Dear Pictish reconstructionists: why do you care about face paint at all?
Your comments on “muh accuracy” are coming off as… a wee bit racist. Tone it down, will ye?
Before anyone asks: no, this has no relation to any recent event. I don’t care about what’s trending in the news, and if you follow me, you might have figured that. I talk about broad topics I feel need to be addressed, regardless of when. No hate to the bloggers who keep up with trends — you keep doing you, I appreciate you and read your stuff often. I just personally choose to walk outside the beaten track. We can coexist.
So… as you may have seen in my bio, I’m a psychic medium and spirit worker. I don’t care what people will think of that, it’s public for everyone to see. I use a pen name not because of the sceptics, but because of the fanatic believers instead — and you can read more about it in a different blog post. What I find ironic is that a lot of so-called “experts” in Pictish History are in fact just making assumptions, because the concrete evidence for their claims is very scarce. That places both kinds of Pictish “reconstructionists” on equal ground: on one side, scholars like them; on the other side, seers like me. Both making assumptions that may or may not be true, taken out of our intuition and/or modern worldview because we’re both in want of concrete evidence to either confirm or debunk them. The difference is I admit it, whereas they remain in denial.
By the way, no, this is not true for every History scholar — I’m just specifically talking about those who study the Picts. If you study a culture for which we have abundant evidence and surviving records (the Regency era in Britain, for example), then obviously you’ll make accurate assumptions about it. I’m not saying all Historians are taking info out their arse, not at all. All I’m saying is, if you chose to study a lost civilisation, then chances are you’re bluffing whenever you claim your opinions/assumptions are “the verified truth”. One must be humble in order to try and make sense of a civilization we don’t know much about. But for some reason, all I see around me is arrogance. This arrogance smells like defensiveness, and I’d like to try and examine it here.
The problem I’m about to discuss manifests in a number of different areas, so let me start by addressing the easiest of all: the entertainment industry. Are the scholars full of shite when they criticise movies, books, plays etc that feature Picts? Or do they have a point? Let’s find out.
Fiction doesn’t owe you accuracy.
Repeat it like a mantra, and eventually it will stick. Fiction doesn’t owe you accuracy, period. Fiction is meant for things like entertainment, escapism, satire, commentary, imagination. None of these key words imply seriousness, do they?
I’m not even discussing whether or not accuracy exists in fictional representations of Picts and other Celts. Let’s start by just looking at the purpose of Historical accuracy: education. Is all entertainment educational? Well, no. So it should go without saying that accuracy won’t necessarily be there.
Do people still complain? Well, of course. Some didn’t know what I said above, and therefore complain. Others just enjoy complaining for the sake of it. I won’t stop anyone from dissecting a film or book series for accuracy when it wasn’t even promised in the first place — people are allowed to be grumpy if they want.
The only problem I have is with the way people express dissatisfaction with Historical accuracy in period fiction, because there seem to be a lot of double standards based purely on unaddressed emotions everywhere you look, but especially so when it comes to the Celts. Like, for instance, things like slavery and human sacrifice are a big no-no although they’re super accurate for the time period. But if you try to publish a book or release a film where the Celts are just casually burning their war prisoners alive or enslaving Christian men from Britain, you’ll be accused of apology to these things unless you make those Celts the villain of the story (which in fact happened in Hollywood a number of times, by the way. It’s not my cup of tea, but it’s logically coherent: even in these old movies, the producers were mindful of what moral message they wanted to convey to the viewer). You can’t simply say “it’s historically accurate” and leave it at that (yes I’m throwing shade at GoT, let me), because there’s also a thing called authorial intent relating to the message you wanted to convey through this piece of fiction, aka “why you wrote it in the first place”.
People just forget that this is a two-way road. If you (rightfully) demand creative freedom with historical accuracy somewhere for the sake of morality, you must also be willing to admit that when you criticise Pictish face paint elsewhere, you’re doing so because deep down you believe it’s “immoral” or savage. It’s not really because it’s [allegedly] inaccurate. Inaccuracy is just the surface-level excuse that helps you save face. As we saw already, accuracy isn’t all that important in FICTION.
And I’ll say more: if you can’t even imagine face paint as something good and desirable even in fiction (where everything is possible), then that says a lot about your internalised bias against tribes that still exist today.
Before anyone gets too mad at me (I don’t care either way, but read this article until the end because I’m not done yet, and it will become even juicier) let’s draw a parallel with critiques of modern fantasy based on the Regency era:
I felt like commenting with a lot of praise on the above video but didn’t want to give my identity away so easily, so I invite you instead to take a look at it. Chances are you’ll agree with me that it’s a great video, and give Karolina all the support she deserves.
If Bridgerton was based on a true story, perhaps historical accuracy would be more important, but since it’s a made-up story, it’s okay to overlook it. The only people who would take offense at this creative freedom are on the one hand the closeted bigots who don’t like things like racial diversity anywhere, and on the other hand the pedantic scholars who forgot the meaning of “Netflix and chill”. Honestly, I could get behind anything at this stage — if they suddenly introduce magic and fantastic creatures like unicorns in Bridgerton, it’s still okay, because the storyline is 100% fictional anyway.
Somehow, people seem to understand the above concept very easily… But at the same time fail to grasp the idea that EVERY piece of fiction is based on imagination instead of reality. If we’re being generous, some pieces of fiction have nuggets of reality in them, like the tales “based on a true story” we sometimes see — but they’re still fiction, still entertainment, and still open to creative freedom. And most importantly: there’s nothing wrong with that.
So if period drama inspired by the 1900s, 1800s, 1700s, Renaissance, Middle Ages etc are allowed to have imagination in them… Tell me: why on Earth do you think Ancient History should be an exception? Why on Earth are people not allowed to fantasise about Ancient times and deliberately admit it? Why the double standard?
This gets even MORE mind-boggling when you realise that, by and large, we don’t really know a lot about the Ancient world. Like, if your main intention is to recreate something as accurately as possible, you should probably choose a well-documented time period; not something like pagan Europe. That’s the logical conclusion anyone with two braincells would arrive at. But for some reason, pedantic reconstructionists of the ancient past don’t seem to care about logic too much. So, what do they care about instead?
In order to try and answer that, let’s forget fiction for now and take a look at another area where they lurk a lot:
Religion
If you like the photo above, allow me to suggest Photoshop. No I’m not saying it isn’t real, I’m saying you’re better off taking a photo of a natural landscape in Skye and Photoshopping it to look like there are Neopagan stone spirals on the ground, instead of physically destroying the local ecosystem for the sake of aesthetics. I’m going on a tangent here because a very similar phenomenon is happening in reconstructionist religions today: Neopagans seem to have no qualms about destroying the last remnants of the real European animism in order to replace it with their watered-down version of idealistic “Celtic” beliefs. All for the sake of aesthetics and egotism.
And no, I’m not just a bitter commentator looking at things from afar: I literally live in a Gaeltacht in Ireland and in all these years I haven’t ever seen a Neopagan come visit. Not even once. They hear the locals are Christian, and shy away completely. They do a great job reconstructing ancient Irish, don’t get me wrong, but they stop at that, and have not a care in the world about helping keep the modern language alive. They claim to reconstruct “Celtic” spells and herbal remedies from historical books and records, but the thought of even saying “hi” to the elderly people here who still keep these things alive doesn’t even cross their minds. You can’t blame me for feeling salty, a léitheoir dílis mo chroí.
So if I’m seeing with my own eyes the utter disregard for real authenticity (yes the emphasis is necessary) and real preservation that comes from these so-called reconstructionists… It’s just fair that I assume they aren’t TRULY concerned with accuracy, aye? It’s just a façade.
Some Atheists would laugh at the “non-issue” I raised above because to them, religion is the same as fiction anyway. I disagree, though. And yes, I do care about Atheists’ approval and support because I approve of them myself, I think they’re usually quite prudent — a quality I value a lot in people. So if you’re an Atheist reading here, first of all know that I’m a friend, and secondly please take a moment to read the following before taking any conclusions:
Certain people think religion is like fiction because “they’re both made up anyway”. I won’t disagree with that. Both religion and fiction have an air of fantasy and rose-tinted glasses to them, aye? There’s a commonality. I’m not saying it’s entirely bad — if I thought it’s bad, I wouldn’t be a religious person, lol. My disagreement with some Atheists comes from the perspective of functionality instead. What does fiction stand for, and what does religion stand for? You see, there’s a difference. One dominates your core beliefs; The other has no strings attached and you just kind of enjoy it with popcorn.
And yet, both are valid — but only in moderation and with prudence. That’s the lesson a lot of people don’t learn.
Whereas in fiction you’re simply exercising your imagination and escapism… in religion you truly want to believe what you’re being fed. And again, there’s nothing bad about any of these things per se, they’re only bad if they get out of control. We all need nuggets of escapism sometimes, and nuggets of blind hope in order to keep going and not giving up on life some other times, ya know. The problem is when fiction and/or religion completely dominate your life. And this doesn’t only happen to “devout [insert mainstream religion here]”, don’t be mistaken — this is happening A LOT in Neopaganism too. I’m just trying to bring people back from that dangerous state of denial.
The amount of people I see relying on cult-like ideas of “what [they wish] the Celts were like” and trying to emulate that in their daily lives is woesome. I almost wish they had my 6th sense (although I don’t TRULY wish it on anyone, it’s a bit overwhelming sometimes), because then they’d have a realisation like “oh! the Ancient Celts were just ordinary people. They will talk to us even if we’re leading a modern life wearing modern clothing and doing modern things alongside them”.
Make no mistake, I’m not disapproving of Neopaganism in and of itself. Like the meme goes, “I even have friends who are that and I treat them normally”. Jokes aside, although Neopaganism (which includes “Celtic” religions) has very very controversial roots (I’ll email a copy of sarahannelawless . com to anyone who wants it, for evidence, or you can browse it on the internet archive. And no I’m not her), today’s movement has distanced itself for the most part from a lot of these problematic leaders of the past, and I think it’s becoming quite legitimate. Here goes my thumbs up 👍
So, “not all Neopagans”, deffo. I’m just unimpressed with the ones who call prudent people “inaccurate” just because we don’t have a certain aesthetic they’re hoping for, or don’t care all that much about [modern! here’s your reminder] scholars’ opinions about the Celts in academic papers and whatnot.
If you’re one of those Neopagans, then yes, we have beef. I don’t sugarcoat. You aren’t more accurate than I just because you’re relying on assumptions I’d rather not agree with. I don’t care that these assumptions are coming from scholars — they’re ASSUMPTIONS. They’re probably full of shite anyway, because they don’t have enough evidence to back up a lot of their claims. They’re studying the Celts, for crying out loud, they aren’t Egyptologists with a ton of hieroglyphs to study.
Last but not least: why even be pedantic about accuracy in religion, of all places? Religion is something we shape and adapt to our own biases and beliefs about the world, not to so-called facts. It’s honestly quite weird to seek legitimacy for religion in Academia. White people are the only ones who seem to need that. There, I said it. Everyone else around the globe is happy enough believing what they believe and worshipping what they want to worship, even though their community is overwhelmingly made up of a majority of people in socioeconomic disadvantage who will never make it into Harvard anyway save for a few rare exceptions. Yes this paragraph is “badly written”, but if I don’t emphasise certain things over and over, internet trolls come feast on the lack of redundancy as if it was an apology to racism or something. “Yay” for poor reading skills.
Yes, I am implying Wicca is wiser than reconstructionist Neopaganism. At least the Wiccan admit they’re taking creative liberties and “feeling” things instead of just misrepresenting academic OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS as if they were DOGMA. Wiccans are being legitimately religious about it, not just bowing to scholars in desperate need of some elite’s approval.
So now that we’re at it:
Scholars in the Pictish studies department need to chill. Just take it easy. Slow the heck down.
I sometimes hear friends of mine suggest I should get into Academia and help “study the Picts”. I tend to reply gracefully with “nah, I have enough on my plate already”. In truth, I’d love to try that, the work itself sounds good, I just don’t think I’d be able to put up with the company. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not on a high horse, the problem is me. I admit that. I don’t know how long my poker face would last, because, ya know, I literally see Picts debunking a lot of these researchers’ assumptions before my very eyes. And I can’t exactly choose to unsee them or turn a blind eye or whatever. I can’t turn it off. I’d be laughing me arse out faster than you can say “Picts”, and it would be (understandably) misinterpreted by these scholars as arrogance. I don’t want that kind of conflict.
Picture this: Mr. Lecturer McLecturerface confidently affirms that “everything suggests Pictish symbol stones were used as memorials for important clansmen who passed away”. I glance at the corner of the room and a bunch of warriors are copying a specific symbol on each other’s body and perhaps giving me the impression that it communicates some specific battle strategy so that everyone is in agreement as to where/how to attack. Hardly just a homage, aye? Why carve it in stone? I don’t know, perhaps to tell the story of how they defeated the vikings or whatever?
Some Picts are closer friends and kind of learned to interpret what people are saying to me through energy, visual imagery, and body language. For instance, I’m close friends with one king. I can imagine a hypothetical scenario: the lecturer is talking about Pictish royalty, shows a photo of a small clàrsach (which is Gaelic) and implies the Picts would probably be familiar with it through contact with the Irish or something. I make eye contact with Talorc and he’s like “ah sure why the Medieval instrument? Just advance further in time and gimme an electric guitar, *plays air guitar* it’s more badass” — I’m familiar with his sense of humour, as you can tell. He actually plays a massive “Welsh” harp with 40 strings, fyi.
I understand scholars tend to be open-minded and, as I said above and will repeat again, I know they aren’t just affirming things. They’re making hypotheses. They’re asking open-ended questions. I used to be a scholar, I studied Linguistics a long time ago. I know how it works, ok?
In Academia, we tend to debate things with basis on materialistic observation. There isn’t room for spiritual woo and I’m not saying there should be, I agree with keeping things separate. The problem is… Sometimes certain scholars can be blind to their own biases and internalised worldview and whatnot (this is not a criticism. Every human being has biases, even you and I, so why not them). They think they’re being objective, when in fact they’re just modern people who behave and think in a modern way, and stay oblivious to real possibilities just because these possibilities contradict their long-held modern biases about the past. And they can’t question something that they “don’t know they don’t know”, ya know? We can only ask questions we have enough imagination for. If these people grew up with a reference of “stone inscription = cemetery or homage plaque”, they’ll automatically assume it’s always been this way throughout History, because that’s what they’re used to, not because that’s in fact true. I’m not superior in the imagination department, I just see ghosts and this gives me a wee advantage I didn’t ask for.
Honestly, I didn’t ask for any of this. I wish I could just stay blissfully ignorant about a lot of things, like most people. I’m a peaceful person, I’m Buddhist by choice. I wish I could just mind my own business and never force anyone to confront their psychological shadows. But we can’t always have what we wish for, can we?
Anyway… Scholars sometimes mistake “what could be” for “what should be” according to their internalised prescriptivism and tunnel vision. This sounds like an insult but it isn’t, I’m chill. I’m just not sugarcoating things. Tunnel vision is a human thing, okay? It’s not only for the bad guys.
See, the problem I have with some people isn’t that “they’re making mistakes! Ugh! Stop making mistakes! Just be perfect already!”. That’d be a stupid high standard, unachievable even. We all make mistakes. We learn by making mistakes. It’s allright.
My beef is just with the smugness I sometimes see. It isn’t so much in what the scholars are saying, it’s more in how they’re saying it, if you know what I mean. And that makes me wonder why they’re hyperfocusing on certain things and overlooking others. Perhaps there’s emotional attachment? Just putting it out there. Just food for thought.
When people say “Roman conquerors were ruthless bigots and made everyone believe through propaganda that the Celts painted themselves or walked around naked”, what I feel like saying in response is “what makes you so sure? Do you have a time machine?”. I’d love a time machine. I wanna go chill with the Picts in flesh and bone, not just ghosts!
I mean, I’m no expert, but I’m pretty sure the Roman Empire predates modern racism. Not defending Roman invaders, to hell with them, but if there’s something you can’t accuse them of, it’s racism. Not the flavour of racism we know and study in today’s world anyway. This modern flavour of racism was born during the Renaissance and consolidated itself with the “discovery” and colonisation of America, Africa, Oceania etc. Romans are from a different time period. In their time, slaves were war prisoners and had white skin just like the Roman themselves for the most part. Race and culture wasn’t at the centre of the equation for Romans, okay? They just wanted land. That sweet sweet land. So much so, that they allowed every conquered tribe to keep speaking their language and having their religion and “doing them” as long as they’d pay taxes to Rome. Even I know that, and I’m not a Historian.
Keeping the above in mind, it’s just not logical to project our modern insecurities onto Ancient Romans. They didn’t exactly come into contact with the Native American, the Asian, the peoples of Africa and Oceania, etc. Their entire world revolved around central and western Europe, where everyone kind of had similar looks and cultural practices everywhere. Hell, even their languages were [somewhat distantly] related, the “Indo-European” family has its name for a reason.
Why would they allow everyone in Gaul, Anatolia and lower Germania to keep practising their cultural trad after conquer, then turn around and say “except the Britons. Their way of life is savage and we’ll invent things just to mock them, for no reason”. Isn’t it more likely that the Romans were just… Describing what they saw? And today we look at it and go like “oh, naked and painted, wow, this sounds an awful lot like the Native Americans, whom white people oppressed, therefore this is a racist representation and not the truth”.
*Sigh*
I’ll ask again: do you have a time machine? ’Cause it sounds like you do. It sounds like you travelled in it to Ancient Rome, kidnapped some legionaries and took them straight to colonial America, taught them to be racist the modern way, then back to Ancient Rome. If you did that, okay, I’ll buy your explanation that the Romans misrepresented native Britons. If not, with all due respect but you’re full of shite my friend.
It almost sounds like “it can’t be! I don’t want it to be true! it ashames me to have indigenous ancestors!”. Sure, our internal voices aren’t always things we consciously agree with, don’t worry, I’m not calling anyone a bigot. Relax. The subconscious can work against us sometimes and yes it sucks. You’d be amazed by how many things in your subconscious are exactly the opposite of what your conscious mind thinks, and hey, it’s okay. It doesn’t make anyone a monster. Brains are weird.
I know American people who have both British and Native American blood, and the difference in mindset between them vs Europeans is astounding. Like there is this woman who goes to Powwows and genuinely celebrates her Native ancestry with traditional regalia, but she’s also half-Scottish and wears tattoos based on Pictish symbols. We were once talking about symbol meanings and body paint and she was super open-minded about it, like “yeah it’s a possibility for sure”. That’s probably because she knows, understands, and celebrates her mixed-race origin with a conscious effort. She paints herself in the colours and patterns of the (Native American) tribe she hails from, so it’s easy for her to view a similar Pictish tradition in a positive light. That’s instead of acting like certain European people who secretly think indigenous ways are too “uncivilised” for their taste, and therefore (mis)represent their pagan European ancestors like some modern idealised version of whiteness with a sprinkle of internalised Christianity.
Then, there are also the experimental archaeologists and reconstructionists of ancient crafts who honour their Pictish ancestry by tattooing themselves, and that’s grand, more power to them — but they turn around and say the Picts “definitely didn’t do body paint (as well)”? Why? Either one of the hypotheses is equally plausible, why favouring only one so deliberately? Could it be because today tattoos are cool and civilised, they are becoming mainstream, the stigma is disappearing etc? Perhaps in the future we’ll all realise wearing clothing is optional, and yes we can paint ourselves, and then suddenly scholars will realise “actually Pictish face paint is an ok possibility” at the exact same time? I call bullshit. You guys are just prescribing identities to your object of study according to what fits with your modern morals. That’s the polar opposite of impartiality. God forbid you get into Anthropology, go on field studies and start trying to convert isolated tribes to Christianity or some shit. It wouldn’t surprise me, honestly. I’m appalled by this Victorian-like prescriptivism, jeez.
In the end, people are allowed to have their opinions about things. I get that. I just can’t help commenting with an objection when I see them deliberately misrepresent the past to fit with their agendas or unchecked internalised worldview. Because that’s a step further from “simply having opinions”. That’s unfair, prescriptive, and oppressive. You wouldn’t do that to an innocent living person. And if everyone could see ghosts, we’d definitely have laws against doing that to the dead as well.
The irony in this situation is that people are (unknowingly, but still) mistaking serious study of History with period fiction. Because as I said, in fiction, anything goes. In fiction, you can totally bend the characters to your agenda — in fact your fans expect you to do that. In research, however, you shouldn’t. Context matters.
I’m not expecting perfection out of everyone. All I’m doing is trying to open people’s eyes to the idea that sometimes, their thoughts and actions have a ripple effect. I too wish they didn’t, but they do. Perhaps things like “taking responsibility” and “keeping our egos in check” should go back into fashion. I assure you it isn’t as difficult as it may seem.
By the way…
For those of you who stuff your chests and open your gobs with all the [ignorant] confidence in the world to say “it’s impossible to make body paint out of woad anyway”, I tested it and obtained success. Your turn, know-it-all. Test my recipe. Then keep saying it’s impossible in case it fails, I dare you.
Yes I know, I’m like a broken record. I have a gazillion blog posts about this subject, in many different places. I’ll keep talking about it as long as there are people spreading dogma disguised as “scholarly opinion”. Consider it activism. I’ll keep waving the blue flag as long as the world needs to see it.
And if you’re none of the above, perhaps you’re just an innocent reader laughing at some of my remarks: welcome. I hope you learned something new and I hope it was entertaining.
