Book & site list

[Mick Harper]

Here's one that dates from the Roman occupation and is definitely getting to the Britannia we are all familiar with. It's taken from an online copy of a Victorian book so I would suggest chasing that up for further details.

Unfortunately this does not solve the mystery. We can certainly say that British penny design existed in 1845 but we knew that already!

[Boreades]

Unfortunately this does not solve the mystery. We can certainly say that British penny design existed in 1845 but we knew that already!

I fear you've lost the plot.
Go back and start again on what Tisi said.
From the beginning.

[TisILeclerc]

Unfortunately this does not solve the mystery. We can certainly say that British penny design existed in 1845 but we knew that already!

I did not say it was a Victorian penny. I said it was in a book published in Victorian times.

It is an illustration of a Roman coin from the time of the Romans retreating from Scotland as the quotation quite clearly states.

[Mick Harper]

Thanks both, but I knew exactly what was said. The point maybe you both are not grasping -- though I am not claiming it is necessarily germane to the wider discussion - is that an 1845 illustration of a particular coin is evidence only that that coin existed in 1845. The author can see the coin and can illustrate the coin and he did this in 1845. Now there are the following possibilities

1. The coin is very ancient, it was discovered before 1795 and the Royal Mint used it as the model for designing a coin
2. The coin is very ancient and is one of a standard pattern of Britannia images showing her seated holding something up etc etc that the British mint used and it makes no difference when the coin was discovered
3. The coin is a forgery made at some point between 1795 and 1845, using the British 1795 image, but accepted in good faith as being ancient and was subsequently illustrated as being such in an 1845 book.
4. The author of the book is in on the scam.

Ostensibly the third and fourth possibilities are unlikely because the designer of the 1795 British coin would likely be still around and would likely say, "Oy, that's a forgery. I know that because it's just like something I dreamt up in 1795, a highly stylised rendering of the Britannia figure quite common in coins of antiquity but nothing like the way I depicted her." But I have learned over the years not to dismiss such a possibility without pausing for reflection. I now return you to your interesting discussion about Britannia coins of antiquity.

[TisILeclerc]

'Points 3 and 4 are unlikely'. Fair enough.

Points 1 and 2 are probably correct. The Royal Mint was in the process of inventing a united Kingdom and a perfect example to us all would be the figure of Britannia the very personification of the new nation as well as being the Goddess who looks after us.

Which means they were using an image familiar to people of the time. Familiar because it had been around for a very long time. Not only in Britain but in Rome and in other parts of the eastern Mediterranean.

Like the Union Flag, it is a composite image. It has the union flag image of course on the shield in the later editions but that already existed as we have seen from images of old Hittite sculptures. It is a sun sign.

All the United Kingdom did was to bring the different varieties of cross together and come up with what we know today.

And as Waddell points out the Barats and Catti brought their symbols and religion with them. As opposed to the snake worshippers who already lived in the country. The last to be defeated of course were the Irish when Patrick or perhaps Baratrick (king of the Barats?) went and got rid of the snakes for ever.

[TisILeclerc]

One thing we must consider is the language the Phoenicians brought with them. Did it change or did it remain unscathed throughout the centuries?

Here are a couple of interesting videos that may help us in this quest for the truth. They are from a former age and there is not much in the way of provenance but I'm sure the keen linguist will be able to pick out elements in the speech that can help us get to the truth of the matter.

Please note the repeated use of the name Barat, here in the local vernacular. And the rugged physiognomy of the male contributors suggestive of origins from far away places.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HivJ4EosWS8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_Lk7qivXbw

As much of it is incomprehensible to modern ears a translation has been given in subtitles.

Is this the tongue of our Phoenician forebears first heard on the south coast of England as they leapt ashore?

Notice the implied violence contained within the excerpts. Well, overt violence for that matter. As befits a warrior race.

Also the limited range of language and the element of the hunting of the wren in a more modern context. Very traditional with allusions to cock robins as well.

[Mick Harper]

Look, Tissie, you'd be well advised to leave this side-show and concentrate on your main thrust because I am an old dog who can't leave even an irrelevant bone alone in case it is the anomaly that blows the whole thing open. Please don't encourage me.

Points 1 and 2 are probably correct. The Royal Mint was in the process of inventing a united Kingdom

The United Kingdom had been around since 1603 or 1707 so I don't think 'inventing' is quite right. Perhaps you mean a national symbol to counteract the French Revolution's emphasis on the Rights of Man rather than nation states.

and a perfect example to us all would be the figure of Britannia the very personification of the new nation as well as being the Goddess who looks after us.

This is only fifteen years after London was practically destroyed by the Gordon Riots in defence of Protestantism so I would be a little careful in this area.

Which means they were using an image familiar to people of the time. Familiar because it had been around for a very long time. Not only in Britain but in Rome and in other parts of the eastern Mediterranean.

Familiar to seven antiquarian numismatists would, I think you will agree, be nearer the mark.

Like the Union Flag, it is a composite image.

No. not like the union flag which is real composite of (at that time) two other real flags.

It has the union flag image of course on the shield in the later editions but that already existed as we have seen from images of old Hittite sculptures. It is a sun sign.

So the Royal Mint chose Britannia because she had a sign that resembled the new(ish) flag. Or they had chosen the flag because it resembled Hittite sculptures which were in turn adopted by ancient Britannia devotees. But in any case they added the actual flag to the coin later on just in case people didn't get this recondite connection straight off.

All the United Kingdom did was to bring the different varieties of cross together and come up with what we know today.

Now you really are trespassing on my (Meglaithic) teritory. One flag was the red cross on the white background -- an international symbol to be sure but not one recorded as associated with Hittites and Phoenicians. Obviously, for my own Megalithic reasons, I hope you make the link. The saltire and the Irish red cross I don't know about. Obviously, again, I hope you forge that link.

And as Waddell points out the Barats and Catti brought their symbols and religion with them. As opposed to the snake worshippers who already lived in the country. The last to be defeated of course were the Irish when Patrick or perhaps Baratrick (king of the Barats?) went and got rid of the snakes for ever.

You're going back a bit now. The English adopted their flag about a thousand years after these (reported) events. Not sure about the Scots and Irish. But I admit these snake-worshippers are new to me. In passing, I think it is true that no paleontological evidence for there ever being snakes in Ireland has thus far come to light.

One thing we must consider is the language the Phoenicians brought with them. Did it change or did it remain unscathed throughout the centuries?

THOBR states that a) languages hardly ever change much over time and b) foreigners bringing new languages have almost no effect on the local language(s). If that helps.

I will look at your videos and get back to you.

[Mick Harper]

Re your videos, Tissie, I thought the Barat connection was something between tenuous and inconclusive but they were definitely helpful with the last chapter of my book which claims that
a) natural languages (e.g. raw Scots) cannot be written down and therefore artificial 'literary' languages have to be developed (e.g. Lallan Scots) in order to write things down
b) natural languages are so expressive that the content can be stylised, ritualised, familiar -- in fact they are better so
c) literary languages are not expressive so the content has to be interesting eg Burns.

[Boreades]

I thought the Barat connection was something between tenuous and inconclusive but they were definitely helpful with the last chapter of my book

I hope before you finish your book you will deal with the anomaly of the Hittite, English and Gaulic languages being so unique and similar?

[Mick Harper]

I will leave you to write that one since I haven't a clue what you're on about. Especially I do not know of this Gaulish whereof you speak. Archaeo-philologists use the term ' Gaulish' to mean crypto-Welsh since they believe that was what the Gauls spoke before the Romans arrived and persuaded them all to speak Latin whereupon having been bitten by the bug they promptly persuaded themselves to ditch Latin and speak French and Occitan (and in Brittany crypto-Welsh a.k.a. Breton).

As you know, I regard Gaulish, in the sense of what the Gauls spoke, to be crypto-French. French and English are, I agree, connected though not uniquely or anomalously. I would be excited to hear of Hittite and English connections though.