Hi Chris
> Please don't be insulted by this, John, but I think that some of
your comments are off-base.
No insult taken...
> >Picts had a language with some celtic elements, but it seems that
> >much of their language was non-celtic.
>
> Respectfully, John, how can you make such a statement? There is
absolutely no evidence for this. All the examples of Pictish we have
seem to point to it being closely related to Brittonic.
I got it from the following,
http://members.tripod.com/~Halfmoon/ plus
other research done on the net regarding Picts. Quote
"The origins of the Picts are clouded with many fables, legends and
fabrications, and there are as many theories as to who the Picts were
(Celtic, Basque, Scythians, etc.), where they came from, what they ate
or drank, and what language they spoke, as there once were Pictish
raiders defying the mighty legions of Rome. Legend tells us that Rome's
mighty Ninth Legion, the famous "Hispana" legion, which had earned its
battle honors in Iberia, conquering
Celtic Spain for Caesar is never heard of again when faced against the
Picts (they actually surfaced years later in Israel). We do know that
the Picts may have spoken a non-Celtic language, (although many
Celtophiles feel the Picts
spoke a Brythonic-Gaulish form of Celtic language) as St. Columba's
biographer clearly stated that the Irish saint needed a translator to
preach to the Pictish King Brude, son of Maelchon, at Brude's court
near the shores of Loch
Ness. At other times the Pictish king lived at Scone, and we know there
often were two separate Pictish kingdoms of Northern and Southern
Picts. We know that they were mighty sailors, for the Romans feared the
Pictish Navy almost
as much as the wild men who came down from the Highlands to attack the
villages along the wall. We also know that as far as the 9th century
they wrote in stone a language which was not far in design from the
Celtic "Ogham" script but was not Celtic in context. By the lagacy of
their standing stones, we know that they were great artists as well. It
is also well known that the Picts were one of Western culture's rare
matrilinear societies; that is, bloodlines passed
through the mother, and Pictish kings were not succeeded by their sons,
but by their brothers or nephews or cousins as traced by the female
line in (according to the scholar Anthony Jackson) a complicated series
of intermarriages by
seven royal houses.
It was this rare form of succession which in the year 845 A.D. gave the
crown of Alba and the title Rex Pictorum to a Celtic Scot, son of a
Pictish princess by the name of Kenneth, Son of Alpin. This Kenneth
MacAlpin, whose father's
kingship over the Scots had been earlier taken over by the Pictish king
Oengus, who ruled as both king of Picts and Scots, and who possibly
harbored a deep ethnic hatred for the Picts, and in the event known as
"MacAlpin's
Treason" murdered the members of the remaining seven royal houses thus
preserving the Scottish line for kingship of Alba and the eventual
erasure from history of the Pictish race, culture and history.
As for Columba being unable to understand Pictish you say that at
Columba's time the Brittonic dialects were diverging. That is news to
me. I understood that Brittonic was still almost one language until
the Northumbrian Angles under Edwin managed to capture Chester, and the
Wessex Saxons under Creoda had separated the Dumnonii from
Gloucestershire.
Even then there was considerable comings and goings across the
Brittonic/Cumbrogi region which suggested a great degree of linguistic
similarity.
> >The Picts, unlike most other IE people
> >were strongly matrilineal (although matrilineal connections have
been
> >found within British Celtic substratum = Boudicca Queen of Iceni,
> >Cartimandua Queen of the Brigantes, Maev of Connaught etc), with
the
> >throne passing to the husbands of the Pictish Queen and her
daughters
> >husbands.
>
> Statements about alleged Pictish matrilinear descent may just as
likely be misunderstandings of the actual situation - without concrete
proof, we cannot say that they definitely were matrilinear. Remember,
also, that Madb of Connachta is a MYTHIC character - a goddess - and
does not necessarily reflect actual Irish practices.
I would suggest you checkout the Pictish Kinglist. It reads
Talorg son of Aniel 448-452
Nechton Morbet son of Erip 452-476
Drust Gurthinmoch 476-506
Galanan Erilich 506-518
Drust son of Fudrus 518-523 (joint)
Drust son of Girom 518-528
Garthnac son of Girom 528-535
Cailtran son of Girom 535-536
Talorg son of Muircholaich 536-547
Drust son of Munait 547-548
Galam Cennaleph 548-553
Bruide son of Mailcon 553-584
Gartnait son of Domelch 584-595
Nechtan nepos Werb 595-615
Cinioch son of Lutrin 615-634
Gartnait son of Fochel 634-639
Bruide son of Fochel 639-644
Talorg son of Fochel 644-656
Talorgen son of Enfret 656-660
Gartnait son of Domnall 660-666
Drest son of Domnall 666-673
Bruide son of Bili 673-694
Taran son of Entifidich 694-698
Bruide son of Derelei 698-709
Nechtan son of Derelei 709-c.720
Carnach son of Ferach c.720-722
Angus son of Fergus c.722-723
Nectan son of Derelei (again) 723-724
Angus son of Bruide 724
Alpin son of Angus (or Eochaid) 724-729 (joint)
Drust son of Talorgen 724-729
Angus son of Fergus 729-759
Bruide son of Fergus (or Angus) 759-761
Ciniod son of Feredach 761-773
Alpin son of Ferach (or Angus) 773-777
Drust son of Talorgen 777-778
Talorgen son of Drust 778-782
Talorgen son of Angus 782-785
Canaul son of Tarl'a 785-790
Constantine son of Fergus 790-820
Angus son of Fergus 820-834
Drust son of Constantine 834-837 (joint)
Talorgen son of Fothoil 837
Eogan son of Angus 837-839
Ferach son of Bargoch 839-842
Bruide son of Ferach 842
Ciniod son of Ferach 842-843
Bruide son of Fochel 843-845
Drust son of Ferach 845-847
Ciniod son of Alpin 847-858
(alias Kenneth I mac Alpin of Scots)
From this you will see there is no rule of patriarchal succession.
Whilst the later names are all Gaelic the earlier names are not. In
fact the Talorgen son of Enfreth was in fact a son of Eanfrith, king of
Northumbria, and married into the Pictish royal family, in the same way
that Bridei ap Malgwyn had been in the time of Columba. Talorgen had
in fact a better claim to the Northumbrian throne than had the current
incumbent Oswy, who attacked Pictland as a result. When the English
king of the Picts died the following year, the Scotts imposed two
kings, Garnait son of Domnal, and Drest, another son of Domnal king of
the Scotts. The Picts managed to assert their independence in 673 by
appointing another Bridei, son of the British king of the Clyde as wife
to their ruling princess.
> >Pictish kings Talorc, Nechtan and Drust have names
> >that do not appear to fit into any Celtic etymology,
>
> gee... how about *Talo-Orcos "brow of a boar," (Celtic Tal-os
"brow," Celtic orc-os "boar")
The original is Talorg. Unless you can show a shift from orc to org
and then back again, I don't think the etymology holds.
*Nechtonos "divine descendant" or "god of the waters" (*Nep-t-on-os or
*Nebh-t-on-os related to Roman Neptune), and
Hard to see how Neptune, as a Roman god, got beyond the Antonine wall
amongst fiercely anti-Roman Picts. Again I would suggest a bit of a
long bow.
*Drustos "brave one" (Welsh drusiad "warrior"). Not hard to etymologize
with a Celtic twist one bit.
> >The non-Celtic element (possibly non-IE) was particularly strong in
> >northern Scotland. The Attacotti, who accompanied the Picts in
their
> >southern raids across Hadrians Wall at the close of the 4th
century,
> >seem to also have been non-Celtic speakers. Place names in the
> >Attacotti area suggest the non-Celtic elements were highly
concentrated
> >in this region.
>
> Evidence please? Since the Attacotti have a Celtic tribal name, I
highly doubt they weren't Celtic speakers.
John Morris again
"Beyond the Picts lived several other peoples. Long before the Romans
came the western coasts and islands were inhabited by a people whose
small defended strongholds are nowadays called duns.... they were alien
to the people of Ireland, who knew their land by the simple
geographical expression of Iardomnan, the western lands; and they were
perhaps the unnamed raiders who savaged the northern coasts of
Christian Ireland in the years from 617 to 619. But the people who
mastered the Orkneys built more formidable castles called brochs. They
are tall round towers, swelling at the base, with their habitable rooms
in the thickness of the wall that encloses open space. They were the
castles of conquerors for, on a few sites where excavated evidence
outlines thei hitory, their inhabitants moved out after a few
generations, to live beside their ruins in more convenient houses that
needed no such defences.
Orkney conquests spread. More than 100 brochs held Caithness and
guarded the valleys and estuaries beyond, on the west and the south.
In the early Roman centuries, brochs in numbers controlled Skye and the
nearby coasts and islands, subduing the duns of the northern Iardomnan.
A few reached further. Half a dozen penetrated southern Pictish lands
on the upper firth and the Tay estuary, and another half dozen extended
into the Lothians and Galloway. But they did not survive Roman
conquest of the lowlands, to Forth and Clyde....
The national names of the builders of the brochs and duns is not
remembered. But the name of one people is known, whose exact location
is not recorded. Late fourth-century Romans encountered a peculiarly
savage nation, called the Attacotti, who lived near the Picts and the
Scotts. The word is British..., not Irish and means the "very old
people", the aborigines; and there is no trace of such a name among the
richly documented people of Ireland. It is therefore probable that
they lived in northern Britain. Their name is matched by a few traces
of an aboriginal language. Columba met one old man who came to Skye
and spoke a tongue that was neither Irish nor British. Speakers of an
older language seem to have survived in Pictish territory.
> >The Picts got their name from the Romans, Pictii meaning "painted"
so
> >it has no etymological similarity to the Pictones, a Vasconic
people of
> >Aquitaine, so the Basque connection (based upon a false etymology)
> >cannot be sustained.
>
> I don't know why you say this - it is just as likely that Pictaui
and Pictones are related to Picti and that Picti is not actually a
Latin name, but a Celtic name given a false Latin etymology by later
writers. I think we might see the root of Pict in PIE *kwek- "see."
I quote again from
http://members.tripod.com/~Halfmoon/
"Venit et extremis legio praetenta Britannis, Quae Scotto dat frena
truci ferronque notatas Perlegitexamines Picto moriente figuras"
The above words of the Roman poet Claudian perhaps give the only
physical description of the race of people known as Picts who once
raided Roman Britain, defeated the Angle-Saxon invaders and in one of
the great mysteries of the
ancient world, disappeared as a separate people by the end of the tenth
century. "This legion, which curbs the savage Scot and studies the
designs marked with iron on the face of the dying Pict," are the
Claudian words which give some insight as to the name given by Rome to
the untamed tribes north of Hadrian's Wall . The Romans called this
pre-Celtic people Pictii, or "Painted," although Claudius' words are
proof that (as claimed by many historians), the
ancient Picts actually tattooed their bodies with designs.
> >They called themselves Prettani - from which it
> >is believed the Romans derived the name Britain. In Ireland, by the
> >C-P shift they were known as Cruithne.
>
> Right - and Pretani is a nice Celtic word too, as Jackson notes.
Actually Prettani = people of the designs. The name they called
themselves seems according to Morris have been the "Albani"
"inhabitants of Alba or Albion, the oldest name of Britain. Whilst
Morris believes them to have been Celtic (neither British nor Gaelic,
but a third language) he states "A scatter of forts beyond their
borders, many of them destroyed by fire, witness their failure to
subdue the far north west" (homeland of the Attacotti/Iardomnan.)
Chris again
> Mostly because Pictish used a different ogam orthography than Irish
- thus the confusion, mistransciption and false etymologization of the
Pictish names
I would here quote
http://www.panix.com/~mittle/names/tangwystyl/pictna
mes.html
However, in the north, there is fragmentary evidence of names that do
not appear to be of Celtic origin. Some of the personal names appearing
in the lists of "kings of the Picts" also appear to be non-Celtic,
although many are clearly of Celtic origin. Additionally, there are
Ogham inscriptions from the north that include names and name formulas
that are consistant with those in the Pictish king-lists, but that are
otherwise indecipherable. (By "indecipherable" I mean primarily that
the letters, interpreted according to the usual Ogham correspondences,
form words that are not understandable as any known language," end quote
Thus that the names appear to have used the Celtic Ogham orthography, I
would suspect that the rest of the monument also used the same...
ergo... another language.
Chris wrote
>From all of this, it is at least convenient, if not necessarily
completely correct, to lump all the "non-Celtic" linguistic evidence
from
the north of Britain under the label "Pictish". In the case of the
earliest place-names, it is perfectly possible that there are also
remnants of unrelated non-Celtic, non- "Pictish" languages that left no
other trace or comment in the record. For the sake of
accuracy, this should be acknowledged, but from a practical viewpoint,
there is no reason not to lump all the non-Celtic material
into one consideration.
Agreed... hence my quotes from Morris.
Some writers describe Pictish as a Celtic language with an admixture of
some non-Celtic substrate. The amount of Celtic influence on the
recorded forms of Pictish names is considerable (about which, more
later). In some cases, the influence may have been on the actual names
themselves, but in many it can be demonstrated to be a later scribal
artifact only affecting the recorded forms, similar to the recording of
many vernacular names in Latinized forms. It is certain that whatever
non-Celtic element existed in Pictish eventually disappeared. What is
in question is whether that element had been reduced to mere vocabulary
items in a Brythonic matrix by the time of the earliest records or
whether non-Celtic Pictish was still a viable language at that point,
although with significant Brythonic borrowings. The best argument for
the presence of non-Celtic Pictish at a fairly late date comes from the
Ogham inscriptions of the 8-9th century in which some non-Celtic
element appears to be strongly present.
Agreed...
Chris again
Of the non-Celtic element in Pictish, the best conclusion is that it is
a remnant of one of the no-doubt numerous languages prevalent in Europe
before the spread of the Indo-European language family. Basque is the
only remnant of this type surviving today, although there are early
records of others, such as Etruscan, that did not survive. (Other
modern non-Indo- European languages such as the Finno-Ugric group
arrived later than the Indo-European spread.) For this reason, some
writers have tried to relate Pictish to Basque directly. There seems to
be no direct evidence for this, and to assume a relation simply based
on being non-Indo-European is nonsensical. The origins and relations of
the Pictish language may never be known, short of the discovery of some
bilingual "Rosetta Stone".
My thoughts exactly
So you see we seem to have much in common
Regards
John