[Bollocks there's been some more posts since i wrote this - apologies if i contradict what some of the most recent ones say]

Some more comments

The Romans DO state they were shorter, and while I'll need to find the exact quotes …

Fair enough, I’d be interested

Michael Lynch, a very prominent Scottish historian (his finest composition is the Oxford Companion to Scottish History, an excellent source), states so ...

If you say so, though Michael is an excellent historian, but he is not a Pictish expert or prehistorian. While he is a great all-round historian (I’ve attended his lectures a couple of times), he specialises in 16th and 17th century Scottish history

But, since you brought him up, here is a passage from him.

Some quotes from Michael Lynch -

‘’The first mention of the Picts was made by a Roman observer in ad 297 … Its occurrence at that point when the main periods of both Roman invasion and occupation of a southern pale were already over, may suggest that the name implied a new power grouping in the north rather than indicating a tribe newly arrived from elsewhere. A hundred years before the name Picti appeared the eleven or twelve northern tribes which Ptolemy had earlier described were already being subsumed into two great peoples, the Caledonni and the Maeatae bound together in an alliance against the Romans. The Maeatae explained Dio Cassius c310 ‘live close to the wall that divides the island into two parts’ but the Caledonni are ‘beyond them’. The dividing line between Roman and hostile territory would have been the Antonine Wall and the likely border between these two cognate peoples was the natural barrier of the Mounth. From this point until the sixth century, it is noticeable that there are consistently said to be two main groups of peoples north of the Forth/Clyde line: in 310 there is a reference to the ‘Caledones and other Picts’; by 368 Ammianus Marcellinus describes the Dicaydones (obviously related to the Caledones) and the Verturiones’ and Bede, in dealing with the 6th century distinguishes between ‘northern Picts’ a pagan people first touched by Columba in this mission in the Great Glen, and the southern Picts who, he asserted, had been converted to Christianity much earlier by Ninian’’ [incidentally he mixes up some of his authors here ]

‘’the rediscovery of the Picts as a Celtic people has encouraged closer comparison with practices in contemporary Ireland’’

Some quotations by some Pict experts

Sally Foster (Historic Scotland)

Re: Picti ‘it seems to be a generic term for peoples living north of the Forth-Clyde isthmus who raided the Roman empire’

‘’The appearance of the term Picti cannot be used to infer that the Picts were a ‘nation’ or uniform people prior to the end of the 3rd century, nor that the people to whom this term was applied had suddenly changed in any way’’

‘’… we can be confident that all these people were simply the descendents of the native Iron Age tribes of Scotland’’

‘’Current learned opinion largely favours Leslie Alcock’s 1987 view that the Picts were ‘a typical northwest European barbarian society, with wide connections and parallels’ and that they were thought of as such by their neighbours’’

Martin Carver (Professor of Archaeology at York Uni)

‘’The people beyond the walls were known at first by typical British tribal names – Venicones, Decantae, Cornavii – but by the 300s they had acquired a nickname: the Picts or ‘the Painted People’



Ranika

the Irish and the Dal Riatans, in later periods, describe the Pict people as not being of the Gaelic race. However, they called the various Welsh, the Strathclyders, the people they called Caledonians, and most of the southern British tribes of Celts Gaels

I’d be interested in seeing the Irish and Dal Riatan sources where they describe the Welsh, Strathclyders and Caledonians as Gaels

It is an accepted fact in Irish history, that the Tuatha Da Danann were Cruithe, and they were also short black haired people, they were described by Saint Patrick, who dealt with the last Irish Cruithe in the north of Ireland as "a people totally unlike the Gaels, but claiming of proper rights to the island, stating they were before the Gaels".

I’ve studied some Irish prehistory and early history, and I’ve worked there as an archaeologist. I would not say that this is an accepted fact all. I don’t want to start another discussion about this, but for the moment I’ll just dispute that it is an accepted fact.

Donan, like Patrick (a Cumbrian), declared himself a member of the race he was trying to convert, but was of Gaelic extraction (Donan was from Dal Riata), and, even if the Picts were Celts, was not of the same race (as if the Picts were Celts, they were Brythonic, not Goedelic).

I don’t think anyone was arguing they were Goedelic. Most people think there spoke a P Celtic tongue

based only on Roman sources, when the Romans did not interact that heavily with them. They fought them, and saw them, but they did not engage in long diplomacy with them, nor study them as Saint Donan did.

I agree. I don’t like the use of Roman literature without being backed up by other evidence

Unless you're willing to believe a massive invasion of totally unrelated people flooded into Scotland without anyone, British or otherwise noticing, or that by some genetic anomaly, the northernmost Britons looked totally different than their southern cousins, there is no way the Picts can be of the same race.

IMO The Picts and Strathclyde Britons were simply the descendents of the same people who lived there during the early Roman period and during in the Iron Age. Yep with interbreeding from all their neighbours, but they were not 2 different races. The iron age was regionally very diverse, and the development in the 3rd to 6th centuries of several regional proto-states which had their own identities is not surprising. It doesn't have to imply that because there were two proto-nations that there were two different races

Regarding their different looks, plenty of people at the time failed to mention significant differences. Flicking through the books I have on Pictish and Iron Age period here at the moment, it is barely even considered for more than a paragraph or 2 that the Picts could have been a different race from the Caledonians

‘the general concensus by Dark Ages researchers, who were a lot closer to that point than we are, is that the Picts were there, and were not the same people.’’

Who do you mean by this? Are you honestly saying that rather than modern historical scholarship we should just go with what Gildas, the Pictish king lists and Bede say?

Kenneth Mac Alpin, called the Picts 'The wretched race of cruithe'. He didn't call the Irish or Welsh 'a wretched race', he called them 'wretched lands'

What is your source for this quotation? I’d be interested as there are very few historical sources for MacAlpin.

Were the lands of Caledones and Picts separated, or were they mixed in the same area?

The Caledones were around the great glen in Ptolemy's map. Tacitus talks about Caledonia mainly when he's north of the Forth-Clyde. Cassius Dio says that the same thing - beyond the Antonine Wall. As for the Picts - the northern grouping was north of the Mounth - sort of Buchan - Moray - Ross - Caithness, while the southern Picts were south of the Mounth - including Mar - Angus - Atholl - Fife - Strathearn. Pretty much the same although Ptolemy's map is very dodgy about exact places adn locations.


Anyway, a lot of this discussion comes down to a later period.

But, since the term Caledones is used closer in time to the RTW period, I think it is far better to use the term 'Caledones' or 'Caldonii' ??, (or for some units - – the names of the tribes in Ptolemy maps - eg Votadini, etc ) for the mod.

If it was to be divided - Caledonia Inferior./ Superior would probably be best with a split on the Forth/Clyde - Traprain Law southern capital - Tap o Nort in Aberdeenshire probably best for the north?