Hi Fiona. Too much in this blog to comment on, so just one thing … You keep saying that ‘art-historians’ have given a date 850-950 for Sueno’s stone. Not really true, just one art-historian, and lots of other researchers and archaeologists who have disagreed and placed it much earlier, mid 700s likely. In which case your sound idea that we could expect it to come from the significant Pictish stone-carving group at Kineddar, especially as the stone is sourced nearby, fits neatly with this current dating. This reminds me of once as a wee young thing, staring down a microscope trying to draw the insect under it, and the ancient and beloved professor peered over my shoulder and said: You’ll be a good scientist one day – if you see what you’re seeing, not what you think you should be seeing!
Thanks Helen - I know I keep giving 850-950 dates, but in all my reading I've never seen a historian or archaeologist date it earlier than the accession of Cináed mac Ailpin in 843 AD, and some want to put it in the 11th century! Can you give me an idea of which historians / archaeologists put it earlier?
The relative date of Sueno’s stone to the last period of Pictish carving is not disputed, and can be confirmed by the type of cross. Precise dating of the whole symbol stone sequence needs to come from a broad picture built up of numerous bits of history, archaeology, language etc, just as you have started doing yourself. There is a growing body of data to draw on, mainly archaeological with some historical dating (Hunter, Cooke, Noble et al., Armit, Toolis, Hatherley, O’Grady etc etc ), each provides their own bit of the puzzle. The so-called ‘art-history’ claims have long been mulched into the vegie patch. Recently, myself and Dr Jane Geddes independently came to the idea that stones with this type of cross can be dated to the mid 700s. But most people today will studiously avoid proposing a general dating scheme, too fraught, too painful, too dangerous.
Aha, thank you - clearly I have some reading to do! It's true that historians either go along with the 850-950 dating (still the range proposed by HES), or attempt to date it by trying to identify the battle (a lost cause in my opinion). It does seem strange to me that we have what could be considered the pinnacle of early medieval monumental sculpture in Scotland seemingly sitting in a time period all of its own. If no other stones were being carved at that time, how - and why - were the skills preserved?
Exactly, we have the stone source, the carving school, the expertise, the type of icons and art, all pointing to one spot and one time. But dating has two sides to it, the first is just getting the dating sitting right using all our professional resources, the second is the story of why and how people (mis-)use the dating story. The first will win through in the long run, but during that long tedious process the second impacts all over Pictish history leaving mess and confusion in its wake, and is a much more difficult story to tell.
A v minor point but loom to right of seated figure on Kirriemuir 1 presumably indicates she is female (looks female to me!), also central position of brooch (rather than shoulder) at Wester Denoon, also suggests female (I'm sure there's an article in an old PAS Journal on this). Also, I think the Kineddar Symbol stone more likely to be 5th or 6th century than 7th, so predating vallum (church founded on site of ancestral burial ground? - a common pattern). As ever, enjoyed having my attention directed to this area - so much of interest!
This is excellent info, thank you very much - I wouldn't have guessed that was a loom! I'm going to update the post with both of these things, thank you :) Very glad you enjoyed the post!
I just want to thank you for sharing these snapshots of your research. I love reading them, as this period of history feels like an exciting frontier of new discovery. It was extra special to see Kinneddar pop up, as it was (we think) the home of our Scottish ancestor--he was sent to America as an indentured servant after the Battle of Dunbar. Now it will feel like I’m imagining the possibilities of my own family’s deep history as I read your work! So fun.
Thanks Judith, that's really kind of you to say. There really is lots to discover, and it has to come from archaeology and other disciplines as there's so little written evidence. But then, new archaeological finds can shed new light on the documentary evidence, so everyone moves forward. I'm glad you're enjoying reading it - I'm certainly enjoying writing these blogs, although I do get embarrassed on a weekly basis at how little I know!
Did your ancestor definitely come from the Moray Kinneddar, or could it have been the Kinneddar in Fife? Either way, he may well have had deep roots in early medieval Pictland. (There's also a 'King Edward' in Aberdeenshire that comes from exactly the same Gaelic name, 'ceann-foithir'.)
Nothing is certain—records are thin on the ground!—but we believe our ancestor (Daniel Forbes) was of the Forbes of Thainston line. I’ve been following Gordon Noble’s work for a few years, and it’s been fun to see an unexpected crossover between our potential family history and new archaeological discoveries. Who gets THAT lucky?!
Given that Northern Picts have blown the art historical dating of the early stones out of the water with their excavation at Dunicaer, could the same not be true at the other end? I know it is almost sacrilegious to question Isabel Henderson, but…..
Hi Alastair, maybe! I don't know enough to even begin to start suggesting alternative dates for any of the stones. It seems to me that carved stones started to go out of fashion after churches started to be built in stone, and all the focus went into architecture and church furniture (altars, panels, screens, etc.) instead. But I really don't know.
Ah, yes, I have Cummins's book but I haven't read it for a long time. I've made a decision to stay away from trying to interpret the symbols, and the oghams, even though they're the things that got me into early medieval Scotland in the first place.
the Oghams are a weird mix of latin, gaelic and auld welsh, and badly weathered, makes reading them difficult. The stone often correspond to whats written in Ogham but only on the class two stones. The grammmar of the symbols is usually topdown, right to left, but sometimes clockwise when more than 3 are involved. Mirror comb usually indicates the grave of a noble male, unless the woman buried beneath was of high status like Princess Der-Ilei ferch Beli, and her daughter Luchtrena. Mirror on its own if the bodies burid beneath a stone correlate as being female. Seems to indicate a noble females grave. Mirror & comb with only a single symbol and a priestly image may indicate a bishop, saint of monk of high status....
This is fascinating stuff, Paul - is it all from Cummins, or is it written up anywhere if not? It would be great to see how all of this has been worked out.
not all just a decipherment by me based upon the work of other much starter than myself. As an English teacher the grammar of language fascinates me, as does word substitution. Knowing that brythonnic, gaelic and latin were all in use by the literate Ogham script is often abreviations and Ogham does not have all the sounds from brythonic so they double lettering, use substitutes that the inscribers know in context what they are saying.
Hi Fiona. Too much in this blog to comment on, so just one thing … You keep saying that ‘art-historians’ have given a date 850-950 for Sueno’s stone. Not really true, just one art-historian, and lots of other researchers and archaeologists who have disagreed and placed it much earlier, mid 700s likely. In which case your sound idea that we could expect it to come from the significant Pictish stone-carving group at Kineddar, especially as the stone is sourced nearby, fits neatly with this current dating. This reminds me of once as a wee young thing, staring down a microscope trying to draw the insect under it, and the ancient and beloved professor peered over my shoulder and said: You’ll be a good scientist one day – if you see what you’re seeing, not what you think you should be seeing!
Thanks Helen - I know I keep giving 850-950 dates, but in all my reading I've never seen a historian or archaeologist date it earlier than the accession of Cináed mac Ailpin in 843 AD, and some want to put it in the 11th century! Can you give me an idea of which historians / archaeologists put it earlier?
The relative date of Sueno’s stone to the last period of Pictish carving is not disputed, and can be confirmed by the type of cross. Precise dating of the whole symbol stone sequence needs to come from a broad picture built up of numerous bits of history, archaeology, language etc, just as you have started doing yourself. There is a growing body of data to draw on, mainly archaeological with some historical dating (Hunter, Cooke, Noble et al., Armit, Toolis, Hatherley, O’Grady etc etc ), each provides their own bit of the puzzle. The so-called ‘art-history’ claims have long been mulched into the vegie patch. Recently, myself and Dr Jane Geddes independently came to the idea that stones with this type of cross can be dated to the mid 700s. But most people today will studiously avoid proposing a general dating scheme, too fraught, too painful, too dangerous.
Aha, thank you - clearly I have some reading to do! It's true that historians either go along with the 850-950 dating (still the range proposed by HES), or attempt to date it by trying to identify the battle (a lost cause in my opinion). It does seem strange to me that we have what could be considered the pinnacle of early medieval monumental sculpture in Scotland seemingly sitting in a time period all of its own. If no other stones were being carved at that time, how - and why - were the skills preserved?
Exactly, we have the stone source, the carving school, the expertise, the type of icons and art, all pointing to one spot and one time. But dating has two sides to it, the first is just getting the dating sitting right using all our professional resources, the second is the story of why and how people (mis-)use the dating story. The first will win through in the long run, but during that long tedious process the second impacts all over Pictish history leaving mess and confusion in its wake, and is a much more difficult story to tell.
A v minor point but loom to right of seated figure on Kirriemuir 1 presumably indicates she is female (looks female to me!), also central position of brooch (rather than shoulder) at Wester Denoon, also suggests female (I'm sure there's an article in an old PAS Journal on this). Also, I think the Kineddar Symbol stone more likely to be 5th or 6th century than 7th, so predating vallum (church founded on site of ancestral burial ground? - a common pattern). As ever, enjoyed having my attention directed to this area - so much of interest!
This is excellent info, thank you very much - I wouldn't have guessed that was a loom! I'm going to update the post with both of these things, thank you :) Very glad you enjoyed the post!
I just want to thank you for sharing these snapshots of your research. I love reading them, as this period of history feels like an exciting frontier of new discovery. It was extra special to see Kinneddar pop up, as it was (we think) the home of our Scottish ancestor--he was sent to America as an indentured servant after the Battle of Dunbar. Now it will feel like I’m imagining the possibilities of my own family’s deep history as I read your work! So fun.
Thanks Judith, that's really kind of you to say. There really is lots to discover, and it has to come from archaeology and other disciplines as there's so little written evidence. But then, new archaeological finds can shed new light on the documentary evidence, so everyone moves forward. I'm glad you're enjoying reading it - I'm certainly enjoying writing these blogs, although I do get embarrassed on a weekly basis at how little I know!
Did your ancestor definitely come from the Moray Kinneddar, or could it have been the Kinneddar in Fife? Either way, he may well have had deep roots in early medieval Pictland. (There's also a 'King Edward' in Aberdeenshire that comes from exactly the same Gaelic name, 'ceann-foithir'.)
Nothing is certain—records are thin on the ground!—but we believe our ancestor (Daniel Forbes) was of the Forbes of Thainston line. I’ve been following Gordon Noble’s work for a few years, and it’s been fun to see an unexpected crossover between our potential family history and new archaeological discoveries. Who gets THAT lucky?!
Given that Northern Picts have blown the art historical dating of the early stones out of the water with their excavation at Dunicaer, could the same not be true at the other end? I know it is almost sacrilegious to question Isabel Henderson, but…..
Hi Alastair, maybe! I don't know enough to even begin to start suggesting alternative dates for any of the stones. It seems to me that carved stones started to go out of fashion after churches started to be built in stone, and all the focus went into architecture and church furniture (altars, panels, screens, etc.) instead. But I really don't know.
the womans name on the Hilton Stone is Brigid ferch Eochaid, daughter od Donald the Freckled. Her son Drustan map Edernan erected the stone.
Kirremuir - the priests name is Cinaed but no last name is obvious
Wester Denoon - the priests name is Fergus/Uirguist
Thanks Paul - based on the theory that the symbols represent names?
advancements in work of WA Cummins...Tain/tarbat stones reveal an entire family tree from late 6th to early 9th century.
Ah, yes, I have Cummins's book but I haven't read it for a long time. I've made a decision to stay away from trying to interpret the symbols, and the oghams, even though they're the things that got me into early medieval Scotland in the first place.
the Oghams are a weird mix of latin, gaelic and auld welsh, and badly weathered, makes reading them difficult. The stone often correspond to whats written in Ogham but only on the class two stones. The grammmar of the symbols is usually topdown, right to left, but sometimes clockwise when more than 3 are involved. Mirror comb usually indicates the grave of a noble male, unless the woman buried beneath was of high status like Princess Der-Ilei ferch Beli, and her daughter Luchtrena. Mirror on its own if the bodies burid beneath a stone correlate as being female. Seems to indicate a noble females grave. Mirror & comb with only a single symbol and a priestly image may indicate a bishop, saint of monk of high status....
This is fascinating stuff, Paul - is it all from Cummins, or is it written up anywhere if not? It would be great to see how all of this has been worked out.
not all just a decipherment by me based upon the work of other much starter than myself. As an English teacher the grammar of language fascinates me, as does word substitution. Knowing that brythonnic, gaelic and latin were all in use by the literate Ogham script is often abreviations and Ogham does not have all the sounds from brythonic so they double lettering, use substitutes that the inscribers know in context what they are saying.