Very Ancient Britts

[Boreas]

Archaeologists able to reconstruct 'a day in the life' of prehistoric ancestors half a million years ago

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-a9665761.html

[Boreas]

Boxgrove, an internationally significant archaeological site in Sussex, England, now offers unprecedented insights into the life of a poorly understood extinct human species.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology-so...ology-boxgrove

The findings of a meticulous study led by UCL Institute of Archaeology are detailed in a ground-breaking new book ‘The Horse Butchery Site’, published by UCL Archaeology South-East’s ‘Spoilheap Publications’.
https://onlinestore.ucl.ac.uk/produc...-butchery-site

[rms2]

I don't care very much about "Brits" from that long ago, since they form almost no part of my ancestry.

I start to get interested with the arrival of Kurgan Bell Beaker in the third millennium BC.

[Boreas]

I don't care very much about "Brits" from that long ago, since they form almost no part of my ancestry.

Very well - but why do we need to know?
Besides - how can you be that sure of a "non-sequitur" between these Britts and the Paleolithic Britts, who were an integrated part of the "flint-culture" known from around the Nort-Sea depression - where the major mines of flint in Western Eurasia exist - untill the end of the Late Upper Paleolithic ?

I start to get interested with the arrival of Kurgan Bell Beaker in the third millennium BC.

Good to see that you do have an interest. But, maybe that discussion is better made on another thread?

(Btw.: Investigating the origin of the beaker-producing builders of 'grave-mounds' ("tumuli") in Eastern Europe - during Soviet-time named "kurgans" -
it may help to know from where this tumuli-culture actually originated - before it entered the plains 'n steppes between Donau and Don.)

[rms2]

You might want to notice that the word Britons is spelled with one t. Thus the short version is Brits, not "Britts".

You might also want to become familiar with the ancient dna evidence, which shows that the Neolithic farmer invaders of Britain largely replaced its native hunter-gatherers but then were themselves largely replaced by the Kurgan Beaker people in the third millennium BC.

Thus modern British people, and the modern descendants of British people, owe very little of their genomes to the Paleolithic/Mesolithic inhabitants of Britain.

You might also want to notice that I did not try to start a discussion of Kurgan Bell Beaker in this thread. I merely said I don't get interested in Britain until their arrival.

[Alain]

The words Tell / Tumuli and Kurgan all mean the same, namely "grave mounds" only that the word Tell is used in the Near--and Middle East for grave mounds from the Arabic language , Kurgan mostly for Eastern Europe to East Asia but can also be used for steppe cultures such as CWC and BBs and comes from the Tatar language, but for Central- and Western Europe we mainly use the Latin word tumuli for BB and CWC and the Mediterranean cultures

[FionnSneachta]

You might want to notice that the word Britons is spelled with one t. Thus the short version is Brits, not "Britts".

They probably just made the mistake of using two letter t's since some words can be given two t's in other versions of a word such as cat and catty, sit and sitting, etc. One exception where you can't go by spelling that comes to mind is the name Patrick. There's nothing worse than hearing the dreaded St. Patty's Day rather than St. Paddy's Day or plain old St. Patrick's Day. When the poster gave the title to the thread of 'Very Ancient Britts', he was likely using the term to refer to the very ancient British rather than very ancient Britons since the British are commonly referred to as the Brits. Anyway, it's very easy to be pedantic.

I'm also not interested in these kinds of threads but I don't comment to say that I'm not interested. I just don't read it in-depth but give a cursory glance instead. I'm only really interested in the medieval period onwards for this part of the world. The history this far back just doesn't mean much to me. It's only civilisations like Ancient Egypt where I'm interested in the history going that far back.

[rms2]

They probably just made the mistake of using two letter t's since some words can be given two t's in other versions of a word such as cat and catty, sit and sitting, etc . . .

They? I think it was a single individual.

Honestly, I'm not all that interested in why Brits was misspelled as "Britts". I figured there was some reason for the error.

[FionnSneachta]

They? I think it was a single individual.

Honestly, I'm not all that interested in why Brits was misspelled as "Britts". I figured there was some reason for the error.

'They' can be used as a singular pronoun. I don't know the original poster's gender so used 'they' to be safe rather than assume.

For example, people use phrases like, 'Someone left their phone in the canteen' when a singular person of an unknown gender is being referred to.

[rms2]

'They' can be used as a singular pronoun . . .

Not correctly, it can't.

I know that's becoming common usage, and perhaps accepted for that reason, but it will never sound correct to me.

Besides, they is primarily plural, especially when one knows to whom he is referring and could use he or she instead.