World Families Forums - Interesting Penn Museum Lecture on King Arthur

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 30, 2014, 09:44:33 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  Interesting Penn Museum Lecture on King Arthur
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Interesting Penn Museum Lecture on King Arthur  (Read 1131 times)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« on: November 18, 2011, 09:40:30 PM »

Great Riddles in Archaeology: King Arthur, Camelot, and the Quest for a Holy Grail

There is one error, I think, unless I am mistaken. The lecturer seems to say that Vortigern was an Anglo-Saxon, when, in fact, Vortigern was a British king. I think maybe he meant Hengist instead.

It's still a good lecture, if you have just over an hour of free time to listen.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2011, 09:41:56 PM by rms2 » Logged

NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2011, 11:46:21 PM »

Great Riddles in Archaeology: King Arthur, Camelot, and the Quest for a Holy Grail

There is one error, I think, unless I am mistaken. The lecturer seems to say that Vortigern was an Anglo-Saxon, when, in fact, Vortigern was a British king. I think maybe he meant Hengist instead.

It's still a good lecture, if you have just over an hour of free time to listen.

I love this stuff. Thanks, Rich.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



seferhabahir
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272


« Reply #2 on: November 19, 2011, 01:24:39 AM »

I love this stuff. Thanks, Rich.

Very cool stuff, indeed. It reminded me about my high-school freshman year English teacher having us all read T.H. White's The Once and Future King. This was also the same teacher that had us all write an essay on the Jefferson Airplane's White Rabbit. This was of course the S.F. Bay Area in the spring of 1967.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-L21 (Z251+ L583+)

mtDNA: J1c7a

Arch Y.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2011, 03:35:25 AM »

Great Riddles in Archaeology: King Arthur, Camelot, and the Quest for a Holy Grail

There is one error, I think, unless I am mistaken. The lecturer seems to say that Vortigern was an Anglo-Saxon, when, in fact, Vortigern was a British king. I think maybe he meant Hengist instead.

It's still a good lecture, if you have just over an hour of free time to listen.

Any mention of Riothamus? I'm sincerely doubting the legitimacy of a "King Arthur" but a King of the Britons did exist and is mentioned by Jordanes. The events as it seems to be told by Gildas happened so long ago and probably 40 years before his birth perhaps placing the events closer to the time frame of Riothamus. Of course, the Ambrosius Aurelinius character doesn't help clear up matters and neither does Mons Badonicus. It's unfortunate we have no archaeological evidence of such events of seemingly great proportions.

Arch
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2011, 09:33:16 AM »

Geoffrey Ashe makes a great case for Riothamus as Arthur in his book, The Discovery of King Arthur. He's pretty convincing.

Personally, I think Arthur is a composite built from stories of various post-Roman British heroes, from Ambrosius Aurelianus to Riothamus to Urien of Rheged, with even a dash of Alfred the Great tossed in for good measure on the latter end.

Logged

A.D.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2011, 01:40:40 PM »

Francis Prior thinks the sward in the stone goes back to the Bronze Age or possibly the in coming of bronze and the story has been updated ever since. A sward must have seen magical to the people who had never seen one and the casting process evan more so.
It has also been suggested that the name Arthur , thought to mean bear, is a  title  that could have been earned or nominated and the question of it being hereditary  gives us the Mordred story line. The Pictish maternal line V's the Celtic paternal line inheritance could also have been an addition.
I have always said there are many truths in the legends and myths there just scrambled.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2011, 03:38:08 PM »

There probably is something to the connection between the name Arthur and the Brythonic word for bear. The story of "the bear's son", a hero who is transformed into a bear, is pretty common throughout European folklore.

No doubt some of that folklore went into the Arthurian mix along with some actual historical figures.
Logged

Arch Y.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


« Reply #7 on: November 24, 2011, 04:12:40 PM »

Francis Prior thinks the sward in the stone goes back to the Bronze Age or possibly the in coming of bronze and the story has been updated ever since. A sward must have seen magical to the people who had never seen one and the casting process evan more so.
It has also been suggested that the name Arthur , thought to mean bear, is a  title  that could have been earned or nominated and the question of it being hereditary  gives us the Mordred story line. The Pictish maternal line V's the Celtic paternal line inheritance could also have been an addition.
I have always said there are many truths in the legends and myths there just scrambled.

I like Francis Prior's writings, but to me it seems like he's taking a stabbing guesses on a lot of things with very little evidence to support his theories. I don't agree with the sword in the stone thing being tied to the Bronze Age. That story would have been long forgotten or changed so much to be relevant. Cultures that rely on word of mouth to transmit knowledge or information have many stories that change, or even disappear over the course of time.

Arch
Logged
Arch Y.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2011, 04:17:17 PM »

There probably is something to the connection between the name Arthur and the Brythonic word for bear. The story of "the bear's son", a hero who is transformed into a bear, is pretty common throughout European folklore.

No doubt some of that folklore went into the Arthurian mix along with some actual historical figures.

I wonder how far back we can go with it. I looked at the Hittite and even proto-Indo-European roots of the word 'bear'. Pretty interesting how much 'bear' and Artemis beliefs seem to connect from one end of Europe (Anatolia/Caucasus/Steppes) to Iberia. Then we have our constellations, Ursa Major and Ursa Minor, obviously well known in the Northern Hemisphere.

Arch
Logged
A.D.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


« Reply #9 on: November 24, 2011, 08:54:50 PM »

I think associations with bears go back to the paleolithic simply because people came into contact with them whether there was any kind of cross cultural stories i.e. one culture picking up on an others story is a different matter.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2012, 08:52:34 AM »

The forum has been pretty slow lately. I am hoping we can use this thread to discuss Arthur and the Arthurian legends. I've been interested in them since I was a little kid.

So, was that really Arthur's body that was found at Glastonbury?

I'm a little pressed for time this morning, so I can't add much right now, but I should be able to contribute to the discussion later.

Was Arthur R1b? Was he R-L21?
Logged

razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2012, 04:07:34 PM »

There's a good historical mystery series by Tony Hays in which the protagonist is a one-armed scribe and counsellor to Arthur.  I think "Rigotamos" is treated more as an honorific than a proper name, but people do call him that.  Start with The Killing Way.  The 4th book will be off the press shortly.

http://www.tonyhays.com/page11.html

We find the hero a little too self-absorbed, and wish he'd get over it -- but the atmosphere is well drawn, even through his bleary eyes.
Logged

R1b Z196*
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2012, 07:31:32 PM »

Yes, the various versions of Riothamus are believed to have been a title, something like "high king", if I recall correctly. The Ri part was "king" in Brythonic (and in Gaelic, too, I believe), corresponding to Rix in Gallic and Rex in Latin.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2012, 07:31:46 PM by rms2 » Logged

A.D.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


« Reply #13 on: February 02, 2012, 03:17:46 PM »

Irish for high King (or high Cheif ) is 'Ard Ri',   Rix is the Gaulish equivalent as in Vocingetorix. Rex is the Latin. I think all their definitions of King and Cheif varied a little. As in Ri could be the head of a clan but I don't think the Latin Rex would apply it seems to stricter. 
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #14 on: February 05, 2012, 09:07:52 AM »

In about 1191, the monks at Glastonbury dug down deep in their graveyard and discovered a big oak coffin containing the bones of a large man and the smaller bones of a woman, as well as a braid, apparently from the woman, of blond hair. Above the coffin, but still beneath the earth, were a stone slab and a lead cross. The lead cross was inscribed (in Latin), "IACET SEPULTUS REX ARTURIUS IN INSULA AVALONIA": "[Here] lies buried King Arthur in the Isle of Avalon".

The bodies have since disappeared, but I read somewhere they were reinterred inside the abbey, near the altar, in 1278. The lead cross is also nowhere to be found, although the historian Gerald of Wales (Giraldus Cambrensis) said he saw it, and reported on the inscription. It was lost in the 18th century. William Camden published a copy of one side of it in 1607 (the side with the inscription quoted above). Gerald of Wales said the other side of the cross named Guinevere as being the female in the coffin, but no copy of that side of the cross exists.

Many scholars think the Glastonbury monks faked the find in order to boost pilgrimages to their monastery and fund the reconstruction of the abbey after a disastrous fire, but the monks never claimed to have found Joseph of Arimathea, the purported founder of the abbey, or the Holy Grail. If they would fake the one, why not one or two of the others?

The Latin inscription on the lead cross is also supposed to be of an archaic type not used in the 12th century.

In 1963, Ralegh Radford re-excavated the site where the monks supposedly dug up Arthur's oak coffin and found that someone had, in fact, dug there in the 12th century. But, as far as I know, the bodies of Arthur and Guinevere, if that's who they were, have not been rediscovered.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2012, 09:18:28 AM by rms2 » Logged

Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.108 seconds with 19 queries.