Back in 23 November 1999, Stewart Baldwin wrote three posts about the question of Pictish matrilineal succession. He concluded that while it wasn't proven, matrilineal succession was the most likely system of succession for the Picts. Almost 23 yearslater, what is the consensus? Does Stewart Baldwin, himself, have anything to say?
On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 3:55:02 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:later, what is the consensus? Does Stewart Baldwin, himself, have anything to say?
Back in 23 November 1999, Stewart Baldwin wrote three posts about the question of Pictish matrilineal succession. He concluded that while it wasn't proven, matrilineal succession was the most likely system of succession for the Picts. Almost 23 years
There have been a number of scholarly studies that have addressed the issue in the interim, and it tensd to be more skeptical than the initial work that tried to lay out pedigrees. The basic conclusions, based on my reading, are the following:rules among the Picts themselves, but how they were percieved by the reporting external sources.
1) the kings list makes is clear that the Picts did not practice male-preference primogeniture, but then, if you look at other kingdoms from the period, nobody did, so that is not a huge surprise.
2) there is contemporary testimony for inheritance through females, but what exactly this meant is not clear, and particularly it is unclear whether this was what COULD happen, or what MUST happen. This is not only an issue in terms of the succession
3) the onomastics COULD be interpreted as suggesting there were several family groups that come and go and come again, but it is far from clear that this isn't just seeing patterns when there aren't any.from multi-clan to single-clan succession).
4) the kings list seems to provide at least one specific demonstrable instance of female-linked nephew inheritance.
5) the kings list, toward the end, provides what appears to be male-connected succession, but it is unclear if this was always a possibility and it is just more obvious here, or if the Picts were transitioning to a male-based succession (or perhaps
6) attempt to contruct broader rules, or even patterns, of succession are terribly overenthusiastic given the fragmentatry nature of the record.Thanks for the reply. Could you, please, expand on no kingdom of the time using male preference primogeniture? The Franks started the Salic law though the territory was divided among the heirs.
taf
Thanks for the reply. Could you, please, expand on no kingdom of the time using male preference primogeniture? The Franks started the Salic law though the territory was divided among the heirs.
On Friday, July 8, 2022 at 7:32:34 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:age, in each generation. The Frankish succession, as you indicate, involved divisions, with the overall kingship going to cousins, etc. In Asturias you see Fafila succeeded by his brother-in-law, Alfonso, then Alfonso's son, then Alfonso's son-in-law,
Thanks for the reply. Could you, please, expand on no kingdom of the time using male preference primogeniture? The Franks started the Salic law though the territory was divided among the heirs.By male-preference primogeniture, I am referring to the system most monarchies came to use in modern times, where succession would pass to children of the prior holder, with subsequent succession right going to each son, then each daughter in order of
Among the Picts, you do not see a king's father with the same name as a prior king until the very end of the kings list - so they did not practice father-to-son succession for most of their run.Sorry for the late reply, but thanks for this, Todd.
taf
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 286 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 89:36:23 |
Calls: | 6,496 |
Calls today: | 7 |
Files: | 12,100 |
Messages: | 5,277,448 |