| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
 |
|
I have to plead guilty on all charges if only to save court time, and me nodding off.
| But then I'm trying to destroy history not invent it. |
Guilty, I am trying to reinvent it. That's why I am always banging on about circular time and space. There are plenty of folks out there who are tampering with chronology who do it better than Coyote. .
Transporting stone by waterways was not an economic reality until the Canal Age. That's why Portland stone or Caen stone are so popular for White Towers. It can go by sea. Even English cathedrals are not actually very dressy except for the facings and maybe a flying buttress or two. |
Guilty. There is no hope of moving such large amounts of stone needed by road, not least as you need so much stone to build said roads in the first place and service them....why do all folks, other than the Wolf, always bang on about Portland and Caen stone? It's probably because they look at the more noticeable, traceable stuff and draw bizarre conclusions. They don't look at what is under the roads and buildings.
Notice that Wiley, as a Mithras groupie, has done exactly what the Anglo-Saxon groupies have done, i.e. assumed it is Mithraic, just as they have assumed it's Anglo-Saxon. This is the source of much mischief when, frankly, it's anyone's guess what the head does represent. You don't have to believe that the face is contemporary with the wall but if you don't, if you reject the obvious explanation, you sure as hell have to come up with something better than "...er... it looks a bit Mithraic" or "...er... it looks a bit Anglo-Saxon."
|
Guilty again......Actually I am a Sol Invictus groupie, I am grouping Sol images but you might as well get hung for a lamb as a sheep.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
Blimey, another face that's also thought to be Anglo-Saxon has popped up on a medieval history group's Facebook page
| My house dates from the turn of the C19th but inset into the wall is a stone face. Local myth suggested the carving had originated from the nearby Muchelney Abbey so I spoke to an English Heritage curator there. He came to look, took photos and sent them to an expert in London. To my surprise, I was told the style seems to pre-date the Benedictine building and that the carving is probably Anglo-Saxon. |
I don't know how to post the picture but the face though fairly crudely carved is a realistic portrait
Muchelney Abbey is a tricky site as its history is particularly murky, never mind its date.
| Muchelney Abbey is thought to have been first established under a foundation charter from King Cynewulf in AD762. It was refounded in the late 10th century AD by King Athelstan |
The foundation charter is known to be a forgery which no-one much minds but
| If the charter of Ine is a forgery as it stands in the cartulary, so also is the charter of King Athelstan, which describes him as the founder. |
Archaeologists think Muchelney is "of utmost archaeological importance" but can't distinguish what is medieval and what is Saxon
Three fragments of Saxon worked stone have been found on the Abbey site:
1. Late 10th-early 11th century fragment of a rood.
2. 10th-11th century fragment, possibly an impost
3. 10th-11th century fragment of a horseshoe-shaped double opening
4. A late 11th century grave slab found during site clearance.
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
So let me get this straight. This chunk of stone is carved in the Anglo-Saxon period. It gets transplanted into a Norman abbey. It gets transplanted again into a nineteenth century house. Yeah, I'm buying it.
Unless it gets transplanted again to the British Museum. They've got deeper pockets than I have.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| but can't distinguish what is medieval and what is Saxon |
Tut-tut, didn't you know that Saxon is medieval -- 'early medieval'? All the better to hide the join, my dear. When one is unconsciously trying to obscure the fact that there are no Anglo-Saxon churches but zillions of Norman ones, it's better to do some glossing over. Here are a few examples
1. Late 10th-early 11th century fragment of a rood.
2. 10th-11th century fragment, possibly an impost
3. 10th-11th century fragment of a horseshoe-shaped double opening
4. A late 11th century grave slab found during site clearance. | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
Another member of the group posted about churches being particularly suitable as military barracks and stabling during the 17th century civil war. The house-owner who posted the picture replied
| The Battle of Langport (a mile away) took place on 10 July 1645. It was the last defeat of the Royalist Field Army, allowing the Parliamentarians control of the West Country. Thomas Cromwell is often blamed for damage to churches during the Reformation that was actually carried out by Oliver Cromwell’s troops. I think our churches in Somerset fared quite well in that we have a lot of empty niches but most of the statues that remained retained their heads and noses. |
I wonder how common it is for the two Cromwells' activities to be conflated. Anyway the house carving even if it managed to survive both Cromwells is hardly likely to be from Muchelney. Could have been a souvenir from Glastonbury.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
You'll have to explain this. Both Muchelny and Glastonbury are ruins now so presumably were ruins in the 19th century. Therefore a housebuilder might have popped along to either of them in order to half-inch a bit of stone with a head on it. It would have taken a bit of digging out -- dangerous too what with the walls of both sets of ruins being in a somewhat parlous state -- but at least the tiresome Heritage Police weren't around in the nineteenth century to object. Mind you, the twenty-first century Health and Safety Police might object to someone living in a house with twice-transplanted Anglo-Saxon stonework. Let's hope it isn't a retaining wall.
But all this applies as much to Muchelny as it does to Glastonbury. Or not as the case may be.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
If you scan quickly through the original Facebook discussion
https://www.facebook.com/groups/200811006678312/permalink/1936144643144931/?comment_id=1937169159709146
you will understand the origin of all these 'heads'. Every single one. It cannot be denied that any reasonably competent stone mason can carve any kind of head he wants. But it's not what he wants, it's what the client wants. And what the client wants is lots of people going "Ooh" and "Aah" when they see a particular face on the wall of the building they have just had built. Like the dozens of people on the Facebook site are doing.
That's fine, I entirely approve. Virgin used to have their London HQ next door to me here in trendy Notting Hill and they put a brilliant trompe l'oeil on their wall when they moved in. But they didn't put it about that it was in fact somebody else's wall with somebody else's trompe l'oeil on it. Not that they would have wanted to but even if they had, they wouldn't have been able to because everyone e.g. me would have said, "Come off it, Branson, that's the old wall" or "Come off it, Branson, we just seen your workmen painting it on".
I guarantee you will not find a single example of a medieval abbey or a nineteenth century housebuilder actually claiming their head is old and taken from somewhere else. They take a pride in their work! What I can guarantee is that hundreds of years later there will be all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons wanting these heads to be older than they are. I don't mind householders doing this to impress their equally credulous dinner party guests, but I do mind English Heritage experts encouraging them in their quaint beliefs. And I especially mind Anglo-Saxonists lumping all the spurious heads together to produce a country full of Anglo-Saxon churches. They may be there but the heads, if any, adorning them aren't.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
Another odd but entertaining series of posts in an Anglo-Saxon history group on Facebook, this time about Aethelflaed, the daughter of Alfred the Great. The discussion was set off by the publication of a book review
FOUNDER, FIGHTER, SAXON QUEEN: AETHELFLAED, LADY OF THE MERCIANS by Margaret C Jones
Book Review
'Alfred the Great’s daughter defied all expectations of a well-bred Saxon princess. The first Saxon woman ever to rule a kingdom, Aethelflaed, Lady of the Mercians, led her army in battle against Viking invaders. She further broke with convention by arranging for her daughter to succeed her on the throne of Mercia.' |
so the question arose
| Any one particular quote or phrase/other out there which can be firmly attributed to Aethelfaed? It will save me a whole heap of time searching for something suitable!! |
to which the group Administrator responded
| I think there is something in the ASC but not sure will check when I have a moment |
which is strange as Asser's Life of Alfred would be the obvious place to look. In any case he drew a blank with ASC but that's hardly surprising since according to Annie, another member
| Nothing in the way of direct quotes ever attributed to her. |
But then Henry of Huntingdon comes to the rescue
| Henry of Huntingdon wrote a rather effusive poem about her - but he was writing in the 12th century. As I said in my talk, all we really have about her is the surviving bits of the Mercian register, and even that, when typed out, only covers one A4 piece of paper |
The original questioner has found another possible source though
As Annie says, there are no words specifically attributed to Aethelflaed, although in my book I do explore the possibility that there might have been a poem commissioned by or for her, which was about a figure from the Jewish OT Apocrypha named Judith.
It's unlikely perhaps, that the poem has anything specifically to do with Aethelflaed, but I would recommend looking up the Book of Judiith, and the poem based on it, because there is evidence the story was very popular in Medieval Europe. |
Clearly Aethelflaed was better known in the 12th century than in her own day. It sounds like warrior queens had to look to Judith as role model pre-Elizabeth (I).
Isn't it strange that Judith, an Old English poem, is an appendage attached to the same manuscript as Beowulf, the so-called Nowell Codex?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Warrior queens were quite important in the twelfth century as there was a civil war going on between Stephen and Matilda about whether England could or could not have any kind of queen. But obviously the good folk of Alfred's time (or just after, or just after that) wouldn't have known how important Aethelflaed's example would turn out to be. Good Judith spot.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| The first Saxon woman ever to rule a kingdom |
Oddly enough this constitutional question turns up in both our 'forgery windows'. Matilda in the twelfth century (failed) and in the Tudor period (Mary, Elizabeth, succeeded). And speaking of Biblical precedents, would I be correct in assuming that the Bible is firmly against, always portraying women rulers as inherently wicked? Or in the Queen of Sheba's case, inherently supine.That would need some finessing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Hatty wrote: | | Another odd but entertaining series of posts in an Anglo-Saxon history group on Facebook, this time about Aethelflaed, the daughter of Alfred the Great. The discussion was set off by the publication of a book review |
| FOUNDER, FIGHTER, SAXON QUEEN: AETHELFLAED, LADY OF THE MERCIANS by Margaret C Jones |
It's difficult to get a grasp of all this but given the narrative of fictive grants of immunities and land to religious instituitions, it seems something to do with the death of Aethelfleaed. (arthur lady) leads to an Oswald cult being set up and the distribution of the said land, "Mercia"(the salt marshes might well be key) ...... (Mercia=sea salt?). This being the end of the so-called Mercian kingdom. So Aelfwynn moves from royal lineage and becomes a nun.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Bit of a long shot, most probably another wallop from Mick about misuse of inference.
But, Saxon according to ortho from Sek=To cut=Type of knife is commonly thought to be related to the Old High German Saxnot, war-god).
Saxnot has had a bad time of it, now being largely forgotten (your Saxons on the other hand have gained in popularity), so I thought he was worth a look.
In Germanic mythology, SeaxnÄ“at (pronounced [sæɑksnæËÉ‘t]) or SaxnÅt is the national god of the Saxons. The Old English form SeaxnÄ“at is recorded in the genealogies of the kings of Essex. The Old Saxon form SaxnÅt is attested in the Old Saxon Baptismal Vow along with the gods Uuoden (Woden) and Thunaer (Thor).
The genealogy of the kings of Essex originally placed Seaxnēat at its apex. It was subsequently modified to make Seaxnēat son of Woden, with the first king of Essex seven generations later:
Woden, Seaxnēat, Gesecg, Andsecg, Swaeppa, Sigefugel, Bedca, Offa, Æscwine (r. c. 527-587)
The name is usually derived from "seax", the eponymous knife which was characteristic of the tribe, and "neat", cognate with German "not", need or help, meaning "help(er) of the Saxons". 19th century etymology using methodology available at the time derived the name from "seax" and (ge)-not, (ge)-nēat as "companion" (cognate with German Genosse "comrade"), resulting in a translation of "sword-companion" (gladii consors, ensifer). This interpretation of the name is due to Jacob Grimm, who identified Saxnot with the god Tiw (Zio).[1] Grimm's view is more recently endorsed by Chaney (1970), but Simek (2007:276) prefers an identification with Fro, following Gabriel Turville-Petre (and invoking Georges Dumézil's trifunctional hypothesis).
The word sax is the Swedish word for scissor. In Danish and Norwegian the spelling is saks and in Icelandic the word is skæri, that also has the meaning "to cut" in all the Scandinavian languages. |
You will notice wednesday, thursday and sunday in there, ie turning points of a week.
Anyway it seems a tad strange to Wiley that not=knot has been looked at given the univerasl cultural significance of knot cutting.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Anyway it seems a tad strange to Wiley that not=knot has been looked at given the univerasl cultural significance of knot cutting. |
Universal? Gordion. Something in Norse mythology, was there? Hardly seems epic. Why not just knots? Now these are important. Apart from their use in judging boat speed, and holding the boat together, there's the small matter of hobbling/castration for domestication purposes. Nevertheless hardly seems either important enough or peculiar enough to name a whole people after. But a Saxon Knot? Now there's a possibility. I wonder what it was.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
|
Ortho has Celtic Saxon etc knot patterns, around illuminated manuscripts a notepad=knot pad ....lots of other religious stuff as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Needs knitting together. Which reminds me, let's look for kn- words e.g. knowledge.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
