| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
 |
|
Wells= Will
Hereford= Harold
They both imply a 13th-14th century date if you look at the cathedrals.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
|
It may be that archaeologists have conflated glass making with specific ecclesiastical structures because those sites are where the digs took place. It sounds flawed in the sense that, as archaeologists point out, in the absence of slag heaps and furnaces or kilns almost nothing is known about where (and when) glass making took place.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| The first typology for Anglo-Saxon glass vessels was devised by Dr. Donald B. Harden in 1956,[8] which was later revised in 1978.[5] The names established by Harden have now become familiar with usage, and Professor Vera Evison’s typology retained many categories while adding some new types, some from newly excavated vessels that could not be placed into Harden’s typology. |
That seems really late to me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
some from newly excavated vessels that could not be placed into Harden’s typology.
|
Struggling a bit...?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Harold's Cathedral
Presumptively, I am going for the Anglo Saxon retrospective effigies, the Mappa Mundi, and Magna Carta, as all part of the same 14th century toolkit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Typologies are something we need to take more interest in, AE-ally speaking. As we know, historians and archaeologists (et al) are fond of sprinkling statistical sounding stuff into their work without being statistically trained themselves. Actually it's worse than that, they are a-statistical in the way the general population is i.e. prone to making (and being impressed by) statistical statements that are dangerously bone-headed.
Drawing up typologies would--I imagine, I'm a-statistical myself in many ways--require a fairly secure grounding in statistics in itself but when you are dealing with objects of quite incredible rarity and which are subject to two sets of definitional difficulty--A/S or not A/S, genuine/forgery--you've got yourself the perfect storm.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
|
From what I have read so far, Rodwell was quite good at ignoring (in the sense of not reading too much into it) the odd, or unusual, find. I could post up a link but I know folks get frustrated at links to articles or books, wanting a short summary instead. I am not in a position to do it full justice yet. It is after all "The Bible" of Wells Cathedral.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Hereford has its own set of posthumous monuments to Hereford's Saxon bishops (a similar sequence to that of Wells). They were built into the fabric of the buiding in the south choir aisle, part of a wider series of Anglo Saxon Effigies.
Ignoring the later defacements, and attempts to remove them, they were still imagined as from an earlier simpler age, when originally sculpted.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
I found this interesting coincidence.
Leofgar (or Leovegard; died 1056) was a medieval Bishop of Hereford.
Leofgar was consecrated in March 1056.[1] He had previously been the chaplain to Harold Godwineson,[2] and it was probably Harold who persuaded King Edward the Confessor to appoint him to the bishopric. The appointment was disapproved of by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, mainly for the warlike character of Leofgar. However, because of the Welsh raids, and the damage the diocese had taken in the previous year, it was felt that a more martial man was needed to help protect the area.[3] Significantly, while a bishop he retained his moustache, a symbol of a warrior.[4]
Leofgar was killed by Gruffydd ap Llywelyn[5] on 16 June 1056[1] at Glasbury-on-Wye during a battle with the Welsh.[3] Along with Leofgar, many English were killed, which set back the English efforts to pacify the Welsh frontier.[6][7] After Leofgar's death, the diocese of Hereford was administered by Ealdred, who was Bishop of Worcester, until Walter of Lorraine was elected in 1060.[8] |
Ok, so-so link to Harold Godwinson.....Hereford=Harold
It's worth comparing with the simarly named Bishop at Lichfield.
Leofgar (or Leosgar; died c. 1026) was a medieval Bishop of Lichfield.
Leofgar was consecrated after 1017 and died sometime before about 1026.[1] He was appointed by Cnut, the king of England, and nothing is known of why he was chosen or of his background.[2] |
As his predecessor was none other than.
Godwin (or Godwine; died after 1017) was a medieval Bishop of Lichfield.
Godwin was consecrated between 1002 and 1004 and died after 1017.[1]
|
Godwine is known to Wiley as a moneyer who minted coins for both William and Harold.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
This is like the stone slab set in Jarrow attesting to its Anglo-Saxon origins. It must be genuine because the wall was built around it. Or something.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
As we frequently point out, forgers always choose famous names.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Whenever they discover something "Anglo Saxon" that must have been built later it is a "retrospective effigy", they also conclude that there was an earlier Anglo Saxon church.
| Before this, Hereford had become the seat of a bishopric. It is said to have been the centre of a diocese as early as the 670s when Theodore of Tarsus, Archbishop of Canterbury, divided the Mercian diocese of Lichfield, founding Hereford for the Magonsæte and Worcester for the Hwicce. In the 7th century the cathedral was refounded by Putta, who settled there when driven from Rochester by Æthelred of Mercia. The cathedral of stone, which Milfrid raised, stood for some 200 years, and then, in the reign of Edward the Confessor, it was altered. The new church had only a short life, for it was plundered and burnt in 1056 by a combined force of Welsh and Irish under Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, the Welsh prince; it was not, however, destroyed until its custodians had offered vigorous resistance, in which seven of the canons were killed |
This time it was the Welsh and the Irish.
They never ask the question if, during the 13th-14th century they were building imaginary monuments to Anglo Saxons, are all Anglo Saxon finds including coinage imaginary?
After all (ignoring sceattas) they are barbarous versions of Roman examples.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Represented on just under half the coins is Harold II (1066), the last crowned Saxon king of England, and the other half feature William I (1066-1087). |
This looks to Wiley like counters or cards for a board game. Two equal armies. The clipped coins represented fallen knights/warriors.
There are three mules in the hoard, think of these as Jokers.
| These coins have designs and language that relate to both Harold and William, and would have been easy to pass off as legal tender as the average Anglo-Saxon was illiterate and the stylised images of the kings looked similar |
| In this case, the hoard includes two coins with Harold II’s design on the obverse (front) and the reverse design of William’s first coinage – the first known examples of such a combination – as well as a coin combining dies representing William I and Edward the Confessor (r.1042-1066), Harold II’s predecessor. The name of one moneyer represented in the hoard, Sideman of Wareham, was found on the two Harold/William mules, |
So it's actually an Edward and two rival armies, a war army (William) and a peace (Harold) army.
They have discovered the coin version of the Bayeux Tapestry.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Bayeux Tapestry = Chew Valley Hoard.
It's simple and obvious.
The hoard consists of 2,528 silver coins, including 1,236 coins of Harold II and 1,310 coins of William.
Modern historians place William forces at 7,000 to 12,000, Harold at 5000 to 13,000 (that is roughly equal, like the hoard)
Images of knights/warriors on tapestry 626.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Very nice. I'd work it up for Medium except nobody there would understand. You must find a better medium than the AEL to give this theory an airing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
