Pre-Roman Britons

Greetings list;

          I am a non-linguist, active here in the past on purely historical, anthropological and regional linking interest, as well as curiosity to the Indo European movement westward/southward ( The Aegean.)   I am interested in some input to a specific linguistic/historical point I oppose, if the subject matter has not been recently dissected here. The issue is now being discussed in a group of non-linguist historical amateurs ( like me J).  It has been claimed to the group  ( and blamed on a recent BBC TV popular historical documentary)  that ( quoted):

 

1)       The Britons had a common language before the Romans came, which had regional variations, which did not prevent them understanding each other.

 

I suspect there is a political objective in artificially homogenizing the isles and making regional distinctions ( and nationalism) disappear with a pointed slant, if not significant liberty with the facts. The term “Briton” is being corrupted into a political or common linguistic/cultural designator ... rather than a geographic reference term with limited linguistic or cultural links.  Groupings such as Celtic P and Q, as well as Goidelic and Brythonic are ignored, marginalized or charged to post roman intrusion only ... in favor of a common “Briton” tongue ( with insignificant regional variations) ... that I doubt is valid.  

 

I would appreciate input to the point with an understanding that a non-linguist is asking, and is then going to water input down even further, and include some quoted input ... to edit and summarize back to the center of the dispute.

 

Thanks for any thoughts from the group on the matter.

 

Rex H. McTyeire