King Arthur. Lucius Artorius Castus (alanas/alanian or jozygis/jotvingi/iazygian)
Epetium (modern Strobrez in Podstrana):
"To the spirits of the departed: Lucius Artorius Castus, centurion of the III legion Gallica, also centurion of the VI legion Ferrata, also centurion of the II legion Adiutrix, also centurion of the V legion Macedonica, also primus pilus of the same [the V legion Macedonica], praepositus of the classis Misenatium (the fleet on the Bay of Naples), praefectus of the VI legion Victrix, dux of the legions of cohorts of cavalry from Britain against the Armoricans, procurator centenarius of the province of Liburnia, with the power to issue death sentences. In his lifetime he himself [possibly: "fecit," "had this made"] for himself and his family . . . ["possibly H. s. est,"] "lies buried here". Collingwood and Wright (1965:232), no. 688; Collingwood, R.G. and R.P. Wright. 1965. The Roman Inscriptions of Britain. Vol. 1: Inscriptions in Stone. Oxford: Clarendon.
Lucius Artorius Castus was a Roman general who lived in the late Second Century AD. He was dux (commander) of several legions in Britannia, where Emperor Commodus sent him in the year 181. Along with his personal legion, he guarded Hadrian's Wall (the border between Britannia, or Roman England, and Caledonia, or barbarian Scotland) with a contingent of 5,500 Sarmatian (Iazyges - Lithuania/Balts – Jotižygiai or Jotvingiai) heavy cavalry. The aforementioned 8,000 Sarmatian warriors, 5,500 (VI Victrix ) of whom were sent to Britain and 2,500 of whom were sent somewhere else. 500 Iazyges (Jotizygiai ir lithuanian) in Ribchester, 60 miles south of Chester, acted as the administrative center for North Wales and West England Castus’ standard was a large red dragon pennant.
Option 1: Sarmatian name Artorius - means 'plowman'; lithuanian translation of en. "plowman"(not a joke) - 'artorius'.
Sarmatian name 'Artorius' in lithuanian - 'artorius'.
Option 2: The second syllable of Arthur’s name “tur” means bull, maleness in Baltic language - ‘Tauras’.
Excalibur. Sword (lith. Kalavijas/kardas).
British scholarship originates this word from the Latin 'chalybs', meaning steel. This etymology is believed to be uncertain, which shows that the story, and the names in it have not originated within the English culture sphere, even though it is very much a part of the thought process of the English people. Irish tradition calls the sword 'Caladbold', and this is the older version of the sword legend. According to Helmut Nickel, curator of arms, armor at the Metropolitan Museum believes that the “latin word for steel, 'chalybs'...comes from a Greek word derived from the name of the Sarmatian 'Kalybes', a tribe of smiths.” The Baltic 'Kardas', 'Kalti', 'Kalvystė' ('sword', 'strike', 'smithery') words are directly related to 'Excalibur'.
Lucius Artorius Castus was a Roman general who lived in the late Second Century AD. He was dux (commander) of several legions in Britannia, where Emperor Commodus sent him in the year 181.
Hi Vikingas,
I'm not sure if you are proposing this man as 'Arthur' or if you are just discussing the eytmology of the name.
Lucius Artorius Castus is living 3 to 4 cents. before the authurian era which itself is ill defined within a time frame of 407 - 597 AD.
As far as the etymology is concerned, although some people claim it to be celtic (from Artu), most seem to agree that it is latin. Tacitus writes of Artoria and Arturius.
The 'Art' element is fairly common to several names but people try to read 'Arthur' into all of them. As far as I know, Nennius, writing 2 to 3 cents after the events he describes, using Artorius to describe Arthur, is the only one accepted, ie as an actual charactar.
Originally posted by Harry Amphlett: Lucius Artorius Castus is living 3 to 4 cents. before the authurian era which itself is ill defined within a time frame of 407 - 597 AD.
The problem with that is that A) There is no hard evidence that a King Arthur Really existed, and B) even if we accept that there was a King Arthur, there is no evidence regarding when he existed.
Vikingas, The trouble with your quotes is that it takes a lot of imagination to connect all the hypotheses together. There is no definite link between LAC and the Sarmatians and Hadrians Wall.
The problem with that is that A) There is no hard evidence that a King Arthur Really existed, and B) even if we accept that there was a King Arthur, there is no evidence regarding when he existed.
Hence the 200 year time span.
The arthurian legend starts with a single line in Y Gododdin. Describing Gwawrddur, a british leader:
"He fed black ravens on the rampart of a fortress. Though he was no Arthur"
A hundred or so years later, Nennius writes about an Arthur in more detail.
Whether Arthur actually existed or not, the above sources refer to a sub roman british leader of some stature. Some think that Gildas' Ambrosius Aurelianus was Arthur, other think he is fictitious but based on the exploits of several real characters, others that he did not live at all. A 5th/6th cent origin for the myth, whether ficticious in whole or in part, seems sound.
There are several origin myths for the Scandinavians, that they descended from the Scythians, that they descended from those who escaped from Troy etc, but the above is new.
The problem with origin myths is that they use some interesting facts, but place them out of context and usually the timing does not fit. The spread of the Aesir belief system, as opposed to the Vanir, seems to have come from the east, but only if we equate the Phoenetian Baal with Balder etc. It's all very tenuous. This might have spread with the proto indo language, if such really did exist, but that is well before the 6th cent AD, which is approx the time of introduction of the ASA belief.
I haven't read the whole page you posted but a couple of claims jump out:
Jutland is indeed named after the Jutes but this is a rather late name for the peninsular. For many centuries it was known as the Cimbrian Peninsular, or the Cimmerland (Himmerland using german consonant shift) after the tribe of the Cimbri. Crucially, this name exists between Troy and the renaming of the area to Jutland.
Plön has nothing to do with Pylene as the author claims. Originally based on one of the islands, it was founded by the slavic tribe of the Wagrier, (german name description). The name changed to Plön after the saxons overan the area and absorbed the population. The town was named Plune, which means ice free water.
Recent investigations into the lost port of Rungstedt have uncovered very early mediterranean finds however. Rungholt was a north frisian port which disappeared in the storm flood of the mid 14th cent. Situated to the south of Sylt on the west coast, much of the modern day sea around the many islands was land prior to the flood. Finds include greek artefacts and, most interestingly, a Minoan 3 legged pot dating to 1500 BC.
But you can't take these tantalising items and put Troy in the baltic.
Plön has nothing to do with Pylene as the author claims. Originally based on one of the islands, it was founded by the slavic tribe of the Wagrier, (german name description). The name changed to Plön after the saxons overan the area and absorbed the population. The town was named Plune, which means ice free water.
Thanks for that Harry - I am only 30 pages into a densely packed 200, To be fair to the author he does say that his geographical and climatic evidence is stronger - he considers - than that of place-names, personal names and common legends. For instance Pylos is described as being a plain with extensive wheat growing areas, which doesn't fit in with the Peloponnese apparently that comes from Telemachus' journey across it see Nestor, the king.
There is a sense when one reads the Odyessey that the descriptions of Odysseus' epic voyage doesn't sound quite right in a Med. setting. The author considers that his best evidence is geographical and climatic - eg Plutarch wrote that Calypso's Isle, which can't be located, was 5 days sailing from Britain, the Ionian islands are not a good fit of the description in the poem, whereas he says that the Danish Archipelago is. Troy, which the author locates west of Helsinki, is not on a "broad" Hellespont as per Homer- the author considers that the Gulf of Finland fits that bill.
References to the "Ocean River" can only be explained in terms of the Gulf Stream, he says. When Odysseus gets washed up on the shores of Phaecia, he only survives because he is drawn up on to a beach of a tidal river - the author says Me. rivers are not tidal. The whirpool can't be located in the Med., but apparently it can off the Lofoten islands.
Climatically the poem makes quite frequent references to icy winds, fogs, mists and so on, which apparently are not consistent with a Med climate, on Ithaca(Odyesseus's island) I think the poem comments that it frequently rains - he considers this is much better explained by a location in the Baltic.
The general gist is that owing to climatic change in the Bronze Age the Acheans upped and left the Balticand went to he area of Greece/Asia Minor taking their stories and experiences with them, and relating it to their new surroundings, in which they were assisted because of the general geographical similarity of the north east Med. basin and the Baltic.
So Agamemnon and Menelaus then are not in fact war lords of mainland Greece, but of the Danish island of Zealand. Odysseus's home base incidentally is then not one of the Ionian islands but a 6km2 island near Zealand, called Lyo, on the small side of course but he did have interests elsewhere(ie 12 herds of cattle according to the poem) on the much larger territory of Fyn.
So there you go. Apologies for usurping thread BTW.
don't, maybe the mods thought is was inappropriate to the forum.
DR J.
We live in the Tyranny of the Appropriate, where the guardians deem what is unacceptable and inappropriate, Orwell(Ministry of Truth) would have been much exercised, and entertained.
The problem with that is that A) There is no hard evidence that a King Arthur Really existed, and B) even if we accept that there was a King Arthur, there is no evidence regarding when he existed.
Hence the 200 year time span. The arthurian legend starts with a single line in Y Gododdin. Describing Gwawrddur, a british leader: "He fed black ravens on the rampart of a fortress. Though he was no Arthur" A hundred or so years later, Nennius writes about an Arthur in more detail. Whether Arthur actually existed or not, the above sources refer to a sub roman british leader of some stature. Some think that Gildas' Ambrosius Aurelianus was Arthur, other think he is fictitious but based on the exploits of several real characters, others that he did not live at all. A 5th/6th cent origin for the myth, whether ficticious in whole or in part, seems sound.
The thing about the about the Gododdin line is that Arthur does not feature in it himself, but is used as a comparison, as a benchmark for the abilities of Gwawrddur. The poem does not need to explain who Arthur is or why Gwawrddur should be compared to him; he is already legendary. Arthur may already have been somebody to look up to as an example of military prowess and leadership - possibly decades before, possibly centuries or (as Francis Pryor argues) possibly a millennium before.
The idea of a Dark Age Arthur is conjecture. However, in my opinion it still is the most likeley basis to the legend.
The idea of a Dark Age Arthur is conjecture. However, in my opinion it still is the most likeley basis to the legend.
I think so too. The detail of the legend expands as we move further away from the starting point. Reversing the process, moving backwards in time, we get a focus as the detail reduces. The Gododdin assumes that Arthur is known to the reader and there is no need to explain who he was. I think if Arthur had been a legend by roman times, it would have been mentioned in sources somewhere, Tacitus in particular.
However, I do take your point. People today might refer to someone as a 'Robin Hood' type figure, without any idea of the times in which he is supposed to have lived.
Laurence Gardner in "Bloodlines of the Holy Grail" has Arthur living and fighting in Scotland and Ireland. As well as King Arthur's Seat in Edinburgh, there is a mountain in Argyle ( the old kingdom of Dalriada) called King Arthur's Mountain. There is a long and complex genealogy concerning the del Aqcs in France - of the lake- and the relationship and descent to the Scottish house. It makes fascinating, if fantastic, reading.
there are definate links to sarmatians,scythians and cimmerians in the arturian legends . very likely that some of these served in roman legions around hadrians wall as scouts and cavelry .
Originally posted by Life Buoy: there are definate links to sarmatians,scythians and cimmerians in the arturian legends . very likely that some of these served in roman legions around hadrians wall as scouts and cavelry .
In the legends? Are you sure? If so, could you tell us which legends. Certainly there is nothing in the pre-Glafridian literature and I don't recall any legend concerning itself with the compostion of the Roman army - even around Hadrian's Wall.
Originally posted by Life Buoy: there are definate links to sarmatians,scythians and cimmerians in the arturian legends . very likely that some of these served in roman legions around hadrians wall as scouts and cavelry .
In the legends? Are you sure? If so, could you tell us which legends. Certainly there is nothing in the pre-Glafridian literature and I don't recall any legend concerning itself with the compostion of the Roman army - even around Hadrian's Wall.
what about magical swords and dragons ? are these legands/myths ? huge amounts of arturian myth/legand has its roots in the caucasus region of russia even the grail quest which is more likely about a cauldron has similarities with alannic stories. the chances are high that people from those regions served in britain and they would have brought thier beliefs with them. just as a lot of celtic beliefs mixed with mithraic belief can be found in christianity.
