Within the fields of archeology and historical studies forgeries litter the field. One such forgery that persisted for well over a century was a little item given the name De Situ Brittaniae. Our tale starts in the year 1742 AD when a 24 year old English teacher named Charles Bertram (1723-1765) got in contact with noted British antiquarian William Stuckeley (1685-1765), Bertram stated that while residing in Denmark he found a ancient manuscript and accompanying map, titled De Situ Brittaniae , that was a detailed account of roads and settlements in Roman Britain. The whole con-job began when Bertram wrote Stuckeley an he in turn encouraged Bertram to make a careful "copy" of the material and send it to him. Now some of the blame for this hoax could be leveled upon Stuckeley but one must take into account that by 1749 he was a man in his 60s so we can either lay blame on that or perhaps that this would be his last hurrah but that is neither here nor there, Stuckeley violated one the prime commandments of antiquarianism, archeology, and historical research YOU NEVER ACCEPT ANY RELIC OR MANUSCRIPT WITH OUT A FORM OF PROVONCE OR PRIMARY SOURCE STATING THAT SAID RELIC OR MANUSCRIPT EXISTED. Stuckeley only saw a copy of the supposed original.
After looking over this "careful copy" Stuckeley wrote and had published a monograph (a scholarly Thesis) that he theorized that the map and manuscript was the work of one Richard of Cirencester a 14th century monk from Westminister. This manuscript caused a rush of excitement among the cartographers and geographers of the time and this theory lasted for over a century until a German historian named Karl Wex discovered that the supposed manuscript had been copied from a variety of 16th century literary sources. But it was not until 1866 that B.R. Woodward and J.E.B. Mayer published the definitive debunking of the work it was a chimera of information collected from the works of Caesar, Tacitus, Solinus, Camden and others. Before this information was published the information on the De Situ Brittaniae had made its way into history books and the maps of the Royal Ordance Survey of Britain and it took decades to correct the information and set the historical record straight.
History is the search for facts not truths if you want truths the philosophy class is down the hall.
China Jim
After looking over this "careful copy" Stuckeley wrote and had published a monograph (a scholarly Thesis) that he theorized that the map and manuscript was the work of one Richard of Cirencester a 14th century monk from Westminister. This manuscript caused a rush of excitement among the cartographers and geographers of the time and this theory lasted for over a century until a German historian named Karl Wex discovered that the supposed manuscript had been copied from a variety of 16th century literary sources. But it was not until 1866 that B.R. Woodward and J.E.B. Mayer published the definitive debunking of the work it was a chimera of information collected from the works of Caesar, Tacitus, Solinus, Camden and others. Before this information was published the information on the De Situ Brittaniae had made its way into history books and the maps of the Royal Ordance Survey of Britain and it took decades to correct the information and set the historical record straight.
History is the search for facts not truths if you want truths the philosophy class is down the hall.
China Jim
