Teddy Francis wrote:
>Regarding Richard Kelham's reply about mediaeval lead, the cross he refers to
>almost certainly dates from the time of Dunstan. The cross was found at the
>level to which he raised that part of the Abbey grounds, and was in a Saxon
>style.
It was indeed in a 10th century Saxon style - which could easily be copied
by 12th century monks with access to a good scriptorium. The fact that it
refers to an early 6th century burial is presumably irrelevant. The words
of the inscription
HIC IACET SEPVLTVS INCLITVS REX ARTVRIVS IN INSVLA AVALONIA
would certainly not have been used at the time of Arthur's death, and are a
bit iffy even in 950. But they could in fact be just the sort of thing a
few devious monks in need of funds for repairs to a fire-ravaged monastery
might come up with? Unfortunately the evidence is long lost.
The argument that the monks forged it because it made them money is
>silly; that would mean everything one profits from is a forgery.
This is irrational: you might as well argue that because a horse has 4
legs, anything with 4 legs is a horse.
>
>Dunstan was born in 909AD, so this would date this use of lead to the
>middle/late tenth Century.
Genuine or not, it does show that lead was indeed in use in the 10th
century, or was supposed, 200 years later, to have been in such use.
Richard Kelham
|