I do think Tom's posting does express the lack of evidence which we have
regarding the Picts. We're not even sure we're talking about the same
"people-grouping" which was given by the Romans--the Romans may have just
used an umbrella term for anyone north of the Humber.
>Thank you for your reply. I was under the impression that atleast in
>Orkneys there were distinct groups of Celts and Picts. According to
>Lamb's Orkney Surnames, the Norse gave derogatory names to Celts in
>Orkneys, but not to all Orcadians - some names derived from tunships
>other places - so that leads me to believe that some inhabitants
>Celts - they were either earlier arrived Norse, or Picts. -Perhaps the
>Celts settled there after the Picts?
Well, there's also the possibility that we're talking about Scoti--you
see, the term Celts can be very misleading--the Welsh are Celts, just as
are the Bretons and Gauls and Celtibiri etc. Now, back to the Orkneys,
there are rather extensive archeological findings there from what is
generally been considered as "pre-Celtic". Whether there may have been
folks there of a non-Celtic origin when the Vikings showed up (9th-10th C
AD) is an intriguing question, and one which will most likely be
difficult to answer. Perhaps someone (Russ?) can see if the Scots
(settlers from Ireland) had gotten that far north by this time. As for
the Picts, by the 9th and 10th C, we seem to be on the downside of
Pictish culture, so it is possible that there might not have been any
racially distinct groups of 'Picts' in the Orkneys at this time.
As always when dealing with the Picts, there's all sorts of "if's",
"maybe's" and "might have beens".
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]