Should the series have started earlier in history?It would have been a very intriguing introduction to go back much further in time. One of the most fascinating aspects of history is the non-documentary evidence and how much yo
u can learn from marks on the ground, stones, ruins: the detritus of past civilisations.
An introductory programme setting the scene covering the entire panorama until the start of the arrival of the Romans would have been good.
I would take the National Museum of Scotland as a model. Its structure begins with the pre-history on the ground floor and goes right up to the 20th century at the top. That model could have been adopted.
Does this mean the programme will lack something?It might lack sweep and panorama, but I wouldn't go any further than one episode to sketch out that period. It's very important to know the Scottish nation developed out of particular tribal groups which existed before the Romans came.
Why has this BBC series been so controversial?Scots are argumentative and pretty disputatious and that's a good thing.
I'm reminded of the medieval intellectual Scottish sport of flyting – the ritualistic humiliation of the opponent by verbal violence.
Scots love a good argument because they have a strong analytical core to their culture.
Plus history is very much interpretation so there is not going to be a consensus nor should there be on how it should be presented.
But there are particular issues surrounding this programme.
One senior historian, who was approached, chose not to join the advisory board and another has since resigned from it. That does suggest problems.
Another controversy is why they decided not to use a historian to present it.
There are many young up-and-coming, historians of both sexes, who are enthusiastic and telegenic, who would have been suitable.
Is this entertainment or genuine history documentary?The jury is out because the programmes haven't yet been seen.
The full article contains 358 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
