Compiled by GardenStone
© Copyright GardenStone 1998.

First group of opinions:

There is no evidence to support the contention that the Picts or Cruinthe Tuatha were to any significant extent different from the Scotti, either culturally or linguistically.

The Irish monks chronicled the history of the time so naturally there is a colouring of the version recorded.

The facts are that inter-marraige was known to be common, that less than 10% of the population of Scotland was dalriadan when KM became king.
He was known as king of Pictland and for several successions. The court was at the Pictish capital of Scone.
Many of the Pictish customs and ceremonies were preserved. The matrilinear succession practised by the Picts was as equally satisfied by the marraige as the Patrilinear succession practised by the Dalriadans.

Ask yourself this. How likely is it that >90% of the population would allow themselves to be 'taken over' unwillingly? Especially a population that had demonstrated much Military fortitude against the Romans and then the Anglo-Saxon. A much saner theory is one based on mutual aquiescence.

All Pictish art and what little there is of Pictish inscriptions plus the intermarrying and generally peaceful mingling of the two people suggests that there was little or no difference in the first place.

The huge concentration of battleaxe heads found in NI from the immediately pre-history period also attest that the traffic was the other way then, and probably this to-ing and fro-ing had been going on since the region became habitable.

Second group of opinions:

It depends on what you make as your cultural markers. Modern Scotland is very similar to modern Ireland, but is also extremely different!

In linguistic terms, the language of Pictland was completely different from Gaelic. Whilst the arguments still rage as to whether the common folk spoke/used a non indo-european language, totally unrelated to any other european language, the other languahge in use was p-celt based, closer to Welsh than to Irish. This Gallo-brythonic language, which may have brought a celtic element (perhaps even predominent celtic aspect) to the proto-picts. This language, being probably derived from an earlier celtic invasion and closer to Gaulish than Welsh.

What we currently call the 'Scottish' Picts were a confederation of peoples, with probably two main strains, the indigenous people and a Pre-British (and indeed pre-irish) celtic people. It is sometimes argued that the Picts covered all of the British Isles, but were replaced by the irish in Ireland and the 'British/Welsh' in Southern Britain.

There are plenty of references to the difference in language, from the pictish stones, place names, pictish king list and even Irish annals record that Columba required a translator. Bede also points out that pictish was a fourth language seperate from Gaelic, Brythonic and English.

Whilst irish history is useful, you also have to examine Roman, Brythonic, Pictish and an Viking history to get some semblance of the truth. He who writes history does so for his own end!
There also appears to be a difference between the pictish church of St Ninian and the 'Scottish' Church of Columba. Again there is evidence from Irish sources that the picts were apostate ie returned to paganism (from being christian) Viking chronicles (and slave lists) identify that the Picts were clearly different from the Irish/Scots and Britons.

Some writers go so far as to argue that Dalreada was a colonization, in perhaps much the same way as the Irish raided and attempted to colonise parts of Wales/Briton.

Small point Patrilineal succession was practiced by *everyone* in Europe apart from the Picts. (Of interest, an analogy could be drawn with the 'aboriginal' peoples of Northern Japan, who also appear to have retained a form of matrilineal descent, prior to being absorbed into Japan.

The whole area is questionable! One line of argument and it is disputed...is that the scots, colonised Dalreada, in turn were unable to expand and became a client state of Pictland, inter-marraige and mixing of cultures developed.
The Vikings started to attack Dalreada heavily and dalreada was under threat of its very existance. So in order to survive, drastic action was necessary. This was achieved through Kenneth inviting the Pictish aristocracy to a Borgia-type supper and slaughtering the Pictish aristocracy (source: Legend of St Berchan and also; Giraldus Cambrensis)

There are alternatives versions, but all show a slow intermixing, a violent change at the time of Kenneth Macalpine and a period of consolodation. What appears certain is that Kenneth did not become king of Pictland/Scotland through normal intermarraige. but through a
territorial conquest of the South East, as Dalriada was being conquered by the Norsemen.

It is argued that the Sueno's Stone, was raised by Kenneth and effectively states "Your Kings are dead, your kingdoms leaderless, your race is finished. Kenneth Macalpine reigns"

At any case, there is evidence of the Picts throughout the British Isles. Irish annals argue that the 'Irish' Picts were thrown out of Ulster!

My view is that the Islands were probably peopled by an Indegenous non-indo-european peoples. There was a first (?) invasion by Celtic People, the Picti, Prytania etc., These in turn were replaced by the Irish in Ireland and the Welsh/Britons in England & Wales, However, in 'Scotland' these Picts fused with the indigenous people and developed a seperate Celtic people.

My argument is that Pictland was culturally and linguistically different from Ireland and closer to Welsh/Briton (but in saying that the Picti were also a large minority in Ireland) Therefore there were significant differences between 'Celtic' peoples. But if you compare them with non-celtic peoples ie Romans, English etc., the differences become minimal.

The point I was attempting to make was when does 'Scotland' begin, was it with the Scots from Ireland, or was it with the Picts versus the Romans. Is it with Dalreada or Pictland. The histories of Scotland and Ireland are undoubtably interlinked in both a tortous and celebratory way and provides a puzzle in both our differences and similarities!

Back