Google  


Tuesday, 1 April 2008

Trinovantum

Cast your minds back, folks, three thousand-odd years, to 1100BC. Or thereabouts. To a guy called Brutus, who lived in Troy. Young Brutus had itchy feet. He wanted to travel. To see the world. Of course there wasn't that much world to see in those days, so he needed to go and discover some first. He went on lots of adventures all through Europe and finally crossed the channel to a new country.


Geoffrey of Monmouth reckons that when Brutus arived it was totally uninhabited by humans, but there were a few giants knocking around. He saw them off, and trudged his way up the banks of the Thames looking for a suitable place to build himself a city. Most people, including Geoffrey himself, have assumed that the city of Trinovantum was on the site of what became London, but there are some strange holes in the story.


For starters there's bugger-all prehistoric archaeological evidence in the City of London itself - though of course that could have been obliterated by more recent building. But other accounts just don't feel right either, and there are some who argue that the once-great city was actually at Greenwich. It fits with much of the storytelling at least - the river, the settlement on flat ground and the wooded hills rising up above it where the evil King Mempricius met a sticky end, devoured by wolves.


Even the Blackheath Cavern gets a look-in. Brutus's son Locrin fell in love with a German maiden captured from the Huns. But as luck would have it, he was already engaged to the daughter of the King of Cornwall. Typical. He had to go through with the wedding for the sake of appearances, but he still wanted his end away with the beautiful Estrildis so he hid her in a great underground cavern and visited her for seven years under the pretext of 'making sacrifices to the gods...' Yeah. That old one.


Then there was Bladud, the founder of Bath. He was a necromancer and the fabled father of King Lear. He fancied his chances as an aeronaut and made himself some wings. He took off from a great hill which some suggest could have been One Tree Hill. Gravity won, and he ended up dashed to pieces on the temple of Apollo (the Sun God, making Bladud a British Icarus, perhaps?) in Trinovantum.


Later historians who tried to square Geoffrey of Monmouth's story (he did live about 2,000 years too late) to the London of today had a particularly trying time with "the tower of Trinovantum," trying to shoehorn the Tower of London to fit, even though it was the wrong date and in the wrong place. But Greenwich Hill, where the Observatory stands now, has long been the site of a tower, and it's likely that Duke Humphrey's wasn't the first. If it is there, then there are several dead prehistoric king buried underneath it (don't look to the mounds - they're anglo-saxon.)


When Caesar invaded, he defeated the Britons 'near a place called Trinovantum.' Could it have been Greenwich? After all, the 1st Century historian Cassius Dio describes the loss of Roman troops as they follow the Britons across the Thames 'at a point near where it empties into the ocean and at flood tide forms a lake.' At that time the Thames would have been fordable at Greenwich.


So. Fariy story or archaeological possibility? Your guess is as good as mine...

Labels:

13 Comments:

Anonymous Shaun said...

Best post ever.

01 April 2008 08:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You've been reading that Beryl Platts! None of that has ever verified by any other historion else - Huh! You should be saying 'come on Beryl, where are your sources?'

01 April 2008 09:57  
Anonymous Gwladys Street Market said...

Brutus was definitely big in the locality. My empirical evidence- I know this to be true because I bought a checked shirt with his name in it down Deptford market in the early 70's (couldn't afford the altogether classier Ben Sherman option at the time).

Robert Elms 'The Way We Wore' is a great read if you are into that sort of stuff.

Seriously, I enjoyed reading about this theory, fanciful, or otherwise.

01 April 2008 11:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And todays date is ??

01 April 2008 12:42  
Blogger The Greenwich Phantom said...

Ok - yeah - I was going to come clean as soon as I got home - i.e. now. I did choose today to post this because when I read it - and yes, Anon, you're right Ms Platts is my one and only source for this - I was extremely sceptical - today seemed like a good date to cover this, ahem, concept.

01 April 2008 13:04  
Blogger Franklin said...

Ahh, Phantom, I think we need more on the Good King Mempricius - perhaps from William Baldwin's Mirror for Magistrates (1559) poem "How King Mempricius geuen to all lust was devoured by wolues," which "famously combined a Lactantius citation with a reference to the sodomy of" our erstwhile Greenwich-ite...

01 April 2008 13:55  
Blogger The Greenwich Phantom said...

Ouch...

01 April 2008 14:25  
Anonymous Silly Billy said...

Sorry - I got confused. I thought you meant MIKE Baldwin...

01 April 2008 14:30  
Blogger Dazza said...

Nearly as convincing as the Flying Penguins on BBC........or the 'Greyhound racing ......on ICE' from the National Daily Press (I think it was the Mail, now they never lie do they????)

01 April 2008 21:25  
Blogger The Greenwich Phantom said...

The sad thing is that it's purveyed by Beryl Platts as 'true.' I love her writing style and I thoroughly enjoy her work - but there's something so fishy about that Trinovantum tale that 1st April was the only date I could really post it...

02 April 2008 11:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I re-read the piece in her Greenwich book last night and didn't get the feeling it was purveyed as 'true' - but a speculation about Greenwich before the Romans arrived.

After all, we all agree Greenwich is a wonderful place and it's hard to believe it wasn't well used in prehistoric times.

02 April 2008 12:06  
Blogger Franklin said...

I haven't (yet) had the pleasure of reading Mrs. Platt, but thought you might enjoy this review from the December 1973 American Historical Review, which is so scathingly down-its-nose academic pooh-poohing that by the end the author - one Donald J. Olsen from Vassar College - actually disappears up his own b*m...

"Greenwich deserves a full and careful modern study as much as any London suburb. Mrs. Platt's book unfortunately maintains the grand tradition of English local history in its anecdotal approach and its tendency to devote attention to the periods of Greenwich's past in inverse proportion to the amount of hard evidence available. Time spent demonstrating its possible identity with pre-Roman Trinovantum and connecting it to incidents related by Geoffrey of Monmouth would have been better devoted to expanding its well-documented history from the Tudor period to the present."

And the real killer: "The book has a brief bibliography but no footnotes..."

02 April 2008 12:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Beryl Platts is quietly amused at the interest in a book she wrote more than 35 years ago (time for a reprint, maybe? Perhaps with a concordance?) There's nothing so susceptible to fashion as history (and archaeology, and if some recent writers are happy to accept Geoffrey of Monmouth as gospel, so be it. Difficult to prove a negative, and until the archaeologists find a sign - wherever but in undisputable situ - saying "Welcome to Trinovantum, twinned with Troy" the debate could continue. Greenwich is very unusual in that a large area at its heart has been undeveloped since 1433, and for the greater part of that time any excavations (tree planting holes and the like) could have been done in perfect privacy; it's a different story for the City.

Special joke for Franklin. Yes, BP writes for the general reader, not American professors of Tudorish history, but she was hopping mad when the publishers (David & Charles)repeatedly moved the goal posts after commissioning the book, and insisted, for instance, on the removal of all footnotes.

08 May 2008 17:23  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home