What do you think?
Rate this book
A New History of the Picts
When the Romans came north to what is now Scotland they encountered the warrior society known as the Picts, who managed to prevent the Roman Army from conquering the northern part of Britain, just as they later repulsed the Angles and the Vikings. A New History of the Picts is an accessible history of the Picts, who are often misunderstood. New historical analysis, recently discovered evidence and an innovative Scottish perspective exposes long-held assumptions about the native people.
This controversial text argues that Scottish history has long been dominated and distorted by misleading perspectives. A New History of the Picts discredits the idea that the Picts were a strange historical anomaly and shows them to be the descendants of the original inhabitants of the land, living in a series of loose tribal confederations gradually brought together by external forces to create one of the earliest states in Europe: a people, who after repulsing all invaders, merged with their cousins, the Scots of Argyll, to create modern Scotland. All of Scotland descends from the Picts.
This controversial text argues that Scottish history has long been dominated and distorted by misleading perspectives. A New History of the Picts discredits the idea that the Picts were a strange historical anomaly and shows them to be the descendants of the original inhabitants of the land, living in a series of loose tribal confederations gradually brought together by external forces to create one of the earliest states in Europe: a people, who after repulsing all invaders, merged with their cousins, the Scots of Argyll, to create modern Scotland. All of Scotland descends from the Picts.
192 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 2010
23 people are currently reading
118 people want to read
About the author
Stuart McHardy
46 books19 followersStuart McHardy is a Scottish writer, broadcaster and storyteller.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
November 6, 2022
The Roman name Picti, meaning ‘painted people’, leads to a generally held perception of hairy, woad daubed, maniacal hordes attacking Hadrian’s Wall which was, of course, built to keep them out! According to McHardy, these people were actually called Pechts, a name used in Scottish folklore long after the Picts were no longer a discrete people, but the Romans mistranslated it in a similar way to the later anglicisation of Scottish Gaelic place names. The Roman name ‘Picti’ was the Romans’ name for all the indigenous tribes of the north:- the Gododdin in the south east, the Britons in Strathclyde, the Scots* in Argyll, and the Picts in central and north east Scotland. *The author argues that the Scots were indigenous and not incomers from Ireland.
All these tribes were warrior societies, bound by kinship and employed in cattle thieving as a means of accumulating wealth. The Romans, writing for their own audience it must be remembered, refer to the northern tribes as insolent - how dare they attack us? - seeing themselves as rightful occupiers rather than invaders that the native population naturally fought to deter. McHardy draws similarities here between Roman attitudes and those of the British Empire, occupying foreign lands as if by natural right and cultural superiority.
McHardy continually warns against applying anachronistic interpretations to the Dark Ages. For example, the Romans and later writers referred to tribal leaders as ‘kings’ (Rex) but this would have been an unknown concept in societies organised in chiefdoms where loyalty depended on kinship, a model that survived in northern Scotland until the late 18th century. Tribal leaders were probably those who proved themselves able warriors.
After the Romans left, we are reliant on priests and monks to fill in the history of the next few centuries. Like the Romans, most of their writing is propaganda as they worked to market the benefits of Christianity to the local population. Their accounts are therefore somewhat unreliable. As Christianity spread, the essentially communal focus of tribal thought was replaced by something not only more abstract but also external to the community. McHardy argues that this weakened the social structure of the tribes, transforming them into more centralised and structured political entities, ie the early beginnings of nation states. Where the Roman Empire failed to conquer the Picts, the Christian church succeeded.
From the early 8th century, when the Ionan / Columban community was persuaded to adopt the ways of the Catholic Church, tribal leaders could see the advantages of the political hierarchy exemplified by the church. The acquisition of land, not previously an ambition, was demonstrably attractive, and the spread of literacy eroded oral traditions and introduced a codified set of laws and a model for moral and practical behaviour. The giving of tithes to the church provided a model for tribal leaders to collect funds from their people.
The other factor for the structural changes proposed by McHardy is the expansionist ambitions of Northumbria in the 7th century. The constant threat of attack from the south would have forced the Scots and Picts to develop their own permanent armies, rather than continue with inter-tribal raiding parties.
By 900, the name Alba was in use and there are no further references to Picts thereafter. That does not mean the Picts disappeared. Their descendants continued to inhabit the same landscape and merged in time with the Scots, and also with Norse settlers and Dalriadans, to create the new kingdom of Alba. Essentially, if like me you’re of Scottish descent, they’re our ancestors.
This is a very readable history of the Picts and McHardy makes some very convincing arguments. I’m not really in a position to critique them but he has whetted my appetite for further learning. The book appears to be very well researched and the bibliography will be very helpful. 5 stars from me because I really enjoyed it.
All these tribes were warrior societies, bound by kinship and employed in cattle thieving as a means of accumulating wealth. The Romans, writing for their own audience it must be remembered, refer to the northern tribes as insolent - how dare they attack us? - seeing themselves as rightful occupiers rather than invaders that the native population naturally fought to deter. McHardy draws similarities here between Roman attitudes and those of the British Empire, occupying foreign lands as if by natural right and cultural superiority.
McHardy continually warns against applying anachronistic interpretations to the Dark Ages. For example, the Romans and later writers referred to tribal leaders as ‘kings’ (Rex) but this would have been an unknown concept in societies organised in chiefdoms where loyalty depended on kinship, a model that survived in northern Scotland until the late 18th century. Tribal leaders were probably those who proved themselves able warriors.
After the Romans left, we are reliant on priests and monks to fill in the history of the next few centuries. Like the Romans, most of their writing is propaganda as they worked to market the benefits of Christianity to the local population. Their accounts are therefore somewhat unreliable. As Christianity spread, the essentially communal focus of tribal thought was replaced by something not only more abstract but also external to the community. McHardy argues that this weakened the social structure of the tribes, transforming them into more centralised and structured political entities, ie the early beginnings of nation states. Where the Roman Empire failed to conquer the Picts, the Christian church succeeded.
From the early 8th century, when the Ionan / Columban community was persuaded to adopt the ways of the Catholic Church, tribal leaders could see the advantages of the political hierarchy exemplified by the church. The acquisition of land, not previously an ambition, was demonstrably attractive, and the spread of literacy eroded oral traditions and introduced a codified set of laws and a model for moral and practical behaviour. The giving of tithes to the church provided a model for tribal leaders to collect funds from their people.
The other factor for the structural changes proposed by McHardy is the expansionist ambitions of Northumbria in the 7th century. The constant threat of attack from the south would have forced the Scots and Picts to develop their own permanent armies, rather than continue with inter-tribal raiding parties.
By 900, the name Alba was in use and there are no further references to Picts thereafter. That does not mean the Picts disappeared. Their descendants continued to inhabit the same landscape and merged in time with the Scots, and also with Norse settlers and Dalriadans, to create the new kingdom of Alba. Essentially, if like me you’re of Scottish descent, they’re our ancestors.
This is a very readable history of the Picts and McHardy makes some very convincing arguments. I’m not really in a position to critique them but he has whetted my appetite for further learning. The book appears to be very well researched and the bibliography will be very helpful. 5 stars from me because I really enjoyed it.
February 26, 2015
Deeply disappointing. Lazy outdated myths and personal opinion presented as fact, badly written and fuelled by a 'Wha's like us?' mindset.
Fortunately, the New Edinburgh History of Scotland has two books in the series: 'From Caledonia to Pictland' and 'From Pictland to Alba, 789-1070' that are genuine works of recent scholarship, covering the period McHardy misrepresents so badly. They are detailed, not light reading, but are balanced, honest and open about the distortions that historians' bring, from their own ages concerns and aspirations. McHardy lacks any such insight.
Fortunately, the New Edinburgh History of Scotland has two books in the series: 'From Caledonia to Pictland' and 'From Pictland to Alba, 789-1070' that are genuine works of recent scholarship, covering the period McHardy misrepresents so badly. They are detailed, not light reading, but are balanced, honest and open about the distortions that historians' bring, from their own ages concerns and aspirations. McHardy lacks any such insight.
February 24, 2022
The Picts were a race, or a tribe, or a people in ancient Scotland, known today mostly for their remarkable standing stones. They left no written history, and even archaeology has provided few clues to their long habitation and culture. Our records of them span the time of the Romans in the first century AD, replete with their hostile encounters, to the times of the Vikings in the 8th and 9th centuries, until disappearing entirely from the writings of history at the end of the 9th century, having blended with the Scots tribe into the early nation of Alba, which later became Scotland.
Although they disappeared from history, the Picts lived on in memory as the ancestors of Scotland, and they found new life as the focus of folklore and legends carried through the centuries. Our knowledge of the Picts is handicapped by lost and likely irrecoverable records, misinformation, and other mysteries complicated by the times in which they lived.
Stuart McHardy attributes modern misperceptions of the Picts to political bias in history, and as products of Roman, English and early Christian propaganda. This is not without good reason. He argues that many Roman historical works that were not at least thinly veiled propaganda may be closer to literature than objective history regarding these and other “barbarians”.
Today we take this for granted, and it’s part of what gives these books their charm. But long traditions of treating these and other historical works of history as objective or factual over the ages has led to misunderstanding. He analyzes the works of Gildas, Nennius, and Bede, as well as the Lives of the saints, all being some of our primary sources for history of the region in this era.
He is right to observe that the writers just mentioned, and the Lives of the saints, had strong political or Christian agendas, and he breaks down why he thinks these sources are partially unreliable for objective knowledge of the Picts. Incompleteness in our old records leads to assumptions and guesswork, and the lack of direct written accounts make accurate reconstruction hard, in some cases impossible. This trouble is a recurring thread in the book, one he emphasizes again and again.
McHardy is not a historian but undertakes a thorough analysis of the works of historians, current and ancient, including frequent attention to the annals from the time, like the Annals of Ulster, and the Annals of Tigernach. In some sources he points to where gaps seem to be filled in by speculation, or where contradictions arise, or where certain claims do not match what we now know, or where the absence of archaeological record or historical evidence makes such claims unconvincing.
He refers to many contemporary and modern works that support his assessments, or that he disagrees with. These include dozens of works from the high Middle Ages and earlier, and scholarship covering the last few centuries. He digs deep into these well-chosen citations to explore why he thinks they are instructive or revealing or misleading. In the process, he untangles some complicated stories from history, including those of battles or conquests or power shifts among shortly ruling kings, conflicts between and within tribes, and other times shows that these things may be even more complicated than we think, and less likely to have satisfying answers.
This book is as much historiography as it is history. At times it comes off a little too focused on “correcting the record” than giving a coherent history of the Picts. But even when it does, McHardy is taking a huge amount of information from across history and piecing it together sensibly and with clarity, making a believable, consistent story of the Picts, with careful handling of the unknowns. In principled form, he does not appear to draw conclusions that are not substantiated by the evidence, even if it would be beneficial for his hypothesis to do so. His ideas that conflict with mainstream beliefs about the Picts he is careful to distinguish, and makes no claim that his views are authoritative or the final word.
He is adamant that most early historical mentions of the Picts being defeated in battle are presumptuous, mere speculation based on unreliable sources or propaganda, and not supported by the archaeology. Even with this hyper-focus on setting the record straight, sometimes at the expense of making that record easy to understand, it is still highly fascinating, a knowledgeable and compelling book. McHardy is obviously well versed on the topic.
He is quick to criticize many ideas he believes are anachronistic in trying to understand the Picts. For example, thinking of them in terms of kingdoms when they were instead tribes, or chiefdoms, leads to many faulty conclusions and assumptions about their society. They had no class structure, no bloodline monarchy, no feudalism, no nation states, and kinship, not kingship, seemed to be the core of their organization, much like the later Higland clans.
He sees many analogues between the Picts and the later highland tribes of the 18th century, warrior societies who refused to be dominated and resisted governmental control. He sees Scotland’s threat of being conquered by England as reflecting the northern tribes’ threat of being conquered by Rome. At times he seems overly reliant on clans from centuries later to support his conclusions about the Picts, but there appears to be truth to his assertion that many traditions in the Highland clans, a similarly structured society, were over a thousand years old.
Thinking in terms of race or ethnicities likewise makes no sense in McHardy’s view, and it is not altogether clear how the different tribes of the region, like the Scots or the Britons, thought of themselves as distinct from the Picts. It is still an open question, in McHardy’s view, whether or not the Picts were a distinct group in the early First Millennium, or if this was a convenient label devised by the Romans to lump together a bunch of unrelated tribes.
Whether there was more to their uniqueness than language or the common ancestors who they claimed to descend from is unknown. Our modern uses of the words “democratic” or “egalitarian” or terms like “political motivations” carry wildly different meanings than what anyone could possibly mean when describing the Picts.
McHardy harbors skepticism toward ideas of pan-Celticism, which suggests an ongoing cultural homogeneity among the people of Scotland, Ireland, Cornwall, and Brittany, due to all of them speaking (variations of) Celtic languages. He argues that this is a modern myth no older than the 18th century. He is insistent that shared languages or dialects do not indicate shared ethnicity.
The book suggests the Picts may be considered indigenous to Scotland, since there is no evidence of them coming from elsewhere. At the very least, he posits through citations, they may have descended from those who arrived in the Bronze Age. McHardy discusses the tribal aspects of the Picts, sometimes using generalized knowledge of tribal structures and behaviors from around the world to make a point that historians’ framing of Pictish society in a Christian-feudalism structure makes little sense.
He spends some time parsing out how we might distinguish Picts from other tribes noted by the Romans, particularly the Caledonians, and what the name means, where it comes from. Pecht might be the original name, and this is seen in many personal names of the people from the area later on. He supposes, by what seems to me safe reasoning, that some of the standing stones may be older than once thought, based on descriptions from the Romans of Pictish dress around a certain period.
The Picts first appear in written history with the battle of Mons Graupius in Tacitus’s Agricola, a work that understandably has bias and propaganda. Here the Picts are referred to as Caledonians. Their guerilla warfare against the Romans during this invasion was critical in preventing their defeat. By adapting their inter-tribal raiding tactics, something they had been doing for a long time, and utilizing their native terrain, they were able to effectively combat the Imperial army and prevent the complete Roman conquest of Scotland.
Despite being outnumbered and despite Roman reports of them being defeated in battle and fleeing, there is no record of them having ever been conquered, or of the Romans successfully moving further north into what is now Scotland than where the Picts resided. Nor is there archaeological evidence that the Romans ever established a long-term outpost anywhere in the Pictish lands. It seems by all accounts, even when certain Roman authors mention Romans defeating the Picts, that they never pressed further north.
A lot of reasons have been put forward for this, like Rome losing interest, not seeing enough value, the commanders returning to claim the premature victories they believed they were due, or not having enough manpower this far from Rome. There is no way to know for sure, but it seems to be true also that the Picts, with other tribes, posed a formidable opponent in their home territory. Hadrians Wall was built to defend against repeated incursions of Picts and Scots into the Roman territories in the south. These raids seemed to go on for some time.
The coming of Christianity to Scotland, as a permanent form in the sixth century, brought literacy, a force for the centralization of society into nation states, moving tribes from kinship toward kingship. Missionaries used King Arthur and other figures from myth and legend shared by the tribes of the islands as Christian heroes, who provided an aid in converting the people. The adoption of many pagan practices into Christian ritual made the transition easier and more appealing to the numerous tribes of numerous beliefs.
McHardy suggests the Picts did not begin to form into kingdoms until the rise of Northumbria. It was in response to Northumbrian expansion and aggression in the seventh century that the northern tribes began to unite into larger groups resembling nation states.
Additional pressure from the Scots in Dal Riata and the Britons in Strathclyde led to years of conflicts, skirmishes, raids, and a dynamically evolving landscape of tribal relations.
Centuries later, the Vikings would also pose a threat to the Picts, as they did to the entire region. A Pictish king of the early 9th century, Constantine, was successful in preventing further incursions into Pictish territory by Viking raiders. However, a later Pictish ruler of the same name was defeated by Vikings, during the mid 9th century, and the Picts here suffered many defeats at the hands of Vikings over the following years. It is partially due to this ongoing threat that it is thought the Picts united with the Scots into Alba, which in turn sees the Picts as a distinct group disappearing from written history.
This is a terrific book about a magnificent topic, one I find fascinating, a puzzle with many missing pieces. McHardy produces an admirable work that relates the story of these people in a comprehensive, careful way, with a strong focus on re-evaluating our assumptions and misunderstandings to hopefully go some distance toward a more complete picture.
Although they disappeared from history, the Picts lived on in memory as the ancestors of Scotland, and they found new life as the focus of folklore and legends carried through the centuries. Our knowledge of the Picts is handicapped by lost and likely irrecoverable records, misinformation, and other mysteries complicated by the times in which they lived.
Stuart McHardy attributes modern misperceptions of the Picts to political bias in history, and as products of Roman, English and early Christian propaganda. This is not without good reason. He argues that many Roman historical works that were not at least thinly veiled propaganda may be closer to literature than objective history regarding these and other “barbarians”.
Today we take this for granted, and it’s part of what gives these books their charm. But long traditions of treating these and other historical works of history as objective or factual over the ages has led to misunderstanding. He analyzes the works of Gildas, Nennius, and Bede, as well as the Lives of the saints, all being some of our primary sources for history of the region in this era.
He is right to observe that the writers just mentioned, and the Lives of the saints, had strong political or Christian agendas, and he breaks down why he thinks these sources are partially unreliable for objective knowledge of the Picts. Incompleteness in our old records leads to assumptions and guesswork, and the lack of direct written accounts make accurate reconstruction hard, in some cases impossible. This trouble is a recurring thread in the book, one he emphasizes again and again.
McHardy is not a historian but undertakes a thorough analysis of the works of historians, current and ancient, including frequent attention to the annals from the time, like the Annals of Ulster, and the Annals of Tigernach. In some sources he points to where gaps seem to be filled in by speculation, or where contradictions arise, or where certain claims do not match what we now know, or where the absence of archaeological record or historical evidence makes such claims unconvincing.
He refers to many contemporary and modern works that support his assessments, or that he disagrees with. These include dozens of works from the high Middle Ages and earlier, and scholarship covering the last few centuries. He digs deep into these well-chosen citations to explore why he thinks they are instructive or revealing or misleading. In the process, he untangles some complicated stories from history, including those of battles or conquests or power shifts among shortly ruling kings, conflicts between and within tribes, and other times shows that these things may be even more complicated than we think, and less likely to have satisfying answers.
This book is as much historiography as it is history. At times it comes off a little too focused on “correcting the record” than giving a coherent history of the Picts. But even when it does, McHardy is taking a huge amount of information from across history and piecing it together sensibly and with clarity, making a believable, consistent story of the Picts, with careful handling of the unknowns. In principled form, he does not appear to draw conclusions that are not substantiated by the evidence, even if it would be beneficial for his hypothesis to do so. His ideas that conflict with mainstream beliefs about the Picts he is careful to distinguish, and makes no claim that his views are authoritative or the final word.
He is adamant that most early historical mentions of the Picts being defeated in battle are presumptuous, mere speculation based on unreliable sources or propaganda, and not supported by the archaeology. Even with this hyper-focus on setting the record straight, sometimes at the expense of making that record easy to understand, it is still highly fascinating, a knowledgeable and compelling book. McHardy is obviously well versed on the topic.
He is quick to criticize many ideas he believes are anachronistic in trying to understand the Picts. For example, thinking of them in terms of kingdoms when they were instead tribes, or chiefdoms, leads to many faulty conclusions and assumptions about their society. They had no class structure, no bloodline monarchy, no feudalism, no nation states, and kinship, not kingship, seemed to be the core of their organization, much like the later Higland clans.
He sees many analogues between the Picts and the later highland tribes of the 18th century, warrior societies who refused to be dominated and resisted governmental control. He sees Scotland’s threat of being conquered by England as reflecting the northern tribes’ threat of being conquered by Rome. At times he seems overly reliant on clans from centuries later to support his conclusions about the Picts, but there appears to be truth to his assertion that many traditions in the Highland clans, a similarly structured society, were over a thousand years old.
Thinking in terms of race or ethnicities likewise makes no sense in McHardy’s view, and it is not altogether clear how the different tribes of the region, like the Scots or the Britons, thought of themselves as distinct from the Picts. It is still an open question, in McHardy’s view, whether or not the Picts were a distinct group in the early First Millennium, or if this was a convenient label devised by the Romans to lump together a bunch of unrelated tribes.
Whether there was more to their uniqueness than language or the common ancestors who they claimed to descend from is unknown. Our modern uses of the words “democratic” or “egalitarian” or terms like “political motivations” carry wildly different meanings than what anyone could possibly mean when describing the Picts.
McHardy harbors skepticism toward ideas of pan-Celticism, which suggests an ongoing cultural homogeneity among the people of Scotland, Ireland, Cornwall, and Brittany, due to all of them speaking (variations of) Celtic languages. He argues that this is a modern myth no older than the 18th century. He is insistent that shared languages or dialects do not indicate shared ethnicity.
The book suggests the Picts may be considered indigenous to Scotland, since there is no evidence of them coming from elsewhere. At the very least, he posits through citations, they may have descended from those who arrived in the Bronze Age. McHardy discusses the tribal aspects of the Picts, sometimes using generalized knowledge of tribal structures and behaviors from around the world to make a point that historians’ framing of Pictish society in a Christian-feudalism structure makes little sense.
He spends some time parsing out how we might distinguish Picts from other tribes noted by the Romans, particularly the Caledonians, and what the name means, where it comes from. Pecht might be the original name, and this is seen in many personal names of the people from the area later on. He supposes, by what seems to me safe reasoning, that some of the standing stones may be older than once thought, based on descriptions from the Romans of Pictish dress around a certain period.
The Picts first appear in written history with the battle of Mons Graupius in Tacitus’s Agricola, a work that understandably has bias and propaganda. Here the Picts are referred to as Caledonians. Their guerilla warfare against the Romans during this invasion was critical in preventing their defeat. By adapting their inter-tribal raiding tactics, something they had been doing for a long time, and utilizing their native terrain, they were able to effectively combat the Imperial army and prevent the complete Roman conquest of Scotland.
Despite being outnumbered and despite Roman reports of them being defeated in battle and fleeing, there is no record of them having ever been conquered, or of the Romans successfully moving further north into what is now Scotland than where the Picts resided. Nor is there archaeological evidence that the Romans ever established a long-term outpost anywhere in the Pictish lands. It seems by all accounts, even when certain Roman authors mention Romans defeating the Picts, that they never pressed further north.
A lot of reasons have been put forward for this, like Rome losing interest, not seeing enough value, the commanders returning to claim the premature victories they believed they were due, or not having enough manpower this far from Rome. There is no way to know for sure, but it seems to be true also that the Picts, with other tribes, posed a formidable opponent in their home territory. Hadrians Wall was built to defend against repeated incursions of Picts and Scots into the Roman territories in the south. These raids seemed to go on for some time.
The coming of Christianity to Scotland, as a permanent form in the sixth century, brought literacy, a force for the centralization of society into nation states, moving tribes from kinship toward kingship. Missionaries used King Arthur and other figures from myth and legend shared by the tribes of the islands as Christian heroes, who provided an aid in converting the people. The adoption of many pagan practices into Christian ritual made the transition easier and more appealing to the numerous tribes of numerous beliefs.
McHardy suggests the Picts did not begin to form into kingdoms until the rise of Northumbria. It was in response to Northumbrian expansion and aggression in the seventh century that the northern tribes began to unite into larger groups resembling nation states.
Additional pressure from the Scots in Dal Riata and the Britons in Strathclyde led to years of conflicts, skirmishes, raids, and a dynamically evolving landscape of tribal relations.
Centuries later, the Vikings would also pose a threat to the Picts, as they did to the entire region. A Pictish king of the early 9th century, Constantine, was successful in preventing further incursions into Pictish territory by Viking raiders. However, a later Pictish ruler of the same name was defeated by Vikings, during the mid 9th century, and the Picts here suffered many defeats at the hands of Vikings over the following years. It is partially due to this ongoing threat that it is thought the Picts united with the Scots into Alba, which in turn sees the Picts as a distinct group disappearing from written history.
This is a terrific book about a magnificent topic, one I find fascinating, a puzzle with many missing pieces. McHardy produces an admirable work that relates the story of these people in a comprehensive, careful way, with a strong focus on re-evaluating our assumptions and misunderstandings to hopefully go some distance toward a more complete picture.
August 24, 2023
According to the author, everything is the fault of the English oppressor, including the way previous (Scottish) academics have written about the Picts. But, on the other hand, “The idea of the Anglo Saxon invasion of England no longer stands up”. And the author informs us “I dispute the notion of a warrior aristocracy”. He also believes the Picts worshipped a mother goddess, despite the total absence of evidence for such a proposition. But he likes the idea of it, see?
There are some interesting ideas here, and I did learn some things, and the whole lot is wrapped up in a very punchy prose style. Some might like it – the author is described as a “storyteller” and I am sure he is a good one – but I wouldn’t care to meet him in a dark Glaswegian alleyway, especially with drink having been taken. My English accent would doubtless betray me, even though my DNA is predominantly Scottish (or perhaps Pictish, as I like to believe). Too much of this book is just the author’s chippy prejudices wrapped up in a great deal of wishful thinking and with a few purple twists of Scotch mist. I read this in conjunction with Clarkson’s History of the Picts, which in my opinion is much better.
There are some interesting ideas here, and I did learn some things, and the whole lot is wrapped up in a very punchy prose style. Some might like it – the author is described as a “storyteller” and I am sure he is a good one – but I wouldn’t care to meet him in a dark Glaswegian alleyway, especially with drink having been taken. My English accent would doubtless betray me, even though my DNA is predominantly Scottish (or perhaps Pictish, as I like to believe). Too much of this book is just the author’s chippy prejudices wrapped up in a great deal of wishful thinking and with a few purple twists of Scotch mist. I read this in conjunction with Clarkson’s History of the Picts, which in my opinion is much better.
January 14, 2018
Whilst I found this book interesting, I wonder if there is not more to be learned about the Picts. I would of liked more understanding of what we know of them, their society and the legacy they have left behind.
I suppose I expected more of an understanding of the stones and symbols, of some of the possible archeological work and it's conclusions. Perhaps this wasn't the book to give that information.
I'm not convinced some of the authors assumptions, were any more than that. While I know historical resources are limited, I found myself wondering if his speculation was any better than the 'biased' sources he did quote from. I would also have liked a copy of the King's List as an appendix.
All this said, I did find the book interesting (if not a little dry) and I'm keen to learn more about the Picts! Especially the current excavation programme at Rhynie in Aberdeenshire.
I suppose I expected more of an understanding of the stones and symbols, of some of the possible archeological work and it's conclusions. Perhaps this wasn't the book to give that information.
I'm not convinced some of the authors assumptions, were any more than that. While I know historical resources are limited, I found myself wondering if his speculation was any better than the 'biased' sources he did quote from. I would also have liked a copy of the King's List as an appendix.
All this said, I did find the book interesting (if not a little dry) and I'm keen to learn more about the Picts! Especially the current excavation programme at Rhynie in Aberdeenshire.
November 4, 2025
This was a short and very readable overview of the people we call Picts. I was mostly interested in their battles with the Romans and their interaction with the monks who brought Christianity to this area. I definitely recommend this book for a quick but still comprehensive background of an important group of Scottish people who left no written records.
Read
October 10, 2024McHardy puts an interesting spin on the enigma that is the Picts. The writing style is slightly clumsy and in places repetitive. It also suffers from a serious lack of hard evidence but this is the fault of the subject and not the author. His primary thesis is that we must use kinship rather than kingship to interpret Pictish social structure. This is convincing and offers an alternative the the Romano-centric view of that period of Scottish history. Where I disagreed with him is in his anti-church attitudes. What makes the Picts interesting for me is that they were the people that witnessed the transition to Christianity in Scotland - Christianity of the Celtic variety. McHardy does not agree would have perhaps preferred Scotland to remain Pagan. However there are a number of good books about Iron age Scotland around at present and the entire field is being up dated - I would add this to the list.
March 14, 2020
Knowing little about Pictish history, I picked this up as a first pass. I was highly entertained by the author's pugnacious stance versus colonialist/imperialist sources, and sympathetic for those situations where that's the only source material available. (When someone who obviously hates your guts is writing your story... and no other materials survived for a hundred years on either side... oooh.) I appreciate that he points at his sources in a useful fashion; that gives me a starting point for further historical interrogation. I don't yet know enough about the field to have a really educated view of where he sits in interpretations versus other scholars, but I appreciated his take on an underdocumented part of Scottish history.
February 8, 2020
Easy to read. A refreshing take on the history of this people. The author questions pretty much everything that has been said before with an un-jaundiced eye. Given that so much of their history is based on what invaders have had to say about them, it is good to see an author question these sources rather than taking them at face value. He does not automatically gainsay others, he gives his perfectly valid, I would say obvious, reasons for disagreeing. Hopefully, the author is working on more work in the same vein.
September 16, 2024
This reads much more like a dissertation than a book. It's littered with "I propose", "I suggest" and "I contend", as he tries to demonstrate his basic premise: that the Picts were the indigenous people of Scotland. It's an interesting idea, and it's not a bad argument, but there's an awful lot of speculation involved.
He also cross-refers to stuff he'd already published - almost as if he's assuming you'll run off and read those next - and stuff he's yet to publish, which gets a bit tiring.
He also cross-refers to stuff he'd already published - almost as if he's assuming you'll run off and read those next - and stuff he's yet to publish, which gets a bit tiring.
November 21, 2017
Fascinating attempt to marry folklore and qualitative archaeology with the sources. His account of the Picts makes more sense than any delays count that does not move beyond the core facts. It's perfectly possible to use qualitative methods empirically, and MacBride make as good start.
August 3, 2019
Highly informative.
February 21, 2021
Mega interesting. Would reccomend.
August 11, 2022
Indulgent passion project that lacks historical rigour.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews