Hi Chris, you wrote:
> No one's ever proven such a thing - and I don't think they could,
> since Brittonic and Gaulish are virtually the same language (which
> is
> why many Celticists speak of "Gallo-Brittonic" as a language
> family).
So, either Gaulish could have been a dialect of Brittonic, Brittonic
a dialect of Gaulish or they both were branches of a common
Gallo-Brittonic?
you also wrote:
> I really doubt there is any connection between the Picts of Britain
> and the Pictones of Gaul -
And yet there are strong reason to consider that they were. First of
all, the Picts in Alba were also known as Pictones. Regarding this, we
see some Belgic tribes from W. Gaul in Britain and Ireland (the Menapii,
Parisii, etc.), as they had closer contact with Britain, and the Pictones
lived in this area in Gaul among Belgic tribes, so it is very possible
tht they settled in Britain from this area, as did the Belgic tribes that
did so (Menapii, Parisii,
etc.).
Secondly, Gerald of Wales wrote (this is also mentioned in the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which is probably where Gerald got this):
"....found at the Orkney Islands a fleet which had brought Basclenses
there from Spain. .......They were urgent in their request that he should
give them some land to inhabit. Eventually the king...gave them that
island that is now called Ireland.....Secondly, the city of Bayonne is on
the boundary of Gascony, and belongs to it. It is also the capital of
Basclonia, whence the Hibernienses came. And now Gascony and all
Aquitaine rejoices in the same rule as Britain."
This sounds similar to the Medieval account of the Picts. And the
Pictones were an Aquatanian tribe, so that might explain the Basclenes
connection mentioned by Gerald and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
You also wrote:
first of all, the Picts of Britain were
> even originally styled as such, and it seems most likely that they
> were called Picti "Painted ones" by Romans (or Romanized Britons) of
>
> the south because the northern Britons kept up native British
> tatooing traditions, which were not favored by Roman citizens and
> seen as a sign of barbarism. Pictones seems to me to be a genuine
> Gaulish tribal name ("the Audacious/Strong ones", from Gaulish
I wasn't even aware that this etymological connection to the Latin
'pictus' was even considered anymore, and is probably a false
etymological method.
It is an unlikely connection because of the following:
1. The Romans had encountered tatooed peoples before, and so wouldn't
have needed come up with a new name for a tatooed tribe.
2. Pictum is never used by Romans to describe Celtic tatooes.
3. The Romans used the term 'Picti' as a tribal name and in Old Norse it
is 'Pettr', in Old English it is 'Poehta' and in Old Scots Gaelic Pecht,
and these all seem to be variations on a tribal name.
-Michael
> - Chris Gwinn
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!