Who were the Picts?

Chookie · Feb 27, 2011

Recently there have been a couple of films based on the Rosemary Sutcliffe book “Eagle of the Ninth”. Both the films and the book are based on a false premise in that they refer to Picts. While I don't have much of a quarrel with the application of poetic licence, this gives a false impression.

Pytheas, circa 300BC, referred to the inhabitants of what is now Great Britain as Pretani and the archipeligo as the Pretanic Isles. It's been argued that Pretani is possibly a Celtic word translating as “those who paint themselves”, but it's never been explained why Pytheas used a Celtic word (that's if it is).

The term “Pict” was never used by the early Roman chroniclers, Tacitus refers to the Caledonians as “Britons”. It's only in 297CE that the term “Pict” is first used (by Emenius).

So who were the Picts? Some have suggested that they were a Celtic people, others have suggested they were a non-Celtic people, yet it seems they spoke some form of a Brythonnic language. There is an on-going argument about the Pictish language, but I'm just going to note that it's generally accepted that the Goidelic languages arrived before the Brythonnic ones, so I'm unsure about this as I don't know how the Pictish language became an isolate.

On the origins of this enigmatic people, my suggestion is that the Picts were the descendants of the original Bronze Age inhabitants.

Incidentally, forget anything you've ever heard about a “Pictish extermination” or genocide. The Picts didn't disappear, they weren't exterminated. They were assimilated as were the Gaels of the Isles and Argyll and the Welsh of Strathclyde. The result is the present-day indigenous population of Scotland.

Thoughts?

Toltec · Feb 27, 2011

Chookie said:
my suggestion is that the Picts were the descendants of the original Bronze Age inhabitants. ?

The original inhabitants of Britain were Mesolithic, later joined by Neolithic migrants, these made up the overwhelming bulk of the population. There seems to have been no major Bronze Age migration and if there was an Iron Age one it only effected the South.

So the only real option for differentiating the Picts from the rest of the Scots is by claiming they were descended from the Mesolithic migrants not the Neolithic ones.

You could logic it like this, the majority of Englsih(south of the Danelaw) and Welsh have DNA roughly 80% Neolithic / 20% Mesolithic, so what happened to all the Mesolithic people in England and Wales, where did they go? They didn't just disapear. Perhaps this means when the Neolithic people arrived they may have forced the Mesolithic Northwards and they took refuge in the far North of Scotland and became the Picts. When the Romans vastly weakend and depopulated the Caledonian tribes the Picts in the far north were able to move down and overrun them.

There is of course no evidence for this, a simple DNA test would reveal if the people in Pictish areas were different or if Scottish DNA had a higher Mesolithic count, but as the Vikings seem to have replaced up to 50% of the male population of Scotland as recent surveys suggest, this is not possible as that evidence has gone.

So there you are, a viable theory based around the prehistory we know and explains away the lack of evidence.

Nope I don't believe it myself before you ask.

galteeman · Feb 27, 2011

I don’t buy that. How do you know the Vikings replaced 50% of the male population? Sounds very unlikely. If something as dramatic as that had happened in Scotland as recently as the Vikings then we would know about it. If there is something in the DNA that puts the Scots a little closer to the Scandinavians then perhaps this is because of something that happened much farther back. Northern Britain is pretty much a blank before the Romans. There could have been all sorts of invasions and migrations to Northern Britain from the north east before the first millenium BC of which we know nothing.

Toltec · Feb 27, 2011

It's the latest theory, Scandinvians have a genetic marker not found in western Europe. In Wales and England south of the Danelaw it's barely present, in Scotland and England north of the Danelaw it's abundant. The fact it follows the Danelaw in England and Scotland has a strong Viking past, means many people are suggesting the arrival corresponds to the Vikings.

Yes you are right the migration from Scandinavia could have been pre-Roman, or even during Roman times, they built the Saxon Shore forts to fight someone, and it sure wasn't the Saxons. In fact there's a good case for it being Romans times, the Saxon shore forts kept the invaders from England but not Scotland. The Romans also stopped maintaining the Northern forts towards the end of their rule. So that would explain the north of the Danelaw bit.

Ri Fhionngaill · Feb 27, 2011

There is a story that the Picts are from the northwest of the British Isles, and it is true that they first appeared - and made most of their monuments - on Orkney, and then spread south through Scotland. A Scandinavian (or, as ancient writers put it, Scythian) origin for them after the Roman campaign of 84AD is not out of the question. Both Bede and Irish writers describe how they came from across the sea.

I personally believe the Scandinavian origin theory. There was something about the Picts that didn't fit in with the broadly similar Celtic cultures that already existed in the British Isles; their art work and language was nothing like that of the Britons or the Gaels. They almost certainly weren't the people that the Romans fought in 84AD. Unless they were a rebellion of the pre-Celtic peoples after the destruction of the ruling classes by the Roman's ethnic cleansing, there's no other explanation for the difference between their language and culture.

galteeman · Feb 27, 2011

The Oppenheimer book puts Viking dna in British isles at 5.5% overall. I have read somewhere (that sounded plausible but I can't remember exactly where now) that the numbers of Vikings who actually settled in England would have been about 10,000 and perhaps about 2000 in Ireland but I can't remember the figure for Scotland but it was very low as well.

galteeman · Feb 27, 2011

Wasn't there something to do with ancient breeds of sheep in Scotland which matched those in Scandinavia?

Ri Fhionngaill · Feb 27, 2011

The population of the Hebrides at the time was very low. The population of the Hebrides in the 200s was several thousand. The Irish annals state that the Picts asked for three hundred Irish women when they arrived.

Wasn't there something to do with ancient breeds of sheep in Scotland which matched those in Scandinavia?

Yes, the Soay sheep, on the St Kilda archipelago.

Toltec · Feb 27, 2011

This needs a little explaination, its one of the most recent maps.

Most maps if you look around the net show haplogroups and you get that big wedge of R across western Europe. This is a map of the subclades of R. It didn't exist a few years ago but now dozens of different types of R can be found.

So this is only talking about the R, the percentage of R in a country can be seen on the small pie diagram to the left, and what subclades of R on the big diagram to the right.

As can be seen the pink stuff is the Scandinavian stuff I was talking about. It's only really found in large quantities in Norway and Russia, not found in Ireland, pretty common in Scotland and mostly in the NW of England.

So when did it get there, is the question.

One theory is the Vikings, another is the Saxon raids during Roman times were in fact Norwegian raids. They clearly weren't German, no M173 is found in the British Isles.

Another reasonable Theory Ri has made is the Picts were Scandinavians. but this would give them no connection to Ireland whatsoever which he has suggested in the past.

Ri Fhionngaill · Feb 27, 2011

I think that the origin of the Picts is Scandinavian; they were exposed to Celtic influence, but that never extended to anything more than the upper level of their society, as reflected in the names of their kings. The Irish connection comes in with the cruithne in the 600s, who contemporary chroniclers describe as 'British.'

It would explain the high percentage of Scandinavian descendants in the Western Isles even though most of the islands - with the exception of Lewis - were not colonised by later Viking raiders, and it would also explain why the Picts appeared in the north of Scotland, and why most of their brochs are in the north and west.

galteeman · Feb 27, 2011

Thanks for the map Toltec. There is bound to have been a steady stream of emigrants coming in from the direction of Scandinavia to eastern Scotland since ancient times and the Vikings are only the latest addition to that. I'd guess that whatever happened was going on for a long time and the Vikings were only the latest wave in a whole series.

galteeman · Feb 27, 2011

Looking at that map again there is something I find very surprising about the total lack of M173 in England. How could there be such a difference between England and Holland when they are so close?. Surely there would also have been major intermixing between these two areas over thousands of years.

Ginner · Mar 1, 2011

I was just saying, maybe them and the Vikings were from a similar background to each other.
I would say the best idea to support this is the fact that they coped brilliant in the harsh Scottish winters at that time. I would say that they cope as well as anyone and this could be down to the fact that conditions were like that in their homelands.

flaxman · Mar 1, 2011

Fascinating thread.

Why couldn't the Romans subjugate the Picts, did they in fact even try?

What is the mystery of Ogram?

Athelstan · Mar 1, 2011

Well Bede writing around 730 states “ It is related that the Pictish race from Scythia sailed out into the Ocean in a few warships and were carried by wind beyond the furthest bounds of Britain, reaching Ireland and landing on its northern shore.”

It is thought he meant Scandia instead of Scythia as that fits his narrative. Living in Jarrow he would have had first hand contact with the Picts.

Athelstan · Mar 1, 2011

Chookie said:
Incidentally, forget anything you've ever heard about a “Pictish extermination” or genocide. The Picts didn't disappear, they weren't exterminated. They were assimilated as were the Gaels of the Isles and Argyll and the Welsh of Strathclyde. The result is the present-day indigenous population of Scotland.

Thoughts?

So what happened to the Lothians? Were they Picts or Britons who slowly absorbed the culture of the new Kingdom of Bernicia? Are they totally Northumbrian, it’s from them that the Scots language originated. Sassenach doesn’t just apply to Englishmen.

Isn’t extermination exactly what Neil Oliver in The History of Scotland said the Vikings did to the Picts.

Chookie · Mar 1, 2011

Athelstan said:
So what happened to the Lothians? Were they Picts or Britons who slowly absorbed the culture of the new Kingdom of Bernicia?

Originally they were the Selgovae and Votadini, but they were Roman client states who were absorbed into Bernicia.

Athelstan said:
Are they totally Northumbrian, it’s from them that the Scots language originated.

Not totally, but you're correct about the language.

Athelstan said:
Sassenach doesn’t just apply to Englishmen.

Very true.

Athelstan said:
Isn’t extermination exactly what Neil Oliver in The History of Scotland said the Vikings did to the Picts.

Yes, he said that, but it's not supported by the evidence (waht evidence there is anyway...), but that's not the point here - The Scots were regarded as having exterminated the Picts around the time Kenneth Mac Alpin became King of the Picts and Scots (before the Vikings became a problem).

olly · Mar 1, 2011

The mystery surrounding the Picts is what captured my interest in history, its a shame all we have left is a few stones and some theories, i imagine they were very fierce warriors having fought off enemys on all sides, maybe the celts got on with them in the end, i hope.

PADDYBOY · Mar 2, 2011

Athelstan said:
Isn’t extermination exactly what Neil Oliver in The History of Scotland said the Vikings did to the Picts.

Nope!
He argues that the Picts allowed themselves to become assimilated by the Gaels due to Viking invasions and weak Pictish leadership.

He bases his opinion on a book called the Poppleton Manuscript now held in the collections of the Bibliotheque Natinale in Paris. It contains a document called the Chronicle of the Kings of Alba, which covers a ten year period missing from Scottish history.

He claims that Keneth MacAlpine was never king of Scots and Picts, but was King of Pictavia only and it was forty years later that the Gaels took over as Kings of Alba.

In other words. The Picts still make up a large percentage (if not most) of the Scottish population. They just think they are Gaels and don't know they are descended from the Picts.

Honestly, I think you'll be hard pressed to find any Scottish historian today who believes the Picts were wiped out.....

Athelstan · Mar 2, 2011

Chookie said:
Yes, he said that, but it's not supported by the evidence (waht evidence there is anyway...), but that's not the point here - The Scots were regarded as having exterminated the Picts around the time Kenneth Mac Alpin became King of the Picts and Scots (before the Vikings became a problem).

I remember reading the books of Nigel Tranter and recall he made great play of how it was King of Scots not King of Scotland. Obviously I’m using English here but it seems to me that it’s always King of the Picts, so was there ever a Pictland. Bede seems to think there were many Kingdoms of Picts.

The image seems to be of Picts ranging all over Britain when the Romans left. How far could they have got and why go back; perhaps they didn’t and thereby let in the Scoti. In any event the Picts seem to disappear as the Vikings appear and the Picts are in the right place to get hammered and suffer the same fate as Northumbria.

There seem to be many theories as to how Edinburgh got its name. When I visited the Castle the written view was that it was named in hindsight as people thought Edwin had once owned it. I would plump for the Lothian Angles and Edwin’s Fort but others go for Din Eidyn

Search

Search

Who were the Picts?

Chookie

Toltec

galteeman

Toltec

Ri Fhionngaill

galteeman

galteeman

Ri Fhionngaill

Toltec

Ri Fhionngaill

galteeman

galteeman

Ginner

flaxman

Athelstan

Athelstan

Chookie

olly

PADDYBOY

Athelstan

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions