Ancient and Archaeology听 permalink
There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.听
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Tuesday, 24th January 2006
history of the British Isles and a great deal of attention is being focused on Celtic history and the pre-Roman peoples of Britain. It has been said, and I think accurately, that the British people know more about Ancient Greece and ancient Middle Eastern civilizations than they do about Britain and Eire prior to the Roman conquest. If true, it seems reprehensible and should be corrected.
Scots, Irish, and Welsh are today showing increasing interest and pride in Celtic heritage. The English, not so much, although I can see no reason why they would not, since all of the islands, including England, were inhabited by the Celts at one time.
But while this is all very well and certainly commendable, what about the peoples who preceded the Celts onto the islands? Few seem to care about them. The peoples known to the Romans as the Picts apparently had solid kinship with tribes of Iberia and the Mediterranean, yet we know less of them than of the pre-Inca civilisations of Peru. Scots, Irish, and Welsh should certainly take at least as much pride in the pre-Celtic ancestry as they do in the Celtic, yet no one does.
Rather inconsistent is it not? Anyone care to comment on this?Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 2
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Tuesday, 24th January 2006
There are two obvious points to make about this
Firstly the legacy of Ancient Greece & the Middle East is arguably far more important than that of the pre-Roman Brits, and therefore far more worthy of study (it wasn't the ancient Britons who invented algebra, philosophy, the alphabet, monotheism etc etc)
Secondly the whole question of "Celtic" identity is a highly controversial one, much influenced by 19th century nationalist agendas, etc (and much debated on these boards)Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 3
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Tuesday, 24th January 2006
There are two obvious points to make about this
Firstly the legacy of Ancient Greece & the Middle East is arguably far more important than that of the pre-Roman Brits, and therefore far more worthy of study (it wasn't the ancient Britons who invented algebra, philosophy, the alphabet, monotheism etc etc)
Secondly the whole question of "Celtic" identity is a highly controversial one, much influenced by 19th century nationalist agendas, etc (and much debated on these boards)听
I think it's rather arrogant to state unequivocally that the Ancient Greeks were more important than the pre-Roman Brits. that's a matter of opinion and individual interests. As for cultural contributions, I would have to note that neither the Inca nor the Aztecs came with much in the way of mathematics or an alphabet, yet we know a great deal more of them than we do of the pre-Celtic people of the British isles. As for monotheism, why that should be considered an advance of any kind over a pantheistic or polytheistic view? I fail to see any advantage a philosophy of monotheism has given the modern or historical world. Further, we don't know what religions the pre-Celtic peoples practiced nor do we pay much attention to them. Yet they erected some mighty stone monuments in which residents of the islands take inordinate pride, and the fact remains that we know almost nothing of the peoples who may have constructed them.
(I know the Celts have been discussed earlier. I was not referring to them, but their predecessors.)Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 4
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Tuesday, 24th January 2006
Hi Erik,
Perhaps the English reluctance to be invloved with Pre Roman Britain and the 'Celts' is that they do not percieve themselves as Celtic/Ancient Britains, but Anglo Saxons. And maybe more to the point, not only Anglo Saxon, but Norman, Danish (all these related, northern Germanic), French, and now a commonwealth of peoples. So is there any need to define some cultural heritage to a certain people when we are a mixed. The Scots , Irish and Welsh certainly have more of a claim to being 'Celtic'. What can the English claim? Oh yes, we were once heathen barbarians who had to be taught everything by the Celts including Christianity. Then once they had done this we kicked em out and sided with the Church of Rome!
Is this the legacy the English should celebrate? Obviously not, so we must look to later times to make that legacy, and that is the period of the medieval times and after the Norman conquest.
Of course we could argue that during the Anglo Saxon takeover, which took over 200 years, the indiginous Britains were not wiped out but continued to exist, which they did but with new overlords - The English, so the modern English could claim rights to all, Celtic included. And therein lies the problem, The English identity is a muddle of different peoples all rolled into one. We shouldn't jump on this nationalistic bandwagon, instead we should seek unity with all nations of the Island, of Great Britain.
It is all the peoples who made this country great, especially the Scots, Irish and Welsh guards of the empire, the English and Norman warriors of 100 year wars, the great kings and Queens of the Medieval age, the great scots Irish and Engish inventors of the Industrial revolotion and the great commonwealth of peoples during the wars of the 20th Century and during the time of slavery.
Let us be proud to be British!Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 5
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Tuesday, 24th January 2006
To say the ancient Greeks & Middle East were more important doesn't mean they were better or more valuable, just that they had a bigger influence on Western civilization and therefore on the world we live in now.
This of course is largely because they left behind a huge body of literature (ie the Classics and the Bible) telling us about their own history and their view of the world; whereas with pre-Roman Britain you're limited to the evidence of archaeology, plus a lot of speculation.
Basically, a literate culture is bound to have a bigger influence on the world than a non-literate one (and will also be a more rewarding field for academic study on the whole). That may not be "fair" but I don't think there's much you can do about it.Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 6
Posted by heuvel (U1763810) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Let us be proud to be British!
听
Why should I be proud (or ashamed) of something (being born British) I had nothing to do with? Glad (or sad) maybe.Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 7
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Hi Heuvel,
No ancestor worship left in you then
Why not be proud of what our ancestors achieved?Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 8
Posted by generallobus (U1869191) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
I'm from Liverpool, live in the Southwest of England. My ancestry is Irish and Scottish so I'd class myself, if pushed, as Celtic British. When I travel around the area visiting sites like Avebury, Uffington, Wayland's Smithy etc. I am consistently warmed by the feeling that I have some kind of direct connection not only with these monuments but with the people who erected. them. Sure, it's prob just naive wish fulfilment to think this way, but it gives me a right buzz.
The bbc show 'meet the ancestors' featured a village in Devon a while back. A neolithic burial had been uncovered and a certain amount of dna extracted which matched, I think it was approx 7 people in the village. This implied that there had been continuity of occupation by the same families for over 4 thousand years. Further to this the White Horse of Uffington (the only British chalk figure that has been dated to the ancient world - circa 900 bce) has been scoured every seven years by local inhabitants.
This would suggest that there may well be a direct lineage between the ancient bloodlines and the contemporary population. Hope so, but if not, it doesn't diminish the effect of these wonderful places.Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 9
Posted by Eric_Brewster (U2829317) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Eric Brewster44th
Genealogist:
Indeed, Erik......you have about the same concern that I do. The Lack of Caring from others about the more "ancient clans" of the British, Scots and Irish. The Picts had been in Britain for a very long time, eventually they would form themselves into the Scots and even have a hand in changing Bristish History for the better. I am 1/5 Pict (Irish-British).....my concern is that when people note that other people talk about the peoples that were in the British Isles at about the time of King Arthur and before, then the Archeology and the Historians are pretty quiet about where these peoples came from.
My own "Brehon" and "Breheny" history is shrouded in a great mystery, but they lived and not all of them were, "Brewers Of The Beers", some were right wise "lawyers and advisors" of their time, unfortunately when others read your words they ask, "Where is your proof and evidence......memories are not enough! Legend is Legend and Myth is Myth!"
Erik, and whom were the peoples that came in an migration about 100 AD to 500 AD to mix with the Picts, Scots, Irish, English and Vandalles, Norse and others of what is now the United Kingdom? Some say they were the Atlantians.........I believe they were. Some brought such things as the Cup of Jesus to Britain, others brought such things as the great sword called "Excalibur" to Britain as well. Yet still others cry out that it is still myths, legends and heresay?Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 10
Posted by Eric_Brewster (U2829317) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Eric Brewster44th
Genealogist:
Hi Generallobus, Yep, I am glad your from Liverpool England, we have an Liverpool in Nova Scotia.
In your travels, General, I think you indeed do have connections the same as I do with such places as you travel too. Though I have done 16yrs of genealogy it still seems to be what others believe and what you believed are 2 different things, if you upset their views then God Help You for they can be quite upset when their world views are rocked. Ahhhhhh in Devonshire you say, DNA was extracted from an neolithic grave site.....interesting. I reciently had some of my DNA tested and it tested out perfectly with the ancient "Brewster Clans" that I am a living descendant of.
I would be curious to note that if my "living DNA" matched up with the DNA in that Devonshire grave site, oddly at about the 1100s to the 1400s the Manns and Brewster Families did live down around Devonshire for a time and own land there.
Wow, that would be very interesting, the archeologist feel that the Celts and prehistoric ancestors of the celts have an 10,000 yrs old history in the British Isles more or less. General, there has to be, from the ancient bloodlines to our surnames as well as from the records that survived from the Dark Ages to now. I believe that there was more to the myths and legends that many want to believe, it is contained in memories of the last names of the peoples and the changes to their last names from about say 100 AD to the late 1600s. Or do you want to hold to the historian's views that it is all myths and legends?Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 11
Posted by generallobus (U1869191) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Hi Eric
According to contemporary archaeology the Halstadt 'Celts' started to inhabit the British isles circa 500 bce, to be followed by the 'La Tene' 'celts' from 300 bce onwards. The builders of the megalithic structures such as stonehenge et al are loosly classified as the 'beaker' people, based on grave goods. These people's influence can be seen stretching up the atlantic seeboard of western europe. These folk seem to have become active in Britain after the introduction of agriculture circa 7/8th millemium bce.Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 12
Posted by Eric_Brewster (U2829317) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Hey Artorious, well I think there has to be some ancestor worship in all of us, I know there is alot in me. Aye my friend where is the harm?
One can be proud of our ancestors's achievements, a good part of what they done was lauded in song and stories of Bards and Singers of more happier times. *rises his glass of stout to Artorious, drinking to his continued health.Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 13
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Hi Erik,
Perhaps the English reluctance to be invloved with Pre Roman Britain and the 'Celts' is that they do not percieve themselves as Celtic/Ancient Britains, but Anglo Saxons. And maybe more to the point, not only Anglo Saxon, but Norman, Danish (all these related, northern Germanic), French, and now a commonwealth of peoples. So is there any need to define some cultural heritage to a certain people when we are a mixed. The Scots , Irish and Welsh certainly have more of a claim to being 'Celtic'. What can the English claim? Oh yes, we were once heathen barbarians who had to be taught everything by the Celts including Christianity. Then once they had done this we kicked em out and sided with the Church of Rome!
听
Oh dear, here we go again
According to 麻豆约拍 history page on 'Celtic' Britain:
Archaeologists widely agree on two things about the British Iron Age: its many regional cultures grew out of the preceding local Bronze Age, and did not derive from waves of continental 'Celtic' invaders. And secondly, calling the British Iron Age 'Celtic' is so misleading that it is best abandoned.
Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 14
Posted by Eric_Brewster (U2829317) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Yepers Generallobus, your right. Atleast contemporary archeology accepts these things that far. There was an article on 麻豆约拍 that I had seen that mentioned 10,000 years or so, that is why I said it.
Yep, I agree with the contemporary archeolists in the progression of the celts, but they cannot quite agree on exactly if the celts were as skillful in constructing the structures of Stonehenge or not. Ok to put your info into context for me, Generallobus, these Halstadt Celts were of the 500 BC peoples that were in the British Isles, then the La Tene Celts came next, abit more advanced. Then about 100 AD to 400 AD or so there were advancements of the Celts of both groups to mix with the "Legendary Refuges" to produce the Anglo-Sascens British from the 400-500 ADs to the 1100s ADs when there were about 5-7 distinct races of British, Irish and Scots?
Well your very informative Generallobus, this information is important, I would like to also add that in this evolving of the peoples in the British Isles a lot of their myths and legends were atleast based on their real ancient history and incorporated in future descendants memories of them that had eventually created the Druid cultures with later British and Irish celts.Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 15
Posted by Eric_Brewster (U2829317) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Eric Brewster44th
Genealogist:
What you said in mind, Artorious......is good; however even today the word "Barbarian" has to be defined with evidence and proof....as most continue to complain. It is the pot calling the kettle black I am afraid.
The Romans called the Celts and Irish "Barbarians" when they came and over ran Britain, but they had a surprising though crude technology and society. It had served them for well over 1,800 years or more. When the Vikings, Danes and others came and sided with the Irish and Pict, then they were considered the "Barbarian Invaders" taking over the British and mainland celts, whom can blame them in thinking this.....if I were invaded upon I sure would feel this way.
Later the Normans came and invaded....with abit of Celtic mixing in the Normandy in Gaul as my research and interesting hints on the internet has produced, suggests, the Normans considered the Mainland British Celts, and Sacsens to be the barbarians and swept them under the rug! Aye indeed whose Legacy need we say is of the all importance that we need to be prouder of than what had gone on before, Aye Commonwealth Britain, we need to reexamine it with a 5-7 race review of all the info we have on the 5-7 that started our British Commonwealth and came to the mixing pots of the ancients. In the later medieval times and on up to the "Elizabethian Era" it seems they have tended to over shadow what they considered the "heathens", "barbarians" as well as the pagans to be in favor of an "Commonwealth" in their visions of what it should be.
We cannot no longer consider others to be "pagan" or "barbarian" any more without considering what the Commonwealth Mixing Pot must of been like when all these refugees and barbarians came to find homes or make conquest of the 4 first peoples that were there before them.Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 16
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Hi Eric
According to contemporary archaeology the Halstadt 'Celts' started to inhabit the British isles circa 500 bce, to be followed by the 'La Tene' 'celts' from 300 bce onwards. The builders of the megalithic structures such as stonehenge et al are loosly classified as the 'beaker' people, based on grave goods. These people's influence can be seen stretching up the atlantic seeboard of western europe. These folk seem to have become active in Britain after the introduction of agriculture circa 7/8th millemium bce. 听
There is no evidence of "Celts" settling in Britain. Beaker, Hallstadt and La Tene are just names for types of culture, they are not races of people. It's the same people with changing culture over time, not lots of different people migrating into Britain at different times.Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 17
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
I think a lot o fpeople ar einterested but, as has been mentioned, the pre-Roman tribes living in Britain (whether you call them Celtic or not) had no literary tradition. There is a fair bit of good archaeology going on, but it is difficult to get a sense of culture and beliefs from merely physical remains. I don't think the Oggham (?) runes count as literature.
Incidentally, for Eric Brewster, th ePicts did not turn themselve sinto Scots. The Scots invaded from Ireland and, over time, came to rule the country now known as Scotland. There is still a distinct East-West rivalry in Scotland, largely reflecting the traditional Pict - Scot background.Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 18
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Message 8.
Generallobus,
welcome back.
Warmest regards,
Paul.Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 19
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Re: Message 13 and 16.
Gaiseric,
couldn't agree more with you. I have defended all the history writing I found about this special question and done a lot of research for it.
See my message about the Celts. I brought it forward, to point to the removal of the IMO excellent review about the Celts. But it seems to be removed (message 15). For what reason? I really don't know. I studied the message and didn't find "one" reason for why it could be removed. Unless perhaps some weird nationalistic mister or misses X complaining to the mods?
Warm regards and happy to have had the opportunity to send once again a message to you,
Paul.Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 20
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Thanks Paul
best wishesLink to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 21
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Hi Guys,
We have already been over this modern idea of destroying Celtic existence. The last Anglo Saxon war against the poor old Celts. The ancient Britains were Britons, we know that, but the term Celtic has been used to describe these cultures wether they be Britons, Gauls, Belgae, Celts or whatever. They had a common language and culture. So should we deny them a modern group name, because some book writer thinks we should'nt? And shame on the 麻豆约拍 for promoting this fallicious view.
If this new view of denying people a name takes prevelance then we may as well get rid of the Egyptians and call them stone/copper/bronze/iron age peoples. Same with the Hittites who were Hessians, same with Myceaneans who were Greek, Sumerians who were Chaldeans... It's all pony....we need a reference for people in the context of archaelology otherwise we end up with dour books like `Britain BC'. I was glad to see this view did not prevail in the book I am currently reading called 'The Tribes of Britain' which leads me the think other scholars think its pony too!Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 22
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Hi Eric,
Yes, a good point on the term barbarians. I understand your view. All I would say, is that is how the Romanized, Christian civilised Celts/Britons regarded the Germanic invaders, as well as Celtic tribes on their borders.
I would love to see a revival in interest in celtic times. I remember taking my son to a Celtic festival a couple of summers ago and being very dissapointed at the lack interest, but also the lack of real Celtic culture on display. There I was expecting tatooed, half naked, woad covered warriors, hair on end enacting battles, with Druids singing their war cries but all we got was round houses a few pots and couple of people dressed up to look like everyday celts. Yet, go to a medieval festival, and they are huge. OOps, maybe I shouldn't call it medieval, but very very much later Iron age lol....
As has been said, the Celts left us with no corpus of writing with which to relate to (except the Irish and welsh annals) and herein lies the problem. We know so little about them except what archealogy tells us and what that has told us is that the Celts/Britons were much more sophisticated than we knew before....Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 23
Posted by generallobus (U1869191) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
You're quite correct Gaiseric. Halstadt and La Tene are more indicative of artistic styles than waves of invaders. As to the questionable nature of the word celts - that's why I put it in quotation marks. That whole Keltoi thing is what the Greeks said the tribes of gaul referred to themselves as.
I know it's not history but the Irish book of invasions talks about the sons of Mil arriving on the shores of Erin. Some sources have identified these Milesians with the iron age travellers from Spain and portugal. This would suggest that maybe there were immigrants from the continent around this period.Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 24
Posted by generallobus (U1869191) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Hi Paul
Thanks for the welcome. Good to be back with people ready to debate instead of merely insult.Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 25
Posted by heuvel (U1763810) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Hi Heuvel,
No ancestor worship left in you then
Why not be proud of what our ancestors achieved? 听
Sorry to be a pain, Artorious, but why don't you answer my question.
HeuvelLink to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 26
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Hi Heuvel,
If you dont want to be proud of your ancestors thats up to you mate. If you want to be glad or sad thats fine with me. Everyone must make their own choices in life. I would not deny you this. By remembering our ancestors we keep alive the respect we have for their achievments, and being proud of those achievements also shows our respect for them. Pride is a human emotion we must all deal with. To deny it and other emotions would make us like those boring people portrayed in Star Trek the next generation. Give me captain James T. Kirk any day.Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 27
Posted by heuvel (U1763810) on Friday, 27th January 2006
Hi Heuvel,
Pride is a human emotion we must all deal with. To deny it and other emotions would make us like those boring people portrayed in Star Trek the next generation. Give me captain James T. Kirk any day.听
To deny emotion would be irrational as Spock might say. And when I contemplate the works of Newton I certainly feel emotion. I call it admiration. I feel the same about the works of Einstein. Newton is not special for me because he was English/British. And I still don鈥檛 see why I should be proud of these people or their achievements. Any pride (or shame) I feel is reserved for my own achievements (and failings). Do you really feel proud because the Anglo-Norman King鈥檚 army beat the French King鈥檚 army a couple of times in a vulgar squabble called the 100 years war (to use one of your own examples)?Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 28
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Friday, 27th January 2006
Hi Heuvel
<quote Do you really feel proud because the Anglo-Norman King鈥檚 army beat the French King鈥檚 army a couple of times in a vulgar squabble called the 100 years war (to use one of your own examples)?
听
Yes, agreed I feel admiration and respect for kings and their extremely brave men of the campaigns of the 100 years war. And yes, I feel proud that they came from the country I reside in.
The hundred years war was started to stop the French raiding our sea ports and burning them to the ground. Brighton was burned down several times by them. The English men at arms, often recruited from these sea ports took major revenge on the French towns.
Interesting also that the longest occupation in times of war of Paris, was not the Nazi's and their piffling 4 years, but the 15 years the English held it during the 100 years war.Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 29
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Friday, 27th January 2006
oops dont know what happened there, but above message is my reply to Heuval.
Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 30
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Friday, 27th January 2006
Oh dear, here we go again
According to 麻豆约拍 history page on 'Celtic' Britain:
Archaeologists widely agree on two things about the British Iron Age: its many regional cultures grew out of the preceding local Bronze Age, and did not derive from waves of continental 'Celtic' invaders. And secondly, calling the British Iron Age 'Celtic' is so misleading that it is best abandoned.
听
I accept that there were probably no large-scale invasions of these islands by overwhelming waves of 'Celts' from Europe, but the scale of the incursions is merely a matter of degree. I think there were incursions of highly influential groups whose cultural impact was great, and there is definite evidence of pre-Roman cultural assimilation from the continent and also of tribal migrations at various times within the historical period of the first millenium AD.
The word 'Celtic' is often carelessly used in a genetic sense, implying a population having genetic continuity from 'Celtic' ancestors to the exclusion of all others. This is obviously ridiculous because, without exception, there are no modern population groups that can make such a claim! Nor have there been in the past. In this respect, the argument against calling the pre-Roman inhabitants of Britain 鈥楥eltic鈥 can be equally made against calling the inhabitants of pre-Norman England 鈥楢nglo-Saxon鈥. It all becomes a matter of degree and is not a precise science.
So, what do you propose we call the indigenous cultures of the British Isles prior to their Romanisation and Anglicisation? Bear in mind that these people (across the two islands) spoke Celtic languages and exhibited what are considered to be many other Celtic cultural characteristics, albeit with some variations, as for example their art, religion, social structures, calendar, laws, etc..
The word Celtic remains a legitimate adjective for describing some of the peoples of these islands both in the historic past and in the modern era. If we reject the use of the word 鈥楥eltic鈥 what umbrella word do you suggest as a replacement for describing the common cultural characteristics of the Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Manx and Cornish people of pre-Roman (or pre-Anglo-Saxon) Britain?Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 31
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Friday, 27th January 2006
Appealling to the historical sense of common identity between the nations of what was dubbed the Celtic fringe from the late eighteenth century onwards does ignore the fact that a major factor in shaping this has been the presence of the English. Afterall it was Young's identification of Indo European languages and the classification of Romance and Germanic tongues that saw the term Celt transferred from prehistoric Central European populations to the Atlantic fringe where it played a role in the formation of the nationalist struggle in Ireland. Not sure the Gallicians in Spain felt too much affinity for the rest of the Celtic fringe until this point. In so far as a common bond is concerned it seems those south of the wall were only united by their Romano British identity, the Picts and Irish remained outside Vortigern's influence and it seems most the tribal civitas established during the Roman period were relunctant to recognise his overlordship in any case. Legend has it he started to hire German mercenaries to subdue breakaway civitas, following a model used in other Roman provinces when the soldiery were withdrawn and because of Gildas and Bede the rest is history.
As such the identification of Hallstaat and La Tene assemblages fed into the idea of Celtic migrations as the material evidence was found to be distributed across much of Northern Europe. Personally I'm not in favour of inventing a common prehistoric narrative for the inhabitants of the British Isles, its not like we are a volk. I would far rather describe the inhabitants by region and time rather than appeal to a prehistoric proto nationalism.Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 32
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Friday, 27th January 2006
If it is accepted that 鈥楥eltic鈥 migrations from the continent into the British Isles did not occur then how do we explain the existence of the same tribes in Europe, Britain and Ireland? I will give you some examples:-
The Belgae are known from the Netherlands and Belgium but they also occupied a swathe of territory in Britain from the Isle of Wight north-west to the Bristol Channel. In Ireland they are known as the Fir Bolg or Bolgraige where the 鈥樷搑aige鈥 part is cognate with Latin 鈥榬eges鈥, a kingdom.
The Hiberi of north-western Spain are attested in the south-west of Ireland under the name Iverni (hence, Hibernia). In turn, these may be the same as the Arverni who were located in the Auvergne Mountains in south central France.
The Parisii in the neighbourhood of Paris and in the Humber region of England.
The Menapii (a P-Celtic spelling) were to be found in southern Holland and in Yorkshire, England. In Ireland they were known as the Fir Manach (a Q-Celtic spelling). They gave their name to the modern Irish county of Fermanagh. Fir Manach means 鈥榯he Manachian Men鈥 or 鈥楳enapian Men鈥 (Fir = men in Irtish Gaelic).
The Brigantes were settled in northern Britain but Ptolemy locates them also in south-eastern Ireland.
The Pictones were found in Loire region of France and in Scotland.
The Semnones occupied territory between the Elbe and the Oder and may also be the same people as the Tuath Semon (or Semonraige) of Ireland. 鈥楾uath鈥 means 鈥榯erritory of鈥 and 鈥-raige鈥 means kingdom.
The Veneti of Normandy may be cognate with the Uaithne of Ireland (Ptolemy鈥檚 Autini).Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 33
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Friday, 27th January 2006
Well I'm not sure the Parissii/Parisii links between the Seine and East Yorkshire is quite so watertight. The names of tribal federations appear to be fairly fluid until the Roman's preserved the names of dominant groupings they came into contact with and offered to secure their status. I mean there is at least two centuries between when Roman's started recording the names of tribes in the Seine basin and when they arrived in East Yorkshire. People like to make something of the cart burial practices in the two respective regions but around the Seine they have four wheels like central European precedents, whereas the examples from Garstang and Wetwang are two wheel chariots more similar to those described in Caesar's de Bello Gallica.
Of course it is Caesar that wrote down the names of many tribes and identified the links between the Belgae in continental Europe and the tribal confederations in the South East. Now I don't doubt that there was a fair degree of communication between the British Isles and the Continent throughout prehistory. The Rhine and its estuary seems to have allowed material assemblages stemming from Central Europe to spread along the Atlantic fringe throughout prehistory, note the spread of farming; the bell beaker and bronze working; hallsaat wares and ironworking not to mention La Tene. With this in mind I would expect there to be a similarity in the languages used across the British Isles and other parts of the Alantic fringe. Both Germanic and Celtic are Indo European languages in any case and with such fluid tribal structures across much of Northern Europe before Caesar spread Roman influence to the Rhine I am not surprised there are similarities between the routes of words within the respective areas. If anything Roman expansion into these areas simply changed the material that was valued to express status from La Tene to Mediterranean material goods. It also sought to regulate movement into the Empire from beyond its borders, minimising population movement from Central and Northern Europe, Scotland and Irelend until the withdrawal of the Legions.
A knowledge of Mediterranean history does allow for an explanation as to how La Tene culture spread across Western Europe. It seems the constant in fighting among the Greeks disrupted the flow of trade and material goods from the Eastern Mediterranean from the end of the fifth century BC, high status goods in Hallstaat levels are almost always imported from sources in the urbanised world, such as China for silks or the Aegean for bronze Krators. As such it from this point that the La Tene material assemblage becomes common in Central Europe's metal rich areas spreading West along the Rhine and Rhone in the following centuries. The upsurge in hordes of barbarians descending on the urbanised world in search of plunder is regarded as another side effect of this decline in the supply of luxuries from the Mediterranean.Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 34
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 27th January 2006
Re: message 30.
Artorious,
I agree, but then you have to take it as a connotation of a certain "culture" and intrinsically not with a certain country or genitically apart people.
Kind regards.Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 35
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 27th January 2006
Re: Message 30.
Artorious,
excuse. I forgot congratulations for this message, I mostly agree with.
Kind regards again.Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 36
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 27th January 2006
Re: Message 34 and 35.
Excuse again it was of course Mick mac that I wanted to reply to instead of Artorious.
Excuse me Mick mac.Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 37
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 27th January 2006
Re: Message 31.
lol,
about your last paragraph. Do I understand that you say the same as I wanted to say but more eloquently and certainly much much shorter? (smile):
"I would far rather describe the inhabitants by region and time rather than to appeal to a prehistoric proto nationalism"
Kind regards.Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 38
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 27th January 2006
Re: message 32.
Mick mac,
I replied already to you in the other thread on the same matter.
Kind regards.Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 39
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 27th January 2006
Re: Message 33.
lol,
with esteem as always.Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 40
Posted by heuvel (U1763810) on Saturday, 28th January 2006
oops dont know what happened there, but above message is my reply to Heuval.听
Artorious, I got the message. Thanks for making your point of view quite clear. We could continue this exchange step by step but let me make some assumptions and get to my point whereby I shall try and answer your question to me (Why shouldn鈥檛 we be proud of our ancestors?).
Going back to your original message it appears that you feel that all peoples should identify those aspects of their ancestral legacy which they can be proud of. The things which they might be ashamed of are often divisive and are better forgotten. So we should be proud of our attack in self-defense on the French but they should forget this (in the unlikely case that they agree it was their fault) and be proud that they eventually ensured their survival as a (great) nation by kicking us out of Paris. Not surprisingly many German teenagers feel the same way and would like to stop having the Holocaust thrust down their throats in a way that makes them feel ashamed of their country. They are, after all, not responsible for what happened. Unfortunately, the fashion for national pride makes this very difficult.
Let the French feel proud if they want to, as long as they don鈥檛 think they鈥檙e as great as we are. And as for the Germans, don鈥檛 think we鈥檙e going to let them forget what they did .....
I鈥檓 not suggesting we forget. I鈥檓 suggesting that we move on from national pride to recognition of achievement of individuals rather than nations. You suggested yourself that we should think British rather than English, Welsh, Scots, Irish. If we cannot give up collective pride in one step lets focus it on Europe rather than on Britain, France, Germany. If we can鈥檛 make this step we鈥檒l remain forever football hooligans.
P.S. This will have to be my last post for a weekLink to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 41
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Saturday, 28th January 2006
Hi Heuvel
A very good post and a good debate!
It is indeed very difficult to remove or seperate pride, what others may call nationalism from ones own or ones countries ego. If we could get rid of ego we would perhaps make better inroads into the sort of society you describe, where the individual is seen in the context of his own time, and so should neither be blamed or overly praised for the descision he or she made at the time. Then the actions of those forebearers could be removed from the modern decendant, taking away the guilt still felt by modern Germans for things they had no hand in.
For instance, the British appear to ignore the achievements of their great Empire, modern Labour and liberals playing it down into the point of non-existence. These were actions of the times, we may not approve or dissaprove now, but our current beliefs shoudn't detract what these people did in the context of their own time. If the British had not built the empire, the French, Spanish or Portuguese would certaily have done so in our place.
I think what you are saying is that we should look objectively on history but not involve ourselves too emotionally. For this we need to reduce passion, passion for learning, passion for knowing about history, passion for feeling involved even though we're removed by centuries. It's a fine balance, and I agree with you, finding that balance will not be easy. But I also agree thats its worth chasing...Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 42
Posted by heuvel (U1763810) on Sunday, 12th February 2006
For this we need to reduce passion, passion for learning, passion for knowing about history, passion for feeling involved even though we're removed by centuries.
听
Hello Artorious,
Just got back from my trip. Thanks for your reply. I鈥檝e also enjoyed the debate
I would like to think that your passion for history is matched by my passion for exploring the limits of logic. I think we鈥檝e both had our say now and given one another something to think about. I don鈥檛 think either of us will see their wishes fulfilled in the near future.
In a lighter vein, and in relation to the issue of English identity, I鈥檇 be interested to know what passions the following text arouses in you historical breast.
鈥淓ngland鈥檚 history is long and rich. Settled by prehistoric man, inhabited by Celtic tribes, conquered by the Romans, and invaded by the Normans, the country prospered through medieval and Victorian times bringing its rich heritage into the 21st century for all to enjoy today.鈥
You can find this on the website of Destinations-UK (click on the English flag). Ireland, Scotland & Wales, in contrast, are mainly lands of myth and legend. Makes me proud to be English!
HeuvelLink to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 43
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Monday, 13th February 2006
..
鈥淓ngland鈥檚 history is long and rich. Settled by prehistoric man, inhabited by Celtic tribes, conquered by the Romans, and invaded by the Normans, the country prospered through medieval and Victorian times bringing its rich heritage into the 21st century for all to enjoy today.鈥
... Ireland, Scotland & Wales, in contrast, are mainly lands of myth and legend. Makes me proud to be English! 听
Can you substantiate this extraordinary claim! Do you mean that only England has a history! Or are you just giving in to a little jingoistic self-indulgence.
Is it possible to have an educated exchange with you about this matter?Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 44
Posted by heuvel (U1763810) on Monday, 13th February 2006
Can you substantiate this extraordinary claim! Do you mean that only England has a history! Or are you just giving in to a little jingoistic self-indulgence.
Is it possible to have an educated exchange with you about this matter?
听
I鈥檓 not claiming anything, just quoting from the website of Destinations-UK. As for jingoistic self-indulgence, I did say this was meant to be 鈥渋n a lighter vein鈥, although I am interested in the emotions aroused by such texts (which is what I asked Artorious). I think I know what you feel but maybe you鈥檇 like to tell me in your own words.Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 45
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Monday, 13th February 2006
I have no problem whatsoever with the following quote from Destinations UK which said:-
<quote>鈥淓ngland鈥檚 history is long and rich. Settled by prehistoric man, inhabited by Celtic tribes, conquered by the Romans, and invaded by the Normans, the country prospered through medieval and Victorian times bringing its rich heritage into the 21st century for all to enjoy today.鈥</quote>
It is the claim you make in your next sentence that I am challenging, namely:-
<quote>鈥... Ireland, Scotland & Wales, in contrast, are mainly lands of myth and legend.<quote>鈥
Can you substantiate this!Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 46
Posted by heuvel (U1763810) on Tuesday, 14th February 2006
Hello Mick_Mac,
Re your message 45:
Sorry if I gave the impression that I was making any claims. I was just summing up the bits of text on Destinations-UK which might qualify as history, namely:
"From prehistoric to Celtic to medieval, the past is alive in Ireland. Myth and legend are pervasive."
"[Scotland] is a land of legends larger than life: the Loch Ness monster, Rob Roy, William Wallace, Robbie Burns, and Robert the Bruce."
"Wales is a country of legend, myth and romance-"
By the way, I was intrigued to hear that you think the text for England is OK. As Napoleon said (or so I have read): "What is history but a myth agreed upon?"Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 47
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Tuesday, 14th February 2006
Heuvel,
Thanks for the response and I am beginning to regret being so touchy about this issue. You said:
Hello
... I was just summing up the bits of text on Destinations-UK which might qualify as history, namely:
"From prehistoric to Celtic to medieval, the past is alive in Ireland. Myth and legend are pervasive."
"[Scotland] is a land of legends larger than life: the Loch Ness monster, Rob Roy, William Wallace, Robbie Burns, and Robert the Bruce."
"Wales is a country of legend, myth and romance-"
听
I think you will agree that your original paraphrase of this material put a different connotation on it although that may not have been your intention.
By the way, I was intrigued to hear that you think the text for England is OK. As Napoleon said (or so I have read): "What is history but a myth agreed upon?" 听
If Napoleon said this I can't agree with him. History is not myth. If it is then Hitler is a fairytale!
Why be intrigued at my agreeing to the Destinations UK description of England's past and present? You cannot deny what is as obvious as the nose on your face, can you?
Kind regards, Mick.Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 48
Posted by heuvel (U1763810) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
Hello Mick,
I think you will agree that your original paraphrase of this material put a different connotation on it although that may not have been your intention.
听
It was my intention to wrong-foot the reader for a couple of mouse clicks (in order to get a reaction) but not for a couple of posts. My apologies, once again, for not getting the balance right.
If Napoleon said this I can't agree with him. History is not myth. If it is then Hitler is a fairytale!
听
The texts on Destinations-UK may be just innocent blather, or they may be an example of the myth agreed upon for popular consumption in the real world and spread, probably innocently, by the likes of Destinations-UK.. I am inclined to believe the latter, and I wondered how others felt.
Why be intrigued at my agreeing to the Destinations UK description of England's past and present? You cannot deny what is as obvious as the nose on your face, can you?
听
I was intrigued by the contrast between the Celtic fringe which (according to Destinations-UK) is positively wallowing in myth & legend, and England, for which only real but devilishly incomplete history is presented. I am referring, of course, to the omission of those intrepid language teachers Hengest & Horsa, the possibly mythical representatives of a cultural grouping whose existence you do not appear to doubt (judging by your message 30). Or did prehistoric man speak English?
I know I鈥檓 paranoid. I just wanted to know if there are any more like me out there!. I鈥檒l now revert to serious mode before I get myself into any more trouble.
Thanks for your patience.
HeuvelLink to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 49
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Thursday, 16th February 2006
Heuvel
Got yourself into hot water with that one didnt you!...
Yes, it is certainly an encapsulated statement of the English prejudice by the misinformed which should be done away with. Englands greatness owes much of it's owm history, laws, religion and fighting men to those very countries denigrated in that statement, quite peverse really !Link to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
-
Message 50
Posted by heuvel (U1763810) on Friday, 17th February 2006
Got yourself into hot water with that one didnt you!...
听
It鈥檚 all worthwhile now you鈥檝e answered my question, Artorious!
You are for pride without prejudice. I am against fiction disguised as fact. So can we join forces against Destinations-UK? I鈥檝e already sent them an email asking for equal and fair treatment. Proper history for all, or, if that鈥檚 too controversial, proper myths and legends for all. They didn鈥檛 reply. Do you have any suggestions?
HeuvelLink to this forum: There's a renewed interest being fomented in the pre-Roman
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 听to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.