What can written sources, sculpture and archaeology tell us about Pictish identity and how this might have changed between the sixth and ninth centuries? The Picts and the Formation of Alba 0706092  What can written sources, sculpture and archaeology tell us about Pictish identity and how this might have changed between the sixth and ninth centuries? 1 ‘[A]nd the Britons, a nation still then primitive and accustomed only to the half-naked Picts and Hibernians as their sole enemies, who gave way easily to Roman arms…’ (Panegyric of Constantius, AD 297, XI). Our earliest reference to the Picts depicts them as barbarians, giving us little insight into their actual identity or life. It is within recent academic discussion that we have become more concerned with attempting to extrapolate the memories and ethnic identities of the Early Scotland (Driscoll, 2000:233) in a sense, making early people such as the Picts more than just barbarians. Hence it is through archaeological discussion well as examining later written sources we can understand, in varying degrees how the Picts identified themselves within the wider British context between the sixth and ninth centuries. Here the Pictish identity shall be examined by way of their depictions in sculpture from their earliest and basic, undressed slab engravings towards the more complex ecclesiastical Crosses such as the Dupplin Cross. We shall also explore their own creation of identity through written sources of the Kings-lists. As well as what little archaeological evidence there is for internal differences between the elite and non-elite. It can ultimately be argued however that the Picts have had several identities played upon them, their own inherent one as well as the romanticised versions in part perpetrated by early academics and antiquarians. Arguably one of the biggest changes in how the Picts portrayed themselves is understood through their use of sculpture. The earliest is thought to date to around the fifth century (Historic Scotland, 2012) lending itself to the Class I typology (Foster, 1996:71; Dunbavin, 1998:35). These Class I stones are adorned with incised symbols, that have become known exclusively as the ‘Pictish Symbols’ and has formed Figure 1 Aberlemno, Angus - Class I stone, symbols only part of the ‘exoticness of the Picts’ which in recent times has (Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Serpent_stone.JPG) been downplayed (Forsyth, 1997:85) mainly due to our lack 0706092  What can written sources, sculpture and archaeology tell us about Pictish identity and how this might have changed between the sixth and ninth centuries? of being able to understand their meaning. Indeed this ‘exoticness’ has formed part of the Picts 2 identity within modern ideology, partially provoked by some scholars, such as F.T. Wainwright in his ‘inter-disciplinary’ book The Problem of the Picts. This therefore creates a dualism in how we understand these symbols in relation to their importance within the Pictish identity. As Forsyth points out, these symbols ‘attract those of a romantic or mystic bent, or those with a taste for the exotic’ (1997:85), suggesting that we try to place something more on the Picts than is necessarily true. However the initial importance of these Class I stones, and indeed their symbols, is the transformation into the converted world of Christianity. Even so, Forsyth also suggests that the use of the symbols themselves is an ‘expression and assertion of the new ‘Pictish’ identity’ over the roman alphabet that was used by several contemporary societies (2005:17). This is a compelling idea to suggest that these were born out of a resistance and strengthening of identity across Pictland. Though we have little to no evidence of pagan Pictish society, Foster points out that throughout ‘Britain and north-west Europe animals were carved because of their religious and symbolic value’ (Foster, 1996:74). There is also an account from Adomnán in Vita Columbae , ‘When returning from the country of the Picts, where he had been for some days, he hoisted his sail when the breeze was against him to confound the Druids’ (Bk 1, Ch 1) the mention of druids suggests a connection with Celtic pagan traditions. Though not a clear cut indication of pagan beliefs, we can infer there was likely to be some similarity with other Figure 2 Front and Back of Aberlemno II in Aberlemno Kirkyard. The back showing Pictish Symbols (Taken ‘Celtic’ cultures in that respect from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberlemno_Sculptured_Stones#Aberlemno_2) and so the conversion by Columba therefore impacted their overall identity. Over time not only do we see this transformation into Class II stones, dating to around the late seventh/early eighth century 0706092  What can written sources, sculpture and archaeology tell us about Pictish identity and how this might have changed between the sixth and ninth centuries? (Foster, 1996:71) which have more Christian iconography depicted on them along with the Pictish 3 symbols but a transformation in how we can view the Picts themselves. Both these classes of stone are essentially exclusive to Pictland (ibid:72; Dunbavin, 1998:35). This therefore gives us the first major indication of an identity change somewhere between the sixth and seventh century, at least in so far as being physically expressed. The change in identity is of course Christianity. However what makes the stones so important is that we can surely say that they were universally known throughout Pictland. This could therefore be suggested to not a regional development, but a much wider display of almost ‘national’ identity, at least within the ruling elite. As well as this examples of Class II stones still conform to the same pattern as the Class I stones, a vertical pair of symbols (Forsyth, 1997:92). This along with the fact the symbols are fairly standardised and wide spread geographically suggests that the incorporation of Christian iconography into the already understood symbol system is a display of this new identity. So this ‘new’ identity still clings onto the past in certain ways and it could be argued that this ideology is mirrored almost in the way that the Pictish King-list creates the first kings of the Picts out of mythical figures. Furthermore to the Class II stones holding Christian iconography, there are also depictions of the secular world. From this we can ascertain a certain understanding of how, at the very least, how the ruling elite depicted themselves. It is not unexpected for there to be these sorts of depictions since it was likely the elite that would commission such works. Examples of Figure 3 St. Vigeans, Angus. Hunting scene depicted (bottom of these activities range from hunting (see Fig. 3, with right picture) with 'typical' hunting dress (taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pictish.stone.St.Vigeans.jpg) similar examples at Meigle and Elgin) and warriors (Bursay, Orkney) depictions of the female elite weaving on a loom, such as at Kirriemuir, Angus. It could be argued that these are strong indications of the identity of the Picts, particularly because of 0706092  What can written sources, sculpture and archaeology tell us about Pictish identity and how this might have changed between the sixth and ninth centuries? again their wide ranging geographical locations across Pictland. If one is to also consider the idea put 4 across by Foster in terms of hunting and other ‘elite’ activities in terms of dividing of ‘spoils’ and reinforcing ‘relations of dependency’ (1996:62) then we can perhaps infer that the carvings on the stones reinforce this further. This would therefore also further strengthen the division of identity between the elite and the subjects. These depictions are important for this insight into Pictish social life as well as asserting their identity over the landscape, but also in terms of the form of sculpture that followed the cross-slabs. From around the seventh to eleventh centuries the so called Class III sculpture appeared a rather meaningless title as due to no Pictish symbols they represent just as much an occurrence across Britain and Ireland. These sculptures were just free standing crosses, such as the Dupplin cross, with examples in Argyll as well (Foster, 1996:98). As mentioned there is also the loss of the Pictish symbols as well as the secular world being depicted in a more militaristic manner (ibid). There is however one continuing tradition, that of dedications and writing on some of these sculptures. However these writings were typically in Latin or Ogham, indicating no formal written language of the Picts. The written sources for the Picts are not as adequate as other nations in Briton at this time. We have no internal sources for their language, other than the symbols, and therefore must rely on outside sources writing about the Picts (Carver, 1999). What we can be certain of, to some degree, is that they at least had their own language. Bede gives us such an indication of this when writing in AD 731 ‘At the present time there are in Britain …five languages and four nations —English, British, Gaels and Picts [Anglorum … Brettonum, Scottorum, Pictorum et Latinorum]. Each of these have their own language’ (Bk 1, Ch 1). This at least gives us an indication of a distinct Pictish language, which would therefore suggest a distinct Pictish identity, and in many respects a distinct written language, one that is sadly lost. Forsyth does suggest that this could be a misinterpretation by Bede however, and that there could have been certain divisions that see Pictish as a separate language. Therefore it could perhaps be dialectal differences (2005:16), thereby suggesting a clear cut identity is not as accessible. Furthermore to the idea of a separate language though is evidence from Adomnán states that Columba, who would be a Gaelic speaker (Jackson, 1955:133), requires an interpreter when 0706092  What can written sources, sculpture and archaeology tell us about Pictish identity and how this might have changed between the sixth and ninth centuries? speaking with them, again furthering the distinct Pictish language. Ultimately we can infer there was 5 probably an identity attached with such a language. However, when looking back at the stones, we see inscriptions that are not notably Pictish. As previously mentioned both ogham (twenty-nine inscriptions have been found) and Latin (ten inscriptions found) have survived in Pictish contexts (Foster, 1996:24). In terms of Ogham script, this is an Irish development and ultimately would have travelled from the west coast of Scotland where the Gaels resided (Foster, 1996:24; Forsyth, 1995:9). Forsyth also states that the majority of ogham inscribed stones in Scotland date to the seventh to eleventh centuries (1995:9) which is in line with the overall conversion to Christianity. It can perhaps therefore be inferred that the Picts were adopting another aspect to their identity, that of Gaelic tradition. This is not completely surprising considering the later combining of the Scots and the Picts in the ninth-century under Cinaed mac Ailpín and eventual decline and loss of the Pictish language itself (Driscoll, 2002:33). This is further supported by Clancy’s interpretation of the so called Drosten stone that contains Gaelic script on it, likely a dedication to a Pictish king, Uurad son of Bragoit, 839-842 (1993:345). This could be indicating that there is still a strong Pictish identity, but mixed with a Gaeliczied church (Clancy, 1993:352). There is of course also Latin text upon stone, such as the Tarbat stone, which is one of the longest found in Pictland (Carver, 2005:52). The stone is dedicated to an unknown person; however what makes this important is that this shares the same form, a commemoration or dedication, as the ogham scripts. So writing is important to the Picts it would seem. As well as this we can infer that Figure 4 Inscription on Tarbat 1 (Taken from: http://www.york.ac.uk/archaeology/staff/sites/tarbat/stonecat/sculptureCatalogue.htm l) this is further linked to the conversion of the Picts, and therefore the Latin is likely to be a further reinforcement to this identity. 0706092  What can written sources, sculpture and archaeology tell us about Pictish identity and how this might have changed between the sixth and ninth centuries? From these few written sources we begin to see a rather mixed identity within Pictland from 6 the seventh century onwards. What is unclear is how shared this is, or if it is down to certain regions of the Picts. To complicate matters further is a story from Bede of the king of the Picts, Nechtan or Naiton dating to around AD 710 (Carver, 2005:45; Clancy, 2004:125) writing to Ceolfrith. In Bede’s writing we hear that; At this time Nechtan, king of the Picts, living in the northern parts of Britain, convinced after an assiduous study of church writings, renounced the error hitherto maintained by his nation about the observance of Easter…asked for help from the English people… (Bk 5, Ch 21) Assuming that what Bede writes is true, we have another adoption to the identity of the Picts. However this one could be seen to be more restricted to the north. From this account we also hear that when the reply from England had been translated for him, Nechtan ‘feel on his knees…such a gift from England’ (Bk 5, Ch 21). There is not enough evidence to read deep into the nature of this account, whether Nechtan was rebelling from the Gaelic church, or had fallen under the grip of Rome (Clancy, 2004:125) but what we can suggest is that this Pictish king was adopting and strengthening their Christian identity, and perhaps even attempting to forge a path with the English. Furthermore, we have evidence to account for Nechtan beyond Bede the king-lists. Further indication that Pictland was perhaps associated with Rome however there is a poem attributed to Gruibne who wrote after the death Cinaed mac Ailpín: That Cinaed with his hosts is no more, brings weeping to every home: No king of his worth under heaven is there, to the bounds of Rome (858) However considering Cinaed was a Gael who took over the Picts (Clancy, 1998: 144) this can be seen as a tenuous link at best. Though it does perhaps give insight into the further adoption of Pictish customs when Cinaed takes over. The Pictish king-list is a fantastic source for attempting to understand the evolution of the Picts and their political development. So far it is the only document that contains within it the 0706092  What can written sources, sculpture and archaeology tell us about Pictish identity and how this might have changed between the sixth and ninth centuries? remnants of the Pictish Language (Broun, 2005;245) and have thought to have been possibly written 7 at Abernethy, an important site in Pictland (Jackson, 1955;144). The text is mainly written in Latin with Gaelic as well (Broun, 2005;245; Broun, 1998;1; Jackson, 1955:144) and has been added to during its time of transcription. Broun believes this to have been added during the reign of Constantin son of Cinaed mac Ailpín during 862 – 876 (2005:249). This addition details the ‘father of the Picts’ Cruithne (the Gaelic form of Picts) and his seven sons. The inclusion of Cruithne implies a mythological inheritance of the land, due to his reign of 100 years, as well as his seven sons being the names of the regions of Pictland (Fib, Fidach, Foltlaid, Fortrend, Caitt, Ce and Figure 5 Supposed regions of Pictland, Circind, see Fig.5). This can therefore be read to be an attempt to relating to the Seven Sons of Cruithne (Taken from: legitimise rule over Pictland, the creation of an identity. Suggesting http://www.clans.org.uk/hist_2.html) that their reign is derived from these mythical figures is an important element in understanding the Picts. This is also a time after the Scots and Picts have joined under Cinaed mac Ailpín, so there it is conceivable that this creation is in order to settle the Picts further under joined reign. This in turn has implications that this is the final change in Pictish identity, to the point were it becomes unrecognisable from Gaelic identity. A final indication of Pictish identity Figure 6 Pin and Pennanular brooch (taken from http://www.europeana.eu/portal/record/00401/679997149CA161B65A9FE2C1D0 is arguably personal dress and adornment. D86A0A76E8D860.html and http://her.highland.gov.uk/FullImage.aspx?imageid=185812&uid=MHG11648) This sort of evidence can be difficult to find in the archaeological record from Pictland, mainly due to the Christianisation of the Picts, meaning now grave goods. However evidence has survived due to Viking inhabitation of areas of Scotland 0706092  What can written sources, sculpture and archaeology tell us about Pictish identity and how this might have changed between the sixth and ninth centuries? (Ritchie, 1993:27; Batey, 1991:56). Ways in which the Picts adorned themselves appears to change 8 between the sixth and eight centuries, particularly in terms of pins and brooches in which to hold cloaks. Evidence from Golspie gives the impression of a single handpin, made of silver with a human head terminal (Carver, 2005:38). When moving into the later 700s we see a change into the penannular brooch, such as those found at St Ninian’s Isle, Shetland (Carver, 2005:48). The St Ninian’s hoard is a collection of 28 silver gilt objects, including bowls, sword chapes and the brooches and is thought to have been buried due to Viking activities around AD 800 (Foster, 1996:66; Carver, 2005:48). This change in style can perhaps be attributed to more interaction with the Gaels and Northumbrians, whom also used similar penannular brooches. Though not necessarily a change in identity, it does show an adaptation in how they present themselves to others, suggesting this is forming part of their continuing developing identity. As with sculpture we also see less inclusion of Pictish symbols on material remains, a notable example of Pictish symbols found on adornments is that of two silver plagues found at Norrie’s Law (Foster, 1996:66). Whereas looking at finds from Viking Buckquoy, where a Pictish comb and pin were found, there is not symbols incised on them. This further supports the earlier evidence of the loss of them on Class III stones thereby a movement from the previous purely Pictish identity. Another aspect left in the archaeological record is the appropriation of previous used Bronze Age and Iron Age sites. One famous example of this is Castle Phadraig north of Inverness, a re- occupied Iron Age vitrified fort (Carver, 2005:26), this is also thought to be where Columba attempted to convert Bridei son of Mailchon. We also have several examples in the Forteviot area, which several Pictish graves located near a Neolithic ritual complex (Driscoll, 1998:12; Gondek & Maldonado, 2011:6), as well as the reuse of a broch site in the Dunning area (James, 2011:19). This seems to be mainly in old power centres, suggesting that the Picts were adopting them to solidify their current power. We can also infer that they were perhaps trying to solidify their identity with their ancestors, almost akin to the creation of an identity with the king lists. Driscoll suggests that this is due to ‘kings required places to meet their subjects so that they could reaffirm their position as leaders’ 0706092  What can written sources, sculpture and archaeology tell us about Pictish identity and how this might have changed between the sixth and ninth centuries? (1998:14) this could be furthered into suggesting a division of identity between the king and the 9 subject, reinforced but such an important landscape setting. In conclusion, we can see that the Pictish identity changed in some manner, in accordance with outside influences, such as Christianity or the Scots. Through how the Picts identified themselves on stone it can be suggested as a strong example of a wider, shared identity that in part stems from the Christian elite. While through the limited written sources we have we can ascertain an understanding of how Gaelic began to influence this unique Pictish language and overall identity. Ultimately it could be suggested however that the Picts created much of their own identity, reinforcing themselves through the appropriation of the past, and adopting what styles and supposed influences that they wished. This leads to the final disappearance of the Picts through the amalgamation of the Scots and the Picts through the rule of Cinead ma Ailpín. Indeed the fact that the Picts ‘disappeared’ could be down to how much the changed their identity in the first place. Bibliography: Bede: Internet History Sourcebooks. 2012. Internet History Sourcebooks. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/bede-book1.asp. [Accessed 23 February 2012]. Adomnán: Internet History Sourcebooks. 2012. Internet History Sourcebooks. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/columba-e.asp. [Accessed 23 February 2012]. Batey, C, 1991, ‘Picts and Vikings in Caithness and Sutherland, a resume’, in C. Karkov, and R. Farrell (eds), Studies in Insular Art and Archaeology, Ohio, 49-58. Broun, D, 1998 ‘Pictish kings 761-839: integration with Dál Riata or separate development?’ in Sally Foster (ed.) The St Andrews Sarcophagus: A Pictish masterpiece and its international connections. Dublin: Four Courts Press Broun, D, 2005, "Alba: Pictish homeland or Irish offshoot?", in O'Neill, Pamela, Exile and Homecoming. Papers from the Fifth Australian Conference of Celtic Studies, University of Sydney, July 2004, Sydney Series in Celtic Studies, 8, Sydney: The Celtic Studies Foundation, University of Sydney, pp. 234–275 Carver, M, 2005. Surviving in Symbols. 2Rev Ed Edition. Birlinn Ltd. 0706092  What can written sources, sculpture and archaeology tell us about Pictish identity and how this might have changed between the sixth and ninth centuries? Clancy, T(ed) 1999. The Triumph Tree: Scotland's Earliest Poetry Ad 550-1350 (Canongate Scottish Classics). Edition. Interlink Pub Group Inc. 10 Clancy, T, 2004, Philosopher-King: Nechtan mac Der-Ilei, The Scottish Historical Review Vol. 83, No. 216, Part 2 , 125-149, Edinburgh University Press Clancy, T, 1993, The Drosten Stone: a new reading, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 123: 345–353 Driscoll, S, 1998. Picts and prehistory: Cultural resource management in early medieval Scotland, World Archaeology, 30:1, 142-158 Driscoll, S, 2002. Alba: The Gaelic Kingdom of Scotland AD 800-1124 (The making of Scotland). Edition. Birlinn Ltd. Driscoll, S, 2000, ‘Christian monumental sculpture and ethnic expression in early Scotland’, in W. Frazer and A. Tyrrell (eds), Social Identity in Early Medieval Britain and Ireland, Leicester 233-252. Dunbavin, P, 1998. Picts and Ancients Britons Hb. Edition. Third Millennium Publishing. Forsyth, F 1997, ‘Some thoughts on Pictish Symbols as a formal writing system’, The Worm, the Germ and the Thorn. Pictish and related studies presented to Isabel Henderson, ed. David Henry, Balgavies, Forfar, 85-98. Forsyth, K, 2005, ‘Origins: Scotland to 1100’ in Scotland: A History (ed) J.Wormald, Oxford University Press 9-37 Foster, S, 1996. Picts, Gaels and Scots (Historic Scotland). First Edition Edition. Batsford Ltd. Gondek, M & Maldonado, A. 2011, ‘Forteviot Churchyard Excavations 2011: Data Structure Report’. Unpublished Privately Circulated Report James, H. 2011, ‘Castle Craig Excavations 2011: Data Structure Report’. Unpublished Privately Circulated Report Jackson, K 1955. The Pictish Language in F.T. Wainwright (ed), The Problem of the Picts (Melvin Press) Ritchie, A, 2001. Viking Scotland (Historic Scotland). Edition. Batsford. 0706092