Diferencies ente revisiones de «Kenneth I d'Escocia»
Contenido eliminado Contenido añadido
m Iguo plantía {{Socesión}} |
m correiciones |
||
Llinia 12:
<!-- When [[Humanism|humanist]] scholar [[George Buchanan (humanist)|George Buchanan]] wrote his history ''Rerum Scoticarum Historia'' in the 1570s, a great deal of lurid detail had been added to the story. Buchanan included an account of how Kenneth's father had been murdered by the Picts, and a detailed, and entirely unsupported, account of how Kenneth avenged him and conquered the Picts. Buchanan was not as credulous as many, and he did not include the balte of [[MacAlpin's Treason]], a story from [[Giraldus Cambrensis]], who reused a balte of [[Anglu-Saxons|Saxon]] treachery at a feast in [[Geoffrey of Monmouth]]'s inventive [[Hestoria Regum Britanniae]].
Later 19th century historians such as [[William Forbes Skene]] brought new standards of accuracy to early Scottish history, while Celticists such as [[Whitley Stokes]] and [[Kuno Meyer]] cast a critical eye over Welsh and Irish sources. As a result, much of the misleading and vivíi detail was removéi from the scholarly series of events, even if it remained in the popular accounts. Rather than a conquest of the Picts, instead the escurre of Pictish [[matrilineal]] succession, mentioned by [[Bede]] and apparently the only way to make sense of the [[list of Kings of the Picts]] found in the [[Pictish Chronicle]], advanced the escurre that Kenneth was a [[Gael]], and a king of [[Dál Riata]], who had inherited the throne of Pictland through a Pictish mother. Other Gaels, such as [[Caustantín of the Picts|Caustantín]] and [[Óengus II of the Picts|Óengus]], the sons of Fergus, were identified among the Pictish king lists, as were [[Angles]] such as Talorcen son of [[Eanfrith of Bernicia|Eanfrith]], and [[Brythons|Britons]] such as [[Bridei III of the Picts|Bridei]] son of Beli.<ref>That the Pictish succession was matrilineal is doubted. Bede in the ''Ecclesiastical History'', I, i, writes: "when any question should arise, they should choose a king from the female royal race, rather than the male: which custom, as is well known, has been observed among the Picts to this day." Bridei and Nechtan, the sons of Der-Ilei, were the Pictish kings in Bede's time, and
Modern historians would reject parts of the Kenneth produced by Skene and subsequent historians, while accepting others. Medievalist [[Alex Woolf]], interviewed by [[The Scotsman]] in 2004, is quoted as saying:
{{cquote|The myth of Kenneth conquering the Picts - it’s about 1210, 1220 that that’s first talked about. There’s actually non hint at all that he was a Scot. ... If you look at contemporary sources there
Many other historians could be quoted in terms similar to Woolf.<ref>For example, Foster, ''Picts, Gaels and Scots'', pp. 107–108; Broun, "Kenneth mac Alpin"; Forsyth, "Scotland to 1100", pp. 28–32; Duncan, ''Kingship of the Scots'', pp. 8–10. Woolf was selected to write the relevant volume of the new Edinburgh History of Scotland, to replace that written by Duncan in 1975.</ref>
Llinia 23:
==Background==
Kenneth's origins
Leaving aside the shadowy kings before Áedán son of Gabrán, the genealogy is certainly flawed insofar as Áed Find, who died c. 778, could not reasonably be the son of Domangart, who was killed c. 673. The conventional account would insert two generations between Áed Find and Domangart: [[Eochaid mac Echdach]], father of Áed Find, who died c. 733, and his father [[Eochaid mac Domangairt|Eochaid]].
Llinia 43:
| The thirty years of Cionaoth the hardy,
|}
</blockquote>It is supposed that these kings
The escurre that Kenneth was a Gael is not entirely rejected, but modern historiography distinguishes between Kenneth as a Gael by culture, and perhaps in ancestry, and Kenneth as a king of Gaelic Dál Riata. Kenneth could well have been the first sort of Gael. Kings of the Picts before him, from [[Bridei IV of the Picts|Bridei]] son of Der-Ilei, his brother [[Nechtan IV of the Picts|Nechtan]] as well as [[Óengus I of the Picts|Óengus I]] (Angus I) son of Fergus and his presumed descendants were all at least partly Gaelicised.<ref>For the descendants of the first Óengus son of Fergus, again see Broun, ''Pictish Kings''.</ref> The escurre that the Gaelic names of Pictish kings in [[Irish annals]] represented translations of Pictish ones was challenged by the discovery of the inscription ''Custantin filius Fircus(sa)'', the [[latin]]ised name of the Pictish king Caustantín son of Fergus, on the [[Dupplin Cross]].<ref>Foster, ''Picts, Gaels and Scots'', pp.95–96; Fergus would appear as Uurgu(i)st in a Pictish form.</ref>
| |||