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

Pictland/Albanach discussion

Expand Messages
  • northernpict
    As Pictland was coming under the control of Kenneth MacAlpin.The Northern Kingdom of the Picts.was being preserved by the Picto-Norse Jarls of orkney,Jarl
    Message 1 of 10 , May 24, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      As Pictland was coming under the control of Kenneth MacAlpin.The
      Northern Kingdom of the Picts.was being preserved by the Picto-Norse
      Jarls of orkney,Jarl Sigurd of Orkney together with Thorstein the
      red.Defeated the Scots army sent north.and acquired much
      terrirtory.With Thorstein's marriage to Groa daughter of Dungad
      (Duncan)King of Cait(Caithness).The Kingdom of the Northern Picts was
      secured.This is documented in the book "The Kings and Queens of
      Britain."
      This independent Kingdom of the Northern Picts.Existed until well
      into the 15th century.It's demise was heralded.By one of the most
      venerated documents in Scottish history."The Declaration of
      Arbroath".This single document.Gave the Norman invaders of Scotland.
      Authority to sieze the honors,lands,and possessions of the Pictish
      people.All with the popes consent.With the Pictish population
      comprising nearly 1/2 of the total population of Scotland at this
      time.It was indeed our bane.This is documented in the book Blacks
      surnames of Scotland and their origins.And the Declaration of
      Arbroath document.If you check.You will find that not one Scot or
      Pictish surname is on this document.They are Anglo-
      Saxon,Briton,Norman,and Flemish.
      Even after this great tragidy.The Pictish population has managed
      to survive into the 21st century.Albet changed but still intact.And
      with a renewed interest in it's own national identity.This can be
      documented. by the Kingdom of Pictland-in-Exile,and the Pictish free
      state.The Kingdom of Pictland-in-Exile is the most successful of the
      2.with nearly 700,000+ Pictish population.
    • Ed McGrath
      Are you calling the Gael immigrants (invaders) of Scotland Picts? Are you calling modern Highlanders Picts? And the names on the Document of Arbroath are
      Message 2 of 10 , May 24, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Are you calling the Gael immigrants (invaders) of Scotland Picts? Are you calling modern Highlanders Picts?

        And the names on the Document of Arbroath are Scot!

        Lad, remember that historic Scotland is made of of Gaelic speakers Highlander scot speakers. Our dear Mr. Wallace was a Scot speaker! Our now well beloved Border Reivers were Scot speakers.

        Your letter sounds pretty Victorian to me. I have read Victorian work that called the Highlanders Picts. They would never associate the colorfull natives with the Irish!

        Ed McGrath

        northernpict <charlespenland20@...> wrote:
        As Pictland was coming under the control of Kenneth MacAlpin.The
        Northern Kingdom of the Pacts.was being preserved by the Picto-Norse
        Jarls of orkney,Jarl Sigurd of Orkney together with Thorstein the
        red.Defeated the Scots army sent north.and acquired much
        terrirtory.With Thorstein's marriage to Groa daughter of Dungad
        (Duncan)King of Cait(Caithness).The Kingdom of the Northern Pacts was
        secured.This is documented in the book "The Kings and Queens of
        Britain."
        This independent Kingdom of the Northern Pacts.Existed until well
        into the 15th century.It's demise was heralded.By one of the most
        venerated documents in Scottish history."The Declaration of
        Arbroath".This single document.Gave the Norman invaders of Scotland.
        Authority to sieze the honors,lands,and possessions of the Pictish
        people.All with the popes consent.With the Pictish population
        comprising nearly 1/2 of the total population of Scotland at this
        time.It was indeed our bane.This is documented in the book Blacks
        surnames of Scotland and their origins.And the Declaration of
        Arbroath document.If you check.You will find that not one Scot or
        Pictish surname is on this document.They are Anglo-
        Saxon,Briton,Norman,and Flemish.
        Even after this great tragidy.The Pictish population has managed
        to survive into the 21st century.Albet changed but still intact.And
        with a renewed interest in it's own national identity.This can be
        documented. by the Kingdom of Pictland-in-Exile,and the Pictish free
        state.The Kingdom of Pictland-in-Exile is the most successful of the
        2.with nearly 700,000+ Pictish population.


        Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

        This is Albanach, a group devoted to the study and re-enactment of
        Scotland c. 503-1603 AD. Post messages to albanach@egroups.com. Alter
        your account or view the archives at www.egroups.com/list/albanach

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



        ---------------------------------
        Do you Yahoo!?
        The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Charles Penland
        The gael Immigrants were not invaders,Settlers yes.But not invaders.they had lived as subjects.And were allies of the Picts for hundreds of years.and were
        Message 3 of 10 , May 25, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          The gael Immigrants were not invaders,Settlers yes.But not
          invaders.they had lived as subjects.And were allies of the Picts for
          hundreds of years.and were extensively intermarried with the Pictish
          population.As for modern highlanders,No I am not calling them Picts.As only
          half of them can claim Pictish descent.When the declaration of Arbroath was
          signed,all those who signed it had only been in Scotland less than 2
          generations.some less.Even the Bruce was norman with extensive lands in
          England.As for the famed William Wallace,A great man by any standards.his
          ancestors were norman.he may have fought for Scotland.But 2 generations
          earlier his grand fathers were in England.They had been brought north in the
          reign of King Alexander.And as for our dear border reivers.They are indeed
          of native stock.But with Norman,and saxon overlords.Let me make sure we are
          talking of the same time period.11th and 12th century Scotland.As for being
          Victorian.They were not far off the mark with their statement.By the
          Victorian era.The Highlanders were no longer associated with the Irish.As
          their makeup was that of Picto-Norse-Scot.and alot of the Pictish customs
          were adopted and used by these very same Highlanders.In their fighting
          styles(Dirk,Targ,and highland charge) and their clan systems. which differ
          from those of the irish.In fact the Irish themselves referred to these
          people as Gallgael and gallowglasses.And referred to them as Different from
          themselves.so why would the Victorians refer to them as Irish.When they were
          so obviously not irish.in either their demeanor,Language, or Culture.As for
          myself.I am fairly contemperary in my veiws.As I use alot of empirical
          evidence.and modern archealogical research to come to my conclussions.Please
          do not take what I have said. to indicate my belief that these peoples.are
          not now of scots descent.or do not now speak a scots language.But at the
          time of the Declaration of Arbroath.This was not the case.
          Mr Macgrath,on another note.are you a Scot or an irishman?Your
          name itself is of Irish origins.from the Dal gCais of Thormond or North
          Munster Ireland.Your name refers to a family of poets and chroniclers to the
          O Briens.from tipperary and waterford.The name macgrath ran a bardic school
          at Cahir.and ruins of the Macgrath castle can still be seen in waterford.The
          Dal gCais are a very interesting tribe. which you may wish to research.
          Please feel free to contact me.either through this site or through
          e-mail.Thank You
          Charles Penland(NorthernPict)


          >From: Ed McGrath <mcgrath94596@...>
          >Reply-To: albanach@yahoogroups.com
          >To: albanach@yahoogroups.com
          >Subject: Re: [albanach] Pictland/Albanach discussion
          >Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 07:25:10 -0700 (PDT)
          >
          >Are you calling the Gael immigrants (invaders) of Scotland Picts? Are you
          >calling modern Highlanders Picts?
          >
          >And the names on the Document of Arbroath are Scot!
          >
          >Lad, remember that historic Scotland is made of of Gaelic speakers
          >Highlander scot speakers. Our dear Mr. Wallace was a Scot speaker! Our now
          >well beloved Border Reivers were Scot speakers.
          >
          >Your letter sounds pretty Victorian to me. I have read Victorian work that
          >called the Highlanders Picts. They would never associate the colorfull
          >natives with the Irish!
          >
          >Ed McGrath
          >
          >northernpict <charlespenland20@...> wrote:
          > As Pictland was coming under the control of Kenneth MacAlpin.The
          >Northern Kingdom of the Pacts.was being preserved by the Picto-Norse
          >Jarls of orkney,Jarl Sigurd of Orkney together with Thorstein the
          >red.Defeated the Scots army sent north.and acquired much
          >terrirtory.With Thorstein's marriage to Groa daughter of Dungad
          >(Duncan)King of Cait(Caithness).The Kingdom of the Northern Pacts was
          >secured.This is documented in the book "The Kings and Queens of
          >Britain."
          > This independent Kingdom of the Northern Pacts.Existed until well
          >into the 15th century.It's demise was heralded.By one of the most
          >venerated documents in Scottish history."The Declaration of
          >Arbroath".This single document.Gave the Norman invaders of Scotland.
          >Authority to sieze the honors,lands,and possessions of the Pictish
          >people.All with the popes consent.With the Pictish population
          >comprising nearly 1/2 of the total population of Scotland at this
          >time.It was indeed our bane.This is documented in the book Blacks
          >surnames of Scotland and their origins.And the Declaration of
          >Arbroath document.If you check.You will find that not one Scot or
          >Pictish surname is on this document.They are Anglo-
          >Saxon,Briton,Norman,and Flemish.
          > Even after this great tragidy.The Pictish population has managed
          >to survive into the 21st century.Albet changed but still intact.And
          >with a renewed interest in it's own national identity.This can be
          >documented. by the Kingdom of Pictland-in-Exile,and the Pictish free
          >state.The Kingdom of Pictland-in-Exile is the most successful of the
          >2.with nearly 700,000+ Pictish population.
          >
          >
          >Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
          >
          >This is Albanach, a group devoted to the study and re-enactment of
          >Scotland c. 503-1603 AD. Post messages to albanach@egroups.com. Alter
          >your account or view the archives at www.egroups.com/list/albanach
          >
          >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          >
          >
          >
          >---------------------------------
          >Do you Yahoo!?
          >The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
          >
          >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >

          _________________________________________________________________
          MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
          http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
        • bkwyrm@aol.com
          In a message dated 5/25/03 3:22:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... They how come they came conquering the locals, and maintained a separate kingdom, with a
          Message 4 of 10 , May 26, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 5/25/03 3:22:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
            charlespenland20@... writes:

            >
            > The gael Immigrants were not invaders,Settlers yes.But not
            > invaders.they had lived as subjects.

            They how come they came conquering the locals, and maintained a separate
            kingdom, with a distinct and separate language, as attested by the records of the
            day? Dalriada was independent of the Pictish kingdom.

            JfG


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Charles Penland
            May I suggest a resource.that will go along way in answering your questions.It is a book by David F.Dale called The History of The Scots,The Picts and The
            Message 5 of 10 , May 26, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              May I suggest a resource.that will go along way in answering your
              questions.It is a book by David F.Dale called "The History of The Scots,The
              Picts and The Britons.This book can also be veiwed online at
              http//ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/David Dale1/Hisco.htm .


              >From: bkwyrm@...
              >Reply-To: albanach@yahoogroups.com
              >To: albanach@yahoogroups.com
              >Subject: Re: [albanach] Pictland/Albanach discussion
              >Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 22:58:15 EDT
              >
              >In a message dated 5/25/03 3:22:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
              >charlespenland20@... writes:
              >
              > >
              > > The gael Immigrants were not invaders,Settlers yes.But not
              > > invaders.they had lived as subjects.
              >
              >They how come they came conquering the locals, and maintained a separate
              >kingdom, with a distinct and separate language, as attested by the records
              >of the
              >day? Dalriada was independent of the Pictish kingdom.
              >
              >JfG
              >
              >
              >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >

              _________________________________________________________________
              Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
              http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
            • Sharon L. Krossa
              ... The actual URL is http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DavidDale1/Hisco.htm And the book (really just web pages) is not in the least reliable -- I
              Message 6 of 10 , May 27, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                At 12:51 AM -0600 5/27/03, Charles Penland wrote:
                >May I suggest a resource.that will go along way in answering your
                >questions.It is a book by David F.Dale called "The History of The Scots,The
                >Picts and The Britons.This book can also be veiwed online at
                >http//ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/David Dale1/Hisco.htm .

                The actual URL is

                http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DavidDale1/Hisco.htm

                And the "book" (really just web pages) is not in the least reliable
                -- I recommend seeking out sound academic historians (whose works are
                the result of considerably more than "approx. 4 years of hard study".)

                Just as an example of some of the mistakes Dale makes on very simple
                information, he claims Manx is a P-Celtic language (like Welsh), when
                Manx if very clearly a Q-Celtic language (even in the Early Modern
                period Irish, Manx, and Scottish Gaelic were all mutually
                intelligible, while before the start of the Middle Ages Welsh and
                Gaelic weren't not). If he can't get this right, he can't be trusted
                to get anything more complicated right. (In general whenever he
                starts trying to argue based on linguistic or onomastic [names]
                evidence -- which he does a lot -- he demonstrates that he doesn't
                have much knowledge of linguistics or onomastics, but it isn't only
                the linguistics and onomastics he gets wrong. He also makes simple
                errors such as confusing matriliny with matriarchy, and misrepresents
                both the evidence and arguments both for and against supposed
                "Pictish matriliny". And we won't even get into the nonsense in the
                Arthurian section...)

                The web pages also has no footnotes and, when he says such things as
                "It is thought that they most likely originated from Spain and
                Portugal.", doesn't explain exactly _who_ "thinks" that. Is it some
                gullible nutcase who thinks that, or most respected academic
                historians who think that?

                With few exceptions, the only historians he appears to cite and quote
                are ancient and medieval ones -- whom he frequently takes at face
                value, without examining the reliability of their information and
                reporting. So far in my reading of his book, he hasn't cited or
                quoted any modern historian unless he agrees with that modern
                historian (and he does this very rarely).

                This is a significant problem since in his introduction he sets out
                his goal as to show that the medieval historians' version of early
                Scottish history is more reliable than the modern Scottish
                historians' version -- you can't do that without explicitly examining
                what modern historians say and explaining exactly why your own theory
                makes more sense than theirs.

                A related problem is that his main direct attacks on "modern"
                historians are on Thomas Innes and William Skene -- that is, on 18th
                & 19th century historians. In other words, his dismissal of the work
                of modern historians in favour of taking the claims of ancient and
                medieval historians at face value is based on the works of Innes and
                Skene and the 18th & 19th century contemporaries not being reliable.
                That's like saying the work of late 20th and 21st century physicists
                isn't as reliable as the work of ancient and medieval natural
                philosophers because the work of 18th & 19th century physicists isn't
                entirely reliable.

                Good modern (late 20th and 21st century) Scottish historians don't
                trust Innes and Skene without question any more than they trust the
                claims of ancient and medieval historians without question.

                In short, David Dale's whole book is based on attacking a strawman,
                gullibility, and ignorance, and the result is no more reliable (and
                probably considerably less reliable) than the works of Skene and
                Innes that he so dislikes. And he certainly hasn't presented any
                reason to prefer his interpretations over that of current academic
                historians.

                I recommend avoiding David Dale's web pages as far more harmful than
                helpful to those with an interest in real Scottish history -- and
                likewise not trusting any claims made that are based on David Dale's
                interpretations.

                Sharon, ska Effrick
                --
                Sharon Krossa, skrossa-ml@...
                Resources for Scottish history, names, clothing, language & more:
                Medieval Scotland - http://www.MedievalScotland.org/
              • Collin
                Wow this thing is still up? Man I though this was 86ed years ago I saw that some one had taken it printed it to hard copy and put it in a Clan tent ant a
                Message 7 of 10 , May 27, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Wow this thing is still up? Man I though this was 86ed years ago I saw that
                  some one had taken it printed it to hard copy and put it in a Clan tent ant
                  a highland game in Ga. a few years ago,and the person who was manning the
                  tent was qouting it almost verbatem..Sigh...when some one questioned him
                  about Dales wrtings and itts various
                  ...eckkkuhmmmm "Questionble takes on Scottish history
                  '(and no it wasnt Me.......for once) the guy was very defensive...My Biggest
                  beef if him Using Petter B Ellis as primary source...Crimney....whats next
                  Brigadoon as a example of Real highland culture?????



                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Sharon L. Krossa" <skrossa-ml@...>
                  To: <albanach@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 11:15 PM
                  Subject: [albanach] Review of David Dale _The History of the Scots, the
                  Picts, and the Britons_ (was: Pictland/Albanach discussion)


                  > At 12:51 AM -0600 5/27/03, Charles Penland wrote:
                  > >May I suggest a resource.that will go along way in answering your
                  > >questions.It is a book by David F.Dale called "The History of The
                  Scots,The
                  > >Picts and The Britons.This book can also be veiwed online at
                  > >http//ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/David Dale1/Hisco.htm .
                  >
                  > The actual URL is
                  >
                  > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DavidDale1/Hisco.htm
                  >
                  > And the "book" (really just web pages) is not in the least reliable
                  > -- I recommend seeking out sound academic historians (whose works are
                  > the result of considerably more than "approx. 4 years of hard study".)
                  >
                  > Just as an example of some of the mistakes Dale makes on very simple
                  > information, he claims Manx is a P-Celtic language (like Welsh), when
                  > Manx if very clearly a Q-Celtic language (even in the Early Modern
                  > period Irish, Manx, and Scottish Gaelic were all mutually
                  > intelligible, while before the start of the Middle Ages Welsh and
                  > Gaelic weren't not). If he can't get this right, he can't be trusted
                  > to get anything more complicated right. (In general whenever he
                  > starts trying to argue based on linguistic or onomastic [names]
                  > evidence -- which he does a lot -- he demonstrates that he doesn't
                  > have much knowledge of linguistics or onomastics, but it isn't only
                  > the linguistics and onomastics he gets wrong. He also makes simple
                  > errors such as confusing matriliny with matriarchy, and misrepresents
                  > both the evidence and arguments both for and against supposed
                  > "Pictish matriliny". And we won't even get into the nonsense in the
                  > Arthurian section...)
                  >
                  > The web pages also has no footnotes and, when he says such things as
                  > "It is thought that they most likely originated from Spain and
                  > Portugal.", doesn't explain exactly _who_ "thinks" that. Is it some
                  > gullible nutcase who thinks that, or most respected academic
                  > historians who think that?
                  >
                  > With few exceptions, the only historians he appears to cite and quote
                  > are ancient and medieval ones -- whom he frequently takes at face
                  > value, without examining the reliability of their information and
                  > reporting. So far in my reading of his book, he hasn't cited or
                  > quoted any modern historian unless he agrees with that modern
                  > historian (and he does this very rarely).
                  >
                  > This is a significant problem since in his introduction he sets out
                  > his goal as to show that the medieval historians' version of early
                  > Scottish history is more reliable than the modern Scottish
                  > historians' version -- you can't do that without explicitly examining
                  > what modern historians say and explaining exactly why your own theory
                  > makes more sense than theirs.
                  >
                  > A related problem is that his main direct attacks on "modern"
                  > historians are on Thomas Innes and William Skene -- that is, on 18th
                  > & 19th century historians. In other words, his dismissal of the work
                  > of modern historians in favour of taking the claims of ancient and
                  > medieval historians at face value is based on the works of Innes and
                  > Skene and the 18th & 19th century contemporaries not being reliable.
                  > That's like saying the work of late 20th and 21st century physicists
                  > isn't as reliable as the work of ancient and medieval natural
                  > philosophers because the work of 18th & 19th century physicists isn't
                  > entirely reliable.
                  >
                  > Good modern (late 20th and 21st century) Scottish historians don't
                  > trust Innes and Skene without question any more than they trust the
                  > claims of ancient and medieval historians without question.
                  >
                  > In short, David Dale's whole book is based on attacking a strawman,
                  > gullibility, and ignorance, and the result is no more reliable (and
                  > probably considerably less reliable) than the works of Skene and
                  > Innes that he so dislikes. And he certainly hasn't presented any
                  > reason to prefer his interpretations over that of current academic
                  > historians.
                  >
                  > I recommend avoiding David Dale's web pages as far more harmful than
                  > helpful to those with an interest in real Scottish history -- and
                  > likewise not trusting any claims made that are based on David Dale's
                  > interpretations.
                  >
                  > Sharon, ska Effrick
                  > --
                  > Sharon Krossa, skrossa-ml@...
                  > Resources for Scottish history, names, clothing, language & more:
                  > Medieval Scotland - http://www.MedievalScotland.org/
                  >
                  >
                  > This is Albanach, a group devoted to the study and re-enactment of
                  > Scotland c. 503-1603 AD. Post messages to albanach@egroups.com. Alter
                  > your account or view the archives at www.egroups.com/list/albanach
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >
                  >
                • Charles Penland
                  I thank you both Mrs.Krossa,Collins, In pointing out Mr.Dale s unreliability as a resourse, His writtings will no longer be referenced.nor referred by me. ...
                  Message 8 of 10 , May 28, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I thank you both Mrs.Krossa,Collins,
                    In pointing out Mr.Dale's
                    unreliability as a resourse, His writtings will no longer be referenced.nor
                    referred by me.

                    >From: "Collin" <wking3@...>
                    >Reply-To: albanach@yahoogroups.com
                    >To: <albanach@yahoogroups.com>
                    >Subject: Re: [albanach] Review of David Dale _The History of the Scots, the
                    >Picts, and the Britons_ (was: Pictland/Albanach discussion)
                    >Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 23:30:05 -0400
                    >
                    >Wow this thing is still up? Man I though this was 86ed years ago I saw that
                    >some one had taken it printed it to hard copy and put it in a Clan tent ant
                    >a highland game in Ga. a few years ago,and the person who was manning the
                    >tent was qouting it almost verbatem..Sigh...when some one questioned him
                    >about Dales wrtings and itts various
                    >...eckkkuhmmmm "Questionble takes on Scottish history
                    >'(and no it wasnt Me.......for once) the guy was very defensive...My
                    >Biggest
                    >beef if him Using Petter B Ellis as primary source...Crimney....whats next
                    >Brigadoon as a example of Real highland culture?????
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >----- Original Message -----
                    >From: "Sharon L. Krossa" <skrossa-ml@...>
                    >To: <albanach@yahoogroups.com>
                    >Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 11:15 PM
                    >Subject: [albanach] Review of David Dale _The History of the Scots, the
                    >Picts, and the Britons_ (was: Pictland/Albanach discussion)
                    >
                    >
                    > > At 12:51 AM -0600 5/27/03, Charles Penland wrote:
                    > > >May I suggest a resource.that will go along way in answering your
                    > > >questions.It is a book by David F.Dale called "The History of The
                    >Scots,The
                    > > >Picts and The Britons.This book can also be veiwed online at
                    > > >http//ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/David Dale1/Hisco.htm .
                    > >
                    > > The actual URL is
                    > >
                    > > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DavidDale1/Hisco.htm
                    > >
                    > > And the "book" (really just web pages) is not in the least reliable
                    > > -- I recommend seeking out sound academic historians (whose works are
                    > > the result of considerably more than "approx. 4 years of hard study".)
                    > >
                    > > Just as an example of some of the mistakes Dale makes on very simple
                    > > information, he claims Manx is a P-Celtic language (like Welsh), when
                    > > Manx if very clearly a Q-Celtic language (even in the Early Modern
                    > > period Irish, Manx, and Scottish Gaelic were all mutually
                    > > intelligible, while before the start of the Middle Ages Welsh and
                    > > Gaelic weren't not). If he can't get this right, he can't be trusted
                    > > to get anything more complicated right. (In general whenever he
                    > > starts trying to argue based on linguistic or onomastic [names]
                    > > evidence -- which he does a lot -- he demonstrates that he doesn't
                    > > have much knowledge of linguistics or onomastics, but it isn't only
                    > > the linguistics and onomastics he gets wrong. He also makes simple
                    > > errors such as confusing matriliny with matriarchy, and misrepresents
                    > > both the evidence and arguments both for and against supposed
                    > > "Pictish matriliny". And we won't even get into the nonsense in the
                    > > Arthurian section...)
                    > >
                    > > The web pages also has no footnotes and, when he says such things as
                    > > "It is thought that they most likely originated from Spain and
                    > > Portugal.", doesn't explain exactly _who_ "thinks" that. Is it some
                    > > gullible nutcase who thinks that, or most respected academic
                    > > historians who think that?
                    > >
                    > > With few exceptions, the only historians he appears to cite and quote
                    > > are ancient and medieval ones -- whom he frequently takes at face
                    > > value, without examining the reliability of their information and
                    > > reporting. So far in my reading of his book, he hasn't cited or
                    > > quoted any modern historian unless he agrees with that modern
                    > > historian (and he does this very rarely).
                    > >
                    > > This is a significant problem since in his introduction he sets out
                    > > his goal as to show that the medieval historians' version of early
                    > > Scottish history is more reliable than the modern Scottish
                    > > historians' version -- you can't do that without explicitly examining
                    > > what modern historians say and explaining exactly why your own theory
                    > > makes more sense than theirs.
                    > >
                    > > A related problem is that his main direct attacks on "modern"
                    > > historians are on Thomas Innes and William Skene -- that is, on 18th
                    > > & 19th century historians. In other words, his dismissal of the work
                    > > of modern historians in favour of taking the claims of ancient and
                    > > medieval historians at face value is based on the works of Innes and
                    > > Skene and the 18th & 19th century contemporaries not being reliable.
                    > > That's like saying the work of late 20th and 21st century physicists
                    > > isn't as reliable as the work of ancient and medieval natural
                    > > philosophers because the work of 18th & 19th century physicists isn't
                    > > entirely reliable.
                    > >
                    > > Good modern (late 20th and 21st century) Scottish historians don't
                    > > trust Innes and Skene without question any more than they trust the
                    > > claims of ancient and medieval historians without question.
                    > >
                    > > In short, David Dale's whole book is based on attacking a strawman,
                    > > gullibility, and ignorance, and the result is no more reliable (and
                    > > probably considerably less reliable) than the works of Skene and
                    > > Innes that he so dislikes. And he certainly hasn't presented any
                    > > reason to prefer his interpretations over that of current academic
                    > > historians.
                    > >
                    > > I recommend avoiding David Dale's web pages as far more harmful than
                    > > helpful to those with an interest in real Scottish history -- and
                    > > likewise not trusting any claims made that are based on David Dale's
                    > > interpretations.
                    > >
                    > > Sharon, ska Effrick
                    > > --
                    > > Sharon Krossa, skrossa-ml@...
                    > > Resources for Scottish history, names, clothing, language & more:
                    > > Medieval Scotland - http://www.MedievalScotland.org/
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > This is Albanach, a group devoted to the study and re-enactment of
                    > > Scotland c. 503-1603 AD. Post messages to albanach@egroups.com. Alter
                    > > your account or view the archives at www.egroups.com/list/albanach
                    > >
                    > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                    >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    > >
                    > >
                    >

                    _________________________________________________________________
                    Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
                    http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
                  • Charles Penland
                    I apologize for the faulty information that I referred to you.In answer to your question. Dalriada was indeed a seperate Kingdom.But For most of it s
                    Message 9 of 10 , May 28, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I apologize for the faulty information that I referred to you.In answer to
                      your question. Dalriada was indeed a seperate Kingdom.But For most of it's
                      existance.It owed it's allegience to the king of the Picts.On occation it
                      would revolt and through off the Pictish control for short periods of
                      time.only to have them return and regain control.The royal houses of both
                      people interacted extensively.They intermarried,Fostered their children with
                      each other,allied in battles against the Britons,Anglo-Saxons,Other
                      Picts,and Vikings.for hundereds of years.It has been shown that the Scottish
                      takeover of the Picts.Was not one of conquest,But of mutual assimilation.As
                      the Scots only made up but 10% of the Population.If they did conquer
                      Pictland it would have been a desert.and the Norse,Britons,and
                      Anglo-Saxons.Would have taken the whole thing away from the Scots.This would
                      not be a case of Martial prowess.The shear number of rivals would have seen
                      to their demise.so we are left with a merger of the two peoples.In the south
                      this was the case.In the North the Pictish nobility had merged with that of
                      the Norse.In a seperate Northern Pictish Kingdom.


                      >From: bkwyrm@...
                      >Reply-To: albanach@yahoogroups.com
                      >To: albanach@yahoogroups.com
                      >Subject: Re: [albanach] Pictland/Albanach discussion
                      >Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 22:58:15 EDT
                      >
                      >In a message dated 5/25/03 3:22:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
                      >charlespenland20@... writes:
                      >
                      > >
                      > > The gael Immigrants were not invaders,Settlers yes.But not
                      > > invaders.they had lived as subjects.
                      >
                      >They how come they came conquering the locals, and maintained a separate
                      >kingdom, with a distinct and separate language, as attested by the records
                      >of the
                      >day? Dalriada was independent of the Pictish kingdom.
                      >
                      >JfG
                      >
                      >
                      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >

                      _________________________________________________________________
                      MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
                      http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
                    • Sharon L. Krossa
                      ... What is the source for this claim? ... What is the source for these claims, especially the figure of 10% ? ... Again, what is the source for these claims?
                      Message 10 of 10 , May 31, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 2:43 AM -0600 5/28/03, Charles Penland wrote:
                        >I apologize for the faulty information that I referred to you.In answer to
                        >your question. Dalriada was indeed a seperate Kingdom.But For most of it's
                        >existance.It owed it's allegience to the king of the Picts.

                        What is the source for this claim?

                        >On occation it
                        >would revolt and through off the Pictish control for short periods of
                        >time.only to have them return and regain control.The royal houses of both
                        >people interacted extensively.They intermarried,Fostered their children with
                        >each other,allied in battles against the Britons,Anglo-Saxons,Other
                        >Picts,and Vikings.for hundereds of years.It has been shown that the Scottish
                        >takeover of the Picts.Was not one of conquest,But of mutual assimilation.As
                        >the Scots only made up but 10% of the Population.

                        What is the source for these claims, especially the figure of "10%"?

                        >If they did conquer
                        >Pictland it would have been a desert.and the Norse,Britons,and
                        >Anglo-Saxons.Would have taken the whole thing away from the Scots.This would
                        >not be a case of Martial prowess.The shear number of rivals would have seen
                        >to their demise.so we are left with a merger of the two peoples.In the south
                        >this was the case.In the North the Pictish nobility had merged with that of
                        >the Norse.In a seperate Northern Pictish Kingdom.

                        Again, what is the source for these claims?

                        While it is true that there was a complex history between the Scots
                        of Dal Riata and the Picts, and the Picts did not disappear (as their
                        language and culture did well before the advent of the Anglo-Normans)
                        simply due to straight forward conquest and extermination, from
                        reading this post and your earlier posts, it sounds to me like you
                        may have been getting your interpretations too much from unreliable
                        popular books and web pages and not enough from sound, reliable
                        history books on the subject of early Scotland.

                        In particular, note that when the Gaelic kings consolidated their
                        acquisition of Pictland, the Pictish language and culture rapidly
                        disappeared, replaced by the Gaelic language and culture. Yes, it is
                        unlikely (in the extreme!) that this happened by killing off all the
                        Picts -- but after a couple generations of the descendants of the
                        Picts speaking Gaelic and not Pictish, and intermarrying with Gaels
                        from elsewhere (who themselves might have British or Norse ancestors
                        as well as Gaelic ones), it is a little strange to keep talking of
                        Picts as if they still existed. Likewise in Orkney and Shetland,
                        etc., where Pictish language and culture was replaced by Norse
                        language and culture. (So, for example, by the time of the
                        Declaration of Arbroath -- in the early 14th century -- there hadn't
                        been any Picts in Scotland for a number of centuries, so it can
                        hardly have given authority to anybody to seize anything from the
                        Picts, as suggested in one of your earlier posts.)

                        Having Pictish ancestors is not the same thing as being Pictish.
                        (This can sometimes be a hard concept for we USAmericans and others
                        from immigrant nations to keep in mind, given the common US practice
                        of using nationality terms to refer to ancestry rather than current
                        nationality/citizenship/culture/etc, as when a USAmerican speaks of
                        being "Scottish" in reference to their ancestry rather than to their
                        citizenship or where they themselves were born and raised. But even
                        most USAmericans agree that a Scot born in Scotland, raised in
                        Scotland, and with UK citizenship is "Scottish" in quite a different
                        way than a USAmerican whose ancestors left Scotland a century ago,
                        whether or not they also have German, French, and/or Italian
                        ancestors.) In the context of discussing history, it is vitally
                        important to keep clear the distinction between ancestry and
                        contemporary culture, nationality, etc.

                        Sharon, ska Africa

                        PS BTW, please note that it is very hard to read text when there no
                        spaces after punctuation marks like periods and commas.
                        --
                        Sharon L. Krossa, skrossa-ml@...
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.