Owain Ddantgwyn

[OcTavO]

Hello all. I am new to this newsgroup. I have recently read a book called
'King Arthur - the true story' by Graham Phillips and Martin Keatman.
Normally I would take any attempt to historicize (sp?) the legend with a
pinch of salt but this book has made me think again. The theory is probably
old news to any of you here who have been interested in Arthurian History
for longer than I and if that is the case then I apologise.

The book presents the character behind the real Arthur as a Votadini warrior
called Owain Ddantgwyn 'the bear'. He was the son of one 'terrible head
dragon' (uthyr pendragon) Enniaun Girt (the king of Gwynedd) and was
probably born around the year 460. Owain proved himself in battle against
the invading anglo-saxon forces and was given command of the britons forces
in the east of England by the then high king Ambrosius. Upon the death of
Ambrosius in the year 488 Owain succeeded him as the king of Powys and held
his seat of power for some time at the rebuilt roman fortification of
Viroconium. In 493 Owain dealt a major blow to the advancing saxon forces at
the battle of badon, fought on little solsbury hill near the city of Bath.
He was probably killed in an uprising by his nephew Maglocunus at the battle
of Camlan in wales in 519. Maglocunus then became king of Gwynedd and
britain was split by a civil war.

The book presents a scholarly study and convincing amount of evidence to
back up it's claims. I however am nothing but an armchair historian and I
was wondering if anyone here who is better read on this era than I has
anything to say about the claims made by this work?

Looking forward to your responses.
Craig
England

[Garry Gabbitas]

I have also read this book and find the theories interesting. However,
Mallory has a character "Uwain le Blachemain", son of King Urien of Gore, in
Arthur's court. My French isn't very good, and my Welsh even worse, but I
believe Ddantgwyn means "white tooth", whereas Blanchemain is "white hand".
I don't know what the Welsh for "hand" is, but it could be that over the
centuries Owain Whitetooth in history became Uwain Whitehand in Mallory.
Ideas anyone?
OcTavO wrote in message <7fchpc$bon$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...

[HMontg3765]

I reckon that this book is probably the best presented and readable book on the
'historical' Arthur that I have read and I have read dozens. What I
particularly like about it is the way the authors work systematically through
the evidence and then present a summary of each chapter.

I would very much like to agree with them, if only because of the pleasure
reading this book gave me, unfortunately I must admit to severe doubts. In
'Journey to Avalon' by Barber & Pykitt (A book which I find enormously
difficult to read and therefore to take seriously) these authors give their own
theory on Arthur. A brief resume is given at the back of several books which
present alternative views including that of Keatman and Phillips.

Keatman & Phillips make out that Owain (Arthur?) was King of Gwynedd & Powys, a
very powerful kingdom indeed; Barber & Pykitt, using Welsh genealogies which I
am not at all qualified to comment on, consider that Owain was in fact King of
Rhos, a puny and insignificant kingdom, giving in his place the names of the
actual kings of Powys and Gwynedd and that therefore the equation of Owain
Ddantgwyn = Arthur fails. A great pity (provided the information from the
genealogies is in fact correct)

Jim

[PFJTurner]

The book’s authors make a clever interpretation of the “Dream of Rhonabwy”
story, one of several Arthurian stories in the collection of early Welsh tales
called the Mabinogion. (“Dream of Rhonabwy” is my favorite Mabinogion tale,
probably because of its surrealistic tone, which seems very “modern.” It also
shows a disregard for conventional notions of chronology that reminds me of
_Pulp Fiction_.) The tale is highly critical of the state of Wales in the time
in which it was written (circa A.D. 1200); the leaders and warriors of Wales
are said to be puny compared to their ancestors of Arthur’s time.

The high point of “Dream of Rhonabwy” occurs when Arthur and Owein of Rheged
(the modern Cumbria) play a board game - essentially a Celtic form of chess.
Owein was the son of Urien, King of Rheged/Cumbria, and a much celebrated
warrior in early Welsh poetry for his many victories over the Anglo-Saxons of
northern England in the late Sixth Century - about two generations after
Arthur’s time. He thus is a “second Arthur” - another great and victorious
Briton warlord. While Owein and Arthur play their game, their warbands fight
each other, for no apparent reason.

At first, Arthur’s warband is winning, and Arthur ignores Owein’s requests that
he stop the fighting. Then the situation is reversed, and Owein ignores
Arthur’s requests. (Owein’s warband, by the way, are referred to as “ravens” -
probably after their flag emblem.) The two leaders finally agree to halt the
fighting, but by then both warbands are so depleted that they have to call off
the Battle of Badon Hill.

“Dream of Rhonabwy” is obviously a warning against fraternal warfare. Unless
the Welsh princes can put aside their petty rivalries, then Welsh will never
again enjoy a great victory like that of Badon Hill.

Phillips and Keatman have correctly seen “Dream of Rhonabwy” as a criticism of
Welsh civil wars, but they read too much into it. First, they claim that the
Owein of the story is not Owein of Rheged (as stated in the story), but really
another Owein who ruled Viroconium (modern Wroxeter) in Arthur’s time. They
also claim that the symbolism of the story is to show Arthur fighting against
himself, and therefore that Arthur is really Owein of Viroconium.

The only real evidence in support of reading this much into the “Dream of
Rhonabwy” is the fact that Viroconium did undergo major new construction on the
middle of the Fifth Century. However, the town and its “construction boom” are
better connected to Vortigern, who ruled much of Britannia before Arthur’s time
and who is elsewhere strongly associated with the region (Civitas Cornoviorum)
for which Viroconium served as political center.

Phillips and Keatman subscribe to what I call the “Superman school of thought”:
the notion that somehow Arthur had a secret identity. On the internet, the
current rage is that Arthur is really Cerdic, the founder of the Anglo-Saxon
kingdom of Wessex (later ruled by Alfred the Great). The only evidence for
this internet theory is that “Cerdic” is an Anglo-Saxon form of the Briton name
“Ceredig.” Since “Cerdic” is a Briton name, Cerdic himself must be Arthur,
says this theory. These theories seem to emerge and enjoy a brief popularity
from time to time.

The major flaw with this whole approach is that it tells us nothing about the
man Arthur and his struggles. Efforts to find some alter ego for Arthur ignore
the historical background in which he lived.

I prefer to look at Arthur in the full context of the times in which he lived.
That background provides a less gimmicky - but (I believe) more historically
sound basis for reconstructing the truth about the man and his times.

-PFJT
The REAL King Arthur, A History of Post-Roman Britannia, A.D. 410 - A.D. 593
http://members.aol.com/PFJTurner/SKS.html

[Eramon1]

pfjturner wrote:

>
>Phillips and Keatman have correctly seen “Dream of Rhonabwy” as a criticism
>of
>Welsh civil wars, but they read too much into it. First, they claim that the
>Owein of the story is not Owein of Rheged (as stated in the story), but
>really
>another Owein who ruled Viroconium (modern Wroxeter) in Arthur’s time. They
>also claim that the symbolism of the story is to show Arthur fighting against
>himself, and therefore that Arthur is really Owein of Viroconium

It's simply an opinion. They could just as easily have used the story to
support the theory (that I first read in The Figure of Arthur by Barber) that
Arthur was a Northern hero of the later 6th century.

-Eric Ramon
Portland, Oregon