Re: [tied] Pictish --------- (ORIGIN OF PICTS)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Michael J Smith <lookwhoscross-
eyednow@...> wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 00:53:48 +0200 "Milos Bogdanovic" <milos@...>
> writes:
>
> > Picts are natives, non-Indoeuropeans. Genetic reveals that there

are

> > only
> > two native populations on their area (antigens HLA-B12 and HLA-

B7).

> > These are Atlantic Mediterraneans (Megalitic culture of western
> > Europe),
> > and Finno-Ugric population. The first are very tall, the second

are

> > very
> > small,
> > etc. Picts are either of the first or of the second origin. ...
>
> Hi Milos, Indo-European is a cultral-linguistic grouping though,

not a

> racial one, and it seems that no non-Indo-European language

survived for

> our analysis in Britain.
> As for the Picts themselves, Nennius, Bede, Gildas and

archaeology all

> indicate the Orkneys as the place that the Picts first settled,

later

> moving further south, which explains why the Romans don't mention

them

> earlier than 298 AD. All the medieval chroniclers mention the

Picts as

> INTRUSIVE, not indigenous. We can trace them to the Broch

Dwellers in

> the Orkneys beginning in the first century B.C.,
> and this time fits well, as by the late 3rd century when they are
> mentioned by Romans they had spread this far south from the

north. They

> certainly must have absorbed mcuh of the indigenous population,

though.

>
> -Michael

**********
Bede does have a rather unlikely story that the Picts invaded
Ireland from "Scythia" (Scandinavia?) and were persuaded by the
Scots of Ireland to move on to the island to the northeast. I don't
have Nennius or Gildas handy to check.
Despite this, is there any reason not to believe that "Picti"
is simply the late Roman name for the people more formally known as
Caledonii etc., whose arrival in North Britain was in remote
prehistory (and more likely from the south than the north)?
Dan