Given the very limited quantity, scope and reliability of surviving records from the area that became Scotland from the late eighth to the eleventh centuries AD, it is probably impossible to write a history of that time that answers the questions that most intersted people today would like to ask.
However, `From Pictland to Alba' is a good attempt, given these serious limitations within the author had to work.
The regions of Northern Britain that were to become `Scotland' were then backward even by Dark Age standards.
They had no towns and produced no coinage. At the beginning of this period it is doubtful they even had villages. There were just individual farms, inhabited by a family, plus their slaves if they owned any. Kings and bishops lived on big farms. The largest communities were abbeys and monasteries.
Modern borders had no particular significance. Some kingdoms at times straddled the Irish Sea, having territory in both Britain and Ireland, others included land on both sides of the modern border between Scotland and England.
For much of this period, apart from the Latin of the Church, as many as 5 different languages were spoken, each associated with one or more kingdoms or states that were sometimes independent.
- PICTISH (probably related to Welsh but a separate language) of which no significant writings survive, spoken extensively, at least in the earlier part of the period, in North-East Scotland and probably Orkney & Shetland. The language died out at some unknown date after the once powerful Pictish kingdom fell under Scots rule in the ninth century
-A form of WELSH, referred to as `BRITISH' or `CUMBRIC', the main language of the Kingdom of Strathclyde that included both South West Scotland and modern English Cumbria. This also died out at an unknown date following absorption of their kingdom by the Gaelic speaking Scots, seemingly by violent conquest in the eleventh century. Contemporary records say almost nothing about the Scots absorption of Strathclyde, perhaps because it happened at about the same time as the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, which dominated the attention of contemporary Chroniclers.
-NORSE brought by Scandinavians, which language may have dominated the North of Scotland and Western Isles for a time, although it was eventually to be supplanted by Gaelic. However, we have very little record of what was going on in the North of mainland Scotland at this time.
-ENGLISH in South-East Scotland, which was then often part of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Northumbria
-GAELIC, at first indistinguishable from the language spoken in Ireland, starting in the West and spreading east and south. Its speakers formed a kingdom that came to be known variously as Alba, `Albania' (no relation to the Balkan country of that name) or Scottia. This kingdom eventually conquered all rivals to become the nucleus of what we now call `Scotland'.
Accordingly as the author would doubtless admit, especially in the earlier part of the period in calling this `Scottish' history and bringing together in one book the stories of the regions now collectively known as `Scotland' is to see the period from a modern perspective that would not necessarily make sense to people at the time.
Perhaps if the result of one or two obscure battles had been different the lands North of the Firth of Forth might today be known as Pictland or Norseland, and be a separate country or countries with their own language(s). Glasgow might be Welsh-speaking and Edinburgh might be part of England, or part of an independent kingdom of Northumbria with its capital in York or Bamburgh. There might be neither country nor even geographical concept coinciding with `Scotland' as we know it.
Whether, if that were so, e.g. anything like the British Empire would ever have existed, and whether North Americans or Australians would speak English today, is impossible to say.
Much must therefore have happened in this period of great importance in the making not just of Britain but of the world we know today.
I would love to know e.g. what Pictish may have sounded like when spoken, what songs and poems were lost and even what puns ceased to be funny when the language died; and whether Strathclyde Welsh and its probable cousin Pictish just vanished without trace from everyday speech or whether (as the author tentatively speculates) they may have influenced the syntax of Scots Gaelic, and when and why people stopped speaking them.
We have some surviving Medieval Chronicles but their authors were not concerned with these questions. The Chronicles are mostly annals tersely recording the names and dates of kings and battles with little `colour' or analysis. Like an old-fashioned Victorian school history book, they list the dates of many battles but almost never tell us why or how they were fought.
These Chronicles sometimes contradict each other, and were mostly either written in later periods or were written in and primarily concerned with Ireland or England, and only mention North British affairs in passing.
More lively are Icelandic Sagas that sometimes recount the deeds of Vikings in Britain and Ireland, but these are works of legend and literature, written down centuries after the events they describe, not reliable historical record.
The author admits that it is effectively impossible to write the social history of Scotland in this period except by referring to what we know of life and society in Ireland, England and elsewhere at the time, and assuming that life and society in Scotland may have been similar. However, the very fact that early Medieval Scotland produced far fewer written records than the rest of the British Isles suggests that its society was significantly different.
Doing his best with what he has, the author puts speculative skin on the bare bones of the surviving Chronicles. If all that is recorded of a king is that he was murdered at a particular place in a particular year, the author will speculate from that who might have wanted him killed and why. Quite often, the evidence is so sparse that I wonder if the speculation is useful. At times the almost endless series of largely forgotten kings and battles, of most of which we frankly know little of interest, becomes tedious.
The author calls characters by the names used in his primary sources, so for example Norsemen who in their own tongue called themselves Olafr (modern Olaf) become `Amlaib' after the Irish/ Gaelic way of writing their names.
Overall, the author has done a good job with what he has.