# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  The Picts

## Keegah

Why do people keep treating the Celts and the Picts as separate peoples? Everything I've read about them - from place-names derived from the Pictish language and their artwork - seems to indicate they were Brythonic Celts.

----------


## hope

Yeah but we can`t yet be sure what language the "picts" actually used. Whilst the ogham stones in Ireland are for the most translated, the pictish ones still remain a mystery. There are loads of people on this forum that deal with linguistics so maybe one of them will have an educated idea. :)

----------


## L.D.Brousse

Hope what is your take on the possibility of the Picts also being Pictones of SW France My family comes from the neighboring Santone Tribal lands both are seafaring tribes I'm sure they traded in England Plus I heard the Picts had a navy

----------


## Taranis

> Why do people keep treating the Celts and the Picts as separate peoples? Everything I've read about them - from place-names derived from the Pictish language and their artwork - seems to indicate they were Brythonic Celts.





> Yeah but we can`t yet be sure what language the "picts" actually used. Whilst the ogham stones in Ireland are for the most translated, the pictish ones still remain a mystery. There are loads of people on this forum that deal with linguistics so maybe one of them will have an educated idea. :)


There are two main sources concerning the language of the Picts. The first are Graeco-Roman sources, most notably the geography of Claudius Ptolemaios, which lists tribes and geographic features for the lands north of the Hadrians wall. The second are Gaelic sources, most notably the list of Pictish kings, for some which native Pictish names are given alongside of Gaelic translations. Both show that Pictish was a P-Celtic language akin to Brythonic or Gaulish. You brought up these "Pictish" Ogham inscriptions, but there is serious scepticism that this justifies the assumption that a non-Indo-European language survived into dark ages Britain.

PS: I can recommend this paper on the Pictish language if you want to know more about the topic.

----------


## L.D.Brousse

I have a theory that The picts May be of the Pictone tribe of SW France. The Pictones and the Santones "that controlled the land my family came from in France are both seafaring tribes. I have seen the Picts also had a navy. What are your opinions on this?

----------


## sparkey

This sounds like fellow Eupedia poster how yes no's theory about persistence of tribal names. And in some cases, we can see that tribal names did persist between the continent and the isles, such as the Belgae and the Dumnonii.

The obvious trouble with the Picts, though, is that "Pict" wasn't what they called themselves, so there's no evidence of the persistence of tribal names. We don't know what they called themselves. "Pict" is from the Latin for "painted." Not to mention that the geography is much more distant than for the Belgae and Dumnonii.

----------


## hope

> Hope what is your take on the possibility of the Picts also being Pictones of SW France My family comes from the neighboring Santone Tribal lands both are seafaring tribes I'm sure they traded in England Plus I heard the Picts had a navy


Well there will probably be loads who will fly in here when I say this but here goes anyway. You could be right, to an extent. I think accepting the Romans meant Pritani as Brittones is wrong. They were very careful in their recording of details and I don`t see them making such a mistake. I think when they used the name Brittones for some British tribes they meant Pictones. The Pictones were a tribe also in Gaul and the Romans would have known of them from there.

But I don`t think they were the Picts of Scotland who I think were probably those referred to as the Pretani. Hope that makes sense :)

----------


## Taranis

> This sounds like fellow Eupedia poster how yes no's theory about persistence of tribal names. And in some cases, we can see that tribal names did persist between the continent and the isles, such as the Belgae and the Dumnonii.
> 
> The obvious trouble with the Picts, though, is that "Pict" wasn't what they called themselves, so there's no evidence of the persistence of tribal names. We don't know what they called themselves. "Pict" is from the Latin for "painted." Not to mention that the geography is much more distant than for the Belgae and Dumnonii.


I haven't much to add here, sparkey, other than to say that you're right. "Picts" is an exonym, whereas "Pictones" (or "Pictavi") is a Gaulish tribal name.

There are some Brythonic tribes which _clearly_ had ties with Gaul (such as the Atrebates and the Parisii), but that doesn't apply to the Picts.

When names persist (endonym or exonym is irrelevant), they always must conform to the respective sound laws as a language evolves. To illustrate that, I'd like to bring up a few names which really (in modified form) persisted where this applies:

(Proto-Germanic) Chatti > (German) Hessen

(Celtic) Volcae > (Proto-Germanic) Walhaz > Wales, Wallonia, Wallachia (modern place names)

----------


## spongetaro

> (Celtic) Volcae > (Proto-Germanic) Walhaz > Wales, Wallonia, Wallachia (modern place names)


Interesting. Does that mean that the Volcae were the first Celtic tribe that the Germanic people met?

----------


## hope

Taranis I tried that link but it`s not opening anything.

----------


## L.D.Brousse

There is not a lot written about the Santones as they helped the Romans. Even built a fleet of ships for Rome for the invasion of England. The help was for Rome warning them about the *Helvetii* plans to settle their lands. IMO the Pictones and Santones were the same type of people But I also think they differed from other Celtic tribes. Being Seafaring they may not have the same origins as rest or the tribes

----------


## hope

> There are two main sources concerning the language of the Picts. The first are Graeco-Roman sources, most notably the geography of Claudius Ptolemaios, which lists tribes and geographic features for the lands north of the Hadrians wall. The second are Gaelic sources, most notably the list of Pictish kings, for some which native Pictish names are given alongside of Gaelic translations. Both show that Pictish was a P-Celtic language akin to Brythonic or Gaulish. You brought up these "Pictish" Ogham inscriptions, but there is serious scepticism that this justifies the assumption that a non-Indo-European language survived into dark ages Britain.
> 
> PS: I can recommend this paper on the Pictish language if you want to know more about the topic.


So Taranis what is the tongue of the writing of the oghams, do you know? Also are the tribe names we associate with the Picts
such as the Taezeli, Vacomagi or the Caledonii , are they celtic names ? :)

----------


## Taranis

> So Taranis what is the tongue of the writing of the oghams, do you know?


Well, I'll give you an example of those "Pictish" inscriptions:



You're free to transliterate this yourself, but I read this as "IRATADDOARENS". Most so-called 'Pictish' inscriptions are similarly short. So, I'll return the question: do these rather unreadable inscriptions justify the assumption that a non-Indo-European language survived in dark ages Scotland?




> Also are the tribe names we associate with the Picts
> such as the Taezeli, Vacomagi or the Caledonii , are they celtic names ? :)


"Caledonii" - you can compare the name with Breton "kalet", Welsh "caled" and Old Irish "calad", which all mean 'hard'. It's also found in the Gaulish tribal name "Caleti". The '-on-' is an augmentative form also typically Celtic (think of tribal names like "Senones" and "Lingones", etc.).


"Vacomagi" - the first element is also found in the Gaulish "Bellovaci", as well as possibly the Celtiberian "Arevaci" and "Vaccaei". The second element is probably the same as Old Irish "mag" and Gaulish "magus" ('plain', 'field').

About "Taezali" what should be added that other versions give the name as "Tazali" or even as "Taexali" - it's unclear what the original form was. What should be added (to quote Forsyth 1997, the link which I provided above):

"_If we are wavering in accepting the Celticity of these problematic tribal names, it is surely of the greatest significance that the river Deva ran through the territory of the Taezali. If Celtic-speakers were sufficiently established in the region to have named the major river, this should give us pause before dismissing a Celtic explanation for the local tribal name. Likewise with the river Tama and the place-name Bannatia in the territory of the Vacomagi_."

----------


## hope

> Well, I'll give you an example of those "Pictish" inscriptions:
> 
> 
> 
> You're free to transliterate this yourself, but I read this as "IRATADDOARENS". Most so-called 'Pictish' inscriptions are similarly short. So, I'll return the question: do these rather unreadable inscriptions justify the assumption that a non-Indo-European language survived in dark ages Scotland?
> 
> 
> 
> "Caledonii" - you can compare the name with Breton "kalet", Welsh "caled" and Old Irish "calad", which all mean 'hard'. It's also found in the Gaulish tribal name "Caleti". The '-on-' is an augmentative form also typically Celtic (think of tribal names like "Senones" and "Lingones", etc.).
> ...


Good full answer Taranis, thank-you. Tell me do you know anything of the Senchineoil tribe or the root of that name?

----------


## L.D.Brousse

Do you think there was ever a time that all Celts spoke the same language?

----------


## L.D.Brousse

your right .

----------


## Taranis

> Do you think there was ever a time that all Celts spoke the same language?


The Celtic languages constitute one branch of the Indo-European languages, and all Celtic languages (living or extinct) are thought to have descended from one common Proto-Celtic language, which is generally thought to have been spoken in the bronze age. 




> I think my son looks Celtic.


Sorry, but how can any person look "Celtic"?! That statement doesn't really make much sense.

----------


## L.D.Brousse

Was it the mixing with other cultures that caused the language to change from tribe to tribe Kind of like in America we speak English but with a lot of slang making it hard sometimes for Brits to understand us and for us to understand them. The same in other former colonies. It looks like a language can't survive away from it's origins for long in it's original form. I guess like Germans and the Dutch

----------


## sparkey

> Was it the mixing with other cultures that caused the language to change from tribe to tribe Kind of like in America we speak English but with a lot of slang making it hard sometimes for Brits to understand us and us them the same in former colonies


It depends on the situation, I think. Are you asking specifically how Brythonic became P-Celtic, while retaining elements from Goidelic not present in Gaulish? Or why Pictish was considered a different language than the forerunner of Welsh/Cornish/Breton?

----------


## Keegah

So, the common consensus here seems to be that the Picts were a Celtic people - in that case, again, why does it seem like they are they so often referred to as separate from their surrounding Celtic neighbors?

I mean, if I had to guess, I would say that it's because since we know fairly little about the Pictish language, we can't be absolutely certain that it was, in fact, Celtic. But it seems like the lion's share of the evidence points to it being similar to the other Brythonic languages.

----------


## hope

> Well, I'll give you an example of those "Pictish" inscriptions:
> 
> 
> 
> You're free to transliterate this yourself, but I read this as "IRATADDOARENS". Most so-called 'Pictish' inscriptions are similarly short. So, I'll return the question: do these rather unreadable inscriptions justify the assumption that a non-Indo-European language survived in dark ages Scotland?
> 
> 
> 
> "Caledonii" - you can compare the name with Breton "kalet", Welsh "caled" and Old Irish "calad", which all mean 'hard'. It's also found in the Gaulish tribal name "Caleti". The '-on-' is an augmentative form also typically Celtic (think of tribal names like "Senones" and "Lingones", etc.).
> ...


Well that definitely translates as IRATADDOARENS just as you say, even though the second A seems to lie slightly different angle. But it makes no sense to me..whats your idea on it .Addoaren or Ethernan ?

----------


## Taranis

> So, the common consensus here seems to be that the Picts were a Celtic people - in that case, again, why does it seem like they are they so often referred to as separate from their surrounding Celtic neighbors?


I think this has a lot to do with Scottish national identity, which is usually (in the Scottish context, anyways) equates Celtic = Gaelic. Acknowledging that the Gaels supplanted an earlier, different Celtic people, doesn't quite fit into that image. It's much more convenient to portray the Picts as an exotic, non-Indo-European people.

There's more: acknowledging the Picts were relatives of the Britons to the south means that Scotland is part of Britain, and, cynically put, large swathes of Scottish history revolved around _not being a part of Britain_. If you look at the upcoming Scottish independence referendum, that even applies today.

The last component, in my opinion, is probably a religious one: the dichotomy between Christianity/Catholicism and Paganism.




> I mean, if I had to guess, I would say that it's because since we know fairly little about the Pictish language, we can't be absolutely certain that it was, in fact, Celtic. But it seems like the lion's share of the evidence points to it being similar to the other Brythonic languages.


To say that it was similar to the _other_ Brythonic languages is only partially correct. Pictish was probably more similar to (if not the same as) the "old" Brythonic language that was spoken in Britain at the time of the Roman invasion, but by the dark ages (5th century onward), Brythonic and Pictish must have been clearly distinct languages. Most importantly, it would appear that Pictish retained the Proto-Celtic *w- (shifted to *f- in Old Irish, shifted to *gw- in Brythonic, retained in all "old" Celtic languages).

----------


## L.D.Brousse

> Well that definitely translates as IRATADDOARENS just as you say, even though the second A seems to lie slightly different angle. But it makes no sense to me..whats your idea on it .Addoaren or Ethernan ?


 Their writing is lines at different angles and positions? And it this a Name?

----------


## Taranis

> Their writing is lines at different angles and positions? And it this a Name?


This writing system, in the case you were unaware, is the so-called Ogham alphabet. It was invented in Ireland in late(st) Antiquity (ca. 4th century AD, but perhaps earlier), and they represent the earliest examples of written Irish language. When the Gaels arrived in Scotland, the Picts adopted this writing system for themselves.

Some Pictish inscriptions do include names which are also found in the Pictish king lists, such as "Nechtan"/"Nechton" and "Tallorc". So yes, it's likely that this represents a name.

----------


## hope

> Their writing is lines at different angles and positions? And it this a Name?


It seems it may be L.D. I asked what Taranis` opinions on it were, but no answer yet so I looked it up in what I had from while back.First of all it`s known as the Brandsbutt Stone and the writing is ogham and says, as Taranis stated, IRATADDOARENS which could be a name. There have been a few opinions on who it might refer to but I go with Eddarrnon which is a rendering of St. Ethernanus, who was a local Saint of the area.
Dated: circa. 500AD :)

----------


## Kardu

How about the phenotype of the Picts? If I recall correctly they were described as small-framed and swarthy, in contrast with Celts... (Sardinian type comes to mind :))

----------


## hope

TARANIS... can you enlighten me in regards to St. Ninians stone. I was reading something on the net that I came across by chance. It was in German so I could only understand about three words out of every five or so. It was a theory (do not know by whom) that taking the meqq from Besmeqqnanammovvez as "son" and "...bes" as the person in question, rather than anammovvez being two names ( and this is the bit I wonder about) he takes this through a series of renderings and says it could be from the old Nordic word for mother ie; "mutter". Are you aware of this theory or the author? Before I could read it in full or find the source my computer closed down and I have been unable to find it again.
In my opinion this seems a bit out there.

----------


## Taranis

> TARANIS... can you enlighten me in regards to St. Ninians stone. I was reading something on the net that I came across by chance. It was in German so I could only understand about three words out of every five or so. It was a theory (do not know by whom) that taking the meqq from Besmeqqnanammovvez as "son" and "...bes" as the person in question, rather than anammovvez being two names ( and this is the bit I wonder about) he takes this through a series of renderings and says it could be from the old Nordic word for mother ie; "mutter". Are you aware of this theory or the author? Before I could read it in full or find the source my computer closed down and I have been unable to find it again.
> In my opinion this seems a bit out there.


I think any attempt to connect Pictish with Norse doesn't really make sense. About the St. Ninians inscription I cannot say anything in particular because I never saw it myself, only transcriptions (which are not always unambiguous). The phrase "maqq" or "meqq" occurs frequently in Pictish inscriptions and may be the same as Irish "mac" ("son"). This is surprising however, since we know from the Greek/Roman and Gaelic sources that Pictish was a P-Celtic language, so the expected Pictish word would be something akin to Gaulish "mapos" or Breton "mab".

The Norse obviously were in Scotland, eventually, and in fact the arrival of the Vikings was crucial for the demise of the Picts as a separate ethnicity. If we look at this map where Pictish rock art has been found, it is clear that the heartland of the Picts lay in the northeastern part of what today is Scotland, especially along the coast. These areas were hardest-hit when the Vikings began their raids. It is thus not surprising at all that what remained of the Picts by the mid-9th century was absorbed by the Gaels.

----------


## hope

I am inclined to agree, it was just that it being from the Shetlands made me wonder about possibilities. Thankyou for your insight.

----------


## toyomotor

> So, the common consensus here seems to be that the Picts were a Celtic people - in that case, again, why does it seem like they are they so often referred to as separate from their surrounding Celtic neighbors?
> 
> I mean, if I had to guess, I would say that it's because since we know fairly little about the Pictish language, we can't be absolutely certain that it was, in fact, Celtic. But it seems like the lion's share of the evidence points to it being similar to the other Brythonic languages.


I don't think so. The Picts were a distinct people living in modern day Scotland, and were joined in the first half of the first millennium AD by Celtic Irish. The name "Picts" means "the Painted Ones" and it was given to them by the Romans. It was the Irish culture which came to be most prevalent in Scotland.

----------


## Keegah

> I don't think so. The Picts were a distinct people living in modern day Scotland, and were joined in the first half of the first millennium AD by Celtic Irish. The name "Picts" means "the Painted Ones" and it was given to them by the Romans. It was the Irish culture which came to be most prevalent in Scotland.


I don't think that there was ever any debate as to whether the Picts were Gaels. They were not. If they were, why would Columba have needed an interpreter for his mission to Scotland? The question was whether the Picts were Celtic at all. More specifically, the question was why popular culture seems to labor under the belief that the Picts were not Celts, when most evidence seems to indicate that they were.

I'm glad that this topic was revived, though. I've been thinking lately about the Pictish language and why the Romans claimed it to be totally distinct from the British language, despite its almost certainly Brythonic nature. I'm wondering if perhaps Pictish had a similar relationship to Irish as English does to French. English is an essentially West Germanic language, and that accounts for the language's core lexicon and grammar. However, French has a _huge_ influence on English, accounting for a very large amount of its vocabulary. What if Pictish, whilst being an essentially Brythonic, P-Celtic language, had a substantial Irish substrate? This would explain many things. The supposed lack of Pictish and Brythonic mutual intelligibility would make sense, as would the occurrence of "maqq" and "meqq" - mentioned earlier by Taranis - on Pictish inscriptions.

This Irish substrate can be explained if we make a few assumptions about the nature of the Gaels' and the Picts' relationship. Now, I freely admit that what I'm about to say is pure conjecture, but it makes sense to me. I am no expert on this subject. If anyone sees any holes in my argument, by all means, please point them out. I believe that the Irish and the Picts may have had much closer relations than previously thought. We know that the Gaels and the Picts were aware of each other long before the founding of the Dál Riata. There existed a subset of the Irish population called the "Cruithne", centered in Ulster. This most likely derived from the same word as P-Celtic "Priteni" or "Britanni". "Cruithne" is also the word that the Irish used to refer to the Picts. Now, the Annalists don't really describe the Cruithne as being any different from the other Irish clans and groups as far as I know. However, simply by virtue of their name and the fact that the Annalists also refer to the Picts as "Cruithne", I believe that the Cruithne were likely Picts that crossed the Irish Sea and settled in Ulster. This supposed settlement would have likely occurred when Pictish and Brythonic was still mutually intelligible, or even before there existed a distinction between Pict and Brython. Hence the Irish would have still referred to them as Brythons, or "Cruithne" in their own tongue. This distinction would have survived long after the Pictish settlers adopted the Irish language, and perhaps the memory of the Cruithne's origin accounts for why the Annalists referred to their Pictish contemporaries as Cruithne. Again, conjecture. It makes sense to me however.

Now, if the Picts and the Irish had such a close relationship that some of the Picts settled in Ireland, then they most likely traded and interacted with each other often. And if Pictish families could settle in Ireland, why would Irish families not do the same in Scotland/Pictland, albeit in small numbers? Perhaps this "special relationship" between the Irish and the Picts is what gave birth to a distinct Pictish language, a tongue with a Brythonic superstrate and an Irish substrate influential enough to render it maybe not incomprehensible to Brythons, but nonetheless distinct from Brythonic. The Romans probably weren't familiar enough with Brythonic in the first place to recognize the similarities in Pictish, merely hearing the Irish vocabulary and dismissing it as a totally unrelated language.

The relationship between the Irish and the Picts likely would have intensified after the Roman occupation of Britain. The Picts would have been cut off from interaction and trade with their kinsmen further south, leaving themselves and the Gaels as the only unconquered Insular Celts. This would have further developed the Pictish language, and might have laid the groundwork for the Gaelic/Pictish merge after Irish/Pictish relations took a more militaristic turn.

This relies on a lot of assumptions, and doesn't explain the apparently nonsensical Pictish inscriptions. I would also think that Irish and Pictish material culture would be more similar than they are, if the Gaels and the Picts were as close as I'm suggesting they might have been. I'm unaware of any Irish knotwork in pre-Dál Riata Scotland, or of any Pictish Beasts in Ireland. The Picts were most likely centered in Northeast Scotland, far from the Irish Sea. And of course, this is unsupported by the Annals as far as I'm aware. Nonetheless, I feel that this would explain many things about the Picts, and might help us in learning more about the language. What do you folks think?

Also, on a somewhat related note, this line of thinking makes me wonder if there exists a Pictish/Brythonic substrate in Ulster Irish. Would anyone here, by any chance, happen to know this?

----------


## inver2b1

> I don't think that there was ever any debate as to whether the Picts were Gaels. They were not. If they were, why would Columba have needed an interpreter for his mission to Scotland? The question was whether the Picts were Celtic at all.


They were celts, they spoke a p celtic langauge. The term was just used for people who wer emore or less beyond the Roman boundary.

http://www.buildinghistory.org/dista...ighlands.shtml

----------


## Keegah

Wow. Bro, you didn't read what I posted at all.

----------


## inver2b1

Sorry, my bad. I stopped reading at that point as I thought you were arguing that point isntead of referencing it, and I've read enough Picts are non Indo European Scythian snow flake threads to last me a life time.

Back to the rest of the post, I think Cruithin was a term for a Briton in general and not just for Picts.
In the iron age there must have been a lot of interaction with Britain in general, most likely with the Roman invasion and later Germanic expansions there must have been some movements to Ireland from Britain.The Brigantes of Leinster are thought to be the same as those of North 
England, also you had whatever group that brought La Tene culture to the North 
of Ireland. A recent paper on M222 suggests that it may have oriignated in a 
group called the Dumnonii of South West Engalnd and entered Ireland via 
Scotland.The langauge issue is interesting as you had some large families like 
McGuinness and McCartan who are supposed to be from a Cruithin background and 
it's hard to think it had no impact.

----------


## Keegah

No problem, I figured that's what happened. I can be the same way. There's this guy called Dublin that likes to insist that Irish is actually a Slavic language. I confess that I've learned to either stop reading his posts or to just skim over them. Anyway, I think that the Irish must have used Cruithne specifically for the Picts because we know from Roman sources that Pictish and Brythonic were at least somewhat distinct at the time of the Roman occupation. The Irish would have no doubt been aware of the distinction, whatever that distinction was, since the Brythons and Picts were their next door neighbors. It doesn't seem to me like they'd use the same term for the two peoples if they spoke different languages, even if those two languages were closely related. For much of history, even today, divisions between ethnic groups have been based on the languages they spoke.

Then again, maybe the Irish remembered that there was a time when the Pictish language had not developed enough to be distinguishable from Brythonic. I don't actually know what the Irish called the Brythons. Maybe they called them Cruithne too, I don't know. I don't suppose you do, do you?

----------


## inver2b1

I pm'd someone on a previous forum about the distinction between Pict and Cruithin, and for such a straight forward question the answer was long winded and all i 
could figure out was Cruithin meant Briton which included Pict. We also have to 
remember Pict was a name given to various groups which they didn't use 
themselves so maybe back in the day a Cruithin was anyone from across the 
water.

----------


## inver2b1

You might find these inetresting.


http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?...20&hilit=picts
http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?...ithin&start=40

----------


## adamo

The Picts where an isolated Celtic tribe living in Scotland; there is no doubt they where in fact Celtic.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> I don't think that there was ever any debate as to whether the Picts were Gaels. They were not. If they were, why would Columba have needed an interpreter for his mission to Scotland? The question was whether the Picts were Celtic at all. More specifically, the question was why popular culture seems to labor under the belief that the Picts were not Celts, when most evidence seems to indicate that they were.
> 
> I'm glad that this topic was revived, though. I've been thinking lately about the Pictish language and why the Romans claimed it to be totally distinct from the British language, despite its almost certainly Brythonic nature. I'm wondering if perhaps Pictish had a similar relationship to Irish as English does to French. English is an essentially West Germanic language, and that accounts for the language's core lexicon and grammar. However, French has a _huge_ influence on English, accounting for a very large amount of its vocabulary. What if Pictish, whilst being an essentially Brythonic, P-Celtic language, had a substantial Irish substrate? This would explain many things. The supposed lack of Pictish and Brythonic mutual intelligibility would make sense, as would the occurrence of "maqq" and "meqq" - mentioned earlier by Taranis - on Pictish inscriptions.
> 
> This Irish substrate can be explained if we make a few assumptions about the nature of the Gaels' and the Picts' relationship. Now, I freely admit that what I'm about to say is pure conjecture, but it makes sense to me. I am no expert on this subject. If anyone sees any holes in my argument, by all means, please point them out. I believe that the Irish and the Picts may have had much closer relations than previously thought. We know that the Gaels and the Picts were aware of each other long before the founding of the Dál Riata. There existed a subset of the Irish population called the "Cruithne", centered in Ulster. This most likely derived from the same word as P-Celtic "Priteni" or "Britanni". "Cruithne" is also the word that the Irish used to refer to the Picts. Now, the Annalists don't really describe the Cruithne as being any different from the other Irish clans and groups as far as I know. However, simply by virtue of their name and the fact that the Annalists also refer to the Picts as "Cruithne", I believe that the Cruithne were likely Picts that crossed the Irish Sea and settled in Ulster. This supposed settlement would have likely occurred when Pictish and Brythonic was still mutually intelligible, or even before there existed a distinction between Pict and Brython. Hence the Irish would have still referred to them as Brythons, or "Cruithne" in their own tongue. This distinction would have survived long after the Pictish settlers adopted the Irish language, and perhaps the memory of the Cruithne's origin accounts for why the Annalists referred to their Pictish contemporaries as Cruithne. Again, conjecture. It makes sense to me however.
> 
> Now, if the Picts and the Irish had such a close relationship that some of the Picts settled in Ireland, then they most likely traded and interacted with each other often. And if Pictish families could settle in Ireland, why would Irish families not do the same in Scotland/Pictland, albeit in small numbers? Perhaps this "special relationship" between the Irish and the Picts is what gave birth to a distinct Pictish language, a tongue with a Brythonic superstrate and an Irish substrate influential enough to render it maybe not incomprehensible to Brythons, but nonetheless distinct from Brythonic. The Romans probably weren't familiar enough with Brythonic in the first place to recognize the similarities in Pictish, merely hearing the Irish vocabulary and dismissing it as a totally unrelated language.
> 
> The relationship between the Irish and the Picts likely would have intensified after the Roman occupation of Britain. The Picts would have been cut off from interaction and trade with their kinsmen further south, leaving themselves and the Gaels as the only unconquered Insular Celts. This would have further developed the Pictish language, and might have laid the groundwork for the Gaelic/Pictish merge after Irish/Pictish relations took a more militaristic turn.
> ...


Most good scholarship has concluded that the Picts were not Celtic. Celtic peoples probably migrated in to the British Isles first from the south west of Europe after the Picts were well settled.

----------


## inver2b1

> Most good scholarship has concluded that the Picts were not Celtic. Celtic peoples probably migrated in to the British Isles first from the south west of Europe after the Picts were well settled.


Really, based on what?
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index...e-of-the-picts

----------


## Keegah

> Most good scholarship has concluded that the Picts were not Celtic. Celtic peoples probably migrated in to the British Isles first from the south west of Europe after the Picts were well settled.


From what I've read most good scholarship has concluded the exact opposite. Why do you think that the Picts were not Celts?

----------


## MOESAN

> "Caledonii" - you can compare the name with Breton "kalet", Welsh "caled" and Old Irish "calad", which all mean 'hard'. It's also found in the Gaulish tribal name "Caleti". The '-on-' is an augmentative form also typically Celtic (think of tribal names like "Senones" and "Lingones", etc.).
> 
> 
> "Vacomagi" - the first element is also found in the Gaulish "Bellovaci", as well as possibly the Celtiberian "Arevaci" and "Vaccaei". The second element is probably the same as Old Irish "mag" and Gaulish "magus" ('plain', 'field').
> 
> About "Taezali" what should be added that other versions give the name as "Tazali" or even as "Taexali" - it's unclear what the original form was. What should be added (to quote Forsyth 1997, the link which I provided above):
> 
> "_If we are wavering in accepting the Celticity of these problematic tribal names, it is surely of the greatest significance that the river Deva ran through the territory of the Taezali. If Celtic-speakers were sufficiently established in the region to have named the major river, this should give us pause before dismissing a Celtic explanation for the local tribal name. Likewise with the river Tama and the place-name Bannatia in the territory of the Vacomagi_."


for Caledoni I have some doubt: I find it hard they could have had a -D for -T (CALETI fits very well with 'kaled') at this precise time; but it seems celtic yes. I cannot say more -
for the remnant I agree : Picts placenames seem almost all of them of P-brittonic celtic formation as you and others said -
gaelic 'Cruithni' seems close to 'Pretani' - someones discuss yet the doublet BRITANNIA/BRITTONIA: a form BRITTIA would have existed according to some scholars - BRITANNIA could be a mix of PRETANIA and BRITTONIA or BRITTIA (this last supposedly south of current Scotland) - maybe a name transmitted through more than a tribe or dialect before reaching roman ears??? just an hypothesis very fragile
curiously BRIZH/BRITH (spottled, mixed of colours) could come from BRITT, maybe a form of BRIKT too (welsh has BRYCH too for the same, << BRIKK?) - the "Picts" were tatooed...
I agree Romans were precise, but they made mistakes too, as others, concerning foreign names!
good night

----------


## MOESAN

> From what I've read most good scholarship has concluded the exact opposite. Why do you think that the Picts were not Celts?


The only serious suggestions were the Picts land would have had two languages, a celtic one and a pre-celtic one, I-E or not I-E, this last languages being the autochtones one not completely assimilated...

concerning geographical origin, at pre-Iron age (Urnfield culture?) some celtic tribe from East Galia or present day Switzerland left some remnants in Fifeshire (SE Pict land) - physically they showed some 'alpine' connexions, not too surprising at this time if the origin region is right - I 'll try to find the details.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> I believe that the Irish and the Picts may have had much closer relations than previously thought. We know that the Gaels and the Picts were aware of each other long before the founding of the Dál Riata. There existed a subset of the Irish population called the "Cruithne", centered in Ulster. This most likely derived from the same word as P-Celtic "Priteni" or "Britanni". "Cruithne" is also the word that the Irish used to refer to the Picts. Now, the Annalists don't really describe the Cruithne as being any different from the other Irish clans and groups as far as I know. However, simply by virtue of their name and the fact that the Annalists also refer to the Picts as "Cruithne", I believe that the Cruithne were likely Picts that crossed the Irish Sea and settled in Ulster. This supposed settlement would have likely occurred when Pictish and Brythonic was still mutually intelligible, or even before there existed a distinction between Pict and Brython. Hence the Irish would have still referred to them as Brythons, or "Cruithne" in their own tongue. This distinction would have survived long after the Pictish settlers adopted the Irish language, and perhaps the memory of the Cruithne's origin accounts for why the Annalists referred to their Pictish contemporaries as Cruithne. Again, conjecture. It makes sense to me however.
> 
> nonetheless distinct from Brythonic. The Romans probably weren't familiar enough with Brythonic in the first place to recognize the similarities in Pictish, merely hearing the Irish vocabulary and dismissing it as a totally unrelated language.
> 
> The relationship between the Irish and the Picts likely would have intensified after the Roman occupation of Britain. The Picts would have been cut off from interaction and trade with their kinsmen further south, leaving themselves and the Gaels as the only unconquered Insular Celts. This would have further developed the Pictish language, and might have laid the groundwork for the Gaelic/Pictish merge after Irish/Pictish relations took a more militaristic turn.
> 
> This relies on a lot of assumptions, and doesn't explain the apparently nonsensical Pictish inscriptions. I would also think that Irish and Pictish material culture would be more similar than they are, if the Gaels and the Picts were as close as I'm suggesting they might have been. I'm unaware of any Irish knotwork in pre-Dál Riata Scotland, or of any Pictish Beasts in Ireland. The Picts were most likely centered in Northeast Scotland, far from the Irish Sea. And of course, this is unsupported by the Annals as far as I'm aware. Nonetheless, I feel that this would explain many things about the Picts, and might help us in learning more about the language. What do you folks think?
> 
> Also, on a somewhat related note, this line of thinking makes me wonder if there exists a Pictish/Brythonic substrate in Ulster Irish. Would anyone here, by any chance, happen to know this?


One theory I've read is that the Cruithne were the pre-Celtic, but still Indo-European, substrate (from the Bell Beakers?) that had previously populated both Britain and Ireland.

My thinking, however, is that the Cruithne were a specific people (Novantae?) who initially migrated from Galloway (SW Scotland) into SE Ulster, before the establishment of surnames. Their signature is 10-15% I-M223 (I2a2a) in Galloway and SE Ulster (in the area of County Down), which is much less significantly present in surrounding populations. See Maciamo's I2a2 map (90% of I2a2 are I2a2a):

 

Note the distinct genetic boundary that approximates Hadrian's Wall. This might suggest that this was a population that had been pushed and isolated north of Hadrian's Wall by the Romans, and were further pushed into Ireland by several Roman sorties into Galloway. Later, pressure from Scots (Dal Riata Gaels) from the north and Angles (of Northumberland, or Bernicia/Deira) from the east continued what was an east-to-west population shift.

See:

_Blood of the Celts_ by Jean Manco and _Ancient Scotland_ by Stewart Ross.

----------


## MOESAN

This presence of Y-I2a1b and I2a2 lineages could show the Neolithic megalithic pop's of Britain were powerful enough or had skills which made they were incorporated among BB's and later post-BB's Celtic tribes.
This mixed stratum (maybe darker haired, with "purer" 'dinaric and more kind of 'mediter' types than southern BB's of Britain, see Coon) could have spoken a not-IE or an IE dialect (I prefer the last bet), a meta-Italic or kind of proto-Italic-Celtic dialect where 'makk' could have preserved an archaic form, this dialect being more archaic, as seems Gaelic compared to Brittonic (so if true, this 'makk' doesn't need to be well achieved Gaelic, but just an IE or proto-Celtic ancient form). Brittons from South came after and took the strong side upon them, imposing their dialect(s). Just reasonable bets.

----------


## MOESAN

"an IE": I want say: one of these Northwestern ancient IE dialects, not PIE!!!

----------


## CrazyDonkey

I-M223 (I2a1b1/I2a2a/I2b1) would seem to be a British, but not an Irish, signal, in that it is generally present in Britain, but not Ireland, which would argue against it having come in with the Bell Beakers, who replaced the earlier "neolithic" y-dna lineages. An intriguing possibility is that I-M223 among the Novantae/Cruithne originated from the Suebi (or Suevi), who were a Germanic tribe enlisted by Julius Caesar as mercenaries against the Gauls. The strongest I-M223 hotspot in Europe is in central Germany/Bohemia and corresponds to the homeland of the Suebi in the 1st Century BC. 

Caesar, himself, said that the Suebi were the most warlike of the German tribes, and may have accompanied the forces of Caesar and other Roman commanders in their invasion and occupation of Britain. My thinking is that the Suebian mercenaries were granted land in Galloway, safely on the other side of Hadrian's Wall, but also to serve as a buffer against the Picts, resulting in a Britonic population, but with overlords with Suebian roots. As oft happens, buffers can themselves become troublesome, resulting in several Roman sorties into Galloway, further pushing the Novantae/Cruithne across the Irish Sea to SE Ulster.

Cruithne, thus, would originally have been a name used by the Irish to denote them simply as being Britons (from Britain). They would have served as intermediaries/traders between Romanized Britain and a relatively backward Ireland, where they were able to amass wealth, gain influence, make allies, and conquer land.

----------


## spruithean

> One theory I've read is that the Cruithne were the pre-Celtic, but still Indo-European, substrate (from the Bell Beakers?) that had previously populated both Britain and Ireland.
> My thinking, however, is that the Cruithne were a specific people (Novantae?) who initially migrated from Galloway (SW Scotland) into SE Ulster, before the establishment of surnames. Their signature is 10-15% I-M223 (I2a2a) in Galloway and SE Ulster (in the area of County Down), which is much less significantly present in surrounding populations. See Maciamo's I2a2 map (90% of I2a2 are I2a2a):
>  
> Note the distinct genetic boundary that approximates Hadrian's Wall. This might suggest that this was a population that had been pushed and isolated north of Hadrian's Wall by the Romans, and were further pushed into Ireland by several Roman sorties into Galloway. Later, pressure from Scots (Dal Riata Gaels) from the north and Angles (of Northumberland, or Bernicia/Deira) from the east continued what was an east-to-west population shift.
> See:
> _Blood of the Celts_ by Jean Manco and _Ancient Scotland_ by Stewart Ross.


Maybe, but there are some things that have been omitted like Scottish/Northern English settlement in Ulster via the Plantations, which can account for some I-M223 in Northern Ireland. Obviously some I2 lineages in Ireland are representative of indigenous lineages.




> I-M223 (I2a1b1/I2a2a/I2b1) would seem to be a British, but not an Irish, signal, in that it is generally present in Britain, but not Ireland, which would argue against it having come in with the Bell Beakers, who replaced the earlier "neolithic" y-dna lineages. *An intriguing possibility is that I-M223 among the Novantae/Cruithne originated from the Suebi (or Suevi), who were a Germanic tribe enlisted by Julius Caesar as mercenaries against the Gauls*. The strongest I-M223 hotspot in Europe is in central Germany/Bohemia and corresponds to the homeland of the Suebi in the 1st Century BC. 
> Caesar, himself, said that the Suebi were the most warlike of the German tribes, and may have accompanied the forces of Caesar and other Roman commanders in their invasion and occupation of Britain. My thinking is that the Suebian mercenaries were granted land in Galloway, safely on the other side of Hadrian's Wall, but also to serve as a buffer against the Picts, resulting in a Britonic population, but with overlords with Suebian roots. As oft happens, buffers can themselves become troublesome, resulting in several Roman sorties into Galloway, further pushing the Novantae/Cruithne across the Irish Sea to SE Ulster.
> Cruithne, thus, would originally have been a name used by the Irish to denote them simply as being Britons (from Britain). They would have served as intermediaries/traders between Romanized Britain and a relatively backward Ireland, where they were able to amass wealth, gain influence, make allies, and conquer land.


Were the Suebi ever used as mercenaries against the Gauls by Caesar? It was my understanding that Ariovistus (the king of the Suebi) was attacking Gaulish tribes via invitation from the Gaulish Arverni and Sequani in their conflict with the Aedui. Germanic auxiliaries and foederati that were stationed at Hadrian’s Wall or nearby include the Tungri, Frisii/Frisiavones, Nervii, Baetasii, and Batavi to name a few. 

We can’t really make the claim that I-M223 originated (17,200 years old, TMRCA of 14,500 years ago, source: YFull) with the Suebi when it is found in Britain and Ireland with very specific and diversified subgroups, there are several (actually many more) specific lineages that could represent several different ancestries, even rather aged information here on Eupedia alludes to this: https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplo...NA.shtml#I2a2a

You’re more likely to find influence from the Angles in pre-Norse Scotland IMO, read: https://dsl.ac.uk/about-scots/history-of-scots/origins/, it’s also worth mentioning that the sons of Æthelfrith of Bernicia were exiled and sought refuge (with their entourage) in both Dál Riata (Oswald and Oswiu) and Pictland (Eanfrith, who’s own son Talorgan mac Enfret was king of Picts). Here is some reading on Oswald (Oswiu included) and his association with the Gaelic world: https://www.heroicage.org/issues/4/ziegler.html 

There is also mention of later Northumbrian kings who took refuge in Dál Riata or Pictland, although this depended on their affiliations either to Bamburgh or York.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> Maybe, but there are some things that have been omitted like Scottish/Northern English settlement in Ulster via the Plantations, which can account for some I-M223 in Northern Ireland. Obviously some I2 lineages in Ireland are representative of indigenous lineages.


County Down, where I-M223 was most concentrated, was not part of the official plantation. 

_Blood of the Celts_ theorizes that the Cruithne came into Ireland before the use of surnames, based on their later adoption of "Irish" surnames. It has the Cruithne (or Ui Echach Cobha) dating back to the 6th Century. Thus, the son (Mac) of Aonghusa (Angus) became McGuinness, the descendants of which became the lords of the Barony of Iveagh in County Down (known to carry I-M223).

"Haplogroup I2a2a1a1 (M284) is very rare outside the British Isles, except among those of British and Irish origin....The bearers of I2a2a1a1 (M284) have a mixed bag of surnames including English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish. Its descendant clade I2a2a1a1a1 (L126/S165) is more common in Scotland. Its offshoot I2a2a1a1a1a (S7753) includes men of several surnames of Irish Gaelic origin, such as McGuinness, Callahan, McConville and McManus, indicating that S7753 arrived in Ireland before the development of surnames. The estimated date of the haplogroup is around AD 500, which makes a neat fit to the earliest reference to the Cruithin in AD 552 (see p. 169)." - _Blood of the Celts_, p. 170.

P. 169: "The Irish Anals refer to warbands of British people rampaging around Ireland. The earliest reference tells of the 'killing of Colman Mor, son of Diarmaid, in his chariot, by Dubhshlat Ua Treana, one of the Cruithni', in 552."




> Were the Suebi ever used as mercenaries against the Gauls by Caesar? It was my understanding that Ariovistus (the king of the Suebi) was attacking Gaulish tribes via invitation from the Gaulish Arverni and Sequani in their conflict with the Aedui. Germanic auxiliaries and foederati that were stationed at Hadrian’s Wall or nearby include the Tungri, Frisii/Frisiavones, Nervii, Baetasii, and Batavi to name a few.


Caesar did enlist Germanic mercenaries against the Gauls (just as he had earlier enlisted Celtic mercenaries against the Germans. The Suebi were an umbrella group that encompassed several other tribes, including the Marcomanni, for instance, and were predominant in central Germany and Bohemia. Caesar did refer specifically to the Suebi.




> We can’t really make the claim that I-M223 originated (17,200 years old, TMRCA of 14,500 years ago, source: YFull) with the Suebi when it is found in Britain and Ireland with very specific and diversified subgroups, there are several (actually many more) specific lineages that could represent several different ancestries, even rather aged information here on Eupedia alludes to this: https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplo...NA.shtml#I2a2a


i was referring specifically to Maciamo's I2a2 map. Yes, in SW Scotland and in SE Ulster, those would be downstream clades of P214 (L126/S165 and S7753?). (90% of P214 is M223.)




> You’re more likely to find influence from the Angles in pre-Norse Scotland IMO, read: https://dsl.ac.uk/about-scots/history-of-scots/origins/, it’s also worth mentioning that the sons of Æthelfrith of Bernicia were exiled and sought refuge (with their entourage) in both Dál Riata (Oswald and Oswiu) and Pictland (Eanfrith, who’s own son Talorgan mac Enfret was king of Picts). Here is some reading on Oswald (Oswiu included) and his association with the Gaelic world: https://www.heroicage.org/issues/4/ziegler.html 
> There is also mention of later Northumbrian kings who took refuge in Dál Riata or Pictland, although this depended on their affiliations either to Bamburgh or York.


Yes, I've read about that (in _Ancient Scotland_ by Stewart Ross). There was a very clear distinction between the Angles in Deira and Bernicia (Northumbria) and the Britons (Novantae, Stratheclyde, Lothian, Gododdin, etc.). In Maciamo's map, the highest concentration of I2a2 looks to skirt Bernicia. I suspect the Picts were just backcountry Britons.

----------


## spruithean

> County Down, where I-M223 was most concentrated, was not part of the official plantation.


 Indeed, but it was privately settled with support of the king. 




> "Haplogroup I2a2a1a1 (M284) is very rare outside the British Isles, except among those of British and Irish origin....The bearers of I2a2a1a1 (M284) have a mixed bag of surnames including English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish. Its descendant clade I2a2a1a1a1 (L126/S165) is more common in Scotland. Its offshoot I2a2a1a1a1a (S7753) includes men of several surnames of Irish Gaelic origin, such as McGuinness, Callahan, McConville and McManus, indicating that S7753 arrived in Ireland before the development of surnames. The estimated date of the haplogroup is around AD 500, which makes a neat fit to the earliest reference to the Cruithin in AD 552 (see p. 169)." - _Blood of the Celts_, p. 170.
> 
> P. 169: "The Irish Anals refer to warbands of British people rampaging around Ireland. The earliest reference tells of the 'killing of Colman Mor, son of Diarmaid, in his chariot, by Dubhshlat Ua Treana, one of the Cruithni', in 552."


These are rather specific subclades of I-M223, that are found more commonly in the Isles compared to Continental Europe (and in Continental Europe they are likely the result of movement out of the Isles). 





> Caesar did enlist Germanic mercenaries against the Gauls (just as he had earlier enlisted Celtic mercenaries against the Germans. The Suebi were an umbrella group that encompassed several other tribes, including the Marcomanni, for instance, and were predominant in central Germany and Bohemia. Caesar did refer specifically to the Suebi.


Caesar enlisted Germanic cavalry, he preferred them to his Gallic cavalry, though I'm not sure from which specific tribes he enlisted these mercenaries. I am aware the Usipetes were formidable mounted warriors. I would be wary of attaching the Angles to the Suebi, there seems to be some confusion as to the etymology of Anglii and Angrivarii, probably in part due to Ptolemy's descriptions compared to Tacitus.





> Yes, I've read about that (in _Ancient Scotland_ by Stewart Ross). There was a very clear distinction between the Angles in Deira and Bernicia (Northumbria) and the Britons (Novantae, Stratheclyde, Lothian, Gododdin, etc.). In Maciamo's map, the highest concentration of I2a2 looks to skirt Bernicia. I suspect the Picts were just backcountry Britons.


The Picts were likely just a branch of Britons who due to the terrain and their distance (isolation) from Romanization came to be seen as mysterious as we see them now, it doesn't help that they didn't keep written records. In regards to Bernicia, Bernicia actually has a fair amount of Brittonic graves, and graves of individuals who are from Western Scotland/Northern Ireland, see here: https://www.heroicage.org/issues/4/Bamburgh.html, https://www.archaeology.co.uk/articl...le-burials.htm and https://bonesdontlie.wordpress.com/2...xon-migration/

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> To say that it was similar to the _other_ Brythonic languages is only partially correct. Pictish was probably more similar to (if not the same as) the "old" Brythonic language that was spoken in Britain at the time of the Roman invasion, but by the dark ages (5th century onward), Brythonic and Pictish must have been clearly distinct languages. Most importantly, it would appear that Pictish retained the Proto-Celtic *w- (shifted to *f- in Old Irish, shifted to *gw- in Brythonic, retained in all "old" Celtic languages).


If they became geographically isolated from the more southern Brythonic groups, the speech of both would have diverged. If *w- was a retention, could it have been from an earlier stage of Brythonic (Proto-Brythonic?). Brythonic (P-Celtic) and Old Irish (Q-Celtic) would have diverged from each other for the same reason.

My own Y-DNA heritage (I2a M223-M284-L126-Y4751 "Isles Scot-Ire") became closely associated with the Continental and Brythonic "Celts" (R1b), but "when" and "where" is the question.

----------


## American

I've seen theories about the Picts being some super-distinct group of Europeans, with some possible pre-Indo-European links. Why does that never show up genetically? Scots are pretty comfortably Northern European, across their ethnic territory. In any case the highlanders most certainly are the descendants of the Picts, rather than the original "Scots" (which was then a synonym for Irish).

----------


## Turpial

What are the most common R1b sub-clades among Picts?

----------


## MOESAN

> If they became geographically isolated from the more southern Brythonic groups, the speech of both would have diverged. If *w- was a retention, could it have been from an earlier stage of Brythonic (Proto-Brythonic?). Brythonic (P-Celtic) and Old Irish (Q-Celtic) would have diverged from each other for the same reason.
> 
> My own Y-DNA heritage (I2a M223-M284-L126-Y4751 "Isles Scot-Ire") became closely associated with the Continental and Brythonic "Celts" (R1b), but "when" and "where" is the question.



/w/ at beginning of words is remained in Old Brythonic and even in Old Britton of Britanny (Old Breton), where it was written 'u' or 'v', later 'uu' before becoming 'w' and then 'gw-' (this last appeard between VIII° and X° Cy if I don't mistake, maybe a bit sooner in brittany than on Cornwall and Wales). I can verify some time.
This reinforcement of /w/ was made at the initial but in Wales I think it had been employed ('gw' writing) even in centre of words as an analogy.

----------


## MOESAN

in centre of words before disappear quickly!

----------


## MagnusFarseeR

Some Picts were conquered by the Gaelic migrators from Ireland who created the *Dál Riata kingdom.*

----------


## MOESAN

Some scholars has proposed to explain the Picts as not-romanized (and christianised) Brittons, having kept more ancient and "wild"like customs.
Some suppose their way of life and traditions were at first more widespread towards South before Roman conquest of Britain. We can add to this some kind of imbrication with non-Celtic little tribes of North Scotland.
Maybe we ought to took in consideration that Picts evolved with time and were no more the so feared and wild people in High Middle Age compared to Roman times?

----------


## BillMC

> What are the most common R1b sub-clades among Picts?


S530 is unique to Scotland. It is seldom found outside Scotland and is considered to be Pictish. Roughly 10% of Scotsmen carry it. There will be other Pictish subclads such as L21 and some I2 subclads, which were shared by other tribal groups in the British Ilses.

----------


## BillMC

The term 'Pict' was never used before 297AD. Prior to that time the Romans refered to the peoples of northern Scotland as the Caledonians. I expect the reason for this was because by 297AD the Caledonains may have been the only northern tribal group encounted by the Romans who still painted their bodies

In his book 'Britain and Germany' - Tacitus described the Caledonains as: _'red haired and large limbed, which he considered features of Germanic origin: “The reddish (rutilae) hair and large limbs of the Caledonians proclaim a German origin'_. Of course the Germanic origin is false, because all the placenames are Brythonic. Nevertheless, I am a bit bewildered as to how the weird story about the Picts being a short and dark skinned race originated.

----------


## BillMC

> Some Picts were conquered by the Gaelic migrators from Ireland who created the *Dál Riata kingdom.*


Before Dal Riata expanded its kingdom into western Scotland, there was a Caledonian tribe located in Argyle called the Epidii, who were already speaking Gaelic.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

Qruithin (Q-Celtic) = Pritane (P-Celtic) = Britania (Latin)

----------


## MOESAN

> Qruithin (Q-Celtic) = Pritane (P-Celtic) = Britania (Latin)


the filiation Pritane > Britannia is debated by someones; a theory proposes a crossing between two origines, Pritane/i on a side and Brittia > Brittone (= Briktia: in link with the tatooing concept? today Welsh *brith*, breton *brizh* : freckled, spotted, mixed...); no exclusion of one by another, just a crossing/mistake?

----------


## MOESAN

> Before Dal Riata expanded its kingdom into western Scotland, there was a Caledonian tribe located in Argyle called the Epidii, who were already speaking Gaelic.


'Epidi' doesn't sound too much Gaelic at first hearing. something like 'ep(-os)' root? not 'ec' ('each':_ horse_).
Concerning old ethnies descriptions by ancients, let's be sceptical a bit. But at IA it seems some continental Celtic tribes o sets of tribes migrated to Britains, rather in East, from Switzerland or SouthGermany periphery, and they had some 'alpine (short brachycephalic brunet types) with them, maybe by exogamy system of mating with women of previous pop's, if I remember well. And we cannot exclude totally ancient Neolithic pockets of dark people (but Neolithic 'Longbarrows' 'atlanto-mediter' people were not so short, in reality).

----------

