MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Inventing History : forgery: a great British tradition (British History)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 169, 170, 171 ... 178, 179, 180  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The pinkish/purplish colour is quite nice but, let's be honest, if ortho had just discovered it, they wouldn't be all "Wow, it's high status", "Looks like a bit of a ancient coronation chair".
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wiley wrote:
Maybe a sandstone slab that was intended for later carving?

I've only got a City & Guilds in stonemasonry but why would anyone prepare a sandstone slab for later carving?

Answer
When they're handing round sandstone slabs for City & Guilds students to practise carving on.
"Knuckle down, everyone, we're going to use the best one for crowning kings on for the next thousand years."
"I'm a republican, sir."
"I'm a foreign student from Uttar Pradesh, sir."
"Why only kings? It's a bit sexist."
"Just shut up, the lot of you. Do you think I want to be here? I trained with Barbara Hepworth."
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Presumably, this is why some folks think that some canny Scots monks hid the real Stone of Scone and gave Edward "The Hammer", no doubt an able soldier but bad art connoisseur, a poorish imitation...
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

One battered stone to another battered stone: "You should see the other one."
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You have to admire these Scottish monks, if they had attempted a reasonable imitation of a Coronation Chair, then no doubt Edward would have then spotted a minor imperfection and the deception would have been revealed, so instead they opted to give him an old bit of wall, relying on the fact that Edward would judge that no person in their right mind would try to pass off such a poor looking replica to such a feared warrior. It worked "The Mighty Hammer of the Scots" believed it genuine, and so all his courtiers felt the need to agree.

It's all becoming clear.

One problem. The monks did such a good job of hiding the original it has never been found.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Finding the original is always fraught. Not that they ever are. As we point out in various places

1. the original always survives long enough to be copied
2. the copy always survives long enough to be studied by historians
3. the original always disappears before it can be studied by historians.

Not some times, not most times, every bleedin' time. They must be the unluckiest people in the whole of history.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

In a recent argy-bargy on Facebook about an Anglo-Saxon stone found in -- and therefore allegedly identifying -- an Anglo-Saxon church, Hatty was taking on all-comers and one of them posted this up. (I will put it in its entirety before plucking out some interestingly revealing points.)

Colin Fisher wrote:
No, but lettering and etymology can be dated. This is inscribed with 6th century lettering, which would not have been known post 1515. And when you say 'Caractacus was only known about in 1515', what you mean is that's when he was rediscovered by modern scholars. Of course his contemporaries in Roman and immediate post-Roman times -ie, those who claimed descent from him - would have known about him. And as for when the stone (not the inscription) is first mentioned textually, that would be 1219 when it was called the Langeston. There is no reason to suppose the inscription wasn't present then.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/815883248934810/posts/1542983519558109/?

1. "No, but lettering and etymology can be dated."
Everyone seems totally convinced by this even though as a line of argument it is of very limited utility. Any stonemason can mimic any style of lettering and any etymology known to an etymologist can be passed on to any stonemason.

2. "This is inscribed with 6th century lettering, which would not have been known post 1515."
That's sort of true, meaning that the stone is probably nineteenth century when it was known. Not that any actual authenticated Anglo-Saxon inscriptions are known.

3. "And when you say 'Caractacus was only known about in 1515', what you mean is that's when he was rediscovered by modern scholars."
That's kinda true to too though we would probably use the verb 'invented' rather than 'rediscovered'. What Hatty was implying is that Caractacus has gone mysteriously missing for a thousand years.

4. "Of course his contemporaries in Roman and immediate post-Roman times -ie, those who claimed descent from him - would have known about him."
For sure, pshaw.

5. "And as for when the stone (not the inscription) is first mentioned textually, that would be 1219 when it was called the Langeston."
This may be true if the text can be trusted to be thirteenth century. However...

6. "There is no reason to suppose the inscription wasn't present then."
There is every reason to suppose it. Why would someone go to all the trouble of writing about a stone without mentioning one of the chief reasons for writing about the stone -- because it had an inscription on it? Of course, if the stone was big enough and prominent enough to be worth writing about even though it didn't have an inscription on it... mmm
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Although this is 'only' a Facebook discussion, all these kinds of claims are to be found routinely in academic papers and textbooks. Early Medievalists -- they refuse to use the term Dark Age -- just do not have enough raw material to justify the existence of Early Medievalists so they have to grub around for anything they can find.

What they find -- to be brutally frank, for the most part all they find -- are either straight out fakes or entirely legitimate efforts to portray a distant past which they take to be the real deal. It requires some ingenuity to put it altogether in a coherent whole but then they can just sit back while first peer review works its magic then, after it has been taught-by-wrote for a few generations, it will have come to be viewed as pretty much self-evident truth.

And fit for Facebook. It's not wicked, it's not dumb, it's just the way people are. Except smug bastards like us. Well, Hatty certainly.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I think some of the myth stems from the play by John Fletcher called Bonduca (Boudicca), dated by wiki as (1613). In the play ‘Caratach’ is Bondica’s brother in law and military commander against the Romans.
Caratach gives a famous oration before a battle he loses and is then later captured by the Romans.

In Tacitus both Caratacus and Calgacus make famous heroic orations, "freedom over slavery", before losing etc. Caratacus then makes another set piece oration, very much in the style of a play, before Claudius to win his freedom!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonduca

It seems that the fake history was actually based on earlier plays.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Maybe medals were given to performers at these plays. Bit like we give out medals at olympic games?

Round of appalause:

"I give you Caratach."

"Here is your coin/medallion"

"Whatever you do don't drop it"

"It is unique"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8874885/Iron-Age-coin-depicting-warlord-Caratacus-set-fetch-30-000-auction.html
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The coin is actually inscribed [C]VNO CARAT,

Just saying.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wile E. Coyote wrote:

A lot of Scots of the nationalist variety are going to be offended when King Charles puts the Royal arse on this. If only we could prove forgery, we might just stop another civil war.


The Stone of Scone (/ˈskuːn/; Scottish Gaelic: An Lia Fàil; Scots: Stane o Scuin)—also known as the Stone of Destiny, and often referred to in England as The Coronation Stone—is an oblong block of red sandstone that has been used for centuries in the coronation of the monarchs of Scotland. It is also known as Jacob's Pillow Stone and the Tanist Stone, and as clach-na-cinneamhain in Scottish Gaelic.

Historically, the artefact was kept at the now-ruined Scone Abbey in Scone, near Perth, Scotland. It was seized by Edward I's forces from Scone during the English invasion of Scotland in 1296, and was used in the coronation of the monarchs of England as well as the monarchs of Great Britain and the United Kingdom, following the Treaty of Union of 1707. Its size is 26 in (66 cm) by 16.7 in (42 cm) by 10.5 in (26.7 cm) and its weight is approximately 335 lb (152 kg). A roughly incised cross is on one surface, and an iron ring at each end aids with transport.[1] Monarchs used to sit on the Stone of Scone itself until a wooden platform was added to the Coronation Chair in the 17th century.[2]

In 1996, the British Government decided to return the stone to Scotland, when not in use at coronations, and it was transported to Edinburgh Castle, where it is now kept with the Scottish Crown Jewels.


Alex has said he would have prevented this old bit of Roman wall being used in the coronation. Humza Yousaf decided instead to accept his invitation. Try not to smurtle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0pd0YtiMOg[/quote]
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You may be interested to hear this recent correspondence among high savants

A correspondent wrote:
Said to have been made in 1300 is this true ?
The Coronation Chair, also known as St Edward's Chair or King Edward's Chair, is believed to be the oldest piece of furniture in the UK still used for its original purpose. A total of 26 monarchs have been crowned in it.

Mick Harper wrote:
I haven't heard that claim about it being the oldest piece of UK furniture so, thanks, I shall add that to my inventory. Maybe just English though because the Stone of Scone, sitting beneath it, is claimed to be older and that counts as a pouffe by Scottish standards.

As for the Chair itself, wood lasting for a thousand years before Rentokill is inherently unlikely but I suppose they would have looked after it. Though they certainly wouldn't have reported it if they had quietly had a repro done at any time in that thousand years. If it is acknowledged to be 1300 how could they call it St Edward's Chair. Edward I was no saint so it can't refer to him and St Edward the Confessor died in 1066.

Hatty wrote:
Presumably the ‘St’ is an intentional religious pairing as it were between the king and his sainted predecessor, as per Warwick Rodwell, Consultant Archaeologist to Westminster Abbey

Edward treated the Stone of Scone as a relic, and presented it, along with the Scottish crown and sceptre, to the shrine of St Edward the Confessor in Westminster Abbey, on 18 June 1297. He ordered the construction of a great gilt-bronze chair to incorporate the Stone as its seat. The chair was cast, but was scrapped before it was finished and a new one made of oak, thereby reducing its weight from three-quarters of a ton to one-quarter. https://the-past.com/feature/the-coronation-chair-anatomy-of-a-medieval-throne/

When it was first used in the coronation ceremony is less clear-cut. ‘No later than 1399’. He makes no mention of any radiocarbon dating tests being done though the chair has been ‘restored’ so maybe results wouldn’t be valid. The earliest known illustration appears to be a sketch attributed to John Carter in "The Ancient Architecture of England, including the orders during the British, Roman, Saxon, and Norman eras; and under the reigns of Henry III. and Edward III. Illustrated by one hundred and nine engravings." Or maybe it was in the new improved 1887 edition with notes, and copious indexes, by John Britton.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

My first guess after doing a bit of background reading was that this was a James VI and I creation, as it seems to Wiles that it was a bit like James' new Union flag which took the red and white cross of St. George and added the blue and white cross of St. Andrew. In this case they have added the Scottish stone of scone to the English (French) Coronation chair. The chair looks Gothic. To my eyes it's based on the Throne of Solomon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throne_of_Solomon

The throne as Solomon's seat of state is described in 1 Kings 10:

18 Moreover the king made a great throne of ivory, and overlaid it with the finest gold. 19 There were six steps to the throne, and the top of the throne was round behind; and there were arms on either side by the place of the seat, and two lions standing beside the arms. 20 And twelve lions stood there on the one side and on the other upon the six steps; there was not the like made in any kingdom. JPS 1917


I am sticking with James.....
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Still a bit old, n'est-ce pas? It looks to me to be nineteenth century Gothic Revival aping Solomon's Seat but that is a purely aesthetic judgment on my part, and would leave a paper trail even consultant archaeologists couldn't miss.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 169, 170, 171 ... 178, 179, 180  Next

Jump to:  
Page 170 of 180

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group