"Bob and Doris Jones" <bobianjones@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:v%UWe.51066$FA3.15094@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> allan connochie wrote:
> > "Bob and Doris Jones" <bobianjones@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > news:s3LWe.49548$FA3.41768@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >>hawker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>... I am publi****ng it as I go along so there will be a need for
> >>>constant updates.
> >
> > IMHO the huge percentage of red-haired people
> >
> >>in Brigantia is a direct genetic legacy of the Picts (the highest
> >>percentage of anywhere in the world).
> >
> >
> > Fairytale stuff.
> Not at all. You have mixed events separated by centuries as if they
> occurred at the same time in your post - that is the stuff of fairy
tales.
No I haven't. I've simply stated the obvious fact that if any significant
movements of people from the area once known as Pictland (that is the area
in Scotland north of the Antonine line excepting that part known as
Dalriada) into northern England occurred then it happened in the
Industrial
Revolution period and after. We know that many Scots move into England
during this period. There is no such Dark Age evidence, or even
tradition,
for any such settlement from Pictland into northern England. You've just
made it up. Or else someone else has and you've fallen for it.
> > The various Pictish kingdoms were north of the
> > Forth/Antonine/Clyde line.
> Originally, but according to folk tradition in Galloway the last Pictish
> speaker died in SW Galloway
Nonsense. There is no evidence of Pictish being spoken in Galloway never
mind tradition of it lasting beyond Pictish in the Pictish speaking areas.
Galloway was as far as we know completely Brittonic speaking before the
Gaelic language became dominant. The folk memory you are speaking off in
all probability is referring to Gaelic which is thought to have died out
in
the 17thC though some say it hung on beyond that. I may disagree with
Bogman on enough things but he's absolutely correct over this matter. The
powers in the area were Stratchlyde and Rheged which were both
Brittonic/***bric kingdoms and they were a clear continuation of the
earlier
Brittonic tribal powers. There was an Anglian takeover of power for a
limited period though there is no proof of any significant settlement.
There was however a later influx of Gaels from either the Hebrides or
Ireland or possibly both. The idea of Galloway Picts is an invention from
two sources. One is from a brief line in Bede where he states that Ninian
carried out his conversion of the southern Picts from Whithorn. Bede
doesn't actually say that the southern Picts were in Galloway (they were
in
fact in Fife and southern Perth****re) but others assumed that because
Whithorn was way to the south of the Pictish area then Galloway must also
have been Pictish. The other source is from people throwing the lable
Pict
about willy-nilly. The area known as Pictland was in that part of
Scotland
already stated north of the Antonine. Pictish was, according to virtually
every serious specialist on the subject nowaday, a form of P-Celtic which
was similar to the ***bric spoken by the Brittonic tribes of southern
Scotland and northern England. The area where Pictish was spoken is
reasonably marked out by place-name evidence as well as archaeological and
historical evidence. It is also thought that there was at least one other
non-Celtic language spoken by at least a section of the Picts.
and the distingui****ng Pictish
> characteristic was a high predominance of red hair. The fairy folk of
> Gaelic legend and folk tales also traditionally have red hair with small
> stature. It is generally agreed that diminuatives are used for the
> earlier inhabitants of area.
> > The land of the Brigantes was way to the south
> > in northern England.
> They may have straddled what is now the border with Scotland.
> Cantimandua was after all an ally to the Romans.
We don't know exactly where the tribal divisions were that's true. The
point was though that the Brigantes were way, way, to the wouth of the
Pictish area. That is beyond question. The area of the Votadini
stretched
from Stirling, along the southern side of the Firth of Forth through the
Lothians and right down to the present border and possibly beyond. The
tribes who later merged as Picts lay to the north of the this tribe and
the
Brigantes lay to the south. Three other Brittonic tribes (Damnonii,
Novantae and Selgovae lay to the west. The Carvetii centred near Carlisle
may
well have straddled the present border in the west and they are thought by
some to
have been a sub-grouping of the Brigantes but even they are way way south
of
any Pictish territory.
> > Seperating them were the Brittonic tribes of the
> > Southern Uplands and central Scotland, some of whom 'may' have been
more
> > closely connected to the Brigantes in pre-Roman tribes.
> The Meaetae of the Scottish lowlands were thought to have been largely
> exterminated by the Roman military. There was a "vacuum" left population
> wise.
Totally irrelevant though for the area in question. We are talking about
the huge expanse of the Southern Uplands and the former Brittonic parts of
central Scotland south of the Forth/Antonine line. The Meaetae were
forerunners of the southern Picts and were north of this area in Fife and
surrounds, which was part of Pictland and no-one would dispute that. The
term Scottish Lowlands is meaningless in this question as the Lowlands
stretch right up the eastern coast of Scotland as well as taking in much
of
the southern Pictish area north of the Forth anyway. You seem to be
thinking that because the Meaetae were in the Lowlands then they must have
been in the south of Scotland? That's completely incorrect.
The Meaetae
> > The later northern British kingdoms, especially in the west, certainly
traversed what is now
> > the Scottish/English border, but these kingdoms were Brittonic units
and
had
> > nothing to do with any Pictish expansion.
> The Picts were also Brittonic (with Gaelic influence from
> intermarriage), but a northern expansion of Cymraeg into Southern
> Scotland also occurred.
> > No such southerly expansion
> > happened perhaps apart from in the Firth of Forth area.
> Study the progressive building of brochs further and further south from
> northern Scotland (Hebrides,Orkeys and Caithness - Pictich state of Cat)
> until the really big later ones were built as far south as Edinburgh.
> They were "fronting" the Romans until their chance came as Rome became
> weakened.
> > The attacks during
> > the Barbarian Conspiracy by Scots and Picts in the area in question
were
> > just massive raids and not conquests of territory.
> Vortigern supposedly brought in the first Saxon and Jute mercenary
> leaders (who at the same time oversaw the forced uprooting of the
> Angles-Frisians from their homeland to Middle England) to rid the land
> of the Picts who had overrun two-thirds of what is now England. This was
> only successful in Middle England. In the North of England the Angles
> only came as military overlords. The Picts were a redoubtable people and
> would have given stiff resistance. They had military discipline, had
> effective battle formations and used SunTzu-like tactics.
Quite frankly this is nonsense. There is no evidence of any succesful
Pictish settlement in northern England. They were raiding and any
mercenaries would have probably been employed to repel the raids. If you
have evidence to the contrary then just supply it. That is supply any
evidence showing Pictish settlement in the north of England. Supply any
evidence to show that the Pictish kingdom stretched down to the Border.
However to do that you need to wipe the Brittonic tribes of southern
Scotland off the map. The area didn't fall into northern control until
the
late 10thC and early 11thC when the Kingdom of Alba (ie after the Pictish
period) expanded south. Even at that on the border and especially in the
east there seems to have been only negligable influx of population
amounting
to a few land holders.
Allan
|
