PDA

View Full Version : Pict's - Who What When Where?



MJost
04-21-2013, 06:44 PM
The Pict's, Who What When Where?

There are several opinions each of the 4W's. Lets look at the evidence.

What pieces of information are present or absent from the historical Scotland/Isle gene-pools?

Which Haplogroup(s) in Scotland have the largest variances that would represent Pict's?

MJost

N21163
04-22-2013, 02:38 AM
I replied to this post that discusses relatively recent news regarding Picts:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?825-Pictish-Y-DNA-Marker-Identified-by-BritainsDNA

MJost
04-22-2013, 04:16 AM
This is the exact reason for the need to discuss Picts overall.

MJost

MJost
04-22-2013, 04:31 AM
When-

We know that the first indications of humans in Scotland occurring only after the ice retreated in the 11th millennium BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_prehistoric_Scotland

Scotland then, had the presence of relatively large and well-organised hunter-gatherer societies that had a Mesolithic presence during the relatively warm period that lasted from c. 12,000-11,000 BC.

Assuming these men were Mesolithic European I1 and I2a's?

MJost

N21163
04-22-2013, 09:18 PM
For now we can speculate whether men in these societies belonged to I1 or I2.

The earliest human remains have been found in bog bodies
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120706-bog-mummies-body-parts-frankenstein-ancient-science/

MJost
04-22-2013, 11:41 PM
These human remains are dated about 1K BC around the start of the Iron Age and from the later stage of the Bronze age. Most of the developements of human activity appear to start only 1K earlier at around 2000BC. Beaker Bell influences appeared and, some idea, that Celtic influences were introducing Iron Age metalwork. But the Bronze age brought an increased population. Prior, only HG I, G's and T guys may have been involved in the pre-bronze & into the Neolithic period. Found during the late Neolithic period were stone-built shelters and hearths, along with various types of Midden's. Scandinavian influenced? Red ochre has been found clear back to 6k BC, pre-curser to Picts usage.

Anything new in the Neolithic archeology that could provide clues as to what HG was inhabiting the northern Isles?


MJost

MJost
05-10-2013, 03:05 PM
Even though the earlier land bridge between the continent and the isles fostered settlements, maintaining contact and communications, later maintaining contact between the isles was heavly dominated by sea travel during the Neolithic and Bronze ages. Interestingly, the Highlands show little activities overal.

The Irish Sea in Prehistory, The Journal of Irish Archaeology, Vol. 6, 29-40 1993
by J Waddell
http://www.nuigalway.ie/archaeology/oldsite/documents/irish_sea_in_prehistory.pdf


MJost

alan
05-15-2013, 10:55 PM
Who-Just who was living in the area at the time when the nickname was used. As with everywhere they were just the sum total of all threads that had gone into the population of that area since human settlement began, speaking a Celtic language that probably arrived in the copper/bronze/iron ages. They spoke P-Celtic.

What-Non-specific nickname based on those who were beyond the walls. Basic meaning non-Romanised Briton.

When-c. 300AD-850AD

Where-Scotland north of the Forth-Clyde line (after 500AD there heartland was restricted more to the eastern part of this area)

MJost
05-16-2013, 02:37 PM
In reviewing what various haplogroups that were near the Britton Isle well before the Romans, we would have to consider that the distribution of haplogroup R1b in Europe was in its infancy around 3000 YBP. Were the I1, I2a, I2b's the main Native European Y-DNA haplogroups who may have better survivablity in these northern difficult climates or environments, regions like Brittany, Northern Brittany Dinaric Alps & Scandinavia? In addition to the E, G2 and R1a's via the Corded ware and BeakerBell

Europedia Map of early Bronze Age cultures in Europe around 4,500 to 5,000 years ago
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Europe_2500BCE.swf

Were the 'Picts' mainly a group of I1, I2a, I2b, E, G2 and/or R1a people living in ancient eastern and northern Scotland in pre historical times?

MJost

alan
05-16-2013, 11:05 PM
In reviewing what various haplogroups that were near the Britton Isle well before the Romans, we would have to consider that the distribution of haplogroup R1b in Europe was in its infancy around 3000 YBP. Were the I1, I2a, I2b's the main Native European Y-DNA haplogroups who may have better survivablity in these northern difficult climates or environments, regions like Brittany, Northern Brittany Dinaric Alps & Scandinavia? In addition to the E, G2 and R1a's via the Corded ware and BeakerBell

Europedia Map of early Bronze Age cultures in Europe around 4,500 to 5,000 years ago
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Europe_2500BCE.swf

Were the 'Picts' mainly a group of I1, I2a, I2b, E, G2 and/or R1a people living in ancient eastern and northern Scotland in pre historical times?

MJost

The idea of the term Pict as an especially old or pre-Celtic people has been demolished since the 80s. Its just a nickname devised by outsiders at a 'snapshot' in time c. 300AD for the people of a certain area. The term Pictish didnt originally have the implication of some ancient strata. It was 19th and early-mid 20th century antiquarians and historians who fostered that idea. However, there was no sound basis to it.

MJost
05-17-2013, 03:42 AM
I totally understand that. Let call the Pre-Pict naming scheme to the 'local Indigenous' peoples as they surely were and a for longer pre-history existance. Picts was the generic term for people living north of the Forth-Clyde. Knowing the frequency of the HGs may not represent the makeup in pre-history based the remoteness and non-R1b emphasis.

MJost

Jean M
05-17-2013, 11:22 AM
I will copy over here my post in another thread:

Picti was simply the name that the Romans gave to the Celtic tribes north of the Roman border in Britain. It means "painted" and refers to the traditional tattoos of the Celts, which the tribes outside the Roman province of Britannia had evidently continued to favour. The Celts lived all over the British Isles in Roman times. See Celtic tribes of the British Isles: http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/celtictribes.shtml

Their arrival in these island was so much earlier that it was not documented. The names of the islands were Celtic, and these names were recorded by ancient Greek travellers centuries before the Romans arrived, but that still does not take us back very far BC. So the arrival of the Celts was in misty prehistory. Naturally people made up stories about it, as people generally do when they don't actually know. For facts we turn hopefully to archaeologists and linguists, but they don't necessarily agree among themselves.

For a long time people favoured the idea that the Celts arrived in the British Isles in the Iron Age. That fitted the preconception that the only people we could definitely identify as Celts were the people of the La Tene culture. And certainly La Tene spread into Britain and the Northern part of Ireland in the late Iron Age. But that could not explain the fact that the whole of Ireland was dotted with Celtic tribes when Ptolemy wrote his famous Geography in the 2nd century AD. Nor could it explain how the Celtic name for Ireland - Iverio - from which its present name was derived, was known to the Greeks by the 4th century BC at least, and possibly as early as the 6th century BC. That was before La Tene material spread to Ireland. So nowadays archaeologists are looking at Bell Beaker as the period in which an early form of Celtic arrived.

Before that there were Neolithic farmers in Britain and Ireland whose ancestors I think came from South-East Europe, and long before that the Near East. Before the farmers there were a few hunting bands roaming Britain and Ireland.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?825-Pictish-Y-DNA-Marker-Identified-by-BritainsDNA

Jean M
05-17-2013, 11:46 AM
Were the I1, I2a, I2b's the main Native European Y-DNA haplogroups who may have better survivability in these northern difficult climates or environments, regions like Brittany, Northern Brittany Dinaric Alps & Scandinavia? In addition to the E, G2 and R1a's via the Corded ware and Beaker Bell.



I1 So far we have no evidence that I1 arrived in Britain earlier than the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. It appears to be a Germanic marker that arose from I* in or near Jutland. I presume that the I* had arrived in that area in the Mesolithic.
I* is very rare today. There are no known cases in Britain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I-M170#I-M170 . If it got as far as Britain in the Mesolithic, then it does not seem to have survived here. The odds of any Mesolithic Y-DNA surviving in situ from hunter-gatherers actually living in Britain is close to zero. They were thin on the ground in the first place, and were overwhelmed by incoming farmers. The hunter-gatherer economy did not survive.
I2 expanded as farmers reached the Balkans, so it appears to be a local Balkan lineage absorbed by incoming farmers, and then spread by them. Some has been found in late Neolithic aDNA. See http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/haplogroupi.shtml
E and G2 have been found in European Neolithic aDNA. Some presumably survived into Corded Ware or Bell Beaker, and/or could have travelled with it. Most European G2 is G2a3b1, which does not seem old enough to have survived from the Neolithic and so is more likely to have spread with the Indo-Europeans. Both G2a3b1 and E1b1b1 appear at low levels in Britain, boosted by levels a bit higher in Wales.
R1a1a has been found in Corded Ware, but this is not relevant to Britain, where Bell Beaker is found. R1a1a appears to have arrived in Britain with Anglo-Saxons to some degree, but mainly with Vikings. On samples so far, almost all the R1a1a in Britain falls into the Scandinavian subclade L448. http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a/
R1b has been found in Bell Beaker and we may surmise that it arrived in Britain with Bell Beaker. It is closely correlated with present and former Celtic and Italic speaking regions.

MikeWhalen
05-18-2013, 01:05 AM
as usual Jean, a great post with some excellent info I have never seen before.

Mike



I1 So far we have no evidence that I1 arrived in Britain earlier than the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. It appears to be a Germanic marker that arose from I* in or near Jutland. I presume that the I* had arrived in that area in the Mesolithic.
I* is very rare today. There are no known cases in Britain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I-M170#I-M170 . If it got as far as Britain in the Mesolithic, then it does not seem to have survived here. The odds of any Mesolithic Y-DNA surviving in situ from hunter-gatherers actually living in Britain is close to zero. They were thin on the ground in the first place, and were overwhelmed by incoming farmers. The hunter-gatherer economy did not survive.
I2 expanded as farmers reached the Balkans, so it appears to be a local Balkan lineage absorbed by incoming farmers, and then spread by them. Some has been found in late Neolithic aDNA. See http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/haplogroupi.shtml
E and G2 have been found in European Neolithic aDNA. Some presumably survived into Corded Ware or Bell Beaker, and/or could have travelled with it. Most European G2 is G2a3b1, which does not seem old enough to have survived from the Neolithic and so is more likely to have spread with the Indo-Europeans. Both G2a3b1 and E1b1b1 appear at low levels in Britain, boosted by levels a bit higher in Wales.
R1a1a has been found in Corded Ware, but this is not relevant to Britain, where Bell Beaker is found. R1a1a appears to have arrived in Britain with Anglo-Saxons to some degree, but mainly with Vikings. On samples so far, almost all the R1a1a in Britain falls into the Scandinavian subclade L448. http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a/
R1b has been found in Bell Beaker and we may surmise that it arrived in Britain with Bell Beaker. It is closely correlated with present and former Celtic and Italic speaking regions.

Jean M
05-26-2013, 02:28 PM
Bid to save Pictish cave art from coastal erosion
http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.de/2013/05/bid-to-save-pictish-cave-drawings-from.html


Archaeologists are hoping to save ancient cave drawings from coastal erosion. Since the 5th century humans have been painting the walls of Wemyss Caves, creating a rich record of Scottish history over the past 1500 years. They include the largest collection of Pictish drawings in North West Europe. The seven caves, which expand over a kilometre of the Fife coast, are being slowly destroyed by the sea.

Now archaeologists from St Andrews University have joined forces with a local conservation group to create a digital record of each of the caves. They want to use 3D laser technology to survey the caves and create a lasting image of them and need to raise £30,000 to do so.

Jean M
05-26-2013, 02:32 PM
Nigg Pictish stone by Tim Clarkson, author of The Picts: A history (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1906566259/) (rev. edn. 2010, Kindle edn. 2012) and other works.


The old parish church at Nigg in Easter Ross probably stands on the site of an important Pictish monastery. The present building dates from the 1600s and is home to one of the most famous examples of Pictish sculpture: a magnificent cross-slab, 7 feet high, carved in the late eighth century. The slab’s decoration is very intricate. On the front face, above the cross, is a cameo showing Saint Paul and Saint Anthony receiving bread from a raven sent by God. The cross itself is surrounded by delicate interlace, swirling snakes and circular bosses. The back of the stone shows figures of humans and animals, with a Biblical scene (King David of Israel slaying a lion) and, at the top, an eagle above a mysterious ‘Pictish beast’....

A major project to conserve the slab was undertaken by Nigg Old Trust, the guardians of the church, who obtained funding for detailed restoration work by a stone conservator. The work was painstaking and time-consuming, because the monument had sustained so much damage in the past. The project also included a new display-area inside the church to enhance the experience for the many visitors who come to admire this masterpiece of Pictish art. This year, at the beginning of April, the restored slab was unveiled to the people of Nigg.

http://senchus.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/nigg-pictish-stone/

MJost
05-26-2013, 03:10 PM
Jean,

I had not heard of this blogger and will bookmark his work concerning Medieval and early Medieval time periods. Thanks.

MJost

Jean M
05-26-2013, 03:17 PM
A few extracts from Tim Clarkson's readable The Picts: A History Birlinn. Kindle Edition:


‘Picts’ was the name given to a people who inhabited a large part of what is now Scotland during the first millennium AD. Together with their neighbours – Scots, Britons and English – they played an important role in the early history of the British Isles. They make their first appearance in the historical record at the end of the third century when their raiding activities troubled the authorities of Roman Britain. After less than 600 years, they seem to vanish from the pages of history, leaving behind no written records of their own nor any significant trace of their language. In the wake of their apparent disappearance a fictional tale was created to explain it, and a shroud of myth enveloped the true story of their fall from power. From these legends there emerged a belief that the Picts were a mysterious race whose history was unknown: a strange, almost alien nation who were very different from their neighbours.... This book seeks to venture behind the myths and legends to find the real history of the Picts, to ‘de-mystify’ them in so far as it is possible to do so... This is not meant to be an academic textbook, nor a scholarly investigation, but a narrative history.

A brief glance at the Irish annals shows that the Picts were not regarded as ‘a people apart’ by their contemporaries. Geographical factors alone ensured that the Pictish lands were caught up in the affairs of northern Britain as a whole. The territory of the Picts was travelled, trampled and invaded by their neighbours – Scots, English, Britons and Vikings – at various times during the Early Historic period. Pictish armies usually returned the favour by launching rampages of their own. When not engaged in warfare, Pictish kings communicated with other kings to shape the political landscape of what eventually became the medieval kingdom of Scotland. To writers such as Bede and Adomnán there was nothing different or special about the Picts beyond the fact that they were a distinct group like the English or the Scots. It is curious, then, that there has arisen in modern times a belief that the Picts were a strange or enigmatic people... Perceptions have, however, started to change in recent years, and most of the misconceptions are now in retreat...

Before the Picts made their first appearance in history, their territory in what is now Scotland was inhabited by an earlier population. These were the ancestors of the Picts and were the people encountered by Roman armies during the Empire’s attempt to conquer the northern parts of Britain. Theirs was a typical Iron Age society of farmers, fishermen and craftsmen grouped into tribes and ruled by a landowning aristocracy. They spoke a dialect of Brittonic, the Celtic language used in most parts of mainland Britain in pre-Roman times.

mcg11
05-26-2013, 04:29 PM
The Pict's, Who What When Where?

There are several opinions each of the 4W's. Lets look at the evidence.

What pieces of information are present or absent from the historical Scotland/Isle gene-pools?

Which Haplogroup(s) in Scotland have the largest variances that would represent Pict's?

MJost

Good start Mark. Everyone has his opinions, I'll offer some of mine. AFAIK, the two early tribes mentioned as inhabiting the region now called Scotland were the Caledonians and the Maeatae(sp); with the Caledonians occupying the "highlands" and the Maeatae the lowlands with some overlap in the middle. Its interesting that the term doesn't appear in the literature until c. 300 AD, long after the Roman occupation and the battle at Mons Graupius and the building of the two walls.

A simple explanation would be that the Pictone tribe of NW France migrated to NE Scotland c. 200 AD and founded Burghold (sp). They brought with them the use of woad from what is now Brittany and dyed their bodies. They probably spoke P Celtic. I have no idea if this is true but it does match the estimated date of founding of Burghold and the subsequent growth of power of the Picts. It retains the idea of native Britons (Caledonians and Maeatae) and distinguishes between the later invasion by the Scottis.

The above is the simplest explanation I am aware of. It doesn't fold well into DNA analysis because none of the naming relates to DNA characteristics. This is true of almost every Roman commentary, where tribes are described and broad affiliations are asserted (e.g. Belgae, Gaul, etc.). The simple fact is, without the Roman reports, we have very little to go on. You have to posit that somehow native Britons morphed into Picts? It appears to me that the native Britons were reduced in number due to the successive invasions by the Picts and Scottis and then the Vikings dealt the final blow and they became Picts and Scottis with no distinguishing ethnic characteristics after c. 700 AD or so.

One final observation is that the current membership of clans consists of variety of Hgs and names. Clan Gregor is a good example, because we have a myriad of name: Gregg, Greierson, Greer, Gregory as well as the traditional Mac(Mc)Gregor. We also have a wide variety of R1b's. It is fairly clear to me that whoever the various early inhabitants of Scotland were there genetic characteristic are carried on in the various highland and lowland naming systems.

So wrt your specific questions: a. I think all the gene pools are probably still present, including Romans and their mercenaries. b. re: variance. That's a tough one since there were so many invasions beginning with the Romans. Variance could have been developed elsewhere and brought to the isles. I'm not sure anyone really knows the Hg of the ancient Britons? There is a lot of speculation, but I'm not sure that it has been nailed down?

rms2
05-26-2013, 05:45 PM
I believe it was 19th century scholars who created the myth of the "prehistoric native Picts", whose language at that time was considered a mystery and probably something akin to Basque. Now we know (or are pretty sure, anyway) that they spoke a Brythonic language. The Picts were considered the last hold-outs in Britain of the once widespread "Iberian" race of little, short, bandy-legged, long-skulled people who built the long barrows, etc. This despite Tacitus' description of the Caledonians as large limbed and redheaded (Agricola, 11).

If you have read Robert E. Howard's Conan novels, or his book, Bran Mak Morn, you have encountered this view of the Picts in literary form.

The idea that the Celts were a race of superior, blond, Aryan invaders who imposed their language and culture on the Picts and Pict-like natives of Britain and Ireland was a concomitant of this view. It was the view expounded by H.G. Wells in his Outline of History.

Jean M
05-26-2013, 08:58 PM
A simple explanation would be that the Pictone tribe of NW France migrated to NE Scotland c. 200 AD and founded Burghold (sp). They brought with them the use of woad from what is now Brittany and dyed their bodies.

Simple, I grant you, but completely and utterly wrong in every way. The Pictones have nothing to do with the Picts, though I see the temptation to link people of similar name. "Pictones" is the name of a single Celtic tribe. "Picti" was a collective Roman name for all the tribes north of the Roman border, which included the Caledonii, mentioned by Ptolemy c. 150 AD. See Celtic tribes of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland: http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/celticscothighlands.shtml . Then in 305 Constantius Chlorus claimed a victory over the "Caledones and other Picts".

This is the first reference to Picti, a late Roman nickname for all the northern British tribes beyond their borders. It means "painted" in Latin. Isidore of Seville tells us that it refers to the use of plant dye to create tattoos. When the Romans first encountered the people of Britain, they noted the British habit of dying their bodies with woad, which left a blue colour. That was mentioned by Caesar in 55 BC. Even in 208 the Britons were still said to "tattoo their bodies with coloured designs and drawings of all kinds of animals". As the Britons within the Roman Empire gradually adopted Roman ways, those outside it would be easily distinguished by their tattoos.

Woad was a common plant dye, well known in Britain long before 200 AD. Tattooing seems to have been pretty common in prehistory, but the evidence only survives in rare cases, where bodies have been preserved in bogs, ice, permafrost or desert. There are tattoos on Otzi, for example, and some Tarim Basin mummies. This was not a technique confined to a single tribe.

I have no idea which "old burg" you have in mind. A broch in a ring-fort on Shetland dated to the 6th century BC is linked to Late Bronze Age Brittany by associated pottery, but there is no evidence of a mass population change either at this time or c. 200 AD.

Ian B
05-27-2013, 01:30 AM
You don't know much about the Clan Gregor apparently. Clan MacGregor went head to head with Clan Campbell, and lost. Their lands were despoiled and the MacGregor name was banned for 200 years. Basically, the MacGregor were outlawed and anyone using the name could be executed. From this arose family names such as Gregor, Greig, Greg etc.

Ian B
05-27-2013, 02:07 AM
mcg 11:

"One final observation is that the current membership of clans consists of variety of Hgs and names. Clan Gregor is a good example, because we have a myriad of name: Gregg, Greierson, Greer, Gregory as well as the traditional Mac(Mc)Gregor. We also have a wide variety of R1b's. It is fairly clear to me that whoever the various early inhabitants of Scotland were there genetic characteristic are carried on in the various highland and lowland naming systems."


I've explained to you the connection of the various Gregor, Greg, Greig etc names on another blog. This has nothing at all to do with the genetics of the time, or in fact, since.

Jean M
05-27-2013, 11:31 AM
Since no-one has started a thread on Scottish clan history, perhaps I could make a few remarks here.

Any male with the surname Gregor, MacGregor or variations on it who does a typical surname history search on the Internet will instantly find simplistic stuff telling him that he "belongs" to Clan Gregor, complete with history, tartan, and lots of people trying to sell him mock-parchment scrolls and other paraphernalia. It is much the same story with many other British surnames. People with something to sell will happily link the innocent enquirer to a coat of arms to which in fact they have no claim, or a family tree back to William the Conqueror which in fact has nothing to do with them. Truth is in very short supply among these merchants. You only have to look at the rubbish served up if you search on some very common surname such as Smith to realise that. http://www.houseofnames.com/smith-family-crest

The truth is that having the surname Gregor or MacGregor is no proof at all that a family has anything at all to do with Clan Gregor. As we all know, the surname derives from a personal name. It originally meant "son of Gregor/Gregory". The problem is that there was not just one Gregor in Scotland at the time that surnames were developing. We can expect several completely unrelated families to have this or similar surnames. So it should be no surprise that the Clan Gregor DNA Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/MacGregor/) (click for link) has men of different Y-DNA haplogroups among the hundreds of participants. See http://www.familytreedna.com/public/macgregor/default.aspx?section=ysnp

Given the romantic appeal of a clan history, tartan and illustrious family tree, it is not surprising that many of Gregor or similar surnames still cling to membership of the clan in the hope that their ancestors were among those followers of the clan chief who took his surname, though unrelated. The clan seems to give them the benefit of the doubt and classes them as "partakers". The reality is that unless they have a paper trail to the clan, they have no proof at all of any clan connection.

The haplogroup of the actual founder of Clan Gregor is R-L21, but this is so common in Scotland that we can expect a majority of those of Scottish ancestry to share it. So until fairly recently, when new SNPs began to create a multitude of subclades under L21, there was much emphasis on STRs. As I understand it Kit#2124, designated simply as "Gregor founder of the Clan" is descended from the MacGregors of Glencarnoch (Chief’s line), otherwise known as the "Ian Cam" MacGregor Group. A number of project participants have been clustered with him in the results on the basis of STRs. He has tested negative for a number of downstream SNPs, including Z253, but positive for L1335, announced by Jim Wilson as the "Pictish marker", although in fact it includes the Wales II cluster. Its subclade R1b1a2a1a2c1k1 (CTS11722/L1065) seems a much closer equivalent to the Scots modal haplotype (regarded by Jim Wilson as the Pictish marker.) It looks as though Kit#2124 has not yet been tested for this.

Jean M
05-27-2013, 12:20 PM
The reason that Jim Wilson regards the Scots Modal (identified as haplotype 47 within L21 before the new SNPs were discovered) as a Pictish marker is that it is found particularly strongly in those areas of Scotland associated with the Picts.

450

Click image for larger version.

Andrew Lancaster
05-27-2013, 12:49 PM
You don't know much about the Clan Gregor apparently. Clan MacGregor went head to head with Clan Campbell, and lost. Their lands were despoiled and the MacGregor name was banned for 200 years. Basically, the MacGregor were outlawed and anyone using the name could be executed. From this arose family names such as Gregor, Greig, Greg etc.

I think mcg11 knows that and is talking about the earliest origins of the clan. By the way the chiefly lines of both MacGregor and Campbell appear to be in the newly defined lineage R-L1065.

Andrew

Andrew Lancaster
05-27-2013, 12:57 PM
The reason that Jim Wilson regards the Scots Modal (identified as haplotype 47 within L21 before the new SNPs were discovered) as a Pictish marker is that it is found particularly strongly in those areas of Scotland associated with the Picts.

450

Click image for larger version.

Still looks to me, even in Jim Wilson's plot, to be slightly more common in the earliest Gaelic speaking areas. :)
Also, when we look at the actual surnames involved there certainly seems to be a tendency to find Argyll-associated names.
John McEwan's map some years ago attempted to use 19th census data on the surnames, so this is not just based on "house of names" type analyses.

Andrew

Jean M
05-27-2013, 01:31 PM
I can see what you mean. Jim Wilson linked the Scots Modal to areas densest in Pictish symbols. If we look at Canmore's map of same ( http://canmoremapping.rcahms.gov.uk/index.php?action=do_simple&sitename=Pictish%22 ) we see that they predominate in the good agricultural land around the eastern rim of the Scottish Highlands, with just a scattering in the Hebrides and other points in western Scotland.

However one point is significant. There is an incised boar in Pictish style at Dunadd in Argyll, thought to be the capital of Dál Riata. Both Argyll and Galloway take their names from their association with Gaels, so it is curious to find Pictish symbols also at a similar site in Galloway - Trusty’s Hill. The Galloway Picts Project investigated in 2012. http://senchus.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/the-galloway-picts-project-update/


Thanks to the 2012 excavation we now know that the hilltop was a fortified settlement of major importance in the 6th-7th centuries AD. The people who lived there were wealthy and powerful. They imported the kinds of luxury goods associated with sites of very high status, such as Dunadd in Argyll. On the summit of Dunadd is a group of features associated with royal inauguration rituals – not only the famous footprint but also a rock-cut basin and a carved Pictish boar. At Trusty’s Hill the 2012 excavation found a similar rock-cut basin near the Pictish symbols, so it seems likely that important ceremonies were performed there too.

The full report from the Galloway Picts Project can be found at http://gallowaypicts.com/wordpress/results/data-structure-report/

alan
05-27-2013, 02:54 PM
I tend to think the most likely explanation for serious outlier Pictish symbols at non-Picitish royal sites is likely to represent high status marriage and alliances. I dont really believe the raid theory. You dont bring stone masons on a raid and sit and carve symbols especially at the furthest edges of your raiding range well outside the raiders core territory. There is a clear pattern of these outliers to be associated with famous non-Pictish royal sites apparently originating in and around the 6th century. I have always thought the Class I Pictish symbols represent lineages/parentage/marriages/alliances and I there are examples of Pictish wives being taken by Britons and Scotic kings. These kind of marriages were almost certainly political in some way. There are several cases of alliances among these separate peoples recorded in history. One obvious example was the threat the Northumbrian Angles held for both the Britain of the south and Picts of the east.

mcg11
05-27-2013, 03:13 PM
mcg 11:

"One final observation is that the current membership of clans consists of variety of Hgs and names. Clan Gregor is a good example, because we have a myriad of name: Gregg, Greierson, Greer, Gregory as well as the traditional Mac(Mc)Gregor. We also have a wide variety of R1b's. It is fairly clear to me that whoever the various early inhabitants of Scotland were there genetic characteristic are carried on in the various highland and lowland naming systems."


I've explained to you the connection of the various Gregor, Greg, Greig etc names on another blog. This has nothing at all to do with the genetics of the time, or in fact, since.

I don't know where you get your information but I can say for certain that the Ian Cam of the FtDNA Clan Gregor/MacGregor site are descended from one man, who is considered to be the founder of the clan. To be a "MacGregor" requires a certain specific haplotype usually with a 10, 10 at 391/385a, the 10 at 385a is considered to be the defining mutation for the Ian Cam.

I am not an Ian Cam, nor is the clan webmaster Dr. Richard McGregor, we are both Z253. How we got to Perthshire is a TBD, but I can trace my line back to 1650 or so and a Patrick Gregor McGregory.

There have been many studies on the origins of Clan Gregor: Dr. Martin MacGregor wrote his PhD thesis at the U. Of Glasgow. Peter Lawrie, his mother was a MacGregor, got his M.A. from the University of Edinburgh, on the various lines of Clan Gregor, Glencarnoch, Roro, etc.

There is some argument about the term Gregor, since it was in use, more as Gregory, in the church of early Scotland. The number of partakers and septs of clan gregor is very large and many are included at the FtDNA site.

mcg11
05-27-2013, 03:31 PM
Since no-one has started a thread on Scottish clan history, perhaps I could make a few remarks here.

Any male with the surname Gregor, MacGregor or variations on it who does a typical surname history search on the Internet will instantly find simplistic stuff telling him that he "belongs" to Clan Gregor, complete with history, tartan, and lots of people trying to sell him mock-parchment scrolls and other paraphernalia. It is much the same story with many other British surnames. People with something to sell will happily link the innocent enquirer to a coat of arms to which in fact they have no claim, or a family tree back to William the Conqueror which in fact has nothing to do with them. Truth is in very short supply among these merchants. You only have to look at the rubbish served up if you search on some very common surname such as Smith to realise that. http://www.houseofnames.com/smith-family-crest

The truth is that having the surname Gregor or MacGregor is no proof at all that a family has anything at all to do with Clan Gregor. As we all know, the surname derives from a personal name. It originally meant "son of Gregor/Gregory". The problem is that there was not just one Gregor in Scotland at the time that surnames were developing. We can expect several completely unrelated families to have this or similar surnames. So it should be no surprise that the Clan Gregor DNA Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/MacGregor/) (click for link) has men of different Y-DNA haplogroups among the hundreds of participants. See http://www.familytreedna.com/public/macgregor/default.aspx?section=ysnp

Given the romantic appeal of a clan history, tartan and illustrious family tree, it is not surprising that many of Gregor or similar surnames still cling to membership of the clan in the hope that their ancestors were among those followers of the clan chief who took his surname, though unrelated. The clan seems to give them the benefit of the doubt and classes them as "partakers". The reality is that unless they have a paper trail to the clan, they have no proof at all of any clan connection.

The haplogroup of the actual founder of Clan Gregor is R-L21, but this is so common in Scotland that we can expect a majority of those of Scottish ancestry to share it. So until fairly recently, when new SNPs began to create a multitude of subclades under L21, there was much emphasis on STRs. As I understand it Kit#2124, designated simply as "Gregor founder of the Clan" is descended from the MacGregors of Glencarnoch (Chief’s line), otherwise known as the "Ian Cam" MacGregor Group. A number of project participants have been clustered with him in the results on the basis of STRs. He has tested negative for a number of downstream SNPs, including Z253, but positive for L1335, announced by Jim Wilson as the "Pictish marker", although in fact it includes the Wales II cluster. Its subclade R1b1a2a1a2c1k1 (CTS11722/L1065) seems a much closer equivalent to the Scots modal haplotype (regarded by Jim Wilson as the Pictish marker.) It looks as though Kit#2124 has not yet been tested for this.

To negate your last statement first 2124 is L 1065 positive, as are many other clans: Donald, MacMillan, Buchanan etc.

re: who is a "real" MacGregor, technically you are right; only the Ian Cam meet the genetic qualifications at the present time. But as Richard says about the list of those names associated with the clan, they are welcome to the site and very welcome to participate in the clan activities. I think you are being much too narrow in defining who is a Mac/McGregor. I don't want to get into this any further, I think you ought to make your comments directly to Dr. Richard McGregor, his email is at the FtDNA Clan Gregor site.

re: how you prove you are a MacGregor Ian Cam, paper trails don't quite hack it as well as an STR test. There are some issues with those who have a large number of mutations, but being an Ian Cam is the current requirement.

That said there are a lot of us, who claim clan membership who are not Ian Cam; you can call use what you will but my ancestors have carried the name McGregor/y for over 450 years and I also own a kilt, which I used to embarrass my daughters at their weddings and I proudly put McGregor on every bottle of wine I produce.

mcg11
05-27-2013, 05:59 PM
Well, you certainly have expressed "your opinions" about the Scottish clan system and especially about the MacGregors. You are entitled to say whatever you feel like saying, but I would argue there is very little "scholarly" merit in your statements. I think you really have no idea of what a clan was and what it meant to be a clan member. I have forwarded your comments on to the Clan Gregor society chairman. We'll see if he's interested in discussing your views.

From my own personal point of view, I take some of your comments as offensive and undeserving of a reply. JMHO!

jdean
05-27-2013, 06:16 PM
From my own personal point of view, I take some of your comments as offensive and undeserving of a reply. JMHO!

Out of curiosity who aren't you replying to ?

mcg11
05-27-2013, 06:17 PM
[QUOTE=Jean M;6802]Simple, I grant you, but completely and utterly wrong in every way. The Pictones have nothing to do with the Picts, though I see the temptation to link people of similar name. "Pictones" is the name of a single Celtic tribe. "Picti" was a collective Roman name for all the tribes north of the Roman border, which included the Caledonii, mentioned by Ptolemy c. 150 AD. See Celtic tribes of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland: http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/celticscothighlands.shtml . Then in 305 Constantius Chlorus claimed a victory over the "Caledones and other Picts".

I doubt if you can prove the statement "completely and utterly wrong in every way". The Pictones, a tribe from western france/Brittany may have had something to do with Picts. The fort I was referring to was Burgheld, a Pictish stronghold on the northeast coast of Scotland. It was apparently rebuilt c. 200 to 300AD in the manner of a French/Brittany type fort. I may have been too specific in naming the Pictones, but tribes from Brittany may have been the originators of the Picts. This was a naval fortress and the inhabitants terrorized the East coast of Scotland until the Romans left. The rise and fall of the Picts occurred over the time period from 200 to 800 AD, a sufficient period of time for their growth to power and their fall from power. All of this is consistent with Roman sources and later accounts of the events in the isles. You can create a history, as you have done, but that doesn't make it true.

mcg11
05-27-2013, 06:20 PM
I'm not replying to Jean M.s comments.

jdean
05-27-2013, 06:31 PM
Thought this germane and quite interesting

http://www.clanchiefs.org/article/the-clan-system/

AJL
05-27-2013, 06:46 PM
From my own personal point of view, I take some of your comments as offensive and undeserving of a reply. JMHO!

I do not see anything offensive in Jean's reply -- perhaps you would care to quote the portion you found offensive? Otherwise, in future perhaps you can disagree silently, rather than making a big production of not replying (while in fact replying), which is poor netiquette.

rms2
05-27-2013, 10:42 PM
Thought this germane and quite interesting

http://www.clanchiefs.org/article/the-clan-system/

Interesting. When I first got my DF41+ result last September, a gentleman at another forum suggested that I was probably a Scot (fine by me) with heritage in Clan MacTavish, since Stevens (my surname) is apparently one of the septs in that clan, and at that point DF41 was looking pretty Gaelic. I would have been happy to claim Clan MacTavish membership and order the tartan and a claymore, etc., but I knew my closest matches were and are Welsh, so no cigar.

Anyway, it is likely my surname is an anglicization of ap Steven (or ap Stephen or something similar), son of Steven. Originally that would have been map Steven, "map" being the P-Celtic version of the Q-Celtic "mac". So, you see, I am kind of a Mac, after all. B)

Jean M
05-28-2013, 11:27 AM
By the way the chiefly lines of both MacGregor and Campbell appear to be in the newly defined lineage R-L1065.
Andrew

Thank you Andrew. The Clan Gregor project has perhaps not got around to putting up the result for Kit#2124 on the SNP page, but I was assuming that it would be L1065+.

Jean M
05-28-2013, 11:41 AM
Thought this germane and quite interesting

http://www.clanchiefs.org/article/the-clan-system/

Yes, that hits the nail on the head, I'd say.


Modern genealogical research has shown that few within any clan have a blood relationship with the chief’s family. And many who bear sept surnames find that their ancestors never had any connection with the declared clan or even its territory.

The author goes on to encourage these modern clan constructs on the grounds that they meet a felt need. There certainly is a huge market in the US, Canada and Australia. I would just like to see more honest marketing. As I pointed out above, it is not just in this fake clan system that people seeking their roots are being sold a pup.

Andrew Lancaster
05-28-2013, 11:46 AM
Thank you Andrew. The Clan Gregor project has perhaps not got around to putting up the result for Kit#2124 on the SNP page, but I was assuming that it would be L1065+.

Just to clarify, I am not aware of the exact details on the Clan's SNP testing but I was thinking of the fact that the connection between L1065 and the Scots clade is now more or less confirmed and can be at least referred to as the apparent truth, so to speak. The Scots clade itself was I think never a controversially defined clade: even if there might be grey areas, there is certainly a core group which is quite homogeneous, and certainly includes the relevant MacGregor, Campbell, Buchanan, etc etc lineages.

One I know first hand: the chiefly line of the Clan Livingstone (which is actually an Argyll clan, known in Gaelic as MacLea, or MacOnLea, or even Mac Donnsleibhe, with nothing to do with the place in Lothian) has been checked by testing some of the kits closest to the chief and his late father. Results were positive. The Clan has a reputation as one of the oldest in Argyll.

(Of course as with any such SNP/STR correspondence there can be a result out of the blue which shows a slight difference in the definition of the two sets on a twig somewhere. Being certain is always relative.)

Andrew

MJost
07-10-2013, 05:39 PM
I thought I would post several links associated with Scotland Historical aspects.

The Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

This Society pursues the study of the antiquities and history of Scotland through various means.

www.socantscot.org

The Scottish Archaeological Research Framework (ScARF) reflects the current state of knowledge regarding Scotland’s past through the study of the antiquities and history of Scotland, more especially by means of archaeological research.

http://www.scottishheritagehub.com/sites/default/files/u13/Telling_Scotlands_Story_2013_Web%20updated.pdf

http://www.socantscot.org/content.asp?Page=333&Menu=239

MJost

Jean M
09-09-2013, 09:52 PM
Pictish burials found at ‘Royal Rhynie’ site

http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/09/2013/pictish-burials-found-at-royal-rhynie-site


The grave of what could be a member of early Pictish royalty has been discovered as part of an archaeological dig in northeast Scotland. The discovery is one of the few made in this area and was found in a carefully made grave lined with sandstone slabs, suggestive of a high status burial... Rhynie in Aberdeenshire, has long been known for its eight carved standing stones including the renowned ‘Craw Stane’. Previous digs have uncovered rare examples of Mediterranean imports and intricate metalwork which add to the theory that the area was a former Pictish centre of power.

The latest discovery, made during the Rhynie Environs Archaeological Project (REAP), is the first time remains of a body have been uncovered at the site....The remains will now be studied using a raft of scientific techniques including radiocarbon and stable isotope analysis, if the level of bone preservation is sufficient.

Jean M
09-09-2013, 09:54 PM
The Northern Picts Project: the Rise and Fall of a ‘Lost’ People of Early Medieval Northern Europe

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/archaeology/research/projects/northern-picts/


The first millennium AD in northern Europe witnessed the transformation of small-scale tribal societies into medieval kingdoms, changes that laid the foundations for the modern nation states of Europe. In northern Britain, the Pictish Kingdoms that emerged in northern Scotland in the post-Roman period (c.AD 400-900) were important political players both regionally and on a European scale. Indeed, the major legacies of the Picts include some of the most spectacular archaeological sites and artistic achievements of Early Medieval European society. In northern Scotland the Kingdoms of the Northern Picts spanned an area from the Northeast of Scotland mainland to the northern Isles of Shetland and Orkney until the late 9th and 10th centuries when pressure from Viking incursions and political ascendency of gaelic kingship and identity led to the absorption of the Picts into the political entity known as Alba. This project aims to track the rise and fall of the Northern Pictish Kingdoms through a sustained programme of archaeological and historical research.

Jean M
09-11-2013, 09:23 PM
Searching for Scandinavians in pre-Viking Scotland: molecular fingerprinting of Early Medieval combs, Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 41, January 2014, Pages 1–6


The character and chronology of Norse colonisation in Early Medieval northern Scotland (8th–10th centuries AD) is hotly debated. The presence of reindeer antler raw material in ‘native’ or ‘Pictish’ type combs from the Orkney Isles, northern Scotland has been put forward as evidence for a long and largely peaceful initial period of cultural contact, as opposed to a shorter, more polarised period probably in the late ninth century. Here this hypothesis is tested using a minimally-destructive collagen peptide mass fingerprinting method (ZooMS) to speciate the raw material of 20 combs. Eleven were identified as red deer, four as reindeer and one as whale. The accuracy and gentleness of this method was tested by the subsequent application of ancient DNA (aDNA) methods to fourteen of the same samples: in ten, amplification was successful and all supported the preliminary ZooMS identification. All ‘native’-type combs in the sample are identified as red deer, and all Norse types as reindeer. These results challenge previous species identifications for these combs' raw materials. The balance of evidence no longer supports the existence of a long period of cultural contact between Atlantic Scotland and Scandinavian settlers before the late 9th century. ZooMS is shown to have considerable potential for identification of worked bone and antler artefacts, with applications in archaeology and wildlife/art-history forensics.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440313002781

Jean M
11-26-2013, 03:12 PM
Gordon Noble, Meggen Gondek, Ewan Campbell and Murray Cook, Between prehistory and history: the archaeological detection of social change among the Picts, Antiquity, Volume: 87 Number: 338 Page: 1136–1150 http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0871136.htm


The development of small-scale kingdoms in the post-Roman world of north-western Europe is a key stage in the subsequent emergence of medieval states. Recent excavations at Rhynie in north-eastern Scotland have thrown important light on the emergence of one such kingdom, that of the Picts. Enclosures, sculptured ‘symbol stones’ and long-distance luxury imports identify Rhynie as a place of growing importance during the fifth to sixth centuries AD. Parallels can be drawn with similar processes in southern Scandinavia, where leadership combined roles of ritual and political authority. The excavations at Rhynie and the synthesis of dated Pictish enclosures illustrate the contribution that archaeology can make to the understanding of state formation processes in early medieval Europe.

Supplementary material on open access.

Jean M
01-09-2014, 08:22 PM
Manning the ramparts: a hillfort on the edge of Empire

http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/01/2014/manning-the-ramparts-a-hillfort-on-the-edge-of-empire


In 2012, a team from Rampart Scotland carried out an archaeological investigation at Sheriffside, a large crop mark site some 20 miles to the east of Edinburgh. Unexpectedly, a ditch measuring over 8m across and up to 2.80m deep was uncovered, which appears to represent the final phase of enclosure of the hillfort. Currently, this is the largest ditch discovered in the region and has produced a C14 date range of AD 211-384.

Archaeologically, this date range and re-cutting of the ditch is extremely interesting, as it falls into a turbulent era in the history of Southern Scotland. After the Romans withdrew behind Hadrian’s Wall in the early 3rd century AD, the Picts carried out frequent raids and may have forced the local tribes such as the Votadini into taking defensive action to protect themselves and their livestock.....


One of the illustrations is amazing - a Roman dice tower in the Rheinisches Landesmuseum Bonn, with lettering reading
Pictos Victos – Hostis Deleta – Lvdite Secvri”, translated to mean “The Picts defeated – the enemy wiped out – play without fear”.

1193

George Chandler
07-26-2014, 03:05 PM
I want to dig up this topic again and present my "theory" with the hopes that those who are interested and pick apart at their leisure and detail why you think my theory is incorrect.

For about 4 years now I've been trying to determine the origins of the 9919 RecLOH S1051 Family. The two theories which I've been working on is that most if not all have a history of being from Pictish culture. The other theory (due to my own family lore) is that we come from Denmark originally. The problem with this second theory is that I can't find any evidence of a 9919 cluster or connection to Denmark even though many of the 9919's come from areas where a Danish Viking presence was obvious.

This is going to be a bit wordy but has to be to make my case -so back to the first theory here is what we know. The 9919 S1051 seem to share (so far all but A9) 5 main SNPs below DF13 which in my opinion are Bell Beaker. So far most seem to go their separate ways genetically after these 5 main SNPs. The ancestral value appears to be 12 at DYS640 as the only 9919 type who doesn't have this is the 9919B's. We know that the 9919A4's share the 5 main SNPs with the 9919B's and several others including S1050 with the 9919 A4's also having a 12 at DYS640 so it is pretty conclusive that 12 at DYS640 is ancestral. I'm using that as a clue..knowing full well that some "may" be more recent mutations. There is a cluster within L513 which have a 12 at DYS640 and my thought on that is that a small group of the DF13 people with this mutation and having a 12 at DYS640 had the mutation of L513 and the brother mutation of either S1051, FGC9661, FGC9655, or FGC9658. I list all because I still don't know the position of which happened right under DF13 - I only know that the 5th common SNP of FGC9657 was negative in the 9919 A9 Rayborn results yet positive in all others to date.

So using the value of 12 at DYS640 as a clue I've been search different projects. What I find is that the value of 12 is showing up in mainly in Scotland for those being L21+. What is also interesting is that the there seem to be quite a few who are "likely" 9919A4's. The 9919 B's who they are related to are thought to be from Lowland Scotland. I know that it is suggested that there is no connection between the Pictones and the Picti of Scotland but out of the non 9919 L21's from France who have the 12 at DYS640 both have a history of being from the Nantes areas which was also tribal Pictone. Both are currently being tested for S1051, FGC9661 & FGC9655 to see if there is a connection. The STR pattern of both is very different and admittedly we can't say for sure if they have always been there in the area or not prior to the 1500's.

What is very interesting is that the clusters A1,A2,A3,A4 etc seem to share a MRCA within the past 1,300 years or less and yet the 5 main SNP's are quite old being ~4,000-5,000 years ago. For a group being this old and this unique you would think that it should be as prevalent it's other brother SNP's such as L513, DF49, L1335 etc but it isn't. In my opinion something has happened to this group which has bottle necked the population. So just to qualify here is what I believe:

1.) Not all Picts were of a single genetic race.
2.) It's possible that not all 9919 S1051 were found within Pictish culture.
3.) There could be a connection genetic connection between the Pictones and Picti post Bell Beaker but it would be difficult to prove.
4.) There was possibly a Pictish or Pictone tribe found within the confederation of what is known as the Caledonian Picts but it was never documented or identified.
5.) The Picti of Caledonia were a closed population for some time which reflects the language difference.


Any thoughts?

George

Jean M
07-26-2014, 03:59 PM
1.) Not all Picts were of a single genetic race.

If by 'race' you mean a single Y-DNA haplogroup, I think you are on very safe ground. I'd say it is wildly unlikely that all the British tribes north of Hadrian's Wall just happened to have men of all the same haplogroup.



2.) It's possible that not all 9919 S1051 were found within Pictish culture.


Again you are on safe ground.


3.) There could be a connection genetic connection between the Pictones and Picti post Bell Beaker

4.) There was possibly a Pictish or Pictone tribe found within the confederation of what is known as the Caledonian Picts but it was never documented or identified.

I really wish that people could let go of this idea. I realise that it is tempting to try to link two names that sound similar. But it doesn't make any sense. The fact that scholars expert in this very topic of the Picts wouldn't even waste a sentence debunking this idea should tell you something. It has never even been on the scholarly radar. It is not seriously discussed. It appeals only to amateurs.

Picti was the Roman name for all the British tribes north of their border. These tribes were named in the 2nd century AD by Ptolemy. There were no Picti or Pictones. The Pictones were a tribe in Western France at the time of Ptolemy's geography. Isodore of Seville gives us the meaning of Picti = tattooed.


5.) The Picti of Caledonia were a closed population for some time which reflects the language difference.

Pictish was in fact very similar to Brittonic. You could call it a dialect of Brittonic. There would be some linguistic drift apart after centuries each side of a barrier (Hadrian's Wall), but there were comings and goings across that border.

Jean M
07-26-2014, 04:01 PM
Accidental duplicate.

George Chandler
07-26-2014, 04:36 PM
If by 'race' you mean a single Y-DNA haplogroup, I think you are on very safe ground. I'd say it is wildly unlikely that all the British tribes north of Hadrian's Wall just happened to have men of all the same haplogroup.





Again you are on safe ground.



I really wish that people could let go of this idea. I realise that it is tempting to try to link two names that sound similar. But it doesn't make any sense. The fact that scholars expert in this very topic of the Picts wouldn't even waste a sentence debunking this idea should tell you something. It has never even been on the scholarly radar. It is not seriously discussed. It is obvious nonsense. It appeals only to amateurs.

Picti was the Roman name for all the British tribes north of their border. These tribes were named in the 2nd century AD by Ptolemy. There were no Picti or Pictones. The Pictones were a tribe in Western France at the time of Ptolemy's geography. Isodore of Seville gives us the meaning of Picti = tattooed.



Pictish was in fact very similar to Brittonic. You could call it a dialect of Brittonic. There would be some linguistic drift apart after centuries each side of a barrier (Hadrian's Wall), but there were comings and goings across that border.
Hi Jean,
Sorry I won't let this one go (regarding a link between the Pictones and Picts). Several years ago I argued with some very educated people regarding the age estimate for L21. I had said then that L21 was between 5,000 to 7,000 years ago and was essentially told by every expert that I was an idiot who didn't know what he was talking about and that L21 was no more than about 2,500 years old. We know that DF13 which if below L21 is somewhere between 4,000 and 6,000 years old.

Now I'm not saying you are wrong or you are right on this issue..but the Pictone tribal area is a hop, skip and a jump from Brittany who spoke the Brythonic Language which was the same as the Welsh & Picts. Do you have a historic reference you can dig up which indicates that the Pictones spoke only Goidelic?

George

Jean M
07-26-2014, 04:52 PM
.. the Pictone tribal area is a hop, skip and a jump from Brittany who spoke the Brythonic Language which was the same as the Welsh & Picts. Do you have a historic reference you can dig up which indicates that the Pictones spoke only Goidelic?


:biggrin1: It really would be worth doing some serious research!


Breton is a descendant of Brittonic . After Roman rule collapsed in Britain, Britons fled to what was then Armorica to escape being caught between incoming Irish from the west and Anglo-Saxons from the east. Because they settled in Armorica in such numbers, it was renamed Brittony. The Brittonic spoken by the incomers was not much different from Gaulish, but the latter had largely vanished in Gaul by the late Roman period, replaced by forms of Latin that developed into French, Occitan, etc.
The Pictones did not live in Armorica. They lived in what is now Loire Atlantique, south of the Loire. They would of course have spoken Gaulish in pre-Roman times. So did all the rest of the tribes of Gaul. There really, really, really is no special connection between them and Celtic tribes north of the Border except that they were all Celts.

George Chandler
07-26-2014, 04:58 PM
I fully understand the history of Brittany Jean but that's not what I asked you. I asked you if you have historic reference to the Pictone language.

George

Jean M
07-26-2014, 05:39 PM
Several years ago I argued with some very educated people regarding the age estimate for L21. I had said then that L21 was between 5,000 to 7,000 years ago and was essentially told by every expert that I was an idiot who didn't know what he was talking about and that L21 was no more than about 2,500 years old.

George - I don't mean to imply that you are wrong about every topic under the sun, simply because we have this teeny disagreement. People can be right 100% of the time on astro-physics and still not know a bustle from a crinoline without looking it up. But that's just the point really. We all have the capacity to look things up. If we are really gripped by a topic we can end up chatting with the experts on equal terms. But that does mean doing a lot of research first when it comes to stuff a bit more tricky than the crinoline. :)

Jean M
07-26-2014, 05:45 PM
I asked you if you have historic reference to the Pictone language.

The Pictones (and indeed Armorica) fell into that part of Gaul described by Caesar as speaking Gaulish. They were not sufficiently south to be part of Aquitaine.

The amount of Gaulish actually written down (inscribed or whatever), at the time is pretty limited. A major source is place-names. Putting all these sources together, scholars recognise that Q-Celtic was at one time spoken in Gaul, but replaced by P-Celtic, which appears to have entered Britain with La Tène movements. That's how we end up with Gaulish and Brittonic being so similar, though not identical.

If you want details on the Celtic place-names in the area, you will find them in Patrick Sims-Williams, Ancient Celtic Place-Names in Europe and Asia Minor. There is a map online somewhere, related to that. [Edited. Here it is: http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/handle/2160/282/FalileyevMap.pdf?sequence=12 ]

George Chandler
07-26-2014, 06:44 PM
I understand that and like I said previously I don't think you are right or wrong. As you and I both no there is a lot of information on the net which is incorrect. There is a lot of scholarly information which is correct one day and wrong the next. When you suggest that people who make the link between Picti and Pictones are amateurish then I'm going to ask for citations, references etc. I don't take offence..I'm just going to go after you for information more.

I will take a look at the link you provided but as you know with family names they evolve over time and so have place names. It's going to depend on when those names were referenced and who was doing the referencing. When you look at my Chandler surname it was Chaundeler 500 years ago then 100 years before that it was Le Chaundeler and before that it was supposed to be Chandelier. If I look at a document written in the early 1500's I can find it written as Chandler by some and Chaundeler by others - it just depends on who was doing the recording. It's easy to see how a person speaking Goidelic and translating a similar Brythonic town name could in fact translate a name to their own dialect. When you look at how names of cities and towns evolve wasn't New York originally just known and recorded as York?

Yes I am doing my research into the topic and there seems to be a lot of information why they are not related to the Picts but honestly I don't see much documented evidence yet. Did the Romans go on a fact finding mission to learn about each tribe prior to wiping out about 50% of the Celtic population?

Even if the 2 test kits I'm sampling turn out to be positive for the SNP's I'm testing for does that mean they were Pictish? No. Could it mean it was more likely they were ancestrally from Brittany? Absolutely. What I'm looking for is a genetic cluster with old SNPs and old STR's which could provide clues. Why is it not possible that there was some sort of Pictish tribal migration to what is now mainland France earlier than the Roman occupation? Some sort of connection between the tribal tattoo/body painting that the Picti of the Isles held and the Pictones which the Romans picked up on. Would they stay as Pict's and keep all of their culture or would they become Gaulisized with their surrounding neighbours and yet keep some of their tribal traditions regarding tattooing and face painting? I would be just as happy to find out that my theory is wrong and we were all Brigantes but I don't think it's going that way.

You cited previously the Pictish stones from Galloway. I don't see any reference to Pictish stones of a similar nature being found in that area of France. Do you know of any which have been discovered? Just because I can't find it online doesn't mean the information doesn't exist.

George

George Chandler
07-26-2014, 06:45 PM
meant to type "know".

George Chandler
07-26-2014, 07:04 PM
I notice regarding the link and the map you provided that a few in the area have question marks beside them (Pictones, Nementes, Pikonion Akron & Ledo fl). Do they not know if these names were actually Goidelic?

Jean M
07-26-2014, 07:38 PM
There is a lot of scholarly information which is correct one day and wrong the next.

So true. ;)


When you suggest that people who make the link between Picti and Pictones are amateurish then I'm going to ask for citations, references etc. I don't take offence..I'm just going to go after you for information more.

I hope you will forgive me a certain testiness on this one George. I have been over this territory on one forum or another year after year until I'm just about at screaming pitch whenever I see Pictones = Picts. It leads absolutely nowhere, but I'm all for people finding these things out for themselves.

Jean M
07-26-2014, 07:46 PM
I notice regarding the link and the map you provided that a few in the area have question marks beside them (Pictones, Nementes, Pikonion Akron & Ledo fl). Do they not know if these names were actually Goidelic?

Goildelic = the branch of the Celtic language spoken in Ireland and related languages e.g. Scottish Gaelic, Manx Gaelic. This term is not used for any Continental Celtic language, even if said language was Q-Celtic, like Celtiberian and ancient Gaulish. There are differences between all the Celtic languages.

The question marks beside names won't refer to the type of Celtic. Any Celtic name is included. I'll take a look.

[Added] Looks like the queries are over exact location. Piktonion Akron looks like Greek spelling, so I presume that is from a Greek source for the coastline. It is placed in the same position with a query in the Koch Atlas for Celtic Studies.

Jean M
07-26-2014, 07:50 PM
You cited previously the Pictish stones from Galloway. I don't see any reference to Pictish stones of a similar nature being found in that area of France. Do you know of any which have been discovered?


No. Pictish stones are restricted to Scotland.

George Chandler
07-26-2014, 07:59 PM
So true. ;)



I hope you will forgive me a certain testiness on this one George. I have been over this territory on one forum or another year after year until I'm just about at screaming pitch whenever I see Pictones = Picts. It leads absolutely nowhere, but I'm all for people finding these things out for themselves.

No need to apologize Jean - I understand your position I just don't seem to be able to get the questions answered I'm looking for. If I were living in a larger center I would run down to the library to see what I could dig up as well.

George Chandler
07-26-2014, 08:03 PM
[QUOTE=Jean M;46577]Goildelic = the branch of the Celtic language spoken in Ireland and related languages e.g. Scottish Gaelic, Manx Gaelic. This term is not used for any Continental Celtic language, even if said language was Q-Celtic, like Celtiberian and ancient Gaulish. There are differences between all the Celtic languages.

That's interesting because although I knew there was a difference between the language Celtiberian's used I was under the impression that ancient Gaulish somehow had evolved into what was known as Goidelic with the understanding there would be slight regional differences.

Jean M
07-26-2014, 08:21 PM
I was under the impression that ancient Gaulish somehow had evolved into what was known as Goidelic with the understanding there would be slight regional differences.

The relationship between the Insular and Continental branches of Celtic is much debated. (And how!) In my view (a humble non-linguist) the first Celtic to arrive in the British Isles would have been as near Proto-Celtic as makes no odds and it would come from north of the Alps. Then there would have been some linguistic drift, making the Isles brand a bit different from Continental, before we get more input from the Continent, after Gaulish had turned P-Celtic. Then we get a lot of interaction between the Insular languages, so that they have similarities to each other that do not appear in Gaulish. All crystal clear, isn't it! <faints> There's a lovely diagram by Patrick Sims Williams that sums up all the confusion and contradiction. With lots of question marks. I have taken the question marks out in the version below.

Click to enlarge.

2131

George Chandler
07-26-2014, 10:42 PM
Ok thanks Jean.

I've looked for information about both peoples and there is the brief first reference regarding the Picti by Eumenius and there is the reference to the Pictones in the first century BC helping Caesar and being ship builders but I see nothing regarding their origins which I can find prior to that. The fact that there are no tribal stones in the Pictone area is a good indicator.

The frustrating part is that there are a lot references to this study which indicates...yet have no citation attached. I see some papers at the University of Cambridge online which can be purchased but most seem out of date. I'm not sure if the couple which are there will have enough information to be worth the purchase.

There is a ton of garbage and old material to sift through which you have probably already done.

George Chandler
07-26-2014, 10:52 PM
What's interesting is that I had considered the 9919A1's as possibly Gaels from Argyll but again each of these genetic clusters should be showing up in much higher numbers than they are. It doesn't really explain the low numbers and the majority having a historical connection to Scotland.

Jean M
07-26-2014, 10:54 PM
The best modern scholarly source on the Picts is the New Edinburgh History of Scotland:


vol. 1: James E. Fraser, From Caledonia to Pictland: Scotland to 795 (2009)
vol. 2: Alex Woolf, From Pictland to Alba 789-1070 (2007)


As I mentioned earlier in the thread, there is a book on the Picts for the general reader, which you can get in Kindle: Tim Clarkson, The Picts: A History (2012). http://www.amazon.co.uk/Picts-History-Tim-Clarkson-ebook/dp/B009KL4KLK/ He has a blog as well: http://senchus.wordpress.com/

My own coverage of the Picts is no more than the briefest summary, but does cite the Classical sources: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/celticscothighlands.shtml. I'll cut and paste into a post below.

Jean M
07-26-2014, 11:04 PM
In 305 Constantius Chlorus claimed a victory over the "Caledones and other Picts". [C. E. V. Nixon and B. Saylor Rodgers (ed. and trans.), In praise of later Roman emperors: the Panegyrici Latini (1994), VI: Panegyric of Constantine, pp. 226-7 and note 27 ] This is the first reference to Picti, a late Roman nickname for all the northern British tribes beyond their borders. It means "painted" in Latin. Isidore of Seville tells us that it refers to the use of plant dye to create tattoos. [The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville, ed. and trans. S.A. Barney, W. J. Lewis, J. A. Beach and O. Bergho (2006), p. 386 (XIX.xxiii.7).] The plant dye was from woad. When the Romans first encountered the people of Britain, they noted the British habit of dying their bodies with woad, which left a blue colour.[Caesar, Gallic Wars, V.14; Pomponius Mela's Description of the World, ed. Frank E. Romer (1998), p. 116 (book 3, chapter 51).] Other colours could be derived from iron ochre. A Byzantine historian, pulling together what he could glean from writers centuries earlier about the British, mentioned the tattooing of their bodies with iron-red. This was probably taken from a verse by Claudian which could be so translated. [Jordanes, Getica, II.14; Claudian, The Gothic War, XXVI.] Even in 208 the Britons were still said to "tattoo their bodies with coloured designs and drawings of all kinds of animals". [Herodian, The History of the Roman Empire, III.14.7.] As the Britons within the Roman Empire gradually adopted Roman ways, those outside it would be easily distinguished by their tattoos.

The Irish were nicknamed Scoti in Late Roman Britain, which name was taken up by Gaelic speakers in Scotland. The Late Roman nickname Picti was likewise adopted by speakers of Pictish. The names Picti, Scoti and Caledonii were squeezed onto the tiny area north of Hadrian's Wall on the Late Roman Peutinger Map. The Picts were not a tribe. The name began as a collective term for all tribes north of the Roman border, which shifted between Hadrian's Wall and the Antonine Wall. The latter ran between the Firths of Clyde and Forth. In the 730s AD Bede reported that the the Firth of Clyde had originally been the southern border of the Picts. [Bede, The Ecclesiastical History of the British People, ed. J. McClure and R. Collins (1994), p. 12.] Within 8th-century Pictland we find reference to various peoples, kingdoms or districts.[J. E. Fraser, From Caledonia to Pictland: Scotland to 795 (2009), pp. 44-9.]

The northern and north-western area of Scotland was Gaelic-speaking in historic times, as indicated by the distribution of Gaelic place-names in Scotland. Care is needed though in the interpretation of place-name evidence. Pictish place-names were Gaelicized, as Gaelic became the dominant language of Alba. Conversely the Pictish place-name element *pet(t) (land-holding, portion, share) was borrowed into Scottish Gaelic and exported to Lothian. However the concentration of Pit- or Pet- names falls in the coastal and riverine areas (i.e. those most suitable for agriculture) of the eastern Highlands. The distribution of Pictish symbol-stones (6th-9th centuries AD) is remarkably similar, though they also occur in the Western, Orkney and Shetland Isles.

George Chandler
07-27-2014, 01:40 PM
I purchased one of the books you suggested and will purchase the other (including yours) when time permits to read them.

Thanks for the suggestions Jean.

George

Jean M
07-27-2014, 06:24 PM
I purchased one of the books you suggested and will purchase the other (including yours) when time permits to read them.

Actually the stuff of mine that I quoted is from the AJ website, not the book. No need to purchase AJ, so there's a saving right there. ;)

vettor
07-27-2014, 06:48 PM
In 305 Constantius Chlorus claimed a victory over the "Caledones and other Picts". [C. E. V. Nixon and B. Saylor Rodgers (ed. and trans.), In praise of later Roman emperors: the Panegyrici Latini (1994), VI: Panegyric of Constantine, pp. 226-7 and note 27 ] This is the first reference to Picti, a late Roman nickname for all the northern British tribes beyond their borders. It means "painted" in Latin. Isidore of Seville tells us that it refers to the use of plant dye to create tattoos. [The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville, ed. and trans. S.A. Barney, W. J. Lewis, J. A. Beach and O. Bergho (2006), p. 386 (XIX.xxiii.7).] The plant dye was from woad. When the Romans first encountered the people of Britain, they noted the British habit of dying their bodies with woad, which left a blue colour.[Caesar, Gallic Wars, V.14; Pomponius Mela's Description of the World, ed. Frank E. Romer (1998), p. 116 (book 3, chapter 51).] Other colours could be derived from iron ochre. A Byzantine historian, pulling together what he could glean from writers centuries earlier about the British, mentioned the tattooing of their bodies with iron-red. This was probably taken from a verse by Claudian which could be so translated. [Jordanes, Getica, II.14; Claudian, The Gothic War, XXVI.] Even in 208 the Britons were still said to "tattoo their bodies with coloured designs and drawings of all kinds of animals". [Herodian, The History of the Roman Empire, III.14.7.] As the Britons within the Roman Empire gradually adopted Roman ways, those outside it would be easily distinguished by their tattoos.

The Irish were nicknamed Scoti in Late Roman Britain, which name was taken up by Gaelic speakers in Scotland. The Late Roman nickname Picti was likewise adopted by speakers of Pictish. The names Picti, Scoti and Caledonii were squeezed onto the tiny area north of Hadrian's Wall on the Late Roman Peutinger Map. The Picts were not a tribe. The name began as a collective term for all tribes north of the Roman border, which shifted between Hadrian's Wall and the Antonine Wall. The latter ran between the Firths of Clyde and Forth. In the 730s AD Bede reported that the the Firth of Clyde had originally been the southern border of the Picts. [Bede, The Ecclesiastical History of the British People, ed. J. McClure and R. Collins (1994), p. 12.] Within 8th-century Pictland we find reference to various peoples, kingdoms or districts.[J. E. Fraser, From Caledonia to Pictland: Scotland to 795 (2009), pp. 44-9.]

The northern and north-western area of Scotland was Gaelic-speaking in historic times, as indicated by the distribution of Gaelic place-names in Scotland. Care is needed though in the interpretation of place-name evidence. Pictish place-names were Gaelicized, as Gaelic became the dominant language of Alba. Conversely the Pictish place-name element *pet(t) (land-holding, portion, share) was borrowed into Scottish Gaelic and exported to Lothian. However the concentration of Pit- or Pet- names falls in the coastal and riverine areas (i.e. those most suitable for agriculture) of the eastern Highlands. The distribution of Pictish symbol-stones (6th-9th centuries AD) is remarkably similar, though they also occur in the Western, Orkney and Shetland Isles.

The recent 10 part series on the history of Scotland states - Gaels arrived from ireland and settled in western scotland, the picts ruled eastern scotland, about 980AD they merged to form the first Scots............and the term Scotland started from there

IIRC
-British isles represent the following people before the celts arrived.......Gaels in ireland, caledonians, picts and brittonic in britain

-Celts origins = central Germany
-gallic people lived in france

-celtic westwards movement heading into gallic territory and merger of celts and gallic people created the belgii

- In roman times...........keltic represented northern France and southern france where the gallic

- Celtic southern movement from central Germany into southern Germany and the alps absorbed the raetic, venetic and illyric people in modern austria .
- The gallic movement from southern france and the celtic movement form the alps into Italy formed the cisapline celts ...........the gallic seemed the first to arrive between the 2

- Th northern push of the celts through france forced many gallic tribes south ( ie, cennomani to name one ) into southern france and these later pushed into northern Italy and settled there ( again cennomanni, semnones)

this is a brief point summary via english and italian historians

Jean M
07-27-2014, 08:28 PM
-British isles represent the following people before the celts arrived.......Gaels in ireland, caledonians, picts and brittonic in britain....this is a brief point summary via english and italian historians


No it isn't Vettor. Once again you are either misundstanding or mis-remembering what you have heard/read. The Gaels, Picts, Britons and Gauls (Galli) were all Celtic speaking. Keltoi was the Greek name for the Celts. The Celtic-speakers in Gaul were the Gauls.

Naturally your primary interest lies in the Celtic incursions south of the Alps. That's all fine. But this is a thread on the Picts.

vettor
07-28-2014, 05:52 AM
No it isn't Vettor. Once again you are either misundstanding or mis-remembering what you have heard/read. The Gaels, Picts, Britons and Gauls (Galli) were all Celtic speaking. Keltoi was the Greek name for the Celts. The Celtic-speakers in Gaul were the Gauls.

Naturally your primary interest lies in the Celtic incursions south of the Alps. That's all fine. But this is a thread on the Picts.

history does not start only in the iron-age, I do not know why bronze-age people are forgotten.

you know very well, the picts never spoke celtic in the bronze-age and also the gaelic only learnt Q-celtic in the iron age from migrating centic people from the continent. the original irish never spoke celtic at all.

England spoke P-celtic
'
The first Irish, the Parthalons were the Neolithic people (or peoples) who arrived in scattered groups in the 44th and 43rd centuries BC, spreading across the northern and western sections of Ireland, building the magnificent religious and burial sites that continue to fascinate the observers after more than 6 millennia.

next came, The Nemedians took Ireland. As previously mentioned, Nemedh ("Neimheadh" in Early Irish) means "sacred or privileged person." Privileged and likely considered sacred was this new sophisticated people who sailed up the Irish Sea, landing near the Liffey and Boyne estuaries shortly after 3000 BC. Subsequently they spread north and west to Ulster and Sligo Bay as well as south into the central lowlands. Coincidentally with their arrival, further new changes in the environment again began to occur. Most significant is the evidence of farming and domestic animals, including cattle and, for the first time, horses.
These newly arrived early Neolithic farmers initiated revolutionary changes in the landscape

Jean M
07-28-2014, 09:06 AM
you know very well, the picts never spoke celtic in the bronze-age and also the gaelic only learnt Q-celtic in the iron age from migrating celtic people from the continent. the original irish never spoke celtic at all.


The idea that there were people in Britain and Ireland at some time in the past who did not speak Celtic is completely acceptable, and indeed uncontested in scholarly circles, with the possible exception of the insane followers of Palaeolithic Continuity Theory.

But the names 'Pict', 'Gaels', 'Britons' and 'Gauls' all refer to people who spoke Celtic languages. These are words we encounter in the Roman and post-Roman periods. We have no idea what any pre-Celtic people in the British Isles called themselves or their homelands, or were called by other people, because no-one was around to write it down. It is what we call prehistory. It is OK to talk in terms of pre-Celtic inhabitants of the British Isles, but not to use the Celtic names to refer to pre-Celtic people. OK? You wouldn't use the word 'Roman' or 'Venetian' about hunter-gatherers of the Italian peninsula, right? It's anachronistic and just leads to a mighty confusion.

As for the timing of the arrival of Celtic - it is disputed. The idea that Celtic spread in the Iron Age, specifically with the La Tene movements, used to be popular. You may well have encountered it in any number of books. But there are problems with this theory. There is evidence from Ancient Greek travellers of Celtic personal and place-names in Iberia and the British Isles prior to the La Tene period. A number of archaeologists and other scholars in Iberia and the British Isles are therefore proposing that Celtic initially spread with Bell Beaker. (In fact that idea has been around for decades, but rather swamped by the popular La Tene theory, repeated by so many authors.) I suspect that the picture is rather more complex and that the change from Proto-Italo-Celtic to Proto-Celtic actually took place within the Bell Beaker period.

Jean M
07-28-2014, 09:10 AM
The first Irish, the Parthalons were the Neolithic people... next came, The Nemedians took Ireland.

These names come from the famed Lebor Gabála Érenn (The Book of the Taking of Ireland), which is unfortunately fiction. Please see http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/originstories.shtml#Milesian . I repeat that we do not know the names that people called themselves in prehistory for the very simple reason that they were not literate, so they did not write these things down.

Prehistory means 'before history' i.e. before people wrote things down. Anyone claiming to know the name that a prehistoric people called themselves, as opposed to what archaeologists call them, is therefore totally deluded, or writing fiction e.g. The Clan of the Cave Bear.

George Chandler
08-03-2014, 02:46 AM
Hi Jean,
There are two differing opinions on the Cruthin of Ireland being of Pictish descent as well. What is your opinion on that?

George

Jean M
08-03-2014, 04:30 PM
Hi Jean, There are two differing opinions on the Cruthin of Ireland being of Pictish descent as well. What is your opinion on that?

The problem here is that the Irish used the same word to mean both 'British' and (in some circumstances) 'Picts'. You can see why. In the historic period they would need to distinguish between the Gaelic speakers in Scotland and the Brittonic/British speakers in Scotland. The Gaelic word Cruithin / Cruithni is the Q-Celtic version corresponding to Welsh Prydyn from the country-name Prydain ‘Britain’, derived from the original name for the British Isles recorded by Greek travellers, which ended up as Britannia in Latin.

George Chandler
08-03-2014, 05:27 PM
The problem here is that the Irish used the same word to mean both 'British' and (in some circumstances) 'Picts'. You can see why. In the historic period they would need to distinguish between the Gaelic speakers in Scotland and the Brittonic/British speakers in Scotland. The Gaelic word Cruithin / Cruithni is the Q-Celtic version corresponding to Welsh Prydyn from the country-name Prydain ‘Britain’, derived from the original name for the British Isles recorded by Greek travellers, which ended up as Britannia in Latin.

Combined with no Pictish standing stones in Ireland that I'm aware of I see why it's disputed. I thought it was because there was the Brythonic language connection between the ancient Welsh and Picts. I thought maybe they named them that due the languages being similar.

It's interesting when you look at the location of the standing stones mapped out the majority are in the lowland north east of Scotland with some going up to the Shetlands etc. Only a few locations in the west and really not much in the middle. You would think that the combined tribes referred to as the Picti by the Romans would have revealed standing stones in the middle of the country. Is it possible that the real Picts (or whatever tribe you want to call them) were originally the natives and the other tribes at the time sort of absorbed them and they were all called Picts? Sort of like Native American tribes in the sense that they are the original ethnic cultures yet still from and part of the United States?

George

alan
08-03-2014, 05:46 PM
There is one thing in Irish mythology that I dont think people really understand. The legends tend to create the idea that there was some sort of Irish 'Gaels' per excellence group and others like Laigin, Cruithin, Erainn, Fir Bolg/Domnainn etc were somehow less Irish ad or substrates.

It is clear that this is misleading and Medieval propoganda by the Ui Neill clan. In reality there was no people or wave called the Gael. Gael or Goidel is not a native terms and is in fact derived from an early Medieval Welsh term for the Irish, basically a quite unpleasant term meaning 'wild men of the woods' or similar basically meaning savages or barbarians. It probably got into Irish via latinate British speaking monks from western Britain who came to Ireland c. 500AD.

So Gael is essentially an artificial creation which is intended to make the Ui Neill, Connachta and other people's who were artificially linked to them in genealogies able to claim they are somehow the true Irish. Its transparently Ui Neill propaganda.

In reality the wave described as Gaels is a complete fiction. Unlike Erainn, Cruithin, Domnainn etc which have some basis in reality, there never was a wave of Gaels or Goidils as an ethnic group and indeed the language that came to be known as Gaelic was actually probably spoken first by the Erainn.

The really believable ethnic strata in Ireland c. 200AD

1. The Erainn 'Ireland people' who probably were there since time out of mind and survived longest in the extreme SW and NE of the island. They seem to have kept a native identity, hence their name. Their name implies that they were actually the default Irish or earliest strata with a name.

2. The Cruithin - perhaps people with connections to the La Tene culture via Britain c. 350BC on as their name implies links with the name Pretani or Britons which replaced the old name Albion in the 4th century BC.

3. The Laigin/Domnainn/Gallion/Bolg and other Leinster tribes on Ptolemies map - probably multiple refugee waves largely from western Britain coming in from c. 0.

There was never an ethnic strata called the Goidil or Gaels. They were an invention of monks and propaganda of the Ui Neills.

Most of the waves of invaders in the Book of Invasions are fake-

Parthalon- not a native name - its a borrowing from biblical Bartholomew
Nemed- Just the Irish word for sacred and basically meaningless ethnically
Bolg-May have had some link with Belgae but original meaning was lost
Fomoire-clearly not earthly - some sort of underworld 'under sea' bad gods
Tuatha de Danann - Transparently the pantheon of Celtic gods - some like Lugh, Nuada, Ogma were also known among Celts outside Ireland

Basically the book of invasions is a load of rubbish as history and is more of interesting as a piece of imaginative fiction and light it throws on the Celtic gods etc.

This is a simplification but I think it probably is close to the truth and fits the archaeology.

George Chandler
08-03-2014, 06:15 PM
Interesting perspective. So referring to Celtic immigrants from Gaul as Gaels is not correct?

Thanks
George

George Chandler
08-03-2014, 06:26 PM
So something less serious about the Picts. Obviously experts don't know for certain what the symbols mean (other than the basic animal figures etc). So look at the symbols and tell me what you think they mean and why? I realize that everyone will see what they want to see and have their own opinions it's just interesting to see what people think.

My thoughts on the Z with 2 discs is that it means "Death in Combat". The Z no matter how it's situated translates to the word death and the 2 joined discs are representative of the weapons they used to practice or spar with being 2 spheres with a handle and not discs. The crescent with the V represents an important figure or leader. The stones were commemorative in some way.

Interested to see what others think and why?

George

vettor
08-03-2014, 06:29 PM
The problem here is that the Irish used the same word to mean both 'British' and (in some circumstances) 'Picts'. You can see why. In the historic period they would need to distinguish between the Gaelic speakers in Scotland and the Brittonic/British speakers in Scotland. The Gaelic word Cruithin / Cruithni is the Q-Celtic version corresponding to Welsh Prydyn from the country-name Prydain ‘Britain’, derived from the original name for the British Isles recorded by Greek travellers, which ended up as Britannia in Latin.

but the Irish referred to people from that med. as greeks.........even if they where not.
we already have the phoenicians traveling into the atlantic sea in the late bronze-age. There are phoenicians artifacts found in cornwall, brittany, ireland and wales............not to imply that phoenicians landed, but that a bronze-age relay trade network was already in motion.

alan
08-03-2014, 06:36 PM
Pictish standing stone only appear around the time Christianity appears in Pictland. There was no such thing as a Pictish stone when the Romans were describing the Picts.

I think we always have to remember that many of the ethnic names of this period were just an outsiders nickname in a snapshot of time. Basically a generalisation of an outsider. Many of the ethnic names seem to have been given quite late in the Roman empire and are not native terms - Picts, Scots (which still defies translation) and several 'new' continental terms like Franks etc. They therefore cannot be considered much more than nicknames for non-Romans living beyond a certain river or wall or whatever. They are just a name given at a snapshot in time and dont tell us anything about the origins. I think many of these late Roman nicknames were given out based on giving names to confederations of tribes who raided or interacted with them on their borders. Hence a lot of them seem newly coined in the later Roman empire. It is noticeable that the tribe in future Pictland were only ever described as Britons, by tribal names or by the broad north-south subdivision terms -Caledonians and Maetae/Verturiones which probably were northern and more southerly confederations of 'Pictish' tribes involved in raiding. The truth is that all Pict really meant when coined was a snapshot of time - 'the non-Romanised people north of the Antonine wall observed by the Romans c. 300-400AD' and this tells us nothing about their origins. We are pretty sure they were essentially the same peoples as noted on Ptolemy's map


Combined with no Pictish standing stones in Ireland that I'm aware of I see why it's disputed. I thought it was because there was the Brythonic language connection between the ancient Welsh and Picts. I thought maybe they named them that due the languages being similar.

It's interesting when you look at the location of the standing stones mapped out the majority are in the lowland north east of Scotland with some going up to the Shetlands etc. Only a few locations in the west and really not much in the middle. You would think that the combined tribes referred to as the Picti by the Romans would have revealed standing stones in the middle of the country. Is it possible that the real Picts (or whatever tribe you want to call them) were originally the natives and the other tribes at the time sort of absorbed them and they were all called Picts? Sort of like Native American tribes in the sense that they are the original ethnic cultures yet still from and part of the United States?

George

George Chandler
08-03-2014, 06:44 PM
Pictish standing stone only appear around the time Christianity appears in Pictland. There was no such thing as a Pictish stone when the Romans were describing the Picts.

I think we always have to remember that many of the ethnic names of this period were just an outsiders nickname in a snapshot of time. Basically a generalisation of an outsider. Many of the ethnic names seem to have been given quite late in the Roman empire and are not native terms - Picts, Scots (which still defies translation) and several 'new' continental terms like Franks etc. They therefore cannot be considered much more than nicknames for non-Romans living beyond a certain river or wall or whatever. They are just a name given at a snapshot in time and dont tell us anything about the origins. I think many of these late Roman nicknames were given out based on giving names to confederations of tribes who raided or interacted with them on their borders. Hence a lot of them seem newly coined in the later Roman empire. It is noticeable that the tribe in future Pictland were only ever described as Britons, by tribal names or by the broad north-south subdivision terms -Caledonians and Maetae/Verturiones which probably were northern and more southerly confederations of 'Pictish' tribes involved in raiding. The truth is that all Pict really meant when coined was a snapshot of time - 'the non-Romanised people north of the Antonine wall observed by the Romans c. 300-400AD' and this tells us nothing about their origins. We are pretty sure they were essentially the same peoples as noted on Ptolemy's map

Maybe there is no record of the stones in Roman records because when they ventured past the walls they didn't return to tell the tale?

George

George Chandler
08-03-2014, 07:01 PM
So something less serious about the Picts. Obviously experts don't know for certain what the symbols mean (other than the basic animal figures etc). So look at the symbols and tell me what you think they mean and why? I realize that everyone will see what they want to see and have their own opinions it's just interesting to see what people think.

My thoughts on the Z with 2 discs is that it means "Death in Combat". The Z no matter how it's situated translates to the word death and the 2 joined discs are representative of the weapons they used to practice or spar with being 2 spheres with a handle and not discs. The crescent with the V represents an important figure or leader. The stones were commemorative in some way.

Interested to see what others think and why?

George

Just to add to this I think the snake could be a literal animal but to me it likely means "enemy". The symbols which some describe as chariots which look like the blocky puzzle pieces represent communities or villages. The ones with the death symbol through it commemorate or detail the destruction of a village or community.

George

vettor
08-03-2014, 07:03 PM
There is one thing in Irish mythology that I dont think people really understand. The legends tend to create the idea that there was some sort of Irish 'Gaels' per excellence group and others like Laigin, Cruithin, Erainn, Fir Bolg/Domnainn etc were somehow less Irish ad or substrates.

It is clear that this is misleading and Medieval propoganda by the Ui Neill clan. In reality there was no people or wave called the Gael. Gael or Goidel is not a native terms and is in fact derived from an early Medieval Welsh term for the Irish, basically a quite unpleasant term meaning 'wild men of the woods' or similar basically meaning savages or barbarians. It probably got into Irish via latinate British speaking monks from western Britain who came to Ireland c. 500AD.

So Gael is essentially an artificial creation which is intended to make the Ui Neill, Connachta and other people's who were artificially linked to them in genealogies able to claim they are somehow the true Irish. Its transparently Ui Neill propaganda.

In reality the wave described as Gaels is a complete fiction. Unlike Erainn, Cruithin, Domnainn etc which have some basis in reality, there never was a wave of Gaels or Goidils as an ethnic group and indeed the language that came to be known as Gaelic was actually probably spoken first by the Erainn.

The really believable ethnic strata in Ireland c. 200AD

1. The Erainn 'Ireland people' who probably were there since time out of mind and survived longest in the extreme SW and NE of the island. They seem to have kept a native identity, hence their name. Their name implies that they were actually the default Irish or earliest strata with a name.

2. The Cruithin - perhaps people with connections to the La Tene culture via Britain c. 350BC on as their name implies links with the name Pretani or Britons which replaced the old name Albion in the 4th century BC.

3. The Laigin/Domnainn/Gallion/Bolg and other Leinster tribes on Ptolemies map - probably multiple refugee waves largely from western Britain coming in from c. 0.

There was never an ethnic strata called the Goidil or Gaels. They were an invention of monks and propaganda of the Ui Neills.

Most of the waves of invaders in the Book of Invasions are fake-

Parthalon- not a native name - its a borrowing from biblical Bartholomew
Nemed- Just the Irish word for sacred and basically meaningless ethnically
Bolg-May have had some link with Belgae but original meaning was lost
Fomoire-clearly not earthly - some sort of underworld 'under sea' bad gods
Tuatha de Danann - Transparently the pantheon of Celtic gods - some like Lugh, Nuada, Ogma were also known among Celts outside Ireland

Basically the book of invasions is a load of rubbish as history and is more of interesting as a piece of imaginative fiction and light it throws on the Celtic gods etc.

This is a simplification but I think it probably is close to the truth and fits the archaeology.

you can calculate when the celts from central Germany started to go west, because they merged into the gauls of Belgium ( first contact ) and formed the Belgii people , when was this?,
was it before the celts moved south into southern germany and the alps and merge into vindelici people to create La Tene?

You can also calculate that the celts moving in northern france , going west forced the Cenomani, semnones gallic people to migrate south into southern coastal France ( who later moved into northern Italy )........this celtic move into northern france was only in the iron-age

........the only belgii people in England was in kent area only.

George Chandler
08-03-2014, 07:55 PM
So something less serious about the Picts. Obviously experts don't know for certain what the symbols mean (other than the basic animal figures etc). So look at the symbols and tell me what you think they mean and why? I realize that everyone will see what they want to see and have their own opinions it's just interesting to see what people think.

My thoughts on the Z with 2 discs is that it means "Death in Combat". The Z no matter how it's situated translates to the word death and the 2 joined discs are representative of the weapons they used to practice or spar with being 2 spheres with a handle and not discs. The crescent with the V represents an important figure or leader. The stones were commemorative in some way.

Interested to see what others think and why?

George
It's interesting that if the 2 joined disks translated to combat, combatant or soldier and the blocky symbol a village then could what appears to be the combatant symbol cut in two within mean "non combatants"? If you look there is a carving of the 3 soldiers walking with square shields and the 2 soldiers have the 2 joined disc symbol on their shields. The man in the lead has more swirly pattern to his shield in which similar patterns are found on the crescent moon shapes and also within what looks to be the blocky village character.

George

alan
08-03-2014, 08:46 PM
There is a bit of mythology about the Romans in Scotland and some silly ideas about Pictish invincibility. In the first thrust into future Pictland under Agricola there was fought the only named major battle the Romans had with the people who would later become Picts, This was Mons Graupius and according to Tacitus the Romans actually won.

The truth is a combination of the better land being limited to the thin eastern coastal strip and the likelihood of guerrilla warfare from the mountains to the west needing permanent garrisons meant they didnt think it was worth the effort to take northern Scotland on a permanent basis. It is strongly suggested that the souterrains in eastern Scotland were grain stores relating to friendly friendly Pictish tribes of the north-east lowlands growing crops to trade with the Romans.

Basically northern Scotland was invaded to explore initially and get chiefs to surrender to Rome and after that it was a pattern of occasional massive Roman punitive expeditions such as that of Severus with a lot of destruction and killing in response to hit and run raiding. Guerrilla warfare was probably the main Pictish defense. Severus is believed to have been fairly genocidal in his invasion into the lands of the Picts and retaliation by the Picts was attrition through guerrila warfare and ambush of straggling elements. I dont think fighting set battles was an option for many people against the Rome before its decline.

Also, it has to be noted that other than these brief campaigns further north and the short lived Antonine frontier, for most of the Roman period the defensive line was on that of Hadrian's Wall with some outposts and therefore the Romans were actually nowhere near the Picts as the southern third of Scotland was occupied by tribes of Britons between the walls, not Picts. So Roman-Pictish interaction was probably only occasional due to this large buffer zone of Britons who were more directly under Roman influence. The partial Romanisation of these buffer Britons seems clear in early Medieval records.


Maybe there is no record of the stones in Roman records because when they ventured past the walls they didn't return to tell the tale?

George

George Chandler
08-03-2014, 09:00 PM
There is a bit of mythology about the Romans in Scotland and some silly ideas about Pictish invincibility. In the first thrust into future Pictland under Agricola there was fought the only named major battle the Romans had with the people who would later become Picts, This was Mons Graupius and according to Tacitus the Romans actually won.

The truth is a combination of the better land being limited to the thin eastern coastal strip and the likelihood of guerrilla warfare from the mountains to the west needing permanent garrisons meant they didnt think it was worth the effort to take northern Scotland on a permanent basis. It is strongly suggested that the souterrains in eastern Scotland were grain stores relating to friendly friendly Pictish tribes of the north-east lowlands growing crops to trade with the Romans.

Basically northern Scotland was invaded to explore initially and get chiefs to surrender to Rome and after that it was a pattern of occasional massive Roman punitive expeditions such as that of Severus with a lot of destruction and killing in response to hit and run raiding. Guerrilla warfare was probably the main Pictish defense. Severus is believed to have been fairly genocidal in his invasion into the lands of the Picts and retaliation by the Picts was attrition through guerrila warfare and ambush of straggling elements. I dont think fighting set battles was an option for many people against the Rome before its decline.

Also, it has to be noted that other than these brief campaigns further north and the short lived Antonine frontier, for most of the Roman period the defensive line was on that of Hadrian's Wall with some outposts and therefore the Romans were actually nowhere near the Picts as the southern third of Scotland was occupied by British tribes between the walls. Interaction between Romans at Hadrian's Wall and Picts was probably rare.

In my opinion the Roman "ego" was conquest regardless of the fertility of the land. If they felt safe with no Picts around or they were just using hit and run guerilla tactics with little impact they would not have been putting up walls. They would have gone in and wiped out the population completely and not worried about any wall. Did their genocide have an impact on the Pictish people?..absolutely. I'll bet the propaganda spin was pretty thick and they got their butt handed to them on more than one occasion. Would you as the leader of the different garrisons,wall, or Northern Roman Army want to tell Rome that you couldn't beat them or would you rather tell them that ahhh there isn't much there anyway and we will just build the wall to keep out the small bands of rebels they are all wiped out?

George

alan
08-03-2014, 09:09 PM
I actual recall the slow demystification of the Picts. Some people dont like the loss of mystery but its a good thing really. Of major importance was Smyth's 'Warlords and Holy Men' in 1984. It started the process of pointing out the strong evidence against things like Picts being non-Celtic, having matrilinear succession etc. He and I believe Leslie Alcock soon after started to show the Picts were essentially Britons (who had been less Romanised than Britons of southern Scotland) that spoke P-Celtic and appear to have had patrilineal royal dynasties - something that was obscured because the Pictish king list is a list of high kings and the high kingship of the Picts rotated around different competing kingdoms with their own dynasties.

Some people dont like the loss of mystery. The Picts seem to attract fables - like the 9th legion disappearing in Pictland - now disproved. Another was that vitrified forts (fused stone in stone hillfort walls) was almost treated as supernatural although it is now understood that these were just the result of the pan-British early Iron Age wall-and-fill timber lace method being applied in Scotland to loose stones in a zone of high winds and a tradition of wooden buildings being along the inside face of the fort walls. As for the symbol stones they appear to be Christian era and not pagan as some assume. My own feeling is that the symbols relate to dynasties and royal lineages.

George Chandler
08-03-2014, 09:25 PM
I actual recall the slow demystification of the Picts. Some people dont like the loss of mystery but its a good thing really. Of major importance was Smyth's 'Warlords and Holy Men' in 1984. It started the process of pointing out the strong evidence against things like Picts being non-Celtic, having matrilinear succession etc. He and I believe Leslie Alcock soon after started to show the Picts were essentially Britons (who had been less Romanised than Britons of southern Scotland) that spoke P-Celtic and appear to have had patrilineal royal dynasties - something that was obscured because the Pictish king list is a list of high kings and the high kingship of the Picts rotated around different competing kingdoms with their own dynasties.

Some people dont like the loss of mystery. The Picts seem to attract fables - like the 9th legion disappearing in Pictland - now disproved. Another was that vitrified forts (fused stone in stone hillfort walls) was almost treated as supernatural although it is now understood that these were just the result of the pan-British early Iron Age wall-and-fill timber lace method being applied in Scotland to loose stones in a zone of high winds and a tradition of wooden buildings being along the inside face of the fort walls. As for the symbol stones they appear to be Christian era and not pagan as some assume. My own feeling is that the symbols relate to dynasties and royal lineages.

As the old saying goes the first casualty of war is the truth and I'm sure there was bs and mythology on both sides. Still the fact remains though that Romans conquered everything "they could". If they didn't conquer it means they were prevented by something - Romans didn't build walls because they felt safe. There is nothing mythological about that evidence.

Even if you were right and all the standing stones were later why were they not in the middle of the North? My opinion is just because the Romans weren't there to document and take a survey of them doesn't mean they weren't there prior.

alan
08-03-2014, 09:50 PM
I think there is no doubt the Romans of that period would have wiped the floor of any of the Celtic groups in a set pitched battle in open level ground. However, its one thing to do that but its another to deal with a mobile enemy who melt away and switch to very mobile living and dont really care if they have to give ground before they return later to guerilla raid. In rough country that is virtually impossible to deal with without modern type resources. An enemy knowing the land, rough territory and being mobile makes initial repulse of the enemy almost impossible to follow up into total victory. The Picts seem to be described as using the ground and guerrilla warfare in Roman sources and avoiding pitch battle with the exception of Mons Graupius. The Irish did similar tactics of avoiding direct warfare and ambushing/guerrilla raids before melting away in mobile groups with their cattle for about 400 years against the Anglo-Norman and English forces. Although they had to give ground on the easier land where the invaders had the advantage, all their advantage disapeared on rough boggy ground with stretched communication lines and a moving enemy who just melted away and chose their moment to surprise the enemy in a constrained or difficult spot like crossing a ford or passing through woods. I am virtually sure that is how the Picts operated on the rare times they and the Romans clashed.

However, I cannot emphasis enough that the Roman's generally were separated from the Picts by the Britons of the southern third of Scotland so its not at all clear how they would have regularly come into contact anyway given that 100 miles of non-Pictish tribes lying between them. History shows that the same tribes of Britons nearest the Picts the Votadini and the Damnoni were still in possession of the southern third of Scotland after the Romans had left (Votadini became the Goddodin of Lothian for example). For all but a few short years when the Romans held the Antonine line and on a few limited other occasions these tribes were not defended by Rome from the Picts as they were outside the imperial defenses. I personally suspect from the later indications of Romanisation in their genealogies that these Britons of southern Scotland operated as some sort of client tribes with a military role to keep the Picts in check. Certainly the Picts did not deprive these Britons of their lands and the same border between the Britons and Picts remained from the 100AD to after 630AD when the Angles pushed their way in from the south.

I seriously think the Picts are a mythology magnet but the real truth about them is much more interesting. I speak as someone whose paper genealogy revealed that the majority of my ancestors are from the old Pictish heartland area of Scotland between the Forth and the Orkneys.


In my opinion the Roman "ego" was conquest regardless of the fertility of the land. If they felt safe with no Picts around or they were just using hit and run guerilla tactics with little impact they would not have been putting up walls. They would have gone in and wiped out the population completely and not worried about any wall. Did their genocide have an impact on the Pictish people?..absolutely. I'll bet the propaganda spin was pretty thick and they got their butt handed to them on more than one occasion. Would you as the leader of the different garrisons,wall, or Northern Roman Army want to tell Rome that you couldn't beat them or would you rather tell them that ahhh there isn't much there anyway and we will just build the wall to keep out the small bands of rebels they are all wiped out?

George

George Chandler
08-03-2014, 10:02 PM
Notice that there are only a couple of Pictish standing stones between Hadrian's Wall and the Antonine line with the majority being to the NE in what is modern Scotland. I don't believe that the northern Picts were kept in line by anyone..other than maybe Northern Picts themselves. Like I said above the first casualty of war is the truth on both sides but you can't argue that the Romans didn't conquer them even if they killed large numbers and that they had to build walls because they weren't in control. it would be interesting to see how prominently mounted warfare played out in their battles with the Romans as the stones depict over and over that they were a horse culture.

George

alan
08-03-2014, 10:30 PM
I dont trust Roman sources totally - they tend to add decimal points to the size of the enemy they faced for a start - in order to glorify themselves. However. there is also far far too much mythology about the Picts. The reality of them is more interesting than the myth. Archaeology does broadly support Agricola's pacification of the Picts along the north-eastern coastal areas followed by a period of friendly relations when the Picts suddenly developed souterrains for grain storage that indicate surplus to trade. The souterrains of north-east Scotland were short lived and quickly went out of use suggesting that the boon in friendly Pictish trading with the Romans disappeared as the Antonine line was abandoned c. 160.
Things turned sour and Severus launched a very brutal campaing of genocide against the Picts but took heavy losses from guerrila warfare. There are also traces of the Severan campaign which was apparently scorched earth in nature. Around this time pollen records in Fife indicate a real devastation occurred that made the area regenerate into woods for 500 years after 2000 years of arable use.



As the old saying goes the first casualty of war is the truth and I'm sure there was bs and mythology on both sides. Still the fact remains though that Romans conquered everything "they could". If they didn't conquer it means they were prevented by something - Romans didn't build walls because they felt safe. There is nothing mythological about that evidence.

Even if you were right and all the standing stones were later why were they not in the middle of the North? My opinion is just because the Romans weren't there to document and take a survey of them doesn't mean they weren't there prior.

alan
08-03-2014, 10:51 PM
The Picts southern boundary was the Antonine wall so its no surprise really that there are few south of that line. Between the Antonine and Hadrians wall were the non-Pictish Britons like the Votadini, Damnoni etc. So hat all fits well - outliers could be dynastic marriages etc. Like I said, there was 100 miles (a third of Scotland's length) of Britons between Hadrian's Wall and the Picts. So, the Picts land was nowhere near the Hadrians Wall. That essentially means that the Picts had to pass through 100 miles of non-Pictish tribes lands to even approach the Romans except for a brief period under Agricola, a small period c. 130-160AD when the Antonine line was in operation. As i said, there is a lot of mythology. There were raids in both directions but for most of the 350 years of Romans in northern Britain the Romans and Picts were separated by a buffer of the area between the two walls which were full of tribes of non-Pictish Britons.

The Pictish stones are post-Roman - stone carving was probably an idea that they got from Christians who brought this tradition.

You asked why there were few stones in the middle of the north. I am not sure what you mean but if you mean what I think then the simple reason is that Pictish stones are located in the areas of decent land where populations large enough to support elites employing stone masons would live. Most of the land inland is the central highlands of Scotland, much of it very marginal land. Remember the population was far lower at that time and there was less of a need to settle bad land, rough mountains etc. A lot of that upland was actually abandoned to permanent settlement in the Bronze Age and only used for summer upland transhumance thereafter.




Notice that there are only a couple of Pictish standing stones between Hadrian's Wall and the Antonine line with the majority being to the NE in what is modern Scotland. I don't believe that the northern Picts were kept in line by anyone..other than maybe Northern Picts themselves. Like I said above the first casualty of war is the truth on both sides but you can't argue that the Romans didn't conquer them even if they killed large numbers and that they had to build walls because they weren't in control. it would be interesting to see how prominently mounted warfare played out in their battles with the Romans as the stones depict over and over that they were a horse culture.

George

alan
08-03-2014, 11:17 PM
All we really know is chariots and ponies were still used in the 1st century AD according to Roman sources, Roman carvings of barbarians in Scotland seem to all be infantry and there is no mention of horse riding. By the time the more developed Pictish stones appear in the 7th and 8th centuries there clearly was light cavalry and no chariot warfare. I would be pretty certain that Roman influence caused this change.

Other changes the Romans probably influenced was the use of tunics and cloaks rather than trousers among the Britons, Picts and Irish even though trousers were widespread in pre-Roman times.

George[/QUOTE]

George Chandler
08-03-2014, 11:52 PM
I agree that the standing stones with more Celtic symbols and crosses were maybe 7th century. You can see the greater attention to detail and cleaner lines in the stone carvings. The other ones with greater wear, less defined, no Christian symbolism etc look much older and I wouldn't be surprised to find out they predated the Roman advancement. Like I said most are located above the Antonine line and to the east so just because the Roman historians didn't detail them doesn't mean they weren't there. If carved standing stones had not been so prevalent in Celtic and pre-Celtic culture within the Isles I might agree with you. The problem (in my opinion) with saying that they are of Christian influence is that standing stone monuments of various sizes were around for thousands of years prior.

Your mention of scorched earth usually means that the locals did it to leave nothing for the aggressor. Is that what you mean here or that the Romans did it?

I agree with you that they probably became very good and very ruthless when it came to guerilla style hit and run attacks. The probably learned the hard way early on that taking on the Roman Phalanx didn't end well. They were obviously good enough to keep them out of the north and building walls so maybe there was some truth to the stories of how good they were in battle. The Romans were used to tribal insurgents and attacks and they dealt with them by exterminating them. The fact they were kept out of the north to me speaks for itself. I wonder if the peace with the Picts was more with the Britain's who were supposedly speaking on behalf of the Picts than the Picts themselves?

George

George Chandler
08-04-2014, 12:14 AM
http://www.northern-scot.co.uk/News/National-tresaure-found-in-Moray-field-01082014.htm

alan
08-04-2014, 07:01 PM
Well another way of looking at it is its not just a lack of stone carved symbols. The pictish symbols do not appear on anything - pottery, metalwork, stonework etc from pre-Roman archaeological sites. So, experts have deduced they are post-Roman in date. The art style is new too on the early symbol stones. Animals are relatively realistic for example which is in sharp contrast to the highly non-realistic animals seen on pre-Roman metalwork etc.

Regarding carved stones in Britain in prehistory you are probably thinking of Neolithic and stone age work. There is very little evidence of incised stone carving in the period from the early Bronze Age to 500AD - a gap of over 2000 years. So there is no suggestion of a continuous tradition.

I would have to agree with the experts that the origin is probably in late Roman-British art traditions and the early Christians spreading into Scotland after the Romans left. The Picts however put a unique spin on these influences. It is possible that the earliest stones were used by Picts who were either not Christian or nominally so and who had taken those influences to forms something unique. I believe that the Picts in the early symbol stones used the symbols to represent royal lines, intermarriages etc.


I agree that the standing stones with more Celtic symbols and crosses were maybe 7th century. You can see the greater attention to detail and cleaner lines in the stone carvings. The other ones with greater wear, less defined, no Christian symbolism etc look much older and I wouldn't be surprised to find out they predated the Roman advancement. Like I said most are located above the Antonine line and to the east so just because the Roman historians didn't detail them doesn't mean they weren't there. If carved standing stones had not been so prevalent in Celtic and pre-Celtic culture within the Isles I might agree with you. The problem (in my opinion) with saying that they are of Christian influence is that standing stone monuments of various sizes were around for thousands of years prior.

Your mention of scorched earth usually means that the locals did it to leave nothing for the aggressor. Is that what you mean here or that the Romans did it?

I agree with you that they probably became very good and very ruthless when it came to guerilla style hit and run attacks. The probably learned the hard way early on that taking on the Roman Phalanx didn't end well. They were obviously good enough to keep them out of the north and building walls so maybe there was some truth to the stories of how good they were in battle. The Romans were used to tribal insurgents and attacks and they dealt with them by exterminating them. The fact they were kept out of the north to me speaks for itself. I wonder if the peace with the Picts was more with the Britain's who were supposedly speaking on behalf of the Picts than the Picts themselves?

George

vettor
08-04-2014, 07:08 PM
I dont trust Roman sources totally - they tend to add decimal points to the size of the enemy they faced for a start - in order to glorify themselves. However. there is also far far too much mythology about the Picts. The reality of them is more interesting than the myth. Archaeology does broadly support Agricola's pacification of the Picts along the north-eastern coastal areas followed by a period of friendly relations when the Picts suddenly developed souterrains for grain storage that indicate surplus to trade. The souterrains of north-east Scotland were short lived and quickly went out of use suggesting that the boon in friendly Pictish trading with the Romans disappeared as the Antonine line was abandoned c. 160.
Things turned sour and Severus launched a very brutal campaing of genocide against the Picts but took heavy losses from guerrila warfare. There are also traces of the Severan campaign which was apparently scorched earth in nature. Around this time pollen records in Fife indicate a real devastation occurred that made the area regenerate into woods for 500 years after 2000 years of arable use.

The Romans have also made every war that Rome fought a much harder war and against very fierce opposition . A system to glorify their Tribunes in that war.

I read that the 2 tribunes which destroyed the 45 raetian tribes in the alps, where so much gloried that they built a monument ( still standing ) celebrating them, and that they should be both made Emperors.

alan
08-04-2014, 09:03 PM
I think very few people believe the figure Tacitus gave for the Caledonians at the battle of Mons Graupius. Indeed its well know the Romans moved the decimal point frequently and the numbers they give of opposing armies are often absurd. The entire population of Pictland has been estimated to be no more than 80,000 so an army of 30000 is impossible even if all the tribes united and every adult man was present - extremely unlikely given the geography of Scotland, the way Celtic tribes struggled to unite throughout history and the fact that quite a lot of the lands of the Picts had already well to the rear of the Romans and overrun before the battle likely took place. More likely that 2 or 3 of the tribes towards the end of the Roman route into north-east Scotland might have combined forces to around 6000 IMO which BTW is s. The Romans were incredible exaggerators. I also tend to find completely unbelievable the size the Romans and Greeks claimed of Gaulish and German invaders - again I suspect the decimal point needs moved.


The Romans have also made every war that Rome fought a much harder war and against very fierce opposition . A system to glorify their Tribunes in that war.

I read that the 2 tribunes which destroyed the 45 raetian tribes in the alps, where so much gloried that they built a monument ( still standing ) celebrating them, and that they should be both made Emperors.

George Chandler
08-04-2014, 11:19 PM
Well another way of looking at it is its not just a lack of stone carved symbols. The pictish symbols do not appear on anything - pottery, metalwork, stonework etc from pre-Roman archaeological sites. So, experts have deduced they are post-Roman in date. The art style is new too on the early symbol stones. Animals are relatively realistic for example which is in sharp contrast to the highly non-realistic animals seen on pre-Roman metalwork etc.

Regarding carved stones in Britain in prehistory you are probably thinking of Neolithic and stone age work. There is very little evidence of incised stone carving in the period from the early Bronze Age to 500AD - a gap of over 2000 years. So there is no suggestion of a continuous tradition.

I would have to agree with the experts that the origin is probably in late Roman-British art traditions and the early Christians spreading into Scotland after the Romans left. The Picts however put a unique spin on these influences. It is possible that the earliest stones were used by Picts who were either not Christian or nominally so and who had taken those influences to forms something unique. I believe that the Picts in the early symbol stones used the symbols to represent royal lines, intermarriages etc.

It's interesting that you think the artwork is realistic in terms of the animals as I was think the exact opposite. The creatures on the Gobekli Teppe stones are much better IMO and those were from what 8,000 BCE (can't recall the exact period). One point I was thinking about though is when you look at grave stones from the 1,400's and 1,500's there are many which are hardly readable due to the elements so that could be a huge factor in making them look older than they are. Did the Northern Tribes ever put a lot into artwork other than the stones? We know that the north was inhabited even before the Bell Beakers arrived in the Isles. It would be interesting to know how long they were painting their faces and held those traditions before the Roman arrived.

George

alan
08-04-2014, 11:49 PM
I am not aware of any references to them painting their faces. I always thought it was body painting and tatooing but I never really thought facial painting or tatooing until Mel Gibson came along. Its still a mystery really. It seems a lot of things once associated with all the Britons like body staining or tatooing (as Caesar mentions) came to be associated with the Picts once the other Britons were Romanised to some degree. Even the name Pretani or Cruithin slowly shifted from meaning all the Britons to just meaning the Picts. Interestingly this name means people of designs or shapes which some believe is a reference to the body art. I think the creation of the Picts as a separately perceived group slowly evolved as the rest of the Britons were Romanised - including to some degree those of southern Scotland between the walls. You can see this evolution in how the peoples north of the Roman defenses were perceived in the shifting of the description of them from Britons from c. 60 to the late 200s and then they were given a separate name to distinguise them from the Romanised Britons to their south. We now know the Picts also spoke the P-Celtic form and many placenames like Aber etc are shared in common with Welsh.


It's interesting that you think the artwork is realistic in terms of the animals as I was think the exact opposite. The creatures on the Gobekli Teppe stones are much better IMO and those were from what 8,000 BCE (can't recall the exact period). One point I was thinking about though is when you look at grave stones from the 1,400's and 1,500's there are many which are hardly readable due to the elements so that could be a huge factor in making them look older than they are. Did the Northern Tribes ever put a lot into artwork other than the stones? We know that the north was inhabited even before the Bell Beakers arrived in the Isles. It would be interesting to know how long they were painting their faces and held those traditions before the Roman arrived.

George

George Chandler
08-05-2014, 01:07 AM
I have wondered that myself regarding the face painting but it seems to only make sense given that most warrior cultures who do paint themselves seem to also paint their faces. The face being the most obvious sign if it was being used as a symbol of fierce warlike appearance. When you see the popularity of tattooing today the people who seem to embrace it the most have either neck or facial tattoo's. No evidence but it just seems to make sense that they would have either colored or tattooed their faces.

George

mcg11
08-05-2014, 11:21 AM
I have wondered that myself regarding the face painting but it seems to only make sense given that most warrior cultures who do paint themselves seem to also paint their faces. The face being the most obvious sign if it was being used as a symbol of fierce warlike appearance. When you see the popularity of tattooing today the people who seem to embrace it the most have either neck or facial tattoo's. No evidence but it just seems to make sense that they would have either colored or tattooed their faces.

George

It seems odd to me that the word Picti (and other Caledonians) isn't used till 300 AD to describe the inhabitants north of the Wall? Were the Picts newbies to what is now the East Coast of Scotland? Burghead wasn't rebuilt until c. 200 - 300 AD. From what I read, the Maetae and Caledonians were "native" to Scotland, some of the tribes recorded by Ptolemy may have been displaced Belgic tribes such as the Parisi and Epidii? From a DNA point of view, I believe one of the early Caledonian tribes was Z253 and subclades. I also think that the Gaulic tribes, such as the Pictones were 11,11 at 391/385a, while the Belgic tribes appear to have been 10/11. This is possibly the differentiation between the LaTene Celts and the Hallstadt Celts?

Although it may be difficult to do, we have to try and ascertain DNA profiles of many of these early tribes to sort out who is who and where did they come from. JMHO.

A final point: what makes a group of people (tribe) a warrior people? In this case, I think it was Rome and their dislike of the Druid culture? Also, the displacement of the Belgic tribes c. 50 BC. into southern England and Ireland.

alan
08-05-2014, 11:41 AM
I just think that by the late 200s the people north of the Antonine line just were seen as different as they had not been directly Romanised in the same way as the Britons within the empire or even the Britons between the walls. So they became seen as 'other' and perhaps there was a wish to distinguise the northernmost Britons from those Roman Britons to the south and perhaps part Romanised wannabees in southern Scotland. There is nothing odd about the use of a new nicknames at the end of the 200s. A lot of new names appeared for tribal confederations at the Roman empire's boundaries about that time including Pict, Scot, Allemani and Frank. New names replacing older names as an umbrella term for a combination of several tribes without a change of population seems to be a feature of this period at the roman boundaries. Perhaps they needed shorthand umbrella terms for groups of related tribes and confederations that were next to their border and a worry. Its usually possible to tell what tribes came under the umbrella terms. In the case of the Picts we know the Caledoni were part of the new umbrella term.


It seems odd to me that the word Picti (and other Caledonians) isn't used till 300 AD to describe the inhabitants north of the Wall? Were the Picts newbies to what is now the East Coast of Scotland? Burghead wasn't rebuilt until c. 200 - 300 AD. From what I read, the Maetae and Caledonians were "native" to Scotland, some of the tribes recorded by Ptolemy may have been displaced Belgic tribes such as the Parisi and Epidii? From a DNA point of view, I believe one of the early Caledonian tribes was Z253 and subclades. I also think that the Gaulic tribes, such as the Pictones were 11,11 at 391/385a, while the Belgic tribes appear to have been 10/11. This is possibly the differentiation between the LaTene Celts and the Hallstadt Celts?

Although it may be difficult to do, we have to try and ascertain DNA profiles of many of these early tribes to sort out who is who and where did they come from. JMHO.

Jean M
08-05-2014, 12:02 PM
It seems odd to me that the word Picti (and other Caledonians) isn't used till 300 AD to describe the inhabitants north of the Wall

It is the other way around. In 305 Constantius Chlorus claimed a victory over the "Caledones and other Picts". In other words the Caledonians were considered one tribe of Picts. The Caledonii are among the tribes of northern Britain (modern Scotland) mentioned by Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD. Tacitus described their reddish hair and large limbs. He also detailed the defeat of the Caledonians at Mons Graupius in 83 or 84 AD.

Ammian records that in 367 AD that the Picts were divided into two nations, the Dicalidones and the Verturiones. The Dicalidones are clearly the Caledonii. Verturiones (Lat.), Fortrinn (Gaelic), Waerteras (OE) appear in the post-Roman period as a Pictish people on the shores of the Moray Firth, who formed the core Pictish kingdom. Bridei son of Beli (d. 693) is the earliest noted of their kings. The tribal name seems to mean "very powerful". There is no indication from archaeology that they were new arrivals to the area. Tribal names can pop in and out of the record.

And see Alan's response.

Jean M
08-05-2014, 12:07 PM
From what I read, the Maetae and Caledonians were "native" to Scotland, some of the tribes recorded by Ptolemy may have been displaced Belgic tribes such as the Parisi and Epidii?

The Parisi were not Belgic. They were La Tene Gauls. And they are not recorded in Scotland. There is no Belgic archaeology in Scotland. I can't imagine why you think the Epidii were Belgic. Obviously the name is P-Celtic, but La Tene is generally assumed to have brought P-Celtic to Britain. There is no need to label it Belgic.

Jean M
08-05-2014, 12:36 PM
t the Gaulic tribes, such as the Pictones were 11,11 at 391/385a, while the Belgic tribes appear to have been 10/11..

The days of struggling with STRs are over. We are in the midst of an avalanche of new SNPs. Digesting that data is a huge task, but people are making progress over in the R1b forums.

mcg11
08-08-2014, 04:18 PM
I don't see this issue the way you do and I've read much of the same material you have. The Picts are recorded to have existed as a separate people in Scotland from c. 300 AD to 900 AD when they were integrated into the New Scotland.

Characteristic of the Picts are the standing stones, types I,II and III. They are identified with their culture and I am not aware of them before or after(?) the above dates. I think that may contradict your comment: There is no indication from archaeology that they were new arrivals to the area. Additionally the Irish King list of the Picts is usually ascribed to begin about 300 or so AD. They were excellent shipbuilders and had commerce with the Mediterranean during their existence.

Based on what I've read I would argue that they were a gaulish 11,11 society probably from the northwest (Brittany/Loire valley). Because of the forests which are characteristic of those regions, any carvings they may have made in Gaul was probably done on wood and doesn't survive today.Note that the quality of their carvings improved with time and eventually included some Ogham script.

My basic understanding of using SNPs to estimate time is as difficult as using STR's. In both cases it is a case of counting events, which can be difficult if all the appropriate SNP's are not known or if the wrong set of STR's are used when estimating The TMRCA.

George Chandler
08-08-2014, 06:09 PM
I don't see this issue the way you do and I've read much of the same material you have. The Picts are recorded to have existed as a separate people in Scotland from c. 300 AD to 900 AD when they were integrated into the New Scotland.

Characteristic of the Picts are the standing stones, types I,II and III. They are identified with their culture and I am not aware of them before or after(?) the above dates. I think that may contradict your comment: There is no indication from archaeology that they were new arrivals to the area. Additionally the Irish King list of the Picts is usually ascribed to begin about 300 or so AD. They were excellent shipbuilders and had commerce with the Mediterranean during their existence.

Based on what I've read I would argue that they were a gaulish 11,11 society probably from the northwest (Brittany/Loire valley). Because of the forests which are characteristic of those regions, any carvings they may have made in Gaul was probably done on wood and doesn't survive today.Note that the quality of their carvings improved with time and eventually included some Ogham script.

My basic understanding of using SNPs to estimate time is as difficult as using STR's. In both cases it is a case of counting events, which can be difficult if all the appropriate SNP's are not known or if the wrong set of STR's are used when estimating The TMRCA.

I personally they were a genetic mix like every other tribe or culture. You would probably find P312, and different variations of SNP's below it in greater or lesser percentages mixed together and that would also depend on the century you were looking at. We find with the S1051 group that it's as old as the other main haplogroups under DF13 yet seems to have been bottlenecked for some reason. Given the likely origin is what is now modern Scotland a likely explanation of that bottleneck would be that many were found within Pictish culture. There are no doubt other genetic groups running within the same culture at that time.

George

mcg11
08-08-2014, 07:39 PM
I personally they were a genetic mix like every other tribe or culture. You would probably find P312, and different variations of SNP's below it in greater or lesser percentages mixed together and that would also depend on the century you were looking at. We find with the S1051 group that it's as old as the other main haplogroups under DF13 yet seems to have been bottlenecked for some reason. Given the likely origin is what is now modern Scotland a likely explanation of that bottleneck would be that many were found within Pictish culture. There are no doubt other genetic groups running within the same culture at that time.

George Over time I would agree. Scotland is a great example of early integration. It is also true for the Scottis as they had partakers of many different Hg's as we see in Clan Gregor. Even Gaul was mixed; first broadly: Belgic, Gaul and Aquitaine and then infusions from the many Teutonic and Helvetian trubes and finally Rome and its many soldiers of different eastern cultures. The Walls of Scotland (antonines and hadrians) were hotbeds of trade and integration?

All this said, the intial Picts were probably Gauls, displaced by the Romans. JMHO.

alan
08-08-2014, 08:39 PM
I dont think there is really an arguement here. I think we are all agreeing that the Picts was a new nickname for the group of tribes north of the Forth and Clyde that were described by Tacitus and Ptolemy in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. The most prominent tribe was the Caledonians and that led to the term Caledonia being used as a geographical term for a period by the Romans. By 300AD they had a new collective nickname.

Around the 6th century AD the Picts started carving stones - something that had all but died out since the Early Bronze Age. Art historians have examined them and had deduced that quite a number of the early class 1 Pictish art motifs have origins in Roman art and indeed this was the time when Christianity was making inroads into the lands of the Picts from both the south and the west. Another indirect bit of evidence for a 6th century date is their near absence in Argyll and the inner Hebrides which had by then been taken over by the Scots of Dalriada. At one time this area had also been Pictish. Had Picts being making Pictish symbols earlier than the 6th century AD they should be there too. Finally Pictish stones art is quite distinctive and in nothing like the art style seen on objects in Gaul in the last few centuries BC. Its closest parallels are actually late Roman and Romano-British ones.

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-352-1/dissemination/pdf/vol_114/114_261_276.pdf

George Chandler
08-08-2014, 10:15 PM
Over time I would agree. Scotland is a great example of early integration. It is also true for the Scottis as they had partakers of many different Hg's as we see in Clan Gregor. Even Gaul was mixed; first broadly: Belgic, Gaul and Aquitaine and then infusions from the many Teutonic and Helvetian trubes and finally Rome and its many soldiers of different eastern cultures. The Walls of Scotland (antonines and hadrians) were hotbeds of trade and integration?

All this said, the intial Picts were probably Gauls, displaced by the Romans. JMHO.

If the majority were Gauls they wouldn't have been using the Brythonic P Celt language though.

George Chandler
08-08-2014, 10:23 PM
I dont think there is really an arguement here. I think we are all agreeing that the Picts was a new nickname for the group of tribes north of the Forth and Clyde that were described by Tacitus and Ptolemy in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. The most prominent tribe was the Caledonians and that led to the term Caledonia being used as a geographical term for a period by the Romans. By 300AD they had a new collective nickname.

Around the 6th century AD the Picts started carving stones - something that had all but died out since the Early Bronze Age. Art historians have examined them and had deduced that quite a number of the early class 1 Pictish art motifs have origins in Roman art and indeed this was the time when Christianity was making inroads into the lands of the Picts from both the south and the west. Another indirect bit of evidence for a 6th century date is their near absence in Argyll and the inner Hebrides which had by then been taken over by the Scots of Dalriada. At one time this area had also been Pictish. Had Picts being making Pictish symbols earlier than the 6th century AD they should be there too. Finally Pictish stones art is quite distinctive and in nothing like the art style seen on objects in Gaul in the last few centuries BC. Its closest parallels are actually late Roman and Romano-British ones.

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-352-1/dissemination/pdf/vol_114/114_261_276.pdf

What's interesting too is that our 9919 A1 group is identified as Cumbric Celts and who's language was old Welsh or a type of Brythonic. Some think it was closer to Pictish than Welsh (but still much debate).

George

George Chandler
08-08-2014, 11:22 PM
Not to get too far away from the topic of the Picts but it an interesting couple of links related to Beaker culture 4,000 years ago in the area.
http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/06/2014/4000-years-of-activity-uncovered-in-aberdeenshire

http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/propertyresults/propertydetail.htm?PropID=PL_017

George

George Chandler
08-09-2014, 03:19 AM
Another interesting article about the expansion of the Bell Beakers 4,000 - 5,000 years ago.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2313677/Why-did-Europeans-suddenly-disappear-4-000-years-ago-Experts-reveal-evolutionary-mystery--say-makers-Stonehenge-hold-key.html

George

Jean M
08-09-2014, 04:51 PM
To return to the Picts: http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/archaeologist-try-to-unlock-secrets-of.html
Archaeologists try to unlock secrets of Pictish stone


Archaeologists have released details on what they have described as the most important Pictish stone find to have been made in Moray in decades. Weighing more than a ton and stretching to 1.7m, the Dandaleith Stone dates from the 6th to 8th Centuries and was uncovered during the ploughing of a field near Craigellachie in May 2013. Because of sensitivities around the location as well as the issue of having to work out how to remove a stone of its size - and where to move it to - archaeologists have revealed little about the find until now. The stone was removed from the field in April this year and taken to the Graciela Ainsworth Sculpture Conservation workshop in Leith for assessment. Once this work is completed, the stone will be put on display at Elgin Museum, possibly next year.

.. It has incised decoration on two adjoining faces. The other two faces show no obvious signs of carving. Face one is carved with a large eagle, a crescent and what archaeologists call a V-rod. On face two are mirror case, notch rectangle and Z-rod symbols. These are typical Pictish symbols, archaeologists said. Symbol stones have been found previously at Arndilly and Inveravon. However, Dandaleith Stone's symbols on two adjoining faces, aligned on the same orientation, is unusual and may be unique.

rms2
08-12-2014, 03:26 PM
I have not read every post in this thread in detail, so I apologize if I am revisiting ground that has already been covered, but I am curious about something. On page 20 of her 1965 book, Celtic Britain, Nora Chadwick mentions the Coritani, who inhabited the northeastern midlands of what is now England. She says their native name was Qritani (Cruithni?) and that Roman and medieval writers referred to them as Picts. Chadwick mentions that Ptolemy identified their towns as Leicester and Lincoln.

If the Coritani were Picts, it strikes me as curious that they used an obviously Q-Celtic tribal name, calling themselves Qritani instead of Pritani (Pretani).

Anyway, they were pretty far south for Picts, if Picts they were, south of the Brigantes and the Parisi.

mcg11
08-12-2014, 05:53 PM
If the majority were Gauls they wouldn't have been using the Brythonic P Celt language though.

My understanding is that the Picts did speak P Celtic not Q Celtic? there is the story of Columbus needing an interpreter to speak to Bridei. Whether they spoke Brythonic P Celtic may be questionable, but I would expect there would only be a small difference bethween Brythonic and Gaulic P Celtic?

George Chandler
08-16-2014, 02:23 PM
It's my understanding that the Picts spoke a form of P Celtic and used a form of the Irish Ogham writing combined with other characters who's meaning is unknown.

George

Jean M
08-16-2014, 03:58 PM
It's my understanding that the Picts spoke a form of P Celtic and used a form of the Irish Ogham writing.

They seem from their personal and place-names to have spoken P-Celtic. They did not use Ogham to the best of my knowledge.

rms2
08-16-2014, 04:35 PM
I have not read every post in this thread in detail, so I apologize if I am revisiting ground that has already been covered, but I am curious about something. On page 20 of her 1965 book, Celtic Britain, Nora Chadwick mentions the Coritani, who inhabited the northeastern midlands of what is now England. She says their native name was Qritani (Cruithni?) and that Roman and medieval writers referred to them as Picts. Chadwick mentions that Ptolemy identified their towns as Leicester and Lincoln.

If the Coritani were Picts, it strikes me as curious that they used an obviously Q-Celtic tribal name, calling themselves Qritani instead of Pritani (Pretani).

Anyway, they were pretty far south for Picts, if Picts they were, south of the Brigantes and the Parisi.

Above is something I posted earlier. I know the Picts are supposed to have spoken a Brythonic, i.e., P-Celtic language, which is why the name of the Coritani (Qritani), if they were Picts, puzzles me.

Perhaps it reflects an earlier Q-Celtic-speaking past that was preserved in the tribal name. Maybe that would be the case if such ethnonyms are a particularly conservative aspect of culture? (I used a question mark because I am wondering, not making an assertion.)

Jean M
08-16-2014, 06:16 PM
Above is something I posted earlier. I know the Picts are supposed to have spoken a Brythonic, i.e., P-Celtic language, which is why the name of the Coritani (Qritani), if they were Picts, puzzles me.

The tribal name is now known to have been Corieltauvi. The correct reading was recognised only a few years ago from graffiti on a tile found in Churchover referring to the Civitas Corieltauvorum. They were called the Coritani by Ptolemy, who gave their towns as Lindum [Lincoln] and Ratae [Leicester]. http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/belgicengland.shtml#Corieltauvi

I can't imagine who would have thought that they were Picts. They lived well within Roman Britain. I don't have Chadwick's Celtic Britain on my shelves, so I can't check where she got the idea. Some confusion with Cruithni?

Dubhthach
08-16-2014, 06:33 PM
The phoneme value in Corieltauvi is not "kw" (Q) but /K/ as a result it didn't undergo shift.

Funnily enough most people don't realise that Goidelic lost the "Kw" (Q) as well because the value shifted to a /k/, obviously this is alot minor change then shift that happened in the P-Celtic languages. This probably happened in the transition to "Old Irish" stage of the language over period 300-600AD.

In "Archaic Irish" as written on Ogham stones there is a distinct "Q" and "C" character. Ogham is basically a "cipher" for Latin alphabet, some say it's development is due to contact between "Goidelic" speakers and Roman Britain (trade, Mercenary work, raiding etc.)

The term "Goidelic" is based off the name of the language itself during "Old Irish" period this was: Goídelc [ˈɡoiðʲelɡ]

In the case of the "Picts" in Irish we call them: Cruthin (Old Irish, IPA: [ˈkɾˠʊθʲɪn̠ʲ]; Middle Irish Cruithnig or Cruithni; Modern Irish: Cruithne [ˈkɾˠɪhn̠ʲə])

It was derived from Proto-Celtic: *Qritani / *Qriteni

In Welsh/Brythonic the word became: *Pritani or *Priteni

It's probable that the word got borrowed into Latin eventually as Britanni.

-Paul

George Chandler
08-16-2014, 07:34 PM
They seem from their personal and place-names to have spoken P-Celtic. They did not use Ogham to the best of my knowledge.

Here is a photo link to one of the stones with Ogham on it.

http://www.struck.us/BikePics/Scotland/2006-09-17%203.jpg

George Chandler
08-16-2014, 07:39 PM
Here is another one. Are you thinking the Ogham was added after the original script Jean?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/education/sysm/scots/images/design/bransbutt.jpg

Jean M
08-16-2014, 08:35 PM
Here is another one. Are you thinking the Ogham was added after the original script Jean?

Haven't a clue George. I'd need to research it. And why not? Looks interesting. http://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/archaeology/sites/pictish/bransbutt.asp

Someone on Language Log noted several: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2227


I just looked at the entire series, and there are more Ogham inscriptions than I thought. I will just tell you the locations, in alphabetical order: Ackergill 1 (Keiss Bar) is the one you found; Bransbutt (Inverurie) is the one I had noticed, which is also the clearest one; Formaston (Aboyne); Lang Stane (Fetteresso); Latheron 1. Besides, there are two inscriptions which seem to have Ogham strokes along a circle or curve rather than a straight line: Dyce 2, and Logie Elphinstone 2.

Jean M
08-16-2014, 08:52 PM
OK. Here's what Aberdeenshire Council has to say:


A few of the Pictish stones have inscriptions in ogham, an alphabet of combinations of short strokes invented in Ireland before the 4th century AD. The stones with early oghams (i.e. using the angle of a stone as the base line) are not accompanied by symbols (eg Newton House), but the later examples are accompanied by symbols (eg Brandsbutt Stone).

At a guess, I'd say that the use of Ogham relates to the Irish missionaries at work in Pictish territory.

George Chandler
08-16-2014, 09:49 PM
OK. Here's what Aberdeenshire Council has to say:



At a guess, I'd say that the use of Ogham relates to the Irish missionaries at work in Pictish territory.

Interesting. I could see them putting their graffiti so to speak on the "heathen stones" as some sort of religious conversion attempt but you would think they would have chiselled out the Pictish characters at the same time? It would have been a pretty bold or stupid conversion attempt I'm betting if true.

Thanks Jean

George

George Chandler
08-16-2014, 10:00 PM
Or are you thinking the stones were made by Pict's who had been influenced by missionaries teaching them Ogham?

George

George Chandler
08-16-2014, 10:18 PM
I've been looking at a Computational Linguistics log from UPenn and it's interesting what some are saying about the Ogham script found on the stones in that it most doesn't match Irish Celtic or Goidelic Celtic in terms of translation. One person named Richard Sproat posted it there could be 1 of 3 reasons for this:

"I looked at a couple and they seemed to be nonsense, suggesting that:

1) They are not Celtic, or
2) That they are not any language, maybe pseudowriting (not unheard of with Ogham in Pictish inscriptions), or
3) I'm doing something wrong"

I find that interesting if true.

George

George Chandler
08-16-2014, 11:54 PM
An interesting paper using math to determine that the Pictish characters were "unlikely random" and exhibit characteristics of written language.

http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/~jonathan/PRSA10.pdf

Maybe one day we will be able to find out if my theory that the box like character means "din".

George

rms2
08-17-2014, 12:41 AM
The tribal name is now known to have been Corieltauvi. The correct reading was recognised only a few years ago from graffiti on a tile found in Churchover referring to the Civitas Corieltauvorum. They were called the Coritani by Ptolemy, who gave their towns as Lindum [Lincoln] and Ratae [Leicester]. http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/belgicengland.shtml#Corieltauvi

I can't imagine who would have thought that they were Picts. They lived well within Roman Britain. I don't have Chadwick's Celtic Britain on my shelves, so I can't check where she got the idea. Some confusion with Cruithni?

She says that Roman and medieval writers referred to them as Picts. Perhaps that had more to do with the practice of painting themselves with woad than with any closer connection to the more northerly Picts? Chadwick does not say why they were referred to as Picts, she just says that they were.

Jean M
08-17-2014, 08:02 AM
She says that Roman and medieval writers referred to them as Picts....Chadwick does not say why they were referred to as Picts, she just says that they were.

I know of no such Roman or medieval reference to this tribe as Picts. That's the problem. It looks like Chadwick is taking Irish references to Cruithni to refer to the Corieltauvi. The Roman references to Picts are all well known and very definitely do not refer to this tribe.

Jean M
08-17-2014, 08:14 AM
Or are you thinking the stones were made by Picts who had been influenced by missionaries teaching them Ogham?

The most likely way that knowledge of Ogham could have arrived in Pictish territory is with Irish priests. Ogham is also known on funeral stones in south-west England, where they are assumed to commemorate Irish settlers. These stones are almost all bi-lingual and in two scripts i.e. there is an inscription in Latin language and script on the face of the stone, and one in Ogham along the edge.

Dubhthach
08-17-2014, 10:47 AM
An example of Ogham from Orkney was thought by some to be in Pictish turned out to be in Old Irish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckquoy_spindle-whorl

In this case it's clearly Christian connected, both beannacht (blessing) and anam soul ---I've use the modern Irish spellings--- are loan words into Irish from Latin. The christianisation of Ireland led to large number of latin loanwords particularly around the area of christian practise/thought. Even the word póg (kiss) which is often seen in angliscations as "pogue" (póg mó thóin = pogue mahone == kiss my ass) is borrowing from Latin. Been derived from pācem -- eg. from "kiss of peace" (pax)

---
A painted, stamped or carved tablet with a representation of Christ or the Virgin Mary, which was kissed by the priest during the Mass ("kiss of peace") and then passed to other officiating clergy and the congregation to be kissed. See also osculatory.
---

George Chandler
08-17-2014, 02:26 PM
The most likely way that knowledge of Ogham could have arrived in Pictish territory is with Irish priests. Ogham is also known on funeral stones in south-west England, where they are assumed to commemorate Irish settlers. These stones are almost all bi-lingual and in two scripts i.e. there is an inscription in Latin language and script on the face of the stone, and one in Ogham along the edge.

The problem is that the Pictish Ogham on most doesn't mean anything. On one stone they thought they had interpreted (could be the one Dubhthach referred to) was read backwards. Another read forwards has Maqq with someone's name..which means it's read forward not backwards? The Ogham may be the same in terms of the writing but for most of it the meaning behind the words is unknown and isn't Irish Celtic.

George

rms2
08-17-2014, 09:00 PM
I know of no such Roman or medieval reference to this tribe as Picts. That's the problem. It looks like Chadwick is taking Irish references to Cruithni to refer to the Corieltauvi. The Roman references to Picts are all well known and very definitely do not refer to this tribe.

She strikes me as a pretty solid scholar and seems to be talking specifically of the tribe she refers to as the Coritani.

Jean M
08-17-2014, 09:28 PM
She strikes me as a pretty solid scholar and seems to be talking specifically of the tribe she refers to as the Coritani.

She was indeed a good scholar and this is an untypical confusion. I have now found that this book is online and have looked at exactly what she says:


The third group were the Coritani, whose native name was Qritani, later Cruithni, and who were known by fourth-century Roman and medieval writers as Picti ('Picts').

It is the Cruithni (meaning "British" in the Irish tongue) who could be known as Picts. She is assuming that they are identical with the Coritani. That is simply wrong.

rms2
08-17-2014, 09:55 PM
She was indeed a good scholar and this is an untypical confusion. I have now found that this book is online and have looked at exactly what she says:



It is the Cruithni (meaning "British" in the Irish tongue) who could be known as Picts. She is assuming that they are identical with the Coritani. That is simply wrong.

Ah. You're right. Looks like applying the name Qritani and seeing in it Cruithni, a natural mistake it seems to me, was the problem. Of course, Chadwick could not have known the the tribal name was really Corieltauvi.

George Chandler
08-20-2014, 04:39 AM
I am not aware of any references to them painting their faces. I always thought it was body painting and tatooing but I never really thought facial painting or tatooing until Mel Gibson came along. Its still a mystery really. It seems a lot of things once associated with all the Britons like body staining or tatooing (as Caesar mentions) came to be associated with the Picts once the other Britons were Romanised to some degree. Even the name Pretani or Cruithin slowly shifted from meaning all the Britons to just meaning the Picts. Interestingly this name means people of designs or shapes which some believe is a reference to the body art. I think the creation of the Picts as a separately perceived group slowly evolved as the rest of the Britons were Romanised - including to some degree those of southern Scotland between the walls. You can see this evolution in how the peoples north of the Roman defenses were perceived in the shifting of the description of them from Britons from c. 60 to the late 200s and then they were given a separate name to distinguise them from the Romanised Britons to their south. We now know the Picts also spoke the P-Celtic form and many placenames like Aber etc are shared in common with Welsh.

Here is an interesting reference if true I got from Pictavia.org:

"Claudius Claudianus writing in the early 5th century wrote of the people of Britain in the female as 'clothed in the skin of the Caledonian beast, her cheeks tattooed, a deep blue cloak sweeping down to her feet' an di another reference 'the legion which had been left to guard far-distant Britain, which had kept the fierce Scots in check and gazed at the strange shapes tattooed on the faces of the dying Picts' in both cases the term tattooed is literally 'iron-marked' suggesting the use of an iron needle rather than body painting."

George

Ian B
08-20-2014, 05:18 AM
If memory serves me correctly, I think there have been references to the early Celts in Europe having painted faces also.

Is there a possibility of confusion between the Brythonic Tribes, The Picts and the Celts?

Jean M
08-20-2014, 09:19 AM
Is there a possibility of confusion between the Brythonic Tribes, The Picts and the Celts?

They are all Celts. The Picts were the Brythonic (or Brittonic) tribes north of the Roman border in Britain.

mcg11
08-20-2014, 02:57 PM
They are all Celts. The Picts were the Brythonic (or Brittonic) tribes north of the Roman border in Britain.

Initially, I would agree with you. I believe there were two types of Celts, Q Celtic and P Celtic. The Q Celtic, the Goidels, were originally, probably La Tene Celts and the P Celtic were Gaulish Celts, originally from Hallstadt?

In Scotland, the names get blurred as there was a lot of intermarriage and integration of non - celts, including Romans, Vikings, Angles, Jutes, etc. In Scotland c. 700 to 800 AD, there was extensive intermarriage between: Scots, Picts, Bernicians, Mercians, Native Britons and Irish, and others as Kings jostled for leadership. At that point in time c. 800 to 900, the term Celtic probably didn't apply to Alba( Scotland).

Jean M
08-20-2014, 04:33 PM
The Q Celtic, the Goidels, were originally, probably La Tene Celts and the P Celtic were Gaulish Celts, originally from Hallstadt?


You are probably mixing up Hallstatt and La Tene. The Hallstatt Culture (early Iron Age) was before the La Tene Culture (Late Iron Age).
Q-Celtic is more archaic than P-Celtic.
It was a popular idea for a long time that Celtic spread in the Iron Age, but scholars now increasingly lean towards the earliest Celtic spreading with Bell Beaker. I would go for late Bell Beaker.
The term Goildelic is only used for the Gaelic language group. It is not used for Celts on the Continent.

alan
08-20-2014, 05:47 PM
I have heard it discussed before and it is an uncertain reference. It also is quite probable that Claudians description of blue Britons was derived from references in much older historic books of several centuries earlier. Its highly improbable that Britons looked at all like that after many centuries of Romanisation. In realty we know that the Welsh, the Picts and even the Irish were deeply influenced by Roman tradition and styles - even going as far as to have adopted the Roman tunic and cloak style and abandoning the trousers etc noted and depicted in earlier times in Britain.

That is not to say that I dont believe that tattooing and body painting existed in pre-Roman times. There is direct evidence from the Ice Man etc and references to tattooed knees in early Irish literature. Its just that what amount to somewhat vague mentions of woad paining and perhaps tattooing have become a bit of a stereotype. What was truly insane was that Braveheart showed blue face paint on Medieval Scots almost 1000 years after the practice probably ceased to exist. The recent film about king Arthur had the sub-Roman Britons all woad painted - in fact in the film they were called 'woads'.

Here is an interesting reference if true I got from Pictavia.org:

"Claudius Claudianus writing in the early 5th century wrote of the people of Britain in the female as 'clothed in the skin of the Caledonian beast, her cheeks tattooed, a deep blue cloak sweeping down to her feet' an di another reference 'the legion which had been left to guard far-distant Britain, which had kept the fierce Scots in check and gazed at the strange shapes tattooed on the faces of the dying Picts' in both cases the term tattooed is literally 'iron-marked' suggesting the use of an iron needle rather than body painting."

George

vettor
08-20-2014, 06:28 PM
Initially, I would agree with you. I believe there were two types of Celts, Q Celtic and P Celtic. The Q Celtic, the Goidels, were originally, probably La Tene Celts and the P Celtic were Gaulish Celts, originally from Hallstadt?

.

I have read the reverse

Q Celts where Hallstadt culture from Noricum , a mix of "german" celts with illyrians..........continuity the celtic march down the danube and into the balkans. we see Q-celtic markers on the noric steel of noricum.
Unsure if the tattooed liburnians of the Adriatic used Q-celtic.

P celts where la tene culture is , a mix of "german" celts with Raetian and helvetic people forming Lepontic language ( some say origin of P-celt language ) , also P-celt influence via belgii people who where from swizerland to flanders . Most likely these crossed into kent and england

Celts where not in the alps in the middle bronze-age......there origin is north of the danube river in modern Germany

rossa
08-20-2014, 07:14 PM
I have heard it discussed before and it is an uncertain reference. It also is quite probable that Claudians description of blue Britons was derived from references in much older historic books of several centuries earlier. Its highly improbable that Britons looked at all like that after many centuries of Romanisation. In realty we know that the Welsh, the Picts and even the Irish were deeply influenced by Roman tradition and styles - even going as far as to have adopted the Roman tunic and cloak style and abandoning the trousers etc noted and depicted in earlier times in Britain.

That is not to say that I dont believe that tattooing and body painting existed in pre-Roman times. There is direct evidence from the Ice Man etc and references to tattooed knees in early Irish literature. Its just that what amount to somewhat vague mentions of woad paining and perhaps tattooing have become a bit of a stereotype. What was truly insane was that Braveheart showed blue face paint on Medieval Scots almost 1000 years after the practice probably ceased to exist. The recent film about king Arthur had the sub-Roman Britons all woad painted - in fact in the film they were called 'woads'.

There were a couple films recently that dealt with the Ninth Roman Legion and Picts, one of them called The Eagle had some of them painted all over in pale blue. It was a very interesting look, I think they were also going for the idea of another really old tribe being present in Scotland (as they were somtimes referred to as the seal people).They also had them speak gaelic in the film.

Agamemnon
08-20-2014, 07:52 PM
There were a couple films recently that dealt with the Ninth Roman Legion and Picts, one of them called The Eagle had some of them painted all over in pale blue. It was a very interesting look, I think they were also going for the idea of another really old tribe being present in Scotland (as they were somtimes referred to as the seal people).They also had them speak gaelic in the film.

Yep, watched this movie a few months ago... There's another one called "Centurion", it's also set in Roman Britain.
I pretty much lol'd all the way through when I heard them speaking Gaelic btw.

rossa
08-20-2014, 08:42 PM
Yep, watched this movie a few months ago... There's another one called "Centurion", it's also set in Roman Britain.
I pretty much lol'd all the way through when I heard them speaking Gaelic btw.

Inaccuracies, aside the French/Algerian actor playing the Pict baddie made a good stab at it.

Agamemnon
08-20-2014, 08:43 PM
Inaccuracies, aside the French/Algerian actor playing the Pict baddie made a good stab at it.

Absolutely, Tahar Rahim is a fantastic actor.

George Chandler
08-21-2014, 04:25 AM
I have heard it discussed before and it is an uncertain reference. It also is quite probable that Claudians description of blue Britons was derived from references in much older historic books of several centuries earlier. Its highly improbable that Britons looked at all like that after many centuries of Romanisation. In realty we know that the Welsh, the Picts and even the Irish were deeply influenced by Roman tradition and styles - even going as far as to have adopted the Roman tunic and cloak style and abandoning the trousers etc noted and depicted in earlier times in Britain.

That is not to say that I dont believe that tattooing and body painting existed in pre-Roman times. There is direct evidence from the Ice Man etc and references to tattooed knees in early Irish literature. Its just that what amount to somewhat vague mentions of woad paining and perhaps tattooing have become a bit of a stereotype. What was truly insane was that Braveheart showed blue face paint on Medieval Scots almost 1000 years after the practice probably ceased to exist. The recent film about king Arthur had the sub-Roman Britons all woad painted - in fact in the film they were called 'woads'.

Claudius died in 404 AD though right? The first reference to the Picti by the Romans was only just over a hundred years prior to his death. What books are you suggesting they came from? What part is uncertain about the reference?

I didn't mention anything about movies.

George

Jean M
08-21-2014, 10:22 AM
Claudius died in 404 AD though right? The first reference to the Picti by the Romans was only just over a hundred years prior to his death. What books are you suggesting they came from? What part is uncertain about the reference?

Tim Clarkson has made a paper available at Academia.edu on the verses in question. He regards them as dubious not because of the references to tattooing, but to the otherwise unattested campaign of Stilicho which he seems to be recording.

https://www.academia.edu/3388905/Stilicho_Claudian_and_the_Picts

The vision of Britannia as a tattooed Caledonian is poetic licence I suppose. The Britons within the Roman frontier would not have been tattoed at that time.

mcg11
08-21-2014, 01:08 PM
I have read the reverse

Q Celts where Hallstadt culture from Noricum , a mix of "german" celts with illyrians..........continuity the celtic march down the danube and into the balkans. we see Q-celtic markers on the noric steel of noricum.
Unsure if the tattooed liburnians of the Adriatic used Q-celtic.

P celts where la tene culture is , a mix of "german" celts with Raetian and helvetic people forming Lepontic language ( some say origin of P-celt language ) , also P-celt influence via belgii people who where from swizerland to flanders . Most likely these crossed into kent and england

Celts where not in the alps in the middle bronze-age......there origin is north of the danube river in modern Germany

I have also read two things in Caesars work: 1. The Belgic tribes spoke a different language than the Gaulish tribes. 2. The Belgic tribes displaced Gaulic tribes from the lowlands c. 500 BC, I believe these folks went to NE Ireland where they were called "Cruithni".

I've said earlier that I believe the differentiation (genetically) between the Belgic tribes and Gaulish was a 11/10 for the Belgae at 391/385a and an 11/11 for the Gaulish. Since the L1335/L1065 people of Scotland contain the major clans such as Clan Donald (R1b), Gregor, Buchanan, MacMillan etc., and these folks have 11/10 (Gregor is 10/10). Then the L1335 are descendants of the Belgic tribes? They spoke Q Celtic.

As Jean M. said the La Tene culture appears to be younger than the Hallstadt? The Belgic tribes came from West of the Rhine and may have been of the La Tene culture?

Re: the Picts, they were, originally, probably displaced Gaulish Celts, who settled in NE Scotland ( Burghead?). By 600 to 700 AD, the term Pict or Celt is almost meaningless in Scotland due to integration and intermarriage.

Jean M
08-21-2014, 01:32 PM
I have also read two things in Caesars work: 1. The Belgic tribes spoke a different language than the Gaulish tribes.

The difference cannot have been very great. The Belgae spoke a P-Celtic language, as we know from personal and place-names. Gaulish was a P-Celtic language. We cannot tell the difference on place-names or personal names between the Belgic areas of southern Britain and any other part of Britain.


2. The Belgic tribes displaced Gaulic tribes from the lowlands c. 500 BC, I believe these folks went to NE Ireland where they were called "Cruithni".

When you say "Gaulic", I presume that you are in fact talking about Britons of the La Tene culture. You could be right, but I suspect the truth is a bit more complex, with Belgae pushing Britons northward, and the overspill into Ireland happening further north where the crossing to Ireland is easier.



I've said earlier that I believe the differentiation (genetically) between the Belgic tribes and Gaulish was a 11/10 for the Belgae at 391/385a and an 11/11 for the Gaulish.

I don't want to seem brutal, but this is a complete waste of time. It is useless. It is nonsense. We cannot distinguish between Gauls and Belgae on one STR. You can keep beating this drum, but no-one will follow.

STRs were at least some use back in the days before we had all the SNPs we have now. But they don't mutate in a reliable way. Once we have SNPs to firmly create a Y-DNA tree, STRs are useless except in giving some clues to men who want to know which SNPs to be tested for.

Jean M
08-21-2014, 01:38 PM
As Jean M. said the La Tene culture appears to be younger than the Hallstadt?

It is not a question of "appearing to be". These are radiocarbon-dated certainties. The culture named after the Hallstatt site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallstatt_culture


The Hallstatt culture was the predominant Central European culture from the 8th to 6th centuries BC (European Early Iron Age), developing out of the Urnfield culture of the 12th century BC (Late Bronze Age) and followed in much of Central Europe by the La Tène culture. It is commonly associated with Proto-Celtic and Celtic populations in the Western Hallstatt zone and with (pre-)Illyrians in the eastern Hallstatt zone..

The culture named after the site at La Tène : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_T%C3%A8ne_culture


The La Tène culture was a European Iron Age culture named after the archaeological site of La Tène on the north side of Neuenburgersee in Switzerland, where a rich cache of artifacts was discovered by Hansli Kopp in 1857. La Tène culture developed and flourished during the late Iron Age (from 450 BCE to the Roman conquest in the 1st century BCE) in Belgium, eastern France, Switzerland, Austria, Southern Germany, the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary and Romania.


The Belgic tribes came from West of the Rhine and may have been of the La Tene culture?

Yes the Belgae had a Late La Tène culture.

Do you not have a book on the Celts handy where you are? You are on the move perhaps? The Internet is a boon in these cases. It is very easy to look things up.

vettor
08-21-2014, 06:54 PM
The difference cannot have been very great. The Belgae spoke a P-Celtic language, as we know from personal and place-names. Gaulish was a P-Celtic language. We cannot tell the difference on place-names or personal names between the Belgic areas of southern Britain and any other part of Britain.



When you say "Gaulic", I presume that you are in fact talking about Britons of the La Tene culture. You could be right, but I suspect the truth is a bit more complex, with Belgae pushing Britons northward, and the overspill into Ireland happening further north where the crossing to Ireland is easier.



Why do you insist in trying to say celts and gauls are the same?............they may have eventually become one , but they never where one initially, the theory is that the celts from central germany moving west absorbed the gauls of the lowlands/rhenish lands and formed the belgae. Even in Julius caesars book ( De Bello Gallico), he states, most of the belgae descend from the germani which had crossed the Rhine in acient times and expelled the original gauls who lived there.
plerosque Belgos esse ortos a Germanis Rhenumque
antiqitus traductos proper loci fertilitatem ibi consedisse
Gallosque qui ea loca incolerent expulisse


I don't want to seem brutal, but this is a complete waste of time. It is useless. It is nonsense. We cannot distinguish between Gauls and Belgae on one STR. You can keep beating this drum, but no-one will follow.

STRs were at least some use back in the days before we had all the SNPs we have now. But they don't mutate in a reliable way. Once we have SNPs to firmly create a Y-DNA tree, STRs are useless except in giving some clues to men who want to know which SNPs to be tested for.


depends which STR you look at , take
426=11 are all the haplogroups that emerged around the same time...........426=12 are later ( younger) haplogroups like R and Q ............there is still a place for STR for grouping of people

The problem STR issues for single people is due to the system different companies use for determining Genetic distance.
some companies stated a GD of 1 for each STR which is different, some other look into the STR to determine the GD...example
A person has 390=20
B person has 390=23
If every other STR are exact , then one company will see this as a GD of 1 ....termed infinite GD
other company will see this as a GD of 3 ....termed step GD

Jean M
08-21-2014, 07:24 PM
Why do you insist in trying to say celts and gauls are the same?

Because that is what Caesar and other ancient writers say. The very book you cited opens with the words:


All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who in their own language are called Celts, in ours Gauls, the third.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Gallic_War/Book_1

Pausanias (1.4.1-4) in the 2nd century AD says:


It was late before the name 'Gauls' came into vogue; for anciently they were called Celts both amongst themselves and by others.

Jean M
08-21-2014, 07:26 PM
the celts from central germany moving west absorbed the gauls of the lowlands/rhenish lands and formed the belgae.


True, but the Belgae just lived in northeast Gaul, as Caesar says. The rest of Gaul continued to be inhabited by Gauls. Belgae and Gauls were both Celtic speaking. So were Celtiberi. So were Britons and the people of Ireland.

There are quite a few good books on the Celts in the shops. Any one of them would explain these basic facts.

mcg11
08-21-2014, 07:53 PM
I don't want to seem brutal, but this is a complete waste of time. It is useless. It is nonsense. We cannot distinguish between Gauls and Belgae on one STR. You can keep beating this drum, but no-one will follow.

STRs were at least some use back in the days before we had all the SNPs we have now. But they don't mutate in a reliable way. Once we have SNPs to firmly create a Y-DNA tree, STRs are useless except in giving some clues to men who want to know which SNPs to be tested for.

These comments are different from the days of K. Nordtvedt and VineViz and their calculations. I can't remember how many times you referred to their work to point out problems with mine?

STR's are very useful if you account for their "quirks". Their properties are fairly well understood, especially, by the initiator of this thread, M. Jost.

What do you mean "they don't mutate in a reliable way"? Be specific! Your dependence on SNP's firmly creating a Y - DNA tree is as premature as your prior support of STR analysis. They both have statistical characteristics which have to be modeled and understood.

RE: distinguishing Gauls and Belgae on one STR. It is also much more complex than you imply. The technique is "modal analysis" and one uses modals to distinguish groups of of common haplotypes back in time. e.g. Start with Clan Gregor and converge the founders descendants to one haplotype ( the modal for the group) = founders haplotype. Do that for other R1b clans; e.g. Donald, MacMillan, Buchanan. You end up with the L1065 Haplotype. Compare it to the L1335 Haplotype (2 mutations different over 67). All of these entries have one pair of STR values in common 11/10 at 391/385a! Do the same analysis on groups having predominantly 11,11 and converge them. Compare the two modals and estimate the time to convergence based on using select other STR's which are different between the two.I haven't done it lately but I think you'll find it is between 1,000 to 2,000 BC when the 10 becomes an 11. I would suggest this is the founders date of the La Tene culture.?

So its not one STR, it is at least 67, as in this case, that we have to look at to distinguish Belgae from Gaul.

Jean M
08-21-2014, 08:10 PM
These comments are different from the days of K. Nordtvedt and VineViz and their calculations. I can't remember how many times you referred to their work to point out problems with mine?

VineViz was among the first to drop haplotypes in favour of haplogroups, as soon as SNPs were available which grouped men in a much more reliable way. K. Nordtvedt has been keeping up with all the latest SNPs in Y-DNA haplogroup I. No doubt some use of STRs is still being made, but the grouping into a tree is now the function of SNPs.


What do you mean "they don't mutate in a reliable way"? Be specific!

Oh dear! I am taken to task! ;) I mean that STR mutations can add or deduct. So it is impossible to build a reliable tree. The issues with the occasional SNP that appears in more than one haplogroup pales into insignificance by comparison.

Jean M
08-21-2014, 08:11 PM
These comments are different from the days of K. Nordtvedt and VineViz and their calculations. I can't remember how many times you referred to their work to point out problems with mine?

I can't remember ever doing so, since I've never bothered with the mathematics. I can remember VineViz arguing with you time and time again and grinding his teeth. But what all that was about specifically I have no idea.

In any case VineViz was among the first to drop haplotypes in favour of haplogroups, as soon as SNPs were available which grouped men in a much more reliable way. K. Nordtvedt worked wonders with STRs and had notable success in predicting groups which were later identified for certain with an SNP. But he has been keeping up with all the latest SNPs in Y-DNA haplogroup I. No doubt some use of STRs is still being made, but the grouping into a tree is now the function of SNPs.


What do you mean "they don't mutate in a reliable way"? Be specific!

Oh dear! I am taken to task! ;) I mean that STR mutations can add or deduct. So it is impossible to build a reliable tree. The issue with the occasional SNP that appears in more than one haplogroup pales into insignificance by comparison.

It's all over mcg. If you look around the R1b forum now, you'll see that for yourself. The talk of modals and haplotypes has faded away.

mcg11
08-21-2014, 08:43 PM
[QUOTE=Jean M;49176Oh dear! I am taken to task! ;) I mean that STR mutations can add or deduct. So it is impossible to build a reliable tree. The issue with the occasional SNP that appears in more than one haplogroup pales into insignificance by comparison.

It's all over mcg. If you look around the R1b forum now, you'll see that for yourself. The talk of modals and haplotypes has faded away.[/QUOTE]

I'm not taking you to task! You are, I believe, a Historian, not a mathematician/physicist. STR's can mutate in many ways, up/down, multi-steps, multi-mutations at one birth, differently for CDYa,b and other such combinations, etc. In general, this doesn't reduce their intrinsic value, it just makes the SD's larger.

I wish the current researchers all the luck in the world. But, I suspect, that at the end of the day, as all the "quirks" of SNP's are understood we will find many uncertainties in counting SNP's?

Jean M
08-21-2014, 08:50 PM
I wish the current researchers all the luck in the world. But, I suspect, that at the end of the day, as all the "quirks" of SNP's are understood we will find many uncertainties in counting SNP's

It's not counting that really matters, though some of the really keen whizzo types are interested in that. It is the ability of SNPs to create a firm sequence, so that we know how people are related. Finding an SNP that puts you in a group a long way down the tree takes you into relatively recent times. It becomes possible to match with surnames and paper genealogy. That is what a lot of genetic genealogists really want.

George Chandler
08-22-2014, 02:54 AM
Tim Clarkson has made a paper available at Academia.edu on the verses in question. He regards them as dubious not because of the references to tattooing, but to the otherwise unattested campaign of Stilicho which he seems to be recording.

https://www.academia.edu/3388905/Stilicho_Claudian_and_the_Picts

The vision of Britannia as a tattooed Caledonian is poetic licence I suppose. The Britons within the Roman frontier would not have been tattoed at that time.

I'm not sure he is saying that. The author tries to discredit Claudius due the fact he is a poet and feels that he embellishes (as many poets do). He tries to discredit the link regarding a campaign of Stilicho in Britain. I actually don't think he's saying that (Claudius)..the reference in my opinion relates to Stilicho being made guardian over the Emperor's son Honorius. The connection between wisdom and age, peace and war, a mature commander and a young Prince wanting to destroy instead of build.

Being that the Romans had already defined the Picti as "painted ones" so I really don't see the painted or tattooed reference as not credible just because the poem hasn't been IMO interpreted properly.

George

George Chandler
08-22-2014, 03:02 AM
These comments are different from the days of K. Nordtvedt and VineViz and their calculations. I can't remember how many times you referred to their work to point out problems with mine?

STR's are very useful if you account for their "quirks". Their properties are fairly well understood, especially, by the initiator of this thread, M. Jost.

What do you mean "they don't mutate in a reliable way"? Be specific! Your dependence on SNP's firmly creating a Y - DNA tree is as premature as your prior support of STR analysis. They both have statistical characteristics which have to be modeled and understood.

RE: distinguishing Gauls and Belgae on one STR. It is also much more complex than you imply. The technique is "modal analysis" and one uses modals to distinguish groups of of common haplotypes back in time. e.g. Start with Clan Gregor and converge the founders descendants to one haplotype ( the modal for the group) = founders haplotype. Do that for other R1b clans; e.g. Donald, MacMillan, Buchanan. You end up with the L1065 Haplotype. Compare it to the L1335 Haplotype (2 mutations different over 67). All of these entries have one pair of STR values in common 11/10 at 391/385a! Do the same analysis on groups having predominantly 11,11 and converge them. Compare the two modals and estimate the time to convergence based on using select other STR's which are different between the two.I haven't done it lately but I think you'll find it is between 1,000 to 2,000 BC when the 10 becomes an 11. I would suggest this is the founders date of the La Tene culture.?

So its not one STR, it is at least 67, as in this case, that we have to look at to distinguish Belgae from Gaul.

The problem I've found with the STR calculations is that the quirks can be pretty substantial so I have to agree with Jean on this one. I was getting 111 marker comparison age estimate results between 1,000 and 2,000 years for some and yet when you look at the Full Y SNP comparison there were only 5 SNP's shared under DF13 making it much older than the STR comparison was showing. I think STR age estimates are useful in many cases for relationships under 1,000 years at 111 markers but I would rather use Full Y SNP comparisons.

George

vettor
08-22-2014, 07:04 AM
Because that is what Caesar and other ancient writers say. The very book you cited opens with the words:



http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Gallic_War/Book_1

Pausanias (1.4.1-4) in the 2nd century AD says:

I suggest you need to re-read the caesar line. He refers to......before his time,......... the ancient germani celts moved against the non-germani gauls.

Giving a summary at the conclusion of the writings is basically useless in the term of what caesar was saying.

The gallic war is a period in time from the time when Caesar was alive, it has nothing to do with the celtic move across the rhine river.

Also, the first germani into england was not the Angels, saxons and jutes but these very same belgae


as I said..belgae , from switzerland to flanders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallia_Belgica#mediaviewer/File:Droysens_Hist_Handatlas_S16_Gallien.jpg

Jean M
08-22-2014, 07:57 AM
Being that the Romans had already defined the Picti as "painted ones" so I really don't see the painted or tattooed reference as not credible just because the poem hasn't been IMO interpreted properly.

There is no problem with the Picts as tattooed. None whatsoever. The problem is with the figure of "Britannia" as tattooed at this date. Britannia was a personification of the Roman province of Britannia. She appears on some Roman coins. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britannia

But I really wouldn't worry about what a poet wrote a long way from Britain. Claudian had perhaps never seen any Britons and was just looking for a striking image. And he did conjure up a lovely image!

We have first-hand descriptions of Britons from people who actually went to Britain or knew people who had. Those are the most reliable. When the Romans first encountered Britons, they noted the habit of dying the body with woad. I cover this with sources on this page http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/celticscothighlands.shtml. It's all there.

Jean M
08-22-2014, 08:11 AM
I suggest you need to re-read the caesar line. He refers to......before his time,......... the ancient germani celts moved against the non-germani gauls.

Of course the Belgae had entered northeast Gaul before his time. They were there when he arrived intent on conquest. They were not Germani. They had come from east of the Rhine, which in Caesar's day was Germania, but they were Celts. Celts had lived east of the Rhine for a long time before they were gradually pushed west by the Germani. We know this from Celtic place-names, including the name of the Rhine itself. We know from the fact that the Hallstatt and La Tene cultures extended into what is now Germany. In fact modern Germany has a host of the most important Celtic sites.

We can see the very different Germanic culture develop. (Google for Jastorf culture). We see it (or descendent cultures) expand to push Late La Tene westwards.


the first germani into england was not the Angels, saxons and jutes but these very same belgae

A popular idea in some misguided quarters, but entirely mistaken and unsupported by a shred of real evidence. It is based on the same simplistic reading of Caesar out of context to which you have fallen victim. You could try reading a modern edition of Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic War with scholarly notes, or any modern book on the Celts by a reputable scholar.

vettor
08-22-2014, 10:02 AM
Of course the Belgae had entered northeast Gaul before his time. They were there when he arrived intent on conquest. They were not Germani. They had come from east of the Rhine, which in Caesar's day was Germania, but they were Celts. Celts had lived east of the Rhine for a long time before they were gradually pushed west by the Germani. We know this from Celtic place-names, including the name of the Rhine itself. We know from the fact that the Hallstatt and La Tene cultures extended into what is now Germany. In fact modern Germany has a host of the most important Celtic sites.

We can see the very different Germanic culture develop. (Google for Jastorf culture). We see it (or descendent cultures) expand to push Late La Tene westwards.

I understand that the celts where not germani, but the term was used by Caesar. The celts origin is in central modern Germany and at that time there was no germans there. I was trying to emphasize the difference of celts with gauls as per pre-caesar times and as noted by caesar.

In regards to la tene, you will know this noricum land was infested with illyrians, I suspect this area along with pannonia was the original homeland of Illyrians due to the fact we have historical evidence that say they slowly marched south into the balkans . being stopped eventually by Alexander the great father, Philip. The illyrians also stopped on the drin river in modern Montenegro.
But back to La tene, the celtic merger/absorption of these illyrian people gave the celts there Q-celtic which is different from the P-celtic "lepontic" language.

Jean M
08-22-2014, 10:19 AM
I was trying to emphasize the difference of celts with gauls as per pre-caesar times and as noted by caesar.

There was no difference between Celts and Gauls noted by Caesar either before his time or in it. Quite the opposite. He says that "Gauls" is the terms used by Romans for the Celts. The term Keltoi was used by ancient Greeks centuries before Caesar. It was not applied just to the Celts of what is now Germany. It was applied to Celts in Iberia, Gaul etc. The Belgae were the last wave of Celtic speakers to enter Gaul, not the first.

Now can we please return this thread to the topic of the Picts, please. (Not the Illyrians, who have no place here.)

vettor
08-22-2014, 10:44 AM
There was no difference between Celts and Gauls noted by Caesar either before his time or in it. Quite the opposite. He says that "Gauls" is the terms used by Romans for the Celts. The term Keltoi was used by ancient Greeks centuries before Caesar. It was not applied just to the Celts of what is now Germany. It was applied to Celts in Iberia, Gaul etc. The Belgae were the last wave of Celtic speakers to enter Gaul, not the first.


Thats rubbish, there is no proof the celts of the bronze-age have anything similar to the gauls , no language , customs or ethnicity.
the first merger was the celts of germany absorbing the gauls of france in what became belgae. it illogical to say they where the last.

We even have a difference by historians of the gallic and celtic invasion of north italy ~550BC. the cenomani , semnones and limones are gallic and the boii are celtic.
The gallic came via the west ( southern france ) and the boii over the alps through lombardy ( both evading the North eastern venetic people ) and skirting around until they reached the adriatic sea.

where is you proof that they where one people at that time!

why then if gauls are celts did they wait until 500BC for the celts to enter ireland?

Why then do Roman historians say, the keltoi of northern gaul and the gallico of southern gaul?

Jean M
08-22-2014, 10:56 AM
the first merger was the celts of germany absorbing the gauls of france in what became belgae. it illogical to say they where the last.

Vettor, you seem to have an absolute genius for misunderstanding what you have read. It took me a while to understand just what your misunderstanding was in this case, since I have never met anyone before who imagined that the Belgae were the first Celtic speakers to enter Gaul! Nobody thinks this. Nobody. Except you. Everybody who has read any half-decent book about the Celts knows that seagoing Greeks had encountered Keltoi near Massalia (Marseilles) and at a trading post at Narbo (Narbonne). The earliest surviving record of these Keltoi comes from Hecataeus of Miletus (c. 500 BC). This is long before the Belgae pushed into one corner of Gaul.

The Gaulish Druids knew that the Belgae were relative newcomers to Gaul, whereas the rest of the Gauls were natives. The Gaulish language was Celtic. Their place-names are Celtic, their personal and tribal names are Celtic. They left inscriptions in Celtic.

There is La Tene material all over Gaul. It did not arrive with the Belgae.

vettor
08-22-2014, 11:08 AM
Vettor, you seem to have an absolute genius for misunderstanding what you have read. It took me a while to understand just what your misunderstanding was in this case, since I have never met anyone before who imagined that the Belgae were the first Celtic speakers to enter Gaul! Nobody thinks this. Nobody. Except you. Everybody who has read any half-decent book about the Celts knows that seagoing Greeks had encountered Keltoi near Massalia (Marseilles) and at a trading post at Narbo (Narbonne). The earliest surviving record of these Keltoi comes from Hecataeus of Miletus (c. 500 BC). This is long before the Belgae pushed into one corner of Gaul.

The Gaulish Druids knew that the Belgae were relative newcomers to Gaul, whereas the rest of the Gauls were natives. The Gaulish language was Celtic. Their place-names are Celtic, their personal and tribal names are Celtic. They left inscriptions in Celtic.

There is La Tene material all over Gaul. It did not arrive with the Belgae.

La Tène culture developed and flourished during the late Iron Age (from 450 BCE to the Roman conquest in the 1st century BCE)
so if La tene came from 450 BCE , what was in gaul before this ..............and why do you insist that the belgae developed La tene.
I said the celts marched in to the lowland s and rhenich areas into Belgae lands...I hope you know La tene is nowhere near this, but is around modern northern Switzerland....vindelici tribal lands .

I imagine you must be one of these people that favour an irish celtic union via northern Spain pre-roman times

Jean M
08-22-2014, 11:09 AM
why then if gauls are celts did they wait until 500BC for the celts to enter ireland?

Why do you think that they did? I repeat that the idea that Celtic-speaking spread in the Iron Age is no longer accepted. Many scholars are rethinking.

vettor
08-22-2014, 11:15 AM
Why do you think that they did? I repeat that the idea that Celtic-speaking spread in the Iron Age is no longer accepted. Many scholars are rethinking.

yes, re-thinking with ...........no answer

These new scholars are doing everything in their power to make believe the celts have always been in ireland

vettor
08-22-2014, 11:18 AM
Vettor, you seem to have an absolute genius for misunderstanding what you have read. It took me a while to understand just what your misunderstanding was in this case, since I have never met anyone before who imagined that the Belgae were the first Celtic speakers to enter Gaul! Nobody thinks this. Nobody. Except you. Everybody who has read any half-decent book about the Celts knows that seagoing Greeks had encountered Keltoi near Massalia (Marseilles) and at a trading post at Narbo (Narbonne). The earliest surviving record of these Keltoi comes from Hecataeus of Miletus (c. 500 BC). This is long before the Belgae pushed into one corner of Gaul.

The Gaulish Druids knew that the Belgae were relative newcomers to Gaul, whereas the rest of the Gauls were natives. The Gaulish language was Celtic. Their place-names are Celtic, their personal and tribal names are Celtic. They left inscriptions in Celtic.

There is La Tene material all over Gaul. It did not arrive with the Belgae.

Marseilles issue means zero, the Greeks had this as a port surrounded by ligures, so!, they also had ports in modern catalonia and in corsica where they fought against the etruscans for control of that island's wine trade...........so what, one, two ports what are you trying to state.

Jean M
08-22-2014, 11:19 AM
La Tène culture developed and flourished during the late Iron Age (from 450 BCE to the Roman conquest in the 1st century BCE)
so if La tene came from 450 BCE , what was in gaul before this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallstatt_culture and prior to that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture and prior to that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_beaker


why do you insist that the belgae developed La tene.

I said that the Belgae when they arrived in NE Gaul had a Late La Tene culture. I did not say that they personally and they alone developed La Tene. The power centres of the development of the La Tene Culture were around the rivers Marne and Moselle and in Bohemia.

Jean M
08-22-2014, 11:22 AM
Marseilles issue means zero, the Greeks had this as a port surrounded by ligures.

Yes I know Vettor, but the Greeks knew that the Celts lived nearby. Where else the Greeks had ports is irrelevant. The point is that they knew and recorded that Celts lived in Gaul. The Celts did not just have the port of Narbonne as a colony on the coast! They lived in the interior, as recorded by Greeks.

Jean M
08-22-2014, 11:28 AM
These new scholars are doing everything in their power to make believe the celts have always been in ireland

I am not talking about the decades of anti-migrationism that had archaeologists declaring that the ancestors of the Celts must have been there from the Mesolithic. I have no patience with such nonsense. I am talking about the trend towards seeing the Celtic language spread in the Copper/Bronze Age. I don't know how you have missed this, because there have been endless discussions about it on this forum and some of its predecessors.

Jean M
08-22-2014, 11:35 AM
We even have a difference by historians of the gallic and celtic invasion of north italy ~550BC. the cenomani , semnones and limones are gallic and the boii are celtic.

No they are all Celts, but some came from Gaul. It might help to think of Gauls = Celts from Gaul.

mcg11
08-22-2014, 12:31 PM
The problem I've found with the STR calculations is that the quirks can be pretty substantial so I have to agree with Jean on this one. I was getting 111 marker comparison age estimate results between 1,000 and 2,000 years for some and yet when you look at the Full Y SNP comparison there were only 5 SNP's shared under DF13 making it much older than the STR comparison was showing. I think STR age estimates are useful in many cases for relationships under 1,000 years at 111 markers but I would rather use Full Y SNP comparisons.

George
I've stayed away from SNP counting to date because it is in its infancy and much has to be learned. I have had fairly good success with STR's up to about 2K years. The issues include using the appropriate STR's for the calculation. I don't use the combo's (CDYa,b; 464 a,b,c,d; 385a,b; etc. I try to select STR's that are stable and fairly slow. The difficulty in sets of data that many mutations are shared by many of the entries! Additionally, there may have been multiple mutations at an STR, if it is a relatively fast mutation, and even worse, regardless of rate, I have seen mutations at an STR occur sequentially in time.

All of these effects can occur with SNP's, just at a slower expected rate.

George Chandler
08-22-2014, 12:59 PM
I've stayed away from SNP counting to date because it is in its infancy and much has to be learned. I have had fairly good success with STR's up to about 2K years. The issues include using the appropriate STR's for the calculation. I don't use the combo's (CDYa,b; 464 a,b,c,d; 385a,b; etc. I try to select STR's that are stable and fairly slow. The difficulty in sets of data that many mutations are shared by many of the entries! Additionally, there may have been multiple mutations at an STR, if it is a relatively fast mutation, and even worse, regardless of rate, I have seen mutations at an STR occur sequentially in time.

All of these effects can occur with SNP's, just at a slower expected rate.

I agree with everything you've stated (other than the good success rate). The ones that weren't working out had the same odd slow moving STR and that was making the relationship look much closer than it actually was. I don't think it calculates for enough convergence when doing the comparison.

Your right this can happen SNP's but I think much of that risk is eliminated with Sanger testing. I still like to use all of the SNP's for the age estimate and compare it to the Sanger confirmed SNP's. There is no question there needs to be more Full Y testing of family lines already confirmed by using both genealogy and STR matching.

mcg11
08-22-2014, 04:36 PM
I agree with everything you've stated (other than the good success rate). The ones that weren't working out had the same odd slow moving STR and that was making the relationship look much closer than it actually was. I don't think it calculates for enough convergence when doing the comparison.

Your right this can happen SNP's but I think much of that risk is eliminated with Sanger testing. I still like to use all of the SNP's for the age estimate and compare it to the Sanger confirmed SNP's. There is no question there needs to be more Full Y testing of family lines already confirmed by using both genealogy and STR matching.

The problem, which you identify with slow convergence, for slow STR's is that the SD becomes larger. This is just the result of using larger numbers. It can be reduced by increasing the number of samples or STR's. But, sometimes the number of samples is limited.

One of the difficulties in using STR's is that you don't know when an entry separated from the main line. Within Clan Gregor, which spans about 600 years, is that there are entries with as many as 7 or 8 mutations, with a few having zero over 67.

vettor
08-22-2014, 06:49 PM
I am not talking about the decades of anti-migrationism that had archaeologists declaring that the ancestors of the Celts must have been there from the Mesolithic. I have no patience with such nonsense. I am talking about the trend towards seeing the Celtic language spread in the Copper/Bronze Age. I don't know how you have missed this, because there have been endless discussions about it on this forum and some of its predecessors.

I never missed it, language is a stupid way to determine ethnicity.

this celtic spread of language is no sign the people where celts, this is the same stupid arguement that slavs make because they say anyone speaking slavic was slav.
It is also silly because we do not say that everyone who spoke Latin in the roman empire was a Roman do we!

Ethnically gallic and celtic are different, to falsely claim the gauls are celts because they spoke celtic is very silly claim by an intelligenet person as yourself.

We might as well say as of today, anyone in the world who speaks English is an Englishperson, very silly

vettor
08-22-2014, 06:53 PM
Yes I know Vettor, but the Greeks knew that the Celts lived nearby. Where else the Greeks had ports is irrelevant. The point is that they knew and recorded that Celts lived in Gaul. The Celts did not just have the port of Narbonne as a colony on the coast! They lived in the interior, as recorded by Greeks.

where is this claim by the Greeks!............is it part of the same claim that Herodotus stated the Danube river begins in the Pyrenees and runs to the black sea!

vettor
08-22-2014, 07:01 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallstatt_culture and prior to that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture and prior to that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_beaker



I said that the Belgae when they arrived in NE Gaul had a Late La Tene culture. I did not say that they personally and they alone developed La Tene. The power centres of the development of the La Tene Culture were around the rivers Marne and Moselle and in Bohemia.

Read you history on la Tene...............La tene area originally belonged to the Vindelici people , who where the first to be absorbed into the celtic ways of life due to celtic migration from central germany to southern germany.
But, the Romans correctly noted the vindelici are ethnically a sub branch of the raetian tribes, which is why it was called Rhaetica seconda, while the other raetia was Rhaetica prima

so, to conclude, the celts did not even have a southern german foothold in the bronze-age.

It amazes me how you try to delete from history, these minor tribes.

Jean M
08-22-2014, 07:04 PM
Ethnically gallic and celtic are different, to falsely claim the gauls are celts because they spoke celtic is very silly claim by an intelligenet person as yourself.

My definition of a Celt is a person speaking Celtic certainly. But it is not just me calling the Gauls Celts. Caesar did. The ancient Greeks did. Every modern scholar of the Celts has followed suit.

Genetically we can see the connection with other Celts.

You are on your own Vettor.

vettor
08-22-2014, 07:15 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallstatt_culture and prior to that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture and prior to that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_beaker



I said that the Belgae when they arrived in NE Gaul had a Late La Tene culture. I did not say that they personally and they alone developed La Tene. The power centres of the development of the La Tene Culture were around the rivers Marne and Moselle and in Bohemia.

I suggest you read 2013 book
The Rise of the Celts
By Henri Hubert

vettor
08-22-2014, 07:18 PM
My definition of a Celt is a person speaking Celtic certainly. But it is not just me calling the Gauls Celts. Caesar did. The ancient Greeks did. Every modern scholar of the Celts has followed suit.

Genetically we can see the connection with other Celts.

You are on your own Vettor.

Well, your linguistic definition is and always will be noted as an error, because languages hide the true ethnicity of people.

kind regards

Jean M
08-22-2014, 07:19 PM
Read you history on la Tene...............La tene area originally belonged to the Vindelici people , who where the first to be absorbed into the celtic ways of life due to celtic migration from central germany to southern germany.

Vettor - How much more misinformation are you going to present to this forum as fact? The actual site in Switzerland called La Tene was not the place that the La Tene culture began. It is just the first site where material of that culture was found in the 19th century. So when similar material was found in France, it was called "La Tene style". Then the same material was found in lots of other places. Eventually, by radiocarbon dating, archaeologists discovered that the earliest sites of the LTC were around the river Marne and Moselle and in Bohemia.

La Tene sprang out of the Hallstatt culture, but its power centres were further north.

It has nothing to do with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vindelici

mcg11
08-22-2014, 07:23 PM
My definition of a Celt is a person speaking Celtic certainly. But it is not just me calling the Gauls Celts. Caesar did. The ancient Greeks did. Every modern scholar of the Celts has followed suit.

Genetically we can see the connection with other Celts.

You are on your own Vettor.


I disagree with some of the philosophy you espouse here, esp. "Genetically we can see the connection with other celts". I don't believe for a minute that the Celts were a homogeneous genetic group. The Gauls certainly weren't, Caesar mentions invasions by Teutonic tribes after the Belgae displaced the Gauls in the lowlands. Just like Picts , the word Celt is overused and has no genetic meaning at all. JMHO.

Jean M
08-22-2014, 07:25 PM
languages hide the true ethnicity of people.

It can do today of course. But I'm not talking about modern times and the domination of English and a handful of other colonial languages. I'm not even talking about the Roman period, when Latin and Greek were so widely disseminated as the languages of literacy. I'm taking about the days when people almost invariably learned their first language from their biological parents.

It really would save a lot of time if you read Ancestral Journeys.

Jean M
08-22-2014, 07:29 PM
I don't believe for a minute that the Celts were a homogeneous genetic group.

I'm talking in broad terms. Heavy representation of R1b-P312 etc. Not saying that every single Celt belonged to that haplogroup. For heaven's sake.

As for Teutons. Good grief. Yes of course the Germani edged into Gaul even in Roman times and flooded in afterwards, just as they entered Britain. They were not Gauls. When we talk about Gauls, we mean Celts. When we mean Germani, we say Germani, or specifically the Franks in France, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes in Britain. OK?

vettor
08-22-2014, 07:32 PM
It can do today of course. But I'm not talking about modern times and the domination of English and a handful of other colonial languages. I'm not even talking about the Roman period, when Latin and Greek were so widely disseminated as the languages of literacy. I'm taking about the days when people almost invariably learned their first language from their biological parents.

It really would save a lot of time if you read Ancestral Journeys.

It can to do today and yesterday, there is no difference, it hides ethnicity.............didn't the vikings know Latin and they where not romanised, didn't the Romans know greek and they where not Greek. Language in ancient times as I state means zero for ethnicity. to claim otherwise is false.

Jean M
08-22-2014, 07:43 PM
.didn't the vikings know Latin and they where not romanised, didn't the Romans know greek and they where not Greek. Language in ancient times as I state means zero for ethnicity. .

No the Vikings did not know Latin. Once the Scandinavian nations were Christianised, they had priests who did. I suspect you are thinking of the development of runes from the Latin alphabet. That would be the result of just peripheral contact with the Roman world.

The best educated western (i.e. Latin-speaking mother-tongue) Romans knew Greek as a second language. Greek was the first language for those in Greece of course and became the standard language for the eastern empire. You seem very confused between mother-tongue (first language) and second languages learned at school or in connection with work, trade, religion etc. Only the mother-tongue is usually learned from biological parents.

All this is beside the point, since we know that the Gauls called themselves Celts.

alan
08-22-2014, 07:50 PM
That book was written around 100 years ago and the author has been dead since the 1920s. His ideas are very out of date.


I suggest you read 2013 book
The Rise of the Celts
By Henri Hubert

alan
08-22-2014, 07:55 PM
I dont really believe either the old Central European model of Celtic or the Atlantic one making Iberia the origin. Its more likely to me Celtic emerged in France rather than Germany or Iberia.

Scarlet Ibis
08-22-2014, 10:34 PM
Thread temporarily closed for cleanup.

A reminder: please do NOT engage in personal attacks. You can argue the point without attacking the person.

George Chandler
08-23-2014, 03:59 AM
So..how bout them Picts! :boxing:

Jean M
08-26-2014, 09:32 AM
Another book on the Picts came out in March this year. Benjamin Hudson, The Picts. http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Picts-Peoples-Europe/dp/1118602021/

I haven't read it yet, but purchased it recently. It has a scholarly format.

vettor
08-26-2014, 09:48 AM
Another book on the Picts came out in March this year. Benjamin Hudson, The Picts. http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Picts-Peoples-Europe/dp/1118602021/

I haven't read it yet, but purchased it recently. It has a scholarly format.

a summarised extract from the book basically states that the Romans called anyone on the other side of the wall, picts because they where uncivilized, while the civilized picts where called caledonians...........modern books are very poor in detail.

You need some bite from 18th or 19th century writers, like
Annals of the Caledonians, Picts und Scots; and of Strathclyde ..., Volume 1
By Joseph Ritson
and many others,.............. the type of books that explain the why,when and where....and not what we have mostly today

Jean M
08-26-2014, 09:57 AM
The abstract of the book is:


The Picts is a survey of the historical and cultural developments in northern Britain between AD 300 and AD 900. Discarding the popular view of the Picts as savages, they are revealed to have been politically successful and culturally adaptive members of the medieval European world. Re–interprets our definition of ‘Pict’ and provides a vivid depiction of their political and military organization Offers an up–to–date overview of Pictish life within the environment of northern Britain Explains how art such as the ‘symbol stones’ are historical records as well as evidence of creative inspiration. Draws on a range of transnational and comparative scholarship to place the Picts in their European context

Cover blurb:


The name Pict (‘Picture People’) was coined during the later Roman Empire to describe the Britons living north of Hadrian’s Wall. The Romans knew little about these northern people, which began their fame as the mystery folk beyond the Wall. But who were these shadowy, enigmatic figures depicted by classical authorities as ‘savages’? The Picts unlocks many of the mysteries long associated with their history by placing them within a European context. Contrary to popular tradition, the Picts were culturally sophisticated while politically and militarily divided into individual kingdoms such as Atholl and Fife. The variety of their daily life and religious orientation is narrated in literature and illustrated on monumental works of sculpture known as the ‘symbol stones’. Archaeological excavations reveal the material remains of Pictish society as the environmental diversity of the land is reflected in place names, artefacts, and habitation sites. Infused with scholarly rigor, The Picts offers dramatic new insights into these mysterious inhabitants of ancient Britain, their complex culture, and enduring appeal.

Jean M
08-26-2014, 10:04 AM
a summarised extract from the book basically states that the Romans called anyone on the other side of the wall, picts because they where uncivilized, while the civilized picts where called caledonians

It does not say anything of the kind Vettor. Why claim that it does, when anyone can easily see for themselves that it doesn't? It is even possible to read some of the book via Amazon or Google.

In the same way, those who have read Hubert on the Celts know that he does not say any of the strange things that you have been claiming as the history of the Celts. Perhaps you should read his books yourself.

vettor
08-26-2014, 10:45 AM
It does not say anything of the kind Vettor. Why claim that it does, when anyone can easily see for themselves that it doesn't? It is even possible to read some of the book via Amazon or Google.

In the same way, those who have read Hubert on the Celts know that he does not say any of the strange things that you have been claiming as the history of the Celts. Perhaps you should read his books yourself.

part of the sample my friend sent

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m153/vicpret/pict_zpscf5ab3bd.jpg (http://s103.photobucket.com/user/vicpret/media/pict_zpscf5ab3bd.jpg.html)

Jean M
08-26-2014, 10:52 AM
The idea that the Romans saw the tribes north of the wall as uncivilized because of their tattooing is reasonable. The author actually seems keen to refute the Roman idea that the Picts were uncivilized. It depends on the definition of civilized.

That the Romans called them "Picti", meaning 'painted', in contrast to the Romanised tribes within Britannia, has long been accepted, and has been stated several times already on this thread by me and others.

This is where you went totally wrong:


civilized picts were called caledonians

George Chandler
08-27-2014, 02:24 PM
I personally don't think the tattooing had anything to do with it. In my opinion the term uncivilized meant brutal, stubborn, vicious, etc in terms of warfare. The Romans considered most cultures they conquered as uncivilized. Some of the people below the wall were probably a bit more accommodating.

George

Jean M
08-27-2014, 03:43 PM
I personally don't think the tattooing had anything to do with it. In my opinion the term uncivilized meant brutal, stubborn, vicious, etc in terms of warfare.


I'm not even sure that the Romans actually used the word "uncivilized" about the Picts in writing anywhere. I can't recall any such reference. It is easy to guess that the Romans might well think the Picts uncivilized. They were outside the urban, literate empire. But frankly I don't get worked up about that. Lots of my ancestors were barbarians. The same is true of every monarch currently on a European throne. ;)

To be honest, when I read the blurb for the book, I thought that this stress on a "new" look at the Picts which would show that they were not uncivilized was a desperate attempt to find a new angle on a subject which has already been very well covered by recent scholarship. But I'm reserving my judgement until I read the book.

rossa
08-27-2014, 04:01 PM
Is there any Roman accounts where they talk about the people they encountered in what is now England, and if they were similar/different to those who would later become the Picts?
I know it's probably for a different thread but what did the Romans say about the "English"?

Jean M
08-27-2014, 04:12 PM
Is there any Roman accounts where they talk about the people they encountered in what is now England, and if they were similar/different to those who would later become the Picts? I know it's probably for a different thread but what did the Romans say about the "English"?

I'm sure you know that there were no English in Roman times, but I thought I had better clarify for the sake of other readers. :) Romans authors left a number of descriptions of the Celts that they found in Britain before and during the Roman conquest and fairly soon afterwards. You will find the names of the tribes and anything else we know about them on my pages: Celtic tribes of the British Isles: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/celtictribes.shtml

All the tribes were warlike, if that is what you are wondering.

rossa
08-27-2014, 04:26 PM
My main thought was that what is now England is very rarely spoke of in Celtic terms, I find it strange that a period of history is almost over looked. I'd say there are more modern reasons for that, I think you have heard you mention this in older posts.

Jean M
08-27-2014, 04:58 PM
My main thought was that what is now England is very rarely spoke of in Celtic terms, I find it strange that a period of history is almost over looked. I'd say there are more modern reasons for that, I think you have heard you mention this in older posts.

It is not so much overlooked as disguised under the term 'Iron Age'. "Celtic" became a taboo word. Very tiresome. People looking for information may assume that there isn't any. That's one good reason to have pages online called "The Celtic tribes of the British Isles". ;)

sparkey
08-27-2014, 05:58 PM
All the tribes were warlike, if that is what you are wondering.

Weren't the Dobunni decidedly not warlike? At least from a Roman perspective.

Jean M
08-27-2014, 06:28 PM
Weren't the Dobunni decidedly not warlike? At least from a Roman perspective.

I knew there would be queries on my blanket statement! :) Some British tribes/leaders were actually allied to the Romans and urging them to invade e.g. Mandubracius of the Trinovantes and King Togidubnus presumably of the Atrebates. Their main beef seems to have been the relentless expansionism of the Catuvellauni. The Romans would (and did) put a stop to it. The Dobunni, being western neighbours of the Catuvellauni, were also under pressure from their expansion and had lost territory to them. So they were probably quite pleased to see the legions, on balance. However it does look as though there was a split within the tribe on the matter. The Dobunni below the Avon had not suffered from the incursions of the Catuvellauni and may have thrown in their lot with the Durotriges to fight the Romans, judging by what seems to be the loss to the Dobunni of that territory in Roman times, but the territorial boundaries of the civitas are hard to work out.

Dubhthach
08-27-2014, 06:38 PM
I do sometimes wonder if the Welsh get annoyed by the likes of certain english nationalists claiming Boadicea -- after all she would be technically alot closer to modern day Welsh ;)

George Chandler
08-28-2014, 12:08 AM
I'm not even sure that the Romans actually used the word "uncivilized" about the Picts in writing anywhere. I can't recall any such reference. It is easy to guess that the Romans might well think the Picts uncivilized. They were outside the urban, literate empire. But frankly I don't get worked up about that. Lots of my ancestors were barbarians. The same is true of every monarch currently on a European throne. ;)

To be honest, when I read the blurb for the book, I thought that this stress on a "new" look at the Picts which would show that they were not uncivilized was a desperate attempt to find a new angle on a subject which has already been very well covered by recent scholarship. But I'm reserving my judgement until I read the book.

We all had to come from somewhere :)

It becomes a matter of the person's definition for what constitutes civilized. Similar to what defines a person being wealthy as most people don't see themselves as rich, but from the perspective of someone living in a state of poverty we are.

George

vettor
08-28-2014, 06:56 AM
It is not so much overlooked as disguised under the term 'Iron Age'. "Celtic" became a taboo word. Very tiresome. People looking for information may assume that there isn't any. That's one good reason to have pages online called "The Celtic tribes of the British Isles". ;)

You cannot deny the belgae influence in southern England in pre Roman times.

Jean M
08-28-2014, 08:46 AM
You cannot deny the belgae influence in southern England in pre Roman times.

Why would I deny it Vettor? It is fact. It is included in my Celtic tribes of the British Isles pages.
See http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/belgicengland.shtml

Folks - could we return this thread to the Picts please?