evrybodysaylove:

While doing some brief research on Scottish/Gaelic history, hunting for new tattoo ideas, I came across these images. The paintings depict Pictish woman warriors. 

One of the earliest tribes generated from the same area of Scotland which Keith resides in, so I’m sincerely hoping these women are the ancestors of my ancestors. 

Since posting this earlier yesterday I thought it would be good to make a few updates:

History lesson from cuimhnigh-i-gconai: 

“The Picts were gone long before any Medieval period and if they have any Celtic roots it is from their continental ancestors—and a thousand years removed— but the Celts (and likely subsequent Vikings) ultimately displaced them before they could become a powerhouse. The Picts were likely responsible for many of the amazing lithics scattered over England and Scotland, which have been dated to be pre-Celtic.”

History lesson from postmodern-hysteric:

“there is actually very little archaeological evidence to support one way or another that these people tattooed themselves. The entire assumption is based on a name, but if you look at their art, in general the people are not tattooed, so it seems more likely that if they did put designs on their bodies, they painted, not tattooed them.   That isn’t to say that they didn’t tattoo themselves either, we don’t really know. But it is highly likely however they adorned their bodies it was not with woad as modern experiments have shown it is very caustic and when I say that I do not mean it can leave  design in the way in which branding does.”

Thanks everyone for your input! 

And sorry about the Wikipedia reference, apparently that offended some people. My bad.