| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
 |
|
Then there's the Norse-Gaels.
This
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gall-Ghaedhil
says:
The Norse-Gaels were a people who dominated much of the Irish Sea region, including the Isle of Man, and western Scotland for a part of the Middle Ages; they were of Gaelic and North Germanic origin and as a whole exhibited a great deal of Gaelic and Norse cultural syncretism. Other modern terms used include Scoto-Norse, Hiberno-Norse, Irish-Norse and Foreign Gaels.
WTF? How can you be Gaelic (Celtic) and North Germanic (Saxon) at the same time?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Boreades wrote: | | Was he therefore the one who started a Right Royal tradition of being King of England while spending zero-to-little time in Ye Olde Ingerland? ...Then there's. King Richard... |
Precisely.
I believe the Tudors never set foot in England. Not until Elizabeth I at least. There is some possibility she was ruler of England and ruled from the Island.
Problem is, she's also the double of Isabella of Spain.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tilo Rebar
In: Sussex
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | The very first man proclaimed King of All the Brits.
Who was he?
Claudius. Emperor of Rome. |
Perhaps not surprising as Claudius and all the other Emperors were just the product of what became known as the Roman Period. This Roman Culture was started by rich wandering British exporting merchants and their empire spread across Europe, the Near East and North Africa - no conquest necessary.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Similar opinion on what? Claudius being a double of Henry VIII?
Give me a quote and a citation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tilo Rebar
In: Sussex
|
|
|
|
Came across this image on Gunnar's site, which could be our very own Claudius1 sailing away from Britain in a primitive Viking Long-ship...
Instead it is part of an early 2nd c. mosaic, found in Tunisia, showing our very own Ulysses sailing on a Roman Liburnia, a craft they developed for sea and river warfare several centuries before the Vikings had time to invent them. How strange.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
N R Scott
In: Middlesbrough
|
|
|
|
A long time ago, on the Matters Arising thread, nemesis8 wrote:
| I reckon if I unpick it you will find that the masts of the pirates ships will equal the cross. | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tilo Rebar
In: Sussex
|
|
|
|
| N R Scott wrote: | A long time ago, on the Matters Arising thread, nemesis8 wrote:
| I reckon if I unpick it you will find that the masts of the pirates ships will equal the cross. | |
Thanks for that, makes the image even more intriguing...
So it appears we have Claudius / Ulysses tied to the mast that is the cross, with 4 Roman soldiers and 8 oars below him. Mmm.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
Why do you see Claudius in the image?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
N R Scott
In: Middlesbrough
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | I believe the Tudors never set foot in England |
I've found another Thomas for the collection.
Old Tom Parr
He supposedly lived 'til the ripe old age of 152! And lived through the reign of 10 kings!
| Parr did not claim to remember specific events from the 15th century.[6] Moreover, Parr's reputed year of birth (1483) was that of Sir Thomas Parr, the father of Catherine Parr, wife of King Henry VIII, which may have led to the stories of his great age. | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Here's a whizzo:
Reading Tamerl's article with an open eye and ready for logical conclusions, one cannot miss the point (which the editor tried to hide) that the earliest date for a possible fabrication of the Beowulf manuscript is the late 17th century.
The American Kevin S. Kiernan (1993) used very sophisticated technical methods to find out that the manuscript was definitely written down by the poet himself; erasures by razor and acid and corrections are all made by the author's own hand. So the only existing ms. is a product of the man who wrote those many thousand verses.
On the other hand, it is known that the epic had a pagan Anglian background but was reworked by a Saxon monk, a Christian. Thus it becomes clear that it is a concoction. One third of the words in Beowulf do not appear in any other document, they might simply have been invented. Who was able to invent this language?
It could have only been Franciscus Junius (1589-1677) who was the first to publish a grammar and dictionary of the Old English language, and it was he too, who in 1665 gave his authority to the authenticity of the Wulfilas-Bible, which is a fake as well (see Topper 1998). Moreover, twice in his life Junius had access to the codex Vitellinus A. XV in which Beowulf was found after Junius' death. It had not been in it when its contents were listed earlier.
Of course, Junius did not dare to publish his epic right away but had to leave this to a future generation. It was the Danish scholar Thorkelin who was given insight into the ms. and who - after hesitating 25 years - finally published it in 1815.
As the contents have nothing to do with England but are Scandinavian throughout, this might seem a fair procedure, but on the other hand: would the English discoverers of the ms. not have been proud to be the first to publish this most ancient text of their language if they had thought it to be genuine?
They, too, did not dare to do so, I suppose, because in those times learning was at a very high level, and the fake could easily be recognized. Their fear was unnecessary, the world believed the authority of Thorkelin, and since then we have one more precious manuscript testifying to the invented history. First doubts arose when 19th century philologists found a great number of anachronisms in the text, but those could easily be attributed to the scribes of the 11th century who supposedly copied the text, thus saving the epic as an entity.
There remains the question why Junius went through this enormous labour? One of the important points are the quotations from Pope Gregory I, thus giving more support to the historicity of this invented figure. And the reconstruction of a medieval Christianity in England or Denmark was another important object of the "great action" (as Kammeier called it) of the church. If Tamerl did not come to the same conclusion as Uwe Topper, it may be excused by premature publication of his research or by censorship of his text by the editor |
http://www.ilya.it/chrono/pages/beowulfen.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
By the way and just so as I can claim priority of discovery (let me know if somebody else, including me, has already said it) it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Anglo-Saxon, the language, is itself a forgery.
Remember, there was a huge need, in the medieval period, to come up with ancient manuscripts justifying various land-holdings, labour demands, relief from taxes and numerous other benefits on the part of both monasteries and laity. Since we know that these manuscripts were actually rather rare (non-existent?), what better method was there than to create an Anglo-Saxon literature. From scratch. After all, there is no particular reason for the Anglo-Saxons to have developed their own written language -- most contemporaries didn't.
Going a little bit further, if the process happened as late as, say, 1300, when there would be no Anglo-Saxon speakers left in England (we know they did not exist anywhere else) then it would be perfectly possible to invent the language itself!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
A great find. And a great idea!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | By the way and just so as I can claim priority of discovery (let me know if somebody else, including me, has already said it) it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Anglo-Saxon, the language, is itself a forgery.
|
Err, there might be some prior art on the subject.
These people:
http://www.q-mag.org/gunnar-heinsohns-latest.html#RGaTIcbj
are suggesting a large slice of our history is a forgery.
The Winchester of Alfred the Great and the Haithabu of his voyager Wulfstan: were they separated by 700 years?
Goths of the 4th Century And Getae of the 1st Century - were they one and the same?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
