MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Navigations and directions (NEW CONCEPTS)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Boreades wrote:


As so many churches, fords, bridges and the like are relatively modern items in the landscape, I'm trying to find the oldest places for which there is firm evidence they are pre-Roman at least. We know that many so-called Roman roads were already there before the Romans. Long, straight well-maintained roads that ironically helped the Romans execute a genocidal blitzkrieg across much of North West Europe. But that's another story.

Assuming it was the Celts that built these long straight roads that aligned places over long distances, and if so, why?


Assuming they did, they left remarkably little impact (in Merrie England) on the language, and the place naming evidence is now looking thinner.

I have to say it looks like a lost cause.....Still folks are going to keep trying.
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wile E. Coyote wrote:

Assuming they did, they left remarkably little impact (in Merrie England) on the language, and the place naming evidence is now looking thinner. I have to say it looks like a lost cause.....Still folks are going to keep trying.


I'm open minded, maybe it wasn't the Celts? Maybe the Irish example is leading me astray. Similar culture, similar technology and methods, but a different language? But that's a subject that's been well-thrashed here. Do I need to go back and start again?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Boreades wrote:
...I'm trying to find the oldest places for which there is firm evidence they are pre-Roman at least.


I wish to hell I could cure y'all of this "Roman" fantasy. Try to be just a little more skeptical. Please.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

And stop being so sceptical about Ishmaelite Theory. After all, we know that Ishmael once existed; we cannot say the same for the Roman Empire.
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

How about it was all the Greeks who came to Britain to fight the Troy Wars?
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Boreades wrote:
Do I need to go back and start again?


No.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Boreades wrote:
How about it was all the Greeks ....?


Nope.

"Hermes?"

Nothing actually.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Boreades wrote:
How about it was all the Greeks who came to Britain to fight the Troy Wars?


It's a basic premise of the scientific method -- though always ignored in academia -- that investigations ought to proceed independently -- unadulterated by any presumption engendered by prior analysis (especially one using a different methodology).

Historians reconstruct the past using documentary evidence. As a rule, they ignore everything else. Yet every other field defers to what the historians conclude. This is simply unscientific.

Let the historians build their picture of the past using their methods. But don't let their results color what you see or bias your data selection. Look at the ground before you and reach your own conclusions. Put out of your mind everything the historians tell you about the past.

When you are done with your own analysis, compare your picture of the past with that constructed by historians. Let the two models compete where they differ.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
Boreades wrote:
How about it was all the Greeks who came to Britain to fight the Troy Wars?


It's a basic premise of the scientific method -- though always ignored in academia -- that investigations ought to proceed independently -- unadulterated by any presumption engendered by prior analysis (especially one using a different methodology).

Historians reconstruct the past using documentary evidence. As a rule, they ignore everything else. Yet every other field defers to what the historians conclude. This is simply unscientific.

Let the historians build their picture of the past using their methods. But don't let their results color what you see or bias your data selection. Look at the ground before you and reach your own conclusions. Put out of your mind everything the historians tell you about the past.

When you are done with your own analysis, compare your picture of the past with that constructed by historians. Let the two models compete where they differ.


Yes, just crack on....have you spotted something ... because you were studying RE?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

RE?
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Religious Education?
Roman Empire?
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Reverse Engineering.

Xhrist Boro please keep up with your own inventions.

I am.
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wile E. Coyote wrote:
Reverse Engineering.

Xhrist Boro please keep up with your own inventions.

I am.


Oh, yes. (blush)

Granted there were some uniquely "nouveau-Roman" sites. But on many sites that used to be just labelled Roman, whenever some serious fieldwork digging is done, surprise surprise, underneath the Roman stuff is pre-Roman Iron Age or even Bronze Age British stuff. Despite the veneer of Roman "sophistication", the Romans were highly adept at the "hostile takeover" of any business or trade of value. Only in a very few places in Britain did the Romans build something completely new and separate from what Britons had already started.

I am now of the view that nearly all "Roman" sites should be assumed to be re-branded older British sites unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. The Roman stuff is just the top layer or a veneer on a deeper and more ancient past.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3

Jump to:  
Page 3 of 3

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group