Pictish succession - part 3 of 3
Stewart Baldwin
-----------------
3. THE ABSENCE OF FATHER-TO-SON SUCCESSION IN THE PICTISH KING-LIST
BEFORE THE END OF THE EIGHTH CENTURY
In the early ninth century, there are several examples of kings of the
Picts whose father had also reigned as king of the Picts. There is
also one possible example in the late eighth century in which a
Pictish king was the son of a man having the same name as a previous
Pictish king, who may have been the same person. Since most of the
ninth century examples involve men who were also kings of the Scots,
it is possible that this reflects a period of foreign domination. If
the Picts were matrilinear, another possibility is that this period
represents the beginnings of the breakdown of the matrilinear system
in the face of pressure from neighboring patrilinear societies.
Whatever may be the situation in this later period when the
unification of the Picts and Scots was at least partly under way, the
fact is that, prior to the late eighth century, no Pictish king in the
Pictish king-list was the son of a previous Pictish king (not counting
some clearly fictional names at the beginning). We know this because
we have the patronymics from the king-lists, and the names of the
fathers do not correspond with the names of previous kings.
This does not prove matriliny by itself, but it is something that
would be expected in a matrilinear society. On the other hand, in
patrilinear systems, it is expected that a king will be the son of a
previous king at least on occasion. A significant portion of Woolf's
paper consists of analyzing the genealogies of the kings of several of
the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, all of which are known to have patrilineal
systems of descent, and he demonstrates that not as many of the kings
were sons of previous kings as you might first expect. (As in
interesting sidelight, he suggests, correctly I think, that Cenwulf of
Mercia was in fact a cadet member of the West Saxon dynasty, and a
descendant of the Mercian dynasty only in the female line.) However,
he is surely overstating his case when he states that "In Kent, from
762 to 855 no king is known to have been the son of a Kentish king."
[p. 156], for a significant part of that period represents foreign
domination, and some of the kings have unkown parentage, and could
possibly be the son of a previous king. Also, while Woolf
acknowledges that "... it remains curious that not one single Pictish
king before the late eighth century should have been the son of a
previous king," it seems to me that he is going too far when he
suggests in the next sentence that "Perhaps the sons of Pictish kings
did not feel the need to pursue their claims." This seems contrary to
basic human nature. While there are certainly individuals whose basic
temperment would cause them to refrain from seeking the kingship, it
is to be expected that if a certain class of individuals generally did
not seek the kingship, it would be because existing social and
political institutions placed a barrier to doing so. Matriliny would
place such a barrier to the sons of kings, whereas patriliny would
not.
However, the lack of father-to-son succession in the Pictish
king-lists is not the entire story. Of equal importance is the fact
that brother-to-brother succession in the Pictish king-lists is quite
common. In a matrilineal system, it is expected that father-to-son
succession would be absent and that brother-to-brother succession
(assuming the brothers had the same mother) would be present, and that
is exactly what we see. As none of the patrilineal examples presented
show the same combined pattern, a satisfactory explanation of how
common brother-to-brother succession combined with rare or absent
father-to-son succession might happen in a patrilineal system is still
absent.
4. THE STRIKING DICHOTOMY BETWEEN THE NAMES OF PICTISH KINGS AND THE
NAMES OF FATHERS OF PICTISH KINGS.
The evidence discussed in this section is not new, and has been
discussed before [e.g., Anderson (1973), 166, and Miller (1978), 51],
but because these discussions occurred before Pictish matriliny was
first seriously questioned by Smyth, the discussions are
understandably brief. Neither Smyth nor Woolf mentioned this evidence
in their arguments against Pictish matriliny, and it was also
overlooked by Sellar in his remarks on Smyth's work. For this reason,
I have chosen to give this evidence a section of its own, even though
it could also be appropriately discussed as a part of the previous
section.
The evidence has to do with the personal names of the Pictish kings
and their fathers. If one looks at the names of the Pictish kings,
then the repetiton of names is obvious. Personal names like Brude,
Drest, Gartnait, Nechtan, and Talorc[an] each appear on several
occasions. Of course, there is nothing unusual about that. Many
kingdoms could be mentioned that show a similar pattern. However,
when you look at the names of the fathers of Pictish kings, the
pattern is entirely different. Not only is there a wide variance in
personal names (in fact, almost as many different names as there are
individuals), but prior to the eighth century, there does not exist
any overlap between the names of Pictish kings and the names of
fathers of Pictish kings.
This dichotomy is exactly what one would expect in a matrilinear
system. If the kings are members of the same matriline, there is no
surprise if they show the repetiton of personal names that is often
seen in a ruling family. On the other hand, in a matrilineal system,
the fathers of kings will often (though not always) come from
different families, so there is no reason to expect them to show such
repetition in personal names, any more than you would expect the wives
of successive generations of a patrilineal dynasty to show such
repetition.
In a patrilineal system, such a dichotomy is not to be expected, and
the lack of an explanation for this evidence is a serious weakness in
the patrilineal case. As Molly Miller pointed out in her discussion
of this, the "throne-name" explanation (i.e., the suggestion that
Pictish kings were born with a different name and then adopted a
"throne" name after becoming king) will not do, because there are
numerous examples of individuals possessing these names who were not
Pictish kings. Thus, it is hoped that any future attempts to argue
against Pictish matriliny will not ignore this important piece of
evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
Unless new evidence surfaces that would allow proof of the
genealogical relationships between Pictish kings (which seems like a
very unlikely prospect without the discovery of hitherto unknown
manuscript sources, something that is not to be expected), it seems
unlikely that conclusive proof either for or against Pictish matriliny
will ever be found. Nevertheless, the case in favor of Pictish
matriliny, if not conclusive, is still strong. Not only does the
available evidence of the king-lists and other data fit very well with
what would be expected in a matrilineal society, but we have the
direct testimony of the Pictish origin legend, confirmed by the
testimony of a contemporary witness, that Pictish succession was
considered to be unusual in some way, and that it involved succession
through females.
The best argument in favor of Pictish patriliny is that matriliny is
unknown elsewhere in western Europe, and that we would therefore
expect the Picts to be patrilineal like their neighbors, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary. That is a significant argument
in itself, but the fact is that evidence for Pictish matriliny does
exist, and there is a point at which the argument that something is
not known elsewhere needs to be abandoned. Of the attempts to argue
against the individual points for Pictish matriliny, the arguments
against each of the first three items on the list, while plausible
enough individually, still look like attempts to explain away contrary
evidence, rather than direct evidence for patriliny per se, and two of
the most important arguments for Pictish matriliny, the common
brother-to-brother succession, and the striking difference in
onomastics between Pictish kings and their fathers, have either been
inadequately discussed, or overlooked entirely, by the opponents of
Pictish matriliny.
The proponents of Pictish matriliny have a model, matrilineal
succession, which does an excellent job of fitting the available
evidence, supported further by a contemporary legend that appears to
be an attempt to explain an unusual succession system through females.
The proponents of Pictish patriliny have yet to put forward a
believable model of patrilineal succession which would fit well with
the known evidence for the Pictish kings. The opponents of Pictish
matriliny have done a good job of showing that matrilineal succession
among the Picts should not be considered a proven fact, as it has
sometimes been regarded. However, at the same time they have failed
to provide any convincing alternative, and matriliny remains as the
most likely system of succession practiced by the Picts.
Stewart Baldwin
References:
Anderson (1973) = Marjorie Ogilvy Anderson, "Kings and Kingship in
Early Scotland" (Edinburgh, 1973), which contains the various versions
of the Pictish king-lists.
Anderson (1961) = Alan Orr Anderson and Marjorie Ogilvie Anderson,
eds., "Adomnan's Life of Columba" (Edinburgh and London, 1961).
AU = Annals of Ulster
Bede = Bede, "Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum" (The
Ecclesiastical History of the English People", early eighth century).
EWGT = P. C. Bartrum, "Early Welsh Genealogical Tracts" (Cardiff,
1966).
HB = "Historia Brittonum" (written ca. 827, frequently mislabelled
"Nennius")
Miller (1978) = Molly Miller, "Eanfrith's Pictish son", Northern
History 14 (1978), 47-66.
Sellar (1985) = W. David H. Sellar, "Warlords, Holy Men and
matrilineal succession", Innes Review 36 (1985), 29-43.
Smyth (1984) = Alfred P. Smyth, "Warlords and Holy Men: Scotland AD
80-1000" (London, 1984).
Woolf (1998) = Alex Woolf, "Pictish Matriliny reconsidered", Innes
Review 49 (1998), 147-67.
---------------
end part 3 of 3
Chris Bennett
Thank you very much for a fascinating and very persuasive essay.
Could you elaborate a bit on your aside about Cenwulf of Mercia? Why
does Woolf think he was a cadet West Saxon and why do you agree?
Chris
In article <383e13ed...@news.mindspring.com>,
sba...@mindspring.com (Stewart Baldwin) wrote:
<snip>
(As in
> interesting sidelight, he suggests, correctly I think, that Cenwulf of
> Mercia was in fact a cadet member of the West Saxon dynasty, and a
> descendant of the Mercian dynasty only in the female line.)
<snip>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/25/1999 9:38:17 PM, sba...@mindspring.com writes:
<< it seems
unlikely that conclusive proof either for or against Pictish matriliny
will ever be found. >>
I agree here, but think we might expand this dialog by inviting Alex Woolf
into the debate. I have known Alex for many years and I am sending this
information fo him. If he has time, I know he will like to make some comments.
- Ken
Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor/ Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
_____________________HT COMMUNICATIONS____________________
PO Box 1401 Arvada, CO 80001 USA
Voice: 303-420-4888 Fax: 303-420-4845 e-mail: K...@AOL.com
Homepage: http://members.aol.com/TPConnect/Page2.html
Associated with: Thompson Starr International
[Films ... Representation ... Publishing ... Marketing]
Stewart Baldwin
wrote:
>Could you elaborate a bit on your aside about Cenwulf of Mercia? Why
>does Woolf think he was a cadet West Saxon and why do you agree?
The "official" pedigree of Cenwulf of Mercia (with minor variations of
spelling in some versions, but no serious disagreements, see David N.
Dumville, "The Anglian collection of royal genealogies and regnal
lists", Anglo-Saxon England 5 (1976), 23-50), goes as follows, with
Penda's position in the pedigree added for illustration purposes:
Pybba
_______|_______
| |
Penda Cenwalh
|
Cuthwalh/Cundwalh
|
Centwine
|
Cynreow
|
Bassa
|
Cuthberht
|
Cenwulf
Now, according to Bede, king Cenwalh of Wessex was married to a sister
of Penda, so we know that Cenwalh of Wessex was a son-in-law of Pybba.
Thus, Woolf's suggestion is that the Cenwalh in Cenwulf's pedigree was
in fact the well known king Cenwalh of Wessex, which is certainly
chronologically possible, and makes the official pedigree inaccurate
only in that it represents Cenwalh as a son rather than a son-in-law
of Pybba:
Pybba
______|_____
| |
Penda daughter = Cenwalh
|
Cuthwalh/Cundwalh
|
etc.
Another piece of evidence, not mentioned by Woolf, but which adds
further support to his suggestion, is the onomastic observation that
all but one of Cenwulf's ancestors back to Cenwalh show the same
C-alliteration that is present among the early members of the West
Saxon dynasty, that one of the intervening generations (Centwine) has
the same name as another West Saxon king, and that Cenwulf's two
brothers known from other sources (Ceolwulf and Cuthred) also have
names that were also borne by kings of Wessex.
The suggestion is so elegant that I find it difficult to believe that
it could be wrong. The big question in my mind is why the observation
hasn't been made before (or has it?).
Stewart Baldwin
Chris Bennett
sba...@mindspring.com (Stewart Baldwin) wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 15:14:22 GMT, Chris Bennett <cben...@adnc.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Could you elaborate a bit on your aside about Cenwulf of Mercia? Why
> >does Woolf think he was a cadet West Saxon and why do you agree?
>
> Thus, Woolf's suggestion is that the Cenwalh in Cenwulf's pedigree was
> in fact the well known king Cenwalh of Wessex, which is certainly
> chronologically possible, and makes the official pedigree inaccurate
> only in that it represents Cenwalh as a son rather than a son-in-law
> of Pybba:
>
> The suggestion is so elegant that I find it difficult to believe that
> it could be wrong. The big question in my mind is why the observation
> hasn't been made before (or has it?).
Wholeheartedly concur -- it looks very plausible. Thanks!
Chris