Scotching the Scotch : from the east or from the west? (British History)

[Komorikid]

The Great Worm was Draconis 'the Dragon' and in Megalithic times the Pole Star was Alpha Draconis or Thuban: the mariner's star.

From the Isle of Man it is a straight run South by the western points of the following landmarks: Holyhead Is, Bardsey Is, Ramsey, Skomer then between Lands End (where there exist a coastal town that bears the rather enigmatic Arabic name of Nanjizal) and the Scilly Iles. The straight runs crosses the English Channel and reaches France at Ile d' Ouessant and continues South via Ile de Sein, Ile de Groix, Belle-Ile en Mer, Ile d' Yeu, Ile de Re and Ile d' Oleron, the final pointer into the Gironde-Garonne-Aude inland river systems which linked to the Med via Toulouse-Carcassonne-Narbonne.

The straight run follows the Maritime Megalithic trail. All the coastal landmarks from the IoM to the Gironde are signposted with prominent monuments visible from a ship. The edge of the Celtic Shelf also provided a western marker to the sailing corridor. The other southern sea route was to follow the End of the World. Land's End, Finistere, and Finisterre all mean the same thing. The anomaly among the three is that a prominent landmark known as Hercules' Tor dominates the Spanish Finisterre.

Greek mythological figures in Western Europe; now where have I heard that before.

[Mick Harper]

Some maps from either you or somebody else would be useful, Komoro.

[Hatty]

[Komorikid]

Sorry Mick but standard maps are made to Mercator projections and distort the true line due to the enlargement of land masses the further you go north. I used Google Earth, which uses Spherical projections and as yet I am unable to reproduce the image I used for the co-ordinates, but by using the North Star (Polaris now, Thuban/Alpha Draconis in Megalithic times) it is possible to steer accurately using the rising and setting of other circumpolar stars and land based Megalithic bearings.

[Komorikid]

Hatti wrote:

[Komorikid]

The true Plain or Esdraelon, better know as the Valley of Jezreel is not the valley in northern Israel of today. Gideon's battle victory over the Midinites and Amalekites took place somewhere else. Nothing that happened in the first Five Books of the Bible took place in Palestine. Herod's temple was not the site of Solomon's. The former was not built on the ruins of the latter. Once people realise this, the entires spin related to the Solomom/Templars/Da Vinci Code/Masonic esoteric scam will be put to rest. Nothing of Solomon's was ever found in Palestinian Jerusalem because it was never there in the first place

[Hatty]

Komorikid wrote:

[john w robertson]

How about the Gaels (as they knew themselves) were in the West of Scotland and Isles and in nearby Northern Ireland before Rome arrives - trading, fighting etc? After a falling out, around the time of the Roman withdrawal, an elite group from Northern Ireland move their centre to the West of Scotland. After a few centuries, the elite story becomes the origin myth of all the peasants already there. After their descendants make a hostile bid for the whole of Northern Britain, they adopt a longer story from the Classical world and take the high macho status (Roman) name 'Scots' to mark them off from their Irish brothers.

[Mick Harper]

Going bald, Johnno? I know, it's tough at the top. But welcome anyway. The basic "fact" of the situation is that the Highland Gaels and the Irish Gaels speak (practically) the same language, so this implies they are the same people. Whether this is proof that they exist historically -- or even to themselves -- under the same name is not certain (cf the Germans and the Austrians).

The argument that the "Celts" were a trading/fighting group is quite strong because only such groups would survive against the ordinary demographic pressure from the majority English-speakers -- and French- and Spanish-speakers in their respective countries (cf the Arabs in North Africa vis a vis the Berbers).

That the Scotti were in Ireland, then in Scotland (I think) comes from Classical sources so your version might very well be right. And there is certainly some reason (aside from lethargically accepting a ruling-class name) why the folk up there (if you'll forgive the term) would assume Scotland:
1) the original kings were Gaels and would therefore wish to remind their English-speaking lowland subjects of that fact and
2) the English-speaking lowland subjects, when they made it to the top themselves, would wish to distinguish themselves from the English-speakers of England.

[john w robertson]

Johnno? What is this Football Focus.....Micky? Well, at least you didn't call me Jocko. And...a monk with a cross? You're taking a big risk these days. I might be an easily offended ethno-religious minority member insulted by crosses. Actually it's the baldness. I'll have you know I have a fine head of hair - probably evidence of distant genes.

Re Scots English - before the Wars of Independence, it was known as Inglis. It survives as a personal surname though usually pronounced Ingels. Changed to Scots presumably for the same kind of reason German Shepherds became Alsations after WWI.

Re applied espist (enjoyed the book a lot), I'm with you mostly. I've been aware of rejections of the invasion and settlement models for years now. What about, however, the placename patterns that suggest some population movement? For example, in my home patch (SW Scotland), the Welsh/British names are inland and upland (Ochiltree(s)); the Gaelic/Irish ones predominate S and W (Carrick, Ballantrae); the Anglo-Saxon and Danish ones are on the low-level routes up the valleys from Cumbria and Northumbria (Dalton, Straiton, Kirkoswald) and the Norse ones are on the W coastal strip and islands (Brodick, Rothesay). So while many of the peasants remained there was enough invasion and settlement to make a difference?

[admin]

[Mick Harper]

The thing about place-names (apart from the scandalous lack of rigour attaching to the interpretation of them) is that nobody ever pays attention to overall numbers. So you get a long list of (allegedly) Celtic names in southern England but nobody mentions that you get ten times, a hundred times...no, really, a thousand times of non-Celtic names. This even extends to Anglo-Saxon itself. The A-S fruitcakes are terribly proud of coming up with, say, Saxmundham or Thorsings or something clearly A/S but omit to mention that every other goddamn place around has no A/S affinity whatsoever. Hence

[DPCrisp]

I was thinking idly about ORC- having to do with the Underworld... wondering what the connection might be between that and arc/arch, meaning curve... arch meaning first or primary... Argos and other Arg-/Arc- "Greek" names...
One vague idea I had was that Skara Brae is definitely a planned construction project... and there is little or no direct evidence of self-sufficient family life... so the Orkneys were probably a centre for study and initiation.

A definite idea I had was that, contrary to what Etymonline says,
orchid: from L. orchis, a kind of orchid, from Gk. orkhis (gen. orkheos) "orchid," lit. "testicle," from PIE *orghi-, the standard root for "testicle"... The plant so called because of the shape of its root. since the root (tuber?) is the inhabitant of the underworld, whence the flower springs, testicles were surely named for the orchid, not the other way around.
But then this became a vague idea again when I realised I could not fathom the connections between initiatory rites and castration... orgies... erg (work, effort)... organs... seeds... nuts...

[Ishmael]

[Mick Harper]

Good connection that between Skara Brae and Catal Hayuk (the place I guess Ishmael means). Let's tot up the connections:

1. They are both incredibly early. Their dating came as a major surprise to the specialists who had to really scramble to contain either in their history time-lines.

2. They are both in places highly unfavourable to permanent settlement. Although both orthodoxy and (I seem to remember) Ray have mused on local agricultural and trading possibilities for Catal Hayuk, you can't get away from the fact that it seems to have been built on a volcanic waste bin that nobody in their right mind would want to live in. Nobody has ever suggested that anybody in their right minds would choose to live in the Orkneys.

3. All the "houses" in both settlements are virtually identical. This simply doesn't happen in natural villages which are built higgledy-piggledy and also reflect all the different statuses of the inhabitants. Only university halls of residence and monasteries are built deliberately the same in order to promote the idea of a "community of scholars".

4. They are built entirely out of stone and they are built to designs not found elsewhere.

5. Let's hear of any other commonalities anyone can come up with.