Picts

[Nick]

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

AA, the bill for a new monitor is in the mail.

Cheers,
Nick

[bubba]

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

Matt, you really have to be careful with History Channel programs. Their "history" can be very questionable at times and they tend to stretch things out of shape and proportion for the sake of being entertaining quite often. It is a good source to start from fairly often in extra reading and research though. Sometimes I make a game of finding their errors and plain bad history.

[Freelander Sporrano]

A little more history smistory....(just think some people think the Da vinci code is true )

Try these links
http://members.tripod.com/~Halfmoon/

http://www.holyrood.org.uk/picts/

[Archangel]

Suggest Pagan Celtic Britain by Anne Ross.

Keep in mind that we base a lot of our "knowledge of history" on very little information, quite often a few lines on scraps of paper. Druid history, I believe, is based on three short lines of contemporary notes and the imagination of a later period. Picts are almost in the same boat.

Ross's book details the time around them and the tribes that may have been them. It's a thick tome but honest. My favourite is when, after describing what some see as a pagan fertility Goddess scratched in a chalk cliff face, she acknowledges it may have been a pornographic drawing scratched out by a bored guard.

[davedove]

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

That is hilarious!!!

[Woodsheal]

This is a huge simplification, but I believe most current scholarship contends thet the Picts of what we now call "Scotland" were P-Celtic speaking Celts not much different than their Brittonish cousins to the south. Further, it is believed that the P-Celtic Britons and Picts easily associated with the Q-Celtic Gaels in Ireland, that there was much interaction back and forth, and that the different variations in language were not much of a barrier. (Our modern concept of these all being separate "countries" would not have been shared by these folks, who probably identified with "tribes", not nationalities.)

When Gaels from Ireland established an expanding presence in Scotland, their closeness to, and ability to easily interact with the native Picts, resulted in a "merging" of the two peoples... with Northmen, Strathclyde Britons, Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Flemish, etc., added to the mix to give us what were ultimately called "Scotsmen"...!

[Nick]

Matt, you really have to be careful with History Channel programs. Their "history" can be very questionable at times and they tend to stretch things out of shape and proportion for the sake of being entertaining quite often. It is a good source to start from fairly often in extra reading and research though. Sometimes I make a game of finding their errors and plain bad history.

Something I read once:

Wife: "What are you watching?"
Husband: "The history channel."
Wife: "What have you learned?"
Husband: "World War Two is the only thing that ever happened."

You may now return to your regularly scheduled thread.

[MacWage]

There are a number of interesting books and chapters on the Picts in various books on early Scottish history.

One good one is in the Historic Scotland series, which I found at one of the many historically significant sight I visited in Scotland, back in 2000.

Another good one, which is also EASILY READABLE is the volume PICTS in the Osprey series. Many of these volumes are written by the very best historians on the subject, are concise, yet detailed, and readily accessible at MANY bookstores, which many of the best Scottish books are not (at least in the former Colonies).

By the way, be hesitant of many books concerning the original form of Druidism. I have sought many in an effort to understand it, especially to better understand the beliefs and culture that Colum Chille and the other Irish/Celtic Christians faced in evangelism in early Scotland/Pictland and how it then influenced the monastic based Celtic Church. In all I have read, the historical basis is VERY SHAKY and is often a "new age" implantation upon a single stone of reference in a Roman document. Then much weight is placed on this assumption.

An example, one book makes a great deal of effort to elaborate upon Pictish use of fishes in standing stones, even describing details of ceremonied with NO, NONE, NADA references to any known historical document of anything else. The only reference is the very PRESENCE of fish carvings on standing stones.
The problem is that a man named St. Samson was referenced ny the Celtic Church as going to Pictish sacred sights and "Christianizing" them through ceremonies and the CARVING OF FISHES upon them, as a symbol of Jesus the Christ (this the Christian Fish seen everywhere-at least in the "Bible Belt" South- today).
The truth may be here, or maybe the story was told to explain the presence of these fish on the stones.
The point-> Such a basis for understanding Pictish beliefs can be VERY SHAKY. All that survives is written by thise who sought to KILL them (Romans) or to CHISTIANIZE them (the Scotti of Dal Raidia).

That said, the above two books are a decent basis for general understanding, as much as such can be, and the basis for further research.

[Archangel]

The on again, off again Picts is an example of one historian writing down about one people, briefly seen. Later, another historian, sees the same people and calls them something different. Still later, more historians try and figure out if they're looking at one people or many groups. Much later, one lazy historian figures the best way is to erase one group and start again.

The "briefly seen" was not a pun.

[bubba]

Essentially all we know about the Picts is what they left carved on stone. We know nothing of their language and really nothing of their culture beyond it being tribal. The logical assumption is they integrated over time with other tribes and peoples. Anything else is just a SWAG.