Talk:Picts

Warning about potential source

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 The book is stated as being out of date and containing many errors.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pictish/Pictland Synonymous With Scottish/Scotland

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarity needed on start date

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent reversion

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

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

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

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

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

• They are thought to have been ethnolinguistically Celtic.

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

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

Picts and Scythians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Percentage of R1b Y haplogroup DNA...

Welsh 89.1%

Irish 81.5%

Scots 72.5%

Catalans 79,2%

Basque 92.7%

Swedes 13.1%

Finns 2.0%

Excerpt from the Declaration of Arbroath

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's the same guy.

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

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

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

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

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

"However, zero credence is now given to that view" is original research, the claim about Scythians is entirely plausible, and FYI you clearly have no clue whether or not it's true. Absolutely no idea at all. Please leave your personal opinions out of wikipedia articles. Nobody cares if you find it politically inconvenient that ancient peoples migrated more than previously thought.

Journal of Eurasian Studies

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article is factually incorrect. See

The Tribes of Britain: Miles, David: 9780753817995

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

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

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

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

"10% of Scots descended from Picts"

I've reverted this edit [1] as it's misleading. The marker involved is on the Y chromosome and the finding that it is more prevalent in the geographical region once occupied by the Picts well may show that it was present in the Picts... However it is not a test of Pictish descent. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

"Formerly Brittonic"

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