What did Bronze age Britain look like /his/? Trying to find images

>>3011457
Like modern Britain but people were probably better looking.

>>3011469

This might be true. Brits have inbred a lot in the last 4000 years.

anybody else get kinda depressed when you see an attractive person

File: Europe.jpg (16KB, 246x205px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 246x205px

>>3011457
They were kings

File: middle_bronze_age_europe.png (78KB, 720x800px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 720x800px

>>3011522
Oops

there probably weren't people in Britain during the Bronze age

if they were they would probably still be hunters and gatherers

>>3011527
>there probably weren't people in Britain during the Bronze age

Most retarded comment of the day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_Britain

>>3011539
damn

those are some pretty nice swords

>>3011539
>Wikipedia

Are you trolling or just plain dumb?

I can go there and write whatever bullshit I want

>>3011559
though unlike /his/ they actually cite their bullshit

>>3011559
This isn't 2006, go ahead and vandalise a page as a test, you'll find it gets reverted by bots extremely quickly. And seriously unless you are actually claiming the info on the page is bullshit, which you need to produce your own source for, then there's no point attacking WIkipedia.

You aren't seriously arguing that no one lived in Bronze Age Britain or they were all just hunter-gathers are you?

>>3011559
That's true of most websites. Wikipedia is usually good at removing incorrect info. It's not Encyclopedia Dramatica.

>>3011501

I'd say lack of obesity and an active lifestyle would have been the greatest contributor.

>>3011574

Wikipedia is very unreliable in certain fields though like genetics. You can add your sourced information from the 1950s and it will stay there for years untouched.

>>3011488
Thanks. Google search says this is a reconstruction of a princess or girl of high rank. Would a a normal girl wear this minus the fur and jewelry?

File: 1498070810762.jpg (99KB, 565x500px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 565x500px

>>3011614
>You can add sourced info I don't agree with! It's not reliable! Wahhhh

>>3011614

>deliberately ignoring the point of the entire conversation.

I can get another source if you genuinely don't like Wikipedia, or you just Google it yourself. If you aren't claiming that no one lived in Bronze Age Britain then there isn't even any point at this attempt at dissembling.

>>3011636

Fucking retard. Academic consensus changes over time but Wikipedia updated with the new information isn't guaranteed.

>>3011640

I'm not him. Just pointing out that Wikipedia fails in certain fields while being stronger in others.

>>3011501
>Brits have inbred a lot

British people have quite a large genetic variety. These are the bloodlines we've had before colonialism:
English Celtic
French Celtic
Germanic
Scandinavian
Latin(ish)

After colonialism we expanded:
African
Islamic
Eastern European

>>3011650
That's why you check the citations and if you think someone is trying to pull a fast one you check the edit history. These are basic Internet skills, anon, Wikipedia is a resource. And more importantly the conversation was about Bronze Age Britain, not incompetence at being able to use Wikipedia.

>>3011501

>dozens of invasions and waves of immigration
>hurrrr teh brits r inbred

Fuck off.

>>3011679

It doesn't matter if the citations check out if the papers the citations are from are outdated.

It could take years until someone adds the correct and new information into an article if the topic is is obscure enough. Blind faith in Wikipedia is dumb.

>>3011526
That map is retarded, there are bronze age finding and petroglyphs in bedrock in the North as well. Many findings everywhere in Scandinavia.

>>3011687
>It doesn't matter if the citations check out if the papers the citations are from are outdated.

Well in that case the citations wouldn't check out, would they? What part of my advice to check the citations and check the edit history did you think indicated "blind faith" by the way?

>>3011683
Exactly, it was mixing with foreigners that made them look bad and deformed.

For fucks sake people.

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/prehistoric/

>>3011694

They would check out since the information in the article would be in agreement with the paper but not the current academic consensus.
Wikipedia is unreliable for obscure topics which don't attract editors, deal with it.

>>3011700

See.>>3011699
Your claim no one lived in Bronze Age Britain is ludicrous.

>>3011690

Those petroglyphs in the north weren't made by Indo-European/Pre-Germanic people though so their creators belonged to another culture.

>>3011702

It's not my claim.
Do you have cognitive problems?

I'm just pointing out that Wikipedia isn't nearly as reliable as you believe it to be and vandalism isn't the reason for that but outdated information which can fool people unfamiliar with the subject.

>>3011700

>Bronze Age Britain is an obscure topic

>>3011713

Are you brain damaged? What's the point of defending the claim that no one lived in Bronze Age Britain if you don't agree with it?

>>3011717

Pretty obscure yeah since only a few thousand people in the world actually have a very good understanding of it.

File: 1699 f.Kr. - 500 f.Kr. i Kusmark, Västerbotten, Sverige.jpg (136KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 2000x1333px

>>3011709
Bullshit, pic related a bronze age Axe from Northern Sweden

>>3011722

I'm not in any way defending his view but Wikipediafags need to understand that the website is not guaranteed to contain up to date information about obscure topics.

>>3011731

Okay, got it, you are brain damaged and keen on strawman arguments and deliberately trying to derail threads by being ridiculous.

>>3011690
Such as where?

also were they made in the bronze age?

By what culture?

>>3011729

Objects and material culture can be acquired through trade.
Bronze age still had pre-IE and pre-Uralic populations living in Scandinavia whose way of life and language were very different from that of pre-Germanics. They weren't all magically killed off when the first Indo-Europeans showed up.

>>3011734

Autism

>>3011735
Read the file name, 1699 BC Nordic Bronze age

Also read this page: http://historiska.se/upptack-historien/object/113857-yxa-holkyxa-av-brons/

^Scroll down to the map, it will show the location of the find. Much higher up than your fake map shows. So there's no reason to just include Southern parts. People were hunting all over just like they are today.

>>3011650
It's still correct to list various sources even if it goes against academic consensus. List an opposing viewpoint if you must.

>>3011745
>fake map

It's accurate for Europe except for Northen Scandinavia ok, calm down Sven

>>3011750

No it's actually very accurate for Scandinavia. Ignore the Swedish nationalist.

>>3011755
t. Reindeer fucker

>>3011763

No, Sami people aren't indigenous to Scandinavia either. The original people were mesolithic Europeans who spoke some language which we know nothing about.

File: Kvinnan från Österöd.png (137KB, 1137x799px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1137x799px

>>3011782
Mesolithic is between 10 000 BC – 4000 BC in Sweden.

Pic related is a skeleton of a Swedish woman from the paleolithic (10 200 BC). Found in the most Northern parts you could be at the time, since Norrland was covered in Ice.

File: Mesolitikum (10 000 f.Kr. – 4000 f.Kr.).jpg (19KB, 186x300px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 186x300px

>>3011798
*The skeleton was found in the circled area.

>>3011798

That applies mainly to southern Scandinavia. Agriculture was practiced only as far north as Stockholm. Beyond that it was hunting and gathering until reindeer pastoralism was introduced much later.

File: Ivar Vidfamne.png (647KB, 944x477px) Image search: [Google]

647KB, 944x477px

>>3011807
There is no reason you could just assume these bronze age weapons and tools were "sold" to Uralics. That makes no sense, especially since they were found near the coasts. And as we know the Vikings had settlements near the coasts and even at some parts more inland. It perfectly correlates with how settlements would've expanded from the Bronze age to the end of the Viking age.

>>3011457
Jhulia Pimentel, she is fucking seventeen years old. God is cruel.

>>3011841

For the third time, Uralics have not been in Scandinavia longer than Indo-Europeans.
The indigenous people were neither. They were simple hunter gatherers who had lived there for thousands and thousands of years.

>>3011488
>1488
Checked. Also she looks Russian.

File: Nordic_Settlements.jpg (611KB, 1440x1950px) Image search: [Google]

611KB, 1440x1950px

>>3011854
Obviously they were Swedes, Norwegians and Danes, I'm not talking about agriculture, but their presence in these parts, yes obviously they were hunting there.


Again>>3011798

File: Purhonen 115 ristiretkiajan kalmistot.jpg (1MB, 2175x1640px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2175x1640px

>>3011866
>no settlements in Karelia

>>3011866

No they were not Germanics.
Germanics are Indo-European and arrived with the Corded Ware culture which did not extend very far north in Scandinavia where life went on as it always had with minor changes.

>>3011872
>"Corded ware" came in 2950 BC
>Bronze age findings in the North are from 1699 BC

>Not Germanics

Stop smoking weed.

>>3011690
from before 1500BC?

File: bscandi.jpg (125KB, 562x532px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 562x532px

>>3011893

Northern Scandinavia became Uralic/Germanic only in the late bronze age(Local Societies in Bronze Age Northern Europe, you can read it on Google books)

There was no link between the original folks and Ukrainian fugees aka Germanics

File: 899 BC - 700 BC Bronze Age.jpg (225KB, 2000x1330px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 2000x1330px

>>3011911
Sword dating from 899 BC - 700 BC near the same area as previous findings. The Axe for example, dating between 1699 BC - 500 BC.


http://historiska.se/upptack-historien/object/419721-svard-av-brons/

.

>>3011920
This is beyond retarded, kindly kill yourself. All I'm saying is that the Bronze age expanded further what your silly map shows you tiny skull sub-human. Our earlier history is not relevant in this case, though we have lived here for all of history, even if the land has taken different shapes. We have nothing to do with Ukrainians except the Rus' Vikings settling there in the Viking age.

File: Mesolithische-Doggerlandbewoners-maken-vissen-schoon-langs-de-waterkant-©Martin-Valkhoff-Archeologie-gemeente-Rotterdam-BOOR.jpg (1MB, 2316x1875px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2316x1875px

>>3011920

There is no such thing as a "bronze age".

These are evolutionist terms and concepts based on their imaginary monkey-to-man religion.

>>3011949

Your ideas are debunked.
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/03/03/113241.full.pdf

Germanics have only minor local ancestry.

File: Consanguinity.jpg (55KB, 640x452px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 640x452px

>>3011457
There were very little trees in bronze age Britain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVPUFMwm73Y

>>3011501
Europeans are some of the least inbred people in the world.

>>3011574
This.

>>3011965
Ok then sometimes between 2000 BCE and 1100 BCE. Happy?

File: Consanguinity 2.png (87KB, 400x302px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 400x302px

>>3011992
I meant to post this one, but they both work.

>>3011993
>BCE

You mean BC.

>>3012006

Before chopsticks?

File: brunstad-3-72.jpg (3MB, 3018x1674px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3018x1674px

>>3011967
They really aren't, as shown by the 8000 year-old dolikocefalortognat shaped skull in Norway. Named Brunstad man.

>>3012028

I don't care about some shitty skull.

It's been 100% proven that the Indo-Ukies came, swung their axes and did some rapin'.
You can deny it all you want but it doesn't change anything.

>>3012038
Haha you're just a disinformation agent.

File: low quality.jpg (12KB, 366x360px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 366x360px

>>3012016

>>3011457

>thread about bronze age Britain
>90% of posts are arguments about Wikipedia and Scandinavia

>>3012044

>Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, Germany

>Institute for Archaeological Sciences, Archaeo- and Palaeogenetics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

>Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge

>Archaeological Research Laboratory, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

>Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

File: IMG_1245.jpg (45KB, 415x635px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 415x635px

>>3012068
IKR? All that's missing is someone to start accusing someone of we wuzing for the thread to be totally broken. I came her to learn something. The Picts and ancient Bretons are a fucking fascinating people.

There is a stone circle outside my city from 3000+ BCE. It was in continuous use longer than Christianity has existed in the U.K.

They also found a chariot burial the style of which has only ever been found in Yorkshire and France.

>>3011651
>Germanic
>Scandinavian
Both of these are Germanics.

>>3012103

Picts/Celts have little to nothing to do with the Megalithic builders though.

File: IMG_1418.jpg (127KB, 1200x500px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1200x500px

>>3012103
Here's a picture of a reconstruction made for a museum exhibition about the Celts.

>>3012109
Usually not but geographical isolation and some aspects of their art indicate a connection in Northern Britain.

>>3012115

IIRC, Shetland may have never been Celtic. The cultural continuity there is unbroken until the Vikings came.

>>3011527
>>3011559
>>3011614
Kys you dumb fuck your said dumb shit and got called out on our stupidity. The best thing you can do is stfu.

>>3011965
>evolutionist
It's retarded day on /his/.

It's called Bronze Age because the majority of weapons were made of bronze. It has nothing to do with evolution. Although bronze is objectively better than stone, requires more advanced technology, skill etc., and iron is better than bronze.

I other words kys.

>>3011740
They were all exterminated though eventually.

>>3012243

At least some fraction of them were gingers according to these genetic studies so good riddance.

File: 1498665995945.png (201KB, 720x800px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 720x800px

>>3011522
>>3011526
Fixed it for you.

>>3012316

Stone age traditions persisted until the later BA.
See >>3011920

File: IMG_1419.jpg (149KB, 706x421px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 706x421px

>>3012227
>>3012227

He's actually not wrong. The whole classification system based on the substances usually used to create material culture was born out of the period where evolutionary approaches were vogue.

A historian in a museum put the items they had found in chronological order and realised the pattern and was basically like "hey check it all the bronze/ shit is found in the same layer and after. It never before." Essentially just like evolution. I can't be assed saucing but the system is directly based on the ideas of evolution. Always happens with new fascinating ideas, they get over applied to everything until everyone calms down.

It seriously one of the first things you learn in any archeology course so don't be a butthole.

>>3012006
BCE is the correct term. BC is an outdated term.

>>3011850
And that's clearly shopped

>>3011927
well the map says it represent 2000-1500 BC.

>>3011748
>Science is opinons like muh humanities and economics despite all empirical studies going against a certain concept
Wrong field, bro.

Varied

>tunic
>plaid / striped pants
>long mustaches
>long or sometimes spiked hair
>golden or silver torq necklace or bracelet, if a person of status or renown
>probably at least one fine, metal-work artistic doo-dad, due to muh Celtic superior metalurgy

First result in "Celtic Briton" on Google...

>>3014636
http://www.britainfirst.tv/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/CELTIC-1.jpg