"Gaining Points" and "Lies and Libel" about King Arthur?

.
For several hundred years people have been trying to fathom out the true facts behind the multi-layered mystique of the arthurian legends. Sometimes it has been professional, trained historians having a bash at the problem, other times internet-amateurs. These attempts vary from the erudite to the downright nonsensical, and some fall half way between. There is some very competent writing on the subject by amateur historians trying to sort their way through the confusion.

Two individuals Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett, aided by metal detectorist Alan Hassell claim to have solved the "mystery", and have created a huge conspiracy theory worthy of the daVinci Code to explain why (apart from the fact they clearly regard themselves as immensely more clever than anyone who has ever looked at the subject) the interpretation has not been accepted by modern scholarship. they see this as due to the same reasons why what they see as "the truth" was "covered up' in the nineteenth century. For what they propose in fact is virtually the same as had been proposed in eighteenth and nineteenth century historiography. They are moreover using exactly the same arguments and material as those earlier historiographers. A muddle of various "old" texts, some suggestive placenames handled with home-grown philology. The main novel element in the argument they have introduced is their conspiracy theory. One in which I was vaguely amused and then annoyed to find I was implicated.

My blog's interest in the whole affair was in the involvement of Mr Hassell the metal detectorist in the whole enterprise. In commenting on this I expressed my views on the "historical research" the metal detecting was intended to bolster. In response Wilson, Blackett and Hassell launched an attack by You-Tube video (see my post on the main blog for this, but here are some screenshots):

In what way I am "lying" (or clowning) is not explained. I presume its because I do not believe their interpretations I am labelled a liar. It is, however, entirely true, I truly do not believe their interpretations and I will attempt to set out just SOME of the reasons why below.

"Ignorant" liar now... Certainly I do not set out to "mislead" about what I think of these gentlemen's "research". Of course the whole idea of scholarly discourse is not name-calling, but discussion of facts and their interpretation.

Well, who is now being deceitful? First of all I did not and do not claim they use "only this source". What I said can be seen in my original post by anyone able to read and understand English. Secondly we will see (below) that in their presentation of the evidence, these gentlemen manage to slip in Geoffrey under another name...

"Constantly" is a word which means more than once. Until this appeared I wrote one post about Wilson, Blackett and Hassell's "researches" - so it's hard to see the justification for the first comment. As for the second... the only one of their half a dozen books to be commercially published (Holy Kingdom - the rest are what we call vanity publications) has been translated into Polish and I not only have a copy (I keep it with my Von Danikens when its not being used to level up a wobbly table leg) but have read it and scribbled all over it. In addition, the maps look like they've been drawn with sharpened sticks. It is a dreadful book.


"Gain points" with whom? Wilson, Blackett and Hassell apparently flatter themselves that mainstream academia is a bit interested in their theories. I imagine most scholars would feel that they belong on the shelf with the Von Danikens and the crystal healing (which geologists and minerologists do not take much interest in either). I am not particularly known for my ability to "toe any line".

It seems to me that Wilson and Blackett have a mania for putting out You-Tube videos and other internet promotional material for their views (read: for their books) there is a flood of this self-promotional stuff under a variety of pseudonyms. Many of the videos have 30-odd views and no comments underneath. interest is flagging. So very probably these guys decided to attempt to stir up some controversy to attract attention to themselves and their views by attacking somebody else.

OK, let's give their views a little more attention. In the post below, I will set out what I think is wrong with their approach to the documents they use to "prove" that the Arthurian legends are based on a particular king of south Wales and that he is buried in a church near Llanharen, mid-Glamorgan. I am not going to go into the other stuff like their claim that they are the next seekers who have (also) found the Lost Ark of the Covenant, the Welsh discovered America and all the other stuff. Take it as read that in my opinion it is all nonsense for exactly the same reasons. Let's just take a look at the way they present the case for the burial site of King Arthur of the legends. The other stuff falls into exactly the same pattern.

Have a look at a couple of definitions of pseudoscience and we will find a number of these traits appearing in the writings of Wilsdon, Blackett and Hassell
Wikipedia
Pseudoscience
Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience Rory Coker
UK Sceptics etc...

Just for the record, I do not have any particular personal favourite "candidate" for the "real Arthur", though if I were to consider that a real figure lay behind the stories, I would think it likely that he'd have been based somewhere one side of the other of the Bristol Channel, rather then further North, but that's just a surmise.

Wilson, Blackett and Hassell: "Finding" King Arthur

.
In an insulting You Tube video amateur treasure seekers Wilson, Blackett and Hassell claim I am part of some vast English conspiracy to cover up the "truth" about King Arthur, and that I misrepresent the sources of their information. Given the manner in which this was presented I feel motivated to discuss their "findings" in more detail than had been my original intention. I do not intend to devote too much time to this, so instead of going to the libraries (I'd have to visit several in Warsaw) to compile a deeper response, I feel it is enough and more time-efficient for me to use the same Internet resources that these gentlemen direct their readers. They say that the "Wikipedia" pages and other resources on the internet all "lie about Arthur" (part of the same "conspiracy" you see?) so please if you want to be sure of the information, check these sources in real books too. But lets start with the internet and see how far we get.

Here is a typical video produced by the Wilson, Blackett and Hassell team presenting their views that Mynydd y Gaer was the centre of the kingdom of THE King Arthur of the legends and his burial place.



Artorius Rex & the Ancient Monuments http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGFyFd9jKEA the first ancient TV show is interesting (what document describes the hills?) but the second segment (from 1:18) is a significant bit.

The other Arthurs

There were many (about a dozen) rulers in the Dark Age kingdoms of the British Isles that have names sounding like “Arthur”. They are listed and championed in a variety of books, articles, and internet sites. In a search for "the historical one”, obviously what is being sought is one living at the right time to be associated with at least some of the events associated with Arthur. Like for example the battle of Badon (that Arthur was the commander here is accepted by Wilson and Blackett, so for the purposes of this essay let's accept it was so). The date of Badon however is famously unclear, most people accepting it was in the decades at the turn of the fifth and sixth centuries (perhaps in the 490s). Badon cannot be later than the lifetime of Gildas, more specifically the completion of his De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae. So any “historical Arthur” would have been at battle-winning age around about this time.

The genealogies of the ruling houses of the sub-Roman and post-Roman kingdoms of the Celtic west are extremely amorphous (those of the Anglo-Saxon ruling houses are not much better) and often exist in several versions. Their chronology - and sometimes even sequence - is also unclear. Wilson and Blackett take the chronological uncertainties of one of these to extremes to make their "Arthur" fit (though the way they manage this is not closely argued as far as I can see). It is with this aspect of their work that many scholars who specialise in the area take issue.

Here's the map from Wikipedia to help get some orientation about what areas we are dealing with. The Saxons are way off to the right in the period (very beginning of the sixth century) we are discussing:

Wilson and Blackett focus on the kingdom of Glywysing (more or less modern Glamorgan) between the Afon Llwyd (which has Caerleon at its mouth) and the River Towy. They also refer to Ergyng (later referred to by the English as Archenfield). Let's start with that. The most likely sequence and approximate chronology of the rulers of Ergyng (Ercing) can be reconstructed as in, for example, to take the first version to hand - the Celtic Kingdoms of the British Isles (though other versions are possible, my choice here is not because I think the webpage inherently more reliable than any other source, it's just to give an overview of why Wilson, Blackett and Hassell's identification is problematic). The most important point here is that the chronology based on various sources including Welsh genealogies places the marriage of Onbrawst (the mother of Athrwys ap Meurig) in the 630s, in other words 140 years after the conventional date of Badon, making it just a tiny bit difficult for Athrwys to be commanding the troops at that battle.

The non-Wilson and Blackett chronology of the kingdom of Glywyssing is also given in the Celtic Kingdoms of the British Isles in two places, here and here. The sequence of kings that interests us here:

? - c.625 St Tewdrig ap Llywarch ("Theoderic"),
c.625 - c.665 Meurig ap Tewdrig King of Gwent, Glywyssing, & Ergyng.
[by marrying the Onbrawst, the daughter of King Gwrgan Fawr (the Great) of Ergyng, Meurig effects a union of the two kingdoms]
c.680 - c.685 Athrwys ap Meurig [This is the man Wilson and Blackett see as THE historical Arthur behind the legends].
c.715 Morgan ap Athrwys
c.735 Ithel ap Morgan

Now of course the problem with all this is that in order to make Athrwys ap Meurig the Badon-fighting Arthur, you would have EITHER to shift the date of Badon forwards (rather impossible since Gildas really cannot be brought forward with it and he mentions it as having been fought in the year of his birth) OR you'd have to find a reason to shift the date of this whole dynastic sequence back 190 years. This though would create problems in that St Tewdrig ap Llywarch is recorded in the histories as having died fighting the Saxons, but there is no evidence for Saxons this far west in the 430s (which is when he would have been active if we shift the whole lot backwards in order to make Athrwys contemporary with Badon). You'd also end up with a bunching up of rulers in the immediate post-Roman period and an embarrassing gap at the other end of the chronology. If the only reason to shift them is because "Athrwys" sounds a bit like "Arthur" (it should be noted that the identification has been challenged on linguistic grounds by most of those who specialise in such things who have examined the issue), then that is not really sufficient reason for such jiggery-pokery with the most likely sequencing of the - admittedly scant and difficult - records which place Athrwys almost two centuries later than the Arthur of Badon.

One Uther Pendragon?

In order to make the claims they do, Wilson and Blackett claim that the legendary Arthur is based on two different kings called Arthur, one fourth century one, the other (Arthur II) living latr who is the subject of this text. They also feel that "Uther Pendragon" is not a name, but a title (like the Saxon "Bretwalda"). Hence in the video we hear Wilson dismissing the "other pendragons" whose burial places are known only to conclude that the "only pendragon" who can have been buried at Llanharen "must have been Arthur". This is a huge leap of logic. The term Uther Pendragon is known only from the literature where it always appears as a personal name of a character well known. There seems to be very little support from the sources, either early or late to treat this as a title. Indeed such a usage would make a nonsense of the hero-tales where the name appears alongside other personal names. As far as I can see a case has not been made by Wilson and Blackett for treating three generations of the ruling house of titchy little Glywysing as each bearing this title one after the other (never happened with the bretwaldaship). As we shall see in the literature Wilson and Blackett use to "prove" their case, there is only one Uther Pendragon mentioned and that is the father of Arthur, and in some of the texts they use he is said to have been buried at a place the documents call "Caer Caradoc".

The site at Llanharen.

The identification of the hill (Mynydd y Gaer) above Llanharen as the site of Arthur’s burial is a misunderstanding. In the video we looked at above Wilson can be seen expounding his theory. He says that in some early documents somebody called Uther Pendragon is buried at Caer Caradoc, and he has set out to find out where that was (allegedly “nobody appears to have bothered to find that out” before him. That is not exactly true).

I want to start with the second alleged body of evidence he mentions first and get that out of the way. He says that the information that somebody called Uther Pendragon is buried at "Caer Caradoc" is mentioned in "sixth century Welsh poems", but does not cite them. Well, there are not many sixth century Welsh poems, but Uther is mentioned in other "early" examples. One of them is the "Marwnat Vthyr Pen" The Death-song/Elegy of Uther Pendragon from the Book of Taliesin does not mention a burial place (and is not 6th century). He is mentioned in the 10th century Arthurian poem Pa gur yv y porthaur ("What man is the gatekeeper?"), but again without any reference to his burial place. Uther is also mentioned in the Welsh triads but in none of them is mentioned he burial place. Unless I have missed something obscure the claim that the burial place of Uther Pendradgon is given as "Caer Caradoc" in these early Welsh sources appears to be misinformation.

The first group of texts that Wilson cites as evidence that Uther Pendragon was buried at a place called "Caer Caradoc" are a series of texts called the Brut (the Brut of England). The problem is that he does not mention that the texts he refers to as the Bruts of England are a translation into Middle English (by a bloke called Layamon) of the Roman de Brut poems (c. 1155) of Wace. According to Wilson, this burial place is “confirmed” (ie repeated by somebody he calls “Matthew of Westminister” – see here,he means the Flores Historiarum (Flowers of History) written some time after 1188 in far-off St Albans and Westminister, which as one of its authors noted selected "from the books of catholic writers worthy of credit, just as flowers of various colours are gathered from various fields". Wilson also says it is also confirmed (repeated) in the Brut y Tywysogion compiled after 1164 at Strata Florida Abbey AND [the name he gives is significant] – “Gruffudd ap Arthur,” That of course is none other than Geoffrey of Monmouth, the author he says they do not place any reliance on. Just a little sleight of hand there I feel...

So, in fact all of these "sources" are taking their material from Geoffrey of Monmouth (which is what I said when Wilson, Blackett and Hassell accuse me of "lying"). we remember that this the source the authors say everybody should be "wary" of, but in fact the SOLE "evidence" on which they base their case is in fact Geoffrey. Sneakily referring to an author called Gruffudd Ap Arthur who allegedly "confirms" what the others say is extraordinarily wobbly logic. Wace translated Geoffrey from Latin to French, and Layamon translated it into English, and the Flores Historiarum and the Brut y Tywysogion are rehashing the same Galfridian material.

So, basically, the question hangs on how reliable a historian Geoffrey of Monmouth was, and where he got the information (inspiration) for what he was writing. For most of us, it is clear he was making up vast chunks of his story, or extrapolating them from some single disconnected facts. On the one hand Wilson and blackett seem to pay lip service to this idea ("be wary of Geoffrey of Monmouth") but on the other hand appear to treat whole chunks of his narrative as a true reflection of events...

That actually is irrelevant to what I am discussing here. We need to consider what Geoffrey of Monmouth tells us about the burial place of Uther Pendragon.

A whole section of Geoffrey's narrative centres around a specific region. The monastery of Ambrius appears in book VI, 15 the Night of the Long Knives (when Hengest killed all the British nobles by treachery), and the bodies of the slain were buried nearby at “Kaercaradene” "now Salisbury at a burial place near the monastery of Ambrius, the abbot, who was founder of it”. In Book VIII, chapter 9-12 describes the removal of the stones of the “Giant’s dance” to the “Mound of Abrius” erected by Merlin over the burial place of the nobles slain in the Night of Long Knives massacre at the “convent which maintained 300 friars”. Then we come (Book VIII, ch. 24) to the burial of Uther (here the father of Arthur) who died in Verulam (St Albans) and was buried with “regal solemnity” in the ”convent of Ambrius” close by the tomb of Ambrosius Aurelianus “within the Giant’s dance”, while mortally wounded Arthur (Book XI, chapeter 2) goes to Avallon “to be cured of his wounds” and is not mentioned again. His successor Constantine however is buried alongside Uther “within the structure of stones which was set up with wonderful art not far from Salisbury and called in the English tongue Stanhenge” (Book XI, 4).

This is pretty unequivocal. Geoffrey is quite clear where all these ancient kings were buried, and identified this place with important features in the landscape. Writing of Salisbury, Geoffrey had in mind the earthwork known as Old Sarum, with its cathedral (here and here). New Sarum was founded after Geoffrey's time c. 1216)

Old Sarum (English Heritage)

The massive circular earthworks surrounding the hilltop are of prehistoric origin, and contained a densely built up town and cathedral. It is unclear whether calling it Caer Caradoc was a tradition in the 1130s (one which seems not to have left a trace), or Geoffrey;s conceit (Caradoc was a duke of Cornwall roughly contemporary with Arthur in Geoffrey's narrative). Again, the name of "Ambrius" is not known in any other sources and it seems Geoffrey made it up from the name of the town of Amesbury five kilometres to the NNE of Old Sarum. Stonehenge is 11 km to the north of Old Sarum. It seems that in Geoffrey's mind these places were all in the same general area, Caer Caradoc (the walled area of Sarum), the monastery of Ambrius (Amesbury?) and the Giant's Dance (Stonehenge). There is no clear evidence he was ever in the area and it was here he set some of the important events of these times. What is significant is that Geoffrey may have still been been intent on flattering the Alexander of Salisbury, bishop of Lincoln (for it was for him that he had translated the Prophecies of Merlin).

Nevertheless the point is it seems pretty clear that all these elements were an artificially constructed narrative around the existence, obviously known to Geoffrey of the Giant's dance (Stonehenge) and adjacent features to which had accreted various stories - whether in folk or scholarly tradition we cannot say, and Geoffrey had woven them into a whole adding material of his own inspiration.

What is equally clear is that one cannot take isolated elements OUT of that literary construction and simply apply them to another location, just because it has the same name as the place mentioned. There are several hills called "Caer Caradoc" in the west of Britain. There is no tradition of an Ambrius at Llanharen, no evidence of a monastic house of 300 friars, no stone circle on a postulated burial site (let alone one which is called Giant's Dance and was brought from the West). Neither is this a place one can imagine being set as a meeting place at the end of the fifth century between "Hengest" and "Vortigern" and his 300 or so nobles (Saxon territory finished far to the west at the time of the Night of the Long Knives, whenever this no doubt wholly imagined event would have taken place).

A final point, if this Arthur was the all-powerful monarch of half the British Isles, why is the church he built in the alleged "centre" of his kingdom, and in which stands his pathetically inadequate memorial stone, so pathetically small that it was replaced by the equally small Norman church. Why did this "Arthur" not found a royal monastic house here? Where are the archaeological traces on Mynnydd y Gaer of the splendours of (any) Arthur's court?

Whether or not this church is the burial site of a local king Athrwys ap Meurig is dubious - the memorial stone said to have been found here seems not to be authentic. No traces found in the excavation seemed to suggest a seventh century royal burial (his grandfather had it seems from antiquarian accounts been buried in a stone coffin, so why not Athrwys?). Certainly there seems little real reason to see St Peter's Chuch above Llanharen as the burial site of "an" Uther pendragon, still less link that with the burial of the King Arthur of the later legends.

Wilson, Blackett, Hassell: Archaeology and Mynnedd y-Gaer

.

Wilson and Blackett in some insulting You Tube videos claim that I am wrong criticising their interpretation of Medieval written sources and locating the burial site of the King Arthur of Medieval legend in a ruined church above Llanharen near Bridgend in Mid-Glamorgan. I've dealt with the documents and their interpretation (and where mine differs from theirs) above. I want to look at the archaeological evidence they claim supports their interpretation in the same way. Here's a sketch map they made of the hill for their videos:

Now compare it with Google earth. The circle on the left is at 51° 33′ 77″ N, 3° 28′ 86″ W while the church is at 51° 33′ 27″ N, 3° 27′ 61″ W

There is a church on the hill they promote as the scene of so many historical events, let us note three things, these guys want to sell their books and lecture tours, they actually own the church (bought it from the Church Commissioners) and they think that their 'Arthur Mystery Resolved' story will promote tourism and economic growth.

The church

An isolated upland church on Mynnedd y-Gaer (Mynydd Portref / Mynydd y Rhiw) - no village earthworks visible in the vicinity. It was the church of Peterston-super-Montemparish. The standing building is believed by the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (RCHM) of Wales to be twelfth century Norman and was still in use in the 18th century. Here's the Google earth image (source Google Earth):

It is (measured from Google earth) some 21 m long inside, and 5.6m across the nave. Now the church we are looking for is the "monastery/cloister of Ambrius" with 300 friars. The building we see could not comfortably contain 300 clergy. There are no traces of monastic buildings around it capable of supporting a community than size, nor of any service structures as would be present even in an early Celtic monastery. More to the point, the cemetery is not of a size which was planned to contain even one generation of a 300-strong monastic community. From that point of view the church does not fit the documents.

The building has been excavated:

In 1983, Wilson and Blackett discovered what they believe to be King Arthur's memorial stone at the small ruined church of St Peter-super-Montem on Mynydd-y-Gaer in Mid-Glamorgan, which they owned. (There are doubts about the authenticity of this stone as it has never been made available for testing either by independent experts or academics.) Following this, they employed the services of two archaeologists, (Professor Eric Talbot and Alan Wishart) in 1990, to lead a dig at the same place. During the excavations, which were authorised by the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales, several highly significant artefacts were discovered including an ancient axe, a knife and a small electrum cross, comprising 79% silver and weighing two and a half pounds, that reads "Pro Anima Artorius" ("For The Soul Of Arthur").(This cross in whole has never been independently tested and there are grave doubts about its authenticity.) This was no surprise to Wilson and Blackett who had already identified the church as an ancient and vitally important historical site dating to the 1st century.

(see also here, text by Alan Hassell)

There are reputed to be two earlier phases of buildings underneath. The Britannia website summarises them thus:

Subsequent excavations undertaken in 1990 by Dr Eric Talbot of Glasgow University and a team of professional archaeologists, with the permission of the RCAHMW, have revealed that below the present church (of 13th century origin) lie the remains of at least two earlier building phases: A solid rectangular building covering an earlier "beehive" hermitage and rectangular paved (possibly) wooden erection. Significant finds included a small electrum cross bearing the inscription, "Pro Anima Artorius".

No proper report of these remains has been published - and seems unlikely to appear, Professor Eric Talbot has left the university, and

agreed, in 2004-5, to be a witness against Wilson and Blackett in a libel court action taken by the men against a website operator, Howards Kimberley, who disagreed with them. Talbot, in his court statement, told an entirely different story to that proposed by Wilson and Blackett.

Sadly, we do not know what that was. The other excavator, Alan Wishart has left archaeology and now sells stamps on eBay.

There is an unattributed interim report of the excavations in the Holy Kingdom book (in the Polish version pages 275-277). This raises more questions than it answers. The alleged rectangular building under the church is in fact a platform 10x5m. There was burnt material on it, why was no radiocarbon dating done? The circular building was beside it, not over it, and was interpreted as a cill-wall for a leather "tent". It was only c. 3.4 m in diameter. Again there were traces of burnt material associated. Hardly therefore a church in which a powerful king was buried. The first phase of the Norman church ("level 4") had in it a window of Early English style. A total misunderstanding is dating the window to "650-850 AD" when this style is well-dated from its use in well-documented buildings in England and Wales in the period 1175/1200- 1300, gradually replaced by the Decorated style 1275 onwards. The "tombstone of Arthur" is said to have come from the northwest corner of the chancel added to the building, the report says, about 1400 AD and here were two stone slabs under the floor 120x75cm, under which was "sandy earth without any bones". Here was where the stone of Arthur II, and a niche in the wall shows where it was kept". In the fifteenth century chancel.

The Memorial Stone

The circumstances of the "finding' of this stone are not really clear, nor the date. It figures in some of their earlier books.

The stone and the authors c. 1988(?)Source: Book cover photo/Treasure one hunting)

The stone on a blanket (Source: The Holy Kingdom)

According to the Britannia website:

Blackett & Wilson undertook a private excavation near the altar of St. Peter's Church. Here they claim to have discovered a large sword-shaped memorial which reads, in very faint 6th century style, "Rex Artorius fili Mauricius" (picture below - text outlined). Beneath this was a grave which they hurriedly sealed for future investigation. [...] As the initial discovery of the memorial stone at St.Peter's Church there had no official supervision, this major find has thus come in for considerable criticism. It is true that Early Medieval Latin is so corrupt that it is difficult to claim any particular inscription to be incorrect, but still something like "Artorius Rex filius Mauricii" would read much better, and surely the letters are much too regular for a 6th century context.

The excellent "Bad Archaeology" website deals with this stone (and the cross):

At an unknown date between 1983 and 1990, they claim to have unearthed the tombstone of Arthur, which reads REX ARTORIVS FILI MAVRICIVS. [...mentions cross - see below ...] Wilson and Blackett translate the stone as ‘Arthur son of Mauricius’, which to them confirms the identity of Athrwys ap Meurig with the “King Arthur’ of the inscription. The problem is that the inscription should actually be translated ‘King Arthur Mauricius, of the son’. [...].

The Electrum Cross

This was found in the excavations carried out - by all accounts - in appalling weather conditions. Again the "Bad Archaeology" website just about sums it up:

A subsequent excavation in the church, carried out in 1990 under the supervision of Eric Talbot, at that time with the University of Glasgow, revealed earlier structures and a silver cross, again with an inscription (PRO ANIMA ARTORIVS), was found. If genuine, these inscriptions [memorial stone and cross] would be good evidence for the existence of someone whose name could be written as Artorius in Latin in early medieval Wales. However, neither inscription has been submitted for analysis by acknowledged experts in the field and even to an outsider, they appear curious. For a start, both are ungrammatical, if they are meant to mean what they are claimed to mean. Wilson and Blackett [...] would like to see the cross inscription as being ‘For the soul of Arthur’, it is actually ‘Arthur for the soul’ (which is probably not as effective as chicken soup). In other words, these inscriptions are, at best, crude forgeries by someone with a very poor knowledge of Latin and certainly poorer than we would expect in early medieval Wales.

Indeed contemporary with the Llandaff charters (in Latin) which are used to support the authors' identification and the excellent if turgid Latin of Gildas. Surely a ruler as important as THE King Arthur would have had at least one scribe, clergyman or scholar in his court able to get a three word inscription for his grave memorial right.

The Llanharen Electrum Cross (Dissident archaeology)

The actual place where this cross was found is not described in the interim report in the Holy Kingdom book.

The form of the cross is "curious" for something supposed to be sixth century. I happen to know a little about Dark Age goldwork (actually once gave a lecture in Cambridge University on the subject many many years ago) and there really is nothing like it - but in a bad way. The form is unlike anything one would expect, its more like a 1920s/1940s celtic cross war-memorial in miniature. The authors do not indicate what they think the function of the object was, a grave marker, casket mount, processional cross, liturgical equipment. It is difficult to see how this object could have been used. It is chunky, as though the founder thought if he tried something finer it would not be a success - in other words maybe made by somebody who did not have a lot of practice. It's made of electrum, which is hugely odd for sixth century metalwork in the British Isles where there was obviously a fair amount of pure gold available for royalty at least from melting down Byzantine solidi which were being shunted up to Northern Europe by various mechanisms (Procopius in his Anekdota spitefully tells us Justinian was even paying the Brits a tribute for something or other, but do we trust Procopius?). So why low grade gold when THE Arthur with a Kumrhic kingdom covering half the island, according to Wilson and Blackett (so drawing tribute from a huge area) could have had the real thing? Finally just look at it, lumpy, unfinished (its called fettling) as cast, straight out of something like a casting sand mould and not the lost-wax moulds used by jewellers in the sixth century. Compare this with the average hanging bowl mount and consider if this really is a product of a royal workshop in sixth century Britain? The shape is wrong, the material is wrong, the inscription is pathetically wrong. How difficult would it be to 'plant' something like that in an excavation when the latter is carried out in rain and gales? How difficult would it be down in industrial south Wales for somebody who wanted to 'plant' something on Mr Wilson's and Mr Blackett's site to find somebody who with a fairly primitive workshop conditions who could knock off something like this and get the Latin wrong?

"Mynwent y Milwyr "

There is a large roughly circular earthwork on the west end of the ridge. On older maps it is apparently labelled Mynwent y Milwyr but other names include Coedcae Gaer and apparently on some old maps as "Caer Caradog". The site has never been excavated, and its date is unknown, neither is there any evidence that it contains burials. Wilson, Blackett and Hassell interpret this as the circle within which were buried those slain at the Night of Long Knives. In the literature however the place was later sanctified by the construction of a circle of stones (brought from Ireland as war loot) which Geoffrey identifies as Stonehenge (of course the opposite is true, he knew of Stonehenge and this is the story thought up to account for it). There really is no evidence, except for the name, to link this particular monument with the Matter of Britain. In order to do so, the name would have to be shown to have an ancient pedigree, and not an antiquarian interpretation (like so many "Swedish forts" in Poland which popular folklore associated with the seventeenth century deluge, when in fact they were prehistoric and early Medieval). Wilson, Blackett and Hassell see a "conspiracy" behind the removal of the name from 1980s OS maps, but the actual explanation is that when OS started producing the landranger series, many names were verified and it was found that names that nineteenth century surveyors had given some features had little basis in local toponymy and they were removed, as were a large number of archaeological sites such as earthworks of "celtic fields" and the suchlike. This phenomenon is country-wide and nothing to do with any Anti-Arthurian conspiracy of the English establishment. In any case the evidence survives on many archived old maps. That is precisely what archives are for...

As for the humps and hollows these gentlemen point out as "graves" in this general area, take a look at Google Earth, they can be seen to extend over a large part of the hilltop and are obviously a geomorphological feature rather than archaeological ones.

Wilson, Blackett, Hassell: More Searching for Lost "Secrets"

The treasure seekers and popular writers are now after other "Lost Secrets of the Past". Like the Ark of the Covenant. According to this webpage:

Wilson and Blackett began a search for what was known as The Greatest Work of the Cymru' - Cifrangon. This is a massive, hollow, man-made hill concealed somewhere in Wales (similar to Silbury Hill). Treasure hunters in Wales have long sought this fabled hill in which, it is believed, lie several objects of tremendous historical and archaeological value, many of which may be covered in gold. For centuries, the old Welsh knew themselves to be descended from the Lost Tribes of Israel , and Cifrangon is believed to be the place in which the Ark of the Covenant - containing the broken slabs on which the Ten Commandments were written by Jahweh - was concealed. The men first discovered the site in 1981.

The bit on the use of the Google Earth terrain model is quite amazing (guys take a quick zip over to Hatshepsut's Temple in Luxor and see what the terrain model there shows).

They apparently also have published their ideas about the ancient Welsh discovering America, summarised here:

Research into claims that the Welsh settled in mid-western America in antiquity led to Wilson and his colleague, Baram Blackett, accepting invitations from American supporters to visit US sites of historical significance in 1994. The visit led to several television appearances and the deciphering of alphabetic inscriptions claimed to be in the old 'Coelbren' alphabet. Wilson also concluded that the many snake mounds in the American Mid-west were of ancient Khumric-British construction. Whilst in America, the two men were also commissioned to produce a detailed genealogy for the Bush family (friends and supporters of President George H. W. Bush).

This is also discussed on the bad Archaeology website: Madoc in America Bad archaeology