Re: [albanach] Pictland/Albanach discussion
- At 2:43 AM -0600 5/28/03, Charles Penland wrote:
>I apologize for the faulty information that I referred to you.In answer toWhat is the source for this claim?
>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 itWhat is the source for these claims, especially the figure of "10%"?
>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 conquerAgain, what is the source for these claims?
>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.
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@...