These
two genealogical tractates have suffered from a great deal of reuse, misuse and
confusion, both in the past, by those such as the genealogists of the medieval
kings of Scotland, and in modern-day scholarship. Traditionally, the
differences between Cethri príchenéla
Dáil Riata and Míniugud senchasa fher
nAlban have been explained away to favour a centralist view of early
medieval kingship[1]. The texts seem to date
from approximately the same period of the seventh and early eighth centuries AD
and yet, whilst containing a great deal of information about contemporary
politics, they differ greatly in how they portray concurrent political
situation. The differing political view point in Cethri príchenéla Dáil Riata has been dismissed in some cases as
less reliable than Míniugud senchasa fher
nAlba. Nevertheless, some more recent scholarship has tended to focus on
the highly political nature of royal genealogies[2],
such as these two texts, and the potential that these differences are not so
much about accurate information as opposed to inaccuracies, but rather about
the competing political perspectives as conceived by competing political groups[3].
As such, they reveal a pronounced deal more than they purport to do about the
internal and external dynamics of the Dál Riata in the period in question.
Thus, comparing the two tracts can reveal much about them as sources for
information.
We
should start with a brief description of the texts and what they purport to
tell us on the surface. Míniugud senchasa
fher nAlba[4] or ‘The
explanation of the history of the men of Alba’ dates in some measure from the
mid-seventh century. It consists of two major parts: a genealogy of Dal Riata,
incorporating an origin legend of the coming of the men of Dal Riata to what is
now Scotland, and a military survey of the hosting strength of Dal Riata. There
is debate surrounding the dating of the original text as it survives only in
later documents, it is written in Middle Irish of the tenth century and its
opening line refers to ‘Alba’, a term which did not come into use to mean
Scotland until the tenth century[5].
However, Bannerman and others have successfully situated the content of the
text securely in the mid- to late-seventh century, and Anderson suggests MsfnA
contains two assessments of the Dál Riata, from the second half of the seventh
century and early eighth century, put together a later date.[6]
MsfnA begins with an origin
legend concerning the arrival of the Dál Riata in Britain; in its surviving
form it states that six sons of Erc, son of Eochaid Munremair, ‘took Alba’.
These were Loarn Bec, Loarn Mór, Mac Nisse Bec, Mac Nisse Mór, Fergus Bec and
Fergus Mór. Six other sons remained in Ireland, but the descendent of one of
these, Óengus, went to Alba[7].
It goes on to say that Mac Nisse Mór is another name for Fergus Mór son of Erc[8].
Quite noticeably there are inconsistencies here. The text then details the
descendants of Fergus Mór through his two grandsons, Comgall and Gabrán, sons
of Domangart, the eponymous ancestors of Cenél Comgall and Cenél nGabráin (see
figure 1)[9].
It then goes on to state that Fergus Bec was killed by his brother, but he had
one son, from whom Cenél Conchride in Islay are descended[10].
Following this is the genealogy of Óengus son of Erc’s descendants in Islay[11].
The text then continues with the controversial military survey, detailing the
hosting forces of the three thirds of
the Dál Riata: Cenél nÓengusa[12],
Cenél nGabráin[13] and a more detailed
section for Cenél Loairn[14].
Cenél Comgall does not seem to be included in the survey.
Moving
on to our second text, Cethri príchenéla
Dáil Riata[15]
or the ‘Four Principle Kindreds of Dal Riata’ is a tract detailing a different
version of the genealogies of four
kindreds of Dal Riata. From internal dating evidence, corroborated and expanded
by other sources, the text seems to date from the early eighth century, even
though it too only survives in later manuscripts, the earliest being
compilations from the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries[16].
It begins with the statement that there were four chief kindreds of the Dál
Riata: Cenél nGabráin, Cenél Loairn Mór, Cenél nOengusa and Cenél Comgaill, and
that Gabrán and Comgall were two sons of Domangart. It also links the two back
through their mother to their Uí Néill grandfather Eochu Muigmedón[17].
It then gives the genealogies of Cenél nGabráin, Cenél Loairn Mór, Cenél
Comgaill and Cenél nOengusa (see Figure 2)[18].
With a
close comparison with Míniugud senchasa
fher nAlba, what Cethri príchenéla
Dáil Riata tells us throws up some similarities and some major differences.
Firstly, MsfnA stresses the common
ancestry of the three thirds of Dál
Riata from Erc son of Eochaid Munremair. Cenél Loairn and Cenél nÓengusa take
their eponyms from two sons or Erc but Cenél nGabráin takes its name from a
great-grandson. The traditional interpretation of MsfnA is that Cenél nGabráin was the chief kindred of Dál Riata
from whom the kings of Dál Riata were taken. This is based on a reading of Adomnán’s
Vita Columbae in which the
descentants of Echdach Buide son of Aedan mac Gabrain were the genus regium[19]. Nieke and Duncan
suggest that the division into three related thirds reflects a manipulation of
the evidence to justify the rule of a single king[20].Dumville
disagrees: he believes that MsfnA
‘can have no political meaning if one rejects the equality of fundamental
status that the author gave to the three cenéla’[21].
The emphasis on descent from Erc seems to mean that the cenéla we all
competitors for kingship, not just Cenél nGabráin.
This is
what appears to be the case in CpDR.
It also stresses the common descent of the Dál Riata kindreds, but refers to four
chief ones, not three. The order in which the author lists the kindreds of Dal
Riata in CpDR at the outset of the
text could be a reflection of the order of importance of the cenéla. The text
starts with the Cenél nGabráin who, we know from other sources such as the
‘Iona Chronicle’ and the Dal Riata regnal list, dominated Dal Riata from the
late sixth century until the late seventh century[22].
Cenél Loairn is placed second, and we know that under the leadership of Ferchar
Fota and his descendants, specifically the Cenél nEchdach, they replaced Cenél
nGabráin as the dominant power in the late seventh century until the mid-eighth
century[23].
Cenél nÓengusa and Cenél Comgaill are placed third and fourth respectively in
the beginning of the text, but are reversed in the main body. To Dumville, it
is difficult to see which one of these two sequences reflects a perception of
the relative importance of the two kindreds[24].
We could see the order of the cenéla as reflecting the past dominance of Cenél
nGabráin, as seen in the earlier MsfnA,
and the contemporary dominance of Cenél Loairn, as portrayed in CpDR.
Secondly,
if we compare CpDR to what is
contained in MsfnA, from the first
line this text implies there were more than four kindreds in Dal Riata and that
it only refers to the four chief kindreds.
In MsfnA we only have the three
thirds of Dál Riata, and the implication that any other kindreds mentioned are
only septs of these. In light of the phrasing in CpDR and the evidence of the chronicles we can look more closely at
MsfnA and see that it also alludes to
there being other kindreds in the region. It contains a section on Fergus Bec’s
descendants in Islay, hinting that the author knew of even more kindreds and
chose not to include them. The authors of MsfnA
and CpDR seem to have been purposely
emphasising certain political positions: that is one dominant dynasty as
opposed to many competing cenéla. These rival schools of thought appear to be
in order to promote rival affliations[25].
Thirdly,
in contrast to MsfnA, in CpDR it appears Cenel Loairn is the most
important to the author. Cenél Loairn is the only kindred that the compiler
gives two linages for. Both lines are said to descend from Baetán a
great-grandson of Loarn Mór, the eponymous ancestor of Cenél Loairn. The first
linage ends with Ainbcellach son of Ferchar Fota. This is important as it gives
valuable dating evidence for when the text was first compiled. Ainbchellach
became King of Dal Riata after the death of his father in 697. According to the
Annals of Ulster in 698 Dunollie, the proposed seat of the chief Cenél Loairn
kindred the Cenél nEchdach, was burnt and Ainbchellach expelled from the
kingship, bound and carried off to Ireland[26].
His brother Selbach was then king according to the Dalriadan regnal list and
Ainbcellach died in 719[27].
This gives a date of composition to Cethri
príchenéla Dáil Riata of c.697-719 when Cenél Loairn was the dominant force
in Dal Riata politics and Ainbcellach was either king or still had claim to the
kingship[28]. The emphasis and the amount
of detail concerning Cenél Loairn fits with the context traceable in the annals
where Cenél nGabráin were on the back foot: the Cenél nGabráin dynasts Eochu
aue Domnaill and Fíannamail aue Donnchado were killed in 697 and 700
respectively and Donnchad Becc was described in 721 as the king of Kintyre only[29].
In contrast the annals record the dominance of Selbach of Cenél Loairn, even
over the other lineages of Cenél Loairn[30].
All this
is important as it affects how we see the internal dynamics of Dál Riata as an
early medieval kingdom. Instead of following the centralist thesis of one king
for the one kingdom, which seems to have been the view promoted in Adomnán’s Vita, with a particular Cenél nGabráin
dynasty ruling, we can see Dál Riata in a new light as a kingdom made up of a
number of differing lineages all competing for kingship and power, but who all
claimed kinship with each other, correctly or not. In short, these texts reveal
that Dál Riata was a heterogeneous kingdom dominated by kinship ties, and
indeed the separate cenéla seem to be complex polities within themselves with
power at the local level, ‘as we should expect’ for the period[31].
With
this in mind, we are able to use MsfnA
and CpDR to establish a new theory
concerning the politics of early medieval Dál Riata. Details contained within
them which have previously be ignored or glossed over can come now into
prominence. Firstly, MsfnA details more
Cenél nGabráin lineages than the two given prominence in Adomnán’s Vita Columbae. The Vita stresses descent from Echdach Buide and his two sons, and
seems to have regarded his line as the sole dynasty or genus regium[32]. Fraser believes
this is not just due to the ‘undoubted importance of this powerful Argyll
kindred’, which we can see in the Dalriadic regnal list, but also due to the
‘perceived special relationship’ between this dynasty and Iona articulated in Vita Columbae[33]. It
is mainly from Adomnán’s Vita that
proponents of a centralist thesis propose that the only seventh century kings of
Dál Riata were these specific Cenél nGabráin dynasts[34]. Traditionally
this has affected how historians have interpreted our two texts. However, if we
look closer at MsfnA and compare it
with CpDR, it allows us to trace in
the annals two additional lineages descended from Áedán mac Gabráin sons
Conaing and Túathal, which are not mentioned in Vita Columbae[35]. Indeed, we only
know of Túathal mac Áedáin from MsfnA[36].
In light of this, MsfnA allows us to
trace others kings of Dál Riata who were not of the lines detailed in the Vita[37].
Linked
to this, Cenél Comgaill does not seem of any importance to the author of MsfnA; Cenél Comgaill is basically
ignored by the text. Cenél Comgaill along with Cenél nGabráin appear to have
been members of the Corcu Reiti, that is descendants of one Reti, who Bede
describes in his eighth century Historia
Ecclesiastica and who features in a number of Irish origin legends
concerning Dál Riata differing from the one proposed by MsfnA and CpDR[38].
Conventionally historians have followed Adomnán and MsfnA and dismissed Cenél Comgaill.
However,
from other sources, including CpDR,
we can see that Cenél Comgaill were in fact deeply involved in the politics of
early medieval Scotland. So much so that they may have been a major
contributing factor in the unusual survival of the British kingdom of
Strathclyde[39]. In contrast to MsfnA, CpDR seems to imply that Cenél Comgaill were the more important of
the Corcu Reti in the politics of time. The dynasty it records was related to
king of Picts and had strong links with the kingdom of Strathclyde[40]. CpDR also specifically records this
kindred all the way back to Erc son of Eochu Muinremar, whereas only implying
Cenél nGabráin’s descent[41].
From this we can infer that the author of CpDR
either believed Cenel Comgaill to be the more important kindred at the time or
wished to show this for political reasons. In the words of Dumville, there is
definitely ‘more than a hint that the author was elevating the descendants of
Comgall above those of Gabrán’[42].
This
importance of Cenél Comgaill may be the very reason it is dismissed in MsfnA. We can see in other sources,
including the Dalriadic regnal list, that Cenél Comgaill seem ‘to have
maintained credibility as rivals for the kingship of Dál Riata throughout the
sixth century… and on into at least the middle decades of the seventh century’[43]. Also,
the interest shown of Finguine Fota, of Cenél Comgaill, and his descendants in
the annals suggest that the kindred were at least serious competitors for the
kingship of Dál Riata into the late seventh century[44]. The
kindred was also in conflict with Selbach in the early 700s[45]. Fraser
suggests that Cenél Comgaill, rather than holding allegiance to the church at
Iona, were in fact under the auspices of the bishop of Kingarth on Bute[46].
This would account for the relatively scant attention paid by the annals,
derived from the ‘Iona Chronicle’, compared with that of the interest shown in
Cenél nGabráin, and why Adomnán of Iona ignored them in his Vita Columbae. The reason Cenél Comgaill
received such little attention in MsnfA,
specifically not being included in the survey, could be because at the time
whoever commissioned the assessment ‘did not have the capacity to call upon the
fighting strength of the men of Cowal’[47]. It
would seem that from what MsfnA does not say and what CpDR does say, Cenél
Comgaill maintained a prominent position in the politics of Dál Riata
throughout the sixth, seventh and into the eighth centuries.
Furthermore,
the Cenél nGabráin lineage mentioned in CpDR
is not the one found in MsfnA. It
details the lineage of one Congus son of Conamail from Áedán mac Gabráin. This
lineage has been identified as belonging to the Cenél nGartnait who were active
in Skye in the 690s fighting a number of grandsons of Áedán mac Gabráin and in
Argyll in the 730s[48].
The lineage is also suspiciously short. There are questions to be asked of
this. Was this a hitherto unknown branch of Cenél nGabráin which was friendly
with Cenél Loairn or a completely different kindred not related to Cenél
nGabráin who just wanted to bolster their claim to territory claimed by Cenél nGabráin?
From the evidence in the annals, it seems that this Gartnait was alive in 649
and his father was not Aedan mac Gabrain[49]. Dumville has put forward the notion that Cenél
nGartnait was ‘reigning in some part of the territory of Cenél nGabráin at the
time’ when CpDR was composed[50].
As such, the compliers of the ‘Iona Chronicle’ do not seem to have recognised
the claims of Cenél nGartnait put forward in CpDR, and instead favoured Cenél nGabráin. This hints at then political tensions between differing partisans
of the chief kindreds of Dál Riata at a time when Cenél Loairn was posing a
threat ‘to the security and prosperity of Iona’s traditional friends in
Kintyre’[51].
In
summary, the authors of CpDR and MsfnA appear to have had very different
political outlooks on Dál Riata. The author of MsfnA appears to have been a partisan of Cenél nGabráin and the
author of CpDR a sympathiser of Cenél
Loairn[52]. MsfnA details a political context when
Cenél nGabráin were dominant and seem to have controlled in some way other the
kindreds of Dál Riata. From the internal evidence of MsfnA and other sources this appears to have been the mid-seventh
century. In contrast, the internal detail of CpDR: the prominence given to Cenél Loairn, the competing branch of
‘Cenél nGabráin’, and importance of Cenel Comgaill, compared to that in MsfnA all point to a tract dating from
when these cenéla are politically important and Cenél nGabráin had lost its
prominence. If we look at the annals and Dalriadic regnal list we can see this
context in the early 700s. This was when Ferchar Fota’s descendants were ‘kings
of Dal Riata’, Cenél nGabráin were only ‘kings of Kintyre’, Cenel nGartnait
were pursuing ambitions in Argyll against Cenél nGabráin, and Cenél Comgaill
were prominent in both the internal and external politics of Dál Riata.
This
leads us to conclude that the two genealogical tractates Cethri príchenéla Dáil Riata and Míniugud senchasa fher nAlba are both important and complimentary
sources for information about the political make-up of seventh and early eighth
century Dal Riata, despite their obvious difference in detail. Indeed, comparisons
of the differences between the two tracts mean that used in tandem and
alongside the ‘Iona Chronicle’ and ‘Dal Riata king-list’ we have a much fuller
picture of the internal and external dynamics of Dal Riata. Thus, the sources
reveal to us that instead of the traditional centralist ‘predilection for big
government which Oxonian historians have displayed since Geoffrey of Monmouth
showed the way’[53], they in fact lead us to
conclude that Dal Riata was dynamic and heterogeneous in character in the seventh
and early eighth centuries, made up of a number of inter- and intra-competing
lineages. It appears the kings of Dál Riata in the seventh century were not
solely drawn from a particular Cenél nGabráin line, nor were Cenél Comgaill
‘consigned to oblivion at an early date’[54].
For this view we have to thank, among others, Míniugud senchasa fher nAlban and Cethri prímchenéla Dáil Riata.
Primary Sources:
Vita
Columbae; R. Sharpe, trans., Adomnán of
Iona: Life of St Columba (London, 1995)
Annals
of Tigernach; W. Stokes, ed., The Annals of Tigernach, vol. I
(Llanerch, 1993)
Annals
of Ulster; S. Mac Airt and G. Mac Niocaill, eds., The Annals of Ulster (to A.D. 1131) (Dublin, 1983)
Cethri
prímchenéla Dáil Riata; D. N. Dumville, Cethri prímchenéla Dáil Riata, Scottish Gaelic Studies (2000),
175-83
Míniugud
senchasa fher nAlban; D. N. Dumville, ‘Ireland and North Britain’
(Aberdeen, 2002), 201-3
Bibliography:
Anderson, M. O., Kings and Kingship in Early Scotland
(Edinburgh and London, 1973)
Bannerman, J., Studies in the History of Dalriada
(Edinburgh and London, 1974)
Dumville, D. N., ‘Kingship,
Genealogies and Regnal Lists’, in Early
Medieval Kingship, eds. P. H. Sawyer and I. N. Wood (Leeds, 1977), pp.
72-10
Dumville, D. N., ‘Cethri
prímchenéla Dáil Riata’, Scottish Gaelic
Studies 20 (2000), pp.170-91
Dumville, D. N., ‘Ireland and
North Britain in the Earlier Middle Ages: contexts for Míniugud Senchasa Fher
nAlban’ in Rannsachadh na Gàidhlig
2000, eds. C. Ó Baoill and N. R. McGuire (Aberdeen, 2002), pp.185-211
Fraser, J. E., ‘The Iona
Chronicle, the Descendants of Áedán mac Gabráin, and the “Principle Kindreds of
Dáil Riata”’, Northern Studies 38
(2004), 77-96
Fraser, J. E., ‘Strangers on the
Clyde: Cenél Comgaill, Clyde Rock and the Bishops of Kingarth’, Innes Review 56 (2005), pp. 102-20
Fraser, J. E., ‘Dux Reuda and
the Corcu Réti’ in Cànan &
Cultar/Language and Cultrure: Rannsachadh na Gàidhlig 3, eds. W. McLeod et
al (Edinburgh, 2006), pp.1-9
Fraser, J. E., From Caledonia to Pictland. Scotland to 795
(Edinburgh, 2009)
Lane, A., and Campbell, E., Dunadd: an early Dalriadic capital
(Oxford, 2000)
Nieke, M. R., and Duncan, H. B.,
‘Dalriada: the establishment and maintenance of an Early Historic Kingdom in
northern Britain’ in Power and Politics
in Early Medieval Britain and Ireland, eds. S. T. Driscoll and M. R. Nieke (Edinburgh,
1988)
Sharpe, R., ‘The Thriving of
Dalriada’ in Kings, Clerics and
Chronicles in Scotland 500-1297: essays in honour of Marjorie Ogilvie Anderson
on the occasion of her ninetieth birthday, ed. S. Taylor (Dublin, 2000),
pp.46-61
[1]
For a good example see R. Sharpe, ‘The Thriving of Dalriada’ in Kings, Clerics and Chronicles in Scotland
500-1297: essays in honour of Marjorie Ogilvie Anderson on the occasion of her
ninetieth birthday, ed. S. Taylor (Dublin, 2000), pp.46-61; A. Lane and E.
Campbell, Dunadd: an early Dalriadic
capital (Oxford, 2000) pp.31-4;
[2]
See D. N. Dumville, ‘Kingship, Genealogies and Regnal Lists’, in Early Medieval Kingship , eds. P. H.
Sawyer and I. N. Wood (Leeds, 1977), pp. 72-10
[3]
For example see D. N. Dumville, ‘Cethri prímchenéla Dáil Riata’, Scottish Gaelic Studies 20 (2000),
pp.170-91, especially p.172, and J. E. Fraser, ‘Strangers on the Clyde: Cenél
Comgaill, Clyde Rock and the Bishops of Kingarth’, Innes Review 56 (2005), pp. 102-20
[4]
From here onwards ‘MsfnA’.
[5]
Fraser, J. E., From Caledonia to
Pictland. Scotland to 795 (Edinburgh, 2009), p. 48
[6]
That is the earlier assessment, containing the genealogical sections in §§6-31, 39-49 and 32-38, is dated to the period 660-672 and
the later assessment, §§50-53,
a generation later. See M. O. Anderson, Kings
and Kingship in Early Scotland (Edinburgh and London, 1973), pp.159-60; J. Bannerman,
Studies in the History of Dalriada
(Edinburgh and London, 1974), pp. 68-70; 103-7; 154-6; D. N. Dumville, ‘Ireland
and North Britain in the Earlier Middle Ages: contexts for Míniugud Senchasa
Fher nAlban’ in Rannsachadh na Gàidhlig
2000, eds. C. Ó Baoill and N. R. McGuire (Aberdeen, 2002), p.199
[7]
Míniugud senchasa fher nAlban; D. N.
Dumville, ‘Ireland and North Britain’ (Aberdeen, 2002), 201-3, §§2-4; see Dumville, ‘Ireland and
North Britain’, p.205
[8]
MsfnA §6
[9]
MsfnA §§7-17
[10]
MsfnA §§18-19
[11]
MsfnA §§21-30
[12]
MsfnA §§32-35
[13]
MsfnA §§36-37
[14]
MsfnA §§38-48; this section seems to also contain a genealogy of Cenél Loairn and separates the kindred
into three thirds: Cenél
Fergusa/Shalaig, Cenél
Cathbach and Cenél nEchdach.
[15]
From now on ‘CpDR’.
[16]
Bannerman, Studies in the History of
Dalriada, pp. 108-10; Dumville, ‘Cethri prímchenéla Dáil Riata’, p.170; 186
[17]Cethri prímchenéla Dáil Riata; D. N.
Dumville, Cethri prímchenéla Dáil Riata, Scottish Gaelic Studies (2000), 175-83,
§ 1; see Dumville, ‘Cethri prímchenéla Dáil Riata’, p.184
[18]
CpDR §§2-5
[19]Vita Columbae; R. Sharpe, trans., Adomnán of Iona: Life of St Columba
(London, 1995), II.22
[20]
M. R. Nieke and H. B. Duncan, ‘Dalriada: the establishment and maintenance of
an Early Historic Kingdom in northern Britain’ in Power and Politics in Early Medieval Britain and Ireland, eds. S.
T. Driscoll and M. R. Nieke (Edinburgh, 1988), p.10
[21]
Dumville, ‘Cethri prímchenéla Dáil Riata’,
p.172
[22]
Fraser, From Caledonia to Pictland.
Scotland to 795, pp.143, 155-64
[23]
J. E. Fraser, ‘Dux Reuda and the Corcu Réti’ in Cànan & Cultar/Language and Cultrure: Rannsachadh na Gàidhlig
3, eds. W. McLeod et al (Edinburgh, 2006), p.6
[24]
Dumville, ‘Cethri prímchenéla Dáil Riata’, p.184
[25]
See Dumville, ‘Kingships, Genealogies and Regnal Lists’, pp.72-104
[26]
Annals of Ulster; S. Mac Airt and G.
Mac Niocaill, eds., The Annals of Ulster
(to A.D. 1131) (Dublin, 1983), 697.2; Annals
of Tigernach; W. Stokes, ed., The Annals of Tigernach, vol. I (Llanerch,
1993) 697.2; AU 698 Burning of Dunollie and expulsion of Ainbcellach.
[27]
Anderson, Kings and Kingship in Early
Scotland, pp. 228-29; AU 719.
[28]
Anderson, Kings and Kingship, p.161;
Bannerman, Studies in the History of
Dalriada, p.110; Fraser, ‘The Iona Chronicle’, p. 34; n.37; Dumville,
‘Cethri prímchenéla Dáil Riata’, pp.186-90
[29]
AU 687; 700; 721
[30]
AU 698; 701; 712; 714; 719; 727; Fraser, ‘Strangers on the Clyde’, pp103-4
[31]
Dumville, ‘Cethri prímchenéla Dáil Riata’, p.188
[32]
VC II.22; J. E. Fraser, ‘The Iona Chronicle, the Descendants of Áedán mac
Gabráin, and the “Principle Kindreds of Dáil Riata”’, Northern Studies 38 (2004), pp.79-82
[33]
Fraser, ‘The Iona Chronicle’, p.82;
M. O. Anderson, Kings and Kingship, pp.
44-76; 228-91.
[34]
Sharpe, ‘The thriving of Dalriada’,
pp.47-61, 55; Bannerman, Studies in the
History of Dalriada, p. 104; Dumville,
‘Cethri prímchenéla Dáil
Riata’, p.172, 189; D. N. Dumville, ‘Ireland and North Britain in the Earlier
Middle Ages: contexts for Míniugud Senchasa Fher nAlban’ in Rannsachadh na Gàidhlig 2000, eds. C. Ó
Baoill and N. R. McGuire (Aberdeen, 2002), p.199; Fraser, ‘The Iona Chronicle’,
pp.77-8.
[35]
It must be pointed out, as Fraser does, that these lineages are still rather
obscure and uncertain and remain a working hypothesis. See Fraser, ‘The Iona
Chronicle’, pp. 82-6
[36]MsfnA ¶12; Fraser, ‘The Iona Chronicle’, pp.84-5
[37]AU
673.2; Anderson, Kings and Kingship,
pp.228-9; Fraser, ‘The Iona Chronicle’,
p.77; 78; 81: 82; 82-4; 90
[38]
J. E. Fraser, ‘Dux Reuda and the Corcu Réti’, pp.1-9
[39]
J. E. Fraser, ‘Strangers on the Clyde’, pp. 102-20. The other northern British
kingdoms had succumbed to Northumbrian expansion by the mid- to late- seventh
century; whereas Strathclyde survived until the eleventh.
[40]
Fraser, ‘Strangers on the Clyde’, p. 104; n.10; 106; 109; Fraser, ‘The Iona
Chronicle’, pp.94-5
[41]
CpDR §4; 2.
[42]
Dumville, ‘Cethri prímchenéla Dáil Riata’, p.186
[43]
Fraser, ‘The Iona Chronicle’, p.91; Anderson, King and Kingship, pp.228-9
[44]
AU 686.3; 690.3; Fraser, ‘The Iona Chronicle’, p.91
[45]
Fraser, ‘Strangers of the Clyde’, p.104
[46]
Fraser, ‘Strangers on the Clyde’, p.111
[47]
Fraser, ‘The Iona Chronicle’, p.95
[48]
AU 649.4; 668.3; 701.7
[49]
AU 649.4; Fraser, ‘The Iona Chronicle’, p.87; n. 37
[50]
Dumville, ‘Cethri prímchenéla Dáil
Riata’, p.187
[51]
Fraser, ‘The Iona Chronicle’, p.88
[52]
Dumville, ‘Cethri prímchenéla Dáil Riata’, p.186; 189; MsfnA
[53]
Dumville, ‘Cethri prímchenéla Dáil Riata’, p.172
[54]
Sharpe, ‘The Thriving of Dalriada’, p.59
No comments:
Post a Comment