The Picts were a confederation of tribes living primarily in what is now northern and eastern Scotland during the Late Iron Age and Early Medieval periods.

They appear in Roman sources as fierce northern enemies, sometimes described as coming from beyond the Roman frontier.

Ancient chroniclers gave mythic origins: for example, the 8th-century writer Bede claimed the Picts came from Scythia.

Over time however, archaeological and linguistic evidence has placed them more firmly as an indigenous British (Celtic) population.

Because they left limited written records, and because many Roman and later sources were biased or mythic, the question of who exactly the Picts were — and where they really came from — has remained a subject of debate.

What the new genetics claim to show

According to the latest claims:

Scientists have sequenced DNA from individuals associated with Pictish-period burials (for example in Scotland in the 5th–7th centuries). According to the summary on Wikipedia: “A study published in 2023 sequenced the whole genomes from eight individuals associated with the Pictish period, excavated from cemeteries at Lundin Links in Fife and Balintore, Easter Ross.”

That DNA shows “broad affinities” between the Pictish genomes, Iron Age Britons and present-day people in western Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Northumbria — but less similarity with many parts of England.

Put another way: instead of being newcomers from Eastern Europe or Scandinavia, the Picts appear genetically local. They don’t align well with the idea of wholesale migration of “savage warrior tribes from east of the Urals”.

But here comes the twist: The genetics reportedly also present a puzzling element: the DNA shows a mixture or ancestry component that doesn’t quite fit the expected the local vs migrant binary. It suggests perhaps some previously unrecognised genetic influx or isolated sub-population that had lingered in the region. (This is the facet that “defies logic” in the headline.)

The caution: What the science doesn’t yet show

It’s important to temper the dramatic framing with facts:

The published study summarised on Wikipedia says the DNA study observed “broad affinities” — not a dramatic “rewriting of history” with full resolution of all questions.

There is no widely-publicised peer-reviewed paper (as of this writing) that declares “the Picts origin mystery solved” with full genome mapping of all Pictish populations across Scotland.

The sensational claim “defies all logic” is more a framing device than objective conclusion. The data may raise new questions, yes—but science typically advances by incremental refinement rather than full overturning in one go.

Genetic data always has limitations: sample size (eight individuals in one study), geographic coverage, preservation bias, and the interpretive leap from DNA to culture/identity.

Even if the Picts show local DNA, that does not automatically mean no migration, or that all the myths of Eastern-origin warrior invasions are wrong—just that the major surviving population may have been local.

What the future holds

This is a fascinating opening chapter. Future directions will include:

Sequencing many more Pictish-period burials, ideally across Scotland (east coast, west coast, Highlands, islands) to capture variation and migrations.

Comparing Pictish genomes with earlier Iron Age Britons, later Viking/Scandinavian settlers, and other Celtic populations in Britain and Ireland.

Integrating archaeology, linguistics and culture: DNA alone can show ancestry, but does not define language or cultural identity.

Refining the “puzzle” part: what is the unexplained genetic component? Is it a small ancient group, remote migration, or something else entirely?