Re: Picts, Celts and IE

>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.

In speaking of the relationship between Welsh, Cornish and Breton, Kenneth
Jackson states that we already see from the coming of the Saxons to the mid
5th century a division between West British (ancestor of Welsh and Cumbrian)
and South West British (ancestor of Cornish and Breton) and that we can
speak of "separating languages" in the mid 6th century and "separate
languages" by the end of the 6th (St. Columba's time period). Of course, St.
Columba was an Irishman by birth and despite claims of him being fluent in
Welsh, he might not have been a master of every dialect of British. I speak
English since birth, for example, but I still have a lot of difficulty in
understanding Geordies at times- I can't imagine somone who didn't have
English as their first language having much better success than me.

>> 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.

That means nothing, as we likely do not understand the full picture. The
Gauls, when electing their cheif magistrates (the Uergobretes), forbid the
election of any close relatives of a living ex-Uergobretos - thus limiting
the power of individual families - we likely have the same situation here.
It is also noteworthy that the Celtic men in general favored the sons of
their sisters (this may go back even to PIE custom - afterall, you KNOW your
sister's children are related - but you can't prove that your wife didn't
secretly have children fathered by another man) - which may explain the
importance of claiming descent from th mother as opposed to the father,
especially if the mother's brother was in a position of power/respect.

>> >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.

It certainly IS possible. G/C alternate all of the time in Celtic
languages - especially after R/L.

>>*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.

Nechtan isn't a Roman god - he is a Celtic god related linguistically and
functionally to a Roman god. Neptune is, likewise, the Roman reflex of a PIE
god - he is matched by Vedic/Avestan Apam Napat "descendant of the waters."
(The Irish and Roman Nechtain/Neptune show an alternate form of *Nepot, with
a divine suffix attached - thus the original of both was *Nept-on-os).

>>>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.

That means absolutely nothing as well - tatooing was common amongst all the
northern "barbarian" people - just because someone was tatooed does not mean
that the Romans would have called them a Pict. Most of Northern Europe at
that time would have been Pictish, then.
I think we have a long-standing false etymoligization of the name Pict due
to the similarity it hard to the Latin word - of course a Roman would have
the connection - but that doesn't prove that the word was of Latin origin -
only that over the course of time, it was eventually considered to be. There
are too many cases of false etymologies in acnient writings to accept this
one at face value.

>> Pretani is a nice Celtic word too, as Jackson notes.
>
>Actually Prettani = people of the designs.

Welsh Pryd can have three meanings:
1) Time
2) Aspect/Form/Complexion
3) Beauty (also Prydol "beautiful," and Prydus "handsome")
Welsh also has a verbal form Prydu meaning "to fashion" or "to compose(a
verse)" or "sing"

While its related Irish Cruth means:
1)Shape (verbal form means "to fashion/to shape").

I don't think we can definitively prove that Pretani means "people of the
design" - much better would be "beautiful ones" or "the craftsmen." Perhaps
we even have "the created ones" (just as we refer to all life as "all of
creation").

>The name they called
>themselves seems according to Morris have been the "Albani"
>"inhabitants of Alba or Albion, the oldest name of Britain.

That is not the correct form. *Albiani perhaps - but not "Albani."

>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.

I am confused here - you don't mean that I wrote the above, do you? I assure
you I didn't write that passage.

>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.......

<snipped>

>My thoughts exactly

>So you see we seem to have much in common

Except for the fact that I didn't write the above passage and I don't
believe that there is a non-Celtic element in Pictish (or at least no more
than exists in Gaulish).

-Chris Gwinn