Talk:Picts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Picts has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

March 1, 2006

Good article nominee

Listed

This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Picts is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Picts is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.

Scotland Portal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

WikiProject Scotland To-do:

A summary of this article appears in Scotland.

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Americans~~Picts 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 ~~Iroquois~~Picts, 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 ~~likely~~perhaps 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:STYLE Trilobitealive (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)