Source www.google.com

[Dunnadd]

Was googling Picts and found this page with this image



Somewhat questionable reconstruction based on historical evidence. And underneath it, it says "Illustration of Pict woman with tattoos.
Source: www.google.com".   (ok, yes, i'm willing to laugh at almost anything just now)

[FierceKitty]

Yeah, right.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Techno,
QUICK RESCULPTS ON THE WHOLE RANGE (apart from KEIRA)!


Ahem, Leon... PICTS?

[DanJ]

This just shows the danger of relying on Wikipedia, that shield is obviously wrong, it's based on the bronze 'Battersea Shield', an Iron Age artifact found in the Thames at Battersea and is not Pictish 

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Ahem, Leon... PICTS?

No Shovels....

IanS 

[Hertsblue]

And a halberd? Perhaps she's a Swiss Pict?

[Ithoriel]

Halberd? I thought it was a Pict Axe

Coat please Techno

[Techno]

Fling !!
Cheers - Phil

[DanJ]

Halberd? I thought it was a Pict Axe

Of corrset is

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

owwwww

Out - OUT ......

IanS

[Dunnadd]

Reading more of the page it seems it was just using that picture as an example of how widespread the myth that the Picts were a Celtic people is It says "By the 11th century, the inhabitants of Alba had become fully Gaelicised Scots and the Pict identity was forgotten. Later in British Isles history, the idea of Picts as a Celtic tribe was revived in myth and legend."

It's not the wikipedia entry either. The wikipedia entry is very dry and sticks to the established facts (which there aren't many of), other than mentioning a theory by a 19th century writer that the Picts were pygmies and the inspiration for myths about fairies (it doesn't claim the theory had any basis in fact)