A history of Scottish languages – part 1


by Paul Kavanagh (Click here for part 2)

In November 2010 the Ministerial Working Group on the Scots Language delivered its report to the Scottish Parliament.  Discussing the promotion of Scots in the educational system, the report noted that the pervasive lack among teachers and the general public of a clear understanding of the status of Scots as a language or the issues surrounding it was a fundamental problem in improving the status of the language.

This lack of public awareness doesn’t just apply to the Scots language, the knowledge gap also includes an almost complete lack of awareness of the role that the Gaelic language has played in Scotland, both the Highlands and in the Lowlands.  Almost nothing about Scotland’s rich linguistic history is taught in schools.  Into the vacuum created by a knowledge gap rush myths, stereotypes and confusion.

But before we can have any sensible and informed debate about Scotland’s linguistic heritage and how we want to protect and foster it, we first have to distinguish between the myths and the facts.  Later this month Newsnet Scotland will be starting a weekly series of in-depth articles examining the widespread myths about Scottish languages.

As an introduction to this later series Newsnet Scotland today begins a ten part series on the history of Scottish languages.  This short history will explain how languages have spread and contracted across Scotland over the past 2000 years.  Each historical period will be illustrated with a map showing the distribution of languages in Scotland at that time.  Today we publish the first map, dealing with Scotland at the dawn of written history when the Romans embarked upon their invasion of Britain.  Tomorrow we publish a map showing Scottish languages during the Roman occupation of Britain.  Successive maps will cover Scottish language history at 200 year intervals until the present day.

There are a few important points to bear in mind when considering the historical spread of various languages.  Firstly, languages evolve and change over time.  For example the form of Gaelic introduced into Scotland over 1500 years ago was not the same as modern Scottish Gaelic.  It was an early form of Old Irish, identical to that spoken in Ireland.  Over the centuries the Old Irish which established itself in Scotland evolved into a distinct language, now known as Scottish Gaelic.  This process has occurred several times in Scottish history and involves every language which has been introduced into the country.

The spread of languages is often equated with the spread of “peoples”.  However the spread of Old Irish, Old Norse or Old English over parts of Scotland did not mean that the original inhabitants were exterminated or driven out by groups of invaders.  Under certain cultural and political circumstances, people find it convenient to adopt a new language.  When many people in a community speak a language as a second language, the children in the community acquire the second language in childhood and often prefer to speak it amongst themselves.  These children then pass on only the “second” language to their own children, and language shift has taken place.  When a society adopts a new language in this way, it often also adopts a new set of myths about its own origins which typically serve to grant political and cultural legitimacy to powerful and influential groups within the population.  These processes have also been important in Scottish history.  In fact Scots have exhibited a remarkable propensity to play musical chairs with languages throughout our history.

Maps showing the geographical spread of languages are simplifications.  In reality there are few hard and sharp borders between languages which can be represented on a map by a line.  The examples of this kind of linguistic frontier which do exist always coincide with political frontiers, the modern Scottish-English border is an example.  Usually when two languages are spoken in contiguous territories, there is a bilingual zone of varying depth between them.  This has always been the case with language boundaries within Scotland.  The coloured areas on the maps are meant to give a general idea of the spread of each language at each point in history, they are not intended to represent exact and abrupt frontiers.

The maps are an attempt to simplify a very complex and multilayered story involving several different languages.  Some may regard them as an oversimplification.  The information upon which the maps are based comes from a range of sources, mostly academic discussions of the Celtic languages and Scots, studies of Scottish place names and studies of the language and names used in historical documents.  I have tried to incorporate the most up to date information available to me.  Some aspects of Scotland’s linguistic history (such as the spread of Gaelic at the expense of Pictish) are very poorly known and so there’s a fair amount of educated guesswork in some of the maps, especially those depicting the earlier periods of Scottish history.

150 AD : Scotland was inhabited by various tribes whose names were recorded by the Classical geographer Ptolemy around 150 AD.  Each of these tribes was politically independent. It is believed that most if not all of the Iron Age tribes of Northern Britain spoke a northern dialect of the same Ancient Brittonic language then spoken in what is now England and Wales.  Historical linguists and archaeologists believe that an early form of Celtic was introduced into the British Isles either in the late Bronze Age or the early Iron Age and then spread rapidly across Britain and Ireland.  It is unknown what language or languages Celtic speakers encountered when they first arrived in Scotland.

The tribal names recorded by Ptolemy come down to us in Latin or Greek guise as they were preserved in Latin and Greek manuscripts, but most of them are apparently Celtic in origin.   Unfortunately in the process of repeated copying by scribes who did not understand the significance of the original form, the names became corrupted and some are now difficult to understand.

Many Celtic tribes named themselves after animals, perhaps the tribal totem or emblem.  The name of the Taezali of Aberdeenshire may contain a Celtic word for badger *tazgos, the Caeroni take their name from the sheep or goat *kairos (compare modern Gaelic caora ‘sheep’), whilst the name Orcades is derived from a Celtic word for pig or boar *orkos.  The Epidii of Argyll took their name from the Brittonic word *epos ‘horse’. This last name is clearly “P-Celtic”, the contemporary Goidelic (Q-Celtic) word was *ekwos from which Sc. Gaelic each ‘horse’ descends.

The names of some other tribes reflect the warlike preoccupations of Iron Age peoples, Smertae means “the smeared ones”, those who smeared themselves in the blood of their enemies.  They may have been devotees of a Celtic goddess known from other sources, Rosmerta ‘the exceedingly smeared one’.  The name Caledonii most likely derives from the word *kaletos ‘hard’, they were ‘the hard men’. The Selgovae claimed fame as hunters, their name means ‘the huntsmen’ (compare Gaelic sealg ‘hunt’).

The tribal organisation of the northern end of the island of Britain was deeply affected by the Roman occupation further south.  Even after the Romans abandoned their brief attempt to make the Antonine Wall their northern frontier, Roman power extended far beyond Hadrian’s Wall.  The tribes in the region between the Walls became client states of Rome.  Those beyond Roman control formed alliances for mutual protection and eventually merged to become the people known to later history as the Picts.

Although all the linguistic relics which can be identified from this remote period of Scottish history are Celtic, there are also some important names which resist explanation and which have not, so far, been identified as belonging to any known language family.  They include the names of some of the larger islands like Skye, Islay and Lewis as well as the original name for the Hebribes recorded in Latin texts as Eubudes.  Some of these names may turn out to be Celtic, but some may very well reflect the now lost language of the pre-Celtic inhabitants of Scotland.


Next – 300 AD and the birth of the Picts

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone


  1. [b]QUOTE[/b]: [i]”Almost nothing about Scotland’s rich linguistic history is taught in schools. Into the vacuum created by a knowledge gap rush myths, stereotypes and confusion.”[/i]

    Exactly. I have given up listening to some of the ill-informed utter tripe I’ve heard about Gaelic.

    This series of articles is very, very welcome.

  2. In all the years that I have spent my free time reading about the history of Scotland.

    I’ve learned more of how diverse the language is from the articles on here than I ever did from any book.

    I just wish I could have learned more about this when I was at school than waiting till now, I look forward to reading more on this subject.


  3. Very good read and I am looking forward to the rest of the chapters.

    Is it possible to provide some references to publicly available material at the end of the series so we could do further reading?

  4. I’d like to see a few references to source material as well, please. I’m very interested in this and really pleased to see this sort of article on Newsnet. Recently I’ve had it explained to me by friends from the south that no-one spoke Gaelic at all in the lowlands of Scotland (or even up in Aberdeenshire where I am), that it was all really English which is the true British language – apparently there are some modern British histories out there now promoting this viewpoint. And, of course, I was never taught about any native language in school other than English-English.

  5. cattwister & EphemeralDeception

    There will be a list of links to references and further reading at the end of the series. I thought it better to leave them to the end rather than include them within the text, which risked making the article a bit confusing since there’s only limited space. This is not an academic text, it’s a series of articles in a newspaper, and I am constrained by the format and the need to explain a complex story in a way that people without a background in historical linguistics or sociolinguistics can understand. Most of the texts dealing with ancient language history are intended for specialists in the field and are chock full of jargon. They don’t typically make for good bedtime reading.

    The theory you mention is the theory that an ancestral form of English was spoken in the south and east of Britain in pre-Roman times. It was popularised in a recent book called The Origins of the British by Stephen Oppenheimer. I briefly mention this theory when introducing Old English into the story of Scottish languages. I don’t cover Oppenheimer’s language theory in any depth however, on account of it being a pile of garbage. Suffice to say that no historical linguist who specialises in Celtic or Germanic languages supports it. The theory is promulgated by certain geneticists and archaeologists who have a naive and extremely antiquated concept of the processes of language replacement. (And in some cases a distinctly pro-British nationalist and anti-Celtic nationalist political agenda – although I’m not laying that particular accusation at Stephen Oppenheimer personally.)

    Paul Kavanagh

  6. A brilliant start to the series, and certainly I am looking forward to the rest even more now.

    While the format as a non-academic piece is of course the correct line to take I hope at the end yourselves or a reader will look to bring it all together.

    Sure some academicals might look down on it as it is just “a newspaper article” but as a piece written in understandable language it will be a brilliant starting point for anyone with even just a passing interest in the subject.

  7. [url]http://www.ayrshireroots.com/Genealogy/Reference/Ayrshire%20Language.htm[/url]
    Seems today’s so-called “English” language in it’s formation and the creation of dictionaries etc’ was initially termed “The Britain Tongue” by order of King James VI & I.
    The language of which we speak is said to be packed full of more words of a Scots, Latin & French origin than there are of any Angles, Saxons or Jutes (as you’ll read in the weblink I’ve left).
    It’s indeed recorded that there are more words of Scots origin in the King James version of the Bible, words that are today falsely tutored as English in even your “finest” of universities.
    Can I just touch on a point of common sense aswell, today England has a larger population than Scotland, when “oor school weans” are being tutored on the origin of our language with a “foreign” nationalist bias it’s an understandable assumption for folk to believe that our language has been influenced and changed from the borders onwards by that of our larger English neighbours.
    But the current status quo re: populace, race, borders, regionalisation and conditioning etc’ hasn’t always been as it is just now.
    When people , even in large amounts, migtrate to a foreign land, they eventually HAVE to start speaking the language of the “new land”, as the English HAD to have done when they came to this island.
    The language we Scots and other Celtic tribes were speaking are all, to some degree or another, recognisable to eachother, or “kenspeckle” (another auld Scots word dropped out of our London dominated school curricular).
    In my own opinion I find it hard to believe that ALL the peoples of this island’s lowlands changed their languages to suit 5th c invaders/settlers, after all, the people on both sides of Hadrian’s Wall were still speaking the same language after 4 centuries of Roman rule.[url]http://www.ayrshireroots.com/Genealogy/Reference/Ayrshire%20Language.htm[/url]


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here