In his introduction, Richard Cox states that these ‘inscriptions represent a language which is phonologically Scandinavian’ and that ‘the formulae contained in the inscriptions are paralleled in runic inscriptions.’ In his preface he cautions that his subject matter is ‘iconoclastic by implication’ and ‘far reaching in significance.’ This is most certainly true if his theory is correct. It will shut down some long pursued avenues of research into the Picts and open up others. The question is how correct is his theory?

The book is most admirably laid out. Cox first takes seventeen of the some forty ogam style inscriptions in Scotland and discusses each one in detail. Then he follows these individual discussions by discussions involving all seventeen (or nineteen if his two non-ogam inscriptions are included) as a group from the viewpoints of formulae, lacunae, orthography, phonology, morphology, syntax, and chronology. As a further aid, the discussions of the individual inscriptions are extensively cross referenced to the group discussions. However, despite all of this, unless the reader has some acquaintance of Scandinavian languages in general and some acquaintance with runic inscriptions in particular, the book has to be studied as if it were a manual rather than perused as a research report. This means that whatever the reader may know about ogam inscriptions in Scotland must temporarily be put to one side while carefully studying the discussion of each individual inscription. In addition the reader must meticulously check each cross reference to the group discussions as soon as it is encountered. While this procedure may at first seem tedious, the reader is rewarded by a fascinating flow of information about Old Norse (which Cox believes is the cognate language) and about runic inscriptions ‘in Scandinavia’ and ‘in areas which were also once part of the Viking world.’ When all the foregoing is done, the reader will understand the point that Cox is trying to make.

In discussing the individual inscription, Cox proceeds in four stages. First, he presents a standardised replica of the inscription, then a transliteration of the inscription into Roman letters, then an emendation of the inscription to take care of lacunae and finally an Old Norse rendering of the inscription which he translates into English and compares with corresponding runic inscriptions. The final stage of his procedure cannot be criticised. his problems, both micro and macro, occur when comparing what he does during the steps leading up to this final stage with work which has been done previously on the ogam inscriptions of Scotland.

This reviewer certainly cannot fault his choice of Old Norse as an appropriate area of inquiry. In reviewing the notes for a lecture I gave on 7 November, 1996 to the Pictish Arts Society, I noticed that I had arrived at similar translations for the Gurness, Ackergill, Golspie and Altyre inscriptions by employing Anglo-Saxon. However the translations of these same inscriptions by Cox using Old Norse are superior to those made by using a rough Anglo-Saxon patois.

Cox is heavily dependent on formulae to achieve his translations. Formulae of course have always been the most useful tools an epigrapher could have for deciphering inscriptions whether the epigrapher was Champollion with the Rosetta Stone or Rawlinson at Behistun. For example when deciphering Irish monumental ogam, the use of the MAQQ formula (or a variation thereof) for detecting the patronymic of the honoree of the inscription has proved to be a good starting point for decipherment. In working with the Scottish inscriptions, Cox has come up with two Old Norse words as formulae. These are EFT (or a variation thereof) meaning ‘in memory of’ and SEDD (or a variation thereof) meaning ‘erected by.’ One or both of these formulae occur in almost all of his decipherments.

However despite the excellence of his formulae, there is the feeling that an over dependence on EFT and SEDD sometimes leads Cox into a trap. For example in the first line of the Bressay inscriptions the words CROSCC NAHHTVVDDARRS DATTR ANN can be translated (using the aforesaid rough patois and considering the double letters to be some kind of an allophone of the single letter) to say that the stone is a ‘cross in memory of Naddodd’s daughter Ann.’ This is similar to the translation that Cox obtains by using Old Norse. Continuing by the same rough patois to translate the second line of Bressay, the words BENNRISES MEQQ DDRROANN would be expected to say something like ‘Benres son of Droan.’ Instead, Cox has ‘Bjarni erected me – may the Lord (save her) soul.’ While this is not to say that translation by Cox of the second line is wrong, it does cause doubt to appear on what should be an impeccable horizon.

As a general rule, work on ogam inscriptions has been expected to measure up to what is sometimes referred to as the triple ‘I’ paradigm. That is the inscription is written in a script of Irish origin using an Indo-European language and engraved by an indigenous population. To the dedicated believer in the triple ‘I’ paradigm, the addition of letters beyond those actually contained in the inscription is beyond the pale. This belief is vividly illustrated by the invective directed at North American epigraphers who have the temerity to supply vowels for the otherwise all consonants transliteration of their ogam like inscriptions. However, Cox, in his determined drive to reach the EFT and SEDD formulae, emends what he sees as lacunae by supplying additional vowels and consonants with an abandon that would leave a North American epigrapher aghast. Thus the aforementioned second line of Bressay which he transliterated into Roman characters as BENNISES MEQQ DDRROANN is emended to read BE[R]NNI SES[I] MEQQ DDRRO[TTINN(...)]ANN[DU].

The justifications that Cox advances as a license for his lacunae emendations seem reasonable enough. One is the admitted necessity to use abbreviations when engraving on stone. Here he has ample precedence in contemporary Latin inscriptions. Another is that words evolve over a period of time. This has long been recognised even for the aforementioned rough patois (Skeat Principles of English Entomology, Oxford 1887). Then there is the frustration encountered when a script does not have enough characters to accommodate all the phonemes. This was the cause for the rise of forfeda in Irish ogam (Sims-Williams The Additional Letters of the Ogam Alphabet, CMCS 23, 1992). In as much Cox gives several other justifications for his emendations, the question arises as to whether the paradigm needs to be changed.

However if the triple ‘I’ paradigm is to be changed, what changes are to be allowed? Should a non Indo-European language be permitted? These days such a suggestion is going to receive short shrift (Forsyth Language in Pictland, Utrecht 1997). Then how about a non-indigenous people? That suggestion is simply not going to garner much support in certain archaeological circles (Simon James The Insular Celt: Ancient Peoples or Modern Myth , British Museum 1999). Then how about assuming the ogam inscriptions in Scotland are in a script of non-Irish origin?

Here a start can be made since the Auquhollie inscription has light heartedly been referred to as the only genuine Irish ogam inscription in Scotland. That is because it has notches (instead of perpendicular lines across the stem line) to indicate vowels. But the problems encountered with transliteration are more complex than this. I am sorry that Cox did not have a go at the Lunnasting stone. Here there are five different ways to indicate what is presumed to be the letter ‘e’ plus other items like word dividers, serifs, curly letters and bind ogam (that is ogam with a top and bottom line as well as a stem line). However, Cox did tackle the Burrian stone. Here he encountered odd shaped characters that look like hammer heads, hatch work, check marks, and IPA symbols. Moreover, what should have been the normal ogam characters are in bind ogam. Cox transliterated Burrian into roman letters by falling back on the aforementioned forfeda and, since he knows what he wants to achieve, by considered judgement.

Relative to the types of problems which are encountered in transliteration, I suggested (TNHC: Tousist 6000, Dublin 1999) while discussing the long multi-stroke ogam style inscriptions (of which Tollard house in Argyll is an example), that all ogam line inscriptions ought to be regarded as members of the same family. Then the ogam engraved on Irish monuments would be seen as an adaptation to cope with Early Irish by the expedient of adding notches to indicate vowels. The long multi-stroke ogam inscriptions themselves could be an earlier or even divergent stage in the evolution of the family. The script of the ogam inscriptions of Scotland would be the final stages of an evolution to accommodate the language in use there.

The little information which is available about the language of the Picts consists partly of some scanty place name evidence (Nicolaisen Picts and their Place Names Groam House Museum 1996), mostly in the northeast Scotland homeland of the Picts, and partly, it has been assumed, in whatever is contained in the ogam inscriptions of Scotland. These are mostly located in the northeast. Unfortunately for the line of enquiry that Cox is pursuing, onomastic evidence is not helpful for establishing Old Norse as a language of the northeast. Most Scandinavian place names occur in the west and southwest of Scotland (Nicolaisen Scottish Place Names, London 1976). However this reviewer cannot with a clear conscience gainsay existence of at least some Scandinavian elements in the northeast. My own clan, the Grants of Spey valley, are usually presumed to be Normans imported by David II with the name Grand evolving to Grant. However among the myriad of clan genealogical histories (Genealogical Collections, c1750) there is and alternate explanation that we are refugees from the 950AD devastation of the Eldgia volcanic eruption in Iceland with a Norse patronymic being shortened from Hacken Grandt to Grant.

In his chronology of the ogam inscriptions in Scotland, Cox boldly dates the carving of the ogam inscriptions in Scotland as occurring between 1050AD and 1225AD. He bases his dating on what appears to be reasonable diachronic linguistic evidence (E.V. Gordon Old Norse Oxford 1927). However Cox does say that ogam writing itself is based on a centuries old tradition’. Moreover he adds that ‘during the period of its adoption and development for the Norse language the system offered an opportunity, so far as it was able to reflect more closely the speech of its practitioners’ [italics mine]. Elsewhere Cox states that the foregoing use of ogam is the reason for the absence of the runic inscriptions which would normally be expected in an area with a Scandinavian element. What then does the proposal by Cox imply for the belief that ogam inscriptions in Scotland are bearers of the Pictish language?

In the case of the ogam engraved on Irish monuments, the transliteration task was much simpler since Early Irish is a known language. (Damian McManus A Guide to Ogam, Maynooth 1991). As for the Scandinavian linguistic ambience, runes themselves underwent both a contraction from the 24 characters of the ‘older futhark’ to the 16 characters for the ‘younger futhark’ of the Vikings and an expansion to the 31 characters of the Anglo-Saxon runic inscriptions (R.I. Page, British Museum 1987). thus the comment by Cox concerning the ‘adoption and development’ of ogam in Scotland creates a double question :

(1) Are the potpourri of additional characters which appear in the ogam inscriptions in Scotland a development to accommodate Old Norse and therefore a proper subject for the scale of the emendation which Cox has to make; or

(2) are the potpourri of additional characters an adaptation to accommodate the language of the Picts with perhaps unrecognised phonemes, cartouches or a rebus lurking in the inscriptions?

An ancillary question would be whether some of the translations which Cox makes using a minimum of emendation (and this reviewer makes with a rough patois), are support for the theory that Cox puts forward or are they merely a synchronic linguistic coincidence? Finally it may be asked just what is the language of Pictland?

The source of the answers to these questions would appear to lie in raising the horizons of the enquiry. Elsewhere the intermingling of proto-Celtic with the non Indo-European scripts of Spain has been discussed (Kim McCone Towards a Relative Chronology of Ancient and Medieval Sound Changes, Maynooth 1996).

Moreover we are dealing with an area where, during the optimal weather conditions of Atlantic and Sub-Boreal climatic periods, there was a vibrant culture whose stoneworks stretched from the Clava stones near Inverness to the menhirs of Carnac in Brittany (Richard Bradly Altering the Earth, Edinburgh 1993) before succumbing to the present chill of Sub-Atlantic climatic conditions. Lastly it must not be forgotten that Bede was a linguist as well as historian and did recognise that the Picts had a distinct language.

As a postscript to his book Cox concludes that because of his theory that the ogam inscriptions of Scotland are of Old Norse origin, ‘one long standing question has, hopefully, been resolved’. However it would seem to this reviewer that what Cox has done is to present a theory to show that the ogam inscriptions of Scotland and the Scandinavian languages have a synchronic linguistic connection (sub-stratum or super-stratum). As such this provides a much needed palliative to offset the belief that developments in Scotland have come up from the lower half of the British Isles (or form Ireland). The theory that Cox presents encourages looking not only in eastern and northern directions but also back to a past which existed for three millenniums before Celtic culture first arrived.

Bill Grant