This new book by Elizabeth Sutherland (or Marshall, as most of us know her from her days as curator of Groam House) has been written for a general readership with the aim of "making the Picts more accessible or a little less fantastical". It ambitiously tries to cover a very wide range of aspects of Pictish life and culture in an attempt, in the author's words, to "give the Pictish world the value it deserves". Sutherland uses a multi-disciplinary approach, not only including the usual disciplines - archaeology, art-history, history, philology and onomastics - but also folklore and Celtic mythology. The book is illustrated throughout with black and white plates, mainly taken by Tom E Gray.

In Search of the Picts starts with Pictish Roots, tracing the ancestry of the Picts through the prehistory of Scotland using examples from Mesolithic camps, through Neolithic dwellings and burial cairns, cup-and ring marked stones, to Iron Age forts, homes, crannogs, farmsteads and souterrains. Pictish domestic architecture is shown to be a continuation of Iron Age styles, e.g. the Pictish-phase dwelling at Buckquoy is demonstrated to follow the wheelhouse tradition (16).

The idea of a possible link between Pictish animal symbols and particular animal remains found in some of the neolithic tombs of Orkney is aired, e.g. dog-skulls have been found at Cuween Hill and sea-eagle carcasses at Isbister, discovered in 1958, "one of the most exciting of recent finds" (6). Certainly the deposition of white-tailed sea-eagles at Isbister is unusual and suggests totemic ritual. I am surprised that the author did not bring animal masks into the discussion, e.g. the bird-headed men on the Papil stone (Allen and Anderson 1903, III, 10-15) or the dog-masked figure on the Mail stone (Robertson 1992). The connection between neolithic animal depositions and Pictish animal symbols is of course pure speculation, and is recognised as such.

The Pictish Kingdom, opens by looking at the name "Pict" and the king-list. A short history of Pictland from the 7th century follows, with notes about each king recorded in the annals. If Pictland was a truly matrilinear society why is no king's mother mentioned, only his father?

The names and loci of some settlement sites and fortifications are looked at. One of these is the Brough of Birsay. Here we learn that a "stone carved with what would seem to be the symbols of kingship was found" (65). This is the symbol stone with three warriors, a mirror-case, a crescent and V-rod, a Pictish beast and an eagle symbol (Ritchie 1994, 20-21, 32, fig 3.1, Pl 10). There is no discussion as to why these "would seem to be the symbols of kingship". Another site mentioned is Forteviot where "recent aerial photography has shown extensive evidence of a ritual nature including graves around the area together with class II and class III (sic) carved stones" (67). Clever aerial photography indeed, and can we have more details of these Class II stones?

Then follows a brief examination of pit-place-names. Here the author tells us that "much of Pictland seems to have been loosely divided into farmsteads, small parcels of land or settlements easily identified by the toponym "pit" or "pett", which means a share or portion of land" (67). I would disagree that "pit" or "pett" are toponyms in themselves, but rather place-name elements. To me, toponym means at least a place-name, if not a place-name with topographic features reflected in that name, e.g. Pittenweem, "share of the cave" (Watson 1926, 412), or Pittendreich, "share on the slope" (Watson 1926, 413; Whittington 1975, 104).

The First Symbol Stones summarises some of the ideas of their origin and purpose. The author concludes that the Class I stones tell us that the Picts relied on a powerful and probably ancient system of mass communication (83-84); that if they practised matriliny, then the stones were an intelligent method of explanation; and that the stones may indicate a powerful respect for the élite dead. I tend to question her statement "very few class I stones have been found close to or in Christian graveyards" (83) as actually over forty Class I stones have.

Various symbols are studied individually. There is a great deal of folklore in this section. We are told that the salmon faces to the right in "Celtic sunwise tradition" (88). Turn back four pages for Tom Gray's photograph of the Edderton stone - the fish faces left here! That on the back of the Golspie cross-slab also faces left, but we are told, without details of the actual reference, that Close-Brooks suggests that this is not a Pictish symbol but the "Fish of Christ" (199). Also a photograph of a salmon in Jonathan's Cave, East Wemyss, has been rotated 90° from vertical to face left on page 231!

The author gives figures for appearances of each symbol. There are an astonishing number of errors here. For example, "Two geese appear on class I stones" (98) - which two of Easterton of Roseisle, Peterhead Farm and Tillytarmont 1 does she refer to? "The crescent and V-rod . . . appears incised about thirty-five times on class I stones" (105) - it appears over sixty times. The Congash enigmatic symbol is rotated 90°, presumably to enhance its interpretation as "The Bow and Arrow" (118). This may be misleading to those who do not know the stone.

Christianity and the Stones begins by suggesting reasons why the Picts used cross-slabs rather than outline crosses - a way of proclaiming a reformed Pictish Church; a better medium for messages; or to avoid carving figures within the cross itself. By way of dating we are told that the cross-slabs did not appear until after Nechtan's historic invitation to Ceolfrid c 710 (126). It would be interesting to learn the author's reasons behind this statement. The bringing of Christianity to Pictland is touched on. The author still has the church at Restenneth as the original "stone church built in the Roman fashion" ordered by Nechtan (138) although modern opinion prefers a late 11th-century date for the earliest masonry at Restenneth, the chamber at the base of the tower (Fernie 1986, 397-400).

The importance of cross-slabs as a place of worship, as a place where things happened, and an object that made things happen, is recognised. "They symbolized the spiritual centre of the communities they graced" (139). The ornamentation on the cross-slabs was also of symbolic importance.

The author then examines, in a reasonably detailed way, various examples of Biblical scenes on the slabs; including Adam and Eve, Samson and Delilah, David, Daniel, Jonah and the Whale, the Virgin and Child, the Desert Fathers and figures from the Bestiary. Here too there are one or two surprises. David the warrior/hunter on the St Andrews Sarcophagus is described as "clearly a Scot rather than a Pict" (149), presumably because he wears a "plaid over his shoulder and his tunic would almost appear to be kilted". Henderson sees this dress as a short toga (1994, 77). David rending the jaws of a lion to the right is obviously in classical dress. This type of dress, worn by David, appears on many Insular manuscripts, for example the Vespasian Psalter (fol. 31) or the Durham Cassiodorus (fol. 172v), and surely the sarcophagus sculptor was operating in an Insular context.

Of Jonah and the Whale; "two cross slabs bear the Jonah image - Dunfallandy (possibly) and here (thought to be the earlier of the two) at Fowlis Wester church" (150). Both of these stones actually bear two Jonah images and I would add some other possible representations:- Woodrae (formerly Woodwray), the panel top-right above the cross-arm (Allen and Anderson 1903, Part III, 243); Bressay, two "monsters" with a human figure between. Here the swallowing and disgorging are shown in one scene by a human form extended between the mouths of two monsters that outline the top of the slab (Allen and Anderson 1903, Part III, 6-7; Curle 1940, 79); and the Bore Stone of Gask, with a probable but worn example on the back to the right of the cross-shaft (Stuart 1856, Pl CIV). Jonah is used of course as a symbol of the Resurrection. Carola Hicks has noted that when this subject appears in Pictish art, the monsters tend to be quadrupeds rather than fish (1993, 172). To put it into context, "monster" was the word used in the account of Jonah in the "Old Latin Version", the translation of the Bible thought to have been brought to Ireland by St Patrick, but in the Vulgate version, in use in Northumbria by 700, St Jerome used the word "fish" (Curle 1940, 79n).

In Important Pictish People, we look at images on the stones to learn about the way of life of the élite. An interpretation of the Aberlemno kirkyard battle-scene is included and hunting scenes discussed. The Hilton of Cadboll image is interpreted as "Mary in the Flight into Egypt", the female rider's large penannular brooch is here seen as an infant head (187).

This part of the book also discusses clerics. The author mentions liturgical fans, which in the caption to St Vigeans 11 (appearing as "St Vigean's II") she calls "flabellums" (sic) (190). The book has a very good photograph of the Raasay House stone (246). Sutherland misses the opportunity to mention this rare depiction of a flabellum on a Pictish sculptured stone, comparable to similar examples on Irish crosses such as those at Carndonagh, Fahan Mura, Reask or Innismurray (Richardson 1993, 31).

PAS Editor Niall Robertson's unpublished reading of the Dunfallandy stone with his idea that symbols were personal and that one inherited one's upper symbol from one's father and one's lower symbol from one's mother is touched upon (195).

Pictish Language and the Arts, starts by following Kenneth Jackson's ideas on language (1955). The author mentions that Jackson once suggested the inscription on the Newton of Garioch stone may be an 18th-century forgery (203, 205). She does not however mention Gordon's investigations to determine the authenticity of this particular inscription, that found it to be genuine (Gordon 1956). In her discussion of ogham she states "It is thought that the alphabet was first introduced to the Picts by the Dal Riatic Scots" (206). There are very few examples of ogham in Argyll. Ogham was invented in Ireland and widely used in Pictland.

The Arts are covered with a short section on "Music and the Harp", and another on "Treasures". The music section is mainly concerned with depictions of harps on the stones but also gives mention to trumpets, and to the triple-pipe and barrel-drum on the Lethendy stone (Fisher and Greenhill 1972). The carnyx, perhaps rightly, does not appear in this musical section, but there is a photograph of a replica carnyx earlier in the book (178), unfortunately labelled as a "carynx".

Daily Life in a Pictish Settlement, purports to examine certain aspects of the common Pict, as opposed to the warrior élite. There are sections on "Wives and Marriage" (223-5), "Children" (225-9), "A Farmer's Life" (229-30) and "Cave-dwellers" (231-2). In the last of these sections, the caves discussed are those at East Wemyss and the Sculptor's Cave, Covesea. I am not aware of any evidence that Covesea was ever used as a dwelling - rather, that in Pictish times, it was used as a revered ritual/religious site and that archaeological evidence has confirmed quite clearly that it was not a settlement site. This book ends with a look at Sueno's Stone. Anthony Jackson's theories are accepted too readily (1984; 1993).

The Bibliography (248-53) contains many errors and inconsistencies. Sometimes we are given a publisher, sometimes a place of publication, and even sometimes both. Page numbers are not given. Authors have their names spelt wrong, e.g. "Graham Cruikshank" (251) for Graeme Cruickshank. The author has made eclectic use of various specialists' opinions throughout the book. It is a pity that their relevant publications do not always appear in the bibliography. E.g., Colin Renfrew is quoted in the early part of the book (3, 9, 25), yet no work by him is contained in the bibliography.

The bibliography is really an epitome of the whole book. Although "one should never judge a book by its cover", the alarm bells began to ring when I saw Tom Gray's name as "Tom E Grey" on the dust-cover. One wonders if this book was put together with such haste that no-one actually read the proofs. Apart from those named above others to have misspellings of their names include St Columba (xvii), Abbot Ceolfrid (58), and king Oengus (67). Places also suffer, for example, Tigernach (xvii), Traprain (19), and Dunnottar(56). Both St Andrews and St Vigeans are interchanged at random with St Andrew's and St Vigean's respectively. Even the Pictish Arts Society is given as "Pictish Art Society" (xiii) with a George Street address!

Although there are a number of very good photographs there are also a number which have been reproduced with poor contrast and others whose scale has been reduced so much as to render them unhelpful. I am sure that Tom E Gray must be bitterly disappointed at the way his photographs have been reproduced. At a conservative estimate about 30% are sub-standard. The backgrounds of most of his photographs of stones have been cropped which is not to their best advantage.

There are an enormous number of other details that I could mention, but I think the point has already been made that there are an inordinate amount of factual and typographical errors in this book. It has been an ambitious undertaking and has not been adequately read before going to press.

For the beginner In Search of the Picts must appear exciting. Imagine if one had never heard of the Picts and one came across this book. It contains a good number of images of Pictish sculpture with apparent interpretations of the symbols and a discussion of the everyday life of the Picts. Any book which increases awareness of the Picts to a wider audience should be welcome. However parts of Elizabeth Sutherland's book are misleading. For a general introduction to the Picts one would be better advised to consult Anna Ritchie's Picts (1989), which is both excellent and exceptional value for money. In Search of the Picts is not intended to be an academic book, and I do not think that Elizabeth Sutherland sees herself as an expert. However, for anyone with a moderate knowledge of the Picts this book will be a disappointment. Its aims and objectives are good, but regrettably, to me at least, it does not fulfil its potential.

J R F Burt