David Carroll Offers £50,000 to Prove His King Arthur Theory Wrong

6/15/2018

I get a lot of press releases each week, and most of them are either useless, off-topic, or so obscure that they go directly into the trash. But yesterday I received one about a “new” claim that the historical King Arthur had been discovered (yet again), and I felt compelled to follow it up with a bit of investigation because it struck me immediately that there was nothing new about it. To begin, let’s take a look at what the press release has to say:

A historian believes he has found proof that the legendary King Arthur was actually the son of a 6th century Scottish king – and is offering £50,000 to anyone who can prove him wrong.

David Carroll, has spent more than twenty-five years researching the legend of King Arthur, a quest that has taken him all over Europe delving into ancient manuscripts and records.

After finding a manuscript hidden away under lock and key in the town library of Schaffhausen in Switzerland, the historian believes he has irrefutable proof that a sixth-century Scottish prince is the true source of the Arthurian legend.

The Dorbene manuscript, written by 7th century monks, is the oldest historical document in the world to mention Arthur.

David says the similarities between the Scottish battle leader Arthur documented in the manuscript and the legend of King Arthur cannot be ignored.

The story of David’s Arthur, or Arturius as he was referred to by the monks, is almost identical to that of the legendary king we all know today.

Arturius was the son of a 6th century Scottish king called Aiden.

David said:

“There is no doubt in my mind that Arturius is the real King Arthur.

Both were active in the 6th century, both died in battles against the Picts, both were Christian, both fought alongside Urien and other British kings and both had a sister called Morgan – a name unheard of in 6th and 7th century records.

To have a brother and a sister at that time called Arthur and Morgan is highly unlikely. It would be like finding another Napoleon and Josephine or Antony and Cleopatra – it’s almost impossible.”

Arturius’ documentation in the manuscript came five centuries before Geoffrey of Monmouth introduced the story of Arthur into Cornish legend.

How dramatic! Hunting an unknown manuscript in the bowels of a Swiss library only to stumble into the earliest record of King Arthur! That would truly be a dramatic turn of events, if it weren’t for the fact that Dr. Ferdinand Keller of Zurich, an archaeologist, actually discovered the manuscript at the bottom of a chest full of books at the Schaffhausen public library. In 1845. The Dorbene manuscript is better known as the oldest extant recension of the Vita Columbae (Life of St. Columba) by Adaman, copied no later than nine years after Adaman’s death. The dating come from the fact that the copyist, Dorbene of Hy, died in 713, nine years after Adaman. This manuscript, almost certainly a direct copy of the original rather than a copy of a copy, is the basis for all modern editions of the Life of St. Columba and has been available in both a transcribed Latin copy and English translation since the nineteenth century. The original is locked away not to hide it but because it’s 1,300 years old and really fragile.

The relevant section, referencing a warlord Latinized as Arturius (here re-Anglicized as Artur), occurs in Book 1 of the Vita, where Columba, who died in 597, meets with King Aidan (or Aedán) of Dal Riada (covering parts of Scotland and Ireland), who reigned from 574 to 606, and delivers a prophecy about the royal succession:

CHAPTER VIII.
Prophecy of St. Columba regarding the Sons of King Aidan.
At another time, before the above-mentioned battle, the saint asked King Aidan about his successor to the crown. The king answered that of his three sons, Artur, Eochoid Find, and Domingart, he knew not which would have the kingdom after him. Then at once the saint prophesied on this wise, "None of these three shall be king, for they shall fall in battle, slain by their enemies; but now if thou hast any younger sons, let them come to me, and that one of them whom the Lord has chosen to be king will at once rush into my lap." When they were called in, Eochoid Buide, according to the word of the saint, advanced and rested in his bosom. Immediately the saint kissed him, and, giving him his blessing, said to his father, "This one: shall survive and reign as king after thee, and his sons shall reign after him." And so were all these things fully accomplished afterwards in their time. For Artur and Eochoid Find were not long after killed in the above-mentioned battle of the Miathi; Domingart was also defeated and slain in battle in Saxonia; while Eochoid Buide succeeded his father on the throne. (trans. William Reeves, 1874)

That’s it.

Carroll chooses to read the text as stating that Artur was a warlord—in keeping with Nennius’ description of him in the ninth century in the Historia Brittonum as the “military commander” (dux bellorum) rather than as king (ch. 56). But the text of the Vita Columbae doesn’t actually say that. Adaman says only that Artur was killed in battle, not that he was a commander of his father’s forces in that battle. Carroll seems to have read backward from Nennius.

Rodney Castleden, whose work I am not particularly fond of, believes that the aforementioned Artur was named in honor of the “real” Arthur, who had just died. Whatever you think of that, he rightly notes that there were a number of princes in the 500s and 600s who were named Arthur, a name which had quite a fad among royalty in the Dark Ages.

But none of this is new. Carroll first proposed his idea in 1996, in Arturius: A Quest for Camelot. The late ancient astronaut theorist Laurence Gardner picked up the idea and ran with it, too, as did a few lesser authors.

The second point that Carroll makes is not related to this text. His claim that Artur had a sister named Morgan comes from a different book altogether, the Martyrology of Oengus the Culdee; or, rather, the medieval notes to it, in mixed Irish and Latin, which he elides with the text itself. This is very long and complicated, and honestly, it tried my patience some. The critical edition reads the relevant line of the poem as “Muirgein, a wondrous birth” (entry for January 27) with no mention of Arthur or anyone else. However, in the Irish/Latin notes, an unnamed medieval redactor, writing at an uncertain date, also glosses the line as “Muirgein, daughter of Aedán,” but the scholiast offers no documentation for the source of this legendary figure. Nor does he dwell on it. He gives the first and apparently preferred reading as “Muirgein, i.e. the birth of the sea, i.e. the abbot of Glen Uissen, as Oegenus says,” but he devotes the most space to yet another reading, of Muirgein as the daughter of Eochaid, about whom he quotes a lengthy poem. Later Arthurian writers simply assumed without referencing the poem itself that it explicitly called Muirgein the daughter of Aedán, though it was one of three possible explanations suggested centuries after the fact. The oldest manuscript of the Martyrology seems to date to the thirteenth century, so presumably the notes were compiled sometime between the eighth and thirteenth centuries, with scholarly opinion suggesting that the notes we have are derived from an original from early times. Any given note, however, is not possible to date. At any rate, they were written many centuries after the events described. The edition produced by the Irish Texts Society in 2012 inserted a question mark after the note about Aedán’s daughter, presumably to indicate that the reading is uncertain.

The only correct claim is that Muirgein is probably cognate with Morgan, both referring to a “sea-born” water-spirit. William Stokes, the translator of the poem and its notes, is most likely correct in assuming that the reference to Muirgein is a euhemerized reference to an early Irish mermaid myth.

All of this seems irrelevant, though, since Morgan Le Fay was not Arthur’s sister before Hartmann von Aue made her so. Before that, she was the leader of the magical sisters of Avalon who heal Arthur, characters parallel to Pomponius Mela’s description of early Gallic / Celtic beliefs about magical healing virgins on an island off Brittany. The long and short of it is that Morgan wasn’t originally Arthur’s sister, so the whole argument is moot.

Carroll is offering his £50,000 reward (according to the press release; it was $50,000 on his website) on disingenuous terms. It is impossible to know what was in the hearts and minds of the first storytellers to spin myths about King Arthur. Therefore, short of finding a parchment stating “I made up this story after reading about General Moore D. R. Tour,” it is simply impossible to prove that Carroll is wrong, no matter how unlikely his claims are, or how badly he has mangled the evidence.

56 Comments

Hal

6/15/2018 09:08:49 am

Worthless poppycock. Of course Colicrapo knows more about Arthur in his tiny Albany house than all the scholars in the UK who have actually done research.

Americanegro

6/15/2018 01:13:58 pm

It seems likely that Carroll borrowed his idea from Michael Wood. The consensus among "all the scholars in the UK who have actually done research" with regard to Carroll's idea seems to be "nope, nowhere proven."

Great article Jason. I often wish my high school had offered a year of English history instead of a useless religion class.

Clete

6/15/2018 01:52:03 pm

There is a difference, Jason has actually read some of the research conducted by real historians, while you have done none and cannot quote any sources at all. Worthless Poppycock is a apt description of everything you have ever posted to this blog.

An Anonymous Nerd

6/16/2018 09:59:17 am

What an odd post. Not only for the bizarre misspelling of Mr. Colavito's name and the crack about his house (btw: what does the house size matter, and how do you know? If you've driven by it then Mr. Colavito needs to call the police right now. If you've looked it up online then why on earth would you do that?), but for its content.

Mr. Colavito has given appropriate sources and essentially showed that, on its own terms, the theory can't possibly be correct. It was Mr. Carroll who made the exaggerated claims. On terms of those grotesquely exaggerated claims, Mr. Carroll owes Mr. Colavito the money.

Speaking of Mr. Carroll....Does anyone know more about him? I can't find reference to him as an Historian other than this book. Does anyone know what his Historian day job is? (Teacher someplace? Archivist? Institutional Historian? Etc.)

The book can be downloaded here:

http://www.electricscotland.com/history/Ascreen.pdf

What's listed as his site:

http://www.webworld.co.uk/mall/arthur/

creepily and without my consent redirects here:

http://www.kingarthurlegend.com/

which seems to be down.

Looking through the book I see some worrying oddities. I see no sources other than the primary documents, which by definition can't exist in a vacuum. His bibliography cites only some of the texts he refers to in the book...And nothing else. No other Historians' work to provide context. Nothing to show study of the cultural context this stuff was written in. Nothing to suggest why he included some texts and excluded others. (All scholars do this but he should cite something explaining how he made his choices.) I can't tell what edition of Mallory he's using.

I note that in the book he doesn't seem to cite “Life of St. Columba” as some kind of lost manuscript that he's uncovered as seems to be the claim now.

I note that he says multiple times that he's proving his points beyond doubt or (making a legal analogy I guess) beyond a "reasonable" doubt. You can't really do that with this kind of fragmented evidence.

His passages describing how he associates the RL Artuis's sister with Morgan LeFey of the legends are, well, questionable at best. He found a book in a library referencing his candidate as having a sister named something like "Morgan," and declared it over. (Apologies for how the copy/paste mangled the line breaks.)

[[It followed therefore, if Aidan had a daughter called Morgan then Arturius, his son, had a
sister (or half sister) called Morgein. The spelling of course does not matter, this was
Morgan. As far as I was concerned there could now be no doubt whatsoever that Arthur of
legend and Arturius of history were one and the same.

The search was over, the final proof, if indeed more proof were needed.]]

Note no attempt to actually show that one Morgan was based on the other. "Sounds like, therefore is." This is fringe logic, and we readers here have seen Mr. Colavito shred it time and time again.

He's proved nothing. Mr. Colavito by contrast has shown that Mr. Carroll's conclusions can't be true to the degree he needs them to be to make his exaggerated point. Mr. Carroll owes Mr. Colavito the money.

-An Anonymous Nerd

Riley V

6/18/2018 12:01:53 am

Thanks Nerd. I admire your comments.

I have a cat named Artie and a neice named Morgan. I guess I can’t get the money.

You would think that Mr. Carroll would have cited other authors just to provide a counter-argument.

Bob Sunman

12/14/2019 05:51:04 am

This links elsewhere and to a comment bereft of space to reply.

The suffix '-icus' means 'of', that's all. Badonicus means 'of Badon'. So much blather and so little real knowledge. Learn Latin ( I had no choice, being of an age when doctoral dissertations were expected to be in classical (NOT Church) Latin), then learn old Welsh - and as an addendum, learn to read Coelbren. It will clear up much confusion. O bydded i'r hen iaith barhau.

Adrian Grant

8/8/2018 03:09:45 pm

Arthur and the fake £50 000 prize

I have now received an email from David Carroll (see below).

However as you can see the conditions stipulated are
(a) not comprehensive as I had requested (see his use of the word "some")
(b) inherently impossible as he requires the refutation of ALL points raised in his book. The problem here is that some of the remarks he makes about Arthur mac Aedan are correct - but they apply to Arthur mac Aedan and not "the" Arthur. So in a key sense they are impossible to refute on his terms. The condition, therefore, does not permit that a correct statement about Arthur mac Aedan can be shown not to apply to the 'real' Arthur. In short in order to win the prize it is necessary to disprove many of the facts about the true Arthur's life.

One case in point is the Battle of Badon Hill. David acknowledges that this took place too early to have been undertaken by Arthur mac Aedan and so he makes the wholly unfounded allegation that it has been added to Arthur's feats by some later chronicler. It is logically impossible to refute this within his circular criteria.
Another case is that Arthur was mortally wounded at Camlann fighting his own nephew ("Mordred") who was the king of the Gododdin and NOT a Pict.

We may add to this David Carroll's insistence that Arthur must be called "Arturius" without spelling discrepancy when

Spelling was in any case not standardised (nor was it for more than a millennium afterwards - and arguably still isn't if we include regional idiomatic usage and/or American English and/or the appalling standards in too many of our schools!)
The reference he uses is a Latin rendering of a Gaelic translation of a Brythonnic name - for even David cannot refute the appearance of the name amongst Coelings long before Arthur mac Aedan or, indeed, any other Gaelic speaking source.
I am fully confident that Arthur mac Aedan was not called "Arturius" in real life.

In other words there is no basis for this criterion.

My conclusion is that David Carroll has set the prize up in such a way that it is impossible to claim it; while he would claim that that vindicates his proposition, I say that it is the circularity of the rules alone which make this so.

And all this is without entering into the matter of what counts as "documented historical evidence" which, as we have seen above, David has in any case already shown himself willing to play fast and loose with.

What I continue to find most bizarre is that I acknowledge that David does not stand to gain financially from what I consider to be this false offer.

David's comment to me:

Everything you require is in the press release and can be found in numerous sources including youtube, History Scotland and of course my book. Please read the book carefully as all points throughout the book must be disproved using documented historical evidence.

See below an example of SOME of the conditions taken from History Scotland:

" David is keen to hear from anyone who thinks they can prove that King Arthur is based on someone other than the 6th century
Scottish prince Arturius. Like Arturius and the legendary King Arthur, they MUST have:

• been called Arturius

• been active in the 6th century

• had a sister called Morgan

• died in battle against the Picts

• been a Christian

• fought alongside Urien and other British kings"

Good luck and please only contact me if ALL the above conditions have been fulfilled and you feel you have enough evidence to disprove my theory.

Flint Johnson link

8/18/2018 10:39:16 pm

His requirements prove he has a bogus claim.
-The earliest source to name Arthur is "Y Gododdin", which calls him Arthur. Arthur is normally translated to Latin as "Artorius", not "Arturius".
-We have no way of knowing Arthur was active in the sixth century. One source, Annales Cambriae, dates him to the early sixth century, but all dates from that era are necessarily more relative than absolute; they were well outside of living memory when the source was originally written down even if you want to assume that Annales Cambriae's source material was written down in 616, which is the earliest possible date.
-No historical source claims Arthur had a sister, let alone that she was named Morgan. That comes from the romances,, and the later ones at that. One Welsh literary source does say he had an armorer name Morgan though.
-No historical source says Arthur died fighting Picts. The Annales Cambriae says he fell "with" Modred, but does not say either that he fell fighting against Modred or that Modred was a Pict. Both of those connections came later; the former with Geoffrey of Monmouth (1136) and the latter with the Scottorum Chronicon of the fourteenth century, if memory serves.
-No historical source claims Arthur was Christian, that is a product of Geoffrey of Monmouth again.
-No historical source connects Arthur to Urien. In fact, Historia Brittonum seems to place Urien in the later sixth century and Arthur in the earlier (agreeing with Annales Cambriae on Arthur's rough chronology). Historical poems name many of Urien's allies and enemies but never Arthur either.

In short, his qualifications for proving the "real" Arthur are all inaccurate, so that if these were his criteria his own ignorance has proven he was wrong.

8/8/2018 03:15:08 pm

I do believe that I have identified Arthur in my recently published book "Arthur: Legend, Logic & Evidence".

Here is a synopsis:

Part One
The sources are examined and discussed systematically.
I offer the conclusion that the time-frame for the battles is 495x520 and that the action took place in central Scotland.

The sources considered are: Gildas, Aneurin, Bede, Nennius, Marie de France, Chrétien de Troyes, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Thomas Mallory, two anonymous authors as well as the Welsh Annals and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

Part Two
Careful consideration is given to the Political and Historical Geography of what is now Scotland starting from before the Roman Invasion of Britain, giving an entirely fresh view of Ptolemy's Geography of Scotland and setting out the various ebbs and flows of power from then up to the point where ot became necessary for Arthur to become involved.

Part Three
The famous twelve battles are analysed and specified in time and place. In most cases they can be identified quite precisely and we can understand the reason for the battle's location. In other cases I make suggestions which I am very confident about, but which cannot be proved in quite the same way - and I invite the reader to judge my site selection by assessing the arguments I have deployed. Maps are included in each case.

Part Four
Armed with the evidence the next step is to identify the person who became the Arthur of legend. Born in what is now Leeds c475, he has been hiding in the archives in plain site - but overlooked because previous researchers have been determined to suit their own narratives. In this context I discuss, demystify and specify what lies behind various other associated names, places etc including Camelot, Guinevere, Kardoel, "Norway" and "Orkney".

Part Five: Appendices

Appendix One
Several of the characters who appear in Arthurian Legend not discussed already are examined - showing which ones are anachronistic later additions, and deconstructing and explaining several others. Specifically included are Lancelot, St Theneu, St Kentigern, Merlin and "Uther Pendragon"

Appendix Two
A wholly new history of the Lennox from its creation to its dismemberment in feudal times is offered. The opportunity is taken to correct the origin stories of several of the Clans and families associated with the area. As with my previous book I show how heraldry can be far more informative than has been understood hitherto.

Appendix Three
Consideration is given to the life of St Serf and various associated people and matters. At last sense can be made of such sources as the Aberdeen Breviary which is again wholly new to scholarship. This appendix was needed to add to the refutation of the idea that Serf had anything to do with Kentigern; in the process a better understanding of the arrival of the relics of St Andrew is offered.

Appendix Four
During my examination of Ptolemy's geography of Scotland I identified the supposedly mythical Island of Thule - and here I set out the explanation

Appendix Five
Here is an explanation of the cover illustration, particularly the shield which I made myself under advice and which was so well painted for me to my general specification.

NB I do not have anything specific to say about what Arthur may have done between 520 and 535.

Conclusion
Postscript Here I consider Arthur's legacy
Acknowlegements
Bibliography including websites where relevant

angus murray

12/9/2019 06:27:52 am

Perhaps when you are a careful enough observer to notice that
Malory has only one "l" and that "plain sight" is not spelled "plain site", you'll have a better chance of finding the real Arthur.

12/10/2019 01:18:35 am

You may think my criticism is unimportant. However, attention to detail is crucially important in this sort of research and your lack of recognition of that is why you have not solved the mystery. To claim that Malory is unimportant is naive. You have to look at every scrap of evidence because there is a paucity of it. Not all of Malory's sources are known, so you can't dismiss it simply because you have read some of his source material like Chretiens, etc..

angus murrayn

12/10/2019 02:15:20 am

Flint,
You are wrong that no historical source makes Arthur a Christian.
HB refers to him carrying the image of the holy Mary at the battle of Castle Guinnion and the AC makes reference to him carrying the cross on his shoulders at the battle of Badon.Both of these precede Geoffrey. All a bit unlikely if he was not a Christian
Nonetheless, it is quite true that Caroll's theory has nothing to recommend it from a historian's point of view and his criteria for claiming the 50K are designed to make quite sure he never has to pay it. The supposed reward is simply a marketing device designed to bolster sales.

12/10/2019 05:31:27 am

Sorry Angus, I have no idea why there are no "reply" buttons underneath your various posts.
1. I do not agree with you about Nennius' comments not precluding him being a king. The whole point about being a king is that you do not have a superior (bar the rare occasions when there was a High King).
2. I do agree with you about Arthur being a Christian.Beyond what you say there is a good deal more evidence to adduce (which I will in due course).
3. Regrettably it is not the case that Carroll's offer was designed to boost sales. His book was published in 1996 and the prize was offered in the context of putting it online for free download.
4. Regarding Malory, as you can see from the synopsis of my book, I set myself a very limited task. In this context Malory was actually irrelevant. However it is my intention to publish an extended text covering the whole of Arthur's life and here I will be examining Malory's work rather more closely. But it is very late in date so I will be particularly circumspect. And I think you have not grasped a key point from my book: that much of the legendary stuff was contemporary satire - written as entertainment. The bards never thought that people would take any of it as true.
5. Even Nennius cannot be taken as gospel. He made errors regarding the early Northumbrian kings (see my paper on the siege of Lindisfarne) and, of course, I say that the 12 famous battles were NOT against the Saxons. However as I wrote above I did not deal with the whole of his life - and he did indeed battle the Saxons, but this is separate from the 12 so Nennius was incorrect here too.

12/10/2019 10:34:50 pm

Re point 1), you don't say why you disagree with me. One can be a king and a soldier simultaneously and be referred to by either epithet.
Re 3) I bow to your better knowledge of the circumstances
Re 4) Malory is indeed late but interesting because his account sometimes differs from that found in his sources we can identify.
One has to remember that the manuscripts he worked from may well have been older than those we have copies of now and perhaps closer to the originals. Especially in the continental material, there is a large element of allegory and it is all too easy to take it at face value. A case in point is the returning of Excalibur to the lake. The sword is the emblem of sovereignty because it the means by which sovereignty is both acquired and maintained. Griflet son of Do is generally recognised as Gilfaethwy son of Don, an entirely mythical figure, who returns the sword to the Sovereignty goddess (in the form of the Lady of the Lake).
This act is thus an allegorical representation of Arthur's death, where he yields up his sovereignty.
It is also very apparent that the continental literature derives from multiple parallel sources indicating a strong word-of-mouth component in its evolution.
Most real historians tend to ignore this material as being unhistorical yet they fail to recognise is has a historical basis, albeit expressed in allegory.
Nennius' "heap" is interesting because much of it is unfiltered and is indeed sometimes contradictory. This actually lends credence to the validity of the source material when those apparent contradictions can be resolved.
Geoffrey is problematical because he uses ancient material but adapts it to his needs of providing continuity and of eulogising the Britons.One can never be quite sure when he is being creative and when he is relaying genuine tradition. Sometimes he even seems to be taking his audience for fools e.g. Boso of Oxford (c.f. Latin Bos/bovis an ox.). There are many instances where one can be absolutely certain he is being disingenuous, e.g. where he lists the kings of Britain succeeding Constantine in the
same order as Gildas in spite of the fact that these kings were all contemporaries and Vortipor was king of the Demetae not king of Britain.
Most authors who have attempted to discover the real Arthur are insufficiently judicious in choosing what evidence to use and in avoiding piling error on error.
The result is always a house of cards and this is why most modern historians will not touch Arthur with a barge pole.
It's all far too uncertain.
Nonetheless, Arthur did indeed exist but you'll have to wait for my book for the whole story.

12/11/2019 05:43:33 am

1. What you say here is obviously true, but the "others" are described as "more noble". I am pretty sure (ie I can't put my hands on it - so I may have misremembered) that one source (was it one version of Nennius?) actually asserts he was not a king. However in my existing book I show exactly what rank he did have and why throughout the period to 517. There is a very interesting addition to be made for the period following - but still he is not "king" per se.
4. Yes.... I was advised that the mere mention of Geoffrey or Mallory would be enough for professional academics not to take my book seriously. As I have said in previous posts I have not read Malory in detail, but your suggestion that some of his stuff is allegory is certainly interesting. I say (explained in my book) that the contemporaneous stuff was satire - and I think the same could probably be said for some other stuff close in time but not actually contemporary. In both cases it is easy to see how pseudonyms would be used in many cases.
In my revision I intend to offer absolute proof that Geoffrey DID have access to WRITTEN sources - contrary to the currently fashionable view, although there is a paper on academia.edu which actually claims one specific such source which appears to be at least partly extant (ie I have not studied the paper carefully and I have not seen the source claimed).

I am assuming that your reference to Grifflet is from Malory?
In my book I explain excalibur and the lady OF (not in!) the Lake. If Malory has made an allegory of this all well and good. But the real story is utterly prosaic - and true.

So... you are writing a book also! I really would urge you to read mine before you go to print. From the way you write here I don't think it would discomfit you and it might be helpful (and it's not expensive!!!) I would say wait for my update, but I cannot put a timescale on this.

Angus Murray

12/13/2019 05:35:23 am

Adrian,
I'm sure that I would have remembered it if any source had claimed that Arthur was not a king. (As you point out, he was at least noble). What I do remember is that in the Life of St Genovesius, (which precedes Geoffrey), he is indeed described as a king.
I am not ascribing the use of allegory to Malory. He merely copied (and not infrequently edited) his sources, which sometimes use allegory. The Lancelot Grail cycle names Griflet as the returner of the sword. Malory has Bedivere in this role.
The only account I know of that is probably satirical and therefore of limited value on that account, is the Dream of Rhonabwy.
People have been trying to identify Arthur for centuries. None of the many "certain" identifications made so far have any merit because they have utterly insufficient evidence for their claims.
They often rely on name similarities, (which I can tell you are completely misleading) and proposed identifications are essentially speculative.
From the little that I know of your theories, together with what I know from my own research, I see no evidence at all that your own claims are any different. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
Without some knowledge of Old Welsh, Old French, Old High German and Latin, and a comprehensive knowledge of source material, one has no chance. Mike Ashley has a wide knowledge of source material that is available, yet still manages to spell Maelgwn as Maelgwyn and evidently has almost zero knowledge of Welsh. Translators like Giles are often so free in translation that they alter the sense of what they are translating. One needs to read the material in the original and translate it oneself to have any hope of making any real progress.
I am sorry if this all sounds rather negative and I don't wish to curb your enthusiasm for the subject, but one need to be realistic.

12/13/2019 06:05:31 am

OK Angus you have me at a loss here. The life of St Genovesius? I had not heard of it nor can I find it - perhaps you can point me to a source? However I see from eg https://www.scribd.com/document/152150355/Arthur-Charters-of-the-Kings-Wilson-Alan-Blackett-BaramGwent that it is not beyond question.

In my book I make passing reference only to Geoffrey - so even if this work were indeed (a) reliable and (b), as you say, pre-Geoffrey, actually this cuts no ice. My book is in no way dependent on Geoffrey.

It is very clear to me that you do need to read my book. I think the key word would be iconoclasm. Ahem..... of course until you read the book you will not see the evidence. But actually identifying "the" Arthur was not my main concern. The task I took on was to identify the battle sites and put them in a proper timescale. When I revise and extend my book I will set out the whole of his life and set out the associated chronology. If you can then find an alternative individual to fit this life then very good luck to you - but I am confident that you will not.

If I might be just a little critical: I do agree that attention to detail is important - and those who call this pedantry merely parade their own stupidity. However there is the danger that this leads to throwing out babies with the bathwater. This is what "academics" have done with Geoffrey.

As for your dismissal of my argument about satire, for a starter I refer you to the tale of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Beyond that starter you'll need to read my book. There are indeed many things you have not come across because you have not read my book - like the relevance of the origins of the Clan Forbes, for example!

12/13/2019 07:44:41 am

Adrian
Life of St Goeznovius

In the course of time, the usurping king Vortigern, to buttress the defence of the kingdom of Great Britain which he unrighteously held, summoned warlike men from the land of Saxony and made them his allies in the kingdom. Since they were pagans and of devilish character, lusting by their nature to shed human blood, they drew many evils upon the Britons.

Presently their pride was checked for a while through the great Arthur, king of the Britons. They were largely cleared from the island and reduced to subjection. But when this same Arthur, after many victories which he won gloriously in Britain and in Gaul, was summoned at last from human activity, the way was open for the Saxons to go again into the island, and there was great oppression of the Britons, destruction of churches and persecution of saints. This persecution went on through the times of many kings, Saxons and Britons striving back and forth. . .

Even without reading your book I know that your identification of the battle sites are incorrect simply because I know where they really were - not in your area of interest.

Tell me how you resolve the problem of the name Badon for instance.
Badon, as its usually spelt, is Old Welsh and would be spelled Baddon in modern Welsh. This word is not originally British however (although good Welsh now), but
German - as it derives from German "bad" - bath. Gildas was no lover of the Saxons yet he apparently uses a Saxon word to describe a place that, if Bath, could have been rendered as Aquae Sulis. Nor in Gildas' time had Bath been captured by the Saxons.
Clearly it was not Bath. One then has to explain a place-name that has no obvious Brythonic etymology. Many attempts to explain the name Badon suggest place-names which originate from words which do not involve the voiceless alveolar lateral fricative ( i.e. /dd/). Clearly these are non-starters. Case in point; Dumbarton for Badon by that fraud Norma Goodrich.
Dun Breatann has no dd sound.
So - where was your Badon?

12/13/2019 08:16:06 am

Adrian

Re-reading my post I notice a mistake;
That should have read "voiced dental fricative" not "voiceless alveolar fricative"!

12/13/2019 08:31:06 am

Well you say you know where the battle sites were and given that you say you don't agree with mine, I refute yours. But you would need to read my book to understand the whole argument. As for Badon Hill, you are suddenly very sure about pronunciation - which I challenge.

In point of fact I identify the fort (not the Roman one) on Bar Hill between Twechar and Kilsyth on the Antonine Wall as the location of the battle of Ba-dyn (the clue is in the name). Just as Carduel is Blackness Castle (Caer-Dubh-Ail) - see my book..

Your source says that the Saxons were "largely cleared" - well actually no they were not. Nor were they reduced to subjection. But Arthur did also fight Saxons successfully (for this you will have to await my forthcoming upgrade). And, of course, the Angles had not yet revolted.

While I would not rule out his fighting in Gaul, I would doubt it very much (for reasons to be set out in my book) - here I suspect anachronistic conflation with eg Riothamus, But this conflation may have been satirical and contemporaneous. [I have yet to consider this in detail.]

Please to not conflate me with Arthur mac Aedan merchants. So no, Dumbarton Rock does not feature in the battles.

Ironically I am entirely relaxed by the words in the extract you cite. The problem lies in the word "presently" which does NOT mean "immediately" and actually there is even room for manoeuvre wrt "king". I say he was not - but he might as well have been (see partly my book, partly forthcoming upgrade).

Sorry to be obscurantist here, but the sources I now have are very exciting and I would prefer to set it out properly rather than having the germs leapt upon not so much by your good self, but by others who might read all this!

12/13/2019 08:45:36 am

Perhaps I should add that I do take a fairly robust/relaxed view about vowel sounds - perhaps even more.

Remember that the BBC considered subtitling (for southern viewers) a series based in Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Stanley Baxter had a long running series "Parliamo Glasgow" and even many Scots have difficulty with a fairly thick Dundee accent never mind someone from Buchan.

So I do accept that there are some "normal" rules and it is always worth considering 'normality'. And then there is the problem of the scribe trying to write down something in a language he does not understand - and we can see, for example how Gaels mangled some of the Pictish place names they came across. Err.....etc. (continued p94)

12/13/2019 10:37:56 am

Adrian
You won't find many etymologists who would agree with you that Badon could indicate Ba-dyn! Certainly in the Dream of Rhonabwy, the battle is styled Caer Faddon, the lenited form of Caer Baddon. Overt name similarity is exceedingly bad at identifying places. In fact I'd go so far as to say in 95% of cases it fails. There is some guy on the net who has used a computer program to try to identify links between Arthurian places and to try to match them to real world places. Although he references a large number of places as "possibles" for each site, I cannot think of a single place correctly associated. In no instance are the places that appear to be uncorrupted, e.g. London, Salisbury, Winchester, Caerleon etc, identical with the places we know by those names today. Once one needs to invoke scribal or other error, you'd better have some very good independent evidence to back it up.

I'd be interested to know how it was that Arthur was fighting the Saxons on the Antonine Wall when in his time they were only established in the south-east of Britain. Whilst the Angles had some small penetration in the east further north, even they were not in Scotland according to archaeology.

Cardueil was said to be on the sea and in Wales, And of course, it was also said to be between Tintagel and Sinadon - so I hope your Caer Dubh Ail fits that description.

I agree with you that HRB contains useful information, widely disregarded by historians. However, because Geoffrey is so unreliable one needs information from other sources in the first place to be able to identify what is useful and what is not.

12/13/2019 11:26:30 am

Of course it is the case that Arthur was NOT fighting the Saxons on the Antonine Wall - that is the point. In the 12 famous battles the enemy were the Picts and the Scots. Even Geoffrey recognises that his early battles were there and that he had other dealings in the Old North.

It is only later that he had a go at the Saxons.

Gildas was misunderstood - even by Nennius - and others who relocated all the action variously to Wales and the South West of England.

Regarding Ba-dyn (which is my own rendition) remember that Cymru is pronounced Come-ri. So I am as sure as I can be that the Brythonnic "Dyn"s were actually pronounced Dun (as in the Gaelic - albeit some Duns are Dounes, but that makes my point for me). cf Dyn Gardi - Bamborough

I agree with your last para.

As for Tintagel my understanding is that it was an important place in Roman times - so there is no reason why it should not have continued as such in Arthurian times. As such I think that Arthur would indeed have visited it. However my understanding is that its leap to importance in Arthuriana is down to a mediaeval owner who wished it so.

12/13/2019 12:52:01 pm

Adrian,
In Old Welsh, y was not used, thus the definite article "y" was written "ir" and "yn" was written "in"and "y" certainly didn't exist in the earlier common brittonic either. In early Welsh, schwa could be represented by i, or o and only later by y (in Middle Welsh). (concenn vs cincen vs cyngen)

I've never seen dùn written as don except in anglicisations like Donegal.

dùn is actually pronounced /doon/ and this has nothing in common with schwa, pronounced "uh". So you can't claim that Badon is Ba-dùn.
"dyn" is irrelevant to the period of Gildas when Badon was first mentioned.
In Gaelic as in Welsh, the general is always followed by the specific, the noun by the adjective, (except in some very specific cases) thus Dun would always come first as in Dùn Èideann, Dumbarton etc. Your word order therefore fails as well.

Just what do you claim "Ba" means??

Its very obvious that your etymologising is little more than guesswork based on the haziest notions of Celtic languages.
This is why I said that you need to have some understanding of languages before you can attempt to find Arthur or his battles.

Badon would be pronounced /Bathun/ , with the th pronounced as it would be in "then" i.e. voiced.

12/13/2019 01:11:35 pm

PS
Another reason why Bar hill cannot be Badon is that Bar is pronounced as in /tar/ (English orthography) whilst the a in Badon is pronounced as in /cat/. In English, Bar is pronounced little differently from Ba (with long a), but in Scots Gaelic, r is strongly trilled and Ba and Bar could not be confused.

12/13/2019 02:49:19 pm

In reply to the last comment, my questions would be "Says who?" and "On what basis"?

With regard to the "y" I am not impressed, because you would have to go back to eg Bamburgh - Giles' Nennius has "Dynguoaroy". The point is that I don't believe that these variations are of any consequence.

Gildas (para 26) tells us that "the enemy" besieged this place ("badonici montis" if we are going to get this picky). Gildas was a contemporary (Arthur was his father's foster-brother). Bar Hill makes complete sense militarily and really I don't care what spelling changes have affected this site over the years. However if someone can come up with a better site which fits the context well good luck and well done to them.

Nennius says "in monte Badonis"
[https://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00000825/images/index.html?id=00000825&groesser=&fip=xdsydeayaxdsydfsdryztssdasyztseayaxsxdsyd&no=39&seite=208]

Unless you have an earlier reliable source I am not going to buy "badon" as necessarily totally authentic - far less the pronunciation you assert.

12/13/2019 05:26:35 pm

You say
In reply to the last comment, my questions would be "Says who?" and "On what basis"?

Which comment?

You say:
Nennius has "Dynguoaroy". The point is that I don't believe that these variations are of any consequence.

In the time of Gildas, (6th C), dyn (Nennius 9th/10thC) was spelled "din" and it appears in some MS of Nennius as such, having not been modernised,

We don't have Badin, we have Badon, so din or dyn is irrelevant.
And in any case, even if we did, the word order is impossible to mean Fortress of Ba. It would be written Din Ba.

You say:
"Gildas (para 26) tells us that "the enemy" besieged this place ("badonici montis" if we are going to get this picky)".

Shortly beforehand Gildas states that the Saxons were invited in by Vortigern and his council, so it is very clear that the enemy was the Saxons.

The Latin suffix -icus is an adjectival suffix appended to Badon to yeild Badonicus ie in English - the Badonic mountain. It appears as Badonici because it is in the genitive. Badonis in Nennius is similarly the genitive case of Latin Badon. (c.f. Venedotis, gen case of Venedotia). It appears the same in the Annales Cambriae. There is no question whatever that the word was Badon.

You have someone whose name was not Arthur (or even the Latin equivalent Arthurus) fighting a battle at a place which cannot have been Badon because your etymology for Bar Hill utterly fails, against not the Saxons as indicated by Gildas, but against the Picts and Scots. There is no question therefore that this cannot have been the Arthur of Nennius who fought at Badon.

You simply don't know enough to have any chance of identifying Arthur or his battles especially when one considers that people like Nicholas Higham and David Dumville, who have forgotten more about the period and the language than you will ever know, have themselves been unable to identify Arthur and indeed have given up. It is simply arrogant to pretend that with your knowledge of Welsh, or rather lack of it, you can ignore spelling and word order to suit your guess (and it is clearly nothing better) at where Badon was. I have little doubt that the
same lack of scholarship will apply to your other guesses for Arthur's battle sites.

12/14/2019 10:20:49 am

OK... I am not clear what is going on here. My email alert says Bob (at least from "The Latin Suffix...") while the blog comment says Angus.

I think you should be a bit less plonking eg about Ba-don/Don-ba. While it was indeed normal for Gaelic to work this way, it is by no means so standard for Brythonnic (Dynguoaroy notwithstanding). And of course Cymru is pronounced Come-ri.(or are you also proposing a vowel shift - and if so when and on what basis?)

You say "shortly before this...." Well no. The shortness of the time lapse is your interpretation. Gildas does not use the word "shortly". But worse than that.... Gildas says that the Saxons were invited in to protect the British from "the enemy". This was the self-same enemy which Arthur subdued - and all of a sudden you are ignoring Geoffrey for some reason. He goes on to say that over time the Saxons proved to be nearly as troublesome as "the enemy".

So Gildas does NOT say that Arthur was battling the Saxons. Try reading the text while remembering that the supposedly helpful subheadings are NOT in the original. This is a lazy assumption made by readers and translators of Gildas alike. I think that even Nennius (writing 300 years later) misunderstood this (just as he got the Bernician dynasty wrong in detail). [I have experience of this sort of thing elsewhere too.]

Again rudeness does not help. I do not pretend to a knowledge of Welsh (where have I suggested otherwise?) but I have Welsh Dictionaries and I do have access to extremely knowledgeable people who have been very generous with their time and expertise. So I seriously recommend that you do not try this line again.

I think you actually make "Mount Badon" even more problematic. I can buy onto your grammar (cf "Britannicus"), but that would imply that the hill was not itself actually called "Badon". But your real problem (the clue is in the name) is that Bar Hill is clearly an English name and hence of a much later date. We do not have any precursor variant, but there is no basis to suppose that it could not have comprised the concept of 'Badon'. On this basis, of course I cannot "prove" the identity - and I am open to alternative suggestions. However once one understands the military strategies (ie of the two sides - which I understand you don't WANT to do) I am confident that anyone would be very hard pushed to make an effective case for any alternative.

It is a last resort of a scoundrel to appeal to "authorities" who, you claim, should be regarded as beyond question or reproach. I could add others who are viewed in this way (some wrt Arthur, others other). Count me in as unimpressed - but I won't distract by adding any detail here. Suffice it to say that am well aware of their work and remain underwhelmed. I would add that a talent for collation is orthogonal to a talent for interpretation.

I think I can best sum the situation up by saying that your criticisms do little more than parade the fact that you have not read my book and that it appears that you prefer to wallow in your unknowing. At a mere tenner (I have discontinued the hardback, however lovely a thing it was) it would not break your bank.

12/14/2019 10:20:08 pm

I think you should be a bit less plonking eg about Ba-don/Don-ba. While it was indeed normal for Gaelic to work this way, it is by no means so standard for Brythonnic (Dynguoaroy notwithstanding). And of course Cymru is pronounced Come-ri.(or are you also proposing a vowel shift - and if so when and on what basis?)

Only one n in Brythonic.

Ba-dyn for Badon is about the silliest idea imaginable. If you won’t take my word for it, ask any competent philologist. As you point out, Bar Hill appears to be English and I see on the net there was once a Toll Bar at this place. As I said before, attempting to identify places by name similarity is rarely successful. And you still haven’t told me what you think “Ba” in Ba-dyn means, undoubtedly because you have no idea. Well all I can say is Bah! This is Wilson and Blackett stuff at its worst. Now you say you’re not convinced the name of the battle was Badon anyway in spite of the fact that it is very consistently called Badon in Gildas, Nennius and the Annales Cambriae

You say "shortly before this...." Well no. The shortness of the time lapse is your interpretation.

Shortly before it in the TEXT! Jesus!(rolls eyes heavenward) This has nothing to do with time!

Gildas does not use the word "shortly". But worse than that.... Gildas says that the Saxons were invited in to protect the British from "the enemy".This was the self-same enemy which Arthur subdued

And just how do you know this? Anybody can be an “enemy”.

- and all of a sudden you are ignoring Geoffrey for some reason. He goes on to say that over time the Saxons proved to be nearly as troublesome as "the enemy".

So Gildas does NOT say that Arthur was battling the Saxons. Try reading the text while remembering that the supposedly helpful subheadings are NOT in the original. This is a lazy assumption made by readers and translators of Gildas alike. I think that even Nennius (writing 300 years later) misunderstood this (just as he got the Bernician dynasty wrong in detail). [I have experience of this sort of thing elsewhere too.]

So what you are saying is that Gildas suddenly starts referring to the enemy (meaning the Picts and Scots) without telling the reader of his sudden change from the enemy in the form of the Saxons.

Again rudeness does not help.

I have never been rude. Critical yes, but you deserve criticism because you are so unscholarly.

I do not pretend to a knowledge of Welsh (where have I suggested otherwise?) but I have Welsh Dictionaries and I do have access to extremely knowledgeable people who have been very generous with their time and expertise. So I seriously recommend that you do not try this line again.

Ah so you have a Welsh dictionary to refer to! Of course!
Those extremely knowledgeable people evidently did not take issue with you identifying Bar Hill as Badon in spite of the fact that they are completely unrelated. So much for their advice!

I think you actually make "Mount Badon" even more problematic. I can buy onto your grammar (cf "Britannicus"), but that would imply that the hill was not itself actually called "Badon". But your real problem (the clue is in the name) is that Bar Hill is clearly an English name and hence of a much later date. We do not have any precursor variant, but there is no basis to suppose that it could not have comprised the concept of 'Badon'.

“could not have comprised the concept of Badon” ?????

Presumably this means “could not have been identical with Badon”. This of course is true and it’s also true that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Badon could have been any other place that catches your fancy.

On this basis, of course I cannot "prove" the identity - and I am open to alternative suggestions.

ie you accept that the identification is worthless. About time.

However once one understands the military strategies (ie of the two sides - which I understand you don't WANT to do) I am confident that anyone would be very hard pushed to make an effective case for any alternative.

Pride goes before a fall.

It is a last resort of a scoundrel to appeal to "authorities" who, you claim, should be regarded as beyond question or reproach.

Who said that? Certainly not me. I said that even those who were well qualified by their expertise had failed to discover Arthur and pointed out that you have no expertise ( eg in the form of languages or a background as a historian of the period) and yet claim to have done what they could not. You miss the point as you often do. On the contrary, in spite of their evident expertise they are far from beyond question or reproach.

I could add others who are viewed in this way (some wrt Arthur, others other). Count me in as unimpressed - but I won't distract by adding any detail here. Suffice it to say that am well aware of their work and remain underwhelmed. I would add that a talent for collation is orthogonal to a talent for

12/14/2019 10:28:05 pm

I could add others who are viewed in this way (some wrt Arthur, others other). Count me in as unimpressed - but I won't distract by adding any detail here. Suffice it to say that am well aware of their work and remain underwhelmed. I would add that a talent for collation is orthogonal to a talent for interpretation.

I think I can best sum the situation up by saying that your criticisms do little more than parade the fact that you have not read my book and that it appears that you prefer to wallow in your unknowing.

This gave me good laugh. I think Mr Carroll’s money is pretty safe – from you anyway.

At a mere tenner (I have discontinued the hardback, however lovely a thing it was) it would not break your bank.

Lovely eh? I’d rather spend the tenner on the lottery. It has a better chance of producing results.

12/15/2019 06:31:08 am

Hello Angus,

Well it is clear that the dialogue has become wholly unproductive.

You are clearly uwllling to consider my propositions with an open mind and I am unwilling to rewrite my entire thesis on this site - what is published already, never mind what is to come.
You are also clearly unwilling to reread Gildas (so no, your inference is entirely incorrect) and on this occasion you choose also to ignore Geoffrey completely..

I remain of the view that Bar Hill is the most likely site for the battle of Badon - whether or not there is a direct evolution of the name and irrespective of what "Badon" may represent by way of meaning. But I am open to alternatives. Even in my book there are one or two battle sites which I am not sure about and not only say so (explaining why I would 'plump' for one rather than another) - but illustrate on my maps.In one case even the context of the battle is unclear. And your toll bar offer is irrelevant.

Ba-dyn does not actually appear in my book - and it is quite possible that it is incorrect, not least because so far I have not offered a meaning for it or what lies behind it. But your invective (which is indeed personal rather than to the point) does not take us forward. You are wrong also about "don" - but I will not humour you with the explanation/justification. I prefer to keep my powder dry.

Better not for you to make any more presumptions.

By the way my last post should have concluded with the word "analysis".

So far there has been nothing in your posts to weaken my proposition in any way - and there is much supporting evidence and argument which you are unwilling to consider.

So be it.

4/5/2019 02:46:36 pm

For the record, Morgan means born of the sa.
Now: For reasons which I cannot understand, despite the facts written about in the Bruts, the Black Book, the Red Book and the White Book of Carmarthen, despite the records in the Book of Chad and the Llandaff charters, despite the many memorial stones which place Arthur firmly in South Wales as King of Glamorgan and Gwent, the recent Year of Legends, misguided by north Walian sympathies, treat Arthur as a myth and place him almost exclusively in North Wales.
The Cornish also claim him, citing Kernow as Cerniw, yet the Cerniw wood (Coed Cerniw) lies between Cardiff and Newport. Everybody else is willing to make it up and exploit a mythical king and Carroll is no exception. Llandaff cathedral holds the tomb of King Meurig and a memorial window to his son Arthwyr. If Carroll wants to put his money where his mouth is - he is on.
Bob Sunman, Cardiff.

12/9/2019 06:53:15 am

Note to Angus Murray: [Sorry I don't know why I cannot post immediately underneath your comment.]
1. Hands up to the Malory/Mallory error - which is also in the book. In so far as I have an excuse for the lack of attention to detail here it is that his work is and was irrelevant to my own.
2. Hands up also to site/sight: yes... I am well aware of the difference; this was a typo.
3. However I am disappointed that you would pick up on these frankly trivial issues INSTEAD OF addressing the substance of the proposition.

For your information I now have the whole of the rest of his life mapped out - including a connection to the West Country - so I hope to republish at some stage. [While I sustain my proposition there also will be a few minor refinements.] On this occasion I expect I will indeed be paying rather more (albeit critical) attention to Malory - and certainly to Geoffrey of Monmouth.

12/10/2019 02:36:57 am

Adrian,
You say; Nennius is clear that "the" Arthur was NOT a king. I agree with this"
Twaddle. Nennius says no such thing - (this is a good illustration of failing to be precise in reporting source material). What he says is; "Then it was, that the magnanimous Arthur, with all the kings and military force of Britain, fought against the Saxons. And though there were many more noble than himself, yet he was twelve times chosen their commander, and was as often conqueror" There is no indication here whether he was a king or not. In the Mirabilia, he is twice referred to as the soldier Arthur, however, once again, this does not preclude him being a king.

12/9/2019 07:39:37 am

The Bruts state that after the harvest, Arthur returned to his kingdom (Glamorgan and Gwent). Further, Arthur was the son of Meurig - and Meurig is buried in Llandaff Cathedral - and grandson of Tewdrig who lies at Mathern. We are not discussing fairy tales, but a very real and well documented king. Cerniw forest lies between Cardiff and Newport, and Caer Melyn lies above it. So the claim that Arthur was a scot is palpably poppycock.

12/9/2019 09:38:26 am

I am not quite sure why you are posting this comment at this point in the discussion, Bob.

There are some problems with what you say.
1. Arthur mac Aedan was indeed a Scot - but he is not "the" Arthur of legend. Indeed I say he was named in honour of "the" Arthur.
2. Even if "the" Arthur were the one you propose then that would not stop the 12 battle campaign having taken place in Scotland (even Geoffrey of Monmouth acknowledges Arthur battling there).
3. The Arthur who I say was THE Arthur had a close senior male relative also called Arthur, so it is not the case that if you find "an" Arthur then that must be the right one.
4. The main problem with your splenetic intervention is that Arthur ap Meurig was born 130 years after the "real" Arthur. and over 60 years after his death - completely incompatible with the reference to him in the poem "Y Gododdin".
[see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athrwys_ap_Meurig.] On this basis it is likely that he too was named in honour of the true Arthur, but he could not have been the Arthur of Legend.
5. Nennius is clear that "the" Arthur was NOT a king. I agree with this. Given your use of the word "kingdom" it is not clear from your post whether you agree with this or not, I suspect not.

So I do agree with you that the idea of Arthur being a Scot (as claimed by Carroll, Ardrey and some others) is indeed poppycock - but not for the reasons you adduce

Jim

6/15/2018 11:29:16 am

Arthur was a being from another dimension.
I have 89 cents in unmarked currency for anyone who can prove me wrong.

Shane Sullivan

6/15/2018 11:48:26 am

If I can prove he was a time traveller, will you give me fifty cents? I want to go back to 1992 and buy ten pieces of Bazooka Joe from the corner gas station.

SouthCoast

6/17/2018 05:49:13 pm

While you're at it, go back a bit farther, and bring back some actual Cracker Jack with actual prizes in actual boxes.

12/10/2019 06:14:51 am

Adrian: I hardly think the pleonasmus of 'splenetic' is justifiable. Further: there were two Arthurs, the first being the son of Macsen, the second the son of Meurig. Their conflation is perhaps the cause of much confusion.
Have a cool yule.

12/10/2019 06:24:42 am

Bob: I am confident that you are right that the multiplication of Arthurs in and after his time has been the basis of much confusion. You cite 2 and immediately we can add 3 others in the same timeframe. [As a parallel you may recall that in 1100 the name William accounted for a huge proportion of all males in England.] Indeed the collation of the 13 Treasures of Britain can be dated to considerably after this time, so it was one of mythification etc. and surely the scope for confusion can only have got worse once the Angles and Saxons were actually in charge.

Yuletide greetings to you also

Machala

6/15/2018 12:45:09 pm

Nothing like offering a reward for disproving what can be proven ! Carrol gets to keep his money because there's no way to prove his assertions are correct, let alone incorrect. That's having your cake and eating it, too - for Carrol it's a Pound cake !

Scott David Hamilton

6/15/2018 01:33:14 pm

Is the Life of St. Columba the same one with the river monster story that cryptozoolgists claim as the first Loch Ness Monster sighting? I wonder if that story differs in different manuscripts.

Jason Colavito link

6/15/2018 02:11:50 pm

It is the same one.

Bob Jase

6/15/2018 03:15:57 pm

Next they'll be claiming that Arthur is the Loch Ness Monster.

6/15/2018 04:13:40 pm

That can't be true, the Loch Ness monster is female. Her name is Annabell.

Joe Scales

6/15/2018 01:45:50 pm

Well, Arthur was the once and future king. Perhaps he'll come back to claim the 50K.

http://legacy.earlham.edu/~herdda/Pages/monty.htm

6/15/2018 02:33:18 pm

"Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony! "

Uncle Ron

6/15/2018 04:21:54 pm

HTTP:etc-

Thanks for the memories! I went to the opening of the Holy Grail at our local theater. The first 100 ticket holders, myself included, were given a coconut upon entering. We were all perplexed until the opening scene, whereupon everyone burst into laughter. It remains the funniest movie I've ever seen. I had that coconut for many years but alas, it has gone missing.

George

6/28/2018 08:03:14 pm

Don't worry Uncle Ron. I hear your coconut will reappear in episode 10 of Ancient Aliens!

12/10/2019 03:24:10 pm

While enjoying the style here, I should point out that the "Lady of the Lake" is not necessarily IN the lake. And in point of fact she wasn't.

Even in the 20th century it was normal for a defeated general to offer up his sword as an instrument/token of surrender.
This is what happened when the Lady of the Lake offered up to Arthur (the CinC) the sword now called Excalibur (earlier "caleddur" = "hard steel").

There was no magic or otherworldliness involved - see my book.

Senhal

6/17/2018 09:49:41 am

Medievalist here. Back when I was in grad school the Vita Columbae was one of our favorite texts for studying medieval Latin. One of the highlights is Book II, Chapter XV, where the saint expels a demon from a possessed milk bucket (and then magically refills the milk via prayer). I used to work that section into my courses whenever possible.

6/17/2018 09:56:21 am

Finally a cure for lactose intolerance!

Susan Linton

7/28/2018 11:43:01 am

So how exactly does one contact the author? I always thought issuing a challenge at least came with some details on how to contact the person issuing it.

adam ardrey link

8/23/2018 04:10:17 am

Arthur was Arthur Mac Aedan - ref. my books Finding Merlin and Finding Arthur.
Evidence?
Sword/Stone stuff explained (without magic) - Badon? Smack bang next to the stone - all 12 Nennius battles located in chronological order, and sensible in historical and geographical context - Merlin, identified, and, and this is more important, his sister is ID'd too, she was written out of history by the Christians. And... well, enough, I think. Ask yourself what your think. Ever wondered why the mountain Ben Arthur and the crag Arthur's Seat have an Arthur connection?
Adam Ardrey

8/23/2018 05:59:51 am

Adam Ardrey is nearly right in some small respects. I agree that Lailoken (who was the Merlin who went mad after the Battle of Ardrhydderch in 573) was Rhydderch's brother-in-law because Rhydderch had married his sister. The siblings were amongst the children of the exiled royal family of Bryneich who had been ousted by the Angles they had initially invited in. It may be Adam who nearly identified that their place of exile was Cadzow (later a hunting lodge).

But Arthur mac Aedan was named in honour of 'the' Arthur - after whom Ben Arthur etc. are also named. Without Arthur Fergus Mor mac Earca (whom Geoffrey of Monmouth calls "Augusel" - so you can see he was (mis)-copying a WRITTEN source) would never have succeeded to the throne of Dalriada - hence Aedan would never have existed.

The matter of WHY Lailoken was referred to as Merlin is problematic. My best guess is that the real Merlin (Myrddin Emrys/Wyllt) who gave advice to Vortigern (c450AD) was included in the fantastic tales made up to amuse the Arthurian court (see the tale of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight) - so the name remained current right up to Arthur's death (537) and beyond. Hence it was a derisory nickname applied to the hapless Lailoken. And one can see why the connection may have been made because Lailoken was the bard of Gwendolleu before he was killed in 573.

By 573 Bryneich (broadly Northumberland and Yorkshire) was irretrievably lost and this is probably the reason that Rydderch offered Lailoken the sop of the kingship of Annandale and Eskdale previously ruled by Gwendolleu - but Lailoken was not in any way mollified by this - and left for the woods instead.

The problem with Carroll and Ardrey's thesis is the timescale; they have both looked to Procrustes to solve this problem. What MY book (Arthur: Legend, Logic & Evidence) shows is that there is no need for any of this.