Quote Originally Posted by NeonGod
I wish someone would figure it out or find something definitively proving one way or another. I was under the impression that the Picts (for the most part, I suppose) were Celts, based on the style of art carved into their standing stones, but it's pretty flimsy by itself.
The style of art they use precedes Celts in the British isles. It appears on monoliths that are present before Celtic incursions, and is usually not actually that Celtic in appearance (except superficially). They favored clumps of spirals of varying size and direction. While that may look Celtic to some, it's not. Celts did use spirals, but they were arrayed in an orderly fashion with common patterns. Northern Pict art is rather wild and seems purposely disorganized to an extent. Their anthromorphic imagery doesn't show up until midlanders and southern Britons migrated north to escape the Romans (subsequently, due to that, the formerly undeveloped Caledonians suddenly acquired a great deal of La Tene culture, in the south, and somewhat in the north). When the Picts formed, the south was definably Celtic, and the dark age kingdoms of Strathclyde, Regydd, Gonnodin (all not Picts), were British Celts (though Regyddites had a substantial Gaelic Celt population), Fibb was Celtic (they were the southern Picts), as was Dal Riada (the Gaelic kingdom that would become formative into Alba), but the north kingdom (Caithness) has substantially less Celtic influence. If we called them Celts, it's a very loose usage of the term. A few Celtic swords, the occassional piece of Celtic art (mostly brought in by Christian conversion by Gaelic monks), etc. It probably doesn't help that Caithness was more effected by Gaels than it was by Britons. As such, they were being Celticized by a culture that was barely Celtic anyway. Mixed with their own culture and extreme isolatanism, it heavily dilutes what changes they did experience, and makes them all but superficial. When the House of Dilei took control of both the north and south kingdoms though, and formed a single Pict kingdom, the north absorbed more Celtic culture, due to the southern kingdom being Celtic, with some old Caledonian influences. It's notable, however, that the Pict government system was a form of monarchic-despotism; a rather unchecked monarch who came to power by bloodline (actually how Alba ended up taking control of all of remaining Pict lands, the king, Kenneth mac Alpin was considered the rightful heir; interesting side note, the Christian missionaries noted that, while they were extremely patriarchal, their king was decided by the matriolinical line). Celtic governments were more along the lines of a vaguely anarcho-capitalistic republican-monarchy. Everyone was elected to their position, 'heirs' more often just meant the inheritor of a business (and thus wealth and power that comes with it), and had little to do with politics. Also, the matter of an extreme patriarchal society does not fully fit (though it's concievable) with how Celts saw gender (essentially a non-issue in terms of politics). Celts usually did worship male gods as the creator of the universe, but that doesn't mean they were patriarchal societally (though certainly not matriarchal either). The northern Picts saw women as property, according to St. Columba, which was considered abhorrent by their neighbors (including the Fibban Picts). In terms of religion, Picts were obsessed with death gods, which lended itself to Christian conversion by relating the plagues, the ressurection, and other biblical events, to concepts they understood from their own religion, which seems quite a bit disassociated with Celtic religions (who had death gods, but they generally prefered law and hero gods). Picts were said to have 'little knowledge of good or evil, and live through a concept of pure strength being best'; this is completely incompatible with any known Celtic philosophies, which are almost always based on good (obeying the law, family, king, and religion, respecting slaves, enemies, elders, and children {very important}), and evil (disobediance and disrespect to such things). Picts wantonly executed children during wars with Dal Riada. That seems untennable to being 'true' Celts. Perhaps they just had war-mad leaders (such as Boudicca's mass executions of Romano-British women, including children, during her revolt in the 1st century, but it's notable those were sacrifices to Andraste), but Celts did not tend to kill children purposely. It was against the law; they were supposed to adopt them to bolster their tribes and make them stronger by absorbing foreign blood, taking their strengths and filtering out foreign weaknesses. They even did that with slaves. Slaves were often adopted into a tribe after so long in service. Of course, accounts of them may be trumped up a bit, but the missionaries hardly talk about any other people in Britain as being remotely so brutal, even people their cultures were less friendly with. The Picts are described in such an ogrish manner, and with customs devoid of seemingly any Celtic influence. Celts could be very harsh and brutal, but not on such a scale as the men of the north Picts were described, and it makes it hard to see them as 'real' Celts, but, the Christian Picts were substantially more Celtic. They adopted the Gaelic method of names (first name, 'son of' father's name, 'tribe' name, like Drude mac Cord Delei), numerous Celtic words (such as 'mac', from the Gaelic languages), Celtic artwork (produced in monastaries; since they were converted by Celts, and taught to do monastic duties by them, this only makes sense that they would produce Celtic monastic art), Celtic metalwork, stonework, etc. Christian conversion, and the uniting of Fibb and Caithness (and Monouth, to an extent, which was a third kingdom, but it's essentially more north Picts), led to a Celticization of the Picts, but even then they're really bizarre, but at that point, they are a type of quasi-Celt, at least, or just very awkward Celts.