|
Post by thomas on Aug 26, 2024 19:08:52 GMT
Ancient Britain was more connected than previously realised. It's nice to know that our British ancestors were so civilised. they weren't the ancestors of the modern people of these islands. The neolithic people were replaced and almost universally wiped out by the later beaker people from Europe . This stone appears to have been put in place just before the arrival of the European beakers . The European beakers are the ancestors of the Scottish English irish and welsh , along with much of western and Central Europe.
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Aug 26, 2024 19:09:08 GMT
no there isnt. What claims there is appears to be nothing more than greek and roman propaganda . ancient ethnographers did not once witness any of these so called human sacrifices they claimed the druids practiced , and archaeology has not been able to provide evidence. The present day claims of druidic human sacrifice rests solely on texts that distort reality and exaggerate frequency for sensationalism from the ancient world enemies of the Celts. No, they rest on archaeological analysis, among other things. Did you read Hutton, or do you just want to go on being ignorant of facts? All The Best evidence please?
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 26, 2024 19:14:57 GMT
That must have REALLY pissed off the Cottage Burner who set out to laud and applaud his fellow ubernationalists for their ancestor's achievements... Vinny must also be pissed off the neolithic people who began the building of Stonehenge were of Middle Eastern appearance , and had links with what is modern turkey , before they were replaced by the beaker people from the European Union in 2500 bc . Who cares, they were ancestors and the progenitors of the British people in many ways as it is roughly 200 generations ago. What is clear the EU did not exist at that time.
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Aug 26, 2024 19:32:55 GMT
A team at Curtin university analysed the chemical composition of fragments of rock that had fallen off the Altar Stone at Stonehenge, and dated them. The composition and date are unique to rocks from different parts of the world, rather like a fingerprint. The Australian team had access to one of the most comprehensive global rock fingerprint databases and found the best match was from the Orcadian Basin, which includes the Caithness, Orkney, and Moray Firth regions of north-eastern Scotland. www.bbc.com/news/articles/c207lqdn755oI was just in Orkney in May to visit Skara Brae, a Neolithic archaeological site circa 3200 BC that predates Stonehenge. The farming and fishing occupants of Skara Brae lived there for 500 years and it is not known why they disappeared or where they went. Besides the fact that Stonehenge's altar stone originated in the Orcadian Basin, I wonder if there is a deeper Skara Brae connection to Stonehenge.
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 26, 2024 19:51:37 GMT
No, they rest on archaeological analysis, among other things. Did you read Hutton, or do you just want to go on being ignorant of facts? All The Best evidence please? READ HUTTON'S BOOK It has references to the archaeology, and analysis of it. I can't magic evidence out of thin air for you, you have to go where the evidence is. All The Best
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Aug 27, 2024 7:22:09 GMT
Vinny must also be pissed off the neolithic people who began the building of Stonehenge were of Middle Eastern appearance , and had links with what is modern turkey , before they were replaced by the beaker people from the European Union in 2500 bc . Who cares, they were ancestors and the progenitors of the British people in many ways as it is roughly 200 generations ago. What is clear the EU did not exist at that time. the point dear sandy is they were also the ancestors and progenitors of the western and Central European peoples , and the eu mention was a dig at vinny , because neither did the name or idea of britian exist at the time. Unless you can prove otherwise .?
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Aug 27, 2024 7:23:39 GMT
READ HUTTON'S BOOK It has references to the archaeology, and analysis of it. I can't magic evidence out of thin air for you, you have to go where the evidence is. All The Best I asked for archaeological evidence , and you ask me to read yet another pointless book of wild theories. No pro veritas , that isnt evidence of anything. Just more dissembling of ancient roman and greek propaganda , with no factual basis. at least give me a link to this magical book you are waffling about though?
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 27, 2024 7:43:43 GMT
Who cares, they were ancestors and the progenitors of the British people in many ways as it is roughly 200 generations ago. What is clear the EU did not exist at that time. the point dear sandy is they were also the ancestors and progenitors of the western and Central European peoples , and the eu mention was a dig at vinny , because neither did the name or idea of britian exist at the time. Unless you can prove otherwise .? The points as ever are many and varied. Ancient Britain was ancient Britain, the geographical location has not changed even if much else has. The peoples of Britain form a collective unit no matter how arrived at in history with all the alliances, invasions, deals, plots, internecine fighting and long lived feuds. What changes in the modern world is that 'the people' post WW1 and even more so post WW2 were invited to make their views known on how to run the country through the ballot box. In order to do that successfully what was needed was a generally homogeneous society of differences but many similarities. There is a continuous process to somehow belittle the British people as a group to falsify their existence and deride their origins. The whole human world has arisen from some form of immigration and movement of peoples, it matters little. What is existent is what matters and now more so than ever are there deliberate moves to destroy what exists outside of the democratic process. The whole idea of prehistory points scoring is to assist in this process.
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 27, 2024 9:48:13 GMT
READ HUTTON'S BOOK It has references to the archaeology, and analysis of it. I can't magic evidence out of thin air for you, you have to go where the evidence is. All The Best I asked for archaeological evidence , and you ask me to read yet another pointless book of wild theories. No pro veritas , that isnt evidence of anything. Just more dissembling of ancient roman and greek propaganda , with no factual basis. at least give me a link to this magical book you are waffling about though? Hutton is a world renowned expert on Pre-Christian Religions in Britain. His books are considered essential reading on the subject, and his theories are grounded in the latest research. Hutton has two books that are pertinent to this subject: The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles: Their Nature and Legacy (1991) Blood and Mistletoe: The History of the Druids in Britain (2011) You might also want to look at this National Geographic article from 2009; and perhaps take a look at the other available information on Lindow II, though much of it predates the breakthroughs of the 2009 analysis by Miranda Aldhouse-Green referenced in the NG article. Honestly, the notion that the Druids carried out human sacrifice is not even contentious these days; in fact it is widely acknowledged that Iron Age Celts all across Europe practiced human sacrifice, especially during times of war and hardship. I agree that were the only "evidence" that of the Greek and Roman writers there would be huge risks of bias within the evidence, but there is also ample archaeological evidence as well. May I ask; why the insistence that the Druids did not practice human sacrifice? All The Best
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 27, 2024 10:27:55 GMT
The points as ever are many and varied. Ancient Britain was ancient Britain, the geographical location has not changed even if much else has. The peoples of Britain form a collective unit no matter how arrived at in history with all the alliances, invasions, deals, plots, internecine fighting and long lived feuds. If you think this is even remotely true you have a truly shocking lack of understanding of the basic facts of Pre-Modern British History. Ancient Britain arguably started with the ending of the Devensian Glaciation "Ice Age" that ended approximately 125,000 years ago; though Human habitation of Britain goes much further back to about 800,000 years. There was also the Last Glacial Maximum, that started receding 27,000 years ago and and had completely disappeared by 11,300 years ago. Though it might be argued that in accordance with academic convention this should be called Pre-Historic Britain. The convention being that Pre-Historic refers to that period before writing had developed, and Ancient refers to the period after writing was developed; but this causes an anomaly with Britain, because the Druids forbade writing British the Pre-Historic period coincides with Continental Ancient period. To get around this we can class Pre-History as the "Lithic periods" (Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic) and the Ancient period as starting with the Bronze Age and on into the Iron Age. However, there's also a discrepancy here with the Bronze Age and Iron Age emerging earlier the closer you get to the Eastern Mediterranean and Levant areas, and later as head North and West through Europe. The Bronze age in Britain was approximately 2500 BC to 700 BC, with the Iron Age following on until the Roman Invasion of AD43 - which, with the Romans bringing writing with them, might realistically be the first time that Britain could be said to have been in the Ancient History period. I also take issue with your "the geographical location has not changed". If you mean the shape of the British landmass you are incorrect; Britain was physically connected to "mainland Europe" as recently as 8,200 years ago; when Mesolithic Hunter Gatherers lived on and traversed the area known as Doggerland, there is some evidence of long distance trade from the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods with Baltic Amber being traded for Greenstone Axeheads from Polstrong Cornwall. So I have to ask: what do you mean by "Ancient Britain"? What time period are we looking at here? Britain did not form a "collective unit" until the reign of King Athelstan (924-939); the United Kingdom did not form a single socio-political entity until the Acts Of Union in 1707. All The Best
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 27, 2024 14:11:50 GMT
The points as ever are many and varied. Ancient Britain was ancient Britain, the geographical location has not changed even if much else has. The peoples of Britain form a collective unit no matter how arrived at in history with all the alliances, invasions, deals, plots, internecine fighting and long lived feuds. If you think this is even remotely true you have a truly shocking lack of understanding of the basic facts of Pre-Modern British History. Ancient Britain arguably started with the ending of the Devensian Glaciation "Ice Age" that ended approximately 125,000 years ago; though Human habitation of Britain goes much further back to about 800,000 years. There was also the Last Glacial Maximum, that started receding 27,000 years ago and and had completely disappeared by 11,300 years ago. Though it might be argued that in accordance with academic convention this should be called Pre-Historic Britain. The convention being that Pre-Historic refers to that period before writing had developed, and Ancient refers to the period after writing was developed; but this causes an anomaly with Britain, because the Druids forbade writing British the Pre-Historic period coincides with Continental Ancient period. To get around this we can class Pre-History as the "Lithic periods" (Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic) and the Ancient period as starting with the Bronze Age and on into the Iron Age. However, there's also a discrepancy here with the Bronze Age and Iron Age emerging earlier the closer you get to the Eastern Mediterranean and Levant areas, and later as head North and West through Europe. The Bronze age in Britain was approximately 2500 BC to 700 BC, with the Iron Age following on until the Roman Invasion of AD43 - which, with the Romans bringing writing with them, might realistically be the first time that Britain could be said to have been in the Ancient History period. I also take issue with your "the geographical location has not changed". If you mean the shape of the British landmass you are incorrect; Britain was physically connected to "mainland Europe" as recently as 8,200 years ago; when Mesolithic Hunter Gatherers lived on and traversed the area known as Doggerland, there is some evidence of long distance trade from the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods with Baltic Amber being traded for Greenstone Axeheads from Polstrong Cornwall. So I have to ask: what do you mean by "Ancient Britain"? What time period are we looking at here? Britain did not form a "collective unit" until the reign of King Athelstan (924-939); the United Kingdom did not form a single socio-political entity until the Acts Of Union in 1707. All The Best I do not disagree the point is we have arrived where we are in the post WW2 world with a generally homogenous population that grew from all sorts of things as you intimate above. As I said Ancient Britain WAS Ancient Britain from Boxgrove man, and earlier, to the pre Roman world. How we arrived at a broadly homogenous society, and where they came from is interesting but largely irrelevant in terms of what we were in the latter part of teh 20th century. It is at that point that the British people have been traduced, mainly by their own and those who were supposed to have their best interests at heart. That is where the tragedy lies.
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Aug 27, 2024 15:21:49 GMT
the point dear sandy is they were also the ancestors and progenitors of the western and Central European peoples , and the eu mention was a dig at vinny , because neither did the name or idea of britian exist at the time. Unless you can prove otherwise .? The points as ever are many and varied. Ancient Britain was ancient Britain, the geographical location has not changed even if much else has. The peoples of Britain form a collective unit no matter how arrived at in history with all the alliances, invasions, deals, plots, internecine fighting and long lived feuds. What changes in the modern world is that 'the people' post WW1 and even more so post WW2 were invited to make their views known on how to run the country through the ballot box. In order to do that successfully what was needed was a generally homogeneous society of differences but many similarities. There is a continuous process to somehow belittle the British people as a group to falsify their existence and deride their origins. The whole human world has arisen from some form of immigration and movement of peoples, it matters little. What is existent is what matters and now more so than ever are there deliberate moves to destroy what exists outside of the democratic process. The whole idea of prehistory points scoring is to assist in this process. classical sandy retort , garbled waffle that I see even pro veritas has called you out on . vague ambiguous nonsense. In the neolithic , and beaker periods we are talking about , neither you nor I know the name these islands were called , but they weren't called "britian". Britian was a name invented by the romans thousands of years after the end of the neolithic period. yet more garbled nonsense. These islands have only existed for 8000 years. define collective unit. nonsense. The idea of modern britian as a concept in terms of a unified multi national state is barely three hundred years old politically speaking , and four hundred as a multi national kingdom. barely a small footnote in history in terms of the timescale we are talking about. Modern peoples of the uk are not genetically descended from the neolithic people. we descend mainly from the beaker peoples of Europe and their descendants . At not one point in history has this island been a unified homogenous country .
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Aug 27, 2024 15:36:24 GMT
I asked for archaeological evidence , and you ask me to read yet another pointless book of wild theories. No pro veritas , that isnt evidence of anything. Just more dissembling of ancient roman and greek propaganda , with no factual basis. at least give me a link to this magical book you are waffling about though? Hutton is a world renowned expert on Pre-Christian Religions in Britain. His books are considered essential reading on the subject, and his theories are grounded in the latest research. Hutton has two books that are pertinent to this subject: The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles: Their Nature and Legacy (1991) Blood and Mistletoe: The History of the Druids in Britain (2011) You might also want to look at this National Geographic article from 2009; and perhaps take a look at the other available information on Lindow II, though much of it predates the breakthroughs of the 2009 analysis by Miranda Aldhouse-Green referenced in the NG article. Honestly, the notion that the Druids carried out human sacrifice is not even contentious these days; in fact it is widely acknowledged that Iron Age Celts all across Europe practiced human sacrifice, especially during times of war and hardship. I agree that were the only "evidence" that of the Greek and Roman writers there would be huge risks of bias within the evidence, but there is also ample archaeological evidence as well. May I ask; why the insistence that the Druids did not practice human sacrifice? All The Best Druidism isnt a pre christian "British religion". It is a pre christian European religion , not specific to these islands. I obviously havent read the book , but have looked up various reviews , and clearly Hutton isnt interested , or shall I say focused , on the original druids and the contradictory evidence and propaganda written by the likes of Tacitus and Caesar , but is more interested in the druids as a modern historical phenomenon. basically the renewed interest of ancient druids in the early modern period. I havent read in any review anything about new archaeological evidence that proves beyond the propaganda of ancient writers that the classical Celtic druids performed human sacrifice. it appears a re writing in part of the wildly discredited theories of people like Nora Chadwick and others , and points out the famous druidic sacrifice in the wicker man drawing as nothing more than a 17th century invention like much else about the druids , essentially modern concepts that have no real origin in the ancient classical world. hutton is an English historian , in his books he writes about the English having no real interest in Celtic druidism until the modern period as the English obviously aren't Celts , and during the 15th and 16th century revival interest of druidism , it mainly happened among the countries that were Englands enemies like France and scotland , which counted against druidism. He has no expertise on the ancient Celts , being a student of early modern Post 16th century britian. so why should his unsubstantiated claims about alleged human sacrifices be taken anymore seriously than those refuting druids human sacfrifices who are either archaeologists , or experts in the ancient Celtic world? You havent provided any evidence. merely asked me to read a book dealing on primarily the modern concept of revived druidism.
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Aug 27, 2024 15:41:02 GMT
The points as ever are many and varied. Ancient Britain was ancient Britain, the geographical location has not changed even if much else has. The peoples of Britain form a collective unit no matter how arrived at in history with all the alliances, invasions, deals, plots, internecine fighting and long lived feuds. Britain did not form a "collective unit" until the reign of King Athelstan (924-939); the United Kingdom did not form a single socio-political entity until the Acts Of Union in 1707. All The Best Small point , not true. Athelstan formed the kingdom of england for the first time in history , not britian. England is a small country that makes up 40 % of the land in these islands , and during athelstans reign , a minority of the population , of which arguably around 60 % or more were Celtic , not English. Athelstan , in ancient texts from the anglo saxons , was an enemy of the british ( the British of his time were the welsh , the Cornish , various Britons living in Devon and western england , and those in cumbria , and what is now southern scotland roughly around what is now modern Lanarkshire ) Athelstan even laid down a famous law forbidding saxons from intermarrying or mating with and I quote" the filthy British race" and from memory expelled all britons from what is now the western border of the modern county of Devon , setting the new English border at the river Tamar.
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Aug 27, 2024 15:48:29 GMT
If you think this is even remotely true you have a truly shocking lack of understanding of the basic facts of Pre-Modern British History. Ancient Britain arguably started with the ending of the Devensian Glaciation "Ice Age" that ended approximately 125,000 years ago; though Human habitation of Britain goes much further back to about 800,000 years. There was also the Last Glacial Maximum, that started receding 27,000 years ago and and had completely disappeared by 11,300 years ago. Though it might be argued that in accordance with academic convention this should be called Pre-Historic Britain. The convention being that Pre-Historic refers to that period before writing had developed, and Ancient refers to the period after writing was developed; but this causes an anomaly with Britain, because the Druids forbade writing British the Pre-Historic period coincides with Continental Ancient period. To get around this we can class Pre-History as the "Lithic periods" (Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic) and the Ancient period as starting with the Bronze Age and on into the Iron Age. However, there's also a discrepancy here with the Bronze Age and Iron Age emerging earlier the closer you get to the Eastern Mediterranean and Levant areas, and later as head North and West through Europe. The Bronze age in Britain was approximately 2500 BC to 700 BC, with the Iron Age following on until the Roman Invasion of AD43 - which, with the Romans bringing writing with them, might realistically be the first time that Britain could be said to have been in the Ancient History period. I also take issue with your "the geographical location has not changed". If you mean the shape of the British landmass you are incorrect; Britain was physically connected to "mainland Europe" as recently as 8,200 years ago; when Mesolithic Hunter Gatherers lived on and traversed the area known as Doggerland, there is some evidence of long distance trade from the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods with Baltic Amber being traded for Greenstone Axeheads from Polstrong Cornwall. So I have to ask: what do you mean by "Ancient Britain"? What time period are we looking at here? Britain did not form a "collective unit" until the reign of King Athelstan (924-939); the United Kingdom did not form a single socio-political entity until the Acts Of Union in 1707. All The Best As I said Ancient Britain WAS Ancient Britain from Boxgrove man, prove it? Ancient britian is a modern construct , not an ancient construct , an certainly the very name britian doesn't go beyond the roman period two thousand years ago. Until the tenth century , briton was the name given by the English Scottish and irish to welsh folk , in various languages , before the welsh dropped the name in the tenth century when they came to accept they were never taking their lost lands back , and changed to calling themselves cymry. the modern concept of britian as a revived ancient Celtic Romano name really comes from the late 16th century , and the union of the crowns , as a sop by the Stewarts and their advisors to the Celtic population of these islands. It is generally considered among social historians it would be the late 18th , early 19th century before the English accepted the name of their old enemies , britons , as they came to regards themselves masters of these islands. So at best , calling ourselves British is a modern construct that goes back among ordinary folk at most two centuries , rather than some ancient unbroken phenomena. you have no idea what box grove man thought or what language he spoke .
|
|