I have just read your fascinating posts on the lost city of Apollo, and on the Druids. Your theory on the antiquity of the Druids resonated with me, because not long ago I came to the conclusion that the people of Stonehenge probably spoke an archaic dialect of Indo-European which came with the Beaker people. I came to this conclusion for much the same reasons as you (traces of archaic Indo-European in names), and also because it seems a number of archaic Indo-European dialects survived into Roman times (e.g. Lusitanian, Ligurian). I was initially more resistant to the lost city of Apollo theory, but the more I read it, the more it began to convince me. Then I wondered about the name of the kings and supervisors, Boreades. At first I thought it was just based on Boreas the north wind, but then, being a retired lecturer in linguistics, I dug a little deeper. Boreas also means devourer, but that seemed irrelevant. There is a Gaulish god called Borvo, whose name is associated with an Indo-European root meaning ‘boil, bubble, brew’, but again I couldn’t see the connection. Then I started pursuing an idea that the people of Stonehenge, having started out as metal-workers, probably gained all their power and prestige from bronze and the copper/tin trade, at least until things started going bad in the Mediterranean with the Sea Peoples and the collapse of Mycenae and the Hittite Empire. So I looked at the etymology of ‘bronze’, which was irrelevant, but discovered that in times past, bronze was called ‘brass’. It turns out that ‘brass’ has no known etymology, and no Indo-European cognate’. The dictionary suggests French ‘brasser’ (brew) as a possible source, so I checked on ‘brew’, which brings us to the proto-Indo-European *bhreue- “to bubble, boil, effervesce” (Borvo again!). So were the Boreads, in the archaic Indo-European dialect of the Stonehenge people, the people who “boiled metal”? If they were smelters of “brass”, this would explain their injunctions against collecting selago with iron.
One more thing. This has probably been suggested already, but does Amesbury have anything to do with ‘ambrosia’ (=immortal), and could Ambrosius Aurelianus (=golden immortal) be a memory of the sun god?

Best wishes,
Robin

Kid over there

Thanks very much for writing in, while I’m flattered that you thought that what I had to say was worth the trouble of writing and posting an executive summary. You’ve got a good point here, so I’ll spell out my position.

I’m only interested in the truth about Stonehenge and I honestly don’t have any dogmatic points of view about the place. If it turns out that I’m right about something – great. However, if I’m wrong, then anyone’s free to write in and point out my mistakes in public, as they have done before now.

Other than that, there’s the issue of the length of some of the posts I put up. When I was a kid, I used to bury myself in books, so if I came across one such as Gods, Graves and Scholars that went into enormous detail about something I was particularly interested in, then I just couldn’t be happier. While I write and do my studies for the pleasure of it, I presume that “out there somewhere” are others who enjoy reading similar degrees of detail, so what I write is primarily for them, whoever they may be and whatever they may think of my conclusions.

As you might have seen, I’ve just posted up a second lengthy story about Pytheas, but there are two and possibly three more such entries to come. I’ve come across “nameless others” in my time who hold strong opinions on Stonehenge, but when I politely asked them for something to back up their assertions, they stared at me as if I were a cretin and snarled, “It’s obvious, innit? It’s SPIRITUAL!!!” or some variant on the same theme. If I’m saying that I know where Pytheas’ City of Apollo was, then I’m honour-bound to back this claim up with every piece of credible evidence that I can possibly muster.

Anyway, back to the Lost City of Apollo, Part ye Third….

Thanks again and best wishes from

Dennis

Thank you very much for writing in and thank you for your kind words, as they’re much appreciated. As long as it was well worth the read, regardless of whether you agree with me or not, that’s all that matters.

I remember reading about Bruce’s idea some years back and I like to think that I’m open-minded about Stonehenge. However, I seem to remember that a fairly pivotal part of his concept was that the Y and Z holes had once held bluestones or some other stones, but from everything I’ve read about these pits, it seems pretty certain that they never held stones of any kind. Anyway, I’ll look into it again and thanks for writing in.

Best wishes from

Dennis

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=463332&in_page_id=1770