Editing Pictish language (section)

===Pre-Indo-European hypothesis===
[[File:Brandsbutt stone.jpg|right|thumb|Difficulties in translation of [[ogham]] inscriptions, like those found on the [[Brandsbutt Stone]], led to a widely held belief that Pictish was a non-Indo-European language.]]
In 1892, the Welsh scholar [[John Rhŷs]] proposed that Pictish was a non-[[Indo-European languages|Indo-European]] language. This opinion was based on the apparently unintelligible [[ogham inscription]]s found in historically Pictish areas (compare {{slink|Ogham inscription|Scholastic inscriptions}}).<ref>{{harvnb|Rhys|1892}}; {{harvnb|Rhys|1898}}.</ref> A similar position was taken by [[Heinrich Zimmer (Celticist)|Heinrich Zimmer]], who argued that the Picts' supposedly exotic cultural practices (tattooing and matriliny) were equally non-Indo-European,<ref>{{harvnb|Zimmer|1898}}; see {{harvnb|Woolf|1998}} for a more current view of Pictish matriliny</ref> and a pre-Indo-European model was maintained by some well into the 20th century.<ref>For example: {{harvnb|MacNeill|1939}}; {{harvnb|Macalister|1940}}.</ref>

A modified version of this theory was advanced in an influential 1955 review of Pictish by [[Kenneth H. Jackson|Kenneth Jackson]], who proposed a two-language model: while Pictish was undoubtedly P-Celtic, it may have had a non-Celtic [[Substrata (linguistics)|substratum]] and a second language may have been used for inscriptions.{{sfn|Jackson|1955}} Jackson's hypothesis was framed in the then-current model that a Brittonic elite, identified as the [[Broch]]-builders, had migrated from the south of Britain into Pictish territory, dominating a pre-Celtic majority.<ref>See, for example, {{harvnb|Piggot|1955}}.</ref> He used this to reconcile the perceived translational difficulties of [[Ogham]] with the overwhelming evidence for a P-Celtic Pictish language. Jackson was content to write off Ogham inscriptions as inherently unintelligible.<ref>For a general view, see {{harvnb|Jackson|1955}}.</ref>

Jackson's model became the orthodox position for the latter half of the 20th century. However, it became progressively undermined by advances in understanding of late Iron Age archaeology.<ref>{{harvnb|Armit|1990}}; {{harvnb|Armit|2002}}</ref> Celtic interpretations have been suggested for a number of Ogham inscriptions in recent years, though this remains a matter of debate.<ref>Compare for example {{harvnb|Forsyth|1998}} and {{harvnb|Rodway|2020}}</ref>