The Picts

Hazel · The Picts

I hope I am getting this into the right section. I seem to have a knack for missing.

I am looking for a good student of Scotland's history again. Has anyone read Alistair Moffat's "Before Scotland"? The entire book made me wish I could sit across the proverbial kitchen table from the author and ask dozens of questions.

Just one today. The author's premise is that the Picts were the original Britons and the only true Britons. He brings the Picts to a different end than I understood. In 685, they fought the Northumbrians once again and , that time, defeated their enemy. They then managed to re-establish their freedom and have their own kingdom. Then, the Vikings came along with a final routing of the Picts.

Now, here is the difference. Moffat says that the remaining Picts migrated to what became north Wales and northwest England. They felt this was part of their territory anyway due to their acts in that area centuries before. I have asked several people and they never heard of this Pictish migration. There was an earlier one but not in the ninth century.

Lastly, he says that "...scholar Katherine Forsyth has convincingly demonstrated that the Pictish language was thoroughly Celtic .... P-Celtic rather than Q-Celtic" making it "first cousin to British". Later, he makes this Pictish similar to Old Welsh. It was my understanding that no one had solve the Pictish symbols.

Would someone with more knowledge of this history like to add your words of wisdom? I surely would appreciate it.

SLG

My understanding is that the consensus is that Pictish was most likely a P-Celtic language making it similar to Old Welsh, but that there is such little evidence that that cannot be taken as fact. I've not read what Katherine Forsyth has written on the matter though.

Has Alistair Moffat got any evidence for this migration? I've heard about the Picts of Wales and Ireland, but was under the impression that they were though to be people that were there pre the later waves of immigration of the 'Welsh' and Gaelic speaking peoples.

Hazel

Thank you, Jim, for reply. My knowledge was also that the Picts in Wales went there much earlier. As for evidence, the author quotes a "North British Chronicle" about the last battle with the Northumbrians. He also says he gets some information from "Annals of Ulster" but nothing firm is pinpointed. It may be my inability to read rightly but I am left up in the air about many things that he says.

Over the years, I've noticed that the "Annals of Ulster" seem to have a lot of Scots history. Do you agree?

Thanks again for your thoughts. So far, no one "in the know" has confirmed this migration but several have said they never heard of it.

On to more education. Hazel

Cymro

There is a Pre Celtic settlement on the Great Orme in Llandudno in North Wales. I haven't got a clue whether these would have been picts or anythung though. The Welsh language used to stretch up into Galloway and North Western England through Carlise etc so it's quite possible.

Hazel

It is certainly an interesting theory. I have a new book on the subject now. I'm eager to get into it.

Happy Day - wet or dry. Drippy here.

RFM

Hazel;
It is a mistake to apply modern political terms such as "Briton" to the anthropology of early natives and tribes. There is in fact quite a bit that was been written about the Picts fairly recently, largely in terms of the carved stones peculiar to them. One of the more interesting explanations offered for their disappearance was the rise of Kenneth McAlpine whose monarchy was based on primogenture. The Picts on the other hand were matrilineal, that is property and title descended through the women. As there was always intermarriage, look at Somerled for example, that rapidly lead to a breakdown in the determination of who the kings and aristocracy were or how they could be determined. To follow the rule of Ackam's razor, the simple solution won out.
But the concept of the citizen of a political state or entity is an idea of the 19th century. Before that time people saw themselves as being led by, protected by, or owing fealty to, a certain king, noble or chief. Which concept prevailed in the highlands right up to the 20th century.

Hazel

Thank you for review. I needed that. As for "Briton", that is the term used by the author. I try to play safe by following what is used. It was my understanding, however, that the earliest settlers of the island were called Britons. No?

RFM

Called Britons by who? The Danes, the Angles, the Norse, the Romans, the Celts, the Picts, the Irish, themselves,etc. The usual approach is what did they call themselves? And that would probably have elicited an answer along the lines of "Ugh, son of Ogg, daughter of Eek".

Cymro

The word Briton comes from the word Brython which was the name of the old Celtic language which made up Welsh, Cornish and Breton. So the island became knows as the Isle of the Brython, which with time became Britain.

Hazel

Cymro

In the Mabinogi (old Welsh legends) this island is referd to as 'Ynys y Kedeyrn' (Isle of Kedeyrn). Don't know what this means though.

Hazel

Cymro

Well, given that there are strong links between the Cornish and Welsh languages it's quite possible that there will be a connection. Probably a Brythonic word from before the Cornish and Welsh languages split.

Avatar

"But the concept of the citizen of a political state or entity is an idea of the 19th century. Before that time people saw themselves as being led by, protected by, or owing fealty to, a certain king, noble or chief.."

Personally I dont give much credence to this theory, its usually a myth perpetrated by socialists in order to polarise people into terms of class. For example the decleration of Arbroath shows clear indication that a sense of national identity existed.

RFM

That is quite a stretch, Avatar, since the document was addressed to Pope John XXII in behalf of the efforts of King Robert de Brus, a Norman, signed by the Norman nobility who were concerned about their obligations to King Edward. That does not sound remotely to me like any sort of a declaration of state independence.
I can only wonder how you conceive socialism having anything to do with the concept of the citizen-state. Perhaps you could explain? Maybe you have an explanation for the trial of William Wallace who was found guilty of treason to Edward?

Avatar

"That is quite a stretch, Avatar, since the document was addressed to Pope John XXII in behalf of the efforts of King Robert de Brus, a Norman, signed by the Norman nobility who were concerned about their obligations to King Edward. That does not sound remotely to me like any sort of a declaration of state independence. "

The Declaration of Arbroath was a declaration of Scottish independence, which set out to confirm Scotland's status as an independent, sovereign state/people

"I can only wonder how you conceive socialism having anything to do with the concept of the citizen-state. Perhaps you could explain? Maybe"

Socially humans always are always divided into "us and them" initially this would have been with tribes/clans and then kingdoms - therefore a common or shared identity has always been intertwined with the political structure of the day. The aim of socialists initially at least was to unite the working classes of the world to overthrow the rulling classes however nationality cuts across class identity - for example working class people from England and Russia have less in common than people of English nationality. So the Socialist academics of the day set out to expose naionalism as a social construction with little merit in an attempt to get people to unite based on terms of class instead.

"you have an explanation for the trial of William Wallace who was found guilty of treason to Edward?"

"I could not be a traitor to Edward, for I was never his subject." I believe were the mans own words.

RFM

Avatar;
Maybe you ought to try reading the text of the latin translation of the Arbraoth Declaration, from beginning to end that is.
I see you do not distinguish between communists and socialists. Add the Communist Manifesto to your reading list as well.
As to Wallace, according to you he should have been saying "I am a citizen of Scotland, not England, and therefore I can not be guilty of treason". Or I suppose you think his claim of never being Edward's subject was based on some other notion of Scotland's soveriegnty?

Avatar

"Avatar;
Maybe you ought to try reading the text of the latin translation of the Arbroath Declaration, from beginning to end that is."

I have done - it goes into quite some fanciful details about the origin of the Scots people - how can you argue that that isnt nationalism? - I would suggest you read it again.

"I see you do not distinguish between communists and socialists. Add the Communist Manifesto to your reading list as well."

Again read it and ok fair point, but its easier to class it all as socialism than have to untangle all the different socialist theories, its not exactly a uniform ideology - I mean we can quite happily use the general term capitalism without having to break it down into all its subsections.

"As to Wallace, according to you he should have been saying "I am a citizen of Scotland, not England, and therefore I can not be guilty of treason".

huh? debating with who maybe said what and should have said this is just random jibber jabber

"Or I suppose you think his claim of never being Edward's subject was based on some other notion of Scotland's soveriegnty?"

Yes

Theresa

Avatar

Absolutely, it depends on how you view nationality aswell - the nation-state refers to a state full of people of only that nationality. to me that sounds like it has racial overtones - but I dont consider nationality to have anything to do with race, for example a family of asians may have moved to Ireland and they now consider themselves Irish - so presumably via the classic definition of a nation-state (assuming there are no racial overtones) then many nations in the modern world would indeed be nation-states - of course its impossible to prove unless you question every single person in the state and they all say they are of the same nationality.

Of course if you think of nationality as an ethnic group - then the idea of a nation-state and achieving a nation-state is basically veering into Hitler teritory and the writers/philosophers that influenced him.

I havent read the book you are refering to Theresa - but does the author refer to the the people in Wales as a single ethnic group? if so then I dont think Scotland would have the same nation-state status as Wales that he argues due to the mixed heritage of of different peoples, i.e the picts, Scotti, Normans and vikings.

RFM

To Avatar;
Do you just make this up as you go along; do you have any vague notion as what you are writing about?
To Theresa:
It is quite common for so-called historians to use modern terms of political or sociological art when describing conditions several hundred, even thousands of years ago. They do that because they are either trying to advance a modern agenda (witness Avatar's inability to understand the background and reasons that led up to the declaration of Abraoth) or they just understand that most people are too lazy or inept to do the necessary reading to grasp fundamental facts about past conditions and people. When humans began to associate collectively in any numbers, for any reason, is not well understood. One thing is fairly certain is that right up until the 19th century, most people were born, lived out their lives and died right in their own homes and rarely if ever went to see the collection of people who lived elsewhere, unless they were engaged in trying to eliminate them. For people with a view like that of their collective existance, nation would be meaningless.

Avatar

"To Avatar;
Do you just make this up as you go along; do you have any vague notion as what you are writing about?"

is that a real question or a deflection because you dont have any valid points to make?

" (witness Avatar's inability to understand the background and reasons that led up to the declaration of Abraoth)"

Yes witness away - witness your lack of ability to refute any of my points - you have obviously just read a couple of history/sociolgy books and accepted them as fact without bothering to think for yourself.

Babygael

Dont stop now folks, this is fascanating!

RFM

To Hazel:
For what it is worth, Public Radio Broadcasting in America reported last week that the military leadership in Iraq informed the White House that Iraqi's have no concept of a national Iraqi identity, but rather see themselves as subjects of certain religious followings and religious leaders. And this in the 21st century mind you.