Oh come on - you know its not possible to falsify ancient verbal traditions by etymology.
Don't forget that people were extremely mobile in the past. There was an arab traveller who covered 75,000 miles in his lifetime.
That's not to say I am saying these legends are true, but to point out that there may be grains of truth in them - that's what happens - people take useful grains of truth and blow them up into whatever suits their current political requirements.
The Mycenaean colonisation narrative in Cyprus is a good example of this - everybody circa 400 B.C. started digging up ancient stories with any available links to Geece so that they could claim they were really Greek.
So as I said - it's impossible to falsify or verify the traditions, but that's not to say they are not important historical documents that have been neglected.
Dave L
As a general comment, this is what Petrie wrote at the end of an essay on neglected British history:
"The general conclusions to which we are led are:
(1) That there was a British record of Caesar's attack written in entire ignorance of Caesar's account, but closely according with it.
(2) That this British account was the basis of the chronicle of the kingdom of Gloucester, and passed on into the history known by the name of Tysilio.
(3) That the Brut legend was written about the time of Claudius.
(4) That there is nothing improbable in all the relations with Rome, at least down to the fifth century, as represented in Tysilio.
(5) That statements of marvels by Geoffrey are carefully withdrawn by him from historic materials and treated as fabulous.
(6) That there is no doubt as to the dependence of Geoffrey on Walter, and of Walter on an earlier manuscript, probably Breton, for the British history, as stated by those writers.
(7) That the Hengest invasion is dated by Celtic sources to A.D. 428, and the Saxon date is in error. Arthur reigned from 467-493, thus rendering possible the account of his French expedition.
(8) That the Continental immigration, and mixture with the native population, was continuous from long before the Roman age, onward to our own day.
(9) That the historical triads were compiled from before A.D. 450 down to the twelfth century, but received no accretions since then.
(10) That the laws of Moelmud show the pagan British civilization, at least as early as the Roman age.
The present requirement for British History, so much neglected, is a scholar in Old Welsh, Breton, Irish, and late Latin, accustomed to palaeography, who will deal as an historian, and not as a mythologist, with the following sources:- The Brut y Brenhined of A.D. 940, in Breton; all MSS. of Tysilio, of the Historia Britonum or Nennius, and of Gildas, tracing their descent and various dates of issue; the chroniclers, as Henry of Huntingdon, Hector Boece, John of Fordun, &c., to discriminate how far other sources of material - now perished - were used by them; the Irish Annals; the Mabinogion, the triads, the laws, and other literature which may embody historical detail. From these a consecutive narrative should be framed, from which suitable outlines might some day penetrate the general school books. "
The Journal of Ancient Egyptian Architecture JAEA:
[
egyptian-architecture.com]
[
glasgow.academia.edu]
[
egyptology-scotland.squarespace.com]
Dave's Archaeology Homepage:
[
arkysite.wordpress.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2006 12:48PM by Dave L.