Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
It's not insane. It's a perfectly solid line of reasoning. The Greek and Arthurian mythologies present facts which are clearly incorrect when compared against other historical works covering the same period. Therefore one can make reasonable assumptions about the correctness (or not) of those things which require a stretch of belief.
|
Ooo, I'd be careful there. The later romance works of Malory and his predecessors certainly leave a lot of likelihood to be desired. I'm talking about the real celtic histories, or what we have of them that has been pieced together. There's a lot of 'real' history in those, right down to identified historical personalities and sites. I'd feel inclined to suggest that the Bible has a number of advantages over arthurian lore when it comes to authentication via archaeology, and that it's unfair for you to dismiss them so. There's a fair dollop of pagan mystery in the old lore too, but nothing's been found to disprove that. Sneer at it, though, and you might get a few die-hard arthurian-fan Wiccans in a tizzy.
[ 09-23-2003, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: Tancred ]