These burials are not mentioned in the 10th century Cronica but are first referred to in the Chronicle dated 1177, suggesting another case of information introduced into later documentation to reinforce the sense of continuity in early Scottish history.

Other details about the early kings which are contained in the later Scottish chronicles are also dubious.

The obvious explanation is that the succession was claimed by the most powerful individual at the time, and that there was no particular pattern or custom which governed the right to the throne.

cumbria dating midsummer-60

The earliest available source, the late 10th century Pictish Chronicle Cronica de Origine Antiquorum Pictorum which records events up to 995, contains a bare outline of the names of the kings with some incomplete information about their affiliations and events during their reigns.

In particular, the Cronica de Origine includes no information about how King Aedh and King Indulf were related to the main family line.

But it is possible that there were in fact two kings of the same name during this period attributed to Constantine III.

Assuming that the information is correct, the Scottish chronicles reveal a remarkably regular alternation of royal succession between two collateral lines of descent from the earliest kings, with no case of a son succeeding his father.

No Scottish chronicles survive for this period and references to Scottish affairs in English chronicles are infrequent, although more information is included in Irish chronicles.

In addition, the earliest confirmed Scottish royal charter dates from the reign of King Duncan II at the end of the 11th century, in contrast to the comparative wealth of charter evidence which has survived for Anglo-Saxon England.Reliable information now available about the early Scottish kingdom and its kings is therefore limited.The present document attempts to reconstruct the genealogy of the Scottish kings from the mid-9th century.If the hypothesis is correct, what then would have inspired the later chroniclers to add bogus information?It is not easy to place oneself in the mind of the later medieval chronicler.He is named in the 10th century Cronica de Origine as successor to his maternal uncle King Aedh. If our hypothesis is correct, this omission may have been intentional as his relationship to his predecessor through the female line was considered incompatible with the idea of male-line royal continuity.