On the 'pen kawell' in Line 6 of the MARWNAT VTHYR PEN: Why this provides us with the first certain identification of Arthur

Cunorix son of Maquicoline memorial stone

It is indeed frustrating and disappointing that rival Arthurian theorists (whether legitimate or not) have either remained steadfast in their refusal to read my recent certain identification of King Arthur or, if they have bothered to peruse it, reject it out of hand because it threatens their own precious theses.  I have begun to wonder just exactly what it is one must do to have someone, somewhere acknowledge what is clearly an important finding.  Instead, as soon as I introduced my conclusion regarding the historical identity of Arthur, I was met with the usual barrage of ridicule, disdain, invalid counter-arguments, quackery, terse, inane statements, maligning of my methodology (with special reference to the great rapport I've managed to establish with leading scholars around the world), troll behavior and intense personal attacks (up to and including character assassination).  One party was so vitriolic in their opposition to my theory that I was forced to cut ties with them completely and permanently. 

Part of the problem, I suppose, is that beneath the "heavy" research and data I provided in my most recent study, the solution to the problem of Arthur's historicity proved to be deceptively simple.  I had always suspected that we need only, once and for all, determine the identity of Arthur's father, Uther Pendragon, the Terrible Chief-warrior. I had worked tirelessly on the matter for many years, following many a false trail to numerous deadends.  My biggest error was subscribing to the commonly held view among top Welsh scholars that many words or passages found in the Uther elegy poem required emendation.  In one of these cases, they were right, although no one had thought to see the word kawyl as kanwyl, i.e. cannwyll, an early Welsh word for candle that could also, figuratively, mean 'star.'  With Uther referring to himself as a candle - or star! - in the gloom, we had a portion of a line that undoubtedly provided Geoffrey of Monmouth with his dragon-star.  

But, on occasion, less is more.  Such was the case with kawell. I had tried to make my case for kawell being for kafell, 'sanctuary', as both W. kawell, 'basket', and kafell had come from the same Latin word.  But if taken literally, kawell meant just that - basket.  Welsh grammar rules prohibited me from seeing pen kawell as a place-name. We were looking at a line that read thusly - and seemingly nonsensically:

'Our Lord transforms me, the Chief Basket'

At my wit's end to make head or tails of this line, I went back to my earlier work on the great Cunedda as a possible prototype for Uther Pendragon.  I had long ago determined that Cunedda, actually an Irishman with a byname of Maqui Cuilinn, was the Gewissei ruler Ceawlin whose name is found on the Cunorix tombstone at Wroxeter.  [Cunorix being the Cynric of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.] On a whim - one born of desperation - I decided to look up ceawl in Bosworth and Toller's ANGLO-SAXON DICTIONARY.

And what did I find for ceawl?

ceawl

Noun [ masculine ]

ceawl, ceaul

a basket; cophinus,

[Variants cewl, cawl, ceol, ceaol, ceaul, ceowl.]

In other words, when Uther says he is transformed by God into the Chief Basket, we are looking at a Welsh translation of ceawl, the first part of Ceawlin's name!

We, therefore, appear to have some 'ciphers' in the Uther elegy.  Both gorlassar, 'the very blue', and kawell point to the Ciannachtan chieftain Ceawlin, i.e. Cunedda, as Arthur's father [The Irish personal name Cian, which yields the tribal name Ciannachta, was fancifully associated with the Classical word cyan, often spelled cian in Latin sources].  And that would mean, of course, that Arthur is Cerdic of Wessex after all.  I had made a case for Arthur as Cerdic in the past, but had been unable to connect Uther to Cunedda.

My exhaustive treatment of the Arthur name as a decknamen for an Irish or Welsh 'bear-king' name would be correct.  The original would have derived from the divine bear river in Cerdic's/Ceredig's Kingdom of Ceredigion, the Afon Arth.  The appearance of three Arto- names in Ceredig's royal line further suggest that an arth name or title may have belonged to him.  Lastly, there is the apparent oblique mention of Arthur as the crippled boy, son of Elafius, which I have shown to be an attempt by the St. Germanus hagiographer to interpret Arthur's name according to the usual fanciful etymological process.  The Math son of Mathonwy of Caer Dathal (= Dinas Emrys) appears to have a bear name derived from the Irish.  Arthur is twice brought into connection with Caer Dathal.  Eliwlad and Madog, grandson and son of Uther, respectively, can be shown to belong to Nantlle not far from Dinas Emrys.  Finally, the Arthurian battle list accords well with Gewissei battles as they are found listed in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. 

Arthur was an Irish or Hiberno-British mercenary (or 'federate') who was fighting for the Welsh high king based at Wroxeter against his English enemies to the south.  He was NOT in alliance with the Saxons, as has been thought in the past.  For details on this revised view of Cerdic of Wessex, see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/11/why-gewissei-may-have-been-on-right.html.

For those who wish to review my case for Cunedda as an Irishman and not a Britain from Manau Goddodin, I recommend my book THE BEAR KING, which I have made available again in both ebook and print formats:

https://www.amazon.com/Bear-King-Arthur-Southern-England/dp/B09KN4FZPH

Or they may consult a blog piece I wrote on the subject, to be found here:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2022/01/the-propaganda-of-cunedda-as-romanized.html

I will continue, now and then, to "put my stuff out there" in the hope that, eventually, people will come to recognize it for what it is: the first truly credible identification of Arthur.  Note that I never dared claim this kind of thing before.  But I now feel confident in issuing such a pronouncement.  

If the majority of the members of the so-called "Arthurian Community" can find their way to an objective assessement of the case I have made, and prove capable of detaching even momemtarily from their own preconceived beliefs and defended-to-the-death dogma, I feel they may see the value in my contribution to Arthurian studies.  But egos in the field are huge, and the armor encasing them are in the main wholly impenetrable.  

Who knows, though?  Some may come to agree with me because the evidence available to us, as I have presented it, seems incontrovertible.  

Miracles can happen!