Geskiedenis Podcasts

Middeleeuse grafte van Orbeliese prinses

Middeleeuse grafte van Orbeliese prinses


Anarkali

Anarkali (Oerdoe: انارکلی, aangesteek. 'granaatbloeisel'), was die gegewe bynaam van 'n legendariese hofmeester wat na bewering die liefdesbelang was van die 16de eeuse Mughal -prins Salim, wat later die keiser Jahangir geword het.

Volgens die legende het Anarkali 'n onwettige verhouding met Salim gehad, en sy pa, die Mughal -keiser Akbar, het haar tereggestel. Daar is geen historiese bewyse van die bestaan ​​van Anarakali nie en die egtheid van haar verhaal word onder akademici betwis. Haar karakter verskyn gereeld in flieks, boeke en gefiksionaliseerde weergawes van die geskiedenis. Sy word beroemd uitgebeeld in die Bollywood -film uit 1960 Mughal-e-Azam, waar sy deur Madhubala uitgebeeld word.


Inhoud

Lede van die hoër klas van die Middeleeuse Armeense samelewing was bekend as nakharars (Armeens: նախարար) en azats (Armeens: ազատ), (ook aznvakans (Armeens: ազնվական)).

Die wortels van die Armeense adel spoor terug na die antieke stamgenootskap, toe die proto-Armeense stamme van die oorspronklike Indo-Europese gemeenskap geskei het en hoofleiers gekies het om die gemeenskap te bestuur, grondgebied te verdedig en militêre veldtogte teen hul vyande te lei. Hierdie hoofmanne en leiers was gewoonlik die sterkste lede van die stamme en stamme, wat bekend geword het vir hul krag, intelligensie en dade. So het geleidelik die hoër klas van die Armeense samelewing ontstaan, naamlik die van die azats, ook bekend as aznwakans of aznavurs. Die woord is uit hedendaagse Armeens vertaal azat beteken letterlik "een wat vry is", 'n 'vryman'. Hierdie term is egter waarskynlik afgelei van die ouer Indo-Europese woord "yazata", wat beteken "die goddelike", "nakomeling van gode", "die een wat verdien om aanbid te word".

Armeense adellike stamme het hul oorsprong teruggevoer, óf terug na die gode van die ou Armeense godsdiens óf na die helde en aartsvaders van die Armeense volk of die oorsprong van nie-Armeense gesinne. Byvoorbeeld, die edele huise van Vahevuni en Mehnuni is vermoedelik die nageslag van Vahagn en Mihr, antieke Armeense vuur en oorlog, en onderskeidelik hemelse lig en geregtigheid. Die House of Artzruni het sy oorsprong teruggevoer na Sanasar, seun van Mher uit die Armeense epos Sasna Tzrer. Volgens die Armeense aristokratiese tradisie word geglo dat die prinshuise van [Poladian] Khorkhoruni, Bznuni, Mandakuni, Rshtuni, Manavazian, Angelea (Angegh tun), Varajnuni, Vostanikyan, Ohanian, Cartozian, Apahuni, Arran tun en sommige ander nog wees direkte afstammelinge van Nahapet (patriarg) Hayk, wie se naam was Dyutsazn (uit antieke Grieks θεός, wat "goddelik" beteken), of van Hayk se afstammelinge. Dit is redelik algemeen in alle dele van die wêreld dat lede van die adel beweer dat hulle hul afkoms na gode of legendariese helde terugvoer. Boonop het die Bagratuni -dinastie volgens die legende sy oorsprong in Judea, volgens Movses Khorenatsi, toe hulle in die 6de eeu v.C. Die Mamikonyan -dinastie het ook legendes gehad om uit China te kom. [1]

Die historici noem verskillende getalle van die Armeense adellike huise gedurende verskillende tydperke van die Armeense geskiedenis. Soms word hulle getal negentig genoem, maar ander kere bereik dit driehonderd. Die aantal Armeense adellike huise het beslis mettertyd verander, aangesien die aristokratiese klas self onderhewig was aan verandering.

Die eerste getuig Armeense koninklike dinastie was die Orontids, wat in die 4de eeu vC as 'n satrapie van die Persiese Ryk regeer het. Dit word voorafgegaan deur legendariese of semi-legendariese aartsvaders van die Armeense tradisie, wat die eerste keer in die Geskiedenis toegeskryf aan Moses van Chorene (Movses Khorenatsi), omstreeks die 5de eeu geskryf. [2] [3] [4]

Die edele huise van Rshtuni, Mokats, Artzruni en ander is afkomstig van stamheersers of stamme wat reeds in die oudheid was. Sommige ander, soos die Mamikonians of Aravelians, het edele titels en/of ampte gekry, soos aspet (Armeens: ասպետ), 'coronator' en sparapet (Armeens: սպարապետ), 'generalissimo' deur spesiale bevele van Middeleeuse Armeense konings vir hul dienste aan die koninklike hof of die nasie.

Sommige Armeense Christelike historici is geneig om sekere Armeense adellike huise uit Mesopotamiese of ander wortels af te lei. In sy Geskiedenis van Armenië spoor Movses Khorenatsi byvoorbeeld die gesinsoorsprong van sy borgprins Sahak Bagratuni na nie-Armeense wortels. Die historiese bronne bewys egter die bestaan ​​van die Bagratuni -familie in die oudste tydperk van die Armeense geskiedenis en praat daarvan as inheemse Armeniërs. Die taalkundige analise beweer ook dat die naam Bagarat waarskynlik van Indo-Europese oorsprong is. Dit is opmerklik dat prins Bagratuni self Khorenatsi se weergawe van die oorsprong van sy gesin verwerp het. Eksotiese afdraande was in die mode onder die vroeë Middeleeuse Armeense aristokratiese families. Daar is egter geen bewyse wat enige van hierdie bewerings van afkoms ondersteun nie.

Die adel het altyd 'n belangrike rol gespeel in die Armeense samelewing. Dit word onder meer bewys deur die evolusie van die term nakharar. Aanvanklik verwys hierdie term na die oorerflike goewerneurs van die Armeense provinsies en word dit gebruik met die betekenis van "heerser" en "goewerneur". Dieselfde titel kan 'n besonder eerbare diens beteken (nakhararutyun, nakharardom) aan die Armeense koninklike hof. Voorbeelde van sulke oorerflike dienste of nakharardoms is aspetutyun (kroning, wat tradisioneel tot die huis van Bagratuni behoort het), sparapetutyun (opperbevelhebber van die Armeense weermag, wat tradisioneel tot die huis van Mamikonean behoort het), hazarapetutyun (kanseliers en belasting, wat erflik bestuur is deur die huise van Gnuni en Amatuni), en malhazutyun (koninklike wag wat tradisioneel georganiseer was en na die huis van Khorkhoruni gegaan het). In die loop van oorerflike konsolidasie van gavars (provinsies) of koninklike hofdienste deur adellike huise, het die term nakharar sy oorspronklike betekenis verander en geleidelik verander in 'n generiese ekwivalent van 'aristokraat', 'edelman'. Gevolglik het die aristokratiese gesinne nakharar -huise of nakharardoms genoem. Saam met hierdie analise is daar 'n ander interpretasie van die term nakharar, wat op Armeens gebaseer is nakh en arar, dit wil sê "die eerste geskape" of "die eerste gebore".

Die betekenis van die term nakharar ontwikkel parallel met die konsolidasie van die erflike regte van die adellike huise oor die graafskappe van Groot -Armenië. [5] Byvoorbeeld, die graafskap Groot Albak is tradisioneel geërf deur die edele huis Artzruni, die graafskap Taron deur die huis Slkuni en die graafskap Rshtuniq deur die huis Rshtuni. Selfs voor hierdie konsolidasie verskyn die tradisionele aristokratiese embleme en wapen. Laasgenoemde is dikwels diep gewortel in die ou verwantskap en stamoortuigings en totems van die Armeense stamme. Alhoewel die inligting oor die Armeense heraldiek baie beperk is, is dit tog welbekend dat die mees algemene simbole dié van die arend, leeu en bergram was. Die wapen van die Artasjiese dinastie het byvoorbeeld bestaan ​​uit twee arende met die simbool van son in die middel. 'N Arend wat 'n skaap vashou, was ook die huissimbool van Bagratuni nakharardom. Die dinastiese embleem van die Silisiese Armeense koningshuis Lusignan (Lusinian) weerspieël Wes -Europese heraldiese invloed en bestaan ​​uit rooi leeus en kruise op die geel en blou agtergrond van die skild. Die nakharar-families van antieke Armenië is gelys in die sogenaamde Gahnamaks en Zoranamaks, wat die amptelike inventarisse of registrateurs was wat die gesinne op grond van die kriteria van eer, deug en agting geposisioneer het. Die verskil tussen Gahnamak en Zoranamak was in die noteringskriteria wat die agting van die adellike familie bepaal het. Zoranamak was gebaseer op die militêre sterkte van die huise, dit wil sê die aantal besitte kavallerie en infanterie, die verantwoordelikheid om die noordelike, oostelike, suidelike en westelike grense van Armenië te verdedig, asook die grootte van die troepe wat die edele huise onder geplaas het die bevel van die koning van Armenië in tye van militêre veldtogte. Anders as Zoranamak, het Gahnamak die edele huise gelys op grond van die kriteria van politieke en ekonomiese belangrikheid van die huise, grootte van hul boedels, hul rykdom, sowel as hul verbintenisse en invloed op die koninklike howe.

Twee ander begrippe van die Armeense adel met betrekking tot Gahnamak en Zoranamak is dié van bardz en pativ. Bardz beteken letterlik "kussing". Dit was die sitplek wat die hoof van die edele huis by die koninklike tafel beklee het, hetsy tydens die raad of tydens die feeste. Die woord bardz kom uit hierdie kussings waarop die eienaars van huise by spesiale geleenthede gesit het. Bardzes - letterlik gedempte sitplekke aan die koninklike tafel, maar in breë trekke die werklike status by die koninklike hof - is versprei op grond van pativ, dit wil sê letterlik die eer en agting van die edele huise. Laasgenoemde is waarskynlik in Gahnamaks en Zoranamaks reggestel.

Gahnamak Edit

Gahnamak (Armeens: Գահնամակ, letterlik: "troonregistrateur") - was 'n amptelike staatsdokument, 'n lys van plekke en trone (bardzes) wat die Armeense prinse en nakharars by die koninklike hof van Armenië beset het. Die troon van die prins of nakharar is gedefinieer deur sy ekonomiese of militêre krag (volgens die Zoranamak letterlik: "sterkte registrateur"), sowel as volgens die antieke tradisie. Gahnamak is deur die koning van Armenië saamgestel en verseël omdat die nakharars (here) as sy vasale beskou word. Nakharar trone (gahsdie posisies by die koninklike hof) het selde verander en is van vader tot seun geërf. Slegs in spesiale omstandighede - soos hoogverraad, die staking van die gesin, ens. - het die koning die reg gehad om 'n paar veranderinge in die Gahnamak aan te bring. Die volgorde en klassifikasie van die trone van die Armeense here is sedert die antieke tye gedefinieer en waargeneem.

Volgens Khorenatsi was die eerste werklike lys van here in die vorm van Gahnamak die Armeense koning Vologases I (Vagharsh I). Volgens die opgetekende bronne bestaan ​​die klassifikasie van die trone van die Armeense here in die vorm van Gahnamak gedurende die bewind van die Arshakuni (Arsacid) dinastie (1ste - 5de eeu). Dieselfde stelsel is gedurende die Marzpaniese tydperk voortgesit in die geskiedenis van Armenië (5de -7de eeu), dit wil sê tydens die oppergesag van die Sasaniese konings van Persië. Daar is aansienlike afwykings en onjuisthede in die gegewens van Gahnamaks van verskillende eeue rakende die aantal prinslike huise en hul trone. Volgens die Gahnamak van die 4de eeu wat bewaar is in "The Deeds of Nerses", tydens die bewind van koning Arsaces II (Arshak II) (c.350-368) het die aantal Armeense aristokratiese huise 400 bereik. Maar die skrywer van " Die Deeds "noem die familiename van slegs 167 here, van wie 13 nie 'n troon gehad het nie. Die skrywer verduidelik self dat hy nie almal kan noem nie. Die Armeense historikus van die 13de eeu Stepanos Orbelian noem ook 400 trone van nakharar, wat 'troon en respek' gehad het by die koninklike hof van koning Trdat III (287-332). Pavstos Buzand noem 900 prinslike here, wat eredienste by die koninklike hof gehou het en op 'n spesiale troon (gah) of kussing (bardz) gesit het.

Die Gahnamak word vermoedelik geskryf deur die Armeense Katolieke Sahak Parthev (387-439), wie se van 'n verre Persiese oorsprong uit die Parthav of Partiese stam. Sahak Parthev het die registrateur aan die Sasaniese Persiese hof beskikbaar gestel en 'n totaal van 70 Armeense nakharars genoem. In 'n ander bron van die 4de eeu is 86 nakharars gelys. Volgens die Arabiese chronoloog Yacoubi (9de eeu) was daar 113 here in die administratiewe provinsie Arminiya, terwyl 'n ander Arabiese historikus, Yacout al-Hamavi (12-13de eeu), die aantal Armeense owerhede 118 was. Armeense historici Agathangelos, Pavstos Buzand , Yeghishe, Lazar Parbetsi, Movses Khorenatsi, Sebeos en ander verskaf ook talle gegewens en inligting oor Armeense prinslike huise en here. Die Gahnamaks en lyste van nakharars (prinslike huise), gebaseer op hierdie data en inligting, bly egter onvolledig.

Interne afdelings Redigeer

Die Armeense adel het 'n interne afdeling gehad. Die sosiale piramide van die Armeense adel was onder leiding van die koning in Armeens arqa. Die term arqa kom van die algemene Ariese wortel wat ekwivalente het in die naam van monarge in ander Indo-Europese tale: arxatos in Grieks, raja in Indo-Ariërs, rex of regnum in Latyn, roi in Frans, en reis in Persies.

Die seuns van die koning, dit wil sê prinse, is geroep sepuh. Die oudste seun, wat ook die kroonprins was en geroep is avag sepuh, 'n besondere rol gespeel het. In die geval van die koning se dood sou die avag sepuh outomaties die kroon erf, tensy daar ander vooraf reëlings was.

Die tweede laag in die sosiale afdeling van die Armeense adel was beset deur bdeshkhs. Bdeshkh was 'n heerser van 'n groot grensprovinsie van historiese Groot -Armenië. Hulle was de facto viceroys en was deur hul voorregte baie na aan die koning. Bdeshkhs het hul eie leër-, belasting- en pligte -stelsel gehad en kon selfs hul eie munte vervaardig.

Die derde laag van die Armeense aristokrasie na die koning en die bdeshkhs is saamgestel deur ishkhans, dit wil sê prinse. Die term ishkhan kom van die ou Ariese wortel xshatriya (vegter-heerser). Ishkhan sou gewoonlik 'n oorerflike boedel hê, bekend as hayreniq en koshuis - dastakert. Armeense prinshuise (of stamme) was aan die hoof tanuter. By sy betekenis die woord tun (huis) is baie naby tohm (stam). Gevolglik beteken tanuter 'huisheer' of 'heer van die stam'.

Organisatories was die Armeense adel onder leiding van groothertog - metz ishxan of ishxanac ishxan in Armeens, wat in sommige historiese kronieke ook genoem word metzametz. Hy was die marshal van die Armeense adel en het spesiale voorregte en pligte gehad. Byvoorbeeld, in die geval van die dood van die koning en as daar geen erflike sepuh (kroonprins) was nie, was dit die groot hertog wat die verantwoordelikhede tydelik sou neem en die pligte van die koning sou verrig totdat die troonopvolging opgelos is. In werklikheid sou die troonopvolgings egter vooraf gereël word of opgelos word tydens vete en dermstryd.

Die sosiale piramide van die adel van Groot -Armenië bevat dus die volgende lae:

  • Arka of Tagavor (koning)
  • Bdeshkh (onderkoning)
  • Ishkhanats ishkhan (groot hertog)
  • Ishkhan (prins)

Hierdie afdeling weerspieël egter die spesifieke tradisie van Groot -Armenië in die vroeë geskiedenis. Uiteraard het die sosiale struktuur van adel mettertyd veranderings ondergaan wat die besonderhede van die Armeense gebiede, die historiese era en die spesifieke sosiale verhoudinge sou beïnvloed. Byvoorbeeld, in die Middeleeue het die name en samestelling van die adel van die Armeense koninkryk Cilicië (Kilikia) sekere veranderinge ondergaan:

Die Silisiese Armenië het baie eienaardighede van die Wes -Europese klassifikasie van die adel aangeneem, soos paron (afkomstig van "baron"), ter of sinyor (senior), berdater (kasteelheer) ens. Boonop het Armeense ridderskap in Silisië ontstaan, wat ook as deel van die adel beskou is, ondanks die feit dat ridders self - genoem dziawor и hetzelwor - nie altyd van parons afkomstig was nie.

Sommige ander kenmerke het ook verander. Byvoorbeeld, terwyl die groet vir die edeles in Groot -Armenië was tiar of ter, in die Silisiese Armenië is 'n nuwe vorm van groet hierby gevoeg, naamlik paron. Laasgenoemde het die gewildste vorm van groet geword en geleidelik die betekenis daarvan verander na die ekwivalent van "meneer" in die moderne Armeens.


Argeoloë identifiseer koninklike grafte van Pereslavl -prinse

Argeoloë van die Instituut vir Argeologie, van die Russiese Akademie van Wetenskappe het die koninklike grafte van die Pereslavl -prinse Dmitry Alexandrovich en Ivan Dmitrievich, die afstammelinge van Alexander Nevsky, die legendariese Rus -prins en die heilige van die Russies -Ortodokse Kerk geïdentifiseer.

Dmitri Alexandrovitsj was die tweede seun van Alexander Nevsky, wat by die dood van sy vader in 1264 na sy geboorteland Pereslavl-Zalessky verdryf is deur die inwoners van Novgorod (wat deur Alexander aan hom nagelaat is).

Dmitry het 'n dekade lank baklei vir sy geboorte teen sy ooms, Yaroslav III en Vasily van Kostroma, en uiteindelik opklim na die troon van Vladimir en Novgorod as die groot prins van Vladimir-Suzdal van 1276 tot 1281, en dan van 1283 tot 1293, waar hy het kloostergeloftes afgelê en die volgende jaar gesterf.

Na die dood van prins Ivan in 1302 gaan Pereslavl oor na die jongste seun van Alexander Nevsky, die eerste Moskou prins Daniil Alexandrovich, wat Pereslavl aan die Moskou prinsdom geannekseer het. Vanaf daardie oomblik het Pereslavl opgehou om te bestaan ​​as 'n vreemde stad.

Beide die prinse is begrawe in die Transfigurasie-katedraal in Pereslavl, een van die oudste witsteenkerke van die pre-Mongoolse Rusland.

Volgens dokumente uit die 19de eeu was daar drie baksteen-grafstene langs die suidelike deel van die katedraal: een in die suidoostelike hoek en twee in die westelike deel. Na herstelwerk is die grafstene gebreek, met twee grafstene met die naam Dmitry Alexandrovich en Ivan Dmitrievich wat onder die koor van die katedraal opgerig is.

In 1939 het 'n argeologiese ekspedisie onder leiding van Nikolai Voronin die ruimte onder die grafstene oopgemaak en gevind dat niemand onder die plaat begrawe is met die opskrif oor die rus van prins Dmitri Alexandrovich.

Onder die grafsteen met die naam van prins Ivan Dmitrievich is 'n eikeskis en 'n wit klipgraf ontbloot, bedek met fragmente van laat grafstene van die 16de tot 17de eeu. Daar word voorgestel dat beide die seun en die kleinseun van prins Alexander op hierdie plek begrawe is, met die seun in 'n houtkis en die kleinseun in 'n klip -sarkofaag, waarvoor historici tot vandag toe by hierdie hipotese gehou het.

Tussen 2014 en 2020 het argeoloë van die Instituut vir Argeologie van die Russiese Akademie van Wetenskappe verdere opgrawings gedoen om die vorste op te spoor.

In die suidoostelike hoek van die katedraal het argeoloë dele van 'n wit klip-sarkofaag ontdek, uit 'n enkele stuk klip gesny en dele van die deksel behou. Volgens die bronne uit die 19de eeu was die begraafplaas van die Pereslavl -prins Dmitri Alexandrovich oorspronklik hier.

Die ontwerpeienskappe van die sarkofaag toon aan dat die tradisies van die voor-Mongoolse Vladimir-Suzdal Rus in die 13de eeu voortgesit het. Hierdie sarkofaag is soortgelyk aan 'n ander grafsteen van 'n wit klip, wat in die suidwestelike deel van die katedraal geleë was en vermoedelik die begraafplaas van prins Ivan Dmitrievich is.

Vladimir Sedov van die IA RAS en 'n lid van die Russian Academy of Sciences het gesê: 'Ons kon eers nou verstaan ​​waar albei afstammelinge van Alexander Nevsky eintlik begrawe is. Twee prinslike sarkofae was op dieselfde lyn in die suidelike deel van die katedraal: die vader is begrawe in die oostelike hoek, aan die kant van die altaar, en die seun - in die westelike deel, wat ook 'n gesogte en belangrike suidelike deel is van die katedraal. ”

Header Image-fragmente van die wit klip-sarkofaag van die begrafnis van prins Dmitry Alexandrovich-Beeldkrediet: IA RAS


Graf van die Swart Prins

Sien alle foto's

In die katedraal van Canterbury lê 'n beeld van 'n ridder met 'n snor in volle wapenrusting bo -op 'n marmergraf asof dit in 'n sluimer lê wat eeue lank geduur het. Gebad in die kaleidoskopiese gekleurde lig wat deur die vensters van die loodglas vloei, word sy handvatsels vasgeklem, asof in gebed, en sy aangewese voete rus op 'n grynsende leeuwyfie.

Dit is die graf van Edward van Woodstock, oftewel "die Swart Prins", een van die grootste krygers van die Middeleeuse Engeland, wat talle gevegte van die Honderdjarige Oorlog tussen Engeland en Frankryk geveg en oorleef het, net om jonk te sterf aan 'n siekte wat veroorsaak is deur 'n bakteriese infeksie.

Prins Edward, gebore in 1330 as die seun van koning Edward III van Engeland en die Vlaamse gebore koningin Philippa, het op 'n gemilitariseerde tyd in Brittanje grootgeword, waartydens die dreigement van 'n Franse inval dikwels dreigend gelyk het. Hy was dus van jongs af op skool, nie net in filosofie en logika nie, maar ook in oorlogvoering.

Sy eerste oorlogservaring kom in 1346 toe hy saam met sy pa in 'n veldtog teen die Franse leërs in die beroemde Slag van Crécy saamloop. Tydens die geveg het die prins en sy afdeling te midde van die geveg gekom en hy is byna dood deur 'n woedende teenaanval. Dit het 'n ridder aangespoor om 'n dringende boodskap aan die prins se pa te stuur om versterkings aan te vra. In wat slegs 'n daad van uiterste 'harde liefde' genoem kan word, het die koning geantwoord dat hy nie hulp sou stuur nie, omdat hy wou hê dat sy seun 'sy spore' in die stryd moes bewys. Die prins moes presies dit doen, en die geveg het uiteindelik 'n Engelse oorwinning tot gevolg gehad.

Oor die daaropvolgende jare het die vegterprins in ontelbare bloedige gevegte geveg, waaronder die beleg van Calais. Op 'n stadium het hy (ironies genoeg) sy vader te hulp gekom en die koning se lewe gered tydens 'n Franse aanval. Tydens die seestryd van Winchelsea val die prins en sy magte 'n groot Spaanse skip aan wat met die Franse verbonde was, en het ondanks die feit dat hulle in die minderheid was en amper gesink het, sy bemanning verslaan. Van 1355 tot 1359 het Edward verdere militêre ekspedisies na Frankryk gelei en verskeie gevegte in die Middeleeuse Franse streke Aquitaine, Poitiers en Reims geveg en gewen en daarna as huursoldaat in die gevegte tussen die konings van Spanje deur die 1360's gegaan. Hy het later bekend geword as die Swart Prins, moontlik as 'n verwysing na die kleur van sy wapenrusting, en moontlik omdat hy genadeloos in die geveg was.

Prins Edward word beskou as die tipiese ridderlike ridder en 'n nasionale oorlogsheld, en was 'n belowende erfgenaam van die Engelse troon. Maar hy sou nooit koning word nie. Ondanks die vele suksesse van die Swart Prins, kon hy nie die siekte bestry wat op 45 -jarige ouderdom sy lewe geneem het nie, 'n jaar voor sy pa se dood.


Die Wêreld van die Middeleeuse Dogdom

Die mense van die Middeleeuse Europa was toegewyd aan hul honde, 'n groot Franse hondeliefhebber het verklaar dat die grootste gebrek van die spesie was dat hulle 'nie lank genoeg gelewe het nie'.

Detail van Tacuinum Sanitatis, 14de eeuse Middeleeuse handboek vir gesondheid.

Die latere middeleeue, en die jare daarna, was een van die mees 'doggy' periodes in die geskiedenis. Jag en smous was verreweg die gewildste sportsoorte van die ontspanne klasse, wat ook daarvan gehou het om honde net as troeteldiere aan te hou, en die res van die bevolking het dit as beskerming en veewag gebruik. Uitvoerende honde is baie bewonder, en mense hoor graag fantastiese garings van die buitengewone getrouheid en intelligensie van honde.

Die groot hertog van Berry het persoonlik 'n hond gaan besoek wat geweier het om die graf van sy heer te verlaat en 'n bedrag geld aan 'n buurman gegee om die getroue dier vir die res van sy dae in voedsel te hou. Hondsdolheid was weliswaar onaangenaam algemeen, maar dit was een van die siektes waaraan die vlees erfgenaam is, wat nie teen die hondras gehou moet word nie - en vir die byt van 'n mal hond het jy 'n wye keuse van middels, wat wissel van boklewer tot see bad.

Die aristokrate van die Middeleeuse dogdom was windhonde en wat ons voorouers 'hardloophonde' genoem het, waarmee hulle onlogies honde bedoel het wat jag met geur eerder as op spoed. Met windhonde bedoel hulle enigiets van 'n windhondsoort, van 'n Ierse wolfhond tot 'n klein Italiaanse windhond, wat een van die probleme is wat hondegenealoë ondervind. 'N Windhond, die gunsteling geskenk van prinse, was die gewone held van die Middeleeuse hondverhaal.

Volgens 'n skrywer uit die 14de eeu, moet hy hoflik en nie te kwaai wees nie, terwyl hy sy meester volg en doen wat hy ook al beveel, hy moet goed en vriendelik en vriendelik wees, bly en vreugdevol en vriendelik, welwillend en goed vir almal. mense red tot die wilde beestis '. Hierdie paragon was die spesiale troeteldier van die edele heer, en sy beeld is dikwels op grafstene aan die voete van sy heer geplaas. Die dame van die ridder was geskik vir skoothonde, en ook hul afbeeldings, afsonderlik of in pare, word op grafte uitgekap, kompleet met kraag en klokkies.

Speelgoedhonde, soos modieuse klere, veroorsaak altyd ontsteltenis van moraliste, en een 16de-eeuse kritikus, wat verklaar dat hulle gesoek is om 'Wanton-vrouewilies' te bevredig, veroordeel hulle as 'instrumente van follie om te speel en dallie withal, in om die skat van tyd weg te neem, om hul gedagtes te onttrek aan meer lofwaardige oefeninge, 'n lawwe arme skof om hul lastige ledigheid te vermy '.

Hoe kleiner 'hierdie hondjies' is, sê hy, hoe meer plesier hulle verskaf

plafonborde vir minnende minnaresse om in hul boesem te slaap om in die bed te slaap en te voed met mat aan boord, om in hul skoot te lê en hul lippe te lek terwyl hulle in hul waens en katte lê. Sommige van hierdie soort mense verlustig hulle meer in hul honde, wat alle rede ontneem word, as by kinders wat wysheid en oordeel kan

Dit het 'n bekende ring, en hierdie streng vermaner sou pynlik geskok gewees het deur die geestelike skrywer van 'n vroeëre en gewilde ensiklopedie wat onder die lofwaardige eienskappe van die spesie noem dat 'n hond sy minnares en haar minnaar sal waarsku oor die benadering van die meester . Maar morele besprekings uitmekaar, hoe was hierdie speelgoed? Sommige van hulle het soos pugs gelyk, maar met langer neuse. Hulle kom met lang hare en kort, die gladde omslag kom meer gereeld voor, en uiterstes van bouvorm soos worshondbene kon nie gevind word nie.

Die ore kan kort of hang en die sterte is lank gedra; ons voorouers het blykbaar niks onwelvoegliks in 'n normale stert gesien nie. Baie grafstene en koper wys honde wat groter is as skoothonde (moontlik honde) en herdenk natuurlik spesiale troeteldiere - veral die graf van die Swart Prins in die katedraal van Canterbury. Soms is die hond se naam ook bygevoeg, en 'Jakke' en 'Terri' kyk nog steeds ernstig na ons deur die eeue.

Daar is baie gesê oor middeleeuse honde wat baklei oor bene onder die tafel in die groot saal, en dit is dikwels genoeg, maar etiketteboeke uit die 15de eeu het dit slegte maniere uitgespreek om 'n hond of kat tydens maaltye te streel of om 'n ander te maak by die tafelronde ', en beveel die valet wat sy hoofslaapkamer voorberei om' dogg en catte uit te droog '.

Maar die eienaars se idees het destyds soos nou verskil, en 'n vroulike protagonis van jag het gesê dat spaniels en windhonde op beddens geslaap het, wat bewys dat die smaak van honde dieselfde bly. Eintlik was honde gereeld by die soort funksies waaraan ons nooit sou droom om hulle toe te laat nie. Hulle was dikwels getuienis by koninklike howe, en nieteenstaande etiketreëls, die hertog van Berry Très Riches Heures toon twee klein hondjies reg op die tafel tydens 'n hertoglike fees, terwyl 'n bediende voor hom 'n verwagtende windhond voer.

Die hertog was eintlik 'n groot diereliefhebber wat 'n menagery sowel as uitgebreide kennels gehou het. In die eenvoudiger tye het mense met honde gereis sonder om kommentaar of probleme op te wek-Chaucer se teerhartige Prioress het haar skoothonde gehad, en sy jagmonnik sy windhonde.

Ons voorvaders het selfs hul honde kerk toe gebring, 'n praktyk waarteen die owerheid ernstig beswaar aangeteken het, maar dit blyk nie effektief te wees nie, te oordeel na die herhaling van die protes, is een van die 15de-eeuse kloosterreëls teen honde en hondjies wat 'maak die diens dikwels moeilik deur hul geblaf en skeur soms die kerkboeke'.

Die gemiddelde man se hond het egter sy behoud verdien. In 'n samelewing sonder polisie en baie wettelose karakters het die waghond 'n belangrike plek gehad. Vir maksimum doeltreffendheid moes hy bedags gesluit word om te slaap, sodat hy in die nag heeltemal op sy hoede kon wees. Baie voogde was eenvoudig groot honde, maar die hoog aangeskrewe was gewoonlik mastiffs (iets soos hul moderne afstammelinge) of alaunts.

Van Spaanse oorsprong was alaunts groot, aktiewe diere wat iets soos windhonde gebou het, maar swaarder, met growwe koppe, kort snuitjies en stekare (moontlik gesny). Hulle kom in verskillende kleure, verkieslik wit met swart kolle naby die ore. Die beter geteelde, of vertel die heidene is gewaardeer vir jag, maar die growwer variëteit was in aanvraag as waghonde en is deur slagters gebruik om beeste te help - hulle kan, volgens hulle, goedkoop gevoer word met 'die foule dinges of the boochers rowe'.

Hulle kon 'n ontsnapte os vashou, wat hulle die voor die hand liggende keuse vir bul-aas gemaak het. Hulle het 'n reputasie gehad vir wreedheid en kontemporêre illustrasies toon hulle dikwels sorgvuldig bedompig. Herders en varkwagters moes natuurlik honde hê, maar hulle was nie van 'n goed gedefinieerde tipe nie en was net soveel vir die beskerming teen diewe en wolwe as vir herders.

Ander arbeiders het ook hul honde ontvang van die lofsang van die 13de-eeuse ensiklopedis, Bartholomeus die Engelsman: 'die mungrell curres, wat dien om die bottels en sakke, met vittell, van slote en hegte te hou, sal gouer doodgemaak word van 'n straunger as afgeslaan van hul meesters klere en oorwinning '.

Die alomteenwoordige terriër was ook op die toneel en is, soos sy naam aandui, gebruik om jakkalse na hul aarde te jaag, maar dit is vir sy moderne vriende teleurstellend om min verwysings na hom te vind. Blykbaar is hy eenvoudig as vanselfsprekend aanvaar, en jakkalsjag het in daardie dae min kennis geneem, aangesien ons praktiese vreemdelinge eetbare wild verkies het.

Spaniels (so genoem omdat hulle uit Spanje afkomstig was) was nodig vir die gewilde smousport, wat baie gelok het as goedkoper en minder inspannend as jag. Die ontstellende skaapagtige voorkoms van hierdie vroeë spaniels sal moderne liefhebbers seermaak. Hulle was golwend bedek, redelik groot en gewoonlik meer beenagtig as die meeste van hul afstammelinge, met 'vere' korter been. Hulle sterte is oor die algemeen nie gesny nie, en dit is aanloklik om te bespiegel dat die spanstertjies in die Très Riches Heures is vroeë Brittanies, wat deesdae met kort stert gebore word.

Daar word geglo dat die hare op die stert, indien enigiets, langer as op die liggaam moet wees. Hulle was wit, of bruin, of gespikkeld, met koppe vreemd vir moderne oë, met taamlik puntige neuse wat neig om op te draai. Nietemin het hulle bekwaam genoeg gefunksioneer en is dit gebruik om wild op te rig en as retrievers vir landvoëls en watervoëls, aangesien smous op die rivier 'n gunsteling vermaak was. Hulle is ook as setters gebruik om te help met die neem van patryse en kwartels met nette.

The Elizabethan writer, Edward Topsell, describes ‘water spagnels’ being used to hunt otters and depicts a beast clipped like a poodle so that it might ‘be the less annoyed in swimming’ – and poodle, spaniel and retriever may all dispute it as an ancestor. (The clipped animal that appears in so many of Dürer’s woodcuts, however, is clearly a poodle.)

That great 14th-century sportsman, Gaston, Comte de Foix, author of the finest medieval hunting book, described spaniels as faithful, affectionate and fond of going ‘before their maistre and playeng with their taile’, but he must have suffered from some particularly exuberant member of the breed, for he complains that, if you are taking your greyhounds for a walk and have a spaniel with you, he will chase geese, cattle or horses, and the greyhounds through ‘his eggyng’ will attack too, and thus he is responsible for ‘al the ryot and al the harm’.

He further declares that out hunting spaniels are fighters and put the hounds off the line, which is manifestly unfair as they were never intended for hunting. But Gaston was a fanatical Nimrod and devoted to his running hounds. Duke Charles of Orleans, on the other hand, wrote poems to his favourite spaniel, ‘Briquet of the drooping ears’ (Briquet aux pendantes oreilles) – a charming one in praise of his field prowess and enthusiasm, and another beginning: ‘Let Baude range the bushes, old Briquet takes his rest . an old fellow can do but little’, which sounds the sadder note of the true dog-lover’s affection for his ageing servant.

The most fashionable sport of the time was stag-hunting, and for this both greyhounds and ‘running hounds’ (also termed ‘raches') were used, often together, the greyhounds being slipped to stop the game quickly, or put in as relays to the pack, or, in the great battues sometimes organised for visiting notables, to turn back driven deer to the archers.

The truly serious huntsman, however, liked best to watch the running hounds work alone, for greyhounds and alaunts, says Gaston de Foix, finish the job too quickly but the ‘raches’ must ‘hunt al the day questyng and makyng gret melody in their lan-gage and saying gret villeny and chydeng the beest that thei enchace’. These dogs were rather like modern bloodhounds and a little like the type of hounds used for ‘still’ hunting – heavily built with powerful fore-quarters and short-muzzled heavy heads.

Wide colour ranges were permissable in a pack, earlier taste running to white, black and white, or mottled, while the late Middle Ages preferred tawny brown. Coats were usually smooth, though rough-haired specimens might be found, or even smooth ones with long-haired tails. Although all sorts of animals besides the stag were hunted, the hounds used differed more by training than by breed.

Harthounds, however, were generally larger and faster than harriers, which were all-round beasts so called because they ‘harried’ the quarry (not because they were restricted to hares). Selected dogs, hand-picked for scent, staunchness, and possibly size, were trained as ‘limers’, that is, they hunted on leash and were used to find, or ‘harbour’, the stag, and later in the hunt to untangle the line if the pack should be at fault, but these were individual specialists and not a distinct breed.

These animals, with the working greyhounds, were excellently cared for. Wealthy owners set up astonishingly high standards of kennel management, described in careful detail in Gaston de Foix’s ‘Traité de la Chasse’. The kennel where the hounds sleep, he says, should be built of wood a foot clear of the ground, with a loft for greater coolness in summer and warmth in winter, and it should also have a chimney to warm the occupants when they are cold or wet.

It should be enclosed in a sunny yard, and the door should be left open so that ‘the houndes may go withoute to play when them liketh for it is grete likyng for the houndes whan thei may goon in and out at their lust’ – as every dog lover knows. Hounds should be taken for a walk once or twice a day and allowed to run and play ‘in a fair medow in the sun’, and must be taken to a spot where they may eat grass to heal themselves if they are sick.

The kennel is to be cleaned every morning and the floor thickly strewn with straw, renewed daily. The hounds are to be given fresh water twice a day and rubbed down with straw each morning. The staple food is bran bread, with meat from the chase, and game to be killed specially for them even out of the regular hunting season. Sick hounds may be given more fancy diets, such as goat’s milk, bean broth, chopped meat, or buttered eggs.

Most of the kennel chores were performed by a dog-boy, an embryo huntsman who was expected to start learning his trade at the age of about seven and who, in addition to his other duties, had to learn the names and colours of the hounds and how to spin horsehair for their couplings. Besides this, he or some other child must be constantly in the kennel to prevent fights, even at night. In addition, it is laid down, in the uncompromising fashion of the age, that he should love his master and the hounds, and, furthermore, that he should be beaten if he fails to do as he is told.

These old-time hunting dogs reached a high degree of training, but the methods used must have been something of a trade secret, for not much is divulged – far less than was written on how to train hawks. Gaston de Foix says, indeed, that ‘a hounde will lerne as a man al that a man wil teche hym’, but, apart from the rather obvious maxim that pupils should be rewarded for doing well and punished for mistakes, he gives away little. He lays down that you must never tell your hounds anything but the strict truth. One should not talk to them too much, but when one does it should be ‘in the most beautiful and gracious language that he can’.

‘And by my faith,’ he adds, ‘I speak to my hounds as I would to a man . and they understand me and do as I wish better than any man of my household, but I do not think that any other man can make them do as I do, nor peradventure will anyone do it more when I am dead’ – but then, Gaston believed firmly that things were not as they had been in the old days. Whatever the means, hounds were trained to obey a wide variety of notes on the horn as well as a number of different calls and terms, and they were encouraged by name in fact, examples are given of typical names, such as Beaumont, Latimer, Prince and Saracen.

Considerable attention was bestowed on the medical care of canine ailments. Many of the treatments would startle a 20th-century veterinarian, yet they generally exhibit more common sense and less superstition than was currently applied to human sickness. Indeed, Gaston de Foix shows a critical faculty rare in his day when he states that making nine waves pass over a suspected rabies victim ‘is but litel helpe’. He discusses madness at some length, and nine kinds are listed, some held to be non-contagious.

He recommends that a suspected case be quarantined for four days to discover whether or not is is in fact madness. No kind of madness is regarded as curable, but prompt treatment of the bite of a mad dog might prevent its development. Nearly as much space is devoted to various types of so-called ‘mange’, and some remarkable salves are described.

There are detailed instructions on the care of injuries, including the splinting of broken bones, and Gaston’s English translator, the Duke of York, who was Master of Game to Henry IV, winds up with this exhortation: ‘God forbid that for a little labour or cost of this medicine, man should see his good kind hound perish, that before hath made him so many comfortable disports at divers times in hunting.’

In view of the medieval habit of attributing moral qualities and moral responsibilities to animals, it is not surprising to find that dogs sometimes received some of the benefits of religion. It is recorded that one Duke of Orleans had masses said for his dogs and there was, of course, the famous messe des chiens on St Hubert’s day, a custom which still survives. Certain hounds of Charles VI of France which fell ill were sent on a pilgrimage to hear mass at St Mesmer in order that they might recover.

There was even once a dog saint near Lyon a greyhound was said to have killed a dangerous serpent attacking his master’s child and, like the mythical Gelert, was himself slain on suspicion when the child could not be found. Afterwards his remorseful master buried him honourably beneath a cairn of stones where trees were planted in his memory. Later the dog was revered as St Greyhound, or St Guinefort, and rites were held at the grave for sickly children suspected of being changelings. Before long, of course, the ecclesiastical authorities caught up with St Greyhound and the grave was destroyed.

All in all, it is plain that modern dog-lovers should not be too self-satisfied over their advances in the care and handling of their pets, nor need dog-haters rage at the rising menace of the dog cult. None of it is new. Long ago, even in a rugged and often brutal era, men loved and trained and cherished an enormous number of dogs.

Weird as these beasts may look by Kennel Club standards, their owners recognised and surrendered to their essential dogginess, engagingly the same, whether in snub-nosed Briquet or this year’s ‘Best-in-Show’. From the boy with the mongrel to the champion’s master, what dog-owner does not echo Gaston de Foix’s five-centuries-old plaint that ‘the moost defaute of houndes is that thei lyven not longe inowe’?

This article originally appeared in the February 1979 issue of Geskiedenis Vandag with the title ‘The Dogs of Yesteryear’.


Researchers Analyze Burial of Ancient Celtic Prince

In 2015, archaeologists in Lavau, France, discovered one of the country’s greatest archeological finds in centuries. In an area being developed as an industrial park, they came across the burial mound of a Celtic prince buried in his chariot along with an assortment of ornate grave goods. Now, Léa Surugue at The International Business Times, researchers are starting to discover how and where many of the treasures were made.

According to Tia Ghose at Live Science, the tomb is believed to be 2,500 years old and shows that the Celts, a culture dating back to the late Bronze Age, were part of the Mediterranean trade network that included civilizations like the Greeks and Etruscans. Among the goods found in the grave were pottery and gold-decorated drinkware as well as a large cauldron decorated with images of the Greek river god Achelous along with eight lion heads. Inside the cauldron there is an image of a Dionysus, the god of wine, looking at a woman.

Ghose reports that merchants from Mediterranean cultures often made lavish gifts to Celtic rulers in centrally located hubs or who controlled important river valleys, hoping to open trade routes to central Europe. That’s likely how the Lavau prince was able to acquire his wealth.

Now, Surugue reports that researchers at France’s National Institute for Preventive Archaeological Research (INRAP) have begun analyzing the cauldron, gold jewelry and other artifacts found with the prince. Using x-rays, tomography and 3D photography, the researchers are determining the state of preservation of the artifacts as well as their composition.

According to Surugue, so far the analysis shows that a belt worn by the prince was woven with threads made of silver, something not found in other Celtic artifacts. Analysis of the bronze in the cauldron shows it was produced by master craftsman who perfected the arts of smelting ore and engraving metal. Even more, the work shows a blending of cultures. One elaborate jug is made of Greek ceramic, decorated in gold with Etruscan figures but also includes silver Celtic designs.

According to a press release, the researchers also examined a sheath that held a knife, finding that it contained very fine bronze threads. They also found that the gold torc—or neck bracelet—as well as several gold bangles show wear marks where they rubbed again the prince’s skin.

The analysis has cleared up one nagging question as well. Researchers were unsure if the skeleton covered in gold jewelry and bangles was a prince or a princess. Analysis of the pelvic bones shows that the Lavau Prince is indeed a prince.

According to the press release, INRAP will continue to analyze the prince and his priceless belongings through 2019.

Oor Jason Daley

Jason Daley is 'n in Madison, Wisconsin gebaseerde skrywer wat spesialiseer in natuurgeskiedenis, wetenskap, reis en die omgewing. Sy werk het verskyn in Discover, Populêre wetenskap, Buite, Mansjoernaal, en ander tydskrifte.


The Princes in the Tower

When Edward IV died on 9 April 1483, England was nearing the end of the tediously long conflict known as the Wars of the Roses. England needed a period of peace and a stable government, but it was not going to get it.

Edward had two children, Edward, aged 12, and Richard, aged 9. The other player in the scene was Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Edward IV's younger brother and most able supporter and ally. Given the youth of the heir to the throne, a regency would be needed. The two most obvious people to head that regency were Queen Elizabeth and Richard of Gloucester. Richard and the queen were openly hostile, however indeed, there was very little public support for the queen. Edward IV certainly made his own wishes known, appointing his brother Richard as Lord Protector on his deathbed.

At the time of his father's death, Edward V was in the company of his mother at Ludlow, so the queen's cause looked the brightest. But Richard, acting with the decisiveness and courage which marked most of his life, forestalled the queen. He rode quickly to intercept the royal party before they could reach London, and on 29 April, took Edward into his own custody. He arrested the lords Rivers and Grey, who were later executed. The queen took sanctuary at Westminster with her daughters and her second son.

Within six weeks Richard gathered support for a move to declare the princes illegitimate and have himself named king. He arrested those lords most likely to oppose such a move, and had Lord Hastings executed. He pressured the queen into giving Richard, Duke of York, into his care, and Richard joined his elder brother in the Tower of London.

It is worth remembering that the Tower of London did not at that time have the reputation it was later to acquire it was a royal residence, an armoury, a protected place in royal hands. It was not first and foremost a prison. By placing the princes in the Tower of London, Richard was not, in theory, placing them in prison, or under arrest.

Richard then had a tame priest, Dr Shaw, preach a sermon at Paul's Cross, claiming that Edward IV had been precontracted in marriage to another woman before marrying Elizabeth Woodville. Based on this 'evidence' Richard called an assembly which in due course asked him to take the crown as the only legitimate heir of the House of York. After a seemly show of reluctance, Richard agreed and was crowned king.

Were the princes illegitimate?
Richard's claim to the throne was based on his assertion that the princes were illegitimate because Edward had been betrothed before his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, the prince's mother. Given the customs of the time, a prior betrothal could have invalidated Edward's subsequent marriage, so any children of that union would be illegitimate. Richard would have found it easy to gather support against the queen, for she was very unpopular.

At first glance, it would appear that this claim is a feeble attempt to legitimise Richard's own claim to the throne. However, it is possible that Richard's claim is based on the truth, though not through Edward's betrothal vows. Medieval historian Professor Michael Jones has determined through court records that Edward's legal father, Richard, Duke of York, was over 100 miles away from his mother, Lady Cecily, at the time when Edward must have been conceived. If true, this would mean that Edward IV was illegitimate, and had no claim to the throne. Therefore his children, Edward and Richard, would have had no claim to the throne.

In that case, the person with the best claim to the throne would be Richard, Duke of Gloucester, Edward's brother (or half-brother if the tale of Edward's origins were true). Certainly, tales of Edward's illegitimacy circulated at the time Louis XI of France is known to have believed that Edward's father was an English archer named Blaybourne.

The Princes disappear
The princes were regularly seen playing on Tower Green or taking the air within the walls, but then, around the beginning of June 1483, they dropped out of sight. Rumours began to circulate, perhaps started by enemies of Richard III, that the princes had been murdered. Richard was well aware of these rumours, and it is worth noting that he did not seek to counter them by the obvious expedient of showing the world that the princes were still alive and well. Were they already dead? Ons weet eenvoudig nie. It may be that Richard believed that his nephews were truly illegitimate, and, as such, no longer of note.

Rumblings of discontent became open rebellion. Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham launched an abortive revolt, but that came to nothing and the unfortunate lord was beheaded. He might have stood a better chance had his ally, Henry Tudor, Duke of Richmond, joined him as planned. Richmond was in exile in France, but his attempt to sail for England was thwarted by storms, and he arrived only to find that Buckingham's rebellion had come to nothing. Richmond returned to France to bide his time.

In the spring of 1484, Richard had his own son, Edward, confirmed as heir to the throne. Then the unhappy child died, and that was not the last of Richard's family to suffer a sudden and unexpected demise. Richard's queen, Anne Neville, died suddenly. Rumours flew that Richard had killed her himself, in order that he might marry his own niece, Elizabeth, daughter of Edward IV, in order to further solidify his claim to the throne. Public support for Richard weakened considerably at this latest tale, and his former allies flocked to the banner of Henry Tudor.

The Battle of Bosworth
Richard's enemies made the most of the disappearance of the princes to sway public support for their cause. Certainly, the absence of the princes made Henry Tudor's attempts to gather support for his rebellion much easier. Henry landed in Wales and marched into England, gathering support as he did so. Richard gathered his forces and rushed to meet him.

The armies met at Bosworth, Leicestershire. In a furious battle that could have gone either way, Henry prevailed when key allies of Richard deserted him and went over to the Tudor standard. Richard, to his credit, fought on to the end. Legend tells us that the crown of England was found on a thorn bush after the battle, and placed on Henry Tudor's head by Lord Stanley, one of lords who deserted Richard at the crucial moment. At this point Henry seems to have regarded the Princes in the Tower as dead, otherwise his own claim to the throne would have no weight whatever.

The Skeletons
In 1674 workmen began preparation for some rebuilding work on the White Tower at the Tower of London. While they were clearing away rubble at the base of a staircase they unearthed a grisly find two skeletons, small enough to suggest that they were those of two youths. The instant assumption made at the time was that these were the skeletons of Edward and Richard, the Princes in the Tower. If such a find were made today a forensic examination might have been made, perhaps DNA evidence might have been gathered, in an effort to determine if the skeletons were indeed those of the unfortunate princes.

However, such practices were not available at the time and the bones were moved to Westminster Abbey for reburial. Since that time there have been several attempts to reexamine the skeletons in an attempt to determine whether they are indeed the remains of the princes. To date no definitive answers have been forthcoming, though the question might well be asked if these are not the remains of Edward and Richard, then who are they? And the most compelling question of all if these are the skeletons of the Princes in the Tower, were they murdered, and if so, by whom?

Who killed the princes in the tower?
First, it is important to remember that we have no definitive proof that anyone killed the princes. All we know is that they disappeared. It is a likely assumption that they were murdered, but it is, in the end, still an assumption. If we indulge in the assumption that they were murdered, then we have to look at those who might have been responsible for such a deed.

  • Henry VII - There is no evidence to connect Henry directly with the disappearance of the princes. The case against the first Tudor monarch rests on the question of motive. Henry's claim to the throne was weak, one might say 'nonexistent', even by medieval standards. If the princes lived, they both had a better claim to the throne. For Henry to become king, he needed the princes to disappear. That, in the eyes of many modern historians, makes him a prime suspect.
  • Richard III - history has long regarded Richard III as the archetypal wicked uncle who killed his own nephews to pave the way for his own ascent to the throne. The trouble with such historical accounts is that they are usually written by the winners. In this case, much of what we have been taught as 'facts' about Richard rest on subsequent Tudor accounts of him accounts written, it is worth remembering, in the reigns of Henry VII and his descendants. Was Richard the wicked uncle of Shakespeare's play, Richard III? Was he even hunchbacked? One could make a good case that Richard had much to lose by killing his nephews. Doing so would turn public opinion against him, which in fact, is what happened when rumours of the prince's disappearance began to circulate. It is also worth remembering that prior to becoming king, Richard had shown extraordinary family loyalty, supporting his elder brother Edward IV through thick and thin. Richard was, in fact, regarded by many of his contemporaries, as something akin to an ideal knight. Was it in character for him to kill his nephews? Or did the allure of power bend Richard's sense of loyalty too far?
  • Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham - Richard's brother in law, but also cousin to Henry Tudor and third in the Lancastrian succession behind Henry and his mother. Stafford supported Richard, while secretly plotting with Tudor. Stafford may have killed the boys to discredit Richard, thus furthering his cousin's ambitions and his own eventual rise to power. Or, Richard may have ordered Buckingham to kill the princes in order to solidify his own claim to the throne.
  • James Tyrell - perhaps the instrument of the prince's death if not the person behind the murders. Tyrell was a bit of an unsavoury character, given to plotting and underhanded dealings. In 1502 he was in prison for treason against Henry VII. Under torture, Tyrell confessed that he had killed the princes, though he supplied no information as to why or under whose influence he had acted.

The pretenders
Perhaps the princes did not die in the Tower at all. In 1491 a young man named Perkin Warbeck claimed that he was Richard, youngest son of Edward IV. Over the course of several years, Warbeck gathered support from abroad, and landed in England in 1497. Henry VII easily defeated Warbeck's scanty troops and had him thrown in prison, where he was subsequently executed.

An earlier pretender to the throne - though not one of the princes - was Lambert Simnel. This boy of about 10 claimed to be the son of George, Duke of Clarence, Edward IV's brother. Supported by Irish and Flemish troops, Simnel's 'army' landed in Lancashire, where they were easily defeated by Henry VII. Simnel was pardoned as an unwitting pawn in the designs of scheming adults, and given a job in the royal kitchens. The Simnel cake is attributed to him.

Did the princes survive?
It seems unlikely, but Elizabeth Woodville certainly seems to think they did. The former queen testified before Parliament that she believed the boys to be legitimate, but she would not agree to the assumption that they were dead. She never, to the day of her death, claimed they had been murdered.


Senior Lecturer in British Studies and History [email protected]

David Green is a graduate of the universities of Exeter (BA) and Nottingham (MA, PhD) and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society. Before joining the British Studies team at Harlaxton in 2007, he lived and worked in England, Scotland, and Ireland teaching at the universities of Sheffield, St Andrews, and Trinity College, Dublin.

Research Interests

Initially, my published work concentrated on the career and retinue of Edward the Black Prince (c.1330–c.1376) – the subject of my doctoral thesis. Later, the chronological and geographical scope of my work extended to focus on two connected themes, the Hundred Years War and later Plantagenet ‘colonialism’. This resulted in a number of journal and encyclopaedia articles and a book for Yale University Press, The Hundred Years War: A People’s History (2014), which examines the impact of the war on various social groups and national institutions. More recently, I’ve sought to explore a wider range of sources, both literary and material, leading to presentations and publications on subjects such as chivalry and later medieval tomb effigies.

I regularly speak and chair sessions at the annual meetings of the International Medieval Congress (University of Leeds, UK) and the International Conference on Medieval Studies (University of Western Michigan, USA). I sit on the editorial board of the biannual journal Fourteenth Century England and am a member of the Harlaxton Medieval Symposium Steering Committee and co-convened the 2014 meeting on ‘The Plantagenet Empire, 1259-1453’, the proceedings of which were published in 2016.

Publications

Boeke

  • Fourteenth Century England XI , ed. David Green and Chris Given Wilson (Boydell and Brewer, 2019).
  • The Plantagenet Empire, 1259-1453 , ed. Peter Crooks, David Green and W. Mark Ormrod (Shaun Tyas, 2016).
  • The Hundred Years War: A People’s History (Yale University Press, 2014 pbk ed. 2015).
  • Edward the Black Prince: Power in Medieval Europe (Longman, Medieval World Series, 2007).
  • The Battle of Poitiers 1356 (2002 rev. ed. The History Press, 2008).
  • The Black Prince (2001 rev. ed. The History Press, 2008 further rev. ed. as e-book 2012).
  • with Michael Jones and John Beckett, History at Nottingham: Training, Research and Departmental Life from the 1880s to the Present (Nottingham, 1995).

Artikels

  • 'Edward the Black Prince: Lordship and Administration in the Plantagenet Empire', Ruling Fourteenth-Century England: Essays in Honour of Christopher Given-Wilson , ed. Remy Ambuhl, James Bothwell and Laura Tompkins (Boydell and Brewer, 2019), 185-204. 'The Secular Orders: Chivalry in the Service of the State', A Companion to Chivalry , ed. Robert Jones and Peter Coss (Boydell and Brewer, 2019), 57-68.
  • ‘The Memorial Brass of Sir Nicholas Dagworth’, Monumental Brass Society Transactions , 19 (2018), 416-24.
  • ‘The Household of Edward the Black Prince: Complement and Characteristics’, The Elite Household in England , 1100-1550, ed. Christopher M. Woolgar (Donington, 2018), 355-71.
  • ‘Imperial Policy and Military Strategy in the Plantagenet Dominions, c.1337-c.1453’, Journal of Medieval Military History , 14 (2016), 33-56.
  • with Peter Crooks and W. Mark Ormrod, ‘The Plantagenets and Empire in the Later Middle Ages’, The Plantagenet Empire, 1259-1453 (Stamford, 2016), 1-34.
  • ‘The Tomb of Edward the Black Prince: Contexts and Incongruities’, Church Monuments , 30 (2015), 106-23.
  • ‘The Statute of Kilkenny (1366): Legislation and the State’, Journal of Historical Sociology , 27 (2014), 236-62.
  • ‘Colonial Policy in the Hundred Years War’, The Hundred Years War (Part III): Further Considerations , ed. Donald Kagay and A.J. Villalon (Leiden, 2013), 233-57.
  • ‘National Identities and the Hundred Years War’, Fourteenth Century England , VI, ed. Chris Given-Wilson (Woodbridge, 2010), 115-29.
  • ‘Medicine and Masculinity: Thomas Walsingham and the Death of the Black Prince’, Journal of Medieval History , 35 (2009), 34-51.
  • ‘Lordship and Principality: Colonial Policy in Ireland and Aquitaine in the 1360s’, Journal of British Studies , 47 (2008), 3-29.
  • ‘Edward the Black Prince and East Anglia: An Unlikely Association’, Fourteenth Century England , III, ed. W.M. Ormrod (Woodbridge, 2004), 83-98.
  • ‘Politics and Service with Edward the Black Prince’, The Age of Edward III , ed. J. Bothwell (York, 2001), 53-68.
  • ‘The Dark Side of the Black Prince’, BBC History Magazine , 2: 12 (2001), 12-15.
  • ‘The Later Retinue of Edward the Black Prince’, Nottingham Medieval Studies , 44 (2000), 141-51.
  • ‘The Military Personnel of Edward the Black Prince’, Medieval Prosopography , 21 (2000), 133-52.

Dictionary/Encyclopedia entries

  • Medieval Warfare and Military Technology: An Encyclopedia , ed. Clifford J. Rogers (Oxford University Press, 2010). Entries: Sir John Chandos Black Prince Jean de Vienne, admiral of France battle of La Rochelle Louis of Bourbon battle of Pontvallain.
  • Routledge International Encyclopedia of Military History , ed. James Bradford (New York, 2006). Entries: William the Conqueror, Richard I, battle of Bannockburn, Hundred Years War (2,000 words), Edward III, 1415 siege of Harfleur.
  • A Biographical Dictionary of Military Women , ed. Reina Pennington (Westport, Conn., 2003). Entries: Julienne du Guesclin Lady Badlesmere.
  • A Historical Dictionary of Late Medieval England , ed. R. Fritze and William B. Robison, (Westport, Conn., 2002). Entries: Edward the Black Prince the Reims campaign, 1359-60 Treaties of London, 1358-1359 chevauchées the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais, 1360.
  • The Encyclopedia of Prisoners of War and Internment , ed. Jonathan Vance (Santa Barbara, 2001). Entries: King Jean II the Hundred Years War.

Skakels

Harlaxton College contributes to fulfilling the overall Mission of the University of Evansville while at the same time our distinctive location and programs evoke an equally distinctive statement of the Mission of Harlaxton College.


Voetnote

↵ 1 F.S.-Q., H.M., and M.F. contributed equally to this work.

Author contributions: A.G., J.S., and M.J. designed research F.S.-Q., H.M., M.F., L.G.-F., E.M.S., L.G.S., R.G., N.H., A.G., J.S., and M.J. performed research H.M., M.F., L.G.-F., G.B., G.N., K.B., S.T., N.C., H.B., R.S., and J.S. contributed samples and conducted archaeological analyses F.S.-Q., H.M., and M.F. analyzed data and F.S.-Q., H.M., M.F., J.S., and M.J. wrote the paper with input from all authors.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

Data deposition: Raw sequencing reads produced for this study have been deposited in the European Nucleotide Archive (accession no. PRJEB31045).


Kyk die video: Veers Verleden - 2D animatie Middeleeuws Erfrecht (Januarie 2022).