Ancient History Reconsidered

Ancient Britain:

Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote his Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain) sometime in the 12^th century ce). His fanciful tales about the arrival of Brutus and his three sons who divided the land into three parts is highly contrived. To date, no one seems to have undertaken a proper in-depth study of the subject. It should be noted that the Scottish writer, Hector Boece (sometimes written Boecius or Boethius), writing in 1526 ce makes no mention of these three sons of Brutus, which tells us that this part of the story was invented after his time. Concerning Geoffrey of Monmouth, we are informed that “His work is now acknowledged as a literary work of national myth containing little reliable history”.¹ Although he has indeed invented a good portion of his work, it can be shown that he has nevertheless based it on actual historical evidence. His desire to push events back to some remote period, however, is typical of these early writers and is no different from the treatment of history by the Greek and Roman writers as well as the Irish historians, all of whom were clearly working from scant and often conflicting information. If anything, archaeologists have exacerbated the problem by constantly insisting that dates be pushed back even further in time with suggestions that the island of Britain was first occupied by man around 814,000 years ago. The truth of the matter is that the first inhabitants of Britain were the Britons who arrived during the first part of the second century bce. For more detailed information on this early occupation of Britain, it is recommended that you read The Forgotten Tribe of Naphtali & the Phoenicians and Ancient Irish History Reconsidered. Alternatively, if you want to read an abridged version of this account, you can read my paper entitled Pretaniké Nēsos.

Pretanikai Nēsoi:

Pretanikai Nēsoi (i.e. Pretanik Isles) is a name which is being banded around by a number of academics and the teaching seems to be deep rooted. In 1910, Edmund McClure wrote the following:

“But the Britons when they used the word Pict adopted it, as the Saxons did, from the Romans, for the British designation of the Picts and Pictland was Prydyn, or earlier Priten. The Welsh name for Great Britain, inis Prydain, still preserves this word, which is cognate with the term Cruthni or Cruithnech by which the Irish always named these people. One of the oldest designations of the British Isles is the Greek Pretanikai Nēsoi, that is Pretan-ik islands, which contains the antecedent of both Cruitheni and Prydain.”²

Barry Cunliffe, Emeritus Professor of European Archaeology at Oxford University, has the following to say on the matter:-

“The earliest reasonably comprehensive description of the British Isles to survive from the classical authors is the account given by the Greek writer Diodorus in the first century B.C. Diodorus uses the word Pretannia, which is probably the earliest Greek form of the name. The same spelling was also adopted by Strabo throughout his Geographies except in Book I where the ‘B-’ spelling is preferred. This apparent inconsistency could have been the result simply of a diligent scribe ‘correcting’ the spelling in the first book and then realizing that Strabo actually meant Pretannia and leaving the rest of the names unchanged.” ³

The name Britain appears in Books 1 (Chap. 4), 2 (Chaps. 1, 4 and 5) and 4 (Chaps. 1, §.14 & 2-5) of Strabo and Books 1 (Chap. 4) and 5 (Chaps. 21-23, 32 and 38) of Diodorus. I have meticulously checked a number of versions of Diodorus and Strabo and can confirm that they consistently used Bretanniké throughout their works. There is, however, one exception. In Fridericus R. Vogel’s copy, he consistently uses Πρεττανικὴὴ Pretanniké.

This is a list of the books consulted:

How likely is it that Diodorus produced two identical copies of his work, calling Britain Bretanniké in the one and Pretanniké in the other? This demonstrates that someone has amended Bretanniké to Pretanniké, possibly with the intention of promoting the false notion that Pretanniké was the earliest name for Britain. The fact that in Barry Cunliffe’s copy of Strabo, the first book contains Bretanniké, whilst all the later books contains Pretanniké, seems to confirm my suspicions in this respect. Whoever was responsible for this amendment has overlooked changing the name in the first of Strabo’s books! The truth of the matter is that these early writers never once used the ‘P’ form of the name. In short, this teaching is a contrived, academic invention, the origin of which seems to date back a few hundred years. The earliest writers all used the names Brettania, Brettaniké or the like. The fact that there is only the one occurrence of the name Britain in the first book of Strabo shows that the person responsible for changing Brettaniké to Pretanniké in Barry Cunliffe’s copy merely overlooked the occurrence in the first book.

This is an age old debate. In Vol. 1 of his History of Scotland, George Buchanan (1506-1582) wrote:

“Concerning the name of Britain, there was no controversy among the ancients, excepting that the Greeks called it Brettania, and the Latins Britannia, the rest of the nations imitating the one or the other as they felt inclined. Of late, however, some authors who have arisen, more desirous of contention than truth, who, by blackening the most illustrious reputations, imagine they brighten their own, and think it impossible, that the fame of immense erudition can be refused, by the vulgar at least, to men who dare to contend with all antiquity; and, although the dispute be about a matter of no great consequence, yet because the name alone of their country is involved, they think they must fight as if their altars, and their homes, and all the pristine glory of their nation were at stake. Three ancient names, as they are pleased to call them of the island, Prudania, Prytaneia, and Britannia, have, it would seem, each their separate assertors. [Humphrey] Lloyd furiously declares for Prudania, Sir Thomas Elliot, a British Knight, more modestly contends for Prytaneia, almost every other person endeavours to retain Britain.”⁴

“If any one, however, compare the passages, he will find that the mss. have indisputably been corrupted; and Stephanus himself allows, that Brettania ought to be written with B as the initial, and two Ts.”⁵

Stephanus “was a family of learned printers of this name, in the 16^th century, celebrated for the valuable editions of the Greek and Roman classics they published.”⁶ Basically, it is a case of he who shouts loudest is the one who is most heard! Pretaniké Nesos is an academic invention which all academics seem to be adhering to without challenge!

William Camden (1551-1623 ce recorded the following:-

“Sir Thomas Eliot, Kt. a very learned man, derives it [the name for Britain] from a Greek Word, Πρυτανεῖα [Prutania]; which term among the Athenians signified their publick revenues. Humphrey Lloyd, who hath the reputation of one of the best Antiquaries of this Kingdom, with much assurance fetches its original from the British word Pridcain, that is to say, of a white Colour. Pomponius Latus tells us, that the Britains of Armorica (f) in France, gave it the name. Goropius Becanus will have it, that the Danes settled themselves here, and called it Bridania, i.e. Free Dania. Others derive it from Prutenia [Prussia,] a part of Germany. Bodin supposes it took its name from Bretta, a Spanish word, which signifies Earth; and Forcatulus, from Brithin, which, as it appears in Athenæus, was the name of a sort of drink among the Grecians. Other derive it from the Brutii in Italy, whom the Greeks called Βρέττιοι [Brettians]”.⁷

This demonstrates the various theories which existed even in those days as to the origin of the name of our island.

According to the classical writers, Britain was variously called:-

According to the Wikipedia entry for British Isles under the Section headed Etymology, we are told that the name Prettanikē nēsos is traceable back to a Massiliot by the name of Pytheas who lived in the second half of the 4^th century bce and that his works are quoted by later writers such as Pliny and Festus Avienus. Though they refer to his work, which is entitled Concerning the Ocean, none of the later writers actually quote from Pytheas's work, and certainly none of them use the name Prettaniké nēsos. In fact, Pliny, as quoted by Harris Rackham, tells us that Britain “was itself named Albion, while all the islands about which we shall soon briefly speak were called the Britains”.²¹ This does not mean, however, that Pytheas used the name ‘Britains’. In fact, in the translation by John Bostock and Henry Thomas Riley, this same passage is rendered “Its former name was Albion; but at a later period, all the islands, of which we shall just now briefly make mention, were included under the name of ‘Britanniæ’.”²² Writing in the 4^th century ce, the Latin writer Festus Avienus also uses the name Albion,²³ which strongly suggests that this is the name by which Pytheas will have known the island. There is therefore absolutely no justification for claiming that the name Prettaniké nēsos was used prior to the 6^th century when Marcian of Heraclea wrote his Periplus Maris Exteri. In this work, which is dated to around 515-562 ce, he calls Britain Πρώτην Pruten.²⁴ To my knowledge, this is the earliest recorded usage of the name Priteni in its various forms. It is amazing how, once one academic develops a theory, everyone follows his example without checking the facts.

The name Priteni first appears in the Welsh records as Prydain. This name, however, only dates from the Medieval Period. The earliest recorded usage is in The Book of Taliesin which dates to around the 12^th century ce.

“As Saxons, and other foreign intruders, pushed the earlier population westward before them the area of Britannia contracted more and more with the retreat westward, till, in the twelfth century, it meant nothing more than the districts occupied by the native people. It is precisely at this stage that Prydein appears in our text as an expression for the country lying to the west of a line drawn from Caer lleon upon Usk to Caer lleon on the Dee, or Chester; and the inhabitants thereof, the Brittones appear as Brython in Welsh.”²⁵

Even so, the names Prydein and Brython were used interchangeably by the Welsh bards:-

“We meet with Brython in association with Prydein in eleven poems; and both in association with Kymry in five other poems. Then we meet with Kymry by itself in nine poems more.”²⁶

The Irish would argue that the name Priteni (a variant spelling of Pretanikai) dates from an even earlier period, though their historical records are greatly corrupted. For a reconstruction of the Irish History, refer to Early Irish History Reconsidered.

1.	See Wikipedia Entry: Geoffrey of Monmouth. [Return]
2.	British Place-Names in their Historical Setting p.74, Edmund McClure, London 1910. [Return]
3.	The Extraordinary Voyage of Pytheas the Greek: The Man Who Discovered Britain p.94, Barry Cunliffe, Penguin Books 2001. [Return]
4.	History of Scotland Vol. 1, pp.2-3, George Buchanan (1506-1582), translated by James Aikman, Glasgow 1827. [Return]
5.	Ibid. p.7. [Return]
6.	Ibid. p.6. fn. *. [Return]
7.	Britannia: Or a Choragraphical Description of Great Britain and Ireland, Together With the Adjacent Islands Vol. 1, page vii, William Camden, translated into English with revisions by Edmund Gibson, London 1722. [Return]
8.	Herodotus, Histories iii.115. [Return]
9.	Strabo, Geography ii.v.30 (Note particularly fn.4), Vol. 1, H.C. Hamilton and W. Falconer, London and New York 1892. [Return]
10.	Strabo, Geography iii.v.7. [Return]
11.	Polybius, Histories xxxiv.10. [Return]
12.	Pseudo-Aristotle, De Mundo Chap. 3, 25. [Return]
13.	Strabo, Geography iv.v.i. [Return]
14.	C. Julius Caesar, Commentaries on the Civil War i.54. [Return]
15.	Diodorus, Library i.iv.7. The Perseus Tufts website wrongly shows Πρεττανικῆς Pretanikés with a Pi in their transcription of v.xxi.1 of Immanuel Bekker’s translation, whilst the original from which it has been copied clearly shows Bretanniké with a Beta. I queried this with the Perseus Tufts webmaster who confirms that this is a typographical error. (Their email to me dated 15 Oct 2013 refers.) To date, this has not been rectified on their site. A number of websites including Wikipedia are unaware of this and are using this error as evidence of the early use of Pretaniké. [Return]
16.	Appian, Gallic History i.5. [Return]
17.	Pliny, Natural History iv.16 (102). (iv.30 in the translation by John Bostock and Henry Thomas Riley.) [Return]
18.	Pausanias, Description of Greece i.xxxiii.4. [Return]
19.	Ptolemy, Geography Book 2, Chap. 1 and Chap. 2. [Return]
20.	Dionysius Periegetes, Dionysii Orbis Terrae 566-570. [Return]
21.	Pliny, Natural History iv.16 (102). [Return]
22.	Pliny’s Natural History iv.30, Vol. 1, p.350, John Bostock & Henry Thomas Riley, Bohn’s Classical Library, London and New York 1893. [Return]
23.	Festus Avienus, Ora Maritima Book 1, 110-115. [Return]
24.	Marcian of Heraclea, Periplus Maris Exteri (in Greek and Latin), Book 1, Part 1. [Return]
25.	Facsimile and Text of the Book of Taliesin, Introduction, pp.ix and x, J. Gwenogvryn Evans, North Wales 1915. [Return]
26.	Ibid., Introduction, p.xi. [Return]

Dated 24 Jun 2015.
^©AHR Researches, Birmingham, England.