Talk:British Iron Age

message: the first section doesn't make any sense. It first says that the lingustic evidence, presumably referring the similarity between British and continental Celtic languages, is what shows a migratory link between Britain and the continent; but then in trying to refute this link it talks about how linguistic differences are accounted for. What are these linguistic differences? And what about the linguistic similarities, how are these explained away? Are not Welsh, Cornish, Gaelic etc obviously Celtic languages related to Gaulish and the like? --86.144.102.226 (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The above reason is why I deleted the sentence. It does nothing except confuse the issue by talking about differences, when the issue is not the difference between insular and mainland Celtic languages; but the fact that Celtic languages are even on Britain in the first place. --86.164.119.62 (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "linguistic differences" 

message: Hi, the article name makes it clear that the article is about the "British Iron Age".  Trying to widen the scope of the article to address "Iron Age of the British Isles" makes it a different article.  If you want to do this, start by changing the article name, and then adding appropriate sections for Ireland.  Doing it in reverse is incorrect, and leads to misleading readers into thinking that the British Isles is British.  Thank you.  --Bardcom (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. If that is truly your intention, just click on the "Move" button at the top.  I very much doubt if the move would be seen as contentious.  --Bardcom (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Fine, then please leave the article as it is.  Since the article title is "British Iron Age", then referring to the British Isles in this context is not correct.  If you read the article, it only deals with Great Britain anyway - it doesn't deal with Ireland at all.  In fact, the article might be more correctly referred to as "Iron Age in Great Britain", as it also doesn't discuss the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man at all either....  --Bardcom (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Isles and British Iron Age 

message: # We don't have such an exactly article currently.
# The section to which the link sends, is under a challenge.
:Should we hide this reference for now?
:: Lincoln Josh (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The tag has been there for some 16 months, & I'm not sure the text is at all the same - it seems fairly tentative & to cover, or at least touch on, the issues mentioned on the talk page to me. Johnbod (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Main article" for "immigration" 

message: Sorry, you can't lump the prehistoric British in with the prehistoric Irish. Not the same at all. The Irish are customarily described under the term Irish Iron Age. The dates and the cultures are not the same. Sure, they are both generally Celtic, but there the similarity ends. Ireland in ancient times was not part of the British Isles, which is a Roman term. It had its own name, Ierne, which was opposed to Albion. The British did not live in Ierne. They were not the Picts and the Irish always refered to the Picts as people living on the other island. The British were more closely connected with Gaul. The Irish never were. The tribal names are not the same. There is a tradition that they came from Celtic Spain, which makes them somewhat earlier than classical Gaul. So, we can't regard the Irish as unRomanized British. If you look on the Internet in previewable books you are not going to find them lumped together. So without straining the article too much I am going to make these points gradually, with refs.
There is a second implication almost as bad, that the Scots and Scotland had anything to do with the British. Everybody knows that the Scots came from Ireland AFTER the fall of the Roman province of Britain. They colonized the Picts and took over what was left of the British there. So, Iron Age Britain has nothing all to do with the Scots and if Scotland existed it certainly was not in the north of Britain. I am going to work in these implications with references also. We need to keep our ancient cultures straight. By the way, personal web sites are not references.Dave (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More on the British and Irish

message: Great Britain and Britain are political phenomena of the early middle ages when some of the Celts escaped from Cornwall to Brittany then named after them. So today we have Bretagne and Grand Bretagne (excuse my definite articles). Earlier populations made no such distinctions. There was Britain and the British isles, which certainly did not refer to the same islands as the name does today. Scandinavia was a British Isle (by mistake). The British lived in Britain; they did not live in Ireland. The Scots also lived in Ireland and the English were over there in Denmark. Who was in Britain? Why, the British, of course. They did not live on the coast of Gaul. We seem to have trouble getting beyond this British empire thing, and then there is the British occupation of Ireland thing, and then there is Scotland the Brave, and oh yes, Braveheart (great movie). We need to go back, way back - watch the gold watch - when I count to ten you will be back before you and your ancestors were born, way back - you will be in the British Iron Age - see any Irish? No. See any Scots? No. See any English? No. See any Frenchmen? No. What is the name of your country - why, it is - Britain! No, you can't get a tattoo, and you better not collect any heads. Sorry.Dave (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Iron age great Britain anachronistic

message: I note that parts of the article I have not worked on have no refs and the material is not covered in the links. I check the discussion above and sure enough the opinion wars have started: I think this. Yeah? Well I think that. Yeah? Well what I think is right and what you think is wrong. Yeah? And so on. In a nutshell, who cares what you think? What do the authors think? Whoever did the article, thank you for your work and your presentation. It brought the topic up in a meaningful way. I am going through now looking up what you said and looking at the sources. If you said rightly and it was the best thing to say then I will only be adding refs. I cannot guarantee however that will be the case (as usual). Once again thanks. They who do not write will not understand the labors and satisfactions involved. Better to have written and been edited than never to have written. Later.Dave (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of refs

message: Such figures are sometimes advanced for Roman Britain, which only covers part of the island group, and for late medieval Britain, but I've never seen such high figures, outside Wikipedia, for pre-Roman or for that matter post-Roman Britain. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 or 4 million people? 

message: I visited this page hoping to learn about the material culture (if that is the correct term) of Iron-Age Britain. Where did the iron come from? How was it processed? What was it used for? How was it distributed among the population? Did it have symbolic or cultural importance? What other goods/materials were people producing/using/selling? If this is not the correct page for such information, links to the pages where it does go would be appreciated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.75.75 (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the Iron? 

message: There seems to be an issue with the layout of this page when using the default styling (i.e. when not logged in, maybe try in-private or something). It looks to do with some sort of conflict between the Iron Age box and the content of this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unfalln (talk • contribs) 01:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting Issue 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on British Iron Age. 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/20110516200129/http://web.arch.ox.ac.uk/coins/ccindex.htm to http://web.arch.ox.ac.uk/coins/ccindex.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120629191812/http://www.finds.org.uk/CCI/ to http://www.finds.org.uk/CCI/
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) 19:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Despite the fact that another article, Prehistoric Britain#Late pre-Roman Iron Age (LPRIA), does discuss it very briefly. This is very unfortunate. I don't have the time but there are a lot of good sources. Doug Weller talk 13:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of the Late pre-Roman Iron Age (LPRIA) 

message: This paragraph talks about the convergence of British archaeology with that of the Continent as it enters the Iron Age.  Could we insert a glimpse of the difference between them before it, to help give insight in the significance of this change, please?  I would do so myself, but I am not clear on it- the relevant Pages of Wikipedia, for example have a page for Atlantic period covering Britain and a page covering Urnfield in Continental Europe at the same time, which do not make it clear what the differences are.
IceDragon64 (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archaeological evidence