Contemporary claims

Modern revivals of the claims

In a press release of 28 August 2002, the “experts in ancient British history”, Alan Wilson and Baram A Blackett, announced that they had discovered “proof of Prince Madoc in America circa 560”. The first thing to notice is that they have pushed the twelfth-century Madoc back into the sixth century. According to Wilson, conventional historians “often give a false date of 1170 and this legend has replaced the facts. At the moment, there is a small group of wreckers trying to steal our research and to promote this misdating…”. It is unclear why they dismiss the (admittedly flawed) work of more than four centuries of historians as that of “a small group of wreckers”, but it perhaps suits the new version of the myth they are trying to create.

The Bat Creek Stone
The Bat Creek Stone: is it really written in Middle Welsh?

The Madoc they seek to identify as the European “discoverer” of America is one Madog ap Meurig, whom they make a brother of Athrwys ap Meurig ap Tewdrig, a sixth-century ruler of Morgannwg (Glamorgan). It may be no more than coincidence that Athrwys ap Meurig ap Tewdrig is Wilson and Blackett’s candidate for “King” Arthur, but I suspect not. This Madoc is not attested in any of the medieval genealogies, though, and there do not seem to be any medieval stories about him. Nevertheless, this does not prevent the authors from recognising his name inscribed on the so-called Bat Creek Stone, an object excavated in 1889 from Mound 3 at Bat Creek in Loudon County (Tennessee, USA) by John W Emmert under the direction of Cyrus Thomas (1825-1910), an ethnologist working for the Smithsonian Institution. While Thomas initially believed the inscriptions to be in Cherokee, later scholars such as Cyrus Herzl Gordon (1908-2001) identified them as Hebrew, dating from around 100 CE.

The Coelbren alphabet
The Coelbren alphabet: could this have been used on the Bat Creek Stone?

Wilson and Blackett identify the script as Coelbren, which they describe as “an ancient British alphabet known and recorded by historians and bards down the ages”. According to their translation, the inscription reads ‘Madoc the ruler he is’ (they do not explain why they have not rendered it in more idomatic English and it has to be suspected that it is to give an air of antiquity and authenticity to the text). Coelbren consists of thirty-one symbols, with twenty-one basic letters and a further ten for mutated consonants.

According to the press release, public bodies in the UK have “failed to engage with this vital research effort… they’re afraid that an independent group such as ours has made such progress. They prefer to ignore and neglect ancient British history rather than to deal with it. The Welsh people have suffered, and the opportunity to boost the economy, to bring thousands of jobs to Glamorgan and Gwent, where Madoc and his brother Arthur II ruled, has not been exploited”. The accusation that the work is being ignored and, worse, causing suffering is a typical pseudoscientific ploy.

In a similar way, Wilson and Blackett’s American colleague Jim Michael has complained that in “Britain and America the academics have been slow to respond… There is a theory that there was no European settlement here before Columbus, despite the evidence, but this is for political and theoretical reasons”. The recognition of the Viking settlement at L’Anse aux Meadows (Newfoundland, Canada) is thus passed over in complete silence. One can only ponder what the “political and theoretical reasons” of failing to adopt the unsupported speculations of Wilson and Blackett might be.

Wilson, Blackett and Michael have identified the main mound at Bat Creek as the tomb of Madoc. They tie in the date of ‘their’ Madoc of 562 CE with a radiocarbon determination, which is quoted as 32 CE – 769 CE (although not actually cited in the press release), from the mounds. Their talk of DNA analysis seems to have come to nothing; certainly, nothing has been reported, either in support or in refutation of their claims.

33 Replies to “Contemporary claims”

  1. I’ve seen those guys on edge tv. They seem to genuine to me. Something strange is happening with the promoted history. They only seem to show foreign history or conquerors. It’s as if to say we’re so weak as a nation and we’re always being ‘taken over’ by others. Nothing about any home grown heros. Even St George is not English. Is this why there’s such apathy aboun? They reckon they’ve got artifacts. How easy it would be have them verified.

    Also, if Madoc left the area then there wouldn’t be any stories about him.

    Theres alsorts of ‘skeletons’ our GOV only admits it when forced to. Look at all the Hillsbough stuff, the disgraceful lies of the police at the G8 event. If there had been no mobile evidence we wouldn’t have had the disclosure about that chap they murdered.

  2. You seem willing to believe a lot of implausible things without any evidence…….you wouldn’t happen to be a scietologist or mormon would you?

  3. Linda,and anyone else following her line of *logic*…
    Just because your Mummy and Daddy lied about Santa does not mean they lied about the Green X Code.
    What on earth is to be gained by suppressing any of this?
    I suspect behind most people who post such rubbish is the feeling that they are *Aborigional Britons* under threat from “Barbarian imigrents(sic) flooding the country,and mark my words the rivers of blood will be flowing soon blah blah blah de blah”.
    Put down the Daily Gildas and join the rest of us in the rational world please.
    ps, Sam,you missed a N in one word and added an M in the other…. :)

    1. I suppose it is about time that this subject -coelbren – was put to rest. Coelbren is a stroke alphabet related to rhaetian, etruscan, venetic and bolzano/bozen. It is of great antiquity and can be found on standing stones throughout europe and down into Palestine (Refer to Indico Pleustes). It is translatable using old welsh and shows significant consistency. Old Welsh, therefore is rooted in the linguistic developments of north africa. Hence, since the Libyans were known to have traded with the americas, it is reasonable to assume that the Welsh, being descended from north africa, would have been aware of the americas and have tarded with them.

        1. Sorry. Got injured before being able to respond and have been out of action since. I meant no discourtesy by failing to reply. Answers: ‘The one primeval language’ by the Rev Charles M Forster c.1851. The records of Cosmas Indicopleustes (6th C). The inscriptions on stone in the Wadi Moqqateb and the Djell Moqqateb. The paleo linguistic provenance of Rhaetian, Etruscan, Veneto etc., and the standing stones of Europe and down through Turkey and the Lebanon into Palestine. There’s a lot there to suggest that the provenance of Cymraeg is nested in north Africa. I just need a sizable grant to tear me away from my academic research:-))

  4. Does anyone seriously have to ask what is to be gained by suppressing British history for the past few thousand years?! Well, WEALTH, CONTROL & POWER are three things that come to mind.. It still goes on today – do you really think that the BBC gives us an unbiased view of events without propoganda? This is nothing new – it’s been going on for thousands of years… and we laughingly call it history. Every government has an agenda – surely that’s not difficult to understand? Use your common sense!

    As I know Alan Wilson.personally, I think you should know that he is a man of integrity who seeks only the truth. One day, if you’re lucky, you will discover that he was right about many things… but first you have to open your mind. Good luck with that!

    P.S – I’m an atheist married to a Polish immigrant.

    1. Why do people who disagree with me always accuse me of having a closed mind? If you read the site carefully, you’ll see that I often bend over backwards to try to give people the benefit of the doubt. However, when people use data that is so obviously fraudulent, I lose patience. Alan Wilson may be “a man of integrity who seeks only the truth”: it is not the person I am attacking, but the data, which do not stand up to critical scrutiny. Wilson and Blackett may claim persecution, but it is their ideas that are being questioned, not them as people.

  5. If we never ask why or how or question the facts authorities give us then Kai and Sam would still be living in fear of falling off the edge of the earth since the world is flat. They’d also believe the sun revolved around the Earth. I’m sure you also believe Columbus discovered the New World too.
    “Rational World” means that you question and explore every avenue. I’m not say Wilson is 100% correct but at least worth exploring and discovering truths before passing judgement. History is written by those who’ve survived not those persecuted and murdered.

    1. But real archaeologists (and I count myself as one) go out and do fieldwork to test their hypotheses. We do “ask why or how” and “question the facts authorities give us”: if we didn’t, we would never make new discoveries. The real difference between what professional archaeologists archaeologists do and what Bad Archaeologists do is one of testing: both types of archaeologists speculate about the past, but Bad Archaeologists never go beyond visting sites as tourists, standing awe-struck in front of the amazing accomplishments of past societies and then do nothing. They don’t go out and look for data that might confirm or disconfirm their speculations (I can’t in all honesty call them hypotheses).

      If you’ve actually looked at this site, you’d have no need to be so sure that I “believe Columbus discovered the New World”. Of course he didn’t, just in case you were wondering.

      1. No, Cristoforo Colombo did not discover the New World. Leifr Eiríksson did it almost five houndred year earlier! Physical evidence can still be found at L’Anse aux Meadows. Incidentely, the name “Vinland” can be interpreted as “Land of Meadows” in Old Norse. The Icelandic and their colony of Greenland are the only pre-Columbian trans-Atlantic contacts which ther is sufficient empirical evidence of.

  6. The alphabet you show doesn’t look like the examples of Colbren seen on stones in and around England. Do some real comparisons with the stones around England and quit knocking something you don’t seem to know anything about. If your a real archaeologist then dig up some evidence?

      1. If you want to know what stones have the inscriptions in the coelbren alphabet in Enland (and Wales ) then watch this short video ….. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf4hUcTZ3sM ….. Then if you still want to try to debunk the validity of the alphabet then you are going to have to show why it caren’t be the Coelbren alphabet as that is shown in the clip too . These stones are dated to before 1800 which makes the claims that the Coelbren alphabet is a forgery ludicrous

        1. I don’t know which version of Caesar’s de Bello Gallico the videomaker has read, but it’s certainly no version that has ever appeared in print. There is nothing in his writings about Coelbren, the similarity between the Greek and British alphabets, British cities, roads and universities that students flocked from all over the world to study at (the closest he gets to this is when he says that the Druids are thought to have originated in Britain). Edward Jones (Iolo Morgannwg) may have claimed that Ammianus Marcellinus mentions the British alphabet: he doesn’t. I particularly like the slide that says “Were Julius Caesar, Ammianus Marcellinus and others who wrote about it LIARS? Do these people not read histories?”. My first reaction was LOL. My second reaction was incredulity that the videomaker could write something so stupid. He clearly hasn’t read the historians.

          No matter what late eighteenth century antiquaries may have claimed, nobody, but nobody mentioned Coelbren before Edward Jones. End of story. William Owen, whom the videomaker seems to regard as independent of Edward Jones was his collaborator!

          As for Coelbren on the Copper Scroll, words fail me. It’s so obviously written in Hebrew characters that the videomaker’s definition of what constitutes Coelbren is stretched beyond breaking point.

          As for the stones supposedly inscribed in Coelbren, the videomaker obviosuly can’t spot the difference between Insular script being used to write early medieval Latin and Anglo-Saxon runes used to write Old English.

          It got to the point where I couldn’t watch any more when it got to claiming that Coelbren derives from Ancient Egyptian and that it is somehow related to hieroglyphs.

          The thing is, it all goes back to Blackett and Wilson. Their utter lack of credibility shines through the video and they are clearly its inspiration, if not source. A complete waste of my time (and anyone else who might be tempted to watch this steaming pile of excrement).

          I instinctively mistrust any comment that refers me to a YouTube video. I am usually right and I was in this case. Those are 9 minutes and 10 seconds of my life that I’ll never get back!

          1. I am about to re read Ammianus Marcellinus in an attempt to find the elusive Coelbren references in ‘The Later Roman Empire’. Do you happen to know if there is any section or passage that they are quoting/misquoting to back up their claims or do I have to read all 400 pages, marker pen in hand, in the hope that I might find something that they have twisted to suit their purposes?

            OR…..another distinct possibility…..there is absolutely nothing there????

            1. As far as I can tell, they are repeating each other’s claims; no-one ever provides a Book and Chapter reference to Ammianus apart from Iolo Margannwg, who translates a sentence from XV.9 (et bardi quidem fortia uirorum illustrium facta heroicis conposita uersibus cum dulcibus lyrae modulis cantitarunt) as “the Bards record the exploits of heroes, in poems, which they sing to the soft sound of the lyre”, which has nothing to do with Coelbren.

        2. *can’t, please learn to spell before trying to defend, Mr Wilson,
          And BTW, he did do real work,
          He bought the land a church ruin was on, then did a professional dig

          1. This is when he attempted to excavate King Arthur’s crypt and was thwarted by 3 storms? He gave up pretty easily then! Same as he gave up easily when a landowner refused him permission to excavate the Ark of the Covenant! IMHO Alan Wilson is as full of cr** as he’s full of junk food and beer. Small comment on his waistline there.

          2. Wether sum one can spel or not dusnt make thur opinyen eny less valid than yors cheep shot pointing out the errer it make yoo feel sooperior faw 5 minits

  7. What people don’t seem to understand is that history literally IS ‘his story’… political motives and other hidden agendas are the cause of so many historical inaccuracies; it’s all conjecture. It would be foolish to believe everything the Romans wrote about the ancient British, as they had their own political agenda. Language has played a key part in manipulating history. The Ancient British language is Cymraeg, yet we are told that (according to a BBC website) ““Before Roman times ‘Britain’ was just a geographical entity, and had no political meaning, and no single cultural identity.” Note that every single language has (or used to have) it’s own alphabet… but not the Cymry? Don’t you think that’s a bit odd?! Note that it was illegal for anyone in Wales to have a pen and paper in Richard the II’s time – also during the reign of Henry IV… not to mention the ‘Welsh Not’ of the late 19th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_Not). Iolo Morganwg’s name was EDWARD WILLIAMS. He was well-known for having an “inflexible adherence to moral principle”, as he aligned himself with the integrity of the Ancient Bards and their motto, “The Truth Against the World.” He wrote that;
    “All the Kimbric or Welsh fabulous writings, Romances, and works of Popish Superstition, etc. are in prose – nothing of the kind appearing in verse until the close of the fourteenth, or beginning of the fifteenth centuries. Song or poesy was in the hands of the Druidical Bards, well-guarded from falsehood and fiction, which they would by no means admit into their compositions or in any measure tolerate; and the public would never countenance what their much-esteemed Bards rejected. It was in vain therefore to attempt the propagation of falsehood in Verse.”
    He also wrote that;
    “The philosophy of real history, and that of conjecture, or imagination, differ very widely: but how often we find the latter mistaken – perhaps designedly, and with sinister views, substituted for the other. Hume, Voltaire, Gibbon, and many others, exhibit instances of this spurious philosophy, casting false lights on some things, and impervious darkness on others. History should be philosophy teaching by examples, deduced from facts and events; and conjecture should be kept under very severe restraint. History should be something more than a mass of annals – than the mere relation and chronology of events – it should not only inform, but illuminate and improve the mind. Every occurrence should be made to appear, what it will infallibly be found to have been, the unavoidable result of some virtue or vice, some wisdom or folly, in the government, manners, etc. of a people – some attainment or want of knowledge – something peculiar to the age wherein it appeared. We should be taught what operated in its production, and how it operated in producing its effects and consequences. Thus would the history of a country become a system of ethics for it, and for all men in all ages, as far as it should ever become known. History that answers not such purposes, cannot be considered as anything better than a series of old wives tales – mere idle chat about nothing of any real use, or rational interest. Whatever moral instruction may be derived from History, should be found by every reader in the history of his own rather than that of any other country.”
    Does this sound like a man who would LIE about something so important as Coelbren y Beirdd? He had nothing whatsoever to gain by it… he had no interest in accumulating wealth, cared not for his reputation and had no political interest. I can imagine that he would have ruffled quite a few feathers in the unstable political climate of his day as, along with the rest of Europe, the effects of the French Revolution were felt in Wales and he was seen as someone who sympathised with revolutionary ideas. Read Elijah Waring’s “Recollections and Anecdotes of Edward Williams, the Bard of Glamorgan; or Iolo Morganwg” (1850) – it’s available to read online for free.
    Regarding Coelbren and Hebrew characters – if you read the Cambro-Briton (also available online for free), there’s a good essay in one of the issues somewhere about the similarity of the Welsh and Hebrew words… so, yes, there’s obviously a link somewhere in deep antiquity.
    As for Alan Wilson… I also know him personally and he’s another good man you’re now wrongly accusing of falsification. The best thing to do is to read any of Wilson & Blackett’s books? Both Alan and Baram are very well read and self-educated men who can prove everything they write about – or else they don’t include it at all in their writings (wisely learned from the mistake poor Edward Williams made, no doubt). It irks me that scholars ignore good research as a result of academic prejudice… after all, we all want the truth… don’t we? Yet the hardest thing we can do, when we find that the truth destroys everything we thought we ‘knew’, is to accept it.

    1. Cymru is the Modern Welsh derivative of a Brittonic *Cumbrogoi. Brittonic, like lots of other languages, was not written (as far as we know at present); Welsh has nothing whatsoever to do with Hebrew, which belongs to a completely different language family. If you’re suggesting that the opinions of eighteenth-century antiquaries trump the results of the past 150 years of scientific historical linguistics, that’s your right; your opinion is your own and wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny. It’s just wrong to claim that “every single language has (or used to have) it’s own alphabet”: language comes before any attempt to write it down.

      History, by the way, isn’t “literally… ‘his story’”: it’s from Greek ἵστωρ, which means ‘wise man’.

      1. In Middle English ‘story’ and ‘history’ meant the same thing… c.1200, the word ‘story’ originally meant “a narrative of important events or celebrated persons of the past.” Just because two languages are of a different ‘family’, doesn’t mean that they did not, at some point, influence one another… there are many examples of this ‘word-borrowing’ across different language ‘families’! Have you read this paper by Tolkien? http://demo.ort.org.il/clickit2/files/forums/471389549/948358249.pdf Very interesting.

        1. Regardless of the usage of the word in English, ‘history’ does not mean and has never meant ‘his story’, as you claim.

          And of course languages influence each other: the very word ‘history’ is evidence for that! What is much more contentious, not to say implausible, is the idea of widespread influence from a language entirely unrelated into another except under very specific circumstances. Thus, any Hebrew traces in Welsh are most likely to come through the Bible: any other claimed influence is unlikely to be more than coincidental resemblance.

      2. I notice you mention a lot of stuff from the Bello de Gallico and how Alan and Baram made up a lot of stuff about alphabet etc, could you please tell me how Cymru, which originally comes from Khymru or Khymry, came from the word Combrogi or Cumbrogoi as you spelt it. First of all, I can’t find any record of the word Combrogi and how that eventually formed into the word Khymry/Khymru, how they determined the meaning of Combrogi/Cumbrogoi and applied it to Khymru. Also hard to understand how they could know this if there was no written language before the Romans, how could they know the pretext to Khymru, bit fishy, not to mention all the words associated with the word Khymru. For example, the Gauls called themselves Kymrois, Lusitanians Cimbri, in Denmark they were the Cimbri and in Armenia (where the Khymru claim origin) there’s a city founded by the Cimmerians (also associated with the Khymru) called….. Wait for it…… Gyumri… Far too many coincidences, why don’t they call these places Combrogoia? Because Combrogi is a diversion to the real history my friend, the Welsh have an immensely prestigious history and it isn’t going anywhere.

  8. קצ [עינים] לי[ת] ש[כן] [ח]ר, Bat Creek stone.
    Your are misreading alphabet on this epigraphy.

  9. Keith I like the way you tackle this Bad Archaeology on all fronts – be it Graham Hancock’s nonsense or these bonkers assertions about Welsh and Hebrew (and King Arthurs 1 and 2). Believers always say ‘open your mind’. Sure, but that doesn’t then mean abandon all your critical faculties too.

    It would be fantastic if one could prove the Welsh ‘discovered’ North America – led by King Arthur after he’d tamed the Loch Ness Monster and co-opted a host of UFOs to transport his people there, perhaps. But I’d get better odds from the bookies on Elvis riding Shergar to victory in the next Grand National…
    best Tim

  10. Another thread of blind sheep regurgitating the main stream doctrine. 🤡🌍🐑🖕🖕🖕👏👏👏👌

  11. I’ve crossed reference a lot of Alan Wilson stuff and one thing I can tell you is that Welsh history was destroyed or attempted to and supressed. A lot of what Alan Wilson is saying isn’t false, I’ve even come across things on my own and without Alan and Barams research I wouldn’t of notice it at all, one being the Lusitanians of Gallecia were known as “the most brave of the Cimbri”, and if you look at cities in Armenia there is a city called Gyumri, the Welsh claim origins from Armenia but most acclaimed historians and academics say this must of been a mistake and they must of meant Amorica (Brittany), well talk about changing something to fit your narrative, they have the audacity to call Alan and Baram pseudo historians when they can just say the person writing these historical texts made a mistake, there’s too many coincidences for it to be a mistake, also if you can’t believe that an organised initiative isnt in place to suppress this and put it down to paranoia then you’re foolish. They do this all the time with Egyptian history by chipping the Sphinx nose off, so you can’t see it’s plainly African, the native Americans had amazing structures that most European thought “this must be the work of Europeans”. The fact that for years King Arthur was depicted as a noble English gentleman is an obvious sign of cultural appropriation, when it started popping up that, actually he’s Welsh, they were like “shit we need to get rid of him” because the heritage gives people a notion of identity and self worth. It’s also embarrassing for the sitting power structure to be caught out making porkies about their own heritage, basically in short Alan and Baram stumbled upon something that wasn’t meant to be stumbled upon.

Agree or disagree? Please comment! If you've never commented before, you may have to wait until I approve it: please be patient.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: