Arthurian Romance (British History)

[Ishmael]

[Hatty]

Does anyone know what the names of the protagonists were in the European versions of the Arthurian tales (before they became Welshified?)

[Ray]

I understand one of his eastern names was Idries - hence the Welsh name Idris - hence Cadr Idris = Arthur's chair. Then again, the Brythonic name Arthur derives from Arth Vawr - Great Bear. Arthur son of Uther Pendragon can therefore be interpreted as a record of the precession of the equinoxes. Currently Ursa Major (The Great Bear) is the northernmost constellation, but X thousand years ago it was Draco (The Dragon). Pendragon means dragon's head, so Arthur son of Uther Pendragon is explicit.

And talking of Great Navigators, when the first Christian missionaries reached Polynesia they thought someone else had got there before them. The reason: in Polynesian mythology the world's first woman was called Ivi. It means Rib.

[DPCrisp]

There have been some comments on Ma'at, including "he's a Bronze Age specialist, so this isn't his field" and "that's not new"... blah, blah.

When I say I didn't think anyone ever did think the indigenous culture was wiped out by the Romans, or that all the villas were occupied by them, my wife says "pipe down: it's made for television". But I'm still bemused. If there was cultural continuity, why was it then that our national identity was forged? Why does one side bang on about King Arthur being the definitive British hero, while the other side says those legends are spread all the way to the Middle East?... I noticed he was trying to say the right things but couldn't.

The stuff about the Roman invasion being invited and not landing where everyone says was interesting. Stuff to tie in with De bello gallico there... (And one of these days I'll discuss Boudicca's last stand outside my house...)

[Ishmael]

[DPCrisp]

As Ishmael points out, there are those who argue the Arthurian cycle originating from the East.

This paper, in my opinion, argues a good case:

www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/2/ha2tf.htm]From Scythia to Camelot

[Ishmael]

[Jaimi]

Just as a matter of interest, a Dutch friend of mine swears he can easily converse, in Dutch, with a Scot speaking in their own language.

I also have some different ideas on Phoenicians. I think they were (roll the word around in your mouth a bit ) Polynesians. The Polynesians were known to have been on Easter Island and recent DNA evidence taken from one of the burials there verifies it.
The funny thing about the Polynesians is that ethnologists and others cannot agree on where they came from. Sound familiar?

[Ishmael]

[DPCrisp]

[Mick Harper]

[DPCrisp]

For all we know, Arthur was the original dying-and-resurrecting god-king type, à la Mysteries, and it bugs me that they always look for a Dark Age Hero to pin the myths on.

If there is a historical dimension to Arthur, it strikes me that a key element of it is that "whosoever pulleth this sword from this stone and anvil is the true-born king of all England", but the wording is critical.

That should be a sword from a stone and anvil, in general, no doubt. The fashion lately seems to be to forget the anvil part and say you literally pull a sword from a stone when you cast a bronze sword. Drawing a sword from a stone and anvil seems much like iron smithcraft to me. (But the anvil might be a later addition.)

What's undeniable is the association of metal-mastery with divine power. But who has the power, the Celts?... or someone else gaining a technical advantage and eventually the upper hand? (Both sides would point to the legends that say they should be in charge.)

Is it all England or all Britain? (To us it matters: no one else grasps the significance of the difference.)
Is it the megalithic Celts conquering (enfranchising?) England?
Is it the English throwing off the Celts?
Is the so-called Celtic invasion really an iron invasion? In whose hands?

Who knows the story of Arthur well enough to see the best fit with the history of Celts, the Beaker People/Culture and all that, in these islands?

[Ishmael]

[TelMiles]

In my humble opinion, I believe the historical Arthur to be one of the native English Speakers as advocated by MJ Harper. Gildas was the closest person writing to the existence of Arthur and he failed to mention him, some Dark Age historians have dismissed this and said: "he was only talking about BAD rulers, so he just didn't mention Arthur." But that kind of explanation just didn't sit right with me.

My explanation is this. The ruling Romano-Celtic class were basically under siege from the Anglo Saxons once the Romans pissed off. There was a power vacuum and two 'camps' emerged, one led by King Vortigern (could have been a title and not a name) and Ambrosius Aurelianus. (Interestingly, many historians, incluing John Morris, have said these two camps were basically "native" and "Roman")

Just like the Celts always did when faced with an enemy, they fought each other. When these two men finally destroyed each other, there was no-one left to check the Anglo-Saxon advance, except Arthur, a native "Englishman" who managed to reassemble the remnant forces of the two tyrants, and defeat the Anglo-Saxons to boot.

Now Gildas, a member of the ruling elite, could bad-mouth his compatriots, but he could never admit that the saviour of Britain (at that point in history, the Anglo-Saxons had not yet overrun the islands) was a lowly English speaker, who had an English name. (Many people try and say all manner of things about Arthur's name, like it was a nickname or a title, as it could possibly have some relationship to the word 'bear'. If this is to be believed then I am a powerful tribal ruler as my name (Terry) means both "tribe" and "power".)

Once the Celts were overwhelmed by the Anglo-Saxons, they forgot about their petty differences with the native English and so Arthur was "reborn" in later literature.
_________________
Against all Gods.

[TelMiles]

Hey everyone.

Over on IMDB, there's this so-called "Arthurian Expert" posting huge tracts on exactly who the historical Arthur was, a Romano-Celtic Emperor and High-King no less! I know his theory to be completely wrong but I would like some help in the matter as I need the knowledge of the good ladies and gentlemen of Applied Epistemology to really pick it apart. Here is a part of his HUGE first post:

"Had Phillips and Keatman translated "Arth" as the Brythonic word meaning "High," used with the Latin root "Urses" meaning "Bear" as the great king's animal symbol, they would have ended up with "Arthursus," meaning High Bear, something parallel to Pendragon. In fact, that is the same technique which was used to invent the "fictitious" Utherpendragon."

Obviously, terming something Brythonic is spurious, but giving "Arth" the add-on "Urses" to turn it into Arthurses is surely just claptrap. Who ever heard of Arthurses? Also, he sort of falls down later on when he says that Arthur's name was actually Riardd-Ambrosius.

There is a lot more to work with, and I'd appreciate the help anyone could give me. Thank you.

Tel

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0349683/board/thread/63451208?d=63451208&p=1#63451208

There's the link, but I think you have to join to read the entire post. Did I mention it's HUGE?
_________________
Against all Gods.