27 08 2007

They claim to have located the Holy Grail, the Ark of the Covenant and/or evidence for the existence of the “Lost Ten Tribes of Israel” on a hill above Pontypridd. This identification is as fatally flawed as much of their other work.


We bring you messrs Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett and there are some things that you should know about them. Here are some facts:


1 – ‘Baram Blackett’ isn’t his real name. It’s actually Brian Andrew Terry and he has a conviction for handling stolen paintings. He did time in prison back in the early 1990s.


2 – Wilson and Terry appear to dislike foreigners, the Police, the Welsh, politicians, anybody who disagrees with them. This much can be seen from their vanity-published output to date. Many books include rant after rant against their perceived enemies.





 Wilson and Terry claim to have met at a Newcastle-upon-Tyne library in 1976 but it wasn’t until 1980 that their first book “King Arthur King of Glamorgan and Gwent” was vanity published under a company name they’d bought off the shelf (MT Byrd Ltd). The introduction to this book (see page 7, hardback 1st edition) pretty much set the standard for what was to follow in terms of Wilson and Terry’s approach. In demanding government funding for their project, they wrote:




…The Arts Council gave an American £250,000, making a film about the problems of black youths in London. What about the desperate problems of some British white people today and the 1930’s before that?”


Is it any wonder that academic reviewers, Cardiff-based TV and newspaper media avoided such nonsense from the start? (Only in 1986 did Wilson and Terry receive any media coverage via the BBC news service and this in relation to a cave they’d located and claimed to be one of several resting places of their invented “King Arthur 2nd”.)

Wilson and Terry claim to have found a stone marking the death of “Arthur 1st” in the West Midlands although academics and specialist Arthurian historians agree that there was only one King Arthur as per the Dux Bellorum/Pendragon (the ancient British equivalent to the “Bretwalda”/”Battle Leader” of the combined Angle/Saxon/Jute warbands) whose British alliance drove out the Saxons temporarily after 12 major battles (Nennius, Geoffrey et al). Experts agree that this King Arthur was a 6th Century Welsh-British or “Celtic” ruler. (There are other, minor, King Arthurs/Artorius/Arth Mael/Ardyyr of varying later dates in the ancient records upon which historical efforts are focussed.)


To add modern insult to historical injury, Wilson and Terry claim to have found the evidence for ‘Arthur 1st’ at Oldbury in Warwickshire. One commentator describes their incompetence and/or evasion as follows:


“Their genealogy for Arthur I is taken from a very reliable source dating from c.958 known as the Harleian Genealogies (MS 3859) which is given below from Early Welsh Genealogical Manuscripts, Peter Bartrum, 1966, as per the original manuscript. (map, m., or ap means “son of”)


Eidinet map Anthun map Maxim guletic qui occidit Gratianum regem Romanorum.


The Holy Kingdom p.178 gives the above manuscript as:


Eidinet ap Arthun ap Maxim Gulc tic qui occidit Gratian cum regum Romanorum


You will see that they have changed Anthun into Arthun who they claim is Arthur I. There is no maybe or possibly just “that is, Arthur” p.178. They then go on to claim that Annun Du (Annun Black) is the same person as Arthun (their Arthur I) who they call quite inaccurately Arthun Du.


“A thousand years old, these [the Brecon Manuscripts] are contained in the British museum Vespasian A. XIV and the Harleian 4181 collections. They are invaluable records, much quoted and referred to but, according to Alan and Baram, never actually read by those who quote them. Three times the statement is made, in Welsh as well as Latin, that Arthun the Black, known as the ‘King of Greece’, was a son of Macsen Wledig – Magnis Maximus.”


The Brecon manuscripts are commonly known as the Brychan MSS and below are the exact transcriptions of the three manuscripts from EWGT.


Annhun rex Grecorum (in Cotton MS. Domitia I, folios 157v-158v §10, EWGT p.18)


Annun niger regis Grecorum (in Cotton MS Vespasian A xiv folios 10v-11v §10, EWGT p.14)


Annwn du, vrenhin Groec (in Jesus College MS20 §1, EWGT p.42) A digital facsimile of this manuscript can be viewed on the Oxford university early texts website (click on fo. 33, the name is near the top of the page).


As can be seen from the above nowhere do the manuscripts say Arthun Du.


With this point proved the rest of their argument falls to bits.”




8 (cont) Wilson and Terry have never said when they found the stone although they have made photos of it available in their books. The stone itself has never been tested or viewed by independent experts or academics and is hidden at a secure location by a member of the Wilson family. The self-styled “historical experts” claim to have found the stone in a large mound just inside the Oldbury/Hartshill woods site even though every mound has been robbed in the past as can be seen upon cursory inspection. Wilson and Terry say they found the cross by prodding at the mound with sticks. Hadn’t anyone tried this before in the previous 1500 years? Their story simply doesn’t add up and although there are clear signs that this, and local North Warwickshire, sites are of great antiquity, again Wilson and Terry have messed things up for all concerned by their blundering approach.


Even more bizarrely, there is no photographic or video evidence of the men making the discovery so we have no evidence to support their story. Wouldn’t you take at least a basic camera with you on a mission of such potential historical importance? One of Wilson and Terry’s supporters in the early 1980s was, it is alleged, a stone mason of some repute. Could this be where the “Arthur 1st” stone comes from?



Hello world!

29 07 2007

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!