Printable View
I'm looking at you, Ranika.
After a bit of discussion in the EB forum about the Picts and their habits, it dawned on me later that the Scandinavians (vikings) thought much in the same way about the Tsjuder people from the northern parts of Scandinavia as the Celts did of the Picts. Is this more than just coincidence?
The Picts really were just another Celtic culture (don't believe me? look at what's left of their language). Maybe one that their neighbours wrote crap about but that's nothing unusual. The Picts don't have much of a historical voice because their last known surviving chronicles were destroyed in the reformation and anything else was probably either destroyed by Edward I (who destroyed Scotland's records) or other groups earlier.
We had a discussion earlier that pointed out that the Picts were not just another Celtic culture, but assimilated Celtic values and other culture after the migration of the Irish Gaels and the slow northern movement of the Britons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taffy_is_a_Taff
NeonGod:
To be fair there is no evidence of that.
What there is evidence of is La Tene style artwork from the later Pictish area, Pictish artwork outside the Pictish area (ie. in definitely Celtic areas) and every single name in the Pictish area of Pre-Norse origin being either P-Celtic or Q-Celtic, even the mystical "Pit" place name element always has a Q-Celtic second element (whilst the first element is quite plausibly a dialectical feature that seems to retain the P-Celtic word which in Welsh is now "peth).
Now then you have Kenneth Jackson's epic work. However, his section on "Pictish" is generally considered to be disproved nowadays. You also have Latin authors recording some tribal names that appear to not be Celtic: is it possible that there was some scribal error seeing as the other names are very Celtic? yes it is possible.
Bede? well, I'd direct you to Smyth's "Warlords and Holy Men" volume of the new history of Scotland for a good refutation of the issues that Bede raised.
All I ask, if you wish to tell me that I am incorrect, is that you present me with solid evidence that they were not Celts.
As for the "northward expansion of the Britons", tell me why are all the non-Q Celtic early place names in Pictland Brythonic (i.e. P-Celtic) could it be that most of the Picts were P-Celtic? Likewise, in the west the place names tend to have always been Q-Celtic in their earliest forms, is it possible that the peoples in this area had been Q-Celtic since before the "Pictii" turned up in recorded history? yes it is.
How about this for a hypothesis: that Q-Celtic was not solely confined to Ireland until the 3rd or 4th century AD?
How about Brythonic being the descendant of the earliest languages spoken on mainland Britain?
You will find that these ideas are supported by the linguistic evidence whilst there is no archaeological evidence to suggest massive population (and thereby linguistic) change in the British Isles nor is this hypothesis challenged by the historical record.
I'm sure some people will disagree with me by using secondary sources that make outrageous claims based on poor or no evidence.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...highlight=Pict
This was the discussion (one-sided that it may be) that took place between Ranika and myself. I'm not saying it's solid proof, but I think he is scholar of some type, so he's probably a bit of an authority on the subject.
I assume from your apparently irate comments that you know of no connections between the Picts and Tsjuder. Am I correct?