Disclosing Phoenician Origin of Celtic, Cymric, Gothic and English Languages, and Founding of London and Bronze Age.
"Brutus called the island, after his own name, 'Britain,' and his companions 'Britons.'"-Ancient British Chronicles.1
"The tribes subject to the Cedi [Ceti or Getae Goth Phoenicians] are skin-clad." -Rig Veda Hymns.2
THE introduction of civilization and the Aryan language by King Brutus or Briutus and his Phoenician associates into Albion, or as he now called it "Brit-ain" or "Land of the Barats or Brits," is described in circumstantial detail in the Ancient British Chronicles, which is confirmed by more or less contemporary and other evidence.
The name of the aborigines, unfortunately, is not preserved in the existing versions; but we have seen that these aborigines, whose extant skeletal and other remains date back to the Old Stone Age, were clearly the Picts or "British Celts." And a memory of them seems to be preserved in the Scottish version of the Brutus legend, which places the newly-arrived Brutus, as we have seen, on "The Sea of Icht (or of the Picts)," when he "banishes" from the island his "big brother," his kinsman the Tiberian Sylvius Alba and his people, who had preceded Brutus in the possession of the tin-mines and in the domination of the island. And significantly the traditional place where Brutus landed is still reputed the especial haunt of the earth-dwelling dwarfish "Pixies," who, we have seen, are a memory of the earth-burrowing Picts.
The "giants," who are described in the Chronicles as opposing the invasion by Brutus and Corineus and their Briton followers, were obviously not the aborigines, but, as we shall find from other evidence, an earlier trading branch of the Aryan-Phoenicians-the Muru or Amuru or "Amorite" giants and erectors of the Stone Circles and "giants' tombs"-who had been exploiting the tin and copper mines for many centuries and even a millennium or more before the arrival of Sylvius and his trading agents. But they had not systematically colonized the land or civilized the aborigines.l
The systematic civilization of Britain thus begins practically with Brutus. He occupied the country as far north as the Tweed, the Chronicles inform us, and he at once began the work of welding the various Pictish tribes into one nation under their Aryan rulers, through the bonds of a common Aryan language and the civilizing Aryan laws.
Brutus signalized his annexation of Alban by giving the latter a new name. He was, as we have seen, an Aryan of the Barat tribe, of which the Phoenicians were the chief representatives; and he had just come from Epirus where, on its Macedonian border, was a colony of that tribe with a town called "Phoenice," bearing that tribal title as "Parthini" or "The Parths," in series with Brutus' own personal name of "Peirithoos." We have also seen, and shall further see, that the Phoenicians were in the habit of applying this tribal title to their new colonies. We are now told in the Chronicle that "Brutus called the island [of Alban] after his own name 'Brit-ain' and his companions 'Brit-ons.'" The original form of this name "Brit-ain" was, as we have seen, "Barat-ana" or "Land of the Barats," 2 a form which
2 The usually conjectured derivation of "Britain" (despite the circumstantial traditional account of its origin in the Chronicles which is in keeping with the facts of the application of this name in Phoenician lands elsewhere) is that evolved by Sir J . Rhys. He derives the name "Britain," from the Welsh Brith and Braith, "spotted, parti-coloured" - a reference to the painting or tattooing of the body. (R.C.B., 211). But, evidently not quite satisfied with this, he thinks it is derived from the Welsh Brethyn, "cloth," and adds: "It would appear that the word Brython and its congeners meant 'clothed,' or 'cloth-clad' people. (Ib., 212.)
is preserved in a relatively pure form in "Dun-Barton" or "Fort of the Bartons"-the "Dun Breatan" of the Gaelic Celts. In the Welsh Triads also, where Brutus is called " Prydain, son of Aedd the Great," it is stated that he named the island after himself "Isle of Prydain" (Inis Prydain). And we shall see that Brutus and his Barats and their descendants covered the country with place, river and mountain names transplanted from their ancestral homeland in Asia Minor and Syria-Phoenicia. And similarly, Brutus' associate, the Phoenician Duke Corineus, who was probably related to Corunna in Spain with its legends of Hercules and the Phoenicians,1 is traditionally recorded to have given his name to Cornwall.
The Higher Aryan Civilization which Brutus now introduced and propagated throughout a great part of Britain, began with the establishment of Agriculture, which we have found was originated by the Aryans and made by them the basis of their civilization. The Chronicles tell us that Brutus and his Britons set at once "to till the ground and build houses."
The building of houses, we have seen, was such a speciality of the Hitto-Phoenicians that it gave them, from their timberhouses, the title of "Khilani," "Gelouni" or "Gi-oln," which was borne also by the Phoenician Barat Part-olon. The perishability of timber-houses would account for the fact that there seem to be few extant remains of ancient Briton buildings of this early period, except stone foundations, which may possibly be as early, and some of the "Cliff castles" (the marvellously well selected strategic sites and defensive military details of which excited the admiration of General Pitt-Rivers, the great archaeologist) and some of
the numerous towers of stone masonry ("Broch"), suggesting the truly cyclopean masonry of the Hitto-Phoenicians. So late as the fourth century, A.D., Bede writes that a house was built "after the manner of the Scots, not of stones but of hard oak thatched with reeds." This was the above-mentioned Hittite timber house presumably.1 The masonry foundations of such wooden houses were found at Troy.2 Indeed, it seems probable that the artistic, timbered style of old mansions and cottages, especially in the south of Britain, is a survival of the famous timbered Hittite houses of these ancient Britons. The building of fine houses by the Phoenicians in Britain must of itself have been a great uplifting factor in the civilization of the land which hitherto had known only subterranean burrows, as the aborigines would doubtless imitate, more or less, the above-ground houses of their overlords. The pile huts of the few lake-dwellings may thus possibly be derived from the Hitto-Phoenician timber-house examples. The common Briton affix for towns of -bury, -boro, -burg (as well as "Broch") and Sanskrit pura, are now seen to be derived from the Hittite or Catti Buru "a Hittite town, citadel or fort."3
In surveying his newly-acquired land of Britain, we are told that Brutus " formed a design of building a city, and with this view travelled through the land to find out a convenient situation, and came to the Thames." As long before Brutus' day the land had been in the possession of the Phoenician Morites, who also traded in Amber in the North Sea, the topography of South Britain and its sea-coast was probably more or less known to Brutus and his kinsmen followers. The Chronicle account says he travelled "through the land" to the Thames from Totnes. It may be that Brutus, after his signal defeat of a leading party of the "giant" Morites at Totnes, as he had such a small land force for an enemy's country, yet possessing a considerable fleet, coasted along the south coast eastwards along the Channel from Totnes, marching inland to reconnoitre at
times when the open down permitted, with his fleet in the offing, somewhat as Alexander the Great, in his annexating survey of South Persia on his return from India, marched along the northern shore of the Persian Gulf with his fleet under admiral Nearchus in the offing for strategical reasons.1
Certain it is, I find, that the majority of the chief river-names from Totnes to the Thames, including the latter river-name itself, are clearly transplanted namesakes from the rivers of Epirus, whence Brutus sailed, and rivers of Troy and Phoenicia. These Phoenician, Epirus and Trojan names were, presumably, bestowed thereon by Brutus or his early descendants; just as a similar series of such names has been applied to the Cornwall coast to the west of Totnes, and just as modern British colonists transplant the cherished names of their old homeland to their new colonies.
Thus "Penzance" or "Pensans," we have seen, is presumably a corruption of "Phoenic-ana" or "Place of the Phoenicians," and it was also formerly called "Burrit-on"2 i.e., "Place of the Barats." The eastern promontory of the Bay of Penzance is "Cudder Point," that is, apparently, "Point of Gadir," an old name for the Phoenician port of Gades.3 "Maraz-ion" or "Maras-ion,"4 also the name for the ancient Phoenician tin-port in this bay at St. Michael's Mount and the Ictis of the Greeks, adjoining the rich Godolcon tin mines, about three miles inland, with prehistoric stone-circles in the neighbourhood, is clearly named after the ancient inland capital of the Syyio-Phwnicians in Upper Cilicia, namely. "Marash" (see Map) with its famous Hittite-inscribed monuments and Ogamoid writing
already mentioned. That Cilician city was called by the Greco-Byzantines "Marasion,"1 thus disclosing the Hitto-Phoenician original and source of the Marazion or Marasion in Cornwall. Again, the river which divided Corineus' province from that of Brutus is named Tamar, which name is presumably derived from the "Tamyras" or "Damour," the name of a chief river between Sidon and Beirut in Phoenicia. Near the Hoe at Plymouth also, the traditional site where Corineus pitched down the "giant" chief, we have "Catti-water" and the old place-name of "Catte-down," which presumably represents either the "Down of the Catte" or an older "Catte Dun" or "Fort of the Catti," wherein "Catti," with its variant "Cad," was, as we have seen, a favourite title of the ruling Barat Phoenicians. And of similar Barat significance seem the names of the old " Cliff Castles " of the Britons in Cornwall, called "Caddon" and "Castle Gotha," near Phoebe's Point at St. Austell.
Similarly, from Totnes to the Thames the coast is studded with such Asia Minor and Hellenic names. The promontory outside the bay of Totnes was called by the Romans, who preserved and latinized most of the old pre-Roman Briton names, "Hellenis" (the modern Berry Head), thus preserving an old Briton name of "Hellenis," which is presumably a souvenir of the "Helloi" or Helleni tribe of the Hellenes in Epirus, whence Brutus sailed with his bride. The next large river on the way to the Thames is the modern Exe, called by the Romans under its old Briton name of "Isca," also written "Sca"2 which presumably preserves the old sacred name of the river of Troy,3 the Sca-mander or Xanthus. That the front name "Sca" was a separate and superadded name, and possibly a contraction of "Ascanios," seems evident from the modern river being called merely "Mendere." For the Sca-mander (or Sca-mandros of Homer) was presumably also called "Asc-anios."4 This title therefore of "Isca," for the Exe,
appears to disclose the Trojan source of the name of the numerous favourite residential rivers in Britain called Esk, Usk, Exe, etc. Thus the river at the site of the Briton King Arthur's capital of Caerleon in Monmouth was also called "Isca" by the Romans, the modern "Usk." And just as there are several Isca, Esk, Usk or Exe rivers in Britain bearing this favourite name, so there were others in the Troad and Thrace.1 Near Exeter, the Isca of the Romans is "Cad-bury" or "Burg of the Cads (i.e. Phoenicians)," with prehistoric "camp" mounds.
Further east, the next large river, the Axe, of Ax-minster, and famous for its textile products, has the same Exe or Esk or Isca name and has in the neighbourhood "Catti-stock" with ancient "Picts' dwellings" to attest its antiquity. Further east, we come to the "Avon" (of Salisbury Plain, Stonehenge, etc.) which bears obviously the: same name as the "Aban" river of Damascus (mentioned in the Old Testament),2 a Syrian city which was in the occupation of the Hitt-ites in the fourteenth century B.C.,3 and in which the "Ab" of its name also means "Water," as does "Avon" in the Briton language. Passing Hants, where "Barton-Stacey" and "Barton-mere," both with prehistoric remains, and preserving in their names the earlier form of the "Barat" title like Dun-Barton, we come to the Ancient Briton island-port of Sels-ey or "Isle of the Sels," which, we have already seen on the evidence of the Phoenician inscription on its early Briton coins, means "Isle of the Cilicians." Beyond this, near Beachy Head, is the Ouse, which is clearly named after the "Aous" river of Epirus, which separates the latter from Macedonia. And the "Thaynes," the "Tamesis" of the Romans, is clearly named after the "Thyamis," the greatest river of Epirus, the Phoenician origin of which name seems evident by its chief tributary being named "Cadmus," the name of the famous colonizing and civilizing sea-king of the Phoenicians, with its chief city port "Ilium," a title of Troy, and the port of the next river to the north is named "Phoenice."
Arrived at the Thames, thus evidently named by Brutus after the chief river of Epirus in Greece, whence he had just come, bringing his princess bride, we are told that he "walked along the shore and at last pitched upon a place
very fit for his purpose. Here he built a city which he called 'New Troy' . . . till by corruption of the original word it came to be called 'Tri-Novantum' but afterwards 'Kaer-Lud' that is, 'The City of Lud'" -that is, "Lud-dun" or "London."1 The new evidence confirming this account of the founding of London by Brutus about 1100 B.C.-that is, over three and a half centuries before the traditional founding of Rome-and clearly identifying the Early Briton Londoners with the "Tri-Novantes" of Caesar, is detailed in Appendix V. This, therefore, corroborates the tradition of the Trojan founding of London preserved by Milton:
"O City, founded by Dardanian hands,
Whose towering front the circling realms commands!"
Thereafter Brutus, we are told, "prescribed Laws for the peaceable government" of citizens-just as, later, the famous Law-codes of two of his descendants in the fifth and 4th cents. B.C. were translated by King Alfred into Anglo-Saxon for the benefit of the English.2 This prescription of Laws by an Aryan-Phoenician implies Writing in the Aryan-Phoenician Language and Script, and also Education in reading that official writing and Aryan language. In writing, the Phoenicians are admitted by the universal Greek tradition to have been the teachers of Europe. And we have seen the form of the Aryan Phoenician writing and language of about 400 B.C. on the Newton Stone.
This now brings us to the hitherto unsolved and much-disputed question of the agency by which the Aryan language was first introduced into the British Isles and the date of that great event.
The introduction of the Aryan language into Britain has latterly been universally credited by modern writers to the " Celts," merely on a series of assumptions by Celtic philologists which, we have seen, are unfounded, namely,
that the Celts were Aryan in race, and a branch of the round-headed Celts of Gaul and conjectured to have entered Britain from Gaul for the first time about " the seventh or sixth century B.C.,"1 although there is no tradition of such a migration, nor is the word " Celt " even known in the " British Celtic " languages.
The real introducers of the Aryan language into the British Isles are now disclosed to be the Aryan Phoenician Britons under King Brutus.2 As the conquering and civilizing race they imposed their own Aryan speech, as the official language, upon the aborigines of Britain. And they gave their own Aryan names, in the manner we have already seen, to most of the places, mountains and rivers, forming the hitherto so-called "Celtic" place- and river-names.
The Aryan language, thus introduced and spoken by these ruling Early Britons under King Brutus about 1103 B.C., was clearly neither "Celtic" nor the supposititious "Gaulish Brythonic of the Welsh of the fourth century B.C.," which are disclosed to be relatively modern provincial dialects of this original Briton Speech. What, then, was this Early Briton Speech, as it is given no place whatsoever in any of the schemes of classification of the languages of Britain by our modern philologists? It is called, in Geoffrey's translation of the Early Chronicles, as we have seen, "Trojan or rough Greek which [thereafter] was called British." The actual words for these terms, as they occurred in the "very ancient book [MS.] in the British tongue" translated by Geoffrey into Latin are unfortunately lost. The term "Greek" (or Graecum) could not have been employed in any very ancient text, as it is merely a term introduced by the later Roman writers about the middle of the first century B.C. for the country, people and language3 of the Attica peninsula, and whose people latterly called themselves "Hellenes" and their country "Hellas," and
it is a term entirely unknown to Homer as well as the early classic "Hellenic" writers, although it is customary nowadays to call the latter "Greek." Geoffrey thus presumably, or a previous transcriber, employed in his translation this term "Greek" merely to render the old British textual name intelligible to his modern readers, at a time when Latin and Greek were the languages of the learned throughout Europe, and to convey to his readers the fact that this "ancient British tongue" belonged to the same family as the ancient Hellenic or so-called "Greek" -language, which was a leading branch of the Aryan Speech of civilized Europe.
The term "Trojan," on the other hand, as applied to this Early Briton language in Geoffrey's translation, probably preserves, more or less, the general form of the name occurring in his old British text, in the sense of "Doric."
["Trojan" or "Troian" is the latinized word for the Hellenic Troes, a native of Troia (or Troy), as the people and their city are called by Homer. Now, the most ancient branch of the Aryans in Greece, who are incidentally referred to by Homer as the "Doriees," the "Dorians" of the Latinist writers, were, I find, the original inhabitants of Troy,1 which would explain why the Dorians had their revenge on their distant kinsmen, the Achaians, who destroyed Troy (as described in the Iliad) by driving the latter out of Greece2 in the eleventh century B.C.; and secondly, the Homeric "Troes" for Trojan is presumably a dialectic form of "Doriees" or "The Dorians" - for the interchange of the dentals T and D is common throughout the whole family of Aryan languages, and is especially common even at the present day in Greece and amongst the Greek-speaking people of Asia Minor, so that the modern guide-books to Greece and Asia Minor warn travellers3 that the initial D of written or printed names is usually pronounced, in the colloquial, Th or T. And the transposing of the o and r in spelling is not infrequent.]
The "Doric" language of the ancient Hellenes was distinguished from the later refined and polished "Attic" of the classic "Greeks" by its rough simplicity and the free use of broad vowel sounds. This "Doric" character
of the Early Briton language is well seen in Part-olon's spelling on the Newton Stone of several of the proper names, especially in his spelling of "Gyaolowonie" for his ethnic title, which is written "Gioln" in his Ogam version for the information of the Pictish Celts, who spelt that name in their Chronicles of the ninth century A.D. also "Galan" or "Gulan." It thus seems probable that the word used in Geoffrey's old British manuscript text was "Doros," which he latinized into "Trojan," and that his description of the original language spoken by the Trojans under Brutus as "Trojan or rough Greek" was the original rough Doric language current amongst the Trojans about 1107 B.C. And significantly this term "Doric" still survives to the present day as an appellation of the dialect of the Scots, with its distinctively broad vowel sounds.
Contemporary specimens of this ancient Trojan Doric, that is, the Early "British" Doric language and writing, fortunately still exist from the fourteenth to the twelfth centuries B.C. They were unearthed in considerable numbers by Schliemann in his excavations at Hissarlik, the site of the ancient Troy. The language in which this Trojan Doric is written shows that Homeric Greek, which in its archaisms differs so widely from the classic Greek of later times, was related to it1 and presumably derived from it; while the script in which this Trojan language is written bears a close resemblance to the early alphabetic letters found in Cyprus at Kitium or Citium and other sites of the Phoenicians and Khatti in that island. This ancient Trojan Doric script so closely resembled in many respects the script on Part-olon's Newton Stone, that it supplied me with some indications for the decipherment of that inscription. And I find that this Trojan script and language was clearly akin to the language and writing of the later Aryan Phoenicians, and to the Runes of the Goths, and to the legends stamped on the pre-Roman British coins of the Catti, and was the parent of the language and writing of the present day in Britain-the so-called "English" language and script.
Its affinity to the Runes of the Goths is especially
obvious and historically significant. We have seen that the inscription of Part-olon-the-Scot, and its more or less contemporary inscription at Lunasting, exhibit the radical and grammatical structure of the Gothic-the language of a people who are disclosed, as we have seen, to be Khatti, Catti, Guti or Gad or Hitt-ites, primitive Goths. In view of this fact, and the fact that the great epics of the Goths, the Eddas-which, I find, are truly historical and not mythical in their personages1-are found by the best authorities to have been mostly composed in Britain, and in a Gothic dialect which was presumably the Early British language as current in Britain about the beginning of the Christian era, I find that this Gothic of the Eddas, the tongue of our Briton ancestors, based on the old Trojan Doric, was the real basis of the "English" language and not the Anglo-Saxon, although the latter is a kindred dialect. Thus this early British Doric seems best described as "Early British Gothic," and such I venture to call it. The essentially Gothic character of the "English" language is evident also from the greatest of English classics, the English translation of the Bible, wherein it will be seen that the early translators, Wycliffe (1389 A.D.) and Tyndale (1526), on which our modern version is based, largely followed the wordings used by old Bishop Ulfilas the Goth in his Gothic translation of 350 A.D., although his Visi-Gothic dialect had diverged considerably from the Gothic of the British Eddas.
"Anglo-Saxon," on the other hand, has no early writings extant to attest what the language of these Germanic invaders was at the period before and when they entered Britain in 449 A.D. The early Saxon language was markedly different from the so-called "Anglo-Saxon" of Britain, which latter first appears in the poems of Caedmon about 650 A.D., that is, over two centuries after the Anglo-Saxon invaders had mixed with and adopted the Laws of the Britons who spoke British Gothic.2 Caedmon, although now called "the first Anglo-Saxon or English poet," appears to
have been a native of Ruthwell in Dumfries in Scotland, from the signed Runic inscription of "Cadmon" on the beautiful votive stone Cross there, containing extracts from the "Dream of the Rood," a poem which is usually ascribed to him. And although he specially wrote for his Anglo-Saxon masters, he wrote in an idiom so different from the standard Anglo-Saxon of the South, and so similar to the British Gothic of the Eddas, and used idioms and sentences so similar to those of the Gothic Eddas that his language has to be distinguished as "Northumbrian." Beowulf's reputed poem also, which is only known from a paraphrase by a "Northumbrian" bard of the eighth century, relates exploits amongst the Danes and Geats (or Goths) and the Goths of Sweden and the Catte-gat (or "Gate of the Catti" or Goths) which presumes Gothic influence in his so-called "Anglo-Saxon." And Cynewulf of the eighth century betrays his Gothic influence by signing his MS. in Runic (i.e., Gothic) writing-of which significantly absolutely no trace has ever been found on any ancient monument in Germany, although Runic inscriptions from at least about the fourth and fifth centuries onwards (that is before the "Anglo-Saxon" invasion, the Angles not arriving in Britain till the middle of the sixth century) are common in the North of England and in Scotland, as well as in Scandinavia and Denmark, all Gothic lands. Indeed the name "Caedmon" which is spelt "Kadmon" or "Cadmon" on the Ruthwell Cross, and occurring in the latter form as the name of a witness to a Bucks charter of 948 A.D.1 is seen to mean obviously "Man of the Cad or Kad," that is, as we have seen, an ordinary title of the Hitto-Phoenicians, and in series with the Briton "Cad-wallon," &c. And Dumfries is on the border of the "Gad-eni" tribe area of Ptolemy. It is thus evident that the so-called "Celtic" and "Brythonic Celtic" languages in the British Isles are merely provincial dialects derived from the Aryan Trojan Doric, introduced by King Brutus-the-Trojan about 1103 B.C.; and that the standard official and developed Aryan language
of Britain was the British Gothic, which is the basis of the modern "English" language; and that the Trojan Doric script introduced by Brutus, and cognate with Part-olon's Phoenician script and archaic Greek and Roman, is the parent of our modern alphabetic writing.
The Laws which Brutus prescribed, and the law-codes of his descendants of the 5th and 4th cents. B.C. (Molmut and Martin), translated by King Alfred for the Anglo-Saxons, were doubtless founded on the famous law-codes of the Sumerians and Hittites, which are admittedly the basis of the Mosaic and Greek and Roman Law. It will. surprise most readers, not lawyers, taught by the history books to regard the Early Britons as "barbarians," to find that the great English Law-authority on "The Rise and Progress of the English Commonwealth," Sir F. Palgrave, shows that the Britons were superior in their civilization, as in their religion, to the Anglo-Saxons who adopted the Briton Law generally for their code in England.
Palgrave writes: "The historical order prevailing in this code (of the Britons') shows that it was formed with considerable care, and the customs it comprehends bear the impress of great antiquity. . . . The character of the British legislation is enhanced by comparison with the laws which were put in practice amongst the other nations of the Middle Ages. The indignant pride of the Britons, who despised their implacable enemies, the Anglo-Saxons, as a race of rude barbarians, whose touch was impurity, will not be considered as any decisive test of superior civilization. But the Triads, and the laws of Hoel Dda (founded on Molmut's), excel the Anglo-Saxon and other Teutonic customals in the same manner that the elegies of Llywarch Hen, and the odes of Taliesin soar above the ballads of the Edda. Law had become a science amongst the Britons; and its volumes exhibit the jurisprudence of a rude nation shaped and modelled by thinking men, and which had derived both stability and equity from the labours of its expounders."2
The Art introduced by Brutus into Albion was presumably the advanced art of the Trojans and Phoenicians, as sung by Homer and unearthed by Schliemann and others; though
in the rough laborious life of bringing a new country into civilization and cultivation it doubtless suffered deterioration in Britain. This art, hitherto called "Early Celtic," is represented by numerous specimens, unearthed from tombs, etc., of bronze, gold and jet jewellery, decorated bronze shields and weapons and ornamented monuments, in which the aesthetic use of the solar spiral ornament of Troy, the AEgean and Levant, and the solar "key-pattern" swastika (still surviving largely in modern decorative art) and Sun-Crosses of the Hitto-Phoenicians is noteworthy (see Figures later). The identity of some of the Early Briton art motives with those of the naturalistic "New Egyptian art" introduced into Egypt from Syria-Phoenicia in the period of Akhen-aten will be seen later on. The naturalistic drawing on the Early Briton coins especially, we shall find, much excels that of the Anglo-Saxon and medieval period in England.
As an instance of Early Briton art may be cited an inlaid dagger-handle unearthed from a tomb near Stonehenge, which is thus described by an expert: "It could not be surpassed, if indeed equalled, by the most able workman of modern times."1
Works of public utility, such as the construction of arterial roads for commerce, etc., are referred to in the Chronicle records of descendants of Brutus.2 The so-called "Roman roads" bearing the old Briton names of Stave Street, Watling3 Street, Erming Street, etc., are studded with Ancient Briton town sites, as we shall see, and thus presumably were roads mentioned in the British Chronicles which were engineered by the Ancient Britons in the pre-Roman period and merely repaired by the Romans, to whom they are now altogether credited by those latter-day writers who have erroneously believed that the Britons were savages.
The Bronze Age was clearly introduced into Britain by the earlier Phoenician Mor-ite or Amor-ite exploiters of the tin mines many centuries before the arrival of Brutus, and probably before 2800 B.C.l On account of the preciousness of Bronze, however, it would appear that the Early Phoenician miners themselves used bronze sparingly and prohibited its use by the natives, and, as it will be seen later, they employed stone tools in working the ores for export to their bronze factories in the East. Brutus appears to have popularized the use of bronze, as indicated by its more frequent occurrence as tools. Metal axes would presumably be required by these Aryans to clear the forests for settlement and agriculture.2 And he probably introduced iron and steel into Britain, as both of these metals are referred to by Homer as used by Trojan heroes, and the use of iron is also referred to by his contemporary, Hesiod.
The Religion which the Phoenicians disembarked and transplanted in Britain, as they did in their other colonies was the exalted monotheistic religion with the idea of One God of the Universe, symbolized by his chief visible luminary the Sun, as we shall see in a later chapter on Phoenician "Bel" worship in Early Britain, as attested by its early monuments other than the Newton Stone. The uplifting effect of this lofty religion upon the aborigines must have been enormous, sunk as the latter were in the degrading matriarchal cults of serpent demons of Death and Darkness, demanding human and other bloody sacrifices.
The Phoenician "Sun-worship" was latterly, as we have seen, associated with the idealized Aryan Barat tutelary angel, Britannia. It was, perhaps, this divinity who is referred to as "Diana" in the Chronicles as inspiring Brutus to the conquest of Britain. That latter name was possibly substituted by the later editors to adapt it to the well-known analogous tutelary of the later classic writers. In this regard it is significant, in connection with the traditional
founding of London by Brutus, to find that on the site of St. Paul's Cathedral there is a tradition of a once-famous temple to Diana. The old buildings in its neighbourhood are called, in the church records, "Camerae Diana" or "Rooms of Diana," and in the reign of Edward I. numerous ox-heads were dug up in the churchyard which were ascribed to the sacrifices to Diana performed there.1
The maintenance of the higher religion was an essential part of the Aryan State system, and the kings were for long the high priests and priest-kings. Caesar mentions that students from Gaul and other parts of the continent flocked to the colleges in Early Britain for religious instruction.2 And the fact that the ruling Aryan Briton kings and their "Britons" properly so-called (as distinguished from the aborigines) adhered to the higher ancestral religion of the Sun-cult, and not the blood-thirsty Druidism of their subjects, is evidenced by the Early Briton coins and the numerous stone monuments of the pre-Christian period in Britain, which are purely Solar in their symbolism. So purely solar was the higher religion in Ancient Britain that Pliny reports that the ancient Persians - the most famed of the later Eastern Sun-Fire worshippers - seemed to have derived their rites from Britain.3
The character of these Early Britons is reflected to some extent in their Chronicles. The Phoenician admiral Himilco of Carthage who visited Britain about the sixth century B.C. to explore "the outer parts of Europe"4 records that the Britons were "a powerful race, proud-spirited, effectively skilful in art, and constantly busy with the cares of trade."5
Their patriotism and independence is strikingly reflected in the magnificent oration of the Briton chief Galgacus as recorded by Tacitus,6 and displays high proficiency in literary composition and rhetoric. The character of King Caractacus was highly extolled by the Romans. The high
Briton sense of honour and self-respect with contempt for slanderers seems crystallized in the old motto of the Keiths (i.e. Khatti), the Earl marischals of Scotland:
"Thay say, Qwhat say They?
Thay haif sayd. Let thame say!"
As regards refinement and education, it is noteworthy that the young Briton wife, Claudia Rufina, of a high Roman official, whose praises Martial sang in the first century A.D., held her own in the brilliant society at Rome
"Claudia! Rose from the blue-eyed Britons!
Capturer of hearts! How is it thou'rt such a Latin person?
Such graceful form? It makes believe thou'rt Roman!
Thou'rt fit to be Italian or Athenian maid."1
She was traditionally the Claudia who was the friend of St. Paul.2 And not to mention the old tradition of the Chronicle and numerous other independent records that the famous Christian empress and canonized saint, Helena, the mother of Constantine the Great, was a British princess, the daughter of King Col of York, we have the beautiful monument to the dignified Briton lady of the Cat-uallaun ruling clan in North Britain, erected at S. Shields, by her sorrowing husband, Barates the Syrio-Phoenician. (See Fig. 19.)
The intellectual, social and religious culture introduced by Brutus into Britain about the end of the twelfth century B.C. must thus have been of the advanced standard of the Phoenicians of that period. This must have exercised still further an inspiring and uplifting effect upon the lower mentality of the Pictish aborigines, and have tended to alter their habits of life and character somewhat in the direction of those of their civilizing Aryan overlords.
The colonizing activities of the adventurous Briton descendants of Brutus soon manifested themselves again, after they had penetrated the greater part of Britain, in
founding a new colony on the Rhine. That remarkable record in the Chronicle states that about 970 B.C. a colony of the sons of King Ebraucus, the fourth in linear descent from Brutus, sailed from Britain with a fleet and, conquering Germany, settled there. This now appears to disclose the hitherto unobserved British Origin of the "Anglo-Saxons" and the "Anglo-Saxon" language-the term "Anglo-Saxon," which is now so common in popular usage, was unknown to the Danish and Germanic invading Jutes, Angles and Saxons of the fifth century A.D. themselves, and appears to have been first coined only in 1783 in Bailey's Dictionary as a term for the language of the Saxon Chronicle and of Alfred and that period. "Anglo-Saxon" as a racial or ethnic term is even more recent.
This Briton invasion and colonization of Germany by King Brutus' descendants, about 970 B.C., now accounts for the first time for the Aryanization in speech of the various non-Aryan Slavonic or Sarmatian tribes of Germany, and also supplies the date for this great epoch-making event in the history of continental Europe. It also explains the origin and existence of the "Continental Britanni" mentioned by Pliny as living on the banks of the Somme,1 the Cat-alauni tribe on the Marne; and the various Catti or Gothic tribes in the Rhine Valley described by Tacitus,2 namely the Catti or Chatti, the most heroic of the tribes in Germany,3 the Chauci (? Saxons), Qadi of Moravia, the Goth-ones, and Goth-ini with their iron-mines on the Vistula and Oder, the Sit-ones, and the Cimbri in Jut-land, where we find a short time later, "Goths" and "Goth-land"; while the Angli (Angles, the "Yngl-ing Goths" of the Eddas) occupied in the first century A.D. the neck of Schleswig- Holstein of Denmark or Jut-land adjoining the Cimbri (or Cymri).
An early Briton occupation of Denmark (the home of the
Angles) is also recorded in the British Chronicles anterior to the 5th century, B.C.1
It is thus seen that the Anglo-Saxons were a branch of the British Barat-Phoenicians or Britons, and that the "Anglo-Saxon" language is derived from the Briton "Doric" or Dorian (or Troian) Gothic, or the British Gothic introduced into Britain by Brutus and his Barat Phoenician Catti or Goths about 1100 B.C.; and, to some extent, still earlier, by the Amorite Catti Phoenicians from about 2800 B.C.