John Matthews' Reply to Our Open Letter ©
by John Matthews

Tira,

It's been a long time. I'm sorry that the film seems to have provoked what I can only view as a personal attack, which I feel I must make answer to. First let me explain that an historical advisor a on a movie he's just that — an advisor. My job was to advise the film-makers in making as good a job as possible, and to get the history as right as it could be within the confines of a Hollywood movie. In fact, much to my own surprise, I found them all, from the producer down, determined to make this as authentic as possible in terms of Dark Age history. I feel that we succeeded, to the point that one very cautious historian friend of mine remarked that this was so good that anyone writing a book on the Dark Ages, would have to have pictures from the movie. Believe me when I say that what you see could have been a lot worse — and would have been, had I not been on hand. Naturally, there are things which are not as accurate as I would have liked. However, many other things were put right at my behest. Let me deal with some of your points individually.

Arthur and the Knights of The Round Table.

I did ask that the introductory script be changed to read something other than 'archaeological evidence' which I knew was contentious. However, this is one of the things that I was not able to get changed. The archaeological evidence referred to, however, is real. It concerns excavations carried out a at Ribchester, in present day Lancashire, were it has been proved that a large number of Sarmatian people created their own largely independent community within Roman Britain. This, together with other archaeological evidence, which places are some of the Sarmatian troops on Hadrian's Wall, is the basis of this statement. It could also be proved, beyond question, that the leader of these troops was named Lucius Artorius Castus. The Sarmatian Theory, which was first proposed in 1922, states merely the possibility that this Artorius, could be the foundation for the later Arthur of legend.

As you say, this is not a new idea, however the archaeological evidence is. The Sarmatians were established in Britain for several hundred years, having been posted there by the Emperor Marcus Aurelius in the second century. There were 5500 of them and they remained in Britain for a long time. The theory also points to the very large number — far too many to be coincidental — of parallels between the beliefs, traditions, and stories of these people, and the later Arthurian legends. New evidence of a documentary kind is coming to light all the time. Some has been dealt with extensively in the book 'From Scythia to Camelot by Malcor and Scott Littleton. My own book on Artorius will follow in due course, hopefully proving beyond all doubt, that this is the earliest and best historical Arthur we have.

Making Arthur half Roman and half British is not new either, and in fact has been a widely accepted fact for a number of years, as is the fact that he must have led a group of extraordinary warriors, whose exploits remained in British consciousness. Here lies the crux of the matter. I have absolutely no intention, either now or in the future, of denying the value, power, and potency of the British Arthurian myths. All I'm saying, is that it is possible — even probable — that the deeds and stories of the Sarmatians, circulating among the bards and storytellers of Britain, are the bones beneath these ancient tales. What else can one say when one reads accounts of the great Sarmatian hero who, at the time of his death, commanded his faithful lieutenant to throw his magical sword into a lake? How else can one interpret the presence of a lady of the lake, a Merlin like shamanic leader, and a dragon standard identical to ones depicted in medieval manuscripts as carried by Arthur? And this is only the tip of the iceberg. There is far more material relating to this Arthur, and to these early 'Knights of the Round Table,' than there is for any of the other contenders.

Hadrian's Wall

Yes, the wall in the movie is large. However, while the original Hadrian's Wall was probably only 30 ft high, it was extended a further 10 feet by wooden palisade, and a further 10 feet still, by the presence of a ditch which may still be seen at various parts of the Wall that have survived. Certainly, Hollywood can be accused of extravagance here — but this part of the set was already built before I even arrived to see it. I think it can also be said that the impressiveness of the Wall reflects the reality of the original. In fact, the original was still being repaired at this time, in part by the small standing army left behind when the legions departed from Britain. It is my belief, that this same standing army — essentially Roman - may have formed part of Arthur's warrior band. By this time very few of the Roman soldiers in Britain would have been pure blooded — many having settled in Britain and married into British stock.

Badon Hill

We could argue for the site and date of Badon Hill for a long time, As you have noted, there is no evidence to support its place either north or south. Neither is there any real evidence which replace its either in the 5th or 6th centuries. I feel that we were perfectly within our rights to suggest that this Arthur fought a battle against the Saxons on Hadrian's Wall, and that this could have taken place at the time suggested — though I must confess that 425 seemed a rather arbitrary date for me to. Other historians agree that the battle could have been fought here, and that the terrain fits with Nennius' battle list.

Pelagius

This is simply a matter of semantics. Inevitably, in a Hollywood movie, it would not be possible to present the complexity of Pelagius' teaching. However, his teachings on free will, are clearly reflected in Arthur's demeanour and behaviour towards others. Pelagius' teachings, would certainly have been accessible to him at this time, especially since Pelagius came from Britain. We were really not suggesting that his teachings were applied in the context of slavery. These are all very broad strokes of the brush, intended simply to point to some of the iniquities of early Christian rule, and the way in which the teachings of Pelagius reflected another side of Christian beliefs. I am aware of course that nothing is known of Pelagius' end, but given his treatment at the hands of the Roman Church, his excommunication, and the way in which he was driven out of Rome, would seem to lead quite naturally to an unnatural death. There is no evidence that he died of natural causes, any more than that he was murdered. As Arthur is represented in film, he is a student and follower of Pelagius. It seems quite natural that he would have reacted in a way that he does to the enslavement and torture of British pagans. Once again, we have no means of knowing whether this actually took place in Britain, however we do know that it did elsewhere in Europe, therefore once again the assumption is not unreasonable.

Picts and Woads

Here, it feels almost as though you've been watching another film! I do not think that we depicted the Picts as filthy, savage and uneducated. The reaction of the Sarmatian knights is naturally adverse as they had been fighting them for a number of years, and has seen many of their comrades slaughtered in battle by the Picts. Calling them Woads, as you rightly noted, was simply a device of the screen writer, using the same way as calling Germans 'Krauts' during the WW2, or Arabs 'towel heads' during the Gulf War. In fact, I am fairly certain, that they are referred to as Picts somewhere in the movie. We even went to the trouble of devising Pictish dialogue to give them authenticity. If you listen carefully to this, you will here the name 'Pectin' used by them. Virtually all of the tattoos and body designs using the movie are derived from authentic designs and were very carefully copied for authenticity. Given that the Romans who fought against them left accounts of their savage tactics in battle, for which they clearly felt respect, I don't think one can say that we did badly by them. You must at least have appreciated Merlin, who is depicted with shamanic qualities — something which is well-known from the historical evidence for Merlin's life in the north of Britain. (see my new book Merlin: Shaman, Prophet, Magician).

I do agree with you about the stone circle, which was done at the last moment without my knowledge or approval. I was horrified when I saw it, as all I had asked for was an altar stone! However, I will disagree on one point. Though the Picts were not creating stone circles, there is evidence that they used them for ceremonies over a long period of time, as indeed happened throughout the rest of Britain, with Druids making use of Stonehenge though it had been built thousands of years before they appeared.

Roman Swords

The customer of placing swords point down in the grave mound of one's ancestors, is a Sarmatian tradition. This is stated very clearly in the film, and Arthur mentions that his own father had chosen to have his grave marked in this way after the fashion of the men he led. Indeed, the existence of swords embedded in the earth, in wooden platforms, and even in stones, comes from Sarmatian tradition, and may well have been the origin of the Sword in Stone them in Arthurian tradition. Such sword in graves would have been considered sacrosanct, and certainly not removed by 'passing malcontents!'

And yes, we all know how valuable swords were and that they would not have been used to cut chains — but this was intended to be entertainment and not a documentary!

Herein lies the point of defence, if such is needed. 'King Arthur' is a movie, a entertaining one and an exciting one. I believe it to be the most authentic Dark Age movie yet attempted by Hollywood. I was, and am, happy to be associated with it. I do not think that it demeans the Celtic civilisation as all. As you know, I have been a staunch defender and chronicler of this civilisation over the last 30 years and certainly it is not my intention to change this in any way. One could equally say that the way in which the Saxons are portrayed is scarcely friendly. But they, like the Romans, the Celts, and the Picts, were savage people, living in a savage time. I think that peeling away some of the Hollywood glamour of more recent Arthurian films, which bore no resemblance to history, is actually a service to the Arthurian legends. I suggest that you recommend the book 'From Scythia to Camelot,' which goes much further than this, to your readers. Hopefully, next year, my own book 'Artorius: the real King Arthur' will appear and place all the evidence before you.

I will certainly be interested to hear what you think than. Meanwhile, I'm really sorry and that the film obviously annoyed you so much. It really is just a piece of entertainment, which happens to be at least 75 per cent historically accurate in its presentation of the period.

All the best, and many blessings,

John Matthews.

JOHN MATTHEWS is recognised world wide as a leading authority on Arthurian history, legend and literature -a subject he has researched and written about for the past thirty years. He is the author of numerous books about King Arthur and the myths of the Grail, including: King Arthur: Dark Age Warrior & Mythic Hero (Carlton, 2004), Merlin: The Wise Man at King Arthur's Court (Mitchell Beazley, 2004) and The Book of Arthur (Vega, 2002). He has made many TV appearances, including on the History Channel, the BBC, and the Discovery Channel, and has advised on several media projects, including Jerry Bruckheimer's King Arthur (2004). Click here to visit John's webhome Hallowquest.

John Matthews' Reply to Our Open Letter copyright © 2004 by John Matthews, all rights reserved. Used with permission. Top of Page