allan connochie wrote:
> "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.
What date was Hadrians Wall abandoned (i.e. the overrun event) ? Think
about your obvious historical blunder.
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.
>
How does the mixture of peoples at this stage in an industrial melting
pot give rise to a greater concentration of red-haired people than the
original ?
>
>
>
>
>>>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.
The genetic legacy of the highest percentage of red hair of any sizable
area in the world cannot just be dismissed. The only people described in
history with this characteristic were the Picts.
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
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
