British History ...

[omnirook]

One of my favorite topics ...

Let's start early, very early, w/the prehistory ...

There is some debate as to whether the builders of Stonehenge were Celts. Why there would be debate, I have no idea - the Celts dominated most of central and east-coastal Europe at that time. The Germans had yet to arrive in Europe. I suppose it has to do w/the massive size of the monument - nothing as massive appeared anywhere in central Europe. But I have a theory: long before Britain became the site of permanent Celtic settlement, it was a place of religious pilgrimage. Celts from coastal Europe had probably been making the crossing for ages before any permanent residency was established. The Celts worshipped forrests - it must be remembered that England was still heavily forrested as late as the reign of Elizabeth I. One report from her father's reign maintained that it was possible to cross England from Land's End and go west up into Wales w/o ever leaving the forrest. This might have attracted early Celt visitors. The unforrested plain where Stonehenge lies might have been an anomoly that produced a religous/spiritual response. Was it forrested, was it cleared - or was it naturally deforrested? ... If the builders of Stonehenge were not Celtic, then what were they? Certainly the site was at least later adopted by the Celts ... There is some evidence of a very early human population in Britain, a side-to-side chewing people, rather than the now exclusively up-and-down chewing people. They may not have died out but possibly were absorbed, a trace of their genetic contribution to the people of Britain being the pronouncedly wide lower jaws of some modern Britons. The last of the side-to-side chewers died out as late as the year 1100 AD, depending on which osteo-archeologist reads the bones ... What do you think?

[dunee]

side to side chewers? O_o
(I knew I should have taken physical anthro instead of mineralogy this semester... do you know the "official term" for this type of skull? I'd love to look it up, and google does not turn up anything for side-side chewers!)

I wanted to ask, are you using the term "Celt" as a modern term to denote the entire collection of people who spoke a Celtic tongue? What I've heard is that there was no such thing as a Celtic race. Certainly they all spoke derivatives of a similar language, but the groups were never united, never called themselves "Celts."

[omnirook]

side to side chewers? O_o
(I knew I should have taken physical anthro instead of mineralogy this semester... do you know the "official term" for this type of skull? I'd love to look it up, and google does not turn up anything for side-side chewers!)

I wanted to ask, are you using the term "Celt" as a modern term to denote the entire collection of people who spoke a Celtic tongue? What I've heard is that there was no such thing as a Celtic race. Certainly they all spoke derivatives of a similar language, but the groups were never united, never called themselves "Celts."

See - that's why I wanted to start such a thread. I'm an enthused amateur - not a professional scholar. I would like to get feedback. It's fascinating stuff, really ... No, I was trying to remember where I had read the bit about the side-to-side chewing while I was typing my post. I know that I did somewhere. Right now, I'm plumping for Joseph Campbell having mentioned it. I've got to get down his books and look for it ... There must be a technical term for that skull type. Does anyone know? I just remember reading a good, long paragraph about it somewhere, perhaps Campbell ... I'll find it.

Oh, yes - that is probably why linguists are having such a time carrying the claim that the Romans were a Celtic people. Latin and Gaulish are close - very close. But just what does "Celt" mean - that's a good topic for this thread!

[slacker]

I think recent archaeology has started to overturn the notion that the British Isles were later dominated by Celtic & Anglo-Saxon migrations - the old blood was hardier than previously thought...

A decent starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Britain

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_headline=basque-ing-in-welsh-dna&method=full&objectid=18479183&siteid=50082-name_page.html
"The majority of the gene pool of the British Isles is very ancient and dates to the era after the last great Ice Age. It has nothing to do with Celts or Anglo-Saxons or any more recent ethnic labels."

[tinribz]

Stone Henge, it all started about 10,000 years ago by the Neolithic’s around the time farming spread out from the middleast- the stone age but people had started living in houses with rooms. At least that is when the first structures on site date back to. It would have been wooden (and in a forest) and there is evidence of other (even larger) wooden Henges nearby, and of course stone circles dotted all over Britain, and Europe for that matter. Britain was cut-off by the channel about 8,500 years ago.

The stones appeared about 5,000 years ago, (the bronze age?) it was added to becoming much like what it is today about 500 years later. This was around the time the ‘Beakers’ invaded from Europe but it is still debatable what their input really was, structures seem to date both before and after their appearance. Still about 1000 years before any Celts turned up lol, that would be the start of the iron age about 3,000 years ago.

I imagine these early Neolithics to be like the Picts described by the Romans, dark haired ‘painted people’ (covered in tattoos), fierce warriors but who’s wives were reputed to be even more savage than the men - they even took their children in to battle. Although they are traditionally associated with the North (from 7000 years ago), they were obviously in the south first, before all the documented and probably undocumented invasions from the South forced them North?

[omnirook]

I think recent archaeology has started to overturn the notion that the British Isles were later dominated by Celtic & Anglo-Saxon migrations - the old blood was hardier than previously thought...

A decent starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Britain

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_headline=basque-ing-in-welsh-dna&method=full&objectid=18479183&siteid=50082-name_page.html
"The majority of the gene pool of the British Isles is very ancient and dates to the era after the last great Ice Age. It has nothing to do with Celts or Anglo-Saxons or any more recent ethnic labels."

Very interesting. I've just read through the link that you gave. I'll need to read it more closely. At any rate, it concludes w/the Celts arriving in Britain in the first millennium BC ... Thank you for the link.

[Ferrus]

One of my favorite topics ...

Let's start early, very early, w/the prehistory ...

There is some debate as to whether the builders of Stonehenge were Celts. Why there would be debate, I have no idea - the Celts dominated most of central and east-coastal Europe at that time. The Germans had yet to arrive in Europe. I suppose it has to do w/the massive size of the monument - nothing as massive appeared anywhere in central Europe. But I have a theory: long before Britain became the site of permanent Celtic settlement, it was a place of religious pilgrimage. Celts from coastal Europe had probably been making the crossing for ages before any permanent residency was established. The Celts worshipped forrests - it must be remembered that England was still heavily forrested as late as the reign of Elizabeth I. One report from her father's reign maintained that it was possible to cross England from Land's End and go west up into Wales w/o ever leaving the forrest. This might have attracted early Celt visitors. The unforrested plain where Stonehenge lies might have been an anomoly that produced a religous/spiritual response. Was it forrested, was it cleared - or was it naturally deforrested? ... If the builders of Stonehenge were not Celtic, then what were they? Certainly the site was at least later adopted by the Celts ... There is some evidence of a very early human population in Britain, a side-to-side chewing people, rather than the now exclusively up-and-down chewing people. They may not have died out but possibly were absorbed, a trace of their genetic contribution to the people of Britain being the pronouncedly wide lower jaws of some modern Britons. The last of the side-to-side chewers died out as late as the year 1100 AD, depending on which osteo-archeologist reads the bones ... What do you think?
The ancient people of Britain were not contiental Celts, that is a 18th-19th century myth based on the principle that the relation between British languages of the time and continental ones had to be a result of invasion. No longer believed. And stone-henge was almost certainly built by people who didn't speak 'celtic' languages anyway - possibly a pre-Indo-European language close to Pictish, who can say? There is no evidence. As for the Celts 'dominating' Europe at the time, no they didn't. Even if you were to stretch the imagination and say they were a single unified group then this was long before this era. And also, to disabuse you of any further specious notions - the Germanic 'invaders' did not wipe out the local people. Clearly some came - how many cannot be known. But placename evidence, archaelogy and other elements suggest that large numbers survived and the likelyhood of hundreds of thousands crossing the Channel is remote. The total number is more probably in the tens of thousands.

As for your 'theory' - sorry theories need evidence, idle speculation and silly supposition belongs to the astrology pages of your local rag. If you can provide the evidence that this was the case by all means to so. Clearly the building of Stonehenge was a monumental (hah!) effort, but nothing in its construction demands that we believe its significance lay outside of the British Isle.

[omnirook]

The ancient people of Britain were not contiental Celts, that is a 18th-19th century myth based on the principle that the relation between British languages of the time and continental ones had to be a result of invasion. No longer believed. And stone-henge was almost certainly built by people who didn't speak 'celtic' languages anyway - possibly a pre-Indo-European language close to Pictish, who can say? There is no evidence. As for the Celts 'dominating' Europe at the time, no they didn't. Even if you were to stretch the imagination and say they were a single unified group then this was long before this era. And also, to disabuse you of any further specious notions - the Germanic 'invaders' did not wipe out the local people. Clearly some came - how many cannot be known. But placename evidence, archaelogy and other elements suggest that large numbers survived and the likelyhood of hundreds of thousands crossing the Channel is remote. The total number is more probably in the tens of thousands.

As for your 'theory' - sorry theories need evidence, idle speculation and silly supposition belongs to the astrology pages of your local rag. If you can provide the evidence that this was the case by all means to so. Clearly the building of Stonehenge was a monumental (hah!) effort, but nothing in its construction demands that we believe its significance lay outside of the British Isle.

Whoa! Bottle the vitriol! ... Take it easy ...

Where did I say that the Germans had wiped out anybody? I just said that they had not arrived in Europe when Stonehenge was put up.

Where did you get the huge numbers from? I said nothing about numbers at all. North-eastern Europe was sparsely populated into modern times, never mind prehistoric times.

At the very least, the Celts were a major presence in central Europe by time the Greeks and Etruscans and Carthaginians and, later, the Romans began their trading and colonizing empires. And, sorry, the Picts were classed as "Caledonians" - and there's not a small contingent of modern scholars who believe that the Caledonians were Celts, perhaps not Brythonic or Gaelic Celts - but Celts, nonetheless ... We're talking about stuff that's written in sand, not stone - there are a lot of opinions, some better than others - but let's not fight here. I'm sick of that shit. This thread isn't a battle ground - at least I did not mean for it to become one when I started the thread. I'm not going to chop off your head for disagreeing w/me or proving me wrong. That's the whole idea of the thread - British History - seeing what anybody who is interested has to say.

Now - for everybody's benefit - I AM NOT AN EXPERT. I DO NOT CLAIM TO BE AN EXPERT. This is one of my pet subjects, and I am HAPPY to learn from anyone.

[tinribz]

While we’re on the subject of the Celts and the Germanics for that matter, it bugs me that they get this bad rap as boorish primitive from the woods. In all the films they are bearded maniacs with shaggy hair and wearing bearskins.

That’s all based on Roman descriptions but the evidence is they were perfectly civilized with well established trade routes, economic systems, quality textiles and metalwork. There were decent sized regionalised walled towns grided right across Europe.

But that was part of the problem, although there were trade links between them they were relatively autonomous with no clear capital or centalised government.

It made it easy for a few legions to take them down one by one.

Caesar was short on cash and short on reputation. The Celts were easy pickings and recent excavations have discovered a raft of Celtic gold mines now touted as the real motivation behind Romanisation.

Lets face it invasion is usually about economics, a business venture. And what better way to get approval for a campaign than to paint the enemy as a dangerous barbarian hoard clawing at the gate who need saving from themselves.

[omnirook]

While we?re on the subject of the Celts and the Germanics for that matter, it bugs me that they get this bad rap as boorish primitive from the woods. In all the films they are bearded maniacs with shaggy hair and wearing bearskins.

That?s all based on Roman descriptions but the evidence is they were perfectly civilized with well established trade routes, economic systems, quality textiles and metalwork. There were decent sized regionalised walled towns grided right across Europe.

But that was part of the problem, although there were trade links between them they were relatively autonomous with no clear capital or centalised government.

It made it easy for a few legions to take them down one by one.

Caesar was short on cash and short on reputation. The Celts were easy pickings and recent excavations have discovered a raft of Celtic gold mines now touted as the real motivation behind Romanisation.

Lets face it invasion is usually about economics, a business venture. And what better way to get approval for an invasion than to paint the enemy as a dangerous barbarian hoard clawing at the gate who need saving from themselves.

Demonizing enemies is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Look, Bush Sr thought nothing of fabricating stories of Iraqi monsters removing Kuwati babies from incubators and leaving them to die on the cold floor. It never happened, the lie blew up in his face, but he got his funding and go ahead for war, anyway ... It's much harder to kill people when you see them as people. The Romans painted the Celts and the Germans as savages - as did the Americans paint the Native Americans. Soldiers then had an easier time of not just killing the enemy combatants but were able either to slaughter or enslave their women and children. Dehumanizing someone is the first step towards enslaving him. Once he's become a "beast," nobody cares if he's robbed, raped, or killed ... Your point is a good one. The Celts and Germans both had sophisticated societies, made jewelery that everyone wanted for its beauty, and, once they adopted working in stone, their intricate artwork became a commodity. (Wood rots, you see - so we don't know much about it) ... It's true - to the victor go the spoils - including writing the history.

Now - to have made statements such as the ones you made you must have a sympathetic attitude towards the Celts and Germans and a somewhat antagonistic attitude towards the Greeks and Romans. That's fine. Stick around because we've got to deal w/"Roman Britain" at some point.

[Geoff]

I'm a short distance from Stonehenge, shall I go ask to see the architect or building contractor?

-Geoff

[omnirook]

Whoa! Bottle the vitriol! ... Take it easy ...

Where did I say that the Germans had wiped out anybody? I just said that they had not arrived in Europe when Stonehenge was put up.

Where did you get the huge numbers from? I said nothing about numbers at all. North-eastern Europe was sparsely populated into modern times, never mind prehistoric times.

At the very least, the Celts were a major presence in central Europe by time the Greeks and Etruscans and Carthaginians and, later, the Romans began their trading and colonizing empires. And, sorry, the Picts were classed as "Caledonians" - and there's not a small contingent of modern scholars who believe that the Caledonians were Celts, perhaps not Brythonic or Gaelic Celts - but Celts, nonetheless ... We're talking about stuff that's written in sand, not stone - there are a lot of opinions, some better than others - but let's not fight here. I'm sick of that shit. This thread isn't a battle ground - at least I did not mean for it to become one when I started the thread. I'm not going to chop off your head for disagreeing w/me or proving me wrong. That's the whole idea of the thread - British History - seeing what anybody who is interested has to say.

Now - for everybody's benefit - I AM NOT AN EXPERT. I DO NOT CLAIM TO BE AN EXPERT. This is one of my pet subjects, and I am HAPPY to learn from anyone.

See what dyslexia does to you? It took me hours to catch that - and nobody bothered to correct it! North-WESTERN Europe. In the earlier post, it would have been WEST-coastal Europe; there is no "east-coastal" Europe ... All these years of very hard work, and it still gets me! ... I make mistakes like that consistently. It was one of "tag items" that helped in the diagnosis. When I make mistakes like that, I appreciate it when they are pointed out - keeps me on my toes.

[omnirook]

I'm a short distance from Stonehenge, shall I go ask to see the architect or building contractor?

-Geoff

Yeah - and, while you're there, go over to the town hall and get a copy of the original blue prints, might mean a ride into Salisbury, what do you think? They've got one of the 4 original copies of Magna Carta in Salisbury, so maybe the original blue prints for Stonehenge are there, as well. It's worth a shot! In the "Old Sarum" section, see if they have copies of Caesar's treaties w/the British tribes - and see if Eleanor of Acquitaine bothered to keep up her driver's license while she was boxed up in Salisbury Tower ... Oh, almost forgot - when you go in to ask for the Stonehenge blue prints, paint yourself blue and put on a Welsh accent: then the town clerk will know that you are serious and not just some right bastard who wants to make him/her walk all the way to the back where they keep the good stuff ... Oh, and you could throw in that you want a permit for the human sacrifice that we have planned - how about let's do a small child for that? ... Where near you could we snatch a small child? I mean, I'd hate to have to bring one all the way from New Jersey. They can be very difficult, especially after you mention roasting them alive in a cage.

Now that the levity break has been taken, let's get back to the subject at hand.

[omnirook]

Now we're discussing the Celts and the Celtic presence in both Britain and in Europe.

Now, my prehistory might not be up to date.

The picture that I have is as follows. The Indo-Europeans came from western Asia. Some believe that the Asians were playing a global, real-world game of "So, they all rolled over and one fell out," w/the Mongols pushing the Huns, the Huns pushing the peoples of China, the peoples of China pushing the Indo-Europeans - the people who would be called Indo-Europeans. There is evidence in China proper of prehistoric "white" people being buried along side of the sino-tibetans that one usually associates w/the area, mummies w/blond hair having been found.

Anyway, the Indo-Europeans "washed up" in the general area of the divide between Europe and Asia. Some split off and went south and back east, down into Persia, over into India. Others continued pressing forward into Europe, which was very sparsely populated, if at all populated. Still others - the Hittites and Mittanni and the "Sea Peoples" of Egypt's records, the Philistines of the Bible, the Medes, and some others winding up in the Middle East, w/the Greeks winding up in - Greece and the surrounding areas. Still others were lagging behind, the Germans, that is.

It has been noted that each new group of Indo-Europeans to arrive had been tougher, meaner, and more patriarchal in their thinking than the ones just before them.

Anyway, among the Indo-European peoples who pressed into Europe were the Celts - or the various peoples that later would be called Celts. There is debate about this. Some feel that the categorization of them has been overly influenced by the Romans having lumped them together, having not bothered themselves w/discerning their characters - sort of the way that the various people of North America all got lumped together as "Indians" by the conquering whites. Let's hear some thoughts on this. And correct my summary above if you can - no hostility on my part towards anyone who does. I like learning, too.

[slacker]

Some recent news about Stonehenge - they recently unearthed a large Neolithic settlement near Stonehenge (2,600-2,500 BC).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6311939.stm

Something similar to henges in Germany...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goseck_circle

[omnirook]

Some recent news about Stonehenge - they recently unearthed a large Neolithic settlement near Stonehenge (2,600-2,500 BC).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6311939.stm

Something similar to henges in Germany...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goseck_circle

That's fascinating. Thank you. So, the theories that Stonehenge was a pilgrimage site have support ... I wonder why they would build tidy little houses and then leave their litter strewn all over. Anyone care to speculate?

[s'box]

Whoa! Bottle the vitriol! ... Take it easy ...

Where did I say that the Germans had wiped out anybody? I just said that they had not arrived in Europe when Stonehenge was put up.

Where did you get the huge numbers from? I said nothing about numbers at all. North-eastern Europe was sparsely populated into modern times, never mind prehistoric times.

At the very least, the Celts were a major presence in central Europe by time the Greeks and Etruscans and Carthaginians and, later, the Romans began their trading and colonizing empires. And, sorry, the Picts were classed as "Caledonians" - and there's not a small contingent of modern scholars who believe that the Caledonians were Celts, perhaps not Brythonic or Gaelic Celts - but Celts, nonetheless ... We're talking about stuff that's written in sand, not stone - there are a lot of opinions, some better than others - but let's not fight here. I'm sick of that shit. This thread isn't a battle ground - at least I did not mean for it to become one when I started the thread. I'm not going to chop off your head for disagreeing w/me or proving me wrong. That's the whole idea of the thread - British History - seeing what anybody who is interested has to say.

Now - for everybody's benefit - I AM NOT AN EXPERT. I DO NOT CLAIM TO BE AN EXPERT. This is one of my pet subjects, and I am HAPPY to learn from anyone.

Just dug up a bunch from the sparse bits the internet has to offer, the term Caledonian isn't a classification at all, its a name thats mentioned in roman writing which like the word picts as well could either being a latin word used for them or a mucked up form of what they called themselves. Also the evidence of picts being celts is spotty and theres not enough evidence about them at all to even think its likely that they were celts.
From what I've found it even seems rather unlikely. Their art is unique, their cultural forms that we know of are just as unique, they had a matriarchal lineage which is no small bit of culture, and would give evidence to a thoroughly different tradition of doing things.
We know that irish monks needed translators to talk to pictish kings, which doesn't say much other than they were very much not scottish or irish. But the only other evidence we have of their language are place names that often don't fit into any celtic etymology, and there is a list of Pictish kings, which also doesn't fit into an celtic entymological scheme at all.
All the records of the era, from roman and celtic and so on always classify the picts seperately from celts and germans and romans.
Also celtic cultures didn't habitually run into battle naked, so far as I know

They're likely descendents from the ancient people of the area, pre indo-european. They've been linked to the basques as they also lack a language thats related to anything at all.
There are lots of theories, but I think the celtic one is just one of convience as there were celts all over those islands.

I read once that some of the ancient peoples of britain were Hittites and descended from ancient Egypt and the picts could've been related to them as well, and they could've been the folks that built stonehenge.

I really rather doubt the idea of Stonehenge as purely a celtic ceremonial site far away from any civilization. There couldve been quite a bit of ancient civilization there and I imagine most of it would be wiped away or plundered by time, even if there was some level of advancement (or especially so as that would give reason to steal and sell it). I always tend to believe ancient people were way more clever and built themselves up more than historians give them credit for, unless you're building stone palaces or burying your homes, things will fade from form rather quickly.

[omnirook]

Just dug up a bunch from the sparse bits the internet has to offer, the term Caledonian isn't a classification at all, its a name thats mentioned in roman writing which like the word picts as well could either being a latin word used for them or a mucked up form of what they called themselves. Also the evidence of picts being celts is spotty and theres not enough evidence about them at all to even think its likely that they were celts.
From what I've found it even seems rather unlikely. Their art is unique, their cultural forms that we know of are just as unique, they had a matriarchal lineage which is no small bit of culture, and would give evidence to a thoroughly different tradition of doing things.
We know that irish monks needed translators to talk to pictish kings, which doesn't say much other than they were very much not scottish or irish. But the only other evidence we have of their language are place names that often don't fit into any celtic etymology, and there is a list of Pictish kings, which also doesn't fit into an celtic entymological scheme at all.
All the records of the era, from roman and celtic and so on always classify the picts seperately from celts and germans and romans.
Also celtic cultures didn't habitually run into battle naked, so far as I know

They're likely descendents from the ancient people of the area, pre indo-european. They've been linked to the basques as they also lack a language thats related to anything at all.
There are lots of theories, but I think the celtic one is just one of convience as there were celts all over those islands.

I read once that some of the ancient peoples of britain were Hittites and descended from ancient Egypt and the picts could've been related to them as well, and they could've been the folks that built stonehenge.

I really rather doubt the idea of Stonehenge as purely a celtic ceremonial site far away from any civilization. There couldve been quite a bit of ancient civilization there and I imagine most of it would be wiped away or plundered by time, even if there was some level of advancement (or especially so as that would give reason to steal and sell it). I always tend to believe ancient people were way more clever and built themselves up more than historians give them credit for, unless you're building stone palaces or burying your homes, things will fade from form rather quickly.

I've read over your post. I'm thinking about it ... 2 things - 1) the Celts were famous for their strong women; Queen Boudica comes to mind; 2) the evidence that is in the earlier linked post on this thread does indicate that Stonehenge was a ceremonial place of pilgrimage from very early times, down into late prehistoric times, which would mean Celts ... But you've brought up a lot of good points, and I need some time to digest. That doesn't mean disagree - it means take in. Thank you for your post.

[omnirook]

Just dug up a bunch from the sparse bits the internet has to offer, the term Caledonian isn't a classification at all, its a name thats mentioned in roman writing which like the word picts as well could either being a latin word used for them or a mucked up form of what they called themselves. Also the evidence of picts being celts is spotty and theres not enough evidence about them at all to even think its likely that they were celts.
From what I've found it even seems rather unlikely. Their art is unique, their cultural forms that we know of are just as unique, they had a matriarchal lineage which is no small bit of culture, and would give evidence to a thoroughly different tradition of doing things.
We know that irish monks needed translators to talk to pictish kings, which doesn't say much other than they were very much not scottish or irish. But the only other evidence we have of their language are place names that often don't fit into any celtic etymology, and there is a list of Pictish kings, which also doesn't fit into an celtic entymological scheme at all.
All the records of the era, from roman and celtic and so on always classify the picts seperately from celts and germans and romans.
Also celtic cultures didn't habitually run into battle naked, so far as I know

They're likely descendents from the ancient people of the area, pre indo-european. They've been linked to the basques as they also lack a language thats related to anything at all.
There are lots of theories, but I think the celtic one is just one of convience as there were celts all over those islands.

I read once that some of the ancient peoples of britain were Hittites and descended from ancient Egypt and the picts could've been related to them as well, and they could've been the folks that built stonehenge.

I really rather doubt the idea of Stonehenge as purely a celtic ceremonial site far away from any civilization. There couldve been quite a bit of ancient civilization there and I imagine most of it would be wiped away or plundered by time, even if there was some level of advancement (or especially so as that would give reason to steal and sell it). I always tend to believe ancient people were way more clever and built themselves up more than historians give them credit for, unless you're building stone palaces or burying your homes, things will fade from form rather quickly.

Because I am not an accredited scholar, I am rather more open minded - that is, I do not have a vested interest in one set of theories over another. Whoever the Picts were, it is certain that they were present in Britain for a long time and that some modern Britons have Pictish ancestry, especially those Britons who live just on either side of the English/Scotish border.

I am fairly comfortable w/this belief: modern Britons are descended from a variety of peoples who mostly came from western Europe. (I am willing to go so far as to discount Hittites having made it to England. The Hittites were a literate people, and there is no evidence of literacy in Britain prior to the arrival of Carthaginian traders, who surely had outposts in Britain, even if the outposts were no more than trading stations near the coast. Given the universal reputation of sailors, I do not doubt that some British babies had Phoenecian fathers.) Therefore, modern Britons would be the descendants of (perhaps) pre-Indo-European settlers, Indo-European settlers, and then variegated Indo-European peoples: Celts, Germans, Romans (if they were not Celts), more Celts, more Germans, northern Germans (Vikings), the Normans (francophone Vikings), and finally the French (a Germanic/Celtic mix) - w/a smattering of Dutch, Italian, and Spanish peoples who came in respectable numbers at different times, depending upon the politics of the time, depending upon the status of the Roman Catholic Church at the time. The 19th Century saw the largest waves of new immigrants since the Norman Conquest - Poles, Russians, Dutchmen, Danes, Italians, Spanairds, and Jews from eastern Europe and Germany.

Conclusion - mixed bag of peoples who belong to the caucasian race.

[omnirook]

Today Wikipedia featured King George VI -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_VI_of_the_United_Kingdom

Over the years, I have collected quite a lot of George VI and Queen Consort Elizabeth memorabilia - plates, tea sets, cups, and photographs.

George VI was a wonderful king, and it was a shame that he died so young.

George VI was a head of state of which the British can be proud!