Did I say you shouldn't have mentioned the name 'Mohammed'? No, I just asked why you did. There are many ways you could have introduced this topic. I'm just suggesting that your choice of words in the original topic was, to say the least, provocative. Not a bad thing of course on a messageboard, everybody wants lively debate, and this has certainly happenned. I've thoroughly enjoyed reading Seth and Pete's, er... discussion (and I've learned a bit of history too). I was commenting more on your instant and profuse decleration of innocence when questioned. Butter wouldn't melt. I suppose you didn't even notice the name was Asian, thats just other people seeing what they want to see. Lefties seeing racism, the other side seeing the last nail in the coffin of England's cultural tradition. Please don't take this the wrong way, its all good natured. Again, it's the limitations of the internet. Perhaps it seems like I'm having a go, because you can't see me chuckling as I write. I'm not, I just found it amusing. I imagined that you posted the original topic, and then instantly started writing your defence, you knew it would only be 10 minutes before you'd have the oppertunity to use it. For some reason 'Yes Minister' has popped into my head. Am I really so far off the mark?

Eeeeeeeagles Cheeeeeserolls

This is just all proof of what a changing world we live in. Its not just Britain where things are changing, if you go to Milan the name that appears most in the phone book is not an Italian name, its a Chinese name...

It's so random, I worked in M&S over the Christmas hols and they have these childrens CD's that sing happy birthday to you with your personalised name in there and they have Emily, Hannah, Charlotte, Luke, William etc and then they have 'Mohammed'! Obviously think it'll sell well!

Up, up and away in my beautiful balloon!

Well, without wishing to reopen the entire debate, I have been doing some reading on the subject of Ancient Britain, and have found a very interesting section of the BBC website entitled "Peoples of Britain, By Dr Simon James".

He seems to agree with Pete that there has been a continuity of "British" population, that the gene pool hasn't shifted greatly and that after the Romans left, life went back to traditional patterns. But also I believe he backs up the thrust of my argument, that there was no unified pre-Roman British culture and that the 'Celts' weren't the united group he sugested.

Here are some quotes from the site:

"Substantial genetic continuity of population does not preclude profound shifts in culture and identity. It is actually quite common to observe important cultural change, including adoption of wholly new identities, with little or no biological change to a population. Millions of people since Roman times have thought of themselves as 'British', for example, yet this identity was only created in 1707 with the Union of England, Wales and Scotland."

"Before Roman times 'Britain' was just a geographical entity, and had no political meaning, and no single cultural identity. Arguably this remained generally true until the 17th century, when James I of England sought to establish a pan-British monarchy."

"Throughout recorded history the island has consisted of multiple cultural groups and identities. Many of these groupings looked outwards, across the seas, for their closest connections - they did not necessarily connect naturally with their fellow islanders, many of whom were harder to reach than maritime neighbours in Ireland or continental Europe."

"From an early stage, the constraints and opportunities of the varied environments of the islands of Britain encouraged a great regional diversity of culture. Throughout prehistory there were myriad small-scale societies, and many petty 'tribal' identities, typically lasting perhaps no more than a few generations before splitting, merging or becoming obliterated. These groups were in contact and conflict with their neighbours, and sometimes with more distant groups - the appearance of exotic imported objects attest exchanges, alliance and kinship links, and wars."

"However, there is one thing that the Romans, modern archaeologists and the Iron Age islanders themselves would all agree on: they were not Celts. This was an invention of the 18th century; the name was not used earlier"

"...island 'Celtic' identity was born, like Britishness, in the 18th century."

"anyway, no one knows how or when the languages that we choose to call 'Celtic', arrived in the archipelago - they were already long established and had diversified into several tongues."

"Archaeologists widely agree on two things about the British Iron Age: its many regional cultures grew out of the preceding local Bronze Age, and did not derive from waves of continental 'Celtic' invaders. And secondly, calling the British Iron Age 'Celtic' is so misleading that it is best abandoned. Of course, there are important cultural similarities and connections between Britain, Ireland and continental Europe, reflecting intimate contacts and undoubtedly the movement of some people, but the same could be said for many other periods of history. "

"...the continuous development of a shifting mosaic of societies..."

"Contrary to the traditional idea that Britain originally possessed a 'Celtic' uniformity, which first Roman, then Saxon and other invaders disrupted, in reality Britain has always been home to multiple peoples. While its population has shown strong biological continuity over millennia, the identities the islanders have chosen to adopt have undergone some remarkable changes. Many of these have been due to contacts and conflicts across the seas, not least as the result of episodic, but often very modest, arrivals of newcomers."

Here's a link to the site: [Link]

And this is Dr Simon James' homepage, which also has further detailed information and links on the subject: [Link]

Such as this: [Link]

Anyone have any authoritative references to dispute any of this?

Edited by Seth (11 Jan 2005 2:00pm)

"You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down"
FA Cup MOTD 24/4/16

On the contrary Seth, you quite clearly belong to a particular herd.

My username has nothing to do with my religious beliefs

Once again, insults flow where evidence is lacking!

"You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down"
FA Cup MOTD 24/4/16