|
Whatever our nationality, the fact is that we are all mongrels, the Scots just as much as anyone else. Yet most of would rather not be told this, and find it important to hide the reality from
ourselves and our neighbours behind a powerful myth about the purity of our origins. For centuries it was commonly accepted that the Picts, who have the greatest claim to be the ancestors of modern Scots, had been
altogether destroyed by invading forces, simply because these invaders had to be shown to be our true forefathers. The Picts were the inhabitants of all the land north of Stirling and Aberfoyle when they first appeared
in written history, in the late 3rd century AD. However, archaeologists have found earlier evidence for Pictish settlement, and they are still pushing back the date of Pictish arrival in Scotland. In fact, Picts were
possibly following in the wake of the retreating glaciers around 6000BC, which would make them the first, aboriginal, inhabitants. Eventually these first settlers whether Picts or some other group, formed tribes -
around the first millennium BC, when iron working techniques gave strong authority over a larger area. The Mediterranean Classical civilisations were aware of these tribes of northern Britain. The names of some
were recorded by the Alexandrian geographer Ptolemy, and they include some derived from the names of animals, such as "horse people". The Roman legions in Britain unhelpfully lumped all their northern enemies under the
name of the most powerful Celtic tribe of the 1st century AD, the Caledonians, whose territory lay around their mountain, Schichallion, and their strong point Dunkeld. Any two neighbouring peoples, even of of diverse
origins, will show the same or similar cultures; but they will not necessary speak the same language; and where their language has left its remains we can find clues to their origins and affinities. These clues are
found most easily in the oldest of place names, and those of rivers. In Pictland the rivers share a similar repertoire of names to those in other parts of the Indo-European world: Findhorn, Deveron, Earn and Arne, Tain,
Teviot, Tay, Tyne and Thames, Esk and Usk, Strachan and Avon. Of course there are some important ones that cannot be paralleled such as Spey, but there is no reason to think that these are the remains of an even older
language and people. The language that the river names show to be the earliest known in Scotland was one of the Indo-European family of languages, which includes all those spoken in Europe today except for Basque,
Hungarian, Finnish and Maltese.It may be that some river names are older than the arrival of Celtic speakers, but it does seem fairly clear that the major early language, the tongue of the Picts, was one of the
Celtic family, similar to that spoken in Gaul (modern France) and southern Britain. Modern Welsh is a decedent of this Celtic branch. What did the Picts call themselves? The name we know them by is Latin, from the word
meaning 'painted men', which is what the Romans called them. The Irish referred to them as 'Cruithini', a name they also applied to the inhabitants of southern Britain, people who called themselves Britons, Celtic for
'painted men'. It is just possible that the Picts also called themselves, 'Britains', that they also wore warpaint or they were tattooed is certainly undeniable. The Picts fought against the Romans, against the
Celts to the south, and against each other. The silver they looted from Roman Britain was made into personal adornments, especially brooches to fasten their cloaks. Their artistic expression is also apparent in the
memorial or commemorative stones they have left behind, incised with symbols whose meaning has defied puzzled scholars for centuries. Gradually the Pictish tribes seem to have fallen into larger groups offering tribute
to a paramount chief or king. By AD600 there may have been a king for all the Picts. Later histories list a single line of kings of the Picts, but there were certainly other monarchs, or under kings. Perhaps the supreme
kingship was handed down to the most senior or most closely related to those princelings. The greatest mystery in the whole history of Scotland is: What became of the Picts? Their language is lost, and the message
bourne by the Pictish stones are quite indecipherable. The kingdoms were slowly transformed by new arrivals to northern Britain. Around AD300 the Picts had joined with pirates from Ireland, known to the Romans as
Scotti, in making bandit forays on the province of Britannia. These Gaelic speaking Irishmen eventually began settling in Galloway and Argyll and by the 8th century they had established their own kingdom of Dalriada.
Some of these Dalriadans were bold men, notably the great king Aedan MacGabran, shown in the biography of St.Columba as a devout helper of the holy man, but known from other sources as a raider of the Lowland Celts. He
even battled the English settlers of Northumbria. The Picts resisted the encroachments of the Dalriadans during the mid 7th century, and from 780 there seem to have been some kings who could claim both the Pictish over
kingship and the right to rule over Dalriada. Kenneth MacAlpin, already king of Dalriada, became king of the Picts around 847. Kenneth's father had established his own rule over the kingdom; then Kenneth extended his
authority into Pictland, climinating his Pictish rivals. Now he ruled in Alba, as northern Britain was known, but he and his successors were still called kings of the Picts for another 60 years. People have tried to
explain what happened to the Picts after Kenneth took power. We know that their distinctive stones continued to evolve, as the symbolic carvings were gradually shed. Certainly Pictish culture was not wiped out over
night. By the end of the 10th century Pictish had become a dead language. |
