1

Extract from 'Arturius - A Quest For Camelot'

The Mystery Of King Arthur
There are possibly five reasons why Arthur has remained a mystery until the present time.
These are, one - the name Arthur.
Historians often claim that there are no historical records of Arthur, and that nothing has
been written down about him until centuries after his time.
This may be true, in the earlier historical documents no mention of Arthur is found.
However, the reason for this is simple. Arthur is a later development in the name Artur or
Arturius. The name Arthur you would not expect to find in the earliest records, because
the name did not exist in this form when the earliest records were written.
On the other hand mentions of Artur and Arturius are found in very early records indeed.
The spelling of Arthur with an h possibly did not develop before the 12th Century AD, so
when searching the earliest records for Arthur, you would look for and expect to find only
mentions of Artur or Arturius. Arturius is mentioned in the document of the 7th Century
AD known as Adomnans LIFE OF COLUMBA, where he states that Arturius was the son
of a King called Aidan, and that he died in battle against the Picts.
A similar development can be shown for the name Anthony. The earliest form of this
name is Antoninus, it then developed to Antony, and finally to Anthony when somewhere
in the course of time an h was added between the t and the o.
Regarding a search for a King Arthur.
This would prove impossible, because Arthur was not a king and was only called a king
from the 12th Century AD by Geoffrey of Monmouth in his false and fabled History of the
Kings of Britain. Records earlier than this refer to Arthur simply by his first name.
Regarding any connection between Arthur and Wales and Cornwall.
There is no historical evidence that Arthur was connected with these regions in even the
remotest way. The connection can only be traced back to the 12th Century AD, and again
to the fabled "History " of Geoffrey of Monmouth.
Even the earliest poems preserved in Wales, for example the "Gododdin" do not come
from Wales, they in fact come from the land we now call Scotland. The "Gododdin" tells
the story of an expedition by Celtic warriors from the region of Edinburgh in Scotland,
Arthur is mentioned in one line. So even the earliest poems do not connect Arthur with
Wales.
Regarding Arthur's time and place in history.
2

The fourth reason why the mystery of Arthur has persisted until the present day, is that
most researchers believe he lived either in the 5th Century AD or the first half of the 6th
Century AD, when in fact I believe we have sufficient evidence to prove he lived in the
second half of the 6th Century AD. The only record of a British leader called Arthur dying
in battle is recorded in the Annals of Ulster and the date given is 582 AD, the Battle of
Manann.
Another reason which causes confusion and distorts the concept of Arthur is that since the
12th Century AD, romantic writers have dressed Arthur in the trappings of the particular
time in which they were writing. Hence, Arthur would eventually become associated with
knights in armour, chivalry, mounted cavalry, and Norman type castles. Simply because
all these existed at the particular time in which the romantic writers were weaving their
tales of Arthur. The 6th Century AD reality was somewhat more grim, but nevertheless
the effect of the romanticised tales would mean that forever Arthur would be associated
with knights on horseback, castles and quests for the Holy Grail. None of which was true,
but all of which helped to obscure the true story of Arthur.
In the second half of the 6th Century AD, the ancient Britons inhabited the land all the
way from Cornwall up the Western half of England, and into Scotland as far as the River
Forth which flows past Stirling, and also up to the River Clyde on which the City of
Glasgow now stands. So the Western side of England and all Southern Scotland was
inhabited by the ancient Britons in the 6th Century AD. These ancient Britons shared a
common language, and common background, legends and mythology, so the legends of
Arthur could originate in any region where the Britons dwelt. Since we know that they
lived in Southern Scotland, there is as much reason to believe that the legends of Arthur
originated there as anywhere else in the British Isles. Indeed Scotland is the only area were
a reliable record of any Arthur of the 6th Century AD is to be found, there are none in
Wales or Cornwall.
By the time Geoffrey of Monmouth was writing Arthur into his fabled history in the 12th
Century AD the political picture had changed completely. The two countries we now
know as England and Scotland had come into existence. The island of Britain was by now
divided into two, the ancient Britons had for the most part been dispossessed. The only
areas still inhabited by the descendants of the ancient Britons in England by the time of
Geoffrey, were Wales and Cornwall. So naturally Geoffrey connected Arthur with these
two regions, and with these two regions he has mistakenly been connected with ever
since.
Arthur (Arturius) Son Of Aidan - King Of The Scots From 574 AD
There seems to be only one way to prove that the Legends of King Arthur were inspired
by a real historical figure, and that is to find someone who is identical to King Arthur in so
3

many respects, that it would be impossible or at least improbable, for it to be purely
coincidence.
I believe that historical figure to be Artur or Arturius, the son of Aidan, and a real 6th
century figure. He may never have been a king, he certainly was a warrior, and could
quite easily have been the 'Dux Bellorum' or Battle Leader of the united forces of the Scots
and Britons, who were definitely allies at this period, in the wars in the North against the
Saxons/Angles of Bernicia and the Picts, by virtue of the fact that his father Aidan was the
most powerful King in the North.
Judge for yourself. Artur son of Aidan is identical to the Arthur of Legend in the following
respects:
He has the correct name, Artur or Arturius, the 6th century version of the name Arthur.
He was the son of a most powerful king.
He was a christian (a valid point, when half the country was still pagan).
He lived at the correct period. (6th century.)
He was a contemporary and ally of the Northern King Urien, who was a real historical
figure and who is mentioned in the legends as an ally of Arthur.
He was an ally of the Kings of the Britons in the wars in the North against the
Saxons/Angles and the Picts.
He died in battle against the Picts. (Remember in legend Arthur's last battle was against
Modred, whose mother was the wife of Lot, king of the Picts.)
Artur or Arturius had a sister or half sister called Morgan, as did King Arthur of legend.
(Evidence which I was fortunate to find in the 8th cent. 'Martyrology of Oengus the
Culdee'.)
Against this Arthur, who is identical in so many respects to the Arthur of the Legends, that
I cannot believe it could possibly just be coincidence, is the Arthur of Cornwall, Wales and
the West Country of England, where no reliable, historical evidence has ever been found.
Why you may ask, after reading the evidence, has Arturius not been accepted as the
inspiration for the Legend of King Arthur? Perhaps the answer lies in the simple fact that
he was guilty of the unforgivable - being born a Scot, and therefore not Welsh or Cornish.
David F. Carroll
The Kingdom of Manann
4

The Kingdom of Manann stretched from the River Forth, which was its northern border,
southwards to Slamanann Sometimes its northern border pushed further north, as
Clackmanann which retains the name of the ancient kingdom, lies north of the River Forth.
Although an ancient British Kingdom, around the year 570 AD it was ruled by Aidan Mac
Gabran (the father of Arthur).
Immediately to the north of Manann were the Pictish tribe known as the Maetae or Miathi.
In the year 574 AD King Aidan was chosen by St. Columba to be king of the Scots of
Dalriada, on the remote West Coast of Scotland. Thus making Aidan as King of Scots and
Britons, the most powerful King of the North.
In 574 AD then, Aidan left Manann for Dalriada, although he would still be regarded also
as King of Manann. The vacuum left by his departure was, I believe, filled by his son
Arthur, not as a king, but as a leader in his father's absence.
By his departure Aidan earned himself the epithet, "Vradog" or "The Treacherous", which
was applied to him by the other British kingdoms in the region, and this resentment
would explain why his son Arthur who remained in Manann to fight the Pict and Saxon,
would be held in such high regard by the other British Kingdoms.
Arthur, according to another early source known as the "Nennius" manuscript, assumed
the role of "Dux Bellorum" or "Battle Leader" of the Britons. Arthur in fact died in battle
against the Miathi Picts in 582 AD, in battle which the Scots/Irish called the battle of
Manann, but which the Welsh and Britons called, the battle of Camallan.
Camelot
Within this Kingdom of Manann/Manau lay an imposing Roman fortress known to them
as 'Ad Vallum', but to which the names Camelot and Camelon later became attached. It is
still a protected site. The fort has gone but the name has passed to a nearby village, still
known to this day as Camelon, on the outskirts of Falkirk in Scotland.
Camelot was first mentioned by a French writer of the 12th century called Chrietien de
Troyes. The idea of Camelot as a fortress connected with Arthur can therefore be traced to
France and not Wales or England.
There are two possibilities:
Camelot was simply a non-existent figment of the writer's imagination
The notion of Camelot is based on a real fortress.
If it was a figment of the imagination, then that is the end of it, full stop. However, if we
consider the possibility that the idea of Camelot is based on a real fortress, then there is
5

only one serious contender - the old Roman fortress, "Ad Vallum", which lay on the
outskirts of Falkirk in Scotland, just some twelve miles or so from the battlefield, where,
according to the 7th century AD monk Adomnan, Arthur (Arturius) was killed while
fighting the Picts.
The name Camelot is believed to be derived from the word "Camulodonum", which was
the Roman name for Colchester, which lies several hundred miles away in the south of
England.
However, early historians of Scotland, without the knowledge that we have today,
mistakenly believed that the ruins of the Roman fortress "Ad Vallum" were in fact the
ruins of Camulodonum, and because of the closeness of France and Scotland, and the
influence the two countries exerted on one another, you may be certain that if the Scots
believed this fortress was Camulodonum, then the French did too.
Indeed, in the early 12th century, many French religious orders existed throughout
southern Scotland, and some of the Benedictine and Cistercian monks may well have been
responsible for carrying the tales of Arthur from Scotland to France.
"Ad Vallum" was situated in the region where Arthur (Arturius) fought and died. This is
historical fact, and despite claims to be the original Camelot by other sites in Britain - such
as the hill fort at Cadbury in England, the fortress "Ad Vallum" is the only site to which
the name Camelot became attached which can claim a connection with a 6th century AD
warrior called Arthur (Arturius), because of its proximity to the battlefield where he
fought and died in the Battle of the Miathi Picts.
However, there is no possible way to prove that Arthur actually used this fortress, and it
may simply be the case that the French writer, Chrietien de Troyes, when writing his
Arthurian romance, simply drew a connection between Arthur and the fortress "Ad
Vallum", which happened to be in the region where, according to the monk Adomnan,
Arthur (Arturius) died in battle.
In much the same way as a writer may, five hundred years from now, when writing a
romantic story of Lawrence of Arabia, draw a connection between Lawrence and
Damascus or Akabba, or some other place situated in the Middle East where Lawrence
operated during the First World War.
Remember that Chrietien de Troyes and the other legend makers were writing romances -
they were not too concerned with historical accuracy, and they almost certainly just took
the bare bones of historical stories, then added the "meat".
Thus a simple two line account of a battle between Arthur and the Picts could be
developed into a romance where Arthur becomes the father, or uncle, of Modred, who is
the son or otherwise of Lot, the king of the Picts, and so on, one story being added to
6

another over the centuries until eventually what was a two or three line mention of a battle
from the 6th century AD becomes part of a great legend.

The Roman Fortress 'Ad Vallum' also known as Camelot and Camelon
The drawing depicts the North Camp. There was also a South Camp, but no plan of its
foundations exist. Was 'Ad Vallum' the original Camelot? What we can say with
confidence is this:
It was a strategic fortress.
It was there at the time of Arthur.
It was in the kingdom connected with Arthur, that being Manann/Manau.
It would most certainly have been used by Arthur, son of Aidan.
It is the only place in the entire British Isles, known as Camelot, which can claim a genuine
connection with a 6th century warrior called Arthur.
If you go to the site of 'Ad Vallum' and stand on the rise overlooking the River Carron,
you can feel within yourself, as you look northwards to the land of the Picts, that this was
definitely the site of ancient Camelot.
The Irrefutable Historical Evidence Of The Existence Of Arthur
The Origin * Adomnan's "Life Of Columba" * The Annals of Tighernac * Legendary
Sources * Comparisons * Summary
Before examining the evidence, it is first necessary to consider the origin of the name
Arthur.
The Origin
The name Arthur is suggested by some to be derived from the Celtic "Artu" or "Artos", a
bear, or the Irish "art", a stone.
It is more probably of Latin origin.
There seems to have been a Roman gens named Artorius.
Tacitus mentions an Artoria Flacilla, and Juvenal an Artorius.
The Earliest Recorded Example in Britain - Arturius
7

The earliest recorded example of the name Arthur in British records occurs as Arturius in
Adomnan's "Life of Columba", written in the 7th century AD, where it is the name of a 6th
century prince of the Scots, Arturius, who was the son of Aidan. Aidan was a king of the
Scots from 574 AD.
Later Examples - Arthur, Artor, Artur, Artur(us)
Centuries later the name Arthur is spelled Artuir in the "Annals of Tighernac", compiled in
the 11th century from earlier records.
Artor and Artur are the names of tenants found in the Doomsday Book (1086 AD).
In the 13th century and thereafter, it is usually Artur(us), until the 16th century, when
Arthur and Arther are usual.
So there is clearly no need to search for obscure origins of the name Arthur, when there is
evidence of it in extant literature, dating from the 7th century AD and before.
Remember before going further, that there is no historical evidence to support the belief
that Arthur was a king. His fame may rest on the fact that he was the "Dux Bellorum", or
battle leader of the Britons and Scots.
In fact the Arthur you will find in the evidence here was in a position to be the "Dux
Bellorum" by virtue of the fact that his father was the most powerful king amongst the
Britons of the North, in what we now know as Scotland.
We know also from historical accounts that his father, King Aidan, was a great ally of the
Britons, and that he and his sons, including Arthur, led the Britons in the wars conducted
in the North against the Saxons and the Picts.
King Aidan almost certainly set himself up as the "Dux Brittanorum", or leader of the
Britons.

Adomnan's "Life Of Columba"
The earliest reliable evidence of the existence of Arthur (Arturius) is found in a 7th century
AD manuscript, known as the 'Vita Columba', written on the remote island of Iona on the
west coast of Scotland by a monk called Adomnan.
Today the oldest surviving copy, a photograph of which is shown below, can be found in
the archives of the town library of Schauffhausen, Switzerland. This document was copied
from the original and taken to mainland Europe in the early 8th century, centuries before
Geoffrey of Monmouth linked Arthur with Cornwall and England.
8

The manuscript clearly states Arthur (Arturius) was the son of king Aidan and tells of
Arthur's last battle against the Picts (Maithi). There can be no doubt that Arturius was the
inspiration for the legendary Arthur since the two figures are identical.
The 'Vita Columba' was written in the 7th century and is older than any other account of
Arthur to be found in England or Wales. It is at least a century earlier than the famous
Welsh 'Nennius' manuscript, which mentions Arthur, but fails to say who he was.
So the 'Vita Columba' from Scotland is clearly the oldest manuscript in the world which
mentions Arthur and the only historical account which actually identifies him - as the son
of king Aidan. Aidan was a king of the Scots from 574 A.D.
It seems clear that Arthur only entered Cornish and therefore English legend through the
12th cent. tales of Geoffrey of Monmouth. It is no surprise that Arthur entered Welsh
legend since Arturius and his father Aidan were at the head of a coalition of British
(Welsh) kings who fought the Saxons (Angles) of Bernicia (Northumbria) and the Picts.
The Britons (Welsh) in the 6th century inhabited most of what we now call Southern
Scotland.
The earliest historical account of Arthur in the world - the Vita Columba in
Schauffhausen, Switzerland.
It is centuries older than the legendary accounts of England and Wales.
Adomnan's work was an attempt to prove his predecessor Columba was a saint. However,
throughout the work, he mentioned historical figures of the 6th century AD.
It is in this account by Adomnan that we find the first reliable mention of Arthur
(Arturius), son of Aidan, king of Dalriada (Argyll), which lay on the west coast of
Scotland, and of his death in battle at the hand of the Miathi Picts, who inhabited the
Ochill Hills on the north bank of the River Forth in Scotland. Their name is retained in the
hill called "Dumyat", meaning "fort of the Miathi".
Adomnan's manuscript is an almost contemporary account, written as it was just one
hundred years after the death of Arthur. It predates any evidence anywhere else in the
British Isles. Furthermore, it is accepted beyond doubt by historians as genuine.
Why then you may ask has it not been considered as evidence before? The answer is
simply that researchers have, while searching for Arthur in Wales and Cornwall,
neglected, or refused to consider that Arthur - if he existed - could possibly have been
anything other than an ancient Briton.
The evidence of Adomnan proves that he was in fact a Prince, son of Aidan, King of the
Scots, who, though not a Briton, did in fact fight on the side of the Britons against the Picts
and Saxons.
9

The following is an extract from Adomnan's "Life of Columba".
A prophecy of Saint Columba regarding King Aidan's sons.
At another time, before the above-mentioned battle, the saint questioned king Aidan about
a successor to the kingdom. When he answered that he did not know which of his three
sons should reign, Arthur, or Echoid Find, or Domingart, the saint then spoke in this
manner: "None of these three will be king; for they will fall in battles, slain by enemies. But
now, if you have others that are younger, let them come to me, and the one whom the
Lord has chosen from among them to be king will run at once to my knee".
They were called, according to the saint's word; and when Echoid Buide came in, he
leaned on Columba's bosom. Immediately the saint kissed and blessed him, and said to the
father: "This is the survivor, and he will reign after you as king; and his sons will reign
after him".
All these things were completely fulfilled afterwards, in their time. For Arthur and Echoid
Find were slain a little while later, in the battle of the Miathi mentioned above. Domingart
was killed in a rout of battle in Northumbria. And Echoid Buide succeeded to the kingdom
after his father.
Adomnan gives no date for the death of Arthur in the battle of the Miathi. However, "The
Annals of Ulster", reliable Irish annals which fortunately record the early history of the
Scots, record the battle of Manann for the year 582 AD.
This could quite possibly be the same battle as the battle of the Miathi mentioned in
Adomnan's account, because the Miathi Picts lived in the Ochill Hills, directly opposite
Manann, which lay across the River Forth.
Manann was also the name for the Isle of Man, and this has led some to believe that the
battle of Manann was actually fought there.
Whatever the actual date of the battle, the important point is that we have a reference to
Arthur, son of Aidan.
Arthur son of Aidan was not a king. However, Arthur of legend was not called a king by
anyone until the 12th century AD, when a cleric called Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote a
false and fabled account called "The History of the Kings of Britain", in which he called
Arthur a king, placing him in the first half of the 6th century AD in an attempt to fill a void
in known history. Before the 12th Century, then, Arthur was never referred to as a king.

The Annals of Tighernac
10

The second source of historical evidence which mentions Arthur, son of Aidan, is the
"Annals of Tighernac", where his name is spelt "Artuir". These Annals were copied from
earlier sources in the 11th century AD by an Irish monk called Tigernac.
As the Scots had migrated from Ireland to what we now call Scotland, their early history
was recorded by the Irish/Scottish monks. Therefore, when Aidan became king of the
Scots in the year 574 AD, many accounts of him - and by association his sons, including
Arthur - were recorded by these monks.
In the extract from the Annals for the year 596 AD (reproduced below), note the mention
of Arthur (Artuir). Whether or not Arthur really died at this date is of secondary
importance. What is of paramount importance is that we have further evidence of the
existence of Arthur, son of Aidan.
596 K. vi. [594] Cath Ratha in druadh cath Ardsendoim. Jugulacio filiorum Aedan, .i Bran
Domangort, Eochach find Artuir i cath Chirchind in quo victus est Aedhan cath Coraind.
Translation: "Death of the sons of Aidan. Bran, Domingart, Eochach find, Arthur at the
battle of Chirchind, in which Aidan was victorious".
Both "The Annals of Tighernac" and "The Life Of Columba" are historical sources, as
opposed to legendary sources, which mention Arthur, and one corroborates the other.
Both call Arthur the son of Aidan, and the fact that they are reliable historical sources
separates them from the unreliable legends, myths and poems which abound in Wales and
Cornwall, and which have previously been quoted as evidence of Arthur.
Despite having found no trace of historical evidence to support the belief that Arthur was
connected with Wales or Cornwall, researchers have continued to look there for evidence.
The only reliable historical sources are those mentioned here, and both call Arthur the son
of Aidan. Aidan was crowned king of the Scots in 574 AD, and he and his sons, including
Arthur, fought on the side of the Britons against the Picts and Saxons. So Arthur was
connected with what we now call Scotland, and never with Wales or Cornwall.
Some writers have suggested in recent years that Arthur came from the land we know as
Scotland. However, they invariably claim that he was a Briton, or sometimes a
Strathclyde-Cumbrian (Ancient Britons who inhabited north-west England and south-
west Scotland).
There is however no historical evidence to support this belief. Their assumptions are based
entirely on the unreliable legendary accounts from Wales. They also use the date given for
the death of Arthur and Medraut in the Annals of Wales, that being 539 AD.
11

This account is again unreliable and has almost certainly been inserted in the Annals of
Wales centuries after the time of Arthur. The spelling of the name Arthur with an "h"
would suggest this.
As previously stated, the only reliable historical accounts of Arthur are those in
Adomnan's "Life Of Columba" and "The Annals of Tighernac".
The Origin * Adomnan's "Life Of Columba" * The Annals of Tighernac * Legendary
Sources * Comparisons * Summary

Legendary Sources (as opposed to historical sources)
The two most important legendary sources which mention Arthur are "The Goddodin"
and "The Annals of Wales".
The Goddodin
A poem preserved in Welsh literature, but which originates in the land we now call
Scotland, which tells of an expedition by the "Goddodin" - a British people who lived on
the south bank of the River Forth - against the Angles/Saxons.
It supposedly dates from the early 7th century AD. Arthur is mentioned in one line of the
poem, however it is quite possible that his name was added to the poem after he had
become a legend. The spelling of the name with a "h" suggests that it may have been a
later addition.
Whatever the case may be, a poem cannot be accepted as historical evidence, although it is
interesting to note that Arthur is connected here with the Goddodin who came from what
we now call Scotland, and who lived not in Wales or Cornwall, but in fact lived on the
south bank of the River Forth, around the modern day towns of Stirling and Falkirk, the
very region where Adomnan in his "Life of Columba" stated that Arturius died in battle
against the Miathi Picts who lived on the north bank of the River Forth, opposite the
modern day town of Stirling.
The Annals of Wales
These Annals were composed centuries after the time of Arthur, and were compiled from
other, earlier sources.
A great deal of these Annals seem to have been copied from Irish Annals.
A battle between Arthur and Medraut (Modred) is recorded for the year 539 AD.
12

It is almost certain that this entry was made after Arthur had already become a legendary
figure, and the spelling of the name with an "h" would again suggest this, as we know the
evidence from the earliest reliable sources spells the name without an "h". So it is
reasonable to believe that this is a very late and unreliable entry indeed.
Even if the entry was genuine, the fact that Arthur appears in the "Annals of Wales' does
not suggest that he was Welsh - in fact many of the people mentioned in the Annals at this
period are definitely not Welsh.
Here we find Columba, Saint of the Scots, Bridget, Saint of the Irish, and Aidan, King of
the Scots.
However, an appearance in the Annals of Wales does not mean that they are in fact Welsh.
Far from it. These Annals are for the most part copies of earlier Irish Annals, and in any
case the entry for Arthur cannot be regarded as historically accurate.
Also, unlike the 'Annals of Tighernac' and Adomnan's 'Life of Columba', which tell us who
Arthur's father was, so we can be certain of his place in history, the 'Annals of Wales'
simply record a battle between Arthur and Medraut, resulting in their deaths, but no
mention of their pedigree.
In addition to these two legendary sources, there are countless myths and poems which
abound in Wales and elsewhere. None can be regarded as evidence as they almost
certainly all originate after the 12th century AD, and Geoffrey of Monmouth's "History of
the Kings of Britain" - which established the "Legend of King Arthur" throughout western
Europe and the British Isles.
Before Geoffrey's account, Arthur was not called a king. In fact there are no references to a
King Arthur in historical records - only references to a Prince Arthur - that is Arthur the
son of Aidan, King of the Scots of Dalriada.

Comparisons
How can we be certain that Arthur (Arturius) of history is the Arthur who inspired the
"Legends of King Arthur?"
There is only one way to prove that they are one and the same, and that is by comparing
one with the other to see if they are identical in any respect, because there is no point
searching for an account of the legendary Arthur in historical records, simply because he
was not a legend at the time when they were written - the man became a legend only after
many centuries had elapsed.
13

So, in a genuine account from the 7th century AD, you will only find the briefest reference
to a warrior called Arthur (Arturius).
On the other hand, legendary accounts written centuries after the man's death will go into
great detail regarding his battles and conquests, and elaborate even to the point where
they can almost tell you the colour of his hair. So except where you can find the few
references to real contemporary historical figures in the legends, as evidence they are
worthless.
How do Arthur (Arturius) of history, and Arthur of legend compare?
Firstly, both had sisters called Morgan (Le Fey).
By what can only be described as a stroke of good fortune, while researching a translation
of an 8th century AD manuscript, "The Martyrology of Oengus the Culdee", I found a
reference to Morgan, daughter of King Aidan, the sister or half-sister of Arthur (Arturius).
Secondly, both were leaders of the Britons.
We know from historical documents such as the "Annals of Ulster" and other records that
Aidan, the father of Arthur (Arturius). almost certainly set himself up as the "Dux
Brittanorum", or leader of the Britons of the North, and that his armies led by his sons,
including Arthur, fought on the side of the Britons against the Picts and Saxons.
Thirdly, both died in battle against a Pictish foe.
In legend, Modred or Medraut was the son or supposed son of Lot, King of the Picts, and
therefore there was definitely a Pictish connection.
In history Arthur (Arturius) died in battle against the Miathi Picts. (Incidentally the Picts
only lived in what we now call Scotland, so the last battle of Arthur, if real, would
definitely have been fought in Scotland).
Also to be considered are the facts that:
This Arthur (Arturius) is the only Arthur found in a genuine historical account of the 7th
century AD.
This Arthur (Arturius) is the only Arthur who died in battle against the Picts.
This Arthur (Arturius) is the only Arthur who died while leading and fighting on the side
of the Britons.
To return to the first point of comparison, however, it is almost impossible to emphasise
the importance of finding that Arthur (Arturius) had a sister called Morgan ("The
Martyrology of Oengus the Culdee").
14

Finding a genuine reference to a genuine Arthur is difficult enough, and to find another
with a sister called Morgan, I believe would be impossible. If there was no other evidence
than this, I believe it would be enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Arthur of
legend and Arthur (Arturius) of history are one and the same.

Summary
So to sum up:
Proof of Arthur (Arturius) is found in two sources, one corroborating the other:
Adomnan's "Life Of Columba"
The Annals of Tighernac
Proof of Arthur's last battle and death while leading the Britons is found in:
Adomnan's "Life Of Columba", "The Battle of the Miathi Picts".
Proof that King Aidan and his sons, including Arthur, were allies of the Britons is found
in:
The Annals of Ulster
The Annals of Tighernac
Proof that Arthur (Arturius) had a sister called Morgan is found in:
The Martyrology of Oengus the Culdee
The Battle Of Camlann
According to legend, Arthur's last battle was fought against Modred, the son of Lot the
King of the Picts. Modred was therefore a Pict. According to the Annals of Wales, this
battle involving Arthur and Modred was fought in the year 539 AD, while according to the
Norman-Welsh Cleric Geoffrey of Monmouth it was fought in 542 AD.
In fact in reality the only battle in historical records fought between Arthur and the Britons
on one side and the Picts on the other was fought by Arthur son of Aidan. There is no
other.
The Annals of Ulster record it as the battle of Manann fought in 582 AD. Adomnan writing
100 years later calls it the battle of the Miathi (the name of the Pictish tribe involved).
Legend called it the battle of Camlann.
15

Despite the difference in names, these are all one and the same battle. The full name for the
legendary version should be the battle of Camallan, which means the crooked Allan. The
battle fought by Arthur and the Picts was fought somewhere near the river Allan and this
would account for the legendary name Camallan or "Crooked Allan". The word "Cam"
meant crooked.
Adomnan, the 7th century AD monk who wrote the "Life of Columba", described how
Arthur (Arturius) died in battle against the Miathi Picts. Adomnan however did not give a
date for the battle.
The "Annals of Ulster" record a battle of Manann in the year 582AD, and describe it as a
victory for Aidan, the father of Arthur (Arturius). Manann was a kingdom which lay on
the south bank of the River Forth, directly opposite the Ochill Hills. These hills were
inhabited by the Miathi Picts.
The "Annals of Tighernac" however, describe Arthur's death at the battle of Circenn in 596
AD, also against the Picts. Whichever date is correct does not really matter - the most
important thing is that we have evidence of Arthur from two separate historical sources:
Adomnan's "Life of Columba" - 7th century AD.
The "Annals of Tighernac" - 11th century, but copied from earlier contemporary accounts.
Arthur and the Britons of Manann (the Gododdin) fought this battle against the Picts. The
Picts later marked the site with a large stone to commemorate the battle. Long after Arthur
and the Britons had been forgotten, later historians understandably credited the battle site
to King Kenneth Mac Alpine, a 9th century AD king of the Scots.
There is however no evidence to support the belief that Kenneth Mac Alpine ever fought
here. On the other hand there is indisputable historical evidence, contained within
Adomnan's 'Life of Columba' to suggest that it was actually the site where Arthur and the
Britons fought the Picts, in the last fatal battle of Camlann.

1. Site of Roman Fortress at Camelon/Camelot near Falkirk.
2. Invalone (Avalon).
3. Pictish stone marking probable site of Battle of Manann (Battle of Camlann) NN.
4. Dumyat - Fort of the Miathi / Maetae Picts.
5. Round Table (Kings Knot) at Stirling.

16

Perhaps the best way to prove that the Battle of the Miathi and the Battle of Camlaan are
one and the same is to pretend that you are living in the future, five hundred years from
now.
Imagine that almost all historical records have been lost or destroyed, perhaps as a result
of a nuclear conflict, or some other such catastrophe. You have heard tales of a legendary
battle which supposedly occurred several hundred years earlier, fought between the
English and the French, which resulted in the death of the leader of the English, a warrior
with the unusual name, Nelson.
As you research fragments of historical records still extant, you come across an account of
a battle where the opponents are English on one side, and French on the other, and the
battle resulted in the death of the leader of the English, a warrior called Nelson.
You would of course have come across an account of the Battle of Trafalgar. Not only a
real battle, but the only one in history where the English and French fought, and the
English leader called Nelson was killed.
Because of the fact that the leader Nelson died in this battle, there could not possibly be
another.
Do you suppose if you searched for another fifty years you would find another battle
where the opponents and result were the same? Of course you wouldn't - in fact we know
from history that there is no other such battle.
The position is exactly the same when searching for an account of the legendary Battle of
Camlaan, where the opponents are Britons on one side, Picts on the other, and the end
result is the death of a leader called Arthur.
When you search through the extant historical evidence and find an account in Adomnan's
"Life of Columba" where he describes a battle in which the opponents are Britons on one
side, Picts on the other, and the result is the death of a leader called Arthur (Arturius), you
know that this battle - which he calls the "Battle of the Miathi" - and the legendary Battle of
Camlaan are one and the same.
As with the Battle of Trafalgar, if you search another fifty years, do you suppose you will
find any other?
The name Arthur (Arturius) is found very rarely in historical records. In fact the only one
found in a genuine historical record of the 7th century AD is Arthur the son of Aidan,
King of Dalriada. Arthur the leader is every bit as rare as Nelson is.
When we find then that this same Arthur fought and died in a battle where the opponents
were Britons and Picts, we can be certain that the historical "Battle of the Miathi" can be
identified with the legendary "Battle of Camlaan".
17

Many people still believe that Arthur - if he existed - was connected with Wales and
Cornwall, although no historical evidence has been found in these two regions - have you
ever wondered why? Due to the lack of evidence from these two regions, Arthur has come
to be regarded as a mythical figure, yet the evidence has always been available in the Irish
and Scottish records, where Arthur is not a figure of mythology, but a real historical
character.
Morgan Le Fey
For the first time ever, the author has found evidence that Morgan, Arthur's sister in
legend, actually existed.
This evidence is contained in a manuscript of the 8th century AD known as 'The
Martyrology of Oengus the Culdee', which states that King Aidan (Arthur's father) had a
daughter called Morgan, who was therefore the sister of Arthur.
For the complete story, buy or order your copy of 'Arturius - A Quest for Camelot' by D.F.
Carroll, which reveals the truth behind the legend of King Arthur.

The Legend of King Arthur - Mystery Solved
There are two sources of evidence from the 7th century AD, which both mention Arthur
and connect him with a Kingdom known as Manann or Manau.
The first source of evidence is a poem which has been preserved in Wales but which
originates in the land we know now as Scotland. This poem 'The Gododdin' mentions
Arthur in one line. The Gododdin were ancient Britons who inhabited the Kingdom of
Manann/Manau. We have therefore a connection between Arthur and the Gododdin and
also with the Kingdom of Manann/Manau, which lay on the south bank of the River
Forth, in what we now call Scotland.
This connection is important because the only Arthur mentioned in a reliable historical
document of the 7th century AD fought and died in this same kingdom of
Manann/Manau.
The second source contains the evidence of the battle which resulted in the death of
Arthur. It is a manuscript from the 7th century AD known as Adomnan's 'Life of
Columba'.
This is perhaps the most important source, because we know without doubt that it is
genuine. Adomnan was a monk who wrote a 'Life of Columba' with the intention of
proving that Columba was a saint, however throughout his manuscript he mentioned real
people and events of the 6th century AD.
18

He states quite clearly that Arturius (the early Latin version of the name Arthur) died in
battle against the Miathi Picts. These Picts lived in a region which bordered on
Manann/Manau.
So here we have the earliest evidence of Arthur, and both connect him with the Gododdin
and with the Kingdom of Manann/Manau, which lay many miles distant from Cornwall
and Wales, both of which claimed connections with Arthur, and both as we can prove,
without justification.