Rare Carved Stone May Portray Pictish Face

This topic would be useless without, yes, you guessed it, Picts.

Pictish stone resembling a face
University of Aberdeen

For those interested:
### The Most Accurate Physical Descriptions of the Picts

The Picts were a confederation of tribes inhabiting northern and eastern Scotland (from roughly Fife to Caithness) during the early medieval period, approximately 300–900 CE. They are often romanticized in historical accounts as “barbarians” or “savage warriors” due to biased Roman and medieval sources, which portrayed them as naked, ruthless, and frightening foes. However, modern archaeology, genetics, and re-examination of ancient texts provide a more grounded picture: the Picts were indigenous Iron Age descendants with physical traits typical of ancient Britons—fair-skinned, with a range of hair colors (likely including brown and red, not exclusively blonde), and of average build for the era (around 5’6”–5’9” for men, based on skeletal evidence from sites like Lundin Links). They were not exotic invaders from Scythia or Thrace, as medieval myths suggested, but local people with genetic continuity to modern western Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, and Northumbrians.

Their most distinctive physical feature was likely body decoration, though evidence for full-body tattoos is circumstantial and often conflated with temporary paint. Below, I’ll break down the evidence-based descriptions, separating fact from myth.

#### Genetic and Skeletal Evidence for Appearance
Recent DNA studies (e.g., a 2023 PLOS Genetics analysis of eight Pictish genomes from cemeteries at Lundin Links in Fife and Balintore in Easter Ross) confirm the Picts had **local British Iron Age ancestry**, with no significant influx from continental Europe. This implies physical traits shared with other ancient Britons:
- **Skin and Hair**: Fair to light skin, adapted to northern latitudes. Hair was likely straight or wavy, in shades of brown, auburn, or red—common in Iron Age Britain. No evidence supports the “blonde barbarian” stereotype.
- **Build and Height**: Skeletal remains show robust but not exceptionally tall or muscular frames, typical of early medieval farmers and warriors. Men averaged 165–175 cm (5’5”–5’9”), women slightly shorter. Diets included fish, grains, and meat, leading to healthy but weathered builds from outdoor labor and conflict.
- **Facial Features**: Broad faces with prominent cheekbones, based on crania from Pictish burials. No unique “exotic” traits; they resembled modern Celtic populations in Scotland and Ireland.

These findings debunk exotic origins and align with archaeological evidence of settled communities (e.g., roundhouses and hillforts like Dunnicaer), suggesting a pragmatic, agrarian people rather than nomadic hordes.

#### Body Decoration: Tattoos vs. Paint
The name “Picts” derives from Latin *picti* (”painted ones”), first recorded in 297 CE by Roman orator Eumenius, referring to body markings visible in battle. Julius Caesar (55 BCE) described Britons pricking designs into skin with iron needles and woad dye, but this predates the Picts by centuries and likely referred to temporary paint. Evidence is limited—no mummified bodies or direct tattoo remnants exist—but here’s the consensus:

- **Likely Practice**: A mix of **temporary woad-based body paint** (blue-black dye from the Isatis tinctoria plant) for rituals, warfare, or camouflage, and **possible tattoos** (permanent ink from charcoal or plant pigments) for status or identity. Paint was more common, as woad doesn’t bind well for tattoos (it fades quickly and irritates skin). Tattoos, if present, were probably linear or symbolic (e.g., spirals, animals like boars or salmon), echoing designs on Pictish symbol stones (over 350 carved slabs with motifs like crescents and z-rods).

- **Extent and Purpose**: Not full-body nudity—Romans exaggerated for propaganda. Carvings on stones (e.g., Aberlemno battlefield slab) and a 3rd-century CE bronze statue in Volubilis, Morocco (depicting a captive Pict in tartan leggings) show clothed warriors with tunics, cloaks, trousers, and brooches. Markings may have covered arms, torsos, or faces for intimidation, protection (e.g., woad’s mild antibacterial properties), or cultural identity. Both men and women likely participated, per Caesar’s accounts of Britons.

- **Archaeological Clues**: Symbol stones (e.g., Hilton of Cadboll) depict groomed, dressed figures with intricate patterns, suggesting tattoos/paint mimicked these (e.g., interlocking knots, mythical beasts). No bog bodies like Europe’s Ötzi (with therapeutic tattoos) confirm Pictish ink, but metalwork (e.g., sword hilts) bears similar designs.

A 2014 study traces the tattoo myth to 16th-century artists like Jacques Le Moyne de Morgues, who fancifully illustrated “Pictish maidens” with elaborate designs based on classical texts, not evidence. In reality, Picts were “well-groomed and fully dressed,” per stone carvings.

#### Debunking Key Myths
- **Naked Savages**: Roman accounts (e.g., by Ammianus Marcellinus) called them “barbarous and troublesome” to justify failed invasions (e.g., they halted Roman expansion at Hadrian’s Wall). Actual attire included wool tunics, leather armor, and plaid-like patterns (proto-tartan).
- **Matrilineal Markers**: No genetic evidence for female-line inheritance; mitochondrial DNA from Lundin Links shows diverse maternal lines, suggesting exogamy (marrying outside groups).
- **Exotic Looks**: DNA refutes Scythian/Thracian origins; Picts were ~80–90% Iron Age British, with minor admixture from neighbors like Gaels.

In summary, the Picts were fair-skinned, brown-haired locals of average build, distinguished by blue-painted or inked symbols for cultural and martial purposes—not the wild, nude hordes of legend. Their legacy endures in Scottish DNA (e.g., 10% of Scots carry Pictish markers) and art. For deeper dives, see the 2023 PLOS Genetics study or sites like the Pictish Arts Society. If you’d like images of symbol stones or genetic maps, let me know!

I’d like to see another pic depicting the Pictish face of that sole Pict...

Ugly MoFos.

Well, they were either terrible artists or 5 yr olds then.

Hmmm...they coulda Pict a better one to portray...

Looks like the Virgin Mary to me. Put it on Ebay

Ugly MoFos
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I dunno... looks like it could be somebody I’d like to groove with....

Looks more like a Picasso work - hard to determine much from it....

I was expecting a PICTure......................

The photo is less accomplished than the original; it looks like a well manicured woman getting ready to take first bite of an ice cream sandwich.Must be a low budget journal.

Must have used a really slow speed film.....................

Part of my ancestry is from Aberdeen. Not sure if they were Pics.

“...somebody I’d like to groove with...”
-
Yeah, but you are not a small fury animal.