![[Stone of Cynvylyn]](../images/cyvylyn.jpg)
For the past few weeks I have been conducting a series of conversations on "Usenet", particularly the alt.legend.king-arthur newsgroup but also spilling over onto others. My original intention was simply to alert people reading these newsgroups to the existence of the pictures on this website of the two "Arthur stones" and the "electrum cross" (to be seen on the page devoted to The Holy Kingdom. I was expecting this to provoke a lively debate but was quite unprepared for the backlash of abuse I was to receive for simply stating what is to me uncontrovertable: that the Ancient Britons knew and recorded their own history. In the course of what has now turned into a lengthy thread called "The Holy Kingdom / King Arthur", it has become clear that there are two widely divergent attitudes towards British history. The first, which we might call the "modernist", assumes that there are few records of any note concerning the so-called "Dark Ages" and that the history of Britain as recorded in such works as Nennius and the "Bruts" are "Medieval monkish forgeries" and therefore not to be taken seriously. These "historians" place their faith in what archaeology and linguistics have to tell them about the culture and language of the Britons. From these clues they deduce a "virtual history" of Dark Age Britain that is largely devoid of details, such as the names of the people involved, but rich in supposition concerning the evolution and migration of language, art and symbols.
The second attitude, which is the one I ascribe to, says that in the first instance history is what people remember of the past; that the "Dark Age" is a misnomer where Britain is concerned as we have abundant material handed down to us from the past in the form of historical chronicles, king-lists, genealogies, poetry, memorial stones, church archives, place names not to mention myths and legends. This history, which goes back to long before the so-called "Dark Ages" is not lost. It exists today in the form of vast archives, including the 20,000 or so manuscripts in the Harlean collection at the British Museum alone not to mention those in the Cottonian, Vespasian and other collections. Most of these historical documents are written in Welsh, the old language of Britain, and for this reason they remain largely ignored by English-speaking scholars. However, when these historical documents are consulted it becomes quite clear that the King Arthur of legend is not some otherwise unknown "war-leader" (possibly a "Roman" from Gaul) but rather a known king from a known dynasty of Glamorgan. According to the historical records King Arthur (or Athrwys as he is called in the Welsh) came from a large family, easily traceable in the genealogies of Wales. Both he and many of the other members of his family, acted as witnesses to land-grants in the Llandaff Charters, a well-known document.
As in other lands, it was the practice of these kings of Britain to raise stones as memorials and there are some, such as one at Ogmore Castle, which mention Arthur by his nick-name of Arthmail of "Iron-Bear".The stones of Wales bear mute testimony to this ancient dynasty but in my view and that of my co-authors of The Holy Kingdom they remain unrecognised for wht they are simply because they have been wrongly dated.
An instance of this is the Cunobelinus or Cynvelyn stone at Margam. As assessment of what this stone really is illustrates clearly the completely contrary attitudes towards the subject of British history of the Dark Ages as evidenced by the postings made to Newsnet by myself on the one hand (championing the Welsh historical record of the times) and others who base their views on modern theories of philology and the evolution of symbols and the opinions of certain archaeologists, I am including a precis of this debate.A champion of the view that the stone is of late provenance is someone called Aidan Meehan. He has made a large number of postings to the "alt.legend.king-arthur" and other newsgroups attacking The Holy Kingdom on the basis of philology and symbolism. Arguing first that the electrum cross is of modern origin (because of its style) he has broadened the argument to include the Cunobelinus cross from Margam Abbey near Bridgend, a picture of which is shown below.
According to Mr Meehan, the wheel-crosses of Wales are from the seventh century at the earliest and the symbol of the cross derives from the Chi-Rho monogram. He posts:
"The next Welsh cross to consider is the wheel-cross of Conbelin at Margam Abbey, which I suggest Mr Gilbert take a long hard look at. This is a typical example of the 7th-century Welsh style, as opposed to the 9th-century Irish style typified by the crosses at Iona, for instance.The Welsh model is short arms enclosed in a disk, Romilly Allen says we should call it a disk cross, rather than a wheel cross to distinguish the early Welsh from the late Irish style. There is a definite evolution of the form over several centuries. But the free-standing stone cross would not come in to style in Wales until well into the eighth century"
In a reply posting I wrote:
<"If you read "The Holy Kingdom" you will see that we dispute the current dating of most of the surviving Welsh crosses from Margam and other places."
His reply to this was:
"On what grounds? An educated guess would date the Margam cross [Stone of Cunobelinus] as very much later than the seventh century."
To which I replied:
"We [The authors of The Holy Kingdom"] believe the majority of these crosses to date from the fifth and sixth centuries: the time of Arthur and his immediate forebears."
His reply to this was:
"This unsupported (and wild) claim is simply untrue. The development of the monumental crosses begins much later than the fifth and sixth century. Roughly inscribed stones, with chi-rho monogram or simple, equal-armed cross, is all that you can expect to find in sixth-century Britain or Ireland. You can only ignore the evidence against your claim to the extent that you are unaware of it."
I then replied that:
"We also dispute the idea that so-called "Celtic" crosses were introduced into Britain from Ireland."
He replied to this was:
"The type with arms extending beyond the ring [referring here not to the Margam cross but the electrum cross found at the chapel of St. Peters] is not Welsh. It is Irish, and properly should be called "Irish High Cross". The Welsh style has arms contained inside the circle. Until the end of the fifth century, the only Christian art is the inscribed cross in a circle, in Gaul. From there it was transmitted to Britain and Ireland throughout the sixth century. In the following century, prototypal crosses begin to appear. The Welsh model is reasonably dated as seventh century. Your dating it to the fourth century is not tenable, archeologically."
I replied to this:
"St Patrick was Welsh and the art-form went from Wales to Ireland being reintroduced into Saxon Britain from Ireland at the time of St Columba."
To which he replied, quoting from his authority J. Romilly Allen:
"Patrick did not introduce *any* art. [He would know!] There was no native Christian art to import in the mid-fifth century! There is absolutely no record of Christian art in Roman Britain, except the Chi-Rho inscription:
![[Chi-Rho symbol]](../images/chirho.gif)
[Chi-Rho symbol made from superimposition of Greek letters Chi (X) and Rho (P)]
"there are only two instances of the occurance of a Christian symbol on a Romano-British structure, namely, (1) at Chedworth, where the Chi-Rho Monogram is carved twice upon a stone in the foundation of the steps leading into the corridor of a Roman villa there; and (2) at Frampton, Dorsetshire, where the same monogram forms part of the decoration of a mosaic pavement in one of the rooms of a Roman villa. As Roman-British Christianity produced no effect on the art of this country, we are not further concerned with it." (J. Romilly Allen, "Celtic Art in Pagan and Christian Times", p.162).
Perhaps more evidence has been discovered during the twentieth century, but unless you can show the evidence, and explain how we can leap from scratches on stone to fully-elaborated Welsh wheel crosses without any intermediary development, in the course of a single generation, you may safely rule out the fifth century entirely. And if you extend the net to include all the evidence from all of the continent, the beginning of Celtic Christian art as something more than the Chi-Rho and the sign of the cross, which is derived from the same monogram, does not appear in the iconography until after the beginning of the seventh century. You simply have no evidence to support your claim. Not a shred!
From the manuscripts, the artform begins to emerge halfway through the seventh century. Then the artwork appears on the carved monuments, following the development of the form through manuscript illumination. Your juxtaposition of St. Patrick and Insular art is misleading."
In a subsequent posting, now to a thread called "Electrum cross was Holy Kingdom/King Arthur" I replied to this with the following:
"On the subject of the origins of wheel crosses, I would dispute your claim that these evolved from the Chi-Rho symbol. I have just returned from the Holy Land and visited a number of churches, including St Peter's House at Capernaum on the shores of Galilee. This "House" which is really the remains of a church built on the presumed site of his house is octagonal in shape as is the original church of the ascension on the Mount of Olives. A similar wheel church was built by the Empress Helen on the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcre and this seems to have been the model for most Byzantine churches. The reason for this is very clear as invariably these "wheels" are orientated with four sides directed towards the four cardinal points, north,south,east and west. They therefore in a sense symbolise the rotating wheel of the zodiac as it turns around the fixed point at the centre of the church bringing with it the sun and giving us the order of time: days, months and years.
Such ideas were also prevalent in Wales long before the advent of Christianity and I would think in Ireland too given the evidence of such structures as New Grange. I don't know much about Ireland but in Wales at least it was the practice to worship God out of doors. The sun was considered to be his eye and it was considered to be disrespectful to hide from him indoors when carrying out religious cermonies. Hence in the early days they built sacred circles or "Cors" where the people could gather under the watchful eye of God and sing their praises. This is clearly a very ancient idea as can be seen from Stonehenge, Avebury and other monuments in Britain, all of them open to the sky. These monuments were, like the later churches of St Helen, aligned astrologically to significant positions of the rising and setting of the sun at the solstices. They are therefore wheels. Interestingly this idea was borrowed by the Arabs when they built the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem over the site where Abraham was said to have been stayed by an angel from slaying his son. The rock at the centre is called the "Kibleh" and it is considered to be the foundation stone of the world below which lies the abyss. It is here according to Jewish, Christian and Moslem traditions that the last judgement is meant to take place. You can see from this how powerful is the idea of the wheel and its still-point centre in the traditions of even the contemporary world.
The wheel crosses at Margam and at Llantwit Major we (Alan, Baram and myself) believe to date from the fifth to eighth centuries, that is to say to the period of Arthur II, his immediate forebears and his descendants. The great cross of Cynvelyn was raised either by or in the memory of Bishop Cynvelyn, who was a brother of King Meurig the father of King Arthur. It is quite rough and lopsided in construction but shows four squares joined to a central fifth and ringed by a halo. Standing at the foot of the cross are figures probably representing Mary, Joseph and the infant Jesus. How you link this to the Chi-Rho symbol I don't know. To me it is clearly representative of the cross of calvary standing at the still-point of time, the zodiac passing around it. In this way the symbolism derives from similar ideas to the wheel churches of Helen and also the Welsh "cors" or "Choirs" where Christians first gathered under the watchful eye of the sun and sang their praises to God."
Needless to say Mr Meehan was having nothing of this but was sticking to his Chi-Rho theory when he replied:
"The orientation of churches is beside the point. It has no bearing on the derivation of the Christian cross from the early Christian sign of the Chi-Rho. Just as the Cross evolved from the Chrismonogram, so did the early Welsh wheel cross. Note that the form of the Chrismonogram was often inscribed inside a circle. The Chrismonogram is based on the three axes of the hexagon. This is sometimes referred to as the three-dimensional cross. Two of thse three arms represent the terrestrial cross of orientation, such as is incorporated in many holy places. The third arm is the vertical axis around which the quartered, terrestrial plane revolves. I take this from "the symbolism of the Cross", by Rene Guenon. He points out that if the three-dimensional cross is rotated, the two arms of the subordinate cross may be construed as one, so that it becomes implied in the horizontal arm of the upright cross. Whether you follow this line or not, the fact remains that in the earliest Celtic illuminated manuscripts, as in the mid-sixth century Cathach of Columba, the Chrismonogram is portrayed in this form, an upright cross with a vestigial loop of the letter Rho attached to the top, right-hand serif of the vertical shaft. From there, the cross emerges as a sufficient short-hand for the Chi-Rho, as the form of the letter X is contained in the cross. Elsewhere, the cross alone becomes the dominant logo of the church. But in Britain and Ireland, the early form of the cross in a circle was retained for many centuries. In the earliest period, the chrismonogram in a circle and the cross in a circle, and the cross alone, may be found, sometimes all three in conjuction. I believe that, if you examine the record, you will agree with me that the evidence is conclusive that the Celtic cross is derived from the Chi-Rho monogram."
I have to confess that I didn't fully understand what he was on about here. It certainly didn't seem to bear much relationship to what I had thought was the origin of the Christian cross as a symbol, viz. the cross of calvary on which Jesus Christ was crucified!
He also dismissed my references to early church orientation at the time of St Helen (c.320 AD) or to earlier pre-Christian structures in Britain, such as Stonehenge, and their astrological symbolism saying:
"This is all irrelevant to the form of the Celtic cross. You may make a connection here, in your personal interpretation. But you have no basis to assert that the early Christians in Britain and Ireland worshipped the sun in the same way that you ascribe to the (presumed) priests of Stonehenge. There is simply no relationship whatever between them, except that they share the circle as an element in their construction."
He went on (quoting a source which I presume was Rene Guenon or J. Romilly Allen):
" The localities where Christianity was first planted in Britain are indicated archeologically by the geographical distribution of monuments bearing the Chi-Rho Monogram, which is as follows: Cornwall: St Just. St. Helen's Chapel. Phillack. Southhill. [Wales:] Carnarvonshire. Penmachno. [Scotland] Wigtownshire. Kirkmadrine. Whithorn.
‘As the Chi-Rho monigram does not appear on the early inscribed stones of Ireland, but in place of it the cross with equal arms expanded at the ends, enclosed in a circle, which is derived from the Monogram (f. See R. Allen's Christian Symbolism, p. 94. The Chi Rho Monogram occurs on inscribed monuments in Gaul between A.D. 377 and 493), it naturally follows that Irish Christianity is later than that of Cornwall, Wales. and the south-west of Scotland’.
Note Adrian, therefore, that any Celtic cross, as such, must be dated as later than the fifth century. The earliest, in the form of an engraved slab, must be dated to the late sixth century, and the appearance of free-standing, decorated crosses, later still.
The two figures under the wheel of the cross are two ecclesiastics, one holding a bell or a book, not a cruxifixion scene. Such scenes as you describe are *never* seen on Celtic crosses (the crucifixion scene in association with the cross was a late medieval development). The form of the cross is derived from the symbol of the cross inside a circle, which referrs back to the Chi-Rho, historically, as well attested as, say the symbol of the fish. By the way, the inscription of the cross is late medieval, and the form of the lettering is Irish. The knotwork is later than the fifth century. The form of the cross - the four squares filled with irregular plaitwork - is comparable to the eighth-century Book of Lichfield, possibly a Welsh illuminated manuscript. It's closest match is the Book of Lindisfarne, so close that the two manuscripts may have shared a common model. The knotwork has some simple knots proper, and some sloppy plaitwork. It may represent a late form, the knowledge of the construction having been forgotten. That is, the cross at Margam could be very late."
All this intellectual detective work, interesting as it was, remains quite at odds with what the Welsh histories have to tell us about the matter. It also bore no relationship at all to what is written in the Welsh histories concerning the Arthurian Dynasty. It remains a fact that only kings and their close relatives were allowed to raise memorial stones of this nature. Even a very casual examination of the lists of kings and their progeny reveals that Bishops and Saints: (people like Teilo, Dubricius, Samson and so on who are well-attested as Bishops), were not ordinary proletarians somehow elevated to become "Holy Men" but invariably members of the ruling dynasty. There is also a long tradition that prior to the Norman foundation of Margam (12th century), there was a smaller, earlier monastery founded on the same site by Morgan the brother of Caradoc Ffreichfras. Both were brothers of Queen Onbrawst, the mother of King Athrwys and wife of King Meurig. I pointed out to Mr Meehon that there was a known Bishop Cyvylyn or "Cunobelinus" who was the brother of the same King Meurig of Glamorgan and who would therefore have been an uncle of King Arthur II or Athrwys. I therefore wrote the following:
"As regards the Cynvelyn stone... You tell us a lot about the Chi-Rho monogram as the origin of wheel crosses and I can see how a case can be made for some of the other stones at Margam and elsewhere which have six spokes. However I am baffled why you say this about the Cynvelyn or Cyhylyn stone. It does not have six spokes but only four and these are arranged up-down (vertical) and left-right (horizontal but lopsided). This as far as I can see bears no relation at all to Chi-Rho symbolism. If that were so then I would expect the arms of the cross to be arranged in the form of an X with an added upright [I] giving a hexagonal disposition of spokes.
I also dispute your late dating based purely on what archaeologists read into styles and not firm evidence such as carbon dating. The Welsh of the Dark Ages didn't raise large memorial stones such as this for just anyone and therefore we would expect to find this man listed in the genealogies of the noble families. In fact in the genealogies given in a book entitled "The genealogies of the saints of the island of Britain" we find him listed as follows:
‘Saint Cyhylyn, the son of Tewdric, the son of Teithvalch, of the family of Bran, the son of Llyr. He was a bishop of London in the time of Cystennyn Llydaw’
This pinpoints him very accurately and I am sure that if I looked hard enough in other genealogies of Wales I would find the same thing repeated. As a son of Tewdric he would have been a brother of Meurig (whom we have already met on the Arthur stone as "Mauricius"). He was therefore the uncle of King Athrwys or Arthur II and he was a bishop of London. This explains why he has such an impressive memorial stone when he was buried in his homeland of Glamorgan. This also dates the stone to early 6th century. If you would dispute this date then you need to find another candidate in the genealogies called Cyhylyn or Cynvelyn (the names are different versions of the same) dating to the period you say the stone belongs. As we have said repeatedly in The Holy Kingdom the misdating by archaeologists of the surviving memorial stones of the Arthurian Dynasty is a scandal. Trying to do archaeology in Britain without researching the genealogies of the British kings, princes and saints is like doing mathematics without understanding the meaning of signs and numbers. Yes it's confusing, yes it is difficult but this is the only way that true answers to dating will be found, the Cyhylyn cross being a case in point."
These postings, I think, demonstrate clearly the two opposed viewpoints on British history that I spoke of at the start of this letter. On the one hand there is the academic approach which seeks to analyse history from what would be called a scientific approach (theories on the evolution of the cross as a symbol from the Chi-Rho monogram being a case in point) and the other firmly based in the recorded history of Britain as contained in countless archives, pedigrees and so-forth.
Copyright © 1999 Adrian G Gilbert