> > Who says it's a tribal name? It is used as a national name, butBecause the Scotti and the Picti _were_ two distinct peoples - and
> > there
> > is no single tribe of Picti in Northern Britain
> Chris, as I mentioned above, the Romans referred to the "savage
> tribes of Picti and Scotti", they are mentioned as a tribe along
> with the Scotti. Now it's true that Scotti was used as a
> designation for Gaelic raiders/settlers of NE Irish origin, but if
> Picti was a national name as you suggest, why don't they just
> mention "the savage tribes of Picti"?
> Why are 2 distinct peoples here mentioned?
> > Umm...yes I do - because that's what the evidence suggests.Umm, maybe because the Scotti were Irish, not Picts? Wed on't know
> And yet you have provided no such evidence. If Picti was used by
> the Romans as a nickname like this, then why don't they refer
> to "Picti Caledoni", "Picti Scotti", etc. as they did with the
> Picti Scythians?
> It just doesn't make sense that the Romans wouldYes, but by the 3rd century the southern Britains wouldn't have been
> at such a late date start calling N. Britons "the painted ones,"
> when they certainly were aware of their painting/tattooing habits
> long before this.
> > Because the Southern Britons were Romanized and likely no longerPicti
> > painted/tatooed themselves, while the Northern, non-Romanized
> > Britons
> > would have kept up native face painting/tatooing traditions.
> > would have been a bit of a slur towards these stubbornly barbaricDon't know what to tell you - this is accepted by the majority of
> > people, in the eyes of a Roman citizen.
> This is a weak explaination Chris, because the whole of S. Britain
> wasn't necessarily completely Romanized, there were many tribal
> areas outside of Romanized areas, and there were also Scotti in N.
> Britain who didn't fall under the Picti designation.
> > I'm sorry, but that just isn't supported by any actual evidence -Mike...there is no such evidence - at least nothing that modern
> > you only find it in medieval pseudo-histories, which cannot be
> > trusted very often.
> You're mistaken here, there is evidence, it isn't just the fact
> that it's mentioned by Nennius, Gildas and Bede, but that what they
> wrote about an overseas Pictish settlement in the FAR NORTH, with
> the Orkneys as a staging point, followed by an expansion southward
> is supported by the following:
> In addition to this, the Norse referred to the Orkneys as "Pictland" and
> the brochs have long been called "Pict houses." The Pictish place-name
> "pit" is widely attested in the Orkneys, as would be expected ifthis was
> their staging point.Pit comes from Gallo-Brittonic pettia "portion/parcel/piece", thus it
> Chris, I have provided what I think is a rational and validexplaination,
> and if you're going to suggest otherwise, I would really like you toI'm sorry, but I really don't have the time or energy to type up all
> provide evidence and reasons why you think contrary rather than just
> saying that you think it's unlikely. It would really be a lot more
> helpful if you did this.