Anglesey

Current topics

Re: Anglesey

Postby hvered » 7:21 am

'Dragon' sounds like quite a recent title.... which the Welsh 'called themselves' or were called by other people? Their chief claim to fame is mining so it would be an appropriate enough tag if the dragon/metalworking metaphor is accepted.

It seems these 'geographical margins' are akin to industrial areas where people from all over congregate, i.e. busy important places that people generally try to avoid (for aesthetic, health, congestion reasons) but not marginal. Somewhere with a distinct barrier like Hadrian's Wall or the Great Wall of China are simply frontiers, i.e. actual margins. A frontier that coincides with important territory is asking for trouble, look at the Jordan River!
hvered
 
Posts: 851
Joined: 10:22 pm

Re: Anglesey

Postby TisILeclerc » 11:59 am

Artifice also means cunning and deceit. An Artificer is also a trickster. Someone who has special knowledge.

The ancient smith was an ambiguous character, as his art could be used for wreaking terrible violence as well as protecting and serving his people. His very importance also made him vulnerable to pressure from the warriors and leaders of his own society, as well as to attack from enemies.


http://www.whitedragon.org.uk/articles/midnight.htm

This site also claims that Ghengis Khan was descended from a family of smiths who, because of their knowledge and power, could become leaders of their society.

"There are legends about 'royal smiths' who started their careers as humble craftsmen but became, thanks to their special abilities, the founders of dynasties. The most famous example is the great Mongol conqueror Ghengis Khan, who was said to have originally been a smith, or at least descended from a family of smiths. There may have been a kernel of historical truth in some of these stories in that initially small guild-like clans may have managed to keep both the secrets of their trade and the combined monopolies of weapons' manufacture and military organization in their own hands."


After much discussion of the role of legendary smiths and links with gods and goddesses the article turns to Arthur.

Similarly, Rowan has pointed out in the pages of 'White Dragon' that the legend of King Arthur pulling the sword from the stone may be a memory of the early days of metal smelting. The stone appears to represent a metallic ore, and "by discovering the sword within the stone and being able to wield it, Arthur undergoes a fundamental transformation from being an ordinary man into being a leader of immense power and charisma for his people."(27) She also tells me that in certain versions of this story the sword is described as being pulled from an anvil instead of a stone, thus lending credence to a metallurgical interpretation.


St Piran also gets a mention with regards to smelting.
TisILeclerc
 
Posts: 790
Joined: 11:40 am

Re: Anglesey

Postby Boreades » 10:43 pm

The role of the Artificer is famously mentioned in the bible, where it is said, Tubal-cain was the first Artificer in metals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tubal-cain

As with Dragon-lore, there are two parts - temporal (or literal) and metaphorical. The temporal knowledge of how to smelt the metal ore, how to produce the base metal, and how to make it malleable and refine it to the highest quality product. Then there is the metaphorical knowledge, of ourselves as crude ore (or rough stone) that has to undergo transformation to liberate the higher realms of our personalities. This is still an active part of the ritual in some fraternal groups, to encourage their members to explore the hidden mysteries of nature and science.
Boreades
 
Posts: 2013
Joined: 2:35 pm

Re: Anglesey

Postby Boreades » 10:54 pm

Curiously, on The Ridgeway in Wiltshire there are two places quite close together - Dragon Hill and Wayland's Smithy. The former is quite an impressive site, close to the Uffington White Horse. Curiously, that is probably the oldest of the Wessex White Horses, and also probably not a horse. The latter is rather small and drab in comparison. But as a place for study by transformational artificers, it fits the bill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayland's_Smithy

Another coincidence (we're told) is that
Rudyard Kipling, in his interlinked collection of stories Puck of Pook's Hill, set many of the stories near the Smithy, and told of the arrival of the smith god in the first.


Puck of Pook's Hill may deserve our attention -
Donald Mackenzie, who wrote the introduction for the Oxford World's Classics edition of Puck of Pook's Hill in 1987, has described this book as an example of archaeological imagination that, in fragments, delivers a look at the history of England, climaxing with the signing of Magna Carta. .. Puck calmly concludes the series of stories: "Weland gave the Sword, The Sword gave the Treasure, and the Treasure gave the Law. It's as natural as an oak growing."


Was Rudyard Kipling a Druid? Or a revisionist British historian? The titles of his POPH stories hint seem to hint so:

1.1 Puck's Song
1.2 'Weland's Sword'
1.3 A Tree Song
1.4 'Young Men at the Manor'
1.5 Sir Richard's Song
1.6 Harp Song of the Dane Women
1.7 'The Knights of the Joyous Venture'
1.8 Thorkild's Song
1.9 'Old Men at Pevensey'
1.10 The Runes on Weland's Sword
1.11 A Centurion of the Thirtieth
1.12 'A Centurion of the Thirtieth'
1.13 A British-Roman Song (A.D. 406)
1.14 'On the Great Wall'
1.15 A Song to Mithras
1.16 'The Winged Hats'
1.17 A Pict Song
1.18 Hal o' the Draft
1.19 'Hal o' the Draft'
1.20 A Smuggler's Song
1.21 The Bee Boy's Song
1.22 'Dymchurch Flit'
1.23 A Three Part Song
1.24 The Fifth River
1.25 'The Treasure and the Law'
1.26 The Children's Song
Boreades
 
Posts: 2013
Joined: 2:35 pm

Re: Anglesey

Postby TisILeclerc » 11:09 pm

Kain, Khan, Konig, King all bring us back to the artificer or smith as the King

By the way does anyone know when Genesis was written?
TisILeclerc
 
Posts: 790
Joined: 11:40 am

Re: Anglesey

Postby hvered » 3:42 pm

It's an interesting question about Genesis, it hadn't occurred to me to consider Cain and Abel as a 'Megalithic' conflict. Abel was a shepherd, Cain a farmer and associated with everything 'evil' including metalwork.

Regardless of the folkloric stuff about smiths' supposed powers, being forced to work in a smithy or a mine would surely be seen as a terrible if useful occupation, then as now.
hvered
 
Posts: 851
Joined: 10:22 pm

Re: Anglesey

Postby Boreades » 5:49 pm

In the painting by Rubens, it looks there smithery going on in the background.

Image
Boreades
 
Posts: 2013
Joined: 2:35 pm

Re: Anglesey

Postby TisILeclerc » 6:22 pm

Wiki gives a translation of Cain and it appears that he was a metal worker as well as farmer.

Cain is thought to be cognate to the mid-1st millennium BC South Arabian word qyn, meaning "metalsmith".


He is also condemned to wander for the murder of his brother. Which is exactly what Tinkers do to this day.

In addition to this he is told by God that because of Abel's blood being spilled onto the ground the ground will be poisoned forever and yield no crops.

When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth." (Genesis 4:10–12)


Metal works certainly do poison the land. As for the South Arabian 'qyn' could that be similar to our word 'tin'?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cain_and_Abel

Cain is also marked with a sign of some sorts some traditions say his face turned black. Pretty much what would happen to a metal worker. Well, pretty much what does happen to metal workers. And if they get splashed with molten metal they certainly get marks that will not wash off.

The mark of Cain is also seen as a sign of protection. God tells people that he must never be harmed. That would be useful for a metal worker having the protection of the ruler. He must never be harmed and he has free access to move where he wants to. Which is easier to understand than forbidding people to deal with a murderer. Was God getting soft?

The mark of Cain is God's promise to Cain for divine protection from premature death with the stated purpose to prevent anyone from killing him. It is not known what the mark is, but it is assumed that the mark is visible.[14] Some have speculated that the mark is a Hebrew letter placed on either the face or the arm




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain
TisILeclerc
 
Posts: 790
Joined: 11:40 am

Re: Anglesey

Postby Boreades » 9:56 pm

hvered wrote:It's an interesting question about Genesis, it hadn't occurred to me to consider Cain and Abel as a 'Megalithic' conflict. Abel was a shepherd, Cain a farmer and associated with everything 'evil' including metalwork.


Yes. Isn't our perception and awareness diverted by the overwhelming tone of much of the Bible as we know it now? Which might be described as "Nothing to see here, move along please" Just as Eve and that serpent(!) get the blame for awakening Adam's knowledge of himself, Cain's special knowledge is obscured by the foul fratricide.

But that "serpent" with Adam & Eve might be yet another clue that "old ways" are being cut out of the story. Was that another person we're not supposed to know about? Likewise, King Solomon got into with the Jewish priests when he started adopting the Canaanite ways.

hvered wrote:Regardless of the folkloric stuff about smiths' supposed powers, being forced to work in a smithy or a mine would surely be seen as a terrible if useful occupation, then as now.


Agreed, we shouldn't assume it wasn't all "Hi Ho Hi Ho its off to work we go", or Cousin Jack's tucking into their pasties before nipping home to their loved ones and a pint of cider or two. From memory, doesn't Roman history (of their exploitation of North West Europe's mineral wealth) mention slave labour?
Boreades
 
Posts: 2013
Joined: 2:35 pm

Re: Anglesey

Postby Boreades » 10:59 pm

Another person that's very much been cut-out of the picture and thrown on the cutting room floor is God's Wife. Asherah.

God, also known as Yahweh, had a wife named Asherah, according to a British theologian.

God had a wife, Asherah, whom the Book of Kings suggests was worshipped alongside Yahweh in his temple in Israel, according to an Oxford scholar. In 1967, Raphael Patai was the first historian to mention that the ancient Israelites worshiped both Yahweh and Asherah.

In 1967, Raphael Patai was the first historian to mention that the ancient Israelites worshiped both Yahweh and Asherah. The theory has gained new prominence due to the research of Francesca Stavrakopoulou, who began her work at Oxford and is now a senior lecturer in the department of Theology and Religion at the University of Exeter. Stavrakopoulou bases her theory on ancient texts, amulets and figurines unearthed primarily in the ancient Canaanite coastal city called Ugarit, now modern-day Syria. All of these artifacts reveal that Asherah was a powerful fertility goddess.

Asherah's connection to Yahweh, according to Stavrakopoulou, is spelled out in both the Bible and an 8th century B.C. inscription on pottery found in the Sinai desert at a site called Kuntillet Ajrud. "The inscription is a petition for a blessing," she shares. "Crucially, the inscription asks for a blessing from 'Yahweh and his Asherah.' Here was evidence that presented Yahweh and Asherah as a divine pair. And now a handful of similar inscriptions have since been found, all of which help to strengthen the case that the God of the Bible once had a wife."

Also significant, Stavrakopoulou believes, "is the Bible's admission that the goddess Asherah was worshiped in Yahweh's Temple in Jerusalem. In the Book of Kings, we're told that a statue of Asherah was housed in the temple and that female temple personnel wove ritual textiles for her."


http://news.discovery.com/history/relig ... 110318.htm

This is, of course, a scholarly bun-fight, as the orthodozy stick to their orthodox position:
According to 1 Kings 11:4 Solomon's "wives turned his heart after other gods", their own national deities, to whom Solomon built temples, thus incurring divine anger and retribution in the form of the division of the kingdom after Solomon's death (1 Kings 11:9–13). 1 Kings 11 describes Solomon's descent into idolatry, particularly his turning after Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Sidonians


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon#S ... punishment
Boreades
 
Posts: 2013
Joined: 2:35 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Index

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests