Talk:Iceni

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Extending and Advancing this Article[edit]

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)

We would just like to inform the creator of this page that we would like to expand upon your research of the Iceni tribe through a project we were assigned in our English Lit course. We are looking to expand upon information on the archeological findings of coins in Norfolk from the Iron Age, the state of Britannia at the time of the Iceni's existence, and the rulers of the Iceni, Prasutagus and his wife Boudica. For any additional questions about our project, please contact our professor through his Wikipedia account, username redcknight.--Englitgroup (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Horses[edit]

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)

What about the white chalk horse in the surrounding hills, or that Celts developed trousers to aide their marksmanship. That horses were on the Greek coins is undeniable, but that this did not also have a significance for the Celts is not supported. Other imagry which was on Greek and Roman coins was changed to suit the differeing culture of the Celts, but the horse was retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.44.176 (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thetford[edit]

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)

Iceni coins[edit]

Iceni_coin
Iceni coin.

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

Saint Guthlac and the late survival of the Iceni[edit]

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)

There are some Brythonic derived place names in Norfolk. King's Lynn (pool) for example. The name must have been adopted circa 600 AD because it shows the change from late British *lindo to early Welsh *linn. Wereham (Wigreham) preseves the lost river name Wigor. Brancaster (Branodunum) crow fort. Pentney is a possible lost river name based on *pante (valley). Of course there could be more with a sympathetic place name analysis. However the orthodoxy is that the area lies in one of the early anglo-saxon areas of settlement and as a consequence, place name scholars for East Anglia seem seeped in the understanding of Old English/ Scandinavian place name elements but not Celtic. For example Crimplesham is explained as the ham of *Crympel. Welsh Crym Pwll means crooked inlet/ stream. Wormegay (Wermegai) is explained as the island of *Wyrma. Wormbridge (Wermebrig - Herefordshire) is explaned as Celtic 'Dark Brook' incorporating the Anglisised Welsh place name element Gwyrgam. I could go on. Now I am not sayng that these are the definite etymologies. This would only be possible with founding charters! However they could be considered as one of many possible alternative etymologies.

All that, however, would be original research.

JF42 (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Section removed[edit]

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)

Thank you for your suggestion. We have made changes and we hope you are satisfied with them. --Englitgroup (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this part of a school project?[edit]

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 {{Educational assignment}} 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)

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)

We would just like to inform the creator of this page that we would like to expand upon your research of the Iceni tribe through a project we were assigned in our English Lit course. We are looking to expand upon information on the archeological findings of coins in Norfolk from the Iron Age, the state of Britannia at the time of the Iceni's existence, and the rulers of the Iceni, Prasutagus and his wife Boudica. For any additional questions about our project, please contact our professor through his Wikipedia account, username redcknight.--Englitgroup (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Iceni -- pronunciation question[edit]

Hi. I have a question about pronunciation. If the name of the tribe was rendered "Iceni" by the Romans, then isn't the pronunciation more correctly "Ee-KAY-nee"? I'm no Latin expert, but thought that in Roman script, a "c" was usually a hard "k" sound. For example, "Caesar" should correctly be pronounced "Kai-zer". This means that if the Romans had asked these ancient British people the name of their tribe, the spelling they chose should reflect the actual pronunciation. Have we mutated it to a soft "c" out of ignorance of the Roman spelling conventions? I would appreciate some authoritative comments from someone who has a genuine knowledge of Latin spellings. Thanks! - Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.186.171 (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


I have two further questions about the pronunciation. Firstly, I am aware that in the Roman alphabet, the letter 'U' was supplemented with a 'V' and that the letter 'J' was supplemented with an 'I'. How do we know the contextual cues to determine when an 'I' or a 'V' is pronounced as a "J" or a "U" respectively? How do we know that 'Boudica' isn't pronounced "Bov-dya-ka" or that 'Iceni' isn't pronounced "Yuh-kay-nay" (keeping in mind that the roman 'J' is pronounced like a 'Y')? Secondly, how can we determine that "Iceni" and "Boudica" are the actual pronunciations and not Romanized versions? Considering how nationalistic the Romans were, it would make sense that they would take another culture's words and Romanize them. For example, the Hebrew name 'Yeshua' (pronounced "Yeh-shu-ah") was Romanized to 'Jesus' (pronounced "Yay-zuse'). Thank you! Aindriu.rochonhigil (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Were the Iceni truly Celts?[edit]

In the past twenty years genetic testing (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14230.html) has been done extensively throughout the British Isles, resulting in a number of surprising discoveries including the fact that the island of Britain was settled by two different groups of people: roughly stated, the western regions by people migrating up the Atlantic Coast from northern Iberia, and the eastern regions by people who probably came from the now flooded plains of Doggerland (now covered by the North Sea), and are closely related to people living along the North Sea coastline on the European Continent, stretching from Belgium to Denmark. Regardless of what language the tribes spoke, genetically the eastern tribes of Britain, including the Iceni, were more closely related to Germanic people than Celtic. Indeed, the term "Celt" has been thrown up into the air by this genetic research, and has come to the point where it almost has no real empirical meaning outside of naming sports teams. I propose that the article remove the term "Celtic", and just say the Iceni were Britons. --Saukkomies talk 18:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The article as it currently stands is a mess, riven by pedantry over geographical names, the unfortunate obsession among some on Wikipedia to categorise people by outdated ideas of race, semi-understood ideas about Roman colonialism, and plain bad writing. It currently doesn't use the term "Celtic", mis-using the outdated linguistic term "Brythonic" as an ethnic term. I suggest opening with something like "The Iceni were a people of late Iron Age and early Roman Britain".
Then we need to get into the nonsense about tribes being transformed into civitates under Roman rule. It's unhistorical drivel. Roman writers call such population groups civitates whether under Roman rule or not. Caesar calls the various peoples he encounters during his expeditions "civitates". There is no change in terminology after the conquest. As far as the Iceni are concerned, they remained an independent, allied civitas from 43 to the death of Prasutagus, after which they were incorporated into the Roman province. After that, they were simply one of the population groups under Roman rule - there is no reason to think they formed any official subdivision of the province.
Finally, the last paragraph about the Iceni possibly surviving into post-Roman times, based on a source identifying the inhabitants of a different part of East Anglia as Britons, is completely unsupportable and should be removed. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Hear! Hear! Thank you, Nicknack, for that response. I was honestly expecting to be attacked and flamed for opening this can of worms. The fact is, as you point out, that with modern genetic investigation and analysis, we no longer can rely on the old methods of identifying groups of people based on linguistic analysis or grave goods. It is quite the same as if a future anthropologist might conduct a dig at a cemetery on a typical Indian Reservation in the United States: if one goes only by the artifacts found in the graves, it would seem as if the Native American population had been totally wiped out by the invading Europeans. Even if one were to go by a linguistic analysis, the results may well be similar. However, the people living on that reservation are by no means European; they do not identify themselves as such, and others recognize their separate identity.
So it must have been in ancient Britain and elsewhere: invading armies only leave a small legacy of DNA. They may force their language and customs on the conquered people, but that does not mean the people suddenly become something that they never were. The past is much more complicated than we used to believe. --Saukkomies talk 03:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Please don't take my comments as entirely supportive of your position. When I talk about "the unfortunate obsession among some on Wikipedia to categorise people by outdated ideas of race", that includes you. Terms like "Celtic" and "Germanic" are only meaningful as linguistic terms, not as ethnic or genetic ones. Historical genetics is in its infancy, and given the sheer numbers of ancestors that anyone has if you go back only a few generations, the idea that a handful of markers in the mitochondrial or Y-chromosome DNA can possibly tell the whole story regarding people's ancestry is obviously wildly over-simplifying things. It should not be abused to revive the idea that the various linguistic or ethnic groups of Europe are separate, genetically distinct races.
On your point about Native Americans, there are probably millions of modern "mainstream" Americans who, knowingly or not, have some Native American ancestry - and probably no-one living on any Native American reservation who doesn't have some European ancestry. Ethnic identity doesn't work they way you think it does. You could have two people with exactly the same genetic background, one in a city, one on a reservation, each thinking of themselves as ethnically different from the other, purely because of how they were brought up. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Nicknack: I totally agree with you. However (at the risk of belaboring the point), I happen to know quite a few Native Americans who have no European DNA. And some of the most ardent Native Rights people are the ones who have a lot of European ancestry. Racial identity is so problematic, and there are people who are prepared to fight against anyone who comes along that declares they are not of Celtic or whatever descent. It would be nice to keep a neutral voice in this politically-laden subject here in Wikipedia. --Saukkomies talk 13:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Plenty of reliable sources describe the Iceni as Celtic, e.g. Encyclopedia of European Peoples p 411, Making Europe: The Story of the West p 162, Life of the Ancient Celts p 31, Huntingdonshire p 62, the BBC etc., etc. Many more RSs define Prasutagus and/or Boudica as Celtic too. It isn't for us to choose what terms we like best. That they are widely described by reliable sources as Celtic is certainly not WP:UNDUE, and sources are what we go by. Daicaregos (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Certainly it is not for us to choose what terms we like best. But that is precisely what you are advocating. Of course you can cite outdated sources and high school textbooks until the cows come home to substantiate your position, but you are also ignoring the growing and overwhelming evidence garnered through data gathered in just the past decade that proves scientifically that the Iceni and other east British Iron Age tribes were not Celtic - they were not related to the people who lived in the western parts of the British Islands, and were likewise not related to the Gauls across the Channel. Rather, they were closely related to the Germanic-speaking people such as the Belgicae, whom Caesar describes as speaking the same language as the east British tribes he came into contact during his brief sojourn in Britain. The point here is that if you push for having the Iceni pronounced as authoritatively Celtic, then you are ignoring valid and powerful research that disagrees. Just remove the word "Celt" from the description, and everything will be fine. Easy peasy! --Saukkomies talk 18:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


You are falling into exactly the same trap I was trying to get you to avoid - imagined racial purity. Nobody has only one line of descent. Even if it can be shown that the Iceni were related to the Belgae across the channel (which they very likely were), does that show that they were not also related to people in the west of Britain? Of course not! Just because you are related to your father's family, doesn't mean you're not also related to your mother's family! Also, as I said, "Celtic" is only meaningful as a linguistic term, not as a genetic one, and the language the Iceni spoke was a Celtic one. Language is not genetic, ethnicity is as much cultural as genetic, and the article doesn't even use the word Celtic, so you are tilting against windmills. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The language the Iceni spoke was NOT Celtic - it was Germanic. This according to reexamining the ancient records in light of the new discoveries being made in genetic sampling of populations. You are the one falling into the trap you describe by maintaining the Iceni were Celtic when they weren't. And anyway, I do not appreciate the use of an ad hominem attack on your part.
In what way were they Celtic? They did not speak a Celtic language, they did not have Celtic blood, and they did not leave behind Celtic artefacts - the things that have been discovered that are connected to them could easily have been from the Rhine as from the Seine. You need to read up on this before you can make another comment on the subject, since it is obvious you do not know about the genetic science that has been done in regards to the peoples of the British Isles. I would suggest a good starting book to be Bryan Sykes' 2006 book "Blood of the Isles", or Stephen Oppenheimer's "The Origins of the British: The New Prehistory of Britain" (also published in 2006). There are also numerous articles published in peer reviewed journals (such as the "Nature" article cited in the opening post to this thread), as well as monographs, conference proceedings, and video documentaries on this fascinating subject. Please, do us a favor and study up on this and then return and speak with a foundation of knowledge about the the genetic discoveries that have been made in the past 15 years in Britain. --Saukkomies talk 02:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd respond by suggest you read something about language and historical linguistics, but I'd be wasting my time because you clearly don't understand a word of what you've been reading about genetics. LANGUAGE IS NOT GENETIC, there is NO SUCH THING as "Celtic blood", and ethnic purity of the kind you assume is IMPOSSIBLE. You are reading the genetic studies through the eyes of a 19th century nationalist. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
One of the old notions of what scholars believed for many years that the new genetic research has thrown into the floor of debate is whether the people of eastern Britain who had different genetic makeup than those of the west spoke a Celtic language. There are a number of supporting pieces of evidence to add to this debate, including the fact that Julius Caesar wrote that the Britons in modern-day Kent spoke a similar language to the Belgicae people across the Channel. For centuries scholars had assumed that this meant that the Belgicae and the eastern Britons spoke Celtic, since the assumption was that everyone in Britain spoke a Celtic language, so the conclusion must be that the Belgicae spoke Celtic, too. However, now it is appearing that both the eastern Britons and the Belgicae spoke a non-Celtic language, probably Germanic. Again, nothing at this point in time should be considered solidly accurate about what scholars have believed to be true pertaining to anything Celtic. --Saukkomies talk 14:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
My 'position' is that of one of the fundamental principle of Wikipedia, namely WP:NPOV: “All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.”. The Iceni are noted by reliable sources as a Celtic tribe. This should be reflected in the article. My view of Oppenheimer and Sykes is that their work does not provide a full picture. I note that National Museum Wales, among others, have cast doubt on genetic studies, see Summary. Daicaregos (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, up to now this was the case. However, recent discoveries have shown that many of the heretofore beliefs held by the academic community concerning the Celtic people have been challenged by hard scientific evidence. To ignore this is to violate the neutral Wiki voice. --Saukkomies talk 14:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Moreover, if it were ONLY Oppenheimer and Sykes that were saying this, then you may have a valid point. However, the fact that you yourself have an opinion about the veracity of their work also shows that you are violating the neutral point of view of Wikipedia editing. But those two esteemed geneticists are not the only voices in this debate. Please, take just two minutes right now and go to the article in "Nature" that I cited at the start of this thread and look at the list of scholars who contributed to it. The very considerable quantity of top-notch scientists and scholars whose investigations and writings were drawn from, backed by the University of Oxford (who funded and published much of this article's research) give it a position of authority that really cannot be questioned. The conclusions made by this research can be challenged in the course of scientific debate, but to say that this research is violating the neutral point of view is ridiculous. In fact, the opposite is true: if you ignore this research, you are imposing your own position onto the subject. Please, just read the article, please. It would help avoid a lot of this unnecessary and ridiculous banter.
Here is the URL again: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14230.html --Saukkomies talk 15:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Can't read it without subscribing. However, the abstract concludes "that in non-Saxon parts of the United Kingdom, there exist genetically differentiated subgroups rather than a general ‘Celtic’ population." Which is not what you are saying. It's also no real challenge to what archaeologists and historical linguists have been saying for decades. The idea that the Celts, as a cultural or linguistic group, were a ancestrally-distinct race has been obsolete long before the geneticists got their hands on them. Language and culture spread along different vectors than genes, so you cannot make definitive statements about language on culture based on genes. You can only make statements on ancestry. You are not arguing against what you think you are arguing against.
Let me give you an example: the Normans. The Normans settled what is now Normandy in the 10th century as pagan Germanic-speakers, but by the 11th century, when they invaded England, they were Christian French-speakers. If someone tested the y-chromosome DNA of William the Conqueror, they would correctly conclude that his recent ancestors had come from Scandinavia only a few generations previously. But if they asserted based on that that he spoke Old Norse and worshipped Odin, they would be wrong. They would also be wrong to conclude that he was entirely unrelated to non-Norman French-speakers, because the Norse settlers intermarried with the people who were already living in Normandy and with French aristocratic families. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You know what I'm arguing for? Simply this: remove the word "Celt" from the description. That's all. As per the Normans, not a good example. The people of east Britain were always there - if anything the Celtic people who may have moved into the area would have been like Rurik's kin in Normandy. The huge majority of the population in east Britain (including the Icenii) were of Germanic stock, and probably spoke a Germanic language. Whatever the case, there is enough research to cast a reasonable question as to whether the Iceni were Celtic or not, that at least a note of this should be made in the article, and I would like to see the word "Celt" removed entirely. This is in keeping with the NPOV criteria. --Saukkomies talk 19:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You continue to tilt at windmills. Show me where the word "Celt" is used in the description. It's not there! It wasn't there when you started this thread. I've assumed good faith long enough. You're only here for an argument. --Nicknack009 (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
No need to get testy. I'm not sure what you mean by accusing me of tilting at windmills, but if I was, does that make you Dulcinea? or Sancho Panza? LOL! At any rate, I looked at the article again, and to my surprise I discovered that you are correct; there is no mention of the word "Celt" in the article. Of course, there are plenty of associated links to the article to Wiki categories and references of Celts, but nothing directly stating that the Iceni were Celtic. However, if one follows the link to "Brittonic" (which is in the description), that takes you to the Wikipedia article entitled "Celtic Britons", so indirectly there is a statement to the effect that the Iceni were Celts.
Be that as it may, I sincerely offer my apology for any ruffled feathers over this issue. I did not come here to have an argument, but to raise what I believe to be an important and valid point. That has been done, I believe, and I will bow out and let those who are the most active in this article's editing take it from here. This discussion is on record, and that will stand for now. Peace out. --Saukkomies talk 05:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm following this discussion, but reliable sources do describe the Iceni as "Celtic" and "Brittonic", primarily in terms of language. This is obviously the case considering that known Iceni such as Boudica had Brittonic names. "Brittonic" does suggests some level of connection with neighboring groups, but this was also obviously the case given what's known of their history and material culture. As Nicknack009 says, genetics, language and culture aren't strictly linked, so it doesn't sound like these (claimed) genetic findings really support the type of change you're proposing.--Cúchullain t/c 20:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Cuchallain, the recent discoveries being made through the research of genetic sampling of thousands of people across the British Isles (and elsewhere) have turned much of the established theories that have been held as sacrosanct for years on their head. Ignoring these new scientific discoveries and maintaining outdated theories is in violation of the Wikipedia NPOV policy. --Saukkomies talk 00:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Have you read WP:NPOV, Saukkomies? Or even the summary of NPOV I quoted above? If so, you appear not to have understood it. That reliable sources describe the Iceni as Celtic is one of the 'significant views' that should be represented. It should be left to the reader to decide which view they prefer, having been presented with all significant views, not decided by editors to sanitise the article to their preferred view. Daicaregos (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Again, genetics is not explicitly tied to language and culture. Regardless of genetics, the Iceni can be safely be called "Celtic" or "Brittonic" in the sense that they almost certainly spoke a Brittonic language based on what's known of them. When I get a chance I'll get that Nature article from my library and see if it has anything relevant to say about the Iceni that could be added. However, I tend to doubt it reveals anything that would justify removing material.--Cúchullain t/c 14:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
No. The language the Iceni spoke was attested by Julius Caesar himself was closely related to the Belgicae across the Channel. It turns out that the Belgicae were not Celtic, but Germanic, as also the Romans attested. What evidence proves that the Iceni spoke Celtic? --Saukkomies talk 15:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The link to the article that was cited above was just to an abstract, not the article itself. Because this article is deemed important, the publishers of "Nature" journal have relinquished some of the copyrights to it, and have given permission for it to be distributed freely on the Internet. Here is the full text of the article, along with accompanying maps, which are quite fascinating.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632200/

In the abstract, the authors of the article state the following conclusions they made from their extensive research:

"We estimate the genetic contribution to SE England from Anglo-Saxon migrations to be under half, identify the regions not carrying genetic material from these migrations, suggest significant pre-Roman but post-Mesolithic movement into SE England from the Continent, and show that in non-Saxon parts of the UK there exist genetically differentiated subgroups rather than a general “Celtic” population."

--Saukkomies talk 16:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, that's what I was intending to do at the library. Obviously we can't rely on the abstract. I'm still reading through it, and it doesn't appear to mention the Iceni at all, making it unusable here. It also doesn't say anything remotely about language, German, Belgic or otherwise. In short, it doesn't challenge anything that's addressed here.
As for the language, you're mistaken. Caesar didn't mention the Iceni. By the time of of the Claudian invasion, at least, the Roman sources consistently identify the Iceni as "Britons", and the leaders had apparently Brittonic names (Boudica, Prasutagus/Prastotagos, Antedios). Even if they had continental ancestry, which is absolutely possible, the evidence as we have it points to them being, well, Britons.--Cúchullain t/c 21:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
The article does not mention the Iceni. But it does show the concentrations of the various haplogroups in Britain, and the Iceni's homeland is smack dab in the middle of the haplogroup that is associated with the Germanic people on the European mainland. If you look at the map, you'll see what I mean.
The thing about the language - that I got from reading Sykes' book "Blood of the Isles". Of course anytime anyone comes up with new research and analysis, they will have plenty of naysayers. You can't rely on what other people (including myself) say about it - read it for yourself and make your own conclusions. But do read it - the book is absolutely fascinating to anyone interested in ancient British history. And of course Caesar did not mention the Iceni - I said he did, but I was not thinking when I said it. He did say that the Britons he came into contact with (who were in the region of Kent and East Anglia) spoke a language closely related to the Belgicae on the mainland. The Iceni would most certainly have been included in that statement. --Saukkomies talk 22:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
If the sources don't mention the topic of this article directly, they can't be used here, per no original research, specifically WP:SYNTH. Even if they're correct about the genetics of eastern England, we can't stretch it out to make claims about the 1st century Iceni. It's really easy to misinterpret or misuse sources when you try to do that. We also can't make interpretations of WP:PRIMARYSOURCES like The Gallic Wars - for instance, Caesar mentions a group who may be related or ancestral to the Iceni, the Cenimagni, but he refers to them as "Britons".--Cúchullain t/c 03:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
It's worse than not specifically referring to the Iceni. The bit quoted is referring to the parts of Britain not primarily Anglo-Saxon not having a genetically uniform profile, which Saukkomies seems to think means that the Iceni can't have been Celtic. If you actually read the article and look at the maps, you'll find that Norfolk is in the primarily Anglo-Saxon cluster, which arrived in the post-Roman migrations. The article is really no help at all in identifying the pre-Roman population of Norfolk.
There is a trend in some quarters to claim that the English were in Britain before the Romans, attempting to link them to the Belgae (not "Belgicae"), who lived in the Low Countries, settled in Britain and were related to the people of Germania, but this does not work, for a number of reasons.
There is no evidence of any language ancestral to English in Britain prior to the post-Roman period. There is also no evidence of a language ancestral to English among the continental Belgae, who by Roman times appear to have spoken a Celtic language.
Caesar says the Belgae started raiding and then settling in Britain in relatively recent times. They would therefore have been an element of the population by the time of the conquest, and may have been the ruling class in areas of greatest influence, but they're unlikely to have been the core of the population. The area of their strongest influence was undoubtedly the area Ptolemy says was inhabited by the Belgae and Atrebates (who were a Belgic people in Gaul), which was south of the Thames on the middle south coast, around Hampshire, which is some distance from Norfolk, so the Iceni were probably not strongly Belgic.
The core area of English settlement is the part of Britain that was the most Romanised. If the English lived through the entire Roman period in this area, you would expect them to be strongly Romanised, but they were not. The Roman empire was very much Christian by the time the Romans left Britain. The post-Roman Britons, living on the periphery of the Roman province, were firmly Christian, but the English were pagan, worshipping the Scandinavian gods. Their worship doesn't show any signs of Roman influence or syncretism, unlike the pre-Christian Celtic gods known from Britain - e.g. Sulis Minerva, Mars Nodons. This is consistent with the traditional medieval account, that the English arrived as the Romans were leaving. It's not consistent with the English being there prior to the Romans. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)