On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 16:00:41 -0000 "CG" <
sonno3@...> writes:
Chris, if this is getting too off-topic, let me know and we'll continue
this on the Pictish group, but regarding what you said:
> Who says it's a tribal name? It is used as a national name, but
> 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?
also, I wrote:
>
> > You don't actually think that around 297 the Romans
> > started calling the people of N. Briton "the painted ones" do you?
you wrote:
> Umm...yes I do - because that's what the evidence suggests.
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 would 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.
again, you wrote:
> Because the Southern Britons were Romanized and likely no longer
> painted/tatooed themselves, while the Northern, non-Romanized
> Britons
> would have kept up native face painting/tatooing traditions. Picti
> would have been a bit of a slur towards these stubbornly barbaric
> 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 wrote:
>
> > As far as the Picts not being a single tribe, originally they
> were,
> but
> > over time as they had
> > expanded south from the Orkneys and Shetland they absorbed other
> N.
> > British peoples and later Picts was more of a collective
> designation.
> > From Nennius, Bede and Gildas we read that the Picts had come from
>
> the
> > continent overseas and settled in the Orkneys,
> > (and their staging point as Broch dwellers in the Orkneys is
> confirmed by
> > archaeology, oral tradition, the Norse (who referred to it as
> 'Pict
> > land') and the place name pit) and they didn't have their own
> women
> with
> > them so they obviously intermarried with native women, as did the
> later
> > Norse in the Orkneys and Man, and as the Spaniards did in the
> Americas.
> > They later expanded south from the far north, which explains why
> they
> > aren't mentioned by the Romans until 297.
you wrote:
> I'm sorry, but that just isn't supported by any actual evidence -
> 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:
The absence of a reference to the Picti until 297, which makes sense if
they had started in the far north and took time to expand southwards.
This expansion southwards is confirmed by archaeology- the broch dwellers
of the Orkneys are in the right place chronologically to support the
Medieval reference to this being their staging point, and many pictish
carving appear on the brochs. We see an expansion southwards of these
broch dwellers in the first centuries AD which further supports the idea
that they expanded southward.
In addition to this, the Norse referred to the Orkneys as "Pict land" and
the brochs have long been called "Pict houses." The Pictish place-name
"pit" is widely attested in the Orkneys, as would be expected if this was
their staging point.
Chris, I have provided what I think is a rational and valid explaination,
and if you're going to suggest otherwise, I would really like you to
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.
-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!