According to a story that’s bubbled up all over the place in the last day or two, the ancient walled city of Caradoc, king of the Ancient Britons, has been found exactly where the historical record, such as it is, said it was supposed to be, all along.
Historical references to Caer Caradoc are many and include statements in the Brut Tyssilio (684 AD) and the later Gruffyd ap Arthur (1135 AD) where Merddyn Emrys (Martin Ambrosius) and his mother are said to have met with the Ambassadors of Vortigern at St. Peter’s Super-Montem Church at Caer Caradoc, where they lived. (more)
The cross here was unearthed, it is claimed, at the site of St. Peter’s Super-Montem in the course of an archaelological dig in 1990. The inscription reads, Pro Anima Artorius: For the Soul of Arthur.
According to self-styled “dissident historians” Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett, the owners of the site and the leaders of the research project, academic historians are ignoring this (and a great many other!!!) finds supporting their claims, which are certainly colourful.
There’s something not quite right about this story — the web presence backing this story up is kind of thin: the blog which announces the story is composed of precisely one post, and a link to a podcast which basically reads that blog post aloud. They urge us to buy a book called The King Arthur Conspiracy by one Grant Berkley, whose blog consists of, let me see now, two posts, four days apart, two years ago. The two other pages under the dragon2/dissident heirarchy which Berkley calls home (“Welcome” he says, modestly, “to the most important page on the internet”) are considerably less than inspiring and point to a non-existent Real History site, although I did pick up the Electrum Cross image from here.
(There seems to be no background information on Berkley anywhere; apart from the book already mentioned, he is the author of Moses In The Hieroglyphs, published in January this year and co-authored, according to Wilson’s Wikipedia entry, with Wilson and Blackett again – but no reviews, nor even a sales rank – how does that happen?)
There’s a site devoted to a guy called Adrian Gilbert, another New Age author, who points to another address, http://www.kingarthur-online.co.uk/ for Wilson and Blackett’s findings. Nothing there, either.
Now, I don’t have any problem with the idea that early British history isn’t quite what Academia insists that it was — but this story is so insubstantial, it barely exists; I think I could have planted all the material out there in less time than it’s taken me to write this post. If these people have been working on the subject for thirty years, why is there so little evidence in evidence, only defensive bluster about the “academic establishment” ignoring them? Much as we might like these “dissident historians” to be really on to something, they aren’t doing their credibility any favours with what’s currently out there.
(via Warren Ellis)