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

Re: [albanach] Pictland/Albanach discussion

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.