A ‘Trial’ of Two Clerics

28 Jul


(I apologise for typos here and now!)

Once again I find myself apologising for not having posted for a while. This has been due to the time and effort my day job required on a new CBeebies/Sesame Street co-production (70 hour weeks!). I had tried to work sporadically on the ebook during that time but now the project is complete I have returned to what is now an e-tome and hope start to serialise BOOK I here sometime in August or September. (More on this in a moment).

In some ways I am glad I haven’t completed it sooner as a couple of new books have made me rethink a few points. The first is the new work by Professor John Koch with the catchy tile ofCunedda, Cynan, Cadwallon, Cynddylan: Four Welsh Poems and Britain 383-655‘. It is, indeed, an excellent book and I would recommend anyone interested in the period to feast their eyes on it. The other is a new Arthurian work by author and blogger Flint F. Johnson called ‘Evidence of Arthur – Fixing the Legendary King in Place and Time ‘. It was so nice to read a well thought out book by an academic on the subject, and one who favours the existence of Arthur. I may not agree with all his arguments and conclusions, but I would still recommend it also. The ebook has changes somewhat, as those who have followed it will tell by the title. It treats the whole matter as if it were a ‘Trial’, a trial against ‘Nennius’ and Geoffrey of Monmouth, with the reader being one of the ‘Jury’. We will be looking for one of three ‘verdicts’ to the ‘charges’ against or two ‘Defendants’: Guilty, Not Proven or Innocent. Unlike Scottish law, however, the Not Proven verdict is not one that means “we think you’re guilty but we can’t prove it”, but more of an academic one meaning: “there isn’t the evidence to judge either way”. At the end of the ‘Trail’ in BOOK III, the ‘Jury’ then has the chance to actually vote on the cases against the two ‘Defendants’ via a link found there. This link will take the ‘Juror’ to a Facebook page where they can vote. Of course, it’s not a trial in any normal sense as no one will be appearing in person and there can be no cross-examination of witnesses, no interjection of barristers, or probing of the ‘Defendants’ or ‘Expert witnesses’. The ‘Expert witnesses’s testimonies have to be taken from books, papers and online articles, as do those of the evidence from the ‘Plaintiffs’. I will, of course, be the ‘Prosecution’, ‘Defence’ and ‘Judge’, but my rôle as the ‘Judge’ is of one more as an arbitrator and finder of the middle ground for members of the ‘Jury’. This ‘Judge’ will also present supplementary ‘information’ for the ‘Jury’, as he wishes it also to be an ancient British history lesson! I will, in effect, be writing and commenting on the evidence by saying “if this was a trial” or “the ‘Defence’ would argue” or “the ‘Plaintiffs’ do/would claim” etc. Being an actor by profession will help me argue all sides of the argument, hopefully without bias, even though I may lean toward a historical Arthur of the 5th/6th centuries who fought at the Siege of Mount Badon.

So, just who are these ‘Defendants’ that are being accused of such a crime? and have been for decades one might add! The first, who may or may not have actually been a cleric, will be known to us as ‘Nennius’ who wrote about an Arthur, leader of battles. His name is in inverted commas because no one can be certain if that was his name or not? Nemnuuis/Nennius/Ninnius/Nemnius/‘Nennius’, was once simply accepted to be the original compiler of the Welsh pseudo-history, ‘Historia Brittonum’ (‘History of the Britons’ – c.AD829) in which the short Arthurian section appears, but Professor David Dumville tells us the preface that includes his name dates to the 12th century and is, therefor, a forgery, as ‘Nennius’ doesn’t appear in three much earlier MMS. However, not all agree that this means a man called Nennius (or Ninnius) wasn’t the first compiler. There are other editors and compliers of the ‘Historia Brittonum’ mentioned also in the various recensions, with even the 6th century saint, Gildas being one of them! But why mention a ‘Nennius’ if they (or someone) didn’t think him to be the original, even if the preface was forged in his name? There was a ‘Nennius’ of the Late-8th century as attested a 9th century Welsh MS.This Nemnuuis was a Welsh ecclesiastic who, when supposedly challenged by an English scholar about the lack of a British (Welsh) alphabet, supposedly designed one on the spot. It is possible that this Nemnuuis was Nennius. However, because of all this, Nennius is usually written with inverted commas, ‘Nennius’, and I will be following this convention.

In the version of the ‘Historia Brittonum’ where the preface is ascribed to ‘Nennius’, he says that all he has done is made “a heap of thing”; taking what information he has and merely putting it together as a narrative. This is possible but many scholars think it not only a synthetic (made up) history and a synchronistic history (tying together of material to make sense) but one that has both political and ecclesiastical axes to grind. As to why it was compiled, there is a general consensus that it was written, in its Harleian recension form, in answer to the Northumbrian monk and saint Bede and his anti-British (Welsh), Early-8th century ‘Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum’ (‘The Ecclesiastical History of the English People’), and at the same time being anti-Mercian and, surprisingly, even at times pro-Northumbrian.

But what is at stake in our ‘Trial’ is whether ‘Nennius’ deliberately created Arthur from a known mythical figure for the short section he appears in, which describes 12 battles Arthur fought against the ‘Saxons’ culminating in the Siege of Mount Badon? Some would argue he did, many would argue he didn’t and some would argue he may have only slightly added to a historical figure’s battle list with a few mythical ones.

When it comes to our second ‘Defendant’, the 12th century cleric and later bishop, Galfridus Arturus (aka Geoffrey of Monmouth, Galfridus Monemutensis, Galfridus Artur, Gruffudd ap Arthur, Sieffre o Fynwy) who lived c.AD1100 to c.AD1155, there are far more who would say he was completely guilty of fraud! He is, some say, the one who made Arthur a king in his ‘Historia Regum Brittania’ (‘History of the Kings of Britain’ – c.1139) and sent him fighting around Europe and was the first to put he and Merlin together. But this is not an accurate assessment, and there are cautionary voices who argue that Geoffrey was mainly using material, both written and oral, from Wales, Cornwall and Brittany and only elements of it were from his imagination. So, does this make him guilty of fraud for creating an emperor-like King Arthur, or was he already there? Are, in fact, the biggest ‘criminals’ those who followed him and are not on trial, such as Wace, Layamon, Robert de Baron, Chrétien de Troyes? Those who added Camelot, the Round Table, the Grail, the Sword in the Stone, the Lady of the Lake and a Merlin who fostered Arthur? It is argued by some that even these came from much older myths that may date back to the Greeks and Scythians. If so, why did neither the Welsh material (that has survived) or Geoffrey of Monmouth make use them?

I will ask the ‘Jury’ to try and judge both ‘Nennius’ and Geoffrey of Monmouth not only by the times they lived in but also only from evidence that is given up until their deaths or just after. So, for ‘Nennius’ we will say this is c.AD850 and Geoffrey of Monmouth, c.AD1155. However, the ‘Jury’ are going to be different from those of the ‘Defendant’s times in that they will know far more than many of their contemporaries did on some things, and nothing of what they knew on others. Whilst I will try and give the ‘Jury’ as much ‘back story’ as possible, it can never be the whole story. These were not call the Dark Ages for nothing. This is particularly important in ‘Nennius’ case as the ‘Jury’ will know nothing of the stories that may have abounded about Arthur at the time, or the nature (or natures) of that Arthur.

As the representative of the ‘Prosecution’ and ‘Defence’ I will being doing two things: presenting the evidence as given by the various ‘Plaintiffs’ and ‘Expert witnesses’ and presenting some of my own arguments and views with them. The reader will know when it is my view that is being expressed as I will say something like, “We would argue” or “We would suggest”.

Having been the a juror in a major fraud case I am all too aware of just how much the outcome depends on several things: 1) The quality of the evidence. 2) How good, or not so good, the prosecution is. 3) How good, or not so good, the defence is. 4) The personality of the defendant. 5) The judge. 6) The make up of the personalities of the jury. For example, the case I was involved with hinged around whether or not the defendant was guilty of fraud or whether or not he had been lied to by two other defendants in another case, so was no wiser of what he was doing? The evidence was well presented, the prosecution were great, the defence were … not so good, the defendant was arrogant, the judge was excellent and the jury was a right old mixture. Many of them could not see past the personality of the defendant or the selective use of evidence by the prosecution. The defendant was arrogant, so the guy was guilty! You can see how hard my job is going to be!

The even bigger problem for the book’s ‘Jury’ is that they are dealing with material that is not only ancient, but with a evidence that cannot be agreed on even by experts! There will be polemic views on many texts and archaeological evidence. They will be entering a ‘foreign land’: the past. Even if they live in Britain or the UK they are entering worlds completely different to theirs. The world of ‘Nennius’ of the Early-9th century is a one full of wars – against, ‘English’, Hiberno-Viking and fellow Welsh – a world where people believe, not only in God and heaven and hell, but in the supernatural world around them. They believed that giants of the past existed; believed in dragons and both evil and good faerie. Believed what clerics told them! Their world was violent and full of early death through diseases and infections whose cures we now take for granted. Child mortality was high, as was death from childbirth. The poor were, indeed, poor, and many of the rich – or any class above them – probably didn’t give a damn. This is all not too different from the world in which a historical Arthur would have lived, if he existed.

Unlike many books on the subject it will not simply be asked if there was a historical figure called Arthur who fought against the ‘Saxons’ in the 5th and 6th centuries. It will, of course, explore this question through the charges of the various ‘Plaintiffs’ and the cases of the ‘Defence’, but there will also be an exploration of the name itself, why the Britons wouldn’t use it, the origin of the myths, and a look at the history and archaeology of the periods covered. In fact, the book will cover 750BC to AD1350. The earlier date reflects the evidence of one of our ‘Expert witnesses’ (Anderson) that Arthur can be found in ancient Greeks through the myths of Arkas/Arktouros/Ikarios/Arcturus and Ardus of Lydia. The later dates sees the explosion of the Arthurian Romances.

I still have no idea when the ebooks (three in all) may appear, but I am working hard on them to make it sooner rather than later. They will be made available as PDFs at Scribd and the first ebook will be free in a hope to encourage readers to buy the other two. I will try and keep you informed as to their progress.

Thanks for reading and I look forward to your comments.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

22 responses to “A ‘Trial’ of Two Clerics

  1. Roy Boss

    July 28, 2014 at 6:02 pm

    Mak tare you a Society of Ancients Membrer?/ If so please go to and go to the Forum and post your link and argument there. You’ll get some lively discussion.


  2. Foundations

    July 31, 2014 at 3:30 am

    What you say about “Nennius”/HB is interesting.
    It is not a fair trial though when people refuse to take into consideration the evidences proving that “Nennius” Historia Brittonum’s 12 battles of “Arthur” match the Saxon Shore forts from Yarmouth to Portchester/Southampton. Plus also refuse to consider that “Nennius'” Wonders also match the same sites (eg cruc mawr matches the “large cruciform platform” at Rutupi/Richborough, Amr’s tomb matches countless stones).
    There are also a few new points on “Nennius”/HB even that i have found. Badon seems to be connected with Brunanburh/Brunandune which seems to tie in with the latest 900s date for “Nennius”/HB (which fits with your comment about Dumville on Nennius not before12th century).

    I created a timeline of Arthurian sources and there is a number of things in Geoff. of Mon. that do also occur in other earlier & contemporary sources.
    The Round Table is called a fraud just because people say it only dates from Wace, yet the Round Table (“rotates like the world”) is seemingly connected with the Circling Mountain/Rock of the Wonders of Britain (or with “Snowdon”/Dover). Same with some other additions (Merlin, Camelot, etc).
    The Dover lighthouse is seemingly seen in the Modena Archivolt sculpture….

    • badonicus

      August 6, 2014 at 5:46 pm

      Hi Sean. I know of your arguments and have read them on Arthurnet but just can’t follow their logic or agree with them I’m afraid.

  3. Foundations

    August 9, 2014 at 4:03 am

    Ok thanks [Mak?], I don’t want to derail your blog post into discussing mine but if i can reply just this one extra time to ask why or what? (You can comment in my other blog Arthurian posts if you wish. (Tho i only come online once a week now.)) I can’t blame peple if they just don’t agree, but if there is more than just personal opinion then no one tells me why or what reason(s), no one has disproven any of the 9 matches. I know i am or may be wrong about some/alot of things but i just can not see how people can’t see the evidence that 8 of the 9 battles sites match the 8 of the 9 Saxon Shore forts all in order, and some of the stark Wonders matches. You know, once in high school the teacher asked the whole class to read the 2 katyn forest accounts then he asked everyone to raise their hands if they thought the nazis did it and everyone did, then he asked who thought the soviets did it and i alone raised my hand (everyone looked around). (I genuinely read and genuinely thought the soviet account was less reliable than the german one.) Then he said that a year ago Gorbachev let it out that the soviets did it. I think that maybe it is a little like that (except scholarly held ideas rather than political prejudices). (People have at times said i see things different to others.) Anyway have been “letting it go” (though still hold the seeming truth). I still browse and give any comments on peoples Arthurian ideas/info if i can.

    • badonicus

      August 10, 2014 at 12:08 pm

      It must be very frustrating to think you see something where others do not, but I’m afraid I am another that can’t see the connections you make, etymologically or otherwise. Perhaps you are right, but when no one else can see the arguments you are giving it is time to either realise that they might be right, or just except that no one is going to understand your arguments no matter what you do. If you think you’re right and that no one else is, that is your choice.

  4. Foundations

    August 10, 2014 at 2:55 pm

    I don’t want to annoy you but i am abit offended by that, plus that isn’t a very objective truth-seeking, fair-trial scholarly attitude, so one last comment:

    For “Nennius'” / “Arthur’s” sake, I’m not darn giving up until I am either proven wrong, or proven right and people apologise for such subtle vicious/mean words/treatment.

    So it is etymological that is the/one problem? (I’m not sure if the “where” means where is too? Apart from that I am not able to communicate it in a way people can understand.)

    So ‘(mouth of river) Glein’ is not etymologically reconcilible to Garieni_flu.ost “the mouth of the Garienus” / Gar[ienno]/Garionenum/Gariannonum/Gariennus/Gariensis / Gerne(mwa)/Yarmouth/Liar
    (or with the other possibilities i gave)?
    Dubglas “black + water” is not connectible to the river ‘Blackwater’.
    Bassas is not possible to be related to Bassa the Priest &/or Baetasiroum/Baetasii (both at Reculver).
    Caledon/Caledonian/Celidon is not related to ‘Caledonian’ which it is proven that the Weald was called?
    ‘fort Guinnion’ “white” can’t connect with white cliffs/etc of fort Dover?
    City of the Legion (“or Caerleon”) can’t etymologically relate to Legio ii Augusta at the city of Rutupi (from Caerleon)?
    Tribruit meaning/s can’t connect with the geographical etc facts about Lemanis/Romney area?
    Bre-guoin/bregion “white hills” can’t connect with white/chalk South Downs (or with the other possibilities i gave)?
    Badon(is)/Badonici/Badonic(us)/Baddon /Faddon/Vaddon/Vadon/Hadonis can’t connect with Adurni/Adiuni/Ardaoni/Ardaoneon/Adur/ardu (or with the other possibilities i gave)? *******

    And Cruc Mawr (“big cross/crucis”) can’t etymologically connect with the “large cruciform platform” at Rutupi?
    And Amr’s tomb description of “counters always come up with different measurements” can’t connect [etymologically] with Countless Stones which are said to be “so-called because counters come up with a different number each time”?
    And similar with other wonders eytmologically-wise (like Lomond/Levin which has exact same spelling as a Lemanis eytmological/historical spelling)?

    “When scholars/scientists say something is possible they are probably right, when they say something is impossible they are probably wrong”

  5. badonicus

    August 13, 2014 at 12:20 pm

    Well I certainly didn’t mean to offend and I certainly gave no “subtle vicious/mean words/treatment”. I have been studying the subject for 35 years so I say nothing flippantly.

    Let us look at this in the context of my ‘Trial’. You come to the ‘Defence’ wishing to testify with your evidence. Since this is a ‘Trial’ about whether ‘Nennius’ fraudulently created a historical character or not, and not, primarily, whether Arthur existed or not, I would ask myself if this helped prove his innocence? It does not, because it is a theory on where the battles might have happened based on the HB battle list. Identifying where the battles in that list refer to is not evidence of Arthur’s existence. If the ‘Prosecution’ are arguing that the list is made up or derivative, they will just say you have identified the possible placement of fictional battles.

    Knowing how vicious the ‘Prosecution’ might be and that evidence has to be 1) admissible, 2) have relevance and 3) have weight, I would ask what ‘Expert witnesses’ you can cite in your evidence to back you up? (Their evidence, whether a ‘Witness’ likes it or not, carries weight). If the answer is none, then I know the ‘Prosecution’ will just say it is yet another theory. So I would then ask if it has been through peer review and what they have said about it and if any agreed? If the answer is yes you have but no one agreed I know the ‘Prosecution’ will be able to quash it.

    If the above were the case, I would then ask if you would find some linguistic scholars who can back up your theories, and if any do, depending on their modern standing, I would then consider it as adding to possible evidence. If you refused or claimed that they don’t know what they’re talking about but you do, I would have serious doubts about including it. I would also ask what the reasons were for concluding that the battles were all on the Saxon Shore? Which came first? The thought that they should be and then the finding of evidence to support it, or that the names fitted them. As a mere barrister I would see no relationship between the names of the battles and those of the Saxon Shore forts, which is why I would need to see ‘Expert witness’ agreement.

    Personally, I lean towards there having been a historical Arthur, but to convince academia or Arthurian studies, which in your case is far more important than convincing the general public, we need to abide by their rules and accept the opinions of those who have studied the subject of linguistics. If they say Glein/Gleni would morph to Glen, then we should listen to them. So too when they say “ostium fluminis” can mean the mouth of a river _or_ the confluence of two rivers. If they say the morphing of Baetasiroum/Baetasii to Bassas is not possible, then so be it. If they say Adurni/Adiuni/Ardaoni/Ardaoneon/Adur/ardu cannot linguistically be Mons Badonicus, then they’re probably right. If they ask how can this River Blackwater could also be in a region of Linnuis you have to have a good answer. If they do agree, however, then that’s a different matter. When it comes down to it, no one can prove where the battles might have been, they can only have theories on them; but those theories have to be based on sound evidence.

    What I have discovered is that when people don’t comment on something it is very often because they think it is too far off the mark; they think the method by which the conclusions were arrived at are just too off the mark to argue with, or that they don’t see the point in debating with someone who is intrenched in their conclusions. It is very rarely because they are afraid someone else is right and they are not.

    Beyond that, I don’t know what else to say, but I hope you continue on your quest and find your answers.

    Best wishes,


  6. Foundations

    August 15, 2014 at 12:47 pm

    Wow thanks heaps Mak.
    Sorry that i mistook it for seeming subtle vicious (certain peoples words/treatment often seem vicious to me). (Some others i won’t mention have been vicious recently though.)

    Sorry I can see that maybe i confused that evidence of where that battle sites where (and some other things) may be evidence that “Nennius”/”Arthur” wasn’t a fraud/made-up. (Though i thought you were saying in replies that my sites theory was unconvincing.) But the way i thought/felt was that if the battles sites are proven true then it lessens the opinion of “Nennius” as a fraud (as a person/character & source). (B.t.w. It is not just possible sites, they are pretty positively right. Plus there are possible evidences from the sites and from historical sources that the battles actually may have been fought there then.) Plus we can’t just decide this “in court”, one has to field-work investigate the sites (and also sources).

    (If i was able to actually debate this in court rather than having to Write it etc, then i would be able to do alot better. It is much easier to talk when so much that need to say/answer.)

    Arthur could possibly just be from Ardus “high/height” which I found via a Snowdon (Ardus) & Modena Archivolt (Artus of Britain).

    Some of their “rules” are not fair/right/necessary. I try to do best i can in my situation & condition.
    How can i get peer-review when they refuse to read it and to reply, and i am made out to be bad for wanting peer review? (Though i personally disagree with peer review being so necessary.)

    I have already done the best to answer those questions about the Saxon Shore battles sites in my blog paper (or AN posts).

    The reason for concluding that the 12 battles were all on the Saxon Shore (except Cat Coit Caledon which was Kit’s Coty/Weald, though still in the SS area) is because i found that all the 8 sites certainly match the 8 SS forts (plus Caledon matches site in same vicinity) in name & nature all in order. (And i later also found that the Wonders also match same sites.) Glein/Gariannonum/Yarmouth is the first battle in place/time in HB & SS etc if you mean that? No i did not do it that way around or by that method (“the thought that they should be and then find evidence to support/fit it” [& "conclusions"]). I happened to make the discovery* (which the moment when i finally/fully saw it it was amazing, I will never forget it), and then i carefully collated all the evidence. I have only done it that way around in that after i was beyind doubt but faced with people refusing to accept it I have since tried to find as much more evidence as i can (but still as careful as i can though not any much real doubt) . If I am/seem “intrenched” it is only because I have seen absolutely positive no-doubt evidence/proof. (I have seen more than others say they can’t see / than i can convey to others to get them to see. Though maybe sceptics require far more evidence / maybe i require less evidence.) It is not necessarily my “conclusions”, it is conviction from strong evidence(s).

    * It is hard to remember the exact order/way it happened. Originally I noticed similarities of the number and some names of battles sites with the SS forts, but only a few and some were not in order, and I never had any idea or theory of them matching. Some time later there happened to be a few new connections about the same time i came upon. Someone told me Dubglas had been connected with Blackwater in Essex, and I found that Gariannonum better matches Glein than Guinnion (thanks to an Arthurnet poster and to Judy for directing [me] to Ravenna cosmo.) So then I noticed that quite a few of the sites were matching all in order: new Glein, new Dubglas, old Bassas, old Legions. I found that fort Guinnion might seemingly be white fort Dover; and that Badon was similar to Adurni (instead of old Branodunum), while Agned would surely be Anderida (later I found Andred seemed possibly close). I can’t remember whether Celidon as Weald was made in old or new time, but i after wards found that Cat Coit seemed like Kit’s Coty in name and nature and number/order (and i later found confirmation from past scape that Kit’s Coty has same name meaning theory as Cat Coit).

    I do not agree that they are right and i am wrong about the linguistics, but i will leave it for some future person more able/healthy than me. Yes they are only “opinions”/”probably” and “morphs”.
    I answered “Linnuis” (not “Lincoln/Lindsey”) in the blog paper (plus a few new bits i haven’t been able to collate/add yet.)
    To me Glein/Gleni is closer to Garienis than to glen (because of the i). They also have not found any major mouth + river + Glen in name and nature.
    If it can mean either mouth or confluence then it doesn’t dis/prove either way. Yarmouth/Gernemwa is a mouth in name and nature) and at a confluence of 2 rivers (Yare and Waveney (and/or couple of others)) anyway. The Bassas (plural) may be Bassa the Priest (at Reculver) &/or Baetasiorum/Baetasii (&/or some other less likely possibilities i also give in my paper). I gave &/or you didn’t give other spellings of “Badonicus”. The Adurni & Badon variants have a-(r)d-o/u(-n(-i)) in common. (The HB names could also be puns on 2 or more names?)

    For expert witnesses aside from my strong evidences I have added some references to my blog paper at the end. I also gave in the paper a number of mainstream scholars quotes that happen to agree with our thesis e.g. Kenneth Jackson said Badon is probably in south central England, and Portchester is exactly that.

    They accept evolution on far less evidence (far more missing links) than my battles sites thesis (and mine is stronger than any hitherto/still-current 12 battles thesis). Jackson admitted that “only 2 sites are certain Legions and Celidon” [and even those are really not certain]. Others have said similar things.

    People don’t hesitate to tear apart if/when they can.

  7. Foundations

    August 16, 2014 at 6:53 am

    More in line with your blog post subject, here is a list of possible mythological and historical “Arthur’s”. It looks like “Arthur” could be a mythological god, &/or he could be (a) historical person(s) (king(s)/dux/count/soldier) or people (“Arthur” ~ “Britain/Britons”) (esp since there is possible evidence from the 9 sites and from sources that the battles were fought there then. I think I remember seeing that Cadwallon fought 14 battles, similar to the 12 battles?).

    A(i)rt (Irish)
    {Art(h)ur of Manann}
    Deoartavo(i)s (Cruithne king list)
    Arthuret (573)
    {Artur/Artan mac Conall/Cona(i)ng/Coaning / mac Aedan (Scotland, Ardrey)
    Artgal_map_Dumnagual (Strathclyde)
    Lucius Urseius/Matusius/Ursinianus (Abalava)
    “he was no Arthur” (Aneirin/’YGododdin’)
    Arthuis ap Masgwid Gloff
    Art(h)ur son of Bico(i)r
    Clogwyn Du’r Arddu (“high/height”, Snowdonia)
    Arddunion “fortress height” (Taliesin)
    “King Arthur’s grave is not known / an eternal wonder is the grave of Arthur” (Carmarthen)
    Art(h)ur m/ap Petr ((ap) Cincar) (of Dyfed/Demetia)/Deisi Arthur.
    Arthwys ap Meurig/Myrig/Mor (Gwent)
    “Arthur & Mordred” ~ “Britain & Ireland” (AC 537)?
    “Arthurian country/terra Arturi” (Cornish)
    Artognou (Tintagel)
    Lucius Artorius Castus
    Arthwys of Elmet
    Arthur of Bradley (& Winifred)
    Aurelius Ursicinius (Hoxne)
    Arthgal(lo)/Art(h)egal. Arthmail.
    “(King/miles/dux) Arthur” (“(soldier/leader/king +) high/bear + man/great”, shoulder/shield, British/Welsh)
    Loyngarth/Llwynarth “grove of the bear” [cp. St Leonard's forest?]
    Arthfael ap Einydd
    St Arthmael (Brittany)}
    “the Celts lost their independence to Ursus” (king Belgium, 776 bc)
    Mercury Artaios
    {Art(h)us (Scandinavian king list)
    Arthari (Diaconus)
    Authari/Rothari (Lombard king)
    Artus (Modena archivolt)}
    Ursa Major (Great Bear)
    Ardys (Lydian)
    Artook Khan (Turkish)
    Artinis (Armenian sun god)
    Asshur (Assyria/A(r)thura)?
    Arta/Urta/Asha (Iranian god name/title)
    Arteois/Artaois (Median king)
    the Bear (Ainu god/cult)
    {“Arthur acted as a defender of the island of Britain” (Padel).
    “Arthur pan-Brittonic hero” (Padel)
    “by means of Arthur … they’ll call it Britain again” (‘Description of England’)
    Arthur “k of the whole of Brit / most illustrious K of Brit” (Sts Lives)
    Ursi Caledonii/Caledonian bears/British bears}

    Also, on Badon, another alternative possibility might perhaps be
    river Antona ~ Mantuantonis ~ mons Badoni(cu)s ~ nant badon/odor nant y badd?
    Though it is dubious, and Adurni still seems reasonably supportable.

  8. Foundations

    August 16, 2014 at 7:19 am

    p.s. if Arthuret/Ar(f)derydd/Armterid is connected with Anderida/Andredes Weald then maybe St Andrew (saltire cross) is connected with Arthur (bore Cross on shoulder/shield)?

  9. Kazuya Wright

    August 17, 2014 at 11:46 pm

    This trial is actually quite fascinating and I for one am looking forward to its conclusion. Having been a fan of King Arthur since a mere lad (as I’m sure most children are/were), the more I study the subject the more dismissive I am of anything Geoffrey of Monmouth has to say. As for ‘Nennius’ I would argue that while I find the HB interesting, I find the dates lacking. When Gildas mistakes the Passion for Christ’s birth (as is my neophyte interpretation, and please excuse my ignorance as I am still educating myself on the subject), it calls me to question everything thereafter because of his proximity to the events.

    Was there an actual historical man named Arthur who did all these great deeds? Probably not. Was there a specific man who these great deeds (and extraneous ones) have been heaped upon? I think yes. I also think the date accounted to Badon Hill is incorrect. Again, these are, to quote an old Jedi, based on a certain point of view, and one I hope will be either strengthened or corrected by your trial.

    • badonicus

      August 18, 2014 at 9:04 am

      In the meantime, take a look at some of the older blogs. Some of my thoughts on the subjects have changed slightly since writing them, but they still may help you.


  10. Foundations

    August 18, 2014 at 8:21 pm

    Just 2 more possibilities for “(King) Arthur”:

    Magnanimous Arthur (Nennius) ~ Great Britain (& Little Britain/Brittany) [~ Great Bear (& Little Bear)?]

    Leib-olmai “alder man/bear man/bear god” (Lappish) [Lapps related tp Alpines? yellow Suevi? Lapp & Ainu related?]

  11. Frank Millar

    August 25, 2014 at 12:44 pm

    Hi Mak, good to see you back posting.
    I was wondering how your ebook would bring something new to the Arthur debate and the idea of a trial is certainly different and of course gives the author opportunity to be non-committal or will you be coming down in support of one side of the other?
    Should be an entertaining read!

    • badonicus

      August 25, 2014 at 12:51 pm

      Thanks for the post Frank. I will be trying my best not to take sides and, in the end, it’s up to what the ‘Jury’ thinks. It is certainly interesting arguing from both sides, and it is hard arguing for something you don’t agree with, but the actor in me can deal with that.

      Many thanks,


  12. rkasparek

    September 8, 2014 at 8:15 pm

    Mak: When will your ebook be ready for purchase!! I have been reading your blog and find it …compelling!!

    • badonicus

      September 9, 2014 at 1:41 pm

      I’m not sure when it will be ready. Unfortunately two spinal problems have gotten in the way of everything and I can only work on the computer for short periods.

      • rkasparek

        September 9, 2014 at 1:54 pm

        Mak: sorry to hear about that. Prayers for your quick recovery!

      • badonicus

        September 10, 2014 at 8:19 am

        Thaank you.

  13. Steve

    September 10, 2014 at 8:11 am

    I reckon Ribchester ford on the road east for the battle of Tribruit , Robruid , the ford at the Ribble.

    • badonicus

      September 10, 2014 at 8:20 am

      I don’t want to get into a debate about the battles here, Steve, but we can do so when I post the section on the book that covers this.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 109 other followers

%d bloggers like this: