p.407: FOUNDING OF LONDON ABOUT 1100 B.C.

Appendix V

FOUNDING OF LONDON AS "TRI-NOVANT" OR "NEW TROY"

BY KING BRUTUS-THE-TROJAN, ABOUT 1100 B.C.

It is not surprising that King Brutus-the-Trojan should have named his new city on the Thames in the new land of his adoption "New Troy," especially as the city on the old river Thyamis in Epirus, whence he came was also named "Troy." {It is named "Ilium" on later maps (see D.A.A., No. 11), that is the Latin spelling of Ilion, Homer's usual title for "Troy."} The naming of this new "Troy" in Epirus by Helenus, the fugitive son of King Priam of Troy, is described by Ovid {Metamorphoses, 13, 721.} and Virgil. The latter says {AEneid, 3, 295, etc.}:--

"Skirting Epirus' coast, Chaonia's [see NOTE] port . . .

That Helenus, Priam's son o'er Greeks

Bore sway, succeeding to the throne and bed

Of Pyrrhus [see NOTE] . . . Pyrrhus dead,

Part of his realm to Helenus demis'd,

Who Chaonia's plain by title new

'Troy' Chaon called, and built him walls

And ramparts on the steep whose names remind

Of Pergamus and Troy. . . . In pensive thought

I traced the town, the miniature of Troy,

Its yellow shrunken stream, its fort surnamed

'Of Pergamus.' "

{NOTE on "Chaonia" above: The N.E. district of Epirus bordered by the Thyamis river. Virgil, by his use of the district name "Chaon" and "Xanthus" for the river, which I have rendered "yellow," presumably locates the city on the latter river and thus identifies this Troy with "Phoenice" there.}

{NOTE on Pyrrhus above: Pyrrhus was son of Achilles, and consort of Andromache, wife of Hector, who was carried off by Achilles.}

This clearly shows that the Trojan colonists were in the habit of consciously and deliberately bestowing their treasured old Trojan names upon their new colonies, with the avowed object of "reminding" them of the old homeland of their Aryan ancestors. Besides this one, another new Troy is reported to have been founded by AEneas in the Tiber Valley {Livy, 1, 1, 3.} and still another by a Trojan colony near Memphis in Egypt. {S., 808; 17, 1, 34.} And even the famous Troy of the Homeric epic appears to have been called "New Troy" in distinction presumably to the Old Troy underlying that site. {The "Nun Ilion" of Strabo, the so-called "Novum Ilium" of S.I., 19 and 38.} This old Trojan habit of naming some of their chief new colonial cities is analogous to that by which in modern times New York derived its name.

{"Troy" or Troia was named after Tros, the founder of the old city. New York was first named New Amsterdam (and thus in series with New Troy) when founded by the Dutch in 1624; but when seized in 1664 by the British, it was granted by Charles II. to his brother the Duke of York, after whom it received its present name; and that name was derived from the old ducal city state in Britain, which Briton city, in its turn, as recorded by Geoffrey's Chronicle, was named after a descendant of Brutus.}

The name "Tri-Novantum" could easily, as Geoffrey states, be "a corruption of the original word," for the city-name which was imposed by Brutus. That original word, which Geoffrey does not supply, may be presumed to have approximated the Gothic "Troia-Ny" or "Troia-

---

p.408: PHOENICIAN ORIGIN OF BRITONS & SCOTS

Nyendi";

{"Troia" was the old Greek name for the old capital city of the Trojans and that identical name for it is used in the Norse sagas of the thirteenth century (V.I.D., 642); and Ny and Niuiis are the Gothic originals of the modern English "New" in the Eddas and in Ulfilas' Gospel translations, corresponding to the Greek Neos, the Sanskrit Nava and Latin Novus.}

and the "Tri-Novantes" of Caesar are called "Tri-Noantes" by Ptolemy and Tacitus, {Tacitus, Annals, 14, 31.} "Troia," the old Greek and Gothic name for the capital city of the Trojans could become "Tri" in British dialect, as seen in the Old English form of the word "Trifle" being spelt "Trofle," {Piers the Plowman's Crede, 352; Morte Arthure, ed. Brock, 2932.} and "Tryst" is a variant of "Trust." Indeed, the Gothic form of "Troia-Ny" for this "Tri-Novantum" title of early London appears to be preserved in a Norse Edda which mentions "Troe-Noey" along with "Hedins-eyio " or Edin-burgh, {Edinburgh was already called "Fort Edin" or "Fort Eden" (Dun-Edin or Dun-Eden) before the advent of the Anglo-Saxons, see S.C.P., cxlii and 10.} as furnishing a contingent fleet of "long-headed ships" for raiding their joint enemy, the Huns. {"Helga-kvida Hundings Bana," see Edda. (N) 130, and V.P., 1, 134.}

As regards "Tri-Novantum" as a traditional name for early "London," it is remarkable that no modern writer, nor even Geoffrey or Nennius, appears hitherto to have equated that name to the well-known historical title of "Tri-Novantes" for the pre-Roman British people described by Caesar as occupying the Essex or north bank of the Thames estuary, including obviously the site of London city.

Caesar nowhere mentions the name London, for the obvious reason to be seen presently. The name "London" for the British "Lud-dun" or "Fort Lud" of the Cymric records is first mentioned in Roman history by Tacitus in 61 A.D., who described it as "the most celebrated centre of busy commerce," {Annals, 14, 33, 1.} and he refers to it in such a way as to imply its time-immemorial existence as a city. And the historian Ammianus Marcellinus, of the fourth century, calls London (Londinium) "an ancient town towards which Caesar marched," {A.M.H., 27, 8, 7.} thus clearly implying that the ancient city was in existence in Caesar's day.

The reason why Caesar did not mention "Tri-Novantum" city, or "London," appears to be because he obviously did not pass through that city; and he was not in the habit of mentioning places unnecessarily in his very laconic journal; and he does not even mention the names of the place or places where he landed and re-embarked on his two expeditions, nor the name of Cassivellaunus' stronghold, although it was the most important place which he stormed, and described by Caesar as "admirably fortified," and the culminating place of victory in his British war--a fort which has been fairly well identified with Verulam at St. Albans.

Caesar's avoidance of the capital city of the Tri-Novantes, or London, in his hurried brief campaign is apparent, it seems to me, from his own narrative. He states that at his second invasion of the S.E. corner of Britain, the Tri-Novantes were at war with Cassivellaunus, his chief enemy, and the paramount king of the Britons and leader of the confederated tribes, {D.B.G., 5, 5.} and whose personal territory extended northwards from the north bank of the Thames, excluding the province of the Tri-Novantes, which comprised the petty kingdom now known as the eastern portion of Middlesex and Essex. Cassivellaunus, according to Caesar's information, had slain the king of the Tri-Novantes some time previously, and the son of the latter, Mandubracius, had fled for protection and assistance to Caesar in Gaul, and was accompanying Caesar in his invasion and supplying him with auxiliary troops and information, so that he is called in the Welsh Triads "the betrayer of his country."

When Caesar, with his veteran army of 30,000 infantry, besides cavalry, after driving back Cassivellaunus and his raw confederate forces from Kent to the Thames, forced the passage of the Thames at its lowest

---

p.409: FOUNDING OF LONDON ABOUT 1100 B.C.

only and difficult ford, which, on good evidence, is placed at Brent-ford opposite Kew,

{One of the lowest, or the very lowest, fords over the Thames was formerly at Brentford, and it was "difficult," on account of its depth and the tides. Mr. M. Sharpe found from the Thames Conservancy that a line of stakes, of which some still remain "for about 400 yards below Isleworth Ferry," extended 45 years ago for about a mile up the river from "Old England," opposite the mouth of the Brent, and that "no other ancient stakes have been discovered in the lower river during dredging operations" (Bregant-forde and the Hanweal, 1904, 1, 22-7). The name "Brentford" itself, however, did not refer to this ford over the Thames, but to the small ford over the Brent at its junction with the Thames. And Brentford is about due south of Verulam by a good road, in part the "Watling" Road.}

despite the desperate resistance of the enemy who had planted sharp stakes in the river and along the bank, Cassivellaunus, despairing of success in a pitched battle with Caesar's invincible legions, significantly resorted to the same tactics as ascribed to Brutus in Epirus, when attacked by the overwhelming forces of Pandrasus. He disbanded the greater part of his army, and for guerrilla war withdrew the people and their cattle into the recesses of the impenetrable woods, to which he retired himself with a small contingent--Caesar says he retained "only about four thousand charioteers"--with which he harassed the detached foraging parties of the enemy and cut off stragglers, causing Caesar to admit that "Cassivellaunus engaged our cavalry to their great peril and by the terror which he thus inspired prevented them from moving far afield." {D.B.G., 5, 8.}

But on this sudden disappearance of Cassivellaunus' main force at Brentford, the Tri-Novantes, Caesar tells us, were the first Britons to come to his camp (presumably at Brentford) and offer submission and beg protection for Mandubracius against Cassivellaunus. Caesar demanded from them forty hostages for their good faith and corn for his army, and he notes, "They promptly obeyed these commands, sending the hostages to the number required and also the grain; whereupon the Tri-Novantes were granted protection and immunity from all injury on the part of the legions." {Ib., 5, 8.} Thereupon the confederated tribes, and even part of Cassivellaunus' own tribe of Cassis, following the lead of the Tri-Novantes, deserted from Cassivellaunus and submitted to Caesar, presumably won over by the latter through the agency of Mandubracius and by Commius, another exiled Gaulish Briton prince, who also was accompanying Caesar and utilized by him to communicate with the Britons, obviously for the notorious Roman policy of weakening their antagonists by dividing them--"Divide et impera."

Having thus isolated the heroic Cassivellaunus from his confederated Briton chiefs, Caesar promptly pursued him to his stronghold at Verulam--which was almost due north of Brentford and by a good road, in great part the old "Watling Street" which by its name betrays its Gothic Briton origin {A writer of the fourteenth century says Watling Street crossed the Thames to the west of Westminster. See H.A.B., 705.} --and there forced him to surrender, and he eagerly patched up a peace with him, as we learn from the contemporary letters of Cicero, stipulating that Cassivellaunus would not invade the land of the Tri-Novantes, and he immediately hastened back to Gaul to quell the serious insurrections there, and disheartened, as the contemporary Roman writers relate, at the final failure of his attempt to conquer Britain. In his hurried pursuit of Cassivellaunus from Brentford to Verulam and his precipitate retreat to the port of his re-embarkation, in a campaign which lasted only a few weeks, it is clear that Caesar did not enter the capital city of the Tri-Novantes (Tri-Novantum or "London") at all, especially as he was debarred from so doing by his promise to prevent his legions from injuring or molesting in any way the Tri-Novantes, who had so largely contributed to the defeat of Cassivellaunus.

Caesar's account of these events is generally confirmed by the indigenous

---

p.410: PHOENICIAN ORIGIN OF BRITONS & SCOTS

account of his invasion preserved in the British Chronicles of Geoffrey, {G.C., 3, 20.} which record the real name of "Mandubracius" as "Androgeus"--that is also the form of his name preserved by Bede, {B.H.E., 1, 2.} of which "Mandubracius" is evidently a Roman corruption--and the real circumstances of the flight of that "Duke of Tri-Novantum," and his subordination to Cassivellaunus, the brother of that duke's father, King Lud of Tri-Novantum city, are therein fully recorded; also the fact that Cassivellaunus had magnanimously gifted the city of Tri-Novantum or Lud-Dun ("London") to that renegade, "the betrayer of his country," who had aided Caesar with his own levies.

The remote prehistoric antiquity of the site of London, moreover, is evidenced by the numerous archaeological remains found there, not only of the New Stone and Early Bronze Ages, but even of the Old Stone Age, thus indicating that it was already a Pictish settlement at the epoch when Brutus selected it for the site of his new capital of "New Troy."

The later name of "London" for "New Troy" appears to be a corruption of the late Briton name of "Lud-Dun" or "Lud's Fort," applied to it by Lud, the elder brother of Cassivellaunus, as recorded in the Chronicles; and "Caer-Lud" or "Lud's Fort" is still the Welsh name for London. This later Briton name for it is seen to survive in the modern names "Lud-gate Hill" and "Lud-gate Circus," which indicate that the old city or its citadel centred about St. Paul's; and that a chief gate appears to have been at Ludgate Circus on the banks of the old river Flete, the modern "Fleet," which in medieval times was a considerable navigable creek bordered by extensive marshes. {C.B., 1, 80.} That creek obviously derived its name from its use as the old harbour of the naval fleet of those days--the "long headed ships of Troe-Noey" of the Norse Edda afore mentioned. That name "Fleet" is now seen to be derived from the Eddic Gothic Fliota, "to float, flit or be fleet," {V.D., 161.} and secondarily floti, "a ship or fleet or number of ships," {Ib., 161.} and cognate with the Greek ploion, "a hull or ship." The corruption of "Lud-dun" into "London" appears to have been due to the later Romans, who called it "Londinium." Yet it is noteworthy that the o in the modern city name is still pronounced with its old u sound.

London thus appears to have been founded as the capital city of the Brito-Phoenicians or Early Britons many centuries before Athens and the rise of historic Greece; and three and a half centuries before the traditional foundation of Rome.

FIG. 76.--Archaic Hittite Sun Horse with Sun's disc and (?) Wings.

From seal found at Caesarea in Cappadocia.

(After Chantre C.M.C. Fig. 141)

It is carved in serpentine and pierced behind for attachment. The object above the

galloping horse, behind the disc, is supposed by M.C. to be a javelin.