Talk:Iceni

message: I would like to continue the work that has been done on this article and would like help from those who started and contributed to its present incarnation.  I have access to a large variety of primary source documents, and would like to organize the article in a more coherent manner.  Perhaps starting with their origin as a Brythonic tribe, their own development, history and archaeological ethnography (if sources are available) so that we need not rely solely on Tacitus and Ptolemy. I will post information on the Iceni in the literature that may be relevant as I find it, and would like your help. Thank you.
L Hamm 04:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extending and Advancing this Article 

message: The previous edit suggested that, because horses appear on Icenian coins, that the horse was of particular significance to them. This is unsupportably. Early Celtic coins virtually all had horses on them, because they were adapted from a Greek stater with a chariot and horses on one side and the head of Apollo on the other. --Nicknack009 07:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Horses

message: Wasn't Thetford their capital?
No one knows. There are no records stating where the pre-Roman "capital" was or even if there was one. Significant finds have been found at Snettisham on the north coast of Norfolk and, as you say, there are the remains of a substantial Iron Age fort at Thetford. However, it is quite probable that they were itinerant, that is to say they did not have a fixed capital and moved from place to place. The Romans built a capital or civitas for the Iceni called Venta Icenorum or "Market of the Iceni" at the place now called Caistor St. Edmund but this was imposed on the conquered and decimated tribe and cannot be considered their "capital".James Frankcom (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thetford 

message: Here are two coins of the Iceni. Feel free to insert them into the article. Cheers PHG (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Iceni coins

message: Regarding the theory that some of the Iceni, or certainly Romano-Britons who lived in that part of Britain, could have eked out an existence in the Fenns I think it would be constructive to have a discussion about that here. Saint Guthlac is a primary source from the 8th Century. He was an Anglo-Saxon hermit who, as the wiki says, lived in the Fenns in the late 7th and early 8th century. Vita sancti Guthlaci or the Life of Saint Guthlac was written by Felix within living memory of Saint Guthlac - so we are talking about the mid 8th Century. I think it is entirely reasonable to presume that;
* Saint Guthlac would recognise a Briton if he saw one. It is entirely likely he had met Britons during his life and recognised their language as most Anglo-Saxons would. The Vita it is unequivocal that Guthlac thought the people attacking his hermitage were Britons. 
* It is widely accepted that isolated British/Welsh communities existed in various parts of England long after the border between England and Wales had been settled by Offa's Dyke. The Laws of Ine and later of Alfred make this clear. 
* The Fenns were an isolated area where fugitives would choose to live; e.g. Hereward the Wake and, of course, though not a fugitive Saint Guthlac himself.
* The name "Gyrwe" for a tribe who lived in the Fenns has arguable etymological similarities with Brythonic words Gwyr meaning "men" or Gyrrwr meaning "drover". Yes there are Anglo-Saxon cognates but they may just be homophone. 
* Just because there aren't place names in Norfolk which have Brythonic roots does not mean that this proves there were never settlements with Brythonic names. Also, in the swamps of the Fenns it is unlikely that small settlements (which may well have been temporary in nature) would survive long once abandoned.James Frankcom (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  All that, however, would be original research.
JF42 (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Saint Guthlac and the late survival of the Iceni

message: I've removed the section entitled "Britannia" because, as well as being factually inaccurate (for example, the occupation of Britain did not begin with Julius Caesar, and civitas is a singular word, with civitates being the plural) and poorly written, is irrelevant to the article. Background information on Roman Britain is available elsewhere on Wikipedia and is not needed here. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section removed 

message: I've just realised after reading the article history that it would appear that this article is being edited as part of a school project. They have been advised on their talkpage that, if this is the case, they should add  to this talkpage - see User talk:Englitgroup. In the meantime maybe we should leave them to get on with it with minimal interference for now,  as it would be disconcerting for them to have their work constantly reverted. Richerman   (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, in fact it does say precisely that under "Extending and Advancing this Article" above. I hadn't seen it because it was added to the first section rather than at the bottom. I've taken the liberty of adding the template and copying their text below where it wil be seen. Richerman   (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this part of a school project? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Iceni. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619133113/http://www.roman-britain.org/geography/itinerary.htm to http://www.roman-britain.org/geography/itinerary.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified