annoyed that at school in Eastern Scotland (50's/60's),our Anglian heritage was very much glossed over, and the fact we were an integral part of Northumbria, similarly barely spoken of. Talk about slanted history! Were we all so terribly insecure back then in our Scottishness? Please tell me not.
However, we were more than well taught about the Roman presence in Edinburgh(well as it later became)and the Border country (Trimontium especially) and our Roman influence, which started my fascination with this mighty Empire, whose very Emperors(some) trod where we trod. Spine-tingling, but not all will appreciate that, but guessing you will, almost certainly.
Bernicia, whose name, Rome, or the Angles?
I must admi,t that now I am a shade annoyed that at school in Eastern Scotland (50's/60's),our Anglian heritage was very much glossed over, and the fact we were an integral part of Northumbria, similarly barely spoken of. Talk about slanted history! Were we all so terribly insecure back then in our Scottishness? Please tell me not.
Indeed. I think it is sad that many Anglo-Scottish Borderers and Scots Lowlanders are ignorant of our shared heritage in Northumbria. Lothian was part of the Bernician heartland as much as Northumberland and Durham are and many famous Northumbrians were born in what is now Southern Scotland (such as Cadmon and Aiden) and were culturally Anglic. There is a reason Lowland Scotland and Northumberland are still similar in language and culture even today.
Bernicia, whose name, Rome, or the Angles?
Bernicia is probably a name taken from a region known to Brythons as Brynech, Romans almost certainly as Bernicia (which became the common name in the modern era due to the Latinisation of Anglian and Saxon Kingdom names) and was borrowed into Old Northumbrian English as Beornice. Some have tried to create a Brythonic Kingdom of it but we aren't sure of the politics of the region in the post-Roman era and it was probably merely a part of the Gododdin (Votadini). Brynech (probably means lands of mountain passes) so probably originally only applied to the Pennine parts of Northumberland before being taken by Angles as the name for a larger kingdom and then integral part of Northumberland when it joined with Deira to the south.
"The game's afoot!" share
You seem well clued up, and glad we are in agreement.
I would like to believe the Anglian heritage of Northumbria is more widely taught in schools than when I was taught in the 60's.
There is a good little book by Chris Lowe, "Angels, Fools and Tyrants", which explains the basic history post-Roman.
The tribes of the Lothians successfully fought back attempts to invade by the Picts of the Highlands, and as recently as the mid-18thC., the good Burghers wrote King George to plead with him to rid Edinburgh of the "barbarians"(their quote) from the Highlands, meaning that Bonnie Prince's ragtag Army! I believe that same letter is now in the National Library in Edinburgh.
The English NE and Scottish East from the Forth south have much in common, even some phrases still in use, it is a pity the two regions did not attempt to explore and develop these common ties further. As you said these roots go back many, many hundreds of years and are undeniable.
The study of the history of Northumbria is indeed an interesting topic, under-explored, IMO.
I was largely brought up in Edinburgh, but my parents retired to the Scottish Borders and although the Lothians are neighbours, I found distinctly different attitudes between the two areas of Scotland, and entirely different attitudes again in the Highlands.
Indeed. To be fair when I use Lothian I tend to mean the traditional Lothian (Lowden in Northern dialects) rather than the more modern county definitions... that is somewhere near the tweed and to the Firth or Forth. At the same time the modern term Northumbria bugs me as it tends to get used only for the English North East rather than the lands North of the Humber and bellow the Forth (it being a geographic term in origin). Bernicia would have been a better name for the North East (though as mentioned South East Scotland has as much claim to that title).
You are right; the Doric region has a quite distinctive culture as well, much in the same way Yorkshire and Lancashire (etc) do as well. People don't realise how diverse Scotland is due to movies that depict the whole as men in kilts painted blue (which is traditional in no part of Scotland) with a West Lowland accent. Hollywood!
"The game's afoot!"
For me Northumberland refers to our English NE Region but the older term Northumbria extends right to the shores of the Forth.
Scotland has more than a few distinctive cultural areas - Highlands and Islands ;Glasgow and West Lowlands ; Edinburgh and the East Lowlands ; Fife ; SW Borders, then finally Eastern Borders. Hollywood has Scotland wrong on so many fronts, but as you said, Hollywood will be Hollywood.
Chas mate you are very confused . 500 ad ? The Picts were not Celts but integrated a lot of their art/culture . The Romans were scared *beep* of them which is why they built several walls . Angles & Saxons arrived after the Romans left . They were the original Vikings from the same area . So Vikings were nothing to do with this , or Angles , or Saxons . Celts - or Ancient Britains - were , as were the Picts north of the wall . And it was not 500 AD - sheeeesh !
That which does not Kill me makes me Stranger
Correct, the Picts later totally integrated with the Celts.
The Romans were afraid of few if any peoples, and they conquered any fear. A good example would be when they took, and levelled the isle of Mona (Anglesey), and faced with yelling, fierce warrior tribes and screaming fiendish Druid priests on the shore, a truly frightening sight,they still crossed the straits, faced them down and wiped them out, even burning the Druids' sacred groves.
The tribes of the far North were also largely roundly defeated on 3 occasions - AD83 (Agricola - 'the farmer'),AD210, (Severus) and around AD305,(in the reign of Diocletian) although no specific details of battles were left.
Hadrian built his stone Wall from AD122(although forts existed along the area long before it) to mark a consolidation of Empire, and modern archaeology is fast proving it was not only defensive, but controlled passage in both directions.
Antoninus Pius built his turf Wall to help protect Rome's allies in what became southern Scotland, and also to make his mark as a "new broom" Emperor, different from Hadrian, no more consolidation, but a return to advancement of Empire.
It is worth noting that the defences and ditches of the Antonine Wall ALL face north with no 'vallum' for protection facing south, which is the case with Hadrian's Wall. It extends across the Forth/Clyde isthmus whose tribes were the Dumnonii in the west, and Votadini in the east, as well as a cousin tribe, the Venicones, in what is now Fife in eastern Scotland. These would have traded with the Romans, especially valuable grains, which Rome would want to protect. Hence the line of forts, fortlets and watchtowers planned for the Gask Ridge in eastern Scotland, cutting off the wild mountain and glens tribes from the fertile lands of the east and south-east,and protecting these people who were no friends of the Highland Region tribes.
After the Romans left, the locals were left to their own defences and the Angles slowly drifted in, landing in E.England, and from around Bamburgh, spread their influence north to the very River Forth shores(Bodotria in Roman times)and south into what is Yorkshire, then East Anglia in England. The Angles eventually defeated the Gododdin of SE Scotland, known to Rome as the Votadini,incorporating their lands into Northumbria. These lands remained as Northumbria until the late 11thC.
Correct, the Picts later totally integrated with the Celts.
There was no such thing as a race of Celts! The term Celtic was used to describe a family of languages, and it then came to be used to describe distinctive styles of art and finally (in the Victorian era) the myth of the Celt is born. These two quotes from the introduction to Ian Armit's book Celtic Scotland (which he says should be called "Celtic Scotland?") are relevant here:
It is no surprise that modern British archeaologists generally recoil from the term "Celtic". Its vagueness and association with dewy-eyed mysticism are anathema to many who prefer to stick to the material facts of prehistory.
Speakers of Celtic languages, for example, may not have corresponded exactly with the makers of what we call Celtic art, and none of these people need have thought of themselves as Celts or adhered to any common culture or identity.
In any event, the Picts spoke a Celtic language and had much in common with their contemporaries in the rest of the British Isles. They were already, if you want to think of it that way, "Celtic".
Far an taine ‘n abhainn, ‘s ann as mò a fuaim. share