crunch wrote:
On Jul 29, 7:58 pm, imipak <imi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

...

Hadrian's wall probably has the highest density of archaeological
activity of anywhere in the UK.

Debatable, but the general point (that it does indeed have a lot of
archaeological activity, and a hell of a lot is known) is correct.

There is no evidence.

There is no evidence of a link between the wall and Arthurian mythos,
correct. Even if the oral traditions had all originated in Scotland, I
would have expected no evidence of a link between the wall and
Arthurian mythos, so that tells us nothing of interest. (Well, it
tells us a bit about a fallacy in Crunch's thinking, but I'm frankly
not the least bit interested in the thinking of one poster who happens
to have read one of the theories of one person who happens to have
assembled one specific permutation of multi-generational sources
together.)
...

Reality check for imipak -

Goodrich was a scholar who cited a slew
of other scholars on Arthrurian scholarship,

She was a scholar of comparative literature and wrote mostly about
mythology, such as her best received book Myths of the Heroes, not an
archaeologist or historian.  When she stuck to literature and/or
mythology, she could be brilliant.  This book though is like John
Morris' Age of Arthur, best read for the details of literature and
scholarship and references and ignore the large schema that the author
has in mind.

which I have diligently studied.

Goodrich or the scholarship she cited?  If the latter, then you're aware
of other theories, such as the Arthur was a Scythian version?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> 30/07/2009 02:36 wrote:

Goodrich was a scholar who cited a slew
of other scholars on Arthrurian scholarship,
which I have diligently studied.

You did not. You only read wikipedia.
Piss off

On Jul 29, 3:18 pm, chazworth <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 29, 3:32 am, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:




On Jul 28, 8:41 pm, George <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:

On Jul 29, 10:27 am, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Goodrich says Launcelot was King of Scotland, in
part based on a retranslation of his name.

Not archaeology.
'King" Arthur and his queen were supposedly buried at Glastonbury.
Hey look at that. Archaeological content

Not the point (your tired "not archaeology").
Get off it.

---

Goodrich covers Glastonbury, a fraud.

---

Back to square one on Launcelot. No French
connection, Launcelot not French. Back to
Scotland with a vengeance.

---

So, in Scotland we would look for the archaeological
evidence on Hadrian's Wall or where Camelot was
in the cockpit of Scotland, according to Goodrich.

You know, if you would co-operate in the flow
of conversation FOR A CHANGE, I would appreciate it.

Evidence that is credible is what we want for Arthur,
supposedly a CHRISTIAN KING. Again, would
any usenetter come in to support my hyptheses?

David

I'll come to your support/.......

King ARTHUR is fictional.

There is no contemporaneous evidence for any Dark Age king pagan OR
Christian.
There is no archaeological evidence anywhere for any DarkAge leader of
that status. King Arthur is a medieval myth.

I hope you find this helpful.


Actually, medieval myths do not have to be just myths. Take for
example Niebelungenlied. Sure, there are a lot of mythical elements
in it but there are a number of real persons and places, some in
reality separated by centuries but made contemporaneous in the myth.
Despite the mythical elements (plentiful as they are), the myth
certainly explores universal truths (loyalty, sacrifice) and provides
some evidence of the experience of Germans under Hunnic rule.

Thus, the reality of the myth here is probably the Briton resistance
to the Saxon onslaught within the framework of late empire (and a few
centuries may have moved here and there), and it would have been
rather peculiar if such a massive upheaval was not recorded somehow.
Arthur may be nothing more than cavalry units fashioned and armed in a
manner similar to that of late Roman cavalry (thus the frequent
references to dragon emblems). Most of the other elements are
certainly mythical weaved from circumstances and personalities widely
separate in time.

Goodrich was a scholar who cited a slew
of other scholars on Arthrurian scholarship,
which I have diligently studied.