Dave L Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh come on - you know its not possible to falsify
> ancient verbal traditions by etymology.
I wouldn't even dream of trying - I don't know anything about etymology
and consider it a worse headache than chronology, (have I mentioned I
*HATE* chronology?). All I said is 'Scota', Gal-watsit' and 'Hiber' don't
sound Eygptian to me.
> Don't forget that people were extremely mobile in
> the past. There was an arab traveller who covered
> 75,000 miles in his lifetime.
Some people.
> 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.
I seriously doubt it. Given that these 'traditions'were promulgated for
obviousl political reasons there seems absolutely no reason to believe they
are based on any kind of 'Folk' memory.
> 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.
Geoffrey wanted to prove the Britons were even older than the Romans hence
'Brutus of Troy'. Apparently the Scots wanted to top the Brits and so claimed
an Egyptian princess as their ancestress. BTW since the Scots came from Ireland
*that's* where 'Scota' should have ended up.
> 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.
Really? On what grounds did he assert this? I thought the Ancient Brits
weren't given to writing.
> (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.
Gloucester was a kingdom?
> (3) That the Brut legend was written about the
> time of Claudius.
Really? By whom??
> (4) That there is nothing improbable in all the
> relations with Rome, at least down to the fifth
> century, as represented in Tysilio.
Given that Britain was part of the Roman empire that's not surprising.
Don't know Tysilio though.
> (5) That statements of marvels by Geoffrey are
> carefully withdrawn by him from historic materials
> and treated as fabulous.
Hmmm. I didn't notice that.
>
> (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.
Walter? Geoffrey certainly did claim to base his accounts on an 'ancient
book' unattested by anybody else.
> (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.
Dark Ages chronology is notably flexible. There are about as many dates
for Arthur as there are scholars. One of the many reasons I hate chronology.
> (8) That the Continental immigration, and
> mixture with the native population, was continuous
> from long before the Roman age, onward to our own
> day.
Obviously. Romans; Saxons; Danes; Normans...
> (9) That the historical triads were compiled
> from before A.D. 450 down to the twelfth century,
> but received no accretions since then.
I am unqualified to comment.
> (10) That the laws of Moelmud show the pagan
> British civilization, at least as early as the
> Roman age.
Caesar moved in on well organized if quarrelsome tribal kingdoms. Whether
this constitutes 'civilization' in the absence of an urban culture is arguable
but the British certainly had an ancient *culture*.
> The present requirement for British History, so
> much neglected, is a scholar in Old Welsh, Breton,
> Irish, and late Latin, accustomed to palaeography,
I definitely do not qualify - and suspect Petrie didn't either.
However I was under the impression that numerous scholars since his
time have made a speciality of early British history - No?
I am mildly surprised that I never heard of, or can't recall, this 'Tysilio'
but then it's been a while since I dug into Arthuriana.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/18/2006 09:29AM by Roxana Cooper.