Showing posts with label Round Table. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Round Table. Show all posts

Tuesday, 8 December 2020

Bwrdd Arthur: Arthur's Table

In Malory’s “Le Morte Darthur” Arthur sends Merlin to ask King Leodegrance of Cameliard for the hand in marriage of his daughter Guinevere:

".....said King Leodegrance, the best tidings that ever I heard, that so worthy a king of prowess and noblesse will wed my daughter. And as for my lands, I will give him, wist I it might please him, but he hath lands enow, him needeth none; but I shall send him a gift shall please him much more, for I shall give him the Table Round, the which Uther Pendragon gave me, and when it is full complete, there is an hundred knights and fifty. And as for an hundred good knights I have myself, but I faute fifty, for so many have been slain in my days.”

And so Leodegrance delivered his daughter Guinevere unto Merlin, and the Table Round with the hundred knights......" [Book III, Chapter 1]


The Table Round

The Round Table was introduced to Arthurian legend by the Norman poet Robert Wace in his Roman de Brut (1155), an adaption of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae. Layamon soon followed with the first English version of the Brut which recalled the tale of a carpenter from Cornwall who built a huge transportable Round Table following a quarrel over seating positions. Credit for the origin of the Round Table was recognised by both these writers as belonging to the Bretons.

In the mass of Arthurian Romance that followed it came to represent the chivalric order of King Arthur’s court known as the fellowship of the Round Table. Such was esteem of the Order of the Round Table that it was emulated by the Plantagenet kings.


The Round Table top now hanging on the wall at the Great Hall at Winchester was constructed during the reign of Edward I (1272 - 1307) for a feast with chivalric tournaments, a trend that continued for centuries. In the 16th century king Henry VIII had the table repainted in Tudor colours with himself in Arthur’s place, as we see it today. 

At its inception Layamon writes of a table big enough for 1600 knights and three hundred years later Malory has the number of seats as 150. However, the Winchester Round Table has seating for only 25 knights.

At some point in the development of the Arthurian legend the Round Table became associated with topographical features. Dating the use of these features is problematic; we can only be certain of a particular features name from its first appearance in the written record. However, it is fairly certain that these names were in common usage before they were recorded.

Some of the earliest Arthurian named landscape features appear well before Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia (c.1138) and the onset of Continental Romance such as the 9th century History of the Britons (Nennius) which describes the footprint of Arthur's dog, and the tomb of his son Amr. On the tour through southwest England by the Canons of Laon in 1113 records local sites known as Arthur’s Seat and Arthur’s Oven were pointed out to the visitors as they entered “Arthur Country”.

This account alone demonstrates that tales of Arthur in the landscape were well known before the onset of Arthurian Romance following Geoffrey of Monmouth’s 12th century chronicle. Recently historians have attempted to identify the site of Roman amphitheatres such as at Caer Leon and Chester as the Round Table, arguing that the feature would need to be of such a size to accommodate the numbers mentioned by the early chroniclers.

Yet, the Round Table as a late addition to the legend, is found in several landscape features such as the possible Neolithic henge monument at Eamont Bridge, Penrith, and hill forts such as Bwrdd Arthur (Arthur’s Table) in Clwyd and Anglesey.

Bwrdd Arthur
Situated between the village of Llanddona and the coast is Bwrdd Arthur (Arthur’s Table), the site of an Iron Age hill fort on the Welsh island of Anglesey (Ynys Môn) overlooking Red Wharf Bay. The natural defences of the flat topped hill at 164 metre (538ft) elevation were enhanced by a drystone wall of large limestone boulders with two entrances to the south and west. Roman artefacts dating to the 3rd and 4th centuries have been found on the hill indicating continued usage. It is understandable how the exposed limestone pavement covering the plateau could present the impression of a huge round table to the imaginative mind that could easily have been the meeting place for a multitude of Arthur’s gigantic knights.

Bwrdd Arthur (Gwynedd Archaeological Trust)

On the western slope lies the small now deserted church of Llanfihangel Din Sulwy, St Michael’s. There is a well here just outside the church gate but there is no information to support suggestions that it was once sacred, although we should not dismiss the possibility that it could be a lost St Michael’s Well, popular across northern Wales.

On the side of the hill at Red Wharf Bay is Llanddona beach, claimed by local legend as the place the Llanddona witches landed. No one knows where they came from, cast adrift in a small boat without rudder or paddles.

In the 19th century five Viking silver arm-rings of Hiberno-Norse type were found near Dinorben quarry below Bwrdd Arthur. These arm-rings from Red Wharf Bay are seen in a similar context to the Cuerdale hoard, Lancashire; both have been associated with the expulsion of the Vikings from Dublin in 902/903. 

Intriguing as this local information may be, there is no evidence of occupation at Bwrdd Arthur beyond the Roman Era making any association with a King Arthur who fought Anglo Saxons in the Dark Ages extremely doubtful. Indeed the association of the hill fort with Arthur seems late, very late. 

The Welsh antiquarian Thomas Pennant (1726-1798) writes of the hill fort in his Tour of Wales, published 1781. Pennant suggests that the true name of the hill known as Bwrdd Arthur was probably Din or Dinas Sulwy, the fort of a local tribe, as identified by the church beneath the high hill known as Llanfihangel Din Sulwy. Further, there is no local folklore to support the Arthurian association.

Llanfihangel Din Sulwy

Ceridwen Lloyd-Morgan sees this as “Arthurianisation of a non-Arthurian place name as an example of the persistent popularity of the Arthurian tradition in Wales” replacing the genuine native tradition.

The re-naming of topographic features with Arthurian names can be directly attributed to the persistent popularity of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae in Wales, known as the Brut tradition, in which many of Geoffrey’s misnomers were corrected by Welsh writers.

Yet belief in the authenticity of British history and Arthur as conqueror of Europe was in decline in the 15th century following Polydore Virgil’s denouncement of Geoffrey’s Historia and then followed by Hector Beocce rejecting claims that Arthur had ever conquered Scotland.

In the 16th century John Leland and William Camden both recorded sites with Arthurian associations in their respective itineraries. However, their guarded approach, particularly by Camden, led the Welsh doctor Sion Dafydd Rhys to produce a work in defence of British history according to Geoffrey. Rhys wrote of the giants of Wales and many of them killed by who else but Arthur.

In 1538 Leland recorded a monument in Denbighshire known as the "Round Table" that “…. is in the parish of Lansannan, in the side of a strong hill, a place where there be twenty-four holes, or places, in a roundel, for men to sit in…”. By the start of the 17th century local traditions had replaced the English name with the Welsh form "Bwrdd Arthur".

Edward Lhuyd (1660-1709) clearly realised the importance of recording local traditions, but sadly many of his manuscripts are now lost. In 1693 when he was asked to contribute to the latest revision of Camden’s Britannia he took a trip to Wales and added further Arthurian associations as told by the local people. One such monument was the Neolithic cromlech so named Bwrdd Arthur (alt. Gwal y Filiast) near Llandboidy in Carmenthenshire. 

Bwrdd Arthur: Gwal y Filiast

Lhuyd showed that the name Coetan Arthur (Arthur’s Quoit) was the most common name for megalithic sites associated with Arthur but with the earliest instance not recorded until 1547. Lhuyd determined that the name Coetan Arthur was used as a generic term for any large flat stone rather than a particular monument type. Yet he could not find any local traditions for an Arthurian connection at many of these sites. Indeed, the popular tradition of Arthur removing a pebble from his shoe and flinging it across the countryside to form a cromlech where it landed is not recorded until the early 19th century.

Interest in the Arthurian legend waned in the 18th century as shown by the marked drop in sites noted by the antiquarian Lewis Morris (Celtic Remains, 1757; published 1878), however he was the first to record a square earthwork known as Llys Arthur (Arthur’s Palace) in Ceredigion in 1748. This rectangular enclosure likely originated as a Roman camp, and was known locally as Cloddiau Llys, first recorded in 1574.

And finally, as late as the early 20th century another cromlech known as Bwrdd Arthur (Alt. Twlc y Filiast) at Llangynog  appeared for the first time in the inventory of the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales for Carmarthenshire, 1917. Once again we find the earlier place name replaced by an Arthurian name with no local tradition to support the association. Several Welsh cromlechs bear names associated with The Lair of the Greyhound Bitch, such as Twlc y Filiast or Gwal y Filiast, but the origin of this tale has also been lost. 

There is ample evidence of Arthurian titles replacing the original name of these ancient Welsh monuments; no doubt Welsh tourism benefited from these Arthurian associations, the numbers recorded in the inventories of the antiquarians reflected in the periodic peaks and troughs of the popularity of the Arthurian legend. 


Sources:
Ceridwen Lloyd-Morgan, Narratives and Non-Narratives: Aspects of Welsh Arthurian Tradition, in Arthurian Literature XXI: Celtic Arthurian Material, Boydell & Brewer, 2004, pp.115-136.
Scott Lloyd, Arthurian Place-Names of Wales, in Arthur in the Celtic Languages, UWP, 2019, pp.231-244.


* * *



Thursday, 28 December 2017

The Winchester Round Table

Top Ten Arthurian Locations: No 4

King Arthur's Round Table
In The Traveller's Guide to Arthurian Britain (Gothic Image, 1997), Geoffrey Ashe lists five landscape features known as 'Round Tables':

Caerleon, Gwent (Monmouthshire), claimed as the true 'Round Table' in reference to the ancient Roman amphitheatre of the Legionary fortress of Isca Silurum; an obvious candidate for the site of Arthur's 9th battle at the City of the Legion. Geoffrey of Monmouth has Arthur hold court here.

Mayburgh, in Cumbria, is another site bearing the name 'Arthur's Round Table'. Situated at the junction of the A6 and the B5320 south of Penrith is an earthwork with a central round platform. Said to date from the Bronze Age the connection with Arthur is unknown.

Stirling Castle is visible for many miles in every direction, sitting on a high volcanic rock it rivals even Edinburgh Castle's for sheer grandness. Beneath the castle is King’s Park, once a royal hunting forest, now open space. Within the Park is an ancient grassy mound known as the King’s Knot, shaped into its current form around 1620. Tradition claims that King Arthur's Round Table was located in this vicinity. In 2011 archaeologists from Glasgow University located remains of a circular ditch and other earth works beneath the mound of the King's Knot.

Bwrdd Arthur (Arthur's Table), Anglesey, is an prehistoric hillfort with drystone wall ramparts, on a flat topped hill not far from the coast at Beaumaris, east of Red Wharf Bay. An atmospheric site but, again, the connection with Arthur is not known.

Bwrdd Arthur in Clwyd, Denbighshire, north-east Wales, is another 'Arthur's Table'. It is basically a rough circle of indentations in a rocky hillside. John Leland recorded 24 holes which a man could sit in.

In addition, there are many prehistoric megalithic sites, such as the cromlechs in Wales, where the capstone is often known as 'Arthur's Table'. The connection is unknown, however some believe it is evidence of a Bronze Age Arthur.

The Winchester Round Table

The Winchester Table
However, for all these 'landscape' Round Tables there is only one actual wooden table claiming to be such; for over 600 years an 18 foot diameter, legless table top known as King Arthur's Round Table has hung in the Great Hall of Winchester castle. Made of solid oak and painted into 24 green and white segments, each labelled with the name of a knight, the table is perhaps the most impressive piece of Arthuriana to be seen today.

Not that the table dates to Arthur's time of Post-Roman Britain, but it is witness to the belief in the legend over the centuries; from the late Middle Ages the table was accepted as the authentic original. Indeed Caxton promoted the table as such in his Preface to Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur and no doubt the table's presence influenced Malory who placed Arthur's court, Camelot, at Winchester.

Geoffrey of Monmouth was the first to mention King Arthur founding an order of knighthood but he does not mention the Round Table. Expanding Geoffrey's 'chronicle' the Norman poet Robert Wace introduced the Round Table writing around 1155, claiming a Breton source. The English cleric Layamon then expanded on Wace's work, being the first to present the tales of Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table in English poetry.

Later, in Arthurian Romance, the Round Table develops a mystical meaning. The table is the successor to two tables that precede it; the Table of the Last Supper and the Table of the Holy Grail. Merlin has the table made for Uthyr, it is modelled on the world and the heavens. One seat always remains empty in the memory of Judas, the Perilous Seat, which can only be occupied by the knight who attains the Grail. The Table passed to Guinevere's father which comes to Arthur as her dowry. After Arthur's passing the Table is destroyed when Mark captures Camelot.

In 1976 the Round Table was taken down from the hall at Winchester and examined by a team of historians and scientists assembled by Martin Biddle. They determined that the history of the Table began during the reign of Edward I as the centrepiece of a tournament held at Winchester in 1290.

In 1344 Edward III announced he would re-found an Order of the Round Table for 300 knights. Yet following victory at Crécy in 1346 Edward abandoned the idea and announced he would form a more exclusive Order of the Garter, rewarding his loyal commanders at the battle. This Order, like the Table, has persisted through the centuries and today membership is limited to the Sovereign, the Prince of Wales, and no more than 24 members, or Companions.


The Great Hall, Winchester

In 1348 the legs of the Round Table where knocked off and the top hung on the wall at Winchester as a symbol of Edward III's interest in the chivalric idea of the Fellowship of the Round Table.

Nearly 200 years later Henry VII, the first Tudor monarch, exploited the Arthurian legend and accepted Malory's identification of Camelot with Winchester. He named his first son Arthur and had him baptised at Winchester. He was to reign as Arthur II but the Prince died young and his brother came to the throne as King Henry VIII, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Henry VIII had the Winchester table painted in segments of white and green, the Tudor colours, with places assigned to the principal knights and the king. A Tudor rose was painted in the middle of the table and an image of Henry himself inserted into King Arthur's position to reinforce his claim to a British imperium. Henry made further use of the figure of Arthur at Calais in 1520 and Winchester in 1522 to support his claim as arbiter of European power.

Henry's design was repainted in the 18th century, the scheme which we see at Winchester today.



Copyright © 2017 Edward Watson
http://clasmerdin.blogspot.co.uk/



Sources:
Geoffrey Ashe, The Traveller's Guide to Arthurian Britain, Gothic Image, 1997.
Norris J Lacey, et al (editors), The Arthurian Handbook, Garland, Second Edition, 1997.
Martin Biddle, King Arthur's Round Table, Boydell Press, 2000.



* * *




Sunday, 23 April 2017

St George and the Order of the Garter

Today, 23 April, is St George's day, patron saint of England, but he is far removed from the exemplar “British Knight” that many believe him to have personified.

Knights and Saints
The influence of St Edmund as the patron saint of Anglo Saxon England began to wane under the Normans. He was finally replaced after the English successes under the patronage of St George during the Crusades and victories on the battlefield in France during the Hundred Year's War.

While the veneration of St George as a soldier-saint can be traced back to the 7th century, the first depictions of St George the Dragon Slayer go back only to 10th or 11th century Cappadocia (Central Turkey). A dragon was commonly used to represent the Devil in the Middle Ages. A late legend claims that St. George killed a dragon on the flat topped Dragon Hill at Uffington, Berkshire, where the beast's blood spilled today no grass grows. However, many of the legends associated with St. George lack historical substance and are generally considered fictitious; indeed the slaying of the ‘Dragon’ is one of many stories of the saints preserved in the Golden Legend, compiled by Jacobus de Voragine in 1275 after being brought back to Europe by Crusaders in the 12th century.

St George and the Dragon (Carpaccio, 1502)
It is often claimed that Crusaders returning from the Holy Land were responsible for introducing St. George’s to western Europe, but there is evidence of a cult before the Crusades, however slight, in early medieval Germany, Italy, France and England. Today he is the patron saint of many countries and cities in both eastern and western Europe.

The person typically identified as St. George is an unnamed man martyred in 303 AD during the reign of the Roman emperor Diocletian (284-305) as recorded by Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in the mid-4th century. This man is commonly thought to have been Georgios Gerontios, a tribune in the Roman Army who refused to renounce his Christian faith and tore down Diocletian's edict of persecution. He was subsequently imprisoned, tortured and finally beheaded on the 23rd April 303 in Nicomedia, an ancient Greek city in what is now Turkey.

However, the connection of the saint with Nicomedia is inconsistent with the early cult of St George at Lydda in the Roman province of Syria-Palaestina, also claimed to be the place of his birth and his martyrdom, an important cult site to the Crusaders.

The first Christian Emperor Constantine the Great is said to have constructed a basilica over the St George's tomb at Lydda, but this church was destroyed and rebuilt several times during the crusades. Between 1150 and 1170 a cathedral was said to have been built over the tomb by Richard I (the Lionheart) of England only to be destroyed by Saladin in 1191; yet there is little evidence to support this claim.

Crusader
However, “visions” of St George were recorded twice during the First Crusade, at the sieges of Antioch, 1098, and Jerusalem, 1099. The story goes that the crusaders received miraculous help at the siege of Antioch from a great army coming to their aid on white horses, clothed in white and bearing white banners, outpouring from the nearby mountains. The leaders of this phantom army were recognisable by the names on their banners; St George; St Demetrius; St Mercurius.

Richard the Lionheart is said to have received a personal vision of the saint at Acre during the Third Crusade. After these “appearances” St George was adopted as the patron saint of soldiers and many military orders.

The Cross of St George, was first recorded as the ensign of the Republic of Genoa, before it was used by the crusaders. From the time of the Second Crusade (1147–1149) the red Cross of St George became associated with the Knights Templar, a military order that emerged out of the ruins of Jerusalem after its capture in the First Crusade.

The English king Henry II and the French king Philip II used red and white crosses to identify their respective soldiers during the so-called “Kings' Crusade” of 1187. The red-on-white then became a recognisable symbol of the crusader from about 1190. Indeed, the banner of St George, the red cross of a martyr on a white background, was adopted for the uniform of English soldiers by the reign of Richard I (1189 – 1199). The flag of England is derived from St George's Cross.

In the 1270's the Red Cross was worn by English soldiers during the reign of Edward I.  In 1348 Edward III established a premier order of Knighthood in England, with Saint George as its patron. At the “Battle of  Agincourt” in 1415 many of Henry V's English soldiers believed they witnessed Saint George fighting alongside them as they routed the French. Shakespeare recorded the success of St George with Henry V ending his speech before the battle with the famous phrase, “Cry God for Harry, England and St George!

The Order of the Garter
With such a fine military pedigree it was no surprise that Edward III chose Saint George as the patron saint of his Order of the Garter in 1348, the oldest surviving Order of Chivalry in the world, adopting the red-on-white cross for his Royal Standard. It was around this time that Edward proclaimed St George as Patron Saint of England; significantly, Edward created the Order of the Garter on St George's Day, 23 April.

Edward III, the Order of the Garter
Around this time chroniclers were complaining of the behaviour of knights with many criticised for promiscuity and committing lawless acts. In 1346, before the Crécy campaign, Edward III had forbidden his men from wanton ravaging and the destruction of holy places, but to no avail. It seems the exclusive Order of the Garter was created in an effort to return to chivalry and honour following Edward's victory at Crécy.

Without doubt the creation of the Order of the Garter and the return to chivalry was inspired by the legends of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, with Edward III, following in the footsteps of his grandfather Edward I, actively promoting himself as the New Arthur. His son Edward, later the Black Prince, was raised on the traditions of Arthurian Romance.

As Edward I had visited Glastonbury in 1278, for the translation of King Arthur's relics to a new marble tomb in front of the high altar, Edward III also visited the Somerset town in 1331 in a intentional act planned to associate his reign to both the Arthurian tradition and the reign of his grandfather.

Edward III’s Somerset itinerary was remarkably similar, but not identical, to that of Edward I, travelling from South Cadbury to Glastonbury. He spent 19 December 1331 at at South Cadbury and Cadbury Castle, the potential site of Camelot, before travelling to Glastonbury between 20 December and 22 December. Finally he moved on to Wells on 23 December, where he spent Christmas. There are no records of any further visits by Edward III to Glastonbury Abbey, though in 1345 he granted permission for one John Blome to search the abbey grounds for the grave of Joseph of Arimathea, the man who buried Jesus and legendary founder of the Abbey, and through the Grail stories an ancestor of Arthur, and guardian of the Holy Grail.

This was the Golden Age of Glastonbury Abbey, a site of pilgrimage for the cults of King Arthur, whose bones were discovered there in 1191, and Joseph of Arimathea, whose bones were not.

King Arthur's Round Tables
At the end of the “Round Table” festival at Windsor Castle in January in 1343, Edward III announced his intention to found an Order of the Round Table with three hundred knights with St George as their Patron, with a corresponding building and chapel, "in the same manner and estate as the Lord Arthur, formerly King of England".

The Round Table is King Arthur's famed table in the Arthurian legend, around which he and his famous Knights would gather.  The Table has no head, so that everyone who sits there has equal status. Yet Geoffrey of Monmouth does not mention this round table in his Arthurian epic The History of the Kings of Britain (Historia regum Britanniae), and there is no mention of it in the early Welsh texts.

The Round Table was first described in the Roman de Brut by the Anglo-Norman poet Wace in 1155, a chronicle based on Geoffrey's earlier work. The symbolism of the Round Table developed during the Arthurian Romances and came to represent the chivalric order of the Knights of the Round Table.

During the Middle Ages, festivals called “Round Tables” were celebrated throughout Europe in imitation of Arthur's court; the earliest known was held in Cyprus around 1220. These aristocratic festivals consisted of tournaments with jousting knights performing Arthurian roles, concluding in a great feast.

The Round Table in the Great Hall, Winchester
A large wooden tabletop, eighteen feet across, known as the “Winchester Round Table” now hanging in the Great Hall of Winchester Castle, bearing the names of various knights of Arthur's court is thought to have been created for a Round Table tournament. Dendrochronology has determined that the Winchester Table was constructed between 1250 – 1280, during the reign of Edward I, an Arthurian enthusiast, known to have held Round Tables many times in his reign: at Kenilworth in 1279, Warwick in 1281, Nefyn in 1284 and Falkirk in 1302. At least two of these, Nefyn and Falkirk, were personally arranged by Edward himself. He hosted one himself at Windsor around 1290, which was thought to be the occasion for the creation of the Winchester Round Table.

The iconic Round Table hanging in the Great Hall seems to have influenced Thomas Malory's identification of Winchester as the site of Camelot. Malory composed his Le Morte D'Arthur while in Newgate Prison, London, between March 1469 and March 1470 and published by William Caxton in July 1485. In 1934 the headmaster of Winchester College W. F. Oakeshott discovered a previously unknown manuscript copy of Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur in the library of Winchester College that is closer to Malory's original than Caxton's printed edition.

It would appear that Caxton did not use the Winchester manuscript in preparing his printed text. Caxton divided Malory's original work of four sections into twenty-one books of roughly equal length and omitted the colophons found of the tales containing autobiographical information about the author, including Malory's reference to himself as the “knyght presoner”.

The legs were removed from the Winchester table in 1348 and the top hung on the castle wall as a symbol of the chivalric concept of the fellowship of Arthur's Round Table. Two centuries later Henry VIII had the table repainted with himself in Arthur's seat above a Tudor Rose.

By 1348, Edward III had abandoned his earlier plan for an Order of the Round Table consisting of 300 knights, and announced the creation of the Order of the Garter, with an exclusive membership limited to just 25 Knights, with the first places reserved for those commanders who had helped him to win the Crécy campaign; the exact same number of places around the Winchester Round Table.

The Garter and the Motto
Today, the official seat of the Most Noble Order of the Garter sits at St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle, where its chapters have assembled since its creation by Edward III in 1348. The Sovereign and the Prince of Wales being permanent members, together with 24  Companion Knights.

The Garter Knights wear a mantle made from dark blue velvet fastened with blue and gold rope strings. Upon their shoulders the Knights wear the badge of the cross of St. George upon a shield encircled with the Garter.

The origins of the Order’s blue garter and motto, “Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense” (Shame on Him Who Thinks Evil of It), are uncertain but shares much with the 14th century English Arthurian work “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.

In this anonymous chivalric romance Gawain resists the temptations of the Lady of the Castle of Hautdesert, accepting only kisses from her. On the third day after resisting her further advances she presents Gawain with a magic green girdle that will protect him from being slain. With his forthcoming duel with the Green Knight at the Green Chapel, Gawain takes the girdle but does not pass it on to the lord of Castle Hautdesert (Bertilak), with whom he has an agreement that whatever each of them wins during the day they will exchange that evening. Gawain's dishonesty is his sin.

When it is revealed that the Green Knight is actually Bertilak and that the attempted seductions were a test of Gawain's worthiness, the knight is shaken with guilt, but Bertilak praises him for never giving into sexual temptation by the Lady of Hautdesert

Bertilak invites Gawain to return to the castle but Gawain refuses and sets off for Camelot, wearing the girdle for his shame. On arrival he tells Arthur the story who then decides that all the knights of the Round Table will wear a belt of green as a badge of honour in support of Gawain and proclaiming as their motto “Honi Soyt Qui Mal Pense” (Shamed be the One who Thinks Evil).



Copyright © 2017 Edward Watson
http://clasmerdin.blogspot.co.uk



* * *




Sunday, 22 November 2015

King Arthur's Round Table, Eamont Bridge

“He pass’d red Penrith’s Table Round,
for feats of chivalry renown’d
left Mayburgh’s mound and stones of power,
by druids raised in magic hour,
and traced the Eamont’s winding way…”1

Arthurian Cumbria
There are many Arthurian connections with Cumbria, not least Chrétien de Troyes' who mentions Camelot for the first time in his Arthurian romances, said to be a northern city based on Carlisle. Later writers came to identify Carlisle with "Carduel" the Arthurian capital of the French romances.

Pendragon Castle in the Vale of Mallerstang was traditionally the abode of Arthur's father Uther Pendragon, who attempted to divert the river Eden for his moat.

Tennyson is said to have been inspired by Bassenthwaite when he was writing his poem “Morte d’Arthur,” the lake into which Arthur's sword Excalibur is thrown in the poem. Others argue that Excalibur was returned to the Lady of the Lake at Ullswater, the second largest lake in the English Lake District.

The outflow from Ullswater is the  River Eamont at Pooley Bridge, to its confluence with the Lowther where it crosses the A66 at Brougham Castle, the site of the Roman fort Brocavum. For much of its length the modern road follows the course of the Roman road from Scotch Corner to Penrith. From Brougham the Roman road journeyed onto Carlisle, or Roman Luguvallium, the City of Lug.

The narrow bridge at Eamont Bridge dates from the 1400's, lying on the  historic route of the A6 road, running from its junction with the Great North Road south of Luton, northward to Carlisle. Until 1974 this was the border between Cumberland and Westmorland; over a thousand years ago on 12 July 927 it was the meeting place of five kings. Eamont Bridge (‘aet eamotum’) is the traditional location where King Athelstan of England held conference with the Kings of Scotland, Wales, Northumbria and Cumbria.

Antiquarians and Arthurians
At Eamont Bridge, barely a mile south of Penrith near the crossing of the River Eamont by the A6 trunk road, is a complex of henge monuments said to date from the Neolithic period. Charles Dymond (1832 – 1915), Honorary Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, states that Eamont is locally pronounced as “Yammon” and speculates that, perhaps, “Yeoman's bridge” may have been the old form of the name.

At the junction of the A6 and the B5320 road to Yanwath is King Arthur's Round Table, the northern end now obliterated by the minor road and the Crown Hotel. The Round Table is part of a complex of monuments, including Mayburgh henge 400 yards northwest and the now completely obliterated Little Round Table, a couple of hundred yards southward. Both the Little Round Table and Mayburgh are visible from Arthur's Round Table, indeed Mayburgh's single entrance looks directly toward it suggesting that this henge complex may have formed the centre of an ancient ritual landscape.

Pennant's plan of 1769
The antiquarian William Stukeley (1687 - 1765) records that the Scots army that accompanied King Charles II on his way to Worcester for the final battle of the English Civil War camped here for some time, the marks of the tents could still be seen on the ground in his time. He adds that they drew a small line across part of the southern circle.

In 1725 Stukeley described the monument as“On this plain stands the antiquity commonly called King Arthur's Round Table : . . . . it is a circle inclosed with a ditch, and that with a vallum.” However, John Leland, antiquary to King Henry VIII, was the first to record this earthwork nearly two hundred years earlier in 1538 stating “The Ruine is of sum caullid the Round Table, and of summe Arture's Castel.

In 1769 the traveller Thomas Pennant (1726 –  1798) wrote; “At a small distance beyond the bridge, near the road side, is a circle called Arthur's round table, consisting of a high dike of earth, and a deep foss within, surrounding an area twenty-nine yards in diameter. There are two entrances exactly opposite to each other ; which interrupt the ditch in those parts filled to a level with the middle.”

A comprehensive account of this monument complex which is readily accessible is “Mayburgh and King Arthur's Round Table” by C. W. Dymond, FSA, from surveys he carried out in October, 1889,  which I will refer to throughout this post.2

King Arthur's Round Table
Arthur's Round Table consists of a circular earth work with a flat inner platform surrounded by a ditch enclosed by an earthen bank, exhibiting the characteristic layout of a prehistoric henge. I find it immediately reminds me of Arbor Low in the Peak District, but without the stones.

This Class II henge monument at Eamont was thought to have been constructed between 2000 - 1000 BC by digging out a ditch around an oval area forming a circular platform with the excavated material forming an enclosing embankment. The continuity of the ditch was broken at two opposite points,  by leaving causeways to the interior of the work; in line with which were two passages through the embankment. The northern of these two entrances was all but completely destroyed during construction of the Yanwath road.

The enclosed area is about 50 metres across, with a 16m wide ditch, and bank of 13 metres. Within the enclosed area is a low circular platform about 24 metres across. Geoffrey Ashe writes that this would be the appropriate size to seat the full complement of 150 knights.3

Others believed this to be a jousting arena frequented by King Arthur and his knights, others still suggested a cock pit or a ring to wrestle, but according to Celia Fiennes 1698 Travel book, a Record of Journeys through England including parts of the Lake District, it was the dining table of a giant.

Stukeley states that “one end of the Round Table is enclosed in a neighbouring pasture,” presumably here he is referring to the northern end now under the present road constructed toward the late 18th century, some years after Stukeley's visit. A further slice was taken off from the eastern side of the embankment by straightening and widening the Clifton road around the same time.

The inner platform is nearly level which reflects the general appearance of the whole earthwork; it looks too tidy, too clean cut to be ancient. Stukeley tells us that the composition of the bank is “coggles and gravel, dug out of the ditch” and adds that the local people “carry it away to mend the highways.” Today it is very grassed over and kept trim by some Friesian cattle.

Arthur's Round Table – after Dymond
Dymond recalls that the owner of the Crown Inn (as it was known then), a man called Bushby, either the same who built it in 1770, or his son, deepened the ditch, and threw the earth on the banks. Dymond adds that in the inn-yard, is a circular tank of red sandstone, 38 ins. in diameter, and about 36 ins. in depth, which serves as a water-butt, has been called “King Arthur's Drinking-cup” said to have been dug up at the centre of the Round Table. However, his informant admitted it had been in the yard of the inn as long as he could remember and he had lived in the village for the last 60 years. Dymond admits that some antiquaries have been misled by confiding too easily in statements made to them, and such baseless stories, by repetition, can quickly become fixed tradition.

Parts of the earthwork were "enhanced" in the late 18th to early 19th century, apparently with a view to using the site as a tea garden by the Inn opposite the road. Around 1820 the innkeeeper William Bushby raised the central platform by adding several tons of sand and gravel on it from the inner bank of the henge. It is claimed he also deepened the ditch. Today the central platform does look flat and round and perhaps too neat to be of ancient appearance and may not represent its original form although it is recorded by antiquarians from the 16th century.

A sketch by William Dugdale in 1664 apparently showed two large standing stones either side of the north-western entrance. When Stukeley visited the site some sixty years later in 1725 he failed to record the stones, presumably by then taken away for building materials like those at Mayburgh.

In 1937 RG Collingwood excavated the monument uncovering a long, shallow trench near the centre of the circular platform, laying on the axis of the monument, considered a cremation trench. He also identified several postholes indicating the presence of timber structures and what he considered to be evidence for two standing stones at one entrance. However, two years later, excavations by Bersu refuted Collingwood's interpretations arguing that the postholes had no archaeological significance and there was no evidence of standing stones or burning in the so called cremation ditch although he did concede it could have been a shallow grave. No datable prehistoric objects were found during these excavations although a Roman coin of Gallienus (253-68 AD) was found a foot below the surface in the central platform. In 1988 a geophysical survey was carried out but the results were inconclusive, no doubt owing to disturbance caused by the extensive landscaping of the  site during the 18th - 19th centuries.

Aubrey Burl describes Mayburgh as having more in common with monuments across the Irish Sea. However, he calls King Arthur's Round Table an “English henge” that can be matched with sites in Yorkshire to which many Langdale axes were transported. A ritually deposited Langdale axe was found at Mayburgh and in 1875 an unpolished stone axe was found at Castlerigg stonecircle near Keswick leading to the notion that stone circles and enclosures were trading places. Burl names “kindred earthworks” at Cana, Castle Dykes and Nunwick. The similarity is strengthened by the presence of a cremation trench, a feature often found in the long barrows of the Yorkshire Wolds. If Mayburgh seems close to an Irish enclosure and Arthur's Round Table a typical henge from Yorkshire, the Little Round Table resembles neither.4

The Little Round Table
About 200 yards due south from Arthur's Round Table, near Lowther Bridge, there formerly existed a slight annular embankment, known as the “Little Round Table.”

Stukeley's engraving of the Little Round Table to the right
 and Arthur's Round Table, left.
The Beauties of England and Wales” (1814) describe this smaller enclosure as a ring with low ramparts, and perhaps a series of rings, as scarcely visible. A few years later the last traces were obliterated in widening the approaches to the new lodge-gates of Lowther park in 1878.The Little Round Table was described as a low circular ridge, no more than 6 to 9 inches above the level of the surrounding ground, and from 3 to 5 feet broad at the base. Stukeley describes the monument as having a small vallum with the ditch outermost, about 100 yards across. This is the reverse arrangement to a true henge monument which has the bank on the outside with the ditch innermost, as Stukeley said it was “made contrariwise to the former” (i.e. Arthur's Round Table). Stonehenge has the same arrangement; an outer ditch with a small inner bank. It is a misnomer that England's most well-known ancient monument is not a true henge, the ditch and bank arrangement having more in common with the early Neolithic causewayed enclosures.

According to the Pastscape entry on the northern side of the monument there is a bank barely discernible bank and faint traces of a low earthen bank with some stone visible on the south side. These remains suggest that the size of the monument corresponds well to Stukeley's sketch of 1725 showing a roughly circular enclosure with a bank with outer ditch.5

From scaling the illustration from Pennant's First Tour in Scotland, 1769, Dymond suggests the diameter of the Little Round Table is nearer 80 yards, with a gap, presumably an entrance a little to the east of the north point (not shown on Stukeley's sketch) out of line with  Arthur's Round Table which is sited slightly west of north to the Little Round Table.

High Street Roman Road
The damage to the north end of Arthur's Round Table is perplexing; on first thoughts it is usual to blame the construction of the B5320 road and the Crown Hotel in the 18th century. In these times ancient monuments had no legal protection and were there for the pickings as witnessed by Stukeley's record of the systematic destruction of Avebury in Wiltshire.

The course of the Roman road known as High Street travels across mountain and moor from  Ambleside (Galava) through Yanwath and Eamont Bridge to the Roman fort at Brougham (Brocavum) and its impact on these Round Table monuments is problematic yet may have implications for the date of their construction. Much of High Street can still be seen on the ground today, but it has not been traced between Yanwath and Brougham. In a map within the Lapidarium Septentrionale (Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle-on-Tyne, 1875) the Roman road is shown as taking a north-easterly direction from Yanwath, and terminating at Brougham (Brocavum), a mile east of Eamont Bridge.

However, there appears to be some difference of opinion as to its course between Yanwath and Eaumont Bridge, yet it is certain that if the Roman road came in this direction and it must have passed either to the north or to the south of Arthur's Round Table.

Bishop Gibson, in his 1695 edited issue of Camden's Britannia, makes the Roman way leave Brougham and head “directly to Lowther-bridge, and so over Emot into Cumberland.” Collingwood agrees with Gibson stating “... we can hardly be wrong in assuming that it crossed the Lowther where Lowther Bridge now stands, traversed Brougham Park much as the modern road does, and so reached the Roman fort of Brocavum.”6

Yet, if it travelled directly to Lowther Bridge it surely would have impacted on the Little Round Table but according to Stukeley's sketch of 1725 and Pennant's plan of 1769, both monuments are shown complete with no impact by any trackway, Roman or otherwise.

Dymond suggests the Roman Road may run along the line of the existing Tirril to Eamont Bridge road, through Yanwath, the line of the modern B5320 that today truncates the monument. Dymond suggests the line of the Roman road was lost between Yanwath and Eamont Bridge and grassed over. Later the B5320 was constructed along the same line and therefore, he argues, Arthur's Round Table must be post-Roman, i,e. built between the two phases of construction of the two roads.


Copyright © 2015 Edward Watson
http://clasmerdin.blogspot.co.uk/ 


Notes & References
1. - Sir Walter Scott, The Bridal of Triermain. Scott wrote part of The Bridal of Triermain while staying at the Royal Oak in Keswick, Cumbria.
2. C. W. Dymond, FSA, Mayburgh and King Arthur's Round Table, 1889.
3. Geoffrey Ashe, The Traveller's Guid eto Arthurian Britain, Gothic Image, 1997.
4. Aubrey Burl, The Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland & Brittany, Yale, 2000.
5. The Little Round Table - Pastscape, Historic England, National Record (NRHE).
6. R. G. Collingwood, Two Roman Mountain-Roads, 1937.



* * *

Wednesday, 12 August 2015

King Arthur and the Mystery of the Round Table

Mention the Round Table and most will think of the wooden relic hanging on the wall of the Great Hall of Winchester Castle. Yet, there are a multitude of claimants to the title of King Arthur's Round Table ranging from prehistoric earthworks to the 700 year old Winchester table top.

In Caxton's Preface to Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur he responded to those who doubted Arthur's existence by citing several Arthurian relics as evidence: "....ye may see his sepulchre in the monastery of Glastonbury.... in the castle of Dover ye may see Gawaine’s skull, and Cradok’s mantle: at Winchester the Round Table"

Winchester Round Table
Malory had made Winchester his Camelot, no doubt influenced by the Round Table in the Great Hall there and named his work, appropriately, the last great Arthurian epic, as "The Whole Book of King Arthur and His Noble Knights of the Round Table". Sixteen years later Caxton published his edition in 1485 as "Morte d'Arthur" (The Death of Arthur), naming the work simply after the last book, the title by which most of us are familiar with Malory's work today.

The Winchester as Camelot concept influenced the Tudor monarchs of Malory's time who claimed descent from King Arthur. Henry VII named his firstborn son after the legendary King, with his wife Elizabeth of York compelled to give birth to his heir at Saint Swithun's Priory (now Winchester Cathedral Priory), i.e. Camelot, on 20th September 1486. Arthur was Henry and Elizabeth's eldest child. But the young Arthur never achieved his destiny as King Arthur II; six months after marrying the young Spanish princess Catherine of Aragon, Arthur died on 2nd April 1502, at Ludlow, Shropshire on the Welsh Marches, victim of an unknown ailment.

Caxton didn't seem to agree with Malory, preferring South Wales for Arthur's capital, perhaps following Geoffrey of Monmouth, of which he added, "And yet of record remain in witness of him in Wales, in the town of Camelot, the great stones and the marvellous works of iron lying under the ground, and royal vaults, which divers now living have seen."

It is thought Caxton was referring to the Roman remains at Caerwent or the legionary fortress at Caerleon in South Wales. And here we find another Round Table; the Roman Amphitheatre, which until excavation in 1926, was a circular earthwork enclosing a  grass-covered oval hollow. Recently, in 2010, another City of the Legion, Chester, claimed their amphitheatre was the real Round Table.

Information board at Arthur's Round Table, near Penrith, Cumbria
The Round Table has a remarkable longevity in connection with the Arthurian legend; prehistoric megalithic monuments are named as such. Arthur's Round Table near Penrith in Cumbria is a Neolithic henge, dating from about 2,000 BC. We are told that this ancient earthwork has nothing to do with Arthur - but there are many prehistoric monuments associated with the King.

Often the capstone of a Welsh cromlech is named as Arthur's Table, Bwrdd Arthur. Other ancient sites bearing the same name include an ancient hillfort situated at Llanddona, Anglesey. And then there is the enigmatic earth mound at Stirling, Stirlingshire, known as  King's Knot, or Arthur's Round Table.

Yet, for all these prehistoric monuments that have attracted Arthurian names or associations, the Round Table is entirely absent from the early Welsh poetry of Y Cynfeirdd and even Geoffrey of Monmouth.

It is not until 1155 when the first mention of Arthur's Round Table appears in the "Roman de Brut" of the Norman poet Robert Wace, in what is basically a rewrite of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae. The Chronicle, or Brut, tradition continued with Layamon, a cleric from Worcestershire in England, who produced the first English version of the Arthurian epic and said the Round Table could seat 1600 but was oddly portable. Was Layamon's Round Table a meeting place, or an assembly, that could move around the country?

Further development in Arthurian Romance sees Joseph’s Grail Table at Cardoel, said to have been a prototype for the Round Table, made by Embreis (Merlin). The Round Table passes to Gwenhwyfar's father which Arthur then inherits as her dowry.

The Grail Table
Robert De Boron and the Vulgate Cycle identify Arthur's father, Uther Pendragon, as being responsible for the actual construction of the table, after hearing Merlin's tales of St. Joseph of Arimathea and the Grail Table. The table of the Grail stories has twelve seats and one empty place to mark the betrayal of Judas, known as the 'Siege Perilous,' but in Merlin's table the seat was reserved for the most pure of knights who would sit there after attaining the Grail.

The Winchester Round Table has been dated to 1250–1280, during the reign of Edward I, an Arthurian enthusiast. The current paintwork was done by order of Henry VIII during the first quarter of the 16th century. As we have seen the table at Winchester was inspirational to Thomas Malory and believed to have been a genuine historical relic in his day.

In the next few posts we will explore some of these concepts of Arthur's Round Table in greater detail.


Copyright © 2015 Edward Watson
http://clasmerdin.blogspot.co.uk/

King Arthur's Round Table Eamont Bridge, Cumbria


* * *



Tuesday, 30 November 2010

Chronicles and Scribes

The Round Table Revealed? 
Part IV

The Slaughter of the Saints (2)


Continued from: Slaughter of the Saints (1): The Lost Monastery

“There is no reason to doubt the existence of an important ecclesiastical foundation at Bangor Isycoed, or its practical annihilation by ‘Ethelfrith about the year 615. There is equally little reason to doubt the foundation of the ecclesiastical supremacy of the church of St. Asaph, and the churches named in Domesday must have been in existence long before the compilation of that record. But of them not a vestige that can be recognized remains". [1]

Chronicles and Scribes
We must exercise caution in attempting to reconstruct history from traditional accounts but it must be stressed that we are searching for memories of the monastery at Bangor Is-y-coed. The history of the destruction of the monastery by Æthelfrith's Northumbrian army appears to have been neatly wrapped up in the account of the Battle of Chester. Apart from the mass grave at Heronbridge, which may or may not be connected, no evidence has yet been unearthed for the Dark Age battle of The city of the Legion actually occurring at Chester.

However, an account of such a battle does survive in traditional Welsh accounts. Geoffrey the author of Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain) certainly had an affinity for Wales as he identifies himself as "of Monmouth" (Galfridus Monemutensis) in all three of his published Arthurian works. [2] Although he undoubtedly spent most of his working life in Oxford, it is thought he was was most likely born in Monmouth in south east Wales of Norman/Breton stock, and was appointed as Bishop of St. Asaph's in 1151 AD, although it is thought he never visited his see before he died c.1155.

River Monnow at Monmouth

Geoffrey certainly had access to some vernacular sources such as the Gildas' De Excidio Brittaniae, and Historia Brittonum, for example, from which he surely took elements, such as the story of the Dragons of Dinas Emrys, but is generally accused of “inventing” much of the remaining narrative, although in the prologue to the Historia Regum Britanniae, he insists that his work is a translation of a most ancient book in the British tongue presented to him by Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford which he then translated in Latin. Many modern historians doubt the “most ancient book” ever existed, and in his own time he was accused of fabricating his “history”.

Writing before the end of the 12th century, William of Newburgh, claimed:  "it is quite clear that everything this man wrote about Arthur ….. was made up, partly by himself and partly by others, either from an inordinate love of lying, or for the sake of pleasing the Britons."

Although now considered by many to be little more than a fictional pseudo-history at the time Geoffrey’s opus appeared, regardless of comments by the likes of William of Newburgh, it was met with approval by most and generally considered a master piece of medieval literature, which many claim put King Arthur at the centre stage of British history. Indeed, it was not until the 17th Century that the veracity of the contents of Geoffrey's Historia Regum Britanniae as authentic history began to be seriously doubted.

Massacre of the Holy Men
In the History of the Kings of Britain, Geoffrey tells us that following the massacre of the holy men all the princes of the Britons met at Legecester (Chester) and made Cadwan (Cadfan) their king and under his command pursued Æthelfrith and his Anglian army as far as the Humber. They prepared for battle but came to an agreement that Cadwan should enjoy the part of Britain south of the Humber and Æthelfrith the part beyond it. In the meantime, Æthelfrith banished his own wife and married another. She, being with child, went to live with Cadwan in Gwynedd. She had a son called Edwin who grew up with Cadwan's son Cadwalla (Cadwallon). Needless to say, after a period of exile in Brittany, eventually Cadwalla and Edwin fall out over who will wear the crown of Britain. At first glance Geoffrey's chronology appears to be at fault here if Æthelfrith's pursuit of Edwin in exile at Gwynedd was the motive for the Battle of Chester as proposed by many historians. However, the account of Reginald of Durham, thought to derived from sources independent of Geoffrey, also has Edwin's Welsh exile after the Battle of Chester. [3] The chronology of events surrounding the battle is very significant in determining the motive for the destruction of the monastery and is something we will return to later.

The Brut Tradition
Following Geoffrey's Arthurian story several chronicles were produced which generally followed his account but added 'corrections' and additional material. Wace's Anglo-Norman Roman de Brut followed in c.1155, the first to introduce the Round Table. It is thought that Wace's source for much of his chronicle appears to have been a Breton variant of Geoffrey’s Historia, of anonymous authorship, which condensed and rephrased Geoffrey’s story. The Roman de Brut started, as did Geoffrey, with Brutus the Trojan a descendent of Aeneas and the mythical founder of Britain tracing the lineage of British rulers through the years to the time of Cadwaladr Fendigaid (Cadwaladr the Blessed), the last Dark Age Welsh king of Britain.

Thus, the Brut tradition had begun; a chronicle of British history always following Geoffrey's account and named after its first hero Brutus. Layamon, a cleric from Arley Regis in Worcestershire, England, followed around 1190, producing a translation of Wace into alliterative verse marking the first appearance of Geoffrey's story in English, further developing the theme of the Round Table.

These adaptations of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia became extremely popular throughout Western Europe during medieval times. Wace's chronicle, no doubt, was later used by many French writers of Arthurian romance, but the Brut proved especially influential in medieval Wales, where it was largely regarded as an accurate account of the early history of the Britons. Indeed, the Welsh people looked upon Geoffrey's account as preserving the true history of their race, so that Henry VII made some political gain out of his Welsh ancestry and found it to his advantage to claim descent from Brutus, the first king of the Island, and to trace his lineage through the heroes of Geoffrey's book. [4] Henry, Harri Tudor to the Welsh, came from an old-established family from Anglesey which claimed descent from Cadwaladr, Geoffrey's last ancient British king. Henry was known to display the red dragon of Cadwaladr on occasion and took it with the standard of St George on his victory procession through London following the Battle of Bosworth.

St Cadwaladr's Church Llangadwaladr, Ynys Môn

Consequently, the term Brut has come to mean collectively the Welsh redactions of Geoffrey's Historia Regum Britanniae. However, Geoffrey’s work was guilty of confusing many traditional names and places in the translation into Latin. Perhaps he deliberately changed them to fit his story, but we will never know for certain if he was plainly incompetent or remarkably creative.

Welsh writers attempted to rectify these ‘mistranslations’ and produced their own, 'corrected', versions of Geoffrey’s story. However, we should not regard the Welsh renderings as straightforward translations; as such they are generally close to their Latin source text although the redactor of the Brut may have been following an early Welsh tradition. The task of the redactor was essentially to prepare a document for publication, which may require editing or revision, and was therefore at liberty to add some brief commentary of his own to correct locally known omissions, or append additional material from traditional lore to the text. For example, several Brut manuscripts include a version of the tale of King Lludd, an important character in Welsh tradition, known as 'Lludd and Llefelys', a tale which Geoffrey omitted from his chronicle but the redactor clearly felt should have been included.

The collective group of Middle Welsh variant versions of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Latin chronicle, is known as Brut y Brenhinedd (Chronicle of the Kings), tracing the time from Brutus to Cadwaladr, and translated into Welsh from the 13th century onwards. About 60 versions of the Brut y Brenhinedd survive, the earliest dating to the mid-thirteenth century. These Middle Welsh variants of the Brut have been classified as: Llanstephan; Peniarth (Ms 44); Dingestow; Peniarth (Ms 21); Cotton Cleopatra (B); and the Brut Tysilio. [5] The Welsh extended Geoffrey's chronicle from the death of Cadwaladr in 682 up to 1332 in Brut y Tywysogion (Chronicle of the Princes), thought to be a translation of an original Latin version, which has not survived.

The Cotton Cleopatra (B) version of the Brut y Brenhinedd, is generally accepted as being compiled in the 15th Century but there is considerable disagreement regarding the date of this manuscript. Although not of great literary value, the Cotton Cleopatra (B) is a composite of various elements not found elsewhere together; the dedicatory chapter for example appears in Welsh for the first time, whereas in earlier versions that include it at all it appears in Latin. The text contains many alterations and additions from Geoffrey's version, as such that it could almost be considered as presenting a new work in much the same vein as the works of Wace and Layamon.

An inferior copy of the Cotton manuscript is found in the Black Book of Basingwerk (Llyfr Du Basing), manuscript NLW MS 7006D, which circulated in North East Wales. This manuscript contains an imperfect version of the Chronicle of the Kings, written about the end of the 14th Century. Although the Cotton version generally provides a better text than the Basingwerk book there are passages where it is clearly at fault and occasionally the Basingwerk version preserves what appears to be the correct rendition, thereby demonstrating that it could not have been copied from the Cotton Cleopatra but both are probably derived from a common source. [6]

The Black Book of Basingwerk version, in addition to the Brut Tysilio, was used for the Welsh historical compilation attributed to the late 15th Century poet Gutun Owain (Gruffudd ap Huw ab Owain). Owain seems to draw heavily from local tradition and departures from the Cotton Cleopatra text are more numerous in his redaction of the Basingwerk variant than in the earlier part of the book and tend to increase as he continues.

Basingwerk Abbey

Originally thought to have been copied at Basingwerk Abbey, near Holywell, (St. Winefride's Well), Flintshire, it is now generally accepted that the Black Book manuscript was copied not at Basingwerk but at Valle Crucis Abbey near Llangollen, in Denbighshire, as the redactor, Gutun Owain, had spent nearly forty years of his life there and one of the sources he used in compiling this volume was a Valle Crucis manuscript (Peniarth Ms 20). [7] Significantly, The Black Book of Basingwerk circulated in north-east Wales immediately in the vicinity of Bangor Is-y-coed, situated some 25 miles from Basingwerk and only 15 miles from Valle Crucis.

In the Black Book of Basingwerk we find the following reference to the Battle of Chester:

“And after the coming of Ethelfrid had been told to Dunod, he sent to him two hundred of the wisest monks to ask him for his mercy to 'that holy house' and to offer him every good thing that might come to him as a return for leaving them in peace in their monastery to praise God and to serve God, for they had done him no harm. And after their message was told to Ethelfrid he had those saints killed. And he came with his army against the monastery, and against him came Brochwel, and fought with him boldly and fiercely and killed many on all sides. And that fight (?) was called the Battle of Bangor Orchard. [8]

Surely, it is beyond coincidence that a rendition of the Brut y Brenhinedd that circulated in north-east Wales and written a short distance from the site of the massacre of the holy men at Bangor Is-y-coed, where memory of the event would remain strong, refers to the Battle of Chester as Gweith Perllan Vangor, the Battle of Bangor Orchard, indicating that the redactor was aware of a local tradition that this conflict took place at Bangor not Chester.


Continued in Part V: The Battle of Bangor Orchard

*

Notes:
1. An Inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Wales and Monmouthshire, ii – County of Flint, The Royal Commission on The Ancient and Historical Monuments and Constructions in Wales and Monmouthshire. 1912
2. The Prophetiae Merlini c.1136 AD, Historia Regum Britanniae c.1139, and Vita Merlini, c.1150. Although later included in the Historia at Book VII The Prophetiae Merlini was originally circulated independently.
3. The Life of St Oswald, thought to have been written by Reginald of Durham c.1165, provides an account of Edwin's exile in Wales immediately following the Battle of Chester “where the monks of whom Bede wrote were slain”. Although Reginald's account follows Geoffrey of Monmouth on several points, there are many differences in the two, suggesting they are both drawing independently on traditions which had much in common and not found in Bede. Cited in Nora Chadwick – The Conversion of Northumbria in Celt and Saxon; Studies in the Early British Border, Cambridge, 1964, pp. 149 – 151.
4. Brut y Brenhinedd, Cotton Cleopatra version - edited and translated by John Jay Parry, the Mediaeval Academy of America, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1937.
5. Brynley F. Roberts, Brut Y Brenhinedd, Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1971, pp.xxiv-xxxix.
6. John Jay Parry, Op. Cit.
7. The core of manuscript NLW MS 7006D is a version of Brut y Brenhinedd (Chronicle of the Kings), sometimes referred to as the Brut Gruffydd ab Arthur, (the Chronicle of Geoffrey son of Arthur, an alternative name for Geoffrey of Monmouth), a Welsh translation of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae, prefaced by Ystoria Dared, (The History of the Trojan War), a Welsh version of the Latin Dares Phrygius, the account of Dares a Trojan priest, retelling of the events leading up to the destruction of Troy. Gutun Owain continues Geoffrey's history with another chronicle, Brenhinedd y Saeson (Kings of the English), which provides a record of events in Wales and England up to 1197. The continuation from 1197 to 1332 is based on two versions of Brut y Tywysogion (Chronicle of the Princes). Owain continues the text to 1461 AD, a date probably close to the time when he was writing – The Black Book of Basingwerk (NLW MS 7006D), The National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth.
8. John Jay Parry, Op. Cit.

* * *

Thursday, 7 October 2010

Slaughter of the Saints

The Round Table Revealed?
Part IV


The Slaughter of The Saints (1)

Continued from Part III: The Reason for the Battle

Bangor! o'er the murder wail!
Long thy ruins told the tale,
Shatter'd towers and broken arch
Long recall'd the woeful march:
On thy shrine no tapers burn,
Never shall thy priests return;
The pilgrim sighs and sings for thee,
O miserere, Domine!
[1]


The Lost Monastery of Bangor
Bangor on Dee lies in a natural hollow on the right bank of the river Dee between Wrexham and Whitchurch just off the modern A525 road, about 20 minutes south from Chester by car. The site alongside the Dee lies no more than a couple of miles from the curious Wat's Dyke earthwork running through the northern Welsh Marches, onto Basingwerk Abbey, possibly constructed as a linear boundary to the early kingdom of Powys. Bangor on Dee is well known today for its racecourse south-west of the village. But underneath the natural beauty of this quiet setting persists the faintest glimmer of a Dark Age atrocity.
Bangor on Dee is a contender for the Roman site of Bovium, later Banchorium, sited on the ancient road leading northwards to Deva (Chester), and south towards Uriconium (Wroxeter) in Antonine's Second Itinerary, the 3rd century Roman road listing. The line of the Roman road here, known as Watling Street, is said to run northwest from Whitchurch, the Romano-British town of Mediolano, through Bovium on to Deva[2]

However, it is by no means certain that Bangor on Dee was Bovium; other contenders such as Holt, Tilston and Grafton have all been suggested. Bangor on Dee would certainly be in the optimum position to be Bovium providing a fast route along the Roman road to Deva. This is is the same Roman road that Chester archaeologists found the large Romano-British industrial strip settlement at Heronbridge, 8 miles north of Bangor-on-Dee and two miles south of Chester, standing on the west bank of the River Dee, between the river and the line of Watling Street. It is at Heronbridge that archaeologists unearthed evidence of a Dark Age battle with excavations revealing a mass grave with a number of warriors originating from north-east England thought to be members of the army of the Northumbrian king Æthelfrith who took part in the early 7th century battle of Chester.

It has been suggested that the site of the Roman camp of Bovium was in a field called ' lolyn's Strand ' or ' lolyn's Beach', on the bank of the Dee, near Bangor Bridge at Sesswick in the Parish of Bangor. This field is liable to periodical flooding and was laid totally flat after “all kinds of mounds and hillocks” were cleared away in the mid-nineteenth century; there being no record of any remains resembling the walls or ramparts of a Roman camp being found. Seemingly the main reason for locating the camp at 'lolyn's Strand ' is that along one side of it runs a narrow drainage ditch with the Roman name of "The Foss," derived from the Latin fossa, meaning 'ditch' and a word sometimes used for Roman roads. But this is very similar to the Welsh word 'ffós' for 'ditch' so may well have no connection and to date no remains have been found that indicate that at one time a Roman camp actually stood at Bangor. [3] The fact that the site lies on the flood plain of the river Dee which periodically bursts its banks and changes course over time may have resulted in any remains being washed downstream and the archaeology lost.

In Bede's time he called it 'Bancornburg,' which over the course of time has developed into the modern anglicised name of 'Bangor on Dee' referring to the village's location on the river, but 'Bangor' is a Welsh term. The earliest recorded use of the Welsh name 'Bangor Is-y-coed' or more commonly 'Bangor Is-coed' is found from seventeenth century documents. The name 'Bangor Monachorum' ('Bangor of the monks'), was the preferred form in legal documents, first recorded in 1677, indicating that for the local people the memory of the ecclesiastical establishment that once stood at Bangor Is-y-coed persisted throughout the centuries; the account reported by Bede telling of the monastery and its abbot's dealings with Augustine and their failure to comply with the Roman church resulting in its subsequent obliteration in what history has termed 'the Battle of Chester'.

The tradition of the lost monastery at Bangor prevails although, like the Roman camp of Bovium, there is little evidence of it on the ground today. It is said that a large monastery existed here in ancient times, but the date of its foundation and founder's name remain equally uncertain. It is said that the monastery at Bangor was founded as a seat of learning by the legendary good king Lucius, said to be the first Christian king of Britain. In the last quarter of the 2nd century Lucius, a son of Coel, was converted by the preaching of one of the Christian Fathers. Bede included the story of Lucius, king of the Britons writing to Eleutherius, bishop of Rome, requesting to be made a Christian, in his Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum. Eleutherius became pope around 174 AD. A welsh version of Lucius' (Llewrug Mawr) letter to the Pope is first mentioned in the Liber Pontificalis (Book of Popes), c.685 AD, which would appear to be Bede's source, who adds “he soon obtained his pious request, and the Britons preserved the faith, which they had received, uncorrupted and entire, in peace and tranquillity until the time of the Emperor Diocletian, [303 AD]”.

The Welsh name "Bangor" seems to suggest that there was a monastery here as the name is generally explained as meaning “High Choir”; 'ban' = high, and 'cor' = choir, or church; therefore Bangor = high choir.

But the Welsh word 'bangor' is also commonly used for 'wattling', as in fencing or barrier forming an enclosure; the traditional Welsh name Bangor-Is-y-Coed meaning a settlement within a wattle fence (bangor) below the wood (is y coed). It was originally built with wattles from the local marsh, which in the course of time would have been replaced with a timber construction centuries before a permanent stone building would have been erected on the site.

Indeed, the word 'bangor' may have had a dual meaning here as early Christian ecclesiastical centres were built of wattle; interwoven branches packed with clay (daub). As with Bangor-is-y-coed, the first Christian establishment at Glastonbury was said to be a simple church constructed of wattle and daub on the site of the present Lady Chapel by Joseph of Arimathea in the 1st century. Good King Lucius is said to have established an ecclesiastical institution at Glastonbury in the 2nd century accompanied by missionaries from Rome, which he raised out of the ruins of a former church on the site that had been previously dedicated to St. Mary. According to traditional sources King Lucius was responsible for establishing several major ecclesiastical centres in Briton. [4] For centuries the story of Lucius as the 'first Christian king' of Britain was widely held and considered an accurate account of the early establishment of Christianity in Britain and was recounted by many medieval historians.

The Mother of all Monasteries

The red sandstone church standing today at Bangor-is-y-coed was built about 1300 AD and said to be on the site of the monastery, dedicated in the name of St. Dunawd (Saint Dunod, Bede's 'Dinooth'), who, according to some accounts, was the first Abbot of the ancient monastery thought to have been established in the mid-sixth century, the only Welsh ecclesiastic mentioned by name by Bede in the episode of 'Augustine's Oak'. Little is known of St. Dunawd but some have identified him as king Dunaut Bwr (the Stout) who was forced out of his kingdom of Dunoting in the Northern Pennines by the Bernicians and fled to north Wales. The Welsh Annals record the death of king Dunaut (Dunod) at the hands of the Bernicians in 595 AD. There is clearly much confusion here as the chronology does not fit: king Dunaut carried out a failed invasion of northern Rheged the year following Urien's assassination c.591AD. If he was fighting the northern British in Rheged at this date he could hardly be the same man who established the monastery at Bangor-is-y-coed thirty or forty years earlier in the mid-sixth century in Powys.

As we have seen above, a religious centre probably existed here long before St. Dunawd (Dunaut?) arrived. It must have been in existence before this date as St. Deiniol (Daniel), traditionally the son of St. Dunawd, established a monastery at Bangor (anciently known as Bangor Vawr = Great Bangor) on the south side of the Menia Straits, in Gwynedd (formerly Carnarvonshire) north Wales, c.525 AD some 70 years before the Abbey at Canterbury was established by Augustine which marked the rebirth of Christianity in southern England. The story goes that having been given land by king Maelgwn, Deniol enclosed it with a fence constructed by driving poles into the ground and weaving branches in between them, typical wattling or a 'bangor'. Within this enclosure Deiniol built his church, from which the city derived its name. He may even have been the founder of the monastery of Bangor-is-y-coed. St. Deiniol was certainly active in Flintshire as there are nearby churches dedicated to him; Worthenbury originally a chapel attached to Bangor Is-y-coed and Hawarden only sixteen miles distance. Deiniol died on 11th September 584 AD, and according to the Welsh Annals (Annales Cambriae), he was taken to be buried on Ynys Enlli (Bardsey Island), the legendary "Island of 20,000 saints”.

The monastery at Bangor-is-y-coed is said to have produced the heretic Pelagius, who some say was the twentieth abbot, with Gildas ('the wise') also claimed to have been a one time Abbot there. Saint Tudno, one of the seven sons of King Seithenyn whose legendary kingdom in Cardigan Bay was submerged by tidal activity, was said to have been educated there too. Tudno had a cell in a small cave on the headland, and later established a church on the northern side of the Great Orme, from which the name of Llandundo is derived.

Bangor's monastery certainly seems to have been a substantial establishment by the middle of the 6th century, when Cyngen Glodrydd, King of Powys, is said to have granted lands. [5] Cyngen, known as 'the Renown' and sometimes identified with Gildas' tyrant Aurelius Caninus, the 'lion's whelp', is shown in the genealogical tables in the Harlian Manuscript 3859 as the son of the Powys king Cadell Ddyrnllug, 'of the Gleaming-Hilt', the Catel Drunluc of the Historia Brittonum who St Germanus blessed saying "from henceforward thou shalt be a king all the days of thy life” and thus established the Cadelling dynasty of Powys. [6]

It is thought that the monastery at Bangor-is-y-coed became such an important religious centre in Britain that during the 5th and 6th centuries the number of monks had increased to over 2,000. However, for such a large ecclesiastical centre no trace of the monastery remains today and its site remains uncertain; some authorities believe that it lies under the present course of the River Dee. But the tradition of the lost monastery persisted. Writing in the early 12th century the medieval historian William of Malmesbury stated that:

“Another proof of his [Æthelfrith] success is afforded by the city of Carlegion, now commonly called Chester, which, till that period possessed by the Britons, fostered the pride of a people hostile to the king. When he sent his exertions to subdue this city, the townsmen preferring any extremity to a siege, and at the same confiding in their numbers, rushed out in multitudes to battle. But deceived by a stratagem, they were overcome and put to flight ; his fury being first vented on the monks, who came out in numbers to pray for the safety of the army. That their number was incredible to these times is apparent from so many half- destroyed walls of churches in the neighbouring monastery, so many winding porticoes, such masses of ruins as can scarcely be seen elsewhere. The place is called Bangor; at that day a noted monastery, but now changed into a cathedral.” [7]

Although William Malmesbury does report ''half- destroyed walls of churches” and  "masses of ruins”, which would not seem unreasonable for the remains of such a large monastery, his account is usually discredited by historians who suspect that he did not actually visit the site and therefore does not provide a first hand account; he is accused of confusing the tradition of the ancient monastery of Bangor-is-y-coed, near Chester, with the more modern see of Bangor Vawr (Great Bangor) then in Carnarvonshire (now Gwynedd) with its cathedral and invented his account of the ruins at Bangor-is-y-coed. But in the passage above Malmesbury is clearly referring to the Battle of Chester (Carlegion) and the monks from “the neighbouring monastery,”. Bangor-is-y-coed is only 12 miles up stream from Chester, whereas Bangor Vawr is some 60 miles along the north Welsh coast and can hardly be considered as“neighbouring”.

This monastery at Bangor Vawr, established by St. Deiniol as we have seen above, was sacked in 634 and again in 1073 AD. Nothing of the original building survived, the Cathedral being rebuilt on several occasions; the first stone building being erected by Bishop David between 1120 and 1139 AD. It was restored in the 12th century but was destroyed by the English and then badly damaged when King Edward I invaded Gwynedd in 1282 AD. Although not a large cathedral by modern standards the first stone construction was contemporary with when Malmesbury wrote down his Chronicle in the first quarter of the twelfth century.

The reference to the cathedral is seen as the flaw in Malmesbury's account; the church at Bangor-is-y-coed could hardly pass as a cathedral and by all accounts was not constructed until c.1300 AD. However, in his Gesta pontificum Anglorum, (Deeds of the English Bishops), c.1125 AD, Malmesbury makes no mention of a cathedral at Bangor; “a monastery once grand and so populous that, as Bede reports, if it had been divided into seven, each portion would have housed no fewer than 300 men, Certainly the existing remains there, including half-ruined walls of churches, are on a scale seen almost nowhere else”. [8]

We can forgive William's apparent confusions; it would appear that he visited the site at Bangor-is-y-coed and witnessed first hand the ruins of the monastery before he wrote the first edition of Gesta regum Anglorum, c.1120. In writing Gesta pontificum Anglorum, c.1125, he again described the ruins at Bangor-is-y-coed. It is only in the later edition of Gesta regum Anglorum which he expanded up to 1127 that he adds the monastery had now changed into a cathedral. This correctly corresponds with the first stone building being erected at Bangor Vawr by Bishop David between 1120 and 1139, after William had penned the first edition of Gesta regum Anglorum. William is generally considerable a reliable historian for his time and seems likely that he based his later addition of the building of a cathedral at Bangor on an oral account that he heard after his visit that he interpreted to mean the site at Bangor-is-y-coed.

At Bangor Is-y-coed we should not be expecting to see large scale Gothic style ruins with tall pointed arches like at many of the sites of the destroyed abbeys and monasteries across the country such as Glastonbury and Valle Crucis for example. Most of these magnificent buildings went up in the golden era of abbey and cathedral construction which commenced following the return of the Knights Templar from the First Crusade early in the 12th century and thereafter appeared throughout the Christian west. Most were wrecked by order of Henry VIII in the Dissolution of the Monasteries in the 16th century. However, we would hope to find some trace of the 'mother of all monasteries' in this valley by the river Dee.

Seven hundred years after William Malmesbury's time only traces of the foundations could be found. According to 'A Topographical Dictionary of Wales', third edition published by Samuel Lewis in 1849, “....the only vestiges that can be traced, are parts of the foundations, extending for a considerable distance along the eastern bank of the river Dee, which flows between the sites of two of the ancient gates.”

In 1972 a partial excavation of the site at Bangor-is-y-coed failed to reveal anything significant and nothing now remains above ground. [9] Is it possible for such a large monastery to disappear without trace? One could be forgiven for wondering if it had actually ever existed at all; the destruction of the monastery certainly seems to have been eradicated from our history books.

But although hard evidence of the monastery at Bangor-is-y-coed remains elusive the memory of it has prevailed and it appears a Welsh account of the destruction this seat of religious learning has survived.

Next: Slaughter of the Saints (2): Chronicles and Scribes
*

Notes:
1March Of The Monks Of Bangor by Sir Walter Scott.
2. a. Iter II lists the land route from Blatobulgio (Birrens) north of the Wall to Portum Ritupis (Richborough) on the south east coast of Kent, some 500 miles of Roman road. Bovio being listed as item 469.3 between Medialano 469.4 (Whitchurch), 15 miles, and Deva 469.2 (Chester), 10 miles. It has been suggested that the main legionary pottery works of Legio XX Valeria Victrix housed at Deva, was at Holt in Clwyd, and is in fact Iter II 469.3 which would agree with the mileage but must be doubted because it does not lie directly on the route but about two miles west of Watling Street, sited on a suspected branch road running west from Bovium to the fort at Ffridd. The name Bovium may be derived from British *bou- 'cow' implying perhaps a Romano-British 'cattle market'.– see A.L.F. Rivet and C. Smith, The Place-Names of Roman Britain, Batsford 1979.
b. The Roman settlement at Tilston, Cheshire, is also a possible site for Bovio – A.C. Waddelove and E. Waddelove, The Location of Bovium, Britannia 15, 1984.
c. That the Roman road passed through Bovium or Banchorium a little to the south of the church seems without doubt when it it is reported that when 'digging graves in the churchyard, Roman pavements are occasionally found' - 'A Topographical Dictionary of Wales' 1849.
3. Alfred Neobald Palmer, On the Early History of Bangor is y coed - Y Cymmrodor, VOL. X.1890.
4. Following Bede, versions of the Lucius story appeared in the Historia Brittonum, c.830, which stated that “one hundred and sixty-seven years after the birth of Christ, king Lucius, with all the chiefs of the British people, received baptism,” and William of Malmesbury included the story in his Gesta pontificum Anglorum, c.1120, but the most influential was Geoffrey of Monmouth's chronicle Historia Regum Britanniae, c.1136, which provided a detailed account of the spread of Christianity during Lucius' reign.
The English churchman and historian Thomas Fuller (1608 – 1661) credits Good king Lucius with establishing several major Christian institutions in the 2nd century:
a) St. Peter’s Cornhill in London.
An inscription in the churchyard here claims that the church of St Peter upon Cornhill is the earliest Christianised site in Britain, founded by the first Christian King, Lucius,
b) A chief Cathedral Church in Gloucester,
c) A Church at Winchester,
d) A Church and College of Christian Philosophers at Bangor-on-Dee,
e) A Church dedicated to St. Mary in Glastonbury,
f) A chapel in honour of Christ in Dover Castle,
g) The Church of St. Martins, Canterbury.
- Thomas Fuller, The church history of Britain, from the birth of Jesus Christ until the year MDCXLVIII, (published 1655).
5. Alfred Neobald Palmer, On the Early History of Bangor is y coed - Y Cymmrodor, VOL. X.1890.
6. a. This is of course no more than a foundation legend of the Cadelling dynasty which ruled Powys in the 9th century, the time the Historia Brittonum was written from the house of Gwynedd against the descendants of Vortigern, whose claim to these parts of Powys are stated on The Pillar of Eliseg. Set on the lower slopes of the Horseshoe Pass, standing on a mound in Valle Crucis (Valley of the Cross), overlooking the ruined Abbey, about 2 miles North of Llangollen in Clywd, stands the remains of the pillar dated between 800-25 AD. The faded inscription on the cross is recorded as stating that the monument was erected in memory of his great-grandfather Eliseg, by Concenn, the last native king of Powys, who according to the Annales Cambriae died in Rome in 854 AD. Concenn appears to have been asserting not only his inheritance of Eliseg's kingdom, but celebrating his rights of dominion back to the Roman period and the Emperor Magnus Maximus. Much of the inscription contains genealogical matter, which, seems to agrees with the Harleian Genealogies, except that at the beginning Britu is said to be son of Vortigern, not of Catigern ('son' of Catel Drunluc), conflicting with the account in the Historia Brittonum. In identifying Britu as the son of Vortigern, (Gildas' `superbus tyrannus') and Severa (the daughter of Magnus Maximus), the inscription seems to imply that it was Britu who was blessed by Germanus of Auxerre not Catel Drunluc. However, the monument is damaged and we depend largely on a 17th century reading by the antiquarian Edward Llwyd in 1696.
b. In July 2010 archaeologists from the University of Chester started a two week excavation at the 9th century monument, the first time the site has been dug since 1773 when the pillar was re-erected, to gain a better understanding the history behind the monument and why it was erected. The site has never been subject to modern archaeological investigation but the ancient monument is protected by Cadw and stands directly on top of a barrow, an ancient burial mound, which archaeologists are not permitted to disturb. For news from the excavation see: http://www.chester.ac.uk/node/6516.
7. William of Malmesbury's Chronicle Kings of Kngland - From the Earliest Period to the Reign of King Stephen, c.1120. Translated by J A Giles, 1847. ( Gesta regum Anglorum originally spanned from AD 449–1120 which he later expanded this in to a "second edition" up to 1127, which is now considered by modern scholars to be one of the great histories of England). William's first edition of the book was followed by the Gesta pontificum Anglorum (Deeds of the English Bishops) in c.1125 in which he describes the ruins again.
8. William of Malmesbury Gesta Pontificum Anglorum, The History of the English Bishops, Volume 1 by – Editors Michael Winterbottom, Rodney M. Thomson, Oxford University Press, 2007
9. L Laing, The Archaeology of Late Celtic Britain and Ireland c.400 – 1200 AD, London, 1975 - quoted in History of the English kings, Volume 2 of Gesta Regum Anglorum, William of Malmesbury - Roger Aubrey Baskerville Mynors, Rodney M. Thomson, Michael Winterbottom, Oxford University Press, 1999.

* * *