Talk:Picts

Why they are called Celtic people in opening article !

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)

That's not what the EB article says. It says they may have been descended from pre-Celtic people. "Celtic" is a cultural/linguistic term... the Celts were people who spoke Celtic languages. The Picts spoke celtic languages ergo they were Celtic. Their ancestors may not have been.

It is generally accepted that Pictish was a P-Celtic language and the later Pictish Kingdoms would have been Gaelic speaking. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:29, 16 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)

Um, no. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:26, 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)

There is universal academic consensus that the Picts were a celtic people. This has nothing whatsoever to do with nationalism (personally I am not a nationalist) and it predates Burns by several centuries (I'm unaware of what Burns has to say on the matter, but he was a poet, not a historian). North Africa? Are you joking?Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the Picts are not a Celtic people. They were a pre-Indo-European native people. Along the lines of the Basque. This "cultural/linguistic group" is PC crap to erase any historic and genetic grouping of people based on ethnicity. Yes, yes, people merged and new people were assimilated, but in the end one dominate ethnic group originated the culture and language and continued to be the main historical genesis and core of the ethnic group. The Picts did not come to Scotland with the Indo-European Celts; just because the Picts later incorporated Celtic culture is irrelevant to who they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.11.77 (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I concur that they are not a Celtic people. In fact their is no such thing as a Celtic race - that's a nationalistic notion from the 19th century based on romanticism, ignorance, and little fact. There is however Celtic culture and that is what spread across Europe, and as it was superior to many indigenous cultures, it quickly superseded them being adopted by various different ethnic groups... just as many different ethnic groups today speak English but aren't of the English "race". Mabuska ^(talk) 22:43, 10 July 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:

The Picts were a tribal confederation of Celtic peoples during the Late Iron Age and Early Medieval periods living in ancient eastern and northern Scotland.

Would the following be preferable?

The Picts were a tribal confederation of peoples who lived in eastern and northern Scotland during the Late Iron Age and Early Medieval periods. They are thought to have been ethnolinguistically Celtic.

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)

I'm happy enough with this, but there's really no difference. Celts begins:

"The Celts (/ˈkɛlts/, occasionally /ˈsɛlts/, see pronunciation of Celtic) were an ethnolinguistic group of tribal societies in Iron Age and Medieval Europe who spoke Celtic languages and had a similar culture,[1] although the relationship between the ethnic, linguistic and cultural elements remains uncertain and controversial.[2] The exact geographic spread of the ancient Celts is also disputed; in particular, whether the Iron Age inhabitants of Britain and Ireland should be regarded as Celts has become a subject of controversy."

There's really no much difference between the proto-Picts and those in modern England in this respect. To say (from above) "The Picts did not come to Scotland with the Indo-European Celts..." suggests a 19th-century view of the matter. Plenty of scholars (especially in/of Ireland) suspect the whole British Isles were speaking Celtic languages from say 2,000 BC, and also that there was no massive ethnic change between then and the Anglo-Saxons. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've implemented that change and also swapped "Brythonic" with "Brittonic" in line with other articles. It's also worth noting that Picts and Pictish language has been brought up on User talk:Jimbo Wales#Pictish_language: classification, the contention being that the articles do not accurately portray the current academic position (as a result of POV pushing on my part). Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Destruction of the Picts

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)

That doesn't sound terribly plausible at all. TheXand (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that there's something to be said for the idea that the Picts were culturally "destroyed" by a combination of the Norwegians from the northeast and the Dalradian Scots from the southwest but genocide? No. We'd need some strong sources for that claim. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a while since I saw Blood of the Vikings, but isn't the claim only made as regards Orkney & Shetland? Perhaps someone has Julian's book that accompanied the series ... Even then, the claim would really have to be phrased that they appear to have exterminated "the natives". As I recall, the only certain connection between Picts and the Northern Isles is that Bruide mac Bili "destroyed" Orkney. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This may be true - if you exclude archaeological evidence. The first chapter of William Thomson's (2008) The New History of Orkney is called "Pictish Orkney". Ben MacDui 09:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah! So what does Mr Thomson say about the genocide? Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

For this we must delve into chapter 3 "Place names and the Pictish-Norse Transition". I will scour its contents asap. In the meantime there are a few comments at Shetland#Prehistory that may be of interest. Ben MacDui 19:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Wisely, Mr T offers us insight into the varying views, and especially the contrast between the "Peace" and "War" theories of Norse colonisation and how they have gone in and out of fashion. He notes that the latter has recently been "restated in appropriately belligerent fashion by Ian Crawford, who was dismissive of the archaeological evidence from Buckquoy" and that "Brian Smith has argued the case for believing that the Norse settlers exterminated or expelled their Pictish predecessors". He draws attention to the savagery of the attacks on the Hebrides and considers it unlikely that Orkney fared differently, but also that genetic evidence places Orkney half-way between the Celtic and Norse worlds and that there is evidence of ongoing Christian life there after Norse colonisation. He concludes by saying "overwhelming Norse naming [of places] suggests a more complete break with the Pictish past than most archaeologists have hitherto been prepared to envisage." He also quotes F. T. Wainwright's (1962) Northern Isles who describes the Picts as "overwhelmed, politically, linguistically, culturally and socially" but Thomson goes on to note that this statement should not "disguise our ignorance of what actually happened" and might mean "widespread slaughter" or "an altogether more peaceful process". In short, we don't know. Ben MacDui 20:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as the genetic evidence goes, Goodacre et al (2005, Heredity 95: 129) is probably the best source, which shows that Orkney and Shetland had Scandinavian family settlement (equal contribution from males and females, i.e. Y chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA, respectively) such that Orkney is 30% Scandinavian and 70% British while Shetland is 45% Scandinavian, 55% British. This is markedly different from the case in the Hebrides where there is unequal contributions from males and females (males = 22.5% Scandinavian, 77.5% British; females = 11% Scandinavian, 89% British), i.e. lone Scandinavian males settling and taking British female partners. I would tend to view the evidence from Orkney and Shetland as more consistent with settlement of an under-occupied land, rather than a hostile invasion. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the Shetland article. However, for a modern parallel, it is fairly clear that the absence of non-European placenames in Tasmania is a result of the fate of the Aboriginal Tasmanians. Ben MacDui 12:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

A revert I made a few weeks ago

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/w/index.php?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)

Good faith edit I'm sure, but this is covered with sources in the history-section just below, so removing it was correct. Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :) Kap 7 (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove unsupported matrilineal claim

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)

To quote James Fraser (Caledonia to Pictland, at page 53) "The well known matrilineal thesis was based on a naive over-reliance on Gaelic vernacular origin tales and the extant Pictish king-list, products of the first half of the ninth century (and later)." Fraser goes on to note that Bede does not say that the Picts practised matrilineal succession (or rather, he says it was used only when the issue was in doubt, as was also arguably the case in Northumbria and Francia). It's worth noting that by present reckoning there are only the two historic Pictish kings who are called X son of <mother> rather than X son of <father>, and that those two are precisely the kings to whom Bede refers when he says it was "observed among the Picts to this day". If we were writing this thirty years ago there would be a solid case for including matriliny. Today, not really. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:05, 8 January 2014 (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)

Archives

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)

Okay, first I am not a nationalist. Second, nothing has been deleted, everything is still extant at Talk:Picts/Archive 1. If there is a specific discussion you want brought back, just ask. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

sorry , I have taken it away Edelward (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Gnaeus Julius Agricola

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)

Did the Picts just come into existence in 100 BC? or were they around before 100BC?

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)

Dispute added to article till we get consensus--Navops47 (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Navops, pleased to meet you. Nice to see another person getting interested in Pictish history. The people we call the Picts were descendants of pre-existing groups who we refer to as the Caledonians, and the commonly accepted division between them (fuzzy as it is) is around the mid-late third century AD. The books I refered to were: Fraser, James E (2009). From Caledonia to Pictland: Scotland to 795. The New Edinburgh History of Scotland. Vol. 1. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 9780748612321. {{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)

Hi Jim nice to meet you too Peter Salway was used as a source for article at the history files site he suggests that the Caledonians were made up of indigenous Pictish tribes, I read into that (been there a long time) he was drawing on the Pictish Chronicle are they not the same people ruled by Kings of Pictland (Caledonia)? the kings lists go back beyond 100 BC late British iron age,accept that some of the reign periods are suspect but Pytheas encountered the original inhabitants of Britain in the 4th century BC dating them from the late Iron Age doesn't seem right either?--Navops47 (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The Pictish Chronicle/King List is a late document (~tenth century) and the earliest parts of it are considered mythical. I wouldn't pay too much attention to them. Salway is an excellent historian, but he was not a specialist on Pictish history and he appears to have confused his terms here (I believe he is quoted from the Oxford History of England, I would have to check it). The people Pytheas encountered (if he directly encountered them) would not be what are normally called "Picts". Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I located a copy of the book in question and, unsurprisingly, he doesn't actually say that at all. That came from an edit made by user:Adamsan in August 2005 [1]:

Peter Salway considers them to have consisted of Highland clans augmented by fugitive resistance fighters fleeing from further south. The Caledonii tribe, after which the confederacy is named may have been joined in the confederacy by tribes in northern central Scotland by this time, such as the Vacomagi, Taexali and Venicones. The confederacy would have excluded the broch building peoples of the far north of Scotland who appear to have been in conflict with the Caledonians and were probably more sympathetic to Rome.

This was edited by user:Mais oui! in December 2005 [2]

Peter Salway considers the Caledonians to have consisted of indigenous Pictish tribes augmented by fugitive Brythonic resistance fighters fleeing from Britannia. The Caledonii tribe, after which the confederacy is named may have been joined in the confederacy by tribes in northern central Scotland by this time, such as the Vacomagi, Taexali and Venicones.

In fact, the only time Salway mentions Picts is as thus:

The course of the campaign is unknown. The literary sources claim penetration to the north of Scotland, and a victory over the 'Picts', the first time that the northern enemy of Rome are called thus. This included the Caledonii and others, and therefore seems to have been a generic name that embraced the HIghland tribes beyond the Forth Clyde isthmus, perhaps additional groups as well.

Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I looked a little further into this. Your edit rendered the opening paragraph as follows:

The Picts were a tribal confederation of Celtic peoples from the Early Iron Age to the Early Medieval periods (c.600 BC-850 AD) living in ancient eastern and northern Scotland..

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)

To add my two cents: the historfiles webpage cannot be considered a WP:RS. Given that Salway doesn't seem to say very much at all about the Picts in general, it is much better to rely on more recent sources such as Fraser and Woolf. My view would be that these support the status quo ante, but I am never against outlining different perspectives in a situation like this, is they are from reputable scholars.--SabreBD (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Nobody knows anything much about the early period and the term is somewhat vague anyway. I'm not very happy about us just saying flatly they were "Celtic peoples" either - the term is extremely slippery, and a considerable degree of not being "Celtic", with whatever meaning has been given that term, can't be ruled out. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Gentleman nobody has answered the questions in the title heading I simply do not believe that they just appeared in a neat time slot of 100 years at the end of the late iron age. Also if you dismiss the Pictish chronicle the early part of king list as mythical that has repercussions on all relevant articles either these tribal states were named after real people or they were fictitious you can't have it both ways in which case there should be a notes on all affected articles stating the origins of this kingdom or name of this person are considered mythical.--Navops47 (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Example this article Pictish Chronicle the opening sentence says. The Pictish Chronicle is a name often given by historians to a list of the kings of the Picts beginning many thousand years before history was recorded in Pictavia (which links to Picts article) and ending after Pictavia had been enveloped by Scotland contradicts this sentence. The Picts were a tribal confederation of Celtic peoples during the Late Iron Age and Early Medieval periods living in ancient eastern and northern Scotland.--Navops47 (talk) 18:20, 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:

One can only suppose, as Dauvit Broun has argued for the description of the Pictish provinces, that its function is to affirm the enduring unity of the territory of the kingdom. A king-list requires that a kingdom has existed over several generations or ensures that that is how it will appear. In this light, if Anderson and others are correct in suggesting that the list was originally compiled in or near 724, the perceived unity of the kingdom may be of relatively recent date.

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:

Neither in late Antiquity, then, nor in the Early Historic period, is there convincing evidence to suggest that Pictishness meant anything to the peoples of inner Caledonia before the end of the Roman Iron Age.

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)

Reading material

Here's what seems to be the first chapter of Benjamin Hudson's newish (2014) book on the Picts [3]. 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)

See below on the scathing review of this book.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

"Pictish Tribes" removed

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)

Multiple, conflicting origins of the Picts

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.

• Celtic, either Brythonic like the Welsh or Goidelic like the present-day Scots.
• Germanic, either Lower or North Germans like Dutch or Scandinavian like Norwegians.
• Goths, theoretically linked to Scythians of Eastern Europe, thus of Slavic or Iranian origin.
• Non-Indo European, namely Iberians like Basques of Spain or Uralic-Finnic peoples like Finns.
• Other non-Indo European, theories connecting them with the mythological Fomorians from Morocco, North Africa.
• Descendants of non Indo-European Georgians or Indo-European Hurrians or Armenians.
• Myths about their origins from Copts of Egypt and biblical Hebrews from Palestine.
• Selkies, a mythological people in folklore predate Celts and Anglo-Saxons may had existed after all.
• and finally, possible Indo-European relatives like the Baltic peoples and Albanians from the Balkans.

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)

Selkies? Shape shifting seals?

Really, most of these "theories" are fringe at best or long discounted. The Picts had celtic names (Brythonic to begin with, Gaelic later) and gave Celtic names to their towns. They were Celtic. The notion that there was a Celtic elite and a non-indoeuropean population has all but been shelved... the supposed evidence for non indoeuropean is flimsy at best. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, although of course "being Celtic" is a wobbly concept everywhere, which by no means excludes elements of some of the above. I don't think any evidence from DNA has done much to shed light on the matter so far. The "origins" of the Picts are highly likely to be in Scotland. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Their ultimate origins would have been similar to other Brittonic celtic groups pre-Romanisation. They are likely to have emerged from Iron Age celtic speaking groups (in this case those that we call Caledonians - the distinction is admittedly hazy) that replaced/displaced Bronze Age pre-Indo European speaking groups. As always it's likely that there was some interbreeding between the two groups (pre-IE and Celtic) and that it was a cultural replacement rather than a population replacement. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

MesoAmerican connection?

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)

No, it really isn't. DNA analysis on Pictish remains (which all have caucasian features) shows that they were most closely related to (unsurprisingly) the present day Scots. They didn't disappear... they are still there. The Pictish ethnicity was merely suppressed/lost. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, despite that appearing in a reputable national newspaper, I'm not sure if Pictish DNA has been successfully extracted and analysed yet... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Appearance? Geography?

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)

"Good authority," eh? Well, by God, that's good enough for me! Edit that article!! 104.169.44.141 (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

Picts

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've knocked one up... I'm not sure it's that informative. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for knocking that up. I'm not sure I'd support adding it to the article though. It seems to me it would just add unnecessary clutter. The article is already cluttered by having two images at the top, which have to be scrolled past when viewed on a mobile phone before the reader gets to the lead text. When the template requesting an infobox was added, I initially reverted it as unhelpful because I couldn't see any discussion here on the talk page or in its archive explaining what was meant by "so that the article resembles the standard display for this subject" or "the standardized infobox for this type of article". The editor who added the template merely added it again, rather than entering into discussion as would have been polite and advised by WP:BRD. --Deskford (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think it would add much to the article. I was intrigued by the claim that all cultures have an infobox, so looked at the articles for similar peoples... None of them use an infobox similar to the one on the right. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 07:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Seven days have passed, and neither the editor who added the template nor anyone else has come forward to explain what kind of infobox might be desirable and why. How long do we wait before concluding that there is no consensus to add an infobox and removing the template? --Deskford (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Just do it.Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the template and adding the hidden note on the page. --Deskford (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Silver plaque image unsharp

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)

I'm deeply insulted.

No, not really... go to the National Museum of Scotland and take a better one... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bugger for an amateur to photo, and that is the the best of about 20 attempts. But it does show the decorative form pretty clearly, which is the main thing. Obviously what we need is a smartarse pro with good kit and a steady hand (no tripods allowed, remember). Best of luck. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Pretani

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)

Pretani is not equivalent to Picts. Pretani, as I understand it, loosely translates to celtic Briton. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Changed redirect to Celtic Britons, which seems the best fit. It used to go to Cruthin, which was probably even worse. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it, the best academic guess for the meaning of both Pretani and Pict is "painted people" or something like "people of the patterns". Pict was the name given by the Romans later, after population and cultural upheaval, thanks largely to the Romans themselves). Cruthin (Qretani) is the name in Irish Gaelic, Pretani is the equivalent in 'P-Celtic', as is the more recent Prydein (now Prydain).

I'm not sure that the Pretani were always "Celtic" Britons. These people may have had a history and culture (and language) all their own before the expansion of the Celtic cultures into the islands.

Certainly though, a redirect to Cruthin would be a better fit, in contrast to what you have said, Johnbod. Cruthin is a direct translation of the word Pretani.

I am putting the clarification tag back for two reasons: 1. It is obviously not clear, if there are all these questions to be answered and 2. I want to stimulate discussion here. --75.177.79.101 (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it again. There is no clarification required for where the Picts lived. It's established and uncontroversial and tagging the article is inappropriate. Pretani does not mean painted people and isn't equivalent to Pict, although the Picts would have been a subset of the Pretani... it simply means inhabitant of Britain. The Irish did indeed refer to the Picts specifically as Cruithni, as the Saxons had displaced the southern Britons, at least culturally. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:01, 28 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)

We would do well to remember that Ptolemy died in 170 AD, several centuries before either of the terms Picts or Cruthin are found. Julius Caesar recorded that the southern Britons "painted" themselves, but of course never went near either north Scotland or Ireland. I don't believe precise co-relations between the "Pretani" and groups only recorded much later can be justified on the limited evidence we have. Johnbod (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Ptolemy died, but the peoples did not. Ptolemy died just over 100 years before the first recorded mention of the word Pict. The word Pict is merely the Roman name for the people - their translation of the word.

So, if the word Pict is just a translation of the word for the inhabitants of the isles, then it follows that the people are the same.

There are, of course, different opinions in the professional literature. I do think, though, that we should consider putting this into the lede. Certainly it seems that early Irish writers at least used the word Cruthin (Qretani = Pretani) to refer to peoples of north-eastern Ireland as well as people in Scotland. --75.177.79.101 (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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)