Is it still appropriate to talk of a problem of the Picts



Is there a “problem of the Picts”?

Aim: To examine whether the Picts are really a problematic people.

In his seminal study of 1955, Frederick Wainwright wrote that at the heart of “The Problem of the Picts" was the question of "who were the Picts and where did they come from?" He said one should not speak of Picts before A.D. 297, when we find the first recorded use of the term Picti by the Roman panegyrist Eumenius, who compared the struggle between Constantius and Allectus with the struggle between Julius Caesar and the Britons, who were used to enemies like the Picti and Hiberni (Irish).

However, more recent scholars such as Alfred Smyth and Leslie Alcock have dismissed the suggestion that the Picts were a “problematic” people of obscure character and origins. Smyth states that the word Pict is essentially an historical term, introduced by Classical writers and taken up by early medieval monastic scribes, to describe an historical people who lived in northern Britain from c.A.D. 300 to A.D. 900. The word picti, meaning "painted people", was probably originally coined by Roman soldiers who applied this military slang to their barbarian enemies living north of the Forth and Clyde in Caledonia, almost certainly because they dyed or tattooed their skin; and it stuck perhaps because of its vague resemblance to Priteni, a name which the Picts were called by their Celtic neighbours. Indeed, it is claimed by some scholars that the Celtic tribal and district name, Fortriu (Latin Verturiones), means the people of the symbols, reinforcing the hypothesis that their distinguishing feature was body decoration.

 

Issues contributing to the perceived problem of the Picts

Contemporary historians such as Smyth, Alcock, Sally Foster and Anna Ritchie argue that much of the perceived “problem” of the Picts originates in historians’ over-reliance upon sources which were written not by the Picts themselves, but by peoples who were their enemies, and therefore had a vested interest in portraying them as being somehow different and more barbaric. Roman authors portrayed the Picts as barbaric in an attempt to justify both their attempts at conquering North Britain, and their failure to do so. Meanwhile other key sources include the mid-6th century Concerning the Ruin and Conquest of Britain, which was written by a British monk, Gildas, who was scathing in his criticism both of the Picts, Scots and Anglo-Saxons who were attacking his homeland, and the ineffective leaders who failed to stop them; and the Venerable Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English Peoples, written in A.D. 731. Such accounts are full of myths and misconceptions, and are also heavily biased. Modern historians now believe that studies of archaeological remains, including the Pictish symbol stones themselves, can help us gain a much better understanding of the Picts than was previously thought. For this reason Alcock believes that it is no longer valid to talk of a “problem” of the Picts.

In brief, traditionalist scholars have thought of the Picts as a people:

• Of obscure origin

• With a non-Indo-European language

• Who are historically identifiable in eastern Scotland, north of the Forth, from A.D. 297 to about A.D. 845

• Who may only be identified archaeologically through their sculptured stones

• Who are the least understood of the early historic nations of Scotland

• Who were regarded by their neighbours as especially savage and bestial.

Sally M. Foster suggests a similar list of six issues which have been responsible for the evolution and sustenance of the supposed problem of the Picts:

• Pictish symbols

• Pictish language

• Matrilineal succession

• The Foul Hordes paradigm (barbarism)

• The lack of Pictish documentary sources

• The idea of the Picts as a lost people.

 

The validity of the issues contributing to the problem paradigm

Obscure Origin?

This idea largely comes from Bede, who claims that the Picts came across the sea from Scythia (in the west of modern Russia) and that, having no womenfolk with them, they obtained brides from the Irish. Bede adds that as a condition of obtaining these brides, they agreed that “when any dispute arose, they should choose a king from the female royal line rather than the male.” However, the suggestion that the Picts were immigrants to Scotland is now almost universally rejected by historians (with the exception of a few on the fringes of historical research, such as Paul Dunbavin). Smyth points out that Eumenius assumed that Picts were traditional enemies of the Britons who had been resident in the north since the time of Caesar. It is now widely accepted that the Picts were simply the descendants of the tribes of Northern Britain who lived north of the Antonine Wall and had been resident since the Iron Age or even earlier, and that they represented an amalgamation of these earlier Celtic tribes, who coalesced largely as a reaction to the external pressure exerted by the Roman invasions. Smyth even claims that all artefacts and monuments north of the Forth-Clyde isthmus (including the Northern and Western Isles) from the 7th century BC to A.D. 850 may be described as Pictish.

Non-Indo-European Language?

This debate is ongoing, and some relatively recent commentators such as Charles Thomas and Isabel Henderson have suggested that Pictish society continued to contain a substantial pre-Celtic population which spoke an “archaic”, “aboriginal” language. Thus there remains the possibility that two different languages may have been spoken in Pictland in historical times. Linguistic differences need not be surprising given that it is widely acknowledged that the Pictish kingdom was formed from a union of at least 12 once-distinct tribes, according to Ptolemy’s map. Adomnan records in his Life of St Columba that Columba, who originated from Ireland and spoke the q-Celtic Gaelic language, needed an interpreter when he spoke with the Pictish king, Bridei.

However, most current historians such as Kathryn Forsyth and Sally Foster now agree that the Picts were essentially a Celtic people who spoke a p-Celtic language which was closely related to that spoken by their neighbours, the Britons; and no scholars dispute the fact that a p-Celtic language was spoken by at least part of the population of Pictland. Professor Nicolaisen went so far as to state that for the purposes of his exploration of Pictish place-names the option that Pictish was a pre-Celtic, non-Indo-European language would not be considered. In discussing the place-name element Pit-, he says it is agreed among scholars to mean piece, portion or share of land and is from a form of p-Celtic.

Matrilineal Succession?

The issue of matrilineal succession is also controversial. As mentioned above, the suggestion that Pictish succession passed through the maternal line originates in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English Peoples. It is certainly true that the Pictish king-lists nowhere record that a son succeeds his father, and this fact certainly suggests that the Picts did not follow a patrilinear system of succession. However, the counter-argument is that since fathers’ names rather than mothers’ names are given in the Pictish king-lists, this suggests matriliny was unlikely. Indeed, as has already been mentioned, Bede’s story – which is connected with an origin-myth which has already been discounted, and may largely reflect an attempt on the part of Bede’s Scottish sources to strengthen Scottish claims to the Pictish throne – stresses that heirs were only chosen from the maternal line if the succession was disputed. It may well be that the Picts practised another system of succession, tanistry, in which a king’s successor was elected from a close royal kindred during his lifetime. A similar system was used in contemporary Ireland, where there were a number of royal dynasties from the various Irish provinces and a High King was chosen from among them. Such a system hopefully decreased the likelihood of conflict between the competing royal kindreds as well as avoiding the rule of a weak boy king in the case of the early death of the ruler – which was a frequent occurrence in an age when kings were war-leaders above all else. Therefore when Smyth speaks of the existence of an “oscillating system” of inheritance in Pictland, there were clear parallels between with other Celtic societies of the day, and such a system seems all the more likely if Pictland was indeed formed from a amalgamation of once-distinct tribes.

Foul Hordes?

Since the Picts lived in the most northerly parts of Britain, they would have been less influenced by the “civilising” influence of Rome than the “Romanised” Britons of the south. The Picts appear to have been slower and more reluctant to convert to Christianity than any of their neighbours, and the evidence of the symbol stones suggests a slow transition from paganism towards the full adoption of Christianity among Pictland’s elite. Indeed, there is some evidence that, even as late as the mid-8th century, the Picts adhered to ancient pagan rituals: the Irish Annals of Tigernach record that in A.D. 739 the king of Atholl, Talorcan, was drowned by his rival Oengus (Angus). Such a death is reminiscent of the peat-bog sacrifices of the earlier Celtic Iron Age.

However, in most respects it is unlikely that the Picts were significantly more “barbaric” than their neighbours, and it is probable that this impression of the Picts is largely founded upon the bias of the few written sources which are available. Bede, a monk at the Northumbrian monastery of Jarrow, writing about A.D. 731, used sources which are known to be unreliable, notably Gildas’ Concerning the Ruin and Conquest of Britain, which cast the Picts as foul hordes. Both Bede (an Angle) and Gildas (a Briton) came from peoples who had a natural antipathy towards the Picts. Whilst Bede at least made some attempt to write an objective history, his focus was on the Angles and he only touches on the Picts in passing. Meanwhile Gildas is “well known for the forthright and somewhat over-theatrical phraseology he used,” as Lloyd and Jenny Laing have observed: he writes of the “foul hordes of Scots and Picts, like dark throngs of worms who wriggle out of narrow fissures in the rock when the sun is high and the weather grows warm.” Overall, the “Foul Hordes” paradigm can be dismissed. It was a convention of writers to describe their enemies as given to monstrous atrocities - the commonplace jibes of neighbours – and we lack Pictish sources to redress the balance.

Least understood?

The Picts have traditionally been viewed as the most “mysterious” of the early historic nations of Scotland, and the lack of written sources means that constructing a reliable narrative of Pictish history is certainly problematic. Only one text can be claimed to be Pictish, the so-called king-lists, which give lengths of reigns. A list compiled in A.D. 724 may have been derived from notes kept in the margin of Easter tables. However these were transcribed much later, in the 14th century, and obviously contain scribal errors and/or reflect later political interests. Nonetheless, although there is a lack of written documentation on the Picts, there is a wealth of archaeological monuments and artefacts now established as Pictish, and recent archaeological studies have contributed greatly towards developing modern academics’ understanding of Pictish culture and society.

Traditionally, the Pictish symbol stones have been considered to have imbued the Picts with an “aura of mystery” (Anna Ritchie). Many of the Pictish symbols – of which at least 50 different examples have been found – are unique to Pictland, and even if they can be identified, they remain open to interpretation. Scholars continue to debate the origins and purposes of the Pictish symbol stones, and undoubtedly it is these above all else which continue to mark the Picts out as a distinctive people. Despite this, the existence of the stones provides invaluable information about the geographical distribution of the Picts and clearly indicates a society which had sufficient economic resources to support skilled craftsmen. They also provide useful insights into the Picts’ social values and demonstrate that Pictish society – like that of their Celtic ancestors - was heroic, warrior-based and hierarchical. It can also be argued that they can be used to trace the religious transition within the Pictish kingdom during the historical period, from polytheistic paganism (Class I stones) to monotheistic Christianity (Class III).

Meanwhile, other aspects of Pictish material culture can further aid our understanding of the Picts. Smyth observes that the historical Picts continued to use similar fortifications to their Celtic ancestors of the Iron Age. Both vitrified and timber-laced forts ultimately derive from a common Celtic ring-fort or hill-fort ancestry. They have a chronological range from the 8th century BC to the end of the Pictish period and timber-lacing, a feature of pre-Roman Celtic forts in Gaul, has been identified at such forts as Craig Phadraig, Burghead and Portknockie on the Moray Firth, and at Dundurn in Strathearn. We can be certain that all of these forts were occupied by the historical Picts and the evidence therefore further suggests that the Pictish kingdom had Celtic roots. Some items of personal ornament have also been found which offer insights into Pictish society. The two most notable hoards of Pictish silverwork have been found at Norrie’s Law (Fife) and on St Ninian’s Isle (Shetland), at opposite ends of the Pictish kingdom. However, twelve heavy silver chains have also been found. Although many of these were found outwith the Pictish kingdom, in southern Scotland, the fact that these are inscribed with Pictish symbols suggests a Pictish origin. Isabel Henderson has reasonable suggested that these were symbols of power which would have been worn around the necks of Pictish kings or chieftains, and were looted by the Anglo-Saxons of Northumbria during their occupation of Pictland during the second half of the 7th century. Such finds tend to confirm that Pictish society was heroic and hierarchical in nature.

Disappeared?

The Declaration of Arbroath (1320) followed much earlier traditions in claiming that the Picts had been “wiped out” by the invasion of Kenneth macAlpin and the Scots of Dalriada in A.D. 843. Certainly by c. A.D. 900 the term “Pictland” disappears from written sources. It is also true that the language of the Picts died out, to be replaced by the Gaelic language which was spoken by the Scots, and the distinctive Pictish symbols which had been inscribed on stones throughout Pictland fell out of use. However, these changes were already underway before the mid 9th century and were arguably as much if not more the result of an extended process of change within Northern Britain rather than the result of a single cataclysmic event. The Picts were not a “lost” people, their identity was gradually subsumed as they became “Scots” in the modern sense of the term. Indeed, although Pictland gained a new Gaelic name – Alba - it was in fact the kingdom of Dalriada which had disappeared by the end of the 9th century. Within Alba, the Pictish form of land organisation was adopted (evidenced by the use of the Pit- place-name element), and the old Pictish ecclesiastical centre of St. Andrews was not eclipsed in its importance.

 

Conclusion

Alcock concludes his paper with the claim that there is nothing uniquely mysterious or problematic about the Picts: they are a typical northwest European barbaric society, with wide connections and parallels not merely throughout Britain and Ireland, but across northern Europe. The Picts were simply the descendants of the native tribes who had inhabited Northern Britain north of the Forth-Clyde line long before the arrival of the Romans, and long before the term “Pict” was ever used by a Roman commentator to describe them in A.D. 297; and Pictish blood continued to run in the veins of the people of Alba long after the term “Pictland” ceased to be used by the chroniclers of the Middle Ages.

TASKS

1. Which scholar first coined the phrase “The problem of the Picts”?

2. Name four contemporary historians who have dismissed this view.

3. What claims do Roman and medieval sources make about the Picts?

4. Which six issues does Sally Foster identify as having contributed to the supposed “problem” of the Picts?

5. Using two colours to highlight the worksheet and complete the following table:

|TRADITIONAL VIEW - problematic |CONTEMPORARY VIEW – not problematic |

| | |

6. What conclusion does Leslie Alcock draw about the Picts?

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download