message from Alan Wilson
gl_w...@my-deja.com
The major problem facing the Arthurian Research Foundation is the total
lack of any previous work being done in the area of study of Ancient
British History by anyone else for around 80 years. This creates a
situation where people are asking questions at the 4-5 year old level of
grade 1 Infants schools. This is understandable.
What is not understandable or acceptable is that persons who have not
taken any time or trouble to research and investigate anything
whatsoever in this field of study have the rudeness and insolence to
hurl abuse at solid well founded research of which they themselves have
zero knowledge. The truths which are emerging from resurrecting OUR
NATIVE BRITISH-WELSH = KHUMRIC HISTORIES may cause emotional upsets to
some by disturbing their fond mental pictures, but it does not justify
abuse.
In particular we refer to a Chris Gwinn who we are told is an American
person. We are not in the business of conducting a correspondence course
for ten years to attempt to re-educate Chris Gwinn from the 4-5 year old
level upwards. We have other things to do with our lives.This person has
got on a mental train running from Berlin to Moscow and is alarmed
because the train leaves actually Instanbul and finishes up in Rome. It
is the old story of the Englishman who was holidaying on the Atlantic
coast of Western Ireland, and when he decided to go home he asked an old
Irishman for directions on how to get to Dublin and then to London. The
Irishman scratched his head and said- "If I was going to London, then I
would not start from here.".
You cannot start with a mass of confused theories and ideas as Mr Gwinn
does and then get enraged because the mass of Historical facts and
physical evidences do not fit with those childish ideas. You have to
return to Square One and READ and STUDY the basic elementary fundamental
evidence. You do not teach 4-5 year old children nuclear physics or
quantum mathematics, instead you teach them the Alphabet, you teach them
numbers, and start with 2 + 2 = 4, and 3 + 3 = 6, and so on. You teach
them to model with plasticene and not to attempt brain surgery.
Chris Gwinn openly states that he has no intention of reading any of our
books. He then attempts to attack and to deny what is in those books
with the collosal advantage of total ignorance. Frankly we find even the
idea of an "American expert" on Ancient Khumric History to be hilarious.
We are solemnly informed by this superman that the word "Cunos" means
"Dog", which means that every Welsh Dictionary and Text now needs to be
re-written as they all say that "Ci" means "Dog". We will say more
later.
It may surprise Mr Gwinn, who apparently does not bother to read
anything, that two leading British Professors of Archaeology have
recently followed our lead and have published books which state very
clearly -NO CELTS IN BRITAIN. The ancient Eadle Cyrcenas which means Old
Syrians,(plastered through ancient texts), and the Khumry from Northern
Assyria (Iran) and Armenia, were definitely NOT Celts or Celtic.So the
tide of idiocy which flowed in around 1714-1850 is finally receeding.
Mr Gwinn of couse would demand that the French must prove that Bonaparte
and Napoleon were both the same person. He actually tries to persuade us
that well known commonplaces like Cadwallader and Cadfan do not mean
"Battle Sovereign" and "Prominent in Battles" and so on. These
etymologies are well known and Gwinn is the first ever to query them. So
we Welsh-Khumry don't know what we are doing, and we don't know our own
History or language,- but a Yankee does -he knows better.
To deal with Mr Gwinn's apparent lack of knowledge on the mistranslation
of a large number of ancient Welsh Texts around 1850-1920, it is clear
that Chris Gwinn has no earthly idea of the political correctness
required in that era to (a) get a job, and (b) to keep it. It was -for
example- impossible for anyone to take up any Professorial Chair in a
University unless one could prove strict religious orthodoxy. Remember
that the Jewish Disraeli had to convert to the orthodox Protestant
Church of England to further a political career and become Prime
Minister. So a country Priest, the Rev. Robert Williams would not dream
of accurately translating very dangerous and extremely unorthodox
ancient Khumric-Welsh Manuscripts for Skeene the Scotsman to publish
under "Five Ancient Books of England" .in 1867. Not unless they both
wanted to be out in the street with begging bowls. Neither would Rev.
Robert Williams want his name execrated by his own countrymen by giving
accurate translations leading to the very important graves of major
ancestral figures.
If, in a probably vain attempt to educate Mr Gwinn, we take the
illustrious "Songs of the Graves", the Mickey Mouse version published by
Skeene vaguely lists an apparent 180 -200 names of various ancient
Kings, Queens, and Princes. In 1958 W.H.Thomas in giving the Rees
Memorial Lecture cautiously opened the subject up by pointing out that
there were at most 70 names of ancient royalty in the "Songs of the
Graves". NO ONE ARGUED, but a general silence prevailed. This
unchallenged -and in fact already known statement meant that large
numbers of words read as names by Rev R.Williams were in fact nouns,
adverbs, and adjectives.
It seems not to occur to Mr Gwinn that a small nation dominated by a
much larger one would seek to protect its heritage by simply misleading
the Master Race with silence and misdirections including
mistranslations. They hid their Manuscripts for centuries as is well
known. Around 1800 English scholars were becoming convinced that there
were no surviving Welsh Manuscripts and their English ancestors had
successfully destroyed them all. As late as the 1970's English visitors
into Wales complained of being persistently hopelessly misdirected when
they asked locals for travel information. A common game was to turn road
signs around or paint them over - the locals knew where they were and
didn't need signs.
So, in approaching the "Songs of the Graves" great care was needed.
These Songs consist of over 54 verses of three lines each. It some
became obvious that one major King or Historical figure e.g. Iesu the
Nazarene- would have either one whole three line verse, or even two or
three three line verses, allocated to give precise directions to his/her
grave location. The Druid Curse invokes a cruel lingering painful death
on any who disturb the ancient graves and so Anglo-Saxon archaeologists
were not welcome. The clear pattern of allocating one, two,or three,
whole Verses to individual Monarchs immediately makes a total nonsense
of the claim that "King Arthur" (actually Arthur II ap Meurig ap Tewdrig
ap Teithfallt) has only ONE Line allocated to him. The obvious question
- at least obvious to sane people but not apparently to the all-knowing
Mr Gwinn - is "what happened to the other two lines."? This was the
question partly posed by W.H.Thomas in 1958.
The answer is simple, for instead of there being four names in the Three
Line Verse which names Arthur, there is only one name, and that name is
Arthur. It immediately further becomes blindingly obvious that instead
of one obscure line Arthur has at least Two Verses giving precise
directional details to his tomb. In fact Arthur gets Four Verses. All
that is needed to sort out this non-problem is a simple dictionary. If
Mr Gwinn goes to his local Library the Librarians will probably teach
him how to use a simple Dictionary. The Rev. R.Williams in 1867 did the
patriotic thing and he fed out nonsense English versions which were
published and unthinkingly regurgitated down the long decades, and
completely fooled almost everyone. He successfully concealed Arthur's
grave and many others. As a Christian Priest he would naturally have
baulked at correctly translating the details of the Grave of
Yesu-Iesu-Jesus anyway.
The commonly published nonsense, as by Geoffrey Ashe and other clowns,
is that there is only one recorded Line which hilariously reads as -
"Concealed for ever is the grave of Arthur", which tells everyone
precisely nothing.
Actually even this reads nothing of the sort. The Verse 44 is -
Line 1. "Bet y march, bet a guythur".
"Grave of the knight (Arthur), the grave of the wrathful one
(Arthur)"
March and Guythur are NOT persons.
Line 2. "Bet y Gugawn Cletyfrut."
"The grave of the angry red sword.(Arthur)"
Line 3. "Anoeth bit bet Arthur" which is "A Noeth bit bet Arthur".
"A bare/exposed(place) so be it the grave of Arthur."
the words "A + noeth" are there not "Anoeth". Then there is the clear
word "bit" meaning "so be it" which has been misread as "byth" meaning
"for ever". Then "bet" or "bed" is the old spelling of "bedd" meaning a
grave.
So instead of four individuals named as March, Gwythur, and Gwgawn
Cletyfrud, and Arthur, we simply have Arthur. Actually March means
War-horse, and Marchog means the Knight, but March is commonly used for
"knight" in most of the ancient epic poetry and this is well recognized.
The next Verse 45 has a quite hilarious mistranslation, and one can
imagine the several generations of the Khumry hugging themselves with
stifled laughter and glee at the success of the misdirections. It begins
with "Bet elchuith" which the Rev. Williams read as -"The Grave of
Elchuith". It takes little knowledge to know that "Elchuith" is not a
name and is otherwise unknown. What we have is very simple -"Bet el
chuith" which is modernly "Bedd el chwith" or "a grave extremely
windy.".
Verse 45.
...."Bet elchuith yn gulich glaw."
...."A grave extremely windy in a narrow wet/flat place."
...."Maes Mevetauc y danaw."
...."The field of the Helpless Error the reproach."
...."Dyliei Cynon yno y cunaw,"
...."The duty of the Chiefs to bear him hither.".
In fact Verses 42, 43, 44, & 45, all deal with the burial of Arthur and
no one else. There are no persons named as March, Gwythur, Gwgawn
Cledyfrud, or Elchuith. We are told that the place is 1. narrow, 2.
bare/exposed, 3. extremely windy, 4. wet/flat - and we also have the
marvel of the actual name of the Field - Maes Mevetauc. Finding an
ancient named field in Wales is a matter of diligent slog and certainly
possible. Sometimes it takes weeks but generally hours. In this case it
took a few hours and has already been done. If Mr Gwinn cannot perform
the straight-foward task and work out what Maes Mevetauc means and its
significance, and if he cannot then find the place, then the readers
should now draw their own conclusions as to his levels of ability and
competance.
The fact is that Maes Mevetauc is traceable, it is notoriously windy, it
is very narrow, defintely very wet, and it is most exposed. There is a
large grave mound there, right on target, and there are two un-noticed
sealed caves nearby. We therefore have an ancient record which precisely
specifies the location of the grave of Arthur ap Meurig ap Tewdrig.
Having given Chris Gwinn more clues than Detective Columbo or Sherlock
Holmes ever has, let us hear him now tell us all where this place is -
or shut up.
Instead of there being some 200 very vague brief notations of ancient
royal graves there are in fact less than thirty very detailed precisely
located royal graves which are then traceable. This is part of what we
have been doing.
In the same way another American "expert" published a version which was
alleged to be a translation of the Mabinogi, and he totally failed to
read or understand any of the actual stories, the directions, and the
place locations hidden in the Mabinogi Tales. He totally failed to even
comprehend what the Mabinogi Tales were designed to do and preserve. He
even called them the Mabinogion -Children's Tales following Lady
Charlotte Guest.
What would they make of a Khumric verse written on an old map indicating
a field and allegedly stating- "Put ewe sheep in this field and you get
sour milk". This when translated using actual Welsh words as in the
Dictionaries it reads as - "this is the field of the mound of the queen
of heaven", and there is a very large ancient mound there. It is another
blatant misdirection deliberately designed to fool an English speaker.
This is one of many such sites we have located.
Mr Gwinn and others have to get it into their heads that the origins of
the British are (a) from Chaldean Syria around 1600 B.C.- the Ealde
Cyrcenas as 20th century linguistic research by others indicates, and
physical archaeological evidence proves, and (b) from Israel- via
Northern Assyria (Iran) & Armenia, via Asia Minor to the Dardanelles to
Britain in circa 504 B.C. as a massive array of evidence confirms. These
are our official authentic preserved ancient British Histories and they
are both true and accurate, and provably so. Mr Gwinn is so confused
that he objects to Assyrian and Hebrew Records which state that the
Khumry moved off from Northern Assyria around 690 B.C. and claims that
this then makes them "Iranians". It takes very little knowledge to see
and know that the Ten Tribes of Israel were deported to Northern Assyria
-Iran around 740-700 B.C. This did not turn them into "Iranians".
So all this meaningless crap and nonsense about "Celts" and "Celtic" and
Lepontic Gauls, is just that -crap. Modern inventions designed to fill a
void of knowledge. The Irish migrated from the regions around the
Northern Tigris and fortunately some alert Irishmen are finally
awakening and attempting to trace their ancestral journey south through
Lebanon and across the Egyptian Delta, and along the North African
coast.
Mr Gwinn and numerous other con-men in America and elsewhere have never
ever even bothered to actually read the ancient British Histories before
launching into their "Chris in Blunderland" fabrications of Our History.
Mr Gwinn actually states over the Internet that he has no intention of
reading any of the Books written by Adrian Gilbert, Alan Wilson, and
Baram Blackett, - and then he proceeds to assault, to abuse, and to
ridicule, the contents of these books which he openly admits that he has
never read. How can anyone take this person seriously ? Mr Gwinn is
angry because his pompous pre-conceived ideas are being shown to be
false, his self importance is deflated, and his ego is dented, and he
probably has said far too much, far too often, to far too many people,
concerning the nonsense academic Theories which totally ignore all
British Ancient Recorded History and mountains of supporting evidence.
Mr Gwinn is scared stiff to read what sticks the pin into his inflated
bubble.
We have no further time to waste on this arrogant uneducated foreigner
who knows nothing of our Native British Histories, and nothing of our
culture, and claims that we British know nothing of our own heritage.
Alan Wilson. 26 - 01 - 2001.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Christopher Gwinn
notes that his posts get progressively worse. I do hope the man seeks some
medical attention before he hurts somebody.
> The major problem facing the Arthurian Research Foundation is the total
> lack of any previous work being done in the area of study of Ancient
> British History by anyone else for around 80 years. This creates a
> situation where people are asking questions at the 4-5 year old level of
> grade 1 Infants schools. This is understandable.
Did you ever make it to a library or bookstore at all in during the 20th
century? Last I saw, there were plenty of books and journals dealing with
Ancient British history.
> What is not understandable or acceptable is that persons who have not
> taken any time or trouble to research and investigate anything
> whatsoever in this field of study have the rudeness and insolence to
> hurl abuse at solid well founded research of which they themselves have
> zero knowledge. The truths which are emerging from resurrecting OUR
> NATIVE BRITISH-WELSH = KHUMRIC HISTORIES may cause emotional upsets to
> some by disturbing their fond mental pictures, but it does not justify
> abuse.
I began my studies of Celtic and Arthurian matters 16 years ago - when I was
14 years old - by beginning to learn Welsh and Gaelic, then moving on to
studying the remains of ancient Celtic languages like Gaulish and Britonnic.
I have gone on to study a great numberof the relevant Arthurian primary and
secondary sources - many of the primary sources in their original language.
This is my hobby and one that I spend a great deal of money and time on. I
may not be an expert, but I am damned close to being one.
I HAVE conducted research on you, Alan - I have picked through your web
page, I have searched through online articles and mailinglists that mention
your findings (actual reviews of your work in Arthurian journals are almost
non-existant), and I have followed very closely the statements made by you
and your companions Blackett and Gilbert on this newgroup. I have a very
good idea of what your book is all about, without actually having to send
you any money (your books "Artorius Rex Discovered" and "The Holy Kingdom"
are not available at any libraries in New York either - so looks like I am
stuck).
> In particular we refer to a Chris Gwinn who we are told is an American
> person.
Yes, I live in America - what does that possibly matter? Are you some kind
of racist?
> We are not in the business of conducting a correspondence course
> for ten years to attempt to re-educate Chris Gwinn from the 4-5 year old
> level upwards. We have other things to do with our lives.This person has
> got on a mental train running from Berlin to Moscow and is alarmed
> because the train leaves actually Instanbul and finishes up in Rome. It
> is the old story of the Englishman who was holidaying on the Atlantic
> coast of Western Ireland, and when he decided to go home he asked an old
> Irishman for directions on how to get to Dublin and then to London. The
> Irishman scratched his head and said- "If I was going to London, then I
> would not start from here.".
Uhh - could you be any more insane??
> You cannot start with a mass of confused theories and ideas as Mr Gwinn
> does and then get enraged because the mass of Historical facts and
> physical evidences do not fit with those childish ideas. You have to
> return to Square One and READ and STUDY the basic elementary fundamental
> evidence. You do not teach 4-5 year old children nuclear physics or
> quantum mathematics, instead you teach them the Alphabet, you teach them
> numbers, and start with 2 + 2 = 4, and 3 + 3 = 6, and so on. You teach
> them to model with plasticene and not to attempt brain surgery.
You know, Alan, I think the same could be said of you - why don't you go
learn a thing or two about the accepted studies of British history and
linguistics before running your big fat mouth off?
> Chris Gwinn openly states that he has no intention of reading any of our
> books. He then attempts to attack and to deny what is in those books
> with the collosal advantage of total ignorance. Frankly we find even the
> idea of an "American expert" on Ancient Khumric History to be hilarious.
> We are solemnly informed by this superman that the word "Cunos" means
> "Dog", which means that every Welsh Dictionary and Text now needs to be
> re-written as they all say that "Ci" means "Dog". We will say more
> later.
OK - you ARE a racist jackass.
BTW, asshole, Cuno- is Brittonic, not Welsh (Brittonic is the ancestor of
Welsh, just like Latin is the ancestor of Italian). Brittonic had a word,
*cuon (or masculine *cuos) meaning "hound." The geinitive of this was
*cunos. The compositional form - in other words, the one that was used in
composite names (like "hound-born" or "hound-strength") - was cuno-. The
Brittonic *cuon/*cuos dropped its ending and modified its vowel by the 6th
century AD to produce Welsh ci. Brittonic cuno- lost its compositional vowel
(-o) and modified its medial vowel (-u-) by the 6th century AD to produce
Old Welsh Cin-(Modern Welsh Cyn-).
> It may surprise Mr Gwinn, who apparently does not bother to read
> anything,
I wish I didn't bother to read anything - then maybe my wallet would be a
little fuller and my girlfriend wouldn't complain that I don't spend enough
time with her. My problem is I read too much.
> that two leading British Professors of Archaeology have
> recently followed our lead and have published books which state very
> clearly -NO CELTS IN BRITAIN.
Collis and James basically state that there was no broad-based pan-Celtic
culture and that no one in Britain called themselves Celtae. That's about
all they've got. The second part of their argument is absolutely useless -
it does not matter what the Britons called themselves and by them not using
Celtae does not mean that they weren't culturally (or even ethnically)
linked to the Celtae of Gaul. That Celtic culture early on spread out across
Europe and iversified is perfectly normal and expected - which explains its
apparent lack of unity. We know for a fact, anyway, that some Gaulish tribes
settled in Britain and Ireland (even maintaining political links with Gaul
in the case of southern Britain) - so their arguments are to be treated with
a grain of salt.
> The ancient Eadle Cyrcenas which means Old
> Syrians,(plastered through ancient texts), and the Khumry from Northern
> Assyria (Iran) and Armenia, were definitely NOT Celts or Celtic.So the
> tide of idiocy which flowed in around 1714-1850 is finally receeding.
I hear the looney tunes theme song in my head.
> Mr Gwinn of couse would demand that the French must prove that Bonaparte
> and Napoleon were both the same person.
Uhh...no I wouldn't. Man, you're losing it, Alan!
> He actually tries to persuade us
> that well known commonplaces like Cadwallader and Cadfan do not mean
> "Battle Sovereign" and "Prominent in Battles" and so on. These
> etymologies are well known and Gwinn is the first ever to query them. So
> we Welsh-Khumry don't know what we are doing, and we don't know our own
> History or language,- but a Yankee does -he knows better.
NO, idiot - I already posted that Cadwalladr meant "battle sovereign." Cad
"battle" + "gwaladr "leader/prince."
BTW, You ignorant pig - I AM PART WELSH!!! I have studied Welsh history,
studied the Welsh language, I have a Welsh flag hanging in my apartment, I
have travelled across Wales, I have Welsh friends, I have a Welsh last
name - I am likely more Welsh than you, so shove you moronic prejudices up
you ass!
<snip>
> If, in a probably vain attempt to educate Mr Gwinn, we take the
> illustrious "Songs of the Graves", the Mickey Mouse version published by
> Skeene vaguely lists an apparent 180 -200 names of various ancient
> Kings, Queens, and Princes. In 1958 W.H.Thomas in giving the Rees
> Memorial Lecture cautiously opened the subject up by pointing out that
> there were at most 70 names of ancient royalty in the "Songs of the
> Graves". NO ONE ARGUED, but a general silence prevailed. This
> unchallenged -and in fact already known statement meant that large
> numbers of words read as names by Rev R.Williams were in fact nouns,
> adverbs, and adjectives.
Yeah, I have seen you lame-brained attempts at translating these types of
name lists. Whenever you come across a tough section, you just seem to make
up a new meaning for a Welsh word! You are basically a liar - attempting to
fool people who don't speak the language and therefore can't catch you in
your deceit.
> It seems not to occur to Mr Gwinn that a small nation dominated by a
> much larger one would seek to protect its heritage by simply misleading
> the Master Race with silence and misdirections including
> mistranslations.
Sure, right - I see that you are keepin up the tradition, even adding
muddled confusion to the mistranslations and misdirections.
<snip>
> So, in approaching the "Songs of the Graves" great care was needed.
> These Songs consist of over 54 verses of three lines each. It some
> became obvious that one major King or Historical figure e.g. Iesu the
> Nazarene- would have either one whole three line verse, or even two or
> three three line verses, allocated to give precise directions to his/her
> grave location. The Druid Curse invokes a cruel lingering painful death
> on any who disturb the ancient graves and so Anglo-Saxon archaeologists
> were not welcome. The clear pattern of allocating one, two,or three,
> whole Verses to individual Monarchs immediately makes a total nonsense
> of the claim that "King Arthur" (actually Arthur II ap Meurig ap Tewdrig
> ap Teithfallt) has only ONE Line allocated to him. The obvious question
> - at least obvious to sane people but not apparently to the all-knowing
> Mr Gwinn - is "what happened to the other two lines."? This was the
> question partly posed by W.H.Thomas in 1958.
You think you are sane? They always do, I suppose.
<snip>
> All
> that is needed to sort out this non-problem is a simple dictionary.
What? A modern Welsh dictionary to help you sort out medieval Welsh names?
You are a damned simpleton.
> If
> Mr Gwinn goes to his local Library the Librarians will probably teach
> him how to use a simple Dictionary.
I think you must own a very very simple one. My problem is that I only know
how to use the complicated ones that sit on my bookshelf at home.
> The Rev. R.Williams in 1867 did the
> patriotic thing and he fed out nonsense English versions which were
> published and unthinkingly regurgitated down the long decades, and
> completely fooled almost everyone. He successfully concealed Arthur's
> grave and many others. As a Christian Priest he would naturally have
> baulked at correctly translating the details of the Grave of
> Yesu-Iesu-Jesus anyway.
I think he went on to successfully concealed your brain.
> The commonly published nonsense, as by Geoffrey Ashe and other clowns,
> is that there is only one recorded Line which hilariously reads as -
> "Concealed for ever is the grave of Arthur", which tells everyone
> precisely nothing.
> Actually even this reads nothing of the sort. The Verse 44 is -
> Line 1. "Bet y march, bet a guythur".
> "Grave of the knight (Arthur), the grave of the wrathful one
> (Arthur)"
> March and Guythur are NOT persons.
Says who? Prove that they aren't!
> Line 2. "Bet y Gugawn Cletyfrut."
> "The grave of the angry red sword.(Arthur)"
>
> Line 3. "Anoeth bit bet Arthur" which is "A Noeth bit bet Arthur".
> "A bare/exposed(place) so be it the grave of Arthur."
>
> the words "A + noeth" are there not "Anoeth". Then there is the clear
> word "bit" meaning "so be it" which has been misread as "byth" meaning
> "for ever". Then "bet" or "bed" is the old spelling of "bedd" meaning a
> grave.
Gee, poor little Alan doen't seem to know how to use his simple little
dictionary after all. Apparently he forgot to check for the entry: anoeth "a
wonder/strange (thing)" - the intensive of oeth "strange/wonderful." The
fact that Arthur's grave is a wonder - that no one knew where it could be -
was a common theme in medieval Welsh folklore. Since when does Welsh a mean
the same as English "a" (as in "a bare place"), anyway?! BTW, bit in this
poem means "world" (Modern Welsh byd) - having trouble with that dictionary,
Alan?
> So instead of four individuals named as March, Gwythur, and Gwgawn
> Cletyfrud, and Arthur, we simply have Arthur. Actually March means
> War-horse, and Marchog means the Knight, but March is commonly used for
> "knight" in most of the ancient epic poetry and this is well recognized.
Cite some examples of this.
> The next Verse 45 has a quite hilarious mistranslation, and one can
> imagine the several generations of the Khumry hugging themselves with
> stifled laughter and glee at the success of the misdirections.
(guffaw) Whatever you say, you sly little imp! (wink)
> It begins
> with "Bet elchuith" which the Rev. Williams read as -"The Grave of
> Elchuith". It takes little knowledge to know that "Elchuith" is not a
> name and is otherwise unknown. What we have is very simple -"Bet el
> chuith" which is modernly "Bedd el chwith" or "a grave extremely
> windy.".
Since when does there exist a Welsh word el meaning "extremely?"
> Verse 45.
> ...."Bet elchuith yn gulich glaw."
> ...."A grave extremely windy in a narrow wet/flat place."
> ...."Maes Mevetauc y danaw."
> ...."The field of the Helpless Error the reproach."
> ...."Dyliei Cynon yno y cunaw,"
> ...."The duty of the Chiefs to bear him hither.".
>
> In fact Verses 42, 43, 44, & 45, all deal with the burial of Arthur and
> no one else. There are no persons named as March, Gwythur, Gwgawn
> Cledyfrud, or Elchuith. We are told that the place is 1. narrow, 2.
> bare/exposed, 3. extremely windy, 4. wet/flat - and we also have the
> marvel of the actual name of the Field - Maes Mevetauc. Finding an
> ancient named field in Wales is a matter of diligent slog and certainly
> possible. Sometimes it takes weeks but generally hours. In this case it
> took a few hours and has already been done. If Mr Gwinn cannot perform
> the straight-foward task and work out what Maes Mevetauc means and its
> significance, and if he cannot then find the place, then the readers
> should now draw their own conclusions as to his levels of ability and
> competance.
What the HELL are you talking about??? Since when have I ever even MENTIONED
Maes Mevetauc, you halfwitted prick?
I could certainly did the shite job that you performed in less than a few
hours - but I would rather actually research the accepted etymologies of
Welsh words or, if one is not generally available, reconstruct one based on
the comparative Celtic or comparative Proto Indo European method - something
that you are completely incapable of.
> The fact is that Maes Mevetauc is traceable, it is notoriously windy, it
> is very narrow, defintely very wet, and it is most exposed. There is a
> large grave mound there, right on target, and there are two un-noticed
> sealed caves nearby. We therefore have an ancient record which precisely
> specifies the location of the grave of Arthur ap Meurig ap Tewdrig.
> Having given Chris Gwinn more clues than Detective Columbo or Sherlock
> Holmes ever has, let us hear him now tell us all where this place is -
> or shut up.
I have no idea where Maes Meuetauc is offhand. I know that Maes is "plain"
and Meuetauc (=Modern Welsh *Meueddog, from meuedd "wealth possessions")
would translate as "The Plain of the Wealthy one" or "the Plain of Plenty."
<snip>
> In the same way another American "expert" published a version which was
> alleged to be a translation of the Mabinogi, and he totally failed to
> read or understand any of the actual stories, the directions, and the
> place locations hidden in the Mabinogi Tales. He totally failed to even
> comprehend what the Mabinogi Tales were designed to do and preserve. He
> even called them the Mabinogion -Children's Tales following Lady
> Charlotte Guest.
Instead of making cryptic allusions to people, you contemptuous prick, why
don't you actually mention people by name?! Who is this person that you are
talking about! You are a damned coward.
> What would they make of a Khumric verse written on an old map indicating
> a field and allegedly stating- "Put ewe sheep in this field and you get
> sour milk". This when translated using actual Welsh words as in the
> Dictionaries it reads as - "this is the field of the mound of the queen
> of heaven", and there is a very large ancient mound there. It is another
> blatant misdirection deliberately designed to fool an English speaker.
> This is one of many such sites we have located.
Whatver, buddy. King of the nonsequitors.
> Mr Gwinn and others have to get it into their heads that the origins of
> the British are (a) from Chaldean Syria around 1600 B.C.- the Ealde
> Cyrcenas as 20th century linguistic research by others indicates, and
> physical archaeological evidence proves, and (b) from Israel- via
> Northern Assyria (Iran) & Armenia, via Asia Minor to the Dardanelles to
> Britain in circa 504 B.C. as a massive array of evidence confirms. These
> are our official authentic preserved ancient British Histories and they
> are both true and accurate, and provably so. Mr Gwinn is so confused
> that he objects to Assyrian and Hebrew Records which state that the
> Khumry moved off from Northern Assyria around 690 B.C. and claims that
> this then makes them "Iranians". It takes very little knowledge to see
> and know that the Ten Tribes of Israel were deported to Northern Assyria
> -Iran around 740-700 B.C. This did not turn them into "Iranians".
No, it is YOU who needs the lessons - and it is YOU who are confused - I
never made any such staments! You are a liar and apparently have a sever
reading problem - either that or you need your glasses fixed. Read my words
a little slower, or have somebody read them to you if you need help - BUT
DON"T MISQUOTE ME!!
> So all this meaningless crap and nonsense about "Celts" and "Celtic" and
> Lepontic Gauls, is just that -crap. Modern inventions designed to fill a
> void of knowledge. The Irish migrated from the regions around the
> Northern Tigris and fortunately some alert Irishmen are finally
> awakening and attempting to trace their ancestral journey south through
> Lebanon and across the Egyptian Delta, and along the North African
> coast.
Sure - every Gaulish and Lepontic inscription is a modern forgery (you would
know, mr. "I found Arthur's stone!") - and the modern scholars had willing
accomplices placed all throughout ancient history to help them plant the
seeds for these forgeries by giving out "invented" Gaulish names to people,
places and things - and they also payed off ancient Greeks and Romans to
write about all of this. Amazing - you figured it out - THE GREATEST
TIME-TRAVELLING COVERUP OF ALL TIMES!!! I am sure Adrian is firing up the
typewriter, getting ready to take down your notes - this will fit in well
with his pyramid theories.
> Mr Gwinn and numerous other con-men in America and elsewhere have never
> ever even bothered to actually read the ancient British Histories before
> launching into their "Chris in Blunderland" fabrications of Our History.
And what evidence do you have that I have never read any ancient British
history? You are a worthless liar - not even good at it! Do I need to take a
picture of my bookshelf and post it on the web??!!!
> Mr Gwinn actually states over the Internet that he has no intention of
> reading any of the Books written by Adrian Gilbert, Alan Wilson, and
> Baram Blackett, - and then he proceeds to assault, to abuse, and to
> ridicule, the contents of these books which he openly admits that he has
> never read.
That's right - and after everybody reads your letter, they'll se that you
deserve every bit of it.
> How can anyone take this person seriously ? Mr Gwinn is
> angry because his pompous pre-conceived ideas are being shown to be
> false, his self importance is deflated, and his ego is dented, and he
> probably has said far too much, far too often, to far too many people,
> concerning the nonsense academic Theories which totally ignore all
> British Ancient Recorded History and mountains of supporting evidence.
> Mr Gwinn is scared stiff to read what sticks the pin into his inflated
> bubble.
I am only angry at ignorance - I hate it. Do I care that much about you or
Blackett? No - you have had your 15 minutes of fame and will fade away into
obscurity. In a couple of generations even your own kin will say "Alan
who???" Your theories will be forgotten - of if some future antiquarian
happens to dig them up, they will be displayed as quaint oddities - late
20th century British-Israeli propaganda.
> We have no further time to waste on this arrogant uneducated foreigner
> who knows nothing of our Native British Histories, and nothing of our
> culture, and claims that we British know nothing of our own heritage.
> Alan Wilson. 26 - 01 - 2001.
Arrogant? Yes Uneducated - hardly. Foreigner? You're the foreigner!
I don't claim that the British don't know their own history - I claim that a
mentally-challenged, slightly psychotic, practitioner of forgery named Alan
Wilson doesn't know British history - therefore he makes up his own fantasy
version of it.
Cheers,
Chris Gwinn
Doug Weller
> It may surprise Mr Gwinn, who apparently does not bother to read
> anything, that two leading British Professors of Archaeology have
> recently followed our lead and have published books which state very
> clearly -NO CELTS IN BRITAIN.
>
lead at all, and in fact would almost certainly disagree with their claims.
To quote what I wrote earlier, this sort of statement leaves out an extremely
vital part of the argument made by Collis, James, etc, which is that there
were NO migrations of any size from the continent during the relevant period.
It really doesn't seem honest to me to quote their 'no Celts' statements without
pointing out that they are also saying 'no one else -- no Brutus, etc.'
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
richard wardle
>Basic, Elementary, Juvenile, Studies in old Khumric-Welsh History.
>
>The major problem facing the Arthurian Research Foundation is the total
>lack of any previous work being done in the area of study of Ancient
>British History by anyone else for around 80 years. This creates a
>situation where people are asking questions at the 4-5 year old level of
>grade 1 Infants schools. This is understandable.
>
Who the hell do you think you are calling us INFANTS
We dont ask infantile questions,only questions which ,if I dont miss my
guess ,you cannot answer without showing YOUR lack of understanding and
source use.
At least the Keys to Avalon provides source and access to it's source used
in writing the book ,and reason as to why it reached the conclusions it
did.Even if one does not agree with what they ,say they CANNOT be accused of
hiding anything.
The same cannot in all honesty be said for you.
--
Regards Richard
Mankind is divided into three classes,
The rich,The poor and Those who have enough
Therefore abolish the rich and you will have no more poor,
For it is the few rich who are the cause of the many poor.
Eramon1
>gl_w...@my-deja.com wrote in message <959scv$bi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>Basic, Elementary, Juvenile, Studies in old Khumric-Welsh History.
>>
>>The major problem facing the Arthurian Research Foundation is the total
>>lack of any previous work being done in the area of study of Ancient
>>British History by anyone else for around 80 years. This creates a
>>situation where people are asking questions at the 4-5 year old level of
>>grade 1 Infants schools. This is understandable.
>>
>NO THIS IS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE THIS IS AN INSULT
>Who the hell do you think you are calling us INFANTS
>We dont ask infantile questions,only questions which ,if I dont miss my
>guess ,you cannot answer without showing YOUR lack of understanding and
>source use.
>At least the Keys to Avalon provides source and access to it's source used
>in writing the book ,and reason as to why it reached the conclusions it
>did.Even if one does not agree with what they ,say they CANNOT be accused of
>hiding anything.
>The same cannot in all honesty be said for you.
Richard (and Chris and others),
It's slowly dawned on me that B&W are trolls. Published trolls (and I'd like to
know the story behind that!) but trolls nonetheless. AW follows the classic
troll pattern. Make an outrageous claim, provide no proof, conceal any
"references", insult anyone who wants to know how the conclusions was reached,
refuse to honestly follow-up.
I wonder why someone who has a theory would be so eager to *not* convince
people.
-Eric Ramon
Portland, Oregon
Paul Gadzikowski
> I have a few comments on the garbled ramblings of a madman - I hope everyone
> notes that his posts get progressively worse.
What I've noted is that he chooses to respond to your, Chris' posts, where
the scholarship's laced with unselfconscious invective, so he can harp on
the unselfconscious invective; instead of Heather's posts, in which the
scholarship is stark and free of anything with which he can distract
himself or his post's readers.
(I find his invective much more selfconscious.)
> > In the same way another American "expert" published a version which was
> > alleged to be a translation of the Mabinogi, and he totally failed to
> > read or understand any of the actual stories, the directions, and the
> > place locations hidden in the Mabinogi Tales. He totally failed to even
> > comprehend what the Mabinogi Tales were designed to do and preserve. He
> > even called them the Mabinogion -Children's Tales following Lady
> > Charlotte Guest.
>
> Instead of making cryptic allusions to people, you contemptuous prick, why
> don't you actually mention people by name?! Who is this person that you are
> talking about!
Well, hey, he's consistent - won't name his sources *or* the people he
detracts.
--
Paul Gadzikowski, scar...@iglou.com
http://members.iglou.com/scarfman
"I have clock-hours."
mddavis
>
> Arrogant? Yes Uneducated - hardly. Foreigner? You're the foreigner!
> I don't claim that the British don't know their own history - I claim
that a
> mentally-challenged, slightly psychotic, practitioner of forgery
named Alan
> Wilson doesn't know British history - therefore he makes up his own
fantasy
> version of it.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris Gwinn
That would seem to be the final word on all this.When the electrum
cross was debated last year no satisfaction was ever forthcoming.Now
Blacket,Wilson,and Gilbert have basicaly made fools of themselves.I
think when they came here to "drum up" business they thought they would
find a den of "true believers" ready to swallow anything they dished
out.Boy were they mistaken! Some might have found Chris Gwinn's style
too harsh but sometimes that is the only way to get the message through.
"Answer a fool according to his folly,least he should appear wise in
his own eyes".
The only question that remains is this-are they self deluded,charlatans
or both?
Heather Rose Jones
> It's slowly dawned on me that B&W are trolls. Published trolls (and I'd like to
> know the story behind that!) but trolls nonetheless. AW
My impression -- although it could be mistaken -- is that they are
self-published.
--
*********
Heather Rose Jones
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
*********
Kent
their forms and probably will never get an interest in it. And quite
frankly, would love to see this many posts *actually* discussing
Arthuriana.
However, I simply can't resist ;)
gl_w...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> The major problem facing the Arthurian Research Foundation is the total
> lack of any previous work being done in the area of study of Ancient
> British History by anyone else for around 80 years. This creates a
> situation where people are asking questions at the 4-5 year old level of
> grade 1 Infants schools.
Firstly, are there actually institutions so redundantly named in
Britain? Secondly, you can't seriously think that the level of this
debate has been on such an elementary level as all that, so I'll take
that statement as an insult to your counterparts here. Speaking as one
who holds an advanced degree, I found his entire thread to be extremely
specialized ephemera that holds no general interest.
> What is not understandable or acceptable is that persons who have not
> taken any time or trouble to research and investigate anything
> whatsoever in this field of study have the rudeness and insolence to
> hurl abuse at solid well founded research
I've yet to see any foundation provided to those asking of you. Just
saying a thing is so does not make it so...if anything, this attitude
alone is indicative of...now how did you put it...4-5 year olds.
> In particular we refer to a Chris Gwinn who we are told is an American
> person.
And therefore worthy of contempt by any racional scientist, eh?
> This person has
> got on a mental train running from Berlin to Moscow and is alarmed
> because the train leaves actually Instanbul and finishes up in Rome.
(snip)
Your powers of simile are truly astounding! Did you study under the
'John Lennon School of Nonsense Metaphor'?
> You have to return to Square One and READ and STUDY the basic elementary fundamental
> evidence
Could you possibly be a bit more redundant please? I'm not sure I
understand comprehend hear get your meaning
> You do not teach 4-5 year old children nuclear physics or
> quantum mathematics, instead you teach them the Alphabet, you teach them
> numbers,
this is called Arithmetic, Al
> and start with 2 + 2 = 4, and 3 + 3 = 6, and so on. You teach
> them to model with plasticene and not to attempt brain surgery.
Well, well...so it finally comes clear to you what is most needed for
others to follow your view of 'science', yes?
> Frankly we find even the
> idea of an "American expert" on Ancient Khumric History to be hilarious.
Doesn't surprise me in the least. I once read an essay on how the
refutation of the Third Reich's chosen view of it's racial origins were
"all the handiwork of Juden scholars...and you know how contradictory
those words are.." Sound familiar, herr Wilson? We all become what we
most loathe, don't we Al?
We find even the idea that to study a peoples' history, one must be a
member of those people to be hilarious.
In many ways, you come off sounding far more the 'reactionary American'
than Mr Gwinn. Another bite for you to chew on: since, as you point
out, Mr Gwinn is American then he has no emotional interest in
identifying the British with Celts. Whereas you seem very emotional
invested indeed. For the complete bystander, whose view do you think do
you think smacks more of science and whose of hysteria?
> So
> we Welsh-Khumry don't know what we are doing, and we don't know our own
> History or language,- but a Yankee does -he knows better.
I once traveled to England and wanted to visit Stonehenge. i knew it
was in the Salisbury plains, but had no idea where they might be. I
asked several people who hadn't the foggiest idea (one even told me he
didn't think Stonehenge was up just then...as though they roll it out
onto the plains seasonally). Eventually, we found a travel center and
got directions.
All this to again emphasize that being a native of Britain doesn't lead
to the conclusion that you simply MUST know more than a Yank (sounds
better than Yankee, thank you very much). But at least we now know what
you view as your scholarly credentials...residency.
> it is clear
> that Chris Gwinn has no earthly idea of the political correctness
> required in that era to (a) get a job, and (b) to keep it. It was -for
> example- impossible for anyone to take up any Professorial Chair in a
> University unless one could prove strict religious orthodoxy. Remember
> that the Jewish Disraeli had to convert to the orthodox Protestant
> Church of England to further a political career and become Prime
> Minister. So a country Priest, the Rev. Robert Williams would not dream
> of accurately translating very dangerous and extremely unorthodox
> ancient Khumric-Welsh Manuscripts for Skeene the Scotsman to publish
> under "Five Ancient Books of England" .in 1867. Not unless they both
> wanted to be out in the street with begging bowls. Neither would Rev.
> Robert Williams want his name execrated by his own countrymen by giving
> accurate translations leading to the very important graves of major
> ancestral figures.
Hmmm...all sounds very familiar to the "You must be British for your
knowledge of Britain to be acceptable", doesn't it?
> It seems not to occur to Mr Gwinn that a small nation dominated by a
> much larger one would seek to protect its heritage by simply misleading
> the Master Race with silence and misdirections including
> mistranslations.
Ahhh..now here I can help you. The 'Master Race' were the Germanic
peoples' self description in the early to mid 1900's...not the ancient
British peoples.
> What would they make of a Khumric verse written on an old map indicating
> a field and allegedly stating- "Put ewe sheep in this field and you get
> sour milk". This when translated using actual Welsh words as in the
> Dictionaries it reads as - "this is the field of the mound of the queen
> of heaven", and there is a very large ancient mound there. It is another
> blatant misdirection deliberately designed to fool an English speaker.
> This is one of many such sites we have located.
Well, I don't know about you other unedikated Yanks out there, but this
certainly seems to be a high-point of civilized behavior I think we
could do well to emulate. Not at all on the level of a 4-5 year old
infant, eh?
> Mr Gwinn and others have to get it into their heads that the origins of
> the British are (a) from Chaldean Syria around 1600 B.C.- the Ealde
> Cyrcenas as 20th century linguistic research by others indicates, and
> physical archaeological evidence proves, and (b) from Israel- via
> Northern Assyria (Iran) & Armenia, via Asia Minor to the Dardanelles to
> Britain in circa 504 B.C. as a massive array of evidence confirms. These
> are our official authentic preserved ancient British Histories and they
> are both true and accurate, and provably so. Mr Gwinn is so confused
> that he objects to Assyrian and Hebrew Records which state that the
> Khumry moved off from Northern Assyria around 690 B.C. and claims that
> this then makes them "Iranians". It takes very little knowledge to see
> and know that the Ten Tribes of Israel were deported to Northern Assyria
> -Iran around 740-700 B.C. This did not turn them into "Iranians".
>
> So all this meaningless crap and nonsense about "Celts" and "Celtic" and
> Lepontic Gauls, is just that -crap. Modern inventions designed to fill a
> void of knowledge. The Irish migrated from the regions around the
> Northern Tigris and fortunately some alert Irishmen are finally
> awakening and attempting to trace their ancestral journey south through
> Lebanon and across the Egyptian Delta, and along the North African
> coast.
>
> Mr Gwinn and numerous other con-men in America and elsewhere have never
> ever even bothered to actually read the ancient British Histories before
> launching into their "Chris in Blunderland" fabrications of Our History.
I'm sorry...has Mr Gwinn or the other (achem) con-men published
something I am unaware of that has lead to most specialized historians
to boggle and giggle
(a tuppence says that flies right over his head)
> Mr Gwinn is
> angry because his pompous pre-conceived ideas are being shown to be
> false, his self importance is deflated, and his ego is dented, and he
> probably has said far too much, far too often, to far too many people,
> concerning the nonsense academic Theories which totally ignore all
> British Ancient Recorded History and mountains of supporting evidence.
> Mr Gwinn is scared stiff to read what sticks the pin into his inflated
> bubble.
He need not fear since you refuse to provide said mountains. And since
he, among many others you choose to ignore (due to their not being
Americans, one presumes) have been asking for all this so-called
evidence, I think your conclusion is spotty at best.
> We have no further time to waste on this arrogant uneducated foreigner
> who knows nothing of our Native British Histories,
Let's play "spot the give-away word" in this (for lack of a better term)
'sentence' to determine Al's true feelings.
Your affectionate servant,
Kent
Eramon1
>
>> It's slowly dawned on me that B&W are trolls. Published trolls (and I'd
>like to
>> know the story behind that!) but trolls nonetheless. AW
>
>My impression -- although it could be mistaken -- is that they are
>self-published.
>
that could explain why I can't find them on Amazon. Does anyone have any info
on the publisher and if their stuff is even available anywhere other than mail
order? Surely there's stuff in the actual book/s that has more substance than
the responses we've seen here. If so, I'd like to take a look.
-Eric Ramon
Portland, Oregon
Joe Jefferson
--
Joe of Castle Jefferson
http://www.primenet.com/~jjstrshp/
Site updated October 1st, 1999.
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4.
Steve Beard
or my questions?
Steve
Steve Beard
wrote:
<Snip>
>What I will say is this. Alan Wilson's work led him andhis colleague Baram
>Blackett to a lonely, Welsh mountain-top. So certain were they of the
>validity of their translation of the Graves poem, that they bought the ruins
>of the old church there and commissioned a dig. At this church they found
>the memorial stone with the inscription REX ARTORIUS FILI MAURICIUS. In the
>course of this dig an electrum cross, with a figure of knight on it and
>carrying the inscription PRO ANIMA ARTORIUS was found at the very centre of
>the remains of a bee-hive structure dated to the time of King Arthur.
>
Where can I find a report on this archaelogical dig.
Failing that, what was used to date the bee-hive structure?
Have you had King Arthur's bones carbon dated yet? :-)
Steve
horseman
order! However it is published in UK by Bantam Press, a division of
Transworld Publishers. ISBN number 0593 040627
Hope it helps you out in your quest!!! though the substance in the book is
just as vague as that posted here, including the apparent Vandal invasion
and cometry impact.
If anyone is interested I could scan and post the Bibliography though it is
likely not to be very clear
Dave
"Eramon1" <era...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010201021502...@ng-xc1.aol.com...
Doug Weller
says...
> or my questions?
>
>
Or respond to my twice-posted comments about their archaeological claims about
the Bronze and Iron Ages?
Luke Goaman-Dodson
news:959scv$bi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Chris Gwinn openly states that he has no intention of reading any of
our
> books. He then attempts to attack and to deny what is in those books
> with the collosal advantage of total ignorance. Frankly we find even
the
> idea of an "American expert" on Ancient Khumric History to be
hilarious.
> We are solemnly informed by this superman that the word "Cunos"
means
> "Dog", which means that every Welsh Dictionary and Text now needs to
be
> re-written as they all say that "Ci" means "Dog". We will say more
> later.
Hah! Idiot. Cunos is British for dog, not Welsh. Welsh is a descendant
of British, and probably has about the same similarity to British as
modern English has to old English.
Martypie
uncalled for and rude
Christopher Gwinn
"Martypie" <mart...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010201165438...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
> >Hah! Idiot.
>
> uncalled for and rude
Not really, especially since Alan Wilson basically stated that a great
number of people in this NG were infantile and he also slagged all Americans
as being ignorant and incapable of being expert in anything.
I say fight fire with fire.
-Chris Gwinn
Simon Ward
Christopher Gwinn <son...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:J31e6.316$hd3....@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
> > The major problem facing the Arthurian Research Foundation is the total
> > lack of any previous work being done in the area of study of Ancient
> > British History by anyone else for around 80 years. This creates a
> > situation where people are asking questions at the 4-5 year old level of
> > grade 1 Infants schools. This is understandable.
>
> Did you ever make it to a library or bookstore at all in during the 20th
> century? Last I saw, there were plenty of books and journals dealing with
> Ancient British history.
I would be grateful if you could point towards one historical event in
Britain prior to the first Roman Invasion.
I've been thinking about this for a few days and I can't think of one
accepted historical circumstance in Britain prior to 54BC. Sure, there is
great evidence for an historical past. Stonehenge, Avebury, Silbury, to name
three out of a total that would probably disable my ISP if I were to list
them all. But who built them? The Celts? Great history that.
Plenty of myths though and some of them, according to Alan Wilson, _can_ be
treated as historical. Other myths, such as Arthur, taking place following
the Roman departure, can also be treated as historical, in Alan Wilson's
view.
Ignoring, for a change, the route that took him to these conclusions, Alan
Wilson also claims to have found physical evidence that would support his
theories, most notably his Arthurian finds - Badon, Cammlan, Llong Borth,
Arthur's Grave, Geraint's Grave - but also, IIRC, the location of the 'true
cross'.
Whatever kind of emotional stricture this might get you into, doesn't it
strike you that these things are verifiable. Or at least, current
archaeological methods could say whether any findings fit the theory in
terms of time period, method of construction etc. Of course we are still
reliant upon Alan Wilson providing the necessary access to some brave
academic, but first we need that brave academic to come forward.
There appears to be a saying in archaeology (at least according to the Time
Team programme) that goes - Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Even though evidence hasn't been found for a Trojan immigration, it does not
follow that Trojans didn't arrive here during the historic void that is
Britiain before the Romans.
It is unfortunate that Alan Wilson's theories won't be verified (or fully
rebuked) on this newsgroup. It is even more unfortunate that many newsgroup
members can't see past the invectives flying from both sides to recognise
the possibility that Alan Wilson might be right all along.
Yes, the ball appears to be in his court, but it also helps to have another
player on the other side of the net. Virtual opponents, however mightily
they swing their rackets, can't quite seem to hit ball when it comes down to
it.
> > What is not understandable or acceptable is that persons who have not
> > taken any time or trouble to research and investigate anything
> > whatsoever in this field of study have the rudeness and insolence to
> > hurl abuse at solid well founded research of which they themselves have
> > zero knowledge. The truths which are emerging from resurrecting OUR
> > NATIVE BRITISH-WELSH = KHUMRIC HISTORIES may cause emotional upsets to
> > some by disturbing their fond mental pictures, but it does not justify
> > abuse.
>
> I began my studies of Celtic and Arthurian matters 16 years ago - when I
was
> 14 years old - by beginning to learn Welsh and Gaelic, then moving on to
> studying the remains of ancient Celtic languages like Gaulish and
Britonnic.
> I have gone on to study a great numberof the relevant Arthurian primary
and
> secondary sources - many of the primary sources in their original
language.
> This is my hobby and one that I spend a great deal of money and time on. I
> may not be an expert, but I am damned close to being one.
That would make you well versed in modern theory. I've got a degree in
Economics (really) but I'm damned if I could tell you exactly how the global
economy works. Hey, and mine's a science, a social one.
> I HAVE conducted research on you, Alan - I have picked through your web
> page, I have searched through online articles and mailinglists that
mention
> your findings (actual reviews of your work in Arthurian journals are
almost
> non-existant), and I have followed very closely the statements made by you
> and your companions Blackett and Gilbert on this newgroup. I have a very
> good idea of what your book is all about, without actually having to send
> you any money (your books "Artorius Rex Discovered" and "The Holy Kingdom"
> are not available at any libraries in New York either - so looks like I am
> stuck).
Which is a shame since you seem to enjoy disgareeing with Alan Wilson.
(similes, anecotes, canine linguistics and associated invectives snipped )
> > that two leading British Professors of Archaeology have
> > recently followed our lead and have published books which state very
> > clearly -NO CELTS IN BRITAIN.
>
> Collis and James basically state that there was no broad-based pan-Celtic
> culture and that no one in Britain called themselves Celtae. That's about
> all they've got. The second part of their argument is absolutely useless -
> it does not matter what the Britons called themselves and by them not
using
> Celtae does not mean that they weren't culturally (or even ethnically)
> linked to the Celtae of Gaul. That Celtic culture early on spread out
across
> Europe and iversified is perfectly normal and expected - which explains
its
> apparent lack of unity. We know for a fact, anyway, that some Gaulish
tribes
> settled in Britain and Ireland (even maintaining political links with Gaul
> in the case of southern Britain) - so their arguments are to be treated
with
> a grain of salt.
It seems you are effectively restricting your positive statements to the
fact that there was a Gaulish tribe in southern Britain. That indeed is a
fact as far as the south coast is concerned, although I think the phrase
southern Britain might be stretching it. Does that mean that everywhere else
wasn't Gaulish and therefore not Celtic? Or are you implying that the only
evidence that would support a general Celtic culture across Britain is
linguistic evidence?
(More linguistics, invectives and straight forward insults, from both sides,
snipped)
> > Mr Gwinn and numerous other con-men in America and elsewhere have never
> > ever even bothered to actually read the ancient British Histories before
> > launching into their "Chris in Blunderland" fabrications of Our History.
>
> And what evidence do you have that I have never read any ancient British
> history? You are a worthless liar - not even good at it! Do I need to take
a
> picture of my bookshelf and post it on the web??!!!
Yes Chris, perhaps you should, then I'll know where to read about British
historical facts prior to the first Roman invasion.
Simon
Eramon1
>Plenty of myths though and some of them, according to Alan Wilson, _can_ be
>treated as historical. Other myths, such as Arthur, taking place following
>the Roman departure, can also be treated as historical, in Alan Wilson's
>view.
>
>Ignoring, for a change, the route that took him to these conclusions, Alan
>Wilson also claims to have found physical evidence that would support his
>theories, most notably his Arthurian finds - Badon, Cammlan, Llong Borth,
>Arthur's Grave, Geraint's Grave - but also, IIRC, the location of the 'true
>cross'.
>
>Whatever kind of emotional stricture this might get you into, doesn't it
>strike you that these things are verifiable. Or at least, current
>archaeological methods could say whether any findings fit the theory in
>terms of time period, method of construction etc. Of course we are still
>reliant upon Alan Wilson providing the necessary access to some brave
>academic, but first we need that brave academic to come forward.
>
>There appears to be a saying in archaeology (at least according to the Time
>Team programme) that goes - Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Simon,
I can easily prove Wilson wrong using the same style of argument as he favors.
Ready? Here it is...
Every point that Wilson brings up is an incorrect interpretation of something
that was covered in a book published in 1923 and another one in 1947. Both of
these absolutely prove that Wilson is wrong. But of course you choose to ignore
this evidence. What else could I expect?
Now, are you convinced of his errors? If not, why not?
Sincerely,
-Eric Ramon
Portland, Oregon
richard wardle
>For my sins I have a copy of 'The Holy Kingdom', obtained through mail
>order! However it is published in UK by Bantam Press, a division of
>Transworld Publishers. ISBN number 0593 040627
>
>Hope it helps you out in your quest!!! though the substance in the book is
>just as vague as that posted here, including the apparent Vandal invasion
>and cometry impact.
>
>If anyone is interested I could scan and post the Bibliography though it is
>likely not to be very clear
>
>Dave
>
different from the other books?
Thanks
--
Regards Richard
Mankind is divided into three classes,
The rich,The poor and Those who have enough
Therefore abolish the rich and you will have no more poor,
For it is the few rich who are the cause of the many poor.
>"Eramon1" <era...@aol.com> wrote in message
richard wardle
Guess you can all do away with your Crystal Ball for THAT answer. and for my
six questions and others et al
richard wardle
>>Hah! Idiot.
>
>uncalled for and rude
WHat!!!!!!!!!!
Have you read his posts to this group?
Rude yes,Uncalled for,I think not.
Do you think B&W only post rude and incoherent messages to this NG. NO I
have had personal correspondence with AW (through E-Mail) and believe me the
tone of his rantings does not alter one jot!
richard wardle
Britain prior to 54bc You dont need a photo of anyones bookshelf to find
facts.
May I also point you in the direction of A L F Rivet's "the Placenames of
Roman Britain" where you will find that most,if not nearly all "Roman" place
names in the Island were "Latinized" forms of the Celtic and Pre Celtic
names in use BEFORE the Romans arrived here. They also provide a FULL
biliography.
--
Regards Richard
Mankind is divided into three classes,
The rich,The poor and Those who have enough
Therefore abolish the rich and you will have no more poor,
For it is the few rich who are the cause of the many poor.
Simon Ward wrote in message <95cpou$3vc$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>...
Christopher Gwinn
> > Did you ever make it to a library or bookstore at all in during the 20th
> > century? Last I saw, there were plenty of books and journals dealing
with
> > Ancient British history.
>
> I would be grateful if you could point towards one historical event in
> Britain prior to the first Roman Invasion.
>
> I've been thinking about this for a few days and I can't think of one
> accepted historical circumstance in Britain prior to 54BC. Sure, there is
> great evidence for an historical past. Stonehenge, Avebury, Silbury, to
name
> three out of a total that would probably disable my ISP if I were to list
> them all. But who built them? The Celts? Great history that.
I was including the archaeological record in my definition of Ancient
British history (and who says that Ancient British history ends in 54 BC -
ion my mind, Ancient Britain lasts until the end of Roman occupation)- but
if you want to be very strict in your definition and only deal with
pre-Roman written history, then I suppose Pytheas account of sailing around
Britain in the 4th century BC would suffice. Pytheas' voyage gives us some
place and tribal names and some short anecdotes about British customs.
If you need other historical events that pre-date Caesar, I suggest you go
to Caesar himself - he has a few comments on events that occurred in Britain
prior to his arrival - like the settlement of Belgic tribes there and the
political ties that were maintained with Gaul. Diodorus Siculus - a
contemporary of Caesar - records some information about pre-Roman Britain -
notably that it had not been invaded by any armies from the classical world
prior to Caesar.
For native histories, we must be content with the coin inscriptions, which
allow us to piece together some royal dynasties, and later medieval
pseudo-histories which may contain some actual ancient material (the Welsh
mentionings of Cynfelyn's father Teuhant - Brittonic Tasciouanos - can not
be derived from any classical source, for he was never mentioned in them ,
but rather can only come from native histories - his existence is only
confirmed by modern finds of ancient Brittonic coinage). This point is not
to be taken to far, however - which is exactly what Alan Wilson has done by
taking the Trojan descent tale at face value - even though earlier authors
like Diodorus Siculus tell us that the British of his day believed
themselves to be autocthonic and totally ignoring the fact that the Trojan
origin is seen appearing in other cultures only after coming into contact
with Roman or Greeks (note the Dark Age Franks claiming Trojan blood, even
though we have an earlier Germanic creation story recorded by Tacitus that
make no mention of Troy).
> Whatever kind of emotional stricture this might get you into, doesn't it
> strike you that these things are verifiable. Or at least, current
> archaeological methods could say whether any findings fit the theory in
> terms of time period, method of construction etc. Of course we are still
> reliant upon Alan Wilson providing the necessary access to some brave
> academic, but first we need that brave academic to come forward.
Bravery does not come into the question - British academics long ago
realized that Wilson was a nutcase and thus steer clear of any of his
"finds." If Wilson was really interested in "verifying" his finds, however,
I am sure he could donate them to a University somewhere.
> There appears to be a saying in archaeology (at least according to the
Time
> Team programme) that goes - Absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence.
> Even though evidence hasn't been found for a Trojan immigration, it does
not
> follow that Trojans didn't arrive here during the historic void that is
> Britiain before the Romans.
And it doesn't count out the possibility of Green Martians settling in
Wales, but we don't need to endlessly discuss possible Martian migrations to
prove that it is nonsense.
> It is unfortunate that Alan Wilson's theories won't be verified (or fully
> rebuked) on this newsgroup. It is even more unfortunate that many
newsgroup
> members can't see past the invectives flying from both sides to recognise
> the possibility that Alan Wilson might be right all along.
If you yourself actually understood the material at hand here you wouldn't
bother making such a statement. Wilson's theories are almost completely
based on mistranslations and misunderstandings of ancient material - there
is almost no possibility at all that he is even remotely correct in his
conclusions.
> Yes, the ball appears to be in his court, but it also helps to have
another
> player on the other side of the net. Virtual opponents, however mightily
> they swing their rackets, can't quite seem to hit ball when it comes down
to
> it.
Whatever that's supposed to mean. I think that you understand very little of
what is being discussed here.
> > This is my hobby and one that I spend a great deal of money and time on.
I
> > may not be an expert, but I am damned close to being one.
>
> That would make you well versed in modern theory. I've got a degree in
> Economics (really) but I'm damned if I could tell you exactly how the
global
> economy works. Hey, and mine's a science, a social one.
So you didn't pay attention very well in school - that is absolutely
irrelevant to me and my situation. I am constantly adding to my education
and my bookshelf - I was studying advanced comparative linguistics and
mythology when I was in High School and have never stopped since.
> > I HAVE conducted research on you, Alan - I have picked through your web
> > page, I have searched through online articles and mailinglists that
> mention
> > your findings (actual reviews of your work in Arthurian journals are
> almost
> > non-existant), and I have followed very closely the statements made by
you
> > and your companions Blackett and Gilbert on this newgroup. I have a very
> > good idea of what your book is all about, without actually having to
send
> > you any money (your books "Artorius Rex Discovered" and "The Holy
Kingdom"
> > are not available at any libraries in New York either - so looks like I
am
> > stuck).
>
> Which is a shame since you seem to enjoy disgareeing with Alan Wilson.
Why is that a shame? I would rather spend my money and time on the latest
book by O. J. Padel, for instance, where I am assured of a high level of
quality, than waste my time getting angry at shoddily written trash that
even Norma Goodrich would laugh at.
> It seems you are effectively restricting your positive statements to the
> fact that there was a Gaulish tribe in southern Britain. That indeed is a
> fact as far as the south coast is concerned, although I think the phrase
> southern Britain might be stretching it. Does that mean that everywhere
else
> wasn't Gaulish and therefore not Celtic? Or are you implying that the only
> evidence that would support a general Celtic culture across Britain is
> linguistic evidence?
I am stating that in ancient written history, it is asserted that Gaulish
tribes (not tribe) had recently settled in Britain - which is verified by
onomastics and archaeology. I have also stated that those late migrations
cannot account for the complete linguistic and religious Celticization of
both Ireland and Britain - for this we need to imagine even earlier
settlement of tribes from the Continent ( I won't get into right now the
question of whether small bands entered and dominated or larger crossings
took place).
> > And what evidence do you have that I have never read any ancient British
> > history? You are a worthless liar - not even good at it! Do I need to
take
> a
> > picture of my bookshelf and post it on the web??!!!
>
> Yes Chris, perhaps you should, then I'll know where to read about British
> historical facts prior to the first Roman invasion.
Looks like someone else needs to hit the library.
While you are there, see some of the following books (which I own) - which
is only a partial listing of the vast amount of titles available:
Caesar (DBG), Diodorus (Histories), Strabo (Geography), Tacitus (Agricola),
Ptolemy (Geography)
John Davies (A History of Wales), David Rankin (The Celts and the Classical
World), V. Kruta, O. H. Frey, B. Raftery and M. Szabo, eds (The Celts),
Henri Hubert (The History of the Celtic People), Peter Salway (A History of
Roman Britain), Barry Cunliffe (Iron Age Communities in Britain), Anne Ross
(Pagan Celtic Britain), Philip Freeman (Ireland and the Classical World),
Kenneth Jackson (Language and History in Early Britain), Simon James (The
World of the Celts, The Atlantic Celts), B. Arnold and D. B. Gibson, eds
(Celtic Chiefdom, Celtic State), John Koch, John Carey (The Celtic Heroic
Age)
Also Consult back issues of:
Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies, Studia Celtica, Celtica, Etudes
Celtiques, Zeitschrift fur Celtische Philologie, Ogam, Revues Celtiques,
Proceedings of the Celtic Congress of Celtic Studies:
-Chris Gwinn
Paul Gadzikowski
> It is unfortunate that Alan Wilson's theories won't be verified (or fully
> rebuked) on this newsgroup. It is even more unfortunate that many newsgroup
> members can't see past the invectives flying from both sides to recognise
> the possibility that Alan Wilson might be right all along.
The reason his/their theories shan't be verified is that Wilson won't
verify them when asked, and is unresponsive to questions and commentary on
what he *is* willing to say. Following the argument for the argument's sake
(having, as I've said, little or no interest in the subject), I've seen him
make very few actual statements of fact, and those here more knowledgeable
than I have pointed this up and have refuted those few statements of fact
he has made. If his theories are not fully "rebuked", the trend suggests,
it's because and only because they aren't fully presented by him. That
trend is all any of us - observer or participant in the argument - have to
go on, and that's Wilson's own doing. If he's out to persuade us, he's
failed, spectacularly; and if he isn't out to persuade then why's he
talking to us about it at all?
--
Paul Gadzikowski, scar...@iglou.com
http://members.iglou.com/scarfman
"'You have to kill us both, Spock!'"
Paul Gadzikowski
> For my sins I have a copy of 'The Holy Kingdom', obtained through mail
> order! However it is published in UK by Bantam Press, a division of
> Transworld Publishers. ISBN number 0593 040627
> If anyone is interested I could scan and post the Bibliography though it is
> likely not to be very clear
Then could you type it out for us? <snide>It mustn't be very long.</snide>
Seriously, I'd like the people here on the newsgroup who know the field to
see and comment on this bibliography. I don't mean to fan the flames, or
maybe I do.
Paul Gadzikowski
>
> So does this mean you're not going to answer my question?
I have to thank you for giving me a good laugh early in the morning.
Doug Weller
says...
[SNIP]
> There appears to be a saying in archaeology (at least according to the Time
> Team programme) that goes - Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
> Even though evidence hasn't been found for a Trojan immigration, it does not
> follow that Trojans didn't arrive here during the historic void that is
> Britiain before the Romans.
>
I know the saying, but like so many, it needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Absence of evidence can certainly be evidence of probable absence, depending on
the situation. If someone claims that the Romans were in Ireland for the same
time period and to the same extent that they were in Great Britain, for
instance, but that we just haven't found their cities, villas, farms, roads,
temples, etc., and they quote that saying to you, I think you can feel pretty
safe is saying that they are wrong.
Saying that just because we haven't found the pottery, the weapons, the
settlements, etc of the Trojans they were still here is not exactly the same,
perhaps, but it is similar.
Absence of evidence is a situation where you have every reason to expect to have
found evidence if it existed, is indeed evidence of absence.
horseman
400K + !! and need to do couple of other pages as well. I don't know enough
about this machine to make it smaller - help!!! Any ideas - I am happy to
send them to personal emails (winzip etc) so let me know
Dave
"Paul Gadzikowski" <scar...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:3A7A8EFD...@iglou.com...
richard wardle
text and repost it here
Thanks
--
Regards Richard
Mankind is divided into three classes,
The rich,The poor and Those who have enough
Therefore abolish the rich and you will have no more poor,
For it is the few rich who are the cause of the many poor.
horseman wrote in message
<9NCe6.7469$LQ2.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>...
Doug Weller
>Only way to make it legible is to scan it very large, therefore the file is
>400K + !! and need to do couple of other pages as well. I don't know enough
>about this machine to make it smaller - help!!! Any ideas - I am happy to
>send them to personal emails (winzip etc) so let me know
You should have an OCR function (optical character recognition) so you can just turn it
into plain text.
Doug
Simon Ward
Eric,
I recognise and understand your choice of methodology, but I do think your
missing the point of my statements. Alan Wilson has put forward physical
evidence that supports, in his view, the theories resulting from his
research. It is quite possible to test the veracity of that physical
evidence. What's more, an archaeologist does not require Alan Wilson's
permission to investigate Mynydd Baeden (SS873855), Mynydd y Gaer (SS953858)
or any of the other identifiable sites he puts forward.
This is commonly known as scientific methodology. In this case applied
through archaeology. If the study finds that the grave mounds pointed out by
Alan Wilson are in fact Bronze Age in date where they should have been
post-Roman, well we could draw some conclusions and move on to the next
site. Or if we find that the grave mounds are in fact post-Roman, no doubt
small grins of satisfaction would result, and then we would proceed to the
next site.
Site by site, proof and disproof. That's something I would have confidence
in. I do not have the same confidence in a refutation, or a proof, that is
established through the interpretation of sources alone.
Like many members of this group I want to know whether what Alan Wilson is
correct or not. I too am concerned that he will not divulge some of his
sites and sources. However, I believe that it is possible to test his
theories through an examination of the physical evidence and that this could
be done without resort to him.
Is that position so wrong?
Simon
Simon Ward
Thanks for the substance there Chris. That goes in the database.
Could you be specific on the "actual ancient material"? And does this mean
that other aspects of that same "actual ancient material" might in fact be
true?
> > Whatever kind of emotional stricture this might get you into, doesn't it
> > strike you that these things are verifiable. Or at least, current
> > archaeological methods could say whether any findings fit the theory in
> > terms of time period, method of construction etc. Of course we are still
> > reliant upon Alan Wilson providing the necessary access to some brave
> > academic, but first we need that brave academic to come forward.
>
> Bravery does not come into the question - British academics long ago
> realized that Wilson was a nutcase and thus steer clear of any of his
> "finds." If Wilson was really interested in "verifying" his finds,
however,
> I am sure he could donate them to a University somewhere.
The Electrum Cross certainly, but could you tell me how Alan Wilson is
supposed to donate Mynnyd Baeden, or Mynnyd Y Gaer?
> > There appears to be a saying in archaeology (at least according to the
> Time
> > Team programme) that goes - Absence of evidence is not evidence of
> absence.
> > Even though evidence hasn't been found for a Trojan immigration, it does
> not
> > follow that Trojans didn't arrive here during the historic void that is
> > Britiain before the Romans.
>
> And it doesn't count out the possibility of Green Martians settling in
> Wales, but we don't need to endlessly discuss possible Martian migrations
to
> prove that it is nonsense.
No, the point is that you can't disprove anything simply because there is a
lack of evidence to support it. However, you can find evidence that would
make it a distinct possibility. Martian migrations are indeed difficult to
conceive (though I bet soemone's written a book on it somewhere) but a
migration of people from some other part of the world? Is that such an
impossibility that you would stake your reputation on saying that it could
never have happened?
> > It is unfortunate that Alan Wilson's theories won't be verified (or
fully
> > rebuked) on this newsgroup. It is even more unfortunate that many
> newsgroup
> > members can't see past the invectives flying from both sides to
recognise
> > the possibility that Alan Wilson might be right all along.
>
> If you yourself actually understood the material at hand here you wouldn't
> bother making such a statement. Wilson's theories are almost completely
> based on mistranslations and misunderstandings of ancient material -
Acoording to the linguistic theories that you uphold.
> there is almost no possibility at all that he is even remotely correct in
his
> conclusions.
I see you fell back from the completely impossible to the "almost no
possibility". His conclusions would imply that archaeologists will be able
to find post-Roman remains at certain sites in Britain. Many of these sites
have distinguishable earthworks. Personally, I would like to know what is to
be found at these sites before talking of the almost impossible. Even if
they proved to be Bronze Age, it would still be of interest.
> > Yes, the ball appears to be in his court, but it also helps to have
> another
> > player on the other side of the net. Virtual opponents, however mightily
> > they swing their rackets, can't quite seem to hit ball when it comes
down
> to
> > it.
>
> Whatever that's supposed to mean. I think that you understand very little
of
> what is being discussed here.
How do you know what I understand if you can't work out what I'm saying. But
if you find it enigmatic, perhaps I'll leave it like that.
> > > This is my hobby and one that I spend a great deal of money and time
on.
> I
> > > may not be an expert, but I am damned close to being one.
> >
> > That would make you well versed in modern theory. I've got a degree in
> > Economics (really) but I'm damned if I could tell you exactly how the
> global
> > economy works. Hey, and mine's a science, a social one.
>
> So you didn't pay attention very well in school - that is absolutely
> irrelevant to me and my situation.
Please don't make assumptions about my abilities. Some of us have made
careers out of what we studied.
> I am constantly adding to my education
> and my bookshelf - I was studying advanced comparative linguistics and
> mythology when I was in High School and have never stopped since.
I have not and will not question your understanding of your particular field
of study.
> > > I HAVE conducted research on you, Alan - I have picked through your
web
> > > page, I have searched through online articles and mailinglists that
> > mention
> > > your findings (actual reviews of your work in Arthurian journals are
> > almost
> > > non-existant), and I have followed very closely the statements made by
> you
> > > and your companions Blackett and Gilbert on this newgroup. I have a
very
> > > good idea of what your book is all about, without actually having to
> send
> > > you any money (your books "Artorius Rex Discovered" and "The Holy
> Kingdom"
> > > are not available at any libraries in New York either - so looks like
I
> am
> > > stuck).
> >
> > Which is a shame since you seem to enjoy disgareeing with Alan Wilson.
>
> Why is that a shame? I would rather spend my money and time on the latest
> book by O. J. Padel, for instance, where I am assured of a high level of
> quality, than waste my time getting angry at shoddily written trash that
> even Norma Goodrich would laugh at.
I would be interested to hear about the latest Padel. Would you enjoy
writing about that?
> > It seems you are effectively restricting your positive statements to the
> > fact that there was a Gaulish tribe in southern Britain. That indeed is
a
> > fact as far as the south coast is concerned, although I think the phrase
> > southern Britain might be stretching it. Does that mean that everywhere
> else
> > wasn't Gaulish and therefore not Celtic? Or are you implying that the
only
> > evidence that would support a general Celtic culture across Britain is
> > linguistic evidence?
>
> I am stating that in ancient written history, it is asserted that Gaulish
> tribes (not tribe) had recently settled in Britain - which is verified by
> onomastics and archaeology.
Again, we have some ancient written history. No doubt that would be the
Roman works you mentioned earlier. What do the native British histories have
to say?
> I have also stated that those late migrations
> cannot account for the complete linguistic and religious Celticization of
> both Ireland and Britain
The "complete linguistic and religious Celticization" sounds to me like a
very strong and positive statement to make. Are you happy to stand by that
and make reference to some evidence?
> - for this we need to imagine even earlier
> settlement of tribes from the Continent ( I won't get into right now the
> question of whether small bands entered and dominated or larger crossings
> took place).
So now we are to "imagine" an earlier settlement of tribes. Is this accepted
history or is this a theory? What makes it OK for some to theorise on a
migratory episode in British history, but not OK for others?
A photo would have been fun, if belaboured, but a big list is always
worthwhile. You always seem to take me at my word, perhaps I'll start
learning emoticons. But then linguistics was never my thing.
Regards
Simon
Simon Ward
I take your point. However, I am suggesting that he has put forward physical
evidence that could be tested, without reference to him and without
permission from him. He says that there are earthworks on Mynnyd Baeden.
Then let an archaeologist go and investigate them. I'm confident that
sufficient evidence could be found to date the earthwork.
That would be a very good starting point. Or perhaps an abrupt ending point.
Simon
Christopher Gwinn
> supposed to donate Mynnyd Baeden, or Mynnyd Y Gaer?
Can you please not act like a dolt - obviously I am talking about items like
the Arthur stone and the electrum cross, not places.
> > And it doesn't count out the possibility of Green Martians settling in
> > Wales, but we don't need to endlessly discuss possible Martian
migrations
> to
> > prove that it is nonsense.
>
> No, the point is that you can't disprove anything simply because there is
a
> lack of evidence to support it. However, you can find evidence that would
> make it a distinct possibility. Martian migrations are indeed difficult to
> conceive (though I bet soemone's written a book on it somewhere) but a
> migration of people from some other part of the world? Is that such an
> impossibility that you would stake your reputation on saying that it could
> never have happened?
I would stake my reputation on the fact that the myth of Trojan origins
contained in the British myths are directly descended from stories like
Virgil's Aeneid and not from native recollections of Trojan origins - if
there were genuine native traditions from British-Trojan sources, why then
do all the personal names in the myths match Greek and Roman versions of
Trojan personal names and not native Anatolian forms (the Trojans spoke an
Anatolian language)? Why would there be native histories of Trojan origins,
yet not even the slightest scrap of Anatolian vocabulary left in BRittonic -
no placenames, no personal names - nothing?
> > If you yourself actually understood the material at hand here you
wouldn't
> > bother making such a statement. Wilson's theories are almost completely
> > based on mistranslations and misunderstandings of ancient material -
>
> Acoording to the linguistic theories that you uphold.
And archaeological theories.
> > > Yes, the ball appears to be in his court, but it also helps to have
> > another
> > > player on the other side of the net. Virtual opponents, however
mightily
> > > they swing their rackets, can't quite seem to hit ball when it comes
> down
> > to
> > > it.
> >
> > Whatever that's supposed to mean. I think that you understand very
little
> of
> > what is being discussed here.
>
> How do you know what I understand if you can't work out what I'm saying.
But
> if you find it enigmatic, perhaps I'll leave it like that.
What I am saying is that you are speaking a lot of nonsense that all boils
down to a repetitive "but what if he's right...but what if he's right... but
what if he's right"... go out and do your own research, come back to us and
post your results, then lets talk - until then, this mental-masturbation
experiment on your part is leading us nowhere.
> > So you didn't pay attention very well in school - that is absolutely
> > irrelevant to me and my situation.
>
> Please don't make assumptions about my abilities. Some of us have made
> careers out of what we studied.
If you don't want me to make assumptions about you, don't post material that
will force me to resort to them.
> > Why is that a shame? I would rather spend my money and time on the
latest
> > book by O. J. Padel, for instance, where I am assured of a high level of
> > quality, than waste my time getting angry at shoddily written trash that
> > even Norma Goodrich would laugh at.
>
> I would be interested to hear about the latest Padel. Would you enjoy
> writing about that?
After I have finished it, yes.
> > I am stating that in ancient written history, it is asserted that
Gaulish
> > tribes (not tribe) had recently settled in Britain - which is verified
by
> > onomastics and archaeology.
>
> Again, we have some ancient written history. No doubt that would be the
> Roman works you mentioned earlier. What do the native British histories
have
> to say?
Native British histories were tossed out with the Druids. We have a few
scraps - the oldest evidence (from Roman writers) states that certain
Britons felt themselves to be autocthons. Later British histories are
clouded by Biblical and Classical histories - the people though the were
descended from Trojans and Hebrews.
> > I have also stated that those late migrations
> > cannot account for the complete linguistic and religious Celticization
of
> > both Ireland and Britain
>
> The "complete linguistic and religious Celticization" sounds to me like a
> very strong and positive statement to make. Are you happy to stand by that
> and make reference to some evidence?
I'll stand by it - Celtic languages were anciently spoken from The Orkneys
to Penzance, from London to Snowdon (Pytheas' 4th century BC account attests
to the widespread nature of Celtic languages in Britain at that time) - with
no remnants of Celtic speech left save a few odd river names that might be
pre-Celtic, or they might turn out to be Celtic after all, final conclusions
have yet to be reached. The evidence is in the sources that I have
previously cited - see Jackson (LHEB), Rivet and Smith's "The Placenames of
Roman Britaint," the Roman Inscriptions of Britain (RIB), Whatmough's "the
Dialects of Ancient Gaul," as well as ancient sources like the Antonine
Itinerary, the Ravenna cosmography, Ptolemy's geography, Pliny's Natural
History, Caesar, Tacitus. Strabo, et al.
> > - for this we need to imagine even earlier
> > settlement of tribes from the Continent ( I won't get into right now the
> > question of whether small bands entered and dominated or larger
crossings
> > took place).
>
> So now we are to "imagine" an earlier settlement of tribes. Is this
accepted
> history or is this a theory? What makes it OK for some to theorise on a
> migratory episode in British history, but not OK for others?
Gee...because there is actual evidence of Celtic languages and culture in
Britain and Ireland recorded as early as the sixth century BC.
- Chris Gwinn
richard wardle
reviewed by them or anyone else,and they will NOT discuss any part of that
dig with ANYONE AFIK.
Their theories are exciting but they consistantly refuse to back them with
anything substantial, and sooner or later,interest will wane,like it did
with Daniken et al,mind you down here in Pembrokeshire we still discuss the
"ALien" Landing in the school feild, some are still in touch........Hang on
my crayon has bust;>)))))
richard wardle
seem interested if its pre 19th c or not of English origin at the present
moment in time. For them to actually do something that would enhance Welsh
history and it's understanding would take the removal of all the ENGLISH
people of the board.
Martypie
>-Chris Gwinn
now that is inflammatory.
horseman
not the greatest with computers - few more hints please!!!
Should be sorting something out with Richard (above post) so hopefully
something will come of that
Dave
"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b9dm7t0fekp7aokl4...@4ax.com...
horseman
"richard wardle" <ric...@wadl.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:95fb1i$nhk$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
richard wardle
>>I say fight fire with fire.
>>-Chris Gwinn
>
>now that is inflammatory.
It's also in the Bible,though not in the same words.
richard wardle
<4KTe6.6084$Ee3.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>...
>Your email not working mate!!!!!
>
>
Luke Goaman-Dodson
> I began my studies of Celtic and Arthurian matters 16 years ago -
when I was
> 14 years old - by beginning to learn Welsh and Gaelic, then moving
on to
> studying the remains of ancient Celtic languages like Gaulish and
Britonnic.
Does anyone know of anywhere I can learn about such languages? Ancient
British-Celtic classes don't seem to be too common.
Christopher Gwinn
"Luke Goaman-Dodson" <bel...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:95hg6b$5tb$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
You can't learn Brittonic the same way that you would learn modern Welsh or
Gaelic - Brittonic and Gaulish are only partially understood languages (even
though we are able to understand most of the vocabulary that has come down
to us). If you want to start to learn about Brittonic, get Kenneth Jackson's
Language and History in Early Britain. You will then need to start combing
through back issues of the Celtic studies journals - Bulletin of the Board
of Celtic Studies, Studia Celtica, Etudes Celtiques, etc.
-Chris Gwinn
Luke Goaman-Dodson
news:20010201165438...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
> >Hah! Idiot.
>
> uncalled for and rude
Rude? Yes. Uncalled for? No.
Christopher Gwinn
"news_surfer" <agil...@freeuk.com> wrote :
> "Luke Goaman-Dodson" <bel...@btinternet.com
> > Hah! Idiot. Cunos is British
> for dog, not Welsh. Welsh is a descendant
> > of British, and probably has about the same similarity to British as
> > modern English has to old English.
> >
> >
> How do you know? Actually British for dog is...guess what... dog. The
Welsh
> for dog is ci. It could be that Chris Gwinn's favourite word "cunos" is
> derived from the Latin "cunus", which has a totally different meaning. It
is
> a part of the female anatomy. I don't think many Welsh (or even English)
> kings would have been called by that name. Not to their faces anyway. :-)
>
> Adian Gilbert.
What have I told you, Adrian, about running your damned mouth off about
Welsh? You have already admitted that you don't know shite about the
language and its historical development, so I beg you to refrain from making
further comments until you do.
Your comments about Cunos and Latin cunus are moronic to say the least - it
only further adds to you reputation here as a know-nothing.
-Chris Gwinn
richard wardle
called Cuneus LOL FAL HAHAHAHAHAHA
Elazor
By no means am I a profesional, but I am a step further than an amatur one.
I read Alan's post all the way through, and although I have not seen the
texts he refers to, or read them in any way, I think they deserve better
treatment.
It is verry hard work researching in such a way, I got the feeling through
his launguage that he does have a basis for what he says,, I do know from my
own work Mais does mean a feild, it is a fact at least that british feilds
where given such names, such as mais bel, mais **** ans so on, each feild
has it's own name, if these texts he has found are original like he states
then he has a good case., to me it does seem plausable if the texts are
original.
American historians have to understand the political system that ruled
england, under the reign of some kings it would be insane to try to bring
this kind of proof to public, they could have been murdered for doing so.
quet easily.
Adrian Gilbert, shame, you speak american english, I conclude in this
newsgroup that there is bias towards non english speaking peoples, so who's
a racist?., are americans trying to learn us our own dear english?.
I am thouroughly english, I live in a saxxon (pre british) settlement, and
lord and behold i am descended from saxxons, but even so I think the welsh
people, and there historians deserve more respect than what is thrown at
them by american english book readers.
I would not like anyone to come here to Conisbrough telling me about my own
history, it would be an insult.
I am not saying there are right these alan wilson and co, but lay off..
If you want to think your clever, don't throw insults about on the internet,
it is this that is so childish, go out and do your own work and lay off
others that are "trying" to do there's.
As a matter of interest regarding alans findings, would it not be a good
idea to publish on your website photographic pictures of these texts, along
with some information stating what they say, as you posted.
If people knew they existed through photographic evidence, and that you have
translated such texts, you would have a much better case.
Have they been dated, surely they could be, if you are telling the honest
truth about these texts then publish part of them, make them public at least
so people can verify there existence.
People just can't argue with photographs, they are a sort of evidence, if I
saw close up pictures of these texts you are refering to I would be more
inclined to believe they existed, and I would take your translations in good
faith.
What is going against you is, you seem to be hiding these texts and only
telling people what you want them to know, this may be why no one believes
you, be more open with it, but not to give everything away.
I think you will find that, in this newsgroup most don't know at all what
they are writing about, no matter how good with words they are, the scathing
comments are born from poeple such as these, clever with there words, but
don't have anything behind what they are writing at all. certainly no
history that is.
--
Elazor
_________________________________________________
Homepage
http://www.angelfire.com/ca6/caerconan/index.html
<gl_w...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:959scv$bi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Basic, Elementary, Juvenile, Studies in old Khumric-Welsh History.
>
> The major problem facing the Arthurian Research Foundation is the total
> lack of any previous work being done in the area of study of Ancient
> British History by anyone else for around 80 years. This creates a
> situation where people are asking questions at the 4-5 year old level of
> grade 1 Infants schools. This is understandable.
>
> What is not understandable or acceptable is that persons who have not
> taken any time or trouble to research and investigate anything
> whatsoever in this field of study have the rudeness and insolence to
> hurl abuse at solid well founded research of which they themselves have
> zero knowledge. The truths which are emerging from resurrecting OUR
> NATIVE BRITISH-WELSH = KHUMRIC HISTORIES may cause emotional upsets to
> some by disturbing their fond mental pictures, but it does not justify
> abuse.
>
> In particular we refer to a Chris Gwinn who we are told is an American
> person. We are not in the business of conducting a correspondence course
> for ten years to attempt to re-educate Chris Gwinn from the 4-5 year old
> level upwards. We have other things to do with our lives.This person has
> got on a mental train running from Berlin to Moscow and is alarmed
> because the train leaves actually Instanbul and finishes up in Rome. It
> is the old story of the Englishman who was holidaying on the Atlantic
> coast of Western Ireland, and when he decided to go home he asked an old
> Irishman for directions on how to get to Dublin and then to London. The
> Irishman scratched his head and said- "If I was going to London, then I
> would not start from here.".
>
> You cannot start with a mass of confused theories and ideas as Mr Gwinn
> does and then get enraged because the mass of Historical facts and
> physical evidences do not fit with those childish ideas. You have to
> return to Square One and READ and STUDY the basic elementary fundamental
> evidence. You do not teach 4-5 year old children nuclear physics or
> quantum mathematics, instead you teach them the Alphabet, you teach them
> numbers, and start with 2 + 2 = 4, and 3 + 3 = 6, and so on. You teach
> them to model with plasticene and not to attempt brain surgery.
>
> Chris Gwinn openly states that he has no intention of reading any of our
> books. He then attempts to attack and to deny what is in those books
> with the collosal advantage of total ignorance. Frankly we find even the
> idea of an "American expert" on Ancient Khumric History to be hilarious.
> We are solemnly informed by this superman that the word "Cunos" means
> "Dog", which means that every Welsh Dictionary and Text now needs to be
> re-written as they all say that "Ci" means "Dog". We will say more
> later.
>
> It may surprise Mr Gwinn, who apparently does not bother to read
> anything, that two leading British Professors of Archaeology have
> recently followed our lead and have published books which state very
> clearly -NO CELTS IN BRITAIN. The ancient Eadle Cyrcenas which means Old
> Syrians,(plastered through ancient texts), and the Khumry from Northern
> Assyria (Iran) and Armenia, were definitely NOT Celts or Celtic.So the
> tide of idiocy which flowed in around 1714-1850 is finally receeding.
>
> Mr Gwinn of couse would demand that the French must prove that Bonaparte
> and Napoleon were both the same person. He actually tries to persuade us
> that well known commonplaces like Cadwallader and Cadfan do not mean
> "Battle Sovereign" and "Prominent in Battles" and so on. These
> etymologies are well known and Gwinn is the first ever to query them. So
> we Welsh-Khumry don't know what we are doing, and we don't know our own
> History or language,- but a Yankee does -he knows better.
>
> To deal with Mr Gwinn's apparent lack of knowledge on the mistranslation
> of a large number of ancient Welsh Texts around 1850-1920, it is clear
> that Chris Gwinn has no earthly idea of the political correctness
> required in that era to (a) get a job, and (b) to keep it. It was -for
> example- impossible for anyone to take up any Professorial Chair in a
> University unless one could prove strict religious orthodoxy. Remember
> that the Jewish Disraeli had to convert to the orthodox Protestant
> Church of England to further a political career and become Prime
> Minister. So a country Priest, the Rev. Robert Williams would not dream
> of accurately translating very dangerous and extremely unorthodox
> ancient Khumric-Welsh Manuscripts for Skeene the Scotsman to publish
> under "Five Ancient Books of England" .in 1867. Not unless they both
> wanted to be out in the street with begging bowls. Neither would Rev.
> Robert Williams want his name execrated by his own countrymen by giving
> accurate translations leading to the very important graves of major
> ancestral figures.
>
> If, in a probably vain attempt to educate Mr Gwinn, we take the
> illustrious "Songs of the Graves", the Mickey Mouse version published by
> Skeene vaguely lists an apparent 180 -200 names of various ancient
> Kings, Queens, and Princes. In 1958 W.H.Thomas in giving the Rees
> Memorial Lecture cautiously opened the subject up by pointing out that
> there were at most 70 names of ancient royalty in the "Songs of the
> Graves". NO ONE ARGUED, but a general silence prevailed. This
> unchallenged -and in fact already known statement meant that large
> numbers of words read as names by Rev R.Williams were in fact nouns,
> adverbs, and adjectives.
>
> It seems not to occur to Mr Gwinn that a small nation dominated by a
> much larger one would seek to protect its heritage by simply misleading
> the Master Race with silence and misdirections including
> mistranslations. They hid their Manuscripts for centuries as is well
> known. Around 1800 English scholars were becoming convinced that there
> were no surviving Welsh Manuscripts and their English ancestors had
> successfully destroyed them all. As late as the 1970's English visitors
> into Wales complained of being persistently hopelessly misdirected when
> they asked locals for travel information. A common game was to turn road
> signs around or paint them over - the locals knew where they were and
> didn't need signs.
>
> So, in approaching the "Songs of the Graves" great care was needed.
> These Songs consist of over 54 verses of three lines each. It some
> became obvious that one major King or Historical figure e.g. Iesu the
> Nazarene- would have either one whole three line verse, or even two or
> three three line verses, allocated to give precise directions to his/her
> grave location. The Druid Curse invokes a cruel lingering painful death
> on any who disturb the ancient graves and so Anglo-Saxon archaeologists
> were not welcome. The clear pattern of allocating one, two,or three,
> whole Verses to individual Monarchs immediately makes a total nonsense
> of the claim that "King Arthur" (actually Arthur II ap Meurig ap Tewdrig
> ap Teithfallt) has only ONE Line allocated to him. The obvious question
> - at least obvious to sane people but not apparently to the all-knowing
> Mr Gwinn - is "what happened to the other two lines."? This was the
> question partly posed by W.H.Thomas in 1958.
>
> The answer is simple, for instead of there being four names in the Three
> Line Verse which names Arthur, there is only one name, and that name is
> Arthur. It immediately further becomes blindingly obvious that instead
> of one obscure line Arthur has at least Two Verses giving precise
> directional details to his tomb. In fact Arthur gets Four Verses. All
> that is needed to sort out this non-problem is a simple dictionary. If
> Mr Gwinn goes to his local Library the Librarians will probably teach
> him how to use a simple Dictionary. The Rev. R.Williams in 1867 did the
> patriotic thing and he fed out nonsense English versions which were
> published and unthinkingly regurgitated down the long decades, and
> completely fooled almost everyone. He successfully concealed Arthur's
> grave and many others. As a Christian Priest he would naturally have
> baulked at correctly translating the details of the Grave of
> Yesu-Iesu-Jesus anyway.
>
> The commonly published nonsense, as by Geoffrey Ashe and other clowns,
> is that there is only one recorded Line which hilariously reads as -
> "Concealed for ever is the grave of Arthur", which tells everyone
> precisely nothing.
> Actually even this reads nothing of the sort. The Verse 44 is -
> Line 1. "Bet y march, bet a guythur".
> "Grave of the knight (Arthur), the grave of the wrathful one
> (Arthur)"
> March and Guythur are NOT persons.
>
> Line 2. "Bet y Gugawn Cletyfrut."
> "The grave of the angry red sword.(Arthur)"
>
> Line 3. "Anoeth bit bet Arthur" which is "A Noeth bit bet Arthur".
> "A bare/exposed(place) so be it the grave of Arthur."
>
> the words "A + noeth" are there not "Anoeth". Then there is the clear
> word "bit" meaning "so be it" which has been misread as "byth" meaning
> "for ever". Then "bet" or "bed" is the old spelling of "bedd" meaning a
> grave.
>
> So instead of four individuals named as March, Gwythur, and Gwgawn
> Cletyfrud, and Arthur, we simply have Arthur. Actually March means
> War-horse, and Marchog means the Knight, but March is commonly used for
> "knight" in most of the ancient epic poetry and this is well recognized.
>
> The next Verse 45 has a quite hilarious mistranslation, and one can
> imagine the several generations of the Khumry hugging themselves with
> stifled laughter and glee at the success of the misdirections. It begins
> with "Bet elchuith" which the Rev. Williams read as -"The Grave of
> Elchuith". It takes little knowledge to know that "Elchuith" is not a
> name and is otherwise unknown. What we have is very simple -"Bet el
> chuith" which is modernly "Bedd el chwith" or "a grave extremely
> windy.".
> Verse 45.
> ...."Bet elchuith yn gulich glaw."
> ...."A grave extremely windy in a narrow wet/flat place."
> ...."Maes Mevetauc y danaw."
> ...."The field of the Helpless Error the reproach."
> ...."Dyliei Cynon yno y cunaw,"
> ...."The duty of the Chiefs to bear him hither.".
>
> In fact Verses 42, 43, 44, & 45, all deal with the burial of Arthur and
> no one else. There are no persons named as March, Gwythur, Gwgawn
> Cledyfrud, or Elchuith. We are told that the place is 1. narrow, 2.
> bare/exposed, 3. extremely windy, 4. wet/flat - and we also have the
> marvel of the actual name of the Field - Maes Mevetauc. Finding an
> ancient named field in Wales is a matter of diligent slog and certainly
> possible. Sometimes it takes weeks but generally hours. In this case it
> took a few hours and has already been done. If Mr Gwinn cannot perform
> the straight-foward task and work out what Maes Mevetauc means and its
> significance, and if he cannot then find the place, then the readers
> should now draw their own conclusions as to his levels of ability and
> competance.
>
> The fact is that Maes Mevetauc is traceable, it is notoriously windy, it
> is very narrow, defintely very wet, and it is most exposed. There is a
> large grave mound there, right on target, and there are two un-noticed
> sealed caves nearby. We therefore have an ancient record which precisely
> specifies the location of the grave of Arthur ap Meurig ap Tewdrig.
> Having given Chris Gwinn more clues than Detective Columbo or Sherlock
> Holmes ever has, let us hear him now tell us all where this place is -
> or shut up.
>
> Instead of there being some 200 very vague brief notations of ancient
> royal graves there are in fact less than thirty very detailed precisely
> located royal graves which are then traceable. This is part of what we
> have been doing.
>
> In the same way another American "expert" published a version which was
> alleged to be a translation of the Mabinogi, and he totally failed to
> read or understand any of the actual stories, the directions, and the
> place locations hidden in the Mabinogi Tales. He totally failed to even
> comprehend what the Mabinogi Tales were designed to do and preserve. He
> even called them the Mabinogion -Children's Tales following Lady
> Charlotte Guest.
>
> What would they make of a Khumric verse written on an old map indicating
> a field and allegedly stating- "Put ewe sheep in this field and you get
> sour milk". This when translated using actual Welsh words as in the
> Dictionaries it reads as - "this is the field of the mound of the queen
> of heaven", and there is a very large ancient mound there. It is another
> blatant misdirection deliberately designed to fool an English speaker.
> This is one of many such sites we have located.
>
> Mr Gwinn and others have to get it into their heads that the origins of
> the British are (a) from Chaldean Syria around 1600 B.C.- the Ealde
> Cyrcenas as 20th century linguistic research by others indicates, and
> physical archaeological evidence proves, and (b) from Israel- via
> Northern Assyria (Iran) & Armenia, via Asia Minor to the Dardanelles to
> Britain in circa 504 B.C. as a massive array of evidence confirms. These
> are our official authentic preserved ancient British Histories and they
> are both true and accurate, and provably so. Mr Gwinn is so confused
> that he objects to Assyrian and Hebrew Records which state that the
> Khumry moved off from Northern Assyria around 690 B.C. and claims that
> this then makes them "Iranians". It takes very little knowledge to see
> and know that the Ten Tribes of Israel were deported to Northern Assyria
> -Iran around 740-700 B.C. This did not turn them into "Iranians".
>
> So all this meaningless crap and nonsense about "Celts" and "Celtic" and
> Lepontic Gauls, is just that -crap. Modern inventions designed to fill a
> void of knowledge. The Irish migrated from the regions around the
> Northern Tigris and fortunately some alert Irishmen are finally
> awakening and attempting to trace their ancestral journey south through
> Lebanon and across the Egyptian Delta, and along the North African
> coast.
>
> Mr Gwinn and numerous other con-men in America and elsewhere have never
> ever even bothered to actually read the ancient British Histories before
> launching into their "Chris in Blunderland" fabrications of Our History.
> Mr Gwinn actually states over the Internet that he has no intention of
> reading any of the Books written by Adrian Gilbert, Alan Wilson, and
> Baram Blackett, - and then he proceeds to assault, to abuse, and to
> ridicule, the contents of these books which he openly admits that he has
> never read. How can anyone take this person seriously ? Mr Gwinn is
> angry because his pompous pre-conceived ideas are being shown to be
> false, his self importance is deflated, and his ego is dented, and he
> probably has said far too much, far too often, to far too many people,
> concerning the nonsense academic Theories which totally ignore all
> British Ancient Recorded History and mountains of supporting evidence.
> Mr Gwinn is scared stiff to read what sticks the pin into his inflated
> bubble.
>
> We have no further time to waste on this arrogant uneducated foreigner
> who knows nothing of our Native British Histories, and nothing of our
> culture, and claims that we British know nothing of our own heritage.
> Alan Wilson. 26 - 01 - 2001.
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
Heather Rose Jones
> "news_surfer" <agil...@freeuk.com> wrote :
>
> > "Luke Goaman-Dodson" <bel...@btinternet.com
> > > Hah! Idiot. Cunos is British
> > for dog, not Welsh. Welsh is a descendant
> > > of British, and probably has about the same similarity to British as
> > > modern English has to old English.
> > >
> > >
> > How do you know? Actually British for dog is...guess what... dog. The
Presumably you mean that the _English_ for dog is "dog". While
"British" has a variety of definitions in a modern socio-political
sense, when used as a linguistic term, it is understood by those in the
field as meaning the equivalent of Brittonic (or several other variant
names), the common ancestor of the Brythonic languages. If you were
simply trying to make a joke, it fell rather flat. If you were trying
to make a useful contribution of data, it shows a lack of familiarity
with the terminology of the field.
> Welsh
> > for dog is ci. It could be that Chris Gwinn's favourite word "cunos" is
> > derived from the Latin "cunus", which has a totally different meaning. It
> is
> > a part of the female anatomy.
No, it "couldn't be". While a number of words were borrowed from Latin
into Brittonic, there is absolutely no reason for believing that "cunos"
is in this category, and several good reasons for actively believing
that it is not. (It is highly unlikely that a recently-borrowed Latin
word would have been used in the construction of compound personal
names, for example.)
The corresponding Latin cognate is "canis" -- the Brittonic word is not
"derived" from it, as a child from a parent, rather, both were inherited
from the same Indo-European source, and they stand to each other as cousins.
At any rate, I believe the Latin word you were thinking of is "cunnus"
rather than "cunus" -- Lewis and Short have no listing for the latter.
--
*********
Heather Rose Jones
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
*********
Julian9EHP
[ . . . ]
>As a matter of interest regarding alans findings, would it not be a good
>idea to publish on your website photographic pictures of these texts, along
>with some information stating what they say, as you posted.
[ . . . ]
>People just can't argue with photographs, they are a sort of evidence, if I
>saw close up pictures of these texts you are refering to I would be more
>inclined to believe they existed, and I would take your translations in good
>faith.
[ . . . ]
People argue with _anything_. Some people still believe in the face on Mars.
:-(
E. P.
Luke Goaman-Dodson
> > Does anyone know of anywhere I can learn about such languages?
Ancient
> > British-Celtic classes don't seem to be too common.
> >
>
> You can't learn Brittonic the same way that you would learn modern
Welsh or
> Gaelic - Brittonic and Gaulish are only partially understood
languages (even
> though we are able to understand most of the vocabulary that has
come down
> to us). If you want to start to learn about Brittonic, get Kenneth
Jackson's
> Language and History in Early Britain. You will then need to start
combing
> through back issues of the Celtic studies journals - Bulletin of the
Board
> of Celtic Studies, Studia Celtica, Etudes Celtiques, etc.
Cheers.
Simon Ward
> > The Electrum Cross certainly, but could you tell me how Alan Wilson is
> > supposed to donate Mynnyd Baeden, or Mynnyd Y Gaer?
>
> Can you please not act like a dolt - obviously I am talking about items
like
> the Arthur stone and the electrum cross, not places.
Your acrhaeology, it seems, is not quite up to your display of linguistic
credentials (for those who understand such things). These "places" can
reveal as much as the findings, they don't get removed and, with the
exception of St Peter's Church (SS953853), have nothing to do with Alan
Wilson, apart from the fact that he makes reference to them.
I don't consider your linguistic evidence to be confirmation of the mythical
status. Sorry, Chris, and you may call me naive, a dolt, and many other
derogatory expressions, but I am not convinced. I read recently, for
example, that some Saxon placenames may actually be derived from British
placenames. Perhaps the Trojan immigrants did likewise. Who knows, but I
personally don't consider your argument to be proof.
> > > If you yourself actually understood the material at hand here you
> wouldn't
> > > bother making such a statement. Wilson's theories are almost
completely
> > > based on mistranslations and misunderstandings of ancient material -
> >
> > Acoording to the linguistic theories that you uphold.
>
> And archaeological theories.
So we have linguistic "theories" and archaeological "theories". Doesn't
sound too convincing to me. I'd rather be hearing about archaeological
"evidence".
> > > > Yes, the ball appears to be in his court, but it also helps to have
> > > another
> > > > player on the other side of the net. Virtual opponents, however
> mightily
> > > > they swing their rackets, can't quite seem to hit ball when it comes
> > down
> > > to
> > > > it.
> > >
> > > Whatever that's supposed to mean. I think that you understand very
> little
> > of
> > > what is being discussed here.
> >
> > How do you know what I understand if you can't work out what I'm saying.
> But
> > if you find it enigmatic, perhaps I'll leave it like that.
>
> What I am saying is that you are speaking a lot of nonsense that all boils
> down to a repetitive "but what if he's right...but what if he's right...
but
> what if he's right"... go out and do your own research, come back to us
and
> post your results, then lets talk - until then, this mental-masturbation
> experiment on your part is leading us nowhere.
I like the phrase, I may use it, with your permission.
Chris, I'll do my own research, following my own agenda, in my own way and
in my own time. If I manage to contribute a sentence, or even an aside, to
accepted history I'll be satisfied. Oh, and I'll publish before I comment
here I think.
> > > So you didn't pay attention very well in school - that is absolutely
> > > irrelevant to me and my situation.
> >
> > Please don't make assumptions about my abilities. Some of us have made
> > careers out of what we studied.
>
> If you don't want me to make assumptions about you, don't post material
that
> will force me to resort to them.
A statement that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You don't resort to
assumptions, Chris, you formulate them so that you can go on to make
testable theories. A lack of understanding doesn't lead to assumptions,
although it may give cause to question those you have already made. I think
your lack of formal education may be showing itself.
> > > Why is that a shame? I would rather spend my money and time on the
> latest
> > > book by O. J. Padel, for instance, where I am assured of a high level
of
> > > quality, than waste my time getting angry at shoddily written trash
that
> > > even Norma Goodrich would laugh at.
> >
> > I would be interested to hear about the latest Padel. Would you enjoy
> > writing about that?
>
> After I have finished it, yes.
I look forward to it.
> > > I am stating that in ancient written history, it is asserted that
> Gaulish
> > > tribes (not tribe) had recently settled in Britain - which is verified
> by
> > > onomastics and archaeology.
> >
> > Again, we have some ancient written history. No doubt that would be the
> > Roman works you mentioned earlier. What do the native British histories
> have
> > to say?
>
> Native British histories were tossed out with the Druids. We have a few
> scraps - the oldest evidence (from Roman writers) states that certain
> Britons felt themselves to be autocthons. Later British histories are
> clouded by Biblical and Classical histories - the people though the were
> descended from Trojans and Hebrews.
So we can believe the classical writings, but we can't believe the native
British histories that make reference to them.
> > > I have also stated that those late migrations
> > > cannot account for the complete linguistic and religious Celticization
> of
> > > both Ireland and Britain
> >
> > The "complete linguistic and religious Celticization" sounds to me like
a
> > very strong and positive statement to make. Are you happy to stand by
that
> > and make reference to some evidence?
>
> I'll stand by it - Celtic languages were anciently spoken from The Orkneys
> to Penzance, from London to Snowdon (Pytheas' 4th century BC account
attests
> to the widespread nature of Celtic languages in Britain at that time) -
with
> no remnants of Celtic speech left save a few odd river names that might be
> pre-Celtic, or they might turn out to be Celtic after all, final
conclusions
> have yet to be reached. The evidence is in the sources that I have
> previously cited - see Jackson (LHEB), Rivet and Smith's "The Placenames
of
> Roman Britaint," the Roman Inscriptions of Britain (RIB), Whatmough's "the
> Dialects of Ancient Gaul," as well as ancient sources like the Antonine
> Itinerary, the Ravenna cosmography, Ptolemy's geography, Pliny's Natural
> History, Caesar, Tacitus. Strabo, et al.
Seems then, since we have "no remnants of Celtic speech left save a few odd
river names that might be
pre-Celtic" you are reliant on writers like Pytheas. Was he a linguist? Did
he have your knowledge Chris? Or was he just guessing?
> > > - for this we need to imagine even earlier
> > > settlement of tribes from the Continent ( I won't get into right now
the
> > > question of whether small bands entered and dominated or larger
> crossings
> > > took place).
> >
> > So now we are to "imagine" an earlier settlement of tribes. Is this
> accepted
> > history or is this a theory? What makes it OK for some to theorise on a
> > migratory episode in British history, but not OK for others?
>
> Gee...because there is actual evidence of Celtic languages and culture in
> Britain and Ireland recorded as early as the sixth century BC.
Fine, but you are talking about "an even earlier settlement of tribes from
the Continent". Get specific Chris, put down your theory. When? From where?
Who were they? Where did they settle?
You rip into Alan Wilson for putting forward theories which you say he can't
back up. But he cites places and finds and sources. True, he lacks the
methodology that would convince academics, but a lack of methodology does
not necessarily lead to a lack of correct conclusions. You state that your
Celtic theory now has only a limited amount of current evidence - a few odd
river names for example - for which you are reliant upon a coincidence of
letters in the right order. Get real.
Regards
Simon
Not Convinced, Not Intimidated and certainly up for the battle.
Heather Rose Jones
confess that I found a great deal of the post indecipherable -- Elazor,
people can work around the occasional typo or misspelling, but if I
didn't know better form your own statements, I'd assume that you weren't
a native speaker of English. Your ideas are getting lost in
transmission due to the language problems.)
Elazor wrote:
> As a matter of interest regarding alans findings, would it not be a good
> idea to publish on your website photographic pictures of these texts, along
> with some information stating what they say, as you posted.
>
> If people knew they existed through photographic evidence, and that you have
> translated such texts, you would have a much better case.
>
> Have they been dated, surely they could be, if you are telling the honest
> truth about these texts then publish part of them, make them public at least
> so people can verify there existence.
>
> People just can't argue with photographs, they are a sort of evidence, if I
> saw close up pictures of these texts you are refering to I would be more
> inclined to believe they existed, and I would take your translations in good
> faith.
The main complaints about Alan's citation of texts could be solved
simply by getting actual, specific citations (e.g., author, title,
publisher, page number) -- going to the extent of publishing photographs
is hardly necessary.
But purely as a statement (outside of the immediate context), the
ability to have faith in the veracity of photographs (and especially
electronically-rendered photographs) has gone the way of the dodo. Any
halfway competent person with a copy of PhotoShop and sufficient time
can create or alter a "photograph" to portray anything they like. (Even
back in the days before digital imaging, faith that "the camera never
lies" was a bit misplaced, but had a sounder basis.) I'm not trying to
suggest that anyone involved in this conversation would alter on-line
photographs to make a point -- simply that, in an absolute sense,
altering electronic photographs is dead easy, and so the claim that
"people just can't argue with photographs" is mistaken.
Christopher Gwinn
> > Can you please not act like a dolt - obviously I am talking about items
> like
> > the Arthur stone and the electrum cross, not places.
>
> Your acrhaeology, it seems, is not quite up to your display of linguistic
> credentials (for those who understand such things). These "places" can
> reveal as much as the findings, they don't get removed and, with the
> exception of St Peter's Church (SS953853), have nothing to do with Alan
> Wilson, apart from the fact that he makes reference to them.
No shit they can, genius, but I was responding to your idiotic point that
places can't be sent to to museums.
> I don't consider your linguistic evidence to be confirmation of the
mythical
> status. Sorry, Chris, and you may call me naive, a dolt, and many other
> derogatory expressions, but I am not convinced. I read recently, for
> example, that some Saxon placenames may actually be derived from British
> placenames. Perhaps the Trojan immigrants did likewise. Who knows, but I
> personally don't consider your argument to be proof.
Because you haven't even bothered to read the evidence. I have cited over
and over again the necessary books to read, yet you continue to make
uneducated assumptions about my posts which are, by nature, extremely
cursory. If you are not going to take the time to familiarize yourself with
the standard texts on the matter, I can't help you. I am certainly not about
to give you an entire course in linguistics over this newsgroup. Stay
ignorant - I could give a damn.
> So we have linguistic "theories" and archaeological "theories". Doesn't
> sound too convincing to me. I'd rather be hearing about archaeological
> "evidence".
I'd wager you wouldn't be convinced that a train was coming down a track
that you were standing on until it hit you.
> > What I am saying is that you are speaking a lot of nonsense that all
boils
> > down to a repetitive "but what if he's right...but what if he's right...
> but
> > what if he's right"... go out and do your own research, come back to us
> and
> > post your results, then lets talk - until then, this mental-masturbation
> > experiment on your part is leading us nowhere.
>
> I like the phrase, I may use it, with your permission.
No, I trademarked it yesterday.
> Chris, I'll do my own research, following my own agenda, in my own way and
> in my own time. If I manage to contribute a sentence, or even an aside, to
> accepted history I'll be satisfied. Oh, and I'll publish before I comment
> here I think.
Being published is not a prerequisite to commenting on this news group - if
it was, you would lose 99.9% of the people who regularly post here. You
don't need to be published, but if you want to make authoritative
statements, you should have the required research behind you to back up your
statements.
> > If you don't want me to make assumptions about you, don't post material
> that
> > will force me to resort to them.
>
> A statement that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You don't resort to
> assumptions, Chris, you formulate them so that you can go on to make
> testable theories. A lack of understanding doesn't lead to assumptions,
> although it may give cause to question those you have already made. I
think
> your lack of formal education may be showing itself.
What lack of formal education? You had better watch yourself now.
> > Native British histories were tossed out with the Druids. We have a few
> > scraps - the oldest evidence (from Roman writers) states that certain
> > Britons felt themselves to be autocthons. Later British histories are
> > clouded by Biblical and Classical histories - the people though the were
> > descended from Trojans and Hebrews.
>
> So we can believe the classical writings, but we can't believe the native
> British histories that make reference to them.
We can't trust any native histories that preserve traditions that we can
easily see derive from contact with other cultures. When the Britons all of
a sudden claim they are descended from Noah, we can be certain that this is
the product of Christianization and not genuine native historical accounts.
When we ad to this classical accounts that claim to relay native traditions
of the time - notably that a portion of the population thought they were
aboriginal, that helps even more to identify late-coming histories.
> Seems then, since we have "no remnants of Celtic speech left save a few
odd
> river names that might be
> pre-Celtic" you are reliant on writers like Pytheas. Was he a linguist?
Did
> he have your knowledge Chris? Or was he just guessing?
He doesn't have to be linguist, genius, to record a name that he heard while
in Britain. The same way that you don't need to be a linguists to return
from a trip to Germany and write in your diary that you visited a city
called Frankfurt-am-Mein - even if you misspelled it as "Francfort on Mine,"
educated future readers would still be able to deduce the city that you
visited.
> > Gee...because there is actual evidence of Celtic languages and culture
in
> > Britain and Ireland recorded as early as the sixth century BC.
>
> Fine, but you are talking about "an even earlier settlement of tribes from
> the Continent". Get specific Chris, put down your theory. When? From
where?
> Who were they? Where did they settle?
If I had the answers to all those questions, I'd be on the cover of
Archaeology magazine, now wouldn't I? The fact is that there are numerous
theories and the question hasn't been answered yet by anybody. I have a
suspicion that Celtic speaking people entered in the Bronze Age - how many?
I have no idea - and neither do the professionals.
> You rip into Alan Wilson for putting forward theories which you say he
can't
> back up. But he cites places and finds and sources. True, he lacks the
> methodology that would convince academics, but a lack of methodology does
> not necessarily lead to a lack of correct conclusions. You state that your
> Celtic theory now has only a limited amount of current evidence - a few
odd
> river names for example - for which you are reliant upon a coincidence of
> letters in the right order. Get real.
Lord almighty - you didn't even pay attention to my posts. There is more
evidence than "a few odd river names." Go get your glasses fixed, Simon, and
reread what I have written.
> Regards
>
> Simon
>
> Not Convinced, Not Intimidated and certainly up for the battle.
Good for you. Nothing like the bravery of a fool.
-Chris Gwinn
Elazor
and that is England isn't it?.
I know that some don't belive the photographic evidence much, especially on
the internet, but I have to say all the photographs taken by me on my
website I have all the originals to, if you want an enlargment of any, let
me know.
I only recently used photoshop to make the colours in the photo's closer to
the original, and to shrink the size of the files,any other editing has not
been carried out.
Even those ghost pictured I accidentally took are actually original, i have
the original negatives and pictures, im'e sure you will find if they where
enlarged from the original using standard procedures you would get the same
picture as you see on my website, if you don't belive me send me Ł3 and
postage and packing and I will get it sent to you. an actual enlargment of
the original.
I have to write here I have never wrote any lies on this newsgroup or tried
to mislead people, I am verry honest.
Some persons on the internet said the ghost pictures I have where not
original or fake or explained easily, to which my sisters and brother in
laws have been upset by, because they know I do not lie and they have seen
the originals as well.
I have a buitifull picture of the castle taken in the snow, I enlarged that
at the photographic shop to 12x8 and it is now in a frame, some people have
said it is verry nice, someone even though from a distance it was a
painting?.
I am going to sell enlargemnts of these one day, but in the meantime I have
never altered any pictures on my website, it is a honest and truthfull work
I have done, if you don't want to believe what you see there so be it.
As for those ghost pictures I showed you once, they where taken with a
standard 35mm camera using standard film, I recently used a digital camera
webcam to take just one picture of the same place, guess what?, it showed
the same image on that one as well. If you don't believe it,anybody living
in conisbrough who reads this (unlikely) goto the place where I took that
photo and take one yourself if you don't believe it.
I think you will find many people in conisbrough will know that I am been
thouroughly truthfull in my websites history of conisbrough, they can see
these things for themselves, or the pictures I have taken for evidence are
places localy that can be seen with there own eyes.
I do not really expect internet users hundreds of miles away looking at
pictures on my website to belive it 100%, but if they want to proove it to
themselves, if they ever visit conisbrough castle in there lifetime I would
personely take them and show them what I know and what history was here, and
if they have a camera I would show them where to photograph the ghost image.
If i where to write a book and include these photographs in it people would
be more inclined to belive it?.
When I actually finish the website, I may actually do that, after all I
would allready have the information and pictures there.
I think it would make the best book ever written on Conisbrough., and it
would have a website with more information there to go with it.
Maybe after the website is finished, and I spend more time altering and
finding those small bits of information to make each section as complete as
can be, I will do a book, that will include my photo's.
That may be a couple of years away yet.
--
Elazor
_________________________________________________
Homepage
http://www.angelfire.com/ca6/caerconan/index.html
"Heather Rose Jones" <hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:3A7D98F9...@socrates.berkeley.edu...
richard wardle
it is quite long,though some of the texts seem to be duplications.(Thanks
Dave)
However I too have many of the Texts they mention and have accessed a lot of
the others,which I dont have through the library etc,and indeed many more
books than they mention concering the period in question,and some of
which(they mention) would be pretty difficult to get hold of Nowadays.
However they also include three books by B&W and one by Adrian as "source
bibliography" ie books consulted,which they wrote.
But my point is I have not ,nor has any other person(most ,if not all have
far better credentials than me in this field) come to anything near the
conclusions they have AFAIK.
Obviously I do not have the "Code Breaking) Alphabet they have(and even if I
had i would probably be hard pressed to apply it!)
It is how they arrive at these conclusions.If they have this alphabet should
not it be utilized by ALL Historians Archiologists,Linguists ,Translators et
al.That way their theories and conclusions could be tested conclusivley one
way or another.
DUck another pink flying porcine quadraped!!!;>))
--
Regards Richard
Mankind is divided into three classes,
The rich,The poor and Those who have enough
Therefore abolish the rich and you will have no more poor,
For it is the few rich who are the cause of the many poor.
Christopher Gwinn wrote in message ...
>
richard wardle
>I have lived in Conisbrough, where I am now doing it's history for 28
years,
>and that is England isn't it?.
>
>I know that some don't belive the photographic evidence much, especially on
>the internet, but I have to say all the photographs taken by me on my
>website I have all the originals to, if you want an enlargment of any, let
>me know.
>
longer believe everything they see in photo's and videos etc
--
Regards Richard
Mankind is divided into three classes,
The rich,The poor and Those who have enough
Therefore abolish the rich and you will have no more poor,
For it is the few rich who are the cause of the many poor.
<snip>
Ellis
"news_surfer" <agil...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:T7Ye6.40307$W94.3...@nnrp4.clara.net...
>
> "Luke Goaman-Dodson" <bel...@btinternet.com> > Hah! Idiot. Cunos is
British
> for dog, not Welsh. Welsh is a descendant
> > of British, and probably has about the same similarity to British as
> > modern English has to old English.
> >
> >
> How do you know? Actually British for dog is...guess what... dog.
No, the English for dog is dog. I presume you are taking up AW's 'What's
Brittonic?' theme.
The Welsh
> for dog is ci. It could be that Chris Gwinn's favourite word "cunos" is
> derived from the Latin "cunus", which has a totally different meaning. It
is
> a part of the female anatomy. I don't think many Welsh (or even English)
> kings would have been called by that name. Not to their faces anyway. :-)
You obviously haven't visited Caernarfon.
Steffan Ellis
Heather Rose Jones
> I only recently used photoshop to make the colours in the photo's closer to
> the original, and to shrink the size of the files,any other editing has not
> been carried out.
>
> Even those ghost pictured I accidentally took are actually original, i have
> the original negatives and pictures, im'e sure you will find if they where
> enlarged from the original using standard procedures you would get the same
> postage and packing and I will get it sent to you. an actual enlargment of
> the original.
>
> I have to write here I have never wrote any lies on this newsgroup or tried
> to mislead people, I am verry honest.
<sigh> I tried very hard to make it clear that I was speaking of
generalities and _not_ about any photos immediately related to this newsgroup.
You said (as a general statement), "people just can't argue with
photographs". I disagree -- people _can_ validly argue with
photographs. Not that they should _always_ argue with photographs, nor
that they should argue with any specific photographs under discussion --
simply that people _can_ have very valid reasons for arguing with photographs.
Elazor
> I don't think Heather was commenting on your Honesty, only that peoples no
> longer believe everything they see in photo's and videos etc
So the internet is like the boy who cried wolf, nobody belives him anymore.
even if he where telling the truth. But then there is a lot of lying and
deceiving on the internet. half the people don't even use there real names.
--
Elazor
_________________________________________________
Homepage
http://www.angelfire.com/ca6/caerconan/index.html
"richard wardle" <ric...@wadl.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:95l0of$n2l$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
seddy...@my-deja.com
now missing from my news server. I noticed you had posted only through
Richard's reply.)
In article <yQgf6.2647$Em2.1...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com>,
"Christopher Gwinn" <son...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[Closed argument snipped]
>
> > I don't consider your linguistic evidence to be confirmation of the
> mythical
> > status. Sorry, Chris, and you may call me naive, a dolt, and many
other
> > derogatory expressions, but I am not convinced. I read recently, for
> > example, that some Saxon placenames may actually be derived from
British
> > placenames. Perhaps the Trojan immigrants did likewise. Who knows,
but I
> > personally don't consider your argument to be proof.
>
> Because you haven't even bothered to read the evidence. I have cited
over
> and over again the necessary books to read, yet you continue to make
> uneducated assumptions about my posts which are, by nature, extremely
> cursory. If you are not going to take the time to familiarize
yourself with
> the standard texts on the matter, I can't help you. I am certainly
not about
> to give you an entire course in linguistics over this newsgroup. Stay
> ignorant - I could give a damn.
Yes, you have listed your titles, and these have been stored away for
future refernce, but I can't get hold of them and read them that
quickly. In the meantime, providing your willing to continue the
thread, I'll keep asking questions.
And I'm sure you couldn't give a damn.
> > So we have linguistic "theories" and archaeological "theories".
Doesn't
> > sound too convincing to me. I'd rather be hearing about
archaeological
> > "evidence".
>
> I'd wager you wouldn't be convinced that a train was coming down a
track
> that you were standing on until it hit you.
>
> > > What I am saying is that you are speaking a lot of nonsense that
all
> boils
> > > down to a repetitive "but what if he's right...but what if he's
right...
> > but
> > > what if he's right"... go out and do your own research, come back
to us
> > and
> > > post your results, then lets talk - until then, this mental-
masturbation
> > > experiment on your part is leading us nowhere.
> >
> > I like the phrase, I may use it, with your permission.
>
> No, I trademarked it yesterday.
Shame.
> > Chris, I'll do my own research, following my own agenda, in my own
way and
> > in my own time. If I manage to contribute a sentence, or even an
aside, to
> > accepted history I'll be satisfied. Oh, and I'll publish before I
comment
> > here I think.
>
> Being published is not a prerequisite to commenting on this news
group
Indeed not, but I'm not going to detail my findings on this newsgroup
prior to publishing. However paltry they may be.
>- if
> it was, you would lose 99.9% of the people who regularly post here.
You
> don't need to be published, but if you want to make authoritative
> statements, you should have the required research behind you to back
up your
> statements.
Granted, and where a subject fits in with my research areas, you'll
find that I have made authoritive comments.
> > > If you don't want me to make assumptions about you, don't post
material
> > that
> > > will force me to resort to them.
> >
> > A statement that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You don't
resort to
> > assumptions, Chris, you formulate them so that you can go on to make
> > testable theories. A lack of understanding doesn't lead to
assumptions,
> > although it may give cause to question those you have already made.
I
> think
> > your lack of formal education may be showing itself.
>
> What lack of formal education? You had better watch yourself now.
Yes, that was a bit close to the edge, but no more than your sniping
deserved.
Yes, I can see your point, and certainly accept that "origin myths" can
be absorbed from other traditions. However, I don't think that you
could extend that point to the status of a rule. A bit like the boy
that cried wolf, if you discount something because, under your rule,
they must have nicked the origin concept from elsewhere, then you risk
missing something else.
Britain has been the recipient of a number of migrationary episodes
classified by archaeologists. So we have, at around 1800BC the Beaker
People and from 750 to 650 we have the so-called Deverel-Rombury
People. Both of these have been classified as Bronze Age movements. In
the Iron Age they list three further waves of settlers - 550-300 BC the
Hallstatt Culture, 300-150 BC the La Tene Culture and from 150 BC to 43
AD the Belgic Tribes. It seems to me that your early "Celtic" migration
might be associated with either of the Bronze Age movements. The Belgic
Tribes we certainly agree on, leaving the Hallstat and La Tene
cultures.
According to my reading, the Beaker People originated from Spain (B-
type) and from Holland/Germany (C-Type). It seems that both types
spread across Europe. Deverel-Rimbury people, again according to my
reading, also came from the Holland/Rhine regions.
As a matter of interest, and with no wish, in this context, to put down
your theories (which I am assuming are essentially linguistic) how much
work has been done to match up the linguistic and archaeological
evidence?
> > You rip into Alan Wilson for putting forward theories which you say
he
> can't
> > back up. But he cites places and finds and sources. True, he lacks
the
> > methodology that would convince academics, but a lack of
methodology does
> > not necessarily lead to a lack of correct conclusions. You state
that your
> > Celtic theory now has only a limited amount of current evidence - a
few
> odd
> > river names for example - for which you are reliant upon a
coincidence of
> > letters in the right order. Get real.
>
> Lord almighty - you didn't even pay attention to my posts. There is
more
> evidence than "a few odd river names." Go get your glasses fixed,
Simon, and
> reread what I have written.
How did you know I wear glasses. I must admit they're somewhat dirty at
the moment, but that's just me. Yes, I've read your list of classical
sources that you cite as evidence. You've given me a few more targets
for my database and once they're in then a search for all forms of
Britain will resume.
> > Not Convinced, Not Intimidated and certainly up for the battle.
>
> Good for you. Nothing like the bravery of a fool.
No, not a fool. The reason I'm being persistent is bcause no one else
appears to be willing to argue the toss. Alan Wilson would not
undertake such an engagement and, because your quite willing to put
yourself forward, then I'm throwing the words in your direction. It's
too easy for you to label Alan Wilson as an idiot and then walk away,
I'm trying to get down to the nitty gritty. If I can't compete with
your knowledge of linguistics, then that's a shame, but I don't think
that should stop me examining your position. Especially so, since much
of your argument against Alan Wilson is based on the fact that he takes
an opposite position to your own. He can't be right, because I am, type
thing.
If my approach offends you, just say so.
Regards
Simon
Peter Guy
Peter (which is categorically my real name)
"Elazor" <ela...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:95mtr7$mt9$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
Doug Weller
says...
[SNIP]
> So we have linguistic "theories" and archaeological "theories". Doesn't
> sound too convincing to me. I'd rather be hearing about archaeological
> "evidence".
>
[SNIP]
Doug
--
Heather Rose Jones
> Britain has been the recipient of a number of migrationary episodes
> classified by archaeologists. So we have, at around 1800BC the Beaker
> People and from 750 to 650 we have the so-called Deverel-Rombury
> People. Both of these have been classified as Bronze Age movements. In
> the Iron Age they list three further waves of settlers - 550-300 BC the
> Hallstatt Culture, 300-150 BC the La Tene Culture and from 150 BC to 43
> AD the Belgic Tribes. It seems to me that your early "Celtic" migration
> might be associated with either of the Bronze Age movements. The Belgic
> Tribes we certainly agree on, leaving the Hallstat and La Tene
> cultures.
It used to be a fairly common axiom of archaeology that significant
changes in material culture equal immigration -- i.e., that cultural
attributes (like specific forms of material culture and practices such
as burial characteristics) were the equivalent of ethnicity, and that
you could only change cultural attributes by changing the people
producing them. (This is, no doubt, a vast oversimplification of the
position, but you can see this _type_ of approach reflected in much
older archaeological writing.)
My impression is that current archaeological thinking is much more
receptive to the notion that cultural attributes can spread _without_
the need for significant movement of people -- certainly without the
need to assume that the previous inhabitants were substantially replaced
by immigrants. The spread of Roman culture under the Empire is a good
example: while there was certainly _some_ movement of actual people, it
was quite small relative to the movement of cultural attributes and
practices. The spread of Christianity as a culture is a similar example.
The evidence for the notion of successive waves of immigration into the
British Isles has been primarily based (unless I am badly mistaken) on
significant changes in manufactured artifacts and cultural practices,
rather than on significant changes in the associated human remains. In
this case, it seems to me that -- without coming out and arguing for or
against massive population movements -- one should beware of assuming
that even massive changes in artifacts _must_ be a product of population
movements, as opposed to allowing for the possibility of minor amounts
of immigration, larger amounts of cultural contact, and
socio-cultural-economic motivations for adopting new cultural practices.
--