A lot of interesting material here, although – as always with the Picts – we are tantalised by how little is really known. As for the ethnic origins of the Picts – a much discussed, obscure, and disputed subject – Noble makes the point that as far as the Romans were concerned, they were ethnically the same as other Britons. As the Britons under Roman rule became more “civilised”, the Romans took to calling those in the far north “Picti” – the painted (or tattooed) ones – to emphasise their more “barbaric” nature. Their distinctiveness was in terms of their culture (or lack of it, from a Roman point of view), not their ethnicity.
I was especially interested in the chapter on the religion of the Picts. Their pagan magicians controlled the weather, and were associated with shamanism, springs and wells, decapitation, and bull symbolism. There are obvious commonalities with the pagan religious practices of other Britons, but Pictish paganism was distinct, and not “Celtic” in the way that is commonly understood. The Church could be both positive and negative for royal power: the early missionaries Columba and Ninian may have had their influence overstated by later monkish chroniclers. Later medieval innovations are only gradually being disentangled to give us a better understanding of what early Pictish Christianity might have looked like.
This book is a useful additon to my Pictish studies library, not least because it was published relatively recently (2022). It should be noted that it is a collection of archaeological essays, often heavy on the technical detail, and not a narrative history.