| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
Interesting word 'rude'. It can be applied to pornographic imagery or badly behaved people or coarsely-designed objects or flash Jamaicans. "The rude boy was very rude to us when we wouldn't buy his rude pictures because they were so rudely drawn." It is not clear, possibly it is not meant to be clear, what is meant by
| ‘The figure spoken of is sculptured in a very rude style' | |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| At the time the current church was built, the area around Kilpeck, known as Archenfield, was relatively prosperous and strategically important, in the heart of the Welsh Marches. |
Are you sure this is Herefordshire? In Missing Persons we quote this passage in a dispute between the bishops of St Davids and Llandaff (Cardiff)
| The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records under the year 915 how the Danes plundered Wales, captured Cameleac, the bishop of Archenfield [Ergyng], and led him to their ships. King Edward later released him for forty pounds. | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Hatty wrote: | Old MacGregor's lyrical paeon to 'Tara' made me wonder about the carvings of another sexual and seemingly Irish female, referred to as a sheela-na-gig. Interpretations of the carvings are every bit as unfounded but seemingly plausible as musings on green men and Buddhist goddesses but how did sheelas survive the chisels of Cromwellian Puritans and later Victorian churchmen?
|
Let's try a reversal. We are seeing the survivors, not the destructed.
The churches were covered in christian Sheelas, the few that were left after the change in paradigm, and the consequent destruction could only be saved by the invented notion of a early non-threatening (as before christian) sexualised pagan goddess?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
|
She is Mary Magdalene.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| Wile E. Coyote wrote: | | The churches were covered in christian Sheelas, the few that were left after the change in paradigm, and the consequent destruction could only be saved by the invented notion of an early non-threatening (as before christian) sexualised pagan goddess? |
The problem is there is no mention of any sheela-na-gig before restoration/refurbishment work was done on derelict churches in the 1840's. Hence a plethora of 'finds' of ecclesiastical archaeology coming out of the woodwork such as incised crosses usually decorated with fancy knotwork and routinely classified as Anglo-Saxon, Celtic or whatnot.
By the eighteenth and nineteenth century many churches were decrepit, mostly just a shell, and structures had to be extensively repaired and altered; carvings are undateable but the restructuring work surely makes it impossible to claim they are ancient.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
I am myself the product of a sheela-na-gig when my mother placed her hand on the gran'mere outside St Martin's Church, Guernsey, thereby guaranteeing fertility. I was born six years later. As I keep pointing out to my family and the Guernsey Tourist Board, describing her as 'Neolithic' (the sheela, though mum was pretty set in her ways) is an offence against the laws of physics. Recognisable stone features do not last long in the temperate zone.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
|
When did the change towards fertility not being a good thing occur?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
|
I am tempted to say Malthus but that would be a QI moment.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
It's suddenly become a good thing again according to an Al-Jazeera programme on Chinese birthrates. Just after fining a well-known film director a million pounds for having three children, the government have given the nod to a three-child policy just a few years after changing the one-child policy to a two-child policy. The shriek is that Chinese people are refusing to have more than one because housing costs are now so sky-rocketed. The commies are furious, it's set back their programme of world domination by ... er ... a coupla years.
But this shows what is meant by 'being a good thing'. Is it a good thing for the state or a good thing for the individual? People like Malthus (and my brother) treat it even more widely as 'Is it good for the world?' One very basic problem is trying to apply the felicific calculus to the situation: do you include the happiness of those that didn't manage to get born?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Madame has been out and about on her missionary activities explaining to the natives that, honestly, you do have to have some evidence for making statements about the past. Daniel Harry Thorpe (they always have three names, don’t they?) of the Ancient Sites in the UK Facebook group (eleven plus thousand members) is the latest in the cross hairs re our old fave, stone crosses.
| Interesting article in Current Archaeology explaining the origin of the wheel on Celtic crosses, originating at Iona in Scotland in about 7th cent. |
Poor old Dan thinks he’s on safe grounds with such a prestigious mag by his side and takes little notice of a hooded figure coming over the brow of the hill
| Harriet Vered: How to reconcile the presence of 'Celtic', allegedly 7th century, crosses with the absence of a monastery? |
Daniel is fly enough to avoid the lion's den by not answering the question
| They were not just in monasteries - they were originally simply to mark meeting places for the early Christians & to mark a ‘sacred’ area. |
Will he be eaten alive? Enjoy some more mixed metaphors soon.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
What they don't know but we do, is that there is no evidence whatsoever. They think they live in a land of plenty and it is a matter of prancing around ooh-ing and aah-ing to their heart's delight. But the Wicked Witch of the West (of Berkshire) so often shows up at their celebrations
| Harriet Vered wrote: | | That seems to be mere speculation judging by the absence of archaeological and/or documentary evidence needed to support such a supposition. Apologies, I don't make the rules. |
But here's why I thought this particular exchange was worth bringing to your attention. They have reached the stage where no evidence is something to be rather proud of
| Daniel Harry Thorpe wrote: | | Not sure which ‘rules’ you refer to. Not going to get any documentary evidence by the nature of history. In terms of archaeological evidence, again not much chance of that, given the scarcity of such remains from the period, most buildings being of timber/wattle & daub/or other friable materials. There are scant remains of any dwellings from the period, particularly in the ‘rural’ areas of Ireland, Wales or Scotland, where more of a nomadic tribal culture predominated. |
These are stone crosses we're discussing. And it has survived, Danno, you've just posted a pic of it. The sentence "Not going to get any documentary evidence by the nature of history" must be used in the next AEL 'Which academic subjects rely on evidence for which there is no evidence' Travelling Roadshow.
How is the Hat in the Hat going to deal with this very naughty boy?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Harriet Vered, from her full height, wrote: | | The rules that are laid down by historians. You are not permitted to make statements, e.g. about 'Celtic crosses' on Lindisfarne, without archaeological or documentary evidence. The earliest ecclesiastical building on the island is the ruined 13th century Benedictine abbey so the crosses have to be presumptively dated to the same period (stone is of course undateable). Lindisfarne has been repeatedly and exhaustively excavated and no evidence of a 7th century monastery has yet turned up. Even buildings made of friable materials would have left post holes had they existed in the first place. |
These are all statements of fact though personally I wouldn't have made the 13th century connection. The cross itself looks to be a toss-up between 'late nineteenth century Gothic Revival' and 'early twentieth century tourist trade'. Daniel does not dispute the facts but instead doubles down on the academic authority side
| The claims are made by archaeologists - who work closely with historians & both inform the science of each |
but has spotted a minute error on Hatty's part which can be exploited to show who's the expert round here
| So far as Lindisfarne goes, it was not an abbey, ever, just a priory |
and, confidence restored, rises to his full height
| It’s utter nonsense to say that the only things found on the island can only be dated to the time of the priory. |
Broadsword calling Danny Boy: that's not what she said. Danny Boy to Broadsword:
| If you do some reading, you’ll find that archaeologists have been working on the island this year & think they have found evidence of that early monastery - so we’re back to the real Celtic church, not a 13tht century monastery. |
Oh dear, he's in a heap of trouble now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
The AEL has been pointing out for more years than I care to remember that every year the current Lindisfarne dig announces they have found evidence of the early monastery. For thirty years not a single one turned out to be so. And he appears to have confirmed this very state of affairs! We can always rely on them.
| Hatty, signing off, wrote: | Historians, unlike archaeologists, are wholly dependent on written records, rather than what is (or isn't) in and/or under the ground. And remember, archaeologists on Iona know exactly where to dig thanks to the records!
Discrepancies between written accounts and the non-existent archaeology are easily explained: the records, all of which were written by monks several centuries after the events purportedly happened, are unreliable. There are no independent records nor archaeological remains to corroborate the existence of a hypothetical Celtic church but if you persist in relying on unreliable medieval chroniclers and the speculations of modern chroniclers, I'm afraid our paths must diverge. |
As usual, the other side thinks it has won the exchange and strides off, a job well done.
| Happily so; enjoy this fascinating topic. |
And I'm pretty sure the eleven thousand members of Ancient Sites in the UK agree with him. Who wants to be a member of Not Particularly Ancient Sites in the UK? And that's me signing off too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
I might have a go at Viking raids in The Boys Book Of Imaginary Battles.
The Viking raid on Lindisfarne.
| AS chronicle wrote: | | “these were immense flashes of lightening, and fiery dragons were seen flying in the air. A great famine immediately followed these signs…†And then… “on the sixth day before the ides of January, the woeful inroads of heathen men destroyed god’s church in Lindisfarne island by fierce robbery and slaughterâ€. |
Dragons! Famine! Destruction! Desecration! all at the very place where the Christian religion began in our glorious nation.
News of this atrocity gets delivered faster than an Amazon Delivery of 'Missing Persons' to the Northumbrian-born scholar of King Charlemagne's children, the renowned intellectual, Alcuin.
Alcuin ponders why god has allowed this to happen.
English Heritage provides the answer
The Anglo-Saxon chroniclers suggest that he did perhaps have recent sordid events in mind. On 23 September 788, the nobleman Sicga had led a group of conspirators who murdered King Ælfwald of Northumbria. Another chronicle records that in February 793 Sicga had ‘perished by his own hand’. But on 23 April his body was carried to the island of Lindisfarne for burial.
So a man who was both a regicide and had committed suicide had been buried there just six weeks before the Viking pirates struck. Was this the ‘great guilt’ Alcuin referred to? Clearly he thought that the pagan raids were an act of holy vengeance on a sinful people. |
They brought it on themselves. It's devine retribution. How do we know?
This includes the Domesday stone, which vividly depicts on one side a troop of seven uniformed warriors brandishing Viking-style battle-axes and swords. On the other side is a symbolic depiction of Domesday, when – so Christians believe – Christ comes again to sit in judgement on the sins of men.
|
Jesu, it's in stone.
All history is myth unless proven otherwise. This looks more like the foundation of an origin myth rather than history.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Why does nobody go on about these bad Lindisfarne January ides?
Come on guys, surely we have had it just as bad as Caesar.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
