A photograph showing both sides of the Class II Aberlemno III Pictish stone, located on the roadside

“There is no custom in the history of human progress which serves so much to connect the remote past with the present time as the erection of pillar-stones to commemorate events...” - John Stuart, 1867.

Scattered across Northern Britain are the remains of one of the island’s most enigmatic peoples, the Picts, known in the native British tongue as the Prydyn. For centuries, they dominated much of what is now Scotland, resisting the advances of the Roman Empire and the later expansion of the Anglian kingdom of Northumbria. Despite the role they played in shaping Northern Britain, much about the Picts remains shrouded in mystery.

Unlike many of their contemporaries, they left behind few written records of their own, forcing historians to reconstruct their past using archaeological evidence, alongside place names and the testimonies of observers. Among the most fascinating remnants of the Picts are the so-called symbol stones. By examining these remarkable artefacts, we can slowly unravel the history of these ancient Britons, and few places offer a better starting point than the rich concentration of monuments found at Aberlemno.

Aberlemno: A Landscape Written in Stone

A photograph of the Aberlemno Parish Church was built in 1722

The Scottish village of Aberlemno is located in the council area of Angus, on Scotland’s East Coast, north of the River Tay. Its name combines the Brittonic element aber, referring to the mouth or confluence of a river, with Lemno, the name of the nearby Lemno Burn. During the Late Roman and early medieval periods, the area around Aberlemno became part of the territories controlled by the Picts, conventionally referred to by modern historians as Pictland. According to Mediaeval tradition and legends, Pictland was divided into seven major kingdoms or territories, each said to have been founded by a son of the mythical king Cruithne. Angus, where Aberlemno lies, was associated with the territory of Circin, supposedly founded by Cirig. Circin, sometimes written Circenn, is generally thought to have occupied the lands north of the Firth of Tay, and south of the eastern Grampian Mountains. Its territory has been variously reconstructed as encompassing parts of modern Angus and the Mearns, with some interpretations extending it into Strathmore and Strathearn. Although its precise boundaries are undefinable, it appears frequently in Medieval writings, with some suggesting it is the second-most-mentioned Pictish territory after Fortriu.

Aberlemno lies within what historians generally regard as the southern part of Pictish territory. This division between north and south was already recognized in the 8th century by the monk Bede. In his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, he described the Picts as being split into two groups by a line of steep, rugged mountains. These are generally identified with the Mounth, the eastern upland section of the Grampian Mountains, which formed a natural barrier between the northern and southern parts of Pictland. The fertile Strathmore valley, in which Aberlemno lies, was an important region of Pictish settlement and activity during the first millennium AD. This is supported by the wealth of archaeological finds in the region ranging from symbol stones to fortified settlements, cemeteries and artefacts. The nearby town of Forfar has been proposed as an important royal centre within Circinn, while the remarkable concentration of monumental sculpture at Aberlemno suggests that the site itself held considerable social, religious or ceremonial importance

Several carved stones have been documented in and around the village of Aberlemno. Four main stones can be seen in the village today. Three, notably Aberlemno 1, 3, and 4, are located on the side of the road. Whereas Aberlemno 2 is found in the nearby churchyard. They are among the best-known examples of Pictish sculpture, attracting visitors because of the sophistication and variety of their carvings. But their importance extends far beyond their artistic appeal, for together they provide a chronological sequence of Pictish art, as it transitioned from the Class I incised symbol stones to the more elaborate Class II cross slabs.

What follows will be a short breakdown of the individual stones and the symbols portrayed on their faces.

Aberlemno 1 (The Serpent Stone)

Photograph of Aberlemno I Pictish stone located at the roadside in the village of Aberlemno

Along a quiet road in Aberlmeno, a short distance from the village’s churchyard, lies perhaps the most famous Pictish stone in existence. Known as Aberlemno I, it belongs to Class I in the Allen and Anderson system, which is to say it is an unshaped standing stone bearing incised symbols rather than a dressed slab carved in relief. The circumstances surrounding its original discovery remain unknown, although the stone was already known to antiquarians by the mid-nineteenth century, when it was described by the Scottish scholar Andrew Jervise. According to the Historic Environment Scotland (HES), the stone likely sits in its original position along a natural ridge, which may have served as an ancient routeway.

Its face bears three of the most recognisable motifs in the Pïcitsh symbolic tradition. On the upper part of the stone is a long winding serpent. Beneath it is the iconic double-disc and Z-rod, carved in bold lines. Finally, on the lower section of the stone, researchers have noted the distinctive mirror and comb symbol, a motif that often accompanies many symbol pairs. The symbols were executed with remarkable precision for the era, leading many researchers to describe it as one of the best examples of early Pictish art. It stands as a testament to the Picts’ artistic capabilities during the earlier phase of the symbol system.

One aspect that is of particular interest is found on the reverse side of the stone, where several prehistoric cup-and-ring marks can be observed. This design was frequently used during Neolithic times. This indicates that the Picts likely reused a much older stone that was first decorated with small circular depressions by Neolithic farmers. Such a practice of reusing prehistoric monuments was not uncommon in early medieval Britain and may have helped foster connections between contemporary communities and a distant ancestral past.

Aberlemno 2 (The Kirkyard Cross-Slab)

A photograph showing both sides of the class II, Aberlemno II Pictish stone located in the village churchyard

Standing in the churchyard of Aberlemno, some 300 yards south of Aberlemno I, in the village Kirkyard, sits one of the finest masterpieces of Pictish sculpture. Known as Aberlemno II, this highly detailed Class II cross-slab combines early Christian artwork with traditional Pictish symbols, reflecting the transition that took place in Northern Britain during the eighth century. Although the stone now stands in the churchyard, its original position is uncertain, and there is some evidence to suggest it was re-erected at some point. In 1898, when the stone was lifted to examine its base, archaeologists discovered that it lacked a socket stone (a structural foundation stone used to anchor and support a standing stone), suggesting it may have been removed from its original position. Moving such stones wasn’t unheard of, and the relocating of such monuments into consecrated churchyards was a way of preserving or reusing ancient works of art.

The monument has been known to antiquarians for centuries and was both described and illustrated as far back as 1726, in Alexander Gordon’s Itinerarium Septentrionale. Standing at an impressive 2.3 meters in height, the stone was carefully shaped before being carved. On its front face we find a large ringed, quadrilobate cross, intricately decorated with interlace, key-patterning and zoomorphic designs. This kind of design is a defining feature of Class II Pictish stones, illustrating the growing influence of Christianity during the period in which it was carved. On the reverse side, we have a famous battle scene, depicting mounted warriors, infantry and fallen combatants. For much of the twentieth century, many historians believed it represented the Battle of Dun Nechtain in 685 AD, where the king of Fortriu, Bridei mac Bili, managed to unite the Picts and succeeded in defeating the Northumbrians, commanded by King Ecgfrith. This victory secured Pictish independence, halted Northumbrian expansion, and is often considered a pivotal event in the formation of Scotland. However, not everyone is certain this is what the battle scene depicts. Modern art-historical analysis by scholars like Isabel Henderson and George Henderson suggests a later date in the mid-9th century, suggesting the monument represents a more generic heroic narrative or a different conflict entirely.

Aberlemno III (The Great Cross-Slab)

A photograph showing both sides of the class II, Aberlemno III Pictish stone, located on the roadside

Standing beside the roadside at Aberlemno, a short distance from Aberlemno I, is another imposing cross-slab known as Aberlemno III. It was one of the stones recorded by Alexander Gordon in his 1726 Itinerarium Septentrionale, where he speculated it commemorated a victory over invading Danish forces. That interpretation has long since been dismissed, but it remains useful evidence that the stone was already standing and visible in the landscape by the early eighteenth century. Its earlier history is harder to pin down: Historic Environment Scotland states that it was recovered from a nearby field, though, as with Aberlemno I, no primary source is given for the claim, leaving its findspot effectively unverified.

The monument is classified as a Class II Pictish cross-slab on account of its overt Christian iconography. The front face is dominated by a large ringed cross, its arms and shaft filled with interlace and spiral ornament, flanked by angels and other human figures, while animal forms cluster near the base, variously read as naturalistic beasts or more fantastical creatures. The reverse carries two of the most familiar motifs in the Pictish symbolic repertoire, a crescent and V-rod paired with a double-disc and Z-rod, positioned above an elaborate hunting scene of mounted riders, hounds, and pursued stags. At the foot of the slab is a scene generally identified as the Old Testament David prising open the jaws of a lion.

Scholars have long noted the stylistic closeness between Aberlemno III and the Hilton of Cadboll stone in Easter Ross, particularly in the treatment of the hunting scene, a resemblance that has fed into a broader debate over dating: the slab was traditionally assigned to the late eighth century, but more recent comparative analysis favours a mid-ninth-century origin. Either way, the parallel suggests that sculptors working in different parts of Pictland drew on a shared artistic vocabulary, pointing to a degree of contact and exchange across considerable distances rather than a landscape of isolated, self-contained communities.

Aberlemno 4 (The Flemington Farm Stone)

A photograph showing the front and reverse faces of the Class I Aberlemno IV Pictish symbol stone, also known as the Flemington Farm Stone

Aberlemno IV, known as the Flemington Farm Stone, was found in a field roughly thirty yards from Aberlemno church. It turned up during ploughing in 1961, making it a comparatively late discovery among the Aberlemno stones. Isabel Henderson formally reported the discovery in 1964, in a short paper for the Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland titled “Two Pictish Symbol Stones,” and today that paper remains the earliest substantial academic treatment of the monument. Unlike Aberlemno II, which is thought to stand at or near its original position, the Flemington stone was re-erected beside the road close to where it was found, so it is presumed, though not certain, to sit near the site it originally occupied.

The stone is a Class I monument and carries two symbols: an arch, sometimes described as a horseshoe, sitting above a Pictish beast, that enigmatic elongated creature that turns up across the symbol-stone corpus and whose meaning has never been convincingly pinned down. The carving has suffered some damage, likely in part from its time buried within cultivated ground before its discovery, although the distinctive beast symbol remains clearly visible. As with most Pictish symbol combinations, however, we cannot say with certainty what the pairing of the arch and beast was intended to represent. Scholars have variously suggested personal names, markers of status or identity, or some form of commemorative or territorial symbolism, but no interpretation has gained general acceptance.

The stone itself is no longer at Aberlemno. It was removed to Dundee and now sits in the McManus Galleries, which means the roadside monument visitors see today is really a modern marker of the findspot rather than the original object.

Aberlemno 5 (Southern Roadside Stone or Crescent Stone)

Aberlemno V, the central stone in the roadside group, presents a considerably more ambiguous case than its neighbours. Where Aberlemno I, II, and III carry legible symbols or figural carving, Aberlemno V is largely featureless, showing only faint traces of incision that have never been convincingly read as a coherent symbol pairing. Unlike Aberlemno IV, whose removal to Dundee and eventual placement in the McManus Galleries is well documented, Aberlemno V has no comparable discovery narrative. It does not appear to have been unearthed or identified at a later date; rather, it has stood among the roadside group for as long as antiquarian record-keeping extends, its presence noted almost incidentally alongside its more legible neighbours rather than treated as a find in its own right. In modern memory, it has effectively always been there, a fixture of the local landscape rather than something dug out of the ground.

It remains in place today, still standing at the roadside among Aberlemno I, II, and III, and has never been removed to a museum collection. That fact is itself part of the problem: left exposed to the elements without the conservation attention given to its more clearly significant neighbours, whatever the stone once bore has had far less protection from weathering. Opinion on its status remains divided. Some antiquarians have proposed that it represents an unfinished Pictish monument, abandoned before carving was completed; others regard it as a later imitation piece, or simply a heavily weathered monolith whose original surface, if it ever carried symbols at all, has not survived. No consensus has emerged, and the stone is generally treated as the least informative of the roadside group, precisely because so little about its original condition can be verified.

Flemington Stone II (Aberlemno 6, 2022 Discovery)

A photo of the more recently discovered Flemington Stone II stone showing Professor Gordon Noble of the University of Aberdeen and Professor Jane Geddes, President of the Pictish Arts Society, sourced from ANGUSalive Museums and Galleries

The picture of the wider Aberlemno landscape changed considerably with a discovery made during archaeological investigations by the University of Aberdeen. In 2020, a team led by Professor Gordon Noble carried out geophysical surveys near the village as part of the Comparative Kingship project. When some of the anomalies identified by the survey were investigated through excavation, the archaeologists unexpectedly uncovered a previously unknown Pictish symbol stone measuring approximately 1.7 metres in length. The discovery was announced publicly in 2022 and added another important monument to Aberlemno’s already remarkable archaeological landscape.

The newly discovered stone is a Class I symbol stone and preserves an unusually extensive collection of Pictish symbols. Among them are a double-disc and Z-rod, a mirror and comb, a crescent and V-rod, and several triple-oval motifs. The stone also appears to have been carved in more than one phase, with some symbols overlapping earlier designs. This provides an intriguing glimpse into the way Pictish symbol stones may have been modified or added to over time, although the precise sequence and meaning of the carvings remain uncertain.

Perhaps more significant than any individual symbol, however, is the archaeological context in which the stone was found. Rather than standing as an isolated monument, it had been reused within the paving of an 11th- or 12th-century building. Excavations also revealed other carved stones in the vicinity, including one bearing a faint spiral and another with prehistoric cup marks. Their presence alongside the Pictish stone demonstrates that older carved stones continued to form part of the landscape long after their original creation.

The Woodwrae Stone

A photograph showing both faces of the Woodwrae Stone. (Left shows the front face; right shows the rear)

Another stone often considered linked to those of Aberlemno was found less than a mile north of the village, at Woodwrae Castle in Angus. It was uncovered in 1819 during the clearing of the castle’s foundations, having been repurposed at some point as a floor slab in the castle kitchen, a use that, as with several other Pictish monuments recovered from later buildings, obscures rather than clarifies its original setting. The resemblance between the Woodwrae Stone and the Aberlemno group has been noted repeatedly, and their stylistic similarities have led scholars to suggest that the Woodwrae Stone may originally have stood at Aberlemno before being moved to Woodwrae.

The stone is classified as Class II, combining the incised Pictish symbols characteristic of the earlier Class I tradition with the relief-carved cross and Christian iconography associated with the later, converted period of Pictish carving. On the front face, the cross is flanked by carved beasts, including a pair of snakes, along with a more ambiguous figure that some interpretations read as a beast swallowing a man head-first, an image whose violence sits uneasily alongside the cross it accompanies and has invited comparison with similar devouring motifs elsewhere in early medieval sculpture.

The reverse face has suffered considerable damage, likely compounded by its long functional use as a slab rather than a preserved monument, yet several symbols remain legible. A Double Disc occupies the top right corner, and just below it sits a rare step symbol, a motif far less common across the Pictish symbol corpus than the double-disc or crescent forms and one that adds to the stone’s evidential value despite its poor overall condition.

Conclusion

Taken together, the stones of Aberlemno offer a rare and tangible connection to a society whose own written voice has largely been lost. Their symbols, crosses and intricate carvings preserve fragments of a Pictish world that can otherwise be difficult to reconstruct, providing evidence not only of artistic skill but of the beliefs, identities and communities that produced them.

Even after the Pictish kingdom itself disappeared into the emerging medieval kingdom of Alba, these monuments remained embedded within the landscape. Their survival therefore represents more than an archaeological record; they are also monuments of memory, allowing traces of the Picts and the world they inhabited to endure long after the people who carved them had passed from history.

Sources:

1. Fraser, I., ed. 2008. The Pictish Symbol Stones of Scotland. Edinburgh: Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland.

2. Henderson, G., and I. Henderson. 2004. The Art of the Picts: Sculpture and Metalwork in Early Medieval Scotland. London: Thames and Hudson.

3. Foster, S. M. 2004. Aberlemno, Cross-Slab and Symbol Stones: Interim Statement of Cultural Significance. Edinburgh: Historic Scotland.

4. Henderson, I. 1964. “Two Pictish Symbol Stones.” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 96: 1–7.

5. Jervise, A. 1859. “Localities of Certain Sculptured Stone Monuments in Forfarshire, etc. (Part I).” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 3: 242–51.

6. Allen, J. Romilly, and J. Anderson. 1903. The Early Christian Monuments of Scotland: A Classified, Illustrated, Descriptive List of the Monuments, with an Analysis of Their Symbolism and Ornamentation. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

7. University of Aberdeen. 2022. “Stone Me! Rare Pictish Symbol Stone Found Near Potential Site of Famous Battle.” University of Aberdeen News, 7 March 2022.

There is something undeniably mysterious about the Picts. The name itself immediately grabs the imagination.

But unlike many of their relatives in Medieval Britain, they left behind almost no written records in their own words. In fact, the only historical material that can be linked to them is a series of problematic king-lists preserved centuries later in medieval manuscripts.

A lot of what we do know about the Picts comes from what archaeologists have uncovered at sites like Burghead. These excavations have revealed that the Picts were a lot more sophisticated, hierarchical, and well-connected than previously thought.

Yet perhaps the most vivid window into Pictish life comes from their carved stones found scattered throughout Scotland. Marked with unusual symbols and detailed images, they provide a rare glimpse of how the Picts expressed identity, belief, and power. Because written records are so limited, these carvings are one of the few direct sources we have.

But to go into detail with every symbol and stone would require many volumes of study, not a single article. For that reason, this piece provides only a simple introduction to Pictish standing stones and their enigmatic symbols.

What are the Pictish Symbol Stones?

A photograph of the famous Dunnichen Stone, a Pictish symbol stone discovered near Dunnichen in Angus, Scotland

For more than two centuries, tall stones carved with unusual and often intricate symbols have been found throughout Scotland. Some are inscribed with supernatural beasts, others portray zoomorphic images, and some have strange and unfamiliar symbols.

They are commonly found in the eastern and northern parts of present-day Scotland, stretching from the Firth of Forth to the Northern Isles, such as Shetland. The highest density is located in the northeast, particularly around Aberdeenshire, Angus, Moray, Fife, and Easter Ross.

Today, these monuments are known as Pictish stones. They are associated with the Picts, or Prydyn, a large confederation of native British tribes who dominated the northern part of the island during the Roman Period and Early Middle Ages.

As pointed out by the Scottish archaeologist, Gordon Noble, “The symbol stones have long been identified as Pictish because their distribution closely matches the extent of the Pictish kingdoms as reconstructed from the limited historical sources and from placenames.”

Over 200 of these stone monuments have survived to the present day. However, some researchers estimate this number could be as high as 300 or more. These stones are typically categorised into two main types based on their age and, often, the presence of Christian symbols. They are categorized as follows:

Class I represents the older of the two groups and is characterized by rough, unworked boulders featuring only incised, indigenous symbols.

Class II is represented by later dressed stone monuments, or cross-slabs, featuring a cross on one side and native symbols on the other.

Although Pictish symbols are most famous for their appearance on the standing stones, they have also been found on a wide range of other materials. This suggests they formed part of a broad symbol system that was used throughout the Pictish world.

For example, symbols have been found incised onto cave walls at East Wemyss Cave in Fife and at Sculptors Cave in Moray.

Portable objects also bear these symbols, such as a small silver plaque discovered among the items of the Norie Laws hoard. Likewise, a heavy silver chain from Whitecleugh, South Lanarkshire, was also found with similar Pictish symbols. Even in Orkney, a small animal bone has also been discovered bearing an inscription associated with the symbol system.

Taken together, this wide distribution raises an important question: if these symbols were used so consistently and across so many contexts, what did they actually mean?

Animals, Sigils, and Mythical Creatures: The Pictish Symbols

The names of various Pictish symbols as interpreted by the archaeologist Chris Lynn (Here the Pictish Beast is labelled elephant), Lynn, C. (2023).

The Picts were incredibly skilled artists, who produced images and symbols that stand comfortably amongst the finest craftsmanship found anywhere else in early medieval Europe. This is demonstrated in the many stone carvings found across their homeland.

Today, researchers estimate there are about 40 main symbols, though some believe this number could be as high as 60 when regional and stylistic variations are taken into account.

The symbols range from abstract geometric forms to known animals like snakes and wild pigs, household objects, and strange things whose function remains uncertain.

Most symbols have been assigned conventional modern names, typically based on their visual appearance or presumed subject. Whereas others have been given names like “crescent,” “V-rod,” and “double disc,” which reflect a descriptive approach, as researchers are not entirely sure what they represent.

Despite the relatively diverse range of symbols, almost 50% of all inscriptions use just three symbols: the crescent with V-rod, the double disc with Z-rod, and the Pictish beast.

The beast is one of the most well-known recurring figures in Pictish art (#5 in the above image). Some scholars have suggested that it resembles a dolphin, particularly because of its curved body and elongated snout. However, unlike other animals shown on Pictish stones, such as fish or birds, which can be identified with greater confidence, the Beast does not clearly match any known creature. For this reason, its true identity continues to be debated.

Another fairly common symbol is the Crescent and V-rod (#1). This design shows a crescent shape crossed by a V-shaped line. Some researchers have proposed that it may represent the sun or the moon, or perhaps refer more broadly to the sky.

If this interpretation is correct, it could suggest that the Picts attached importance to celestial movements and possibly incorporated them into their belief system. Even so, as with the Beast, there is no firm agreement, and the symbol’s exact meaning remains unknown.

The Pictish Fascination With Pairs of Symbols

A photograph of the famous Aberlemno 1 Pictish standing stone located in the village of Aberlemno, Angus, Scotland. It shows a main pair consisting of a double disc-Z rod and serpent. Below to the right is a mirror and a comb.

When Pictish artists carved symbols onto standing stones, they generally arranged them in pairs. No one really knows why this is the case. Sometimes the pairs are accompanied by an additional symbol, a mirror, or a mirror and comb, often carved at the base or below the main pair.

This arrangement is fairly common on Class I stones such as Aberlemno I (see above image). In this example, the main pair consists of a double disc-Z rod and serpent. Below to the right is a mirror and a comb, also carved into the stone.

While pairs are the most common configuration, it is not an exclusive rule. In fact, the number of symbols can range anywhere from one to eight on a single stone. Back in 2022, researchers discovered a stone near Aberlemno in Angus which featured seven different symbols.

The arrangement of symbols in pairs also continued into the later Class II stones. However, these examples are generally more elaborate in both shape and size.

Class II stones have been carefully shaped into rectangular slabs and feature carved relief symbols alongside Christian imagery. This often includes a large cross, accompanied by scenes of humans, beasts, and hunting.

Dating the Pictish Symbol System

Two very similar symbols are shown here: (a) carved into the rock face of West Doo Cave at East Wemyss Caves, and (b) engraved on a silver plaque from the Norrie’s Law Hoard found near Largo, demonstrating the use of this motif in both stone carvings and portable metalwork. (Image via ScapeTrust)

Throughout most of the 20th century, scholars generally believed the Pictish Symbol system emerged around the 7th or 8th centuries AD.

This dating was largely shaped by the influential work of John Romilly Allen and Joseph Anderson, who, in The Early Christian Monuments of Scotland, assigned the Class I symbol stones to this early Medieval period.

However, in recent years, the dates have been pushed back several centuries following excavations and developments in scientific techniques. Researchers like Gordon Noble, who’s head of the Northern Pictish project, have used new evidence to suggest a much earlier origin.

One particular item that helped reshape the dating of the Pictish symbol system is a small ox phalange (a small toe-like bone within the hoof) found at the archaeological site of Pool on the island of Sanday, Orkney.

The bone is decorated with a crescent and V-rod, along with a rectangular symbol, both associated with the Picts. When it was radiocarbon dated, the results suggested that it may date back as early as the beginning of the 5th century.

Another discovery was made during excavations at a promontory fort at Dunnicaer sea stack, near Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire. Here, archaeologists found that several Pictish symbol stones were used as part of a fort’s rampart, which has been dated to roughly AD 250–400.

Further evidence comes from the Wemyss Caves, specifically the Sliding Cave. Inside, researchers found carvings of a double-disc, serpent, and comb. When they examined the floor layers, it suggested early medieval activity dating to approximately between 240 and 390 AD.

Using evidence like this, researchers constructed a new timeline for the emergence of the Pictish symbol system. In 2018, Noble wrote:

“The evidence from Dunnicaer and the cave sites suggests that unelaborated carvings, generally of a smaller size and less standardized when compared with the later standing stone monuments, probably originated in the 3rd or 4th centuries AD.”

This recent research strongly suggests that the Pictish symbol system is much older than previously thought, with origins likely dating to the Roman Period around the 3rd century AD.

Was the Pictish Symbol System a Form of Written Script?

Pictish symbol stone from Invereen, Moy, in the collection of National Museums Scotland.

Over the years, several theories have been put forth to explain what the individual symbols mean and what the Pictish system was used for.

Some have suggested that the symbols functioned as emblems of tribal or kin-based identity. Others have interpreted them as grave markers, perhaps commemorating the dead. A more ambitious proposal is that they form part of an undeciphered written script, or even a non-alphabetic writing system.

This is the view taken by Gordon Noble and many other academics, who argue that Pictish symbols were used to communicate identities, most likely personal names. In this interpretation, each symbol represents a name.

But there is an obvious flaw in this idea. As we previously mentioned, nearly half of all inscriptions are comprised of just three symbols (the crescent and V-rod, the Pictish beast, and the double-disc and Z-rod)

Helen McKay raises this very issue in her paper, “Why the Pictish Symbols Aren’t Names, Almost.” She goes on to make a reasonable argument against the idea that the symbols represent names.

“Counting the frequency of the symbols tells us that only three symbols, the crescent/V, the Pictish beast, and the double-disc/Z, account for between 40% and 50% of all symbols, and it goes against all evidence and experience that the Picts used only three names for nearly half their children. To put it bluntly, the ‘one symbol = one name’ idea is wrong. And so, symbol stones do not display personal names.”

If each of the symbols really represented a personal name, it would suggest that just a few names were used for an extraordinary share of the population. In practical terms, nearly half of all the Pictish individuals commemorated would have carried one of only three names, something that does not reflect how names are distributed in any known society.

Another idea suggests that the two symbols worked together to form what is known as a dithematic name, in which two elements combine to create a single personal name.

This is a common feature in many early languages. For example, the Irish name Murchadh is composed of two components: muir, meaning sea, and cath, meaning battle. When the two terms are combined, the name can be understood to mean sea warrior.

This idea was popularized by the British archaeologist Ross Samson in his 1992 paper, The Reinterpretation of the Pictish Symbols. He believed the stones were memorials for the deceased, with the paired symbols representing the name of the person being commemorated.

This is intriguing to contemplate, as it would give us a reason as to why so many of the symbols came in pairs. However, even if we accept this interpretation, the same difficulty remains.

If the symbols formed two-part, or dithematic, names, we would expect a wide range of symbols combining in different ways to produce many names. Instead, the stones show that only a small group of symbols appears again and again.

This would mean that even when paired, the combinations would come from a very limited pool, resulting in far less variety than we would expect in a real naming system.

But if they don’t represent names outright, what do the symbols mean? Well, McKay has put forth her own theory, and I admit it is the one I agree with the most. She argues that the symbols are part of what’s known as a mnemonic system.

A mnemonic system is a way of using images or symbols to help people remember things. Instead of writing full sentences, a culture uses simple signs that point to ideas people already know. The symbol does not explain everything on its own; it acts as a reminder.

A modern example would be a road sign. If you see the image of a deer, it does not give a long explanation, but you immediately understand: watch out for deer. The picture works because you already know what it means.

In the same way, the Pictish symbols may have worked as memory aids. Instead of being a written language, they may have acted like simple keys, each symbol pointing to a larger idea or story within a wider system of meaning. A single image might have triggered not just one idea, but a chain of associations tied to genealogy, cosmology, or even myth.

For this kind of system to work, people must already know the background. A certain animal or shape could instantly bring a genealogy or myth to mind for those living at the time, even if that meaning has been lost to us today.

This brings us to a final possibility. If the Pictish symbol system functioned as a mnemonic device, it’s possible that its roots lay in earlier intellectual traditions, perhaps even in the world of the Druids

The Druids of Britain and Ireland were well known in classical sources for their strict commitment to oral learning. Their training is said to have lasted many years and relied entirely on memorization rather than writing. To sustain such a demanding system, they would almost certainly have used structured methods to organize and recall vast amounts of knowledge.

In this light, the Pictish symbols may represent the surviving echoes of such a tradition.

By the 10th century AD, the Pictish symbol system had come to an end. With the unification of the Picts and the Scots into the Kingdom of Alba. This came at a time when a new language, Gaelic, had become increasingly dominant, likely influenced by its growing role in religious life.

Today, the Pictish symbol system and standing stones remain among the most enduring traces of a culture whose voice has largely faded from the historical record. Yet as new discoveries are made and researchers continue to study the symbols, it’s possible that one day the key to their meaning may finally be unlocked.

I would like to give a special thanks to , who kindly answered many of my questions regarding the potential meaning behind the Pictish symbol system. For those who do not follow her Substack, I highly recommend taking a look. She had produced dozens of interesting articles regarding the Picts, and I’ve learned an incredible amount from scouring through her page.

Sources:

1: Further thoughts on the Pictish symbols, Chris Lynn (2023)

2: Z RODS & V RODS of the PICTISH SYMBOLS: Analysing the Rules that Govern, Helen McKay

3: The Development of the Pictish Symbol System: Inscribing Identity Beyond the Edges of the Empire, Gordon Noble et. al (2018)

4: Why The Pictish Symbols Aren’t Names, Almost, Helen McKay

5: Pictish Stones: Iconography and Interpretation, Janet Kay’s (2017)

"Ptolemy's Map" of Roman Britain, Caledonia, and Hibernia from Plate 15 of R. Lane Poole's Historical Atlas of Modern Europe, 1902.

The Picts of Northern Britain remain one of the most mysterious groups of the ancient world. Although there is a complete lack of native written accounts on their history, linguistic evidence exists that can help explain who these people were and where they came from.

When it comes to identifying this loose confederation of tribes or kingdoms, the available linguistic evidence suggests the term Picti (the Picts) was a Latin name given to a native people known earlier as the Pritani.

The following article is a breakdown of the various linguistic terms applied to Britain and its inhabitants from their earliest mention by writers of the Classical Roman era through to the early Medieval period. I’ll also explore the meaning behind these names, and conclude that the Pritani, Picts, and the Prydyn were one people.

Ancient Sailors and Names of Old: Britain as Pritani

Population groups, oceans, and selected islands in Ptolemy’s Geography (140-50 AD) and Roman Fortifications of the 2nd and 3rd centuries

The earliest written reference to the British Isles is found in the work of the Greek explorer Pytheas of Massalia. Sometime around the 4th century BC, he explored the coast of Western Europe, notably visiting Brittany, the Channel Islands, and Britain, amongst other places. He later documented his travels in a book titled Περὶ τοῦ Ὠκεανοῦ, or On the Ocean.

In his writings, he collectively referred to Britain, Ireland, and the other small islands in the archipelago as Πρεττανική νησοι or Prettanikē Nesoi, which translates to the “Islands of the Pritani or Pretani.” Despite being an influential and well-known book in antiquity, no original copies of his work survived. However, its contents were mentioned in the work of later Greek writers, such as Diodorus Siculus and Strabo.

In his first century BC work, The Library of History, Diodorus Siculus quoted Pytheas’ work and referred to Britain as Πρεττανική νῆσος, or a Prettanikē nēsos, meaning “one of the islands of the Pritani.” He called it’s inhabitants the Prettanoi. But writers like Strabo, writing around the same time as Diodorus, used the variant Βρεττανική or Brettanike as a name for Britain, and Βρεττανοί, or Brettanoi, for its inhabitants.

The supplementation of the initial P for B in both early Greek and Latin texts was common practice for classical writers. In fact, according to the British archaeologist Barry Cunliffe, Strabo used both Brettanía and Prettanía.

Today, the common belief is that the Greek Prettanikē was a rendition of the older native name, Pritani or Pretani. This served as a designation for the British-Irish Isles as a whole, but more specifically, a powerful ethnic group that lived there. However, there is some scholarly debate as to whether the term Pretani referred to a geographical location or a people.

I tend to believe that Prettanikē derives from a people as opposed to a geographical location because of the work of other Greek writers. In the 2nd Century AD, Ptolemy of Alexandria compiled an atlas of the known world. In his writings, he gave Britain the individual name of Alwion, whereas Ireland was named Iwernia. But more importantly, Ptolemy referred to these islands individually as nēsos Pritanikē, or “an island of the Pritani.”

Cunliffe appears to agree. In his 2012 book, Britain Begins, he wrote: “In all probability, the word Pritani is an ethnonym (the name by which the people knew themselves).” But who were these Pritani, and more so, what does this term imply?

For decades, prominent linguists, including John Koch, have worked to determine the true meaning of the term Pritani. The leading consensus today varies slightly, but most agree that Pritani, or Pritani, means “the people of the forms.” Some people believe “forms” refer to body art, leading to translations such as “the tattooed ones” or “the painted ones.” A definition we know all too well, as it was used to define the Medieval warrior kings of Northern Britain, the Picts.

The Roman Province of Britain and the Rise of the Prydyn or Picts

A photograph of the Pictish stone at Aberlemno Parish Church, commonly known as Aberlemno II, which many believe depicts the Battle of Dun Nechtain in 685 AD.

In 55 BC, the infamous Roman general Julius Caesar conducted his first expedition to Britain in hopes of preventing the Pritani from aiding his Celtic enemies in Gaul. It ultimately failed, but he returned the following year with an even larger force and managed to extract tribute from several tribes in southern Britain. However, the expedition still did not result in permanent annexation.

Following these initial expeditions, the term Britannia was used more widely by the Romans to refer to the island of Great Britain. This name was later adopted for the Roman province of Britain following the colonization of the southern part of the island under Emperor Claudius in AD 43.

The name Britannia ultimately comes from the older Pritani, which, as I previously mentioned, was adapted into Greek as Πρεττανική (Prettanikē) and then borrowed into Latin. As for the inhabitants of Roman Britain, they were referred to as the Britanni or Britons in Latin. One of the earliest surviving Latin references to Britain is found on an inscription at the Temple of Augustus and Rome, located in the Altındağ district of Ankara, Turkey. It reads:

“Ad me supplices confugerunt reges…Britannorum Dumnobellanus et Tincomarus.”

(or)

"Kings sought refuge with me as suppliants ... including Dumnobellanunus and Tincomarus of the Britons.”

Throughout the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, a prolonged period of Romanization took place in Britain, primarily in the southern half of the island. But to the North, the Pritani retained their native culture and resisted Roman occupation throughout most of the province’s history.

Even with the introduction of Latin and the widespread adoption of Christianity, the Romano-Britons, who spoke Common Brythonic (the ancestral language of modern Welsh, Cornish, and Breton), continued to use their native language in everyday life.

By the 3rd century AD, the Latin writers applied the name Picti to various groups of the Pretani living in Northern Britain, who were not under their direct rule. It’s commonly believed the term Picti, first used by the Roman-era writer Eumenius, means something like the "painted people" or "painted ones" in Latin. This is evident in the words pingere “to paint” and pictus, “painted.”

But Picti wasn’t used by everyone to refer to the Pritani beyond the boundaries of Rome’s province. As the prominent Celtic linguist and researcher John Koch explained, “Pritani is a P-Celtic form and the source of Prydain, the name for the island of Britain in Welsh. But it is also the source of Prydyn, a name used by speakers of Old Welsh to refer to both Pictland as a whole and the Picts.”

So while the Romano-British peoples of southern Britain were happy with their newfound Roman identity, they most certainly remained aware of their older Prettanic heritage. Even when Latin writers referred to the unconquered tribes beyond Hadrian's Wall as the Picti, they were still known to their Welsh cousins as the Pritani or, more specifically, the Prydyn.

It should be noted that the slight difference in the two main branches of the Insular Celtic languages of Britain and Ireland means that Irish writers did not use the form Pritani, but instead Cruithne to refer to these people. This is a perfect explanation of the main difference in the two languages: Brythonic speakers typically substitute a P for a C.

The slight difference can be observed when comparing words with the same root, such as "head," which is "pen" in Welsh (Brythonic), and "ceann" in Irish (Goidelic). The same can be seen in the word for son – “mac” in Irish and “map” in Old Welsh.

So when the Medieval Irish monks wrote of the Picts, they referred to them as Cruithne. But this is because Old Irish didn’t have a P sound. Therefore, Cruithne is simply the Irish way of saying Pritani.

To conclude, Pritani, Prydyn, and Cruithne all stem from a common root and refer to an ethnic group who were once widespread across the British and Irish islands. Later, a portion of these Pritani would become known as the Picti to Latin writers. Thus, to some degree, these names can be used interchangeably.

But one question remains unanswered: What did the original term Pritani or Cruithne refer to exactly? Did they simply refer to “forms” in terms of body art, or could there be a deeper meaning behind this ancient ethnonym?

The People of the Forms

The Battersea Shield, River Thames, London, 350–50 BC – British Museum, London.

As explained, the Old Welsh used the term Prydyn to describe the Pictish people, while Prydain was the name for the island of Britain. The term Prydyn is a cognate of the Old Irish Cruithni, and both are derived from the proto-Celtic “kwritu,” meaning “shape” or "form.”

To delve deeper into the linguists, the Welsh “Pryd” and the Old Irish “Cruth” both mean “form” and also come from the proto-Celtic “Kwritu.” When these terms are combined with an adjectival suffix (a word ending used to turn a noun or verb into an adjective), we get Pritani or Cruithne. Therefore, we have the “people of the forms.”

But what does the phrase “people of the forms” actually mean?

One school of thought suggests it was related to the natives’ fondness for body art. This theory was popularised by the writings of Julius Caesar, who wrote in his Bello Gallico: “Omnes vero se Britanni vitro inficiunt, quod caeruleum efficit colorem” or “All the Britons dye their bodies with Woad, which produces a blue colour and gives them a wild appearance in battle.”

But tattoos were not the only “form” that existed in Iron Age Britain. For example, the Welsh term “Prydydd,” meaning “maker of the forms,” did not refer to a tattoo artist, but instead was a reference to a poet or bard. Specifically, a highly skilled poet who held an elevated status in Pre-Norman Wales.

Bards were a highly integral part of ancient British and Irish societies. They served as vital cultural and political figures responsible for preserving history, genealogies, and laws through oral tradition. In some cases, their roles even overlapped with those of the Druids. Therefore, the name Pritani may come from a term used to describe the spiritual and intellectual class of bards in ancient Prettanic society.

But one final option is that the term Pritani or “the people of the forms” takes its name from a specific art style that spread to Britain sometime in the 6th century BC. Of course, we are talking about La Tene art, named after an archaeological site on the northern shore of Lake Neuchâtel, Switzerland.

Sometimes called Celtic art, it is characterised by flowing S-shaped and spiral forms, stylized animal and plant motifs like palmettes, and abstract geometric designs such as triskeles. Some of the best preserved examples from Britain and Ireland include the Battersea Shield, found in London's River Thames in 1857. Another example is the Loughnashade Trumpet, discovered in a lake near the Navan Fort royal complex in County Armagh, Northern Ireland.

The unique art certainly showcases an advanced level of craftsmanship that was beloved by the rulers of the era, and it could be proposed that the true meaning of Pritani lay in the forms portrayed in these pieces.

As Koch explains, “Whether the forms in question in the name Pritani, Cruithni etc are tattoos, poetic praise or ornamental metal works, this ethnonym denotes a people with a distinctive culture (i.e.) external forms that define a special group identity and probably an elite status. (Implicity there are other groups within this worldview who lack the requisite forms and are thus excluded from the group).”

Whatever the true meaning behind the “people of the forms,” I believe I have shown, to the best of my ability, that the Pritani, Cruithni, and Pyrdyn all share a common origin linguistically and refer to a group of native peoples who lived in the British and Irish Isles over 2,000 years ago. This same group includes many of the tribes that would come to be known as the Picts.

Sources:

1: Barry Cunliffe - “Britain Begins.”

2: Diodorus Siculus - “The Library of History” (Book 5.21)

3: Strabo - Geography (Book I. Chapter IV. Section 2)

4: Barry Cunliffe - “The extraordinary voyage of Pytheas the Greek.” (revised ed.)

5: Goddard H. Orpen - “Ptolemy's Map of Ireland.”

6: Alex Wolfe - “On the Nature of the Picts.”

7: John Koch - “Celts, Britons, and Gaels—Names, Peoples, and Identities.”

A portion of a Pictish stone slab showcasing three warriors with coiffed hair and shaped beards, from Birsay, Orkney, 7th or 8th century, National Museums Scotland

Subscribe now

By the 4th century CE, the tribes living beyond the northern border of the Roman Province of Britannia were collectively referred to as the Picts. While Roman writers have shed some insight into these tribes and their culture, the Picts left little to no native writings, leaving much of their history, including their origin, to debate.

One legend of their origin is preserved in the Pictish Chronicles, a collection of medieval manuscripts based on oral legends. In the text, the first ruler of the Picts was a king known as Cruithne. A similar myth is preserved in the later Irish ‘Book of Lecan,’ written in the 14th century. It's interesting to point out that the word Cruithne could be Irish in origin. Prominent researchers such as Sir John Rhys and John T Koch have proposed that it is the Q-Celtic or Goidelic equivalent of the Brythonic word Prydin or Pretani. However, some still contested this.

An alternative source for the legend of King Cruithne is preserved in the 11th-century Lebor Bretnach. The latter is an early Middle Irish translation of Nennius’ early 9th-century work, Historia Brittonum, typically ascribed to the Irish poet Gilla Cóemáin. However, Lebor Bretnach isn’t a literal translation of Nennius’ work; it only summarises the Historia Brittonum, with the true focus of the manuscript being directed towards Gaelic matters.

A detached section of the Lebor Bretnach titled ‘Concerning Pictish Origins’ (Old Irish: Do Bunad Cruithnech) has received considerable interest over the past few centuries. In this section, we find a short poem dedicated to the ‘Mórseiser do Chruithne claind’ or the ‘Seven Children of Cruithne’. In this poem, the Picts trace their ancestry back to the legendary Cruithne, who divided the territory of Northern Scotland into seven districts for each of his seven sons. The verse is written in Old Irish and has four lines, each of seven syllables, grouped into two rhyming pairs. The quatrain (a complete poem of four lines) reads:

“Mórseiser do Cruithne claind

Raindset Albain i seacht raind

Cait Ce Círig cetach clann

Fíb Fidach Fotla Fortrenn.”

“Seven of Cruithne’s offspring

Divided Alba into seven shares

Cait, Ce, Círig, children with hundreds,

Fife, Fidach, Fotla, Fortriu.”

According to leading theories, the poem ‘Seven Children of Cruithne’ was added to ‘Concerning Pictish Origins’ during a period when the Pictish King’s list was extended forward to include the reign of Causantín, son of Cinaed, and backward to include the semi-mythical Cruithne and his sons. Causantin’s tenure as the Pictish king occurred between 862 and 876, suggesting the poem was added towards the end of the 9th century.

Interpreting The Seven Sons of Cruithne

Digital reconstruction of Dun da Lamh Pictish hillfort, by Bob Marshall, 2020, via Cairngorms National Park Authority

Scholars and historians have extensively discussed the quatrain over the past few centuries. Some propose it provides insight into the early Pictish confederacy and its geography, while others suggest it was an etiological myth explaining their origins. By the middle of the 9th century, the Picts had been decimated by continuous waves of Viking invasions, thoroughly weakening the strength of the overall confederacy. This may have even threatened Pictish identity as a whole, leading to the creation of a legend like the Seven Children of Cruithne, aimed at emphasizing a unified kingdom. The legend attempts to propose some form of unity amongst the various districts, linking individual tribes across a belt of primordial territory stretching from the Firth of Forth to the Pentland Firth.

The poem has been at the forefront of numerous debates among historians in recent years. Many agree that the practice of assigning territories with mythical eponymous founders was widespread in the ancient world, and it makes sense that the Picts did the same. However, what’s becoming increasingly more prevalent is that the Picts were not one singular ethnic group. The Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus provides us with evidence to support this school of thought. In his 4th-century work, Res Gestae, he states, “The Picts, divided into two tribes called Dicalydones and Verturiones, are roving at large and causing great devastation.” Dicalydones likely refers to the Caledonii of Ptolemy's Geographia and known to the Romans as the Caledonians. These fierce native Britons formed a confederacy that faced Roman forces at the Battle of Mons Graupius in 83 CE.

Despite the mythology surrounding the territory assigned to Cruithne’s sons, when properly investigated, the placenames align well with known regions within the territory of the Pictish kingdom.

1 - Fib has been clearly identified as Fife, located in the peninsula between the Firth of Tay and the Firth of Forth in eastern Scotland

2 - Fotla is the second element of Ath Fhotla or Atholl. Today, it forms the northern part of Perth and Kinross in Scotland.

3 - Fortrenn is the genitive form of Fortriu, the best-attested Pictish territory, now known to have been located in the area of later Moray and Ross, thanks to the work of Dr. Alex Woolfe. However, it was traditionally associated with Strathearn at one point in time.

4 - Cait is identified as having been located in Caithness and southeast Sutherland. It survives as Cataibh, the modern Scottish Gaelic name for Sutherland.

5 - Ce has been linked to the historic county of Aberdeenshire. The central part of the kingdom may have been near Marr and Buchan.

6 - Cirig is usually associated with the territory of Circin, north of the Firth of Tay and south of the Grampian Mountains. Many historians propose it may have encompassed the Mearns and Angus.

7 - Fidach has proven more challenging to locate, as the name does not appear independently in any records. Traditionally, it was associated with Moray prior to Dr. Woolf linking the latter with Fortrenn. Others propose it's connected with Strathearn and Menteith.

The Complexity of the Picts

Late 9th-century Pictish sandstone slab from Invergowrie Church, Angus, showcasing three figures on one side and a ringed cross on the reverse, National Museums Scotland

Having been written centuries after the rise of the Picts in Northern Scotland, Gaelic writers likely influenced the final version of ‘‘Seven Children of Cruithne.” After all, the Kingdom of Alba was formed in 843 when Kenneth I MacAlpin united the Picts and Scots, and the Lebor Bretnach is dated to the 11th century. One example of this is the name Fotla, an apparent reference to the Irish deity, Fódla, who likely became linked with the Pictish region following the Irish migrations that began in the early medieval period.

The poem, likely a Gaelicized rendering of an older Pictish legend, was a strategic move to unify various socio-ethnic groups. A quick look at Ptolemy’s tribal groupings suggests that Scotland was a melting pot of distinct groups during this early period. The creation of an origin legend centered around a figure was a masterstroke that aimed to bring together the various tribes of Pictland into one organized confederacy. This strategic move united these groups in the face of a common enemy, the formidable Romans, and later, the Anglos and Vikings, whose threats were repelled with great determination

Looking back, it's crucial to remember that Picti is a Latin name. The Insular Celtic name of the people was the Pretani or Cruithne, which itself might just refer to the most dominant ethnic group within the confederacy. The intricate Pictish history, born from the threat of an opposing Empire, is of immense significance. We may conclude that the Picts were a blend of several ethnic groups, likely with their own unique origin stories. Genetic evidence, from two high-quality Pictish genomes sequenced from individuals excavated from Pictish-era cemeteries at Lundin Links in Fife (Southern Pictland) and Balintore in Easter Ross (Northern Pictland), supports this idea. The study, led by researchers at Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU) and the University of Aberdeen, suggests that the Picts were local to the British Isles in origin, dispelling previous notions of migration from Scythia. However, the researchers did note that the Picts “were not one homogenous group and that there are some distinct differences, which point to patterns of migration and life-time mobility that require further study.”

In years to come, DNA studies may provide us with a clearer image of the origins of the various groups that would soon comprise the Pictish territory. But as it stands, I’m incredibly confident that the Picts were an amalgamation of distinct tribes that trace their ancestory back to the Pretani of Pre-Roman times. By the turn of the first millennium, they were forced to retreat beyond the borders of the Roman Empire to continue with their traditional way of life.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Sources:

1. Gearóid S. Mac Eoin (1964) - “On the Irish Legend of the Origin of the Picts.”

2. Fraser, James (2009) - “From Caledonia to Pictland: Scotland to 795.”

3. Broun, Dauvit (2007) - “Scottish Independence and the Idea of Britain From the Picts to Alexander III.”

4. John T Koch (2003) - “Celts, Britons, and Gaels - Names, peoples, and identities.”

5. Gordon Noble and Nicholas Evans (2009) - “The King in the North: The Pictish Realms of Fortriu and Ce.”

6. Morez A, Britton K, Noble G, Günther T, Götherström A, Rodríguez-Varela, et al. (2023) - “Imputed genomes and haplotype-based analyses of the Picts of early medieval Scotland…”

A Pictish stone from Bullion, Angus, shows a bearded warrior on horseback holding a huge drinking horn with a large bird-headed mount at its tip, National Museum of Scotland

Little is known about the prehistoric inhabitants of Britain and Ireland prior to the arrival of the then-Roman general Julius Caesar. Between 55 and 54 BCE, he led the first incursions into what is now southeast England. By 43 CE, the Roman Empire had successfully conquered Southern Britain, establishing a province they named Britannia, and with this, we began to receive numerous in-depth accounts of the native groups with whom the Romans had come into contact. But these sources weren’t the oldest. Centuries prior, various Greek explorers and scholars, such as Herodotus, Pytheas, and Ptolemy of Alexandria, wrote about the mysterious Pretani, who appear to have inhabited the islands for thousands of years.

Pytheas was a Greek geographer and explorer from Massalia (modern-day Marseille, France) who supposedly embarked on a significant voyage to Northern Europe around 325 BC. During his travels, he ventured to the British Isles and later wrote a book about his experience.  While no original copies remain intact, later Greek historians such as Strabo and Diodorus Siculus record that Pytheas called the British Isles, including Ireland, “Prettanike Nesoi,” or the Islands of the Pretani. Diodorus Siculus, writing in the 1st century BCE, also called the island of Britain Pretannia and its inhabitants the Pretanni.

In the 2nd century AD, Ptolemy of Alexandria, an Egyptian astronomer, mathematician, and geographer of Greek descent, wrote his famous work, Geographia. This comprised an extensive atlas that mapped the known world, shedding valuable insight into the Iron Age inhabitants of Britain and Ireland. Modern academics propose that Ptolemy’s map was based on source material that predated the Roman infiltration of the British Isles, as he appears to have used Greek renditions of Celtic names for physical landmarks and the names of various tribes. In his writings, Ptolemy also used the name Prettanike Nesoi to collectively refer to Britain and Ireland while giving the islands individual names Albion and Iouernia.

According to the revered Welsh historian John Rhys, the medieval Welsh or Brythonic term Ynys Prydain refers to the island of Britain and is related to the Prettanike used by the Greeks. In fact, it appears the latter is a Greek rendition of the original Celtic word Pretani, a name that designates both the islands and the tribes as a whole. Therefore, many scholars, historians, and archaeologists have proposed that the term Pretani is the oldest name we can apply to the native inhabitants of pre-Roman Britain and Ireland.

The Tribes of the Pretani: Ancestors of the Picts

Population groups, oceans, and selected islands in Ptolemy’s Geography (140-50 AD) and Roman Fortifications of the 2nd and 3rd centuries

Ptolemy’s Geographia gives us our first look at the names of individual tribes living in Iron-Age Britain, whom we might loosely group together as the Pretani. When Rome later infiltrated the Isles, many of the Pretani residing in the south migrated to the northern and western regions. However, those who remained behind in the South were slowly pacified and eventually Romanized. 

During the early years of the Roman province of Britannia, the most dominant of these Prettanic tribes in the north were the Lugi, Epidii, Caerini, Creeones, Smertae, Decante, Vacomagi, Carnonacae, Selgovae, Votadini, and the most famous of all, the feared Caledonii. The Caledonii tribe posed the greatest threat to Britannia. Eventually, they managed to unify many of the other tribes into a confederacy in preparation to push back the soon-to-be-advancing Roman forces. By 78 CE, Rome had essentially subjugated the entire southern population of the Isles. With Britannia’s governor, Gnaeus Julius Agricola, leading the movement, Roman soldiers made their way north toward the unruly tribes. However, the Romans couldn’t manipulate the tribes as they did in the south, so a full-scale invasion would be necessary to bring the northern territory under their dominion.

This conflict would culminate in the battle of Mons Graupius in 83 CE. According to the writings of Agricola’s stepson, Tacitus, the Roman army crushed the resistance led by the Caledonians. Yet, the Romans failed to hold onto the northern territories, ultimately leading to the construction of Hadrian’s Wall in 122 CE. The enormous structure stretched for over seventy miles, separating the Roman province from the northern lands, which would soon become known as Pictland. Two decades later, a second wall was built. Antonine’s Wall sat one hundred miles further north than Hadrian’s, aiming to extend the Roman territory further north. The righteous and hardened warriors who lived beyond this wall would soon come to be known as the Picti to Latin writers across their vast Empire.

The first mention of a group known as the ‘Picti’ was recorded two centuries after the battle of Mons Graupius. A Roman-era writer, Eumenius, referred to savage tribes and half-naked barbarians known as Picts who lived beyond the northernmost of Britannia’s boundaries in 297 CE. Scholars have long speculated upon the original meaning of this name. Some historians believe the name ‘picti’ means ‘painted ones’ in Latin, as the indigenous tribes are said to have covered themselves in blue tattoos. Others surmise it was related to a native word, ‘Pecht,’ used by the tribes of Scotland to refer to their ancestors. Nonetheless, it’s generally considered the Picts and their predecessors had formed several confederations that inhabited and controlled Northern Scotland from around 79 until 843 CE. No matter the individual origins and possible ethnic groups that the Romans grouped together as Picts, it was given to all people living above the northern walls. 

In conclusion, historians generally agree that the word ‘Pict,’ used frequently by various scholars from the fourth to tenth centuries, was nothing more than a Latinized name for the indigenous Pretani. However, some have gone as far as to suggest that the name ‘Pict’ was solely reserved for the native people of Britain who had moved north of the Great Walls and took no part in Roman customs. In contrast, the name Briton refers to any tribe that had been Romanised. Nonetheless, both the Picts and the Romanised Britons should be considered descendants of the Pretani, which in Q-Celtic or Gaeilge, is Cruithne.

Sources:

1 - Ptolemy's Map of Ireland, Goddard H. Orpen (The Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, 1894)

2 - The Name 'Picti' Revisited, George Broderick (Journal for Scottish Name Studies, 2015)

3 - The Extraordinary Voyage of Pytheas the Greek, Barry Cunliffe, (2002)