Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Birth Myths of the Nations of Britain

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Birth Myths of the Nations of Britain

    Birth Myths of the Nations of Britain
    Source: http://www.postroman.info/nations1.htm

    History is not impartial. Interpetations of early medieval Britain are linked to
    a number of distinct agendas: in particular, the foundation myths of England, Scotland, and Wales. The strength of these agendas has coloured, and in many ways romed, most people's conception of what happened in this period.
    The main theme which concerned the 'traditional' (essentially Victorian) view of the dark ages in this island is that the Welsh, Scots and English were distinct nations, with a significant racial underpinning to the differences between them. For example, Bryan Ward-Perkins (English Historical Review, June 2000) observes that: "most of the English, if they know anything of early history, fell that their Englishness derives ultimately from a predominantly Anglo-Saxon ancestry, with perhaps a romantic tinge, but only a tinge of later immigrant blood -- Viking, Norman, Huguenot, or whatever. The Britons (and the Romans) play little part in the perception that the English have of their ancestry. Consequently, they see themselves as markedly different from the other ancient inhabitants of British Isles; and they would never describe themselves as 'Celts,' unless their recent ancestry included know Scottish, Irish, Welsh or Cornish ancestors."

    Ward-Perkins (2000) cites Freeman, an influential Victorian Anglo-Saxonist who wrote in his "Old English History for Children (1869):

    "The [British] women of course would be made slaves, or they would sometimes be married to their masters. Thus there may doubtless be some little British and Roman blood in us, just as some few Welsh and Latin words crept into English tongue from the very beginning. But we may be sure that we have not much of their blood in us, because we have so few words in our language ... Now you will perhaps say that our forefathers were cruel and wicked men.. And so doubtless it was ... But .. it has turned out much better in the end that our forefathers did, thus kill or drive out nearly all the people whom they found in the land. .. [since otherwise] I cannot think that we
    should ever have been so great and free a people as we have been for many ages."

    The main strands of the traditional interpretation adopt the following logic:

    a. The end of Roman rule was a precise cut-off point. There were few if any Germanic or Irish inhabitants in Britain before the Roman arrival. The Britons were left helpless, disorganised and incapable of defending themselves from hordes of invaders from across both North and Irish seas.

    b. The invaders were prolific and warlike. They pushed the Britons into a narrow western strip: Cornwall, Wales, Cumbria and Strathclyde in south-west Scotland. The rest of the island [other than the parts of Scotland inhabited by the mysterious Picts] was repopulated by Anglo-Saxons and Gaels.

    c. One brief flowering of British defense, organised by the great King Arthur, halted the invaders' advance for about fifty years..

    d. The Cornish and Welsh languages developed from the tongue of the ancient Britons. Conversely, the English language has no Celtic elements and derives from Anglo-Saxon, with substantial borrowing from Latin and (later) Norman French. Gaelic quickly displace British and Pictish in most of Scotland, eventually succumbing to English.

    As we can see in Teutonic England, the essence of this interpretation is that England is fundamentally Anglo-Saxon rather than British or Celtic in racial and linguistic orign. Similarly, Scotland owes little to the Brythonic Celts, having been formed by a fusion of the Gaelic west and north (the mysterious Picts duly absorbed) and the Anglo-Saxons of Lothian in the south-east. Acceptance of this approach requires that the Romano-Britons, who numbered in the millions, were simply overwhelmed by a few boatloads of invaders and fled to the west or died. Clearly, there is something wrong here!

    Martin Henig (British Archaeology, December 2002) considers that 'the creation of this myth can be laid at the doors of Gildas (the Briton) and Bede (the Anglo-Saxon), both were Christians and took their lead from the Old Testament. For Gildas, God chastised his people, the Britons for sexual backsliding. For Bede, the English were the new Israelites coming into the promised land.'

    Ken Dark (Britain and the End of the Roman Empire, 2000) uses archaeological evidence to demonstrate a different pattern of cultural division and evolution. He concluded that the Britons were alive and well inside "Anglo-Saxon' territory for several thousand years at least."

    Similarly, Martin Henig cast doubts on the interpretation of 'dark age' evidence such as assumptions that Anglo-Saxons were buried with grave goods and Britons were not (British Archaeology, December 2002). "It is not satisfactory to describe, for example, the warrior buried at Lowbury Hill in Oxfordshire as an Anglo-Saxon -- as many -- have simply because he possessed a shield and a spear. His iron spear was enamelled,most unusually, in the Celtic style, and he was buried with a hanging bowl also in Celtic style.
    It looks rather as if he wanted to make it clear that he was British."

    An article by Martin Evison looks at this from a genetic and linguistic perspective: Lo, the conquering hero comes (or not)

    See also a recent article by Tim Gay which point to the survival of Celtic
    (Brythonic) words in England and Scotland into the 20th century: Rural dialects and surviving Britons.

  • #2
    On the one hand you protest that you are not upset by that recent study by Dr. Mark Thomas of University College London that found that 50-100% of English y-dna is Germanic, yet you continue to start thread after thread after repetitive, redundant thread arguing for "Celtic survival."

    How many of these threads have you started now? I count 9. NINE!

    Wouldn't one have sufficed?

    This is starting to look like spam, and it certainly does have all the earmarks of some frenzied panic over a dearly-held position that has been recently threatened.

    This was an interesting topic.
    Last edited by Stevo; 25 July 2006, 10:41 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Stevo
      How many of these threads have you started now?

      Wouldn't one have sufficed?

      This is starting to look like spam, and it certainly does have all the earmarks of some frenzied panic over a dearly-held position that has been recently threatened.
      I was thinking exactly the same thing. It's just appears to be the old "cut and paste" and nothing more.

      What is the agenda?

      Comment


      • #4
        Reply to Stevo, I'm posting a series of research articles

        Helo Stevo, thanks for your article on 'Britain 'had apartheid society'
        I've read the article several times and I'm still thinking about my reply.

        Now as for your recent comments, I resent them. I've been posting a series
        of articles that I consider valuable research information on our British ancestors including genetic, archaeological and historical items. Some of these articles seem to disagree with your very personal opinions. I want all researchers to have a wider understanding of of the different points of view, historical, archaeological, genetic etc. and to be able to reach their own conclusions on each and every article. I'm R1b1c, I may even have a possibly Anglo-Saxon derived surname, but I don't reach conclusions from just one or two genetic studies. I try to read all points of view including yours and think about them. I'm sorry if many of the articles I've discovered in my research efforts seem to disagree with yours.

        I'd like to know why you can't just enter your opposing viewpoint on many of the articles without getting personal. Obviously, you don't seem to like opinions that may disagree with yours.
        Last edited by Txschlib; 25 July 2006, 11:05 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Txschlib
          Helo Stevo, thanks for your article on 'Britain 'had apartheid society'
          I've read the article several times and I'm still thinking about my reply.

          Now as for your recent comments, I resent them. I've been posting a series
          of articles that I consider valuable research information on our British ancestors including genetic, archaeological and historical items. Some of these articles seem to disagree with your very personal opinions. I want all researchers to have a wider understanding of of the different points of view, historical, archaeological, genetic etc. and to be able to reach their own conclusions on each and every article. I'm R1b1c, I may even have a possibly Anglo-Saxon derived surname, but I don't reach conclusions from just one or two genetic studies. I try to read all points of view including yours and think about them. I'm sorry if many of the articles I've discovered in my research efforts seem to disagree with yours.

          I'd like to know why you can't just enter your opposing viewpoint on many of the articles without getting personal. Obviously, you don't seem to like opinions that may disagree with yours.
          It's very simple - IF IT'S ALL ABOUT THE SAME SUBJECT, POST ANYTHING ABOUT IT IN ONE THREAD!

          Mike

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Txschlib
            Helo Stevo, thanks for your article on 'Britain 'had apartheid society'
            I've read the article several times and I'm still thinking about my reply.

            Now as for your recent comments, I resent them. I've been posting a series
            of articles that I consider valuable research information on our British ancestors including genetic, archaeological and historical items. Some of these articles seem to disagree with your very personal opinions. I want all researchers to have a wider understanding of of the different points of view, historical, archaeological, genetic etc. and to be able to reach their own conclusions on each and every article. I'm R1b1c, I may even have a possibly Anglo-Saxon derived surname, but I don't reach conclusions from just one or two genetic studies. I try to read all points of view including yours and think about them. I'm sorry if many of the articles I've discovered in my research efforts seem to disagree with yours.

            I'd like to know why you can't just enter your opposing viewpoint on many of the articles without getting personal. Obviously, you don't seem to like opinions that may disagree with yours.

            The way I understand it, this is a forum for discussion, not a news service. The articles are fine, but where is the discussion or commentary?

            If news or access to published articles is what is desired, it would be much easier to set up RSS rather than cut and paste to a forum.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Piobaireachd
              The way I understand it, this is a forum for discussion, not a news service. The articles are fine, but where is the discussion or commentary?

              If news or access to published articles is what is desired, it would be much easier to set up RSS rather than cut and paste to a forum.
              Actually, the posting of large amounts of copyrighted material without permission of the author is almost certainly NOT fine.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by vineviz
                Actually, the posting of large amounts of copyrighted material without permission of the author is almost certainly NOT fine.
                True, but I didn't know what the status of the articles were. I've been to the linked site, but I don't know who actually owns it. Therefore, I didn't comment on the legality. Besides, IANAL...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Txschlib
                  Birth Myths of the Nations of Britain
                  Source: http://www.postroman.info/nations1.htm

                  History is not impartial. Interpetations of early medieval Britain are linked to
                  a number of distinct agendas: in particular, the foundation myths of England, Scotland, and Wales. The strength of these agendas has coloured, and in many ways romed, most people's conception of what happened in this period.
                  The main theme which concerned the 'traditional' (essentially Victorian) view of the dark ages in this island is that the Welsh, Scots and English were distinct nations, with a significant racial underpinning to the differences between them. For example, Bryan Ward-Perkins (English Historical Review, June 2000) observes that: "most of the English, if they know anything of early history, fell that their Englishness derives ultimately from a predominantly Anglo-Saxon ancestry, with perhaps a romantic tinge, but only a tinge of later immigrant blood -- Viking, Norman, Huguenot, or whatever. The Britons (and the Romans) play little part in the perception that the English have of their ancestry. Consequently, they see themselves as markedly different from the other ancient inhabitants of British Isles; and they would never describe themselves as 'Celts,' unless their recent ancestry included know Scottish, Irish, Welsh or Cornish ancestors."
                  An article by Martin Evison looks at this from a genetic and linguistic perspective: Lo, the conquering hero comes (or not)

                  See also a recent article by Tim Gay which point to the survival of Celtic
                  (Brythonic) words in England and Scotland into the 20th century: Rural dialects and surviving Britons.

                  GO READ did st paul visit britian by morgan

                  in this little book you 'll see british people havent changed at all since the druids who excepted christ first of all nations because they believed the basic core of beliefs. the mainstays of british character came from the druids who with the silurian kings gave the romans much more then they could handle..
                  the reason rome invaded was britian was sending missionarys to greece and rome who started schools and where changing the belief system of the two countries.
                  Britian never could except second fiddle to an upstart civilization like rome.in politics or religion.if anything it was the britians who started the church that destroyed rome. that was fitting.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by MMaddi
                    It's very simple - IF IT'S ALL ABOUT THE SAME SUBJECT, POST ANYTHING ABOUT IT IN ONE THREAD!

                    Mike
                    Thanks, Mike. I think that is the part Txschlib does not seem to understand.

                    Opposing points of view are fine. Starting thread after thread after thread on the same subject in rapid succession is overkill, as well as strange.

                    Besides, it's a drag to read posts that are just huge cut-and-paste jobs from internet articles.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Does anyone know the genetic history of the Kentish people??
                      Specfically in Dover?

                      My g. grandfather's tree was given to me by a Kent maritime museum and goes back to the 16th century in Dover,Kent and stays there.

                      A few french names Ledgant, Nepueu start showing up c1680,which I assume to belong to some huguenots in 'the French Church of Dover' records but the majority are english.

                      These kentish ancestors were local historians so wrote about the earliest 'oral traditons' of Dover.My g.g.g.g grandfather in one book speaks to 'oldest living members' of the community,and writes of an old legend about nearby Lomea [now goodwin sands],property of Godwin,earl of Wessex being submerged by a great storm in the late 11th cent.

                      He then mentions his ancestors in Dover during "The reign of Queen Anne" ?and another ancestors memories of Dover 'before the innovations of the First American War' ? he says his grandfather was told 'ancient traditions' from his father and so on.
                      Last edited by katiecarol; 28 July 2006, 07:32 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        According to the Venerable Bede, the 8th-century English monk and historian, Kent was settled by the Jutes (pronounced Yootz), a Germanic tribe from the Jutland (Yoot-land) Peninsula in Denmark. Since Denmark is mostly R1b and I1a, those are the y-dna haplogroups one would expect their male descendants to carry, along with some R1a perhaps.

                        The Jutes were one of the tribes known collectively as the Anglo-Saxons.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Interesting.....

                          As a person new to this subject, I find all this very interesting. Except all the picking at each other, I just have to weed that out.
                          Since I have what I have come to learn is a Scottish Celtic surname, Ballantyne, I'm quite interested in the history of how the British Isles arrived in the current condition. I'm also thinking about getting tests done for myself and my wife out of curiosity. Perhaps then I'd have a better idea of what all these marker numbers mean.
                          I'll have to say I find the articles quite interesting, commentary or no. While opinions can be intriguing, facts (when they cen be determined) are far more compelling.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X