Early Britons: Have we underestimated our ancestors? Horizon tonight

[Rich D]

This looks quite good, evidence of the first hunter gatherer settlers to Britain after the ice age being much more sophisticated than was originally thought. On BBC 2 tonight at 8.00.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33963372

 

[MartiniDave]

Thanks for the heads-up.

Dave

 

[bobnewboy]

Have set it to record...

 

[andyn]

Was pretty good I thought.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[Ogri the trog]

Brought up more questions than it answered, for me.
If the cultures, festivals and gatherings were already in place - where did they originate, what was their purpose and why was it seen as something to be perpetuated or celebrated?

I have read other works that claim that this (we are currently in) the eighth period of settlement of Britain, the previous seven having been beaten back by various ice-ages - so what happened to those settlers and at what stage of evolution would they have been, what did they leave behind and a whole lot more?

It is good that modern investigative techniques are causing scientists to rethink their theories, but there's also some parts that ought to be left a mystery.

Ogri the trog

 

[cranmere]

there's also some parts that ought to be left a mystery.

I can't agree with you. To me, nothing is sacrosanct.

 

[Palaeocory]

I'll take a stab at answering some Ogri, though I don't know if it will help!

Brought up more questions than it answered, for me.
If the cultures, festivals and gatherings were already in place - where did they originate, what was their purpose and why was it seen as something to be perpetuated or celebrated?

That's a question that could be applied to any culture, anywhere - these 'first Britons' just happened to be a group that re-inhabited Britain after the last time the ice sheets retreated. They had parents who had parents who had parents, who at all points in time had rich cultures and social networks... and before the Mesolithic, the time of focus in the program, there was the Upper Palaeolithic, 30,000 years of rich, complex culture in Europe. Regarding the specific content of the cultures and festivals, I don't think that can ever be answered - not because of what they were up to, but because that information simply isn't left behind, being 8,000 years old or 100 years old.

I have read other works that claim that this (we are currently in) the eighth period of settlement of Britain, the previous seven having been beaten back by various ice-ages - so what happened to those settlers and at what stage of evolution would they have been, what did they leave behind and a whole lot more?

It will be hard to put a number on how many discrete settlements of Britain there have been - does that count just Homo sapiens, or include Neanderthals and other species who inhabited these islands before the ice sheets covered the land again? If it's modern humans, I think this is 'number 2'. The people this program were about were the last group that 'stayed', but before that, there were modern humans from the Upper Palaeolithic in Britain that we know about from sites like Pontnewydd in Wales. And before that there were Neanderthals at certain warmer periods, and before that Homo heidelbergensis, and before that the people who left their footprints in the Norfolk sands almost a million years ago!

It would be near impossible to say exactly what happened to these previous groups - did they migrate to more southern climates, or slowly waste away after generations of increased hardship, or were they wiped out from one really bad winter? We'll probably never be able to ask that specific of a question - for what would an answer even look like?

It is good that modern investigative techniques are causing scientists to rethink their theories, but there's also some parts that ought to be left a mystery.

Ogri the trog

I have to disagree there... with archaeology we learn so much about humans and where we come from, and how similar we all are to each other. Leaving it a mystery is like just leaving the diary on the bed, and not having a peek... or locking up the ancient libraries and not having a read!

I thought it was strange that the angle was 'these people were more complex that we thought!' - I didn't see any game changing things that any Mesolithic researcher didn't already think likely of these cultures, or challenge how rich they thought their cultures were? New information is always unfurling. But that tends to be the journalistic angle on tv documentaries...

 

[Toddy]

I've kept out of this because I was disappointed. It was hyped up and the beginning was so SCREAMING HEADLINES that I thought there must be some tremendous revelation.

Instead we got the clear and certain message that slowly, bit by bit, building on previous work, the picture of the peoples of the past is slowly being 'coloured in'.

We already know so much, but it's fragmented, it's a bit of knowledge about what was happening, when, in one small site, and another, and another,….and now it's slowly becoming like a mosaic and the pieces are revealed and interpreted and understood.
Leaves more questions than it answers right enough but that's both archaeology and science for you

Ritual, custom, tradition, is nothing new. How those change in the face of a very uncertain world though, that's fascinating.
Did they build Stonehenge (remember the wooden ones pre-date that site) in response to the climatic disasters ? Did a priesthood emerge ? Were there Fisher folks and Farming folks, and the cultural divides that we know of in our more recent history, back then too ?

I was minded of an interview with an African lady many years ago. When asked why there always seemed to be one crisis after another after another in Africa, she replied to the effect that Africans are actually very good at dealing with crisis'. They are very adaptable, will find a way to manage even with the worst catastrophe. Famine, drought, disease, climate, war….the problem is not when it's just one crisis that they have to contend with, nor two or three, but when it becomes four, five, and all at the same time running concurrently, then their societies are overwhelmed and the young and the elderly are the ones who lose the life lottery.

Sounds like our ancestors at times too, doesn't it ?
To quote an old History Professor, "Our certain past, was their very uncertain future".

Interesting programme, just not quite the overwhelming revelations that were claimed for it.

M

 

[boatman]

I agree, the brutish Caveman is an old idea that I suspect never was common, brutish and thick in the Mesolithic and you would be dead. They did leave huge amounts out though. Did they mention Star Carr? If they did I was asleep. Or, the wooden posts erected next to where Stonehenge would be?

Shame that the water table of Blick Meadow and its surroundings is likely to be affected if any tunnel, short or long, is dug next to Stonehenge, possibly wiping out the Mesolithic and later organic record.

 

[rik_uk3]

http://www.bushcraftuk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=134257 is it the same as the programme I started a thread on last week?

 

[dewi]

You only have to look at the metal work produced by the Iceni tribe to see the sophistication of early Britons. They were masters are producing beautifully intricate work.

Even the Silures. Their culture, their fighting methods and beliefs... little may be known, but enough to see they were not savages.

The Romans, for all the good they brought Britain, has to be balanced against the slavery they enforced for hundreds of years to rape the resources of this land... the misery they caused with their presence and the insults they brought upon proud families. What they did to the Iceni tribe was brutal and they deserved the uprising that followed... and the trouncing the Romans got from the Brigantes taught them that there are certain cultures who didn't wish to be ruled by Rome. They sent over ten thousand men into the north of England to suppress the population and it took them decades to achieve it.

Britain would be a very different place now with the invaders from many a place, but the people who lived here thousands of years ago were amazing. Without the invasions, perhaps we'd have known more about them and how they viewed the world, rather than this piecing together from predominantly Roman text (which is a tad biased one might have thought).

 

[Goatboy]

Surely the fact that these islands have been colonised/invaded by sucsessive peoples are what's made it great. No such thing as native peoples only those that have become naturalised.
Those modern humans that went before were as bright as we are. So I cant see why we think they'll be dumb and brutish. A large proportion of us these days could be described by that old description of the dark age life; Short, ugly and brutal.
When you look at the evidence they've left behind; metal and stone art, prints of their settlements and pictures on cave walls it draws ou closer to them. One of the most beautiful pieces of art I've seen from any epoch is a flint handaxe where the maker had deliberately left a fossil shell inclusion smack in the middle of one side for all to see. Just shows the care and beauty that they worked into a tool. To me it's as wonderful as the statue of David or one of Renoirs paintings.

Sent via smoke-signal from a woodland in Scotland.

 

[dewi]

We wouldn't be speaking English if it weren't for groups from Fresian origin popping over for a visit, but at the same time there are elements of history that have been airbrushed by modern historians.

"What did the Romans ever do for us?" Monty Python asked. They enslaved a population, destroyed the cultures and ultimately stamped on what had developed here naturally. Countless other invaders have done the same, and whilst they've brought their positives, they've removed as much as they've taken.

Without them though we wouldn't have a Britain. We wouldn't have the language, the attitude or the social structure/laws we have today.

Makes you wonder... without those influences, what would Britain be today? And would we have been at the heart of the industrial revolution?

 

[Pete E]

They enslaved a population, destroyed the cultures and ultimately stamped on what had developed here naturally. Countless other invaders have done the same, and whilst they've brought their positives, they've removed as much as they've taken.

Just the way of the world back then. The tribes that were in the UK prior to the Romans arriving were certainly not merely peaceful farmers living in harmony, but fairly savage with plenty of fighting and pillaging. The fact that Hill Forts and other similar early fortifications tell us that. What was different about the Romans was that they were so damn efficient at it..


I have read speculation that the presence of the Romans may have actually prevented the Vikings invading until much later??

 

[dewi]

Just the way of the world back then. The tribes that were in the UK prior to the Romans arriving were certainly not merely peaceful farmers living in harmony, but fairly savage with plenty of fighting and pillaging. The fact that Hill Forts and other similar early fortifications tell us that. What was different about the Romans was that they were so damn efficient at it..

Just the example of the Silures... they ruled South Wales and they waged war on all around them, but they had a rich culture and a certain code of honour that we will never truly know about... we only have hints at it. The Romans drove them north, killed the majority and enslaved their leader. Their leader gave an impassioned speech on behalf of his own family to the then emperor that ensured he could live his life out in Italy with his family, but the remainder of the Silures were left to battle it out with the Romans until their demise. A sad end to a rich, albeit violent culture. Only the bits that interested Rome were documented and always with a Roman slant.

I have read speculation that the presence of the Romans may have actually prevented the Vikings invading until much later??

No doubt and the Vikings did their own particular branding on the population, as did the Germanic tribes and the Normans... Rome was not the be all and end all of the invaders, but the brutal machine that was the Romans stamped the life out the people that lived here. We hear alot about the slavery that took place of Africans, but long before that the Britons were enslaved, as many were before them. Yes, it was the way of the world, but imagine if greed and power hadn't consumed the ancient world... imagine the diverse nature of our culture now and the many languages/traditions lost.

 

[tombear]

Well, if you want to see how Briton would have been without the Romans just look at Ireland. Now that didnt end well. Taken over by a strange religious cult that stamped on its previous faiths ( ok it took on some of the art styles and such ) and remained weak, backward and peripheral to Europe to such a extent that really small numbers of foreigners with superior weaponry and tactics were able to overthrow their leaders and pretty much oppress them for the next how many hundred years.

And weren't the Britons and celts in general, as well as the Saxons and Vikings later on heavily into slave holding themselve? Didn't they, pre the Roman conquest, ship their own folk to Gaul to pay for the luxuries like wine and chickens It wasn't all tin and hunting dogs.

However much the Romans exaggerated it for their own ends there's plenty of evidence for human sacrifice. At least the Romans stamped on that, or at least turned it into a popular sport everyone else could enjoy.

And how romanised did we really become? Once the empire fell it didn't take long for the trappings to fall away?

There's always the question of how far the benefit of a culture percolated down to those at the bottom, the vast majority. Warrior elites with shiny torques need a vast numbers of peasants to support them and throughout history those at the bottom been pretty apathetic about who they pay their taxes to. The surprising thing is how few people it takes to take over a country and how few mass revolts there are. Eventually everyone became a citizen so was protected by laws, something which took a lot longer to happen elsewhere in Northern Europe were petty kingdoms were pretty much constantly at war, where your chances of ending up a slave remained higher.

Golden ages don't exist, there's just change, sometimes for the better sometimes for the worse but overall for the better. The fittest survive, the weaker go under.

Just my two pen'ath of course.

ATB

Tom

 

[dewi]

Well, if you want to see how Briton would have been without the Romans just look at Ireland.

I don't understand what you mean? Romans may not have settled properly in Ireland, but they certainly invaded it mercilessly.

And weren't the Britons and celts in general, as well as the Saxons and Vikings later on heavily into slave holding themselve? Didn't they, pre the Roman conquest, ship their own folk to Gaul to pay for the luxuries like wine and chickens It wasn't all tin and hunting dogs.

Same can be said about African slaves, the first people to enslave them were their own people. Still doesn't make slavery okay by another nation though does it?

However much the Romans exaggerated it for their own ends there's plenty of evidence for human sacrifice. At least the Romans stamped on that, or at least turned it into a popular sport everyone else could enjoy.

Yes, thankfully the Britons abandoned their barbaric practice of ritual sacrifice and replaced it helpfully with religious genocide... nothing like a bit of genocide to truly civilise a nation.

And how romanised did we really become? Once the empire fell it didn't take long for the trappings to fall away?

I quite agree. 400 years of enslavement, occupation and control probably didn't have any effect on the cultures living in Britain at the time... just as 200 years of African enslavement over in the USA has had absolutely no effect on them. Although in fairness, the African slaves did become 'Americanized'.

There's always the question of how far the benefit of a culture percolated down to those at the bottom, the vast majority. Warrior elites with shiny torques need a vast numbers of peasants to support them and throughout history those at the bottom been pretty apathetic about who they pay their taxes to. The surprising thing is how few people it takes to take over a country and how few mass revolts there are.

Absolutely no idea what you're talking about here. "..how far the benefit of a culture percolated down to those at the bottom.." ... without the masses, there is zero culture. Or to put it another way, culture isn't created by who rules.

Eventually everyone became a citizen so was protected by laws, something which took a lot longer to happen elsewhere in Northern Europe were petty kingdoms were pretty much constantly at war, where your chances of ending up a slave remained higher.

Citizens weren't really recognised in laws until the Magna Carta, and even then its debatable what the MC did for the common man of the time. The entire history of Britain could be described as a series of petty disputes with Europe, continuing even now. We have no need to fight the Europeans in combat any more as we handed them economic control of Britain some time ago.

Golden ages don't exist, there's just change, sometimes for the better sometimes for the worse but overall for the better. The fittest survive, the weaker go under.

Golden ages of history have certainly existed... not in Britain perhaps, but there have been many golden ages across many cultures throughout history. But we'd be here all day if we start on all that.

 

[tombear]

Raiding isn't the same as occupation, the latter has a far greater effect on how a society develops. Prior to the conquest Ireland had a very similar culture to the rest of the British isles, without domination by another power would the rest Britain developed any differently to how Ireland did?

Slavery was ok to them, it was the norm, even freed slaves were happy to own slaves. Hardly anyone was opposed to slavery unless it was them being enslaved. Why should our modern standards be imposed on a different age with different morals and circumstances?

The Britons didnt abandon human sacrifice it was forced upon them, rather like the Indians were forced to stop suttee and thuggee was suppressed.

Er, how does domination and enslavement etc by your immediate neighbours differ from it being done by some one from across the channel? Is it somehow better if its your distant cousin doing it rather than someone with a funny accent?

The culture of a ruling elite, which is generally what survives and is recorded and until relatively recently was what people were interested in doesn't have to have any real effect or influence on the masses that support it. How different was the lives of people in vast swathes of India before and after 100 years of British rule? How many took up British habits or customs? How influenced by the fashions in court in say Tudor Britain would a hill farmer in Wales be at the same time ? It's rather jumping to conclusions that a new type of swirly patterned broach that's going to be dug up two thousand years later is going to be much concern, influence or even interest to some guy who holds his rags together with a long thorn plucked from a bush! Did the natives suddenly start to slavishly copy the roman styles of pot or did things change gradually as before? The odd one may have done to cater for a specific market and as technology changed or tastes changed but he certainly didnt do it because of some directive from Rome.

No one knows what the population was before the Romans arrived but the general consensus is it was a lot more than was previously thought and far more of the land was being cultivated. It could have been anything from 2 to 4 million and stayed pretty steady up until the great plagues of the 6th century. If the new regime was so harsh on the vast majority of the population and sp oppressive how could such a small force conquer them and keep them down? The Romans didnt force them to stop drinking beer or start wearing certain clothes or living there lives differently, only those in charge who didnt become romanised themselves seeing more benefits than losses lose out. And let's face it unless they have been particularly good to you who cares if one boss is replaced by another? Apart from the Druids, and without the Romans biased reports who knows anything about them that can be taken as fact, who were leading the opposition to the Romans and therefore to the Romans a legitimate target, and the whole not killing people to appease the gods thing, was religious freedom something that became a issue?

Apart from after wars and rebellions did the Romans cart off many slaves? Surely they were more useful over here, growing crops to export or paying taxes? Did the population increase during the Roman period?, all the evidence says it did. That's generally a indicator of improving conditions, more secure food supplies, better farming techniques etc the ability to ship in supplies from other parts of the empire if required.

The sad fact is that no matter how loathsome the new regime is people will adjust to live under it, By the mores of the time the Nazis were more extreme in their unpleasantness, shall we call it , different from the ways of living, thinking of the folk they were invading than the Romans were to the Britons. Yet vast areas put up with it. A tiny minority resisted and as conditions worsened due to the effect of outside forces more did so but perfectly decent ordinary people just got on with their lives, maybe paid lip service to bizarre new rules. Their lives didn't change just because they were occupied. Other outside forces like the blockade or allied bombing effected them far more until in desperation the nazis started carting them off for slave labour.

As to the whole golden age bit, yeah best leave that well alone.

By the way if I offend i'll immediately stop, debating to me is just a bit of intellectual fun, so if I'm going too far or am insulting someone's belief system let me know!

ATB

Tom

 

[21st century pict]

Hi Tom

Well, if you want to see how Briton would have been without the Romans just look at Ireland.

Briton,, Errr don't forget Scotland resisted the Roman empire for 400 years, just as a wee side note and contrary to popular thought Hadrian's wall had nothing to do with the Picts or the Caladonian tribes, Hadrian's wall is over 5000K long, Hadrian just took a fancy to build a wall round this entire Roman empire, the wall ends in Africa, it was the Antonine wall that was built specificity to keep the Northern tribes at bay.

We Caledonians are the greatest of all the Britons. In these remote unconquered regions we’ve kept ourselves uncontaminated by the slavery of oppressors. Up to now distance and obscurity have kept us free and safe. Today, though, the last coast of Britain lies bare to our enemies: to them it seems a great prize, the fools . No other peoples stand beyond us, nothing but waves and rocks – and more dangerous than both, our Roman enemies. Making concessions and being moderate isn’t going to save us from their tyranny. They rape the whole world. When they’ve finished devastating the land they turn their attentions to the sea. If their enemies have wealth they want it; if they’re poor, it makes no difference, they still hunger for power. Nowhere, east or west, is enough for them – they’re the only ones who lust after everything alike, rich or poor. Abduction, massacre, plunder they misname ‘law and order’. Where they make a desert they call it ‘peace’. Chieftain Calgacus Speech, just before we got our arses kicked at the Battle of Mons Graupius. aye but who cares if we lost, at least they knew they were in a fight.

However much the Romans exaggerated it for their own ends there's plenty of evidence for human sacrifice. At least the Romans stamped on that, or at least turned it into a popular sport everyone else could enjoy.

Not forgetting the roman practice of infanticide. "Marvellous race the Romans".Monty Python

And how romanised did we really become? Once the empire fell it didn't take long for the trappings to fall away?

Aye Right again Tom and so began the Dark Age, tribes, North and South, fighting for power.

There's always the question of how far the benefit of a culture percolated down to those at the bottom, the vast majority. Warrior elites with shiny torques need a vast numbers of peasants to support them and throughout history those at the bottom been pretty apathetic about who they pay their taxes to. The surprising thing is how few people it takes to take over a country and how few mass revolts there are. Eventually everyone became a citizen so was protected by laws, something which took a lot longer to happen elsewhere in Northern Europe were petty kingdoms were pretty much constantly at war, where your chances of ending up a slave remained higher.

Well that's one perspective sure enough, Capt Bellamy irate:took a slightly different view on who the law serves.
Quote Damn ye, you are a sneaking puppy, and so are all those who will submit to be governed by laws which rich men have made for their own security; for the cowardly whelps have not the courage otherwise to defend what they get by knavery; but damn ye altogether: damn them for a pack of crafty rascals, and you, who serve them, for a parcel of hen-hearted numbskulls. They vilify us, the scoundrels do, when there is only this difference, they rob the poor under the cover of law, forsooth, and we plunder the rich under the protection of our own courage. Had you not better make then one of us, than sneak after these villains for employment?"

Golden ages don't exist, there's just change, sometimes for the better sometimes for the worse but overall for the better. The fittest survive, the weaker go under.

Hi Dewi

Golden ages of history have certainly existed... not in Britain perhaps, but there have been many golden ages across many cultures throughout history. But we'd be here all day if we start on all that.

It just depends on your perspective guys, We had a Golden Age in Scotland when MacBeth was on the throne, 17 years of peace in the 11th century, MacBeth and his wife (who was a devout Catholic by the way ) went to Rome and were noted for give the poor of that city gold coins, forget Shakespeare version of MacBeth, Shakespeare was just pandering to James I paranoia of witches. MacBeth was a great King.

By the way if I offend i'll immediately stop, debating to me is just a bit of intellectual fun, so if I'm going too far or am insulting someone's belief system let me know!

ATB

Tom

Not at all Tom, as you say (debating to me is just a bit of intellectual fun,) I can rabbit on about history all day Bro. Me and my big gob I haven't even seen the Horizon program yet.

ROMANES EUNT DOMUS Monty Python
ATB

 

[Goatboy]

Big empires don't just change things by military might. People get sucked in by fiscal and cultural copying too. You suddenly see these shiny wealthy people and think "I'd like some of that!" The British empire never really had a huge standing army. But by fiscal means such as a large navy to blockade ports and control trade routes and economic powerhouses such as The East India Trading Company subjugated millions. Many saw this and thought that it was better to trade than fight. They aped the invaders. Many tribes asked the Romans to come in, partly to help knock lumps out of their neighbouring tribes. We're seeing it again today as the US influences to the globe. How many watch US T.V. programs, wear American fashions, look at the homoginisation of spoken English, heck many UK kids ape an American accent when they speak. These cultural shifts are often more powerfull than boots and guns (sandals and spears) marching across boundries. It's often said that the UK won the war but lost the piece when you look at the way Germany no dominates Europe. Athens ended up dominating what became Greece through their massive military but even larger merchant fleet. Spain, Portugal, France, Holland and the UK knocked lumps out of each other for fiscal dominance and carved up the world between them. It seems the ones with the most toys do win. So maybe those fancy beakers and broches are just the reminants and symbols of economic copycating and winners.

Sent via smoke-signal from a woodland in Scotland.