Talk:Scoti

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Scottish Islands Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{ Ethnic groups }} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Celts Mid‑importance

Scoti is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the ancient Celts and the modern day Celtic nations. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the Assess.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ireland Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotia is actually the name of the egyptian princess that sent her scouts to find new islands. The scouts reported back to Scotia once they found Ireland and Scotland. Scotland is named after SCOTIA that same egyptian princess. I would also like to add that the island known as Ireland today was not always inhabited by Irish people. There were ancient tribes that lived there before the Celtic people found the place around the time of Scotia. Irish people originally came from the Gibralter straights and were militiarized caravaners called the Celtic or perhaps the Gaels. The military force travled the world by land and sea and taught the Romans military structure and warfare. The Romans military garb and regalia alone is proof of this. I will not bother citing any references at this time, but whomever disagrees with these statements are free to research this themself. The people that traveled to the island known as Ireland today "the Celtic or Gaels perhaps" mixed in with those native peoples of that island. The peoples that lived there originally were very short and harry people which some might liken to the "Furbulg". You can find articles which describe their remains and which have been verified and proven. The Gaels of Ireland and Scotland are interrelated. Scotia had many descendants. Huge O'Neill was among the first "Royal" line from Scotia. Hugh O'Neill/McShane which means son of John in the Irish tongue controlled the main kingdom in Ireland and there were 5 major Kingdoms one High King with 4 lower Kings and each controlled land split up on the island of Ireland. The names of these kingdoms were Connaught, Ulster, Munster, Leinster and ULAID. Hugh O'Neill/McShane was the High King of Ulster. AND YES these kings and their people conducted random RAIDS on Roman Britian and later Britain once the English/British tribes united they saught an end to the raids because the Irish kept coming and destroying their towns and stealing all of their food and stocks.

Ireland was in impenetrable fortress island back then and the English tribes of Britain had no way of accessing it because only the Irish knew how to get past the surf and tides and the English could not build anything strong enough to get them to the island and retaliate against the Irish. Also the Celtics/Gaels traveled all over the world including the continent known today as America and mixed in with peoples of the native tribes of this place. There are Iroquian tribes (Mohawk, Cherokee/Tsalagi, Mohegan) which have the Celtic/Gaelic symbols within their history. The Celtic/Gaels occupied many countries in their travels and left many symbols of their tribes and factions behind. Spain has a lot of Celtic symbols scattered about their structures and Celtic dolls, swords, military regalia. The Celtic ruled the world at one point (metaphorically) and were spread out across many countries.

One last thing before I close: The Pharoes and Princesses of Egypt were actually caucasians from the most northern parts of Europe which had traveled to the African continent and tricked many native Africans into believing that they were gods, perhaps at the time they may have appeared to be because of their advanced knowledge and IQ jump on those people. The African continent was once the lushest and most naturally abundant place in the world and in some areas still is today. These caucasoid people eventually enslaved thousands of those native african tribes by weilding the power of fear and forced them to build their structures. The Egyptian pyramids were once a huge library encompassing vast knowledge of many subjects. People came to that place from all over the world to learn things.

My father has passed all of this knowledge down to me. These statements are many truthes. Most of it can be proven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.134.145.146 (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Since the Anglos Saxons came later, there were no "English" tribes in Roman Britain
2. The idea of the Egyptian princess is about as credible as the Legend of King Arthur.
3. The romantic notions of your father are not evidence of history.
4. If you are going to give a ramble that long, what makes you think it is any use not providing sources?

Dainamo (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is well established that in Irish mythology at least, Scota (or Scotia) was indeed an Egyptian princess, i.e. the daughter of a pharaoh. According to The Book of Invasions, a collection of pseudo-historical narratives compiled in the Middle Ages, Scota and her husband, Míl Espáine, were the leaders of the Milesians, who became the rulers of Ireland after defeating the Tuatha Dé Danann. In the Dictionary of Celtic Mythology published by Oxford Univerity Press (1998), James MacKillop refers to this etymological root for the word Scotti (i.e. the Irish): "Scota ... Second wife of Mil Espáine in the pseudo-history Lebor Gabála (Book of Invasions), the daughter of a pharaoh, Nectanebus, and one of several eponyms of the Irish (i.e. L Scotti) people" (p. 335). I feel that this possible root for the word should be mentioned in the Etymology section of the article. Marsoult (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent article by archeologist L. Campbell, it was revealed that the invasion/raids never occurred and are myth. The article is right here:

http://www.electricscotland.com/history/articles/scotsirish.htm

Should we put up a section on criticism now that this article is out? ==

Earra-Gaidheal = Eastern Gaels?

I have heard Oirthir, i.e. Coast.

”Other Scotti settlements in Britain during this time were by the Laighin of Leinster and Ui Liathain tribe of Munster which settled mainly in Wales (Gwynedd and Dyfed). The settlements of Wales were attacked by the local Brythons and destroyed” “Most people went naked except for a mantle” ”Armour was rare as Gaelic warriors could not afford it and considered it cumbersome, instead, most fought naked except for cloths tied around their waist as a form of belt from which to hang a scabbard and quiver.” ”Another peculiar practice of the Gael was to send their children into foster parentage, usually with their fathers' sister.”

I’d like to see some sources for these, preferably ones contemporary to the times in which such actions where committed or otherwise made within the last 1000 years but are also supported by archeological evidence? The Ulster cycles, Fenian Cycle and Tain Bo Cuailnge and other psuedo mythological accounts don’t really fulfill such needs.

”The Celts were superstitious” ”Gaelic men were also very vain and conscious of their physical appearance.” ”The Ireland of Roman times was a very primitive place, with limited technology”

These comments are hardly impartial at least not until you find and list sources that prove that ancient Gaelic men where vain and self conscious to a substantially greater degree then any other culture of the period. I don’t know who the author of this article or the "Gaelic Warfare" article is but both need more solid sources. It would be a shame to see so much information removed for being unverifiable as there are a lot of interesting statements made but some of the comments are borderline insult.

Not sure how old your comment is but the paper by Campbell is over a decade old and not taken seriously by most historians who specialize in the topic . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staringeyes (talk • contribs) 13:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the origins paragraph it states commonlality in DNA between scottish people and spanish as evidence of the celtic invasion of the Isles via Spain. THis is incorrect, a misiterpretation of the facts. The commonality is more likely to be due to the re-colonisation of western and atlantic europe from Iberia after the last ice age (15 -20, ooo yrs ago). The celtic invasion was much later , and left little genetic impact.

This article relies on very old and possibly out-dated sources. It really needs a modern synthesis of the historical traditions to prop up its validity. Thefuguestate 10:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read somewhere that the origin of the word "Scot" or "Scoti" to refer to the inhabitants was based on their tattoos. That the locals would use their knives to "scotch" their skin (akin to cutting butterscotch) and rub wood ash into the cuts to create their tattoos. Anyone else ever heard this story? Or able to find a reference to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.145.86 (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The scoti werent called scoti in the 3rd century they were called Hiberni , Scoti term doesn't come into use until the 4th century , can someone add this information to the page as its misleading ,they werent called scoti . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staringeyes (talk • contribs) 13:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should it not be one or the other? The article name is called Scoti then calls it Scotti in the article. Did the romans not call them Scotti? If so that should be the name of the article and either way we should stick to the same spelling throughout. Jack forbes (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both spellings appear in Latin sources, so both are correct Latin. There is no reason to banish one or the other. Scoti is normal in publications these days, but Scotti is just as legitimate.

Howard Alexander (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Scandinavian languages, "skota" and "skotta" are of the same origin^[1], meaning shoot, or push like you do with a spade. St.Trond (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(cross-posted at "Gaels" and "Scoti")

The Scoti article seems to be largely a cut-and-paste duplicate of material from the Gaels article. The Gaels article section "Historical expansion" refers to the Scoti article as the main article for that topic, while the Scoti article has a short section "Settlement in Britain", listing Dál Riata as the main article. This is unuseful if someone arrives at the Scoti article by following the link in the Gaels article. So perhaps:

• The Gaels article might have the few historical expansions of the Gaels, with main article references to the Dál Riata, etc.
• The Gaels article might have a section covering the ancient references to Scoti or Scotti in the historical record, including how the term came to be applied to the Scots of Scotland.
• The Scoti article can then be a redirect to Gaels.

Any opinions? Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC) / correct my typo. Notuncurious (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your first point is a bit confusing, but I agree with the second. I think the Scoti article should simply describe the history and meaning of the term, nothing more. For information about the Scoti themselves, readers should be directed to

~Asarlaí 01:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

My unclear first point should have said that the "Historical Expansion" section of Gaels should be sufficient for the topic with only a little expansion, with references to Dál Riata, and to articles covering settlements in Wales, Cornwall, etc. If we're agreed, then perhaps let's wait a while to see if anyone else has an opinion. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Böri (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the Romans, Scotia simply meant Ireland and when they first started using the term there were no Irish settlements in north Britain, Gwynedd, Dyfed nor other parts of Britain that were recorded. It came to be applied to the kingdom of Alba when most of the people north of the Forth started speaking a version of Gaelic in the 10th Century. 108.20.150.79 (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair - Scotland and Ireland have the highest percentage of red haired people in their population. The Italian word for scald/burn is Scotta, It is a very small step to conclude that the Italian word is descended from a Latin word and that the Roman term Scotti refered to the characteristic red hair of the tribe, being that red look of scalded skin or so many other things that go red when heated. If there were a concentration of Gael people in western Scotland at the time of Roman invasion then it seems likely they were predominantly red haired and consequently a pejorative term such as boiled/burnt/scalded is a very likely explanation for the origin of Scotti

Lev8 (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness we can ignore that for being

WP:OR... Akerbeltz (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Romans in the Middle Ages?! 'The Romans in the Middle Ages knew Scotland as Caledonia.' This is a quotation from an American encyclopedia dated 1919. I am sorry to disrespect the compilers of encyclopedias - but really! By the Middle Ages, the Roman Empire was a distant memory. 87.112.96.65 (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Eastern Romans would have vigorously disagreed with you, but it is true that they wrote in Greek, not Latin. Anyway, the names "Romans" and "Roman Empire" were never trademarked terms, so nobody in the Middle Ages was kept from considering themselves or their empire Roman – and what about the inhabitants of Rome and the Church which which was based there? They were from Rome and they used Latin as a written language, so they had every right to consider themselves Romans, and the Papal States a "Roman Empire" ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The merger tag states this is the place for discussion but I do not see any here. So, I'm creating this section.

• I vote for no merger. The Scoti is an ethnic topic. The name of Scotland is a linguistic topic. For Scoti we want to review the identity of the people as Irish, as raiders, and as settlers in Britain. For Scotland we want to trace the creation of the national name. The current primitive state of these articles should not be taken as an indication of the sizes and distinctions between the materials. One MUST distinguish between WP and reality. This is not a collection of editorial personal worlds to be defended against all comers. The comments above in this discussion are for the most part not to be taken seriously. Don't be frightened off by all these speculators. People like to add their two cents to anything on the Internet, but that price exceeds their value by far.Dave (talk) 09:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also vote for no merger. The Scoti have a distinct historical existence in late antiquity quite apart from their role in the naming of Scotland, and should have their own article. Whoever proposed a merger with

Name of Scotland has not made any arguments for that merger in the seven months it's been there, and that article has since been redirected to Etymology of Scotland, so I'm just going to remove the proposed merger tag. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

From what I gather from my research on the topic, scotti was a term for Hiberni raiders, no where does it mention Britain particularly northern Britain, Sean duffy makes a baseless assumption in his book, and provides no evidence of the term ever being used in Britain in the 3rd or even 4th century AD. Raiders from Hibernia were called scotti, Hibernia is not Britannia obviously. I'm going to change the article to read Scotti was a Latin term for raiders from Hibernia in the 3rd century AD if anyone has a problem with this please feel free to messaging me with reason for reverting it back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.43.12.24 (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem to me proportionate and wholly reasonable. I see the edit has now has been reverted in order to await 'consensus.' Is two months too long to await onward discussion?

JF42 (talk) 10:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current text is

reliably sourced. No indication of sources, let alone quotes, for the above proposal have been given. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I have just changed it myself. You are completely right and the gaels came to northernn britain in the 5th century and no earlier. Tíocfaidh ár lá, Éire. (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its just been changed back so I guess whenever people open this page they'll think there gaels in northern Britain during the 3rd century. Maybe we should add that there were Romans in Canada during the 18th century? Tíocfaidh ár lá, Éire. (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, due to lack of sources to back up the claim. The Banner talk 19:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"ad Scotti in Christum" ("to the Scots who believed in Christ")

This is completely incorrect Latin; "ad" takes the accusative, and therefore "Scotti" should be "Scottos"; and "in" (in this sense) takes the ablative, so it should be "in Christo." It is very unlikely indeed that St Prosper himself would have made elementary grammatical errors like these (it's on a level with saying "me want it" in English): is the error in de Paor's work, or has that been mis-cited? This has the look of something that's been pulled out of context by someone who doesn't know any Latin and who has omitted some vital words, leaving the rest as ungrammatical ("in" after "credere", in the sense "believe in", does take the accusative, for example.)

I am unsure whether there is a place in this article for a reference to the Scottis (Douglas-Scotti) of Vigoleno, Agazzano, Fombio, Piacenza and elsewhere in Italy, and indeed of Sicily. And maybe Spain?
Should there we a link to those whose surname is Scotti? Shipsview (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If in doubt, do not do it. The Banner talk 11:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, TB, you will have noticed that I have not done it! That is why I am asking! Shipsview (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ulster & the Hebrides.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]