In the wake of his success in occupying Edinburgh and possibly Lothian, King Idulf appears to have been equally active in the north. The Scottish Chronicle records the arrival of a force of Viking raiders in Buchan at some point during his reign. This event reveals the decline in the threat presented by the Vikings since the heady years of the 860s, 870s and 900s. In Alba by the 960s the Viking Age, that period when Viking armies had attempted to conquer large areas of the British Isles, was more or less over. The descendants of those early Vikings were still present in the northern and western islands, in the Isle of Man and in Ireland but they no longer had the power to subdue fresh kingdoms. They spent most of their time attempting to hold on to what they had. This did not mean that the kingdom of Alba was completely free from attacks, which continued into the thirteenth century. It was, however, no longer threatened with conquest. The new attacks were mainly local and seasonal in nature and usually directed at securing plunder.
In 962 Idulf was killed while fighting more Viking raiders in the north-east at Cullen in Banff. In the aftermath of his death, according to the Scottish Chronicle, Dub, son of Malcolm I or Dub mac Mael Coluim initially succeeded Idulf. He immediately restored the exiled Bishop Fothad to his position at St Andrews, although the latter would not enjoy his triumph for long since he died only a year later in 963. He was replaced as chief bishop of Alba by Maelbrigte, who ruled for some eight years. It appears, however, that Culen, son of Idulf or Culen mac Idulb was not content to accept the restoration of the kingship to the lineage of Malcolm and he subsequently collected support to contest the kingship. The result was an outbreak of civil strife between two claimants, Dub, son of Malcolm and Culen, son of Idulf. This conflict almost certainly drew on support from different factions among the nobility. The result was a period of misery for Alba described by The Prophecy of Berchan: ‘Two kings after that, the pair plundering equally; white and black together, woe to him who shall take them in joint kingship.’
In 965 the Scottish Chronicle and the Annals of Ulster both report that the rival claimants and their supporters met in battle. The Chronicle locates the battle at Duncrub, which is near Dunning in Perthshire. It was an extremely bloody fight which cost the lives of a number of prominent men, including Duncan, Abbot of Dunkeld and Dubduin, Mormaer of Atholl. The sources, however, appear to disagree about the outcome. The Chronicle proceeds to state that Dub was expelled from the kingship and Culen reigned for a short while. In contrast, the Annals of Ulster imply that Dub continued to rule for another year until 966, when he was killed by ‘the Scots themselves’, presumably a reference to Culen and his followers. It was probably only after Dub’s death in 966 that Culen finally succeeded to the kingdom.
In 966, the Annals of Ulster report that, Dub son of Malcolm was slain during an internal dispute and nothing more. A few rather later Scottish accounts of Dub’s death appear to offer additional information, but it is not clear how reliable these might be. In these sources, it is suggested that Dub met his end at Forres at the hands of the men of Moray. Unfortunately, these sources also include a legend that his body was hidden under the bridge at Kinloss and that the sun would not shine until it was found and provided with a Christian burial. The accretion of such legendary material can only undermine our faith in the accuracy of the information found in these sources. It has been suggested that Sueno’s Stone at Forres commemorates this encounter, and it certainly features something that might represent a bridge but there is no way to establish this and other battles have been suggested. In any case, Culen finally succeeded Dub in 966 but he would himself rule for only a few years.
In the same year of 966, King Edgar of England appointed Oslac as Ealdorman of York in an attempt to increase royal influence in the north. It seems that prior to this Edgar had been content to allow Oswulf and then Eadwulf, the successive ealdormen of English Northumbria, to rule York following the final expulsion of Erik in 954. The appointment of Oslac left Eadwulf, who was nicknamed ‘Evil-child’, with authority over Northumbria from the Tees to a place called Myreforth or Myreford. This is probably not the Firth of Forth but some so far unidentified location in East Lothian or Berwickshire. In the same year, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reports that a man named Thored, son of Gunnar ravaged Westmorland. He was probably the son of Edgar’s faithful ealdorman Gunnar, who held lands in Yorkshire but whose area of authority as an ealdorman is unknown. Thored himself would eventually rise to replace Oslac as Ealdorman of York in 975 and to marry his daughter to King Aethelred of England. The Chronicle does not reveal the precise objectives of this raiding by Thored. It may have been intended to conquer Westmorland, an area nominally under English rule but largely independent until now. This region does not seem to have been recognised as part of the area known as Cumberland, which had been ceded to the Scots in 945. King Edgar perhaps sought to intervene in this area and encroach somewhat on Scottish territory while its rulers were embroiled in their civil war. It is possible that both events were part of a process whereby Edgar sought to increase his authority in these border regions.
In 966 Culen had finally secured undisputed control of the kingship following the death of Dub. He had a brief reign of five years which appears to have been uneventful, as far as can be told from the meagre sources that exist. The Scottish Chronicle notes a number of important deaths that occurred during his rule but provides no further information. In 971 Maelbrigte, Bishop of St Andrews died after an eight-year rule. He was succeeded by Cellach, son of Ferdalach, who would go on to rule the see for twenty-five years. In addition, Maelbrigte son of Dubucan, Mormaer of Angus died at some unknown date. He was probably the son of the Dubucan, son of Indrechtach, who had been Mormaer of Angus under Constantine before his death in 938. He may also have been involved in the killing of Malcolm I by the men of the Mearns in 954. This succession of a son to his father as mormaer of Angus offers some support for the notion of a hereditary element in succession to these important positions.
In 971 Culen, son of Idulf was killed in battle by the Britons of Strathclyde along with his brother Eochaid, according to the Annals of Ulster. The later king-lists offer some supposed background to this story, though it is difficult to know whether the additional information that they provide is accurate or not. They inform us that he had supposedly offended a man named Rhydderch, son of Donald, Sub-king of Strathclyde, by abducting and raping his daughter. In response, Rhydderch apparently attacked his overlord, King Culen while he was collecting tribute or taxes in nearby Lothian. In the process, King Culen and his brother Eochaid were killed. If this account is accurate, it offers in passing some interesting information on the situation in Lothian. This region had only been occupied by the men of Alba about ten years before. It was apparently still necessary for the King of Alba to collect the tribute of Lothian in person and while accompanied by a reasonably substantial military force. It seems that Rhydderch may have exploited the exposure of the King in this respect to exact his revenge.
This fate suffered by King Culen allowed Kenneth II, son of Malcolm or Cinaed mac Mael Coluim, the younger brother of King Dub, to seize his chance and take the throne. The information about his reign is meagre in the Scottish Chronicle, confused and possibly limited to the early part of his reign. This is largely because the main text ended in 972 and the final section on Kenneth’s reign was added later. It consists of a brief list of Kenneth’s achievements with only the barest indication of possible dates. This makes it extremely difficult to achieve a logical account of his rule. The Chronicle reports that Kenneth ‘immediately plundered part of Britain’. It is possible that this indicates some form of retaliation against Rhydderch, who had killed Culen and does not again feature in the sources. It is likely that this was considered necessary by King Kenneth II in order to crush their rebellion and ensure the future delivery of tribute, rather than to avenge Culen. It also reports that Kenneth lost his infantry near Abercorn, but it is difficult to work out what precisely this means. It may be enti
rely unrelated since, if it was an encounter with the rebellious Britons, why did it take place in Lothian? It might be that an attempt was made to catch Rhydderch as he fled from the scene of the murder in Lothian.
It is next reported that Kenneth, at some unknown date after his succession, ‘plundered England [sic]’ as far as Stainmore, the River Clough and the pools of the Derwent. The area subject to these raids by Kenneth was in fact within Strathclyde and not England. It might therefore have been part of Kenneth’s attempt to crush the British rebels involved in the death of Culen. It may equally have been an attempt to restore control of this area following the relaxation of royal authority during the recent civil war. It is an outside possibility that the reference to England is not an error and that this marked a belated Scottish response to the actions of Thored in 966. While the kings were distracted by their civil war, Thored had perhaps managed to occupy parts of Cumberland rather than simply raiding Westmorland. If this speculation is correct, then Kenneth may have recovered this area now by raiding what had briefly become English territory.
Kenneth is also reported to have fortified the banks of the fords of the Forth. It is once again not clear what this means, but it may refer to some form of construction work, possibly near Stirling. Alternatively, it may be linked to the Myreforth or Myreford reference in relation to the border with English Northumbria back in 966. It may, on the other hand, be connected to his dispute with the Britons. He could conceivably have built fortifications to protect Alba from British or English attacks. The references to British activities in Lothian and Abercorn appear to suggest actions extending beyond the boundaries of Strathclyde proper.
The Scottish Chronicle next reports that Kenneth proceeded to plunder England ‘after a year’ and carried off ‘the son of the king of the Saxons’. This is another event that is extremely difficult to interpret in a sensible way. The most straightforward interpretation would be that the writer means a year after Kenneth’s succession in 972. It is equally possible that it only means a year after the immediately previous event, the fortification of the fords, which is undated. If Kenneth had captured a son of the English King, it would certainly have been a major coup. It could provide the background to the subsequent negotiations between Kenneth and Edgar at Chester. Unfortunately, no English source records this important event and there is absolutely no confirmatory evidence that a son of King Edgar was captured by the Scots. It has been suggested instead that this entry preserves a garbled account of the handing over of a son of King Edgar as a hostage prior to Kenneth’s attendance on Edgar at Chester in 973. This is unlikely, since all Edgar’s three sons were extremely young at this time and indeed, according to The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the infant Edmund died in 972. It is much more likely that this source has confused a son of Edgar with an unnamed son of Eadwulf, Ealdorman of Northumbria. The latter might more conceivably have been captured during a raid into English Northumbria. In 913 the Annals of Ulster had mistakenly titled an earlier Ealdorman Eadwulf ‘king of the Saxons’. This would certainly appear to be more likely, with the Scottish sources simpy exaggerating their king’s success!
This wide range of activity, all of which is poorly dated, appears to have occurred early in Kenneth’s reign. It probably provides some of the background or wider context to the famous meeting between King Kenneth II and King Edgar of England at Chester in 973. Unfortunately, the only accounts of this meeting which survive have been heavily politicised, even more than those of similar meetings in 920, 927 and 946, mentioned previously. This important event has also become a magnet for so much later legend that it is now difficult to disentangle what actually happened in 973. The later writers and propagandists have built it into a showpiece event intended to demonstrate English over-lordship throughout the British Isles. Whether any of this later legendary material has any basis in fact is now difficult to establish.
What is the story according to the earliest sources? The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle relates that in 973, King Edgar of England, the most powerful ruler in the British Isles was consecrated at Bath. He then ‘took his whole naval force to Chester and six kings came to meet him and all gave him pledges that they would be his allies on sea and on land.’ This account seems fairly straightforward and makes clear that this was a meeting of rulers to resolve relationships between states, not unlike those of previous years. In the Chronicle itself the six rulers are unfortunately not named. It is only in the twelfth-century account of John of Worcester that the ‘eight’ rulers are finally named. They include Kenneth, King of Scots and his Sub-king Malcolm, ‘King’ of Strathclyde. Another twelfth-century source from northern England relates that Kenneth and Malcolm were escorted to Chester by Oslac, Ealdorman of York, Eadwulf, Ealdorman of Northumbria and Bishop Aelfsige of Durham. The only possible difficulty with these names is that Malcolm was apparently not ‘King’ of Strathclyde in 973, since his father Donald did not die until 975. He may, however, have been representing his aged father, Donald, or perhaps the latter had resigned the kingship before 973 in order to go on pilgrimage.
The other rulers who were reportedly present at this Chester meeting were Magnus, son of Harold, ‘king of many islands’, Sifrith, an important but unplaced Viking ruler and Hywel and Iago, two important Welsh princes. They were all contemporaries who could therefore have been there and Chester was a reasonably convenient place for them all to meet. Kenneth and Malcolm, as noted above, could reach there relatively easily by land, travelling from either Cumberland or Lothian with their English escort. The Welsh rulers could easily reach there from their own lands beyond the River Dee. The Viking rulers could comfortably reach the port of Chester by sea from Ireland or the Isle of Man. It is certainly possible that a major summit like that depicted in the sources occurred. The prestige of King Edgar at this time and the likelihood of rich gifts for those attending would have made it attractive to these men.
The main focus of John of Worcester’s twelfth-century account is on an unusual ceremony which he describes as taking place on the River Dee, near Chester. He relates that ‘. . . on a certain day, [Edgar] boarded a ship; having set them [i.e. the independent rulers who attended the summit] to the oars, and having taken the helm himself, he skilfully steered it through the course of the River Dee.’11 This account has been widely accepted by later historians in spite of the fact that it is not mentioned in the earliest accounts. It certainly makes a great story, but it is surely no more than that: a story. It seems unlikely that these independent rulers would have been prepared to participate in such an event in the fashion described. It is surely unlikely that they actually rowed a ship themselves and equally unlikely that Edgar actually steered it in person. It would be unlikely for prestigious rulers like these to perform such menial tasks when they had others to do such things for them. It is more realistic to imagine that these rulers travelled together on the Dee in the same vessel and that Edgar stood on the platform in the stern with the others in front on the lower main deck. If this had happened, it might very well have seemed to observers, who recounted the story later, that King Edgar was being rowed by these other rulers. This would effectively reconcile the more fantastic aspects of this much later account with possible contemporary events.
It is clear that the accounts of this meeting at Chester, especially the later ones, have been carefully drafted to enhance the prestige of King Edgar. The formal agreement which was actually reached between Edgar and Kenneth at Chester is relatively easy to establish. It is unlikely to have involved a major submission by the Scottish ruler. There had been no preceding campaign into Scotland that might have prompted such a submission. The later northern source that provides details of the escort for Kenneth’s journey to Chester, also suggests that King Edgar ‘gave Lothian to Kenneth’. It seems, however, from the evidence of events above, that the kings of Alba had probably held this region since the 950s, occupying it while the English kings were distracted by other matters. It is possible that the Scots had lost it again
during the civil war of the 960s, but there is no evidence for this. Indeed, the references to Scottish military activity around Abercorn and in Lothian in the 970s suggest that they still held it. It seems likely that the two rulers reached a formal agreement at Chester which confirmed Scottish possession of Lothian. The mysterious ‘son of the king of the Saxons’ may have been released in exchange. This would have done no more than recognise the status quo. It is also possible, though perhaps unlikely, that Edgar confirmed further Scottish gains beyond Lothian towards the Tweed.
It was probably at around this time that ‘Kenneth gave Brechin to the Lord’. This appears to describe the foundation by Kenneth of a monastery at this location. It is possible that part of this still exists to this day in the form of the round tower now attached to the later medieval cathedral. The tower, whose main function was as a bell tower, is of a type then being constructed all across Ireland. If this surmise is correct, it demonstrates that Kenneth was building his monastery in the fashion then prevalent in neighbouring Ireland. The record of this monastic foundation is the final entry in the Scottish Chronicle. It is unfortunate that this native source reaches an end at this point. It is frequently infuriatingly cryptic, poorly dated and always sparse in detail but it provides a unique and fairly contemporary Scottish view of events for this period. Thereafter we are forced to depend largely on foreign or later sources for Scottish history at this time. As a result, the sources become patchy and incapable of providing anything approaching a complete account and the sequence of events is difficult to follow.
Lords of Alba Page 11