Adam Ardrey - Finding Merlin and Finding Arthur

[tundramanq]

I just finished "Finding Merlin" and started "Finding Arthur"
Real thought provoking. This solves the mystery of why the actual people and places of King Arthur and the round table can not be found.
Adams premise and proofs place them all in Scotland. Merlin was a druid during the time when the people of the old way were dominant and the church in Rome was converting the isles to it's faith. Since literacy was rare at that time, the church and aristocracy wrote all written history and played fast and loose with the facts, to play down anything of the old ways.

[McClef]

I have books that place Merlin and Arthur firmly in Wales

[David Thorpe]

The nature of historical science is such that new discoveries are being made all the time - sometimes by putting existing pieces together in a way that makes perfect sense and provides a plausible explanation to the previously incomprehensible. This is precisely what Ardrey has done.
As an ardent, long-time student of Arthuriana, I can say without reservation that what Ardrey has put together bears thorough examination rather than out-of-hand dismissal.

[McClef]

I wasn't dismissing it, merely pointing out that there are alternative ideas out there.

One such argument is the name of Carmarthen in its Welsh form - Caerfyrddyn, literally meaning Merlin's Castle. Another is the old name for Caerleon, Caer-Melyn, the Yellow Fort, being corrupted into Camelot with the writing of some Arthurian legends.

The earliest source of the legend is Geoffrey of Monmouth circa 1130 whereas Sir Thomas Mallory of Morte D'Arthur fame is 15th century.

I would be interested to hear about what material led this Adams chap to his conclusion.

I expect that the Cornish and Glastonburgian claims will soon follow from their adherents also.

[tundramanq]

He used the classic sources, independent documentation, old and new maps, physical site investigations, common sense and reason to separate the truth from fantasy in the accounts. The hero Arthur was a real problem for church and nobility as he was a commoner and non Roman Catholic. The written accounts were written during the dark ages where censorship of any view other than the official views would get you dead and he took this into account in separating the facts from the "politically correct" fictions.

[JonathanB]

he was a commoner and non Roman Catholic.

How's a king a commoner? And there are plenty of people arguing that Celtic Christianity was in conflict with the Roman Church. My understanding that if in fact all that divided the two traditions was the date of Easter, so Arthur would certainly have been a catholic, whether Celtic or Roman.

He certainly wasn't a Southern Baptist.

[tundramanq]

Never a King, just a great tactician and leader of men.

[McClef]

What are these "classic sources"?

The only main difference between Celtic and Roman Christianity was the date of Easter and certain ecclesiastical obediences and long before any well established claim for Rome to be ultimate authority in all things and to stamp down on opposition. The definition of Catholic was originally defined by the Athanasian Creed which was long before Rome asserted its authority. Arthur certainly was not a commoner except being made to be so in the Mallory/TH White version to preserve him until the appointed time and we have all no doubt been charmed by Walt Disney's presentation in that respect.

"Common sense and reason" is subjective. We still have no specific argument being cited and the "dark ages" were not as dark as some might think.

[David Thorpe]

According to Ardrey, he was not a "commoner", nor a king. His father ruled Dalriada and Manau, making him a prince. But his father outlived him, so he was never a king.
In Finding Merlin, Ardrey discusses the religious conflicts of the time - between Roman and Celtic Catholicism and between Christianity and the "Old Way". There were indeed weightier issues than the date of Easter.
His bibliographies for both books are extensive. They alone make the book worth the modest purchase price.
You will find the "specific argument"s within the works, along with compelling evidence to back them up. To try to state and defend them comprehensively here is to do them a disservice.

[tundramanq]

I think I need to put a few day separation between reading Merlin and Arthur. My previous knowledge was limited to Disney going in. And now I am getting the facts and findings confused by diving right into Arthur.