I hastily looked up the history of the Britons (much like you did for google) and assumed that the society was still hunter-gatherer until about 2100 years ago. My history book on British society lay atop my bed, ready to be read. Given that the hunter-gatherer society was still a thing in some areas of Europe 600 years ago, it is not an issue that I assumed that British society was still hunter-gatherer 2100 years ago.

How is your understanding of Finnish history?

MAKING HEROES WHERE NONE EXIST
Robert Hill - Quadrant Online,
July 28, 2026
Australia’s frontier historiography is now populated by manufactured resistance leaders and Aboriginal heroes. The process usually occurs in stages. Separate killings, raids and confrontations are first gathered into a fabricated campaign of resistance. A named man is then placed at the head of that campaign, often on sparse evidence of personal command. Once designated a resistance leader, he is elevated almost automatically into a warrior, patriot and hero.

The archive does not always support that progression. Fragmentary events are attached to individuals, motives are supplied, disconnected incidents become campaigns, and archival silence is used to infer strategy, command and political purpose. The resistance leader is reconstructed first; the hero follows.
This process has extended into the authoritative Australian Dictionary of Biography, produced by the National Centre of Biography at the Australian National University. The Dictionary’s occupation index now identifies seventeen historical figures as “Indigenous resistance fighters.” Yet resistance fighter is not a conventional occupation like farmer, police officer or carpenter. It is a historical interpretation. By placing it in the occupation field, the Dictionary converts a contested conclusion about motive and political purpose into an apparently settled biographical fact. Three questions must therefore be kept separate:

Was the violence part of an organised resistance movement?
Did the named individual actually lead it?
Did he perform an identifiable heroic deed?
Violence alone does not establish resistance. Resistance does not establish leadership. Leadership does not establish heroism.
A resistance leader must be shown to have exercised real authority over others in pursuit of a continuing political or territorial objective. A hero must have voluntarily accepted exceptional danger or sacrifice in order to protect, rescue or materially benefit others. In both cases, the conduct must be identifiable and supported by evidence rather than later imagination.
Where the record establishes only killing, raiding, vengeance, intimidation, flight or the acquisition of food and weapons, historians cannot transform those acts into an organised campaign merely by calling them resistance. Nor can they turn the man associated with them into a hero merely by calling him its leader.

By contrast, there is little difficulty recognising Albert Jacka as a hero. At Courtney’s Post on Gallipoli in May 1915, Turkish soldiers had entered part of the Australian trench. Jacka attacked them virtually alone, killed seven, retook the position and held it until reinforcements arrived.
Nor is there much difficulty understanding the heroism of Bruce Kingsbury. at Isurava in August 1942, with the Australian position giving way under a Japanese assault, Kingsbury rushed forward firing a Bren gun from the hip. His attack cut through the advancing enemy and helped restore the position. Moments later, he was killed by a sniper.
The deed identifies the hero. The title does not create him.
The converse is equally important. Deliberate attacks upon unarmed people, captives, women, children or others taking no part in fighting cannot be transformed into heroism by relabelling them as resistance. Cultural context may be used by an author to explain the violence. It does not convert violence into leadership, patriotism or heroism.
PLEASE READ ON  https://quadrant.org.au/.../making-heroes-where-none-exist/