Origin of the Grail Cross / Cruciform Sword design?

Indy's brother

New member
You know, another point of interest would be to decipher the writing around the ring......

greatseal.png
 

Oceliane

New member
There is two levels of writing! One around the cross, in the metallic part, and right around the metallic part, in stone...

I would say it is easier to start with the writing in stone, it is written in a more readable alphabet. I'll try to get more screenshots as soon as possible.
 

Indy's brother

New member
According to the Indiana Jones Wiki:

It would be unlikely for an eleventh century figure to be able to communicate in 20th-century English, as depicted in the film, even if the French knight knew the English language of his day. The First Crusade lasted from 1096-1099, which in linguistic history marks the very end of the Old English period and the beginning of Middle English, either of which would be quite unintelligible to a speaker from the 20th century. In fact, even the French of that time period (the knight's presumed native tongue) would sound strange to a modern speaker of French.

So the grail knight is an eleventh century frenchman. It would stand to reason that the text is in 11th century french, but I can't find anything yet to substantiate the language. I'll be digging through that for awhile as I wait for more screenshots from you. :hat:
 

Goodeknight

New member
I believe the writing on the Grail tablet, the shield, and the trapped floor (Word of God) were all in Latin. Presumably, the writing on the seal would be the same.
 

Indy's brother

New member
The grail tablet is in latin:

The Grail Tablet text is a combination of original Latin Psalms, retranslated scripture, and invented passages. The prop masters took the English psalm text and retranslated it into Latin word by word which would result in a very 'rough' effect to anyone who would try to read Latin. The tablet was made by prop manufacturer Paul Robins.

So.....it might stand to reason that this is simply latin. Or one of many variants of it. What I can't figure is the seemingly etruscan "F" (which would actually be a "w") just above the 3 o'clock mark on the inner ring. It looks like a backwards "F". Also, going counter-clockwise from there, there are two (?) characters between the "R" and the "K" (or K, then R if reading from left to right) that I can't identify at all.

Anyone here know anything about Latin?

EDIT: I'd been working on this post for over an hour while searching the net for latin alphabets, goodeknight, I wasn't ignoring your post. ;)
 

Goodeknight

New member
Indy's brother said:
EDIT: I'd been working on this post for over an hour while searching the net for latin alphabets, goodeknight, I wasn't ignoring your post. ;)
No worries, and thanks for the tip of the hat! :hat:
 

Oceliane

New member
The only pics of the Great Seal I'm able to find are from Elsa with the Grail in her hands... I'll post new pics in a couple of minutes, but I don't think there is a lot of things able to be analyzed...

About the designs of the Grail Cross, I've been discussing with two of my Medieval teachers in History of Arts who are specialists of illuminated manuscripts.

- The first one told me that the design of a cup put over a cross is totally in the spirit of the medieval mind: we create stuff from visual codes we understand and with an associated meaning.
- The second one told me that she never saw this kind of cross, that it doesn't look like taken from a religious manuscript. However, it looks like of an heraldic symbol, and she's not an expert in this domain.

In both case, they told me that there is always the possibility that it is a symbol just invented for the movie, but... that it is terribly tempting to imagine that it existed before.

However, the more I look at medieval cups, the more I notice that artists always represented the cups from the outside, never a cutaway view like the one on this design. in other words, I always see half-disks for depicting cups, never half-circles like in this cross.

I'm now terribly tempted to continue my studies in history of arts... If I do so, I'll have to find a topic for my Master's degree. What about "grails and cups in medieval art, make the difference"?
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Indy's brother said:
So the grail knight is an eleventh century frenchman.
This makes sense because the book the Grail Knight is reading is written in either Old or Middle French.

I just found some other stuff related to the Cruciform Sword symbol. Will post later but the most interesting of all is that there is a *3rd* design!:eek:
 
Happy Easter

Primitive cruciform signs

The sign of the cross, represented in its simplest form by a crossing of two lines at right angles, greatly antedates, in both the East and the West, the introduction of Christianity. It goes back to a very remote period of human civilization. In fact, some have sought to attach to the widespread use of this sign, a real ethnographic importance. It is true that in the sign of the cross the decorative and geometrical concept, obtained by a juxtaposition of lines pleasing to the sight, is remarkably prominent; nevertheless, the cross was originally not a mere means or object of ornament, and from the earliest times had certainly another — i.e. symbolico-religious — significance. The primitive form of the cross seems to have been that of the so-called "gamma" cross (crux gammata), better known to Orientalists and students of prehistoric archæology by its Sanskrit name, swastika.

Gradual development of the cross in Christian art

Since by His holy sacrificial death upon the Cross Christ sanctified this former instrument of shame and ignominy, it must have very soon become in the eyes of the faithful a sacred symbol of the Passion, consequently a sign of protection and defence (St. Paulinus of Nola, "Carm. in Natal. S. Felicis", XI, 612; Prudent., "Adv. Symm.", I, 486). It is not, therefore, altogether strange or inconceivable that, from the beginning of the new religion, the cross should have appeared in Christian homes as an object of religious veneration, although no such monument of the earliest Christian art has been preserved. Early in the third century Clement of Alexandria (Stromata VI) speaks of the Cross as tou Kyriakou semeiou typon, i.e. signum Christi, "the symbol of the Lord" (St. Augustine, Tractate 117 on the Gospel of John; De Rossi, "Bull. d'arch. crist", 1863, 35, and "De titulis christianis Carthaginiensibus" in Pitra, "Spicilegium Solesmense", IV, 503). The cross, therefore, appears at an early date as an element of the liturgical life of the faithful, and to such an extent that in the first half of the third century Tertullian could publicly designate the Christian body as "crucis religiosi", i.e. devotees of the Cross (Apol., c. xvi, P.G., I, 365-66). St. Gregory of Tours tells us (De Miraculis S. Martini, I, 80) that in his time Christians habitually had recourse to the sign of the cross. St. Augustine says that by the sign of the cross and the invocation of the Name of Jesus all things are sanctified and consecrated to God. In the earliest Christian life, as can be seen from the metaphorical language of the primitive faithful, the cross was the symbol of the principal Christian virtue, i.e. mortification or victory over the passions, and suffering for Christ's sake and in union with Him (Matthew 10:38; 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23; 14:27; Galatians 2:19; 6:12, 14; 5:24). In the Epistles of St. Paul the cross is synonymous with the Passion of Christ (Ephesians 2:16; Hebrews 12:2) even with the Gospel, and with religion itself (1 Corinthians 1:18; Philippians 3:18). Very soon the sign of the cross was the sign of the Christian. It is, moreover, very probable that reference to this sign is made in the Apocalypse (vii, 2): "And I saw another angel ascending from the rising of the sun, having the sign of the living God."

The cross most commonly referred to and most usually depicted on Christian monuments of all ages is that called the crux immissa, or crux capitata (i.e. the vertical trunk extending beyond the transverse beam). It was on a cross such as this that Christ actually died, and not, as some would maintain, on a crux commissa. And this opinion is largely supported by the testimony of the writers we have quoted. The crux immissa is that which is usually known as the Latin cross, in which the transverse beam is usually set two-thirds of the way up the vertical. The equilateral, or Greek cross, adopted by the East and by Russia, has the transverse set half-way up the vertical.

Both the Latin and Greek crosses play an important part in the architectural and decorative styles of church buildings during the fourth and subsequent centuries. The church of Santa Croce at Ravenna, is in the form of a Latin cross; and on the pillars of a church built by Bishop Paulinus at Tyre in the fourth century the cross is carved in the Latin way. The façade of the Catholicon at Athens shows a large Latin cross. And this style of cross was adopted by West and East until the schism occurred between the two churches. Indeed, at Constantinople the church of the Apostles, the first church of S. Sophia, consecrated by Constantine, those of the monastery of St. John at Studium, of St. Demetrius at Salonica, of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, as well as many churches at Athens, are in the form of the Latin cross; and it appears in the decorations of capitals, balustrades, and mosaics. In the far-off lands of the Picts, the Bretons, and the Saxons, it was carved on stones and rocks, with elaborate and complex Runic decorations. And even in the Catholicon at Athens, crosses no less lavishly ornamented are to be found. In out-of-the-way places in Scotland, too, it has been discovered (cf. Dictionnaire de 1'Académie des Beaux-Arts, V, 38).

The Middle Ages

The cross also played an important part in heraldry and diplomatic science. The former does not directly come within our scope; of the second we shall give the briefest outlines. Crosses are to be found on documents of early medieval times and, being placed at the head of a deed, were equivalent to an invocation of heaven, whether they were plain or ornamental. They were at times placed before signatures, and they have even been equivalent to signatures in themselves. Indeed, from the tenth century we find, under contracts, roughly-made crosses that have all the appearance of being intended as signatures. Thus did Hugh Capet, Robert Capet, Henry I, and Philip I sign their official documents. This usage declined in the thirteenth century and appeared again in the fifteenth. In our own day the cross is reserved as the attestation-mark of illiterate people. A cross was characteristic of the signature of Apostolic notaries, but this was carefully designed, not rapidly written. In the early Middle Ages crosses were decorated with even greater magnifìcence. In the centre were to be seen medallions representing the Lamb of God, Christ, or the saints. Such is the case in the Velletri cross and that which Justin II gave to St. Peter's, mentioned above, and again in the silver cross of Agnello at Ravenna (cf. Ciampini, Vet. mon., II, Pl. XIV). All this kind of decoration displays the substitution of some more or less complete symbol for the figure of Christ on the cross, of which we are about to speak.

It may be well to give here a list of works bearing on the departments of the subject just treated, and containing illustrations which it has not been opportune to quote in the foregoing part of the article: STOCKBAUER, Kunstgeschichte des Kreuzes (Schaffhause, 1870); GRIMOUARD DE SAINT-LAURENT, Iconographie de la Croix et du Crucifix in Ann. archéol., XXVI, XXVII; MARTIGNY, Dictionnaire des antiquités chrétiennes, s.v. Crucifix; BAYET, Recherches pour savir à l'histoire de la peinture. . .en orient (Paris, 1879): MÜNZ, Les mosaïques chrétiennes de l'Italie (l'oratoire de Jeann VII) in Rev. archéol., 1877, II; LABARTE, Histoire des arts industriels, II; KRAUS, Real-Encyklopädie der christliche. Alterhümer (Freiburg, 1882).
 

Goodeknight

New member
goodeknight said:
And as a teaser, let me say simply that I will soon have a tantalizing update on the Brotherhood's symbol. (As soon as Photobucket gets fixed)

Stay tuned....
Stoo said:
Colour me intrigued, goodeknight. What a great thread this has turned out to be!(y)

BEHOLD!

Proof the Brotherhood of the Cruciform Sword has existed since antiquity...

Brotherhoodnecklace.png


Okay, maybe not definitive proof, but an incredibly cool cross I found on eBay. Nothing I've ever seen before. EVERYONE knows the Grail Cross was created for the movie, but here it is. The seller found it in an antique shop in the UK. Dates it generically to the Middle Ages. He had a number of other listings for odd bits and pieces of antiquity. Definitely the genuine article.

Whatever the origin, the resemblance to the Grail Cross is striking:

Brotherhoodnecklace.png
Brotherhoodpin.png


The Brotherhood cross has a lot of flare to it, but it's an even closer resemblance if you put it side by side with Kazim's tattoo.

Brotherhoodnecklace.png
Brotherhoodtat.png


This is now one of my favorite pieces of Indy memorabilia. (y)
 

Stoo

Well-known member
goodeknight said:
BEHOLD!

Proof the Brotherhood of the Cruciform Sword has existed since antiquity...

Okay, maybe not definitive proof, but an incredibly cool cross I found on eBay. Nothing I've ever seen before. EVERYONE knows the Grail Cross was created for the movie, but here it is.
HOLY MACKEREL! Fantastic find, goodeknight!(y) (Oceliane is going to be thrilled at your discovery.) I was pretty confident that the Brotherhood Cross was created for the movie but now I'm not. The similarity is uncanny.
goodeknight said:
The Brotherhood cross has a lot of flare to it, but it's an even closer resemblance if you put it side by side with Kazim's tattoo.
The resemblance is even closer to the 3rd design in "Crusade"! Put it side-by-side with the Brotherhood's fez crosses and you'll see it's an almost spitting image! (Unfortunately, I don't have my "Lucasfilm Archives" book with me right now but it has a good photo of all the fez crosses.)

@Rocket Surgeon: Great info!:hat: I have a nice, thick book on heraldry but it doesn't have much concerning cross symbols.
 

Goodeknight

New member
Stoo said:
The resemblance is even closer to the 3rd design in "Crusade"! Put it side-by-side with the Brotherhood's fez crosses and you'll see it's an almost spitting image!

You're RIGHT!! I had forgotten the fezzes. Thanks, Stoo.

Brotherhoodnecklace.png
SwordPin.jpg


Stoo said:
I was pretty confident that the Brotherhood Cross was created for the movie but now I'm not. The similarity is uncanny.

Well, I was, too, as I said in my first post on this thread. I've read a number of sources that said the symbol was created for the movie. And I know I'd never seen it before. Now though...
 
Stoo said:
I have a nice, thick book on heraldry but it doesn't have much concerning cross symbols.
But wait! there's more!

I refrained from posting this till now, as I have also read that the design was created for the film. Here is a bit to justify that:

A word as to the attitude of the Church towards the [Grail] legend. It would seem that a legend so distinctively Christian would find favour with the Church. Yet this was not the case. Excepting Helinandus, clerical writers do not mention the Grail, and the Church ignored the legend completely. After all, the legend contained the elements of which the Church could not approve. Its sources are in apocryphal, not in canonical, scripture, and the claims of sanctity made for the Grail were refuted by their very extravagance. Moreover, the legend claimed for the Church in Britain an origin well nigh as illustrious as that of the Church of Rome, and independent of Rome. It was thus calculated to encourage and to foster any separatist tendencies that might exist in Britain. As we have seen, the whole tradition concerning the Grail is of late origin and on many points at variance with historical truth.


The meaning of the word has also been variously explained. The generally accepted meaning is that is given by the Cistercian chronicler Helinandus (d. about 1230), who, under the date of about 717, mentions of a vision, shown to a hermit concerning the dish used by Our Lord at the Last Supper, and about which the hermit then wrote a Latin book called "Gradale." "Now in French," so Helinandus informs us, "Gradalis or Gradale means a dish (scutella), wide and somewhat deep, in which costly viands are wont to be served to the rich in degrees (gradatim), one morsel after another in different rows. In popular speech it is also called "greal" because it is pleasant (grata) and acceptable to him eating therein" etc. The medieval Latin word "gradale" because in Old French "graal," or "greal," or "greel," whence the English "grail." Others derive the word from "garalis" or from "cratalis" (crater, a mixing bowl). It certainly means a dish, the derivation from "grata" in the latter part of the passage cited above or from "agréer" (to please) in the French romances is secondary. The explanation of "San greal" as "sang real" (kingly blood) was not current until the later Middle Ages. Other etymologies that have been advanced may be passed over as obsolete.

Literary Tradition

When we come to examine the literary tradition concerning the Grail we notice at the outset that the Grail legend is closely connected with that of Perceval as well as that of King Arthur. Yet all these legends were originally independent of each other. The Perceval story may have a mythical origin, or it may be regarded as the tale of a simpleton (French, nicelot) who, however, in the end achieves great things. In all the versions that we have of it, it is a part of the Arthurian legend, and, in almost all, it is furthermore connected with the Grail. So the reconstruction of the original Grail legend can be accomplished only by an analytical comparison of all extant versions, and is a task that has given rise to some of the most difficult problems in the whole range of literary history.

The great body of the Grail romances came into existence between the years 1180 and 1240. After the thirteenth century nothing new was added to the Grail legend. Most of these romances are in French, but there are versions in German, English, Norwegian, Italian, and Portuguese. These are of very unequal value as sources, some are mere translations or recasts of French romances. Now all of these romances may be conveniently divided into two classes: those which are concerned chiefly with the quest of the Grail, and with the adventures and personality of the hero of this quest; and those that are mainly concerned with the history of the sacred vessel itself. These two classes have been styled respectively the Quest and the Early History versions.

Of the first class is the "Conte del Graal" of Chrestien de Troyes and his continuators, a vast poetic compilation of some 60,000 verses, composed between 1180 and 1240, and the Middle High German epic poem "Parzival" of Wolfram von Eschenbach, written between 1205 and 1215, and based, according to Wolfram's statement, on the French poem of a certain Kyot (Guiot) of Provence, which, however, is not extant and the very existence of which is doubtful. To these may be added the Welsh folk-tales or "Mabinogion" known to us only from manuscripts of the thirteenth century, though the material is certainly older, and the English poem "Sir Percyvelle," of the fifteenth century. Of the Early History versions the oldest is the metrical trilogy of Robert de Boron, composed between 1170 and 1212, of which only the first part, the "Joseph d'Arimathie," and a portion of the second, the "Merlin," are extant. We have, however, a complete prose version, preserved in the so-called Didot manuscript. The most detailed history of the Grail is in the "Grand St. Graal," a bulky French prose romance of the first half of the thirteenth century, where we are told that Christ Himself presented to a pious hermit the book concerning this history. Besides these versions we have three French prose romances, also from the thirteenth century, which, though concerned chiefly with the quest, give also an account of the history of the sacred vessel. Of these the most notable is the "Queste del St. Graal," well known to English readers because it was embodied almost entire in Malory's "Morte d' Arthur." The others are the so-called "Didot Perceval" or "La petite queste" and the lengthy and prolix "Perceval le Gallois," also known as "Perlesvaus."

The poem of Chrestien, regarded by many as the oldest known Grail romance, tells of Perceval's visit to the Grail castle, where he sees a Graal borne in by a damsel. Its accompaniments are a bleeding lance and a silver plate. It is a precious vessel set with jewels, and so resplendent as to eclipse the lights of the hall. All the assembled knights show it reverence. Mindful of an injunction not to inquire too much, Perceval does not ask concerning the significance of what he sees, and thereby incurs guilt and reproach. Undoubtly Chrestien meant to relate the hero's second visit to the castle, when he would have put the question and received the desired information. But the poet did not live to finish his story, whether the explanation of the Graal, offered by the continuators, is that which Chrestien what the Graal signifies; in his version it has no pronounced religious character. On the other hand, in the Early History versions it is invested with the greatest sanctity. It is explained as the dish from which Christ ate the Paschal lamb with his disciples, which passed into possession of Joseph of Arimathea, and was used by him to gather the Precious Blood of Our Saviour, when His body was taken from the Cross. It becomes identified with the Chalice of the Eucharist. The lance is explained as the one with which Longinus pierced Our Lord's side, and the silver plate becomes the paten covering the chalice. The quest in these versions assumes a most sacred character, the atmosphere of chivalric adventure in Chrestien's poem yields to a militant asceticism, which insists not only on the purity of the quester, but, in some versions (Queste, Perlesvaus), on his virginity. In the "Queste" and "Grand St. Graal," moreover, the hero is not Perceval but the maiden-knight, Galaad. But the other knights of the Round Table are made to participate in the quest.
 
Last edited:
Early History

The early history of the Grail is intimately connected with the story of Joseph of Arimathea. When he is cast into prison by the Jews, Christ appears to him and gives him the vessel, through which he is miraculously sustained for forty-two years, until liberated by Vespasian. The Grail is then brought to the West, to Britain, either by Joseph and Josephes, his son (Grand St. Graal), or by Alain one of his kin (Robert de Boron). Galaad (or Perceval) achieves the quest; after the death of its keeper the Grail vanishes. According to the version of the "Perlesvaus" Perceval is removed, no one knows whither, by a ship with white sails on which is displayed a red cross. In the Guiot-Wolfram version we meet with a conception of the Grail wholly different from that of the French romances. Wolfram conceives of it as a precious stone, lapsit exillis (i.e. lapis or lapsi ex caelis?) of special purity, possessing miraculous powers conferred upon it and sustained by a consecrated Host which, on every Good Friday, a dove brings down from heaven and lays down upon it. The angels who remained neutral during the rebellion of Lucifer were its first guardians; then it was brought to earth and entrusted to Titurel, the first Grail king. It is guarded in the splendid castle of Munsalvaesche (mons salvationis or silvaticus?) by itself and nourished by its miraculous food-giving power.

The relationship of the Grail versions to each other, especially that of Chrestien to those of Robert de Boron and the "Queste," is a matter of dispute. Nor is their relative chronology certain. But in all these versions the legend appears in an advanced state of development, the preceeding phases of which are not attested by literary monuments, and therefore, can only be conjectured. The origin of the legend is involved in obscurity, and scholars are divided in their views on this point. An Oriental, a Celtic, and a purely Christian origin have been claimed. But the Oriental parallels, like the sun-table of the Ethiopians, the Persian cup of Jamshid, the Hindu paradise, Cridavana, are not very convincing, and Wolfram's statement, that Kyot's source was an Arabic manuscript of Toledo, is open to grave doubt. It is different with the Celtic story. There are undoubtly Celtic elements in the legend as we have it; the Perceval story is probably, and the Arthurian legend certainly, of Celtic origin, and both of these legends intimately connected with the quest story. Talismans, such as magic lances and food-giving vessels figure prominently in Celtic myths and folk-tales. According to this theory the "Mabinogion," with its simple story of vengeance by means of talismans and devoid of religious significance, would yield the version nearest to the original form of the legend. Back of the quest-story would be some pre-Christian tale of a hero seeking to avenge the injury done to a kinsman. The religious element would then be of secondary origin, and would have come into the legend when the old vengeance-tale was fused with the legend of Joseph of Arimathea, which is essentially a legend of the conversion of Britain.

The "Queste" was edited by Furnivall, "La Queste del Saint Graal" (Roxburghe Club, London, 1864), also the Grand St. Graal under the title "Seynt Graal or the Sank Ryal", etc. (Roxburghe Club, London, 1861-63). The Perlesvaus is in Potvin's edition of Chrestien, I (Mons, 1866); the Didot Perceval in Hucher, "Le Saint Graal" (Le Mans, 1874-78). Robert de Boron's poem was edited by Michel, "Le roman du St. Graal" (Bordeaux, 1841), Malory's "Morte D'Arthur" by Sommer (London, 1889-91), and the Perlesvaus rendered into English by Evans, "The High History of the Holy Grail" (London, 1898).
 
Last edited:

Goodeknight

New member
Correction

Brotherhoodnecklace.png


I said previously that the seller dated this cross generically to the Middle Ages. I was mistaken. He called it "Egyptian style" from the Roman period. However, he really had no clue and was obviously just making stuff up. The same I'm calling all this stuff 'Roman' disclaimer was on all of his listings at the time. Since he'd picked them all up at an antique shop, there was no provenance.
 

Oceliane

New member
First of all, sorry for the delays... I'm in my week of exams, all the fun stuff...

Goodeknight... it is... amazing. Now my keyboard is all sticky with my drool... truely, truely amazing.

I've been unable to contact my teachers about this sign, but it clearly looks egyptian, close to the Djed pillars.

Here is a Djed pillar from the British museum:
ps165704_l.jpg

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/aes/g/glazed_djed_pillar.aspx

Sometimes, the upper horizontal bar merged with the top of the amulet, like on Nefertari's Djed amulet:
03010236.jpg



This symbol, in an altered form, has been used for the Inquisition in the Warhammer 40k game.

Inquisition.jpg


As you may notice... a vertical bar, and three horizontal bars.

If we follow this idea, the Grail cross could perhaps be a variant of the Djed pillar... and yeah, it looks egyptian to me.
 

WilliamBoyd8

Active member
"Valley of the Kings" (1954) and the Cruciform Sword (?)

I watched the 1954 film "Valley of the Kings" for the first time a few days ago.

I thought that it was a pretty good film.

I did happen to notice something, in the scene where Robert Taylor and Eleanor Parker
are captured by the Tauregs, one of the Tauregs wears an emblem
that looked familiar, something like the Cruciform Sword from "Last Crusade".

The screen captures I have are not the best.

post_valleyofthekings_emblem_1.jpg


Taureg wearing emblem 1

post_valleyofthekings_emblem_2.jpg


Taureg wearing emblem 2

Perhaps someone with a DVD of the film can get some higher-resolution captures.

I visited Egypt and Israel sometime ago and saw some of the places
which appear in the film, including Luxor, the Valley of the Kings,
and the Monastery of St. Catherine in Sinai.

:)
 

Goodeknight

New member
Brotherhoodnecklace.png


I lived in Egypt for two years and got my Master's there. I can't say I ever saw any symbols that looked like this. So I don't think it looks Egyptian.

Brotherhoodnecklace.png
03010236.jpg
ik10.jpg
pp-bropin1.jpg


It is vaguely similar to the Djed pillar, but much closer to a traditional three-bar cross. I'll be curious to hear what your profs have to say, Oceliane.
 

Goodeknight

New member
Brotherhoodnecklace.png


Regarding this cross and the idea that the Brotherhood cross was a symbol created for the movie, someone recently suggested, "Very interesting, although I have *never* seen a similar item. I wonder if it's not a mislaid prop?"

Intriguing thought.
 
Top