Ancient British Language Discovered: Pictish Symbols are Scotland's Hieroglyphs

NICE coincidence! I was just researching ancient earthworks.Ez to see that these templar's were depicting thier hunt for earthworks,and the observatorie's.I see:A magnifyer looking glass,1(2) telescope(s),A trumpet?dog's,lances,One sun,two circles depicting solstices,and I'll let you guess the rest.Hint's adena serpent mound helix crystal alter triangulation draco diatonic.The crusader's heard story's of many earthwork's.The question is where did they build their holy grail site's?Answer:They were already built from star chart's,by tribe's like the Fort ancient peoples.Also I would love to see a global earthwork's map that I can chart all star info into supercomputer.And recreate the Holy grail map.And as for the grail itself..."It" may be in sandusky ohio.Aries starmap is cool too. good luck Knight's.K.T.3

This is a heiroglyphic depiction and not "Pictish" language. What is interesting in another article I noticed a Celtic cross with the distinctive symbols of the Coelbren alphabet clearly visible for all to see.

It is also intersting that you show a picture with some runes and decalre these to be pictish. Really I don't think that you know what you are talking about at all.

When will some of these so called experts who never read anything about real British History take the time to learn about the ancient 4000 year old Coelbren Alphabet?
Examples of it can be found not only in Britain but all the way back to Egypt. J.F. Champollion used three languages in order to translate hieroglyphs. Does this not sound odd? Who would use three languages when only one would be sufficient?
Why was it essential that early kings decided to eliminate the Coelbren Alphabet? it survived all attempts to destroy it and is not a fraud as claimed by certain individuals so called academics who again threw a spanner in the works to discredit it.
people should read moses in the Hieroglyphs by Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett and they will realise the value of this ancient alphabet because it gives a very accurate translation using only one language.
The memorial stone in the Museum of Scotland is interesting too because in the churchyard at Miegle there is a similar stone. This one depicts the death of Queen Guenivere after she betrayed him causing the Battle of Camlan.
Some say thats a myth and fairy tale, but is it? There is plenty of evidence masses of it documented in Tysilio's Chronicles of the Kings of Britain. Theres a new video up on youtube heres a link to it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUZSf0V3vSY
People only have to take a look and start wondering why some people fail to read real history books instead of inventions and fabrications by individuals attempting to make a name for themselves without a single shred of evidence or one iota of proof.

you can also view the full story of the Coelbren Alphabet on youtube at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd1evD7PTK4&NR=1 it will enlighten you and who knows broaden your minds about real British History

"People only have to take a look and start wondering why some people fail to read real history books instead of inventions and fabrications by individuals attempting to make a name for themselves without a single shred of evidence or one iota of proof."

According to the Museum of Wales, the Coelbren Alphabet is a fabrication:
Coelbren y Beirdd was a false alphabet invented by Iolo Morganwg around 1791.

By 1893 J. Romilly Allen, joint-editor of Archaeologia Cambrensis', comments in a letter to the Herald Bard:

'I think the so-called Bardic Alphabet a gigantic fraud … I don't believe you will find it repay you to look at these bogus alphabets and pseudo-Druidic antiquities as anything but the most bare faced impostures.'

I'll go with the Museum of Wales on this over someone who believes in a historical Queen Guenevere..

One of the greatest lies was that Edward Williams – bardic name Lolo Morganwg had invented and forged the ancient Coelbren Alphabet. It was started by Griffith John Williams from Cellan near Aberystwyth, who was the darling of the London Establishment.

In June 2008 Max Kramer of Cheltenham, New South Wales, Australia pointed out that the leading Welsh scholar of his day around 1790 -1815 one William Owen had published the entire ancient Coelbren Alphabet on page 32 of the “Cambrian Biography” in 1802.

William Owen also stated that the Ancient British Alphabet was almost identical with the ancient Etruscan in Italy, and the ancient Pelasgian of the Aegean and Asia Minor.

William Owen wrote this and published the ancient Coelbren Alphabet before Edward Williams – Lolo Morganwg is alleged to have forged and invented it.

It does not matter that Julius Caesar wrote about the Ancient Coelbren Alphabet or others wrote about it too. You must remember this Alphabet is 4000 years old and can be traced all the way back to Egypt.

Historians and academics should be free spirits and if in doubt of anything they should make an effort to research the subject before making comments especially when someone else can prove a person wrong.

Before you made your very hasty reply you should have clicked on the second link that I provided here. The Coelbren Alphabet is found in many parts of America too. Saxons were barbarians, pagans and illiterate, they had no use for alphabets and they will say anything to prove that the British were the inferior heathens and the Saxons superior.

The Saxons never got to America in AD 562 but the British did and it is documented.
Read some real British History books not the rubbish, inventions and fabrications anything published after 1714 was written for political and religious correctness.

The MSS written before tell a different history because it had not been changed for German George.

The sooner these lies and fairy tale inventions stop the better wake up to the fact your teachers did not know their subjects.

Until YouTube starts fact checking the contents of the videos posted there, I'm not going to bother to look at any links to YouTube videos. As an example of why *you* "should make an effort to research the subject before making comments especially when someone else can prove a person wrong", your statement that Saxons were illiterate and had no use for alphabets is false. The following information is from the NOVA / PBS website, but similar information can be found by doing a websearch on "Runic alphabets":

Runes Through Time
by Nicole Sanderson

Learn your F-U-TH's

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The runic alphabet, or Futhark, gets its name from its first six sounds (f, u, th, a, r, k), much like the word 'alphabet' derives from the first two letters of the Greek alphabet, alpha and beta. Each rune not only represents a phonetic sound but also has its own distinct meaning often connected with Norse mythology (see clickable alphabet at left). Scholars believe that early peoples used the runes originally as a means of communication and only later for magical purposes.

Historians disagree on when runes first came into use. Since the first objects inscribed with runes date to the second and third centuries A.D., some surmise that the runic alphabet arose during the first century A.D. Scholars concur that runes grew out of an earlier alphabet, but which one is unclear. A likely candidate is the Etruscan alphabet. Many argue that the geographic proximity of the Etruscans, who lived in northern Italy, to the Germanic tribes of northern Europe makes it likely that these two groups had some form of cultural exchange. Also, similarities exist in some letterforms of the Etruscan and runic alphabets. Another possibility for a source alphabet is Latin. Those who subscribe to this theory believe that the numerous commercial contacts between the Germanic tribes and the Roman Empire during the first century A.D. exposed the former to the Latin alphabet. The Northerners may have simply borrowed the Roman letters and adapted them to their needs.

Nicole Sanderson is NOVA Online's intern.

© | Updated November 2000

I'm not going to bother to address your conspiracy theories, given your evident lack of knowledge of historical facts.

Also, you haven't included the Templars, the Masons, Rosicrucians, Illuminati, or Crop Circles, and any good conspiracy theory is required to include at least two of those.

Hal, I don't have Templars, Masons, Rosicrucians, Illuminati OR Crop Circles in this pyramidiot theory, and still think its quite a good one (with solid evidence supplied in the form of - of course - non-doctured images). The comments has some great ones as well, all without aliens. What do you think? Care to attribute your best? ;)

Hal... was that the best you could do? did your mother ever tell you to never argue with a woman because you will lose.

HAL SHERMAN: Until YouTube starts fact checking the contents of the videos posted there, I'm not going to bother to look at any links to YouTube videos.

Thank god it does not and hope it never does look whats happened to wikipedia its full of misleading information put there by anyone with some crackpot idea.

HAL SHERMAN: your statement that Saxons were illiterate and had no use for alphabets is false.
Then maybe you can explain why shortly after the arrival of St. Augustines arrived in Britain in AD 579 it is documented that two Bards from Llantwit Major in Wales had to teach the Saxons to read and write?

Your post is full of contradictions as well, it is apparent that your knowledge of British history is not all what you pretend it to be either.

Instead of using your own knowledge you went in search of more misinformations with Runes Through Time. You also show a complete lack of interest to research this yourself dodging the issue with conspiracy theories.

HAL SHERMAN:Historians disagree on when runes first came into use. Since the first objects inscribed with runes date to the second and third centuries A.D., some surmise that the runic alphabet arose during the first century A.D. Scholars concur that runes grew out of an earlier alphabet, but which one is unclear. A likely candidate is the Etruscan alphabet.

In your haste in an attempt to discredit myself you obviously failed to read what I had written. I refresh your memory: In June 2008 Max Kramer of Cheltenham, New South Wales, Australia pointed out that the leading Welsh scholar of his day around 1790 -1815 one William Owen had published the entire ancient Coelbren Alphabet on page 32 of the “Cambrian Biography” in 1802.

William Owen also stated that the Ancient British Alphabet was almost identical with the ancient Etruscan in Italy, and the ancient Pelasgian of the Aegean and Asia Minor.

I note that you had not even considered the fact that the Ancient Coelbren Alphabet was known about and documented by Julius Caesar long before the Saxons set foot in Britain.

HAL SHERMAN:I'm not going to bother to address your conspiracy theories, given your evident lack of knowledge of historical facts.

Hmmmm Hal: come on theres only person lacking historical facts here and it certainly is not myself, your attempt to prove me wrong failed miserably and only reflects on your own lack of knowledge of the subject.

Until you start reading real history books pre 1714 you will never learn or may not want to learn the real British history in which case its a waste of time trying to teach you something you should already know.

Ann, I don't think I could top the Giant Monkeys or Giant Moles theories. Thanks for the invitation, though. Perhaps you could start a contest for the Grand Unified Theory of Linguistic Conspiracies? As a resident of California, I suppose it's some consolation that our population of creative thinkers is not unique. Have a good weekend.

Lucy, I'm not quite clear what the dubious content on Wikipedia proves about YouTube, but given the results of a quick web search for 'YouTube videos ufos', I'd have to say that YouTube qualifies as a source of "misleading information put there by anyone with some crackpot idea".

Given how personally you take the whole issue, I'm not going to bother refuting you point by point. If you think NOVA and PBS are sources of misinformation, you're entitled to your opinion.

Hate to say this, but the so-called "Pictish" engravings on the stone in the Scottish museum are pretty obviously Celtic in origin.  Some are true Celtic knotwork (as seen in the Book of Kells).  Others are relatively modern renderings of (pre-Celtic) Neolithic spirals and other symbols seen on stone passage graves and allees throughout Britain, Ireland, France and even Portugal and Malta.  I rather doubt the stone predates the Romans - those horses they're riding are pretty clearly Arabian breeds, not the British ponies still breeding on the southern moors of England.

As for the markings on the pebbles - who knows?  Again, I've seen some of those symbols at Carnac in France.  To label any of this Pictish lacks authority.

As one writer to another I'd suggest in future that you provide links to the "new research" you describe.