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
later, what is the consensus? Does Stewart Baldwin, himself, have anything to say?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 3:55:02 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

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

later, what is the consensus? Does Stewart Baldwin, himself, have anything to say?

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:

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
rules among the Picts themselves, but how they were percieved by the reporting external sources.

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.

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 from
multi-clan to single-clan succession).

6) attempt to contruct broader rules, or even patterns, of succession are terribly overenthusiastic given the fragmentatry nature of the record.

taf

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

A quarta-feira, 6 de julho de 2022 à(s) 19:12:13 UTC+1, taf escreveu:

On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 3:55:02 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

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

later, what is the consensus? Does Stewart Baldwin, himself, have anything to say?

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:

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

rules among the Picts themselves, but how they were percieved by the reporting external sources.

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.

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

from multi-clan to single-clan succession).

6) attempt to contruct broader rules, or even patterns, of succession are terribly overenthusiastic given the fragmentatry nature of the record.

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, July 8, 2022 at 7:32:34 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

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
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,
then Alfonso's nephew, then Alfonso's illegitimate son, then another nephew of Alfonso, then finally returning to Alfonso's senior heir, his grandson, then that man's nephew, then a son of one of the cousins who had served. Among the Visigoths before
them you see similar chaotic succession, to the degreer that we don't know the precide relationships of some of the kings. In Wessex and it jumped from branch to branch to branch, with successors ometimes numerous generations removed from a king, and
few father-to-son successions after the first generations before you get to Ecgbert's family, and even then you saw whole-generation succession before passing to the next generation. The Irish had their tanistry, with different family branches
succeeding in alternation, while the Scots also seem to have alternated. The idea that a king's son would succeed him was not practical when lives were short and the king also had to be a warlord, so a minor was not suitable.

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.

taf

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

T24gMDktSnVsLTIyIDk6MDUgUE0sIHRhZiB3cm90ZToNCj4gT24gRnJpZGF5LCBKdWx5IDgsIDIw MjIgYXQgNzozMjozNCBQTSBVVEMtNywgUGF1bG8gUmljYXJkbyBDYW5lZG8gd3JvdGU6DQo+IA0K Pj4gVGhhbmtzIGZvciB0aGUgcmVwbHkuIENvdWxkIHlvdSwgcGxlYXNlLCBleHBhbmQgb24gbm8g a2luZ2RvbSBvZiB0aGUgdGltZSB1c2luZyBtYWxlIHByZWZlcmVuY2UgcHJpbW9nZW5pdHVyZT8g VGhlIEZyYW5rcyBzdGFydGVkIHRoZSBTYWxpYyBsYXcgdGhvdWdoIHRoZSB0ZXJyaXRvcnkgd2Fz IGRpdmlkZWQgYW1vbmcgdGhlIGhlaXJzLg0KPiANCj4gQnkgbWFsZS1wcmVmZXJlbmNlIHByaW1v Z2VuaXR1cmUsIEkgYW0gcmVmZXJyaW5nIHRvIHRoZSBzeXN0ZW0gbW9zdCBtb25hcmNoaWVzIGNh bWUgdG8gdXNlIGluIG1vZGVybiB0aW1lcywgd2hlcmUgc3VjY2Vzc2lvbiB3b3VsZCBwYXNzIHRv IGNoaWxkcmVuIG9mIHRoZSBwcmlvciBob2xkZXIsIHdpdGggc3Vic2VxdWVudCBzdWNjZXNzaW9u IHJpZ2h0IGdvaW5nIHRvIGVhY2ggc29uLCB0aGVuIGVhY2ggZGF1Z2h0ZXIgaW4gb3JkZXIgb2Yg YWdlLCBpbiBlYWNoIGdlbmVyYXRpb24uICBUaGUgRnJhbmtpc2ggc3VjY2Vzc2lvbiwgYXMgeW91 IGluZGljYXRlLCBpbnZvbHZlZCBkaXZpc2lvbnMsIHdpdGggdGhlIG92ZXJhbGwga2luZ3NoaXAg Z29pbmcgdG8gY291c2lucywgZXRjLiAgSW4gQXN0dXJpYXMgeW91IHNlZSBGYWZpbGEgc3VjY2Vl ZGVkIGJ5IGhpcyBicm90aGVyLWluLWxhdywgQWxmb25zbywgdGhlbiBBbGZvbnNvJ3Mgc29uLCB0 aGVuIEFsZm9uc28ncyBzb24taW4tbGF3LCB0aGVuIEFsZm9uc28ncyBuZXBoZXcsIHRoZW4gQWxm b25zbydzIGlsbGVnaXRpbWF0ZSBzb24sIHRoZW4gYW5vdGhlciBuZXBoZXcgb2YgQWxmb25zbywg dGhlbiBmaW5hbGx5IHJldHVybmluZyB0byBBbGZvbnNvJ3Mgc2VuaW9yIGhlaXIsIGhpcyBncmFu ZHNvbiwgdGhlbiB0aGF0IG1hbidzIG5lcGhldywgdGhlbiBhIHNvbiBvZiBvbmUgb2YgdGhlIGNv dXNpbnMgd2hvIGhhZCBzZXJ2ZWQuICBBbW9uZyB0aGUgVmlzaWdvdGhzIGJlZm9yZSB0aGVtIHlv dSBzZWUgc2ltaWxhciBjaGFvdGljIHN1Y2Nlc3Npb24sIHRvIHRoZSBkZWdyZWVyIHRoYXQgd2Ug ZG9uJ3Qga25vdyB0aGUgcHJlY2lkZSByZWxhdGlvbnNoaXBzIG9mIHNvbWUgb2YgdGhlIGtpbmdz LiAgSW4gV2Vzc2V4IGFuZCBpdCBqdW1wZWQgZnJvbSBicmFuY2ggdG8gYnJhbmNoIHRvIGJyYW5j aCwgd2l0aCBzdWNjZXNzb3JzIG9tZXRpbWVzIG51bWVyb3VzIGdlbmVyYXRpb25zIHJlbW92ZWQg ZnJvbSBhIGtpbmcsIGFuZCBmZXcgZmF0aGVyLXRvLXNvbiBzdWNjZXNzaW9ucyBhZnRlciB0aGUg Zmlyc3QgZ2VuZXJhdGlvbnMgYmVmb3JlIHlvdSBnZXQgdG8gRWNnYmVydCdzIGZhbWlseSwgYW5k IGV2ZW4gdGhlbiB5b3Ugc2F3IHdob2xlLWdlbmVyYXRpb24gc3VjY2Vzc2lvbiBiZWZvcmUgcGFz c2luZyB0byB0aGUgbmV4dCBnZW5lcmF0aW9uLiAgVGhlIElyaXNoIGhhZCB0aGVpciB0YW5pc3Ry eSwgd2l0aCBkaWZmZXJlbnQgZmFtaWx5IGJyYW5jaGVzIHN1Y2NlZWRpbmcgaW4gYWx0ZXJuYXRp b24sIHdoaWxlIHRoZSBTY290cyBhbHNvIHNlZW0gdG8gaGF2ZSBhbHRlcm5hdGVkLiAgVGhlIGlk ZWEgdGhhdCBhIGtpbmcncyBzb24gd291bGQgc3VjY2VlZCBoaW0gd2FzIG5vdCBwcmFjdGljYWwg d2hlbiBsaXZlcyB3ZXJlIHNob3J0IGFuZCB0aGUga2luZyBhbHNvIGhhZCB0byBiZSBhIHdhcmxv cmQsIHNvIGEgbWlub3Igd2FzIG5vdCBzdWl0YWJsZS4NCj4gDQo+IEFtb25nIHRoZSBQaWN0cywg eW91IGRvIG5vdCBzZWUgYSBraW5nJ3MgZmF0aGVyIHdpdGggdGhlIHNhbWUgbmFtZSBhcyBhIHBy aW9yIGtpbmcgdW50aWwgdGhlIHZlcnkgZW5kIG9mIHRoZSBraW5ncyBsaXN0IC0gc28gdGhleSBk aWQgbm90IHByYWN0aWNlIGZhdGhlci10by1zb24gc3VjY2Vzc2lvbiBmb3IgbW9zdCBvZiB0aGVp ciBydW4uDQoNCkl0J3Mgbm90YWJsZSAtIGFzIHdlbGwgYXMgaW5jb21wcmVoZW5zaWJsZSAtIHRo YXQgcGVvcGxlIHRlbmQgdG8gYmUgDQpibGl0aGVyaW5nbHkgaWdub3JhbnQgb2Ygc3VjY2Vzc2lv biBjb252ZW50aW9ucyBpbiB0aGVpciBvd24gdGltZSBhbmQgDQpwbGFjZS4gVGhlIG1hdHRlciBv bmx5IGNvbWVzIHRvIHRoZSBhdHRlbnRpb24gb2YgbWFueSB3aGVuIHVuY2VydGFpbnR5IA0KYXJp c2VzLCBhbmQgdGhleSBmcmVxdWVudGx5IG9wdCBmb3IgYXNzdW1lZCBwcmFjdGljYWxpdHkgb3Zl ciBwcmluY2lwbGUuDQoNCkluIHRoZSBwYXN0IHdlZWsgc29tZSAiZXhwZXJ0IiBpbiB0aGUgVUsg bW9yb25pY2FsbHkgb3BpbmVkIHRoYXQgdGhlIA0KQnJpdGlzaCBjb25zdGl0dXRpb24gZG9lcyBu b3QgYWxsb3cgZm9yIGFuICJpbnRlcm1pbSIgcHJpbWUgbWluaXN0ZXIsIA0KZGVzcGl0ZSB0aGUg b2J2aW91cyBmYWN0IHRoYXQgZXZlcnkgUE0gc2luY2UgV2FscG9sZSBoYXMgb2NjdXBpZWQgdGhl IA0KaW50ZXJpbSBiZXR3ZWVuIHRoZSBsYXN0IG9uZSBhbmQgdGhlIG5leHQgb25lIHdoaWxlIHRo ZSBzeXN0ZW0gcGF0ZW50bHkgDQpkb2VzIG5vdCBhbGxvdyBmb3IgYSBwZXJtYW5lbnQgUE0uIE9u ZSBvZiB0aGVtIHdhcyBhc3Nhc3NpbmF0ZWQgd2l0aG91dCANCmFueSBzdWNjZXNzaW9uIGNyaXNp cy4gQWxsIHRoYXQgaXMgbmVjZXNzYXJ5IGlzIGZvciB0aGUgc292ZXJlaWduIHRvIGJlIA0KZHVs eSBhZHZpc2VkIHRvIGludml0ZSBZIHRvIGJlY29tZSBQTSBpbnN0ZWFkIG9mIFgsIGFuZCBsYXRl ciBmb3IgWSB0byANCmFkdmlzZSB0aGF0IFogc2hvdWxkIGZvbGxvdyBpbiBoaXMgb3IgaGVyIHBs YWNlLiBZZXQgbXVjaCBvZiB0aGUgQnJpdGlzaCANCm1lZGlhIGFuZCBwdW5kaXRyeSBtaW5kbGVz c2x5IHJlcGVhdGVkIHRoZSAiZXhwZXJ0IiBub25zZW5zZSBmb3IgYSBkYXkgDQpvciBzbyBiZWZv cmUgZHJvcHBpbmcgdGhlIGlkaW90aWMgc3ViamVjdC4NCg0KUGV0ZXIgU3Rld2FydA0KDQoNCi0t IA0KVGhpcyBlbWFpbCBoYXMgYmVlbiBjaGVja2VkIGZvciB2aXJ1c2VzIGJ5IEFWRy4NCmh0dHBz Oi8vd3d3LmF2Zy5jb20NCg==

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

A sábado, 9 de julho de 2022 à(s) 12:05:24 UTC+1, taf escreveu:

On Friday, July 8, 2022 at 7:32:34 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

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

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,
then Alfonso's nephew, then Alfonso's illegitimate son, then another nephew of Alfonso, then finally returning to Alfonso's senior heir, his grandson, then that man's nephew, then a son of one of the cousins who had served. Among the Visigoths before
them you see similar chaotic succession, to the degreer that we don't know the precide relationships of some of the kings. In Wessex and it jumped from branch to branch to branch, with successors ometimes numerous generations removed from a king, and few
father-to-son successions after the first generations before you get to Ecgbert's family, and even then you saw whole-generation succession before passing to the next generation. The Irish had their tanistry, with different family branches succeeding in
alternation, while the Scots also seem to have alternated. The idea that a king's son would succeed him was not practical when lives were short and the king also had to be a warlord, so a minor was not suitable.

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.

taf

Sorry for the late reply, but thanks for this, Todd.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)