Quote Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus View Post
Catuvellauni (the followers or smiters of Vellaunus)]
This is usually glossed as Catu (battle) + Uellanoi (lords, chiefs, or possibly 'good ones',).



Otherwise, well, there are no sources for pre-Roman British history, and not much for Roman British history either: Caesar, Tacitus, a few mentions in Suetonius.

So, just a couple of observations for the moment.

1. There is no positive archaeological evidence for a united Britain during the pre-Roman period. But let us ask what one means by 'united'? If you mean a strong, centralized monarchy, I feel it is safe to say that this is almost certainly not the case. If you are talking about an individual being well-known, respected or even feared, well, there is no way of knowing that at all.

2. The ethnographic information that we have about Britain all comes from Graeco-Roman sources. It is completely possible (and in my mind, highly likely) that the Romans imposed a hierarchical and categorized system where it might not have had perfect congruence. The 'tribes' of Britain might well be at least partly Roman constructs, creating a series of well-demarcated areas of land-ownership and political ascendancy for the convenience of Roman tax-collectors.