Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


BBC's epic tale of Scotland – less first 3,000 years

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 15 October 2008
IT IS the story of a nation, told from the middle. A History of Scotland, the BBC's landmark £2 million ten-part documentary, has been accused of ignoring 3,000 years of history to begin the epic tale, not with the prehistoric settlement at Skara Brae in Orkney, but with the arrival of the Romans.
The controversial series, which begins next month, has already seen one leading historian quit the advisory panel over scripts described as "Anglo- centric", while yesterday, Alastair Moffat, the broadcaster and historian, took issue with the programme-makers' definition of "history", which has led them to ignore the nation's rich heritage of prehistoric monuments and ruins.

The BBC decided "history" referred to characters and events supported by written records, which meant the series begins in AD 84, when the Roman general Agricola defeated the Picts of Caledonia, an event recorded by Tacitus, the Roman historian. However, this rendered obsolete Scotland's rich prehistoric ruins such as the stone-age settlement at Skara Brae, which was occupied between 3100BC and 2450BC, and the world-famous standing stones of Callanish on Lewis, dated to 2000BC. In an ironic twist, the standing stones are used as the basis for adverts for A History of Scotland, but will not appear in the series.

Yesterday Mr Moffat, the author of Scotland BC, said he was disappointed that the BBC had allowed the Romans to begin the story of Scotland and not the Scots. "If you visit the ruins at Skara Brae and see the stone dresser and the bed you can't help but feel the human story," he said.

"We may not know their name but this is still history. The BBC seems to have ignored 3,000 years. It's a pity to let the Romans tell the story of Scotland; couldn't the Scots have told it?"

Meanwhile, Professor Allan Macinnes of Strathclyde University, who resigned from the series's advisory board after its first meeting last November, said he considered it "strange" that Scotland's rich prehistory had been ignored. "To have the standing stones in the logo, but not in the programme is an own goal by the BBC," he added.

The series is being broadcast in two parts of five episodes each and promises to separate the facts from the myths when telling the story of famous figures such as William Wallace, Robert Bruce and Mary, Queen of Scots.

Two years in the making and costing £2 million, the programme is at the heart of a massive push by the BBC to reignite understanding and appreciation of Scottish history.

Among highlights of the first episode, which is broadcast on BBC1 on Sunday, 9 November, is a document described as "Scotland's birth certificate". The Chronicle of the Kings of Alba is a list of 12 kings of the house of Apin, which charts a critical transition between 878 and 889 when all references to Pictland effectively disappear, to be replaced by "Albaniam", the Gaelic for Scotland. The document is held in the Bibliotheque National in Paris and is part of a parcel of documents believed to have been brought back to France from London by a courier in the 17th century.

Yesterday the programme's presenter, Neil Oliver, an archeologist by training, defended the exclusion of prehistory from the programmes.

He said: "Appearing in the written record: that is what we defined at first base as what we would call history. I'm an archeologist, so it's regrettable for me as I would love to have spent more time considering prehistory, but we can't do it all. There are 12,000 years and we've got ten hours – so what is the best story you can tell?"

The BBC's decision, meanwhile, was supported by Paul Henderson Scott, vice-convener of the Saltire Society, who said: "I would call that archeology. History is what you can deduce from written records and accounts, not what you have to piece together from bits of stone.

"Scotland's history is so fascinating and dense that you don't need to go into archaeology. You can leave that for another series. This is an important series and it can't come on soon enough."

WHAT NEXT

THE documentary series, A History of Scotland, lies at the heart of a major new initiative by BBC Scotland called "Scotland's History" which will span television, radio, the internet and include a series of live concerts.

While the landmark ten-part series will be broadcast on BBC 1 Scotland with a network screening on BBC 2, it is also a catalyst for a raft of radio programming, a new website, interactive games, audio walks and events that will go on through till the end of 2009.

Maggie Cunningham, joint head of programmes at BBC Scotland, said: "This is a project to reach and engage as wide as possible a range of people across the country with up-to-date analysis of Scotland's history. We are one of the oldest countries in the world and have a rich and eventful history to back that up. This is a good time to review Scotland's history and our place in the world."

A website, www.bbc.co.uk/scotlandshistory has also been launched and will feature a wealth of video clips from BBC Scotland's extensive back catalogue of historical programmes.

Debates will also be a key feature of the site.

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 15 October 2008 1:04 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: The BBC
 
1

Lianachan,

Highlands 15/10/2008 00:19:20
What? The "BBC" being Anglo-centric? I've heard everything now....

I understand the distinction between history and pre-history, but as a keen pre-historian myself I am extremely disappointed by this, and doubt I'll even watch what could have been an excellent and comprehensive series.

2

Boy Wonder,

15/10/2008 00:19:43
This documentary is typical of the Beeb. The only suprise is that they haven't got that buffoon, Simon Schama presenting it!!!

He really screws history up. His first series completely ignored the Celts of Prydain and he started off with the Romans too. Like nothing happened before then! And then he jumped to the Saxons after giving post-Roman Britain 5 minutes!

This is the Beeb servicing only their English Unionist masters ... and not interested in the Celtic pre-Roman "bits".

Boycott the programme. I certainly intend to!
3

Maisie from Morningside,

15/10/2008 00:42:29
Neil Oliver presenting makes this programme unwatchable.
He always sounds as if he's trying to cough up a soor ploom and talk sh*te at the same time.
4

DH57,

15/10/2008 00:46:14
"Yesterday Mr Moffat, the author of Scotland BC, said he was disappointed that the BBC had allowed the Romans to begin the story of Scotland and not the Scots."

But the Romans were here about 500 years before the Scots arrived from Ireland....

Surely 'Scottish' history begins with the unnamed settlers who first colonised the country and its islands (from the north down?) just after the last ice age - roughly 10,000 years ago?
5

jerrymanders,

15/10/2008 00:59:06
Anyway what did the Romans ever do for us?




























Just built a bloody long wall.
6

jerrymanders,

15/10/2008 01:01:56
Another thing. Bet you Neil Oliver gets numerous plugs in about North Berwick, where he comes from. It was embarrassing enough on Coast. Actually I like NB.
7

donald,

glasgow 15/10/2008 05:51:11
Another Onionist revising Scotland's history, just like the anti Scottish National Distrust.
8

Pilrig,

Livingston 15/10/2008 06:08:24
5 - mostly tried to murder oot ancestors
9

Pilrig,

Livingston 15/10/2008 06:12:43
4 - and why begin with the Romans ?

Because before they were the first settlers to use a written language.
And it would seem that this series will discount non-written, oral sources.

Never mind, it should prove educational for the likes of Rufus T Barfly.
10

,

15/10/2008 07:11:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

Macuistean,

Isle of Tiree 15/10/2008 07:27:01
Another EBC farce.
12

,

15/10/2008 07:35:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

tattie bogle,

home 15/10/2008 07:53:14
a wisnae born yisterday
14

Douglas,

Bathgate 15/10/2008 08:32:33
God! What a lovely day for a moan. It has to be better that treating dancing and karaoke as life affirming.
Might it not be better to watch and then give a critique than start a bandwagon rolling based on a newspaper article.
15

,

15/10/2008 08:42:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
16

Number 6,

Germany 15/10/2008 08:57:12
No surprise there. When you consider they can't even number their queens correctly why should we expect them to know anything about History outside englandshire ?.
17

Number 6,

Germany 15/10/2008 08:59:50
Will it feature Scotland joining the "Union"?. If so,
will it have the Scots celebrating with joy or as actually happened, rioting across the country ?.
18

Guga II,

Rockall 15/10/2008 09:03:09
Going by the garbage they were spouting on Reporting Scotland yesterday, i.e. about St. Columba bringing Christianity to Scotland, they obviously don't research their history too well.

It was St. Ninian, a Galloway Pict, who brought Christianity to Scotland, in 397. Columba was a troublemaker who was thrown out of Ireland nearly 200 years later.

In any event, it is typical of the EBC to totally ignore the "pre-history" of the country, when the English were still living in the swamps in Germany.

There is, for example, data on Pictish kings contained in the Pictish Chronicles, and going back as far as 226BC. But obviously they intend to totally ignore such sources.

No doubt they will also reiterate the errors relating to the unification of the Picts and the Scots. It was Angus I (729-761) who Conquered Dalriada in 736, after which the "kings" of Dalriada were entitled Ardfhlaith (High Chief) and were subject to the Ard Righ of the Picts. Angus I became Ri Alban (King of the Scots).

No doubt the EBC will ignore this, along with many other aspects of Scottish history. That's the problem with being a colony, the colonial masters rewrite history to suit them selves.
19

,

15/10/2008 09:03:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
20

Louis Catorze,

15/10/2008 09:05:44
Neil Oliver again. What a waste of a good opportunity.
21

wayne bijlyeerheid,

15/10/2008 09:09:31
Quote >The Chronicle of the Kings of Alba is a list of 12 kings of the house of Apin, which charts a critical transition between 878 and 889 when all references to Pictland effectively disappear, to be replaced by "Albaniam", the Gaelic for Scotland.<
By the "house of Apin" I assume they mean "Alpin" as in "Kenneth MacAlpin".
"Alpin" is the same word as "Alban", which is the root of "Albiniam", it does not mean "Scotland".
It means "eastern" or, where the sun rises, and denotes the eastern island of what is now termed the "British Isles".
Iar, Iver,iber, hiber, means "western", derived from "where the sun sleeps" and is applied to Ireland as the western island in the group.
"Irish" and "Albanach" are terms that apply only after the 8th century split between Scots/Gaels in what is now Scotland and Scots/Gaels in Scotia, ie the island now called Ireland.
22

,

15/10/2008 09:09:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
23

,

15/10/2008 09:12:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
24

,

15/10/2008 09:16:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
25

,

15/10/2008 09:16:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
26

Number 6,

Germany 15/10/2008 09:19:41
#20 I am obviousley refering to the english. What is stupid about the comment. Is it factually correct or not ?.
27

,

15/10/2008 09:25:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
28

wayne bijlyeerheid,

15/10/2008 09:30:25
#24 Vincent W
Why don't they consult professional Scottish historians at all?
They only seem to consult English academics with no knowledge of Scottish history outside the historical propaganda they were brought up with.
Sorry if you find it improbable that an ordinary Scot has such an interest in his own country's history that he thinks researching it in depth is worthwhile.
Btw did they consult anyone with the spectacularly unimaginative name of "Vincent W"?
29

Guga II,

Rockall 15/10/2008 09:32:28
#29.

Are you English? If not, why not?
30

wayne bijlyeerheid,

15/10/2008 09:38:41
#29,20,16 et al
Do you have anything constructive to say?
There is not one item in any of your critical posts re Scottish history only childish insults to other posters, so why not give us an example of the extent of your knowledge.
Do you know what the "spectacularly improbable name of 'bijlyeerheid'" means, if you do, why not follow the instuctions.
31

Number 6,

Germany 15/10/2008 09:40:00
#29 Englandshire can refer to us as scotchland if they want. As if we care what they think.

You say I am incorrect to accuse them of not numbering their queens correctly. You therefore obviousley think it is ok to refer to the current queen as elizabeth the second, when in fact she is elizabeth the first of Britain, and elizabeth the second only of englandshire.

You may remember , Elizabeth the first of Englandshire had the Scottish queen imprisoned and executed .

Right or wrong ?
32

Motherwell Jambo,

Middle-Scotland 15/10/2008 09:43:34
#19 and 22

Thanks very much for that as I'll now be energised enough to go do some research which hopefully is what the series will inspire others to do. We all have our jaundiced view of who we are - hence our 20 or 30 centuries of kicking one anothers heids in and all that back-stabbing.

For years I have been seeking a decent programme of who and why we are so i will watch. It has to start somewhere.
33

AJ Fife,

15/10/2008 09:45:37
Whether Neil Oliver gets on your t*ts or the BBC are sneakily attempting to shape Scottish history into a pro-Unionist form, it all matters not.

Scotland for once, is going to get more TV coverage that it has ever had in the past through this series. The focus will be firmly on our nation and that can only be good!

Hopefully the Wars of Independence, the War of the Three Kingdoms and the outrage of the 1707 Union will be well covered. I'm sure the role of the Scots in the British Empire will also be an eye opener for public, and of course, the sacrifices in the Great War will really show the benefit of the 'Union'!

It sounds like I'm in the minority, but I'm looking forward to it :)
34

wayne bijlyeerheid,

15/10/2008 09:50:53
#34 Motherwell Jambo
You have to start somewhere, best of luck.
35

Coinneach,

Dublin 15/10/2008 09:51:21
The BBC hasn't been the BBC for a long time now. It is entirely run by politically appointed people. Gone are the tweedy ladies who ran it (well) since WW2. Gone is the neutral-ish world service listened to by many of those fighting for colonial freedom (for reasonably objective information). The ahistorical obsession about the cruelty of the Romans is part of the programme of these compliant BBC workers. That is why they start Scotland's history with the Romans. But I am afraid No 25 also talks complete rot about the Romans and Scotland too. And I am afraid that is also the BBC approach. History for prats. You see what happens? This is what you want. This is what you get.
36

Guga II,

Rockall 15/10/2008 09:51:49
#35.

"the role of the Scots in the British Empire".

Do you mean as cannon fodder? As in:

"They are hardy, intrepid, accustomed to a rough country, and no great mischief if they fall"

General Wolfe on the Highlanders in Canada.

or:

"What better ways to rid one's enemies than in one's service"

Prime Minister Pitt on raising the Highland regiments for cannon fodder.




37

,

15/10/2008 09:57:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
38

AJ Fife,

15/10/2008 09:58:13
Guga #38,

Absolutely, the Empire was built, largely on the blood, of Highland soldiers, but also guys like Lachlan MacQuarrie who made the most of the opportunities!

Lets hope the Scottish diaspora is also covered and the many achievements of Scots abroad.

Also, lets not forget, we also gave the world proper fitba!



39

Edward,

15/10/2008 09:59:37
I will certainly watch it
BUT I will keep in mind who produced it and who is narrating it
I fully expect that it will be Anglo centric
the question is by how much
40

cuthbert,

Barabhas 15/10/2008 10:02:13
"The BBC seems to have ignored 3,000 years. It's a pity to let the Romans tell the story of Scotland; couldn't the Scots have told it?""

What nonsense. Scotland did not exist until it was founded by the Scots - an event which happened in the 9th century. People should not confuse a state founded by a specific ethnic group - Scotland by the Scots/Gaels - with the general geographic area it happened to inhabit - Northern Britain. If anything, rather than be condemned for starting the series 3,000 years too late the series has actually started several centuries too early.
41

,

15/10/2008 10:03:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
42

wayne bijlyeerheid,

15/10/2008 10:04:20
#37
I may not like the BBC, but I don't think they can be blamed for #25's beliefs. These obviously come from Erich von Danniken's detailed historical accounts of which specific extra-terrestial race settled where after the space shuttle station sunk with Atlantis.
Unfortunately I don't have a copy.
43

,

15/10/2008 10:06:07
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
44

wayne bijlyeerheid,

15/10/2008 10:07:05
#43
What about your own history
Where do trolls come from?

wayne bijlyeerheed
45

,

15/10/2008 10:09:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
46

Lianachan,

Highlands 15/10/2008 10:11:28
#19 Actually, the earlier parts of the king list in the Pictish Chronicle are nonsense - based firmly in legend, rather than fact. However, there is still plenty that could be said about the area that's now Scotland in those days. There are plenty maps and suchlike that pre-date the Romans, and there's quite a lot of information about native tribes, their locations and settlements. So there's plenty to be said, and that's even without going back even further through Callanish, Maeshowe, Skara Brae, etc.. Even without written history, archaeology tells us a lot about the people who lived 1000's of years ago.
47

Guga II,

Rockall 15/10/2008 10:11:34
#42.

I think you are a very confused person.
48

oder,

Scotland 15/10/2008 10:31:27
43 Vincent-W,

Herr BYH, May = My and nase = base - lest you should be confused by my poor typing skills, sorry!

matches your poor memory skills!!

" I find your lack of self and mutual respect is dismal."

practice what you preach!

no one beats you for lack of respect! when it come to a poster having a different view !

I could not agree with you more. I suspect we are in the majority and the girners in the (very noisy) minority."

again your opinion! not necessarily fact! arrogance to make the assumption that it is!

what was it you said "understand" yes thats right! only you have that ability!
49

Number 6,

Germany 15/10/2008 10:33:10
#39 That's right, ignore the facts to fit in with your rose tinted view of the union. Incredible level of denial being shown here. Lack of self respect ? are you drunk ?.

Can you explain why she is titled Elizabeth the second?
try and give an answer and not just a glip petty comment this time.
50

Eric D,

Alba 15/10/2008 10:36:17
No 42 - Factually true and semantic point , but given it's the oldest country in Europe, then expected.I don't think the Germans, Dutch , French or English labour the point when writing their much shorter history.

No 22 -
Alba -Latin meaning "white"
Hibernia - Latin meaning "wintry"
51

Kipling,

The Eastern Sun rising was beautiful 15/10/2008 10:39:44
#19 & #22. Thank you for your comments. Pleasantly enlightening.

There is a hidden agenda somewhere in this:

It doesn't surprise me that the BBC (Scotland or Southern) should miss out such a fundamental background, particularly anything that might give the Picts importance as against the Romans, who never made it to Scotland. Nor does it surprise me if the BBC should parcel it into 5 minutes of forgotten viewing time as the beginning.

To quote from Wikipedia:
"Today Roman Law has been replaced by modern codes. These codes, however, did not create new law from scratch. But rather, to a large extent, the rules of Roman Law which had been transmitted, were placed in a statutory framework which provided a modern, systematic order.

Most important of all, Roman Law will have great significance in regard to the formation of uniform legal rules which further the process of political integration in Europe. Roman Law is the common foundation upon which the European legal order is built."

Ergo, if the BBC (Scotland or southern) is to make friends and influence people at Westminster, increase its licence fee, etc., it has to make Rome the start of all things. Wait for the EU dominated future, when the past will be like the Tsarist past was for those under the Soviet Union. Ie, seen as a negative, non-human rights time, etc. This is whether Scotland is has 'independent' status under the EU or not. Hadrian's wall just doesn't figure as a barrier where communication and domination is by air and/or electronic communication. The BBC is a functionary of this change of perception.
52

Lianachan,

Highlands 15/10/2008 10:41:28
#51 I know why she's Lizzie the 2nd, but as somebody vigorously for our independence I'd rather sit back and enjoy seeing your mate there explain it!
53

Joanna,

15/10/2008 10:45:16
"I'm sure the role of the Scots in the British Empire will also be an eye opener for public, and of course, the sacrifices in the Great War will really show the benefit of the 'Union'!"

AJ

Lets hope the role of the Scots in all aspects of the British Empire are fully covered. It is no coincidence that many descendants of the African slaves still bear the name of their Scottish owners.

Also, take a little time to look at the memorials to the fallen of WW1 on the internet there are very many names on them which are not Scottish. The English do not need any more reminders of the dead of that particular War the memorials in every village, town and city in our country bear testimony to it.

We respect and remember the sacrifice of all who died in that War and all the others.

This week it was reported that the people of Wootton Basset mark the route of every cortege of fallen service personnel in the present Wars. They do not show this respect just to the English ones but to all and there is no requirement for them to do it.

History should not be studied impartially and not from and emotional and modern political viewpoint.
54

Joanna,

15/10/2008 10:47:31
"History should not be studied impartially and not from and emotional and modern political viewpoint".


Sorry that should of course read:

History should be studied impartially and from an emotional and modern political viewpoint.
55

Lianachan,

Highlands 15/10/2008 10:47:51
#54 The Romans did very much make it to Scotland. They occupied central and southern Scotland for a while, and had several campaigns further north. Roman marching camps stretch up the east of the country to Aberdeen, then along the Moray coast. The Roman fleet famously sailed around the entire Scottish coast, and are thought to have put ashore frequently to stock up on water and suchlike in several places. There may be a camp at Portmahomack, even, and a detailed ariel survey of Strathspey, looking for marching camps, is long overdue.
56

Joanna,

15/10/2008 10:48:31
57

Bad day at the office!!

NOT from an emotional....etc
57

,

15/10/2008 11:03:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
58

AJ Fife,

15/10/2008 11:05:42
Joanna #56,

I agree with you on every point!

The English public suffered every bit as much as the Scottish public due to the actions of Westminster Govts upto and during the Great War. There no doubting that and also the Scottish entrepreneurial 'spirit' made the most of the colonies in the Carribean as well as the American colonies. Scottish Regiments under the British banner slaughter many innocents in the name of the Empire, but there were also those who attempted to free and aid cultures under British domination!

The WHOLE story needs to be told! Let's hope the BBC have made a decent fist of it!
59

Joanna,

15/10/2008 11:14:22
AH that's grand AJ

I was beginning to think you had lost your cynical impartiality, which I have always admired :))

I hope this will be shown in England as it should, hopefully, be very interesting and there are not enough historical programmes shown about the people of the UK. How many more times do we have to watch Henry VIII disposing of his wives? Or the machinations of Elizabeth and her advisors?

It is the effect that great events had on ordinary people which is of most interest to me and something,if it is told well, that many should be able to relate to.

60

Kipling,

15/10/2008 11:19:02
58 Lianachan. Name their descendants and shame them ! (Sorry was relying on memory and didn't check out the detail.) Perhaps they got as far as EU law has today in Scotland... But it still doesn't rule out the rest of my post.
61

Lianachan,

Highlands 15/10/2008 11:26:12
#63 Well, I was sticking to where you had been factually incorrect. I have no comment to make on the validity or accuracy of your speculations.
62

Number 6,

Germany 15/10/2008 11:29:57
#60 What is there to research. She is the first queen of Britain called Elizabeth, making her Elizabeth the first .

When James the 6th of Scotland took the British throne, he became James the 1st of Britain.
Simple really, no research required.
63

wayne bijlyeerheid,

15/10/2008 11:34:36
#52
We weren't actually talking about Latin,the Romans didn't call what is now Scotland Alba, they called it Caledonia.
But that is only one, alleged, derivation of alba, one where the word "albumen" comes from.
related words Albion, Alba
Is the island of Gt Britain "white"?
Hibernate means "to sleep" Hibernia meant where the sun slept.
Is Ireland "wintry"? Most people would say it does quite well for mildish weather, compared to Scotland.

Related names "Hebrides" aka "Western Isles" aka "Na h-Eileanan Siar" (note that word "Siar")
Also notice how "Albania" is to the east of Rome and
(H)Iberia to the west, is that just coincidence?
64

Joanna,

15/10/2008 11:35:56
QEII should have changed her name to Tracy, or some other name which has no predecessor, when she succeeded and it would have avoided all this palaver.

Selfish lot those royals.

65

wayne bijlyeerheid,

15/10/2008 11:40:12
James the VI NEVER became James I of Britain, he became Jmes the Ist of England.
He NEVER took the British throne because, for just one reason, the British throne did not exist and didn't until Queen Anne.
From her day on the monarchs were supposed to adopt British regnal numbering, something the English have ignored preferring to number their rulers from their Norman masters' conquest.
66

,

15/10/2008 11:40:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
67

Number 6,

Germany 15/10/2008 11:42:22
#67 That was an option, or she could have taken the title Elizabeth the first . That would also have avoided all the subsequent debate.

If only she had followed the example of the Scottish king James the 6th.
68

oder,

Scotland 15/10/2008 11:42:26
60 Vincent-W,15

there you go again! what makes you think I need a pill? cross ? I am not cross I merely point out that you are equally guilty and in some cases worse that many of poster you pull up for their views! I never pull up posters for typo`s, as for the programme its self! every body should watch it if not least to see how much Scots history is left out! I am sure I read somewhere they will do one on English history as well good place to start at the Roman invasion very little important English history prior to the Roman invasion whats wrong with this programme is "an English view of Scottish History" pay close attention to the opening introduction"

historian quit the advisory panel over scripts described as "Anglo- centric", this was reported months ago!
69

Lianachan,

Highlands 15/10/2008 11:43:44
#65 Wrong, I'm afraid. #68 goes some way to correcting you, but is still wrong himself.

Don't get me wrong, I am passionately for an independent Scotland and have nothing but contempt for the Royals. I just happen to know why she's Lizzie the 2nd, and accept it (in as much as I accept the entire institution, anyway!).
70

,

15/10/2008 11:46:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
71

AJ Fife,

15/10/2008 11:49:43
#68,

It was James VI/I who introduced the term 'Great Britain'!

He was in effect James I of Great Britain.

You are correct about the English adoption of the Norman numbers, ignoring the Saxon Kings who went before. Isn't it funny how the native English were utterly conquered and forced to assimilate into a foreign culture and many historians view this as some sort of positive!!
72

oder,

Scotland 15/10/2008 11:54:51
70 Number 6,Germany

it was at English insistance the JAMES VI AND 1ST use that title! he didnt put up any argument! he was a loser!
73

,

15/10/2008 12:00:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
74

Lianachan,

Highlands 15/10/2008 12:02:39
#76 Personally - in the unlikely event that the "other series" is ever made, I'll agree. Until then, I'm not interested.
75

,

15/10/2008 12:12:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
76

wayne bijlyeerheid,

15/10/2008 12:19:25
#74
He was NOT the king of Gt Britain, Gt Britain as a political entity did not exist.
Both the English and the Scottish parliaments were opposed to the countries uniting.
As the King of Scotland he de-populated the Borders and Ayrshire of fighting men by removing them, but it was only as the King of England and Ireland he could put them in Ulster, solely to England's advantage over Scotland as recognised by the southern parliament.
Both his mother and eldest son were put to death by the English, bad karma or what?
77

oder,

Scotland 15/10/2008 12:20:13
74 AJ Fife,15/10/2008 11:49:43

It was James VI/I who introduced the term 'Great Britain'!

He was in effect James I of Great Britain.

you are correct! but it didn't stick! no one today uses the term "James I of Great Britain" when talking history!
78

Lianachan,

Highlands 15/10/2008 12:25:46
#78 My views on this programme were expressed in #1. As I said there, I'm a keen pre-historian and I am appalled that the great majority of the period of settlement of the area of modern Scotland is being totally ignored.

I owe you no explanation for my motives for posting here. Having said that, as somebody who's very interested in and knowledgeable of the period I only chipped back in to correct some bad history that was stated by some others, and then there was the whole "Lizzie the 2nd" tihng, which is of course entirely tangental.
79

,

15/10/2008 12:36:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
80

AJ Fife,

15/10/2008 12:39:39
#79,

James used the Union of the Crowns to bring Highlanders and Borderers in particular to heel! The previously useful buffer of having warlike families in the borders became obsolete almost overnight in 1603.

He was a very clever politician, unlike his mother and his eldest son!

81

wayne bijlyeerheid,

15/10/2008 12:43:50
#83
> The previously useful buffer of having warlike families in the borders became obsolete almost overnight in 1603.<
It only became obsolete to James as the king of England. Scotland would have done well keeping them.
82

,

15/10/2008 12:45:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
83

wayne bijlyeerheid,

15/10/2008 12:45:40
#72
Please point out where I'm wrong.
You make a statement and give no reason.
84

Lianachan,

Highlands 15/10/2008 12:49:50
#85 Yes, misinterpreting archaeological evidence is all too easy - particularly when digs are organised to find evidence for preconceived ideas and theories, which sadly still goes on. It is nice, though, when archeaology and history come together and mutually reinforce each other. Not, of course, that it happens too often.
85

,

15/10/2008 13:01:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
86

AJ Fife,

15/10/2008 13:05:08
#83,

Just remembered - Charles wasn't the eldest son, Henry was, but he popped his clogs as a child! Apologies
87

wayne bijlyeerheid,

15/10/2008 13:08:54
#87
So like myself you wouldn't have been happy with the recent Stonehenge excavation where the "archeologists" announced prior to the dig that they were "convinced" Stonehenge was a neolithic Lourdes with "healing" bluestones?
Needless to say their excavation "proved" this.

That aside, tell me where exactly was I wrong in post #68
88

antifa,

15/10/2008 13:09:12
A lot of nasty looking nationalism above. Pretty shameful really.

Can someone just answer this: how does starting this programme at the time of the Roman invasion make this programme "anglo-centric"? Does not the reliance on written records demand the involvement on non-British sources?

Of course it does, but people feel the need to pretend they are being victimised so they can moan about it. Jesus.

89

antifa,

15/10/2008 13:10:19
And what does skara brae have to do with the Scots? Was Stone Henge put up by the English?
90

williamx,

canada 15/10/2008 13:15:27
Having looked at the History taught at my Scottish school 60 years ago with historians research I find that written history is only an opinion by the winner "His-story" We will have to wait and see if the BBC is putting out the usual "Scottish Elite" propaganda as written in my school history book.
91

Lianachan,

Highlands 15/10/2008 13:46:01
#91 I think the "anglo-centric" aspect is that people think that the programmes have been made primarily for an English audience, and are presenting things in that way, more than fears about the misrepresentation of history itself.

#92 Well, there was no such place as "Scotland" during the time this series picks up from either, if you want to bandy semantics about. However, the area which is now modern Scotland (which is all I've referred to it as in my own posts here) was here, and was home to a large population of interesting people with a distinct culture and history. Apart from the distinction between history, which is written, and pre-history which, by definition, is not, it's extremely disappointing for those of us interested in the period and area that they are being left out.
92

wayne bijlyeerheid,

15/10/2008 13:48:33
#91quote
>Can someone just answer this: how does starting this programme at the time of the Roman invasion make this programme "anglo-centric"?<
Because the English have no history before the 5th century doesn't mean we all have to start there.
93

Lianachan,

Highlands 15/10/2008 13:52:23
#90 While I think they did good work in further refining the dating of (one aspect of) stonehenge - albeit only slightly - I haven't seen any actual evidence whatsoever offered up in support of their "health spa" theory. It's a decent theory, but I've yet to see anything that makes it a more valid one than many existing theories. Personally, I'll still side with Mike Parker Pearson.
94

wayne bijlyeerheid,

15/10/2008 13:53:47
#94
There was a place called Scotland/Scotia at the time of the Romans it's where the Scotti came from, it's now called Ireland.
Again will you tell me what was wrong about post 68?
Or is it that you just say something and we have to believe you?
95

wayne bijlyeerheid,

15/10/2008 13:53:48
#94
There was a place called Scotland/Scotia at the time of the Romans it's where the Scotti came from, it's now called Ireland.
Again will you tell me what was wrong about post 68?
Or is it that you just say something and we have to believe you?
96

Lianachan,

Highlands 15/10/2008 14:03:24
#97 and #98 I'd thought it was quite obvious that my use of the word "Scotland" was meant to refer to the modern name for this area, and that my point was this: call it what you like, it was still ground upon which people lived and built. In #96, I had been going to answer about #68, but I didn't think I'd have room. I had been going to answer in a seperate post.
97

Edward,

15/10/2008 15:17:18
I wonder if the BBC's new series on the History of Scotland will touch on the Darien project and King William's part in not lifting a finger to help, despite him being the King in both Kingdom's
Good old King Billy was more interested in preserving is financial interests in Holland and in the East India Company. He would have been advised of the project being the King of Scotland, but he would have also spoken to the Spanish, who , at the time were very freindly with the Dutch. The English Royal Navy stationed in Jamaica were instructed not to help the Scots if they were attacked by the Spanish.
This came back to bite them on the backside later, when the Spanish got carried away with there freedom to board any and all merchant shipping, resulting in the War of Jenkins Ear
98

radge dug,

Dùn Eideann 15/10/2008 16:28:23
According to 'Scotland's History', most recent archaeological evidence points to the Scots (Gaels) have settled up to 500 years earlier than thought. Perhaps Eire and Alba were settled by the Goideilic Celts at roughly the same time?

An dochas gun toir am program a h-aite iomchaidh dhan a' Ghaidhlig is nach dean e dearmad air cho ionadail is cudromach sa tha i dha Alba.
99

radge dug,

15/10/2008 16:29:32
#100 - wrong. Good auld King Billy was more interested in playing around with his harem of rent boys. Now we know why Gers fans love him.
100

AJ Fife,

15/10/2008 16:44:34
#103,

Yoohoo yoohoo we are the Billy Boys.......

The historian that discovered King Billy was a raging hoofter woofter deserves a medal! :D
101

Pilrig,

Livingston 15/10/2008 17:10:39
25 - oor history cannae go back 30,000 years cos 10,000 years ago what became Scotland was covered by a glacier 1/4 mile in height.
102

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 15/10/2008 17:18:48
Simon Schama is a respected historian but he does have his drawbacks as evidenced in his "History of Britain" which was lavish in presentation but had some glaring groaners.

I have not seen the series yet but if he is ONLY the presenter and had no input into the script or was over-ruled by the Beeb for glaring omissions and errors, then he is exonerated.

It is amazing, appalling,and dispiriting how the quality of BBC documentaries have precipitously declined in the last five years.
103

Pilrig,

Livingston 15/10/2008 17:21:34
Will watch it, but to miss oot the pre-Roman times - a big boo-boo imo. It's like saying that Callanish, Skara Brae, Cairnpapple dinnae matter. So think of it as a history series withoot a prelude.
Anyway a few years ago Alastair Moffat produced an excellent series (and book) aboot pre-historic Scotland. And he's a better presenter than Neil Oliver.
104

Pilrig,

Livingston 15/10/2008 17:24:51
104 it has been common knowledge doon through the centuries that King Billy was partial to handsome young men. I mean his wife wis nae beauty ! And her great- grandad, Jamie saxt was also partial to young men.
105

JenJen,

15/10/2008 17:30:56
#95 "Because the English have no history before the 5th century doesn't mean we all have to start there."

Everyone alive has history before the 5th century.
106

Eric D,

Alba 15/10/2008 19:57:03
No 66 - (Wayne), I repeat ; it has nothing to do with East/West .Both the words Alba and Hibernia are derived from Latin. Alba is cognate to Albain in Irish Gaelic and Nalbin in Manx, the other Goidelic Insular Celtic language, as well as similar words in the Brythonic Insular Celtic languages of Cornish (Alban) and Welsh (Yr Alban) also meaning Scotland.

The Goidelic word is ultimately loaned from Latin alba "white", probably referring to the whole island of Great Britain after the white cliffs of Dover.

Hence also the early classical name Albion. It was used by the Gaels to refer to the island as a whole until roughly the ninth or tenth centuries, when it came to be the name given to the kingdoms of the Picts and the Scots (Pictavia[Caledonia /Maetae] and Dál Riata), north of the Firth of Forth and the Firth of Clyde, traditionally considered to have been unified by Kenneth Mac Alpin. (Your claim that Caledonia was the Roman name for what is now Scotland is (with respect) incorrect).

Hibernia may derive from the Latin term hibernus that translates as "wintry." Another possibility is that Hibernia is derived from Ivernia, which in turn is latinised Ierne. Ierne was the name given to Ireland by Pytheas of Massilia, the Greek merchant and explorer from the 4th Century BC and may derive from Erin the mythological name for Ireland.

Since I lived in Co Kildare a few years, I can vouch for it getting "wintry" there,too.

Souce : Encyclopedia Britannica.
107

Eric D,

Alba 15/10/2008 20:29:05
Foundations of stone.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=faFX550ppnw
108

ThePeter,

Glasgae 15/10/2008 21:29:35
I remember pre-Roman times like it was yesterday...

Well when would any history start of Scotland?

At the end of the day u have to pick an arbitary point. This is what has happened. To me the Romans seem as good a time as any.

lets now see how many people get upset because some if might contradict Braveheart....

109

Robbierunciman,

Romney Marsh 15/10/2008 22:17:06
I hope it covers the role of the scots in shaping Europe - I am reading a really interesting book about Scots Merceneries who went to fight for Sweden, Poland etc in 16th and 17th centuries.

it would also be nice if it covered events that Scots air brush out of twee history - Bruce's brothers invasion of Ireland, for example.

It will no doubt focus on individuals rather than people and events. Sadly it is the BBC,in England that means the boring Tudors and in Scotland coverage of MQS and james the VI/I - I guess.
110

Pilrig,

Livingston 15/10/2008 22:37:12
112 - It is a history of Scotland - note 'land' . And did human life in the land mass subsequently known as Scotland begin with the Romans ? Of course not.
So it seems silly for the tv prog ignore pre-Roman Scotland.
111

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/10/2008 23:21:32
To be fair - much of the pre-Roman Celtic history is pretty much hypothesis and stab in the dark. The reason? The Celts relied mainly on oral history as opposed to written history - hence we don't know as much about our own anscestors as we do about the Greeks and Romans who did have written histories - biased that they are.
112

wayne bijlyeerheid,

16/10/2008 09:04:28
Once again AJfife and cohorts prove that their anti-Protestant, Rangers'hating agenda comes over and above any rational discussion of Scotland or its history.
As for #103 only one "Scottish" team has ever been embroiled in a sex scandal, and that involving young b(h)oys, they wear green hoops and are called Celtic.
How many prosecutions took place?
And how long did the cover up last?
113

wayne bijlyeerheid,

16/10/2008 09:11:24
#110
"Alba" relates to the whole island of Britain not just Scotland.
What about "Albania"? "Alba" in Italy?
"White Cliffs of Dover"?
Who suggested that? Vera Lynn?
Ivernia,Ierne, Iberia, Hibernia etc. are the same word. It means towards the west.
Irish-centrics are getting as bad as Anglo-centrics.
114

,

16/10/2008 13:45:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.