Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


'Cathedral' as old as Stonehenge unearthed

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 14 August 2009
EVEN in an area as archaeologically rich as Orkney, it is being hailed as the find of a lifetime.
Experts have unearthed a Neolithic "cathedral" – a massive building of a kind never before seen in Britain – which has left them in awe of its scale and workmanship.

At 82ft long and 65ft wide, it stands between two of Orkney's most famous Neolith
ic landmarks, the Ring of Brodgar and the Stones of Stenness.

While impressive in their own right, they would have been dwarfed by the monumental building now uncovered and, in comparison, may have been peripheral features in the islands' Stone Age landscape.

Investigative work has been continuing at the Ness of Brodgar since 2003 and the site – which dates back nearly 5,000 years – is slowly giving up more of its secrets.

Nick Card, from the Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology, who is leading the dig, said the building was effectively a cathedral for the north of Scotland.

He said: "It's spectacular. There were hints at the end of last season that we had a quite enormous building here and now we are able to define it more."

The shape and size of the building are clearly visible, with the walls still standing to a height of more than three feet.

Far taller when built, they are 16 feet thick and surround a cross-shaped inner sanctum where the 40-strong excavation team have found examples of art and furniture created from stone.

The building was surrounded by a paved outer passage. The archaeologists believe this could have formed a labyrinth that would have led people through darkness to the chamber at the heart of the building.

The team has also discovered that a standing stone split by a hole shaped like an hourglass was incorporated into the structure, something never seen before in buildings from the period.

Mr Card said: "This is architecture on a monumental scale and the result is the largest structure of its kind anywhere in the north of Britain. It's one of those finds of a lifetime."

The building may have served as some kind of temple, perhaps playing an important role on the journey from life to death in the beliefs of the people of the time.

It was buried under a large natural mound at the tip of the Brodgar peninsula, a huge archaeological site where last year the team unearthed a four-metre-wide wall made of massive stone boulders.

The Great Wall of Brodgar, as its been dubbed, appears to go right across the peninsula and seems to separate the land of the living from the realm of the spirits at the Ring of Brodgar.

Other buildings, over 50ft long and 30ft wide, have also been discovered.

Mr Card said: "It all forms part of this huge, interconnected ritual landscape. If you found somewhere similar in, say, the Middle East, you would be thinking in terms of a temple precinct."

Dr Colin Richards, a leading expert on the period, said the building would have stood at the heart of Neolithic Orkney.

"A structure of this nature would have been renowned right across the north of Scotland – and is unprecedented anywhere in Britain."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 13 August 2009 11:48 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Rob Royston,

Bishopbriggs 14/08/2009 08:20:42
Whats Stonehenge got to do with it. Callanish is two thousand years older than Stonehenge.
2

Lianachan,

Highlands 14/08/2009 09:18:49
#1 Unfortunately, Stonehenge tends to be the standard by which any neolithic sites seem to be measured - especially by the media. Archeaologists, realising the differences in construction, likely function, siting, location and dating, avoid such comparisons. The good ones do, anyway. I think, though, that this headline is only using the comparison for dating purposes. In terms of sites for the layperson to visit, Calanais (and other English sites, like Avebury) are far, far superior to Stonehenge in my opinion (and having visited all of the sites I mentioned within the last 3 months). Compared to Calanais, Stonehenge has all the atmosphere of a municipal car park.

I've not actually made it to the site discussed yet, but had been wondering when this would make the news.
3

AJ Fife,

14/08/2009 09:21:04
An impressive find and it makes you think Stonehenge was the equivalent to timber frame hooses of it's day.

Even oor ancient monuments are better than England's!:)
4

Curious Yellow,

Edinburgh 14/08/2009 09:33:03
#1 - "'Cathedral' as old as Stonehenge unearthed"

I think your rather stupid question can be answered simply by reading the words.
5

Curious Yellow,

Edinburgh 14/08/2009 09:33:34
If it had mentioned Calanish, I might understand your point!
6

KWC,

Edinburgh 14/08/2009 09:44:03
They will probably find a still working tram system next, something that we can't seem to get right today in the capital.
7

Lianachan,

Highlands 14/08/2009 10:06:42
#3 Stonhenge is undoubtedly very special, although it shouldn't be considered in isolation - it's just one part of a huge complex. The stone arrangement itself is indeed unique in many ways. The main problem with it is its accessibility. It's always absolutely hoaching with visitors. If that complex had been built in a location where it would have attracted fewer visitors over the centuries, like somewhere in the Hebrides for example, then there's a good chance we'd all be singing its praises.
8

AJ Fife,

14/08/2009 10:20:10
#7,

It's got good transport links don't you think?! :)

Like you, I've visited Stonehenge, Silbury Hill and Avebury etc, and they are indeed impressive, but they do lack that mystic and spiritual feeling that an element of remoteness helps brings to some sites.

Having said that, it's still all facinating stuff.
9

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 14/08/2009 10:32:37

I wonder if my ancestors used this Neolithic "cathedral", Linskaill being from Orkney?
Original spelling was Linscale.

10

Lianachan,

Highlands 14/08/2009 10:38:25
#8 Remoteness is key. It helps preserve the site from centuries of souveneir hunters, vandals and antiquarians, and (as you say) it adds tremendously to the atmosphere. Want Calanais all to yourself? Then go on a Sunday in October... visitor center closed, weather still possibly superb, not a soul there. Done that a few times. You will NEVER be alone at Stonehenge.
11

BROONISDOOMED,

14/08/2009 10:50:32
watch all those hippies now heading up north
this is headline news,yet treate as subline,if they found this on on a yorkshire moor,you would be watching endless BBC progs on it ,news items as much as the mary rose got
lets hope this throws up some new facts on life in north long before stonehenge,hippies get back to stonehenge
12

Lianachan,

Highlands 14/08/2009 11:03:03
#11 This isn't the kind of site that would attract hippies and the like. They'd more likely be attracted to the Ring of Brodgar, given the amusing (and entirely false) association these people have made between neolithic stone arrangements and "druidism". Druidism is millenia younger, was associated with groves and living things, not stones, and has absolutely no links whatsoever to modern "druidism" - which was invented by a civil servant. Stonehenge is rotten with them, and unfortunately Calanais also suffers at dates they deem to be somehow significant.
13

Jimmy Le Pie,

14/08/2009 12:40:26
I wonder if they'll bung a wind farm on the site???
14

robertofayelo,

Ayelo de Rugat 14/08/2009 12:52:49
I read the newspaper and readers comments daily.How sad it is to find that ,even when a wonderful archaeological find is made, that the usual percentage of 'bloggers' find it necessary to make anti English comments and -in this case - forget who probably built the structures!
15

Lianachan,

Highlands 14/08/2009 13:05:24
#14 Well, I haven't made any anti-English comments. I have, yes, said that I don't think Stonehenge is all it's cracked up to be, but that's not anti-English. I mentioned there are better in England, and gave an example. I did say Stonehenge would be better if it was in the Hebrides, but that's not anti-English either, as I explained pretty clearly why I feel that's the case. The only thing that I think anybody could possibly consider anti-English is a comment in #2, which is clearly tongue in cheek (and is even signposted with a smilie, for the benefit of the hard of thinking/supersensitive). I think, sir, you are finding offense where none was given.
16

Lys Alf,

Scotland 14/08/2009 13:36:15
The propagandists still continue to portray our remote resourceful ancestors as long haired bearded primitive northern barbarians.

The evil lie that we are as much immigrants to this land as the settlers who began arriving here since 1948 continues unabated despite evidence to the contary continualy being unearthed!
17

Rob Royston,

14/08/2009 14:05:22
#4 & #5 Curious Yellow,
"I think your rather stupid question can be answered simply by reading the words"

Er, I've reread the words and Stonehenge only appears in the title, it is not mentioned in the story.

It is also well known that there were no stones at "Stonehenge" 5000 years ago.
18

Joanna,

Cambs, England 14/08/2009 14:12:35
I think comparisons with Stonehenge are only made because Stonehenge is so well known. Even someone like myself who knows very little (make that nothing) about ancient stone momuments and the like has heard of Stonehenge. Although, I've never visted it, I have heard the criticism that it has little atmosphere due to the number and volume of visitors and is a victim of its own location/success.

The Neolithic cathedral sounds like an very exciting find and I hope it will be the subject of a TV programme. Its probably the only way that most people will see it.
19

Lianachan,

Highlands 14/08/2009 14:21:09
#18 Stopping "most people" from seeing it (in person) is vital, so yes - something on the TV would be good.
20

Alice Cooper,

BBC PIRATES YOUR FEE 14/08/2009 15:01:18
Come on BBC scotland get the cameras up to the site,get it documented,and show not only the natives this historic find,but also the world
unless of course you need the money to get bruce back on with his dancing mince of a prog
21

Alice Cooper,

14/08/2009 15:06:54
#14 what #11 pointed out was in fact the truth,yes had it been found south of the border,chanel 4 time watch team,with tony (i hate the scots)robinson or baldrick to the scruffs
the coverage that the bbc news gave the mary rose,and progs etc etc was nearly on a daily basis
how come as a scot i have just learned of this now?
if any treasure is unearthed,it will no doubt be sent to a london museum,not a scottish one
that is the facts,london museums are given huge amounts of cash from the gov where as scottish ones are not
22

Lianachan,

Highlands 14/08/2009 15:32:27
#21 Ha - treasure. Anyway, the furthest any finds would likely be sent is the museum in Edinburgh. Which, believe me, is already too far. I had to go there last week to see something from a couple of hundred yards from my house (a Pictish slab). Moot point, though, as the finds so far seem to be pretty standard neolithic fare. Now, if the Norse had hidden some hack-silver in there 1,000 years ago or something.... I know some of the team there, so will ask about quality, quantity and destination of finds.

Time Team - agreed, to a certain extent, but there are a few decent Scottish editions. As a way of presenting archaeology to the public and stimulating interest, I think it's fine. You shouldn't, for example, become interested in Roman stuff in a field in Bedfordshire, you should become interested in archaeology itself, and then start to look at your own area :-)
23

Lianachan,

Highlands 14/08/2009 16:52:14
If anybody is going to Orkney (or, indeed, is already there) and wants to see for themselves, then:

The Historic Scotland ranger service is offering a free daily tour of the Ness of Brodgar excavations.

Anyone interested should meet at the dig site at 3pm.

For further information, contact the rangers on (01856) 841732.

A tour at 11am, each week day, is also being offered by the archaeological team. Again, anyone interested should meet at the dig site.
24

Douglas,

Bathgate 14/08/2009 17:10:26
Charles @ #9: I was wondering the same thing about my great grandfather Dougie Sellafield, original spelling Windscale.
25

Cam3,

14/08/2009 17:41:37
"....Mr Card said: 'This is architecture on a monumental scale and the result is the largest structure of its kind anywhere in the north of Britain. It's one of those finds of a lifetime'...."

The North of Britain?

Scotland, yes?

Subtle I know - but this stuff continually grates me. You can bet the bulk of the better researched dig teams will be from other *British* establishments, say from Bradford, or London.

I wonder how many budding Scottish archaeologists will have the opportunity to study this amazing Scottish landmark, from a Scottish University?
26

Lianachan,

Highlands 14/08/2009 17:58:35
#25 I know what you mean, but Nick Card is a Glasgow Uni graduate who works for ORCA - which is housed within Orkney College. This one is pretty local.

By the way, since you mentioned them, Bradford have actually done some amazing work in the north of Scotland and the Northern Isles - at Scatness in Shetland, for example.
27

Joanna,

Cambs, England 14/08/2009 18:19:38
"The North of Britain?

Scotland, yes?"

Yes, Scotland is in the north of the British Isles.



28

westenders999,

14/08/2009 18:49:27
#2 has a point. There is an "is that it?" factor about Stonehenge. The wide open chalk downland makes it look smaller and the congested A road next to it doesn't do it any favours. You have to remind yourself just how old it is to be impressed. While more recent, the iron age Maiden Castle a few miles away is more instantly overwhelming.
I think as there is 3ft in height of wall left standing of the Orkney site, it is not likely to be overrun by siteseers and will attract more specialised tourists.
29

British Military Vet Veritas,

Xylotimbou, Kuprai 14/08/2009 18:50:58

It is the "site–which dates back nearly 5,000 years" that is ancient, not the building.

Despite it being cruciform it is not a christian structure. The article writer, not the archaeologists, suggest it is the equivalent of a "cathedral," but that is pure hyperbole.

Dad 'tis that the once-proud Scots have awarded themselves the dubious honour of "The Ignoble Order of Whingeing Jocks."

If you are such, then your report will read, "Could do better. More sustained effort needed to succeed."

Ach I fie!

30

Lianachan,

Highlands 14/08/2009 19:09:47
#28 I've only been to Maiden Castle a handful of times, but I agree that it's more overwhelming. The ditches around it are extremely impressive. I've never seen too many people there, which is good. Of course, the site is absolutely vast so the visitors are spread out considerably more. Scotland has many excellent hill "forts", although none anywhere near that size. The vitrified fort on Knockfaril, outside Dingwall, is particularly worth a visit (and usually very quiet).
31

Lianachan,

Highlands 14/08/2009 19:14:16
#29 The "cathedral" analogy, I would imagine, is because of the the placing of the site within a ritual (religious, if you like) complex - not because of the shape.
32

westenders999,

14/08/2009 19:48:59
Not been there. Has anyone worked out yet how the vitrification was done?
33

Lianachan,

Highlands 14/08/2009 19:56:08
#32 Three main theories. The most likely one is that it was done when the forts were intentionally destroyed by the populace. The heat required to cause vitrification requires carefully managed and maintained fires, built up around the walls and presumably done in sections at a time. Other two main theories: 1) Result of attacks - not possible, for reasons described above about managed fires, and 2) an attempt to make the walls stronger - no, as vitrification significantly weakens the structure.
34

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 14/08/2009 20:02:44

~24.
Douglas,

Maybe we are related? :)

35

Lianachan,

Highlands 14/08/2009 20:12:32
#34 You may be amused to note that a google search for "linskaill" turns up not an Orcadian heritage, but several pages with titles involving "Edinburgh" and "viagra".
36

Cam3,

14/08/2009 20:23:49
#26 Lianachan - fair enough, I've seen some pretty amazing stuff about Bradford and heard so many good things about them besides. Good that there's a local focus there too...

...but yes, I'm glad you know what I mean. Scotland needs to cherish, as a country, it's very unique arch. heritage - and free of yet another godforsaken documentary punted by a 'British' vibe which is - actually - not representative of the nation. At times, it's pure cringe worthy.

Enter stage left Alan bleeding Titchmarsh etc. Yuk.

Sorry Joanna at #27 - if you've no concept of how insensitive any concept of Scotland = North Britain actually is, well - bite me.

Scotland is Scotland sweet cheeks. I'd suggest you check out the great Cromwell exhibition in Huntingdon, England.

Keep the B word for where it belongs - the *B*in.
37

Lianachan,

Highlands 14/08/2009 20:33:25
#36 Yes, there are definite distinctive regional variations in terms of archaeology - within Scotland, let alone within the British Isles. I have, for example, spent years looking at the distinct differences in brochs throught the Highlands & Islands (which are entirely absent altogether from England/Wales/etc..). Having said that, there are also definite similarities across the B.I. too.
38

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 14/08/2009 20:34:01
~35.
Lianachan,

I think someone was up to mischief as I have never typed the word 'via&ra' anywhere at any time, it is very annoying, don't know if I can ask google to remove all this rubbish.
re: Linscale, my young sister did a family tree a while back, it took her months but ended up with her visiting the Orkney Isles, there is still the remains of buildings/land that were owned by the Linscale's.

39

Douglas,

Bathgate 14/08/2009 20:52:11
#34 Charles: I'll let you be my Auntie Climax.
40

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 14/08/2009 20:56:20
~39.
Douglas,

:))

41

Cam3,

14/08/2009 21:06:19
# 37 Lianachan - are you the same Lianachan that inhabits the bad astronomy forum? ;o) Just curious.

Of course there are similarities, absolutely - many of the Iron Age [grrrr] hill forts in England are spellbinding at that - my only small point is that other single nations - large or small - would undoubtedly 'market' [poor word] such fascinating treasures in a national context.

In Scotland, it's Britain this and Britain that. It's as if the heritage of the nation is British rather than Scottish, and that means the nation is being purposefully denied. I despise it.

It's so often the case that mass media present it in this manner as the norm., part. broadcasting. Watch 'Coast' for 30-mins and count the 'B' word. It's out of synch man, and I'm very sure I'm not the only person that's very uncomfortable with it.
42

Lianachan,

Highlands 14/08/2009 21:32:15
#41 Yes, that's me. I've not been there for about a year though, got completely fed up with the attitude of the mods. I put some of my photographs on that site, all unpublished ones. I should be the same Lianachan anywhere you see the name, unless it's to do with holiday cottages near Spean Bridge. They just can't spell in Gaelic, mine is spelled this way for historical reasons :-)

Yes, I also baulk when I see the term "British" used inaccurately in a historical or archaeological context. There are times when it IS appropriate, but there are also times when it most certainly is not. People like the BBC should respect (learn?) the difference.
43

Lianachan,

Highlands 14/08/2009 21:38:40
#38 I wasn't stalking you or anything. I'm extremely interested in names (Scottish Place-name Society member). The name Linskaill isn't a common one, and it did indeed look like it may have Norse origins - so I googled it. Err, sorry!
44

westenders999,

14/08/2009 21:49:36
I don't understand why any 5000 year old site should be interpreted any more in terms of "Scottishness" (or "Englishness") than "Britishness". None of these concepts would have had any meaning at the time. North British or Scottish are equally useful for geographic localisation but trying to project our current individual cultural identities onto them is odd.
45

Lianachan,

Highlands 14/08/2009 22:03:39
#44 Absolutely, the terms "Scottish" and "English" are meaningless when talking about ancient history. So is "British". There are, though, large regional differences in the archaeological record within (modern) Scotland and within (modern) England, let alone between the two areas. This is only to be expected. Referring to an ancient site as "Scottish" generally doesn't mean to imply any relationship to modern Scotland, or politics, but is purely a geographical label of convenience and an indication of what you may expect. For example, if somebody mentions an "'Irish' souterrain" to me, I already know in my head how that tends to differ from a "Scottish" one.
46

Russell M,

Stirling 14/08/2009 22:09:07
I would hazard the regional/tribal identity was even more distinct 5000 years ago than the vague terms of "Scottishness" (or "Englishness") and "Britishness" we've got going on now.

Barbarians in the wilderness indeed. Our nation has been called, "...the most ancient kingdom in Christendom..." Well it seems we've been thinking on a monumental scale since way before St. Columba landed in AD 563.

Our servitude to our southern neighbours must serve someone well. Else the Unionists wouldn't work so hard and take every opportunity to remind us of how much we need them.

Why after more than 6000 years of running our own affairs are we suddenly incapable?
47

Lianachan,

Highlands 14/08/2009 22:28:44
#46 St Columba was a toff and a politician. The real work in introducing Christianity to the Picts was done by others with less industrious PR men than his Adamnan. Donan, Maol Rubha, etc..

Also, there's a lot of evidence of surprisingly extensive and early trading links between various parts of the British Isles and Europe. Tribal societies? Yes, but not operating entirely in isolation and apparently at least as keen to trade and mingle as to fight.
48

Joanna,

Cambs, England 14/08/2009 22:41:29
Perhaps they should call it an Orcadian site.
49

missing home,

la verne 14/08/2009 22:44:56
Joanna, I wasa fan up until your comment about North Britain. It's Scotland. England is never referred to as South Britain, is it, nor Wales as south west Britain, nor Northern Ireland.. oh well, you get the point?
50

Lianachan,

Highlands 14/08/2009 22:45:13
#48 That's certainly how I'd describe it, from my background of contrasting (for example) Orcadian and Western Isles brochs :-)
51

Joanna,

Cambs, England 14/08/2009 22:45:47
36. Cam 3

Scotland is in the Northern British Isles - that's geography. It's tough for sensitive little people like you but, that's life. Don't forget to wipe your sweet cheeks when you bleat about it.
52

Joanna,

Cambs, England 14/08/2009 22:56:25
49 missing home

I'm talking about geography not politics. England is in the British Isles, so is Scotland and Wales and the Orkneys. If you find that offensive - it is tough as I've already said.

Btw: Fan? Isn't that an odd comment to make to a complete stranger on an website? I could be an 8ft 16 stone all-in-wrestler for all you know, who might address people as 'sweet cheeks'.
53

Lianachan,

Highlands 14/08/2009 22:56:38
#49 and others

What Joanna actually said was the Scotland is "in the north of the British Isles". I, as somebody who is passionately in favour of Scottish independence, can find no fault in that simple, and accurate, geographical statement.
54

Joanna,

Cambs, England 14/08/2009 23:01:43
Thank you Lianachan @ 49

I have found your posts very intersting and informative on a subject which you are, obviously, enthralled by.
55

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 14/08/2009 23:13:41

##several.
Lianachan,

I did not think that you were 'stalking' me at any time.
My name originates on my mothers side, and is indeed Shetlands/ Orkney, I have never taken a great interest, but I now feel ashamed that I have not more knowledge on my heritage.
I have text my sister who knows the in-depth history, and when I speak to her, I will let you know about the history, if memory serves me, I think one of the family did trading from Orkney, this may of been one of my great/great/great uncles.

56

Lianachan,

Highlands 14/08/2009 23:25:53
#54 You're welcome. I don't like modern politics staining ancient history (despite being very interested in both), plus I don't like seeing people's words being twisted or used out of context :-) As for enthralled - meh. I'm not as interested in the neolithic as I am in other periods, particularly the bronze and iron ages. Can't help but be pretty interested, and sook up knowledge about, other periods though.
57

Joanna,

Cambs, England 14/08/2009 23:30:38
Lianachan @56

There is a Bronze Age site in Cambridgeshire - Flag Fen. You may already have heard of it, its an interesting place to visit. Due to the particular nature of the fens many items have been preserved extremely well.
58

Lianachan,

Highlands 14/08/2009 23:47:16
Joanna - yes, I know Flag Fen. I've never been to it, as it's "distance from home" and "developed for tourists" aspects sadly outweigh my interest in it. It's not an area I would tend to find myself in either, so a casual "while I'm here" visit is unlikely. Francis Pryor (who is sometimes on Time Team) did a lot of good work there, most of which I've read.
59

Robert Burns,

Ocean Beach, San Diego, California, U.S.A. 15/08/2009 00:41:49
No. 29: Your are incorrect insofars you maintain, "'It is the 'site–which dates back nearly 5,000 years' that is ancient, not the building.'" Though the building may have been periodically repaired, updated, or revised, as occurred with castles, the site is billions of years old and the building and appurtenances are "nearly 5,000 years" old. The author who referred to "the site" made a poor choice of English and no use of Scots.
60

Lianachan,

Highlands 15/08/2009 01:29:45
#59 I hadn't been going to bother correcting #29 on that, but since you are making essentially the same mistake.... In archaeology, the word "site" has a particular meaning, which is not exactly the same as the "location/situation" every day meaning. The author did not make a "poor choice of English" - precisely the correct term was used.
61

Cam3,

15/08/2009 08:58:28
OK, apologies to Joanna for the knee jerk over 'British Isles'. My bad. Sweet cheeks.

Orcadian? Fine - and Lianachan obviously knows his/her stuff., so duly accepted.

Whether we're talking about Western Isles brochs, Orcadian catherdrals, Pictish slabs or Brythonic forts though, they are part of Scotland's - and today's - national context.

I'd like to see this national context brought to a greater focus. Stop describing the history of all the ages of Scotland, and the peoples that helped create the country, as 'British'.

I do not see any problem whatsoever though in describing and investigating the past to actually affirm 'Scotland's history' any more than I would hesitate in describing Ireland's/Norway's/Finland's history.

With the 'B' word it is always a danger. Even today, in relatively modern historical comment, you can easily come across loons like David Starkey [bemoaning Edward I's 'missed opportunity' to 'unite' Britain etc. - in the 1200's!]

For the money, if you want to refer to 'British' history, I'd refer to it within the times that the British state existed or had any kind of broader context *to the people*. Not a lot of room there.

I grow tired of English historians [and sometimes Scottish ones, part. on TV!] at once keen to remove any idea of using 'Celtic' [they never referred to themselves as 'Celts' dontya know?!?], even as a very broad term, to describe the various tribes spanning through these isles to Gaul and beyond, despite the obvious and undeniable shared cultural iron-age 'clues' - while at the same time equally happy to 'blur the context' and use the 'B' word to describe, affirm and draw context for anything in almost any historical debate.

It's appalling, and also misleading. I doubt most Scots would be aware of the breadth of this 'Celtic' culture, for example, in pre-Roman times. The movement, trade, language and religion's that held hands in such a fascinating, organised context.

I talked to an archaeologist
62

Cam3,

15/08/2009 09:05:06
[cont.] I talked to an archaeologist on Ynys Môn who explained how Druids, of the day, would send 'students' for schooling to other 'Celtic' tribes in [today] Scotland, England, Wales and the Continent.

I'd no sooner describe, for example, this period of history as 'British' than I would Nepalese. Sorry Francis Pryor.

63

BROONISDOOMED,

15/08/2009 11:03:43
north britain is a choice from gordon brown,i have noticed with the BBC,they could show progs of great interest,and of learning,only for it to be announced,"viewers in scotland have their own progs"
yet we all have to fork out for a licence
and in some parts of scotland you cant get BBC1 orother chanels,yet they wont put up a mast to relay the signal,yet will haul yer butt into court for non payment,a guy i worked with ,always told me yorkshire was the gates to heaven,i said thanks mate,when you go north through the gates your in scotland ,and thus in heaven,laughed like a drain he did
gordon brown stop this north british guff,a yorkshire man is english ,a cardiff man is welsh etc,its when all regions are lumped together in say the army ,then its british,as the fight a one unit

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.