I removed this paragraph ...
... 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)
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)
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)
The page [1] gives a convincing argument against the commonly-held idea that Picts painted themselves with woad. Perhaps this should be investigated? -- LDC
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I moved this article from "Picts" to "Pict" to jibe with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). / blahedo ( t) 00:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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?
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?
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)
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)
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)
Quote from the article (==Language== section):
--Are what? :-) Alexander 007 08:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
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 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) .
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
These are the items that Angusmclellan (talk) (contribs) has twice (so far) removed from the article:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
Anachronistic name indeed. 24.255.11.149 ( talk) 23:32, 25 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)
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)
Well, it appears that you answered your own question. 24.255.11.149 ( talk) 20:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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:
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)
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)
what you mean mate ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.251.25.6 ( talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
The article contained this image:
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)
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.
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)
"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)
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)
The lede currently contains the text -
Surely this should be along the lines of -
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)
http://www.nms.ac.uk/our_collections/collection_highlights/hilton_of_cadboll_stone.aspx
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)
As far as I can see, no editors of this article have yet commented at this AFD, which seems a bit odd:
Cheers. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 12:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
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.
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)
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 Mac Dui 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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Would the following be preferable?
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)
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)
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/?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)
Thanks :) Kap 7 ( talk) 01:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
... 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)
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)
sorry , I have taken it away Edelward ( talk) 15:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{
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)I looked a little further into this. Your edit rendered the opening paragraph as follows:
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)
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:
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:
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
Discussion moved to Talk:Kingdom of Alba Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
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:
A clearer statement of the generally accepted timings is possible. Johnbod ( talk) 01:34, 24 May 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)
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)
One option is to restore the second sentence that I added and later removed:
Would that help? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
"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)
@ 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)
This very much is edit-warring. Self-revert now. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 12:32, 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)
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)
[9] is outside 3RR and technically you could be blocked for that. Ceoil ( talk) 16:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
References
I removed this paragraph ...
... 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)
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)
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)
The page [1] gives a convincing argument against the commonly-held idea that Picts painted themselves with woad. Perhaps this should be investigated? -- LDC
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I moved this article from "Picts" to "Pict" to jibe with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). / blahedo ( t) 00:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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?
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?
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)
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)
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)
Quote from the article (==Language== section):
--Are what? :-) Alexander 007 08:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
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 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) .
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
These are the items that Angusmclellan (talk) (contribs) has twice (so far) removed from the article:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
Anachronistic name indeed. 24.255.11.149 ( talk) 23:32, 25 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)
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)
Well, it appears that you answered your own question. 24.255.11.149 ( talk) 20:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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:
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)
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)
what you mean mate ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.251.25.6 ( talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
The article contained this image:
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)
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.
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)
"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)
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)
The lede currently contains the text -
Surely this should be along the lines of -
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)
http://www.nms.ac.uk/our_collections/collection_highlights/hilton_of_cadboll_stone.aspx
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)
As far as I can see, no editors of this article have yet commented at this AFD, which seems a bit odd:
Cheers. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 12:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
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.
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)
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 Mac Dui 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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Would the following be preferable?
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)
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)
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/?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)
Thanks :) Kap 7 ( talk) 01:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
... 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)
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)
sorry , I have taken it away Edelward ( talk) 15:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{
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)I looked a little further into this. Your edit rendered the opening paragraph as follows:
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)
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:
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:
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
Discussion moved to Talk:Kingdom of Alba Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
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:
A clearer statement of the generally accepted timings is possible. Johnbod ( talk) 01:34, 24 May 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)
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)
One option is to restore the second sentence that I added and later removed:
Would that help? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
"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)
@ 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)
This very much is edit-warring. Self-revert now. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 12:32, 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)
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)
[9] is outside 3RR and technically you could be blocked for that. Ceoil ( talk) 16:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
References