Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Prehistory of the Peoples of Britain

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    cosmocreator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Thursday, January 18th, 2007 @ 06:36 PM
    Subrace
    Other
    Gender
    Age
    56
    Politics
    Living in the real world
    Posts
    3,850
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    11 Posts

    Prehistory of the Peoples of Britain

    Peoples of Britain, Prehistory

    Introduction
    The story of early Britain has traditionally been told in terms of waves of invaders displacing or annihilating their predecessors. Archaeology suggests that this picture is fundamentally wrong. For over 10,000 years people have been moving into - and out of - Britain, sometimes in substantial numbers, yet there has always been a basic continuity of population.

    more...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient...oples_01.shtml
    .

    IHR Revisionist Conference, April 24, 2004, internet broadcast:

    http://www.internationalrevisionistconference.c om/

  2. #2
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, December 8th, 2006 @ 02:25 AM
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Gender
    Posts
    4,100
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7
    Thanked in
    7 Posts
    I read that site too. It is interesting but questionable and from an anthropological point of view maybe even inaccurate. He seem to be some sort of troll from the establishment.

    Simon James wrote, "The regional physical stereotypes familiar to us today, a pattern widely thought to result from the post-Roman Anglo-Saxon and Viking invasions - red-headed people in Scotland, small, dark-haired folk in Wales and lanky blondes in southern England - already existed in Roman times. Insofar as they represent reality, they perhaps attest the post-Ice Age peopling of Britain, or the first farmers of 6,000 years ago."

    Does that make any sense? The Romans came after the Iron Age Celts. His speculation that they would all attest to post-Ice Age peopling of Britain is ridiculous. Where are his sources on anthropology? He just gave a "Find out more" in the end.

    The funny thing is that even a lot of parts of England had not only Cultural but also a racial element from the Iron Age Celts.

    Native Tribes of Britain:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient.../iron_02.shtml

    Celtic peoples of Roman Britain:

    http://www.britannia.com/history/tribes.html

    Celtic Settlement:

    http://www.yorksj.ac.uk/dialect/celtset.htm

    I agree with a reviewer on Amazon:

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...62435?v=glance

    "Mr. James latest book is another example of the British state of denial concerning their Celtic heritage.

    Mr. James asserts that the idea of a "Celtic" people is a modern invention and does not apply to the Iron Age population of Britain. This is baffling in light of the fact that I have personally witnessed Mr. James referring to the aforementioned population as "Celtic" repeatedly in documentary programs for the History Channel. This also flies in the face of information presented at the British Museum, for whom he does archaeology work. Currently, on the BBC webpage, there is an article by Mr. James where he also uses the word "Celtic" repeatedly while describing the Iron Age Britons, ironically while talking about this very book. Why the sudden change?


    Mr. James asserts that although the Iron Age Britons spoke Celtic languages, worshipped Celtic deities, produced Celtic art and shared a Celtic culture, this does not make them Celts. This is exactly what makes them Celts! Incredibly, he further goes on to use these exact same criteria to label later Britons as Romans! Mr. James states that these people (Britons) would not have referred to themselves as "Celts", that they were never a unified political entity and that they were ethnically (racially) diverse (and so, are not "Celts"). This is all true. So what? Ancient Native Americans didn't run around saying "hey, we're Native Americans", nor did the Anglo-Saxons (in their many small Kingdoms) for that matter. Most of the countries of Europe have only achieved their current forms of political unity in the last century or so, yet we have no problem using the terms, Italian, Austian, French German or even British. Since when is pure ethnicity the mark of what makes a legitimate cultural group (oh yes,perhaps in the 3rd Reich). I assume you've heard of a place called America?


    Sadly, this book appears to indicate a bias prevalent among many members of the English intelligentsia. They have no problem refering to their ancestors as "Roman-Britons" or "Anglo-Saxon", but simply cannot extend the same logic to face a valuable contribution to their past (and present) by the 'barbarian hordes of European Celticdom'. Hell, then they'd have to admit they shared a degree of commonality with the Scots, Welsh, French and (God forbid) Irish!"

  3. #3
    Sideways to the Sun
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Milesian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 18th, 2008 @ 04:55 PM
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Aileach
    Gender
    Occupation
    Rebel
    Politics
    Anti-Neophilia
    Religion
    Traditional Catholicism
    Posts
    2,711
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    20
    Thanked in
    20 Posts
    Not forgetting the fact that many Scots, Welsh and Irish don't particularly like to be linked to the English either

  4. #4
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, December 8th, 2006 @ 02:25 AM
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Gender
    Posts
    4,100
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7
    Thanked in
    7 Posts
    Indeed, how could we forget that .

    I feel that they were not very different just because the Celtic tribes were not united as we see nation states today. If we read about the skeletons from the Romano-British period that Morant studied they were at least racially similar. The Celts in the British Isles were essentially Nordid, the Gallokelten of Höfler Alpinid. Historians paid a lot of stress on the dying out of Celtic place-names and language. Many modern historians wrote that they all withdrew to remote districts or were killed by Anglo-Saxons. But evidence relying on physical anthropology show that the descendants of Iron Age people of Romano-British times continued to occupy the country during the Anglo-Saxon domination. They were absorbed and adopted the language of the conquerors. So the population of England (and much of Scotland) is to a very large extent also derived from Belgae and Celtae of the Iron Age.

    Another interesting thing I read that might interest you is that Hallstatt culture moved to Great Britain in fifth century B.C. and started working iron in South Wales before the La Tène had reached the island in 250 B.C. The early Iron Age invasions brought Q-Celtic (Irish/Scottish/Manx) to the British Isles and Goidelic Q-Celtic spread to Ireland, Isle of Man and parts of Scotland, but in Britain it was replaced by P-Celtic (The Brythonic/Welsh/Breton languages). So the Q-Celtic would be the older branch associated with Hallstatt culture in Great Britain and Ireland. What do you think? Do the Milesian legends of Leabhar Gabhála support this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Milesian
    Not forgetting the fact that many Scots, Welsh and Irish don't particularly like to be linked to the English either

  5. #5
    Sideways to the Sun
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Milesian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 18th, 2008 @ 04:55 PM
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Aileach
    Gender
    Occupation
    Rebel
    Politics
    Anti-Neophilia
    Religion
    Traditional Catholicism
    Posts
    2,711
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    20
    Thanked in
    20 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Balder
    Indeed, how could we forget that .
    I'm not sure how anyone could

    I feel that they were not very different just because the Celtic tribes were not united as we see nation states today. If we read about the skeletons from the Romano-British period that Morant studied they were at least racially similar. The Celts in the British Isles were essentially Nordid, the Gallokelten of Höfler Alpinid. Historians paid a lot of stress on the dying out of Celtic place-names and language. Many modern historians wrote that they all withdrew to remote districts or were killed by Anglo-Saxons. But evidence relying on physical anthropology show that the descendants of Iron Age people of Romano-British times continued to occupy the country during the Anglo-Saxon domination. They were absorbed and adopted the language of the conquerors. So the population of England (and much of Scotland) is to a very large extent also derived from Belgae and Celtae of the Iron Age.
    I wouldn't like to overstress the Celtic remennts and underplay the Anglo-Saxon input but I think you have generally made a fair and true scenario here

    Another interesting thing I read that might interest you is that Hallstatt culture moved to Great Britain in fifth century B.C. and started working iron in South Wales before the La Tène had reached the island in 250 B.C. The early Iron Age invasions brought Q-Celtic (Irish/Scottish/Manx) to the British Isles and Goidelic Q-Celtic spread to Ireland, Isle of Man and parts of Scotland, but in Britain it was replaced by P-Celtic (The Brythonic/Welsh/Breton languages). So the Q-Celtic would be the older branch associated with Hallstatt culture in Great Britain and Ireland. What do you think? Do the Milesian legends of Leabhar Gabhála support this?
    I believe that is the standard view. It is not , however, what the Leabhar Gabhála states. In fact the Book of Invasions deals only with Ireland itself so we must guess to some degree what happens to Britain.

    What becomes apparant in the book is that the overwhelming majority of the invading tribes come originally from South-East Europe to Ireland. The Tuatha De Danaan and the Fir Bolg (of whom I have my own theory as to the origin of their name which would reflect their geographic origins) are said to have been Celtic tribes. They are both descended from previous inhabitants, the Nemedians. So we can perhaps conclude that the Nemdians were also considered to be Celts. The Nemedians are one of the earliest peoples to settle in Ireland. Only the Partholon and possibly the Fomorians precede them.
    The last of the ancients were the Milesians, also Celts who brough the Gaelic language and culture with them. They were originally in Scythia according to the tales, enlisted in Egypt as mercenaries (reportedly they were there at the time of the Israelite exodus), but eventually were expelled as well. After briefly returning to Scythia, they journeyed west and landed in Iberia. They established themselves in the NW of Iberia (where today Galicia and N. Portugal still celebrate their Gaelic heritage) and eventually came from there to Ireland. The difference was that the Milesians were not just Celts but Gaelic Celts.

    I believe that they were Q-Celtic speaking Hallstatt Celts who originally expanded Eastwards from the Celtic homelands, out of touch with later La Tene cultrue there. This may have the unusual consequence of meaing that earlier Hallstatt Celts were the ultimate Celtic overlords of Ireland, wresting control of it from more advanced La Tene Celts

    Over a year ago I posted about this. If you ignore the stuff about Picts and equating sub-races to different tribes from the Leabhar then it may still be an interesting read

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, January 25th, 2011, 08:06 PM
  2. Hungary: The Prehistory of the Region
    By Johannes de León in forum Anthropogeny & Ethnogenesis
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Sunday, July 18th, 2004, 12:14 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •