Are there any picts here..

[lamoka]

I've just found this path and am VERY interested in it.. any information would be greatly appreciated.. websites welcome.. books a blessing!!!
faith, love and peace

[Meadhbh]

I'm not on a pictish path but this place seems to be pretty good: http://www.cyberpict.net/, well from te breif time I've spent looking over it.

[Toby Stimpson]

The Picts are all long dead, wiped out. If you mean the Pictish path there are a few websites out there. Its hard though because there is relatively little known about the original Pict people.

[lamoka]

Nothing is truly gone.. it lives in the heart and soul.. forgotten.. neglected maybe.. if walking my path has taught me anything it is this.
blessings

[Theres]

Nothing is truly gone.. it lives in the heart and soul.. forgotten.. neglected maybe.. if walking my path has taught me anything it is this.
well then, maybe there is still hope for my virginity!

[Toby Stimpson]

well then, maybe there is still hope for my virginity!

LOL!!!

*shudders* too much info Theres... too much info.


I think my point though is that although the historical Picts re all gone and long dead an extinct, their traditions do live on in ways in Scotland right now. Not a lot of them mind you but a few.... I think Im just saying to truly call it a Pictish path you have t get your hands on all info about the original picts, because otherwise it wouldn't be Pict.

[lamoka]

Thanks so much.. it started with a book I was given by a friend recently called scottish witchcraft the history and magick of the picts by raymond buckland..
this is where I will begin..
blessings

[~Owl~]

As for Buckland...no comment.

But this thread I found intrigueing. Much of what I have seen here is sadly true.

I was Initiated into a Tradional Pictish/Gaelic coven in 1985, after I spent my life steeped in my family's folk magic. I was then formally trained in the Craft, and after many years of study, earned my title of High Priestess. That was years ago...<thinks of the many memories>

The coven name I will not mention, but it was a 3rd Generation coven of Pictish origin.

The Pictish tradition, which is closely aligned with the Anderson Feri Tradition, is VERY secretive, and is an oathbound, orally taught path. You will find NO books on of any use, I assure you.

I have been in this Tradition for over 20 years, and have yet to find any material that is of any relevance.

The closest I would recommend is The Spiral Dance, by Starhawk, as it is an excellent book in itself, although it has a few flaws, is swirling in controversy, of things which I cannot name, but the book itself is fairly authentic.
It IS however not Pictish, as it is more or less old school Faery.

Also, A Grimoire of Shadows, by Ed Fitch, you may find useful.
That's all I will say on that.

Hmmm....you may also find this link useful. It is a list of some of the more popular Traditions...including my own.

Click Here (http://www.homecircle.info/Atraditions.html)


Our coven in the early eighties was indirectly of sorts, a part of the revival movement in the Pictish Tradition...I should say no more. My Elders would flog me for revealing that as it is. Sadly, my former HPS passed on in 2000.

[Tranquility]

Hmm. I'd be interested in any info on the Picts as well. Supposedly, the clan my Scottish half of the family is from, descended from the Picts as legend tells it.

[lamoka]

How sad that when I find something that finally resonates in me it is like sand in a sieve.. well I will trust in the Divine to lead me where it best suites me and as it is Buckland with which I was introduced I will continue to follow this path and see what is revealed as I go..
blessings and light to all..
namaste

[~Owl~]

As you wish...

However, you DO realize that Ray is Seux (sp?) Wicca, has NO experience on Pictish witchcraft, which is NOT Wiccan, and has his roots steeped in Gardner's philosophies, which are about as far from Pictish lore as California is to Maine.

Not flaming anything here, just making a point of fact is all.

Hope you find your Path as you seach.

[lamoka]

What I wish for is to find my "place" my "niche" my spiritual "home" here on this planet.. I do know it does not lie in the conventional religions in which I was raised.. Buckland actually says he pulls from Aidan Breac in this particular book although it does state about the author that he is Seax-Wicca of the old tradition and a protege of Gardners.. this book is not about that but about Scottish Witchcraft and the Picts.. as there is no real written work for which to study and learn this path and as I have no one here to learn from I must make use of that which is given.. I've heard it said that we are given that which we need WHEN we need it.. and maybe in this life it is not about my destination but about my journey.. this path may be in the seeking not in the finding.. only God/dess knows..
Many Blessings

[~Owl~]

The Pictish tradition, which is closely aligned with the Anderson Feri Tradition, is VERY secretive, and is an oathbound, orally taught path. You will find NO books on of any use, I assure you.

I have been in this Tradition for over 20 years, and have yet to find any material that is of any relevance.

The closest I would recommend is The Spiral Dance, by Starhawk, as it is an excellent book in itself, although it has a few flaws, is swirling in controversy, of things which I cannot name, but the book itself is fairly authentic.
It IS however not Pictish, as it is more or less old school Faery.

Also, A Grimoire of Shadows, by Ed Fitch, you may find useful.
That's all I will say on that.

Hmmm....you may also find this link useful. It is a list of some of the more popular Traditions...including my own.

Click Here (http://www.homecircle.info/Atraditions.html)





What I wish for is to find my "place" my "niche" my spiritual "home" here on this planet.. I do know it does not lie in the conventional religions in which I was raised.. I've heard it said that we are given that which we need WHEN we need it.. and maybe in this life it is not about my destination but about my journey.. this path may be in the seeking not in the finding.. only God/dess knows..
Many Blessings

I bid the same to you, my friend. I hope what information I am able to have provided proves helpful...

[lamoka]

Namaste Owl!!!
How easy is it to not see the forest for the tree..
My friend lent me a book.. the idea of the book resonated in me.. which led me to post here.. which led me to your response.. rather than see the window left open I perceived a wall.. thank you for your persistence (sp?)..
follow the path, follow the path, follow the path.. is that a CLUE?? ;)
brightest blessings

[~Owl~]

Namaste Owl!!!
How easy is it to not see the forest for the tree..
My friend lent me a book.. the idea of the book resonated in me.. which led me to post here.. which led me to your response.. rather than see the window left open I perceived a wall.. thank you for your persistence (sp?)..
follow the path, follow the path, follow the path.. is that a CLUE?? ;)
brightest blessings

;)

Seek and Ye shall Find...Ask, and Ye shall Know.

"...If you find Me not within yourself, you will never find Me without..."

From ~The Charge of the Goddess~

I see you have begun walking, Child...instead of just standing there.

Well done...;) Soon you will see the Forest, and the Grove beyond...
Keep walking, and do not stop.

[lamoka]

I feel a fullness in my heart and my gratitude is for a lifetime..

[Nitefalle]

well then, maybe there is still hope for my virginity!

LOLOLOL :yayah: I couldn't karma you, but here's some some air-karma

[haw_thrn]

The Picts are all long dead, wiped out. If you mean the Pictish path there are a few websites out there. Its hard though because there is relatively little known about the original Pict people.

the picts were'nt wiped out. their culture was assimilated into the culture of scotland when it was mixed with the cultures of all of the other people that came to live there.
they were too tenacious to just get stomped out. it takes one hell of a people to be constantly at war with eachother AND keep the romans out.

[Newbieoffractals]

Me! Pict me! XD My family hails from a Pictish area of Scotland and north of it, along with a variety of other places. I was born in the US though, as were a lot of people in my family. We took power(the limited power we had) after the Picts lost a battle with the Vikings and joined with Alba though, so we're not Pictish kings, but we are Picts. (Well, and Jews(Very strongly), and Scots, and probably a bit of Norse Viking back when, and a bit of Roman, and unless we were extremely inbred, a bit of Native American, possibly even some Eastern European.) Our family has a few odd myths. One about the Fey, as them being relatives of people who did not become Christians, and another about the founding of our clan. Apparently we were great hunters during the time of ice and we fled south, but never left the shores, and lived there for a while, then came back to our homeland. Those are all relatively old, several hundred years, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have been corrupted by the ideas of the era, or by the fact we were Jews and thus didn't really like Christianity.

In reality though, we know very little of Pictish religion. Probably a good way to start would be to study Celtic/Irish lore, and Norse lore, and then compare it to Scottish lore, and at least have a background in Roman lore and see what parts don't match up with other parts.

I doubt the culture was totally wiped out instantly, but the same thing happened with English culture. Saxons+French+Romans sorta destroyed a good chunk of traditional English culture. To find a pure Pictish culture, that would have been impossible in the best of times with invasions and trading. I mean, even when the Picts were at the height of their power, they were a trading group of tribes that probably took cultural influences from many other groups. The highlands are often said to have rather strange lore, so I'd suggest looking for things on the Scottish Highlands. Academic tends to be better than not, though a bit wordy. If you really wanted to study it, go to the Scottish Highlands and look for older women to talk to. There still might be a few who carry on their lore(Though not a pagan faith.), as it's so rural. I'm actually not sure of any books on accuratee stuff about the Picts. Most of it tends to revolve around OMG TATTOOED EUROPEANS!!!!! And then follow a predicable noble savage path.Blech.

If we're talking about generic "Pictish" lore, ie, made up in the modern era, feel free to make up anything you want. That's what most of the literature out there is.

[Seren_]

Adomnan's Life of St Columba (written in the 7th century) has a few episodes where Columba apparently dealt with the Picts. You can get some good translations of it these days.

Picts, Gaels and Scots by Anna Ritchie is a good book to read, as is The Picts and the Scots by Lloyd and Jennifer Lang - both a bit dated now but they still stand up. There's also a good article on the Picts, here:

http://www.cyberpict.net/sgathan/essays/picts.htm

[Newbieoffractals]

I shall check them out. Columbia would probably write about them in a negative way, given that he was trying to convert them, and at the very least, be biased. I'll have to see personally if they're as insulting/inaccurate about the Picts as many books are, but it could be interesting.

[Seren_]

I shall check them out. Columbia would probably write about them in a negative way, given that he was trying to convert them, and at the very least, be biased. I'll have to see personally if they're as insulting/inaccurate about the Picts as many books are, but it could be interesting.

Yes, there's a definite bias but then the whole point of the Life is to show Columba in a positive light and as a good Christian. Columba's (alleged, I should say) contact with the Picts was an effort to convert them from their pagan ways, so inevitably Adomnan's not going to be too complimentary about their beliefs.

But because it was written only a century or so after Columba was alive, it's probable that there's some truth to how he shows the Picts venerating a local well - such a practice still exists today in parts of Scotland (and Ireland, for that matter), albeit in a Christian context now.

[Newbieoffractals]

Yeah. Well, it can't be more inaccurate than the Romans at times.(I recall reading somewhere that a Roman wrote that the Picts used human flesh in their cooking, or so it was commonly translated. In reality, he was probably describing haggis making! XD) I question if the well worship would be specifically Pictish, or a part of religion they picked up from another culture actually, since they did trade with both Celts and Norse.

[BryonMorrigan]

Yeah. Well, it can't be more inaccurate than the Romans at times.(I recall reading somewhere that a Roman wrote that the Picts used human flesh in their cooking, or so it was commonly translated. In reality, he was probably describing haggis making! XD) I question if the well worship would be specifically Pictish, or a part of religion they picked up from another culture actually, since they did trade with both Celts and Norse.


Keep this in mind:

Whenever reading anything written about other cultures and religions from the ancient world, I always use some early Roman references to Christianity as "balance."

Example: I have read some early Roman accounts of Christianity where the authors are describing Christian rituals as including infant sacrifice (1), cannibalism, and drunken orgies. Therefore, if that's what the Romans thought of the Christians (whom we know weren't actually committing such behavior...) then one has to compare those accounts with the ones from Christians and Romans describing other Pagan practices. (...which is why it's hard to take Caesar's description of human sacrifice in Gaul seriously...)

Personally, I find that the most sensational and "unbelievable" accounts are often the least credible. (Google the words Herodotus and ants to see some more rather unbelievable accounts from the ancient world...)


________________________________________________________________

(1) "An infant, cased in dough to deceive the unsuspecting, is placed beside the person to be initiated. The novice is thereupon induced to inflict what seems to be harmless blows upon the dough, and unintentionally the infant is killed by his unsuspecting blows; the blood – oh, horrible – they lap up greedily; the limbs they tear to pieces eagerly; and over the victim they make league and covenant, and by complicity in guilt pledge themselves to mutual silence." (Minucius Felix, Octavius 9.5-6)

[Seren_]

Yeah. Well, it can't be more inaccurate than the Romans at times.(I recall reading somewhere that a Roman wrote that the Picts used human flesh in their cooking, or so it was commonly translated. In reality, he was probably describing haggis making! XD) I question if the well worship would be specifically Pictish, or a part of religion they picked up from another culture actually, since they did trade with both Celts and Norse.

The Picts were Celts. (http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/2081/) The idea that the Picts were somehow pre-Celtic remnants of Scotland is largely the result of Kenneth Jackson's scholarship, which is now considered to be very outdated. They did have contact with Scandinavian countries for trade and possibly intermarriage, though, so it's possible that the Pictish language and culture evolved differently to its Brythonic neighbours due (at least in part) to these influences. It's hard to say exactly.

However, in archaeological terms, evidence of ritual active at watery contexts is common to pretty much the whole of the Celtic spread of cultures. Placename evidence suggests some rivers and water features were given divine names, too - including the Pictish parts of Scotland.

[Brightshores]

Adomnan's Life of St Columba (written in the 7th century) has a few episodes where Columba apparently dealt with the Picts. You can get some good translations of it these days.

Picts, Gaels and Scots by Anna Ritchie is a good book to read, as is The Picts and the Scots by Lloyd and Jennifer Lang - both a bit dated now but they still stand up. There's also a good article on the Picts, here:

http://www.cyberpict.net/sgathan/essays/picts.htm
Great advice.

Also - it's not a bad idea to read Bede's "Historia Ecclesia Anglorum" and other contemporary sources, including Irish chronicles and legends. They don't often say too much about the Picts specifically, but they do give a very good idea about the historical context.

[Newbieoffractals]

Seren-Perhaps to clarify, I should say English/Irish Celts. Genetically, many of the Picts may have had Celtic ancestry. They did certainly have a different culture than England,and from what I understand, the artwork is quite different than standard Irish/English artwork. The Picts did deal with an invasion in Dal Ridah(Sp?) from Irish Celts, and considered them to be at the very least, a different nation. Even to this day, Highlands Lore is generally said to be very different than standard English/Scottish lore, probably due to the trading and isolation/later conversion. This is most likely due to the fact the Romans never did take over all of the lands the Picts controlled and the fact the Highlands didn't convert to Christianity quite as early as England did. Genetically, you are correct overall. The Welsh were the only group I believe that have ever showed any genetic difference from the regular mix the English had, though Highland Scots do show less of a "Saxon" trace within their genes, probably just due to the difference in area, compared to Southern England, and it would widely vary person to person. They did trade heavily with the Vikings and dealt with invasions, so it is very very likely their culture was different than other parts of Scotland and England, including the fact they weren't Christianized as early as other parts of England and the UK. I do agree with you that it is possible that their rituals would have shown a Celtic basis, and many cultures did name rivers after divine beings, not just the Celts. As so far as them being pre Celtic remains, well, there were certainly people who were there before the Celtic invasions(From Asia.), and it's likely they intermarried. The Basque show quite different DNA than your average Spanish person as a result for example. The culture wouldn't have been totally wiped out, or there wouldn't be any difference in cultural practices among Europeans at first. By the same standard, the Norse are also Celts genetically speaking... Along with a lot of Indians(From India, not Native Americans.) and most of Europe overall.(I can't load PDFs on my computer, it's too old, so I can't see the link you cited.) From what I understand also, the Sami have different DNA in some ways than the Celtic invasions and similar to the Basque. So yes, there were remnants after the Celts invaded/migrated. It's quite possible the Picts were one of the later remnants because they were somewhat isolated compared to say, Eastern Europe or whatnot. The Picts were over a wide area of Scotland relatively speaking, and Orkney is going to be different than Easter Ross, so it may have varied tribe to tribe in terms of religion.

BryonMorrigan-Yep. Though who knows, some of those early Christians, so willing to die, who's to say they didn't practice human sacrifice. XD Though, it's sad that often times the Romans are the only source of descriptions of rituals by ancient Pagans.

[Seren_]

Seren-Perhaps to clarify, I should say English/Irish Celts. Genetically, many of the Picts may have had Celtic ancestry. They did certainly have a different culture than England,and from what I understand, the artwork is quite different than standard Irish/English artwork. The Picts did deal with an invasion in Dal Ridah(Sp?) from Irish Celts, and considered them to be at the very least, a different nation. Even to this day, Highlands Lore is generally said to be very different than standard English/Scottish lore, probably due to the trading and isolation/later conversion. This is most likely due to the fact the Romans never did take over all of the lands the Picts controlled and the fact the Highlands didn't convert to Christianity quite as early as England did. Genetically, you are correct overall. The Welsh were the only group I believe that have ever showed any genetic difference from the regular mix the English had, though Highland Scots do show less of a "Saxon" trace within their genes, probably just due to the difference in area, compared to Southern England, and it would widely vary person to person. They did trade heavily with the Vikings and dealt with invasions, so it is very very likely their culture was different than other parts of Scotland and England, including the fact they weren't Christianized as early as other parts of England and the UK. I do agree with you that it is possible that their rituals would have shown a Celtic basis, and many cultures did name rivers after divine beings, not just the Celts. As so far as them being pre Celtic remains, well, there were certainly people who were there before the Celtic invasions(From Asia.), and it's likely they intermarried. The Basque show quite different DNA than your average Spanish person as a result for example. The culture wouldn't have been totally wiped out, or there wouldn't be any difference in cultural practices among Europeans at first. By the same standard, the Norse are also Celts genetically speaking... Along with a lot of Indians(From India, not Native Americans.) and most of Europe overall.(I can't load PDFs on my computer, it's too old, so I can't see the link you cited.) From what I understand also, the Sami have different DNA in some ways than the Celtic invasions and similar to the Basque. So yes, there were remnants after the Celts invaded/migrated. It's quite possible the Picts were one of the later remnants because they were somewhat isolated compared to say, Eastern Europe or whatnot. The Picts were over a wide area of Scotland relatively speaking, and Orkney is going to be different than Easter Ross, so it may have varied tribe to tribe in terms of religion.

BryonMorrigan-Yep. Though who knows, some of those early Christians, so willing to die, who's to say they didn't practice human sacrifice. XD Though, it's sad that often times the Romans are the only source of descriptions of rituals by ancient Pagans.

I'm sorry - are you equating genetics with culture? The two aren't necessarily synonymous and have little bearing on the Picts as a cultural entity - culture is determined by many things, but genetics isn't one of them. I'm not sure how it's relevant...

The idea of a Celtic 'invasion' into the British Isles is largely considered to be an outdated idea. While there was definitely some movement, the rise of a culture in a particular area doesn't mean that a large amount of people had to move from one place to another in order to effect change.

[Newbieoffractals]

I've never heard of the idea of a "Celtic invasion" as being totally outdated, as in regards to all of Europe(Ie, the migration of Celts from India into all of Europe.), not the UK, and it's what I was taught in AP Euro last year. Saxon invasion is still considered standard history if I recall right.

I am not equating genetics with culture. What I am doing is saying, yes, the Picts may have been genetically Celtic, and they did trade heavily with the Celts. Parts of their culture may have been Celtic in nature, but a good chunk of it was not. They were more Celtic than say, the Romans, but they were not totally Celtic compared to the English or the Irish in particular. Studying the genetic origins of a tribe that is large is very important because it can give an indication of when certain customs arose and how they varied when we have little other information.

[Seren_]

I've never heard of the idea of a "Celtic invasion" as being totally outdated, as in regards to all of Europe(Ie, the migration of Celts from India into all of Europe.), not the UK, and it's what I was taught in AP Euro last year. Saxon invasion is still considered standard history if I recall right.

The archaeological record shows no evidence of mass migration or invasion of 'a people' across Europe over the time period. That's not to say there weren't any migrations or invasions, but that in cultural terms, ideas and language can travel far quicker and more widely (in terms of trade, political intermarriage etc), and are now considered to have been the primary catalyst for change. Really, the likely answer is that it was probably a bit of both, but the old model of cultural invasions is outdated.


I am not equating genetics with culture. What I am doing is saying, yes, the Picts may have been genetically Celtic, and they did trade heavily with the Celts. Parts of their culture may have been Celtic in nature, but a good chunk of it was not. They were more Celtic than say, the Romans, but they were not totally Celtic compared to the English or the Irish in particular. Studying the genetic origins of a tribe that is large is very important because it can give an indication of when certain customs arose and how they varied when we have little other information.The Picts were Pictish; the Irish were Irish, the Brythons were Brythonic (I think that's what you mean by English - the Celts who occupied what is now England/Southern Scotland?). They had different languages, different cultures, but they are all Celtic because their languages share a common origin.

They evolved in different ways due to a variety of factors - but they were all Celtic. 'Celtic' is an umbrella term, nothing more, which is to say the various different cultures referred to as Celtic doesn't mean that they were all the same. To say the Picts were 'not totally Celtic' - how so?

How do genetics have anything to do with customs? I'm sorry I'm just not understanding how this has anything to do with culture - could you expand on that? I'm probably being a bit dense...

[Tiberias]

The idea of a "Celtic migration" is absolutely outdated. As has been said, there's no archaeological evidence AT ALL supporting such a model and quite a bit suggesting quite the opposite - that the overwhelming majority of the population of Britain remained pretty much the same until modern immigration exploded.

Then again, I'd go one step further and make the claim that the idea of pre-modern populations of "Celts" or even "Celtic culture" outside of Switzerland and portions of France is equally outdated and that 99% of the time the word "Celt" is an anachronism. ;) The ONLY way in which "Celtic" should be used in reference to pre-modern Brits is linguistically. I guess historians still talk about a Celtic Empire as some sort of reality, but archaeology has moved in a very different direction over the last twenty years and, frankly, historians know little to nothing when it comes to pre-literate societies.

[Brightshores]

I am also a bit lost here. I am not sure where you are getting all this genetic evidence from, but it doesn't fit with the actual historical record. What are your sources?

There was never any such thing as a unified culture of "English/Irish Celts." The term has no meaning. What did exist were different groups of people, all of whom spoke different Celtic languages. Pictland, Cornwall, Strathclyde, Gododdin, the Isle of Man - all were totally separate kingdoms. In fact, there were at least seven separate Pictish tribe-kingdoms throughout most of Pictish history, and England, in the pre-Roman period, was not at all united - tribes such as the Votadini, the Iceni, etc. governed themselves and were not subject to a central ruling authority. The modern concept of "nationhood" did not exist in any sense at this time, and none of these people would have felt any overarching common ethnic identity. In fact, a good chunk of the time, these people were engaged in beating the crap out of each other.

The Irish peoples at the time spoke a language from a completely different branch of Celtic than any of the inhabitants of the island of Britain (google P-Celtic and Q-Celtic), and did not identify in any way with the "English," the Picts, or anyone else, not during the Bronze Age, not during the Roman period, and not thereafter. (And certainly not now, hahaha. :) )

The Picts didn't trade with the Celts - the Picts were Celts. They traded with lots of other people, Celtic and non-Celtic. The Norse are not Celts, and never were. The Norse are more closely related to the Germanic and Gothic tribes of the early Middle Ages. The people of India are also not Celts, nor are the Romans or the Greeks. The Celts did not, as a whole, invade and conquer all of Europe or India at any time. If you are referring to Proto-Indo-European, which is commonly considered to be the root language of most European, Iranian, and northern Indian languages today, that was probably last spoken about 5000 years ago, long before anything existed that could at all be called "Celtic" culture. As Tiberias very correctly points out, linguistic identity does not equal cultural, racial, or ethnic identity. See the example of the Norman Invasion of England - only a very small number of people migrated, and these people were politically very powerful. Therefore - the Norman French language became the language of government, and heavily influenced the development of modern English. That doesn't mean that everyone in England today is genetically or ethnically Norman.

As far as the Vikings were concerned - half of England was controlled by the Vikings, too. You should read "Alfred the Great" by Asser. Hell, England had a couple of Viking kings before the Normans invaded. So, a good chunk of England was just as "Viking" as Caithness, Ross, and the Northern and Western Islands of Scotland.

Also, "Highland" Scotland was not as isolated as you might think. Archaeological digs have turned up glassware, pottery and other artifacts from all over Europe and beyond, in sites both in Dál Riata and in Pictland proper. In high-status sites all over the country, archaeology has turned up Roman glassware and coins, and evidence of wine and other luxury goods from the Mediterranean and even further afield. The Romans themselves penetrated (though did not occupy) well into the Grampian region. Pictish, Dál Riatan, Irish, and Anglo-Saxon artwork all influenced each other in the early Middle Ages. Pictish silver has been found in England. Trading links and other cultural contact in the Iron Age and early medieval period was much more common than many people imagine. Certainly, once the Picts were Christianized, there would have been very widely expanded, if irregular, contact with Northumbria, Irish monasteries, Rome, and even the Near East.

[odubhain]

Language is a part of culture. So are traditions, art, folklore, music, clothing, foods, attitude and religion. Culture does not equate to genetics directly, but families definitely are vectors that tend to maintain cultures within them, Culture is the superset while genetics are a loose amalgam of potentially inherited traits and instincts (great dispute concerning this influence).

Did the people of Britain and Ireland speak a Celtic language in the past? Was their art Celtic? What of their foods, songs, folklore and traditions? To the extent that these were or were not Celtic, then the British and the Irish were or were not Celtic.

Let's not fixate on genetics. It makes molecules out of us all. I'd rather be acculturated instead.

Searles O'Dubhain

[Newbieoffractals]

The reason why you'd want to focus on genetics when studying ancient history is to say if people moved from place to place, if you don't have historical records. In the modern era, and even for quite a while, we have clear records of war and immigration to a degree. In prehistory, we don't. We have legends that are very often inaccurate. People, unless they make a very active effort to obliterate their own culture, do normally bring customs with them and generally don't get rid of them, esp if there aren't a lot of other people around. I've really never heard of the idea of a Celtic invasion/migration as being outdated, and I cite as a source the book I used for AP Euro last year. Genetics did show a shift after the last ice age(Compared to the very few skelatons remaining), though it's often debated if there were more immigrants from Africa who repopulated Europe or if the Celts started to migrate sooner than is often thought. In either case, Europe did not have a lot of people comparatively before the Celts came along. The Picts had very different artwork than other Celts(If we use the genetic defintion of a Celt, as they did clearly show some differences from other groups that are more often considered Celtic.), and not terribly much is known of the various Pictish languages compared to say, Latin or another well preserved ancient language.(Even compared to various forms of old Norse, not much old Pictish has remained.) Not much of most ancient cultures remains, and archeology isn't as accurate as history generally speaking, because you have no idea if Celtic goods and cerimonies were simply similar to cultural practices or whatnot or if you just uncovered a strange gravesite as opposed to a more "normal" one. In the absence of historical records, it is wonderful though. And yes, the Scottish Highlands did trade with most of Europe, but they are much more isolated than say Marsaille, Rome, Athens or another major port city of the era. Even London or Bath. A History of the Modern World, Palmer 8th edition is the book I cite. If it's known to be very inaccurate as a source overall, I'd wonder why my history class used it for.

[Seren_]

History and archaeology are two entirely different subjects. The issue of Celtic 'invasions' is an archaeological one, not a historical one because there are no contemporary (Celtic) sources for it.

The archaeology of the period shows no massive increase in population, or increased evidence of deaths due to violence - not enough to suggest widespread invasion. By and large one would expect such an invasion to spread out from a centre, moving out more widely. This isn't borne out by archaeological (or historical) evidence either. Any changes in population for the period can just as easily be attributed changes in technology, agriculture and husbandry and so on - and we can see those changes. And these things can travel far wider, and faster, than a whole bunch of people can. A whole bunch of people who aren't there in the archaeological record.

The time frame between the apparent genetic drift of the last Ice Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period) that you mention, and the Pictish period - even the 'Celtic' period in Scotland as a whole - covers about nine millennia - so that doesn't support the idea of a Celtic invasion at all: The British Iron Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age_Britain) is generally synonymous with the arrival of the Celts, in the 8th century BC. We only have mention of the Picts, in historical record, from 297AD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picts) so again that's quite a gap in time for a not very Celtic people of Britain to suddenly appear, when the linguistic evidence (albeit limited, such as the map of Ptolemy (http://www.dot-domesday.me.uk/tribes.htm#caled)) suggests a thoroughly Celtic heritage. Placename studies bear this out.

Ewan Campbell brings up a lot of these points about the 'invasion theory' in his article Were The Scots Irish? (http://www.electricscotland.com/History/articles/scotsirish.htm)Again, it's not disputed that some migration happened, the dispute is over how large and how influential it was. An influx of people will certainly influence the local landscape, but if the practises and technology of those people are of an advantage to the local population, they will effect more changes, over a wider area, than people moving alone. The same goes for the Anglo-Saxons.