An Open Letter to John Matthews ©

Dear John,

As you know I have long respected your work and all you do to educate the public in the traditions of our Celtic ancestors. I write this letter to you in the hopes you will be able to clear up some confusion in my mind regarding the historical and archaeological accuracy of the Jerry Bruckheimer/Antoine Fuqua film “King Arthur”. You were the historical advisor for this film and are, therefore, presumably the person who can answer my questions. I will be glad to publish your answers so members of the Society of Celtic Shamans and “Earthsongs” readers may be informed by your expertise.

Let me first say, I do not usually expect historical accuracy from a Jerry Bruckheimer film. To automatically suppose a movie necessarily reflects actual history would be absurd. I am well aware that in order to enjoy most Hollywood ‘historical’ epics one must leave one’s brains at the door and pick them up on the way out after a rousing good time.

But Mr. Bruckheimer begins this epic by stating his Arthur is based on “… new historical and archaeological evidence”. This clear and unambiguous statement would lead most people to think the movie would be historically accurate. Additionally, the fact that you were associated with the film as historical advisor encouraged me to believe this movie would at least attempt to reflect the historical record.

Had Bruckheimer started out by saying “this is just in good fun”, I would not have expected anything other than a Hollywood version of the British national myth.

If the story was meant to be nothing more than a myth I would not have been surprised to hear Picts called woads or see an immensely high Hadrian's Wall. Unfortunately, the Romano-British world of Bruckheimer’s “King Arthur” contains so many glaring historical errors I fear any person not conversant with British history will come away from this movie with some peculiar and completely erroneous ideas regarding the legendary King Arthur and his knights, the Roman occupation of Britain, and of the Celtic tribes of Britain during that occupation. In short, this movie muddies the waters of our history.

You are so highly respected among Celtic Shamans everywhere; I am hoping you can set the record straight on the following issues.

ARTHUR & THE KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE

The movie begins with a prologue that leads one to believe the story is based on new historical and archaeological evidence regarding the identity of Arthur. The ‘new’ historical evidence is apparently a single name – Lucius Artorius Castus – a 2nd century Roman commander mentioned in the “Roman History” of the classical writer Dio Cassius.

According to Bruckheimer/Fuqua, Arthur is a Romano-Britain, presumably descended from the above-mentioned Lucius Artorius Castus. Dio Cassius’s entry regarding Castus includes the information he was in command of a troop of Sarmatian cavalry posted to Hadrian’s Wall. The Sarmatians were a tribe of people associated with the Kurds who lived in the Ukraine. This is not new historical evidence.

Dio Cassius’s “Roman History” cannot be called new historical evidence. This book is a standard reference of Roman history and any historian worth his/her salt is familiar with the writings of Dio Cassius.

(NB: All links to webpages are included for the easy reference of SCS members and “Earthsongs” readers to help everyone follow our discussion. These references are not meant to inform John Matthews of subjects in which he is already expert.)

http://www.britannia.com/history/time1.html -- scroll down to the entry for the year 184 to read the reference to Lucius Artorius Castus.
http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/2/ha2lac.htm -- good article on Lucius Artorius Castus.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/kurdish/htdocs/cult/alev.html -- scroll down about half way or use your page search for the word Sarmatian for information on the Sarmatian cavalry.

In the opening minutes of the film, Bruckheimer asks us to believe the Knights of the Round Table are Ukrainian Kurds and Arthur is only half British.

I have no problem with the concept of Arthur being of Romano-British descent. I do, however, have a huge problem with the idea of the Knights of the Round Table being entirely foreign to Britain. Over the years, John, you have written many books in which you masterfully connect the myths and legends of the Arthurian cycle to ancient Celtic tales originating in Britain. You have done much to provide all Britains with their own shining mythological heritage. I am now at a loss as to how the man who wrote “Gawain: Knight of the Goddess” could lend his name to a project that rips our British stories from us and places them into the cultural context of Ukrainian Kurds. I do not understand how the British national myth can be based on the traditions of Ukrainian Kurds. I do hope you can clarify this for everyone.

HADRIAN’S WALL

As soon as I saw Bruckheimer’s version of Hadrian’s Wall I knew any claim to historical accuracy was highly suspect. The wall in “King Arthur” is immense. It also looks squeaky clean and shiny new. The story is, I think, supposed to take place in 425 AD. The wall was completed around 132 AD. I find it hard to believe the stones would not weather even a teeny-tiny bit in two hundred ninety something years. There is no moss, no patina of any sort on this wall. This is, of course, a minor point when set against the sheer size of Bruckheimer’s wall.

The Real Hadrian's Wall

It is generally accepted that in 122 AD the Emperor Hadrian ordered work to begin on the wall and it was probably completed by 132. It is 73 miles long and stretches from shore to shore, east to west, at the 'neck' of the British island. It is up to ten feet thick in some areas but only six to eight in others. The wall was fifteen feet high. (To put this in perspective – the walls of most one-story houses are ten feet high to the eaves of the roof.) Hadrian’s Wall consisted of an earthwork with a ditch before it. The earthen core of the wall was faced with stone. A part of the wall was originally left as an earthwork but the entire wall was eventually clad in stone.

Fortifications – castles – were built about one day's march apart along the wall with smaller forts – mileforts – spaced along the wall every Roman mile. Two turrets or lookout-towers stood between each milefort. These lookout-towers were two stories tall.

http://www.britannia.com/tours/hadrianswall/
http://www.roman-britain.org/hw/hw_history.htm

Bruckheimer’s Hollywood Wall, according to the movie’s official website, is thirty-five feet tall. The gate is twenty feet tall and sixteen feet wide. However, the angle of the shots makes it look even taller and more immense. All in all, the impression is similar to the wall we see in the recently released movie “Troy”.

Once again I stress. If “King Arthur” was meant to be pure fiction an immensely high and thick wall is okay, more than okay, it is wonderful, a real treat for the eyes. But since the movie is meant to be historically accurate adding 'real thatch' to the peasants’ huts does not make up for the Disneyfication of Hadrian's Wall or the other gross inaccuracies.

THE BATTLE OF BADON HILL

The Battle of Badon Hill, Arthur's signature battle, takes place at Bruckheimer's version of Hadrian's Wall. As you know, the actual location of the Battle of Badon Hill has been long and hotly contested, and I am not going to involve myself in that controversy. I know some authorities do hold the battle was fought in or near Scotland. Nevertheless, Bruckheimer’s battle is too early if the story is set in 425 AD.

The date of this battle is also controversial. According to the authorities I have read, the earliest possible date is 493 AD and the latest around 570 AD. So whether it was in Caledon in the north or at Bath Hill in the south, the battle is firmly placed in the 6th century, not the 5th, and therefore was fought between seventy-five to one hundred fifty years after Bruckheimer's "King Arthur".

http://www.templum.freeserve.co.uk/history/strathclyde/gildas.htm
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/gildas.html -- about Gildas and the Battle of Badon Hill.

Even if we agree the Battle of Badon Hill was fought at, on, or very near Hadrian's Wall, the movie's date does not agree with the historical record.

If there is evidence of this earlier date for the Battle of Badon Hill, I would be very interested to see it and share it with our readers.

PELEGIUS

I was somewhat bemused and amused by the way in which the teachings Pelegius were presented in this movie.

For the information of our readers, Pelegius was a 5th century Christian theologian. He was branded a heretic because he taught the Doctrine of Original Sin was an error. He believed Adam’s fall did not infect all of humanity with an inclination to sin and that everyone was born with a clean soul, that we could of own wills choose to sin or not, and that grace was a personal impulse and did not proceed from God alone.

This movie might give the uninformed the impression Pelegius was dedicated to abolishing slavery. He was not an abolitionist he was a theologian. Augustine, who defended the doctrine of original sin, opposed Pelegius. There were many elegant shades and nuances in the dispute but, basically, Pelegius taught Adam's sin does not lie on the souls of all women/men and Augustine taught we are all stained by that original sin. This is all the controversy in a nutshell. Had Pelegius and his followers won the debate we would call him St. Pelegius and Augustine would be the heretic.

Furthermore, the movie would have us believe Pelegius had been executed a year before the movie’s story begins when the historical record indicates he was alive and well in 425 AD. There is no reason to believe he was ever executed in Rome or anywhere else. Although there is no record of his death he appears to have died of natural causes in the Middle East, possibly in Palestine.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm -- all about Pelegius.

ATTITUDES TOWARDS SLAVERY

Arthur's attitude towards the mistreatment of a British slave is believable. Slaves were protected by law from cruel and unusual punishment, although, in fact, they were often terribly mistreated, especially in remote areas where slave owners were not under the eye of any central authority.

Arthur's attitude in regards to the enslaving of the Britons is, however, entirely atypical. If, as the story line has it, he considered himself a Roman and had lived in Rome it is unlikely he would view slavery as anything other than the normal state of affairs.

Twenty to twenty-five percent of the population of the Roman Empire was enslaved and slavery was as essential to the Roman economy as oil is to ours.

http://www.ucd.ie/classics/96/Madden96.html -- about the institution of slavery in Rome and the Empire.

ROMAN WITHDRAWAL FROM BRITAIN

History is very clear on the Roman invasion of, occupation of, and withdrawal from Britain. Documents written at the time paint a clear picture of this period of history.

http://www.roman-britain.org/main.htm
http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/ -- are good places to begin.

John, I found it very odd for Arthur, in the year 425 AD, to be surprised to hear the Romans intended to withdraw from Britain when the Roman legions' abandonment of the island had begun around 402. In 410 AD, the Romano-Britains of Britain appealed to the emperor Honorius for help in defending the island. Honorius replied the people of Britain should organize their own defense . I was also surprised to see strong Roman garrisons on the Wall in the year 425 since by 410 Hadrian’s Wall was abandoned.

If the sources are in error here, I do hope you will present the facts of this matter so I may share them with our readers.

PICTS OR WOADS?

One of my main concerns regarding this movie is that many people are going to leave the theatre thinking the area north of Hadrian’s Wall was occupied by a tribe of people called “woads” when, in fact, the Celtic peoples of the north were called Picts.

I do understand Bruckheimer’s Romans are calling the Picts ‘woads’ in the same way we call people of other races and cultures pejorative names. I also understand that the term Pict was a Roman pejorative applied to the Celtic peoples of the area we now call Scotland and referred to the fact that they painted or tattooed themselves with woad dye.

Nevertheless, I did not hear the word Pict mentioned even once and feel very strongly that this will lead those who have no knowledge of our Celtic history to mistakenly believe Hadrian’s Wall was built to repel the ‘woads’ rather than the Picts.

If I missed the reference to the Picts, please inform me of this when you deal with this worrisome aspect of the film.

PICTISH SAVAGES

In addition to the misnomer applied to the Picts, they are almost consistently depicted as little more than naked and dirty savages, wild beasts subsisting in the forests.

In fact, the Picts appear to have been a military alliance of Brythonic-Celtic tribes or clans, which occupied the north of Britain beginning in the 1st century AD. The main purpose of the alliance was to fight the Romans and this they did superbly.

These Celtic peoples had a rich and diverse culture. Their art and their artifacts indicate a highly cultured people.

In my opinion, possibly the saddest thing about this movie was the missed opportunity of showing an ancient Celtic culture in its true light. Instead the ‘woads’ are unremittingly degraded, ignoble, and savage. The only glimpse of anything resembling a true culture is at the very end of the movie when we see the wedding ceremony of the ‘woad’ woman and Arthur enacted in what has to be one of the hokiest and dumbest stone circles ever devised by Hollywood. This stone circle was, like Bruckheimer’s wall, squeaky clean and shiny new and looked like it was lifted from the set of ‘Star Trek’ – the original series.

Stone circles were not being built by the ‘woads’ or anyone else in the 5th century AD. If I am wrong I do hope you will set me straight.

http://www.tartans.com/articles/pictcivilization.html -- about the Picts.
http://www.holyrood.org.uk/picts/ -- about the Picts
http://www.ancient-scotland.co.uk/site.php?b=picts -- real Pictish stones.
http://www.darkisle.com/circles.html -- links to stone circles and cairns of Scotland.
http://www.stonepages.com/scotland/scotland.html -- the Stone Pages for Scotland.

The opportunity to show the Pictish peoples in a historically accurate light was completely missed here and I feel this is a pity. I will gladly share with our readers any historical or archaeological evidence you may supply supporting the movie’s portrayal of the Picts.

ROMAN SWORDS

In ancient Britain the Roman sword was an incredibly valuable weapon. It was the assault rifle of its day and not something one would wish to place in the hands of an enemy.

It is, therefore, highly unlikely these weapons would be left lying about in graveyards unattended. Swords were often buried in the ground with fallen warriors as part of the grave goods, but to simply stick a Roman sword into a grave and leave it to be picked up by any passing malcontent seems an unlikely custom for an imperialist occupying force to develop.

Furthermore, it is doubtful that valuable swords would be used to hack through iron chains or gratings. I do not believe any Roman commander or cavalryman would misuse his weapon in such a way. These men depended on their swords for their very lives. Hacking through a slave’s chains with one’s sword is good movie making, perhaps, but very poor history.

http://www.unc.edu/courses/rometech/public/content/special/James_Hurst/THE_ROMAN_SWORD_IN_THE_REP.htm

OUR OWN HISTORY, OUR OWN TRADITION

Over the years I have worked hard and tirelessly to inform and educate our readers and members in the culture, traditions, and history of the Celtic speaking peoples of Continental and Insular Europe.

I feel this movie depicts an entirely ersatz Hollywood version of history. The “history” in this movie seems based on the idea that Roman civilization was superior to the Celtic culture of Britain. I know many people will view this movie and come away believing the Celts were uncivilized savages.

Unless you have seen the “… new historical and archaeological evidence …” as cited at the beginning of this film, and this new evidence supports the apparent inaccuracies in this film, you have done Celtic descendants and Celtic shamans everywhere a great disservice by lending your name to this movie.

I hope you will respond to the issues I have raised here. I sincerely hope in your response you will produce the “… new historical and archaeological evidence …” upon which Bruckheimer’s “King Arthur” is supposedly based so that I may share this new information with our members and readers.

We await your reply and thank you for your kind consideration.

One hundred thousand blessings to you and yours,

Tira of the Groves

To Read John's Reply Click Here

Tira Brandon-Evans is the Founder and Moderator of the Society of Celtic Shamans, an editor of Earthsongs: Journal of the Society of Celtic Shamans, and is, herself, a Faery Shaman. Her books, Through the Unremembered Gate: Journeys of Initiation, The Green and Burning Tree: A Faery Shaman's Handbook, Portals of the Seasons: A Celtic Wheel of the Year, The Labyrinthine Way: Walking Ancient Paths in a Modern World, and Healing Waters, are all published by Elder Grove Press. She is presently writing a book about the Ogham. You may contact Tira by email.

An Open Letter to John Matthews copyright © 2004 by Tira Brandon-Evans, all rights reserved. Used with permission. Top of Page