Talk:Picts/Archive 1

Weird Science

I removed this paragraph ...

Considering the red hair, pale white skin, and tall, robust appearance of most Highlanders, as well as the distinction of culture from Ireland, it is more likely that the Celtic placenames are due to the Scots who emigrated to their present day location and the Highlanders themselves are the remnants of Picts who may have been isolates of the Germanic people who were divided from the rest when the North Sea flooded the basin separating the Highlands and Norway mountain range.

... for these reasons.

1) Less than 20% of Highlanders have red hair, pale skin, etc. Most Highlanders have brown hair and pale but easily tanned skin.

2) Distinction of culture has grown with time since the original separation between the Scots of North-east Ireland and the Scots of western Scotland. A thousand years ago there was little or no distinction.

3) Scottish placenames are Goidelic Celtic and thus easily distinguishable from Pictish placenames which seem to be Brythonic Celtic, (ie like Welsh). Even when an area contains a mixture of Pictish and Scottish placenames, it's plain to see which is which.

4) The Germanic peoples only arrived on the coast of western Europe during the time of the Romans, and long after the North Sea separated Scotland and Norway so even if the Picts are Germanic, which seems unlikely based on the genetic and placename evidence, they can't have been "divided from the rest" in the manner suggested.

-- Derek Ross 16:04, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Same IP has made a bunch of similar edits. I reversed some of it in Goths. OlofE 18:52, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

3) Scottish placenames are Goidelic Celtic and thus easily distinguishable from Pictish placenames which seem to be Brythonic Celtic, (ie like Welsh). Even when an area contains a mixture of Pictish and Scottish placenames, it's plain to see which is which.

Not all Scottish placenames are Goidelic Celtic. There is a considerable Norse influence throughout the islands and as far south as the Beauly area on the mainland of Scotland. The Orkneys and Caithness, for example, have placenames of almost exclusively Norse etymology. Remaining Pictish placename elements are rare and, as you say, distinctive and easily identifiable. The Beauly area has places of Pictish, Norse, English, Scots, Gaelic and French etymologies - not many areas in Europe enjoy such a variety. Lianachan 09:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

My apologies for being unclear. When I used the word "Scottish" there, I was using it with the older meaning "belonging to the Scotti" rather than with its modern meaning of "belonging to Scotland". When used with the former meaning it is almost an oxymoron to claim that Scottish placenames are Goidelic Celtic, since the Scotti spoke Gaelic and Gaelic is Goidelic Celtic.

When used with the latter meaning, of course it makes sense to say that Norse placenames in Scotland are Scottish but it also makes sense to say that Pictish placenames in Scotland are Scottish -- at which point it becomes much more difficult for anyone to follow the argument that I was trying to make. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that a Norse placename in Scotland was Norse, and that a Pictish placename in Scotland was "Pictish" (or ?Pictish) but I know what you mean. The areas where Gaelic, Pictish and Norse placenames are common are pretty distinct. For example, Orkney contains almost exclusively Norse names. Then you get weird places like Lewis, where you get Gaelicised Norse names..... Lianachan 13:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The first section has incorrect text in the second line. I am happy to change it but, as indicated liberally in the history, people want things discussed before changes are made, although that seems odd with a version controlled knowledge base....nonetheless: Pictland, also known as Pictavia, became the Kingdom of Alba during the 10th century and the Picts became the Albannach or Scots. seems innocent enough, save that the Picts did not become the Albannaich (Albannnach is a single person. If you aren't fluent in a language, perhaps best not to drop in terms?). Many scholars have speculated that there was a general mingling of people, but the Scotti definately ingressed from Ireland, and were composed of a separate group of people. I am not aware of any serious reference that claims otherwise. It would be reasonable to speculate that there was inter-marriage, but it is incorrect to state that Picts became Scotti. My comment perhaps should be in a separate discussion section, but I can't for the life of me see how to start a new section, only edit existing. --seanskye 00:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It now says "became the fir Alban, the men of Scotland." Since thrilling academic studies, such as Máire Herbert's "Rí Éirinn, Rí Alban" spend a lot of time on discussing the adoption of terms like fir Alban and fir Érenn, that's probably what the article should use, and now it does. One reason this article glosses over the Pictish ethnonemesis ("When is a Pict not a Pict?") is because we have fine articles on the Origins of the Kingdom of Alba and Scotland in the High Middle Ages which cover it. Another reason is that historians, while they have pretty much given up on conquest, haven't come up with any terribly clear explanations for the changes in the C10th. Even the little helpful material that there was (place name evidence) has been under attack. As for the Scotti, the Dál Riata article has some material on them: "[S]tories of Dalriadic origins cannot be held to be worthy of acceptance as history", Sally Foster, Picts, Gaels and Scots, p. 9, quoting David Dumville. If Early Christian Ireland were finished, it would have had more to say on the broader question of the "Irish" in Western Britain. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

P-Celtic Names

The sources referenced in the footnote here (currently 2) don't support the claim as it's stated. The historical fact is: the Britons of southern pre-Saxon Albion called themselves Britons and did not apply the term or any etymologically related label to the Picts. The more broadly Celtic identity of the Picts is also problematic and ought to be addressed in this article, though possible not in this section. This identification as Celts (ethnically, culturally and linguistically) is frequently stated by a range of reputable scholars based on assumption, but has in fact never been proven. It is just as reasonable to see the Picts as non-Celtic indigenes, or possibly non-Celtic immigrants. It's interesting that several medieval writers identified the Picts as being something other than Celts. Bede and Geoffrey of Monmouth assign a Scandinavian origin. There has also been the suggestion that they were P-Celts who arrived from Gaul only a short time before the Romans reached Albion (this was most recently proposed by Farley Mowat, an inventive if less than scholarly thinker, in his discussion of early Albion in "Farfarer"). The article doesn't need to get into all of this minituae, but it should be edited to say something like: "The Picts are commonly assumed to be Celts and to have spoken a Celtic language, like most of their geographical neighbors. However, the matter remains unresolved for lack of clear evidence. Some medieval writers treated the Picts as something different from the major Celtic groups of the region, without ever asserting a credible explanation of their origins. The cultural and linguistic picture is confused by the Picts' descendants later mingling with two clearly Celtic groups, the Britons (to their south) and invading Irish Gaels -- the Scots -- during the early Medieval period." I'm summarizing from general knowledge to make this suggestion. Those of you responsible for the latest wave of edits have done a terrific job in cleaning up this article and I don't want to fiddle with your work. Take a look at my suggestion and see what you think. It shouldn't be hard to find sources to say most of this. You could source Bede and Geoffrey for the comment about the medieval writers. J.P. Mallory's chapter on the Celts in "In Search for the Indo-Europeans" is also a good scholarly source that would back most of what's said here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Mallory) Ftjrwrites 19:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK, I just realized there's already a section that covers much of this ground under Pictish language. Isn't this entire P-Celtic name section unnecessary and confusing, then? Ftjrwrites 19:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we sure that those with P-Celtic names can be linked with Picts? It seems more likely to me that they are simply remnants of Welsh-speaking kingdoms such as Strathclyde. -- User:62.254.128.4

We can definitely link them with the Picts. What we can't do is say for sure whether or not the Picts were Welsh-speaking kingdoms such as Strathclyde although the placename evidence suggests that they were. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:35, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

Hmm, no, I think not. It is unfair to state categorically that all P-celtic placenames in Scotland are Pictish rather than stemming perhaps from other P-celtic kingdoms that were not Pictish, so perhaps a link only in terms of being P-celtic. But if you want to jump down that linguistic line, then you can start claiming that they have links with all of the Celtic groups in Britain, which quickly becomes too broad. Strathclyde is held by many to have contained a separate, non Pictish, P-celtic language group. My point is that this, while in some sense true (all being part of some P-celtic group) misrepresents what the article is primarily about, namely Pictish groups.--seanskye 00:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Katherine Forsyth's paper on language in Pictland is the current best idea of Pictish and is very convincing when the evidence is considered. As for comments that the Britons of pre-Saxon Albion called themselves Britons but didn't use any etymologically related term for the Picts - this seems to be untrue. The Britons called themselves Brython- (borrowed into Gaelic as Breathan in place names and personal names e.g. Dumbarton, Galbraith) which is from the Latin Brittones. However they call Britain "Prydain" in Welsh and the Picts "Prydyn" from a British original *Priten- It is likely that Brittones, Britannia is a Latinisation of the original British word *priten- and as Katherine Forsyth says, the Picts are the un-Romanised Britons. The strength of Wikipedia is the thoughtful contributions, its weakness the is the nutty ones based more on prejudice and whimsy than scholarship. Not that scholarship is itself pure and uninfluenced by politics but hey... Barcud Coch (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Woad or Something Else

The page [1] gives a convincing argument against the commonly-held idea that Picts painted themselves with woad. Perhaps this should be investigated? --LDC

I see what you mean. That is an interesting article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:55, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Further investigation shows that the original Latin clause is "Omnes vero se Britanni vitro inficiunt, quod caeruleum efficit colorem, atque hoc horridiores sunt in pugna aspectu;". "Inficiunt" means "They dye (stain)" rather than "They tattoo". The overall meaning would be something like "Truly all Britons stain themselves with vitrum which produces a dark (blue or green) color, and by this (action) they are scarier from a fighting point of view;". I'll change the article slightly to remove the explicit reference to woad, since the experiences of those who have tried woad for dyeing or tattooing certainly suggest that "vitrum" was not woad even if Caesar actually thought that it was. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:02, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

On the other hand there is an interesting discussion about the meaning of vitrum at http://www.florilegium.org/files/PLANTS/woad-msg.html hidden among the instructions on producing dyes from woad. There is also a note from someone who says that a woad body paint is easy to produce, apply and remove. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:39, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

Pictish language

Sorry to say it, but gadzooks this all reads badly. It is particularly irritating to see Pictish discussed as a Brythonic language without a shred of linguistic data adduced. There are some interesting recent attempts to show that the language in Pictish Oghams are Norse by the way. I am not sure how to help this article, but it sure does need help. Other useful additions to this article would be about Pictish art, for instance, and Pictish Oghams. Evertype 16:34, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

If you are unhappy with the current article please feel free to rewrite the unsatisfactory parts and add anything that is currently missing. We'd love to have a better article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:25, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Then you'll be even more irritated now as I have removed all references to crank language theories. In the face of the onomastic and toponymic evidence it would take a very great deal to show that Pictish was not P-Celtic. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Angus McLellan 15:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that removing the crank theories was a good idea, Angus. The article previously made it fairly clear that they had much less evidence and support than the P-Celtic theory. Now that they're gone we can't discount them as we were doing. Many people are vaguely aware of them and thus it's helpful if we show what a thin foundation many of them are laid on. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

In a Pictish language article, perhaps. Argument by analogy's never convincing, but the Etruscan language article mentions the Magyar crank theory (but only that one while there are, or have been, plenty of others) while the Etruscan civilization article does not mention any alternatives. At any event, I don't really see what alternatives could be reasonably included. Has anyone addressed the matter of late ? It's not as if I'm an expert ... Angus McLellan 00:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The possibility that at least some Picts spoke a non-Indo-European language is widely held, and has to be dealt with; also, it is still argued that Pictish might have been a Goidelic dialect. Arguments can actually be made for these theories, and while they aren't nearly as convincing as the P-Celtic idea (which is not necessarily the same as the Brythonic idea), they are worth discussing. - Calgacus 00:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that it is so well supported any longer. See the introduction to the SPNS web version of Watson's old book on Scottish placenames by A.G. James & Simon Taylor (http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/institutes/sassi/spns/INDEX2INTRO.pdf - page 7).

<quote> Jackson also proposed another 'Pictish' language that incorporated pre-Celtic elements surviving (at least for epigraphic purposes) alongside 'Pritenic'. The latter hypothesis provoked most attention: it has little support among present-day scholars, and the debate, while interesting, has proved something of a distraction as far as the study of place-names is concerned ... (for recent reviews of and contributions to the debate on 'Pictish', see Nicolaisen 1996 and Forsyth 1998). </quote>

For a second source, Price's Languages in Britain and Ireland is on Google Books and the chapter on Pictish pretty is much readable. Forsyth's paper Literacy in Pictland is also on Google Books, but not very readable. Angus McLellan 16:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I've located some sources on this subject & was wondering if anyone here has any info about the credibility of the authors or the plausibility of their claims. Dr. Richard Cox (Univeristy of Aberdeen Dept. of Celtic) [2] claims that Pictish Oghams are translatable if you use Old Norse as the source language. J. Douglas Ross (a self-proclaimed "generalist" and apparently self-appointed genealogist for the Canadian branch of the Ross clan) [3] argues that Pictish can't be P-Celtic because they used Ogham, which has no "P". Does anyone know if there's any solid evidence to support or refute either of these guys?130.36.62.139 13:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You'll be wanting Katherine Forsyth's papers Language in Pictland and Literacy in Pictland which are in the external links section of the article. That's the currently orthodox view, and it has been largely since the 1950s (if not since the 1590s). The only difference between Kenneth Jackson and Forsyth is the degree to which they think Pictish contains non-Celtic words and names, Jackson much more so than Forsyth. Dr. Ross is rather in the minority in dating the ogham stones to "between 1050 and 1225", so that's a bad start to his theory. The Roman alphabet got by for a long time with no letter "G", that doesn't they were unable to write "Gaius", they just wrote "Caius" instead. That's a general feature of adopting a foreign script, whether ogham or Etruscan. Forsyth gives specific examples of readings in Language in Pictland which are Celtic. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The evidence from Dr Richard Cox is a critical third leg in the triple evidence now of a Norse connection to Pict. Richard Cox has deciphered Pict Oghams as Norse. Stephen Oppenheimer had already pointed out a deep genetic pre-Viking link of Pictlands to Scandinavia in more than one migration. Islands off Pictland like Shetland are well known to be solidly Scandinavian going back pre Viking era. Plus the Anglo Saxon Chronicles described Picts as having Scythian, ie Eastern origins. This statement was probably based on the Germanic Chronicle authors recognising that Pict was Germanic. The single legged Celtic argument for Pict is looking increasingly shaky. Its based on Toponymy only and as it is well known the Pictlands were under Celtic Dalriadan control for centuries its not surprising that some Celtic toponymy exists. The only possibility left for the Celtic-Pict lobby is a small Pict Elite in the process of adopting Celtic culture. --92.0.61.86 (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the wording

Some of the wording was awkward, and I'm scanning to see what merits an edit. I removed "Scottishisation" or however it was spelt from the top and replaced with with "invasion of the Scotti". --Poorpaddy 07:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Brittani

Subsequent commentators may have displaced the 1st-century BC southern practices (of the Brittani, a tribe south of the Thames) to the northern peoples in an attempt to explain the name Picti, which came into use only in the 3rd century AD.

I think this should be re-worded as there was no iron age tribe in southern Britain called the Brittani. should it not refer to Brittani being a general name that Roman writers gave to all the tribes on the island? In that case it might well be based on stories of Pictish people in the north. adamsan 21:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

For Brittanni / Brittones, see the works of Procopius in his dealings with an ambassador from the Frankish peoples. He seems to use the term to refer collectively and generically to the various tribes inhabiting the British Isles. Also, for a more recent secondary source, see "Alt-Celtischer Sprachschatz" by Alfred Theophil(us) Holder, published in ... I think the last edition was 1910, but I am too lazy to pull out those volumes at this moment. They have probably been reprinted since then, but I am not aware of any reprints. In those volumes, you should check out pages 550 - 612. Other sources for the term and its variants, in the sense dealt with here, also exist, but I am thinking that they are almost exclusively found in Latin and Greek texts during the late antiquity period or a bit later. P.MacUidhir 23:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

postscript- I almost forgot to mention this: Holder's commentary on the Picts drew on the work of Emil Baehrens, and there is current controversy about the conclusion there concerning whether the Caledonians were a separate kingdom/people/whatever from the Picti. In sum, do not assume Holder's conclusions are all reasonably accurate- they are not, though his book I cited above is still quite useful for reference purposes. P.MacUidhir 23:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Citation of sources

This is a bit annoying. Eumenius's panegyric referring to Picts does not seem to be available on the Internet in anything resembling a decent source for citation. There are a few editions here at the university, though, so I will start with Eumenius' work in supplying citations here for the Picts article. If anyone else wants to assist with this task, say so. I am just going to do it chronologically from the first and then onward. This article needs some expanding and organising. P.MacUidhir 00:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Pádraic, you appear to have access to much better resources than the rest of us. Please go ahead and improve the article in any way you can. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The sad fact is that I really do not have many sources to draw upon for the Picts. I gave up around 10 years ago after finding nearly nothing worth bothering with at the time. It seems, though, that there have been some handy surveys and analyses published since the 1990s, so I figure the time is well spent now to try again. The Picts have been very much neglected by scholars for too many years. Everyone loves to chat about the Irish and the Welsh, but also at the same time ignores the cultures that are less "sexy" at the moment. ;) Anyway, I have some source texts to add to the article for Eumenius's panegyric, though I have not yet made digital copies of them for the purpose of internal links. One step at a time. Or, as some good friends like to say, "faster than a speeding oak!". P.MacUidhir 00:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I just finished adding bibliographic data in the References section for around half of the materials I have in my archives here. They should be sufficient for anyone to go pick up the texts and add to the article here if they wish. I decided to include folklore, religion, and art in the 'Pictish culture' sub-section since I did not feel like dividing those up from the overall 'culture' heading. Next chance I get, I will expand the article a bit here and there, but I would love it if others contributed as well since the Picts are on the fringe of what I usually deal with in Celtic studies.

One thing that would be useful is for someone to add some basic survey reference texts to the 'References' section. I have not really parsed anything within recent years that could be considered a general survey of what is known about the Picts, so in this I am ignorant and not able to help for now. There are definitely some promising texts published in the last decade, though, if anyone has actually read one or two and can vouch for them to be worth including in the article references list. P.MacUidhir 01:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to confess to not having read Cummings' book. Smyth's Warlords and Holy Men should presumably be included in the history category. It's aged badly and needs replacing by Fraser's work, not due until 2008. Forsyth's articles in Lynch's Oxford Companion, plus those by Anna Ritchie, Simon Taylor, and others, are pretty much the last word as it was published in 2001. But they are short, unreferenced obviously, and the Companion's guide to reading only runs to 20 pages, so it's hardly exhaustive. The Laings' book I do not like at all: credulous nonsense, but that's an opinion worth exactly what you paid for it. Carver's book in the Historic Scotland/Birlinn (previously Canongate) series is very weak. The series is generally much better, in particular the volumes on the early medieval period by Campbell, Lowe and Driscoll where the writers do not shy away from controversy. Foster's book is probably the best starting place, unless Cummings is to be preferred. In passing, it seems to me that including all those papers and little-read academic works might give the article a patina of authority that it surely doesn't deserve at present. Foster, Cummings, the Laings, and Smyth seem like enough to be getting on with. Angus McLellan 16:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Good points there Angus. The article should not have such a learned bibliography when it is blantantly so crap. This article needs re-written badly, and sometime soon. I would get onto it now, but I am away from my Pictish books for the Chirstmas. However, I will say that I think it is more important for wiki to refrain from misleading people than inform them. Any article on the Picts should be written in a scholarly manner, and should not dress up controversial arguments in blanket statements. - Calgacus 16:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

On the matter of the bibliography- my thought has been that if good sources are provided, either on Talk pages or as part of the article itself, that will make it easier for amateur editors to seek out relevant materials and contribute to articles. In the case of the Picts, it is somewhat difficult for a layman to judge what is and is not decent. If I can manage it, I plan to come back here sometime in the next few months and expand this article, but not at this time.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 08:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Dalriadans?

The idea that there was no Dalriadan invasion- this is the first time I've heard of something like this. How do we explain the presence of Gaelic in Scotland then?--Rob117 00:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Luck? :) Chooserr 00:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

<grin> I echo Chooserr's thought here...

As far as the actual kingdom of Dál Riata is concerned... well, the evidence is small in quantity for and against it having come about as a result of a substantial invasion of Gaels from Éireann. I need to do some more research on the latest archaeological work before I get into that debate again, though.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 08:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Try Ewan Campbell's Saints and Sea-kings and Sally Foster's Picts, Gaels and Scots (2005 edition), also Cummins' The Age of the Picts. Magnus Magnusson in Scotland: The Story of a Nation follows Campbell's line. Katherine Forsyth, in Jenny Wormald's history, presents old and new versions and offers no conclusion. Leslie Alcock was expressing doubts in the 70s on the basis of the archaeological record. Angus McLellan 15:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the recommendations, Angus. I will look into those texts. Magnusson's work is already familiar to me, and I know of Forsyth and Wormald by their other works, so this looks like a good list to me at face value.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 04:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Renamed

I moved this article from "Picts" to "Pict" to jibe with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). /blahedo (t) 00:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

disagree, we don't do this with ethnonyms. Also, redirects were not fixed. dab (ᛏ) 11:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"The Picts in fantasy"

Is this section about the depiction of the Picts in fantasy literature or about the works of Robert E. Howard?

Unless someone wants to eventually spawn this section as a daughter article, I am going to trim it down considerably. The floor is open: anyone plan on spawning it in the future?

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 04:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This entire section needs to go. It is barely relative to the page topic. It should be made its own page.
–Whaleyland 23:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Who are these people?

Are the Picts celts, or something else? Where did them come from? They may or may not have painted themselves blue. What did they look like? What did they eat? Burial customs?

The above, reasonable, question was asked by User:68.77.56.170. Yes, they were Celts, and Ancient Britons, the tribes who had been called Caledonians by the Romans. They looked like Asterix and his fellow Gauls or Sláine from 2000 AD or Mel Gibson in Braveheart. Or perhaps not. This article did begin by saying that the Picts were Celts, which is the sort of explanation that might help curious readers, but someone saw fit to remove it. But note that Celtic is a *linguistic* label and that some people think it is neither accurate nor helpful to use the word in any other sense. Celtic societies did indeed share a language, and many other features, but they extended over a vast area, and a vast length of time, so that things could be very different in Bohemia around 200 BC and Brittany in the year 1000.

Their ancestors would presumably have been a mix of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers, from Atlantic Europe, settlers who arrived in the early Bronze Age bringing the Bell Beaker Culture, and then people speaking Celtic languages who arrived at the end of the Bronze Age and the start of the Iron Age. Since the Picts existed from c 300 AD until c 1000 AD, we may as well say that they were Christians. Raising cattle was important, and owning them was a measure of wealth. They were mainly farmers living in small settlements, with chiefs and then little kings and bigger kings and a really big king at the top. There were no towns or cities in Pictland, and if there were oppida, I have not heard of them. They did not wear tartan or build brochs or megaliths, but they may have lived on crannogs. They made excellent silver work and carvings, and were generally just as (un)civilised as their neighbours. They wrote with Ogham or in Latin script, and carved symbol stones, which probably say things like "Kilroy son of Kilroy was Here" or "Mental Malky Rules Ya Bass !". They were frequently at war with their neighbours, which was normal for the time.

There's no specific article in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, the Picts are discussed under Celt, and it doesn't say much, and the Columbia Encyclopedia says less. The Chambers's Encyclopaedia, presumably the first edition, from the 1860s, has a reasonable article on the Picts given its age. You can see it here (p. 528) and here (p. 529) on the Making of America site of the University of Michigan. Just look at the progress !

Hopefully this answers the questions, or at least points the questioner in the right direction. Some day the article may even include this sort of basic information. Angus McLellan 19:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason we can't include some of the out-of-print information here? I just got here (to this article), forgive my ignorance if this has been debated before. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No reason at all, and there's no reason not to include modern information. I just happened to be in a bit of snit about something else altogether when I read the question. There's plenty of lunacy elsewhere on WP about the Picts, but not here yet. But it means work, which means time, and hardly anyone has enough of that. Apart from the above, there's a copy of Henri Hubert's Les celtes et l'expansion celtique (1932 and still in print in English it seems) available online if you don't mind reading French. It can be downloaded as a single pdf file from here. Angus McLellan 23:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise that there were any other articles on Wikipedia discussing the Picts. Which ones did you have in mind, Angus? This particular one hasn't been exempt from lunacy either but I've been watching it more or less since it started so I normally caught the more egregious examples in the early days. The recent increase in contributors who actually know something about the Picts means that I don't have to watch it quite so closely now. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that the more popular "lunacies" should be made explicit in the article, and exposed with soundly-sourced material. In an encyclopaedia, it is necessary to present popular versions of history, and then to gently explain why clever people think that popular history is crap. In a nice way of course.--Mais oui! 00:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have made a start, although whether it's any good I couldn't say, have a look at this for the current state of play. About half done I'd reckon, but bear in mind the 80/20 rule. The intro, and the Culture and History sections are sketched out, and I won't change the Picts in Fantasy at all. The weird science would go into culture following the single line about tattoos. Language still needs doing and I'll do a bit on Kingdoms and Kingship (or something like that) rather than lump than in with History. If anybody should have any comments, please do leave them on here or on my talk page. I have a thick enough skin, so don't hold back. Angus McLellan 22:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. The major lunacy I was thinking of is talked about above in the Weird Science section. It seemed "idiosyncratic" rather than "popular" so I talked about it on this page rather than in the article but, yes, by all means let's describe (and debunk) popular misconceptions. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Try Scottish people. I have seen others that were weird, although I can't remember which they were. Regarding popular misconceptions, that implies that the Picts are widely enough known for any misconception to be popular. I'm not sure that's true, but I'll assume it is should I ever try a rewrite. Arguments about the Picts have been going on since 1711 (or before, but that was the earliest I could find yesterday). By the 1750s the idea that they were Celts, and probably Britons, was floating around, and taken seriously enough that those arguing for Gothic origins needed to address the question. By the 1860s, as the Chambers thing makes clear, it was unexceptionable to argue that they were Celts, but debated whether they were Goidels or Britons. By 1900-odd the Picts as Britons idea was sufficiently commonplace that when John Buchan wrote a short story about surviving cannibal Picts (so Sawney Bean was a Pict, was he ?), he assumed that his Welsh-speaking hero would understand them. See also the 1911 EB. Angus McLellan 13:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I would be curious to know if Bede's identification of Picts as originally from Scythia is with good reason disregarded in this article. In Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation, Book I, Chapter I "...it happened, that the nation of the Picts, from Scythia, as is reported, putting to sea, in a few long ships, were driven by the winds beyond the shores of Britain, and arrived on the northern coast of Ireland, where, finding the nation of the Scots, they begged to be allowed to settle among them, but could not succeed in obtaining their request." To what reports is Bede referring and are they judged unreliable?

Eastern Picts vs Southern Picts

Note that while the early chroniclers state that Ninian converted the southern Picts to Christianity, early maps of Scotland show that the area that they thought was in the south was actually in the east. Scotland was portrayed "lying on its side" compared to modern maps. This should be borne in mind when interpreting what they say. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The early map which you refer to is Ptolemy's map. This was probably compiled from a number of different sources, and as such Ptolemy probably didn't visit Scotland. The map itself was probably not used in Britain. And even if it was it would be likely that anyone using the map would get lost (and regard the map as inaccurate) very quickly. After all North (and the other cardinal points) are easily calculated on the ground. I would therefore suggest that the errors in Ptolemy's map are unrelated to the confusion which you mention above. More likely is that the Picts inhabited a larger area than they did at the time of Ninian, Western pictish lands having been potentially lost. Thus to the picts themselves, the designation of southern and eastern picts would make total sense. --Dumbo1 17:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Revision

I have put up a revision. I reckon the article is around 90% complete (according to me, YMMV). That means 40% of the work is still to do. History and Religion need expanded for sure, and there are refs which are not actually referenced, and notes missing details. More pictures would be good (but that harp has to stay !). Better ? Worse ? Needs cleanup ? Fans of Krutwig, fear not. He's still in there. Fans of Robert Howard to not despair, the Picts in Fantasy stuff I removed, but it's alive and well, but looking for a home, on Talk:Bran Mak Morn. Angus McLellan 23:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

90% done so 40% to go! Good work on the article - are you planning on taking it through the WP:PR and WP:FAC process? How about creating a seperate "Picts in fantasy" article in which to insert the lost text? (I have not read it so know nothing of its validity.) Anyway, good luck with the 130%. --Oldak Quill 15:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I was dabbing Perth as part of this I came to the article, A very interesting article indeed. Can I suggest some simple maps showing the pict lands at different periods within the article. You all have created a good candidate for WP:FAC. Gnangarra 13:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, maps like that would be beyond me. I've added a numpty map knocked up from a satellite photo, but to have shown Pictland would have been quite difficult, so I didn't try yet. Maybe there's time before tea. Angus McLellan 16:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is very good. You might want to expand a few things, or create some more subarticles, but I think this would be a reasonable FAC candidate. Everyking 09:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sentence trails off

Quote from the article (==Language== section):

"Fortiu also contains placenames suggesting Gaelic settlement, or Gaelic influences, and ties of Eogannacht to Circinn are"

--Are what? :-) Alexander 007 08:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question; I wish I had a good answer to go with it. In my sandbox version, the sentence ends at "Gaelic influences." Apparently I meant to add something, probably about the links between Circinn and Munster via the Éoganacht in the C8th, and probably about Nechtan mac Der Ilei's supposed Cenél Loairn father demonstrating that the Gaelicisation of Pictland began long before the 840s. Or maybe that we don't know to what extent Goidelic languages were present in Pictland in historical times. Hmm, I think that was probably it. But I have had a really busy week or so, and I can't remember for sure. I will try and fix this today or tomorrow as I should have some time to think about what it was I meant to say. Angus McLellan 18:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not have intimate knowledge of the specialized literature written on the Pictish language, so I'll leave it to those who have read more of the material :-). I copy-pasted your text to a separate language article for two reasons basically: I think there is enough literature written about the language to merit it, and having a separate article for the language makes categorizing more neat:Category:Extinct languages of Europe for example. But a brief discussion of language is not out of place in Picts at all, but it's usually better to have a specific article as well, to go in depth. Alexander 007 13:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Skirret

It says in the article that the Picts grew a crop named Skirret, yet the Skirret page says that the plant is of Chinese origin and only arrived in Europe around 1500. Surely, then, the Picts can't have grown it? Or is it like "turnip" where many plants have the same name in different places? Nach0king 09:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I got skirret out of Fergus Kelly's Early Irish Farming, pp. 256–257. Kelly says "the history of this vegetable is obscure", that it may have been grown in Early Christian Ireland (as cerrbacán; in modern Gaelic Irish cearrachán and Scots cearacan both include skirret), but also that it was popular Britain and Europe in the late Middle Ages. He says it may be the same as siser, a vegetable Pliny says Tiberius liked, which came from Germany. Googling for Tiberius and skirret gets a lot of hits. It may just have been carrots which are meant, but I suppose I ought to update the skirret article ... Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Appearance (moved)

I re-wrote history by changing the date from the 3d century to the 1st <grin>. I don't believe the Picts just happened to show up in the nick of time to experience recorded history, but they surely didn't show up two hundred years after Tacitus put quill to parchment.  :-) Minor change someone with better research skills and writing ability could out-do. Something about this article (and and the accuracy of other articles related to Scottish history) really bothers me. Anyway ... cdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.152.214.48 (talk • contribs) .

Apart from Picts first being mentioned in 297, there's nothing else known. When someone comes up with a theory in print, we can add it, until then we're left with Eumenius. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictish Warfare

How did the Picts wage war? Were they disciplined fighters or the mass-charge sort of warriors? Did they organize under chiefs or captains, and if so how were they chosen? Along the same lines, were their weapons stolen, forged by themselves, or simple clubs and spears? The article does not appear to answer any of these. Is the information to be found in articles about the Celts? --Narfil Palùrfalas 00:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

-The picts were most likely organized in a semi-unit structure, with the typical unit of warriors depending on their purpose raiding parties were probably no more than 35 at the most. Usually the strongest or most senior warrior was leader, and they would follow him. Upon contact with the enemy the picts would likely rely heavily upon ambush style warfare. They would most likely wait for the enemey to march into a zone of ambush and then rush upon them where their increased mobility and agility would be a crucial advantage. So they were probably organized to some extent when traveling to meet the enemy and less organized when attacking the enemy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.26.95 (talk) 06:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Material removed from article

No sources have been forthcoming since the material below was tagged as unsourced in April, so I have removed it here. The last paragraph was added after that, but it doesn't have sources either. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

==Legends of the "Painted People"== {{Unreferenced}} Popular etymology has long interpreted the name ''Pict'' as if it derived from the Latin the word ''Picti'' meaning "painted folk" or possibly "tattooed ones"; and this may relate to the Welsh word ''Pryd'' meaning "to mark" or "to draw". [[Julius Caesar]], who never went near Pictland, mentions the British Celtic custom of body painting in Book V of his ''[[The Gallic Wars|Gallic Wars]]'', stating <blockquote>''Omnes vero se Britanni '''vitro inficiunt''', quod caeruleum efficit colorem, atque hoc horridiores sunt in pugna aspectu,''</blockquote> which means <blockquote>In fact all Britanni '''stain''' themselves '''with ''vitrum,'' ''' which produces a dark blue colour, and by this means they are more terrifying to face in battle.</blockquote> The phrase ''vitro inficiunt'' is traditionally translated as "stain with [[woad]]", but could as well have meant “infect with glass”-describing a scarification ritual which left dark blue [[scar]]s-or “dye with glaze”, forming a direct reference to [[tattoo]]ing. Subsequent commentators may have displaced the 1st-century BC southern practices (of the ''Brittani'', a tribe south of the [[Thames]]) to the northern peoples in an attempt to explain the name ''Picti'', which came into use only in the 3rd century AD. Julius Caesar himself, commenting in his ''Gallic Wars'' on the tribes from the areas where Picts (later) lived, states that they have “designs carved into their faces by iron”. If they used [[woad]], then it probably penetrated under the skin as a tattoo, but there is some recent controversy over this as the woad damages the skin to produce scar tissue, but the blue colour is lost. More likely, the Celts used copper for blue tattoos (they had plenty of it) and soot-ash carbon for black. Further study of [[bog body|bog bodies]] may provide more information on the specific tattooing techniques (if any) used by the Picts. Some legends suggest that the Picts originated in [[Scythia]]. These legends may be based on an account from [[Servius]] on Aenid 4.v.146. According to Servius, about 300 AD the Agathyrsi Scythians sent a contingent of seafarers to [[Scotland]], where they became identified with the Picts.

==--If this section is to remain cut then I recommend the sentence that says "The Picts are often said to have tattooed themselves, but evidence for this is limited. See Legends of the "Painted People" below" under "Society" be removed as that section of the article no longer exists. Either that or re-add "Painted People" and rewrite it so that it conforms to Wikipedia standards.=~~Flora

pov-check

Well, the map alone is pov, that is according to WP. Too many assumptions about Picts, select refs, told almost totally from Scottish point of view. It's a good start, but needs work to make it more neutral. Jerricco 08:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. If you don't want to fix it yourself, you'll need to provide a lot more information of what it is that you think needs fixed. The whole thing is nine A4 pages long, and the body is five pages. Rather a lot to go hunting for assumptions in. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's your work, so you fix it. Don't have the time presently. But it's one long dribble of POV! Jerricco 19:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want to fix it yourself, won't tell us what needs fixing, and you are the only person with a complaint, we can only assume that there is no truth in your allegation and that you are trying to wind us up. So until you or someone else comes up with more specific areas where this article does not conform to the Neutral Point Of View, rather than just saying "It's too Scottish", the notice will continue to be removed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies to those amongst us who do not like being disagreed with, but I'll continue. There were Picts in Ireland too. The Ogham script, in the article, is attributed to Picts when in fact it is an Old Irish alphabet. The map only shows Picts in Caledonia, when it should also show the area of the Picts in Ireland. There much more that needs neutralization, and I intend to strongly edit it in the next couple of months. Jerricco 11:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

For "picts" in Ireland you'll be wanting cruithne (people) and ogham isn't "attributed" to anyone in this article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that makes it a bit clearer. You think that we should have more coverage of the Picts in Ireland in this article. We can do something about that. Perhaps we could look at merging in the Cruithne (people) article and redirecting it here, since it is basically another article on the Picts under their Gaelic name, covering some ground which this article doesn't. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

An interesting proposal, but note that Priteni redirects to Cruithne (people), and it's an article in need of attention which touches on Irish sensibilities. See also British Isles (terminology)#Origins of terms ...dave souza, talk 16:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Francis John Byrne, probably Scots (biographical note here), refers in his Irish Kings and High-Kings to Picts in Scotland and Cruthin or Cruithni in Ireland, and indexes them separately. Indeed, on p. 108 he says "It is not strictly correct to talk of the Ulster Cruthin as Picts." So he doesn't. Dáibhí Ó Cróinín may be Scots, although his grandmother Elizabeth Cronin was a traditional Irish singer, so perhaps not. His Early Medieval Ireland follows the same route as Frank Byrne: Picts for Scotland, Cruthin or Cruthini for Ireland, again indexed separately. Peter Harbison is probably another one of those POV-pushing Scotchmen. He has no index entry for Cruithni or Cruthin in Pre-Christian Ireland, and only one for Picts, which refers to Scotland. Is there a pattern here ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the word POV seems to be taking a life of it's own on WP, and everyone gets most upset. It merely means "point of view". You should read the POV page link. Jerricco 20:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I see your points now, I must have been reading the wrong books, different authors have different emphasis, leave it at that. Jerricco 09:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The article does need an outside opinion. Having read some books this last 4 days it is becoming clearer that the article must be reviewed. Jerricco 21:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Too much on etymology ?

The wikt:Pict article is very short and lacks any etymology. This article has a long etymological discussion. Should it be transwikied ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, Angus. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

These are the items that Angusmclellan (talk) (contribs) has twice (so far) removed from the article:

• Picts were portrayed as savages in many Conan the Barbarian books and comic books.
• "Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict" is song written and performed by Roger Waters of (then) Pink Floyd and is found on their 1969 double album Ummagumma.
• The Picts are a faction in the Medieval: Total War expansion "Viking Invasion." The faction consists of the entirety of Pictish lands, rather than a single Kingdom.

WP:TRIV is not policy but a guideline. Picts in the popular imagination, as it were, are worthy of brief encyclopedic inclusion. I don't know why he hasn't discussed it here. — Athænara ✉ 12:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What's to discuss? Editors who want to add unreferenced trivia need to provide a justification. Those who remove it need none beyond the fact of it being unreferenced. If the WP:MOS isn't prescripitive enough, WP:V and WP:NOR certainly are. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added references to the Media references section. - Peregrine Fisher 19:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable original research isn't any better than the other sort. Who says that Howard's picts have anything to with the real ones? The article you link to says, and I quote, "The Picts, for example, are the Indians, complete with war-paint and moccasins." Who says that the picts in MTW have any connection with these? Not the URL you supplied. Connect together previously unconnected stuff is original research, whichever section of the article you put it in. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Read the Robert E. Howard page, he based his Picts on the real life Picts. It's not OR. - Peregrine Fisher 20:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

REH having based his Picts on his impression of the Native AmericansPicts seems to be relevant to understanding REH, but to have very little to do with understanding LRIA/EH Scotland. So long as Robert E. Howard includes a mention, and a link to IroquoisPicts, what more is needed? John Buchan's Picts do bear mentioning, albeit in Pictish language rather than here, but that's because a reliable source on Pictish language specifically the two things. That's quite unlike the original research here, which comes from the fertile imaginings of Wikipedia editors. WP:NOR is not optional. Just like any other material, what you'd need, to include REH here, is an reliable source on the historical Picts, or their context, that links the two things. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

In reference to the Pink Floyd connection, the page currently describes "supposedly 'Pictish' speech." It seems more likely that "Pict" is used metonymically in this context to refer to Scottish people in general, as the gibberish in the song sounds like an imitation of the modern Scots "language." 173.110.22.133 (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Picts and Pictones

Is there a link between the picts and the pictones (a Gaulish Tribe in France) ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.164.73.132 (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

This would be unlikely as the Picts never self identified with the word "Pict" and it was merely a Latin word applied to them. The presences of Sentones and Pictones and other tribes with similar syllabic suffixes I suspect would indicate a unique Gaulic connotation. Or possibly one also applied to them by Romans. I have no sources unfortunately so its up to readers with professional credentials to verify this. BloodySacha May 12 2007

The Pict and Pictone identification was the subject of considerable speculation by Canadian writer Farley Mowat in his book "Farfarer," where he notes evidence from Classical writers that both were accomplished mariners feared by the Romans for their prowess as coastal raiders. Mowat suggests that the ethnic makeup of early Scotland was far more complex than is usually understood. He identifies the following specific layers in chronological order by their date of arrival: Alba (indigenes), Insular Celts (Britons), Pictones (Gaulic Celts), Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Scots (Celts from northern Ireland) and Vikings. He suggests that a significant group of the Pictones left Gaul to flee the Romans, only to re-encounter them a century later as the Picts. And he suggests that the Romans were well aware of this identity between the two groups and thus didn't feel there was any further need for explanation. Personally, I think Mowat is selective in his choice of which facts to use to bolster his pet theory, which is that descendants of the indigenous Alba migrated to the Canadian Arctic before the Vikings. But the similarity in the two names has been noted by a widely read author, if not one who has a solid scholarly reputation. Ftjrwrites 19:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Red or Black

Do we know for sure how the Picts typically looked? The article suggests that they were short and dark as opposed to pale and red-haired, which popular belief would have us thinking. Gazh 13:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Whose popular belief are you talking about ? I've always thought of the Picts as dark-haired. It's the Celts that are the red-haired ones to my mind. If you want know how the Picts look, you need to visit Scotland where the bulk of their descendants live. There you will see that, despite the fact that there is a higher proportion of red-haired people than anywhere else in the world, the majority of Scots are dark-haired. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The article suggests that short and dark was Robert E. Howard's belief. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Popular belief possibly worldwide i'm thinking, i'd guess it would be a fairly unanimous stereotype that the Picts were Redheads seen as Scotland has alot.

I have visited Scotland a few times (edinburgh twice and inverness once) and in general they look very much like the people of my region, mainly dark-brown to black haired with the odd smidgin of ginger and blond, tall(er) with usually pale(r) complexions.

I was thinking along the lines of; as the Picts were the original 'Scots' and the Gaels seemingly came later, and that the redhead gene is so concentrated in Scotland that the gene must have originated there, and as the Picts had been there the longest, had the most time to 'evolve' that phenotype - hope that makes sence. Gazh 15:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Red hair is not a gene typically associated with the Gaels. In Ireland, most of the genes for red hair came from the Vikings and Normans, after the Scoti/Dalraida tribes migrated to Scotland. There are Roman accounts of the ginger hair. RegeEtLege (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Most Roman sources describe the Caledonians as tall, long limbed and red or fair haired. I don't see how you can judge today's appearance of the people in that region with several thousand years ago. Scotland's percentage of fair hair is the same as Norway and Denmark's. The only place it is higher is a small region of Sweden and Baltic Europe (I think it may be Lithuania). It also has the highest percentage of red haired people in the world. We know the Vikings never settled in Scotland in great numbers and their geographic range was quite limited to ares with a very low population even today. So I ask where is the evidence that the Picts were all short and dark ? Blonde/Red hair is genetic mutation caused by environmental factors. I believe it's seasonal deficiencies of light eg. long winter nights/long summer days etc. Scotland has all these things and it's climate isn't hugely different to Southern Norway and Denmark. So why do people presume the mutation would not occur in the various Scottish tribes as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm Scottish and my family are historically from up in Nairn, near Inverness in the Pictish heartland and everyone in our family is short and black haired, myself included. Dark eyed as well. I live in Aberdeen right now and that's considered old Pictish territory too and everyone here tends to be short with dark hair, although pale eyes are the norm. Dark hair and eyes is markedly more common in Inverness. Redheads and blondes are common in the North-East and Inverness too, despite the fact that there's been no settlement or immigration from Nordic lands. TheXand (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Pictish origins

I stumbled across the topic of Pictish origins in my readngs of Arthurian lore, specifically, the books by philologist and author Norma Lorre Goodrich. She cites a number of authorities who back the non-Celtic origin of the Picts, in particular, several works by a late 19th-century scholar Heinrich Zimmer. She also mentions J.R.R. Tolkein as having been of this opinion, but does not cite any of his writings. She is a very persuasive advocate of the Finnish origin of the Celtic people, citing legal and cultural similarities between what is known of the Picts and what is portrayed in the Finnish Kalevala account.

"Conventional" wisdom has the Picts as just another Celtic people. Conventional wisdom has been very wrong on many topics. It is cerainly odd that this one tribe or group of tribes should be so much more mysterious than other Celtic people. Perhaps you could include just a little greater mention of the debate over just who the Picts were, as it is certainly far from being settled. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.102.235.44 (talk) 02:52, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

"Conventional Wisdom" has the Picts as a Celtic-speaking people (by Roman times anyway). As you say, it isn't too clear on whether they were Celtic in other ways though nor what they spoke before the Brythonic language we see in their placenames. No doubt we could say more on the debate. I think that the main reason that they are more mysterious than the Celts is simply that they were further from the Mediterranean and so had less contact with people who were prepared to record their customs. After all we still know more about them than we do about the Finns of the same time period, a people even more remote from Rome. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we speaking of the indiginous Finns aka Sami people ?

Just for clarity. Gazh 15:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I was speaking about the Finns who speak Finnish. However it doesn't really matter whether I meant the Sami or the Finns since neither gets much of a mention in classical literature. I could have used the people of Great Zimbabwe (or rather their classical ancestors) to make the same point and it would have remained as valid. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My question was in reply to the Anon User 68.102.235.44 - i say this as i have heard people link the Sami and Celts in the past, no need for the hostilities Derek. Gazh 19:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh did it sound hostile ? Sorry. It wasn't meant to. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Nee bother, mebbes i read it wrong.

I think the point Anon User 68.102.235.44 was making is that certain studies suggest that the origons of the Sami people have been traced to Iberia which is where some people have traced the Ancient Britons too, although it is kind of self-defeating as those people 'became' Celts as opposed to actually 'being' Celts, the Picts were possibly a branch of Ancient Britons. Gazh 22:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Bryan Sykes in "Blood of the Isles" explores the Pictish origin issue from a genetic point of view. His theory was that if the Picts were a distinct people from the Celts then there should be some definite genetic marker in the y-chromosome or mitochondrial DNA specific to the Picts. Given the political history of the Pictish society and subsequent association with the Dalriada from Ireland, there should be some sort of Pictish genetic signal evident in the people of the Argyll and Highland regions of Scotland, since history does not record that the Picts were wholly slaughtered by the invaders but absorbed by them. Sykes found no such signal and cautiously concludes that the Pictish and Celtic people were genetically the same. Thus in the absence of samples of actual Pictish language other than place and personal names that are theorized to be of Celtic origin, and evidence supporting the theory that Celtic culture was introduced into the Isles rather than supplanting it, the Picts and the Celts were likely members of the same aboriginal substrate. It might be worth adding this to the article. --Eddylyons (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly of course there wouldn't be a difference between genes nowadays. Are you unaware of the fact that genes mutate. As such the genes of the Scottish/Irish/English/Welsh have all mutated over thousands of years through inter-breeding/environment/diet etc. So of course all the peoples of the British Isles will have similar genes by now. However at the time they all came from somewhere else right ? My theory is the Irish/Welsh originally came from Iberia the English from Gaul and the Scottish (Caledonians) from Northern Poland/Germany. Roman sources likened the Scottish (Caledonians) to the East Germanic tribes, the English to the Gauls and the Welsh to the Iberians. Put a bit more faith in Roman sources. They had no reason to lie about the appearance of individual peoples or more importantly their resemblance to similar barbarians. Sorry I don't have a reference as I can't remember where I read it but take a look at some old Roman sources online etc. if you're interested. You should find it soon enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The historical origins of the Picts

The Picts were / are a Germanic tribe whose own oral history as spoken to Bede the Northumbrian / English Historian states that they originated from the Scythian areas of the Black Sea. They themselves cliam to be of a Scythian people. Came by boat to the North Sea from the Mediteranean 6000 years ago - then on to the Hebrides via Norway some 4000 years ago. They are of the same Germanic origin as most Scythian types which includes the all of the Germanic peoples we know today. Not celts or anything mysthical. Nothing to do with the Gaels. Sorry to break up the party. Antor32 13:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

John Pinkerton has been dead for a long time now and his ideas are deader than he is. Gothicism is the phlogiston theory of Pictish studies. No reliable source supports this interpretation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Like most wikipedian experts you actually know nothing. The Picts own oral history was recorded by Bede in his History of Britain. They said they were Scythian peoples who like other Germanic people came from the Balck Sea. Learn real history. Antor32 18:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia an encyclopedia: it aims to parrot what the experts say. Editors don't need to be experts, only to be able to paraphrase and summarise reliable sources on a particular subject. Since no reliable sources take claims of Scythian origins seriously, we can only include that by saying "Bede writes that...". However, it is difficult to see what benefit that brings to the article since we'd then have to explain that statement by including modern views of why Bede wrote what he did about Picts. And at the end of that, if we did it properly, the reader would be none the wiser. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

While no scholar takes Bede's claims of Scythian origins for the Picts seriously (which by the way are also similar to those offered by Geoffrey of Monmouth), the fact that early chroniclers made such wild claims ought to be noted in an objective discussion of Pict origins. It argues against them simply being another Celtic tribe. Why would anyone go to such lengths to distinguish the Picts from their neighbors if they really were just another Celt tribe of northern Albion? Oh, I think they probably were just another Celtic tribe. But that's my opinion. The record is complicated, scholars are divided, and the article ought to represent that. I introduced a minor edit to show that scholars are not united in the equation of the Picts with the Caledonians, as was being implied. See also my notes on the other section on whether they were "mysterious." When you see such subjective claims in an article, you know that it's no longer attempting to represent a dispassionate discussion of the topic. Here there be Picts indeed.Ftjrwrites 19:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The statement above of "no reliable source takes Scythian origins seriously" is clearly false. I can name Stephen Oppenheimer for a start who takes it seriously. The Scythain origin is repeated in the Anglo Saxon chronicles. Are we seriously suggesting that two Germanic writers who lived at the same time as the Picts..didnt know the difference between a Celt and a Scythian(ie Easterner)? Thats not reasonable in my opinion. Anyone who can write in Anglo Saxon or Latin is extremely likely to be able to recognise what a Celtic language is and is extremely unlikely to describe a Celt as being Scythian.--92.0.61.86 (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And is there any sign that academia takes a keen interest in Oppenheimer's theories? Oppenheimer's credentials in genetics are excellent, but he's not a historian, archaeologist or the like. As I recall, his comments on Picts are rather silly, i.e. the aside on north-east accents. As for Bede, he also tells us that the Britons came from Armorica. As has been said before now, Bede didn't care if the Irish were native to Ireland - and contrary to every Irish origin legend he makes them native to Ireland - but he didn't want to portray the Britons and Picts as native for his own good reasons. Where Bede and his early Medieval near-contemporaries can reasonably be expected to be reliable, that is when they give names of people and places, the names are Celtic ones. I am not seeing the point of including Oppenheimer's meanderings myself, or not until there is some commentary from experts.

But yes, we could certainly cover Pictish origin legends, both Thracian and Scythian ones, if someone cares to do the research. A translation of the Lebor Bretnach would be handy, and there is a useful section on Pictish origin myths in Koch's Celtic Culture encyclopedia, presently viewable on Google books. I have Mrs A's Kings and Kingship and Dauvit Broun's Irish Origins, both of which contain relevant material. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Pictland never existed.

Anachronistic name indeed. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Pictland/Pictavia seems to be the common name for "where the people who others called Picts - but we don't certainly know what they called themselves or the land in question - lived". Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There's no valid sourcing on this claim either. Can it be rephrased or simply taken out? Ftjrwrites 18:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What is it you want sourcing for? If it's for the use of "Pictland", I found the following usages: Woolf, Pictland to Alba - Pictavia; Harding, Iron Age in North Britain - Pictland; Smyth, Warlords and Holy Men - Pictland; Yorke, Conversion of Britain - Pictland; Hendersons, Art of the Picts - Pictland; Alcock, Kings and Warriors - Pictland; and at this point I felt that the horse was thoroughly dead - Pictland and Pictavia certainly do appear in print - and stopped hitting it. We could even add an aside to the effect that we may have a record of what the Picts themselves called Pictland in Latin, i.e. Albidia, although this is very uncertain. Or perhaps I am missing the point here? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a modern term for a country that had its own name. It would be like calling Italy "Latinland". 24.255.11.149 (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What was this name that you want to replace the common Pictland/Pictavia with? Albidia is Latin, and Elfydd is Welsh, so not those. *Albijo, Albu, and Alba are Irish, so not them either. But, more importantly, whatever you think it should be, who says so in print? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it appears that you answered your own question. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

They ARE mysterious

I'm very troubled by the confident factual tone of introductory sections, which I find to be misleading. A line in the second paragraph of the article is clearly someone's opinion, includes no citation of source and is representative of this overall tone problem. It says the Picts aren't mysterious even though people think they were. When did "mysterious" become the sort of objective criterion that could be discussed in an encyclopedia article? If by "mysterious," the text means "people about whom there remain many unknown things," then I would say they are quite mysterious. The factual claims in these opening paragraphs are doubtful. They may be right, but they are generally conjectures. One cannot honestly ignore all mysteries and then proclaim there is nothing mysterious! I haven't touched this particular sentence, but I'm hoping another editor will recognize the flaw and have a good substitute text to place there. Some sort of transition to the next portion is needed.

I did make a related fix to one part of the opening paragraph which seemed most dubious and easily fixable. I've edited slightly to make it clear that the identification with the Caledonians is not clearcut and is not universally held by scholars.

But I remain concerned that some of this same tendency to ignore legitimate gaps in the record is pervasive in this article. One can certainly find scholarly works that take some of the positions offered as fact here. But one can find equally scholarly works that offer alternative solution, reject the solutions offered here, or say there is no clear answer in the ancient records, or even in the circumstantial evidence of archeology and geography.

It would be great for someone who is a bit more knowledgeable on this subject than I feel I am to come in and offer a full rewrite of at least the introductory portion of the article taking full note of the historiographical disagreements over Pict origins.Ftjrwrites 19:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:LEAD, the introductory section should summarise the content of the article. It should not, therefore, be supported by citations. No doubt the current version could be improved, but it seems to present the same message as the article, that is that the Picts are not mysterious, although perhaps exotic would convey the meaning just as well. I think that mysterious is a word used in print. Had I written the article more recently, since reading Harding's Iron Age in Northern Britain, I would likelyperhaps have avoided the error he lambasts, and which you mention, the "tendency to ignore legitimate gaps in the record". But its not me that Harding is criticising, it's the historians. Having said that, what this article says about the origins of the Picts more or less follows Harding's comments on pp. 248–250, and its message of continuity is not far from Harding's conclusions in chapter 11.

Can you tell me where to find the controversy about Pictish origins, &c? I don't seem to have run across it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Map discussion

Yorkshirian recently added this new version of an old map to this article; it was removed by Deacon of Pndapetzim and re-added by Yorkshirian. I'd like to replace it with this map instead, which doesn't use boundaries. The changes were made to several articles, so to centralize discussion, please post at Talk:Mercia#Map if you have an opinion. Mike Christie (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Pre-indo-European?

It doesn't mention it in the article, but aren't the Picts a possible Pre-indo-European people? ʄ!•¿talk? 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Pre-Indo-European refers to languages and Pictish language covers that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well actually it refers to language/culture/ethnicity depending on the context, but I was just checking to make 100% sure that adding the article to the Category:Pre-Indo-Europeans was accurate. ʄ!•¿talk? 14:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think Category:Pre-Indo-Europeans is appropriate here? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Because I remember reading something about them bring Pre-indo-European in a (reputable)book before. Encyclopedia Britannica online says "some evidence suggests that they were descendants of pre-Celtic aborigines". But then again I guess I forgot about the potential this kind of issue has to rile foaming-at-the-mouth nationalistic zealots to get angry over nothing(I'm not refering to you here, just my prior experience on wikipedia with ethnic/linguistic issues). So whatever I didn't think this might be controversial in anyway. ʄ!•¿talk? 15:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, Marija Gimbutas had in mind the population of most of Europe before the arrival of her invading Kurgan culture Indo-Europeans when she talked about pre-Indo-European or Old-European peoples and cultures. As for nationalists, I'd have thought they'd be pleased. Being pre-Indo-European is rather better than Sarmatism and all the other "our ancestors came from Scythia" stuff when it comes to being exotic. Hard to beat on the "our ancestors was here first so <whatever> rightfully belongs to us" front too.

In any case, the Britannica's "pre-Celtic" is not a synonym for "pre-Indo-European". Nicolaisen's Scottish Place-names discusses pre-Celtic river names in Scotland and finds them to be Indo-European. "[W]hen the Celts first arrived in Scotland, there were already people present who, as immigrants from Europe centuries before them, had introduced an Indo-European language to the British Isles. Although such a notion is controversial, there is no real alternative which would explain convincingly the presence of names which are clearly Indo-European in character but cannot be called Celtic or Germanic." (Nicolaisen, op cit, p. 246). Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha, yeah I had noticed that apparently everyone & their dog has some kind of tenuous link to being Scythian before. A very informative response, I'll drop the matter seeing as it's unsure what exactly "Pre-Indo-Europeans" are. Maybe the category should be renamed "Pre-Indo-European related subjects" and just stick to languages & archeological finds. ʄ!•¿talk? 20:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Where the picts celts or not ? I'm confused about this as most sources are dubitative and the answer isn't definitive. About the use of Gimbutas' pre-indo-european definitions those are her own ones and part of the anglo-saxon historical schools tradition. but in the rest of Europe there were and still there are other definitions as Krahe's ones who are the norm in countries as Spain and Italy. in historiography there are still consistent terminological differencies from a school to another, specially at worldwide level Cunibertus (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

They were celts. They spoke a P-Celtic language similar to Old Welsh. This is heavily attested by placenames and personal names in eg. the Pictish King lists. See Forsyth for details:

http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/2081/1/languagepictland.pdf

Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

had they a writing system ? scripts ? epigraphes ? differently, names have no significance (according a critic here on wikipedia, and about personal names he is right - forex Cunipertus and other -pertus were the most common names in lombard Italy between the 6th and 10th century AD, that's the reason scholars focused on river names) Cunibertus (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Some ogham inscriptions survive, but they are extremely difficult to interpret. As for your other questions, Forsyth answers them better than I can. In terms of placenames, Watson is your man (referenced in main article). Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the Picts are of Pre-Indo-European origin as for the most part, a great majority of the early history of the British Isles is Celtic. That the Picts are non Celtic in origin seems to come from speculations during the 1900's based on medieval origin histories (written at a time when Scotland needed as ancient a lineage as possible in order to stave off English bids for soveriengty over Scotland) stating that the Scots descended from the children of a princess of Egypt, and a Scythian prince. The Picts, were more likely Caledonians and other "Britannic" Celtic tribes north of the Roman wall, who were also infused with Celtic refugees from the south after the Roman conquest. The Picts have more in commen with the Welsh rather than being a separate group like the Basques or Finns. Also, rather than being "killed off" in a massive invasion of Irish Gaels, it is more likely that the Picts intermarried and therefore were absorbed into the culture. It is most interesting to note that when the "Picts" disappear from history, at the same moment the nation of "Scotland" is born. Before then it was "Pictland" (divided into several "kingdoms" like Fortriu [Moray]) and "Dal Riata". There was no "Scotland" (Actually "Alba") in official records before then. Also, the Picts still live on in native Celtic clans like Brodie (descended from the Pictish king Bridei or "Brude") And the descriptions of Picts at the time of the Roman occupation, and even from St. Columba's account most definitely make them out to be Celts and not any other non-Celtic group. As Celts, whether Briton or Gael, tended to paint themselves blue and fight naked and wear tartan clothing, just like the Picts. There are several really good sources where you can find out more about the Picts, such as Magnus Magnusson's book Scotland, A History as well as Osprey Publishing's military series, one of their books being on the Pictish Warrior and giving details about Pictish culture, and the books A Brief History of the Celts by Peter Beresford Ellis, and The Picts, A History by Tim Clarkson. Celticus25 (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography section is confusing

You may notice I did a couple of style related edits today, not from any knowledge on the subject but rather from a desire to make this article easier for the passing reader to sort through. But then I saw some confusing places in the bibliography section.

My first element of confusion is in not being able to identify Lynch without hunting and sorting. I would wonder if perhaps it would be permissible to lump the works together, something like:

• Lynch, Michael (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Scottish History...
  • Author A, subtitle A, pp x ...
  • Author B, subtitle B, pp y ...

et cetera. ???

My second point of confusion is the Further reading subsection. To me, a general reader, there is a difficulty in that it isn't in the format I'm used to seeing in an wikipedia articles. It appears to be an appendix to the Bibliography section and as such I'm wondering if it might be easier to decypher either by adding full citation information or moving the Bibliography ahead of the footnotes and turning into notes on individual books? I've seen both other styles in other works and either one might make it easier for the non-expert to navigate the article. Thanks. I hope this didn't sound too ignorant. Any help on this would be appreciated. I didn't find much addressing it in WP:STYLETrilobitealive (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean about Lynch. It is odd that a book that's the ultimate source of a lot of the references didn't make it into the Bibliography. I'll add it. Can't do anything about the detailed info about what's quoted in Lynch and where though.

I think the order of Footnotes & Bibliography is a standard one on WP. WP:CITE is the place to look by the way.
☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 01:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Further reading

I removed all but one (the one I left being the most recent addition) of the titles from the further reading section. Those which were already listed in the references were unneeded, the others I post here for discussion:

Henderson (1967) is still regarded as important.

Laing & Laing (2001) provides good coverage of Pictish art, but is not well illustrated and otherwise outdated; the most thorough and by far the most up-to-date work on Pictish art is Isabel Henderson's The Art of the Picts: Sculpture and Metalwork in Early Medieval Scotland (2004).

Leslie Alcock (2003) provides comprehensive coverage of Dark Age northern Britain from an archaeologist's perspective.

Marjorie Anderson (1973; 1980) provides the landmark and most authoritative guide to the historical sources of the period.

The relevant works in the new Edinburgh History of Scotland - Fraser, From Caledonia to Pictland, and Woolf, From Pictland to Alba - are expected in 2007–2008.

In the first place, an author and a year are not helpful for people who are not already well-versed in the literature about ancient Britain or the Picts. Second, the commentary that is provided (by whom I do not know) is not encyclopædic. If these are the opinions of scholars, we should have sources; if they are simply the opinions of an editor, they do not belong. If these titles are truly valuable, they should be listed in the references, with full bibliographic information. In the current state, this information is not helpful. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed Clarkson's book. While it's well-written, the research is wanting. For example, there is no mention of the revised concensus on the location of Fortriu. There's also pseudohistory inserted into the text as fact (eg. Cuthbert meeting with Eormenburg at Carlisle). Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

STOP SUGGESTING, LETS GO TO THE ORIGIN OF THINGS DIRECTLY

The best evidence now to solve this questions about the origin of the picts: DNA match with the Berber one of north africa. they are north african in all what do you describe them, dark complexion, life in every moment, traditions and the most important thing: Genes; that pruves they are of Berber origin. A SIMPLE DNA TEST PRUVE THAT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.87.167 (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As any fule kno... -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

what you mean mate ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.251.25.6 (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

A Confederation of Tribes?

The current opening words - The Picts were a confederation of tribes - are surely at best a gross over-simplification and at worst, just simply wrong, surely? Lianachan (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you suggest?--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits over-emphasising 'Scottishness' of Picts

There have been a series of edits made on this article that appear to have been made to de-emphasise the 'Britishness' of the Picts and to assert their 'Scottishness'. This has introduced a number of anachronisms and inaccuracies that also seriously affect the article's neutrality.

• Deletion of material to remove chronology:

It's not particularly clear why this was done, other than to claim that the Picts existed outside of the accepted time frame. It's well-established that the 'Pictish culture' existed between the Roman conquest and the 10th century AD. The first reference to the Picts dates from 297 AD.

• Removal of statement linking Pictish with Brythonic languages.

Again, it's not clear why this was done, other than to segregate the Picts from other British people. While other theories were put forward in the past, any suggestion that it was not a Brythonic language amounts to a fringe theory.

• Editing of the expansion of Alba, amalgamating British and Bernician territories to replace 'British' with 'Scottish'.

There's no reasonable explanation for this. Alba assimilated the Northumbrian (Bernician) territory of Lothian and the territory of the Strathclyde Britons. Neither of these territories were occupied by 'Scots' at this time.

• Editing the effect that the Viking invasions had on Britain and Ireland to the effect they had on Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland.

Again, this makes little sense. The Viking invasions did not take place at a time when Scotland, England and Wales existed as political or geographic entities.

It would be helpful if editors could please refrain from editing history articles to forward a nationalistic political point of view. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have to completely disagree I believe the original article to be extremely inaccurate and takes every opportunity to over emphasise a British element to the article. Appearing to be written from a British nationalistic point of view. Again I correctly stated Britain did not exist at that time. To speak of Pictish history referring constantly to Britain and Britishness points to a poor grasp of history. Also it appears to be politically motivated rather than correctly documenting history. Perhaps a Scottish not British editor may have a better grasp of Scottish history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.36.80 (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The article was largely written by Scottish Historians, and I'd be surprised if there were many non-Scottish editors contributing to it. 'Britain' here refers to the island, and is a name that has been used to refer to it as a geographical entity since before Roman times and at least 300 years before the first recorded use of the name 'Pict'. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

<edit conflict> Just what I was going to say so I won't repeat it. However I would add that the main editors on this article may well be proud Scots. But they are also Wikipedians, and when editing this article that is the more important quality. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case you can give me a citation connecting me with research indicating the Scots refered to themselves as British or the island being described as Britain C and "at least 300 years before the first recorded use of the name 'Pict' because in all my studies I have never uncovered this information. If you cannot provide evidence you are a fraud and clearly politically rewritting Scottish history to your political inclination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.36.80 (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't ascribe motives to editors if you can avoid it; it is always better to use sources than call names. If you can find reliable sources that use the terminology you prefer, please cite them. Mike Christie (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, Britain in this case is a geographical term, not political. The first recorded use of 'Pict' was in 297 AD. Julius Caeser wrote at length describing Britain (the island), pre Roman conquest in 54 BC. In terms of 'rewriting' this article, my contribution to it consists entirely (IIRC) of a photograph of a Pictish stone. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

So you were unable to provide any proper references? Hardly surprising. So can I conclude your statement "'Britain' here refers to the island, and is a name that has been used to refer to it as a geographical entity since before Roman times" is a lie as you then state "Julius Caeser wrote at length describing Britain (the island)". Also there is debate the Romans use the term "Britain" when refering to there occupation of England and Wales. You cannot use the term "Britain" as a geographical term in the 9th to 11th centuries when the occupants of our land would never have described themselves as "British" or pertaining to "Britain" it is purely a political term. I would also argue the statement to be inaccurate "proud Scots" as I suspect the editors aren't Scottish. A Scottish person wouldn't incorrectly rewrite Scottish history into a British nationalistic history. I state again the editors involved in writting this nonsense would appear to be politically motivated and intent on doing Scottish history a grave misjustice. They certainly shouldn't call themselves Scottish historians perhaps British would be closer to the mark. You cannot talk about Britain in those centuries when it did not exist it is nonsense and the inhabitants of our country would be extremely insulted being described as such. It concerns me this rubbish is being peddled as official history.

This is a bizarre and illogical disagreement. Fact is that the neither Britain or Scotland existed as political entities at the time of the Picts, and they were certainly neither Scottish or British by nationality. So arguing that their "Scottishness" is being diminished in favour of their "Britishness" makes no sense whatsoever. This article can only use geographical terms or, for the benefit of today's reader, refer to modern day equivalents. My estimation is that it does that accurately. I'd also ask 90.211.36.80 to please remember to address the issues rather than attacking editors and speculate about their motivations. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for not providing full references. I didn't think they would be necessary. You'll find Caeser's description of Britain in Book 5 of his Commentaries on the Gallic Wars. The first mention of Picts was by Eumenius in 297 AD in his Panegyrici Latini Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As for evidence that Britain was used as a geographical term in Pictish times, you only have to look as far as Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica (Book 1, Chapter 1):

BRITAIN, an island in the ocean, formerly called Albion, is situated between the north and west, facing, though at a considerable distance, the coasts of Germany, France, and Spain, which form the greatest part of Europe. It extends 800 miles in length towards the north, and is 200 miles in breadth[...] This island at present, following the number of the books in which the Divine law was written, contains five nations, the English, Britons, Scots, Picts, and Latins, each in its own peculiar dialect cultivating the sublime study of Divine truth.

Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Very true, however someone might say "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? Bede was English after all." So let's preempt that line of argument. It wouldn't apply to the Welsh person(s) who compiled the Historia Brittonum around a century after Bede, or to the Scots ones who compiled the Lebor Bretnach about two centuries after that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So you want to say that because a historic person Beda is by your mouth is English his words will not be coun ted by you while not answer directly to poster accusation that you Scottify Picts intentionally.

37.110.12.198 (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Alba as Scotland, Scots as Celts etc.

A couple of edits have been made to the lead that are (IMHO) slightly contentious and rather than revert them I've altered them for the time being for accuracy.

Pictland, also known as Pictavia, gradually absorbed the Gaelic kingdom of Dál Riata to form the Kingdom of Alba(Scotland). Alba expanded absorbing Brythonic and Bernician territory and by the 11th century the Pictish identity had become subsumed under a new term for this amalgamation of Celtic peoples: the "Scots ".

The edits that I find contentious are in bold.

• Alba was not Scotland. Scotland is specifically the country that was born from an amalgamated Alba, Strathclyde and Lothian.

• I'm not sure about the change from 'British' to 'Brythonic', as the two do not exactly correspond.

• Describing the amalgamation of Gaelic, Pictish, British and Bernician territories as an amalgamation of Celtic people is, I feel, potentially misleading as the Bernicians were Saxons.

I've adjusted it as follows.

Pictland, also known as Pictavia, gradually absorbed the Gaelic kingdom of Dál Riata to form the Kingdom of Alba (roughly corresponding to Scotland north of the rivers Forth and Clyde). Alba expanded, absorbing the Brythonic kingdom of Strathclyde and Bernician Lothian, and by the 11th century the Pictish identity had become subsumed under a new term for this amalgamation of peoples: the "Scots ".

I've removed 'Celtic' altogether. It's a bit on the clunky side. I'm not entirely happy about using 'Strathclyde' (maybe 'Alt Clut'?) or 'Lothian'... suggestions? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Alba was not Scotland. Scotland is specifically the country that was born from an amalgamated Alba, Strathclyde and Lothian.

Well, actually, Scotland was the name of a kingdom [long] before Strathclyde and Lothian are "amalgamated". Yea. That's why its called Scotland (in English) rather than the Federation of North Britain. So, although it is nice to see this like the Union of 1707, it was not really like that. Monks in Melrose Abbey in the middle of the 13th century still referred to "Scotland" (Scotia) as the place over the "Scottewatre".

Okay, I stand corrected... of course it is. BBC Alba and all that. Is it simply an issue of language, the change from Alba to Scotland simply reflecting the uptake of English?

Scotland is identical in meaning to Alba btw, today and since around 900, and FYI recent research suggests Alba was in fact just a name for Pictland. And if that's the case, then our whole "formation of Scotland" narrative is just an amusing bi-product of failure to grasp some fairly basic code-switching. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this published?

What are your thoughts on the other points? Cheers, Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Using 'Brythonic and 'Bernician' is inconsistent. The first refers to the name of a people, the second to the name of the old kingdom of Bernicia. It should probably be 'Old British' and 'Anglo-saxon'. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.111.75 (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Pict-ure

The article contained this image:

“The Trvve Picture of One Picte.” Theodor de Bry’s engraving of a Pict, published in Thomas Hariot’s 1588 book "A Briefe and True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia".

It refers to an American-Indian, possibly called a Pict (painted one) because of warpaint. It does not portray a Pict in the sense of the article. -- Zz (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The picture is supposed to illustrate that British people were once as 'savage' as native American Indians. Here is the text that that woodcut illustrates:

SOM PICTVRE,

OF THE PICTES WHICH IN THE OLDE tyme dyd habite one part of the great Bretainne. THE PAINTER OF WHOM I HAVE had the first of the Inhabitans of Virginia, giue my allso thees 5. Figures fallowinge, fownd as hy did assured my in a oolld English cronicle, the which I wold well sett to the ende of thees first Figures, for to showe how that the Inhabitants of the great Bretannie haue bin in times past as sauuage as those of Virginia.

I. The trvve picture of one Picte

IN tymes past the Pictes, habitans of one part of great Bretainne, which is nowe nammed England, wear sauuages, and did paint all their bodye after the maner followinge. the did lett their haire gro we as fare as their Shoulders, sauinge those which hange vppon their forehead, the which the did cutt. They shaue all their berde except the mustaches, vppon their breast wear painted the head of som birde, ant about the pappes as yt waere beames of the sune, vppon the bellye sum feere full and monstreus face, spreedinge the beames verye fare vppon the thighes. Vppon the two knees som faces of lion, and vppon their leggs as yt hath been shelles of fish. Vppon their Shoulders griffones heades, and then they hath serpents abowt their armes: They caried abowt their necks one ayerne ringe, and another abowt the midds of their bodye, abowt the bellye, and the saids hange on a chaine, a cimeterre or turkie soorde, the did carye in one arme a target made of wode, and in the other hande a picke, of which the ayerne was after the manner of a Lick, whith tassels on, and the other ende with a Rounde boule. And when they hath ouercomme some of their ennemis, they did neuerfelle to carye a we their heads with them.

Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge, true picture refers to something the artist has seen himself. In that sense, the text under the image quoting this claim is misleading. It should be mentioned. -- Zz (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A New History of the Picts

Up to date and challenging theories as to the the origin and develoment of the Pictish peoples are contained in A New History of the Picts by Stuart McHardy, published by Luath Press ISBN1906307652 £14.99

Briefly the PIcts are the indigenous peoplesof Scotladn, and form the Roman perspective this included the Gododdin, the Britons of Strathclyde and the Scots of Dalriada. Their society is sbest understood by thinking of kinship rather than kingship and the basic model for inerperteing them should be the Celtic-speaking, tribal warrior society of the Scottish Highands that survived into the 18th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.22.197 (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"Pictish carving is ‘early writing’"

• Sunday Times article, 11 April 2010:

"Stone drawings believed to have been left by the Picts, the ancient Scottish race, are the building blocks of a primitive language similar to Egyptian hieroglyphs, a new study has suggested. Until now, the markings, on about 300 stones across Scotland, depicting simple scenes, were believed to be memorials to dead kings. However, researchers from Exeter and Lancaster universities claim the predictability and pattern of the carvings make it “extremely unlikely” they were made by chance and instead indicate a written script. The findings, published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, a scientific journal, could help experts to decipher the symbols, unlocking the secrets of the race which ruled Scotland in AD 300-843."

--Mais oui! (talk) 05:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You can dl and read the Royal Society article, someone added a link to it in the Pictish stones article.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Mais oui! (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• More musterious. - A Norwegian book, - Jomsvikingslaget i oppklarende lys, - have new sensational information about the Picts ending. The Pictish kings escaped to the coastline of Norway. Instead of being killed "by deadly blades" at Scone. Look at internet : haugenbok.no

"Presumed Celtic"

It may or may not be important, but I feel the addition of the word "presumed" to the opening sentence seriously misrepresents the established academic position. But three reverted edits in, I thought it best to open this to discussion. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Error or vandalism?

The lede currently contains the text -

"until the 10th century, when they conquered and assimilated Gaels adopting their language and culture."

Surely this should be along the lines of -

"until the 10th century, when they were conquered and assimilated by Gaels, adopting their language and culture."? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Why I removed the "true picture” from the article:

1. It's an extremely speculative (to describe it nicely) *cultural depiction* of Picts. It's not an attempt based on modern archeology and ethnography to depict how Picts dressed and/or behaved. Furthermore, the fact that the title uses the description “true picture” makes it even more misleading because the author lived many centuries after what we now think of as “Pict culture” had faded. It is based on how its author believed the ancient inhabitants of Great Britain once resembled native Americans (notice also that there is no attempt to say which era is the depicted Pict from), as seen through the eyes of a 16th century European. [4].

2. When I say it's extremely speculative, what I really mean that is that it is hard not to interpret it as slander (think of all the drawings of national and racial stereotypes that have been made throughout history). There is no basis, cited in the article or elsewhere that I know of, to believe full-body-tattooed Picts walked around naked with human heads on their spears, and so on. To suggest this stereotypical description of a savage/barbarian is somehow representative of a Pict is extremely unencyclopedic. None of this is consistent with the fact that they were at the same technological level as their neighbours (as cited in the article), that they were a Celtic people, or that they lived in Scotland, where it's hard to imagine someone could live in a similar way to native Americans from much warmer areas. If anything, this could be transferred to a section about historical depictions of the Pics by other cultures.

3. I checked the article's history and the picture was added in November 2009, without any relevant reason cited. The last time this article was assessed and given a 'good' rating, in 2008, the picture used for the article header, the Hilton of Cadboll Stone, was, in my opinion, far more relevant to the article. This picture has been completely removed from the article, so I am taking the liberty of restoring it.

4. None of the foreign language wikipedias I consulted make use of this picture. The German one uses a different one by the same author, which seems to be more neutral and is almost at the end of the article. In no circumstance is it as highlighted as this one.

Universalcosmos (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well argued, and I agree (for what that's worth...).

I've taken the liberty of replacing the Hilton of Cadboll "replica" stone image with one of an actual Pictish Stone. Without meaning to be overly critical of the sculptor, the Cadboll replica lacks some of the finesse of Pictish Stones of that period. Compare:

A replica of the Hilton of Cadboll Stone

...with:

http://www.nms.ac.uk/our_collections/collection_highlights/hilton_of_cadboll_stone.aspx

Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the quality of the replica, and I'm OK with the other Pictish Stone image you used. However, given that this Serpent Stone picture was already in the 'History' section below, shouldn't that one be removed from that section to avoid repetition (or be replaced by a different one)? I'll leave that to your discretion since you seem be more acquainted with Pictish stones that I am :) Universalcosmos (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't realised it was further down the page! I've replaced it in the history section with a Pictish chain. I've also replaced the picture of the Eagle stone that was impossible to make out with the Daniel stone and added the Aberlemno Kirkyard stone to the art section. It's still quite stone heavy, but there's not much to choose from that is of sufficient quality. Here's a few other options:

Pictish silver jewelery from Norrie's Law horde

The People section

I should clarify that I removed this section because it was very short and seemed speculative and unsourced. I marked the edit as minor by mistake. Count Truthstein (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pictish Mithraism

As far as I can see, no editors of this article have yet commented at this AFD, which seems a bit odd:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pictish Mithraism

Cheers. --Mais oui! (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Picts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: delisted The rationale for delisting provided by Efraimkeller appears to be correct. No-one has stepped forward to address the noted problems so I am closing this as a delist. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This article fails to meet the first two GA criteria.

1a. Many sentences are unclear and wordy. Passive voice is used throughout, either unnecessarily or to gloss over the lack of a clear source. ("...had previously been described as...", "said to have been", "thought to be..." "have been used to argue the existence of..."). Other examples:

INTRODUCTION

"There is an association with the distribution of brochs, place names beginning 'Pit-', for instance Pitlochry, and Pictish stones." Vague. What association? And what is being associated with this distribution? A region or a time period? And how?

"...had been subsumed ... amalgamation" -- passive voice; also subsumption and almagamation (subsume/amalgamate) are redundant.

"Archaeology gives some impression of the society of the Picts." What impression? How? The next sentences are about written history, so the issue of archaeology is left dangling.

HISTORY
"The means by which...although there is speculation that" There are many examples, like this, of unnecessarily wordy constructions.
"The change from Pictland to Alba may not have been noticeable at first; indeed, as we do not know the Pictish name for their land, it may not have been a change at all"
Noticeable by whom? And why does it matter whether name-changes are noticeable if they might not even be a change? Many sentences like this that add nothing to the substance of the article, as the lack of knowledge of Pictish names has already been established.

KINGS and KINGDOMS

"The early history of Pictland is unclear. In later periods multiple kings existed, ruling over separate kingdoms, with one king, sometimes two, more or less dominating their lesser neighbours." What are examples of "two kings" "more or less dominating"? And what are "lesser neighbours" in this context, if we are talking about "separate kingdoms"? Separate Pictish kingdoms or Picts separate from kingdoms of another kind? And why does that matter if the word "Pict" is applied from outside, and perceived (esp. in later eras) to be blurred with Gaels? The late history of Pictland is also unclear, as the article itself attests. If little is known about how kings and kingdoms were divided, or passed from one to the other, why is there a section called "Kings and kingdoms?" Again, nothing of substance is being said here.

The examples above are just a few; other paragraphs in the article contain similar problems in abundance.

2a & b. Factual accuracy / verifiability: there are some mismatches between statements and the sources cited in support of those statements. For example, the Woolf Conversions does not demonstrate that the kingdom of Fortriu was "centered around Moray." Adomnán's "Life of Columba" is not a text that presents academic evidence, though the text of the article cites that source regarding evidence of "a Pictish kingdom...existed in Orkney." (And again, what does it mean to be a Pictish kingdom far from the Pictish homeland, if the Picts didn't call themselves Picts and their distinctions from their neighbors are unclear?)

"the evidence of place names suggests a wide area of Ionan influence in Pictland"
-- the source cited here contains the place names which the author takes to be evidence, but does not lay out an argument of that kind. The author uses etymology and place-name to "suggest" or "speculate" on a number of issues, but does not represent any authority on geographic linguistics or ancient languages in order to show that speculation is warranted from any expert perspective.

The Talk page for this article shows numerous concerns about verifiability voiced by other readers. Some of these concerns may be resolved, but for now the article leaves many readers feeling less than confident.

2c. The article seems to contain original research.

Statements like "Although the popular impression of the Picts may be one of an obscure, mysterious people, this is far from being the case" (INTRODUCTION) are left un-cited, so there is a strong impression of didactism stemming from the author's opinion.

"the evidence of place names suggests a wide area of Ionan influence in Pictland"
-- the source cited here contains the place names which the author takes to be evidence, but does not lay out an argument of that kind. The author uses etymology and place-name to "suggest" or "speculate" on a number of issues, but does not represent any authority on geographic linguistics or ancient languages in order to show that speculation is warranted from any expert perspective.

In the secton RELIGION: "The importance of monastic centres in Pictland was not, perhaps, as great as in Ireland." "The cult of Saints was, as throughout Christian lands, of great importance in later Pictland." The author cites sources that offer speculation and detail about religion, but none of them offers the comparative views of "importance" that this article ventures.

The section on ART has very few citations; the citations in LANGUAGE are disputed handily on the talk page.

Efraimkeller (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Re. Fortriu in Morayshire, the Woolf article cited (Dun Nechtain, Fortriu and the Geography of the Picts Scottish Historical Review 2006 85(2):182-201) deals with this in great depth. This appears to have been accepted by others in the field (see for example Fraser, Caledonia to Pictland p50). Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment 2 Re the introduction... this section should conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. It should summarize material from the main body of text and referencing should thus be unnecessary. The association between place names and Pictish stones is geographical... this should perhaps be clarified. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment 3 Re the Language section: This section summarizes current academic consensus fairly accurately. There have been several competing hypotheses regarding the Pictish language:

1. It was a Germanic language and the ancestor of the Scots language.

2. It was a Q-Celtic language related to Gaelic.

3. It was a P-Celtic language related to Welsh, Gaulish, Cumbric and the Brythonic British Language.

4. It was a pre-Indoeuropean language.

Of these, "1" has only ever been a fringe theory and was rejected by the 19th century. "2" was the favoured hypothesis of William Forbes Skene. This was popular for a while as it discounted an Irish origin for Scottish Gaelic, but has been limited to a minority view since the late 19th century. "3" was first suggested in the 16th century and while it competed with "2" to some extent during the 19th century, it has been the leading Celtic hypothesis since the early 20th century. The evidence for "4" has been a series of inscriptions in Ogham script that are found on certain pictish artifacts, mostly the symbol stones. These have long been dismissed as unintelligible. However, more recent work has interpreted several of them as Q and P-Celtic. This is covered in Katherine Forsyth's Language in Pictland. Today, virtually all historians in the field regard the pre-Indoeuropean language hypothesis to be untenable. The current view is that it was a P-Celtic language that was partially gaelicized through contact with Dalraidan Scots. Some tidying of the text may be in order, but there is no original research here, nor can the sources presented in this section be regarded as unreliable. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment 4. The charge that Simon Taylor's 35 page Seventh-century Iona abbots in Scottish place-names (in Broun & Clancy (eds.), Spes Scotorum: Hope of Scots. Saint Columba, Iona and the Scotland. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1999.) "does not represent any authority on geographic linguistics or ancient languages in order to show that speculation is warranted from any expert perspective." seems, well, more than a little odd. Are you suggesting we reject information that is reliably sourced and which represents current, mainstream academic consensus as "original research" because you don't like the way the source was written? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment 5 With regard to GA criterion 1a, an article has to be "well-written" in a clear and concise form as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Passive voice is considered acceptable. The standards of prose being demanded by Efraimkeller are considerably higher than those routinely asked for at GA. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have not had time to give this a proper look, but my initial impression that the shortcomings of the article are somewhat exaggerated and that even if the original GA was achieved in an era prior to our current obsession with in-line citations it should not take much effort to sort it out. For example " the popular impression of the Picts may be one of an obscure, mysterious people" is indeed uncited but as the subject is addressed on page 1 of Tim Clarkson's 2008 The Picts: A History we might reasonably assume it's not a very controversial statement. The talk page does show "numerous concerns about verifiability" but no few of them seem to be about fringe theories regarding the language, which seems to be less controversial in academic circles. I am far from being an expert but I will give it a further look when I can. Ben MacDui 19:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

From EfraimKeller:, I'm new to wikipedia, so I accept the possibility that I'm applying the wrong standard. But this article struck me as a hack job; highly evasive and fanciful. I urge a deeper look at this. To convey my problems with the article more succinctly, I will just say that the article is slick, wordy, and presents the idea that something might be known, more than it presents any knowledge. It seems to have been written by someone with fantasies of ancient peoples, and a desire to cobble together vague research in order to present a picture isn't actually supported. The worst examples of this is the constant obsession with nomenclature for obscure categories of Celtic peoples, that, by the author's own admission, are mixtures of fiction and vagueness.

Comment 4. Catfish Jim asked: "Are you suggesting we reject information that is reliably sourced and which represents current, mainstream academic consensus as "original research" because you don't like the way the source was written?" NO. I'm suggesting that citations can not support a claim unless the cited source reports authoritative research on a claim. For example, if you argue that baboon populations diverged into two subspecies due to an ecological niche, you need a source which *presents* research on that topic, not just a source that *mentions* research on that topic.

Comment 5. My comment about passive voice was not merely a complaint about passive voice, but specifically, the *use* of passive voice "to gloss over the lack of a clear source."

Sorry if I'm wasting anyone's time... Efraimkeller (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Not at all mate, your right to comment is just as good as anyone else's. Try to remember to sign your posts using four tildes(~). Jezhotwells (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Have the original nominator, reviewer and primary contributors been notified? Jezhotwells (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why they are called Celtic people in opening article !

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/459553/Pict They are pre-Celtic people in Britannica and stick to that . Edelward (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not what the EB article says. It says they may have been descended from pre-Celtic people. "Celtic" is a cultural/linguistic term... the Celts were people who spoke Celtic languages. The Picts spoke celtic languages ergo they were Celtic. Their ancestors may not have been.

It is generally accepted that Pictish was a P-Celtic language and the later Pictish Kingdoms would have been Gaelic speaking. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It is only accepted by Scottish nationalists . According to Beda Pictish was not similar to Brittonic ! Older period Scottish writters like R. Burns attest the Scottish memories about the extreme hatred of Pict to Scotts and the genoside of Picts by Scotts .The Celtification of Picts is a very modern propaganda trick . Picts were people,originated from North Africa .Their conquest by Celts or the few loaned words borrowed trough trade does not make them Celtic . Before Romans met Picts they had met hundred tribes in Britain having tattoes that is why Romans have no reason to call Picts as the 'tattoed ones' . The name Pict meant -coloured ones- attesting Picts Northern African descend . Edelward (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

That is exactly the level of argument man does not need to care about, but to emphasize ,how low cultural arguments of Scottish nationalsts are how subjective and far from any attempt to search for truth they are . The encyclopedia Brittanica does not call Picts for Scotts and they possibly could not be having Matriarchy and being far older in Britain then occupant Celts . But such people given the right edit the article to their nationalistic vision content . This is time for appeal to kick them out of editing Edelward (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There is universal academic consensus that the Picts were a celtic people. This has nothing whatsoever to do with nationalism (personally I am not a nationalist) and it predates Burns by several centuries (I'm unaware of what Burns has to say on the matter, but he was a poet, not a historian). North Africa? Are you joking?Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the Picts are not a Celtic people. They were a pre-Indo-European native people. Along the lines of the Basque. This "cultural/linguistic group" is PC crap to erase any historic and genetic grouping of people based on ethnicity. Yes, yes, people merged and new people were assimilated, but in the end one dominate ethnic group originated the culture and language and continued to be the main historical genesis and core of the ethnic group. The Picts did not come to Scotland with the Indo-European Celts; just because the Picts later incorporated Celtic culture is irrelevant to who they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.11.77 (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I concur that they are not a Celtic people. In fact their is no such thing as a Celtic race - that's a nationalistic notion from the 19th century based on romanticism, ignorance, and little fact. There is however Celtic culture and that is what spread across Europe, and as it was superior to many indigenous cultures, it quickly superseded them being adopted by various different ethnic groups... just as many different ethnic groups today speak English but aren't of the English "race". Mabuska ^(talk) 22:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

To describe a group of people as a "Celtic people" (as I understand it) implies only that they were ethnolinguistically Celtic. But it does seem that it is causing some consternation with people. We currently have:

The Picts were a tribal confederation of Celtic peoples during the Late Iron Age and Early Medieval periods living in ancient eastern and northern Scotland.

Would the following be preferable?

The Picts were a tribal confederation of peoples who lived in eastern and northern Scotland during the Late Iron Age and Early Medieval periods. They are thought to have been ethnolinguistically Celtic.

The current over-riding academic view is that the Pictish language was Celtic in nature. There is some disagreement with this, but this is discussed in Pictish Language Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy enough with this, but there's really no difference. Celts begins:

"The Celts (/ˈkɛlts/, occasionally /ˈsɛlts/, see pronunciation of Celtic) were an ethnolinguistic group of tribal societies in Iron Age and Medieval Europe who spoke Celtic languages and had a similar culture,[1] although the relationship between the ethnic, linguistic and cultural elements remains uncertain and controversial.[2] The exact geographic spread of the ancient Celts is also disputed; in particular, whether the Iron Age inhabitants of Britain and Ireland should be regarded as Celts has become a subject of controversy."

There's really no much difference between the proto-Picts and those in modern England in this respect. To say (from above) "The Picts did not come to Scotland with the Indo-European Celts..." suggests a 19th-century view of the matter. Plenty of scholars (especially in/of Ireland) suspect the whole British Isles were speaking Celtic languages from say 2,000 BC, and also that there was no massive ethnic change between then and the Anglo-Saxons. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've implemented that change and also swapped "Brythonic" with "Brittonic" in line with other articles. It's also worth noting that Picts and Pictish language has been brought up on User talk:Jimbo Wales#Pictish_language: classification, the contention being that the articles do not accurately portray the current academic position (as a result of POV pushing on my part). Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Destruction of the Picts

Just saw a BBC documentary where the are historians claim Norwegians destroyed the picts via genocide. Perhaps it deserves a mention? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkqPEeHxA5I

80.213.85.19 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't sound terribly plausible at all. TheXand (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that there's something to be said for the idea that the Picts were culturally "destroyed" by a combination of the Norwegians from the northeast and the Dalradian Scots from the southwest but genocide? No. We'd need some strong sources for that claim. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a while since I saw Blood of the Vikings, but isn't the claim only made as regards Orkney & Shetland? Perhaps someone has Julian's book that accompanied the series ... Even then, the claim would really have to be phrased that they appear to have exterminated "the natives". As I recall, the only certain connection between Picts and the Northern Isles is that Bruide mac Bili "destroyed" Orkney. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This may be true - if you exclude archaeological evidence. The first chapter of William Thomson's (2008) The New History of Orkney is called "Pictish Orkney". Ben MacDui 09:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah! So what does Mr Thomson say about the genocide? Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

For this we must delve into chapter 3 "Place names and the Pictish-Norse Transition". I will scour its contents asap. In the meantime there are a few comments at Shetland#Prehistory that may be of interest. Ben MacDui 19:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Wisely, Mr T offers us insight into the varying views, and especially the contrast between the "Peace" and "War" theories of Norse colonisation and how they have gone in and out of fashion. He notes that the latter has recently been "restated in appropriately belligerent fashion by Ian Crawford, who was dismissive of the archaeological evidence from Buckquoy" and that "Brian Smith has argued the case for believing that the Norse settlers exterminated or expelled their Pictish predecessors". He draws attention to the savagery of the attacks on the Hebrides and considers it unlikely that Orkney fared differently, but also that genetic evidence places Orkney half-way between the Celtic and Norse worlds and that there is evidence of ongoing Christian life there after Norse colonisation. He concludes by saying "overwhelming Norse naming [of places] suggests a more complete break with the Pictish past than most archaeologists have hitherto been prepared to envisage." He also quotes F. T. Wainwright's (1962) Northern Isles who describes the Picts as "overwhelmed, politically, linguistically, culturally and socially" but Thomson goes on to note that this statement should not "disguise our ignorance of what actually happened" and might mean "widespread slaughter" or "an altogether more peaceful process". In short, we don't know. Ben MacDui 20:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as the genetic evidence goes, Goodacre et al (2005, Heredity 95: 129) is probably the best source, which shows that Orkney and Shetland had Scandinavian family settlement (equal contribution from males and females, i.e. Y chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA, respectively) such that Orkney is 30% Scandinavian and 70% British while Shetland is 45% Scandinavian, 55% British. This is markedly different from the case in the Hebrides where there is unequal contributions from males and females (males = 22.5% Scandinavian, 77.5% British; females = 11% Scandinavian, 89% British), i.e. lone Scandinavian males settling and taking British female partners. I would tend to view the evidence from Orkney and Shetland as more consistent with settlement of an under-occupied land, rather than a hostile invasion. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the Shetland article. However, for a modern parallel, it is fairly clear that the absence of non-European placenames in Tasmania is a result of the fate of the Aboriginal Tasmanians. Ben MacDui 12:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

A revert I made a few weeks ago

I was just going through some of my reverts and came across this and thought I should leave a comment on the talk page. I made this revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Picts&diff=next&oldid=547741100 I'm not knowledgeable on this topic so it might be a good faith edit ... but to me seemed better fitted to the talk page than in the article. (I should have mentioned this in the edit summary but somehow didn't) Kap 7 (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Good faith edit I'm sure, but this is covered with sources in the history-section just below, so removing it was correct. Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :) Kap 7 (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove unsupported matrilineal claim

On 16Sep2012, the anonymous user 83.104.51.74 (User talk:83.104.51.74) added a sentence at the end of the Society section of this Picts article, claiming that the Picts may have inherited land and property matrilineally, while his (or her) source reference did not support this claim. His edit summary was "Add a few words on matrilineality". So, his few words were his own unsupported addition. I liked his source ref, The Female Royal Line: matrilineal succession amongst the Picts?, which does support and discuss the possibility that the Picts' kingship was sometimes inherited matrilineally, and have added it to the Bede source reference in the previous section Kings and kingdoms, where it really belongs. I would be very happy if Wikipedia editors/users could find acceptable evidence supporting the above unsupported claim. Keep trying to help our WP readers, For7thGen (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

To quote James Fraser (Caledonia to Pictland, at page 53) "The well known matrilineal thesis was based on a naive over-reliance on Gaelic vernacular origin tales and the extant Pictish king-list, products of the first half of the ninth century (and later)." Fraser goes on to note that Bede does not say that the Picts practised matrilineal succession (or rather, he says it was used only when the issue was in doubt, as was also arguably the case in Northumbria and Francia). It's worth noting that by present reckoning there are only the two historic Pictish kings who are called X son of <mother> rather than X son of <father>, and that those two are precisely the kings to whom Bede refers when he says it was "observed among the Picts to this day". If we were writing this thirty years ago there would be a solid case for including matriliny. Today, not really. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

... the Picts had matriarchy alone with Iberians ,which prooves they were no Indo-Europeans and as such no Celtic at all . Edelward (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Archives

The talk page here was getting overly-long and difficult to navigate. Archiving was long-overdue. I've set up an archive at Talk:Picts/Archive 1. Most of the material removed there is getting on for 3+ years old. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Which is a nationalist take, I have posted against Scottification of Picts in January 2014 Edelward (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You deleted objective contents because you want to obstruct the objective historic knowledge . If you are an objective person you should have left the editing of this article now-due to your corruptioning the files of historic , objective science and deleting the posts of people ,whose historic opinions you don't wish to hear ,since they contradict yours . 37.110.12.198 (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)37.110.12.198 (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2014 Edelward (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, first I am not a nationalist. Second, nothing has been deleted, everything is still extant at Talk:Picts/Archive 1. If there is a specific discussion you want brought back, just ask. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

sorry , I have taken it away Edelward (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Gnaeus Julius Agricola

https://archive.org/stream/leabharnangleann00hend#page/n11/mode/2up

The Roman governor of Britain Gnaeus Julius Agricola has directly spoken of the Picts as of no Celtic Britons .

In his classification of people he called Caledonii(people of Northern Britain or the Picts ) as Germanicum - Germanics. While this notion strikes as worthless nowdays it still prooves that eye-witnesses have perceived the Picts as strictly non-Celtic . In fact the governor of Britain strongly insisted on Picts being non-Celts Edelward (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2014 The difference of Picts from Celts was also solidified by such known scientist as Ptolemy ,who gives names of independent Caledonian people distinct from British Celts .then the Gaulish panegeryst Eumenius spred the name Picti for all Caledonians to use by Latin writers . The cannibal savagery of some of tribes also can't possibly be related to Celts Edelward (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2014 Edelward (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Did the Picts just come into existence in 100 BC? or were they around before 100BC?

I added an amendment to the article based on the article written at http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsBritain/GaelsPictland.htm this site sources use's over 90 book's on British History for it's a written articles here http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/MainSources.htm. are we saying then they are wrong in pre-dating the Picts before 100 BC like they never existed? for a revision by User:Catfish_Jim_and_the_soapdish who after prompted quoted 1 book. If we look at history of the British Isles prior to Roman Colonisation. Celts and their langauge have been resident in Britain from at least 1000 BC if we believe this article by Alistair McConnachie http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/articles/immig.html#2 to quote "THE CELTS" These were the related tribes of the BRITONS, SCOTS/GAELS and PICTS. Celtic languages evolved during the Later Bronze Age, around 1000 BC. Where did they come from? There is little to suggest major population movement occurred during the Iron Age, 700 BC-43 AD. The Celts descended in large part from Britain's own Neolithic people". Dating them from at least 600 BC was not unreasonable there is ample evidence that Goidelic speaking tribes were in Britain from at least 900 BC if not earlier dating the Picts from 100 BC is equally ridiculous. --Navops47 (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Dispute added to article till we get consensus--Navops47 (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Navops, pleased to meet you. Nice to see another person getting interested in Pictish history. The people we call the Picts were descendants of pre-existing groups who we refer to as the Caledonians, and the commonly accepted division between them (fuzzy as it is) is around the mid-late third century AD. The books I refered to were: Fraser, James E (2009). From Caledonia to Pictland: Scotland to 795. The New Edinburgh History of Scotland. Vol. 1. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 9780748612321. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) and Woolf, Alex (2007), From Pictland to Alba, 789–1070, The New Edinburgh History of Scotland, vol. 2, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, ISBN 0-7486-1234-3, which are the two most current textbooks on Pictish history. If you are interested in the Picts, you would be doing yourself a favour by giving them a read. Volume 1, by Fraser, goes into the early development of the Pictish people in some depth. Smyth's Warlords and Holy Men is also good, but a little out-dated. As an aside, the early Picts are thought to have been Brythonic/Brittonic rather than Goidelic. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim nice to meet you too Peter Salway was used as a source for article at the history files site he suggests that the Caledonians were made up of indigenous Pictish tribes, I read into that (been there a long time) he was drawing on the Pictish Chronicle are they not the same people ruled by Kings of Pictland (Caledonia)? the kings lists go back beyond 100 BC late British iron age,accept that some of the reign periods are suspect but Pytheas encountered the original inhabitants of Britain in the 4th century BC dating them from the late Iron Age doesn't seem right either?--Navops47 (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The Pictish Chronicle/King List is a late document (~tenth century) and the earliest parts of it are considered mythical. I wouldn't pay too much attention to them. Salway is an excellent historian, but he was not a specialist on Pictish history and he appears to have confused his terms here (I believe he is quoted from the Oxford History of England, I would have to check it). The people Pytheas encountered (if he directly encountered them) would not be what are normally called "Picts". Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I located a copy of the book in question and, unsurprisingly, he doesn't actually say that at all. That came from an edit made by user:Adamsan in August 2005 [5]:

Peter Salway considers them to have consisted of Highland clans augmented by fugitive resistance fighters fleeing from further south. The Caledonii tribe, after which the confederacy is named may have been joined in the confederacy by tribes in northern central Scotland by this time, such as the Vacomagi, Taexali and Venicones. The confederacy would have excluded the broch building peoples of the far north of Scotland who appear to have been in conflict with the Caledonians and were probably more sympathetic to Rome.

This was edited by user:Mais oui! in December 2005 [6]

Peter Salway considers the Caledonians to have consisted of indigenous Pictish tribes augmented by fugitive Brythonic resistance fighters fleeing from Britannia. The Caledonii tribe, after which the confederacy is named may have been joined in the confederacy by tribes in northern central Scotland by this time, such as the Vacomagi, Taexali and Venicones.

In fact, the only time Salway mentions Picts is as thus:

The course of the campaign is unknown. The literary sources claim penetration to the north of Scotland, and a victory over the 'Picts', the first time that the northern enemy of Rome are called thus. This included the Caledonii and others, and therefore seems to have been a generic name that embraced the HIghland tribes beyond the Forth Clyde isthmus, perhaps additional groups as well.

Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I looked a little further into this. Your edit rendered the opening paragraph as follows:

The Picts were a tribal confederation of Celtic peoples from the Early Iron Age to the Early Medieval periods (c.600 BC-850 AD) living in ancient eastern and northern Scotland..

Salway is not the author of that webpage, nor does the actual author state anything about the Caledonians being Picts, other than presenting the Pictish King List. Moreover, the webpage would not satisfy the requirements for sourcing on WP, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

To add my two cents: the historfiles webpage cannot be considered a WP:RS. Given that Salway doesn't seem to say very much at all about the Picts in general, it is much better to rely on more recent sources such as Fraser and Woolf. My view would be that these support the status quo ante, but I am never against outlining different perspectives in a situation like this, is they are from reputable scholars.--SabreBD (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Nobody knows anything much about the early period and the term is somewhat vague anyway. I'm not very happy about us just saying flatly they were "Celtic peoples" either - the term is extremely slippery, and a considerable degree of not being "Celtic", with whatever meaning has been given that term, can't be ruled out. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Gentleman nobody has answered the questions in the title heading I simply do not believe that they just appeared in a neat time slot of 100 years at the end of the late iron age. Also if you dismiss the Pictish chronicle the early part of king list as mythical that has repercussions on all relevant articles either these tribal states were named after real people or they were fictitious you can't have it both ways in which case there should be a notes on all affected articles stating the origins of this kingdom or name of this person are considered mythical.--Navops47 (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Example this article Pictish Chronicle the opening sentence says. The Pictish Chronicle is a name often given by historians to a list of the kings of the Picts beginning many thousand years before history was recorded in Pictavia (which links to Picts article) and ending after Pictavia had been enveloped by Scotland contradicts this sentence. The Picts were a tribal confederation of Celtic peoples during the Late Iron Age and Early Medieval periods living in ancient eastern and northern Scotland.--Navops47 (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact is we have to abide by the version presented by current scholarly sources. These are defined in WP:RS. We are not permitted as Wikipedia editors to synthesise our own interpretations of primary sources... read WP:OR. This is Wikipedia policy and there are very good reasons for it.

If there was a current academic controversy between scholars of Pictish History as to whether "Pictishness" could be extended back several hundred years into antiquity then, of course, we should reflect this. However there is no such controversy. With regards to the Pictish king-list, nobody regards it as an accurate depiction of Pictish Royal succession. Fraser says it is very far indeed from an accurate record of kings succeeding to a single Pictish monarchic kingdom... Woolf calls it a peculiar document:

One can only suppose, as Dauvit Broun has argued for the description of the Pictish provinces, that its function is to affirm the enduring unity of the territory of the kingdom. A king-list requires that a kingdom has existed over several generations or ensures that that is how it will appear. In this light, if Anderson and others are correct in suggesting that the list was originally compiled in or near 724, the perceived unity of the kingdom may be of relatively recent date.

The Picts as a people did not appear suddenly. The term was initially a derogatory nickname, a label imposed by the Romans to distinguish between "barbaric" and "civilised" Northern Britons (the first evidence for which was late third century AD). The people that we now call Picts gradually adopted it as a term of self identification. As Fraser says:

Neither in late Antiquity, then, nor in the Early Historic period, is there convincing evidence to suggest that Pictishness meant anything to the peoples of inner Caledonia before the end of the Roman Iron Age.

Moreover, Fraser warns us against the temptation to view the Picts as a single political or ethnic group, certainly not before 700 AD. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Reading material

Here's what seems to be the first chapter of Benjamin Hudson's newish (2014) book on the Picts [7]. I found it on the publisher's website so it should be okay to post here.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

See below on the scathing review of this book.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

"Pictish Tribes" removed

I have removed the list of "Pictish" tribes from this article. These are the names of peoples taken from Ptolomy's map which dates 150 years prior to the earliest record of the Picts. There may well have been some overlap between these people and the Picts but I don't recall any modern scholars referring to them as tribes of picts. Predecessors of the picts, maybe, but the article already covers that. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Multiple, conflicting origins of the Picts

Not all historians and anthropologists agree on the exact origins of the Picts in the Highlands of Scotland, here's a list of theories regarding the Picts' origins.

• Celtic, either Brythonic like the Welsh or Goidelic like the present-day Scots.
• Germanic, either Lower or North Germans like Dutch or Scandinavian like Norwegians.
• Goths, theoretically linked to Scythians of Eastern Europe, thus of Slavic or Iranian origin.
• Non-Indo European, namely Iberians like Basques of Spain or Uralic-Finnic peoples like Finns.
• Other non-Indo European, theories connecting them with the mythological Fomorians from Morocco, North Africa.
• Descendants of non Indo-European Georgians or Indo-European Hurrians or Armenians.
• Myths about their origins from Copts of Egypt and biblical Hebrews from Palestine.
• Selkies, a mythological people in folklore predate Celts and Anglo-Saxons may had existed after all.
• and finally, possible Indo-European relatives like the Baltic peoples and Albanians from the Balkans.

I hope this can bring forth debate in the talk page to see if they are credible to the subject of the article on Picts. 2605:E000:FDCA:4200:D962:2182:F3EB:EEB3 (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Selkies? Shape shifting seals?

Really, most of these "theories" are fringe at best or long discounted. The Picts had celtic names (Brythonic to begin with, Gaelic later) and gave Celtic names to their towns. They were Celtic. The notion that there was a Celtic elite and a non-indoeuropean population has all but been shelved... the supposed evidence for non indoeuropean is flimsy at best. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, although of course "being Celtic" is a wobbly concept everywhere, which by no means excludes elements of some of the above. I don't think any evidence from DNA has done much to shed light on the matter so far. The "origins" of the Picts are highly likely to be in Scotland. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Their ultimate origins would have been similar to other Brittonic celtic groups pre-Romanisation. They are likely to have emerged from Iron Age celtic speaking groups (in this case those that we call Caledonians - the distinction is admittedly hazy) that replaced/displaced Bronze Age pre-Indo European speaking groups. As always it's likely that there was some interbreeding between the two groups (pre-IE and Celtic) and that it was a cultural replacement rather than a population replacement. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Whoever said they were Selkies (they weren't seals, just an ancient tribe inspired legends of being shape-shifting seals) or connected to Meso-Americans (did they went to the East coast of North America) or the Indo-Aryans mentioned by Nazi racial dogma (oddly, the Celtic Irish were called "Eireanne", close to the term Aryan) hasn't dig deep enough to learn the Picts were a combination of pre-Indo-Europeans and Indo-Europeans native to Britain and western Europe. 12.218.47.124 (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

MesoAmerican connection?

The Romans say the Picts "painted themselves". The art the Picts left behind bears a remarkable resemblance to MesoAmerican art. They seem to have simply disappeared from Scotland. Maybe it's time to investigate whether they had any relation to the Mayans and other American peoples. 131.203.122.225 (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it really isn't. DNA analysis on Pictish remains (which all have caucasian features) shows that they were most closely related to (unsurprisingly) the present day Scots. They didn't disappear... they are still there. The Pictish ethnicity was merely suppressed/lost. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, despite that appearing in a reputable national newspaper, I'm not sure if Pictish DNA has been successfully extracted and analysed yet... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Appearance? Geography?

I have it on good authority the Picts inhabited the Beritisjh isles before the Celts. And that they were a short, dark people. They threw sacrifices into bogs--hence the name "Boogey Man" from Bog Man.

At least the appearance of the Picts should be mentioned here.65.129.252.22 (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

"Good authority," eh? Well, by God, that's good enough for me! Edit that article!! 104.169.44.141 (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

Picts

Total population
unknown
Languages
Pictish (early Pictish period) Old Irish/Gaelic (later)
Religion
Celtic polytheism Christian

A request has been made for an infobox for Picts... do we need such a thing? What information would it hold? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I've knocked one up... I'm not sure it's that informative. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for knocking that up. I'm not sure I'd support adding it to the article though. It seems to me it would just add unnecessary clutter. The article is already cluttered by having two images at the top, which have to be scrolled past when viewed on a mobile phone before the reader gets to the lead text. When the template requesting an infobox was added, I initially reverted it as unhelpful because I couldn't see any discussion here on the talk page or in its archive explaining what was meant by "so that the article resembles the standard display for this subject" or "the standardized infobox for this type of article". The editor who added the template merely added it again, rather than entering into discussion as would have been polite and advised by WP:BRD. --Deskford (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think it would add much to the article. I was intrigued by the claim that all cultures have an infobox, so looked at the articles for similar peoples... None of them use an infobox similar to the one on the right. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 07:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Seven days have passed, and neither the editor who added the template nor anyone else has come forward to explain what kind of infobox might be desirable and why. How long do we wait before concluding that there is no consensus to add an infobox and removing the template? --Deskford (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Just do it.Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the template and adding the hidden note on the page. --Deskford (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Silver plaque image unsharp

I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but the image of the plaque from the Norrie's Law hoard is unsharp, and thus unfit for encyclopædic use. A sharp image should be obtained. No, sharpening the current image just won't do. Take it from a photo professional (me). I hereby bid this quest to any noble person willing to go forth into the unknown, and bring back a sharp image of the plaque! I wish Thee good fortune on Thy journey! --Kebman (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm deeply insulted.

No, not really... go to the National Museum of Scotland and take a better one... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bugger for an amateur to photo, and that is the the best of about 20 attempts. But it does show the decorative form pretty clearly, which is the main thing. Obviously what we need is a smartarse pro with good kit and a steady hand (no tripods allowed, remember). Best of luck. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Pretani

The page Pretani redirects to this page, yet there is not one mention of the term or how it relates to the Picts or the aboriginal peoples of the British Isles. Cruthin, a variant translation, is mentioned.

It is also misleading or unclear: Ptolemy identified the peoples of the whole of the British Isles as Pretani. This article only identifies those from the north and east of Scotland as Picts. The article redirect of Pretani suggests that the Picts are the Pretani which is, as I understand, correct. Again, the Pretani (or Picts) are identified by Ptolemy as the people of all of the British Isles, with tribal names also given for geographical groups. --75.177.79.101 (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Pretani is not equivalent to Picts. Pretani, as I understand it, loosely translates to celtic Briton. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Changed redirect to Celtic Britons, which seems the best fit. It used to go to Cruthin, which was probably even worse. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it, the best academic guess for the meaning of both Pretani and Pict is "painted people" or something like "people of the patterns". Pict was the name given by the Romans later, after population and cultural upheaval, thanks largely to the Romans themselves). Cruthin (Qretani) is the name in Irish Gaelic, Pretani is the equivalent in 'P-Celtic', as is the more recent Prydein (now Prydain).

I'm not sure that the Pretani were always "Celtic" Britons. These people may have had a history and culture (and language) all their own before the expansion of the Celtic cultures into the islands.

Certainly though, a redirect to Cruthin would be a better fit, in contrast to what you have said, Johnbod. Cruthin is a direct translation of the word Pretani.

I am putting the clarification tag back for two reasons: 1. It is obviously not clear, if there are all these questions to be answered and 2. I want to stimulate discussion here. --75.177.79.101 (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it again. There is no clarification required for where the Picts lived. It's established and uncontroversial and tagging the article is inappropriate. Pretani does not mean painted people and isn't equivalent to Pict, although the Picts would have been a subset of the Pretani... it simply means inhabitant of Britain. The Irish did indeed refer to the Picts specifically as Cruithni, as the Saxons had displaced the southern Britons, at least culturally. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I will not be re-inserting the clarity tag, as I'm hoping discussion has already been stimulated enough.

I think there might need to be clarity with regard to where they lived in terms of their presence throughout the island(s) before the arrival of the Romans.

There seems to be some difference of opinion with regard to what the word Pretani means. You, on the one hand, assert that it does not mean "painted people". People such as Barry Cunliffe have suggested that "it probably means" painted people. The BBC and various publications also seem to hold that view.

Of course, Pretani and Britones are not the same.

Many people, including Professor of History [Dáibhí Ó Cróinín]] seem to think that the Picts and the Pretani are the same peoples. Pict is merely the Latin translation of Pretani, appearing only as late as 297 AD or so?

I'm curious as to your suggestion about the Picts being a subset of the Pretani. --75.177.79.101 (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

We would do well to remember that Ptolemy died in 170 AD, several centuries before either of the terms Picts or Cruthin are found. Julius Caesar recorded that the southern Britons "painted" themselves, but of course never went near either north Scotland or Ireland. I don't believe precise co-relations between the "Pretani" and groups only recorded much later can be justified on the limited evidence we have. Johnbod (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Ptolemy died, but the peoples did not. Ptolemy died just over 100 years before the first recorded mention of the word Pict. The word Pict is merely the Roman name for the people - their translation of the word.

So, if the word Pict is just a translation of the word for the inhabitants of the isles, then it follows that the people are the same.

There are, of course, different opinions in the professional literature. I do think, though, that we should consider putting this into the lede. Certainly it seems that early Irish writers at least used the word Cruthin (Qretani = Pretani) to refer to peoples of north-eastern Ireland as well as people in Scotland. --75.177.79.101 (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Warning about potential source

The latest edition of the Scottish Historical Review has an absolutely scathing review of The Picts, By Benjamin Hudson. Pp. xii, 266.ISBN: 9781118602027. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2014 I have never seen a review tear to shreds a book in this way. The book is stated as being out of date and containing many errors. It closes with the words " This raises serious questions regarding the editorial procedures followed and concern must be expressed regarding the impact of the work on potential readers." It starts with "This work gives the impression of one that was largely written in the midnineties, before the critical revolution in medieval Scottish studies, and it, therefore, reflects dated thinking on the sources and ignores many of the ground-breaking studies of the past twenty years or so"

Since the review is published in a respected specialist academic journal, I think this should be a severe warning about using this work as a source. You can find it in The Scottish Historical Review, Volume XCVII, 1: No. 244: April 2018, 119–127.

I have deleted Benjamin Hudson's work from the "further reading" section of this article.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, reviewed by Guto Rhys - presumably one of the "ground-breaking studies of the past twenty years or so" that is ignored is Rhys's 2015 doctoral thesis, which is handily online - nice to see he gets his pictures from Commons. A second opinion would be useful. Hudson has certainly been around longer, and indeed I note he is on the International Advisory Board—Scottish Historical Review - there'll be awkward moments at the next conference cocktail party. Actually the passage quoted comes at the start of the review, the free preview shows. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

His thesis is a good read if you have the time. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if Scottish Historical Review allowed a "wide of the mark" review to slip through their editorial committee - especially if it is critical of a member of one of their advisory boards. (I have generally found their other book reviews to be quite reliable.) The demolition of Hudson's work in the review has some precise detail - I can't see that anyone would get away with getting these wrong - the reviewer even lists page numbers of the errors, so an editorial board could easily check what is said.

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but if you are putting forward an alternative view to my suggestion that Hudson's book should not be relied upon as a source for the article, then I suggest you read the entire review and present more detail. (And there are two quotes from the review in the original remarks, above, one from the end and the other from the beginning of the review.)
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't have much of a view as to whether it should be in FR, but one attacking review would certainly not disqualify it as a WP:RS. I could read the first page which quickly got into pointing out mis-spellings and so forth, but not that much meat, which one would expect to come first. Many of the points related to linguistic issues - Rhys's field but not Hudson's, and for us central to Pictish language rather than this article. As I said above "A second opinion would be useful" - the book was published in 2014, though in a popular/general market rather than an academic series, so there should be some more reviews by academics, though I couldn't see any. We are already using the two more recent works Rhys mentions, Woolf 2007 and Carver, which is good to see, but many of our other references are indeed "largely written in the midnineties, before the critical revolution in medieval Scottish studies", or well before that, so using Hudson might often represent an updating, even if Rhys's points are fully accepted. You don't mention his more favourable view at the end of the first para. I wanted to raise doubts about your anathema, yes. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The book is treated sequentially; for a taste of the “meat” and what Rhys considers current, “Chapter six on Art should have been based on George and Isabel Henderson's The Art of the Picts […] instead of this we are presented with a jumble of out-of-date discussions. Chapter seven […] the notion of a ‘union of the Picts and Scots’ under ‘Kenneth mac Alpin’ has long been abandoned […].”—Odysseus1479 22:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I think its fine to remove it as it hasn't been used as a reference... only placed in the further reading. I've only read the first page of the review as I'm too lazy to log on to my work account, but Rhys makes valid points. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, my view then, is that the warning is here that this may be an unsuitable source, so any editor should consider carefully whether or not to use Hudson's work as an WP:RS. Johnbod's comments highlight a common problem with Wikipedia - that many cited sources are quite old and may be superseded by later work which has cost and/or convenience issues for accessing - it is always tempting to rely upon something you can find on google books or some similar free site, but it is there because there is no more money to milk out of the original copyright.

Regarding a second opinion - I would hope that any serious editor on this page would be able to spot some of the problems with the book for themselves - I note that the review complains that Hudson's map "places ‘Fortriu’ in southern Pictland whereas in 2006 Woolf convincingly relocated this to the Moray region". So Hudson is at clear variance with this article as it stands, so suggests that at least part of it is ahead of him in keeping up with the latest research. Perhaps that tells me that contributors hereon are well protected by their knowledge from the problem that I was trying to flag....
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I've added the Hendersons to FR, where they should certainly be. Perhaps art historians are more viscious, but I've seen absolutely brutal reviews of very good books approved by other reviewers.... Johnbod (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The review: https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/shr.2018.0355 (doi:10.3366/shr.2018.0355)(subscription required). —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Pictish/Pictland Synonymous With Scottish/Scotland

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So, having studied this matter quite a bit over the years, there seems to be an encroaching academic settlement on the idea that Pictland effectively was just Scotland. I understand the traditional origins of Scotland are rooted in the founding of the kingdom in 843 by Kenneth MacAlpin, initially a Dal Riatan subjugation and domination of Pictland, this later seemed to warp (based on archaeological and historical examination) into the rather odd idea that some kind of political union occurred between Pictland and Dal Riata, despite there being absolutely no evidence of such a thing either, and in fact the only evidence seeming to point repeatedly to the idea that Pictland dominated and possibly even exterminated Dal Riata (in terms of power, at least).

As seems to be the consensus today, Kenneth MacAlpin and his immediate successors were never titled as anything other than Kings of Pictland, and it is not until the reign of Constantine II, that the Gaelic term for Scotland becomes used to refer to... well to kings of Pictland, essentially. The mess of naming conventions on Wikipedia is ridiculous. There needs to be clear distinction between modern Scots/Scottish/Scotland and Dal Riatans, I see so often the term Scots used interchangeably with this kingdom and its people in articles related to this, while, rather amusingly, distinguishing the Pictish/Pictland from the modern term of Scots/Scotland despite the fact that all the evidence seems to overwhelmingly point to the consensus that THEY were the entity that would today be known today as the Kingdom of Scotland.

So let's just say, we play it safe and assume the change in nomenclature from King of Pictland to King of Scotland represents an actual new political entity as opposed to simply a language/cultural/religous/policy shift. That still puts the founding of the Kingdom of Scotland in the reign of Constantine II, some 100 or so years AFTER the traditional foundation date of 843 by Kenneth I of Scotland. Alternatively if we were to then assume the more likely case that Pictland is/was Scotland, the foundation seems to be given as 260 in the list of Pictish kings, but again to play it safe and only use historically validated kings, the foundation would be around 550, with Cennalath.

Either way, the 843 origin is... erroneous. I'm not sure what the Wikipedia consensus is, I'm sure the concept of national foundation myths are not unique to Scotland and that many other kingdoms have erroneous dates as their founding, but considering we have sort of clear evidence to cast extreme doubt on the traditionally accepted history, it feels a little silly to keep touting that as if it has any validity whatsoever. I mean even the originas of the patronage of Saint Andrew was arguably occurring in the 700s under Óengus I.

I understand Scots initially in certain languages referred to Dal Riatans, but we're not writing articles and conversing in those languages anymore, Scots/Scotland means something entirely different today in English. It's even worse that half the articles keep referring to the Kingdom of SCOTLAND as the Kingdom of ALBA, I mean once the nomenclature change has occurred there is absolutely no justifiable reason whatsoever to continue referring to the kingdom as if it is some separate entity to that of the Kingdom of Scotland.

I don't think this counts as original research or opinion, I'm merely reading the actual academic research which keeps repeatedly stressing these ideas, can we perhaps get some standard naming conventions for these people and the era to avoid the headache of trying to figure out who on Earth the article is discussing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.46.96 (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Until you cite some Reliable Sources, it is in fact absolutely Original Research .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.7.77 (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I haven't cited any reliable sources because the sources are cited already in various other Wikipedia articles (and also this very one) related to this article and the general topic. I mean you can go through them all yourself and research this, I'm not pushing for anything just attempting to open a dialogue on this where we can then present the sources and best decide what to agree upon.

All I'm asking for is consistency with naming throughout articles, as opposed to the haphazard ad hoc we have at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.46.96 (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The naming is reflective of current academic consensus, and to be honest I don't see a problem with it. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

You don't see a problem with it because you understand the meaning of all the terms when used in their various contexts. The purpose of sites like this is to educate, is it not? Seems a tad confusing to an unlearned person to stumble upon a history with several different names for the one entity as well as overlapping names used out of the context of their original languages for entities

I'm not going to disagree it is the current "academic consensus" to have this mess when it comes to naming certain historical polities certain things in English, what I'm saying is don't you think it's just a little stupid and needlessly confusing? I mean to just hone in on the Kingdom of Alba thing for Scotland prior to a certain point, this is literally akin to referring to the Kingdom of Spain as the Empire of Español up until some arbitrary moment in its history, but we don't we call it the Spanish Empire from around the time the crowns of Aragon and Castille united. Because that would the equivalent English term for the entity that was created.

It's stupid, and it's unnecessary. The articles go into in great depth the culture of Scotland during its various phases in history, there is no need to arbitrarily refer to it by its Gaelic name (or for that matter to refer to Dalriadans by their contemporary Latin name) when the Gaelic name literally means what we call Scotland in English.

Following academic consensus is one thing, but Wikipedia does not need to regurgitate academic practices verbatim, if it did then many articles would be near incomprehensible to the vast bulk of readers. What I am asking for is not the championing of original viewpoints or research, I'm merely suggesting a consistent and clear naming policy for past historical political and cultural entities of Scotland. It is not inaccurate to refer t o the Kingdom of Scotland as the Kingdom of Scotland from its traditionally accepted (even if erroneous) founding date, so why on Earth are we referring it to the Kingdom of Alba up until a certain point simply because academics use it as a form of shorthand descriptor of the kingdom's culture at this time? And why are we referring to Dalriadans as Scottish/Scots when the language we are conversing in would be inaccurate to refer to them as this as. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.46.96 (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The standard general reference for this would be the New Edinburgh History of Scotland, and before it the New History of Scotland:

• Smyth, Alfred P. (1984), "Warlords and Holy Men: Scotland AD 80 - 1000", The New History of Scotland, Edinburgh University Press
• Barrow, G.W.S. (1981), "Kingship and Unity: Scotland 1000 - 1306", The New History of Scotland, Edinburgh University Press
• Fraser, James E. (2009), "From Caledonia to Pictland: Scotland to 795", The New Edinburgh History of Scotland, Edinburgh University Press
• Woolf, Alex (2007), "Pictland to Alba 789 - 1070", The New Edinburgh History of Scotland, Edinburgh University Press
• Oram, Richard (2011), "Domination and Lordship: Scotland, 1070-1230", The New Edinburgh History of Scotland, Edinburgh University Press

Those are at an undergraduate level, which is the standard level for WP references. But the terminology is also standard at high school level works:

• Carver, Martin (2005), "Surviving in Symbols: A Visit to the Pictish Nation", The Making of Scotland, Historic Scotland
• Campbell, Ewan (1999), "Saints and Sea Kings: The First Kingdom of the Scots", The Making of Scotland, Historic Scotland
• Driscoll, Stephen (2002), "Alba: The Gaelic Kingdom of Scotland AD 800 - 1124", The Making of Scotland, Historic Scotland

I seriously think you're overstating the confusion... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Why are you posting this? I already said I'm not disagreeing it is done by academics, I'm saying there's no need for it, here at least. Well I'm glad YOU think I'm overstating the confusion, I think you're being purposefully obtuse regarding the potential for it for people who don't know much about the history of Scotland, which I would wager would be a large percentage of people reading these articles. Where does that leave us?

Can you explain to me a justification or even reason for calling the Kingdom of Scotland the Kingdom of Alba between these arbitrary dates that it generally is called such, other than "academics do it"? Do the Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia articles refer to the Kingdom of Scotland as 'Rìoghachd na Scotland' instead of 'Rìoghachd na h-Alba' after this arbitrary time period ends? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.178.222 (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I posted those to demonstrate that it is not just used at an academic level, but that it is accepted convention in undergraduate textbooks (which are the generally accepted level of sources for WP) but also at high school level. We don't have to like it or find it logical... that's just the way it is. It is not appropriate to call the political entity that was around in AD 1000 "Scotland" because it just wasn't called that. The point at which it became "Alba" is blurry, and there is a suggestion by some that Alba may have been a Pictish term, but there seems to have been a point around the reign of Donald II where the title of the king became king of Alba rather than king of the Picts... possibly something to do with distinguishing a divided kingdom ruled by Eochaid and Giric... who knows?

But anyway... you proposed extending the concept of "Scotland" to the sixth century, which is (without any intention to disrespect you) utter nonsense. Nobody thinks that. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

"It is not appropriate to call the political entity that was around in AD 1000 "Scotland" because it just wasn't called that."

In what language, by who, at what point? See this is your problem, and the problem I felt I had pretty clearly laid out, clearly I was not concise enough and for that I apologise. It wasn't called the Kingdom of Scotland, it also wasn't called Kingdom of Alba either, modern English was not spoken at this time. It certainly was never at any point in its history in any language of the time in nearby areas called the Kingdom of Alba, even in Gaelic, as I have alluded to it was called 'Rìoghachd na h-Alba', or at least is known as that in MODERN Gaelic, what is was called in the Gaelic of the time, I don't know.

It's absolutely appropriate to call it the Kingdom of Scotland from AT LEAST the point in king lists where it starts being labelled 'Alba' (as that literally means Scotland) because it was the same entity, in a political sense, as it was right up until 1707. While the culture/naming changed drastically throughout its history, the entity itself remained largely the same in various aspects. Same royal centres, coronation ceremonies such as at Scone, same royal dynasties and even similar rough geographical area.

I made a point that, as you have mentioned as well, some people are of the opinion that Alba may simply have been the word the Picts used for their own kingdom, which existed, at least in a historically valid sense, from at least 550 with Cennalath being recorded in corroborative historical sources (such as the Irish Annals). However I would not suggest actually calling Pictland Scotland in English without some kind of substantive academic consensus on the idea that Pictland to Alba was in fact merely a change in nomenclature as opposed to a change in political entity.

What I am asking for is CLEAR and CONSISTENT naming guidelines, okay? Dal Riata did not call their kingdom Scotland or themselves Scots/Scottish, so according to your own logic Dal Riata and its people should never at any point be referred to as Scots in any article unless discussing what they were at some point called in a certain language by certain people, correct? Pictland I am happy to remain calling Pictland/Pictish until some academic consensus on whether this theorized union between Pictland and Dal Riata ever actually happened or not, okay?

So we have clear naming consensus. Nobody is Scots/Scottish/Scotland until AT LEAST Alba (literally Scotland in Gaelic, again) starts appearing. Or to use your silly arbitrary academic/undergradutate consensus timeline. We have Picts and Dal Riatans, yes? Up until either the emergence of the name Alba OR the arbitrary point in time yourself and academics have arrived at.

As I already explained to you academics and undergraduates use the term Alba merely to describe a particular cultural/societal period in SCOTLAND, this is clearly stated in other articles, it has nothing to do with what it was known by AT THE TIME in languages WE ARE NOT SPEAKING/WRITING the article in.

Is this clearer to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.178.222 (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Ultimately I'm ambivalent about the Scotland/Alba issue. I have not contributed to the Kingdom of Alba article, but it didn't just pop into existence. It might be better to shift this discussion to there. A couple of thoughts though:

• Alba was originally the Irish term for the island of Britain (Latinised form is Albion)
• At some point the meaning of Alba changed to mean the northernmost part of Britain, i.e. Scotland north of the Forth. This is reflected in the shift from "Rex Pictorum" to "Ri Alban" in the king lists and probably signified a view of Pictland as Free Britain, as opposed to the Anglo-Saxon/Norse dominated south.
• The Chronicle of the Kings of Alba has this entry for Mael Coluim mac Domnaill (Malcolm I, Ri Alban, 943-954)

Mael Coluim son of Domnall reigned xi years. With his army he crossed into Moreb and slew Cellach. In the vii year of his reigh he plundered the English as far as the river Thesis and carried off many people and many droves of cattle, which raid the Scotti call the raid of Albidosi that is nainndisi.

There is a suggestion that Albidosi means "people of Albidia", which could either be a Brittonicisation of Alba or potentially the Picts' name for their own country.

• There is the matter of Alba being in common use to mean the Gaelic kingdom of Scotland in the High Middle Ages, between the reign of Domnall mac Causantin (Donald II) 900 to Alexander III 1286. "Common use" in this case is largely limited to academia as it's not really a common topic of discussion... despite an interest in the subject I can count the number of discussions I've had in pubs about this subject on one hand and that is with other people who use "Alba" (other than a few conversations when the Kenneth Macalpine myth was brought up).

Anyway... let's move the discussion to the relevant place and see if we can get more of a discussion going. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion moved to Talk:Kingdom of Alba Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Clarity needed on start date

The lead, and probably lower sections, need more clarity on when historians regard the Picts as having emerged from the mists of the late Iron Age. We have various semi-contradictory and not very clear statements at present:

In lead: "The Picts were a confederation of peoples who lived in what is today eastern and northern Scotland during the Late Iron Age and Early Medieval periods. ...The name Picts appears in written records from Late Antiquity to the 10th century, when they are thought to have merged with the Gaels." then "While very little in the way of Pictish writing has survived, Pictish history since the late 6th century is known from a variety of sources..."

Lower down: "A unified "Pictish" identity may have consolidated with the Verturian hegemony established following the Battle of Dun Nechtain in 685 AD.[12]", "A Pictish confederation was formed in Late Antiquity from a number of tribes—how and why is not known. Some scholars have speculated that it was partly in response to the growth of the Roman Empire.[13]", "Pictish recorded history begins in the Early Middle Ages."

A clearer statement of the generally accepted timings is possible. Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is possible. They were calling themselves Picts by the late 7th century AD. Romans/romano-Britons were calling them Picts by the 3rd century AD, but as a term of disdain, likely to have meant "Britons, but not the nice civilised ones south of the wall". That's about as precise as we have it. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

That's contemporary sources; we know the problems with them. But I specified "when historians regard the Picts as having emerged..." (plus archaeologists of course) and "the generally accepted timings", ie when they start to use the term "Pictish", which I'm pretty sure isn't "the 3rd century AD", but may I think be earlier than "the late 7th century AD" (685 presumably). Notoriously, no ancient Celts called themselves that (in Britain anyway) but that has not stopped a broad consensus forming as to when the term applies. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been too busy in real life to really give this the attention it's due. Fraser (Fraser, James E. (2009), "From Caledonia to Pictland: Scotland to 795", The New Edinburgh History of Scotland, vol. 1, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, ISBN 978-0-7486-1232-1) devotes a chapter to this and doesn't come up with anything more definitive than what I've already stated. The distinctiveness and "strangeness" of the Picts that was perceived by mid-20th century writers has largely evaporated and there is little evidence of any unified ethnic identity between the Caledones, Maiatai and Fortrians before the 7th century.

It would be interesting to get some other takes on this. Deacon of Pndapetzim would be the obvious person to ask. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The name Pict, as indicated, appears to arise c. 300 and I don't think anyone disputes that Romano-Britons and Gallo-Romans, for instance, called northern Britons 'Picts' from about 300 or that the term is best explained by the success of Romanization south of Hadrian's Wall. I know Fraser and Woolf in particular (see recent SHR note) dispute the continuity of Pictish identity between c. 300 and c. 700, arguing the Verturians borrowed/revived the concept as propaganda to cement their hegemony over northern Britain. Woolf sees the Roman term Pict as something like the way 'Indian' is used by Europeans in the colonial Americas or 'Ethiopians' used by Mediterranean folk to describe sub-Saharan Africans, not necessarily an identity that meant anything to those described as such (so, perhaps, Fortriu adopting Pictish Latin nomenclature could be a little like Abyssinia calling itself Ethiopia). He's also sceptical about north-easterners being Picts in the Verturian era, he thinks 'northern Picts' are the Verturians and 'southern Picts' are the Tay basin folk whose tribute the Verturians were trying to wrest from the Northumbrians; and he doesn't think necessarily that the speech modern historians call 'Pictish' was actually what the Verturians spoke (he calls the former 'Pictish British', isn't sure it is actually a separate language or even the one referred to by Bede, and because of the limited evidence in the Moray Firth region is open to the Verturians, speakers of actual Pictish, speaking either Pictish British or some other type of Celtic dialect). On the other hand, currently Noble and Evans seem to be arguing against parts of this, using the geography and apparent early (according to Noble's interpretation) date of Pictish symbols to argue for internal acceptance and continuity of Pictish identity. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent reversion

Edit summary: ""Celtic" is a problematic term. Although they spoke a celtic language, they were not celts in the sense used in the ancient world." The first part of this is certainly true, but the last bit seems over-categoric. Do we actually know enough about the Picts to say this? Not to mention the very slippery concept of any "sense used in the ancient world". Obviously, no one actually in or writing about Britain used the term at all during antiquity or the EMA. Even if "sense used about the ancient world (by modern historians)" was meant, that is very dubious. Generally, Celticity in the ancient world is effectively defined by the use of a Celtic language, as the Picts did - this now I gather pretty universally agreed. Are there good recent sources explicitly denying the Picts were "Celtic"?

It would be nice to get a response to unresolved section above too. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I've probably overstated the "not celtic" bit. I have a personal aversion to the term as there is little evidence for any unified cultural tradition between the Picts and, say, the La Tène or Hallstatt cultures. The "go to" texts also tend to downplay the celticity of the Picts. Fraser (Caledonia to Pictland) uses the terms "celts" and "celtic" very sparingly, in one instance calling popular ideas of native Caledonian Celts clinging on to their ancient ways as a fairy tale. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth I share some of that anxiety, but also I sort of worry that the anti-Celtic sentiment about sometimes goes beyond what is justified and is perhaps too often motivated, ultimately, by what might very crudely be described as 'British nationalism', or more accurately but more pretentiously a desire to marginalise a counter-hegemonic narrative, i.e. one that has proved effective at providing collective ideological resistance, in modern times, to the dominance of stronger historical ideologies (of, in this case, British and to some extent French nationalism). Also, if the Insular Celtic theory of Celtic linguistics is accurate, 'Irish' and 'British' forms of Celtic may not have been easily distinguishable in the Roman era (unlike, for instance, the 1300s) and there is always utility is a collective name for linguistically-related peoples living next to each other, those peoples in this era in particular vis-a-vis Romans and 'Anglo-Saxons'. I think the key is just to remember and make it clear when necessary that 'Celtic' is strictly a linguistic concept, like Baltic, that wasn't used at the time. There is no evidence Indo-Europeans at any stage had any realization of collective identity, but no-one seems to get red faced about the term being used in prehistory. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

One option is to restore the second sentence that I added and later removed:

• They are thought to have been ethnolinguistically Celtic.

Would that help? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, but at the moment the lead only uses the C-word, unlinked, in "Celtic Brittonic language". I'd prefer to work something about "speaking a Celtic language" into the first couple of lines, & maybe leave it at that. Johnbod (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Picts and Scythians

The last part of this edit 'The Chronicon Pictum, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and the early histographers such as Isidore of Seville, Servius, Bede, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Holinshed, etc. all present the Picts as conquerors of Alba from Scythia. However, zero credence is now given to that view.[14]"

... "However, zero credence is now given to that view" is simply not true, and could give an ignorant reader a sense that the proceeding points made by the early historians can be completely written off as incorrect. I've searched the book referenced and find no particular statement that is so absolute, hence my request for a page request.

Other references, including "Picts and Ancient Britons: An Exploration of Pictish Origins" by Paul Dunbavin (page 93) would argue against the 'zero credence' Zero means zero, not debatable. Any modern scholar that claims the 'legend' of the Picts originating from Scythia as having zero credence is arrogant, and better have some really solid proof to make that statement, not just some personal belief or 'gut feeling'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.246.114 (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It is not debatable in the slightest. Dunbavin is not a historian and is not taken seriously by mainstream academia. His books, whether they are about Pictish "mysteries" or about Atlantis being in the Irish sea, are not published by academic publishers. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Dr Ross Samson wrote, "Paul Dunbavin is no professional academic, but this book resembles books by scholars." He pointed out that Dunbavin's book contains translated extracts of ancient sources and as such should be used as a source-book." Besides that, saying "It is not debatable in the slightest." Is your non-academic opinion.. Where's the proof.. show me. You can't just give a wave of your wrist and wish it away. I want your evidence! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.246.114 (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

This is why we have WP:PRIMARY as a policy. Analysis of primary sources independent of reliable secondary sources is considered original research.

Even back in the 1950s, when we were still conflating the notion of cultures with peoples or races, Wainwright stated "no concrete evidence has yet been produced to support the suggestion that the Picts came from Scythia, and the story must be dismissed as legend or literary invention." Wainwright, F.T. (1955), "The Picts and the Problem", in Wainwright, F.T. (ed.), The Problem of the Picts, Edinburgh: Nelson, pp. 1–53. No serious scholar has taken issue with this. A more current appraisal, agreeing with Wainwright on this point can be found in Fraser, J.E. (2011), "From Ancient Scythia to The Problem of the Picts: Thoughts on the Quest for Pictish Origins", in Driscoll, S.T.; Geddes, J.; Hall, M.A. (eds.), Pictish Progress. New Studies on Northern Britain in the Early Middle Ages, Leiden: Brill, pp. 15–44

Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The Scottish Historical Review of “The Problem of the Picts” A. Graham.Pg 49-

“He (Wainwright) makes it clear, however, that the enquiry is restricted to the historical Picts, that is to say the people of occupied Pictland between A.D 300 and 850”

What we're discussing happened well before A.D. 300.

“In the later parts of his paper Dr. Wainwright points to some question on which the help of philologists and archaeologists is needed, but draws attention to the difficulty of identifying archaeological material, other that sculpture, which can be regarded as specifically Pictish”

Feachman’s final conclusion “that until a complete survey has been made...the study of fortifications of potentially Pictish origin must remain exploratory.”

“He (Wainwright) points, quite rightly, to the importance of studying monuments... but he is once more confronted with the difficulty of identifying specifically Pictish sites.”

In short, they all agree that they simply don't know, and that more study is required. That's not even close to "zero credence is now given to that view" That's a personal opinion that contradicts the very sources provided. They don't make a 'zero credence' conclusion.

"no concrete evidence has yet been produced to support the suggestion that the Picts came from Scythia, and the story must be dismissed as legend or literary invention." is an arrogant statement. That's like saying "no concrete evidence has yet been produced to support that life exists on other planets, and the story must be dismissed as legend or literary invention. Or, if you're not happy with that example, make up your own. It's ludicrous, and just because it comes out of some academic's mouth, doesn't make it any less so.

I mean, they struggle with aspects of Pictish culture, timelines, separating picts from other races and many other such things, even in this very article, but they absolutely, positively and without doubt can assure the reader that there's "zero credence" of any relationship between the Picts and the Scythians whatsoever!

This is a perfect example of why Wikipedia refers to itself as an unreliable source. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source

The Problem of the Picts is a 64 year old work and it's outdated in many respects (not least the notion that there was a problem in the first place). I cited it to demonstrate an early rejection of the notion of Scythian Picts. Ultimately we believe that the origin of the Scythian origin myth is due to a misreading of Servius' fifth century commentary of Virgil's Aeneid, probably by Irish monks, specifically from this passage: Pictique Agathyrsi populi sunt Scythiae, colentes Apollinem hyperboreum, cuius logia, id est responsa, feruntur. 'Picti' autem, non stigmata habentes, sicut gens in Britannia, sed pulchri, hoc est cyanea coma placentes. Easy mistake to make, I suppose. We should probably include this in the article.

In case you're concerned that this is a modern twist on the story we have this passage from Gerald of Wales in Instructione Principum (1214): Quoniam autem de Pictis et Scotis facta est hic mentio, que gentes et quibus ex partibus, quibusve de causis in Britanniam advecte sunt, sicut ex diversis collegimus historiis, hic explanandum, praeter rem non putavimus. Pictos itaque, quos et Agatirsos Virgilius vocat, Sciticas circiter paludes habitationes habuisse, referunt historie. De quibus et Servius super Virgilium commentans et hunc locum exponens, scilicet "Pictos Agatirsos," ait: "Pictos eosdem quos et Agatirsos appellamus, et dicuntur Picti quasi stigmatizati, quia stigmatizari, id est, cauteriari solent, propter abundanciam fleumatis. Et sunt hii populi hiidem qui et Gothi. Quoniam utique ubi ex crebris stigmatibus cicatrices obducuntur, corpora quasi picta redduntur; ex cauteriis hujusmodi in cicatrices obductis Picti quoque sunt vocati.

Let me ask you a question... why are you so invested in the idea of Scythian Picts? Is it connected with British Israelism? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm invested in the DNA research on the origins of the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples. Evidence shows a strong DNA connection between the Scythians (and the ir recent R1b haplogroup findings) and the Scots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_in_populations_of_Europe

Percentage of R1b Y haplogroup DNA...

Welsh 89.1%

Irish 81.5%

Scots 72.5%

Catalans 79,2%

Basque 92.7%

Swedes 13.1%

Finns 2.0%

Excerpt from the Declaration of Arbroath

“They (Scots) journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous.” Hence the high rate of R1b haplogroup found in northern Iberia populations.

"Linguistically, Basque is unrelated to the other languages of Europe and is a language isolate relative to any other known living language." Hmm, in the Basque peoples we find the highest levels of the R1b Y Haplogroup, followed by the Welsh, Irish and Scots, and yet their language is isoloated from any other known living language? Could this possibly be some ancient, oh I don't know, maybe Scythian language? Of course not! I mean, what would a bunch of Scots know about their history. Pfft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.246.114 (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes... that quote has been used extensively by the British Israelism movement. No, it doesn't have any basis in historical fact.

Presumably we would find the R1b haplogroup in the region inhabited by the Agathyrsi? Nope. How about the Thracians? No. How about Sarmatia? No.

The Scythians spoke an Old Iranian language, related to modern Pashto. Is Basque thought to be related to it? No. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

"The Iron Age nomads mostly carried the R1b Y haplogroup, which is characteristic of the Yamnaya of the Russian steppe... Ancient genomes suggest the eastern Pontic-Caspian steppe as the source of western Iron Age nomads" https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/10/eaat4457

"Iron Age Scythians include a mixture of Yamnaya people, from the Russian Steppe," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians

"The united Scythians and Sarmatæ called themselves Iazyges, which in Sclavonic signifies "the people"... "The 5,500 (Iazyges) troops sent to Britain (in 178 AD by Romans) were not allowed to return home, even after their 20-year term of service had ended..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iazyges

"We have also updated our discussion of the Iazyges role in, and impact on, the Roman military system in late second-century Britain, to reflect some recent archaeological discoveries at Ribchester and other Roman sites associated with these Sarmatian numeri from north of the Danube, who brought with them a treasury of hero tales that eventually became the core of the Arthurian and Holy Grail legends (see Chapter 1)."

https://www.amazon.ca/Scythia-Camelot-Radical-Reassessment-Legends/dp/0815335660 "From Scythia to Camelot" forward xvi by C. Scott Littleton PH.D in Anthropology from UCLA 1965

Turns out the Scythian/Iazygian auxiliaries were posted in groups of 500 along Hadrian's well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.246.114 (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

And were they from the L1335/S530 clade? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

First you say "Presumably we would find the R1b haplogroup in the region inhabited by the Agathyrsi? Nope. How about the Thracians? No. How about Sarmatia? No." Which is clearly untrue as I showed above, and now you need specific R1b subclades? It seems your tactic here is to continually exercise the Chewbaca Defense

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.246.114 (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

No. If you can demonstrate that they are from that specific clade or a very closely related clade then I'd say you're on to something. L1335/S530 (and its subtypes) is the specific clade that has been identified as "Pictish". R1b by itself is far too common for there to be any significance to it being found in Eastern Europe. It's found in every European country and, indeed in every other continent. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's just skip over the fact that in the second century AD, 5,500 Scythian/Sarmatian men sent to defend Hadrians wall who were not allowed to leave the country even after 20 years of service, would have ZERO role in the future of the Scots/Picts DNA or culture going forward. Did you read that book by Littleton? Just to add "A RECENTLY discovered DNA marker (S530) suggests that 10 per cent of Scottish men are directly descended from the Picts. They didn't dig up Pict graves to determine that subclade, but found the particular subclade was currently higher in numbers in the areas they believe the Picts lived. Who's to say the subclade is Pictish at all? It's a guess, or as the article states, it suggests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.246.114 (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You're asking me to read a book on Arthurian legend? By this guy? I'll admit I'm sceptical. Amazon's preview has (I think) the statement you're mentioning with a reference. It's apparently from Dio's Roman History, Book 71:11 as translated by Cary in 1927 (in his volume 9). Which is online here. He's got his citation muddled a bit... it should be 72:16, but it appears that 5,500 cavalry were sent to Britain... it doesn't specify Hadrian's Wall and I'm not seeing where it says they were not allowed to leave Britain. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

No, not that C. Scott Littleton... this one. Sure didn't see that 'attack the source' coming... nor any further red herrings. How about you explain to us ignorant folk what Scythians/Sarmatians are doing in Britain in the second century AD? 5500 at least, and yet there's "zero credence" that they could have married into Scottish/Pictish society at the exact time the Picts show up, right? And everyone knows that the Scythians never revolted against their taskmasters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.246.114 (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

That's the same guy.

There were more than 125 Roman forts in Britain, 16 of which were on Hadrian's Wall. Efforts at that time would have been to maintain control over Brigantia. We're about 20 years after the withdrawal from the Antonine wall and 33 years too early for the Severan campaign where, if you believe Dio, the Caledonians slaughtered 50,000 Roman soldiers in guerrilla warfare. Do I think they made any impact on Pictish genetics? No, but the point is that there is no indication in the mainstream academic literature that Sarmatian legionnaires were retiring to Pictland and fathering little Picts. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Which Scythians have R1b? There are several haplogroups which are much better candidates for the Scythians. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Schytians were not R1b, they were R1a1a which is originates from Central Asia. Akmal94 (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Scythians had a great diversity of Y-DNA markers like most Central Asian nomadic peoples throughout history. Besides, being from the region historically known as Scythia did/does not necessarily make one a Scythian, Scythians were but one of many historical peoples and cultures documented in the region, and don't appear to be a particularly well documented, unified/homogeneous or fleshed out people. It was in fact Proto-Indo-Europeans, not Scythians, from Scythia who brought R1b and R1a into Europe during the Bronze Age in huge numbers. This is extremely well attested and validated in archaeogenetics, R1b and R1a are both merely subclades of R1, that means they shared a fairly recent common paternal ancestor with one another at some point. Not only did they inherit their genes overhwhelmingly from these Pontic-Caspian Steppe Bronze Age invaders, their languages (all Celtic, Germanic and Slavic languages) ultimately stem from a fairly confidently reconstructed Proto-Indo-European ancestor. Most Pictish skeletons that have been analyzed appear to bear specific subclades of R1b, which would in fact confirm their ancient legends (and contemporary writings from others, such as Bede) about originating from Scythia, but this is something many Germanic and Slavic tribes and peoples also historically claimed (and again was largely accurate for a great multitude of them. There does not appear to be a significant amount of Neolithic blood among the Pictish remains we've found and analyzed, at least no more than among surrounding peoples of the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.210.82 (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bronze Age Proto-Indo-European invasions were only around 5,000 years ago. The period of the Picts and written sources professing a Scythian origin for them was around 2,000 years ago. That would mean the descendants of the Proto-Indo-European peoples had only been settled in Europe for around 3,000 or so years by the time most of these sources on origins were penned. It's worth bearing in mind that groups like the Franks also professed Scythian origins historically, and at other times professed more specifically Cimmerian origins (Cimmerians being a documented people in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe). Now it is possible both these things were accurate, as like I mentioned earlier being geographically from Scythia doesn't necessarily make one a Scythian (who as Catfish has mentioned were documented an Iranian people). But what are Iranians? Well Iranian languages (being Indo-European languages) in fact ALSO share the Proto-Indo-European linguistic ancestor, and many Iranians bear R1a, so they also bear a shared GENETIC ancestry on the father line. The reason why southern Europeans and groups like the Basque cluster so distantly from northern and eastern Europeans despite having very similar levels of R1 Y-DNA is very simple, the R1 carrying men who settled in these regions basically interbred with Neolithic women there, whereas in places like the British Isles, Scandinavia, the Netherlands, northern Germany and other places they pretty much entirely displaced the Neolithic inhabitants, in the British Isles it was something like 90% genetic turnover. The reason why Iranians are even more genetically distant is that in addition to taking non-Proto-Indo-European women, they also appear to have absorbed and assimilated large numbers of men carrying distinct Y-DNA, as modern Iranian-speaking populations will attest to in genetic studies. They do all ultimately bear origin (to some extent) from this region and a single population. But mutations occur over thousands of years apart and languages and cultures drift and corrupt into separate things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.210.82 (talk) 03:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

"However, zero credence is now given to that view" is original research, the claim about Scythians is entirely plausible, and FYI you clearly have no clue whether or not it's true. Absolutely no idea at all. Please leave your personal opinions out of wikipedia articles. Nobody cares if you find it politically inconvenient that ancient peoples migrated more than previously thought. P.S. And your mental model of how haplogroups work is obviously facile, as illustrated above, so I don't know why you're trying to pretend you know anything about that either. 2601:600:9B7F:803A:5DE3:58C8:20F1:88A9 (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Journal of Eurasian Studies

I just removed some material purporting to have been published in the Journal of Eurasian Studies namely this article:

Berczi, Szaniszlo (2013-06-01). "Pict-Scythian Scottish Art". Journal of Eurasian Studies. 5: 23–28.

Now the Journal of Eurasian Studies is a bona-fide peer-reviewed journal, albeit with a low impact factor. The article above however raises alarm bells... firstly, it is barely written in English... secondly the corresponding author's address is Eotvos University's Institute of Physics (?)... thirdly its subltitle is "Example issue from the Coloring Booklet Series of Eurasian Arts. A peer-reviewed colouring book?

Of course, when we go to the Journal of Eurasian Studies' website we get the contents for volume 5 and this article is just not there. The pages cited contain an article on the economic and security issues of modernising Siberia. The cited year of publication is wrong however... volume 5 was published in 2014.... so let's check volume 4... nope... the cited pages contain an article on nature-society linkages in the Aral Sea region. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the colouring book is a bit of a giggle, with Scythian "cavalier herdsmen" moving their herds around the highlands. It seems to have escaped the author that Dysert O'Dea Monastery is in Ireland - a small detail. The definition of WP:FRINGE. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It appears to be from a different Journal of Eurasian Studies. Not the one published by Elsevier. The one "published" here: http://www.federatio.org/mikes_int.html (watch for malware). Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is factually incorrect. See

The Tribes of Britain: Miles, David: 9780753817995

David Miles is a Research Fellow of the Institute of Archaeology, Oxford and a Fellow of Kellogg College, Oxford. The author of many books, he is also a former columnist for the London Times.

The short answer, (but you have to read the book because its complex), is the Picts were either descendants of European Upper Palaeolithic hunters (like the 26,000 year old skeleton found in Scotland called “The Red Lady of Paviland), or possibly they stem from Neolithic Middle Eastern farmers who were first to domesticate plants and animals. Whichever, the Picts originated thousands of years before the Iron Age 2.59.114.197 (talk) 08:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

No, "Picts" is a ethnic/cultural term that appears to start in the Late Antique period. Their remote ancestry is an entirely different matter. Probably wisely, the article doesn't attempt to address this. Is there a Kellogg College, Oxford? Apparently so. I think you'll find it was The Oxford Times Miles was columnist for. And "were either descendants of European Upper Palaeolithic hunters (like the 26,000 year old skeleton found in Scotland called “The Red Lady of Paviland), or possibly they stem from Neolithic Middle Eastern farmers who were first to domesticate plants and animals" is probably true for all the British Isles and most of Western Europe. Johnbod (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Most of the Pictish language has been found to be cognate with Brittonic; but there was a limited substrate language of primitive or ancient Pictish which is partially akin to Basque and of Neolithic origin. Andrew H. Gray 18:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC) Andrew

"10% of Scots descended from Picts"

I've reverted this edit [8] as it's misleading. The marker involved is on the Y chromosome and the finding that it is more prevalent in the geographical region once occupied by the Picts well may show that it was present in the Picts... However it is not a test of Pictish descent. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

"Formerly Brittonic"

"by the 13th century Alba had expanded to include the formerly Brittonic kingdom of Strathclyde," Can you explain this line to me? When did the Kingdom of Strathclyde 'cease' to be Brittonic, and why? Is it being suggested that annexation by the Kingdom of Scotland somehow magically transformed the people there to... what? Scots? And why? Were they, for example, assimilated into a Gaelic language, culture and identity? Were the Brittonic people who lived there entirely genocided upon conquest by the Kingdom of Scotland? Were they completely displaced by Gaels? Is there any source or evidence supporting this whatsoever? From what I understand most written records from the time attest to a very distinct Brittonic identity remaining in the region of the Kingdom of Strathclyde long after the area has been absorbed into the Kingdom of Scotland. In fact the Brittonic identity even seems to have outlived the death of the Brittonic language spoken in the region by a century or two, and that Brittonic language largely seems to have been displaced not by Gaelic, but by English. So when do the people of southwestern Scotland become 'Scots' and why do they become 'Scots'? I'm not really following the weird double standards and mental gymnastics on Scotland related history articles. If Picts and Celtic Britons suddenly 'become Scottish' upon adopting the Gaelic language (at least the ones that actually DID adopt the Gaelic language) then doesn't the entire region effectively 'become English' centuries later? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.210.82 (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Good faith revert

@Mutt Lunker Hello, you've reverted my good faith edits. I'm still working on them. Please discuss here what exactly you feel is not useful information. Thanks :) LightProof1995 (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I have no concerns about the faith of your edits, only their pertinence. You added a vast quantity of material to the article about a pigment, the connection to the topic of this article not being clearly demonstrated and much or all of it apparently off-topic to this article, certainly at that level of detail. What have these edits, specifically, to do with the Picts? Per WP:BRD, have some patience until you have a consensus for the merits of your edits; do not WP:WAR. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your reply, yes I know this, please just let me work on it more LightProof1995 (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I see from your talk page history that you have already been warned about attribution of material from other articles. Edit summaries such as this do not absolve you. If there is some pertinence, you can always just link the article or a section therein. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

What...? We're always supposed to attribute text when copying across Wikipedia articles, that's what the only message that's appeared on my Talk Page in regards to this was about (they said to do this) and also that isn't any of the current discussions... LightProof1995 (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

This very much is edit-warring. Self-revert now. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Why don't you just take out the information that you feel isn't relevant? If you don't have time to, don't worry about it, I'm not going to leave everything... LightProof1995 (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I did. Self-revert, make your case. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

All of it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm leaving it in what I feel is an acceptable state that takes away what you felt may have been too much detail (the copied text from the woad article) into consideration. My sandbox has everything else and I'll keep working on it there.

Here is my case: before I came along, the article did not mention painting with woad at all (right?) I know the Etymology section didn't, which is where most of the edits are I've now kept. Not only is it important for their etymology, but also for their artwork, depictions, and culture. LightProof1995 (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

In your sandbox is where it should should stay, while this discussion is in progress. We work on consensus, not what you believe to be an acceptable state. Indeed, the article did not and should not contain material with no demonstrable connection to the subject at hand, the Picts. If that connection can be demonstrated (something which you have not) it should not go into copious detail of the side topic in general (a pigment in this case). Revert fully. Mutt Lunker (talk)

The etymology of "Picts" may be derived from the fact they painted or tattooed themselves, requiring a pigment. The article before was suggesting the Picts didn't tattoo themselves in the Society section, and nothing in the article mentioned painting. LightProof1995 (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you going to revert your dubious and contested edits, while they are under discussion, or are you not?

The article did discuss tattoos, as well as alternative theories, all cited. Unless you can provide quotes that indicate otherwise, your sources regarding painting, woad etc. appear to relate only to the Ancient Britons, not the Picts, so your use of them is inappropriate in an article on Picts. Again, please remove the material as requested, pending a consensus for its inclusion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, your original research tag was placed on content that was already there and is cited. Again, feel free to revert whatever you feel isn’t accurate. The article did not mention woad before. EDIT: I see now the tag applies to the entire article; I was just looking at the edit. Why do you think the information on them painting themselves is dubious? Yes, Caesar referred to the "Britanni", which were in south England. However, they are Celtic people, which is all I claimed. Pliny is quoted as saying all the indigenous/Celtic people of the British isles painted themselves. He goes into great detail -- I originally included his entire quote, but now it's just the reference. "Celtic people of the British isles" includes the Picts. There is not a single sentence in the section you placed the "original research" tag that doesn't end with 1-2 citations for reliable sources (in the part I added, not that this many citations is a requirement -- the text above the original research tag is less cited but still has enough reliable sources to cover the paragraph). Part of the reason I coped all the text from woad in the first place was so there would be no doubt my information was not original research (and doesn't original research generally just mean uncited?). LightProof1995 (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually you’re right, I could source the paragraph even more for some of what I say, not in regards to the Picts but for some knowledge I just know, e.g. some of the info on woad (note I added the citation for its distribution after I published it.). LightProof1995 (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Unless you can, as requested, indicate quotes from these citations that they relate specifically to the Picts, it is original research to claim that they do. Unless and until you can do so, remove the material, per WP:BRD and stop messing about. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Idk man. Pliny's quote where he states the plant glastum was used by the "People of Britain" to stain themselves all over, applies equally to the Picts as it does the Brittani of the south. Even "Brittani" (the word used by Caesar for those he encountered in England) links to Celtic Britons which includes the Picts.

In the older discussions on this talk page, there is much worry that labelling the Picts as "not-Celtic" is just English nationalism/anti-Scottish-Gaelic sentiment. I don't think that is the case with you; I believe you just want the article to be accurate, and I respect that. I'm just pointing out how if we aren't careful with this, it could further fuel anti-Scottish-Gaelic sentiment. Imagine for me, a History major at Oxford is writing a paper on Celtic culture, and they see this discussion where we decided there was enough evidence to say Britons in England painted themselves, but not Scotland. While I appreciate the fact we've added more evidence of tattooing here of the Picts to counter that, in the end it feels omitting the "glastum" descriptions given by the Romans of the Celts to help explain the Picts' etymology only further divides British people along England/Scotland/Wales/Ireland/Northern Ireland lines instead of finding their common ground in Celtic identity and being friends. (I say this as an American and I find it whimsical to suggest there could be friendship across these national lines at all. What's wrong with y'all? The Irish get a pass because England was not nice to them, but Scotland and England united through wedlock -- isn't that sacred?)

Anyway, let's just drop the nationalism stuff and focus on accuracy. People of Britain=Celtic Britons=Picts are included, my information was accurate, and I reserve the right to include my edits to the Etymology section back. It's important!! LightProof1995 (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Note: Reading the Caledonians page, it seems the distinction between the "Britons" of Romano-Britain and the "Pict" Britons in Scotland who resisted Roman invasion, is a purely Roman distinction, i.e. there were Celtic tribes all across Britain with similar culture, then the Romans invaded half the territory and distinguished the areas they conquered from the areas they didn't. LightProof1995 (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s purely Roman—although they themselves may have used the term in that way; exonyms often fail to make relevant distinctions. IIANM there is contemporary evidence that the “Pictish” language at least differed from that of their (?)Cumbric-speaking neighbours—enough that for a while scholars believed it to be non-IE, although it’s now thought to be a dialect of Brittonic. Certainly the lack of Roman occupation may have exacerbated their distinctiveness from southern Britons, but that doesn’t mean they can be assumed to have previously shared all ‘general insular Celtic’ traits either.—Odysseus1479 04:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It's well established that the term "Pict" was an exonymic slur, one that was applied by the Romans. However, the Picts developed a (somewhat) unified identity (largely) based on divisions imposed by the Roman conquest of southern Britain, and later adopted the term as an endonym, so the point is moot. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Enough

Having watched this car crash over the last few weeks, I couldn't agree more with Mutt Lunker, and LightProof if you add this tenacious and -sort of relevant but not really- stuff again I'll revert you on sight; if not take you to a noticeboard looking for a topic ban. Ceoil (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Wow. How about instead of y'all threatening to block/ban me, you join the discussion? Why are you so against my edits? I genuinely don't understand the issue. I've more than sourced everything as reliable and accurate. Nothing is speculation. LightProof1995 (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You've had your say, and my impression from a distance at first sight was...mistplaced emphasis....this is going nowhere. Your arguments since are as week as when you first tried to bludgeon. Enough. Ceoil (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, you've made no argument about the content itself, i.e. Picts=Celtic=People of Britain, reported by Pliny as painting themselves. LightProof1995 (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

That's incoherent, but even if you could now promise to keep it so concise, it wouldn't be enough as have seen your form. You started by adding large paragraph after large paragraph about the pigment, amongst other problems, and then sealioned your way into a talk page time sink. Ceoil (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I added all of the information on the pigment to make my case. I reached consensus with Matt to leave the bulk of it out. Aren't y'all the ones sealioning? LightProof1995 (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that you added all of the information, relevant to this article or not, and bludgeoned Matt into defeat via verbosity. Jesus, how many times does this need to be explained. Ceoil (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I mean, okay, I also did it so I could attribute it in the edit summary. It's not like it was all completely irrelevant information, and again, when Matt took the bulk of it out, I agreed. I see now I was supposed to use my sandbox, but I just haven't had to use it before. I did not know. I am sorry. Please drop it and focus on the content itself :) LightProof1995 (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

it was all completely irrelevant information, not to mention speculative. As I say, next step will be a noticeboard. Ceoil (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree and I feel that would be a waste of everyone's time. LightProof1995 (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

[9] is outside 3RR and technically you could be blocked for that. Ceoil (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not outside it; it's the third revert within a 24-hour window, however can we please focus on discussing the content here.

It's not speculative. It's sourced! :) LightProof1995 (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Content is the focus for everyone here and don't tell us to ignore your bad behaviour. Answer this, yes/no: do your refs specifically mention the Picts? Don't play games about warring: "any amount of edit warring may lead to sanctions... The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times". What's more, you have made four reversions. Mutt Lunker (talk)

Exactly. LightProof1 your over and over refuted arguments no longer warrant being taken seriously. Ceoil (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

References