 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / Archaeology / December 2006Question re. forged artifacts and documents
When someone brought up the Da Vinci Code for discussion as well as when Jesus' brother James "ossuary" was up for discussion, the first of course was shown to be a fiction and the other at least indoubt being genuine if not as some say directly shown to be a forgery. Now there was a time in history where those two 'stories' came together more than most and that was during the 12th-14th century. Documents were made on older parchments, some had had older texts which were shraped away before the parchment were used again. The extensive business with relics made more than one, that is sure, forge relics to the extent that if we pieced together all relics from Jesu Cross we would find that he must have had at least more than 20 Cross to hang on. Not to mention that more than four tree species must have have been used for the Cross. Background for my question below: * I was given Simon Cox's 'Cracking the Da Vinci Code' and if nothing before in the so called Da Vinci Code discussion got me almost mad of anger due to lack of correct scientistic approach, the next I got hold of did: * the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail by three persons who should be ashamed trying to critizies those who tell them about their mistakes from a scholary view. After 48 pages I realised that no matter how bad it was written and what their intentions might have been the worst of all was that they hadn't done their homework. They made a hugh affair of the priest that had 'found' old documents and that they had made last until page 48 (in the Swedish pocket edition) where they seemed to be unaware of why a member of the Habsburg Dynasty had paid the priest a large sum of money. That made it for me. One of the most wellknown forgeries from Medieval Age there is not known by those who say they intend to do a research. Not to mention that the best criteria for artifacts, churches, graves, writings on artifacts etc they use to put forward their hypothesis about Jesus and Maria Magdalena dates to 17th-20th century :-) Now there is one other myth never discussed here in group nor in any of the books dealing with the so called 'bloodline' which tells a completely different story. It's a story about James, Jesus brother, and Maria Magdalena. As one old tale compare Jesus with a Rose of Jesus' root (Holy Mother Mary who bore him and feed him) and trunk/tribe (David's House). This might seem odd to some to say call James Jesus brother. The Vatican denies that Jesus had sibblings, but what we and they forget is that Jesus was born into a Jewish tradition where the lines followed the mother - thus any children of Virgin Mary after giving birth to Jesus also can be called sibblings to Jesus. Compare this with Galatians 1:18-19 ."....only James, the Lord's brother" Now to my question: As in many cases in history examples above show part truth and most at best speculative possibilities close to fictions as well as 17th-20th century documents to prove or put forward hypothesis of all kinds. What's the worst forged artifact and/or document during Medieval and/or Ancient Age you seen? Please observe that I ask about forgeries and forgers forging them before 1500 AD. Inger E > When someone brought up the Da Vinci Code for discussion as well as when > Jesus' brother James "ossuary" was up for discussion, the first of course [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > they seemed to be unaware of why a member of the Habsburg Dynasty had paid > the priest a large sum of money. That made it for me. Almost everything you read about Saunière in that book is invented. That includes the bit about the alleged money paid by a member of the Habsburg Dynasty. Don't criticize the authors for not being aware of why the money was paid. Criticize them for saying that money was paid by the Habsburgs. It's not true. > One of the most > wellknown forgeries from Medieval Age there is not known by those who say [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Please observe that I ask about forgeries and forgers forging them before > 1500 AD. The story of the discovery of a supposedly ancient lawbook during repairs to the Jerusalem Temple in the reign of Josiah is quite a spectacular case of a document made to seem older than it was. Alan > > When someone brought up the Da Vinci Code for discussion as well as > when [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > includes the bit about the alleged money paid by a member of the > Habsburg Dynasty. That part I doubt to be invented. I seen documents indicating that such a transaction took place and also why it took place. As I told here in group before refering to a Swedish Professor's work, behind the 'legimity' for the Habsburg Dynasty was a certain inlaws of a German-Roman Emperor's who when he didn't get the title Grand Duke had monks forging documents proving him to be a descendant of Jesus, Buddha, Djingis Khan and Muhammed..... to which I can add that if you have read Henrik Janson's dissertation you must be familiar with the situation between the German-Roman Emperor(-s) and the Pope in Rome. Regarding Dagobert II part of the 'story' is correct, BUT what they missed or supressed is that the 'descendant' of Dagobert II was shown to be a pretender. This is welldocumented in contemporary sources. Also possible from documents written in 4th-7th century is that Mary Magdalene might have been involved with James, brother of Jesus. Possible but not probable. >Don't criticize the authors for not being aware of why > the money was paid. Criticize them for saying that money was paid by the > Habsburgs. It's not true. Sorry Alan, that part is the only completely true one in their hole history. I have known this long, seen documents, but I also know background. > > One of the most > > wellknown forgeries from Medieval Age there is not known by those who [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > repairs to the Jerusalem Temple in the reign of Josiah is quite a > spectacular case of a document made to seem older than it was. Yes, but there were items found. Which is mentioned in Roman sources. This is the problem for those who haven't studied History at all or are unaware of the early years of the Christians, when authors take small parts that's true and combine them with fiction and/or speculations for the rest of a story, many have a hard time understanding that: "Die Tatsache, dass die nicht ganz falsch sind, bedutet jedoch nicht, dass sie darum auch ganz echt sein"....... (my favorite Brühl CR, Studien zu den langobardischen Könighurkunden, page 11) > Alan Inger E > > > When someone brought up the Da Vinci Code for discussion as well as > > when [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > That part I doubt to be invented. I seen documents indicating that such a > transaction took place and also why it took place. You have seen documents of a transaction between a Habsburg and Saunière? Tell Baigent and Lincoln quick! Those documents were fantasy too. > As I told here in group > before refering to a Swedish Professor's work, behind the 'legimity' for the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Sorry Alan, that part is the only completely true one in their hole history. > I have known this long, seen documents, but I also know background. And a Happy New Year to you too, Inger (1 January is not 1 April, you know). > > > One of the most > > > wellknown forgeries from Medieval Age there is not known by those who [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Yes, but there were items found. Which is mentioned in Roman sources. That's a rather vague reference, isn't it? Do I have to read the whole of Roman literature? > This > is the problem for those who haven't studied History at all or are unaware [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sein"....... (my favorite Brühl CR, Studien zu den langobardischen > Könighurkunden, page 11) This is pre-Christian, Inger. By six centuries. Alan > > > "Inger E.(Norah)" <noninger_none.Johansson@telia.com> wrote in > message [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > Those documents were fantasy too. They weren't. I think you should do a careful reading in the Habsburg history and you understand why it was important for some that their ancestor's forged documents, which haven't been presented openly for many hundred years but discussed even then, not were presented openly. Not one single part of those forgeries from Medieval Age. > > As I told here in group > > before refering to a Swedish Professor's work, behind the 'legimity' [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > And a Happy New Year to you too, Inger (1 January is not 1 April, you > know). Never thought it to be. Happy New Year to you Alan and all the others in the group. What I would like to add is that while it's almost impossible to prove a document genuine, if it is, or an artifact genuine when found during older days excavations or by non-specialists or specialists who doesn't have full knowledge of the specific type of artifact elsewhere, we hardly ever discuss the implications of Medieval Age tendency to make Dynasties legimite inheriter of power nor do we discuss the tendency from some business-loving individuals in those days to produce 'genuine' relics for Crusaders and other interested parts. I believe that there still is more out there that we might need to take a look at no matter that it's been forgotten to do so for several hundred years. Don't you agree? That was my intention with my question. You didn't answer that one. Did you? Inger E > > > > One of the most > > > > wellknown forgeries from Medieval Age there is not known by those [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > Alan > "Alan Crozier" <name1.name2@telia.com> wrote in message >> You have seen documents of a transaction between a Habsburg and >> Saunière? Tell Baigent and Lincoln quick! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > many hundred years but discussed even then, not were presented > openly. Not one single part of those forgeries from Medieval Age. They were no fantasy, but forgeries?. Inger, you are great.  Signaturep.a. ... > Now to my question: > As in many cases in history examples above show part truth and most at best [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Please observe that I ask about forgeries and forgers forging them before > 1500 AD. The earliest actual exposure of a forgery which was without question and had a noteworthy impact (not a bill of sale was forged) was the Donation of Constantine in the 15th c. It had been around for centuries before that. I do not have details on how quickly or if the exposure was accepted. I was never interested in it beyond the fact of it being a forgery. > ... > > Now to my question: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > not have details on how quickly or if the exposure was accepted. I was never > interested in it beyond the fact of it being a forgery. When established I agree, but a lot of forgeries have been made by religious people as well as by people sitting on thrones or living close to the same. I doubt that we are aware if one or two of those which later, in our days perhaps, been exposed have had impacts on history as we see ancient and medieval history even today. To be able to ask new questions to old artifacts as well as old documents it's good to know if the ground on which they stand, is or isn't a ground where not forgeries of other artifacts and or documents have had an impact on the validation and dating of the artifact/document even if the old artifacts and documents we 'look' at seems to have a solid ground for dating etc. Inger E >> ... >>> Now to my question: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> not have details on how quickly or if the exposure was accepted. I was never >> interested in it beyond the fact of it being a forgery. > When established I agree, > but a lot of forgeries have been made by religious people as well as by > people sitting on thrones or living close to the same. I doubt that we are > aware if one or two of those which later, in our days perhaps, been exposed > have had impacts on history as we see ancient and medieval history even > today. By definition all writings on religion which are claimed to be from some higher source are forgeries. That is the way it is. There is no point in calling them forgeries. The word forgery does have a specific meaning which does not include simply creating something not completely true or even total fantasy. > To be able to ask new questions to old artifacts as well as old documents > it's good to know if the ground on which they stand, is or isn't a ground > where not forgeries of other artifacts and or documents have had an impact > on the validation and dating of the artifact/document even if the old > artifacts and documents we 'look' at seems to have a solid ground for dating > etc. If you are suggesting the material on, say the Rosetta Stone, is an ancient forgery it is unclear how to apply the strict meaning of the word to it. If you mean some ancient record that simply has false information there is no way to deal with it without in fact knowing the correct information or an enviable knowledge of the civilization in which it was created so that it could be uncovered as was the Donation. And at this late date it would only shed light on some aspect of the ancient culture. Strictly speaking the Donation is not a forgery unless there was a legitimate Donation made to someone else. > >> ... > >>> Now to my question: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > If you are suggesting the material on, say the Rosetta Stone, is an ancient > forgery it is unclear how to apply the strict meaning of the word to it. No I don't. Of course not. > If you mean some ancient record that simply has false information there is no > way to deal with it without in fact knowing the correct information or an > enviable knowledge of the civilization in which it was created so that it could > be uncovered as was the Donation. I have always wondered a bit re. the documentation for the wars against the Persians. While there of course might be that it o n l y have very strong tendency to take into account, and of course the winners almost always are those who write the story down to be remembered, there are more than sizes of the 'armies' that I for one can't believe in. This more includes 'what happened next'. IF we one day by chance, pure luck or something would find that the documentation we have not only is incorrect but written long afterwards and forged, then it would have an impact on the History of the wars. Don't you agree. Here in Europe we can find several indescrepencies when it comes to central and northern Europes History. Due to leaning on the Icelandic Saga's too long, and they are by no means any forgeries, the picture told in schools of Scandinavia's older History was all but correct. IF someone forged documents for example in 15th century to prove this or that, it would have a tremendeous impact on our history if such a forgery were proven to be a forgery. Hope you agree. > And at this late date it would only shed light on some aspect of the ancient > culture. Strictly speaking the Donation is not a forgery unless there was a > legitimate Donation made to someone else. I agree. Inger E >>>> ... >>>>> Now to my question: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> forgery it is unclear how to apply the strict meaning of the word to it. > No I don't. Of course not. >> If you mean some ancient record that simply has false information there is no >> way to deal with it without in fact knowing the correct information or an >> enviable knowledge of the civilization in which it was created so that it could >> be uncovered as was the Donation. > I have always wondered a bit re. the documentation for the wars against the > Persians. While there of course might be that it o n l y have very strong > tendency to take into account, > and of course the winners almost always are those who write the story down > to be remembered, > there are more than sizes of the 'armies' that I for one can't believe in. I am not aware of any credible number for the size of armies before the Romans. I have not come across any serious person giving the Greek and Persia numbers any credibility. Off hand I can't think of any Egyptian mention of numbers in the size of armies. This lack of credibility is not simple skepticism but rather a logistics analysis by rather expert military people over the years. There is simply no way such huge numbers could have been supported. And there can be no appeal to "forgotten" methods as the Romans who came immediately afterwards could not field such armies and unless the Greeks suddenly forgot how to do it they would have overwhelmed the pitifully small Roman armies. > This more includes 'what happened next'. IF we one day by chance, pure luck > or something would find that the documentation we have not only is incorrect > but written long afterwards and forged, then it would have an impact on the > History of the wars. Don't you agree. While I agree with what would happen I do NOT agree anyone should waste their time or anyone else's on the assumption that some day something will be found. That waste of time is quite common among bible believers hoping against all hope something will be found to salvage the Old Testament and try to dismiss the total absence of physical evidence for the OT on that assumption. > Here in Europe we can find several indescrepencies when it comes to central > and northern Europes History. I have not spent much time on that but it is my impression there are relatively few surviving records compared the southern Europe that "several" should be a vast understatement. > Due to leaning on the Icelandic Saga's too > long, and they are by no means any forgeries, the picture told in schools of > Scandinavia's older History was all but correct. IF someone forged documents > for example in 15th century to prove this or that, it would have a > tremendeous impact on our history if such a forgery were proven to be a > forgery. Hope you agree. The Donation had the specific purpose of laying claim to the land not to falsify history. If the donation were to falsify history then there would have to have been a donation to someone else it replaced and thus a proper forgery. Falsifying history implies the modern idea of history and clearly cannot have been the intention in the 15th century as they had a different concept of history. I have no idea what that concept might have been in that time and place but our modern idea traces back no (not much?) further than Gibbon's Decline and Fall. The earlier people we call historians are simply tracing the roots of the genre back as far as possible. Herodotus may be considered the first historian but he was more correctly the inventor of the travelouge sold to tourists. >> And at this late date it would only shed light on some aspect of the ancient >> culture. Strictly speaking the Donation is not a forgery unless there was a >> legitimate Donation made to someone else. > I agree. > >>>> ... > >>>>> Now to my question: [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > something will be found to salvage the Old Testament and try to dismiss the > total absence of physical evidence for the OT on that assumption. 'Something will be found' isn't the same as 'something has been found'. Agreed? And that's where my origin question partly is heading. From the usage of forged documents and artifacts in books that public, observe public not scholars, rely on no matter that they are a mix of 1% truth 80% speculations without anything but late sources and 19% pure fiction, it's many times hard to know if same or alike situations occured. Something has been found in more than one case where the scholar behind the finding of an old Medieval forgery holds it back due to the impact the 'anomali' has on the so called consensus. I know of three such cases. Discussed one of them over a 3 dish dinner week before Christmas. Was then given the 'Cracking the Da Vinci Code' by Simon Cox. The thought behind the gift was for me to think about if that way was a way to use to show that the forged Medieval document which has had so large impact on consensus could be shown to be a forgery in alike maners since the scholar doubted that it would be possible to present the finding, analysed and dated etc, in normal way peer viewd articles takes time to be published and there have been more cases then one where articles contradicting consensus have been surpressed, said to be published 'later' but never been etc. > > Here in Europe we can find several indescrepencies when it comes to central > > and northern Europes History. > > I have not spent much time on that but it is my impression there are relatively > few surviving records compared the southern Europe that "several" should be a > vast understatement. That's what's been told. But that's not true. For example regarding the Greenlanders it's said that there are a few short info given outside the Icelandic Sagas and a few Papal letters. Not true at all. For one of the categories - diplomas, official letters there are more than 400 I am aware of and have gone thru. For one of the other which is said not to exist at all, contemporary or close to contemporary sources I have 7 non-Sagas up to 1053...., for the category Annals and works from 12th-15th century where the later refer to contemporary and/or close to contemporary souces I have 40..... I wouldn't call that few. Of course compared to documentation from for example Elizabeth I's days that's not so many. But more than a few I hope you agree. I still haven't mentioned all categories. > > Due to leaning on the Icelandic Saga's too > > long, and they are by no means any forgeries, the picture told in schools of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > falsify history. If the donation were to falsify history then there would have > to have been a donation to someone else it replaced and thus a proper forgery. > Falsifying history implies the modern idea of history and clearly cannot have > been the intention in the 15th century as they had a different concept of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > I agree. Inger E > And that's where my origin question partly is heading. How about heading your question towards archaeology? This is an archaeology group after all. Signaturep.a. ... > 'Something will be found' isn't the same as 'something has been found'. > Agreed? And that's where my origin question partly is heading. Then lets get off the dime and get where it is headed. > ... > > 'Something will be found' isn't the same as 'something has been found'. > > Agreed? And that's where my origin question partly is heading. > > Then lets get off the dime and get where it is headed. Matt, please contact me personally for more information. Send it to 1732johansson@telia.com. Inger E >> ... >>> 'Something will be found' isn't the same as 'something has been found'. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Matt, please contact me personally for more information. Send it to > 1732johansson@telia.com. I only deal in public discourse. > >> ... > >>> 'Something will be found' isn't the same as 'something has been found'. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I only deal in public discourse. And since I am not allowed to speak of details or sharing photos and pre-reports in public in the cases I described, that's impossible for the moment. Inger E > > >> ... > > >>> 'Something will be found' isn't the same as 'something has been [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Inger E And indeed, as of some time in 2007, "the moment" will have lasted for _ten years_, during which time Inger has been under prohibitions of every imaginable kind, preventing her from sharing with us all manner of documents, photos, maps, reports, manuscripts, theses, and what have you. All of which have in common the one fatal factor -- that they would have provided evidence to support Inger's wild claims. Universities, libraries, cranky old scholars (some of them dead), the European Union itself, have seemingly all conspired to thwart Inger in her attempts to provide normal references and documentation for the astonishing things she has to tell us. We must remember to have a Pause for Thought -- and perhaps a trans-global drink together -- when we approach the tenth anniversary of her amazing struggle, against all odds, to document the impossible. Ross Clark Ross, You might not have noticed, but I have started to send excerpts from MY manuscript. In it there's a lot that you never heard of. That's one thing. What other plan to publish and I promised only to discuss with few persons and not in public, that's not mine to decide when to go public on! Inger E > > > >> ... > > > >>> 'Something will be found' isn't the same as 'something has been [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Ross Clark >>>>> ... >>>>>> 'Something will be found' isn't the same as 'something has been [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> moment. >> Inger E > And indeed, as of some time in 2007, "the moment" will have lasted for > _ten years_, during which time Inger has been under prohibitions of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > anniversary of her amazing struggle, against all odds, to document the > impossible. Should I assume these claims center upon Sweden having been the original location of the Garden of Eden/Atlantis and the origin of all civilization having taught the Greeks all they knew? I am just guessing but I vaguely remember my last run in where the more critical my questions the more abusive the response. > >>>>> ... > >>>>>> 'Something will be found' isn't the same as 'something has been [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > location of the Garden of Eden/Atlantis and the origin of all civilization > having taught the Greeks all they knew? That one is by far one of the worst forged history scenario's presented here in Sweden. No matter that many hundred years past since such a ridiculus idea was put in print. The scholar behind it was at least nationalistic by far and produced a work on same low level as the Da Vinci Code. In other word 1% truth, 80% fantasy and fiction the rest. > I am just guessing but I vaguely remember my last run in where the more > critical my questions the more abusive the response. Inger E ... >> Should I assume these claims center upon Sweden having been the original >> location of the Garden of Eden/Atlantis and the origin of all civilization [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > far and produced a work on same low level as the Da Vinci Code. In other > word 1% truth, 80% fantasy and fiction the rest. And yours is? >>>>> ... >>>>>> 'Something will be found' isn't the same as 'something has been [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Ross Clark And when she shares her evidence by email, nobody ever remembers afterwards receiving anything like it. And of course then she can't send it again because she only has it on paper in a bad copy and she must instaal a scanner on her daughters computer, but her daughter is very busy now and Inger hase a sore knee. Or it is perhaps somewhere on an old disk in a box still unpacked after her moving house ten years ago, which is unreadable anyway because her computer can't display the characters. Or the website where she found it is off-line. And of course she has to check every piece of background information first, and ask permission from a professor, who possibly is dead for fifteen years because she hasn't heard from him lately. And of course it is only available in Swedish. Signaturep.a. "Peter Alaca" <p.alaca@purple.invalid> wrote in news:45950178$0$9836 $dbd49001@news.wanadoo.nl: >>>>>> ... >>>>>>> 'Something will be found' isn't the same as 'something has been [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > possibly is dead for fifteen years because she hasn't heard > from him lately. And of course it is only available in Swedish. And after all that, it'll _still_ end up saying the opposite of whatever Inger said... Signature_______________________________________________________________________ David Johnson home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan "So many of you come time and time again to watch this final end of everything which I think is really wonderful and then to return home to your own eras and raise families and strive for new and better societies and fight terrible wars for what you know is right, it gives one real hope for the whole future of lifekind... ...Except of course we know it hasn't got one." >>>> ... >>>>> 'Something will be found' isn't the same as 'something has been [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > pre-reports in public in the cases I described, that's impossible for the > moment. What would you give me in private and trust me not to make public? And how dumb can you get? > >>>> ... > >>>>> 'Something will be found' isn't the same as 'something has been [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > What would you give me in private and trust me not to make public? And how dumb > can you get? While I don't know you in person, I admit that trusting you might be risky. You stand in many cases for things I don't agree to. BUT no matter what I have heard about you during years, and that's more than I have heard of most, no one said that you can't be trusted with information. How dumb I can get. I am not dumb, but I know which part I send to whom thus I do have a register to go on if something comes out. Inger E >>>>>> ... >>>>>>> 'Something will be found' isn't the same as 'something has been [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> What would you give me in private and trust me not to make public? And how dumb >> can you get? > While I don't know you in person, I admit that trusting you might be risky. Trust with what? Please be specific in your response. > You stand in many cases for things I don't agree to. BUT no matter what I > have heard about you during years, and that's more than I have heard of > most, no one said that you can't be trusted with information. I have always used all available information at all times. > How dumb I can get. I am not dumb, but I know which part I send to whom thus > I do have a register to go on if something comes out. The answer is still, I only deal with matters in public forums in public. > What's the worst > forged artifact and/or document during Medieval and/or Ancient Age you seen? > Please observe that I ask about forgeries and forgers forging them before > 1500 AD. In my view, the most extreme forgery ever perpetrated is the genealogy of Ethelwulf given in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which says: "And Ethelwulf was the son of Egbert, Egbert of Ealhmund, Ealhmund of Eafa, Eafa of Eoppa, Eoppa of Ingild; Ingild was the brother of Ina, king of the West-Saxons, who held that kingdom thirty-seven winters, and afterwards went to St. Peter, where he died. And they were the sons of Cenred, Cenred of Ceolwald, Ceolwald of Cutha, Cutha of Cuthwin, Cuthwin of Ceawlin, Ceawlin of Cynric, Cynric of Creoda, Creoda of Cerdic, Cerdic of Elesa, Elesa of Esla, Esla of Gewis, Gewis of Wig, Wig of Freawine, Freawine of Frithugar, Frithugar of Brond, Brond of Balday, Balday of Woden, Woden of Frithuwald, Frithuwald of Freawine, Freawine of Frithuwualf, Frithuwulf of Finn, Finn of Godwulf, Godwulf of Great, Great of Taetwa, Taetwa of Beaw, Beaw of Sceldwa, Sceldwa of Heremod, Heremod of Itermon, Itermon of Hathra, Hathra of Hwala, Hwala of Bedwig, Bedwig of Sceaf; that is, the son of Noah, who was born in Noah's ark: Laznech, Methusalem, Enoh, Jared, Malalahel, Cainion, Enos, Seth, Adam the first man, and our Father, that is, Christ. Amen." That pedigree, or part of it, is still taken seriously by many people. Yet it should be obvious that the list is a pious invention. The monk who put it together believed that all men are descended from Adam, that all kings are descended from Woden, and that all West Saxon kings are descended from Cerdic, and therefore built the genealogy accordingly. That Adam, Woden, and Cerdic never existed, and were therefore the not ancestors of anyone, was unthinkable at the time. >> What's the worst >> forged artifact and/or document during Medieval and/or Ancient Age [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > accordingly. That Adam, Woden, and Cerdic never existed, and were > therefore the not ancestors of anyone, was unthinkable at the time. Why is that the most extreme example? There are dozens of such genealogies. Signaturep.a. > > What's the worst > > forged artifact and/or document during Medieval and/or Ancient Age you seen? [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > That Adam, Woden, and Cerdic never existed, and were therefore the not > ancestors of anyone, was unthinkable at the time. I admit that the example is hard to beat. Thanks. Inger E >> What's the worst >> forged artifact and/or document during Medieval and/or Ancient Age you seen? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Cainion, Enos, Seth, Adam the first man, and our Father, that is, > Christ. Amen." > That pedigree, or part of it, is still taken seriously by many people. > Yet it should be obvious that the list is a pious invention. The monk [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That Adam, Woden, and Cerdic never existed, and were therefore the not > ancestors of anyone, was unthinkable at the time. You mean tracing back to Adam? Strange he did not include Solomon and other mythical bible kings as did most all christian monarchs in the good old days. >>> What's the worst >>> forged artifact and/or document during Medieval and/or Ancient Age [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > other mythical bible kings as did most all christian monarchs in the > good old days. Not to forget seamonsters and Charlemagne, and they all came from Troy. Signaturep.a. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.