Talk:Picts
|
|
| Contents |
Weird Science
I removed this paragraph ...
- Considering the red hair, pale white skin, and tall, robust appearance of most Highlanders, as well as the distinction of culture from Ireland, it is more likely that the Celtic placenames are due to the Scots who emigrated to their present day location and the Highlanders themselves are the remnants of Picts who may have been isolates of the Germanic people who were divided from the rest when the North Sea flooded the basin separating the Highlands and Norway mountain range.
... for these reasons.
1) Less than 20% of Highlanders have red hair, pale skin, etc. Most Highlanders have brown hair and pale but easily tanned skin.
2) Distinction of culture has grown with time since the original separation between the Scots of North-east Ireland and the Scots of western Scotland. A thousand years ago there was little or no distinction.
3) Scottish placenames are Goidelic Celtic and thus easily distinguishable from Pictish placenames which seem to be Brythonic Celtic, (ie like Welsh). Even when an area contains a mixture of Pictish and Scottish placenames, it's plain to see which is which.
4) The Germanic peoples only arrived on the coast of western Europe during the time of the Romans, and long after the North Sea separated Scotland and Norway so even if the Picts are Germanic, which seems unlikely based on the genetic and placename evidence, they can't have been "divided from the rest" in the manner suggested.
-- Derek Ross 16:04, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Same IP has made a bunch of similar edits. I reversed some of it in Goths. OlofE 18:52, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
P-Celtic Names
Are we sure that those with P-Celtic names can be linked with Picts? It seems more likely to me that they are simply remnants of Welsh-speaking kingdoms such as Strathclyde. -- User:62.254.128.4
We can definitely link them with the Picts. What we can't do is say for sure whether or not the Picts were Welsh-speaking kingdoms such as Strathclyde although the placename evidence suggests that they were. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:35, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
Woad or Something Else
The page [1] (http://www.cyberpict.net/sgathan/essays/woad.htm) gives a convincing argument against the commonly-held idea that Picts painted themselves with woad. Perhaps this should be investigated? --LDC
- I see what you mean. That is an interesting article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:55, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
Further investigation shows that the original Latin clause is "Omnes vero se Britanni vitro inficiunt, quod caeruleum efficit colorem, atque hoc horridiores sunt in pugna aspectu;". "Inficiunt" means "They dye (stain)" rather than "They tattoo". The overall meaning would be something like "Truly all Britons stain themselves with vitrum which produces a dark (blue or green) color, and by this (action) they are scarier from a fighting point of view;". I'll change the article slightly to remove the explicit reference to woad, since the experiences of those who have tried woad for dyeing or tattooing certainly suggest that "vitrum" was not woad even if Caesar actually thought that it was. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:02, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
On the other hand there is an interesting discussion about the meaning of vitrum at http://www.florilegium.org/files/PLANTS/woad-msg.html hidden among the instructions on producing dyes from woad. There is also a note from someone who says that a woad body paint is easy to produce, apply and remove. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:39, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
Pictish language
Sorry to say it, but gadzooks this all reads badly. It is particularly irritating to see Pictish discussed as a Brythonic language without a shred of linguistic data adduced. There are some interesting recent attempts to show that the language in Pictish Oghams are Norse by the way. I am not sure how to help this article, but it sure does need help. Other useful additions to this article would be about Pictish art, for instance, and Pictish Oghams. Evertype 16:34, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
- If you are unhappy with the current article please feel free to rewrite the unsatisfactory parts and add anything that is currently missing. We'd love to have a better article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:25, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)