Picts

[highlandcelt]

I am very interested in Pictish culture, art, music etc. I am only learning of the Pictish peoples as of recently via the History Channel, and the info they gave was just a LIGHT touching on of the subject when they did a show about King Henry the 8th. They said that very little is known about the Picts because artifacts from the Pict era is extremely rare, and little is known about those peoples. History Channel was trying put the Picts and the Celts in a "low-brow" light. Making them out to be completely barbaric, with NO culture, no history and of little to no intelligence. They even compared the Picts and early Celts to neanderthal man. The only thing they showed in favor of the Celts was the knot-work designs and the stone carvings on Celtic burial graves. They even showed the Celts as blood-thirsty, religious fanatics. So much so, that the Celts would sacrifice men, women and children, young and old, in a "hunt", chasing down the victim after being tied and bound, and more than likely tortured before the chase, and then finally caught and killed, cutting out their hearts, much like the Incas used to do, and then sacrificed the victims to Odin. Isn't Odin a Norse god?
How that pertained to King Henry the 8th, I do not know. They never explained. History Channel flubbed that one up.
Any accurate info and web links would be much appreciated.

[smaughazard]

I can't pretend to be an authority on the Picts, but the Wikipedia page has a ton of references and links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picts

[James]

Certainly Odin was a Norse deity, and for that matter is still the principal deity of those looking to the true faith of Northern Europe today.

As for the depiction of the Picts and Celts in the programme cited, it does appear rather odd and not of necessity accurate.

True they lived in bloodthirsty times, and there is evidence of human and animal sacrifice. However there is also ample evidence that both the Picts and the Celts were sophisticated races, and not mere savages.

James

[davedove]

True they lived in bloodthirsty times, and there is evidence of human and animal sacrifice. However there is also ample evidence that both the Picts and the Celts were sophisticated races, and not mere savages.

So true. Just because a culture does barbaric things does not make them barbarians. For instance, the Mayans did some awful things, but had an incredibly sophisticated culture.

[bubba]

Most of what's known about the Celts and Picts is from Roman writings since neither had a written language, only an oral tradition relying on bards and Druids to pass on knowledge and information. Given the Romans tried conquering them whenever they met it's little wonder they were described as warlike and savage.

[auld argonian]

I seem to remember that this series touched on the Pre-Roman times in Ireland:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/ancientireland/index.html

...an excellent series...I think that they touched on the Picts...anyway, the evidence is that the early cultures were actually pretty advanced...certainly not running around naked.

Best

AA

[Nick]

Here's an another take on the subject I've read. I don't know enough about it to draw my own conlusions yet, but it may add something to the mix.

The Picts never existed.

This theory is based partly on the lack of extant artifacts, and also on those self-same Roman writings. According to the No Picts theory, they were the same as the other Celts in Britain, and the Romans needed a boogeyman away up north. They were a percieved threat, not a real one.

I thought it was interesting. Partly because it flies directly in the face of "common knowledge," and partly as an example of how little we really know about that time and place.

As to whether or not it's true, that's a much trickier problem. I certainly don't know. I'll have to do a lot more research, and I'm really more interested in the 14th century anyway, at which time it's a moot point anyway

[auld argonian]

Oooooh! The Picts never existed? I like that one...maybe the Celts encountered the Romans and figured they'd pull a fast one and told them, "Oh, well...we're tough and you can try to beat us but you haven't run up against the Picts yet...they live further up North and they regularly kick our asses....yessir...we sure don't fancy your chances against those Picts."

Then they ran off (laughing) and waited until nighttime, got naked, smeared blue paint all over themselves and snuck up on the Romans...."Oy, ya Roman Bastards, we're the Picts...we're much tougher than those Celts and we're here to beat the snot outta ya!" (Sounds of Romans freaking out and wetting their togas)

Early psychological warfare...sneaky...I like it.

Best

AA

[An t-Ileach]

It's difficult to follow the "Picts never existed" line.

I'd heard (from the "Picts existed" school) that some of them may have migrated to the north of Ireland where they were known as the Cruidhne (which some say is a Q Celtic cognate of Picti, but it doesn't quite fit - there're consonants in wrong places) who merge with the Scotti (or some of them) and migrated back to the Earra Gaidheal (Gael Coast, or Argyll) as the Sons of Erc (i.e.Dal Riada).

There's a claim that they might have spoken a P Celtic language like that spoken by the Brythons of Strathclyde, based on place names and some proper names (although they seem to have had the initial combination "Uu..." where the Strathclyde "Welsh" had Gw (modern Welsh orthography)).

There's also a story that they had an origin myth that they came to the east of Scotland from across the North Sea - which places them in the southern Norway-Jutland area - which is where Strabo/Ptolemy/Diodorus Siculus placed the "Cimbri". I think I read all this in Kenneth Bannerman's monograph on Dal Riada, but on reflection it's likely that it may have been from various places.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

I'm just trying to figure out why the Picts would be mentioned at all in a documentary about Kinf Henry VIII (1491-1547).

Henry VIII is closer to our own time than he is to the time of the Picts.

M