Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Expand Messages
  • John
    ... What is the basis for this? (I am honestly asking -- I don t know whether he did or not, but if he did I d like to know what the source of the information.
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 11, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      >and that when Kenneth MacAlpin became king he need
      >translators to talk to his subjects,

      What is the basis for this? (I am honestly asking -- I don't know
      whether he did or not, but if he did I'd like to know what the source
      of the information.
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      --------------------------------------
      I made a mistake; it was Saint Columba, 1.) We do know that the Picts
      spoke a non-Celtic language, as St. Columba's biographer, St.Adamnan
      clearly stated that the Irish saint needed a translator to preach to
      the Pictish King Brude. If Pictish was a Q-Celtic language then it
      would be similar to Q-Celtic Irish, why did he need a translator? 2.)
      Romans always made distinction between Britons, Scots and Picts,
      never calling them the same tribe. In fact, the name the Picts called
      themselves is unknown; some linguists suppose it was too hard to
      pronounce by Indo-Europeans, so every nation gave Picts a different
      name. Celts called them Cruthne or Cruithne; according an ancient
      legend, this was the name of the first Pictish king.

      >because they did not speak a
      >Gaelic or Celtic language, which simply means they were not a Celtic
      >people, and were not part of the early Celtic migrations.

      You sound much more confident about who the Picts were and what
      language they spoke than are the Pictish experts ;-)
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      --------------------------------------
      I have read about 20 different opinions on this matter and have found
      that the art work of the Pictish people does not match any type of
      artwork found anywhere in Europe. If the Picts were Celtic then why
      is their artwork only found in Scotland and not along the migration
      route that the La Tene Celts or earlier Hallstatt Celts followed I
      have found that the Irish, Britton, Welsh and Picts used the ogham, a
      Celtic writing system. The Irish, Britton and Welsh inscriptions have
      been translated because they used a Celtic type language, but all of
      the ogham inscriptions found in Pictish Scotland have not been
      translated because they are in the non-Indo-European Pictish
      language. This could point to the aboriginal people using a later
      cultures system of writing but still using their older language.
      ===============================================================.
      Second, language is independent from ancestry. (USAmericans and most
      Canadians should be more aware of this than most -- we speak English
      but most of our ancestors did not.) Whether or not the Picts spoke a
      Celtic language at the time of Kenneth MacAlpin does not in and of
      itself tell us anything about whether they were part of any earlier
      Celtic migrations. Consider, you yourself indicate that you believe
      that the Scottish Highlanders were ancestrally descended from Picts
      n yet they spoke Gaelic.
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      ----------------------------------.
      They spoke Gaelic after they were invades and conquered by the Celtic
      Irish. But as stated above the language used in the Scottish Ogham
      has not been translated, and most scholars contribute that to being
      a "Pictish" language that is not part of the Indo-European grouping.
      ============================================================
      Finally, last I heard, modern scholars believe that Pictish was
      Probably a Brythonic language, and at any rate some kind of Celtic
      language. But they aren't sure whether the Picts spoke something else
      earlier than Pictish, and if so, what it was. There isn't a lot of
      information to go on for the Picts or Pictish, so there are many
      questions about them that currently just can't be answered or can
      only be answered tentatively. As a result, the learned opinion of the
      Pictish scholars tends to be a moving target -- I don't even know
      what the current theory is regarding with what wave of migration the
      Picts arrived in Scotland.
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      ---------------------------------------
      Why is it so hard to say, "Just maybe the Picts were a aboriginal
      people that were there when the Hallstatt and La Tene cultures came
      to the British Isles." From what I understand to state "Pictish was
      probably a Brythonic language " is what can only be called a guess,
      without evidence, but there has been evidence to show the contrary.

      ===============================================================
      >This is a subject that seems to make everyone uneasy, because it goes
      >against what is the popular opinion,

      I don't think it has anything much to do with going against popular
      opinion (even assuming for the sake of argument that it does go
      against popular opinion), it has to do with not having much evidence
      to go on. One should be uneasy drawing conclusions from such limited
      evidence.
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      -----------------------------------.
      I have found in the SCA we have what can only be called a party line,
      it is what I call "History as according to the SCA", which means that
      someone wrote a paper describing in his or her opinions of history
      and it has been accepted as doctrine and is not to be questioned.
      Well I have small amounts of evidence that most people refuse to even
      look at because it goes against the "History as according to the
      SCA". I have seen people making statements about subjects with little
      or no evidence and using others old research, they then state the
      information as fact.
      ===============================================================.
      >but I feel that the Pictish
      >influence had more to do with the highland culture than what most
      >people believe.

      Based on what?
      (Note that I'm not saying there definitely wasn't much Pictish
      influence -- I'm saying that we need to work from actual evidence
      before deciding that some aspect of Highland culture is due to
      Pictish influence, let alone deciding relatively how much or how
      little of Highland culture in any time was/is due to Pictish
      influence.)
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      ---------------------------------
      Well I can only say that many people state that "Highland Scots
      shared the same culture as the Irish" is a prime example of
      speculation.
      St. Adamnan clearly stated that the Irish saint needed a translator
      to preach to the Pictish King Brude, whish shows that they spoke a
      different language and were pagan, which clearly shows a different
      culture.
      "They (the Scottish) were recognized among the Irish Soldiers by the
      distinction of their arms and clothing, their habits and
      language."(McClintock, Old Highland Dress)
      This is a description in 1594 by members of the Irish culture
      describing what can only be a different culture.
      =========================================================.
      >Any help spreading light on this subject would be of
      >great help.
      >If you have opinions that differ from mine please be civil and act
      >like adults, we are all here to learn and if you refuse to listen to
      >views other than your own then you are refusing to learn.

      You know, if you want to encourage civil discussion, it isn't a good
      idea to start out insulting people with the assumption that the
      discussion will not be civil or adult without prompting to behave
      from you, nor with the assumption that people who disagree with you
      are refusing to listen rather than disagreeing for cause.
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      -----------------------------.
      I did not mean to insult anyone, and am only requesting that people
      be civil, because in the past I have been ridiculed because i
      disagree with others opinion of history, I have had people make
      treats of physical harm because I go against what they believe.
      I have found that some think they know everything about everything
      in history which is impossible, when most scholars will tell you we
      are only scratching the surface and that there are many different
      points of view and many different interpretations of the same
      evidence. As I have stated before "to have static view of history is
      a bad thing, when history is dynamic and changing with each new
      discovery".
      i posted my original post to get more info, not to defend the
      information i now have

      John


      P.S i found a good web site on picts i have not read it all but it
      looks good
      http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DavidDale1/Hisco.htm
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.