Hoots man, I haven't made any thing up because I did not post the original
article on Picts, perhaps you have been roaming in the gloaming again, or
in
the moonlight perhaps, och aye man!.
"allan connochie" <allan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:432f66e6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "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
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
