Check all the Clans that have DNA Projects. If your Clan is not in the list there's a way for it to be listed. Electric Scotland's Classified Directory An amazing collection of unique holiday cottages, castles and apartments, all over Scotland in truly amazing locations.

Notes on the Early History of Scotland
Ireland not the Hibernia of the Ancients


It is perhaps now impossible to ascertain whether Caesar meant Scotland or Iceland by Hibernia. Perhaps the word rendered Spain in the translation may have been Ibernia. Tf this were so, and we could believe that the word Casar used for north was tampered with and made to represent the west instead, there would be some truth in his saying that one of the sides of Britain (England and Ireland) lay towards Hibernia and Ibernia, or Scotland and Iceland. At any rate, there was an island called AEmona between Roman Britain and Scotland, which may help to confirm this interpretation of Caesar’s description. Pliny, another Roman writer, is said to place Hibernia super Britaniam. Super means above or north, and it will be shown in the following pages that most of the ancient writers place Hibernia or lerne to the north of Britain also, or speak of it as a very cold country. This agreement shows very clearly that Caesar’s description has been tampered with.

This interpretation of Caesar’s text raises another difficulty, as it represents Scotland as an island; but there is fortunately abundant and decisive evidence to trove that Scotland was considered to be an island by foreigners till a late period of time; and it is possible it may once have been an island, for archaeology tells us of boats and even skeletons of whales found from ten to twenty feet deep between the Firths of Forth and Clyde; and Gildas, a native of that neighbourhood, evidently considered the country north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde an island. Stephanus Byzantinus, who, as already stated, spoke of Britain and Britannis as one country but two islands, also mentions Albion as a separate island. Albion has sometimes been taken to apply to England, but there is no reliable evidence to bear this out. The most trustworthy information enables us to say that it was only a name for Scotland north of the Forth. Perhaps the most satisfactory evidence that Scotland was taken for an island is found in the National Library at Paris. In that building there are hung up several maps of the world drawn up by Spanish and Portuguese geographers in the seventeenth century. On these Scotland and Britain south of the Firths of Forth and Clyde are clearly marked as entirely separated from each other by water. Other authorities may be cited to show how widely the opinion was diffused that Scotland was an island. Abraham Peritsol, who flourished in the sixteenth century, and wrote a work in the Hebrew language called ‘ Itinera Mundi,’ often mentions Scotland as an island, and distinguishes it from England and Ireland. His translator, Thomas Hyde says that "in the 2d, 7th, and 12th chapters of that work, Scotland is plainly mentioned as a distinct island, contrary to the common way of speaking. Thus the Nubian geographer, in climate vii., part second, ‘The island of Scotland borders upon England.’ So that though our Hebrew writer has committed a mistake, he was not singular in his opinion, but was misled by those who wrote before him." it is necessary to add that the Nubian geographer describes Ireland under that name, and not as Hibernia. Joseph Gorionides, said to be a late writer, says:-

"The Roman empire reached to the ends of the earth, in Britain as far as the ocean, and over all Scotland, which is surrounded with water, the inhaibitants of which, like Anakims, are tall of stature and warlike, and are taught to fight their enemies either with the chariot or bow. Against these the Roman general led his forces; but the Scots assembling together and holding a council of war, cried out with a unanimous voice, ‘Let us fight against our enemies, and rather die bravely in the field than live the slaves of foreign masters.’ But the Romans overcame them, and reduced them to subjection."

Although Gorionides calls Ireland neither Hibernia nor Scotland, but Ireland, yet the above passage has been made to apply to that country, because Scotland is there represented as an island.

A geologist says:-

"There is satisfactory evidence to prove that the bed of the Firth of Forth and the land on both sides of it. have been raised twenty feet or more at an epoch which, though very recent, geologically speaking, is probably long anterior to the records of history. . . . The skeleton of a whale, pretty entire, was found a few years ago at Airthry, about two miles north-east of Stirling. It was embedded in a fine clay, about twenty feet above the level of the highest tides. About seven miles farther west, near the head of Blair-Drummond Moss, part of the skeleton of another whale was found resting on peat, covered by the fine clay called Carse clay, and which in its turn was covered by peat-moss. At various parts of the Carse of Stirling and Falkirk, also, sea-shells are found in the soil. These facts clearly show either that the land has risen or the sea subsided. But a subsidence of the sea, if it takes place, must be universal and eyery where equal and since this is inconsistent with what is known of other countries, the only admissible conclusion is, that the bed of the Forth, and tha land on both sides of it, have been elevated, The position of the oyster-bed at Seafield implies a change of level of not less than thirty feet; and from observing the heights at which tidal action is visible on the ancient coast-line, I am led to think that a rise of thirty or thirty-five feet is most consistent with the phenomena generally. . . . Marks of a similar character are numerous on the west coast of Scotland. On the shores of Arran I found almost every-where an ancient beach in the shape of a low platform....Caves have been hollowed out by the ancient tide in the precipice to the height of thirty or thirty-five feet above the present high-water mark."

The next writer whose notice of Hibernia, or Ierne, as he calls it, is worth reproducing, is Strabo. He was a Greek geographer, and lived between fifty and twenty years B.C. In the introduction to his works he thus refers to lerne :—

"Pytheas, who has given us the history of Thule, is known to be a man upon whom no reliance can be placed; and other writers who have seen Britain and lerne, although they tell us of many small islands round Britain, make no mention whatever of Thule. . . . Now from Marseilles to the centre of Britain is not mere than 5000 stadia, and if from the centre of Britain we advance north not more than 4000 stadia, we arrive at a temperature in which it is scarcely possible to exist on account of the cold. Such indeed is that of lerne. Consequently the far region in which Eratosthenes places Thule must be totally uninhabitable."

Again, in book ii., chap. 5, par. 8, the following occurs:-

"It is true that Pytheas Massiliensis affirms that the farthest country north of the British islands is Thule; in which place, he says, the summer tropic and the arctic circle are all one. But he records no other particulars concerning it; whether Thule is an island, or whether it becomes habitable up to the point where the summer tropic becomes one with the arctic circle. For myself, I fancy that the northern boundaries of the habitable earth are greatly south of this. Modern writers tell us of nothing beyond lerne, where the people live miserably and like savages on account of the severity of the cold. It is here, in my opinion, the bounds of the habitable earth ought to be fixed."

It is plain from these passages that Strabo considered lerne to be a country placed so far north that it was difficult to live in it on account of the cold. This description can by no means be made to apply to Ireland, for Orosius and Bede speak of it as being so temperate that even snow seldom lay on the ground. And it is nearly as inapplicable to Scotland; but it is probably an apt description, for the time in which Strabo wrote, of Iceland. Besides, the distance given from Marseilles to the centre of Britain, and from there to lerne, does not point to Scotland, but to Iceland, which is the only country which comes near to the position indicated. Of course, if we take Britain to mean Scotland and England, the distances given take us at once to Iceland; but it should be remembered that Strabo's Britain was Caesar’s Britain, the middle of which may have been about the north of England. Although the distance from here to Iceland is rather more than the distance between it and Marseilles, the distance as given by Strabo from there to lerne would still go far beyond Scotland, which still confirms the suppositIon that Iceland was his Ierne.

Strabo follows Ceasar in saying that Britain is triangular, and also in making it so wide from east to west as to include Ireland. As he places lerne to the north of Britain, and Caesar Hibernia to the west, this shows that Cesar’s MS. has been tampered with ; for had Strabo, who quotes Ceasar, dissented from him in regard to the situation of Hibernia, he would have said so, as he does in the case of the situation ascribed to Thule by Pytheas.

Juverna is another name said to be given by the ancients to present Ireland. It is used by the poet Juvenal and Pomponius Mela. The former refers to it thus, as translated in Gibson’s edition of Camden’s Britannia:-

"What though the Orcades have owned our power,
What though Juverna’s tamed, and Britain’s shore,
That boasts the shortest night ? ‘

It is implied here that Juverna was conquered by the Romans, but this cannot be said of Ireland, which is allowed by all writers to have escaped invasion at the hands of that warlike people. Iceland cannot be said to be the country here intended either, but Scotland may. Mela follow's Strabo and Pliny in placing Juverna above or north of Britain. Some writers who support the Ireland-Scotia theory explain Mela’s above as referring to the west rather than the north. But an ancient scholiast makes it manifest that the Juverna of Juvenal and Mela was not Ireland by saying, "It is an island of Britain, placed in the ocean not far from the thirty isles of tbe Orcades:" to which he adds, "in Hibernia. which is a part of Britain, at the summer solstice there is no night, or next to none.’ We are told that ‘the commentators on Strabo are not a little puzzled that both he and Mela affirm that Hibernia is more broad than long : which is true,’ sacs Xylander, ‘if the breadth be computed from south to north.’" if this be the case, the country which answers that description best is Iceland. Scotland, north of the Forth, is about as broad as it is long; Ireland is longer than it is broad, but Iceland is broader than it is long.

Ptolemy’s Geography, a work compiled about the year 150, gives a description of Britain and Hibernia; and if it could be trusted as an authority upon the subject at issue, it would at once settle the matter in favour of Ireland being the Hibernia of the ancients. But it appears possible to make out a good case against its authenticity, and even to prove that it has been tampered with for the purpose of obscuring the early history of Scotland. The editions which are still extant are greatly corrupted, and that part of the work applicable to Scotland especially so. Scotland is there made to bend to the east, as if Caithness-shire were pulled down till it pointed due east from Fifeshire. England is a little better treated, but it is surprising to find that lreland is pretty accurately described.

Referring to the errors in Ptolemy’s geography of Scotland, Dr. Skene says:-

The degrees of longitude are subject to a double correction. First, he places the island in too northern a latitude ; and, secondly, his degrees of longitude are less than the true degree, and therefore the number of degrees stated between two places is greater than they ought to be. Beside this, he has fallen into the extraordinary error of turning the country north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde to the east instead of to the north. This error mainly affects that part of the country between the Solway and the Clyde on the west, and the Wear and the Forth on the east—the coast on the west being unduly expanded, and that on the east proportionately contracted. Beyond the Firths of Forth and Clyde the effect of this strange error is to alter the points of the compass, and to substitute north for west, east for north, south for west, and west for south. . . . Ptolemy places the ‘Itunae AEstuarium’ on the west, and the mouth of the river ‘Vedra ‘ on the east, nearly opposite to each other ; and there is little difficulty in identifying the former with the Solway Firth, and the latter with the river Wear. It is between these points and the river Tay that the distortion of the country takes place—the north shore of the Solway Firth being continued in the same northern line with the west coast of England, instead of stretching to the west at right angles with it, the Mull of Galloway being its northern point, and the northern part of Scotland made to extend towards the east. The effect is, that in the remaining part of his description the word east must be understood as really north, and that the east coast, from the Wear to the Forth, is too much circumscribed in distance, while the distances on the western side of the country are proportionately made too great. It is remarkable that the part of the country thus affected by this extraordinary mistake should be exactly the scene of Agricola’s campaigns; and. it appears strange that the more northern part of the country, the information as to which he must have derived from report and the observation of the coast from the RRoman fleet, should surpass in accuracy that part of the country so often and so recently traversed by Agricola’s troops, with regard to which his means of correct knowledge might be supposed to be so much greater. . In the peninsula between the Firths of Forth and Tay the distances arc greatly exaggerated, and the area of the peninsula increased beyond all proportion. . . . By correcting Ptolemy’s mistake, arid restoring the country between the Wear and the Solway on the south and the Tay on the north to its proper proportion, we can identify the mouth of the river Alaunus with that of the Âme, or Allan, in Northumberland while the next point mentioned by Ptolemy in proceeding along the coast towards the north—the ‘ Boderia estuary— is obviously the Bodotria of Tacitus, or the Firth of Forth. . . . Proceeding northwards along the east coast, we find the peninsula of Fife unduly extended in breadth. . . . Between Scotland and Ireland Ptolemy places the five islands which he terms the five ‘Ebudae’ arid the island of ‘Monarina; ‘ but these islands are attached to his map of Ireland, to which country he held them to belong, and their situation is not affected by the great mistake he committed in the direction of Scotland . . Beyond the point of Ardnamurchan the western islands seem to have been comparatively unknown. No islands are mentioned which correspond with the Outer Hebrides, and the island of Skye seems only to have been known by name, as it is probably meant by Ptolemy’s island of ‘ Scetis, which, however, he places apparently at random near the north-east pronmomitory of Scotland. On the mainland three points only are noticed, . . but these points must have apparently been taken from report, as it is difficult otherwise to account for his ignorance of the true position of Skye and for the absence of all mention of the great headland of Cape Wrath, forming the north-west point of Scotland.’

It will be seen from the above statenments that it is a task of great difficulty to find out the true situation of the tribes and their towns. In endeavouring to find their situation, it is necessary to remember that most, of the editions of Ptolemy’s Geography which now exist are dated as being issued about 1400 years after the work was compiled. Many errors of ignorant transcribers have therefore to be allowed for. again, several of the editions vary so much from others that it is impossible to reconcile their differences. And lastly, it is also necessary to bear in mind that much of the obscurity which pervades Ptolemy’s geography of Scotland may be due to its being tampered with by those who have done so much to obscure the early history of Scotland. The probability of this may be seen from the following:—

"A line drawn from the Solway Firth across the island to the eastern sea exactly separates the great nation of the Brigantes from the tribes on the north; but this is obviously an artificial line of separation, as it closely follows the course of the Roman wall shortly before constructed by the Emperor Hadrian, otherwise it would imply that the southern boundary of three barbarian tribes was precisely on the same line where nature presents no physical line of demarcation. There is, on other grounds, reason to think that these tribes, though apparently separated from the Brigantes by this artificial line, in reality formed part of that great nation. This appears from so many circumstances. Pausanias implies it when he says that Antoninus, who advanced the frontier of the province from Hadrian’s wall to the Firths of Forth and Clyde, took land from the Brigantes. Tacitus mentions Venusius, king of the Brigantes, hostile to Rome, and that his frontiers were to the north of the province appears from the geographer of Ravenna placing the town of Venusio north of the stations at the wall. . . . An inscription to the goddess Brigantia has been found at Middlebie, within the territory of the Selgovae," who occupied the county of Dumfries.

Ptolemy calls Ireland Little Britain in another work of his. This is the name given to it by Julius Ceasar, according to Ethelwerd. These facts, taken along with the others alluded to above, lead to the conclusion that Ptolemy’s geography of Scotland has been manipulated in order to identify Ireland with the ancient Hibernia. It is dtfficult to say how this has been accomplished, but something like the following seems to have been the method adopted by the manipulators. The country known to Ptolemy as Hibernia was apparently the part of Scotland north of the Tay. His Great Britain included all the territory south of this to the English Channel. The district between the Tay and the Firth of Forth has been enlarged to such an extent as to represent the whole of the north of Scotland, and the country north of the Tay has been blotted out of existence, its name, its towns, and its tribes being all transferred to Britannis, or present Ireland. The former name of the latter country was apparently transferred at the same time to a part of France, which still retains it, Brittany. At the present time this might be said to be an impossibility; but when account is taken of the ignorance that prevailed among the people in these early ages and the meagreness of population, it will be allowed that it was not then beyond the bounds of possibility.

Perhaps the most convincing proof that Hibernia was placed to the north of Britain by Ptolemy in the genuine edition of his Geography is that afforded by an anonymous geographer of Ravenna. This writer had evidently copied Ptolemy’s work; for he gives the towns in the south of Scotland in much the same order as his predecessor does. Several additional towns are ennmerated by the Ravenna geographer along with those mentioned by Ptolemy, but this is because his work was compiled about 500 years later. The main point, however, is, that he, like Strabo and Mela, places Hibernia to the north of Britain ;‘ and surely he would not have done this had Ptolemy placed it to the west.

It will be found that the most of the historical references bear out the opinion entertained with regard to the way in which Ptolemy’s work has been treated. Before quoting them, it may be said that, if this opinion is correct, Ptolemy’s Caledonian Forest would be placed south of the Tay, where the Welsh writers invariably place it; his Mertae would likewise be placed in the same neighbourhood, where the Maltae are said to have dwelt; and his Cantae would be made to occupy the ancient Ross—a name meaning the same thing as Cant, a promontory—or Fifeshire, instead of the present county of Ross in the north of Scotland. Three estuaries which are generally placed on the north-east of Scotland would also have to be brought down to where the Tweed, Forth, and Tay meet the sea. Their names are Tuesis, Varar, and Taxa. The first and last are sufficiently like the present names to make us believe that the latter may be corruptions of the former. Watra, an ancient name of the Forth, may also have been a corruption of Ptolemy’s Varar, or vice versa. Further corroboration is afforded in favour of this interpretation of Ptolemy’s text in the fact that the Vernicomes would be made to occupy the south coast of Fifeshire, where the remains of a Roman station are found at Loch Orr, which in all likelihood was the town they possessed, called by Ptolemy Orrea. It is likewise in favour of this view that no alteration needs to be made on the points of the compass as they appear in Ptolemy’s text. North is north; east, east; west, west; and south, south. For instance, Ptolemy states that the Caledonii extended from the Lemannonius Sinus, or Loch Long, to the Varar AEstuarium, and above or north of them lay the Caledonian Forest. East of the Caledonii lay the Cantae, on the other side of the Varar. In the reading adopted, the Varar AEstuarium has been identified with the Firth of Forth; and if the Caledonii possessed the country between Loch Long and it, while the Forest lay to the north of them the Cantae would be to the east of them. On the other side of the Varar AEstuatium, and in a country called Ross, now Fifeshire, though at a considerable distance from the present county of Ross, where they are generally placed by later writers. The situation thus ascribed to the Caledonii and the Caledonian Forest will be found to harmonise well with the earliest historical references to them.

It is a rather remarkable coincidence that Boece, who used the Ulm edition of 1486 of Ptolemy’s Geography, should place the Brigantes where Dr. Skene shows they really dwelt, that is, partly, at least, in the south of Scotland, and that he places the Vacomagi in Stirlingshire, the ancient Mureif. Ptolemy places the Vacomagi under or south of the Caledonians, so that, according to the opinion expressed with regard to Ptolemy's map of Scotland, they would be placed in Stirlingshire also. By modern writers they are placed in Morayshire, a district often mistaken for the ancient Mureif whitch was possibly identical with Stirlingshire. Boece’s History of Scotland is generally acknowledged to be founded upon fictitious records, and so far as it is a resume of Veremund’s work, this is evidently the case; but that part of his History which is founded upon the Ulm edition of 1486 of Ptolemy’s Geography may be more trustworthy. Boece was the first of our historians who made use of Ptolemy, and he may have got a hold of a genuine edition. The towns of Scotland, as given by Ptolemy, which are placed by modern writers in Wigtown, are placed in Argyllshire by Boece, and there are reasons for believing that St. Ninian’s monastery was at Rosneath, instead of at Whithorn. The ancient Irish legends place it at Rosneth; the passage in Bede’s "Ecclesiastical History" is seemingly an interpolation; and the dedications to St. Ninian are most frequent in the neighbourhood of Rosneath.

It has been shown above, on indisputable evidence, that the Brigantes occupied the south of Scotland, as far at least as the wall of Antonine.

"lt was during the war with the Brigantes, in which the Roman troops had probably frequently approached the more northern portion of their territories, that the Rornans became aware of the narne of the people who occupied the country beyond them. . . . They now learned the existence of a people to the north of the Brigantes, whom they termed Caledonii Britanni, or Caledonian Britons. . . . The war under Vettius Bolanus had, it was supposed, reached the Caledonian plains. On the conclusion of the war, the Roman province approached the vicinity of the Caledonian Forest.."

Four writers are quoted in support of these statenients— Lucan, Martial, Statius, and Plint.

These slight references to the Caledonii and the Caledonian Forest can be more readily relied on than the elaborate notices of them which appear in well-known histories and geographies, for the former are more likely to have escaped the vigilance of the manipulators of early Scottish history. They thus form a valuable link in the chain of evidence which has been produced to show the likelihood of Ptolemy’s Geography having been tampered with to identify Ireland with the ancient Hibernia. Taken in conjunction with the distinct statements of Strabo, Mela, and the Ravenna geographer that Hibernia lay to the north of Britain, they furnish strong evidence in favour of Ptolemy having placed it in the same direction in the genuine edition of his work.

Claudian, a Latin poet of Alexandria, is the next writer who speaks of lerne, and as he connects the Scots with it, his references are always quoted by those who believe in the Ireland-Scotia theory. He lived at the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century. The passage generally founded on has been quoted above. Those who wish to see whether there are any good grounds for believing that Claudian referred to Ireland may consult S. O'Grady’s "History of Ireland;" they will there find how the reader is prepared for Claudians statements. Below we give another construction of the passage:-

This lerne, or, as some read it, Hyberne, can no way be understood of Ireland, properly so called: first, because Ireland can never deserve the epithet Glacialis, since by the testimony of the Irish writers (and Giraldus Cambrensis), the snow and ice continue not any time there; secondly, the Romans never entered Ireland, whereas, according to the above-mentioned verses, Theodosius passed our Firths of Forth and Clyde, called by him Hyperborae Undae, and entered Strathern, which to this day bears the name lerne, in which Roman medals are found, and the Roman camps arid military ways are to be seen, the undoubted testimonies of their being there."

Those still sceptical on the subject may find further arguments in favour of this interpretation of Claudian’s words in the treatise mentioned.

Rufus Festus, or Festus Rufus Avienus, a writer of the fourth century, in his poetical description of the world; relying on the information of Hamilcar, a Cartliaginian trader, speaks of the plains of the Britons, distant Thule, the sacred isle peopled by the nation of the Hiberni, and the adjacent island of the Albiones. It is weil known that the first inhabitants of Iceland were learned Christians ; and there is no satisfactory evidence to prove that Ireland was Christianised, even at a much later period than the time of Avienus. The sacred isle of this writer can thus be no other country than Iceland, for he speaks of the island of the Albiones or Scotland, and distinguishes it from the sacred isle.

Other two Greek writers of the fifth century confirm Avienus’s account of Albion. They are Procopius and Stephanus Byzantinus. They make Aibion, Brittia (? Britain), and Bretannia (? Bretannis), separate isles; and as they, or at least one of them, Procopius, like Caesar and Strabo, evidently include Ireland under the name of Bretannia or Bretannis, in Britain, by making it greater in extent from east to west than from north to south, their Hibernia, if they mentioned such a country, must be identified with Iceland also.

Some writers believe that Avienus’s Albion signified England and Scotland but as he speaks of the plains of the Britons, this is evidently a poetical reference to Britain ; and the joint testimony of these other writers proves that Albion was considered to be a distinct island from Britain, as Scotland north of the Forth was then supposed to be. It seems doubtful if the name Albion was ever applied to the country south of the Forth. The chapter in Bede’s "Ecclesiastical History," and the passage in Henry of Huntingdon’s work, in which it is said that Britain was so called, can be shown to be fabrications. That Scotland, or rather a part of it, was so called, there is abundant evidence to prove; and it seems probable that it was first so called about the second or third century. It is to the Scots apparently that the country owes its title of Alban or Albion. It was probably the name applied by them, when they settled in the north—east of Scotland, to the mountainous country on the west, inhabited by the Picts or natives. The Greek historians would adopt the name from the Scots, who were a learned race and better able to communicate to strangers any particulars about the country. The natives would continue to use their own appellation of lerne or Eyryn till a later date, when the appropriation of the name by Ireland might cause them to adopt the Scottish title, which is still in use among the Highlanders. This change of name is referred to in the letter of John Elder quoted above, and there can be little question of its truth, although it is not necessary to believe the legend of Brutus and Albanactus along with it.

Enough has probably been said to show that several of the ancient names ascribed to Ireland really belonged to Iceland and Scotland north of the Forth. It is impossible to say whether Hibernia or lerne belonged exclusively to the one or the other country, or whether they both went under these names. The evidence produced seems to favour the latter supposition. It is clear, however, that Albion or Alban was an ancient name of a part of Scotland only; and it will be necessary, before concluding this treatise, to show that the present name of Ireland, was an ancient appellation of Iceland.

In King Alfred’s account of the voyage of Othere from the North Pole to the Baltic Sea, we are told that "all the while he (Othere) shall sail by the land, and on the starboard the first to him would be Iraland, and then the islands which are betwixt Iraland and this land, and then is this land till he comes to Sciringes-heale. All the way on the larboard is Norway." Modern Ireland could not in any sense be said to be the first land on the west to a vessel sailing from the north coast of Norway, and keeping close to that country all the way to the Baltic Sea. The only interpretation of King Alfred’s words refers us to Iceland as the land first passed on the starboard. Later writers are even altering the Iraland of this passage to Iceland; but there seems to be no doubt that the name of the island as given in Alfred’s work twice was Iraland. Allusion has already been made to Ethelwerd’s stating that Ireland was called Bretannis by Julius Caesar. In doing so at the year 913, he indicates that the name of Ireland or Iraland was then first conferred on that country; and it was probably given to it by natives of Iceland banished from their own country by the Norwegian colonists who had settled there. There are still traces of the ancient name in Iceland in the Irarbooths, &c. Adam of Bremen, who wrote in 1080, apparently refers to this country when he says, "Hibernia Scottorum patria, quae nunc Irland dicitur." Present Ireland was known by that name in Adam of Bremens time, but there is no trustworthy evidence to show that it was then known by the name of Hibernia also; it does not seem to have been so called till the twelfth century.


Return to Book Index