King Arthur Discoveries
Max Kramer
Thanks to all for your responses to my posting.
Firstly, I must apologise for the double-up when giving the prices of
the books. And as return mail revealed, some of you may have read 'A3'
instead of the sterling pounds sign - apologies for this as well. Would
it help to plead 'newbie'? :-)
************************************
Candide <can...@primenet.com> asks:
>Could anyone explain how this book is different?
The differences in Wilson & Blackett's work from that of other
Arthurian works I've seen (and that was some years ago), are
(i) the legal quality validation & testable reliance on a large body of
Welsh sources hitherto dismissed as forgeries of the last century,
(ii) the resultant 'family history' establishable, and
(iii) the apparent authentic discovery of a burial site, not at
Glastonbury in Somerset but, in Glamorgan, South Wales, where the
authors discovered a memorial stone bearing the inscription "REX
ARTORIVS FILI MAVRICIVS".
Hence my seeking discussion of others who may have, or would care to,
investigate the book(s).
********************************************
Jason Scott <kc...@central.susx.ac.uk> says:
>> Now, after more than ten years of serious research - the King
>> Arthur enigma has been completely resolved.
>All books about Arthur make this claim. Geoffrey of Monmouth probably
>believed it to be true about his History.
Er, I don't see how Monmouth's translating someone *else's* History
figures in this. If I recall correctly, that is all he 'claimed' to do,
and as you say, he no doubt believed what he read about Arthur (as did
his 'adversaries'!).
>> The King Arthur Discoveries are explosive and final, made by
>> careful industrial analysis techniques, skilful planning and
>> superslick organisation. A technique seemingly never used by
>> conventional historians and scholars. By combining a careful study
>> of manuscripts, maps, antiquarian books, documents, inscribed stones
>> and other writings - with personal dedication, persistence and
>> fieldwork throughout the UK and much of Europe, Wilson and Blackett
>> have unravelled the enigmatic mystery - all facts uncanny in their
>> accuracy - backed by overwhelming evidence.
>This sounds like the tecniques used by ALL scholars in the subject
>....(all using overwhelming evidence but getting hugely different
>conclusions).
But your "ALL scholars" are unable to get together on this, so there's
no appeal to credibility there is there? And it could equally be
argued that had ONE good scholar come along, this argument would have
been settled years ago, what? And the days are gone when one can use
a bevy of scholars to subjugate the authority of the truth, look you!
>So you don't really want our opinions atall, you're just advertising a
>book.
Ho, har har! Funny! But not true.... (Yes I know you can see it
that way, but I'm no good at reviews so I just 'lifted' the flyleaf.)
*********************************************
Timothy Watson <tmwa...@umich.edu> comments:
>there's some church that's supposed to have King Arthur's remains in
>England (saw a documentary...
Sounds like one I saw a bit of last year on television featuring
Geoffrey Ashe at Glastonbury.
****************************************
Pete Turner <turn...@eworld.com> says:
>I am not familiar with the...book, but (having written...my own on
>unraveling the...mystery)
May I ask if you've reached a conclusion on the subject? And is your
book available in Australia? Could you post a quick 'synopsis'?
>the exaggerated claims make it sound suspect. Of course, that could simply
>be advertising...that reflects unfairly on the authors' work.
And no doubt you're familiar with the old saying 'never judge a book by its
cover'! Seriously though, I probably wouldn't have given such work(s) a
second thought had it not been for 'fate' or whatever. A friend who knew
how interested I'd been in the subject obtained from another friend a tape
of a lecture in Britain last year. After editing it a little I listened to
what was said quite closely (albeit with old ideas being stirred up by it).
And along common law lines of reasoning at least, it appeared a cogent and
competent model. So the interest was rekindled and here I am! (Actually
some years ago after I'd put a lot of time into the subject, I came to a
dead end because of the dismissal of one so-thought "blackguard", who now
on the evidence appears to have been vindicated. And this certainly
opens a door which had been slammed shut by most if not all.)
On thinking further about it, perhaps I did the work an injustice by 'lifting'
advertising copy, but I'm not a review type writer at all. Point noted.
And thanks for your little insight into Goodrich's work...
*****************************************
Chango Macho <do...@teleport.com> retorts:
>Humph. Well, last month's issue of Smithsonian magazine has a rather
>more sensible account of the "search for Arthur"...
"Humph" ??!
Thanks for referring us to the Smithsonian mag. just the same.
***********************************************
Dave Forth <dfo...@kos.compulink.co.uk> amused:
>OK very funny. Nearly as funny as the message format. Try turning MIME
>encoding OFF or not us MS Editor.:-)
Why not pop over to Cardiff sometime and have a chat with the authors?
Could be you'll have great fun! :-)
Have taken your advice about MIME - thanx. (Hey, could you recommend an
offline news reader/composer?)
****************************************************************************
Cheers!
Max Kramer
Edward J Schoenfeld
<ma...@eagles.bbs.net.au> wrote:
> Jason Scott <kc...@central.susx.ac.uk> says:
>
> >This sounds like the tecniques used by ALL scholars in the subject
> >....(all using overwhelming evidence but getting hugely different
> >conclusions).
>
> But your "ALL scholars" are unable to get together on this, so there's
> no appeal to credibility there is there? And it could equally be
> argued that had ONE good scholar come along, this argument would have
> been settled years ago, what? And the days are gone when one can use
> a bevy of scholars to subjugate the authority of the truth, look you!
>
Just a couple of points here. It seems to me that Jason was trying to say
that Wilson & Blackett seem to have used proper scholarly method which all
serious scholars use. As this is a rarity in "popular press" books about
Arthur, I think you should consider Jason's statement a compliment to the
authors. Since this method is in fact used by all scholars who write
serious academic books about arthur, it does not set Wilson & Blackett
apart from current SCHOLARLY opinion on the subject.
Second point--many scholars (the majority, in fact) HAVE gotten together
on this topic. The majority consensus is that WE DONT KNOW A DAMN THING
about any such putative person as the "historical" Arthur. I know thats
hard to accept if one is an enthusiast for things arthurian (like me,
actually) but the sad fact is that there are a lot of points in history
where the record of reliable evidence is so fragmentary that we cannot
answer questions about that time and place -- unfortunately, the
Romano-british regions of 5th century AD Britain is one of those eras and
places (we can answer lots of questions about the Anglo-Saxons though --
another case of the winners writing the history).
Now Wilson & Blackett may have discovered valuable new evidence (that is
what they claim, at least) BUT it ain't necessarily so. The 'Welsh
legends' were declared forgeries way back when for what were (back then)
good reasons - Wilson & Blackett have to refute all those reasons. The
burial inscription seems (to me at least) a tad too convenient ("Oh we
walked into a welsh graveyard and found arthur's burial inscription where
no one else had looked, in spite of the fact that people have been looking
for arthurian relics lo these past 700 years or so"--yeah, right [heavy
sarcasm]) So Wilson & Blackett need to give a convincing explanation of
how they found the thing and why no one else did (or, if someone else had
previously found and debunked it, why we should believe the inscription
now).
I will grant you that Wilson & Blackett may have done this in their book
(I haven't read it yet, so I can't judge). But even if they do that,
their ideas won't be 'right' (in the view of scholarly historians) until
they convince a large number of serious scholars that their ideas prove
CONCLUSIVELY that king arthur was such and such a person who lived at such
and such a time and is buried in that graveyard in Glamorgan. Alas, both
in the past and today, in all fields of scholarship (and science), the
majority opinion of the trained scholars and scientists rules. If a
majority (or significantly large minority) doesn't accept one's ideas,
they remain simply ideas (hypotheses), they do not graduate to the level
of theory (ideas accepted as correct by a substantial number of trained
scholars or scientists). Leslie Alcock's indentification of Camden as
Camelot is an exellent example of this process -- Alcock advanced a small
amount of evidence and a large amount of argumentation in favor of his
view. Other historians considered the evidence and argment (ie, they read
his book) and the majority decided that they were not convinced --
Alcock's idea was not proven conclusively. So Camden=camelot remains a
neat idea, certainly worth considering as a possibility, but the question
of where camelot actually was has not been definitively answered -- the
field is still wide open for other ideas on the subject.
Third. I would like to suggest (humbly, with no arrogance intended at all)
that people on this list (soc. hist. medieval) and people who deal with
'legendary' topics (like arthur or robin hood) make clear distinctions
between EVIDENCE and EXPLANATION. The EVIDENCE (as accepted by the
majority of historians working on the topic) from the fifth and sixth
century shows that the anglo-saxon advance stopped for about 50 years
after, say, 500 AD. There are also some fragments of historical writing
(Gildas, Nennius, some early welsh poetry accepted as authentic) that
mention someone referred to as 'Arthur' in connection with that event.
The EXPLANATION for the halt in the anglo-saxon advance is that a war
leader named Arthur rallied the Romano-british (or maybe just the British)
side and defeated the anglo-saxons so decisively that they stayed quiet
for a long time (and a whole slew of legends developed about this war
leader). ANY attempt to find out, specifically, who arthur was and where
he had his base of operations is an attempt to modify or refine the
EXPLANATION, either by rearranging the evidence all scholars accept as
valid, or sometimes, as Wilson & Blackett claim to do, by including new
evidence. in other words, Wilson & Blackett are proposing an idea (a
hypothesis). Although their hypothesis may EVENTUALLY become the accepted
explanation (theory) among scholars, it will ALWAYS remain subject to
modification or rejection when other scholars come up with more evidence,
or find a better way to fit the old evidence together. Historical
explanations should NEVER be assigned the quality of being 'absolutely
true' because they are ALWAYS subject to change and refutation.
EJS
Turnerpfj
May I ask if you've reached a conclusion on the subject? And is your
book available in Australia? Could you post a quick 'synopsis'?
Max Kramer
--------
It is available by mail to anywhere. The "vital statistics" on the book
are as follows:
THE REAL KING ARTHUR, A History of Post-Roman Britannia, A.D. 410 - A.D.
593
by P.F.J. Turner, c 1993
ISBN 0-9637434-2-2
460 pages. Two Volumes. 12 Maps. Glossary. Bibliography. Index.
Available from:
SKS Publishing Company
1306 Parkway Court
Houston, Texas 77077
for U.S. $29.95 (includes postage & handling)
Publisher's Cataloging in Publication:
The real King Arthur : a history of post-Roman Britannia, A.D. 410 - A.D.
593 / by P.F.J. Turner
2 v. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-9637434-2-2 (set)
ISBN 0-9637434-0-6 (v. 1)
ISBN 0-9637434-1-4 (v. 2)
1. Arthur, King. 2. Britons--Kings and rulers--Biography. 3. Great
Britain--History--To 1066. 4. Great Britain--Antiquities, Celtic. I.
Title. II. Title: History of post-Roman Britannia.
DA152.5.A7T87 1993 942.01'4
QBI93-1013
Table of Contents:
Volume I
PREFACE: Reconstructing History
Liber Primus - BACKGROUND -
1: Late Roman Period In Britannia
2: Magnus Maximus & Flavius Stilicho
3: Flavius Claudius Constantinus, Imperator
Liber Secundus - THE AGE OF VORTIGERN -
4: The Rise Of Vortigern
5: Vortigern's Wars
6: Coelestius Senex, Dux Britanniarum
7: Ambrosius Aurelianus The Elder
8: Foundation Of Anglo-Saxon Kent
9: Challenges To Vortigern's Rule
10: Vortimer, Regissimus Britanniarum
Liber Tertius - THE AGE OF AMBROSIUS -
11: Return Of Aurelius Ambrosius
12: Aurelius's War Against Kent
13: The Early Reign Of Aurelius
14: Rigotamos Of Britannia Minor
15: Catavia And Anglo-Saxon Uprising
16: The Rebellion Of Dux Gorlois
17: The End Of Aurelius's Reign
Liber Quartus- THE RISE OF ARTHUR -
18: Arthur's Background
19: Arthur's Early Military Career
20: Artorius, Magister Militum
21: The Boar War
22: Artorius, Regissimus Britanniarum
23: The Battle Of Badon Hill
24: The Demetian War
Volume II
Liber Quintus - THE REIGN OF ARTHUR -
25: The Character And Sons Of Arthur
26: Leonora, The First "Guinevere"
27: The Knights Of The Round Table
28: Arthur's Scottish Wars
29: Guinevere Of Luguvalium
30: Dubnovalus Lothicus, King Of The North
31: Threats To Control Of The South
32: The Battle Of Netley Marsh
33: Cerdic, Son Of Elesa Of Gewis
34: Artorius, Imperator
35: Arthur's Roman War
36: Medrautus Lancearius
37: Arthur's Last Campaign
Liber Sextus - AFTERMATH -
38: The Last Romano-Briton Regimes
39: The Anglo-Saxon Resurgence
AFTERWORD: The Real King Arthur
APPENDIX: Geoffrey Of Monmouth
=Pete
Doug Weller
us01...@interramp.com (Edward J Schoenfeld) wrote:
A lot of good stuff -- one comment though:
> after, say, 500 AD. There are also some fragments of historical writing
> (Gildas, Nennius, some early welsh poetry accepted as authentic) that
> mention someone referred to as 'Arthur' in connection with that event.
Sorry, not Gildas, he definitely doesn't mention Arthur.
--
Doug Weller
Barry Eynon
(Turnerpfj) wrote:
>It is available by mail to anywhere. The "vital statistics" on the book
>are as follows:
>
>THE REAL KING ARTHUR, A History of Post-Roman Britannia, A.D. 410 - A.D.
>593
>by P.F.J. Turner, c 1993
>ISBN 0-9637434-2-2
>460 pages. Two Volumes. 12 Maps. Glossary. Bibliography. Index.
>
>Available from:
>SKS Publishing Company
>1306 Parkway Court
>Houston, Texas 77077
>for U.S. $29.95 (includes postage & handling)
I just got my copy, it looks quite interesting, and particularly
refreshing in it's lack of hype about discoveries of secrets leading to
some revealed truth that are all too common in this sort of book. It
appears simply to be an attempt to dig through the historical record and
construct a consistent and reasonable history of Britain in the late 5th
and early 6th centuries and of the Romano-British military leader Lucius
Artorius Castus, and how his story could well have become the story of
King Arthur. I'm finding it quite readable, the book is careful to
document the references it draws on without drowning in footnotes, and it
does a good job of balancing the historical presentation with discussions
of how the stories could later have transmuted into the literary tradition
of Arthur.
I ordered it through Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com), which is a great
place to order books online, you may want to check them out.
(I'm not affiliated with either Avalon.com or with Mr. Turner).
Cheers,
Barry Eynon
--
Barry Eynon
ba...@playfair.stanford.edu
Lee Gold
identified Gildas the historian with Gildas son of
Caw from the Mabinogion -- and claimed that the
historian had failed to mention Arthur due to his
feud with the man for having killed his brother
Huail (a feud settled by the other brothers agreeing
to say or do nothing against Arthur in the future).
Curt Symansky
An interesting idea. Caw is a Celtic royal family name however. In "Merlin"
by Norma L. Goodrich, page 65, Gildas is a Celt (Pict) from the British
Highlands belonging to the royal family of Caw Prydyn. Her reference
source for this is P.K. Johnstone's article "Dual Personality of Saint
Gildas", Antiquity 22 (1948). Don't know what else is in this article having
never seen it, and it's probably hard to find since it's so long out of print.
Now just to confuse things more (sorry), the three royal houses of Wales in
Arthurian times were Cuneda, Brychan, and Caw. Geoffrey of Monmouth states
that Merlin is grandson of a Demetian king which makes him a member of one of
the Welsh royal houses, so even Merlin might be a "son of Caw". Anyone else
have any thoughts on the subject of Gildas' origins?
--
Curt Symansky
cu...@castle1.ultranet.com
Turnerpfj
I ran across one source (sorry, I forget who) that
identified Gildas the historian with Gildas son of
Caw from the Mabinogion -- and claimed that the
historian had failed to mention Arthur due to his
feud with the man for having killed his brother
Huail (a feud settled by the other brothers agreeing
to say or do nothing against Arthur in the future).
The source of this fact concerning the parentage of Gildas is the _Life of
Gildas_, the surviving version of which dates to early medieval Wales.
However, the supposition that Gildas refused to mention Arthur out of
spite for Arthur's slaying Gildas's elder brother Hueil is probably not
true. According the the _Life_, Gildas bore Arthur no animosity despite
the "murder." Moreover, with on exception, Gildas mentions only
contemporary rulers, and then only for the purpose of berating them for
their sins. Gildas believed that sins by the rulers of Britannia were
responsible for the decline of his time from the glories of an idealized
Roman period. For example, contemporary rulers (Urien of Rheged,
Ridderich of Strathclyde) who were not notorious sinners were not
mentioned by Gildas.
The exception is Aurelius Ambrosius, a past leader of Britannia who was
both mentioned and praised for his virtue and courage - but this refernce
si included only to provide a pretext for complaining about the ill
behavior (not described) of the Ambrosii descendants (not named - unless
Aurelius Conanus was one).
Gildas was writing a sermon in which he hoped to save the Romano-Briton
people bt reforming the conduct of their rulers, not a history for future
generations, and his historical references are very scanty since his
intended audience was already very familiar with recent events.
The connection of Arthur with the Battle of Badon Hill (mentioned by
Gildas) is established from other sources.
-Pete
Howard Wiseman
turn...@eworld.com writes:
>the "murder." Moreover, with on exception, Gildas mentions only
>contemporary rulers, and then only for the purpose of berating them for
>their sins. Gildas believed that sins by the rulers of Britannia were
>responsible for the decline of his time from the glories of an idealized
>Roman period. For example, contemporary rulers (Urien of Rheged,
>Ridderich of Strathclyde) who were not notorious sinners were not
>mentioned by Gildas.
I don't know when you think Gildas was writing, but I don't think many
historians would agree that Urien of Rheged and Riddereich of
Strathclyde were contemporary with Gildas. They ruled in the second half
of the 6th century (c. 560 to 600), wheras the other rulers mentioned by
Gildas almost certainly ruled in the first half, quite possibly even in
the
first quarter.
Joe Bernstein
(Turnerpfj) wrote:
[snip]
> Moreover, with on exception, Gildas mentions only
> contemporary rulers, and then only for the purpose of berating them for
> their sins. Gildas believed that sins by the rulers of Britannia were
> responsible for the decline of his time from the glories of an idealized
> Roman period. For example, contemporary rulers (Urien of Rheged,
> Ridderich of Strathclyde) who were not notorious sinners were not
> mentioned by Gildas.
>
Two days ago I rather quickly reviewed the translation of Gildas in SIX
OLD ENGLISH CHRONICLES or whatever it's called. Therein, there were
references to Vortigern and Boadicea, along with a host of Roman
emperors. In fact, Arthur seems to be about the only name that *doesn't*
crop up.
So is that translation wildly erroneous, or is your statement? Assuming
that the "on exception" means "one exception" as I assume it does, and
assuming that "only contemporary rulers" does NOT mean "only
non-contemporary rulers", as your reference to Aurelius Ambrosius implies.
Genuinely curious. The translation has of course been superseded, but
it's the only one readily accessible to me, so I'd like to know if it's
that unreliable.
Joe Bernstein
PS Apologies for the extreme cross-posting. Can't this thread pick a
home? I'm seeing it in sci.archaeology, and although I'm mildly
intrigued, there doesn't seem to be much archaeology involved here.
--
Joe Bernstein, free-lance writer, bank clerk and bookstore worker
speaking for himself and nobody else j...@sfbooks.com
Kevin Daly
> The differences in Wilson & Blackett's work from that of other
>Arthurian works I've seen (and that was some years ago), are
> (i) the legal quality validation & testable reliance on a large body of
> Welsh sources hitherto dismissed as forgeries of the last century,
> (ii) the resultant 'family history' establishable, and
>(iii) the apparent authentic discovery of a burial site, not at
> Glastonbury in Somerset but, in Glamorgan, South Wales, where the
> authors discovered a memorial stone bearing the inscription "REX
> ARTORIVS FILI MAVRICIVS".
by someone who presumably had no knowledge of Latin grammar. Admittedly some
Dark Age Latin texts are pretty bad, but that's _really_ bad (it should be
ARTORIVS FILIUS MAVRICII- the case endings are totally wrong)
I saw a book a while ago claiming to be the solution to the mystery, written
by a pair of journalists who did brain-dead things like noting all the kings
names beginning with "Cuno-" and leaping to the conclusion that they
represented a dynasty (actually it was a very common element in Celtic names,
meaning "Hound"). This wouldn't be the same book would it?
Kevin Daly
Leslie Sitek
kev...@ihug.co.nz (Kevin Daly) wrote:
>In article <314860...@eagles.bbs.net.au>,
> Max Kramer <ma...@eagles.bbs.net.au> wrote:
><lots snipped>
>> The differences in Wilson & Blackett's work from that of other
>>Arthurian works I've seen (and that was some years ago), are
>> (i) the legal quality validation & testable reliance on a large body of
>> Welsh sources hitherto dismissed as forgeries of the last century,
>> (ii) the resultant 'family history' establishable, and
>>(iii) the apparent authentic discovery of a burial site, not at
>> Glastonbury in Somerset but, in Glamorgan, South Wales, where the
>> authors discovered a memorial stone bearing the inscription "REX
>> ARTORIVS FILI MAVRICIVS".
>This last looks like a clumsy fraud to start with: Latin words strung together
>by someone who presumably had no knowledge of Latin grammar. Admittedly some
>Dark Age Latin texts are pretty bad, but that's _really_ bad (it should be
>ARTORIVS FILIUS MAVRICII- the case endings are totally wrong)
>I saw a book a while ago claiming to be the solution to the mystery, written
>by a pair of journalists who did brain-dead things like noting all the kings
>names beginning with "Cuno-" and leaping to the conclusion that they
>represented a dynasty (actually it was a very common element in Celtic names,
>meaning "Hound"). This wouldn't be the same book would it?
>Kevin Daly
I've a photograph of this sword shaped 6th century inscibed stone
found at the the centre of Glamorgan. It realy does carry the
inscrition REX ARTORIVS FILI MAURICIVS which means BRENIN ARTHWYR AP
MEURIG or KING ARTHUR SON OF MAURICE (MEURIG).
When this stone was discovered by Blacket and Wilson, Paul Hoyland of
the Guardian of 23 July 1983 wrote:
'If the findings are correct history books will have to be re-written
and South Wales will have several extra tourist attractions."
Leslie Sitek
Doug Weller
In article <4q1fhg$r...@neptunus.pi.net>
sit...@pop.pi.net (Leslie Sitek) wrote:
[SNIP]
>
>
> I've a photograph of this sword shaped 6th century inscibed stone
> found at the the centre of Glamorgan. It realy does carry the
> inscrition REX ARTORIVS FILI MAURICIVS which means BRENIN ARTHWYR AP
> MEURIG or KING ARTHUR SON OF MAURICE (MEURIG).
> When this stone was discovered by Blacket and Wilson, Paul Hoyland of
> the Guardian of 23 July 1983 wrote:
> 'If the findings are correct history books will have to be re-written
> and South Wales will have several extra tourist attractions."
I don't disagree with Paul Hoyland, only note that 13 years later it
hasn't happened!
And how was the stone dated?
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Howard Wiseman
In article <4q1fhg$r...@neptunus.pi.net> Leslie Sitek, sit...@pop.pi.net
writes:
>
>I've a photograph of this sword shaped 6th century inscibed stone
>found at the the centre of Glamorgan. It realy does carry the
>inscrition REX ARTORIVS FILI MAURICIVS which means BRENIN ARTHWYR AP
>MEURIG or KING ARTHUR SON OF MAURICE (MEURIG).
>When this stone was discovered by Blacket and Wilson, Paul Hoyland of
>the Guardian of 23 July 1983 wrote:
>'If the findings are correct history books will have to be re-written
>and South Wales will have several extra tourist attractions."
>
history books rewritten. Does this mean we can conclude that the findings
are not correct? Who has checked the authenticity of the stone?
Leslie Sitek
Howard Wiseman <wis...@physics.uq.oz.au> wrote:
The style of the lettering ties in with other sixth-century stones,
and is most intriguing that the stone is sward-shaped.
Blackett and Wilson claim to have worked out the final solution to the
unknown location of the grave of Arthur by following what has been
stated in ancient manuscipts and sorting out the clues on the ground.
By interpreting a well-known folk tale which concerns the burial of
King Arthur in a Welsh cave, they are convinced that they have worked
out where this took place.
Books of Blackett and Wilson :
King Arthur of Gwent and Glamorgan
King Arthur and the Charters of the King
Arthur the War King
King Arthur's Invisible Kingdom
I got my information from "More Mysterious Wales" by Chris Barber,
published by Paladin Grafton Books; ISBN 0-586-08518-1
Paul J. Gans
Doug Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <4q1fhg$r...@neptunus.pi.net>: >
: >
: > I've a photograph of this sword shaped 6th century inscibed stone
: > found at the the centre of Glamorgan. It realy does carry the
: > inscrition REX ARTORIVS FILI MAURICIVS which means BRENIN ARTHWYR AP
: > MEURIG or KING ARTHUR SON OF MAURICE (MEURIG).
: > When this stone was discovered by Blacket and Wilson, Paul Hoyland of
: > the Guardian of 23 July 1983 wrote:
: > 'If the findings are correct history books will have to be re-written
: > and South Wales will have several extra tourist attractions."
: I don't disagree with Paul Hoyland, only note that 13 years later it
: hasn't happened!
:
: And how was the stone dated?
Probably had the date June 29, 542 AD inscribed on the bottom.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Louise Jeffery
In article <4qavp6$k...@hobyah.cc.uq.oz.au>, Howard Wiseman
<wis...@physics.uq.oz.au> writes
>>found at the the centre of Glamorgan. It realy does carry the
>>inscrition REX ARTORIVS FILI MAURICIVS which means BRENIN ARTHWYR AP
>>MEURIG or KING ARTHUR SON OF MAURICE (MEURIG).
>>When this stone was discovered by Blacket and Wilson, Paul Hoyland of
>>the Guardian of 23 July 1983 wrote:
>>'If the findings are correct history books will have to be re-written
>>and South Wales will have several extra tourist attractions."
>>
>history books rewritten. Does this mean we can conclude that the findings
>are not correct? Who has checked the authenticity of the stone?
To all who are interested
I live in Mid Glamorgan, South Wales. Can anyone tell me where in Wales
all this can be found?
Anyone read The Search For The Holy Grail by Graham Phillips? I found
it compelling reading.
Carol Jeffery.
--
Carol Jeffery
Doug Weller
In article <4qccp9$p...@neptunus.pi.net>
sit...@pop.pi.net (Leslie Sitek) wrote:
> Howard Wiseman <wis...@physics.uq.oz.au> wrote:
>
> >In article <4q1fhg$r...@neptunus.pi.net> Leslie Sitek, sit...@pop.pi.net
> >writes:
> >>
> >>I've a photograph of this sword shaped 6th century inscibed stone
> >>found at the the centre of Glamorgan. It realy does carry the
> >>inscrition REX ARTORIVS FILI MAURICIVS which means BRENIN ARTHWYR AP
> >>MEURIG or KING ARTHUR SON OF MAURICE (MEURIG).
> >>When this stone was discovered by Blacket and Wilson, Paul Hoyland of
> >>the Guardian of 23 July 1983 wrote:
> >>'If the findings are correct history books will have to be re-written
> >>and South Wales will have several extra tourist attractions."
> >>
> >Well almost 13 years have passed since then and I haven't seen the
> >history books rewritten. Does this mean we can conclude that the findings
> >are not correct? Who has checked the authenticity of the stone?
>
> The style of the lettering ties in with other sixth-century stones,
> and is most intriguing that the stone is sward-shaped.
In other words it could easily be a hoax, right? Nothing to prove it
isn't, and with Latin so bad it's unlike to be 6th century. Who has
examined it besides Blackett and Wilson? I guess it's possible that
someone could deduce something about it from it's weathering.
[SNIP]
>
> Books of Blackett and Wilson :
Which aren't carried in any of the bookstores in Britain's 2nd
biggest city.
Adam
I found a very old, soiled pair of Y-fronts in Cwmtillery, inside was
embroided: 'Jesus Christ!' I've put them in a glass case, they can be
viewed by visiting Cwmtillery Museum. We also have a good Tescos and
fish and chip shop.
Arthur Williams, Cwmtillery Tourist Board.
Mike Lowndes
Wicked, man, you made my day!
Sis...@ix.netcom.com
>> The style of the lettering ties in with other sixth-century stones,
>> and is most intriguing that the stone is sward-shaped.
This one is hardly conclusive evidence. Forgeries, especially in stone, are easy
to create (just examine all the additions to Egyptian monuments made by
archeologists during the 19th century).
Examination of the lettering can be useful in cases like the N. American
runestones (where the runes are of a later style). But, Latin lettering is not as
uncommon as runes. Other things to examine would be methods, tools, and materials
used.
There are several immediate problems with the stone. The most obvious is that the
'sword in the stone' story first appears in the English poem 'Brut' (Laymon,
1205). There is no mention of such a sword in any of the Latin, Welsh, or Breton
works between c.6 and c.12
In 'De Excidio et Conquesto Britanniae' (Gildas, 540), the king of Britain was
Aurelius Ambrosius. The same is maintained in 'Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis
Anglorum' (Bede, 731).
Arthur is first mentioned by name in 'Historia Brittonum' (Nennius, 800).
Actually, the name first appears in the Welsh poem 'Y Gododdin' (c.6). Both refer
to Arthur as the 'leader of battles'(dux bellorum) and Nennius still describes
Ambrosius as the 'King of Britain'. Nennius distinguishes Ambrosius (who Gildas
places at Badon) from Arthur (who in 'Y Gododdin' lead the attack at Badon).
According to Gildas, Bede, and Nennius, the order of succession after Aurelius
Ambrosius was: Constantine (from Cornwall), Aurelius Canius, Vortipus, Cuneglasus,
and Maglocunnus. (These all ruled during the life of Gildas). This rules out
Arthur as successor to Ambrosius.
Geoffrey, ties Arthur in with the legendary king Riothamus, a legendary king who
preceded Ambrosius. Thus, Geoffrey establishes Arthur as a king of Britain.
However, the 5th century stories of Riothamus could refer to any king. Riothamus
(king-most) was used as a title similar to the Brittonic Vortigern or Vortimer
(over-king, over-chief). The use of Riothamus as an individual is similar to
Augustus Octovian insisting on being called Augustus, even though it was only a
title.
In Latin, the word for king which precedes a name is Rig. This takes -o when used
in combination (ie Riothamus). This later transformed into the Welsh rhi (ie
Rhiadaf, Welsh for Riothamus). Rex is used in reference to the body ruled (ie 'rex
Anglorum' king of the Angles or 'rex Francorum' king of the Franks). However,
common modern mistakes often place rex along with the name (ie the mistaken
translation of the Greek tragedy 'Oedipus Tyrannus' as 'Oedipus Rex'). King Arthur
then would render as either 'Riothamus Artorius' (used by Geoffrey) or 'Artorius
rex Brittonum'.
Geoffrey's basis for associating Arthur with Riothamus lies in the ties between
documents which place Riothamus and Arthur in the same places, under the same
events. An example is 'Gothic History' (Jordanes, 551) which places Riothamus in
Gaul at the same time as Arthur. While is is possible that the name of Riothamus
was Artorius, it would create some difficulty in explaining why he was the leader
of battles (dux bellorum) under Aurelius Ambrosius at Bandon. I think it more
likely that he was 'dux bellorum' under both Riothamus and Ambrosius.
Pat Zalewski
In article <31CAFE...@ix.netcom.com>, Sis...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>> The style of the lettering ties in with other sixth-century stones,
>>> and is most intriguing that the stone is sward-shaped.
>
>This one is hardly conclusive evidence. Forgeries, especially in stone, are
easy
>to create (just examine all the additions to Egyptian monuments made by
>archeologists during the 19th century).
>
>Examination of the lettering can be useful in cases like the N. American
>runestones (where the runes are of a later style). But, Latin lettering is
not as
>uncommon as runes. Other things to examine would be methods, tools, and
materials
>used.
>
>There are several immediate problems with the stone. The most obvious is that
the
>'sword in the stone' story first appears in the English poem 'Brut' (Laymon,
>1205). There is no mention of such a sword in any of the Latin, Welsh, or
Breton
>works between c.6 and c.12
>
sword has been embedded in the stone since saint Galgano placed it there. It
is a well known shrine in Italy. Perhaps it an origin for part of the
Arthurian myth, then perhaps not. At any rate it is still there and has been
for the last 9 centuries.
David Read
In article <4qcd0q$q...@sparc2.nethead.co.uk>, Adam
<ta...@private.nethead.co.uk> writes
>I found a very old, soiled pair of Y-fronts in Cwmtillery, inside was
>embroided: 'Jesus Christ!' I've put them in a glass case, they can be
>viewed by visiting Cwmtillery Museum. We also have a good Tescos and
>fish and chip shop.
>
>Arthur Williams, Cwmtillery Tourist Board.
>
down.
--
David Read
Sis...@ix.netcom.com
Pat Zalewski wrote:
> There is a real sword in a stone near the abbey of San Galgano (1100 AD). The
> sword has been embedded in the stone since saint Galgano placed it there. It
> is a well known shrine in Italy. Perhaps it an origin for part of the
> Arthurian myth, then perhaps not. At any rate it is still there and has been
> for the last 9 centuries.
Do you know the legend surrounding the stone? If not, do you know where I can get
more information?
Lee Gold
I recently read a book that said that a number of Celtic missionaries
went to Italy about the time of Saint Bridget (IIRC this
included one of her brothers), so it's not unlikely they'd have
brought the Matter of Britain along with them. There's that
window in Modena with the Arthurian knights, for instance.
My own guess is that the sword in the stone started out as a
story of someone buried with his sword in a stone coffin, but
who knows....
Richard A. Williams
Sis...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
<snip>
> In Latin, the word for king which precedes a name is Rig. This takes -o when used
> in combination (ie Riothamus). This later transformed into the Welsh rhi (ie
> Rhiadaf, Welsh for Riothamus). Rex is used in reference to the body ruled (ie 'rex
> Anglorum' king of the Angles or 'rex Francorum' king of the Franks). However,
> common modern mistakes often place rex along with the name (ie the mistaken
> translation of the Greek tragedy 'Oedipus Tyrannus' as 'Oedipus Rex'). King Arthur
> then would render as either 'Riothamus Artorius' (used by Geoffrey) or 'Artorius
> rex Brittonum'.
Why do English monarchs sign in the style : 'Elizabeth Regina' or 'Henry Rex'?
Also: There is an interesting (but not historical?) text that brings together
much of the 'fluff' written about Arthur, and discusses their relative value,
when the elements first appeared in folk lore, who wrote, etc. etc.
'A Glastonbury Reader'
John Matthews,1991 Aquarian Press (HarperCollins Publishers)
ISBN:0-85030-999-9
-----------------------------------------------------------
R.A.Williams, MBCS
<riwi...@cisco.com>
God does not play dice with the Universe....Einstein
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wilson
Louise Jeffery wrote:
>
> In article <4qavp6$k...@hobyah.cc.uq.oz.au>, Howard Wiseman
> <wis...@physics.uq.oz.au> writes
> >writes:
> >>
> >>I've a photograph of this sword shaped 6th century inscibed stone
> >>found at the the centre of Glamorgan. It realy does carry the
> >>inscrition REX ARTORIVS FILI MAURICIVS which means BRENIN ARTHWYR AP
> >>MEURIG or KING ARTHUR SON OF MAURICE (MEURIG).
> >>When this stone was discovered by Blacket and Wilson, Paul Hoyland of
> >>the Guardian of 23 July 1983 wrote:
> >>'If the findings are correct history books will have to be re-written
> >>and South Wales will have several extra tourist attractions."
> >>
> >Well almost 13 years have passed since then and I haven't seen the
> >history books rewritten. Does this mean we can conclude that the findings
> >are not correct? Who has checked the authenticity of the stone?
>
>
> I live in Mid Glamorgan, South Wales. Can anyone tell me where in Wales
> all this can be found?
>
> Anyone read The Search For The Holy Grail by Graham Phillips? I found
> it compelling reading.
>
> Carol Jeffery.
> --
> Carol Jeffery
There used to be an image of this stone on the internet - has anyone
seen it lately - where is it - Thank You
Sis...@ix.netcom.com
Richard A. Williams wrote:
> Why do English monarchs sign in the style : 'Elizabeth Regina' or 'Henry Rex'?
That one I can't answer. Consider the alternative though. Elizabeths full title is
"Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
and of Her other Realms and Territories and Head of the Common Wealth." (I won't
attempt to put that in Latin). It would certainly be much easier to abbreviate the
last part of the title. (ie Elizabeth regina). I don't know the full title of
Elizabeth I, but since the Normans, didn't most of the queens and kings of England
rule multiple kingdoms? I would bet that the origin of the tradition you mention
goes to some point where it became to inconvenient for a king or queen to sign
their full title.
Thanks for the reference.
Sis...@ix.netcom.com
Actually, contact between the Britons and Rome seems to be constant. Riothamus
went to Gaul as a service to Rome. His legends are common throughout Europe.
Also, many of the great Briton religious leaders studied in Rome.
I assume you are referring to the cathedral in Modena. The windows there would
date between the 13th and 14th centuries. By this time, Authurian legends were
common throughout Europe.
Will Flor
Adam wrote:
>
> I found a very old, soiled pair of Y-fronts in Cwmtillery, inside was
> embroided: 'Jesus Christ!' I've put them in a glass case, they can be
> viewed by visiting Cwmtillery Museum. We also have a good Tescos and
> fish and chip shop.
>
> Arthur Williams, Cwmtillery Tourist Board.
Be sure to inspect them for splinters - they could be fragments
of the True Cross!
-Will Flor wi...@rrgroup.com
Alexander Maclennan
Sis...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> I assume you are referring to the cathedral in Modena. The windows there
> would date between the 13th and 14th centuries. By this time, Authurian
> legends were common throughout Europe.
Arthur is depicted in the great mosaic floor of Otranto Cathedral
1160-65. he is shown mounted on a goat apparently leading a wild
hunt of animals with "Arturus Rex" inscribed in the mosaic.
--
Alexander MacLennan sand...@sandymac.demon.co.uk
Howard Wiseman
In the interests of avoiding misonformation to I felt compelled to
correct the errors in the following post:
In article <31CAFE...@ix.netcom.com> , Sis...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>
>In 'De Excidio et Conquesto Britanniae' (Gildas, 540), the king of
Britain was
>Aurelius Ambrosius. The same is maintained in 'Historia Ecclesiastica
Gentis
>Anglorum' (Bede, 731).
No. Neither say that A.A. is king. Gildas merely calls him a "vir
modestus" -
a gentleman who rallied the Britons after the Saxon revolt. Definitely
not King. Bede follows Gildas very closely here.
>
>Arthur is first mentioned by name in 'Historia Brittonum' (Nennius,
800).
>Actually, the name first appears in the Welsh poem 'Y Gododdin' (c.6).
Both refer
>to Arthur as the 'leader of battles'(dux bellorum) and Nennius still
describes
No. 'Y Gododdin' does not give any title to Arthur, simply describes one
warrior as having "glutted black Ravens [slaughtered many enemy], although
he was not Arthur". It is not even certain that this Arthur is the same as
that referred to by Nennius.
>Ambrosius as the 'King of Britain'. Nennius distinguishes Ambrosius (who
Gildas
No. Nennius does not describe A.A. in this way at all.
>places at Badon) from Arthur (who in 'Y Gododdin' lead the attack at
Badon).
No. Gildas does not place A.A. at Badon, but rather as initiating the
resistance that
lead to a period of 43 years of fluctuating warfare BEFORE Badon. `Y
Gododdin'
does not even mention Badon. It is Nennius who names Arthur as the
commander there.
>
>According to Gildas, Bede, and Nennius, the order of succession after
Aurelius
>Ambrosius was: Constantine (from Cornwall), Aurelius Canius, Vortipus,
Cuneglasus,
>and Maglocunnus. (These all ruled during the life of Gildas). This rules
out
>Arthur as successor to Ambrosius.
This is all nonsense. This order of succession is one fabricated by
Geoffrey
of Monmouth, using a list of *contemporary* British rulers complied by
Gildas. According to Geoffrey, they ruled *after Arthur*, Arthur ruling
after
his father Uther, who ruled after his brother Ambrosius Aurelius [sic].
As I said, this is all fabrication by Geoffrey in any case.
>
>Geoffrey, ties Arthur in with the legendary king Riothamus, a legendary
king who
>preceded Ambrosius. Thus, Geoffrey establishes Arthur as a king of
Britain.
Geoffrey does not mention Riothamus. That Geoffrey's Arthur is largely
based
on a real King Riothamus is a hypothesis which is interesting but by no
means
fully established. Geoffrey cannot be used to establish anything
historical.
>However, the 5th century stories of Riothamus could refer to any king.
Riothamus
>(king-most) was used as a title similar to the Brittonic Vortigern or
Vortimer
>(over-king, over-chief). The use of Riothamus as an individual is
similar to
>Augustus Octovian insisting on being called Augustus, even though it was
only a
>title.
This is one possibility.
>
>In Latin, the word for king which precedes a name is Rig. This takes -o
when used
>in combination (ie Riothamus). This later transformed into the Welsh rhi
(ie
>Rhiadaf, Welsh for Riothamus).
Is Rhiadaf used in Welsh to mean "high King" or anything like that? Or is
it a
personal name?
Rex is used in reference to the body ruled (ie 'rex
>Anglorum' king of the Angles or 'rex Francorum' king of the Franks).
However,
>common modern mistakes often place rex along with the name (ie the
mistaken
>translation of the Greek tragedy 'Oedipus Tyrannus' as 'Oedipus Rex').
King Arthur
>then would render as either 'Riothamus Artorius' (used by Geoffrey)
Geoffrey certainly never uses such a term.
>or 'Artorius rex Brittonum'.
>
>Geoffrey's basis for associating Arthur with Riothamus lies in the ties
between
>documents which place Riothamus and Arthur in the same places, under the
same
>events. An example is 'Gothic History' (Jordanes, 551) which places
Riothamus in
>Gaul at the same time as Arthur.
THe only tradition placing Arthur in Gaul is that started by Geoffrey
himself
(althoug Ahse does suggest another tradition, in a Breton poem whose name
escapes me - Goeznevous or something like that). It is more likely that
Geoeffrey borrowed bits of real history (such as Gildas' list of Kings
for example) and interpolated them into his story to save him making
up absolutely everything. THis could easily include the histroy of
Riothamus,
perhaps even sources lost to us (Geoffrey's "ancient book in the British
language?").
>While is is possible that the name of Riothamus
>was Artorius, it would create some difficulty in explaining why he was
the leader
>of battles (dux bellorum) under Aurelius Ambrosius at Bandon. I think it
more
>likely that he was 'dux bellorum' under both Riothamus and Ambrosius.
If Arthur was leader at Badon, then this is almost certainly decades after
both Ambrosius and Riothamus.
If Arthur was not leader at Badon, then we have to ask ourselves, "what
do we mean by `Arthur'", because this is surely the most significant
real historical event which can be associated with the name Arthur.
We will probably never know for sure.
Sis...@ix.netcom.com
Alexander Maclennan wrote:
>
> Sis...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I assume you are referring to the cathedral in Modena. The windows there
> > would date between the 13th and 14th centuries. By this time, Authurian
> > legends were common throughout Europe.
>
> Arthur is depicted in the great mosaic floor of Otranto Cathedral
> 1160-65. he is shown mounted on a goat apparently leading a wild
> hunt of animals with "Arturus Rex" inscribed in the mosaic.
This still takes place after Geoffrey's 'Historia Regum Brittaniae', which was
widely read throughout Europe. Actually, there is no reason to believe that
'Historia Brittonum' didn't also make it's way into European monestaries, placing
knowledge of Arthur as early as 800 CE.
Sis...@ix.netcom.com
Howard Wiseman wrote:
> In the interests of avoiding misonformation to I felt compelled to correct the errors in the following post:
You are correct throughout most of this. For the most part I relied on a thesis I
found online. However, about half way through trying to argue your post, I
realized that much of this thesis takes things completely out of context. I’m
sorry if my posting caused any confusion.
Arthur is not really an interest of mine, but every time I run into this
sword-stone thing, I cannot believe that no-one has addressed the obvious flaws
which reveal it as a hoax. I should have stuck with the Latin and left the history
to someone else.
>No. 'Y Gododdin' does not give any title to Arthur, simply describes one warrior as having "glutted black >Ravens [slaughtered many enemy], although he was not
Arthur". It is not even certain that this Arthur is >the same as that referred to
by Nennius.
That was poor grammar on my part. I only threw in ‘Y Gododdin’ to show that Arthur
had been mentioned at an earlier time. My original thought was that "Y Gododdin’
does suggest that Arthur was leading the battle and I have always assumed that the
poem was about Badon.
>>Ambrosius as the 'King of Britain'. Nennius distinguishes Ambrosius (who Gildas
>No. Nennius does not describe A.A. in this way at all.
No. I’m positive that Nennius describes Ambrosius as a king of western Britain.
It’ll take me time to locate the exact reference.
> No. Gildas does not place A.A. at Badon, but rather as initiating the resistance that lead to a period of 43 > years of fluctuating warfare BEFORE Badon. `Y
Gododdin' does not even mention Badon. It is Nennius > who names Arthur as the
commander there.
You are certainly correct about Gildas. The other half is based on my assumption
that ‘Y Gododdin’ was about Badon.
>> Geoffrey, ties Arthur in with the legendary king Riothamus, a legendary king who preceded Ambrosius. >> Thus, Geoffrey establishes Arthur as a king of Britain.
> Geoffrey does not mention Riothamus. That Geoffrey's Arthur is largely based on a real King Riothamus is > a hypothesis which is interesting but by no means fully
established. Geoffrey cannot be used to establish > anything historical.
I did not mean to imply that Geoffrey mentions Riothamus by name, only that he
appears to confuse Arthur with the legends associated with Riothamus.
As for Geoffrey, it is obvious that his work is fictional. However, it was his
work which influenced later works. Obviously, he cannot be referred to in order to
establish the history of Arthur, but he must be referred to in establishing the
history of Arthurian legend.
>> In Latin, the word for king which precedes a name is Rig. This takes -o when used in combination (ie >> Riothamus). This later transformed into the Welsh rhi
(ie Rhiadaf, Welsh for Riothamus).
> Is Rhiadaf used in Welsh to mean "high King" or anything like that? Or is it a personal name?
Rhiadaf is a proper name. The point is that the Welsh appear to have used the
combination form of rig.
>> Rex is used in reference to the body ruled (ie 'rex Anglorum' king of the Angles or 'rex Francorum' king >> of the Franks). However, common modern mistakes
often place rex along with the name (ie the mistaken
>> translation of the Greek tragedy 'Oedipus Tyrannus' as 'Oedipus Rex'). King Arthur then would render as >> either 'Riothamus Artorius' (used by Geoffrey)
> Geoffrey certainly never uses such a term.
Sorry. My purpose was to suggest possible renderings of ‘King Arthur.’ My
reference to Geoffrey was meant to propose how Geoffrey could have confused Arthur
with Riothamus.
> If Arthur was leader at Badon, then this is almost certainly decades after both Ambrosius and Riothamus.
Your right. I was building upon the earlier assumption that Ambrosius was at
Badon.
Bill Bedford
<Sis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Alexander Maclennan wrote:
> >
> >
> > Arthur is depicted in the great mosaic floor of Otranto Cathedral
> > 1160-65. he is shown mounted on a goat apparently leading a wild
> > hunt of animals with "Arturus Rex" inscribed in the mosaic.
>
> This still takes place after Geoffrey's 'Historia Regum Brittaniae', which
> was widely read throughout Europe. Actually, there is no reason to believe
> that 'Historia Brittonum' didn't also make it's way into European
> monestaries, placing knowledge of Arthur as early as 800 CE.
But why is he riding a goat?
A goat was the mount of Thor and there may also be classical allusions,
but it suggests that whoever made the mosaic in Otranto was aware of
Welsh traditions where Arthur was seen as a traditional pagan figure who
opposed the teachings of the Saints.
--
Bill Bedford bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk
Shetland
Brit_Rail-L list auto...@mousa.demon.co.uk
GreyHawke
>I recently read a book that said that a number of Celtic missionaries
>went to Italy about the time of Saint Bridget (IIRC this
>included one of her brothers),
What? Saint Bridget's brother? I though that this particular Saint is
just the Christian Churche's answer as to what to do with a local Goddess
that the local people just won't give up, and (especially) won't allow
to be made a *demon*.
Brigid, Brigit, Bridgit, Brid, Brig, Brighid, was a triple goddess of the
celts. In Ireland especialy people would not give her up, so the *new*
religion on the block simply made her a Saint.
But a brother? The goddess had no brothers.
GreyHawke
Paul J. Gans
Louise Jeffery (Lou...@lclc.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <4qavp6$k...@hobyah.cc.uq.oz.au>, Howard Wiseman
: <wis...@physics.uq.oz.au> writes
: >In article <4q1fhg$r...@neptunus.pi.net> Leslie Sitek, sit...@pop.pi.net
: >writes:
: >>
: >>I've a photograph of this sword shaped 6th century inscibed stone
: >>found at the the centre of Glamorgan. It realy does carry the
: >>inscrition REX ARTORIVS FILI MAURICIVS which means BRENIN ARTHWYR AP
: >>MEURIG or KING ARTHUR SON OF MAURICE (MEURIG).
: >>When this stone was discovered by Blacket and Wilson, Paul Hoyland of
: >>the Guardian of 23 July 1983 wrote:
: >>'If the findings are correct history books will have to be re-written
: >>and South Wales will have several extra tourist attractions."
: >>
: >Well almost 13 years have passed since then and I haven't seen the
: >history books rewritten. Does this mean we can conclude that the findings
: >are not correct? Who has checked the authenticity of the stone?
:
:
: To all who are interested
:
:
: I live in Mid Glamorgan, South Wales. Can anyone tell me where in Wales
: all this can be found?
:
: Anyone read The Search For The Holy Grail by Graham Phillips? I found
: it compelling reading.
Be careful. The Pied Piper was compelling too.
Sis...@ix.netcom.com
GreyHawke wrote:
> But a brother? The goddess had no brothers.
This is a bit off topic. But, Brigit was the daughter of Dagda. Dagda is also the
father of Aengus Mac Oc.
Sis...@ix.netcom.com
Bill Bedford wrote:
> A goat was the mount of Thor and there may also be classical allusions,
> but it suggests that whoever made the mosaic in Otranto was aware of
> Welsh traditions where Arthur was seen as a traditional pagan figure who
> opposed the teachings of the Saints.
What Welsh traditions are these?
Wilson
Good point (s) - maybe that is why it is Legend !
Leslie Sitek
Louise Jeffery <Lou...@lclc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <4qavp6$k...@hobyah.cc.uq.oz.au>, Howard Wiseman
><wis...@physics.uq.oz.au> writes
>>In article <4q1fhg$r...@neptunus.pi.net> Leslie Sitek, sit...@pop.pi.net
>>writes:
>>>
>>>I've a photograph of this sword shaped 6th century inscibed stone
>>>found at the the centre of Glamorgan. It realy does carry the
>>>inscrition REX ARTORIVS FILI MAURICIVS which means BRENIN ARTHWYR AP
>>>MEURIG or KING ARTHUR SON OF MAURICE (MEURIG).
>>>When this stone was discovered by Blacket and Wilson, Paul Hoyland of
>>>the Guardian of 23 July 1983 wrote:
>>>'If the findings are correct history books will have to be re-written
>>>and South Wales will have several extra tourist attractions."
>>>
>>Well almost 13 years have passed since then and I haven't seen the
>>history books rewritten. Does this mean we can conclude that the findings
>>are not correct? Who has checked the authenticity of the stone?
>To all who are interested
>I live in Mid Glamorgan, South Wales. Can anyone tell me where in Wales
>all this can be found?
[...]
--
>Carol Jeffery
In Nennius' compiled manuscript entitled _History of the Britons_ in
822 AD sais that his first cousin St. Illtud takes care of the burial
of Arthur.
The sword shaped stone of Arthur was found in a cave in the centre of
Glamorgan, where a ruined church stands on a hilltop. The cave lies in
Coed y Mwstwr Wood, Mid Glamorgam, the grid reference is not for
publication.
Leslie Sitek
Leslie Sitek
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <4qccp9$p...@neptunus.pi.net>
> sit...@pop.pi.net (Leslie Sitek) wrote:
>> Howard Wiseman <wis...@physics.uq.oz.au> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <4q1fhg$r...@neptunus.pi.net> Leslie Sitek, sit...@pop.pi.net
>> >writes:
>> >>
>> >>I've a photograph of this sword shaped 6th century inscibed stone
>> >>found at the the centre of Glamorgan. It realy does carry the
>> >>inscrition REX ARTORIVS FILI MAURICIVS which means BRENIN ARTHWYR AP
>> >>MEURIG or KING ARTHUR SON OF MAURICE (MEURIG).
>> >>When this stone was discovered by Blacket and Wilson, Paul Hoyland of
>> >>the Guardian of 23 July 1983 wrote:
>> >>'If the findings are correct history books will have to be re-written
>> >>and South Wales will have several extra tourist attractions."
>> >>
>> >Well almost 13 years have passed since then and I haven't seen the
>> >history books rewritten. Does this mean we can conclude that the findings
>> >are not correct? Who has checked the authenticity of the stone?
>>
>> The style of the lettering ties in with other sixth-century stones,
>> and is most intriguing that the stone is sward-shaped.
>In other words it could easily be a hoax, right? Nothing to prove it
>isn't, and with Latin so bad it's unlike to be 6th century. Who has
>examined it besides Blackett and Wilson? I guess it's possible that
>someone could deduce something about it from it's weathering.
>[SNIP]
>>
>> Books of Blackett and Wilson :
>Which aren't carried in any of the bookstores in Britain's 2nd
>biggest city.
>--
>Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
>Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
According to the already mentioned book of Chris Barber, these books
have been published as limited first editions.
Leslie Sitek
Doug Weller
In article <4qnbhg$g...@neptunus.pi.net>
sit...@pop.pi.net (Leslie Sitek) wrote:
> Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <4qccp9$p...@neptunus.pi.net>
> > sit...@pop.pi.net (Leslie Sitek) wrote:
>
> >> Howard Wiseman <wis...@physics.uq.oz.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <4q1fhg$r...@neptunus.pi.net> Leslie Sitek, sit...@pop.pi.net
> >> >writes:
[SNIP]
> >>
> >> Books of Blackett and Wilson :
>
> >Which aren't carried in any of the bookstores in Britain's 2nd
> >biggest city.
> According to the already mentioned book of Chris Barber, these books
> have been published as limited first editions.
All books are first published as first editions. Sounds like vanity
publishing. In any case, it appears that they weren't accepted
by a major publisher.
Where is the sword stone now?
Bill Bedford
Louise Jeffery
In article <4qkmjb$f...@news.nyu.edu>, "Paul J. Gans"
<ga...@scholar.nyu.edu> writes
>Louise Jeffery (Lou...@lclc.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: In article <4qavp6$k...@hobyah.cc.uq.oz.au>, Howard Wiseman
>: <wis...@physics.uq.oz.au> writes
>: >writes:
>: >>
>: >>I've a photograph of this sword shaped 6th century inscibed stone
>: >>found at the the centre of Glamorgan.
>: >>'If the findings are correct history books will have to be re-
written
>: >>and South Wales will have several extra tourist attractions."
>: >>snip
>: To all who are interested
>:
>:
>: I live in Mid Glamorgan, South Wales. Can anyone tell me where in
Wales
>: all this can be found?
>:
>: Anyone read The Search For The Holy Grail by Graham Phillips? I
found
>: it compelling reading.
>
>
>Be careful. The Pied Piper was compelling too.
>
> ----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
>
The Mayor of Hamelin was happy to accept the offer of help from a
stranger when the town became infested with rats, and offered 50,000
guilders to the stranger if he could rid the town of infestation.
However, when the stranger asked for his fee after keeping his side of
the bargin all the Mayor offered him was 50 guilders, where-upon the
stranger stepped into the streets, and again put his pipe to his lips,
and the children followed.
If the Mayor had not given into his own greed, and kept his side of the
bargin there would not have been a problem, and the Piper would not have
been so "compelling".
Interest in the Arthurian Mysteries and the search for the Holy Grail
have no similarities with the Pied Piper, as genuine followers of this
Tradition have no interest in personal greed.
You are of course, entitled to your opinion.
Carol Jeffery
Leslie Sitek
Sis...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>> The style of the lettering ties in with other sixth-century stones,
>>> and is most intriguing that the stone is sward-shaped.
>This one is hardly conclusive evidence. Forgeries, especially in stone, are easy
>to create (just examine all the additions to Egyptian monuments made by
>archeologists during the 19th century).
>Examination of the lettering can be useful in cases like the N. American
>runestones (where the runes are of a later style). But, Latin lettering is not as
>uncommon as runes. Other things to examine would be methods, tools, and materials
>used.
>There are several immediate problems with the stone. The most obvious is that the
>'sword in the stone' story first appears in the English poem 'Brut' (Laymon,
>1205). There is no mention of such a sword in any of the Latin, Welsh, or Breton
>works between c.6 and c.12
>In 'De Excidio et Conquesto Britanniae' (Gildas, 540), the king of Britain was
>Aurelius Ambrosius. The same is maintained in 'Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis
>Anglorum' (Bede, 731).
>Arthur is first mentioned by name in 'Historia Brittonum' (Nennius, 800).
>Actually, the name first appears in the Welsh poem 'Y Gododdin' (c.6). Both refer
>to Arthur as the 'leader of battles'(dux bellorum)
As far as I can remember of Y Gododdin, Arthur is only mentioned when
Aneirin describes the deads of Gwawrddur (translation of Steve Short):
"In winter he fed barley
to his stallions, but all year
he fed sufficient to the
black crows on the castle wall,
although he was not Arthur:
his was swift strength in battle,
Gwawrddur among the alders."
(Stanza no. CII)
> and Nennius still describes
>Ambrosius as the 'King of Britain'. Nennius distinguishes Ambrosius (who Gildas
>places at Badon) from Arthur (who in 'Y Gododdin' lead the attack at Badon).
What is the number of the stanza in 'Y Gododdin' in which Arthur lead
the attack at Badon? (I couldn't find it).
Leslie Sitek
Leslie Sitek
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <4qnbhg$g...@neptunus.pi.net>
> sit...@pop.pi.net (Leslie Sitek) wrote:
>> Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <4qccp9$p...@neptunus.pi.net>
>> > sit...@pop.pi.net (Leslie Sitek) wrote:
>>
>> >> Howard Wiseman <wis...@physics.uq.oz.au> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <4q1fhg$r...@neptunus.pi.net> Leslie Sitek, sit...@pop.pi.net
>> >> >writes:
>[SNIP]
>> >>
>> >> Books of Blackett and Wilson :
>>
>> >Which aren't carried in any of the bookstores in Britain's 2nd
>> >biggest city.
>> According to the already mentioned book of Chris Barber, these books
>> have been published as limited first editions.
>All books are first published as first editions. Sounds like vanity
>publishing. In any case, it appears that they weren't accepted
>by a major publisher.
>Where is the sword stone now?
>--
>Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
>Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Sorry, no mentioning of the present location of the stone in the book
of Chris Barber.
A poem in Welsh _The Mabinogion_ (Y Mabibogi) concerning the
memorials of the graves of the warriors gives the details of the
burial site of numerous important chieftains, but firmly states: 'But
unknown is the grave of Arthur.'
In the 'History of the Britons' by Nennius (822 A.D.) about the burial
of King Arthur by his first cousin St Illtud when two men delivered
the body of Arthur:
"This man of God entrusted to us, that we should conduct him to thee
and that we should bury him with thee and thou shouldst not reveal his
name to any man, so men should not swear by him."
(They buried him after this.)
After reading this (about his secret burial place): Who wouldn't like
it to have found Arthur's grave?
Leslie Sitek
Mike Lowndes
<Lou...@lclc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> The Mayor of Hamelin was happy to accept the offer of help from a
snip
> Interest in the Arthurian Mysteries and the search for the Holy Grail
> have no similarities with the Pied Piper, as genuine followers of this
> Tradition have no interest in personal greed.
As such, the 'Tradition' is not archaeological so please don't cross post
this stuff here.
Mike
Kevin Daly
sit...@pop.pi.net (Leslie Sitek) wrote:
>I've a photograph of this sword shaped 6th century inscibed stone
>found at the the centre of Glamorgan. It realy does carry the
>inscrition REX ARTORIVS FILI MAURICIVS which means BRENIN ARTHWYR AP
>MEURIG or KING ARTHUR SON OF MAURICE (MEURIG).
>When this stone was discovered by Blacket and Wilson, Paul Hoyland of
>the Guardian of 23 July 1983 wrote:
>'If the findings are correct history books will have to be re-written
>and South Wales will have several extra tourist attractions."
>
I can't avoid the suspicion that the stone is a fake: If you translated the
Latin as it stands it would mean "King Arthur Maurice of the Son". In other
words it's ungrammatical. If the writer of the inscription was that ignorant
of basic Latin grammar, it seems very peculiar that he would have known the
"Artorius" form of the name, rather than simply pseudo-Latinising the
Brittonic version. Also, someone would surely have said "You idiot, you've
buggered up King Arthur's inscription!".
Kevin Daly
Kevin Daly
sit...@pop.pi.net (Leslie Sitek) wrote:
>The style of the lettering ties in with other sixth-century stones,
>and is most intriguing that the stone is sward-shaped.
>Blackett and Wilson claim to have worked out the final solution to the
>unknown location of the grave of Arthur by following what has been
>stated in ancient manuscipts and sorting out the clues on the ground.
>By interpreting a well-known folk tale which concerns the burial of
>King Arthur in a Welsh cave, they are convinced that they have worked
>out where this took place.
>
I thought the tradition was not of a burial as such, but rather that Arthur
and his warriors (and if I remember rightly, which possibly I don't, the Welsh
stories didn't refer to Arthur as a king) was sleeping in a cave until the day
of his return (the same story, interestingly enough, was told of Gerald
FitzGerald).
Kevin Daly
Kevin Daly
"Richard A. Williams" <riwi...@cisco.com> wrote:
>Sis...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
><snip>
>> In Latin, the word for king which precedes a name is Rig. This takes -o
when used
>> in combination (ie Riothamus). This later transformed into the Welsh rhi
(ie
>> Anglorum' king of the Angles or 'rex Francorum' king of the Franks).
However,
>> common modern mistakes often place rex along with the name (ie the mistaken
>> translation of the Greek tragedy 'Oedipus Tyrannus' as 'Oedipus Rex'). King
Arthur
'Artorius
>> rex Brittonum'.
>
>Why do English monarchs sign in the style : 'Elizabeth Regina' or 'Henry
Rex'?
>
Just to set the record straight, Welsh "rhi" (like Irish "rí" ("ri/" if
that doesn't get decoded properly)) derives from Celtic "Rix" ("Rig-" with an
-s ending for the nominative singular).
I think that placing the king-word second is more normal Latin style (but I
have to admit I'm not sure), which if true is something else that suggests
that the inscription is a clumsy attempt at creating a Latin inscription by a
native English- speaker with no knowledge of Latin grammar.
Kevin Daly
Kevin Daly
>Bill Bedford wrote:
>
>> A goat was the mount of Thor and there may also be classical allusions,
>> but it suggests that whoever made the mosaic in Otranto was aware of
>> Welsh traditions where Arthur was seen as a traditional pagan figure who
>> opposed the teachings of the Saints.
>
>What Welsh traditions are these?
is pretty irrelevant, since Arthur was not a Scandinavian. He does seem to
have been unpopular with the clergy (or at least Gildas), but that's likely to
have less to do with paganism than with Arthur being a rude soldier type who
probably didn't , shall we say, respect the property rights of the monks.
Kevin Daly
Kevin Daly
>
>
It's a simple matter of a real person called Brigid becoming merged in the
popular mind with an earlier pagan goddess of the same name.
So she could perfectly easily have had brothers, and an auntie and uncle
etc, just like anybody else.
So there.
Kevin Daly
Polar
Fascinating thread!
Just wanted to mention (for those in So.Calif) that the Huntington has
an exhibition of original works on the Arthurian legends, from
earliest times until the present. Dimly lit, alas, to preserve the
precious works, but well worth a visit.
Polar
Brenda Marr
In article <4r4ke2$178...@ihug.co.nz>, kev...@ihug.co.nz (Kevin Daly) wrote:
BM>It's a simple matter of a real person called Brigid becoming merged in the
BM>popular mind with an earlier pagan goddess of the same name.
BM> So she could perfectly easily have had brothers, and an auntie and uncle
BM>etc, just like anybody else.
BM>So there.
BM>
BM>Kevin Daly
I'm not so sure about that. Last I heard, the Catholic Church had
determined that in fact there never was a person, at least a really good
Christian, named Brigid, (though I don't know if they bothered with
who/what Brigid WAS), and "St. Brigid" was de-canonized.
Brenda
--
Brenda Marr & the Akitases
ang...@mcs.com
Bogarts Cloud Dancer (Zari)
Kuro-ki's Revenge of the Rose (Ronin)
Lee Gold
>Bill Bedford wrote:
>
>> A goat was the mount of Thor and there may also be classical allusions,
>> but it suggests that whoever made the mosaic in Otranto was aware of
>> Welsh traditions where Arthur was seen as a traditional pagan figure who
>> opposed the teachings of the Saints.
by them, a somewhat different effect. IIRC, goats were also
associated with Frey. But all that would be far more pertinent
in analyzing a Saxon demigod's associations than a Celtic one's.
In Italy, the goat _might_ be linked to Dionysus.
Leslie Sitek
kev...@ihug.co.nz (Kevin Daly) wrote:
>In article <4q1fhg$r...@neptunus.pi.net>,
> sit...@pop.pi.net (Leslie Sitek) wrote:
>Kevin Daly
There are more inscribed stones that have mistakes in the Latin tekst.
But we have to be prudent in excepting theories. The whole project has
involved Blackett and Wilson in a personal cost of nearly 60,000
pounds which they have raised by selling their houses and their
possessions, a measure of their commitment and believe in the validity
of their discoveries.
They were very in need of recognition.
Leslie Sitek
Madoc
cooooo.....this sounds interesting.
As someone who lives in South Wales (Ynysddu, nr Blackwood if you must
know) , I can honestly say that I have _never_ heard of this wonderful
thing and there are certainly no new 'King Arthur' themeparks that have
suddenly appeared in my area ( only some new roads and superstores)
attracting thousands of tourists. I am sure that I would have noticed all
the cars upsetting my ideallic surroundings.....
Where can I go visit this and who can I write to who'll give me more
information.....
Madoc
John...@hp-unitedkingdom-om1.om.hp.com
(although I am told that 'jn...@hp.com' now works)
____________________________________________________
'Now avenging Briton, smite as he has smitten
let your rage on history's page, in Saxon blood be written'
----------------------------------------------------
Still 100% my own opinions
Leslie Sitek
Madoc <John...@hp-unitedkingdom-om1.om.hp.com> wrote:
> cooooo.....this sounds interesting.
The sword shaped stone of Arthur was found in a cave in the centre of
Glamorgan, where a ruined church stands on a hilltop. The cave lies in
Coed y Mwstwr Wood, Mid Glamorgan, the grid reference is not for
publication.
Leslie Sitek
Leslie Sitek
kev...@ihug.co.nz (Kevin Daly) wrote:
>In article <4qccp9$p...@neptunus.pi.net>,
> sit...@pop.pi.net (Leslie Sitek) wrote:
>Kevin Daly
Their are more stones in Glamorgan that refer to Arthur of his family.
One of thiese stones can be seen in Margam Museum. Originaly it stood
two miles of Kenfig, just north of the ruins of the castle. It is
inscribed:
'PVMEIUS CAR ANTORIVS'this could be translated as "POMPEY THE KINSMAN
OF ARTHUR'.
Pompey (or Poppai or Poppey) was the fourth sn of King Brychan of
Brycheiniog.. Alternatively, it may refer to a contemporary of Arthur
- King Howell or Riwal, who ruled Dumnonia in Brittany an called
himself Pompeius Regalis. He was a king who is supposed to have
brought his army over to Britain to fight at Arthur's side.
Leslie Sitek.
Heather Rose Jones
Leslie Sitek (sit...@pop.pi.net) wrote:
: Their are more stones in Glamorgan that refer to Arthur of his family.
: One of thiese stones can be seen in Margam Museum. Originaly it stood
: two miles of Kenfig, just north of the ruins of the castle. It is
: inscribed:
: 'PVMEIUS CAR ANTORIVS'this could be translated as "POMPEY THE KINSMAN
: OF ARTHUR'.
Or it could be interpreted the way all my references do as "PUMPEIUS
CARANTORIUS" with no relation to Arthur at all. "Carant-" is a protheme
well-attested in other early British names (e.g. Carantacus, Carantmail).
To support your interpretation (ignoring questions of letter spacing or
word-break marks in the inscription) you would need to explain why the
inscription has "ANTORIUS" for "ARTORIUS", why an inscription in which the
personal names have been Latinized would use a vernacular relationship
term such as "car", and why, if a vernacular term were to be used at all,
"car" would be used when there is no other evidence that I know of for the
use of this word in formal relationship formulas.
Heather Rose Jones
Leslie Sitek
The Mid Glamorgan stone could be read as:
REXARTORIVS
FILI MAVRICIVS
(there is no spacing between REX and ARTORIVS; between FILI and
MAVRITIVS is a clear spacing).
Leslie Sitek
Danny Watts
In article <31E81...@pi.net>, Leslie Sitek <sit...@pi.net> writes
--
Danny Watts
Andrea Luxenburg
Anthony West wrote:
>
> In article <B556TJAX...@elvandar.demon.co.uk> Danny Watts <Da...@elvandar.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >In article <31E81...@pi.net>, Leslie Sitek <sit...@pi.net> writes
> >>Heather Rose Jones wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Leslie Sitek (sit...@pop.pi.net) wrote:
> >>>
> >>> : Their are more stones in Glamorgan that refer to Arthur of his family.
> >>> : One of thiese stones can be seen in Margam Museum.
> >>> : 'PVMEIUS CAR ANTORIVS'this could be translated as "POMPEY THE KINSMAN
> >>> : OF ARTHUR'.
> >>>
> >>> Or it could be interpreted the way all my references do as "PUMPEIUS
> >>> CARANTORIUS" with no relation to Arthur at all.
> >>>
> >>REXARTORIVS
> >>FILI MAVRICIVS
> >>(there is no spacing between REX and ARTORIVS; between FILI and
> >>MAVRITIVS is a clear spacing).
> >>
> >>Leslie Sitek
> >Remeber Arturas was latin for Bear
> >
> >--
> >Danny Watts
> >
>
> Arthur is often derived from the *Celtic* root meaning
> bear, which in MnWelsh has become <arth>.
>
> -Tony WestArktos, from which we get "arctic" , was the Greek word for bear, and the
star Arcturus, from Greek Arktouros, means "bear watcher". Has anyone
tried relating Arthur to Arcturus at all plausibly? (No, I don't believe
there's a connection, but I enjoy pseudomythology when it's well done.)
Anthony West
Andrew Hall
Danny Watts wrote:
>
> In article <31E81...@pi.net>, Leslie Sitek <sit...@pi.net> writes
> >Heather Rose Jones wrote:
> >>
> >> Leslie Sitek (sit...@pop.pi.net) wrote:
> >>
> >(there is no spacing between REX and ARTORIVS; between FILI and
> >MAVRITIVS is a clear spacing).
> >
As I recall (and I don't claim to be a Latin scolar) spacing between
words wasn't common until the early renaissance. I'm sure someone will
correct me if I'm wrong.
> >Leslie Sitek
> Remeber Arturas was latin for Bear
Again languages aren't my expertise but latin for bear is Urus and if my
memory is correct arth is celtic for bear.
--
--Andy============="Water rules!"--Friends
"...it is better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness"--
Terry Pratchett
"I represent angry, gun toting, meat eating... people" --Denis Leary
"You are only given a little madness, you mustn't lose it."-- Robin
Williams
"I don't have a moral plan. I'm a Canadian"-- David Cronenburg
Anthony West
In article <31FA9D...@mail.albany.net> Andrea Luxenburg <E...@mail.albany.net> writes:
>Anthony West wrote:
>>
>> Arthur is often derived from the *Celtic* root meaning
>> bear, which in MnWelsh has become <arth>.
>>
>star Arcturus, from Greek Arktouros, means "bear watcher". Has anyone
>tried relating Arthur to Arcturus at all plausibly? (No, I don't believe
>there's a connection, but I enjoy pseudomythology when it's well done.)
>
-Tony West
Philadelphia
Harry Flashman
Anthony West (aaw...@CritPath.Org) wrote:
: >> -Tony WestArktos, from which we get "arctic" , was the Greek word for bear, and the
: >tried relating Arthur to Arcturus at all plausibly? (No, I don't believe
: >there's a connection, but I enjoy pseudomythology when it's well done.)
: >
: Beats me. Somebody give it a shot.
Yes. Joseph Campell has pointed this out. In fact he supports it as if the
story of Arhtur very cloely resembles some anchient greek myths and that
the stories, although immediately Celtic in origin, my in fact be
retellings of old Greek tales. I will look up his article when I return
home, and post highlights.
Scott
Alex Colvin
aaw...@CritPath.Org (Anthony West) writes:
>In article <31FA9D...@mail.albany.net> Andrea Luxenburg <E...@mail.albany.net> writes:
>>Anthony West wrote:
>>>
>>> Arthur is often derived from the *Celtic* root meaning
>>> bear, which in MnWelsh has become <arth>.
>>>
>>> -Tony West
>>Arktos, from which we get "arctic" , was the Greek word for bear, and the
>>star Arcturus, from Greek Arktouros, means "bear watcher". Has anyone
>>tried relating Arthur to Arcturus at all plausibly? (No, I don't believe
>>there's a connection, but I enjoy pseudomythology when it's well done.)
>>
>Beats me. Somebody give it a shot.
let's see... The English equivalent of the name "bear" is Barney (cf Bjarne).
If Arthur refers to Arcturus, that would make him "Barney-Watcher", or "Fred",
Rocks quondam, Rocks Futura
--
Alex Colvin
alex....@dartmouth.edu
Maria Winter
Andrea Luxenburg <E...@mail.albany.net> wrote:
>> >Remeber Arturas was latin for Bear
>star Arcturus, from Greek Arktouros, means "bear watcher". Has anyone
>tried relating Arthur to Arcturus at all plausibly? (No, I don't believe
>there's a connection, but I enjoy pseudomythology when it's well done.)
Wasn't Arthur also called the "bear of Cornwall"?!
Maria
Tracy Reith
In article <4tl24c$7...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, m...@coos.dartmouth.edu
(Alex Colvin) wrote:
> let's see... The English equivalent of the name "bear" is Barney (cf Bjarne).
> If Arthur refers to Arcturus, that would make him "Barney-Watcher", or "Fred",
> Rocks quondam, Rocks Futura
So if Arthur => Arcturus => Barney-Watcher, that proves humans and purple
dinosaurs coexisted in ancient Britain. ;-) I love you, you love me . . .
--
Tracy
tre...@hevanet.com
Leslie Sitek
Anthony West wrote:
>
> In article <31FA9D...@mail.albany.net> Andrea Luxenburg <E...@mail.albany.net> writes:
> >Anthony West wrote:
> >>
> >> Arthur is often derived from the *Celtic* root meaning
> >> bear, which in MnWelsh has become <arth>.
> >>
> >star Arcturus, from Greek Arktouros, means "bear watcher". Has anyone
> >tried relating Arthur to Arcturus at all plausibly? (No, I don't believe
> >there's a connection, but I enjoy pseudomythology when it's well done.)
> >
>
> PhiladelphiaIt is a very interesting remark. According Historia Regum Brittanie by Geoffrey of
Monmouth (1254) the first King of Britain is Brutus a Greek:
"Brutus, fourth in line from Aeneas, was exiled for the accidental killing of his
father. Fleeing fron Italy, he joureys to Lacedaemon. There Pandrasus is king,
beneath whose sway the decendants of Helenus are held captive; after the burning of
Troy and the destruction of its walls (...)"
Brutus liberates the Trojans and leads them via Italy and Gaul to Britain.
"Tell, Calliope, so that I may repeat as you relate, the origin of the British race,
the source of its name, whence noble Britain had its kings, who Arthur (Arturus) was,
what were its deeds (...).
The Trojans leave the ships.
"At that time this land was called Albion, nut now it is called Greater Britain.
(...) The name of the people and the land is changed; after Brutus they are called
Britones or, by corruption of the name, Britanni. Upon Corineus is bestowed Cornwall,
which takes its name from him."
Leslie Sitek
Paul J. Gans
Tracy Reith (tre...@hevanet.com) wrote:
: In article <4tl24c$7...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, m...@coos.dartmouth.edu
Reports of purple dinosaurs flying through the air are
recorded (incorrectly as dragons, how silly) in several
British chronicles.
Written evidence rules. ;-)
---- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
alar...@together.net
Leslie Sitek wrote:
> According Historia Regum Brittanie by Geoffrey of
> Monmouth (1254) the first King of Britain is Brutus a Greek:
You're quoting Monmouth???!???
Why use a middleman, just make it up yourself as you go along...he did.
alaric77
Leslie Sitek
I know his "mythical history" doesn't necesarily reflect the facts
(mildly put), but it's a nice piece of litterature (I'm reading it now).
I just tryed to point out that the suggestion of a Greek connection was
put forward before. I regarded it interesting deriving this same
connection from a language point of view. Perhaps Monmouth was inspired
by this same argument when constructing this part of his book.
Leslie Sitek
Dan Hunt
I know Leslie and I'm sure he did not mean to imply that Geoffrey of
Monmouth's account should be taken as literal history. He was merely
citing a known traditional account. Brutus was selected as the first
king for no other reason than that his name was connected via false
etymology with "Britain", i.e. Britain was supposedly named after
Brutus. A medieval writer like Geoffrey also delighed in linking their
country's past to the great figures of Classical antiquity.
Dan Hunt
excalibur
aaw...@CritPath.Org (Anthony West) wrote:
>In article <31FA9D...@mail.albany.net> Andrea Luxenburg <E...@mail.albany.net> writes:
>>Anthony West wrote:
>>>
>>> Arthur is often derived from the *Celtic* root meaning
>>> bear, which in MnWelsh has become <arth>.
If you are interested in Arthur and in depth historical research I
recommend reading "King Arthur - The True Story" by Graham Phillips
and Martin Keatman ISBN 0-09-929681-0 Arrow 1992.
This work appears to confirm Athur - Arthursus - the Bear was the
"Leader of Battles" who united Celtic England against the Angles and
Saxons in the years 480 - 520AD. He was son of "Uther Pendragon" -
meaning "terrible head dragon" ie son of the head king - being at the
time the kingdom of Powys and Gwynned in Wales.
The book goes into some depth and appears to confirm that Arthur was
not a traditional king but his real name was Owain Ddantgwyn, also
known as "the bear".
The grail stories and Arhur traditions were introduced by the Normans
post Invasion to justify the claim to the English thrown. Arthur was
thus a "King" whom the Normans could claim descent through the
Votadini - French connection and appear to be built upon Celtic
tradition intermixed with real people - of whom one was Merlin
Joe Bernstein
I am floored to see that this thread has lasted all these months only to
come full circle.
It began with precisely the book you describe, to the best of my
knowledge. A rousing flamewar ran for weeks about this.
It also began with precisely the newsgroups you cross-posted to, to the
best of my knowledge. A rousing flamewar ran for weeks about *this*, too.
In my opinion, sci.archaeology is altogether inappropriate for this thread
-- there have been articles under this subject line in sci.archaeology
since the main part of the thread was contained, but these had to do with
the Galician language of Spain, and with Celtic migrations, and so were at
least somewhat more on-topic. More to the point, sci.archaeology does not
need the dozens of posts which will presumably follow this one.
I assume alt.books.reviews can also live without a rerun of this
flamewar. Surely every reader of that group is quite well aware by now
that the book in question exists, and is controversial.
Personally, I suspect the only groups where this is really on-topic and
wanted are alt.legend.king-arthur and (grudgingly) soc.history.medieval.
The proposal for soc.history.ancient, which I'm a proponent of, originated
partly in shm's unhappiness with this thread months ago, and assuming this
thread lives to the end of the voting period (which now seems quite
probable), this thread would be better in soc.history.ancient than in
soc.history.medieval.
In any event, for the time being, I'm leaving soc.history and the
soc.culture.* groups in the followups. I'd encourage readers of those
groups to try to weed further if they so desire.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, free-lance writer, bank clerk, and bookstore worker
speaking for myself and nobody else j...@sfbooks.com
but... co-proponent for soc.history.ancient, now under
discussion in news.groups
Fyrnae
In article <4ui1eu$n...@news.cablenet.net>, excalibur <ni...@cablenet.net>
writes
>
>
>If you are interested in Arthur and in depth historical research I
>recommend reading "King Arthur - The True Story" by Graham Phillips
>and Martin Keatman ISBN 0-09-929681-0 Arrow 1992.
I have read this book, and in it the authors give their vote for the
possible site of 'The Lake,' in Baschurch. My husband and I went there
last year to check it out. It is absolutely fantastic, and gets my vote
for best possible site.
Fyrnae Carwgwen (Ovate)
--
Same God, Different Name, No Problem......
Max Kennedy
alar...@together.net wrote:
>Leslie Sitek wrote:
>> According Historia Regum Brittanie by Geoffrey of
>> Monmouth (1254) the first King of Britain is Brutus a Greek:
>You're quoting Monmouth???!???
>Why use a middleman, just make it up yourself as you go along...he did.
No, this is also in Neimus (sp?), from [300-400] years before, and
closely parallels Geoffrey's account, proving that the idea at least
was not new.
I doubt Geoffrey made anything up. The difference in this type of
history, as opposed to modern, is the willingness to use sources and
even legends that are common, even if you yourself do not Know them to
be true.
(FYI Brutus is a Trojan in the story.)
Max Kennedy
Daniel M. Smith
In article <4to8as$n...@grapool30.rz.uni-frankfurt.de>,
mwi...@stud.uni-frankfurt.de (Maria Winter) wrote:
> Andrea Luxenburg <E...@mail.albany.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Remeber Arturas was latin for Bear
>
> >star Arcturus, from Greek Arktouros, means "bear watcher". Has anyone
> >tried relating Arthur to Arcturus at all plausibly?
Yes. See "Celtic Origins...Arthur: the Chain of Evidence," Charles Muses
in Celticum XII, No.98, 1965, pp. 359-384.
Muses discusses at length the connection between the names Arthur,
Acturus, Arthez de Bearn (Berne, Switzerland), Artemis (aka Diana, the
huntress), and many other variants on the bear name and theme.
After reading Muses' lengthy discussion, it seems to me unlikely in
the extreme that there is no connection between the Arthurian cycles and
the bear names and themes in Central Europe.
(No, I don't believe
> >there's a connection,
I believe you're wrong.
Regards,
Dan Smith
Paul J. Gans
Dan Hunt (dh...@worldaccess.com) wrote:
: I know Leslie and I'm sure he did not mean to imply that Geoffrey of
It is *very* common in King lists to find that, at the head of the
list, stands either a god or a hero. That's almost a universal
motif.
Geoffrey, being a good Christian, couldn't do that. So he did the
next best thing, as Dan has pointed out.
Max Kennedy
Dan Hunt <dh...@worldaccess.com> wrote:
>I know Leslie and I'm sure he did not mean to imply that Geoffrey of
>Monmouth's account should be taken as literal history. He was merely
>citing a known traditional account. Brutus was selected as the first
>king for no other reason than that his name was connected via false
>etymology with "Britain", i.e. Britain was supposedly named after
>Brutus. A medieval writer like Geoffrey also delighed in linking their
>country's past to the great figures of Classical antiquity.
A slight problem with this thread is the idea that Brutus was the
founder of Britian didn't originate with Geoffrey. See "Historia
Brittonum" by Nennius in the 8th century as an example.
Max Kennedy
Andy Fear
Fyrnae (Fyr...@warnco.com) wrote:
: In article <4ui1eu$n...@news.cablenet.net>, excalibur <ni...@cablenet.net>
Agree about the site, but as I recall they have problems with the chronology
of the sub Roman levels at Wroxeter
Andy
R. Gaenssmantel
[original poster not known]
: >> >Remeber Arturas was latin for Bear
Err, no! Ursa is Latin for bear (hence the star signe ursa major, ...).
Ralf
--
The Outlaw
I'd be interested in hearing more about the chronology problems as I am
in the middle of reading the new edition (revised) of Alcock's 'Arthur's
Britain' and it is something he pointed out about sub-Roman sites in
general.
Paul
--
______________________________________________________________________
/ "As through this world you wander; Paul G. Overend \
| As through this world you roam, P.G.O...@bath.ac.uk |
| You will never find an outlaw, http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccspgo|
| Turn a family from its home." +44 1225 826074 |
\______________________________________________________________________/
Leslie Sitek
I Indeed know that Geoffrey's story is not reliable, it's a "mythical history". I
just was impressed by the Greek connection that was made only on the base of the
(Greek) language issue and now knoledge of the accounts of Geoffrey.
I was just reading Historia Regum Brittanie, fascinating book.
BTW, Brutus was fourth in line from Aeneas; of course according Geoffrey.
Leslie Sitek
Jonathon Kerns
Max Kennedy (mken...@iglou.com) wrote:
: A slight problem with this thread is the idea that Brutus was the
: founder of Britian didn't originate with Geoffrey. See "Historia
: Brittonum" by Nennius in the 8th century as an example.
: Max Kennedy
Yes, but wasn't Brutus defieted by Popeii?
J. Daniel Kerns
--
"Wait a bit," she cried. "So you can't dance? Not at all? Not even a
one step? And yet you talk of the trouble you've taken to live? You
told a fib there, my boy... How can you say that you've taken any
trouble to live when you won't even dance?" Herman Hesse,Steppenwolf
Andrew R Climo-Thompson
In article <3217A1...@pi.net>, Leslie Sitek <sit...@pi.net> writes
>
>BTW, Brutus was fourth in line from Aeneas; of course according Geoffrey.
All fair enough. The Brutus thing 'may' be a red herring. But it's
also worth considering that there were a number of Pictish (ie. p-
celtic) and Irish kings called Bruid or some variant thereof. In other
words it's not completely impossible for there to have been a British
'Brutos' or 'Breutos'. Also -> Don't get hung up on the -us ending, as
it's frequently a Latinisation of the Brythonic -os ending.
--
Andrew R Climo-Thompson
Cornish Language Advisory Service
Web sites at www.deansoft.com/clas and www.ex.ac.uk/~ajbeer/clas
Andy Fear
Andrew R Climo-Thompson (and...@clas.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <3217A1...@pi.net>, Leslie Sitek <sit...@pi.net> writes
: >
: >BTW, Brutus was fourth in line from Aeneas; of course according Geoffrey.
:
: All fair enough. The Brutus thing 'may' be a red herring.
Come on, Brutus the Briton is in the same league as Francus the frank and
Longabarba the Lombard. False Etymologies of this sort were all the rage
especially when you could try to connect yourself to the Classical World.
Andy