> Hi Paul,
> Only one post today, since I've got some stuff to do, but this is too
> good to pass up.
Hi! Very briefly:
> >2) from Scandinavia
> Better possibility. However, I don't think the archeological evidence
> supports this. You'd need some continuity between finds in Scandinavia
> and finds in Sctoland to support this, and I don't think this exists.
Some, but not much. The best bit is the "Strike-a-lights" which are
only found in brochs, scandinavia, and (get this!) Scythia!! I'll
ignore that. I think this is a classic case of academic anti-celtism
- why could the Scandinavain strike-a-lights not have been made by
Picts crossing to Scandinavia, not the other way???
> Right, but as usual, no one's really gone back in depth over Jackson's
> corpus. He was one of the greats of the 20th C, but like all
> scholarship, another few thorough goings over is needed before we can
> fully accept some of the things he had to say.
I've read a few reviews of it, and the most anyone has corrected him
is to say the non-IE bit was probably not there at all!
> So you reach this conclusion based solely on the linguistic evidence from
> above? Hmmmmmmm.
No - like I said this was very brief.! If you;'re keen, I'll send you
my entire chapter on Picts (hey a proofreader!!)
> For Roman knowledge of the Orkneys, see Pliny, Natural History, IV, 103
> Mela, III, 6.54
> Eutropius VII, 13.2-3
> Juvenal, II. 160-1.
> Also, Agricola's fleet actually sailed there (see Agricolae 10).
Yup I know!
> >b) The Brochs around the Forth were not built until AFTER Agricola's
> >invasion of Scotland, obviously at Roman invitation
> Ah! You answer a key issue!
Interesting, huh? I had to converse with broch researchers in
Edinbugh museum to get C14 dates for the various brochs!
> But from you're comments on the Brochs, why don't you instead go for the
> broch-people of the Orkneys coming south? This might even make some
> linguistic sense, since then you could have a developement of a Celtic
> language in a fairly isolated place, and work in the brochs? Toss in
> some possible Scandinavian or native elements and ta-daa! Picts.
Well, I do, but the Brochs in Orkney and other northern places only
date back 100-200BC. The Hill-forts go back to the 7th century BC. I
conclude from this that the broch-dwellers arrived from somewhere
else 100-200BC and got into clashes with the Caledonians, thus the
defensive structures. I think this is more likely than a political
rift within Caledonia that made some of them invent a new type of
> Or perhaps the native non-IE languages which were pre-Celtic, (like the
See above - I don't believe in the nonIE bit!
> >c) There are broch-like dwellings in the lands of the Pictones!
> Now, are they brochs or broch-like? What makes a broch a broch, and how
> are brochs different from broch-like structures?
See a post I made earlier - from their remains they're
pretty broch-like, but both brochs and hill-forts used the same basic
celtic drystone construction techniques