Holy Kingdom/King Arthur
news_surfer
Andy <an...@anomaliesinc.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:81p757$oen$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I'm hoping Adrian Gilbert will read this message. If so, hi Adrian.
>
> Could you tell me if the 'cave', as discussed in 'The Holy Kingdom', has
> been opened yet. Also, what is your new book, 'Signs in the Sky' about?
>
> Thanks a lot
>
> Andy
>
Hello Andy,
It's nice to see that someone on this newsgroup has
been attentive. It has been a matter of amazement to me that people haven't
been more than interested in the fact that researchers in Britain (Wilson
and Blackett) have found not just one but two memorial stones of King
Arthur(s) as well as an electrum cross placed in a Welsh church for the
benefit of his soul. I would have thought these would have been matters of
extreme interest to archaeologists worldwide and would have deserved some
sort of investigation. Instead, where these discoveries haven't met with
outright hostility from the profession there has been such supreme
indifference that one wonders at times if it's even worth bothering to
mention future discoveries. I myself twice appeared on the BBC Radio 4
"Today" programme, which has an audience of millions, speaking about these
very discoveries. I expected to be flooded with phone calls and letters from
interested parties wanting more information concerning these most exciting
discoveries. In fact I did not receive so much as one. This contrasts
strongly with the frothy interest in the very dubious "Arthnog" slate found
the year before last at Tintagel, which generated huge public interest even
though it is almost certainly nothing to do with the historical King Arthur
and very likely a fake. For those who are interested pictures of Wilson and
Blackett's stones as well as the electrum cross, they can be viewed on my
website at www.AdrianGilbert.co.uk .
As far as the cave is concerned [for those who don't know this is in
West Wales and we believe it to contain a cross, possibly contained inside a
jewel-encrusted, silver casket, which if certain Welsh histories are to be
believed is the original one on which Christ was crucified. More likely, in
my view, is that it is a Dark Age replica, possibly the same one carried by
King Arthur before the Battle of Baidan.] to date this remains sealed.
Undoubtedly more progress would have been made had Wilson and Blackett not
been subjected to such vitriolic and abusive attacks by the Welsh "Taffia",
who have done everything in their power to discredit their work. This at
times had had strange echoes of the Velikowsky affair of the fifties except
that it seems to have been driven not so much by professional jealousy as a
fear in certain places that if what they say proves to be true, lucrative
grants might dry up. All this now the subject of a court case details of
which can be viewed on their website at www3.KingArthurresearch.co.uk along
with much else besides.
As regards "Signs in the Sky" all I can say at present is "Watch this
space". Although I wrote "The Orion Mystery" with Bauval nearly six years
ago now and the Orion correlation is still the subject of furious debate in
the news groups, my own work did not stop there. There is very much that I
have been involved in since then that has not yet been published, including
some major archaeological discoveries at Giza and elsewhere. However you
will have to wait until next year before I am going to spill the beans on
what these discoveries are and mean!
Adrian G. Gilbert.
J&M Godesky
summer comes around, in fact, I intend to hunt down a copy and read it.
In the meantime, I can only go with what I've heard from others, from
you, Mr. Gilbert, and from the websites. Based on this, however, I
think I know why the discovery of these two memorial stones is met with
such indifference: there was a whole generation that saw a huge
proliferation in the use of the name "Arthur." I generally refer to it
as "the Arthur Generation." They were mostly contemporaries of the
post-Badon generation Gildas spends most of the DEB denouncing for their
slovenly and sinful ways. If memory serves, Dal Riada, Elmet, Gwent,
the Pennines, and Glywysing all had kings at this time named "Arthur."
Pretty conspicuous, considering there are, I believe, two Arthurs on
record before that, and I believe both were foreigners. Then, suddenly,
there's the battle of Badon and boom, everybody's naming their newborn
baby boys "Arthur." The usual explanation for this is that the victor
at Badon, a huge national hero now, was referred to as "Arthur," either
because of his name, his title, his nickname, whatever. And that's what
most people mean when they talk about the historical Arthur. Finding
two Dark Age stones to a "King Arthur" is no big shakes--if you can show
that these did not belong to the Arthur Generation, however, that is
quite another matter. As I said, I haven't had a chance to read "The
Holy Kingdom" yet, but can you show that this was the Arthur namesake
and not the ones named for him?
Jason Godesky
http://www.geocities.com/~gkingdom/saxonshore/
Aidan J Meehan
Adrian Gilbert <definite...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:Cdc04.788$VO.2...@nnrp3.clara.net...
>that researchers in Britain (Wilson
> and Blackett) have found not just one but two memorial stones of King
> Arthur(s) as well as an electrum cross placed in a Welsh church for the
> benefit of his soul.
Is this cross supposed to belong to the fifth century Wales? Curious that
the design is so very modern in appearance.
I would be interested to learn if any other crosses of this general form
have been found that can be provenanced to that period. The unusual features
of this cross are that it is a straight-armed, Roman cross superimposed on a
solid disc, which *might* pass for a Celtic cross *nowadays*, but would be
surprising to me if a similar example could be illustrated from such an
early period.
Furthermore, there is a second disk, superimposed on the centre of the cross
itself, rather than integrated into the plane of the arms themselves. It
also seems odd that the arms protrude from the surrounding ring, as I
believe this was a later development, very early Welsh crosses - and this
would have to be one of the earliest examples ever, if it is supposed to be
from Arthur's time - being enclosed by the greater ring. Indeed, in view of
the fact that the form of the Celtic cross is a development of the Chi-rho
monogram, in which the ring is an extension of the loop of the letter Rho -
"P", whose stem is one arm of the letter "X" rotated to the form of an
upright cross, then carried all around, in the same plane as the common
upright of both letters, this three-dimensional effect would seem to suggest
an entirely different origination of the design, one peculiar to this
example, I suspect. The whole pattern of a free-standing cross such as this
is not known in the evolution of the form until much later, the early
crosses being two dimensionally inscribed, and only gradually emerging from
flat, incised symbols into free-standing models carved in the round at a
much later time.
Then there is the inscription itself. Odd formulation "pro anima artorius".
I have only seen this formulation as "Ora pro ..." followed by the name. My
Latin is a bit rusty, but if this is "for the soul of Artorious", should the
name not be in the genitive case? Also, is it conventional to include the
word "anima" in the formula? Is there another instance of this wording from
the early record?
And what exactly is that style? Certainly, it seems like Roman lettering,
but were they not using uncial script back then? The "M", for instance, is
not representative of early Insular script, although the "A" has a chevron
crossbar, which is typically insular.
The lettering itself appears to have been inscribed in an odd manner. I have
seen similar inscriptions on Irish stone and metal work, and the
inscriptional script is much less deeply incised, and more like the
impression made by a stylus pen, with a script specially adapted for the
purpose, a lapidary half-uncial style would be more what I should expect to
find, unless this is a very small cross, but even so, it looks strange.
The raised, central boss, itself a stylistic anomaly, appears to have a
figure carved on it, reminiscent of the Irish High Cross style, of the ninth
century. But surely this is too late. And certainly, by then , the script
would certainly be Insular, rather than whatever script this is. And if the
figure on the boss is meant ot be a rider brandishing a sword - a la Saint
Michael - the proportions are certainly wrong for a Celtic object of that
period, never mind the style. Why would a Celtic cross be combined with a
Roman figurative style, and - presumably - a Roman inscriptional style?
Especially, when the only Celtic thing about this object - its resemblance
to a Celtic cross - belongs to a tradition that only emerged fully as a
recognisable Celtic cross centuries after the Roman period, and nowhere have
seen a Celtic cross in the form that we have here.
I feel sure that this style of cross could only have been manufactured in
the last hundred years. If any of the professional archeologists on this
list can show show me a single, similar example - in stone or metal - from
the period that this cross is supposed to be from, I would be astonished.
Aidan Meehan.
Doug Weller
> As I said, I haven't had a chance to read "The
> Holy Kingdom" yet, but can you show that this was the Arthur namesake
> and not the ones named for him?
>
Another commentator has said (paraphrased):
1. The lettering is to regular -- you'd expect it to almost look as though
it was in code, to use abbreviations, for the cross to read "Artorius" on the
main bar with "D" on the left arm and "M" on the right, not "Pro Anima
Artorius". "Rex Artorius fili Mauricius" is also odd. "Artorius" is
generally rendered in inscription simply as "Art" (For instance, Lucius
Artorius Castus had his name inscribed "L. Art Cast" on his tombstone.).
Rank usually comes after the name on the tombstone, not before it (even in
later time periods, c.f. Arthur Rex). Rex should be dux, it doesn't comethis
early.
2. If eenuine, then we see the name Arthur in the form Artorius still in use.
After any 'real' Arthur.
Then there's the reference to "Emperor
Magnus Maximus's son, King Anwn of South Wales." Magnus Maximus (who
supplied the story for "The Dream of Maxen") served in Britain 368-383, at
which point he was proclaimed "emperor" by the troops. After leading a
Continental campaign, he was beheaded by the Romans in 388.
So how is this Anwn to Arthun/Andragathius/Artorius link made?
Is the initial inscription inits original setting? What is the context?
And now we have the Tentagel inscription, of course.
Doug
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
J&M Godesky
> it was in code, to use abbreviations, for the cross to read "Artorius" on the
> main bar with "D" on the left arm and "M" on the right, not "Pro Anima
> Artorius". "Rex Artorius fili Mauricius" is also odd. "Artorius" is
> generally rendered in inscription simply as "Art" (For instance, Lucius
> Artorius Castus had his name inscribed "L. Art Cast" on his tombstone.).
> Rank usually comes after the name on the tombstone, not before it (even in
> later time periods, c.f. Arthur Rex). Rex should be dux, it doesn't comethis
> early.
Wait a minute, it can't be the "fili Mauricius" stone. I know about
that one .... it's a fake. I can't remember how they proved it was a
fake, but I remember it was shown to be a fake. I'll have to look it up
and get back to you.
>
> 2. If eenuine, then we see the name Arthur in the form Artorius still in use.
> After any 'real' Arthur.
>
> Then there's the reference to "Emperor
> Magnus Maximus's son, King Anwn of South Wales." Magnus Maximus (who
> supplied the story for "The Dream of Maxen") served in Britain 368-383, at
> which point he was proclaimed "emperor" by the troops. After leading a
> Continental campaign, he was beheaded by the Romans in 388.
>
> So how is this Anwn to Arthun/Andragathius/Artorius link made?
"Anwn" looks more like the Welsh underworld than "Arthur," to me.
Although even if it were, I'd presume it was Arthur of Gwent, from the
Arthur Generation; his family bore that title, and claimed descent from
Magnus Maximus.
>
> Is the initial inscription inits original setting? What is the context?
>
> And now we have the Tentagel inscription, of course.
Which I still maintain refers to Artbodgu of Ceredigion, from Harleian
MS 3859. See
http://www.geocities.com/~gkingdom/saxonshore/arthurstone.html
Jason Godesky
news_surfer
Aidan J Meehan <ame...@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:0ae04.9667$LX2.7...@brie.direct.ca...
>
> Adrian Gilbert <definite...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:Cdc04.788$VO.2...@nnrp3.clara.net...
> >that researchers in Britain (Wilson
> > and Blackett) have found not just one but two memorial stones of King
> > Arthur(s) as well as an electrum cross placed in a Welsh church for the
> > benefit of his soul.
>
> Is this cross supposed to belong to the fifth century Wales? Curious that
> the design is so very modern in appearance.
>
> I would be interested to learn if any other crosses of this general form
> have been found that can be provenanced to that period. The unusual
features
> of this cross are that it is a straight-armed, Roman cross superimposed on
a
> solid disc, which *might* pass for a Celtic cross *nowadays*, but would be
> surprising to me if a similar example could be illustrated from such an
> early period.
>
My guess (and this is only a guess) would be that this cross was placed in
the chapel during the Middle Ages in honour of King Arthur. We know from the
Glamorgan records (most especially the Book of Llandaff) that there was an
"Artorius" (called Athrwys or Atwys in Welsh who ruled over at least
Glamorgan and Gwent in the 6th century. Curious then that in Nennius Arthur
was crowned by St Dubricius (Dyfrig) at Caerleon. This Dubricius is buried
in Llandaff Cathedral, founded by the father of Arthrwys, a king called
Mauricius (Meurig in Welsh or Maurice in English). If you read "The Holy
Kingdom" you will find that there is much more evidence to suggest that this
Arthur was the one made famous in the Geoffrey of Monmouth's translation of
the Welsh Chronicles, the "Brut Tyssilio". Geoffrey was later made Bishop of
Llandaff and the principal dedicatee of his book was Robert, Duke of
Gloucester and LORD OF GLAMORGAN. This Robert was the bastard son of Henry I
by Nest, daughter of Iestyn the last King of Glamorgan before the Norman
takeover of South Wales in 1091 and himself a direct descendant of Athrwys.
At the time of publication of Geoffrey's "History of the Kings Britain"
(c.1136) England was in turmoil. Henry I died on 1 December 1135 and before
Christmas his nephew Stephen, in direct contradiction of the oath he had
sworn to the old king, had himself crowned. This led to the civil war fought
between the forces of Stephen and those of the Empress Mathilda, daughter of
Henry I and mother of the future Henry II. Duke Robert, besides being the
most powerful baron in Britain was her half-brother. Given this situation,
it is clear that the publication of Geoffrey's translation into Latin of the
Welsh Chronicles with their eulogising of King Arthur was to urge Robert, as
a descendant of the pre-Saxon Kings of Britain to take control of the
situation and have himself pronounced king. In the event he preferred the
role of kingmaker, deferring to the greater legitimacy of his nephew Henry
II but Geoffrey was not to know this in 1135 when he was working on his
book.
Given all of this history, which is well known and can easily be
checked, it would be hardly surprising if the church near which Athrwys, who
is called "Adras son of Meurig" in the "Genealogy of Iestyn ap Gwrgan" was
buried would have been visited by Geoffrey and others intent on urging their
local feudal lord, Robert of Glamorgan to greater action. As the son of Nest
he would have been in possession of the genealogy of his grandfather,
Iestyn, and would have paid it great attention. Of his illustrious ancestor
he would have read
"Adras, the son of Meurig, was a very heroic sovereign. who frequently put
the Saxons to flight; killing and destroying them. He enacted many laws and
ordinances for civil and ecclesiastical government; and was the first who
instituted a class of Equestrians, for the maintenance of correct
comportment in war, and due discipline at arms; and also to guard well the
country, watch carefully its enemies, and to establish an efficient system
of communications with regards to hostilities and legislation."
Does this not sound like the activities of an Arthur setting up the
Equestrian order of the Round Table? Almost certainly this is the Arthur
referred to by Geoffrey. We know that the church of St Peter super Montem
was rebuilt many times, stage 4 being at about the right time for Geoffrey
and Robert. In my opinion it seems likely that this church was then treated
as a shrine to King Arthur. I would hazard that it was duringthis stage of
rebuilding that the electrum cross was placed as a votive offering for the
soul of Arthur and his stone with its inscription "Artorius Rex fili
Mauricius" put in the niche by the altar.
The cross itself is clearly cast, a technique known to the British since the
bronze age and therefore not at all impossible for the age of Arthur. I have
a copy of the letter written by Dr Eric Talbot of Glasgow University saying
that in his opinion the slab was genuine and of the period of Arthur. For
someone to say it is a forgery when they haven't even seen it is not
archaeology but prejudice.
Dr Talbot has also confirmed the genuiness of the other stone, which seems
to have a different ancestry. This was found at Oldbury near Atherstone in
Warwickshire. Wilson and Blackett believe it to be the memorial of an
ancestor of Athrwys called Annwyn (Arthun) Dda but also known as
Andragathius the son of Magnus Maximus. Magnus is listed as a usurper of the
Roman Empire as he led a British army into Gaul in 383 AD and deposed
Gratian the then Emperor of the West. His son Arthun led the British army
and killed Gratian at Lyons. The existence of this earlier "Arthur" seems to
have been remembered in the Welsh Chronicles where he is confused with the
later king of Glamorgan. It explains how Arthur fought both the Romans and
the Saxons: an impossibility in the sixth century. Magnus Maximus himself we
believe to have been the son of Crispus, eldest son of Constantine the
Great. As Constantine was the son of Helen, daughter of King Coel of
Britain, Magnus would have had a legitimate claim on not just the throne of
Britain but also the Roman Empire. His subsequent defeat and execution by
Theodosius not only put an end to these claims but opened Western Europe to
invasion by barbarians. In the Welsh histories it is claimed that Helen
brought the cross of Christ back to Britain from Jerusalem. This is the
substance of the claim that it today lies sealed in a cave in West Wales.
I hope that all this is of interest to you, there is much more of course
than I can possibly post here in a new group. More will be found on my
website at www.AdrianGilbert.co.uk .
Adrian Gilbert
Aidan J Meehan
news_surfer <definite...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:O_u04.2010$4a5....@nnrp4.clara.net...
> The cross itself is clearly cast, a technique known to the British since
the
> bronze age and therefore not at all impossible for the age of Arthur. I
have
> a copy of the letter written by Dr Eric Talbot of Glasgow University
saying
> that in his opinion the slab was genuine and of the period of Arthur. For
> someone to say it is a forgery when they haven't even seen it is not
> archaeology but prejudice.
[SNIP]
> Adrian Gilbert
>
>
Excuse me? I don't see that my point of view is prejudiced, at all. On the
contrary, to accept the artifact's authenticity without a single expert
appraisal would indicate prejudice in favour of some alternative agenda. In
fact, I said nothing about forgery, and in any case, I was referring
exclusively to the electrum cross. It looks very modern, judging from the
picture on your site: http://www.adriangilbert.co.uk/images/arthcross.jpg
and the one at Wilson and Blackett's site:
http://www3.mistral.co.uk/kingarthurresearch/electrum.htm
The objections that I raised were based on the evidence *you* provided. I am
asking for corroborative evidence, such as a single example of a Celtic
cross of similar design, older than the nineteenth century. You say that it
might have been placed there in the 12th century. But they didn't make
Celtic crosses like that in twelfth century Wales, did they? Nor in
sixth-century Wales, either.
Your co-authors, Wilson and Blackett, seem to be ambiguous about the date of
the cross: "The physical certitude of the electrum cross found in a church
dating at least AD 160, or earlier, renders redundant any need to justify or
defend British records against an Establishment of "Saducees and Pharisees"
hell bent on cultural genocide. ... When Richard Melbourne announced the
reality of the cross, the certitude of its existence renders its
significance self evident. The establishment and academic campaign to
declare this most important of all British Apostolic churches to be of AD
1100 collapses in its own idiocy".
They seem to think that both the cross and the church are much earlier than
the Middle Ages. No corroborating evidence is offered, other than "Found in
the 1990 excavation by Richard Melbourne, the cross is cast from a mould and
in the centre it depicts a man on a horse with a sword in one hand, a crown
on his head, in Dark Age British war armoury and dress. The cross carries
the inscription: Pro anima Artorius - "for the soul of Arthur". Its
dimensions are about 10" x 5 1/2" and it weighs over 3 lbs." Can you tell
from the photograph that the medallion depicts "Dark Age British war
armory"? Do you believe the cross dates to Arthur's time?
You say a slab has been authenticated. What about the electrum cross?
Aidan
Aidan J Meehan
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.12ab81641...@news.btinternet.com...
> In article <3841678D...@trib.infi.net>, jm...@trib.infi.net says...
> > As I said, I haven't had a chance to read "The
> > Holy Kingdom" yet, but can you show that this was the Arthur namesake
> > and not the ones named for him?
> >
> Good point.
>
> Another commentator has said (paraphrased):
>
> it was in code, to use abbreviations, for the cross to read "Artorius" on
the
> main bar with "D" on the left arm and "M" on the right, not "Pro Anima
>
> Doug
> --
It strikes me that this is the first free-standing "Celtic cross" ever to
enter the archeological that purports to be older than the present century.
I have searched Romilly Allen's Celtic Art, Francoise Henry's Irish High
Crosses, the Met. Mus. Catalog, Treasures of Early Irish Art, 1500 BC-1500
AD; The Work of Angels, Masterpieces of Celtic Metalwork, 6th - 9th
centuries AD (which has a lot of British material). There is not a single
instance of a free-standing Celtic cross in any of them.
Aidan
Aidan J Meehan
OOPS! I meant to say, free-standing METAL "Celtic cross". By free-standing,
I mean, not based on a flat surface, but modelled in the round. There are
free-standing Celtic crosses in stone, but none that I can find in metal.
The thing is, the earliest ones, from Wales, are not what we would commonly
describe as "Celtic crosses", in the general form of the electrum artifact.
Romilly Allen illustrates an example of a cross at Penmon, Anglesey, which
is decorated with the keypatterns and a triangular knot of a style later
than the sixth century. Certainly later than the Carndonagh type from
Ireland, which is also one of the earliest, basically a carved slab, in the
style of the late sixth-century manuscripts such as the Book of Durrow and
the second Durham fragment - see Francoise Henry and Carl Nordenfalk on this
dating. Conclusion, the celtic cross in the earliest, stone, freestanding
prototype is not yet the familiar "Celtic cross" that we see in the electrum
cross that Mr. Gilbert has introduced on his website. It is basically still
a short cross, inside the disk, and the disk is barely wider than the shaft.
Mr Gilbert's cross, for what its worth, is modelled on the later, Irish High
Cross. The next Welsh cross to consider is the wheel-cross of Conbelin at
Margam Abbey, which I suggest Mr Gilbert take a long hard look at. This is a
typical example of the 7th-century Welsh style, as opposed to the
9th-century Irish style typified by the crosses at Iona, for instance. The
Welsh model is short arms enclosed in a disk, Romilly Allen says we should
call it a disk cross, rather than a wheel cross to distinguish the early
Welsh from the late Irish style. There is a definite evolution of the form
over several centuries. But the free-standing stone cross would not come in
to style in Wales until well into the eighth century. It would have gone out
of fashion in Britain not long after the Synod of Whidby, which marks the
disappearance of the Irish style south of Scotland. Gradually, and certainly
by Norman times, the late style of the wheeled High Cross was nowhere in
vogue except in Ireland. The style of the electrum cross is based on the
late Irish style, which in the last century has come to be identified as the
"Celtic cross" of the present day. But I stress that I cannot find a single
example of this type in metal. While there are models of the late form
surviving in stone - none that I know of in Wales - there are absolutely no
metal models of the Irish high cross in any of the resources that I have at
hand.
In the interests of research, can any one point me to an example of a celtic
cross in metal from the medieval period, from anywhere within a five-hundred
mile radius of Wales, and anywhere from the seventh to the twelfth century?
Or earlier, if you prefer, Mr. Gilbert.
mddavis
> > > main bar with "D" on the left arm and "M" on the right, not "Pro
Anima
> > > Artorius". [snip for brevity]
Another point.Can anyone point me to another ancient source which names
Arthur as "Artorius"? This is a bit of 20th century
speculation,possibly quite baseless as well.Leaves me feeling uneasy
about it all.
Mark
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Philip Anderson
<snipped>
>My guess (and this is only a guess) would be that this cross was placed
in
>the chapel during the Middle Ages in honour of King Arthur. We know
from the
>Glamorgan records (most especially the Book of Llandaff) that there was
an
>"Artorius" (called Athrwys or Atwys in Welsh who ruled over at least
>Glamorgan and Gwent in the 6th century. Curious then that in Nennius
Arthur
>was crowned by St Dubricius (Dyfrig) at Caerleon. This Dubricius is
buried
Not in Nennius. He does not associate Arthur with Wales at all,
excepting perhaps one battle at the City of the Legion, which could be
Caerleon.
>in Llandaff Cathedral, founded by the father of Arthrwys, a king called
>Mauricius (Meurig in Welsh or Maurice in English). If you read "The
Holy
>Kingdom" you will find that there is much more evidence to suggest that
this
>Arthur was the one made famous in the Geoffrey of Monmouth's
translation of
>the Welsh Chronicles, the "Brut Tyssilio". Geoffrey was later made
Bishop of
>Llandaff and the principal dedicatee of his book was Robert, Duke of
>Gloucester and LORD OF GLAMORGAN. This Robert was the bastard son of
Henry I
>by Nest, daughter of Iestyn the last King of Glamorgan before the
Norman
>takeover of South Wales in 1091 and himself a direct descendant of
Athrwys.
Geoffrey was made Bishop of St Asaph, and probably never visited that
see; he spent most of his life at Oxford. Robert certainly wasn't his
feudal lord, Geoffrey was a churchman. I'd argue with the idea of
Geoffrey as a translator too, though it's a grey area.
A couple of late sources said that Robert was son of Nest daughter of
Rhys Tewdwr, but that's almost certainly an invention; a daughter of
Iestyn played a walk-on part in the not-to-be-relied on story of the
conquest of Glamorgan, but AFAIK isn't named. Robert became Lord of
Glamorgan by marrying the heiress, Mabel, of Robert FitzHammo who
conquered it. Henry's son by Nest, Henry, was born later.
BTW, the Norman invasion of Wales began well before 1091; the Domesday
Book of 1086 lists a number of castles for instance.
<snipped>
>Great. As Constantine was the son of Helen, daughter of King Coel of
>Britain, Magnus would have had a legitimate claim on not just the
throne of
>Britain but also the Roman Empire. His subsequent defeat and execution
by
>Theodosius not only put an end to these claims but opened Western
Europe to
>invasion by barbarians.
This is legend not history; Constantine's mother was not British, nor
was King Coel historical (even if based on Coel Hen of Aeron/Ayrshire).
I don't think there was any such thing as a legitimate claim to the
Roman Empire; a son had the advantage of being in the right place at the
right time, for anyone else an army would do. And I don't think Magnus
Maximus' defeat had much effect on Western Europe generally, though
probably on Britain.
--
pob hwyl
Philip Anderson
pjand...@freeuk.com
Cymru/Wales
C. Gwinn
Colchester - seeing that Colchester comes from ancient Camulodunum, Coel
must actually be Camulos - the Celtic Mars.
Neil Bailey
> <snipped>
> >Great. As Constantine was the son of Helen, daughter of King Coel of
> >Britain, Magnus would have had a legitimate claim on not just the
> >throne of Britain but also the Roman Empire.
and then, Philip Anderson wrote:
> This is legend not history; Constantine's mother was not British, nor
> was King Coel historical (even if based on Coel Hen of
> Aeron/Ayrshire).
I've been thinking about this concept: the
story of Coel Hen/King Coel and the marriage
of his daughter Helen to Constantius Chlorus,
father to Constantine I is late, and possibly
nothng more than an attempt to add legitimacy
to an insular dynasty by linking it to late
Roman Imperial majesty. After all, Coel Hen
is a century too late (give or take) to be
linked in any way to Constantine... I.
He is, however, very aptly placed in time to
be linked to Constantine (III), who had a son
named Constans.... Is it possible that the
legends of Helen, Constantine, etc, are a
much-garbled bit of early 5th century
Romano-British history?
Just asking...
Neil
fam Johansson
Dan Bollinger <danbol...@home.com> wrote in message
news:LxQ04.35489$m64.9...@news.rdc1.il.home.com...
> Adrian, very interesting indeed! That must have been exciting doing
the
> research and the dig. Any plans to make a dig at the tumulus? Dan
>
>
> news_surfer <definite...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:bcN04.453$AD5....@nnrp4.clara.net...
> >
> > Aidan J Meehan <ame...@direct.ca> wrote in message
> > news:WuM04.10404$LX2.7...@brie.direct.ca...
> > > news_surfer <definite...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> > > news:wtQZ3.256$7a....@nnrp3.clara.net...
> > > > For those of you who are interested, I have now put up details
about
> > > > my last book "The Holy Kingdom" (all about not just one but two
> > > >King Arthurs!)
This part is interesting since that is the same result I myself ended up
with
in my studies of written sources.
What I would like to know, I haven't got hold of your book,
is which of the (at least) two King Arthurs you believe to have been the
Arthur mentioned in Elegy for Geraint, c 480 AD. The poem is an English
translation of a sixth century Welsh battle poem written to the Dumnonian
king
Geraint who fell during the conflict. The poem can according to the
homepage's
provider his...@britannia.com, be found in the "Black Book of Carmarthen".
The poem:
........" In Llongborth I saw Arthur's
Heroes who cut with steel.
The Emperor, ruler of our labour..........
Secondly I would like to know if you believe that Arthur to be the same
Arthur
as been presented in Nennis The Historia Brittonum(normally Arthur is
mentioned
under point 56. But in some editions among them J.A. Giles's translation
presented
under 50:
"Then it was, that the magnanimous Arthur, with all the kings and military
force of Britain,
fought against the Saxons. And though there were many more noble than
himself,
yet he was twelve times chosen their commander, and was as often conqueror.
The first battle in which he was engaged, was at the mouth of the river
Gleni.
The second, third, fourth, and fifth, were on another river, by the Britons
called Duglas,
in the region Linuis. The sixth, on the river Bassas. The seventh in the
wood Celidon,
which the Britons call Cat Coit Celidon. The eighth was near Gurnion
castle,
where Arthur bore the image of the Holy Virgin, mother of God, upon his
shoulders,
and through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the holy Mary,
put the Saxons to flight, and pursued them the whole day with great
slaughter.
The ninth was at the City of Legion, which is called Cair Lion.
The tenth was on the banks of the river Trat Treuroit.
The eleventh was on the mountain Breguoin, which we call Cat Bregion.
The twelfth was a most severe contest, when Arthur penetrated to the hill
of Badon.
In this engagement, nine hundred and forty fell by his hand alone,
no one but the Lord affording him assistance. In all these engagements the
Britons
were successful. For no strength can avail against the will of the
Almighty."
Then my last question, is any of the Arthur's above, according to your
knowledge/assumptions etc the same Arthur who was the son of minor king on
the border to Scotland according to Scottish sources??
Inger E Johansson
<mrs.inger....@swipnet.se>
PS I have knowledge of four other sources written earlier than 900 AD that
mentions Arthur.
Among them two Eastern Tables.
J&M Godesky
That really doesn't count -- the "naming" of Colchester after Coel is a
much later fable, with (probably) little grounding in fact.
On the other hand, if the "historical Arthur" was one of Coel's
relatives, and he did use Camulodunum as a military post, perhaps it
isn't quite so spurious.
Camulodunum does come from Camulos, but does Colchester come from
Camulodunum? Doesn't that mean "Cole's Fort" or some such thing in OE?
Jason Godesky
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: "C. Gwinn" wrote:
: >
: > The oldest Coel from British history is actually the eponymous founder of
: > Colchester - seeing that Colchester comes from ancient Camulodunum, Coel
: > must actually be Camulos - the Celtic Mars.
: That really doesn't count -- the "naming" of Colchester after Coel is a
: much later fable, with (probably) little grounding in fact.
<minor snip>
: Camulodunum does come from Camulos, but does Colchester come from
: Camulodunum? Doesn't that mean "Cole's Fort" or some such thing in OE?
According to Ekwall (Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names),
the "Col-" in Colchester comes from the river Colne, a name of unclear
etymology that appears in the earliest examples as "Colun". The name is
etymologically unrelated to Camulodunum.
--
*********************************************************
Heather Rose Jones hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
**********************************************************
C. Gwinn
>much later fable, with (probably) little grounding in fact.
Exactly my point - it isn't based in fact, but in myth. Coel, IMO must be
Camulos, thus his association with Colchester.
Coelchester is an Anglicized of Camulodunum (or, rather, it's later
Brythonic form of Camulodunum)
Camulodunum > *Coeldin or *Din Coel ( perhaps even transformed into *Caer
Coel) - Anglicized as *Coel-Chester > Colchester (just as Mamucium became
Man-chester)
C. Gwinn
Will have to check on that myself. Would tend to doubt that the city's
English name would be named after the "Colne" river instead of the
settlement's previous name, Camulodunum - but perhaps Ekwall is right.
J&M Godesky
> Camulos, thus his association with Colchester.
>
> Coelchester is an Anglicized of Camulodunum (or, rather, it's later
> Brythonic form of Camulodunum)
>
> Camulodunum > *Coeldin or *Din Coel ( perhaps even transformed into *Caer
> Coel) - Anglicized as *Coel-Chester > Colchester (just as Mamucium became
> Man-chester)
However, it doesn't follow from this that there was no Coel. It would
make more sense, to my mind, if the whole reason the Anglo-Saxons
mistook the name "Camulodunum" as having something to do with a guy
named Coel if there actually was someone named Coel running around way
back when who was somewhat well-known. As Heather Jones pointed out in
the other response to my post, the two names are etymologically
unrelated.
Jason Godesky
C. Gwinn
Well, the general assumption is that they are unrelated - I am not
completely convinced yet - will need to do more research.
What I am postulating is this:
The god Camulos is historicized as the founder of Camulodunum (just as Lugus
was the founder of Lugdunum in Gaul).
By the time of the Saxon invasions, Camulos had, because of language shift,
become *Coel (medial -M- in Brythonic can occasionally disappear). Perhaps
leaders in the area even took on this divine name, as was common practice in
those days, leading to an historical Coel.
Perhaps the Saxons confused Coel with the similarly named Colne river, or
even the fact that Camulodunum was a Roman Colonia (Colun in the Brythonic
of that time), and thus translated what would have been then in Brythonic
*Coel-din / *Din Coel / *Caer Coel into Col-chester
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: Well, the general assumption is that they are unrelated - I am not
: completely convinced yet - will need to do more research.
It is not an "assumption" -- assumptions are arbitrary positions taken
without support or proof for the purpose further hypothesizing. That the
two names are unrelated is a _conclusion_, based on a linguistic analysis
of the recorded forms of the names.
: What I am postulating is this:
: The god Camulos is historicized as the founder of Camulodunum (just as Lugus
: was the founder of Lugdunum in Gaul).
: By the time of the Saxon invasions, Camulos had, because of language shift,
: become *Coel (medial -M- in Brythonic can occasionally disappear).
Perhaps you'd like to give some examples where this is clearly the case? I
sincerely doubt you'll find _any_ where it had disappeared by the time of
the Saxon invasions.
Aidan J Meehan
mddavis wrote:
>
> > > > main bar with "D" on the left arm and "M" on the right, not "Pro
> Anima
> > > > Artorius". [snip for brevity]
>
> Another point.Can anyone point me to another ancient source which names
> Arthur as "Artorius"? This is a bit of 20th century
> speculation,possibly quite baseless as well.Leaves me feeling uneasy
> about it all.
>
Artorious is the Latin form of the name, Arthur. But in the context of a
Celtic cross, it is problematic, as that particular usage suggests a
very early period, Romano-British, in fact.
Remember, the Celtic cross form evolved from a simple wheelcross
inscribed in stone, through the sixth-century, Welsh wheelcross, through
to the tenth-century Celtic cross, by which time, it is hardly like the
Roman name, Artorious would have been still used, even by medieval
monks.
Will Corley
--
Celtic One Design
Reviving the ancient Celtic Arts for the modern craftsperson.
http://homepages.msn.com/DharmaDr/celticonedesign/
ICQ #: 51910463
My Real 3D Home In The City of the Future
http://www.seedity.com
Scol Address
scol://195.38.157.75:C1Z1Q1B1L1BU1/F4H4A3
"Aidan J Meehan" <ame...@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:38495D59...@direct.ca...
Aidan J Meehan
Will Corley <nospamiam...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:#Xy2TBsP$GA.170@cpmsnbbsa02...
> Which evolved from the sun wheel
In your dreams. Cite verification.
Will Corley
--
Celtic One Design
Reviving the ancient Celtic Arts for the modern craftsperson.
http://homepages.msn.com/DharmaDr/celticonedesign/
ICQ #: 51910463
My Real 3D Home In The City of the Future
http://www.seedity.com
Scol Address
scol://195.38.157.75:C1Z1Q1B1L1BU1/F4H4A3
"Aidan J Meehan" <ame...@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:ofr24.11979$LX2.9...@brie.direct.ca...
mddavis
> Artorious is the Latin form of the name, Arthur. But in the context of
a
Actually,the name "Arthur" always appears as "Arturus" or
"Arturius",etc.Forms indicating that the name had been Latinized.
"Artorius" is a Latin proper name which is never conected with
"Arthur" until this century.The one vowel makes a lot of
difference,though it may not seem like much.
C. Gwinn
You are probably right there.
From what I know of Welsh borrowings of Latin, the only way that Artorius
might become Arthur was if the -O- was long. I need to research more to
learn if in Vulgar Latin this was the case. If not, then Artorius will not
produce Arthur in Welsh, thus debunking any such claims by modern authors.
C. Gwinn
that?
Give me another day or so
C. Gwinn
gospel truth.
He believes that Colne river is of pre-Celtic origin, of uncertain
etymology, am I right?
Well...
Colne comes from Brythonic Colauna.
1) The first element, Col-, can come from any number of Indo European roots
in *KEL- or *(S)KEL- (which are amply attested in Celtic)
2) The -auna- ending is perfectly Celtic - note for instance Gaulish
Icouellauna.
While the absolute meaning may not be clear, it isn't so easy to dismiss the
word as "non-Celtic" - especially considereing its ending
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: I'll give you a clear example of why you shouldn't take Ekwall to be the
: gospel truth.
: He believes that Colne river is of pre-Celtic origin, of uncertain
: etymology, am I right?
I'm away from my books so I can't say for certain, but I don't believe he
says anything about it being "pre-Celtic", only that the origin was
unclear.
: Well...
: Colne comes from Brythonic Colauna.
: 1) The first element, Col-, can come from any number of Indo European roots
: in *KEL- or *(S)KEL- (which are amply attested in Celtic)
: 2) The -auna- ending is perfectly Celtic - note for instance Gaulish
: Icouellauna.
You're very fond of making absolute pronouncements about what things
"must" or "cannot" be without giving any sort of source either for your
data or conclusions. It would be easier to take this seriously as a
scholarly conversation if you would provide some sort of source for
statements of alleged fact such as the above. Why do you believe the above
to be an undisputed fact? Why do you believe that it is the only possible
derivation that has been proposed by researchers on the topic (thus giving
the lie to Ekwall's claim that the etymology is "unclear")?
: While the absolute meaning may not be clear, it isn't so easy to dismiss the
: word as "non-Celtic" - especially considereing its ending
But then, I don't believe anyone has dismissed the word as "non-Celtic".
The most anyone has claimed is that it is etymologically unrelated either
to the place name Camulodunum or to the personal name Coel.
Aidan J Meehan
C. Gwinn <rigv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PMh34.78$Dx2....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> OK - I thought we mostly knew some of the main sources.
>
> Billy, Pierre-Henri. Thesaurus Linguae Gallicae.Hildesheim, 1993. [Gaulish
> onomastics, etc.]
>
> Jackson, Kenneth. Language and History in Early Britain. Edinburgh
> University Press, 1953 [ Still a great source all these years later].
>
> Lambert, Pierre-Yves. La Langue Gauloise. Editions Errance, Paris, 1995.
> [Gaulish grammar and inscriptions]
>
> Lejeune, Michel (ed). Recueil des Inscriptions Gauloises:Tomes 1, 2. CNRS,
> Paris, 1985/1988. [Gaulish inscriptions]
>
> Lewis, Henry and Pedersen, Henry. A Concise Comparative Celtic Grammar.
> Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, Goettingen, 1961
>
> Meid, Wolfgang. Gaulish Inscriptions. Archaeolingua, Budapest, 1992.
>
> Meid, Wolfgang (ed.). Die Groessern Altkeltischen Sprachdenkmaeler.
> Archaeolingua, Budapest, 1996. [Essays on Celtic by the top scholars in
the
> biz]
>
> Pokorny, Julius. Indogermanisches Etymologisches Woerterbuch. Bern, 1959.
> [for Proto Indo European - a little dated, but still quite useful]
>
> Whatmough, Joshua. Dialects of Ancient Gaul. Harvard University Press,
> Cambridge, MA., 1970. [imperfect, but copious]
You recommend Kenneth Jackson, Language and History in Early Britain, 1953.
Is this still in print?
C. Gwinn
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: OK - I thought we mostly knew some of the main sources.
<snip bibliography>
Ok, a very nice bibliography. Now which one of them provided the
particular etymology that you were presenting as undisputed fact? Or do
you assume that we all have the "main sources" utterly memorized?
C. Gwinn
concerning Camulos<Coel<Col-chester (I am attempting to innovate here),
though the following two are the ones that I am using to build my proof.
Kenneth Jackson "Language and History in Early Britain" - Endinburgh
University Press, 1953
Pokorny IEW
I am only presenting my Camulos theory as a possibilty - as I have already
stated, Ekwall may be right, but I have not yet been fully convinced.
As far as my views on the river Colauna being perfectly Celtic, the above
mentioned sources will be a good starting point, along with Billy's
Thesaurus.
Brian M. Scott
> C. Gwinn (rigv...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> : I'll give you a clear example of why you shouldn't take Ekwall to be the
> : gospel truth.
> : He believes that Colne river is of pre-Celtic origin, of uncertain
> : etymology, am I right?
> I'm away from my books so I can't say for certain, but I don't believe he
> says anything about it being "pre-Celtic", only that the origin was
> unclear.
You're right: s.n. Colne he says that it is of British origin, had the
form <Colun> originally, and has an obscure etymology. A.H. Smith
(English Place-Name Elements) makes it *<colauno->, British of doubtful
meaning.
> : Well...
> : Colne comes from Brythonic Colauna.
> : 1) The first element, Col-, can come from any number of Indo European roots
> : in *KEL- or *(S)KEL- (which are amply attested in Celtic)
> : 2) The -auna- ending is perfectly Celtic - note for instance Gaulish
> : Icouellauna.
Is the etymology of <uellauno-> better understood now than it was in
1967 when Evans did his study of Gaulish personal names? He thought it
likely that <-au-no-> was a suffix, but he didn't wholly dismiss a view
that the word contained an element <launo->.
[...]
Brian M. Scott
C. Gwinn
that down - perhaps it was a spurious notion.
In Colauna, -aun-os/a is indeed a suffix - it may represent a development
from PIE *EU-N- in some cases or may be an animate form of PIE *-M(e)N in
its zero-grade (a suffix which often notes abstractions - ex. Latin Carmen
"song" = Proto Latin *Can-men).
For the god Uellaunos, some have recently been comparing him to Indic Varuna
(if Varuna comes from *UEL-EU-N-OS and not from *UER-EU-N-OS), Norse Ullr
(*UELTOS), and Baltic Velinas. The double -LL- in the Celtic name may on the
surface create a problem (normally indicates *-LN- or possibly *-RL-), but
can also simply be a graphical or dialectal variation of a form with a
single -L-
Brian M. Scott <BMS...@stratos.net> wrote in message
news:384E07...@stratos.net...
C. Gwinn
Re: Ekwall's reliability:
Let me quote Kenneth Jackson "Lang/Hist Earl Brit."
pg. viii
(in reference to Eilert Ekwalls "English River Names")
"This little study is of the utmost value as the pioneer work on the
subject; but again, sonsisting of seventeen pages it is necessarily limited;
moreover, in some points it is controversial and unsatisfactory, and his
terminology (eg. the "Old Welsh" used of the language of the settlement
period) is confusing."
pg. 196
"The first serious attempt to relate the sound changes of Brittonic to those
of Anglo-Saxon through the information gathered from placenames was made by
Ekwall in his "English River Names," pp. lxii-lxxix this was an excellent
beginning, though incomplete and not always altogether accurate."
Doug Weller
says...
>
> You're very fond of making absolute pronouncements about what things
> "must" or "cannot" be without giving any sort of source either for your
> data or conclusions. It would be easier to take this seriously as a
> scholarly conversation if you would provide some sort of source for
> statements of alleged fact such as the above. Why do you believe the above
> to be an undisputed fact? Why do you believe that it is the only possible
> derivation that has been proposed by researchers on the topic (thus giving
> the lie to Ekwall's claim that the etymology is "unclear")?
>
>
and Wey as possibly pre-Celtic.
Doug
--
Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
C. Gwinn
some preliminary notes for my theory.
Camulodunum was a Roman colonia but, as the name indicates, must have
incorporated local peoples (Trinouantes). The soldiers living there in the
later Roman period would likely have been mostly local Britons. There is
even some evidence of Germanic soldiers being present there - perhaps as
mercenary defenders of the colonia.
In addition, early Germanic finds in Essex are relatively rare and it seems
that some Roman houses on Stockwell Street in Colchester may have continued
in use into the dark ages - perhaps indicating a continuum of Romano-British
well into the invasion period.
Essex, according to Jackson, did not receive Germanic invaders until the 6th
century A.D. - a little later than other parts of eastern England.
So, we must look to the British language spoken in the 6th-7th century A.D.
for evidence about name borrowing into Anglo Saxon.
Proposition: Camulos:Coel
By late 5th-early 6th long -A- becomes long -O- (ie Ca'mulos<*Co'mulos)
By the middle of the 6th century, final syllables were completely lost
(ie: -os is droppped)
By the end of the 6th century, -M- is lenited to - V- (thus *Comul becomes
*Covul)
Mid 6th century, -U- is developing into -I- (or umlauted -ue-) (thus *Covul
becomes *Covil)
by 7th century, -V- becomes -W- and can disappear next to -O- (thus *Covil
becomes *Coil)
*Coil might have been written Coel by some authors - perhaps by assimilation
with Welsh coel "omen" (*Coil, if pronounced with a dipthong, would sound
the same as coel).
Interestingly enough, there is a King Coilus listed in Geoffrey's HKB - the
Roman-friendly King Coilus is the son of King Marius and the father of
Lucius (who brings Christianity to Britain - perhaps he is a version of
Irish Lugh/Welsh Llwch).
Of course, learnded people would have still continued to use Camulos for
some time (the name Camulorigi appears in a 6th century inscription) - which
may account for the tale of the pagan king Camaalis who is alleged to have
founded Colchester (matching Welsh Coel). Likewise, Chretien's Camelot could
be seen as a learned "modernization" of Camulodunum.
news_surfer
> >
> > Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.12ab81641...@news.btinternet.com...
> > > In article <3841678D...@trib.infi.net>, jm...@trib.infi.net
> says...
> > > > As I said, I haven't had a chance to read "The
> > > > Holy Kingdom" yet, but can you show that this was the Arthur
namesake
> > > > and not the ones named for him?
> > > >
Conclusion, the celtic cross in the earliest, stone, freestanding
> prototype is not yet the familiar "Celtic cross" that we see in the
electrum
> cross that Mr. Gilbert has introduced on his website. It is basically
still
> a short cross, inside the disk, and the disk is barely wider than the
shaft.
> Mr Gilbert's cross, for what its worth, is modelled on the later, Irish
High
> Cross. The next Welsh cross to consider is the wheel-cross of Conbelin at
> Margam Abbey, which I suggest Mr Gilbert take a long hard look at. This is
a
> typical example of the 7th-century Welsh style, as opposed to the
> 9th-century Irish style typified by the crosses at Iona, for instance. The
> Welsh model is short arms enclosed in a disk, Romilly Allen says we should
> call it a disk cross, rather than a wheel cross to distinguish the early
> Welsh from the late Irish style. There is a definite evolution of the form
> over several centuries. But the free-standing stone cross would not come
in
> to style in Wales until well into the eighth century
If you read "The Holy Kingdom" you will see that we dispute the current
dating of most of the surviving Welsh crosses from Margam and other places.
We believe the majority of these crosses to date from the fifth and sixth
centuries: the time of Arthur and his immediate forebears. We also dispute
the idea that so-called "Celtic" crosses (there were no Celts in Britain,
this is a misnomer of Victorian imagining) were introduced into Britain from
Ireland. St Patrick was Welsh and the art-form went from Wales to Ireland
being reintroduced into Saxon Britain from Ireland at the time of St
Columba. The native Britons (what are today wrongly called Celts) already
had free-standing, stone crosses of the type to be seen at Margam.
Unfortunately the supression of the British church after the Council of
Whitby and the subsequent destruction of many Welsh churches by the Saxons,
Normans and even later on has led to confusion over the history of early
Christianity in Britain. This, unfortunately, is not the only problem
besetting the correct interpretation of British sites and objects. In my
opinion the whole subject needs reevaluating in the light of the traditional
history of Britain, to be found in the Bruts (particularly the Brut
Tysilio). There is certainly an enormous amount of archaeological work to be
done in Wales. It is quite possible that if other sites were properly
excavated that other metallic crosses of this kind might be found.
Adrian Gilbert.
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: centuries: the time of Arthur and his immediate forebears. We also dispute
: the idea that so-called "Celtic" crosses (there were no Celts in Britain,
: this is a misnomer of Victorian imagining) were introduced into Britain from
Albeit the word "Celtic" is so ambiguous in meaning that it is often
meaningless when applied, perhaps you need to specify what definition of
"Celtic" you are using such that you conclude "there were no Celts in
Britain".
C. Gwinn
person.
Caesar himself says that the Gauls CALLED THEMSELVES Celtae - and that these
Gauls had settled in parts of Britain. This is proven in Britain and Ireland
where we see ancient tribes having the same names as continental tribes.
Thes tribes are seen moving all over the island as well, in case you want to
suggest that maybe only pockets of the island were Celtic Gauls. Just
examine the tribal history of Ireland to see how mobile tribes were and how
a southern tribe can end up being a northern one only a few centuries later.
These people got around and intermmingled heavily with any natives.
Celtic is a valid term for the pre-English Britons and Irish - though the
Celtic Gauls may never have been the majority at first, they definitely
intermarried with the locals and turned the islands into Celts in culture
and language by the time of the Roman invasions.
BTW - Latin Artorius could not and did not produce "Arthur" in Welsh - so
there goes THAT theory. Try learning a little about British language laws.
Doug Weller
lot of your work, I'm absolutely gob-smacked to see net kook and spammer Louis
Turi there. Do you read any of the Usenet debates with him?
Martypie
C. Gwinn
Doug - instead of you constantly saying that, provide us with actual proof
that the Britons were archaeologically distinct.
I need specifics.
Go ahead, convince me.
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.12bb817aa...@news.btinternet.com...
> There is simply no archaeological evidence that Celtic Gauls were ever a
> majority in the British Isles. Sure, Celts came to Britain, and in
different
> times and different places had differing influences and control. But
Britain
> remained archaeologically distinct from Celtic Gaul.
Blippie
>University Press, 1953 [ Still a great source all these years later].
Pwhaahaahaahaaaaaaaaa!
Doug Weller
Doug Weller
says...
> Doug - instead of you constantly saying that, provide us with actual proof
> that the Britons were archaeologically distinct.
> I need specifics.
> Go ahead, convince me.
>
his archaeology. And stop trolling.
news_surfer
Gerard Cunningham <Ger@r.d> wrote in message
news:G7VROMh+CCg2mN...@4ax.com...
> news_surfer wrote:
> [..]
> >If you read "The Holy Kingdom" you will see that we dispute the current
> >dating of most of the surviving Welsh crosses from Margam and other
places.
>
> Who are "we"?
>
> --
> Gerard Cunningham
> abardubh at wwa dot com
> Tá m'aerbhád lán d'eascanna
Myself (Adrian Gilbert) and my co-authors of "The Holy Kingdom" who are Alan
Wilson and Baram Blackett. It was they who organised the dig at St Peter's
super montem that found the electrum cross and the "Rex Artorius fili
Mauricius" stone in 1990. You can see a picture of this on my website at
www.AdrianGilbert.co.uk .
Adrian.
news_surfer
> Not again!
> Doug - instead of you constantly saying that, provide us with actual proof
> that the Britons were archaeologically distinct.
> I need specifics.
> Go ahead, convince me.
>
> > majority in the British Isles. Sure, Celts came to Britain, and in
> different
> > times and different places had differing influences and control. But
> Britain
> > remained archaeologically distinct from Celtic Gaul.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
> > Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
> > Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
> > Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
>
>
only one of the three groups of people living there. In fact the Celts were
described by the Greeks as being tall, blonde haired people who inhabited
Germany and points north. They were clearly of Germanic extraction. Now I
don't need to tell you that the Welsh, who inhabited Britain before the
Romans came were not tall and blonde. You only have to visit Wales today to
see the truth of this. In fact they were probably related to another group
living in Gaul called the Belgae who were not Celtic either. Caesar tells us
that the three peoples of Gaul all had different languages and customs. Now
if you read the British histories you will see there is reference to an
invasion of Gaul by the Britons who called themselves Khymry, pronounced
"Kumree". This invasion is probably the same as that of the Cimbri recounted
in Roman history about a century before Caesar. They invaded Italy and were
eventually driven back and massacred in Switzerland. Now it seems to me that
the likelihood is that the "Belgae" living in Europe at the time of Caesar
were the remnants of this invasion force. I.e. that far from the Belgae
invading Britain and settling in the southern counties, the invasion went in
the other direction. Interestingly according to the Brut Tysilio and
Geoffrey of Monmouth the leader of this expedition was called Belin. Could
this be the origin of the name Belgae?
As far as I know noone has put forward this theory before and I do so now
very tentatively. However this would explain the similarity of names of
certain groups like the Atrebates on both sides of the channel.
You might also like to note that the Britons were famous as charioteers.
There is no evidence for widespread use of chariots by the Gauls. They were
famous as equestrians, probably the best in the world at the time (apart
from the Parthians) and later served in the Roman Empire fighting in the
east.
I would also very much doubt that the Irish were Celtic either at the time
of Caesar, though they may have been related to one of the other groups of
Gauls. In any case much of so-called "Celtic" art is nothing of the sort. It
is Scythian in origin and derives primarily from the later invasion of
Ireland and Scotland by Scythian tribes from Scandinavia. This happened
around the time that England was being invaded by Anglos Saxons. It is from
these Scythian invaders (incidentally the name Scot is derived from Scythae
or Scythian) that the Irish and Scots have inherited their red hair and
famous fiery temperament. The Scythians were also famous for tatooing
themselves and so it is probably from an earlier incursion of Scythians that
the people known to the Romans as Picts or painted-people (from Latin
Pictum) were derived.
As you can see from the above the untangling of the ancestry of the
British is no simple matter and I haven't even mentioned here what the Welsh
manuscripts say was the real origin of the Welsh: Troy. I will leave that
for a future posting.
Adrian Gilbert.
p.s. You will find much information of this sort at my website:
www.AdrianGilbert.co.uk
news_surfer
> Adrian, I just looked at your web page. Although I certainly disagree
with a
> lot of your work, I'm absolutely gob-smacked to see net kook and spammer
Louis
> Turi there. Do you read any of the Usenet debates with him?
>
> Doug
him at my own website of www.AdrianGilbert.co.uk , however there is a new
website being set up by Quest magazine promoting their spring conference at
which I believe Louis Turi is to be another of their speakers. I am also
organising a "Quest" tour to Egypt and Israel this summer called "Opening
the star-gate". This promises to be a very special event but you will please
forgive me if I don't say too much about it yet as it is a little premature.
Adrian Gilbert.
J&M Godesky
> invasion of Gaul by the Britons who called themselves Khymry, pronounced
> "Kumree". This invasion is probably the same as that of the Cimbri recounted
Doesn't the word "Cymry" or derivations of it, mean "countrymen"? And
didn't it first appear in reference to the Welsh around the sixth
century?
<snip>
> Gauls. In any case much of so-called "Celtic" art is nothing of the sort. It
> is Scythian in origin and derives primarily from the later invasion of
> Ireland and Scotland by Scythian tribes from Scandinavia. This happened
> around the time that England was being invaded by Anglos Saxons. It is from
> these Scythian invaders (incidentally the name Scot is derived from Scythae
> or Scythian) that the Irish and Scots have inherited their red hair and
> famous fiery temperament. The Scythians were also famous for tatooing
> themselves and so it is probably from an earlier incursion of Scythians that
> the people known to the Romans as Picts or painted-people (from Latin
> Pictum) were derived.
<snip>
The identification of the Picts with Scythia was an etymological mistake
first introduced by Bede. As for the rest; didn't the Celts originate
in Scythia?
<snip>
> As you can see from the above the untangling of the ancestry of the
> British is no simple matter and I haven't even mentioned here what the Welsh
> manuscripts say was the real origin of the Welsh: Troy. I will leave that
> for a future posting.
No, it isn't a simple matter at all. Celts all over Europe never
thought of themselves as a single people. They thought of their tribe
as their "people," and the other tribes, wherever they may be, though
they shared a common culture and language group, were considered
foreigners.
Jason Godesky
Patrick Brown
<definite...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> Julius Caesar says that there were Celts in Gaul but he also says
> they were
> only one of the three groups of people living there.
The modern term "Celt" or "Celtic" is not the same as the ancient one.
I'm not entirely clear what the Greeks and Romans meant by
Keltoi/Celtae, but they seem to have been used about a variety of
different (but probably related) groups of northern barbarians, not
always distinguishing between what we now consider Celtic or Germanic.
The modern term refers to the group of languages. Welsh, Cornish and
Breton, descendants of ancient British, along with Irish, Scottish
Gaelic and Manx, are lingustically related to the languages of Gaul,
Galatia, Celtiberia, northern Italy, and other regions which are
refered to as being "Celtic" in ancient times.
Celtic in the modern sense is not an ethnonym. It does not refer to a
single, coherent group of people. It refers to a *group* or related
languages, and by extension the *group* of related peoples and cultures
that spoke them.
> In fact the
> Celts were
> described by the Greeks as being tall, blonde haired people who
> inhabited
> Germany and points north. They were clearly of Germanic
> extraction. Now I
> don't need to tell you that the Welsh, who inhabited Britain
> before the
> Romans came were not tall and blonde. You only have to visit Wales
> today to
> see the truth of this.
I knew a Welsh guy in college who was tall and blond. I've met blond
Spaniards, dark-haired Germans, and black Irishmen. This argument only
works if you regard the Celts as a "race" and regard "races" as pure
and that all their members look the same. This is nonsense. The fact
that people in Britain spoke Celtic languages does not and should not
be taken to mean they were "genetically" Celtic, any more than modern
Irish people should be considered "genetically" Germanic because they
speak English.
The mass of people in any location are probably the descendants of the
people who lived there in the neolithic. Various groups of people
throughout hitory have turned up, placed themselves in positions of
power, and intermarried with the native population. Some imposed their
language and culture - the Romans in Gaul, the English in Ireland - and
some didn't - the Franks and Normans in France. Various Celtic groups
managed to do this, at least for a time.
> Now
> if you read the British histories you will see there is reference
> to an
> invasion of Gaul by the Britons who called themselves Khymry,
> pronounced
> "Kumree". This invasion is probably the same as that of the Cimbri
> recounted
> in Roman history about a century before Caesar.
The Britons who call themselves Cymry are the Welsh, and as far as I
know this name has no connection with the Cimbri. Most scholars seem to
agree that Cymry derives from "Combroges", compatriots in ancient
British. I'm sure Chris would know the details better than me.
Which "British histories" are you refering to? The fact that you
mentioned Geoffrey of Monmouth makes me suspicious. Geoffrey refers to
a British invasion of Italy and sack of Rome by Brennius and Belinus,
which is probably a dim recollection of a Gaulish sack of Rome led by
one Brennus in (IIRC) the 4th century BC. This suggests that the
Britons and the Gauls were at one point part of the same culture, and
shared some cultural history.
Geoffrey, by the way, is probably the least reliable historian Britain
has ever produced. I've even read it suggested that his "history" was
intended as a satire. The Bruts, I believe, were Welsh versions of
Geoffrey.
> In any case much of so-called "Celtic" art is nothing of
> the sort. It
> is Scythian in origin and derives primarily from the later
> invasion of
> Ireland and Scotland by Scythian tribes from Scandinavia.
The Scythians were from south-eastern Europe, I believe.
> (incidentally the name Scot is derived
> from Scythae
> or Scythian) that the Irish and Scots have inherited their red
> hair and
> famous fiery temperament.
See above. I live in Northern Ireland and I have only met a handful of
people with red hair. It's more common than it is in England, but it's
far from being a common Irish trait.
As you can see from the above the untangling of the ancestry
> of the
> British is no simple matter and I haven't even mentioned here what
> the Welsh
> manuscripts say was the real origin of the Welsh: Troy.
The Romans claimed to be descended from Aeneas of Troy. The Welsh
wanted a similarly ancient (and respectable) pedigree and simply made
one up.
Patrick
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
WC
believe the artform developed in Wales and took the path you described. I
also believe that many of the artifacts have been misdated by as much as two
centuries. Opinion only, of course.
--
Celtic One Design
Reviving the ancient Celtic Arts for the modern craftsperson.
http://homepages.msn.com/DharmaDr/celticonedesign/
"news_surfer" <definite...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:lgb44.4836$O%5.10...@nnrp4.clara.net...
>
> If you read "The Holy Kingdom" you will see that we dispute the current
> dating of most of the surviving Welsh crosses from Margam and other
places.
> We believe the majority of these crosses to date from the fifth and sixth
> centuries: the time of Arthur and his immediate forebears. We also dispute
> the idea that so-called "Celtic" crosses (there were no Celts in Britain,
> this is a misnomer of Victorian imagining) were introduced into Britain
from
bill robertson
: Which "British histories" are you refering to? The fact that you
: mentioned Geoffrey of Monmouth makes me suspicious. Geoffrey refers to
: a British invasion of Italy and sack of Rome by Brennius and Belinus,
: which is probably a dim recollection of a Gaulish sack of Rome led by
: one Brennus in (IIRC) the 4th century BC.
I'm surprised Chris hasn't commented on fact that Brennius and Belinus are
both mythic personages, aka gods. Brennus, the historical figure, was likely
named after the god. Geoffrey threw his story in for good measure (or maybe
it had already been confused with the mythic story of the gods). And heck,
for the Arthurian connection, we always have the good brothers Sir Balin and
Sir Balan, who killed eachother (and would appear to be based upon Belenos
and Bran)
But this brings us to an interesting point. Belenos, as well as many other
gods, shows up both on the continent and in Britain. Did the Welsh gods
conquer the continent, as Geoffrey tells us, or were they Celtic gods that
came to Britain with the Celtic people (i.e. the tribes of people speaking
Celtic languages).
If they (i.e. the gods and the people who worshipped them) are native to
Britain, as Adrian seems to assert, then I, at least, am struck by the
similarity with other Indo-European religions (and languages for that
matter). I think it fair to say that the languages generally referred to as
"Celtic" and the pre-Christian religions of Britain, Ireland, and parts of
Gaul, have enough connections to other Indo-European languages and religions
that we must view them as Indo-European. Therefore, in order for them to
have gotten to Britain in the first place, they would have had to go through
Europe. The reasonable assumption is that they went through Gaul (Troy is a
bit far-fetched, to say the least). That some tribes stayed in Gaul seems
plausible. That there were in fact "celtic" tribes scattered across Europe,
from Macedonia to the Iberian Penninsula, seems plausible as well, even
likely.
That these people were racially homogenous is unlikely. Racial
characteristics were certainly shared with the native peoples of every
region they passed through during their migration period, just as other
races (Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, etc.) have been incorporated into the racial
characteristics of the people who currently reside in Britain and Ireland.
I suppose we do need to decide how we are using the term "Celtic": whether
it refers to Language, Culture, or Race. I tend to favor a broad definition,
with the understanding that such a broad definition is difficult to define.
-tevis
: This suggests that the
C. Gwinn
C. Gwinn
1) What does "German extraction" mean? Are you another one of those people
who ascrobe to DNA being able to prove ancient ethnicity? I can tell you
this, the word German to the Romans simply meant anyone who lived beyond the
Rhine - regardless of language or culture. Many of the tribes who were early
on called German were actually Celtic - so when you see an ancient writer
saying "they look German" it can mean either Celtic or Teutonic.
2)Classical authors mention that some of the tribes of Western Britain (the
key word is SOME - notably the Silures) were different from the other
inhabitants of Britain in that they were swarthy - and they theorized that
these tribes were related to Iberians. Just because the Classical authors
said that the Celts were blonde or read-heads does not mean that they all
were. It was just a general stereotype - just like people erroneously think
that anyone with blonde hair today is probably Scandinavian or if they have
red hair, they are Irish - despite the fact that blondes and red-heads are
found all across Europe.
2) The Belgae considered themselves to be of mixed Celtic and Germanic
descent. They spoke a Celtic language - that is without even the slightest
doubt.
3) Caesar said that they spoke different languages - but that means that
they spoke different dialects. Inscriptions and place names from all over
Gaul - with the exception of Basque country - reveal that the same
language - Gaulish - was spoken, with the possibility of some regional
orthographic variations.
4) I indeed have read the British histories - and I can tell you that you
are dead wrong. Cymry is a late Brythonic ethnic name taken on during or
after the Saxon invasion. It comes from Celtic Com-Broges "fellow country
man" and has ABSOLITELY no relationship to the tribal name Cimbri!! I get so
sick of ignorant people claiming this connection - learn something about
Celtic languages before making such idiotic connections!
5) Geoffrey's Belin is a late learned variation of Bolgios (with the -n
ending added by spurious analogy with the Celtic god Apollo Belinus), the
Gaulish marauder. All educated British authors had read the Roman
histories - Geoffrey's tale is simply an example of a late British
translation of the original Latin history.
6)Go ahead and doubt the Celticity of the Irish - that doesn't change the
fact that they WERE Celts, just because you don't believe it
6) Scythian invasions? Celtic art is Scythian? OK, I can now lump you in
with the UFO freaks apocalyptic Christians - thanks for the clarification of
you intelligence.
7) Once again, the British story of Trojan origins is a late fantasy
invented by Christian monks after having read Latin histories. It is all
based on a spurious etymology of the word for Britain. The original was
Pretania - this became Prydain in Old Welsh, which was assimilated with
Brittania into Brydain. The monks, who were poor etymologists, thought that
Brydain could have been formed from an original Brutus - whom they imagined
as an eponymous founder - thus they invented the notion that this Brutus
must have been the Trojan Brutus from the LAtin histories. This was all
probably facillitated by a classical author's remark that the Britons were
so called because they were stupid (brut- in Latin - a Latin play on words).
The British monks took that to mean that the Britons were so called because
they were "of Brutus" - thus the connection with the only significant Brutus
from Roman history - Brutus son of Aeneus, the Trojan. The whole notion was
late and fanciful and only came about because the Christian had destroyed
the native histories.
Alltogether, I think we can see that you are ill-informed and borderline
wacko!
news_surfer <definite...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:9Rq44.7969$Ez1.1...@nnrp3.clara.net...
C. Gwinn
other authors? You always claim that you have given your proof already, but
interestingly enough, I can never find it!
Do me a favor, humor me - give some of your proof once again. I'm open
minded - if it's good enough, I'll believe you.
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.12bc10277...@news.btinternet.com...
> In article <82sng5$8vr$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
rigv...@hotmail.com
C. Gwinn
Brennus and Bolgios. There is even evidence that this tale had entered oral
history ( a strong point in favor of the theory that the Celts did perceive
a cultural unity and that the Britons were part of this unity) - for the
British writer would have normally written Bolgios but, if the tale entered
local folklore, under Brythonic sound laws the name would become *Byly which
would have been written Bely in Old Welsh (indeed, Beli is also sometimes
written Bely). This form would have led to Geoffrey's Belin - by spurious
analogy with the Celtic god Apollo Belinus (the monks would have still been
aware of this god - he was quite popular and was mentioned even in popular
Latin literature).
It seems likely to me that the tale of Brennus and Bolgios entered
Britain early in the Roman conquest. The Britons must have recognized that
those Gaulish marauders were distant cousins of themselves and thus regaled
in the story of Celts conquering Romans. The story entered popular folklore
early enough that the name Bolgios would change with the Brythonic sound
shift. Later, monks still knew that the story was from a Latin original, but
they wrote down the British versions of the name. In the countryside,
however, the origins of the story was forgotten and the two figures became
mythologized and then later historicized (as happened to almost all of the
surviving British mythic figures).
bill robertson <robe...@matrix.newpaltz.edu> wrote in message
news:38528c45@motss...
> Patrick Brown (patrickbrow...@yahoo.co.uk.invalid) wrote:
Johnson
> Adrian, you are so ignorant of the facts, it makes me cringe.
> 6) Scythian invasions? Celtic art is Scythian? OK, I can now lump you in
> with the UFO freaks apocalyptic Christians - thanks for the clarification
of
> you intelligence.
> Alltogether, I think we can see that you are ill-informed and borderline
> wacko!
Please keep your sarcastic comments to yourself: this newsgroup is one of
education and information, not of your petty comments.
If you have some sort of personal dilemma, please constrain your comments to
email.
Thank you,
Kristaps
C. Gwinn
European languages. It basicaly counters the notion that in ancient times,
small bands of warriors could influence and change the language of the
people that theu conquered. I think it is quite germaine to this argument
about the Gauls being minority elties in Britain (which even goes againts
the evidence, anyway 0 since the classical authors themselves note that the
Gauls moved around with their entire tribe in tow!).
<begin snip>
<<Well, unless he [Renfrew] has *seriously* improved his argument on this
from what he presented in his book, it is woefully inadequate a response.>>
Well, at the time that Archaeology & Language was published, Renfrew's main
argument was with the "majority" theory at the time - which placed IE's
dispersal at 2500BC (Childe-Kossina-Gimbutas).
Quite possibly the book was the stroke that "demolished" that theoretical
date - not the least by pointing out to archaeologists that "the date is not
based on any clear linguistic argument; it is not really a linguistic
argument at all. It is a conclusion based on consensus. Yet it is taken by
archaeologists as linguistic evidence,... There is therefore a complete
circularity. And in this case it would appear that the consensus may be in
error." (A&L Cambridge Univ paperback p166)
Now, the new "consensus" date has backed to 4000BC in the recent posts on
this list. But I wouldn't bet the ranch on it staying there. Partly
because
the actual evidence for picking that date is not much stronger than the old
2500BC date.
One important thing that Renfrew's book did was to bring objectivity back to
archaeology - so that "circular" support for conclusions could be reexamined
and stripped of their presumptions. The kind Mallory points to in
describing
the way that the IE homeland was once placed in the Himalayas, yielding
golden haired horsemen with bronze swords who brought not only elite
dominance but a language to go with it to whoever it was who was living in
Europe at the time.
<<Indeed, I quite agree that IE probably spread largely by elite dominance,
with only the tribal overlords actually migrating to the new areas.>>
And where exactly did these IE speaking "overlords" get their supposed
dominance? It certainly wasn't the horse, which shows no sign of being a
factor in seige or decisive war before 1000BC. And the chariot was just a
platform for conveying war leaders around in Homer. The wheel is late
neolithic - TRB. And swords appear on Crete 100's of years before they do
in
mainland Greece. It wasn't archers. And it wasn't armor.
This business about a few IE speakers being able to come in and convert the
language of an entire people seems to be a vestige of19th Century jingoism
more than it seems to reflect any hard evidence. If anything, we could just
as easily see any steppe "invaders" of central or southern or even western
Europe turning around and adopting the language of the folk who were already
there.
<<In many ways, I see the spread of European languages to Polynesia, and the
spread of Latin into most of Europe, as the best models for the spread of IE
languages in prehistory.>>
But Latin's prestige didn't come from a bunch of headbashing riders off the
steppes. The advantages of Latin had to do with access to trade, crafts,
technology and much personal advancement that no profile of a pastoralist IE
speaking barbarian could appear to offer. The same applies to Polynesia.
The
theory of some small group of technologically advanced soldiers coming in
and converting primitives does not fit the evidence in the areas where IE
becomes documented at all - UNLESS IE was already the language family of the
original inhabitants of those areas. And the small group of "overlords"
were
assimilated.
In fact that model does work unless the invader has a steady flow of
technologically advanced resources and/or sheer population numbers shoring
him up. That was the case in the new world. On the other hand, the French
don't speak Frankish. The English do not speak Anglo-Norman or Danish.
Italians don't speak Odacer's language. And Slavic has consumed a long list
of "dominant elite" languages like they were just popcorn at the ballpark.
When history starts being recorded, small groups of warrior elites are
definitely not the source of language change - except in cases of genocide -
and it takes more than just a few tribal overlords to pull that off.
Larry Trask wrote:
<<But Renfrew has expressly argued that many of these words are not
substrate
words at all, but rather late borrowings into Greek long after Greece had
become Greek-speaking.>>
sar...@ix.netcom.com replied:
<<In many cases this is difficult to adequately maintain, since the words do
not correspond closely to the words in the likely source cultures.>>
What likely source cultures would you be speaking of? Minoan? or Carian?
Or for that matter Thracian or Getae? We don't have more than ten sure
words
(if any) in any of these languages to correspond to - closely or not.
<< Also, place names based on late borrowings are a trifle unusual. Even
here in the USA, most non-English place names are substratal (Amerindian or
Spanish), and we are notorious polyculturalists.>>
The "late borrowings" do not refer I believe to place names. Herodotus
however does mention Pelagasian placenames - and he says he does not know
what kind of language Pelagasian is, but that it is not Greek.
Regards,
Steve Long"
<end snip>
C. Gwinn
Get a life - or at least mind your own business.
If people think that these news groups are actually a source of "education
and information" they are sorely misled. Predominantly these news groups are
warhouses for personal rntings ( yup, I'm guilty too). If you want an
education, I suggest you go to your local university - or at least their
library - because the internet is not the most accurate source of
information in the world - and it is only getting worse. For every genuine
scholarly web site, there are a thousand fringe, ego-stroking, ill-informed
and downright inaccurate web sites clogging the collective bandwidth - and
all erroneously claiming intellectual authority.
I will continue to speak my mind in whatever manner I deem suitable - if you
are worried about being offended. or you just don't like my views, then
don't open my messages.
C. Gwinn
Blippie <blippie*takeaway*@ukmax.com> wrote in message
michael erik naesby
--
---
-------------------------------------------
senselessness is in the eye of the beholder
-------------------------------------------
---
spamkiller:
*to reply: make sense*
---
---
C. Gwinn <rigv...@hotmail.com> skrev i en
nyhedsmeddelelse:82ubuu$a4o$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
: Sorry officer - I dodn't know that the thought police patrolled these parts.
:
:
:
:
C. Gwinn
now offereing a lot of information and dispelling myths- that's all I can
do.
michael erik naesby <not.maki...@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message
news:82ulro$d1h$6...@news.inet.tele.dk...
Johnson
I'm deeply sorry you find the Internet such a network of erroneous and/or
misleading information. Up until your rather harsh comments towards
well-meaning intellectuals I found this newsgroup a rather interesting place
with stimulating, thoughtful dialogue. I still do, barring your own
responses. You may post derogatory, insulting comments all you wish, indeed
I cannot stop you nor can anybody else, but know that such remarks erode any
respect your peers at Alt.Mythology may have (for indeed, you have lost
mine) for you, and this includes intellectual respect.
In response to your own [those non ego-stroking] intellectual comments, I am
encouraged to re-question your credibility; I find it hard to believe that
any adult, especially the knowledge-seeking sort, would be so snide and,
frankly, immature.
I will indeed ignore any future comments you have - intellectual resposnes
or, ah, other comments you deemed suitable to post, for you have lost on
both an academic and personal level.
Again, I'm truly sorry for your perspective on Internet global
communication. I find it hard to see the Web from this opinion, having
moved to the "Free World" from one repressed by an enforced idealism against
academic pursuit. You clearly take such an abundance of information for
granted; I wish you would re-structure your views and encourage others to
voice their opinions and thoughts. If they are incorrect, you benefit
yourself and society in general to correct them in a friendly manner.
Sadly and less respectfully,
Kristaps Dzonsons.
michael erik naesby
One more thing you could do, if you wanted to be taken seriously,
ato improve the potential usefulness of NGs like this one
would be to avoid saying things like:
: Altogether, I think we can see that you are ill-informed and borderline
: wacko!
It completely undermines the perceived validity of your entire post
and it creates a saddening atmosphere of aggressiveness.
(In short: it makes you look like a complete .......,
- Though I'm sure you're not.)
I can't and won't stop you, if you want to shoot yourself in the foot.
I can only wonder if that's really yout intent.
mike
: news_surfer <definite...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
: news:9Rq44.7969$Ez1.1...@nnrp3.clara.net...
:
--
---
-------------------------------------------
senselessness is in the eye of the beholder
-------------------------------------------
---
spamkiller:
*to reply: make sense*
---
---
C. Gwinn <rigv...@hotmail.com> skrev i en
nyhedsmeddelelse:82unv0$76t$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
: I think that should be quite evident - I have been posting here for months
: > :
: > :
: >
: >
:
:
:
news_surfer
WC <nos...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:OXsavt#Q$GA.284@cpmsnbbsa02...
> Could you repost your website url? I find this absolutely facinating. I
also
> believe the artform developed in Wales and took the path you described. I
> also believe that many of the artifacts have been misdated by as much as
two
> centuries. Opinion only, of course.
>
news_surfer
> Adrian, you are so ignorant of the facts, it makes me cringe.
>
> wacko!
>
Thank you for your judgement. I could say the same of you!
Doug Weller
says...
>
> Doug, your slavishness to James is amazing! Have you actually ever read any
> other authors? You always claim that you have given your proof already, but
> interestingly enough, I can never find it!
> Do me a favor, humor me - give some of your proof once again. I'm open
> minded - if it's good enough, I'll believe you.
>
summary.
You can find my posts in dejanews.
Doug
--
Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Doug Weller
definite...@freeuk.com says...
> > Adrian, I just looked at your web page. Although I certainly disagree
> with a
> > lot of your work, I'm absolutely gob-smacked to see net kook and spammer
> Louis
> > Turi there. Do you read any of the Usenet debates with him?
> >
> > Doug
> I don't know anything about this Doug. There is certainly no reference to
> him at my own website of www.AdrianGilbert.co.uk , however there is a new
> website being set up by Quest magazine promoting their spring conference at
> which I believe Louis Turi is to be another of their speakers.
>
http://www.angelfire.com/sd/stargate2000/index.html
Turi is as kooky as they come. And heavily discredited at least on Usenet.
news_surfer
Patrick Brown <patrickbrow...@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:02000cac...@usw-ex0102-012.remarq.com...
> In article <9Rq44.7969$Ez1.1...@nnrp3.clara.net>, "news_surfer"
> <definite...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> > Julius Caesar says that there were Celts in Gaul but he also says
> > they were
> > only one of the three groups of people living there.
>
> The modern term "Celt" or "Celtic" is not the same as the ancient one.
> I'm not entirely clear what the Greeks and Romans meant by
> Keltoi/Celtae, but they seem to have been used about a variety of
> different (but probably related) groups of northern barbarians, not
> always distinguishing between what we now consider Celtic or Germanic.
> The modern term refers to the group of languages. Welsh, Cornish and
> Breton, descendants of ancient British, along with Irish, Scottish
> Gaelic and Manx, are lingustically related to the languages of Gaul,
> Galatia, Celtiberia, northern Italy, and other regions which are
> refered to as being "Celtic" in ancient times.
>
Bello Gallica" with the following staement:
"Gaul comprises three areas, inhabited respectively by the Belgae, the
Aquitani, and a people calling themselves Celts, though we call them Gauls.
All of these have different languages, customs and laws. The Celts are
separated from the Aquitani by the River Garonne, from the Belgae by the
Marne and Seine. ....The region occupied by the Celts, which has one
frontier facing north, is bounded by the Rhone, the Garonne, the Atlantic
Ocean and the country of the Belgae; the part of it inhabited by the Sequani
and Helvetii also touches the Rhine. The Belgic territory, facing north and
east, runs from the northern frontier of the Celts to the lower Rhine.
Aquitania is bounded by the Garonee, the Pyranees, and the part of the
Atlantic coast nearest to Spain. It faces north-west."
All of the above is quite unambiguous. The land which Caesar knew as Gaul
(rather larger than present day France) was occupied by three distinct
peoples. The south west region, which we would today call Gascony, was
inhabited by the Aquitani. The central region by people calling themselves
"Celts", and the northern region, (north of the Marne and Seine and facing
the Channel) by the Belgae. All of these people can be call Gauls as they
inhabit Gaul but only some of them are Celts, (viz. those in the Central
region) some of whom belong to two tribes called the Sequani and Helvetii.
The last named are important for it was their proposed mass migration out of
their restricted territory in Switzerland (called in Latin Helvetia) that
was the pretext for Caesar's invasion of Gaul proper.
Now in the Welsh Triads it is interesting to note that the Welsh, i.e.
ancient British, claim affinity with only the people of Gascony and Lyddaw,
a region of Northern France that included both Brittany and Normandy which
would be included in Caesar's definition of the lands of the Belgae. They do
not claim to be Celts.
Turning to the Encyclopaedia Brittanica we read the following about the
Celts:
"Celt or Kelt, the generic name of an ancient people, the bulk of whom
inhabited the central and western parts of Europe. Much confusion has arisen
from the inaccurate use of the term "Celt" and "Keltic". It is the practice
to speak of rather short and dark complexioned Celtic-speaking people of
France, Great Britain and Ireland as Celts, although the ancient writers
seem to have applied the term "Celt" chiefly to folk of great stature and
with fair hair and blue eyes.
The ancient writers regarded as homogeneous all the fair-haired peoples
dwelling north of the Alps, the Greeks terming them all Keltoi. Physically
they fall into two loosely-divided groups, which shade off into each other.
The first of these is restricted to north-western Europe, having its chief
seat in Scandinavia. It is distinguished by a long head, a long face, a
narrow aquiline nose, blue eyes, very light hair and great stature. These
are the peoples usually termed Nordic. The other group is marked by a round
head, a broad face, a nose often rather broad and heavy, hazel-grey eyes,
light chestnut hair [i.e. red!]; they are thick-set and of medium height.
This race is often termed "Celtic" or "Alpine" from the fact of its
occurrence all along the great mountain chain from south-west France, in
Savoy, in Switzerland, the Po valley and Tirol , as well as in Auvergne,
Brittany, Normandy, Burgundy, the Ardennes and the Vosge."
From the above we can see that the Helvetii must have belonged to this group
of Celts, though it should be noted that the Encyclopaedia, wrongly if
Caesar is to be believed, includes the Belgae also as "Celts".
Now the blonde-haired "Celts" are probably to be identified as Scythians. We
generally understand Scythia as being that part of southern Russia
stretching from the Carpathian mountains to the Don, yet this was only part
of their "Empire" if we can use this term for what was not a centrally
controlled political entity but rather a moving group of nomadic peoples. In
fact Scythia extended all the way to northern Germany and even into
Scandinavia. Strabo, writing shortly before the Christian era says that "Of
the portions thus divided, the first is inhabited in the region toward the
north and the ocean by the Scythian nomads and waggon dwellers, and south of
these by the Sarmatians.
The Sarmatians were considered by the Greeks to be half-Scythian, being
descended from the union of young Scythian men with Amazon women! They
originally came from Southern Russia but settled in Hungary and fought
against the Romans. One of their tribes was the Alani or Alans who along
with the Vandals, (another Germanic, Scythian tribe) invaded the Western
Roman Empire in the 5th century AD and ended up in Spain.
Pliny the Elder, writing in his "Natural History" records that there were
various islands in the northern Ocean one of which was called Baunonia and
probably to be identified with Bornholm, an island in the Baltic Sea some 22
miles off the coast of Sweden. He tells us that it lies "off Scythia at a
distance of a day's voyage from the coast, on the beach of which in spring
time amber is cast up by the waves". Now it is well known that amber is
found on the Baltic coast, thus confirming that in Pliny's mind at least
this region was "Scythia" too.
Given the above it seems quite reasonable to me to suggest that the Celts
(not as we know them today) were one group of Scythians and that their
movement into France and later into Britain was part of a much larger
migration from the east that culminated in the Viking invasions of the 9th
and 10th centuries. As some of the Scythians went east instead of west, it
should come as no surprise to us that recent excavations in the Takla Makam
desert region of Western China have revealed Scythian "mummies" with red
hair, tatoos and wearing tartan clothing. In true Scythian style their art
features convoluted animal forms and dragons. This is typical of not only
"Celtic" art but also that of the Saxons and of Scandinavia at the time fo
the Vikings. It seems obvious from this that the Takla Makam people were,
racially speaking, related to the Scots and Irish. According to the Welsh
Triads, their ancestors migrated to the British Isles from Scandinavia,
which at that time was part of "Scythia". This is why the preface to the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle contains the following statement:
"Then it happened that the Picts came from Scythia in the
south, with longships, not many, and came at first to Northern Hibernia
(Ireland). They asked the Scots if they might live there, but they would not
let them, because they said they could not all live together there. The
Scots said [note: this is a chronological mistake on the part of the
Chronicler, the Scots did not go to Ireland until much later. The people
they would have spoken to were the native Irish.] 'We can give you advice,
nevertheless; we know of another island east of here where you may dwell if
you wish, and if anyone withstands you, we will help you, so that you may
accomplish it.' Then the Picts went into this land, to the north, and in the
south the British had it.
If we use the word "Celt" as synonomous with Scythian then I was probably
being too restrictive in saying there were no Celts in Britain at the time
of Caesar, for clearly the Picts already occupied parts of Scotland. There
was also a people called the Coritanni living around the Humber whom the
Welsh Triads say came from the land of Pwll or Poland, also in greater
Scythia. The point I was trying to make was that King Arthur was certainly
not a Celt. He was a Briton and he fought against the Anglo-Saxons, who
obviously were Scythian in origin having come to Britain from Angel
(Southern Denmark), Frisia (Holland) and Northern Germany. Paradoxically the
Saxons could therefore in some sense be called "Celts". If this all seems
upside down then I am sorry: often things are not as we have been taught in
school and sometimes they are the very opposite. Once we begin to sort out
our Celts from our Britons then the whole Arthurian saga begins to fall into
place and we begin to make sense out of not only the Dark Ages but also our
inheritance in Britain today.
Adrian Gilbert.
Lisa
Johnson <cj0...@mail.rochester.edu> wrote in message
news:82ub2q$29...@biko.cc.rochester.edu...
> Gwinn,
>
> > Adrian, you are so ignorant of the facts, it makes me cringe.
>
> > with the UFO freaks apocalyptic Christians - thanks for the
clarification
> of
> > you intelligence.
>
> > wacko!
>
> education and information, not of your petty comments.
> If you have some sort of personal dilemma, please constrain your comments
to
> email.
>
>
> Thank you,
> Kristaps
>
>
suggested: perhaps it is round! The educated people scoffed: "What an
ignorant, unintelligent, ill-informed, and wacko thing to say!".
I am also tired of the rude comments being posted on this newsgroup.
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
<definite...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>Now the blonde-haired "Celts" are probably to be identified as Scythians.
Why?
>We generally understand Scythia as being that part of southern Russia
>stretching from the Carpathian mountains to the Don, yet this was only part
>of their "Empire" if we can use this term for what was not a centrally
>controlled political entity but rather a moving group of nomadic peoples. In
>fact Scythia extended all the way to northern Germany and even into
>Scandinavia. Strabo, writing shortly before the Christian era says that "Of
>the portions thus divided,
Which portions? Where in Strabo?
>the first is inhabited in the region toward the
>north and the ocean by the Scythian nomads and waggon dwellers, and south of
>these by the Sarmatians.
[...]
>Pliny the Elder, writing in his "Natural History" records that there were
>various islands in the northern Ocean one of which was called Baunonia and
>probably to be identified with Bornholm, an island in the Baltic Sea some 22
>miles off the coast of Sweden. He tells us that it lies "off Scythia at a
>distance of a day's voyage from the coast, on the beach of which in spring
>time amber is cast up by the waves". Now it is well known that amber is
>found on the Baltic coast, thus confirming that in Pliny's mind at least
>this region was "Scythia" too.
The Baltic and Slavic lands are described in Herodotus as those
of the "Scythian farmers". There is in fact evidence of Iranian
(Scythian) influence on Slavic (and to a lesser degree on
Baltic). None in Germanic or Celtic, though.
>Given the above it seems quite reasonable to me to suggest that the Celts
>(not as we know them today) were one group of Scythians and that their
>movement into France and later into Britain was part of a much larger
>migration from the east that culminated in the Viking invasions of the 9th
>and 10th centuries. As some of the Scythians went east instead of west, it
>should come as no surprise to us that recent excavations in the Takla Makam
>desert region of Western China have revealed Scythian "mummies" with red
>hair, tatoos and wearing tartan clothing.
There are different groups of "mummies" of the Takla Makan. Some
of them may have been Iranian (Scythian), others may have been
ancestral to the Tocharian language speakers of ca. 500 AD. The
ultimate origin of the Tocharians is unclear. Linguistically,
they share more with Celtic and Germanic than with Indo-Iranian,
but whether this is due to a relatively recent migration of
"western" Tocharians eastward, or due to a very early split-off
of the pre-Tocharians from the main body of Indo-Europeans,
remains unclear.
> In true Scythian style their art
>features convoluted animal forms and dragons. This is typical of not only
>"Celtic" art but also that of the Saxons and of Scandinavia at the time fo
>the Vikings. It seems obvious from this that the Takla Makam people were,
>racially speaking, related to the Scots and Irish. According to the Welsh
>Triads, their ancestors migrated to the British Isles from Scandinavia,
>which at that time was part of "Scythia". This is why the preface to the
>Anglo-Saxon Chronicle contains the following statement:
> "Then it happened that the Picts came from Scythia in the
>south, with longships, not many, and came at first to Northern Hibernia
>(Ireland). They asked the Scots if they might live there, but they would not
>let them, because they said they could not all live together there. The
>Scots said [note: this is a chronological mistake on the part of the
>Chronicler, the Scots did not go to Ireland until much later. The people
>they would have spoken to were the native Irish.]
But the native Irish *are* Scots! They didn't go to Scotland
until much later.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
m...@wxs.nl |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Martyn Harrison
>news_surfer wrote:
>>Gerard Cunningham <Ger@r.d> wrote in message
>
>>> Who are "we"?
>
>>Myself (Adrian Gilbert) and my co-authors of "The Holy Kingdom" who are Alan
>>Wilson and Baram Blackett. It was they who organised the dig at St Peter's
>>super montem that found the electrum cross and the "Rex Artorius fili
>>Mauricius" stone in 1990. You can see a picture of this on my website at
>>www.AdrianGilbert.co.uk .
>
>"Welcome to a website devoted to adventure, mysticism and the
>unravelling of ancient mysteries. Adrian's particular areas of
>interest are Hermeticism, the pyramids of both Egypt and Mexico, King
>Arthur and esoteric astronomy"
>
>Oh dear...
Hold on a moment, Hermeticism is the old Hermes-based religion of the
middle east (egypt, principally) and astrology was (not is) the nature
of (now modern) astronomy with primitive tools/understanding. You
can't deny Adrian knows some of these areas in detail, although that
doesn't oblige you to be credulous.
E.g., knowing what ancient astrology thought, is necessary to
understand what ancient astrologers were doing. You can't infer that
from modern knowledge of the cosmos (which is where Hancock et al tend
to go horribly wrong). Of course, using it to cast horoscopes is
clearly out of date and silly, but that's not what I read about.
>"The current topic of discussion is the Horizon programme on Atlantis
>that was broadcast last week. Maquerading as a soundly scientific
>approach to the legend, in reality it was thinly veiled attack on
>Graham Hancock and the alternative ideas he has helped to popularise."
>
>Oh dearie dearie me...
Yeah, well Hancock, yeah, no argument there. One thought to consider,
what does it take to sell books? You have to put a bit of "true cross"
and "ancient mystery" in to get the punters to pull out their wallets.
Read some of the books to get a feel for them, in Hancock's case I'd
not bother, but Adrian isn't a complete whacko.
Peter
> there are a thousand fringe, ego-stroking, ill-informed
> and downright inaccurate web sites clogging the collective bandwidth
>
>
Yeah, but generally speaking this is not one of them!
news_surfer
Martyn Harrison <the...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:385422ec...@news.mcmail.com...
letter concerning Hancock is not defending his ideas per se. Unlike most
people on this group I know the man and it would be fair to say we are not
friends. On the other hand I think the BBC programme was definitely biased
and quite unfair in the way it was edited. This does not mean I agree with
his basic theses other than those he has borrowed from "The Orion Mystery"
which I co-authored with Robert Bauval before he and Hancock teamed up to
write about life on Mars etcetera.
Adrian Gilbert.
(For those who wish to read what I have written about Hancock and the BBC
it can be found on Letter 3 at my website, www.AdrianGilbert.co.uk . For
those not interested in that subject there is also a great deal of other
information including pictures of the two Arthur stones and the electrum
cross withPRO ANIMA ARTORIUS to be viewed.)
Aidan J Meehan
> > Not again!
> > Doug - instead of you constantly saying that, provide us with actual
proof
> > that the Britons were archaeologically distinct.
> > I need specifics.
> > Go ahead, convince me.> > news:MPG.12bb817aa...@news.btinternet.com...
> > > There is simply no archaeological evidence that Celtic Gauls were ever
a
> > > majority in the British Isles. Sure, Celts came to Britain, and in
> > different
> > > times and different places had differing influences and control. But
> > Britain
> > > remained archaeologically distinct from Celtic Gaul.
> > >
> > > Doug
> > >
> > > --
> > > Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
> > > Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
> > > Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
> > > Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
> >
> >
were
were
> described by the Greeks as being tall, blonde haired people who inhabited
> Germany and points north. They were clearly of Germanic extraction.
This does not follow at all. Not all tall, fair-haired types are of Germanic
extraction.
>Now I
> don't need to tell you that the Welsh, who inhabited Britain before the
> Romans came were not tall and blonde. You only have to visit Wales today
to
> see the truth of this. In fact they were probably related to another group
> living in Gaul called the Belgae who were not Celtic either.
Nonsense, The Belgae were a Celtic-speaking tribe. They spoke a form of
Celtic closely related to Brythonic. Early British Celtic art has many links
to Continental Belgic art.
>Caesar tells us
> that the three peoples of Gaul all had different languages and customs.
Now
> if you read the British histories you will see there is reference to an
> invasion of Gaul by the Britons who called themselves Khymry, pronounced
> "Kumree".
The British Histories are a hodge podge of primitive genealogy, propaganda,
apologetics, and sheer invention largely inspired by spurious etymology of a
"learned, monkish" type. Not much less reliable than, for instance, the
early Irish "histories" of the world. Or the Bible, for that matter.
>This invasion is probably the same as that of the Cimbri recounted
> in Roman history about a century before Caesar. They invaded Italy and
were
> eventually driven back and massacred in Switzerland. Now it seems to me
that
> the likelihood is that the "Belgae" living in Europe at the time of Caesar
> were the remnants of this invasion force. I.e. that far from the Belgae
> invading Britain and settling in the southern counties, the invasion went
in
> the other direction. Interestingly according to the Brut Tysilio and
> Geoffrey of Monmouth the leader of this expedition was called Belin. Could
> this be the origin of the name Belgae?
Pure speculation, and quite without substance. No, Belin is a concocted
name, resembling Belinus, the name of an ancient Gaullish divinity, cognate
with Irish Bile. But, so what?
> As far as I know noone has put forward this theory before and I do so
now
> very tentatively.
Wise man. You are offering us a drink in a sieve.
>However this would explain the similarity of names of
> certain groups like the Atrebates on both sides of the channel.
Speculation. You are weaving a web that tends to support your conclusions,
which, incidentally, are bogus.
> You might also like to note that the Britons were famous as
charioteers.
> There is no evidence for widespread use of chariots by the Gauls. They
were
> famous as equestrians, probably the best in the world at the time (apart
> from the Parthians) and later served in the Roman Empire fighting in the
> east.
This applies equally to other Celtic mercenaries. There is no evidence that
says the Britons had a monopoly on the technology of charioteering.
> I would also very much doubt that the Irish were Celtic either at the
time
> of Caesar, though they may have been related to one of the other groups of
> Gauls.
What a bunch of ...
>In any case much of so-called "Celtic" art is nothing of the sort.
You know nothing of Celtic art.
>It
> is Scythian in origin and derives primarily from the later invasion of
> Ireland and Scotland by Scythian tribes from Scandinavia.
L.O.L. I never thought I'd see this nineteenth century, British-Israelite
rubbish paraded out once again at the end of yet another century. Scythians,
indeed. A good example of spurious etymology typical of the early mediaval
Celtic monk's attempts to concord the genealogies of thirs local chieftains
with the history of the world as inherited from the Bible and the ancient
Greeks and Romans, whose literature they had access to, such as the tales of
the Iliad and the Aenead, hence the pseudo history of Britain as founded by
"Brutus" of "Troy". Gimme a break.
>This happened
> around the time that England was being invaded by Anglos Saxons. It is
from
> these Scythian invaders (incidentally the name Scot is derived from
Scythae
> or Scythian)
This is a lie. You are either ignorant, or deceitful to spread this
falsehood. Incidentally, it is part of a propaganda that has been around for
over a hundred years. It still won't wash.
>that the Irish and Scots have inherited their red hair and
> famous fiery temperament.
Here we go again with more bogus racial inheritance. Big on hair colour, are
we?
>The Scythians were also famous for tatooing
> themselves and so it is probably from an earlier incursion of Scythians
that
> the people known to the Romans as Picts or painted-people (from Latin
> Pictum) were derived.
This is codswallop. Sheer drivel.
>
> As you can see from the above the untangling of the ancestry of the
> British is no simple matter and I haven't even mentioned here what the
Welsh
> manuscripts say was the real origin of the Welsh: Troy. I will leave that
> for a future posting.
Please spare any more of this rubbish. Why don't you take a course in Celtic
Studies 101 at any institute of higher education, and save yourself the
embarrassment of letting your gullibility and ignorance show - and that is
giving you the benefit of the doubt.
>
> Adrian Gilbert.
>
> p.s. You will find much information of this sort at my website:
> www.AdrianGilbert.co.uk
>
>
Aidan J Meehan
Patrick Brown <patrickbrow...@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:02000cac...@usw-ex0102-012.remarq.com...
> In article <9Rq44.7969$Ez1.1...@nnrp3.clara.net>, "news_surfer"
> <definite...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> > they were
> > only one of the three groups of people living there.
>
> As you can see from the above the untangling of the ancestry
> > of the
> > British is no simple matter and I haven't even mentioned here what
> > the Welsh
> > manuscripts say was the real origin of the Welsh: Troy.
>
> The Romans claimed to be descended from Aeneas of Troy. The Welsh
> wanted a similarly ancient (and respectable) pedigree and simply made
> one up.
Absolutely right on. The "British Histories that make such outlandish,
monkishly-erudite claims simply made them up.
Gilbert, however, has rediscovered these old pseudo histories, and is
peddling them as new discoveries, backed up by archeological "Evidence".
Look carefully at the evidence he offers. He offers the evidence to back up
his claims, and he quotes the medieval claims to validate his
interptretation of the evidence. Circular argument.
Aidan J Meehan
J&M Godesky <jm...@trib.infi.net> wrote in message
news:385260AF...@trib.infi.net...
> <snip>
> > invasion of Gaul by the Britons who called themselves Khymry, pronounced
recounted
> <snip>
>
> Doesn't the word "Cymry" or derivations of it, mean "countrymen"? And
> didn't it first appear in reference to the Welsh around the sixth
> century?
>
> <snip>
> > Gauls. In any case much of so-called "Celtic" art is nothing of the
sort. It
> > is Scythian in origin and derives primarily from the later invasion of
> > around the time that England was being invaded by Anglos Saxons. It is
from
> > these Scythian invaders (incidentally the name Scot is derived from
Scythae
> > famous fiery temperament. The Scythians were also famous for tatooing
> > themselves and so it is probably from an earlier incursion of Scythians
that
> > the people known to the Romans as Picts or painted-people (from Latin
> > Pictum) were derived.
>
> The identification of the Picts with Scythia was an etymological mistake
> first introduced by Bede. As for the rest; didn't the Celts originate
> in Scythia?
Perhaps. The Irish had their own take on this, Mil's girlfriend was an
Iberian Princess called Scota, hence the name of the Island, Ireland.
Rubbish, on a par with the Scythians - Scotti. This is medieval etymology.
It is nonsense. Simply because it was believed by ancient monk who hadn't a
clue about etymology, why buy it? These monks believed the world was flat,
should we?
>
> <snip>
> > As you can see from the above the untangling of the ancestry of the
> > British is no simple matter and I haven't even mentioned here what the
Welsh
> > manuscripts say was the real origin of the Welsh: Troy. I will leave
that
> > for a future posting.
>
> No, it isn't a simple matter at all. Celts all over Europe never
> thought of themselves as a single people. They thought of their tribe
> as their "people," and the other tribes, wherever they may be, though
> they shared a common culture and language group, were considered
> foreigners.
I agree with Jason on this point.
>
> Jason Godesky
Aidan J Meehan
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <m...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:386ad9a1....@news.wxs.nl...
>
>
> >We generally understand Scythia as being that part of southern Russia
> >stretching from the Carpathian mountains to the Don, yet this was only
part
> >of their "Empire" if we can use this term for what was not a centrally
> >controlled political entity but rather a moving group of nomadic peoples.
In
> >fact Scythia extended all the way to northern Germany and even into
> >Scandinavia. Strabo, writing shortly before the Christian era says that
"Of
> >the portions thus divided,
>
>
> >north and the ocean by the Scythian nomads and waggon dwellers, and south
of
> >these by the Sarmatians.
>
>
> >Pliny the Elder, writing in his "Natural History" records that there were
> >various islands in the northern Ocean one of which was called Baunonia
and
> >probably to be identified with Bornholm, an island in the Baltic Sea some
22
> >miles off the coast of Sweden. He tells us that it lies "off Scythia at
a
> >distance of a day's voyage from the coast, on the beach of which in
spring
> >time amber is cast up by the waves". Now it is well known that amber is
> >found on the Baltic coast, thus confirming that in Pliny's mind at least
> >this region was "Scythia" too.
>
> of the "Scythian farmers". There is in fact evidence of Iranian
> (Scythian) influence on Slavic (and to a lesser degree on
> Baltic). None in Germanic or Celtic, though.
>
> >(not as we know them today) were one group of Scythians and that their
> >movement into France and later into Britain was part of a much larger
> >migration from the east that culminated in the Viking invasions of the
9th
> >and 10th centuries. As some of the Scythians went east instead of west,
it
> >should come as no surprise to us that recent excavations in the Takla
Makam
> >desert region of Western China have revealed Scythian "mummies" with red
> >hair, tatoos and wearing tartan clothing.
>
> of them may have been Iranian (Scythian), others may have been
> ancestral to the Tocharian language speakers of ca. 500 AD. The
> ultimate origin of the Tocharians is unclear. Linguistically,
> they share more with Celtic and Germanic than with Indo-Iranian,
> but whether this is due to a relatively recent migration of
> "western" Tocharians eastward, or due to a very early split-off
> of the pre-Tocharians from the main body of Indo-Europeans,
> remains unclear.
>
> >features convoluted animal forms and dragons. This is typical of not only
> >"Celtic" art but also that of the Saxons and of Scandinavia at the time
fo
> >the Vikings.
As usual, "it seems", but actually, the crap you are serving up is false to
start with, based on an assumption that Scythian equals Scot, as according
to the bogus etymology of the medieval manuscripts. On this false premise,
you concoct a fantastic edifice, but it's based on a bogus premise, and it
leads to a bogus conclusion . One that, in fact, Adrian already has
concluded, and is presenting this theory as support for his own agenda. Keep
your eyes on the walnut shell, folks.
>It seems obvious from this that the Takla Makam people were,
> >racially speaking, related to the Scots and Irish.
How wrong can you possibly get? The similarity of the art forms is
superficial, and, by the way, separated by an incredible gulf of time and
distance. Yet, you draw genetic conclusions - not the biological link to
commonality of art forms. Hey, we use art that is influenced by the ancient
Romans, does that make us Italian?
>According to the Welsh
> >Triads, their ancestors migrated to the British Isles from Scandinavia,
> >which at that time was part of "Scythia".
As history, the Welsh triads are utterly untrustworthy. Don't cite them as
factual, please. You insult OUR intelligence.
>This is why the preface to the
> >Anglo-Saxon Chronicle contains the following statement:
> > "Then it happened that the Picts came from Scythia in the
> >south, with longships, not many, and came at first to Northern Hibernia
> >(Ireland). They asked the Scots if they might live there, but they would
not
> >let them, because they said they could not all live together there. The
> >Scots said [note: this is a chronological mistake on the part of the
> >Chronicler, the Scots did not go to Ireland until much later. The people
> >they would have spoken to were the native Irish.]
The whole speil is a fairy tale, don'[t you realise that?
Aidan J Meehan
> > > Adrian, I just looked at your web page. Although I certainly disagree
> > with a
> > > lot of your work, I'm absolutely gob-smacked to see net kook and
spammer
> > Louis
> > > Turi there. Do you read any of the Usenet debates with him?
> > >
> > > Doug
> > I don't know anything about this Doug. There is certainly no reference
to
> > him at my own website of www.AdrianGilbert.co.uk , however there is a
new
> > website being set up by Quest magazine promoting their spring conference
at
> > which I believe Louis Turi is to be another of their speakers.
> >
> Sorry, yes, not your web page, it's
> http://www.angelfire.com/sd/stargate2000/index.html
>
> Turi is as kooky as they come. And heavily discredited at least on Usenet.
Talking of kooky. check out Adrian's co-authors POV:
http://www3.mistral.co.uk/kingarthurresearch/
Aidan J Meehan
I must correct you, Celtic One, but "the art form" did not first develop in
Wales. There is an abundance of material, well researched, and the evidence
points to a later development, beginning in the late seventh century. During
the preceding centuries, Wales was cut of from access to the continent,
because of the Saxon presence. whereas Ireland was entirely free to
assimilate all the threads of Continental native artforms, including spiral
patterns from early Britain, and this assimilation too place during the
seventh century. There was no indigenous "Celtic" art of the Early Christian
period prior to the mid-seventh century - there was late Romano-Britiah, and
a smattering of Ultimate La Tene. Caetic art, as it has come down to us
today, has a much, much wider base than fifth and sixth-century had access
to. There is simply no evidence to support you opinion.
>
> --
> Celtic One Design
> Reviving the ancient Celtic Arts for the modern craftsperson.
> http://homepages.msn.com/DharmaDr/celticonedesign/
>
>
>
> "news_surfer" <definite...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:lgb44.4836$O%5.10...@nnrp4.clara.net...
> >
> > If you read "The Holy Kingdom" you will see that we dispute the current
> > dating of most of the surviving Welsh crosses from Margam and other
> places.
> > We believe the majority of these crosses to date from the fifth and
sixth
> > centuries: the time of Arthur and his immediate forebears. We also
dispute
> > the idea that so-called "Celtic" crosses (there were no Celts in
Britain,
> > this is a misnomer of Victorian imagining) were introduced into Britain
> from
> > Ireland. St Patrick was Welsh and the art-form went from Wales to
Ireland
> > being reintroduced into Saxon Britain from Ireland at the time of St
> > Columba. The native Britons (what are today wrongly called Celts)
already
> > had free-standing, stone crosses of the type to be seen at Margam.
> > Unfortunately the supression of the British church after the Council of
> > Whitby and the subsequent destruction of many Welsh churches by the
> Saxons,
> > Normans and even later on has led to confusion over the history of early
> > Christianity in Britain. This, unfortunately, is not the only problem
> > besetting the correct interpretation of British sites and objects. In
my
> > opinion the whole subject needs reevaluating in the light of the
> traditional
> > history of Britain, to be found in the Bruts (particularly the Brut
> > Tysilio). There is certainly an enormous amount of archaeological work
to
> be
> > done in Wales. It is quite possible that if other sites were properly
> > excavated that other metallic crosses of this kind might be found.
> >
> > Adrian Gilbert.
> >
> >
>
>
Aidan J Meehan
Maybe not, but the tone of his co-author's site certainly give pause to any
one with a titter of wit:
http://www3.mistral.co.uk/kingarthurresearch/
news_surfer
Aidan J Meehan <ame...@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:7_654.1109$B6.1...@brie.direct.ca...
>
etcetera.
I have read through allyour postings Aidan and it seems to me that if I am
peddling drivel and nonsense (as you would see it) then you are simply
spewing out the old, anti-Welsh propaganda that has been paraded as history
for the last hundred and fifty years or so. Why is it that any Welsh source
I care to quote is considered to be monkish drivel? Why do you imagine that
the ancient Britons spent their time inventing imaginary histories? Do you
think they were just trying to perplex us? It does not seem to me to be such
an outrageous claim to say that the Britons, who never called themsevels
Celts were in fact not Celts but Britons (or Khymry) as they would say.
According to the Romans and Greeks the Celts were the people who inhabited
Europe north of the Alps which according to my geography makes them Germans
and therefore relatives if you like of the Anglos-Saxons.
The native Britons, whose traditions you scorn (incidentally recorded in
Nennius, 8th century, for starters and not a medieval or Victorian
invention) said they came from Troy. Now if you follow the route supposedly
taken by Brutus it leads to Cathage, the Pillars of Hercules, Spain the
Loire region of France and finally Britain. In several of these places he is
said to have met up with fellow Khymry who belonged to an earlier migration.
To you this is all rubbish and nonsense but to me, who perhaps has a little
more imagination this rings bells. Weren't most of these places so mentioned
colonies of the so-called Phoenicians? Did not the "Phoenicians" (according
to many text-books) sail to Britain and dig out tin from Cornwall with which
to manufacture bronze? Was not Britain in fact one of the principal if not
the principal source of tin during the bronze age? Who then do you think
were the Trojans? In my book it is blindingly obvious that Troy was
connected with the Phoenician civilization making it commmon sense for any
surviving Trojans to seek out fellow "Phoenicians" following the destruction
of that great city. Now I know the histories have been elaborated upon and
presented in the best light possible but it seems to me that what we have
recorded is a basically Phoenician (i.e. Mediterranean peoples) migrating to
Britain and bringing with them their skills in metallurgy, charioteering and
whatever else. These people, probably related to the Iberians and the native
Irish were not blonde-bombshell, Celtic giants or even red-haired,
pugnacious Scythians but short, dark-haired people-Mediterranean types in
fact. Is this so absurd? I would suggest you get out your field notes again
and stop slagging me off for presenting new theories that possibly better
explain the cultural diversity of Britain in the years before the
Anglo-Saxon invasions. Who do you think knew better the history of Britain,
the Welsh bards who had had things handed down to them for generation after
generation or the English scholars of the last century who hated the Welsh
and would do anything to down-play their culture even to the point of
forbidding the use of the Welsh language in Welsh schools? Start using your
head and stop shooting from the hip. That way we might all find our way to a
better understanding of our shared heritage.
Adrian Gilbert.
WC
ones that wanted the rest of the world to remain in the dark.
--
Celtic One Design
Reviving the ancient Celtic Arts for the modern craftsperson.
http://homepages.msn.com/DharmaDr/celticonedesign/
"Lisa" <dav...@cadvision.com> wrote in message
news:3853d...@news.cadvision.com...
WC
in the celtic manufacturing method and with the so called Scottish Dirk
Twist was found in Wales and dated to the first century. Is this Celtic? No,
it is Roman in characteristic except in one distinct point: the folding of
the corners. There is no such a thing as "Celtic Art" in my opinion. Only
early Christian art with a "Celtic" flavor.
You seem to forget that Wales and Ireland have a woven history. When Wales
was cut off from the rest of Britain and Europe, Ireland and Wales were
freely connected via the churches.
My opinion of course.
--
Celtic One Design
Reviving the ancient Celtic Arts for the modern craftsperson.
http://homepages.msn.com/DharmaDr/celticonedesign/
ICQ #: 51910463
My Real 3D Home In The City of the Future
http://www.seedity.com
Scol Address
scol://195.38.157.75:C1Z1Q1B1L1BU1/F4H4A3
"Aidan J Meehan" <ame...@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:RY654.1108$B6.1...@brie.direct.ca...
> > --
> > Celtic One Design
> > Reviving the ancient Celtic Arts for the modern craftsperson.
> > http://homepages.msn.com/DharmaDr/celticonedesign/
> >
> >
> >
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
<definite...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>Who then do you think were the Trojans?
Not Phoenicians, that's for sure. Luwian language texts have
been found near Troy, so the safest bet is they were
Anatolian-speakers.
>These people, probably related to the Iberians and the native
>Irish
No relation between Iberian and Phoenician either.
Séimí mac Liam
SCC. I'm not sure why this has happened but now we seem to have some real
discussion of things Celtic on the Celtic newsgroup, for the first time in
the three years I have been subscribed. I am glad it has happened and hope
it continues. I have learned more in the last 10 days than in all the three
years that went before. Thanks to all who have participated and "Let's keep
it civil."
James C. Woodard
mailto: gwy...@aracnet.com
http://www.aracnet.com/~gwyddon
"When a man lies, he murders part of the world"
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote in message <389357e1....@news.wxs.nl>...
J&M Godesky
> Iberian Princess called Scota, hence the name of the Island, Ireland.
> Rubbish, on a par with the Scythians - Scotti. This is medieval etymology.
> It is nonsense. Simply because it was believed by ancient monk who hadn't a
> clue about etymology, why buy it? These monks believed the world was flat,
> should we?
Yes, I know the original explanation was an untenable medieval
etymology, but (and I'm sure you can tell by now I'm not familiar enough
with this _extremely_ early period of European history) I was under the
impression that there was archaeological evidence showing a migration
from the region of the Russian steppes to southern Germany (La Tene
Culture) by the time of the sack of Rome c. 800 BCE, and that eventually
the Celtic migrations reached Britain, which, by the time of Caesar
seven centuries later, had become the cultural center of the Celtic
world.
I guess this is really far off, or what? I was always under the
impression there was a pretty solid archaeological basis for such a
theory, but then again, I also haven't researched that period in any
sort of detail.
Jason Godesky
Robert Elliot
Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Dec 1999 06:40:05 -0800, Patrick Brown
> <patrickbrow...@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
> >The Romans claimed to be descended from Aeneas of Troy. The Welsh
> >wanted a similarly ancient (and respectable) pedigree and simply made
> >one up.
>
> Why should the Welsh be so impressed by Troy that they should want to
> claim a Trojan ancestry? Did they have absolutley no traditions of
> their own? AFAIK most developing races had traditions in which they
> were descended from Gods. Did the Welsh lack such traditions or did
> they come to the conclusion that their traditions were inferior to
> those of the Romans? If that was the case, that was probably the last
> time in 2000 years that the Welsh have granted superiority to anyone
> else.
>
As a matter of fact, an awful lot of Welsh identity in the mediaeval
period was heavily wrapped up with their status as the heirs of Rome - see
their pre-occupation with Magnus Maximus, amongst others. They were still
using Latin forms and titles on their commemorative stones, that sort of
thing. This is (inevitably) most true of the monks, who read Latin and
were heavily exposed to the Aeneid. Latin and Rome generally were
venerated throughout post-Roman europe as "the proper way to do it", and
Wales was no exception. In addition, Historical methodology wasn't very
advanced then (it was at about the level of this newsgroup!<g>); if it was
written down, it must have happened. So naturally the Iliad, Odyssey and
Aeneid were for real, and the Welsh needed to fit themselves into the
structure.
Rob
C. Gwinn
mystics - it is people like you who are trying to keep the Celts, and the
people who are interested in them, permanently wrapped in a veil of ancient
mists - replete with " a shadowy race of people called the Druids" who are
descendants of the lost tribe of Israel, practice monotheism, and invented
the pyramids.
Stop the illusions!
Fight back, people - go out and read books published by university presses -
not by new age dreamers more interested in fantasy (if not just making a
buck).
news_surfer <definite...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:bkQ44.6510$O%5.14...@nnrp4.clara.net...
C. Gwinn
Also, Adiran, would you drop that "Khymry" shite and learn how to spell the
damn word! It is Cymry - and, in later orthography, Kymry - there was never
an -h- there!
One more example of your limited education !
C. Gwinn
then the rise of Christianity.
Eric Stevens
<patrickbrow...@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>The Romans claimed to be descended from Aeneas of Troy. The Welsh
>wanted a similarly ancient (and respectable) pedigree and simply made
>one up.
Why should the Welsh be so impressed by Troy that they should want to
claim a Trojan ancestry? Did they have absolutley no traditions of
their own? AFAIK most developing races had traditions in which they
were descended from Gods. Did the Welsh lack such traditions or did
they come to the conclusion that their traditions were inferior to
those of the Romans? If that was the case, that was probably the last
time in 2000 years that the Welsh have granted superiority to anyone
else.
Eric Stevens
There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
news_surfer
> Pure garbage. Try reading some history written by Scholars and not new age
> mystics - it is people like you who are trying to keep the Celts, and the
> people who are interested in them, permanently wrapped in a veil of
ancient
> mists - replete with " a shadowy race of people called the Druids" who are
> descendants of the lost tribe of Israel, practice monotheism, and invented
> the pyramids.
> Stop the illusions!
> Fight back, people - go out and read books published by university
presses -
> not by new age dreamers more interested in fantasy (if not just making a
> buck).
all to my earlier postings but let's get this clear. According to you only
books written by what you would consider to be respectable authors and
published by University presses are to be believed. The rest of us peddle
trash. Right? That sounds to me like very authoritarian dogma.
Now explain this to me. For several years Leslie Alcock, now a senior
Professor at Glasgow University I believe (he may have retired by now) but
then based at Cardiff University conducted a dig at South Cadbury looking
for remains of King Arthur. Having spent thousands of pounds of public money
he found nothing more than vague traces that this iron age hill-fort had
been refortified and used in the Dark Ages (probably like many others of the
dozens in the area of Dorset, Somerset and Wiltshire) . To him this
increased the possibility that this hill-fort was the site of the fabled
Camelot at least to the point that in his index it is referred to as
Cadbury-Camelot. Arthur then becomes a post Roman warlord living on a muddy
hilltop but conveniently close to Glastonbury, that centre of the sort of
fables and myths you so despise.
Compare this with Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett, my co-authors of "The Holy
Kingdom". (Alan has a degree from Cardiff University in history as his major
and archaeology as his minor subjects). By closely studying the histories
and genealogies of Wales and comparing these with Welsh place names they
pin-pointed a chapel on a lonely hillside that they were sure had Arthurian
connections. Here they found a stone with the inscription REX ARTORIUS FILI
MAURICIUS. They bought the church from the Church of England in Wales, who
considered it almost valueless, and organised a dig under the auspices of
Dr Eric Talbot of Glasgow University. In the course of this dig an electrum
cross, weighing over three pounds in weight with the inscription PRO ANIMA
ARTORIUS was found. Not very far from this hill is another one called in
Welsh "Mynydd Baiden" or Mount Baiden on which local people tell us a great
battle was fought soon after the time of the Romans. On the top of this hill
is a field still called in Welsh "Maescadlawr" which means "field of battle
area" the road leading to this field is called "Ffordd y Gyfraith" or "Road
to the tumult". If you go up there you can see to this day the remains of
hastily built fortifications. Nennius tells us that Arthur's most important
battle was the Battle of Badon Hill.
Now we know from the "Book of Llandaff" (which you should read by the way if
you want to understand the genealogy of King Arthur) that there was a king
called "Athrwys", the Welsh for Artorius, who was the son of Meurig or
Mauricius in Latin. Meurig was the son of Tewdrig, famous for the Battle of
Tintern who lies buried at Mathern. Meurig also re-founded Llandaff
cathedral and there was a bishop here whose See included Caeleon called
Dyfrig or Dubricius. He it was who crowned Athrwys, whilst still a boy of
about 15, as Prince over Gwent his father then still alive and ruling over
Glamorgan. According to Geoffrey of Monmouth this coronation took place at
Silchester but this seems to be a mistake on his part. In the original Welsh
version of his History, the "Brut Tysilio", it takes place at "Caer-Vydau"
(pronounced Caer-Videe). this sounds remarkably like Cardiff to me, which
would make sense as Dubricius (Dyfrig) was Bishop of Llandaff in Cardiff.
Athrwys or Arthur is traceable in genealogies of Gwent and Brecon where he
is sometimes called "Atwys" but still listed as the son of Meurig and
grandson of Tewdrig.
All this and much more has been uncovered by Alan Wilson and his associate
Baram Blackett, who have also traced an earlier "Arthur", living six
generations earlier, whose centres of operation seem to have been
Warwickshire and the border areas of Northern England around Carlisle.
Curious then that the name "Arthur" comes from "Arth" meaning "bear" and
that the coat of arms of Warwickshire shows a bear tethered to a staff.
Coincidence? Probably but interesting nonetheless. What is also remarkable
is that using the same sort of detective work that brought to light the
Welsh memorial stone to Arthur son of Maurice, Alan and baram pinpointed a
likely spot near Atherstone in Warwickshire for where they believed this
earlier Arthur to have been buried. Here they found a fragment of another
stone with the inscription ARTORIUS...IACIT IN..MACI.
Add to this the uncovering of a myriad of place-names, tumuli names, church
foundations, saintly associations and a vast amount of other evidence for
the Holy Kingdom of King Arthur and you can see why I personally am far more
impressed with their work than I am with that of Alcock on South Cadbury.
You, I assume, don't know Alan Wilson but I can tell you he is one of the
most intelligent people I have ever met. As I am now 50 years old myself and
have had a vast number of people pass through my life, I don't say this
lightly. He is intelligent not because he has an encyclopaedic mind (which
he does) but because he is not afraid of challenging orthodoxy. He is able
to make lateral connections and to cut the crap which unfortunately has
bedevilled the study of ancient British history ever since Bishop Stubbs,
Regius professor at Oxford in the last century, consigned our traditional
history to the dustbin and replaced it with what is now considered
orthodoxy. That this orthodoxy produces scant returns in comparison with
Alan's alternative methods is born out when you compare the digs at Cadbury:
(no inscriptions, no mention of King Arthur) with those conducted by Wilson
and Blackett at Mynydd y Gaer (Arthur stone, various tools, electrum cross
with the name of Arthur and a series of church buildings going back to the
time when the archives say it was founded C.165 AD).
For me, who came into this late, writing "The Holy Kingdom" was an adventure
and a priviledge. It has not made me a lot of money. Unlike some authors who
openly plagiarise the work of others and give nothing in return, I have a
straight-forward partnership with my co-authors that gives each of us a
third of the royalites. I could certainly earn far more were I to write
about how aliens abducted King Arthur and took his fingerprints to show the
gods on Mars. Because it tries to be as accurate as possible, writing the
book was very hard work-my hardest project to date. I did it primarily for
the sake of Britain whose real history in in danger of being submerged
totally by so-called "experts" who actually know nothing. Writing the book
also meant that I got to go through Alan and Baram's archives, which are
extensive into many other fields of which you know nothing. Walking with
Alan through the hills of South Wales was itself an education as he
translated for me from the Welsh the meaning of the names of valleys,
tumuli, hill-tops, stones and other place-names. It brought alive, as no
text-book on your recommended list, could the reality of King Arthur's
kingdom. I have done my best to sift through their data and to produce a
readable book, "The Holy Kingdom" which to judge from the many letters of
appreciation I have received from the general public is greatly appreciated
and regarded as a breath of fresh air. It may not have been published by
Oxford University Press but it is not a "fringe" publication. It was
published by Bantam, part of Transworld and one of the most respectable
publishing houses in London. It is now available in paperback under the
Corgi imprint. I don't say it is the last word on the subject, I would be a
fool if I did. If you want to ignore this work then that is your own
business but don't, like the Pharisees, hinder others from passing through
a gate that you yourself are afraid to enter.
For those who are open-minded enough to judge things for themselves and
don't take University orthodoxy as Gospel truth, pictures of the two Arthur
stones and the electrum cross, mentioned above, can still be viewed at my
website. www.AdrianGilbert.co.uk .
Adrian Gilbert.
John W. Kennedy
>
> I may disagree with Aidan on many matters, but he is right on this one.
>
> Also, Adiran, would you drop that "Khymry" shite and learn how to spell the
> damn word! It is Cymry - and, in later orthography, Kymry - there was never
> an -h- there!
Huh? First C and then K? Or do you mean first C, then K, then C again?
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
Aidan J Meehan
> >
> etcetera.
>
> I have read through allyour postings Aidan and it seems to me that if I am
> peddling drivel and nonsense (as you would see it) then you are simply
> spewing out the old, anti-Welsh propaganda that has been paraded as
history
> for the last hundred and fifty years or so.
If you have read through all my postings on this subject, you must realise
that I have never accused you of "peddling drivel and nonsense", simply
asked you direct questions regarding the electrum cross that you have
introduced as a geniune artifact. The style of this cross is twentieth
century, as I have argued. It's design is based on the astrological sun
symbol, which is a twentieth century misconception about the Celtic cross.
The celtic cross form evolved from the early - 4th century Gaul - Christian
symbol of the ChiRho monogram, inscribed in a circle. In the fifth and sixth
century, this evolved into an unright-cross for the chi, with a loop for the
rho, in a circle. Lastly, the loop disappeared, leaving the cross in a
circle as a christian sign. There were no Celtic crosses in this period. By
the late sixth century, the cross appears for the first time, carved in
stone. In Wales, a special form evolves, a cross inside a wheel, on a
pillar, such as the cross at Margam. These pillar crosses are the prototype
for the monumental Celtic cross, which gradually breaks free of the circle,
and then breaks free of the background stone, to become the free-standing
Irish High cross, which it the model that most closely resembles the modern,
twentieth century notion of a Celtic cross. Of all the forms available, the
electrum cross most resembles the last category, so obviously that some
quaestions need to be answered by yourself, as you are the one who aparently
believes this is a genuine, Arthurian relic.
>Why is it that any Welsh source
> I care to quote is considered to be monkish drivel?
Because most of the early, medieval sources are pseudo-histories, based on
spurious etymology. They were ignorant monks, with a medieval view of the
world. Why should we accept that as literal truth. If you quote this as an
historical source, to be accepted as evidence, you must substantiate your
choice, when all other historians have determined that the historious are to
be taken with a BIG grain of salt.
>Why do you imagine that
> the ancient Britons spent their time inventing imaginary histories?
Because they did not have any alternative. The actual history was no more
known to them than to us. At least with archeology, we can get a fair idea
of the early "history" of the populations and cultures of Britain and
Ireland in early Roman times, and a few centruies beyond. The Welsh monks
were not inhibited by such a lack of information. And their nobility
required ancient genealogies to support their claims to various thrones. So
the monks made up what they did not know.
> Do you
> think they were just trying to perplex us?
No, they were misinformed and ignorant about the events of prehistory.
>It does not seem to me to be such
> an outrageous claim to say that the Britons, who never called themsevels
> Celts were in fact not Celts but Britons (or Khymry) as they would say.
The word "Briton" is derived from a Celtic word. Their language, a p-celtic
language. I do not understand your motive for arguing that the Britons were
not Celts. It seems irellevant to this discussion, which revolves around the
twentieth-century aspects of the electrum cross.
> According to the Romans and Greeks the Celts were the people who inhabited
> Europe north of the Alps which according to my geography makes them
Germans
> and therefore relatives if you like of the Anglos-Saxons.
The British histories have long been used as propaganda for a theory known
as the "British Israelite" theory .
>
> The native Britons, whose traditions you scorn (incidentally recorded in
> Nennius, 8th century, for starters and not a medieval or Victorian
> invention) said they came from Troy.
The rediscover of the British Histories, and the arguement that the British
royal house is descended from the lost tribe of Israel, was a Victorian
phenomenon, which Queen Victoria found flattering, just as her remote
ancestors undoubtedly also did. The basis of the "histories" is to establish
a literary authority for ancient pedigrees that supported the existing
monarch's claims of divine right to rule.
>Now if you follow the route supposedly
> taken by Brutus it leads to Cathage, the Pillars of Hercules, Spain the
> Loire region of France and finally Britain.
Why would you want to do this? Why would you want to derive your ancestry,
and that of your whole nation, from the ancient Greek tale? Brutus is a
story book character. You might as well trace the flight of Mother Goose.
>In several of these places he is
> said to have met up with fellow Khymry who belonged to an earlier
migration.
You spell the word wrong, surely. If you mean the word for Welsh language,
fine. If you mean the ancient Cimmerians, of the Crimea, in support of the
British Isralite propaganda, then make this clear.
> To you this is all rubbish and nonsense but to me, who perhaps has a
little
> more imagination this rings bells.
This is a personal attack on me, you imply that I lack imagination. It
requires more imagination to question than to accept becasue it is written
in a book.
>Weren't most of these places so mentioned
> colonies of the so-called Phoenicians? Did not the "Phoenicians"
(according
> to many text-books) sail to Britain and dig out tin from Cornwall with
which
> to manufacture bronze?
Yeah, you'll be telling us Joseph of Arimithea was a tin miner in Cornwall,
and Jesus was initiated into the Welsh tradition as a child. Unfortunately,
these are all medieval literary inventions, like Brutus.
>Was not Britain in fact one of the principal if not
> the principal source of tin during the bronze age?
Was it? I'd like to see you support this claim.
>Who then do you think
> were the Trojans?
The Trojans were certainly not the original inhabitabts of Britain, if
that's what you think.
>In my book it is blindingly obvious that Troy was
> connected with the Phoenician civilization making it commmon sense for any
> surviving Trojans to seek out fellow "Phoenicians" following the
destruction
> of that great city.
This "Phoenician" connection stems from an Irish etymological confusion
between the Irish name for the original inhabitants of Britain, the Feni.
Hence Phoenician, because it sounds similar, and because Miletia is a city
in Phoenicia, and the Irish histories depended for the legend of a Milesian
invasion for the origina of their royal pedigrees, like the Welsh, who
probably borrowed a lot more from the Irish material than you are aware.
>Now I know the histories have been elaborated upon and
> presented in the best light possible but it seems to me that what we have
> recorded is a basically Phoenician (i.e. Mediterranean peoples) migrating
to
> Britain and bringing with them their skills in metallurgy, charioteering
and
> whatever else.
"It seems to me" is not good enough. This is just your speculation, and I
have told you that your sources are faulty. Besides, we do not need this red
herring. What about the spelling of the word "Artorius" on the electrum
cross? Why is this usage only known in the twentieth century, and unknown in
the epigraphy of the sixth century, or any other Arthurian source? These are
the questions that you avoid.
>These people, probably related to the Iberians and the native
> Irish were not blonde-bombshell, Celtic giants or even red-haired,
> pugnacious Scythians but short, dark-haired people-Mediterranean types in
> fact.
You have no discription of the ancient Phoenicians. You imply they are
short, swarthy types, but, for all you know, so was everybody else. Racial
typology is a shakey foundation on which to draw conclusions about anything.
>Is this so absurd? I would suggest you get out your field notes again
> and stop slagging me off for presenting new theories that possibly better
> explain the cultural diversity of Britain in the years before the
> Anglo-Saxon invasions.
You are making presumptions about me again. I bear you no animosity, Adrian.
I am asking you innocent questions, and I don't deserve this personal attack
on my integrity, just because you cannot deal with the questions. Such as,
we know that electrum was used in the Bronze age, but can you point to an
example of electrum in medieval Britain, after the Roman period?
>Who do you think knew better the history of Britain,
> the Welsh bards who had had things handed down to them for generation
after
> generation or the English scholars of the last century who hated the Welsh
> and would do anything to down-play their culture even to the point of
> forbidding the use of the Welsh language in Welsh schools?
This is a poor debating technique, you are setting up the arguement to lead
into your anti-archeology establishment rant. The question is, why don't you
look at early Celtic crosses, and compare them with the late "Irish High
cross" model you claim to be arthurian, then tell me why they are not the
same style.
>Start using your
> head and stop shooting from the hip. That way we might all find our way to
a
> better understanding of our shared heritage.
I am trying to use my head, Adrian, and I am not satisfied with your answers
so far. Why has this artifact not been presented for authentication to a
qualified expert. If there are questions concerning its authenticity, would
it not be a good idea to ask these questions your self, and instead of
ranting against the establishment, try to give us some answers. If the cross
is not genuine, then your continued support of conclusions based on it is
equally questionable. If you can't support your own claims, don't whine if
others, who lack your imagination, apparently, imagine that you may not be
qualified to make assertions about "our shared heritage".
>
> Adrian Gilbert.
>
>
Doug Weller
says...
> The native histories were destroyed with the supression of the Druids and
> then the rise of Christianity.
>
>
Doug Weller
says...
> Did not the "Phoenicians" (according
> to many text-books) sail to Britain and dig out tin from Cornwall with which
> to manufacture bronze?
>
is is that the locals dug the tin and traded offshore.
Doug