Posted on 12/01/2002 5:11:08 PM PST by blam
Actually, they used a mixture of limestone, potash, animal fat, and a few other ingredients, that I seem to have forgetten. Felt can be stiffened and is, to this day, for various craft figures, costumes, etc.
Petrie writes in his address from 11/7/1917: "With regard to the mythical matter in Geoffrey, his own declarations seem to have been disregarded. In all the period that we have been noting there is nothing more than a florid expansion of Tysilio, except in a few fresh passages, mainly from Nennius and Gildas. But at the beginning of book vii he writes: 'I had not got thus far in my history, when the subject of public discourse happening to be concerning Merlin, I was obliged to publish his prophecies at the request of my acquaintance.’ He then gives book vii, which is not in Tysilio; and continues with viii to x, including all the Arthurian French legend, which is based on Tysilio. Not till book xi does he care to vouch for his history again: ‘Of the matter now to be treated of Geoffrey of Monmouth shall be silent; but will . . . briefly relate what he found in the British book above mentioned.’ Thus he very clearly withdraws from vouching as history the whole of books viii - x. This is Herodotean caution."
This fellow Bill Cooper in his work "After the Flood" says the following about Belinus sacking Rome:
But if this portion of the chronicle contains material that can be dated to the middle of the 1st century BC, then there is other material that goes back much further. One such item (on which again Flinders Petrie is surprisingly silent) is the account of two men named Belinus and Brennius in Geoffrey's Latin version, and Beli and Bran in the Welsh. (15) One part of the story records how Bran led an invasion of Italy and sacked Rome. Certain modernist scholars have been quick to point out that Rome has never been sacked by the Britons, and that the story is a nonsensical fiction. However, a reading of Rome's historians might have led them to a different conclusion, for the sack of Rome by the Celts is told in considerable detail by an early historian of Rome, and the early British account of the event is confirmed, and indeed expanded upon, in every point.
The Roman historian in question is Livy (Titus Livius , 59 BC-17 AD), whose History of Rome consisted of no less than 142 books, although only 35 of these have survived to the present day. However, it is Book 5 of Livy's history that contains the rather illuminating account that follows. (16)
According to Livy, the sack of Rome by the Gallic Celts occurred around the year 390 BC, and we shall see precisely how closely this accords with the chronology of events and personages that is contained in the British chronicle. It matches it exactly. But of more interest to us is the fact that Livy has preserved the names of those who were involved in the planning and carrying out of the attack.
The first name is that of the king of the Bituriges, a Gallic (Celtic) people who were to give their name to the modern city of Bourges. The king was Ambitgatus, and Livy tells us that he had two nephews, one named Bellovesus, and the other Segovesus. These two names also appear in the British account where they are given as Beli in the Welsh chronicle and Belinus and Segnius (the king of the Allobroges or Burgundians) in Geoffrey of Monmouth. The Welsh chronicle mentions Segnius as the prince of the Burdundians (i.e. Byrgwin, another term for the Allobroges) but does not name him. Each name, however, must have been given in the original British source-material for them to appear in either Geoffrey or the Welsh chronicle.
It is here, however, that Livy sheds some interesting light upon the Celtic royal families of the early 4th century BC. According to both Geoffrey and the Welsh chronicle, the father and mother of Belinus and Brennius were Dunvall Molmutius (Welsh Dyftial Moel Myd) and Tonuuenna (Welsh Tonwen). We know from the genealogy around which both Geoffrey's and the Welsh account are built (see Appendix 7), that Dunvallo was of British descent. Which means that Tonuuenna, whose genealogy is not given, could easily have been the sister of the Gaulish king, Ambitgatus, as is implied in Livy when he calls Bellovesus (the British Belinus and son of Tonuuenna) the nephew of Ambitgatus. There is nothing at all unlikely or improbable in such a relationship. Indeed, marriage between the British and continental Celtic royal families would have been an entirely natural and expected event.
Which brings us to the name of the leader of the Gallic sack of Rome, whom Livy names as Brennus. (18) This is practically identical to the transposition into Latin of the British name of Bran that Geoffrey gives (Brennius), and the fact that Geoffrey and Livy are such distinct and independent authorities reveals that neither of them were making up the names of their characters as they went along. That neither Geoffrey nor the Welsh chronicle are merely copies or rehashes of Livy's account is abundantly evident when one compares the British account with that of Livy. There are far too many important and fundamental differences between them to suggest that one is dependent on the other. And yet they are all clearly and independently referring to the same historical event, namely the Celtic sack of Rome in ca 390 BC, but viewing that event from different camps.
This seems a reasonable explanation. This Cooper fellow has actually provided a new translation of the whole document Petrie was commenting upon on the web here. I only found it today, so I haven't read it yet.
You can remember when I didn't, lol. It's easy.
I can't remember where I read it in the last couple of years (maybe I saw it on TV) but there is the ruins of a Chinese Temple where they just discovered (in the last 5 years) a Nativity Scene in what once was the attic. IOW, the Temple was constructed over what had been a Christian Church dating back to the 3rd or 4th Century. I've forgotten all of the details, but it was a pretty amazing story.
On another tangent, I remember a mummy from the 1800s that was on display in Seattle's "Ye Olde Curiosity Shoppe" down on the waterfront. They called him Stanley, and he had red hair too. He'd been found in the desert, slain by a gunshot. The dry conditions had mummified him perfectly, and he had been on display in Seattle, amongst other curiosities, for years. I always thought he might have been one of my great uncles who never returned from a gold mining to California in '49.
Chinese archaeologists have unearthed more than 100 terracotta warriors dating back to the imperial Han Dynasty (206 BC-220 AD) in east China's Shandong province.
Chinese archaeologists have unearthed more than 100 terracotta warriors dating back to the imperial Han Dynasty (206 BC-220 AD) in east China's Shandong province.
Cui Dayong, a chief archaeologist with the excavation task force, described the pit containing the warriors as the fourth largest ofits kind found in China.
The three biggest pits include those in northwest China's Shaanxi province, where life-size terracotta warriors unearthed inthe 1970s from the tomb of Emperor Shihuang of the Qin Dynasty (221-206 BC) were dubbed "one of the eight wonders in the world".
At the excavation site at Weishan Hill in Shengjing town near the provincial capital, Jinan, archaeologists measured the newly-opened pit as 9.7 meters long, 1.9 meters wide and about 0.7 meters deep.
The terracotta warriors, whose size is yet to be determined, were assembled in three groups -- a total of some 30 cavalry men in five rows, chariots and about 80 infantry men, they said.
The warriors on horseback cut imposing and vivid figures, while the crimson-toned horses were sharply drawn and strongly sculpted.
As the excavation is expected to last two or three weeks, experts have yet to agree on who owned the pit.
Jiang Yingju, a prestigious archaeologist in east China's Shandong province, said that such pits were quite rare in China and, judging from its size and the number of warriors, the owner could have been a nobleman or other upper class figure of the Han Dynasty.
Meanwhile, Cui acknowledged that the formation of the terracotta warriors and horses accorded with the protocol of the Han Dynasty.
Most of the warriors and horses were damaged to varying extents with some crushed and the colorful coating faded because of water erosion, he added.
The warriors were discovered by Zhao Qingfang and Zhang Qiyuan, two villagers, by chance on November 23 while digging holes to plant trees on the hillside.
Recalling the moment he found them, Zhang said, "When we dug out two 'stone horseheads', I thought they might be cultural relics.
"But I was not sure, and then we reported the discovery to village head."
Local officials noted that several Han Dynasty tombs were unearthed over the years, which enabled local residents to have some basic knowledge about cultural relics.
*L* When I read this, I thought of Kit! :-)
I always recommend that anyone who goes to China visit Xian for a remarkable experience, but I have not persuaded a single soul to do so. They are usually more interested in the shopping in Shanghai, or hotels in Beijing! 'Tis a pity...
Well, my younger sister went there if that will make you feel any better. lol
That does make me feel better. I thought it was the most interesting part of China. Was your sister as impressed?
She liked it But, I don't think she is as apprecitive as (ahem) you or I.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.