Talk:Pen y Bryn

Public Domain Images of Pen y Bryn
It would be lovely to post public domain images of Pen y Bryn. Does anyone know of any that are available? &#8734;&#9788;Geaugagrrl (T) / (C) 06:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (Long-delayed reply...) Found one at Geograph (Geograph) and added it. BencherliteTalk 02:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bencherlite. Just added the Infobox and moved the sepia image to the left.  Is is time to combine the articles once and for all?  Pen y Bryn and Garth Celyn?  Hopefully Kathryn and Brian Gibson won't object?  ~ Geaugagrrl talk 02:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggested merger with Garth Celyn
This seems long over-due, and I propose to replace Garth Celyn with a redirect to here quite soon, unless anyone has any better ideas. Civis Romanus (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Dafydd Llanberis (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit to include mainstream scholarship and full use of appropriate sources
I have done a major edit, concentrating on giving a balanced view of the notable aspects of this site, based on and referenced to reliable sources. I will keep a watch on this page and look forward to comments from other editors. Civis Romanus (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference to Nick Barratt's work. I have used it as a reference for the claims of the Trust. I hope for the day when the Trust's claims are supported by sufficient solid evidence to become the scholarly consensus, but that day is not yet. Until then, those claims have more than enough space in this encyclopedia already. Civis Romanus (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have met with the experts Dr Nick Barratt, Dr Jonathan Foyle, Dr John Davies, Dr Brian Davies, Professor David Austin and others who have in recent years studied the promontory of Garth Celyn in detail. I have read the papers of Professor T. Jones Pierce, Dr Colin Gresham, Dr Gweneth Lilly and Professor Caerwyn Williams on the same subject. All are in total agreement that the evidence in favour of Pen y Bryn / Garth Celyn being the site of the pre-conquest royal home is overwhelming. In addition to this I have personally examined the early documentary evidence in depth. I add my own name to that list. It is common knowledge that certain members of Gwynedd Archaeological Trust started a campaign to try to discredit Garth Celyn following the campaign in 1993 by Kathryn Pritchard Gibson to preserve the remains of the Franciscan Friary of Llanfaes. Subsequently, when BBC brought in Professor David Austin to study Garth Celyn (broadcast in two episodes 'One Foot in the Past'), the same individuals in GAT became exceedingly vocal (reported in various newspapers at the time). The medieval archivist Dr Nick Barratt has found documentary evidence that resolves the debate beyond doubt (BBC 'History Mysteries'. May I suggest Civis Romanus, that you have a connection with GAT, and a personal axe to grind in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dafydd Llanberis (talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Feel free to suggest. You are wrong; although I've been to a couple of GAT talks I am not a member, don't know any of them personally, and haven't talked to them about your claims. I am here to help write an encyclopaedia. Just to make it totally clear, I would be very pleased if you can provide appropriately-published evidence that your house has indeed all the history that you claim. This should include at a minimum scholarly references specifically for the mediaeval age and high-prestige use of the place, for any connection with Celyn ap Caw beyond a common name element, for its identity with any Garth Celyn found in the Lambeth letters, and for the Lambeth letters themselves. When and if you provide those reliable sources, then we can reasonably include your claims in Wikipedia. Until then, we can't. Civis Romanus (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I find your mistaken assumption that Pen y Bryn is 'my house' interesting. In response to your latest remarks, if, as you say, you do not know any members of Gwynedd Archaeological Trust personally. and have not talked to them (presumably you mean about Garth Celyn) then your information can only be second hand. Have you actually visited Garth Celyn? I have provided the names of a few of the experts who in recent years have personally visited Garth Celyn and studied the site, the buildings and the documentary evidence in detail. Why do you dispute their professional expertise on this matter in the aggresive way that you have done so far? May I suggest that you do so if you have any doubts. For someone with only a passing interest and no involvement, you are taking this way beyond the point that any unbiased editor of Wikipedia would or should do. If you want published sources, here are a few 'Aber Gwyn Gregin' in Caernarfonshire Historical Society Transactions Vol. 23, Professor T. Jones Pierce: 'The Garth Celyn Evidence / Tystiolaeth Garth Celyn' Y Traethodydd 1998 Professor Caerwyn Williams, Dr. Gweneth Lilly: 'The Welsh Vocabulary of the Bangor District' (Oxford,1912)F. E. Fynes Clinton. Unpublished sources: Report on 'Garth Celyn, Aber, Gwynedd 1994 ' by Professor David Austin for BBC 'One Foot in the Past', Aber Trust Archives: Report on 'Garth Celyn, Aber, Gwynedd' by Dr Nick Barratt and Dr Jonathan Foyle for BBC 'History Mysteries', Aber Trust Archives. 'In addition you can refer to sources in the National Archives: E101/485/30 (1303 -1306)  Account of Sir William de Sutton: C145/132 No. 17: (1339) Extent of the Manor of Aber: Cotton MS Domitian A VIII., fos 119-120: C66 /1796 No. 6  Grant of the Manor by letters patent to Sir William Thomas (James I): Baron Hill MS. 4972 (Bangor University Archives) Survey of property in the Parish of Aber. John Leland, Henry VIII's Antiquary in 1537 stated that Llywelyn's palace in Aber was 'on a hille' and that'whereof yet part stondeth', quoted in The Itinerary in Wales of John Leland edited by Lucy Toulmin Smith (1906). Dr Colin Gresham put it succinctly 'an earthen motte in the mouth of the valley marks the settlement and the prince's residence was set on a shelf just above it to the east.' Caernarfonshire Historical Society Transactions. If you would care to visit Garth Celyn, I am sure that the owners would welcome you, and John Davies, Paul Remfry and myself, and possibly Nick Barratt, will go through the prime source evidence with you. Dafydd Llanberis (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia not a research project. We are here to document scholarly consensus from published sources. I look forward to the day when your arguments enter this stage. Until then they have more than appropriate coverage. Civis Romanus (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Civis Romanus. May I point out that you have removed all the direct, relevant evidence for Garth Celyn including details of the letters written by Llywelyn ap Gruffudd in October / November 1282,dated from Garth Celyn(Register of Archbishop John Peckham, Lambeth Palace Archives. Translation from the Latin published in Warrington's 'History of Wales' 1776). You have removed details of the antiquity of the site such as the fact that a Neolithic burial urn was found there in 1824 (Arch. Camb. 1864). You have removed information such as the fact that Professor David Austin has dated the tower to c. 1200 as a watchtower (BBC broadcast 'One Foot in the Past)and that renowned medieval archivist Dr Nick Barratt has found early place name and other evidence (BBC broadcast 'History Mysteries'). You have removed references to the published studies by Professor T. Jones Pierce (Caernarfonshire Historical Society Transactions 1963), Professor Caerwyn Williams (Y Traethodydd 1998), Gwynfor Evans (Cymru o Hud) and other examples. In addition you have sytematically deleted connections with Garth Celyn on other numerous other Wikipedia pages. All of this points only one way. I repeat the offer for you to accompany me to Garth Celyn and examine the site and the documentary evidence for yourself if you have any doubt whatsoever that this was the thirteenth century home of Llywelyn Fawr, Dafydd ap Llywelyn, and Llywelyn ap Gruffudd.

Dafydd Llanberis (talk) 08:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I say, we are here to describe scholarly consensus based on reliable sources; these do not describe anything pre-modern (except for the neolithic urn) on the site, and they do find a high-prestige site in the valley. I really hope that you manage to produce the evidence - it would be great to have something provably mediaeval from the site, and appropriate publications for its identity with Llewelyn's palace. Until then, your claims are properly described as they now are; they are certainly not appropriate to be presented here as fact. However, it would be useful to insert full references for those claims, and of course for the urn. Civis Romanus (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Civis Romanus. I really am at a total loss to understand where you are coming from on this, and why you feel you somehow have the right to dismiss out of hand all the evidence from genuine scholars who have over the past 50 years and more, studied Garth Celyn in depth and published in academic journals and the like, their genuinely unbiased findings. Why have you chosen to delete references to Garth Celyn on numerous other Wikipedia pages? The Register of Archbishop John Peckham for example is in Lambeth Palace Archives, London. I have seen the original Register, but a copy was published in 1884 by C. T. Martin ' Registrum Epistolarum Johannis Peckham' (see letters CCCXLI and CCCLVII. Professor Caerwyn Williams of the Board of Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies published the 'Garth Celyn Evidence' in Y Traethodydd (1998). Professor David Austin has dated the watchtower to c. 1200. Jonathan Foyle and Paul Remfry have dated the carved stonework on the site to c. 1220. The Neolithic urn that was found 3 feet below the ground in 1824 is described in Arch. Camb. 1864. The list goes on and on. I repeat the offer for you to accompany me to Garth Celyn and examine the site and the documentary evidence for yourself if you have any doubt whatsoever that this was the thirteenth century home of Llywelyn Fawr, Dafydd ap Llywelyn, and Llywelyn ap Gruffudd. Dafydd Llanberis (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to add much to what I've already said. The current scholarly consensus is that the high-prestige site is in the valley and although Garth Celyn / Pen y Bryn may have mediaeval history there isn't actually anything to demonstrate it. Changing that requires scholarly publication at the least, and my revisiting the site would add nothing. As I say I look forward to the day when these are produced, but I'm just here to build an encyclopedia. It would enhance the article if you would put in full references for the claims that you mention, and scans / transliterations / would be good, maybe on llewelyn.co.uk (which seems to be down of late), or perhaps on Wikisource. Civis Romanus (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Civis Romanus. When did you visit Garth Celyn? May I ask did you examine the site, the buildings and the archives in detail at the time? The earlier notion (that Garth Celyn was the 'farm of the princes', and that the royal home was below it, on the valley bottom) put forward by Frances Lynch and David Longley of Gwynedd Archaeological Trust, and repeated by The Royal Commission on Ancient Monuments in 1994, has long been superseded and overturned by the studies of scholars David Austin, Caerwyn Williams, Gwynfor Evans, Gweneth Lilly, John Davies, Jonathan Foyle, Nick Barratt and Paul Remfry. If there has been any scholarly work published since 1994 that in some way proves that the royal home was anywhere but on Garth Celyn, then myself and many others would be interested to see it. Before 1993 and the debate regarding the Franciscan Friary of Llanfaes, G.A.T. who had examined Garth Celyn (Pen y Bryn / Bryn Llywelyn)published the following: 'Recent documentary research by the present owner, K. Gibson, and buildings survey by RCAHMW have established that the llys almost cerainly sits on the hill of Pen y Bryn. A barn to the north-east appears to have been an original gatehouse of the 13th century, and a tower, now incorporated into the main house, is the oldest structural feature of that house and medieval in date. There are indications, other than the gatehouse, that the court may have been enclosed.' (TOWN, LLYS AND MAERDREF. David Longley. Gwynedd Archaeological Trust.) Following on from the Llanfaes fiasco, certain people started started pouring scorn on Garth Celyn / Bryn Llywelyn and mischievously tried to muddy the waters. The site on the valley bottom, located on the limited area of flat land between the mill and the smithy, re-excavated again by GAT in 2010, is NOT the site of the thirteenth century Welsh royal home. Dr Colin Gresham's statement 'an earthen motte in the mouth of the valley marks the settlement and the prince's residence was set on a shelf just above it to the east.' (Caernarfonshire Historical Society Transactions) is sound 86.154.104.34 (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC) 86.154.104.34 (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC) See 'A Brief Report on Pen y Bryn and Aber, Gwynedd' by historian Paul Martin Remfry. Published 2012. ISBN 1-899376-87-9. The promontory, GARTH CELYN, was without doubt the site of the home of the Welsh Princes of Wales. 'Civis Romanus' has been deliberately removing relevant academic information from this psge and causing problems. I hope that the Administrator will look back through the record and see this.Dafydd Llywelyn JonesDafydd Ll Jones (talk) 09:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Claims of mediaeval importance for Pen y Bryn and Garth Celyn
There are longstanding local traditions and claims (and Pen y Bryn would be a really good spot for a watchtower) for this site. Based on limited but significant excavation over the last couple of decades, the current scholarly consensus is that nothing definitely mediaeval has been found here. However, there is a mediaeval site in the valley, which at present seems to be the best contender for the royal llys. While we wait for appropriate further information in scholarly publications, that is the view which needs to be presented in the article. We should also, I suggest, mention the ongoing claims, recognizing and even hoping that they may someday find support and become the consensus view. I hope this helps. Civis Romanus (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Pen Y Bryn
I have looked through the sources on Pen Y Bryn and they are not scholarly except for one citing which is a 1990's citing and old material. Some of the sources are blogs with no historical background and no name recognition. I have made the edits because I know Students use Wikipedia for articles and of course it should reflect as much accuracy as possible! Could We hold off on re-editing until the scholarly presentations can be scanned and given citation references? That would bring the article up to date. If not at least let's remove all the blog sources which could have been put up by Students or anybody with no History background! As I contribute more I hope to add more primary sources to other pages (Graduate Historian (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC))


 * That would be good. At present we are not doing too badly, with, mainly, conveniently-available online recensions of scholarly publications, and also reference to the relevant bits of the website of the RCAHMW. The RCAHMW may be the very definition of a reliable source in this matter. I have just added another comment from the RCAHMW site, referring to the recently-published dendrochronology of the rafters etc. of Pen y Bryn. Since it's thus dated to after Elizabeth's reign I have also removed the "Elizabethan" comment. Civis Romanus (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Gwynedd Archaeological Trust, Regional Historic Environment Record
The following records were not to difficult to locate and should be incorporated into the page.

Gwynedd Archaeological Trust, Regional Historic Environment Record

http://www.cofiadurcahcymru.org.uk/arch/gat/english/gat_interface.html

Motte - Pen y Mwd, Aber Primary Reference Number (PRN) : 370 Trust : Gwynedd Site Type : MOTTE Period : Medieval Community : Abergwyngregyn NGR : SH65647266 Legal Protection : Scheduled Ancient Monument

Pen y Bryn House, Abergwyngregyn, Primary Reference Number (PRN) : 5886 Trust : Gwynedd Site Type : HOUSE Period : Medieval Community : Abergwyngregyn NGR : SH65827273 Legal Protection : Listed Building

Excavation, Pen y Mwd, Abergwyngregyn Primary Reference Number (PRN) : 5158 Trust : Gwynedd Site Type : HOUSE Period : Medieval Community : Abergwyngregyn NGR : SH65707260 Legal Protection :

Building Foundations, Near Pen y Bryn Primary Reference Number (PRN) : 1645 Trust : Gwynedd Site Type : BUILDING Period : Medieval Community : Abergwyngregyn NGR : SH65727275 Legal Protection :

Enclosure & Associated Structures, Pen y Bryn Primary Reference Number (PRN) : 1704 Trust : Gwynedd Site Type : ENCLOSURE Period : Medieval Community : Abergwyngregyn NGR : SH65807270 Legal Protection : Scheduled Ancient Monument

Oops, forgot to sign off; I'm out of Wiki-practice. ~ Geaugagrrl talk 06:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Ref: Practical Guide to North Wales, Henry Irwin Jenkinson
This additional information should be incorporated, too:

Practical Guide to North Wales, Henry Irwin Jenkinson, Fellow of the Royal Geographical and Royal Historical Societies, published 1878, page 114.

http://books.google.com/books?id=R7YHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA114&dq=Pen+y+Bryn+aber+llew&hl=en&ei=M2ZiTcqnFIKmsQOZvuzbCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

ibid-out of practice; signing off. ~ Geaugagrrl talk 06:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks good,I looked them over, hope you don't mind... lets add them (Graduate Historian (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC))


 * I can't seem to get the text up, can you paste it in here? Civis Romanus (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Leading contender for the site of the llys until the rather disappointing modern excavations?
Would we have consensus that until the modern excavations from the 1990s, Pen y Bryn was indeed the leading contender for the site of the llys? I have made a bold comment to that effect, with a note that citations are needed. Perhaps some of these references would support such a comment? Civis Romanus (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding references
If you want to put in a reference, see Help:Footnotes, but basically, if you put in, then the reference will become visible in the reference list at the bottom as soon as you save (or look at your new version with the Preview button, always recommended).

Here is what you'd put in to get the Irwin reference to appear as it does below:

In case anyone wants to practice on this talk page, I have put in a reference list here, and I'd be happy to help as much as I can. Civis Romanus (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Meanings of the word "Garth"
From http://www.aber.ac.uk/~gpcwww/pdf/GPC0018-05.pdf, Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru, accessed 3rd April 2011.

Garth1 (Feminine noun): mountain, ridge, promontory, hill; wooded slope, woodland, brushwood, thicket, uncultivated land.

Garth2 (masculine noun): field, close, enclosure, pen, yard; fort.

I hope this is useful (and believe that it is fair use, but feel free to delete if you think otherwise). Civis Romanus (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

New contributions from Paul Remfry
Many thanks to Paul Remfry for doing so much work and making it available on line at http://www.castles99.ukprint.com/PenyBryn.pdf, and to Dafydd Ll Jones for bringing it up here. "A Brief Report on Pen y Bryn and Aber, Gwynedd" is a self-published source and we (especially the author) should use it with caution.

It's also very interesting and makes clear how little we can know of the history of the place. It remains clear that the weight of scholarship is not convinced that the royal llys was in present Garth Celyn. (Nor, to venture on an editorial judgement, are there any arguments which definitively show that the mainstream view is wrong. Or that it's right. Indeed I'm not sure that even definitive excavation would allow certainty - it would depend on what was found.) This is Wikipedia and not a site for scholarly debate, and our business here is to report the mainstream view and also any well-supported alternatives. I hope I have edited so as to achieve that aim. In so doing I have removed some unreferenced comments and the names of some supporters of the alternative point of view. Definitive statements in Wikipedia's voice on unresolved issues, and lists of supporters of one or another point of view, are not suitable for an encyclopedic article. Civis Romanus (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I have also removed a comment from the lede "However, recent documentary research and a careful study of the building by historian Paul Martin Remfry concludes that there are 12th century remains on the property, and that Garth Celyn is the site of what was the Welsh royal home. " Remfry's admirable, delightful, and self-published work actually concludes:

"It is hoped that the judicial evaluation of the original evidence readily available and examined in this report shows that the balance of evidence lies firmly with the Pen y Bryn site being the ‘palace’ of Prince Llywelyn seen by Leland in the sixteenth century. Cursory examination of early evidence shows that there could have been some form of Roman presence at Aber (not discussed in this paper) and there is a strong possibility of occupation at or near Aber from this date onwards. The current remains within and under the house now called Pen y Bryn suggest a stone phase beginning in the early twelfth century with numerous additions continuing until perhaps the late thirteenth century..."

This does not justify a sweeping conclusion in the lede, or indeed any addition to what we now have. Civis Romanus (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

'Civis Romanus' I should like to ask why you feel the need to constantly remove all the academic material relating to Garth Celyn from Wikipedia and include webpages written by persons unknown. This is not right or proper and I call into question your motives as others have done in the past. The historian and Latin scholar Paul Martin Remfry studied under Professor Rhys Davies at Aberystwyth and Oxford. He has published over 90 books and articles on medieval buildings, using prime source documentary evidence as the basis of his work. Professor Caerwyn Williams was head of the Board of Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies; Professor David Austin is Head of the Department of Archaeology at Lampeter University. Nick Barrett, Jonathan Foyle and David Nash are all experts in their own fields. When BBC brought in Professor David Austin to examine the structures on Garth Celyn, two members of Gwynedd Archaeological Trust felt slighted and began what has been a long running campaign to try to discredit his findings; since that time they have poured scorn on Garth Celyn..... Dafydd Ll Jones Dafydd Ll Jones (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have reverted most of your latest edits. A minor issue is the formatting errors, entirely forgivable for a new editor. (I suggest using the Preview button before saving any edits in future, it's a habit that has saved me from many blunders.) More seriously, you have removed referenced material from leading scholarship which describes the royal llys as being in the valley, and you have inserted guesswork conclusions from less-reputable work which describes the llys as being the the modern Garth Celyn. (I note that Remfry is commendably explicit about both his opinions and their uncertain basis.) You even give your own definition of the toponym "Garth Celyn" (as being the hill), rather than the referenced definition (as the enclosure). Both are defensible translations and we correctly mention both, but only one is given in the scholarly definition of the place, and that is the one that we should use.


 * I am here to build a better encyclopedia and I have no emotional investment with any particular location for the royal llys; we should continue to present the leading contender as such, and we should also describe alternative views where reliable sources can be presented. If Pen y Bryn ever becomes the leading contender for the (or a) site of the (or a) royal llys, I may well be the first to ensure that the article says just that. I hope that the entire area gets the excavation it deserves, and I bear in mind that "ground truth" tends to upset the best archaeological guesswork, but in the meantime a good encyclopedia does not need minority points of view presented as fact. Civis Romanus (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Civis Romanus. I suggest that it is clear for all to see that you do have an 'emotional investment' that is biased against the promontory Garth Celyn being the site of the Welsh royal home. You have deliberately and systematically removed all the solid evidence from the Professors T. Jones Pierce, Caerwyn Williams, David Austin and the medieval scholars Nick Barratt, Jonathan Foyle, Gwynfor Evans, Gweneth Lilly and Colin Gresham in favour of Garth Celyn. You have even removed the Garth Celyn letters written by Prince Llywelyn ap Gruffudd in 1282, and continued to turn this Wikipedia page into a mess of none information, that is unfortunately all slanted in one direction. Why? I for one call your motives in this matter into question. Dafydd Ll Jones Dafydd Ll Jones (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with the previous observation. Looking over the editing history of this page, it seems quite clear that CR polices this entry, and the desired effect is quite transparent: to discredit any notions that Garth Celyn is the site of the Welsh royal home, and to advance the notion that the site existed in the Aber valley bottom. Supporting evidence for the prior point of view seems to be dismissed as"overly academic," "trivial," "trite," "unsupported," etc., while evidence to support the latter point of view seems, from my viewing of the sources, to derive solely (?) from one report based on an archeological study that was carried out in the early '90s ...? Surely if the Pen y Bryn site is important enough to merit a Wikipedia site, all points of view should be expressed equally and fairly. The comments here seem so extreme: is there some sort of local dispute going on here, being carried out over Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metsatalo (talk • contribs) 16:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The Aber Trust's site, llewelyn.co.uk, has been down for over a year as far as I know, so Metsatalo was quite right to remove personal details which derived from there. Various people including relevant academics have endorsed the claims of the Trust, and I think it's fair to say that until the archaeological site in the valley was investigated, Pen y Bryn was the leading claimant for the site of the royal llys. But nobody has ever managed to demonstrate that Pen y Bryn goes back to the time of the Princes. Any such early dating for mediaeval building on Garth Celyn is, per Remfry, based on guessing the age of masonry, more of a black art than a science. The written evidence is frustratingly vague about precise locations.


 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/northwestwales/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_9140000/9140324.stm has a brief report of the extensive investigations in 2010 which definitely show a high-status site in the valley, the current leading contender for the site of the royal llys, see http://www.coflein.gov.uk/en/site/95692/details/ABER+CASTLE+OR+PEN-Y-MWD+MOUND/ and http://www.coflein.gov.uk/en/site/309171/details/THE+LLYS+AT+ABER%2C+HOUSE+EXCAVATED+AT+PEN+Y+MWD/ for example.


 * Thus far scholarship. I do understand that there is a local dispute - see multiple comments in previous sections. Fortunately I'm not a part of it, except insofar as keeping an eye on this page is part of it. I saw a news report on the Trust's claims a few years ago and looked a little further into the matter. Civis Romanus (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Civis Romanus. Your interest in this page is overpowering and it seems that you have an axe to grind. I can only ask myself why. Have you actually visited the promontory Garth Celyn and examined it in depth? Have you personally examined the documentary evidence? On 14th October 1990 Professor Beverley Smith wrote 'this is an exceptionally important site and almost certainly the main residence of the thirteenth century Princes of Wales...'. Since then a number of scholars, having studied the site, have agreed with his statement. In November 1282 Llywelyn ap Gruffudd dated the last letters that he wrote before his death from 'Garth Kelyn'. Professor Caerwyn Williams examined these letters and in November 1998 stated that that was 'conclusive proof if ever any was needed'. The medieval and earlier remains on Garth Celyn are clear for anyone to see. Dafydd Ll Jones Dafydd Ll Jones (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * To repeat, the leading reliable sources state that there is a high-status site in the valley, of appropriate age to be the royal llys. The llys is probably (not certainly) what it was. No such archaeology has yet been demonstrated in modern Garth Celyn and the literary evidence is not conclusive either way. Lists of supporters are not reliable sources... Civis Romanus (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Civis Romanus. I can only repeat my qustion. Have you personally examined the promontory Garth Celyn, and studied the standing structures and the documentary evidence??? I am aware that David Longley and Frances Lynch (then of Gwynedd Archaeological Trust) decided that the unmortared river boulder foundations on the valley bottom, between the mill and the smithy, are that of a 'high-status hall', but those of us who have followed the saga personally know that there is absolutely no evidence for that conclusion. You have taken it on your shoulders to dismiss the evidence provided by leading experts including the Professors Caerwyn Williams, T. Jones Pierce, Ogwen Williams and David Austin. Scholars who have studied the structures and documents in detail, including Colin Gresham, Nick Barratt, Jonathan Foyle and Paul Remfry are not 'supporters' in the way that you imply. They are academics and their unbiased findings (which you have decided to exclude from this article time after time)show that there is no doubt that the Welsh royal home was on Garth Celyn. Dafydd Ll Jones Dafydd Ll Jones (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please check Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources. If anything the article presently gives too much space to an idea which does not have appropriate reliable support. Civis Romanus (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the latest edit by Dafydd Ll Jones. It is indefensible for several reasons. Trivially, the formatting errors. More seriously, the edit removed a referenced comment to a highly-relevant excavation, and changed the words attributed to a key source, seriously distorting its meaning. Removing the referenced claims of the Trust also seems odd, though the source website is down and this removal might possibly be argued to be an improvement. Civis Romanus (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Civis Romanus. Please explain why do you continue to ignore the opinions of the experts who have studied Garth Celyn in detail, and why you have removed the key information from this page? Dafydd Ll JonesDafydd Ll Jones (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you get some advice on Wikipedia's policies and how it works. You might like to post a question on the help desk; experienced editors watch that page and are likely to give you useful and impartial advice. . Civis Romanus (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I confirm that I have edited in the past as Dafydd Llanberis (the place where I was born). My name is Dafydd Llywelyn Jones. I think that there has to be a greater degree of transparency on the Pen y Bryn / Garth Celyn page, so I have decided to use my full name so that there is no doubt. It seems likely that'Civis Romanus' and 'Graduate Historian' are one and the same person. 'Civis Romanus' has over time removed academic references and important information from this page in a deliberate and systematic way. I should like to know why CR has such an axe to grind regarding this place and why he feels the need to be the judge and jury. Two individuals from Gwynedd Archaeological Trust have acted in exactly the same way over the years having had their noses put out of joint on the Llanfaes fiasco. I can only guess that the person who hides behind 'Civis Romanus'is one of those two. Dafydd Ll Jones Dafydd Ll Jones (talk) 09:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the talk page of a specific article and not a place to discuss personal comments. You might benefit from advice on how to edit Wikipedia in general and how to identify and use reliable sources in particular. I repeat my strong recommendation that you seek advice from another experienced editor, perhaps via the help desk. Civis Romanus (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * At this diff I find further misquotation of sources, plus another formatting error. I have removed the errors and I have done a little rewriting, mostly on the basis of the currently-live website http://www.garthcelyn.org, rather than http://www.llywelyn.co.uk which seems to have been down for over a year. Civis Romanus (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed page move to Garth Celyn
To an uninvolved editor this article looks to be quite a problem. From the limited documentary supporting evidence that has been provided, it appears than an article on Garth Celyn should be able to be supported by sufficient references to make it notable. Useful references could include those provided by Gwynedd Archaeological Trust as previously suggested by Geaugagrrl. Within such a article there should of course be mention of Pen y Bryn simply as a building within the general curtilage of Garth Celyn. With all the questionable references removed, I suspect that the article on Pen y Bryn alone would not be judged notable if taken to articles for deletion and could be deleted. I have an intention of taking it to AfD unless it can be substantially improved. I believe that a page move to Garth Celyn would be a preferable option.  Velella  Velella Talk 00:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Many references, most notably those authored by Paul Martin Remfry appear to be original research from a self -proclaimed historian. They appear to have little weight and could conceivably have been written to support an existing hypothesis. Few of the remaining references add much except for the Royal Commission pages (Coflein).
 * The comments on the talk page about officers of GAT I find invidious, especially as they are unsupported by references and those concerned have no opportunity to rebutt or deny the statements.
 * I can also find no value in the alleged opinions of many experts such as Dr Nick Barratt, Dr Jonathan Foyle, Dr John Davies, Dr Brian Davies, Professor David Austin, Professor T. Jones Pierce, Dr Colin Gresham, Dr Gweneth Lilly and Professor Caerwyn Williams since their work is not cited in references.
 * The long standing attritional edit-war gives low confidence that a balanced picture is presented by the article. It might assist if the principal protagonists withdrew from contributing for a reasonable cooling off period or at the very least declared their interests in the topic. This edit war has a strong whiff of conflict of interest.


 * Good points, and thanks for taking an interest. To comment on your points in order:


 * The work of Paul Remfry seems to be as you describe, but it also seems to be the product of quite a lot of time making observations, to be well-researched, and to give the facts in a neutral way, followed by a cautious expression of opinion in his conclusion. I feel - subject to consensus - that it can be used with care. It also makes clear that the house itself has a long and interesting history.


 * Totally unreferenced opinions are indeed not useful, except as guides to what their originators think. I note that a suitable Google search brings up quite a few strong claims in local mass media that the palace of the Welsh princes was on the present site up the hill. These claims are supported by www.garthcelyn.org and other sites. Indeed it was a local news item on one of those claims that first induced me to find out something about the house. On this basis I have so far taken an editorial view that the claims of a palace on the site of Pen y Bryn / modern Garth Celyn are notable in themselves, worth description at least, that they add to the notability of the house, and also that the claims justify our present very brief mention of the alternative and better-supported view on the location of the royal llys. I will of course bow to consensus, but for the moment I'd like to maintain my view that the current presentation of claims about Pen y Bryn is quite a good one.


 * I'm not really acquainted with the officers of GAT (I recall a polite conversation about the Roman site near Y Bala with one of the named individuals over a cup of tea, but that's the total of my connection). But I agree, the comments about them on the talk page are invidious. That sort of remark is the main reason I'm editing under an account that doesn't allow me to be easily identified; I don't want my real identity known to a group who hold strong feelings and might start making invidious remarks about me.


 * I can assure you that I personally don't have any conflict of interest in this area. As for others, I don't merely assume good faith; from what I have seen I am happy to assert my confidence in the honesty of all points of view.


 * A page move to Garth Celyn would indeed be arguable. (A very minor point against is that the definition of "Garth Celyn" has varied with time, it's now defined as an area up the hill but Garth Celyn could refer to the entire parish at least until early modern times. Pen y Bryn is unambiguously the present house and using that as the page title may possibly avoid some confusion.) Indeed when I merged the two pages I was in some doubt about which one should remain. I still don't have any strong feelings either way and will support whatever consensus emerges. In the event of a move I suggest that this page should not be totally deleted, but should become a redirect to Garth Celyn, and formal AfD would not be required.


 * If the dubiously-supported claims about the history of Pen y Bryn and so on are removed, the case for a page move becomes unarguable. However I would like to suggest that we should continue to give those claims the coverage that they deserve on the basis of reliable sources for the existence and nature of the claims, and that the present page does this in an appropriately neutral and brief way. Civis Romanus (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I support the move to delete the Pen y Bryn entry in favor of a Garth Celyn entry. The Garth Celyn entry should contain a section on Pen y Bryn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metsatalo (talk • contribs) 15:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The original Garth Celyn entry was deleted, and merged into one with Pen y Bryn by Civis Romanus. I support the idea of a Garth Celyn stand alone entry again. I feel that it is unfortunate that Civis Romanus has decided to be judge and jury on this page and that he has chosen for reasons unknown to delete much of the scholarly information. The 'Garth Celyn Evidence' was published in July 1998 by Professor Caerwyn Williams, the Head of the Centre for Welsh and Celtic Studies, Aberystwyth. That is one example of information that Civis Romanus has removed. Ymddiriedolaeth Garth Celyn / the Garth Celyn Trust is Chaired by Professor Bernard Knight MD, BCh, MRCP, FRCPath, DMJ(Path), FHKCPath, FFFMRCP, FRSM(Hon), MD(Hon), DM(Hon), DSc(Hon), PhD(Hon), LLD(Hon) and Barrister of Gray's Inn, London. Professor Knight is a man used to evaluating evidence. The Trustees are a group of highly respected, responsible academics. To suggest otherwise is not right or proper. The scholar Paul Martin Remfry has published over 90 academic books and articles based on his research. Professor David Austin is Head of Archaeology at Lampeter. Dr Nick Barratt is a leading medievalist.  Dafydd Ll Jones Dafydd Ll Jones (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

A brief comment from someone who has just looked quickly through what's happening on this page. I suggest that the page keeps its existing name for the following reasons. The house Pen y Bryn does seem to be of genuine historical interest in its own right, irrespective of what its origins are - and the page does focus mainly on the house. The history of the Welsh Princes is one that will draw people time and again to Wikipedia, and this page, as it stands now, offers an informed and fascinating overview of not only an interesting property that may be linked to them in some way but also provides a summary of a valuable debate on its provenance. I suggest leaving the page as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary Parson Reid (talk • contribs) 19:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Remfry's work supported in light of recent news
It seems that 29 acres of farmland and buildings at Garth Celyn have been put up for sale and are under offer - Carter Jonas have a plan of the land included. It's described as "adjacent to Pen y Bryn Manor, believed to have once been the home of Llywelyn the Great and his grandson Llywelyn the Last". The valuations/guide price value the total at £180,000 - £220,000 which seems to represent about the average current price per acre for commercial Welsh farmland. There has been a "substantial donation" to the Trust's appeal "which would be used to safeguard 29 acres of farmland once home to the courts of Llywelyn ab Iorwerth, Dafydd ap Llywelyn and Llywelyn ap Gruffudd." This last page also describes Paul Martin Remfry as a trustee.

The only relevance of the previous paragraph to Wikipedia is that it reinforces the case for care (see Velella's comments in the previous section) in using Paul Martin Remfry's recent work. I'd therefore like to say that, even given all of the above and the fact that this work is self-published, I still feel that Remfry's is a good piece of observation, that we may use his observations if not his conclusions with suitable caution, and that our current use of it is appropriate. What do others think? Civis Romanus (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

References:


 * The Chair of the Garth Celyn Trust is the highly respected Professor Bernard Knight MD, BCh, MRCP, FRCPath, DMJ(Path), FHKCPath, FFFMRCP, FRSM(Hon), MD(Hon), DM(Hon), DSc(Hon), PhD(Hon), LLD(Hon) and Barrister of Gray's Inn, London. Professor Knight is a man well used to evaluating evidence. Paul Martin Remfry studied history and archaeology at Aberystwyth. Professor Rhys Davies described Remfry's work as "outstanding." In the past 25 or so years Remfry has written over 90 books and articles, based mainly on his first hand study of medieval buildings and the documentary evidence. The Trustees and the members of the Management Committee accept and agree with the conclusions in Remfry's Report on Pen y Bryn. Professor David Austin, head of Archaeology at Lampeter reached the same conclusions, as did Dr Nick Barrett and other leading academics. I find the comment about Remfry's Report being 'self-published' a deliberate attempt of a put-down. Dafydd ll Jones Dafydd Ll Jones (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Whilst I am sure that your comments are well meant and sincere, there is a major distinction between the involvement of authoritative people and what is written authoritatively. Wikipedia does not seek to publish what is incontrovertibly true, only that which can be shown to be verifiable. This is a very significant distinction. In providing verification Wikipedia also looks for robust and reliable sources and CADW and a local archaeological trust would count as robust sources. Equally review documents by well respected academics would also be considered robust and reliable. Wikipedia ideally looks for secondary sources or tertiary sources may and, in non controversial areas, primary sources may be accepted. In this instance the work of Paul Remfry is incontrovertibly a primary source. This doesn't make it wrong, simply not sufficiently robust to act as a reference in what is very clearly a controversial area. I have no personal knowledge of this issue, neither am I a historian nor an archaeologist and I have no knowledge of the principal players here, but a cursory trawl via Google reveals clearly that the Trust (formerly a foundation?) was set up by the owner of Pen y Bryn with the express intention of proving that the house was on the site of the Llys. Whilst that may well be an admirable intention, it does suggest that trustees may be more inclined to publish work that supports the claim rather the the reverse. Again this does not fatally wound the evidence but it does mean that it must be presented in a balanced way so that evidence from those with a vested interest is clearly noted as such. Producing lists of notable people cuts no ice on Wikipedia and is not worth repetition. Please do not delete text from any article without giving good reason in the edit summary as it leaves the impression that there is a wish to suppress material that does not support a particular view. Thank you.  Velella  Velella Talk  00:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ymddiriedolaeth Garth Celyn / The Garth Celyn Trust was NOT as you say 'set up by the owner of Pen y Bryn'. That is an incorrect statement. The Aber Trust, into which the owners donated the medieval Gatehouse (grade II* Listed in a Scheduled enclosure) was set up by them to care for the building, and to provide a place for meetings, exhibitions and concerts. The two organisations are NOT one and the same. The Garth Celyn Trust (the owner of Pen y Bryn is NOT a Trustee) is Chaired by Professor Bernard Knight, and the Board of Trustees, are all leading academics in their own specialist fields. The highly respected medieval historian Paul Martin Remfry - who is one of the Trustees - is totally independent and I do not believe that his scholarly work is in any way influenced by anyone or anything. Remfry is NOT a paid consultant to the Trust; he, like the others, has volunteered his time and effort solely for the benefit of historical research. If you look back through the history of this page, the person who has removed much of the academic information is 'Civis Romanus'. in November 1282, Prince Llywelyn ap Gruffudd dated the last letters that he wrote from his home 'GARTH KELYN'. Those letters survive in the Register of Archbishop John Peckham in the Lambeth Palace Archives. In 1998 Professor J. E. Caerwyn Williams, head of the Centre of Advanced Welsh and Celtic studies at Aberystwyth examined the letters and the other relevant information, and, together with Dr Gweneth Lilly, published 'Tystiolaeth Garth Celyn "Garth Celyn Evidence". ISSN-0969 893 0 . The evidence they presented points conclusively to the house now known as Pen y Bryn 'Top of the Hill' being on the promontory Garth Celyn. Leading scholars throughout Wales read this evidence and agreed with its findings. The contents of the Garth Celyn letters (translated from the Latin) was removed from Wikipedia by Civis Romanus. Why? On what authority? Following the heated debate about the Franciscan Friary site at Llanfaes in 1991-2 in which Gwynedd Archaeological Trust were involved, GAT carried out a 3 week excavation at Garth Celyn. in 1993 they dug a hole with a JCB in the centre of the lawn in front of the house. Professor David Austin called into question the reasoning behind this. As that debate continued he was quoted in the press as saying "GAT have excavated the centre of the courtyard where there is little chance of finding any conclusive archaeological remains. In the process they have smashed through a cobbled layer without careful examination'. BBC became involved and the newspapers, as ever, had a field day. In 1993 and again in 2010 GAT chose to excavate a site on the valley bottom alongside what had been a short-lived 11th century Norman motte. The site is in the centre of the village, between the mill and the smithy. On the evidence of finding sherds of medieval pottery in 1993 the unmortared river boulder foundations of what appeared to have been a workshop or a barn were declared to be those of a 'hall'. The 'hall' then became 'the royal palace' and so on. The home of the Princes in the 13th century was substantial. We know from documentary evidence that there was Y Ty Hir 'the Long House', a Court Chapel, Halls, stables, mews, kennels, stables and outbuildings. Where were these on the valley floor? Nowhere. To my knowledge no-one from Gwynedd Archaeological Trust, CADW or the Royal Commission has set foot on Garth Celyn since 1994. Why? The questions keep coming. The structure on the valley bottom is not a 'Long House'. It is not on a 'hill' and certainly not on Garth Celyn. It was a single, stand alone building in a vulnerable area close to the river that would have been dirty, noisy and totally unprotected. No documentary evidence whatsoever has been presented to show that this site was in fact the royal home. Just that 1993 statement from GAT that this is 'a high status hall' that has sadly been rolled on and on. That statement is simply NOT based on solid foundations. Dafydd ll Jones Dafydd Ll Jones (talk) 09:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That is helpful in at least clarifying the separation of the Trust and its activities from the house of Pen y Bryn. Are there no reputable sources that can demonstrate that so that the clarification can be included in the article ?.
 * As to the rest, this seems to be a repetition of what has been noted many times in the past. I have reviewed the history og the Garth Celyn article and it does seem appropriate that most of the unreferenced material should be excised. As I noted above, Wikipedia is founded on robust verification and much of the old Garth Celyn article had no verifiable references. This is the key to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a blog and anything contentious or potentially contentious must be supported with an appropriate citation. You note a source (Tystiolaeth Garth Celyn "Garth Celyn Evidence". ISSN 0969-8930) above. Can this not be cited to verify at least some of the assertions being made? Persistently regurgitating allegations and accusations against others, including other editors, is, at best, unhelpful and might be considered disruptive. Please do not pursue this course but help to improve Wikipedia by adding relevant information supported by good quality references. Thanks  Velella  Velella Talk 12:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is a piece from the Telegraph (2006) that offers an enlightening summary of what clearly is a local debate gone global on Wikipedia: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1509296/BBC-history-team-solves-riddle-of-Llywelyn.html There is a lot at stake here in terms of Welsh history; it is understandable why there is such strong argument from both sides over which of these sites in Abergwyngregyn was the llys. Again, could I suggest a Garth Celyn entry that entails information about this debate from a more neutral third party (ie, NOT Civis Romanus or Dafydd Ll Jones?). Metsatalo (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be important to avoid a POV fork. A name change to "Garth Celyn" would be more acceptable (the house Pen y Bryn forms part of modern Garth Celyn and is of dubious notability on its own). Even that would be mildly problematic because of the varying definitions of Garth Celyn (the entire parish, the enclosure, the hill, or the enclosure plus adjoining land). It certainly isn't acceptable to return to the previous situation (see the previous versions http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Garth_Celyn&oldid=387547543 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pen_y_Bryn&oldid=350639740) in which a leading point of view was expunged from Wikipedia while a minority view, based on references that are either self-published, overtaken by later work, based on vague hope, or don't seem to exist at all, was given as the only story. (The present minority view may yet turn out to be correct, a matter on which I make no judgement, this is not my debate.) My only interest is in writing the article properly, with NPOV and appropriate use of references, and I cannot see that a fork would help us at all.


 * (What's at stake in terms of Welsh history? The royal llys is universally agreed to have been in or around Abergwyngregyn and nobody's rewriting the history of what happened. The two candidate sites are only 200 yards apart! The argument matters only to those with an investment in a specific candidate site and the owner of one of them is recorded as pushing a point of view very strongly. )

Civis Romanus (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Gweneth Lilly in Y Traethodydd, 1998
Googling the ISSN led me to: Tystiolaeth Garth Celyn gan Gweneth Lilly Llanfairfechan

Y Traethodydd, Cyf. CLIII (644-647) 1998 tudalennau 145-158

is available on-line, the first page is at http://welshjournals.llgc.org.uk/browse/viewpage/llgc-id:1134021/llgc-id:1161783/llgc-id:1161938/get650/

I summarize its main points as follows:

p. 145 Pen y Bryn as the palace of Llywelyn is mentioned in 1875, 1893, and 1894.

p. 146 In 1646 and in 1778 Aber Garth Celyn is used to signify the whole parish.

p. 146 In 1963 T. Jones Pierce, a noted historian, thought that the ancient seat of the princes of Gwynedd was at or near Pen y Bryn.

p.147 "After the untimely deaths of T. Jones Pierce and W.Ogwen Williams, specialists lost interest in the site of the llys, and in a television programme in 1982 to celebrate the seven hundredth anniversary of the last Prince, no more was seen of Aber than a pile of rubbish by the side of the Mŵd."

p. 147 Brian and Kathryn Gibson bought the house and surrounds in 1988; they soon heard from locals that this was Llywelyn's Tower. The authorities were very reluctant to agree. In 1994 "Wyn Roberts", minister of state, (who I suppose is Wyn Roberts, Baron Roberts of Conwy) wrote that the widely-held idea of Pen y Bryn as the site of the llys did not appear to be supported by the available evidence.

p. 147 In 1993 a visitor from Bethesda drew the attention of Kathryn Gibson to the remarkable form of the site, a form wholly typical of a "garth". This piece of information fitted many other points to recommend the authenticity of the local tradition of "old Pen y Bryn".

pp 147-150 Discussion of the possible meanings of the word "Garth"; argument with examples for a use of "Garth" as specifically meaning a hill jutting over a valley, as modern Garth Celyn does.

p. 149 T Jones Pierce thought that the fields around Pen y Bryn were the home farm of the llys.

pp. 150-157 The name "Celyn" may also be a person, not only a tree. There is a long discussion of the legends about Celyn ap Caw, his Votadinian ancestry from Scotland, his family, and his probable dating about 535. "The bare references to him in the middle of the fantasy Culhwch ac Olwen sound like crumbs of history rather than fable." Also his connection with the commote of Twrcelyn in northern Anglesey.

"Celyn" and "Celynin" are elements of place-names over a wide local area, likely to represent a connection with a powerful individual, possibly in the period when spoken Latin was still current locally. The name might have been derived from Latin Caelestinus.

pp. 151-152 A Saint Celyn or Celynin is suggested to have been an early local evangelist, but in the age of great (and, with all respect, distinctly self-important) saints a rather ill-recorded one.

p. 157 We imagine Celyn at Pen y Bryn around 540, with the young Celynin soon becoming man enough to evangelize the local hills.

p. 158 A tithe map of the Bulkeley estate in 1846 names the "field closest to Pen y Bryn as Gwarnydd, probably a short colloquial version of Gwar Neuadd" (back of the hall).

p. 158 The conclusion: "I believe that consideration of the name Garth Celyn, together with the evidence that was with us previously on behalf of Pen y Bryn as the site of the llys of Aber, has shown the reliability of the local tradition."

I hope this summary helps, in particular that it is useful to editors without the use of the Welsh language. My own fluency is modest and other editors may well be able to improve on the above.

Civis Romanus (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this publication link and for the information from it. In my opinion, the much more interesting account of Pen y Bryn is happening here on the Talk pages. I have been thinking about this topic during the past few days, and I have viewed online documents and other materials dating back even several hundred years. It certainly does seem to be the case that the Garth Celyn site existed in Abergwyngregyn -- there is little doubt about that. It also seems clear that disparate historical records place Garth Celyn to the east of the village, overlooking the Aber Valley. In terms of the claims regarding these two local sites as candidates for the llys, then, we have one site (the Pen y Bryn site) which concurs with historical accounts and has not been successfully excavated, and, on the other hand, another site (y Mŵd) which does not comply with historical accounts, but which contains remains of a Medieval structure. With regard to the latter, from my point of a view, we have what appears to be a leap of logic: yes, the structure that existed in the valley bottom dates from the Middle Ages, and it is in Abergwyngregyn -- but does that make it the royal llys? It would be interesting to know upon what other evidence the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales based their claims. The current entry on Pen y Bryn does not do justice to this fascinating story. I would venture that the current entry already is forked, which lends a distinctly schizophrenic nature and does not come close to revealing the richness of history related to Abergwyngregyn and Garth Celyn. I have just started to write an article on public discourse related to the topic, and it would make sense to write a general information piece for Wikipedia at the same time. 91.158.2.193 (talk) 91.158.2.193 (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)05:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC) (I'm sorry, I failed to notice that I was not logged in; the previous post was from Metsatalo Metsatalo (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC))


 * A good point, the public discourse is arguably the most interesting story here. I have found out quite a bit more about it in the last few days. I doubt if it's suitable for a mainspace Wikipedia article, but I hope that you will share your account in due course.


 * Until the present owners arrived the debate seems to have been a minor antiquarian amusement, generating no heat and not much light. Gweneth Lilly's points are well-made and interesting, but frankly speculative (you'd have trouble finding a historian who's prepared to say definitely that Celyn son of Caw actually existed}. Assuming he did, any connection with Garth Celyn or with Twrcelyn in Anglesey is based only on a name he shares with a rather common kind of tree and possibly with a local saint. Even if Lilly's reconstruction of his story is all true, and I'd like to hope it is, it says nothing about exactly where in modern Abergwyngregyn the llys was located. Lilly's main relevant argument is that "garth" here refers to a particular form of hill, and therefore the letters from Garth Celyn must be from that hill, i.e. modern Garth Celyn/Pen y Bryn. Whether or not "garth" ever had this single meaning here, we have documentation that (Aber) Garth Celyn was of old the name for the whole of Abergwyngregyn, the entire parish, and a letter from there could have been written at any location in the area.


 * We are left with general agreement that there was a princely llys, that (per unreferenced comments which I guess are accurate) it had a "long house" and that it was in Abergwyngregyn. And with some interesting archaeology; there is the Mŵd in the village centre, possibly a castle motte and possibly not, maybe a site of much older ritual significance, next to the Mŵd there is the early mediaeval winged hall /industrial site/whatever use the building actually had, there is Pen y Bryn / modern Garth Celyn which certainly has pre-modern origins but may or may not go back to the time of the independent Welsh princes and, if it did go back so far, may or may not have included a princely hall, and then of course there is the entire rest of the parish, which has mostly not been excavated and whose modern buildings probably incorporate all the stone imported in mediaeval times. And we have a rather loud public discourse in the last two decades, which seems to stem from the owners' feeling that it's their duty to Welsh history to prove that Llywelyn the Great lived in their house. This discourse now seems to be in opposition to the authoritative interpretation of a major excavation by the Mŵd (though we'll have to wait for the full publication to get the details), and I get the distinct impression that there may be quite a lot of interpersonal frustration and irritation as well. I've never discussed this matter with any of the main players and what I've seen on this page and in print doesn't encourage me to reveal my real-life identity here.


 * My interest is in seeing how this story develops, and, while I'm at it, getting the wikipedia article on it based on NPOV and the best references. I think we're doing quite well. Thanks to everyone who's helped. Civis Romanus (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Many of the remarks made by Civis Romanus are misleading. There was certainly interest in Garth Celyn as the site of the palace of the Welsh Princes before the present owner, Kathryn Pritchard Gibson, moved into the house in 1988. Ms Gibson has confirmed on record that she never made the statement or said anything on the lines of "it is my duty to Welsh history to prove that Llywelyn the Great lived in my house". It is unwise and unfair to quote from newspaper articles in this way.
 * In 1895 letters from local people were published in Yr Herald Cymraeg pleading for a memorial to the Princes to be erected on Pen y Bryn 'the Welsh royal home'. The property was owned by Lord Penrhyn at the time and the memorial was never allowed.
 * There are many scholarly references to Pen y Bryn / Garth Celyn before 1988. None of these scholarly references can be said to be of 'minor antiquarian amusement'. In 1963 Professor T. Jones Pierce wrote 'Although the actual site of [y] ty hir cannot now be precisely located...this ancient seat of the princes of Gwynedd...was probably situated on or near the elevated site now occupied by the house known as Pen y Bryn.... Not far away on open ground between the curial buildings and covering an area roughly co-exxtensive with fields belonging to the present farms of Pen y Bryn and Henfaes- the old field- were the arable lands of the manor, lands which included a 200 acre demesne or home-farm once cultivated for the benefit of the Princes.''Abergwyngregyn' Caernarfonshire Historical Society Transactions 1963 p. 38.  Dr Colin Gresham wrote 'an earthen motte in the mouth of the valley marks the settlement and the prince's residence was set on a shelf just above it to the east.'Caernarfonshire Historical Society 1979 p. 11.
 * On 14th October 1990 Professor Beverley Smith of the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth 'Pen y Bryn....what we have points unmistakedly to an exceptionally important site and, almost certainly, the main residence of the thirteenth century Princes...'

In 1993 Professor David Austin of University College, Lampeter, studied the buildings on Garth Celyn. His findings were broadcast by BBC in 'One foot in the Past'. Professor Austin dated the stone turret, Twr Llywelyn, to c. 1200 stating his opinion that it had been a staircase in the medieval house: he also dated sections of the house to 12th / 13th century.
 * The article written by Dr Gweneth Lilly and published by Professor Caerwyn Williams of the Centre of Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies in 'Y Traethodydd' in July 1998 contains far more information than the brief summary given by Civis Romanus. The conclusion is that Pen y Bryn / Garth Celyn was the site of the Princes palace in Aber.
 * Looking at the evidence in detail it becomes clear that Garth Celyn, the jutting hill, on the eastern side of the entrance to the Aber Garth Celyn valley is an ancient site. In 1537 John leland 'Kings Antiquary' to Henry VIII wrote. 'ABER  Tussog Lluelin uab Gerwerde Trundon [Tywysog Llywelyn ab Iorwerth Drwyndwn] had a castel or palace on a hille'...' whereof yet parte stondith'.
 * In 1993 Gwynedd Archaeological Trust excavated an area on the west bank of the river, on the valley bottom, in the centre of the village between the mill and what had been the smithy. The river boulder, unmortared foundations that were uncovered there then and again in 2010 were declared to be those of a 'high-status royal hall'. I cannot find any documentary or other evidence that backs up this conclusion. The foundations are certainly not on a hill, not those of a substantial complex as one would expect with a thirteenth century Welsh royal home, not in a defensive enclosure. The structure looks as if it has been a barn or a workshop in a small industrial complex. An article on the subject is more than welcome. Dafydd Ll Jones Dafydd Ll Jones (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Appropriate coverage for claims of other sites
We had two sentences on the RCAHMW's identification of the llys of Aber with the valley site, and a request for a citation for the first sentence. The reference,, was at the end of the next sentence. The reference is actually to the RCAHMW site itself, Coflein, dated 2007 and referring in turn to "Johnstone in Archaeology in Wales 33 (1993), 68-9 in 'Landscape and Aettlement in Medieval Wales' ed. Edwards (1997), 63-5"; it's very clear that the valley site is identified as the llys.

However this is not an article about the valley site, and we need here only a very short comment to mention the claims made for it. At this diff I have reduced the whole thing to one sentence. At least the reference is now unambiguously in the right place. I hope this helps. Civis Romanus (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * : Staff from Gwynedd Archaeological Trust (GAT) last visited Pen y Bryn, Garth Celyn in 1993. Based on GAT's Report, the RCAHMW included in their records the statement that royal home was on the valley bottom and the farm was on the hill. Having studied GAT's Report closely, I can see no evidence whatsoever to support that theory. Since 1993, leading scholars have carried out a more detailed examination of the buildings on Garth Celyn together with a study of the documentary evidence. The conclusion that each and every one of these scholars has reached is that the jutting hill Garth Celyn, that rises on the eastern side of the entrance to the valley, was the site of the Welsh royal home. The unmortared river boulder foundation on the valley bottom was probably nothing more than a workshop or a barn. In 2010 / 11, money from the public purse was spent re-excavating the foundation on the valley bottom. Garth Celyn was totally ignored. Why? Dafydd Ll Jones Dafydd Ll Jones (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

We restrict ourselves to authoritative references
At this diff I have restored the text to a condition that is defensible under Verifiability. That policy starts: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." It is unacceptable for the conclusions of a minority point of view to be presented in Wikipedia's voice and the edits earlier today were unacceptable to Wikipedia policy. As I have suggested before to the editor in question, the specific advice of an experienced editor may be valuable here.

(The previous edit changed "Aber Garth Celyn", which is the form that the reference uses, to "Garth Kelyn", which seems to be the form used on the partial facsimile of the original according to garthcelyn.org. I suppose a nitpicker might require us to use the form in the secondary reference, but it really doesn't strike me as worth arguing about.) Civis Romanus (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The ORIGINAL letters written by Llywelyn ap Gruffudd in November 1282 are preserved in the Register of Archbishop John Peckham in the Lambeth Palace Archives, London. The letters were written and dated from 'Garth Kelyn'. By putting 'Aber Garth Celyn' in this entry Civis Romanus, you are implying that the letters could have been written from anywhere in the settlement. They were NOT. The letters were written from 'Garth Kelyn', the Welsh royal home on the jutting hill on the east side of the valley. Why do you find the need to continue to amend the original genuine reference? Dafydd Ll Jones Dafydd Ll Jones (talk) 09:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You appear to be under a misapprehension. Please check the edits and the summaries.


 * It would however be useful to have a modern scholarly - not self-published - reference for the letters from Llywelyn to Peckham. Civis Romanus (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The ORIGINAL letters written by Prince Llywelyn ap Gruffudd are preserved in the Register of Archbishop John Peckham in the Lambeth Palace Archives, London. They are prime source evidence in their own right. Melanie Barber, the Palace Archivist, has confirmed that they were written at 'Garth Kelyn' not at 'Aber Garth Celyn' as you say. Once again Civis Romanus it is clear that you are attempting to pour scorn on the work of the respected historian Paul Martin Remfry by calling it 'self-published'. You dismiss Remfry's work out of hand yet continue to include selected references from general antiquarian sources and newspaper articles. 'Garth Kelyn' is the jutting hill that rises on the east side of the valley. Recent studies by scholars have proved beyond doubt that 'Garth Kelyn' was the site of the Welsh royal home. Dafydd Ll Jones Dafydd Ll Jones (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You may wish to note that Remfry mentions the signature as being from "Aber Garthcelyn" - it's in the reference. Nevertheless I have relied upon the facsimile on garthcelyn.org to present the location as being "Garth Kelyn". Please check your facts before you make accusations. Both are self published, but (subject to consensus) I'm taking the decision to rely cautiously on both of them with (in this case) a preference for the facsimile.


 * I have used Lilly - reliably published in Y Traethodydd - as a reference for the existence before 1988 of local traditions pointing to modern Garth Celyn as the site of the llys.


 * I repeat my plea for you to take advice on the process of editing Wikipedia. We use references to present a consensus if one is available, and the arguments on either side if not. We are not here to push personal points of view however strongly we may feel; this is entirely inappropriate in main articles and of very limited use even on talk pages. Simply removing relevant referenced material can only be unhelpful to the business of building a better encyclopedia.


 * I repeat also that I have no strong opinion or feelings on the exact location of the Abergwyngregyn llys of the Welsh princes; it may turn out to have been under modern Garth Celyn after all. But that is not the leading authoritative opinion at present, and claims for Pen y Bryn as the site of the llys are therefore properly presented as claims and in the context of authoritative opinion for the valley site. (In fact, only excavation seems to offer any chance of settling the issue. I hope that the Trust organizes some definitive work, instead of merely rehearsing its point of view. It is an interesting site now and will continue to be so, whatever does or does not turn up.) Civis Romanus (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There are STANDING remains on Garth Celyn that have been dated to the 12th and 13th century by leading experts in the subject. That fact combined with the extensive documentary evidence that exists and the artifacts that continue to be found there proves beyond doubt that the hill Garth Celyn was the site of the Welsh royal home. Excavation will certainly add to the picture that we already have and show the full extent of the medieval and earlier structures on and around Garth Celyn. Dafydd Ll Jones Dafydd Ll Jones (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * November 2012 'Civis Romanus' has now included the following extract on Wikipedia as proof that in the nineteenth century local people believed that the palace was on the valley bottom. 'A topographical dictionary of the Dominion of Wales by Nicholas Carlisle. London, 1811. Pages 1-2. "In the village is an artificial mound of earth about 15 feet high and about 15 yards in diameter nearly circular, the interior of it has not been investigated, but it is supposed to contain the remains of some of the Welsh Princes who had a palace at Aber. A small portion of old building is pointed out near this mound as the only remaining vestige of the palace of Llywelyn ap Jorwerth Drwyndwn, the last prince who resided at Aber." http://archive.org/stream/walestopographic00carluoft#page/1/mode/2up'
 * This same extract was used by Gwynedd Archaeological Trust in 1993 to support their same claim. There is a local tradition that the bodies of some of the earlier Welsh princes were buried in this mound alongside the river, and that it was used for ceremonial purposes before the Norman Earl Robert converted it into a motte during his late eleventh century invasion of North Wales. Mwd in early Welsh meant 'vault' or 'chamber'. The sentence by Nicholas Carlisle 'pointed out near this mound' is ambiguous. Other visitors to the village in this period are less ambiguous: 'Civis Romanus' however has chosen not to include any of their comments. Why?
 * 'ABER. At the entrance to the glen, upon its eastern side, is a very high artificial mound, flat at the top, which is said to be the site of a castle belonging to Llewellyn the great. On it stands the house of Mr. Crawley, a sketch of which, with the glen, is annexed.' G.J. Bennett 1839 The Pedestrians Guide through North Wales. A Tour.' (sketch shows the house, Pen y Bryn on Garth Celyn. The Crawleys were renting the property at the time.)

'The castle of Llewelyn is but a few minutes walk from the centre of the village. To reach it by the quickest and most picturesque road you have to traverse the nook at the back of the mill and to scramble over the loose stones that rise about the surface of the widespread stream. Once over the somewhat perilous brook, you have to pass a gate, then a field, still following the side of the watercourse. Mounting a steep rustic ascent you find yourself a few minutes more before a huge barbaric Round Tower, the principal and almost only vestige of Llewelyn’s Castle at the present day. Attached to this Tower is an interesting looking structure built entirely we are told of the ruins of the ancient palace. It is at present used as a farmhouse. This most picturesque house is well worth a visit, though from its private isolated character it is known to few out of its immediate neighbourhood. 'The farmer’s wife, though little prepared for the intrusion, nevertheless kindly allowed us to traverse the house, contenting herself with showing us alone one particular room in the tower, a clothes press and four chairs, evidently as old as the building itself and quite as primitive. She also favoured me with a bit of lighted candle and led me to the steps of a vast cellar or dungeon under the tower, telling me to inspect it if I wished, which I hastened to do - I beg pardon, I did not hasten, for the steps down to it were so slimy, damp, and shaky, that any over haste would have been accompanied with serious bodily harm, so needs was to be slow and cautious. On descending into this cavern, as well as the faint light of the candle would permit of, I noticed several contiguous cells with prison - like apertures. Could these possibly have been dungeons? At least there were good reasons for the conjecture. At the further end of the cavern, or cellar, or prison, or whatever it was and had been, I could perceive the commencement of a subterranean passage, which led, I was afterwards informed, to some solitary spot in the glen - for what purpose, must be left to the imagination, for there are no printed memorials to the spot, nor any written ones, unless Lord Penrhyn, the owner of the property, happens to have any such in the archives of his Castle.' 'Three Days in Aber Village August 1874' published by the author, Tracy Turnerelli of Leamington Spa
 * In 1993 and again in 2010, during their excavation of the industrial complex alongside the Mwd that Gwynedd Archaeological Trust had stated was a "high status site", it was suggested that an excavation into the Mwd itself would provide answers. Those suggestions were ignored. The Mwd was not excavated. It became clear that the structure that GAT were re-excavating in 2010/ 2011 was nothing more than a workshop or barn, and that there was no evidence whatsoever to show that it was anything more than that. Dafydd Ll Jones Dafydd Ll Jones (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The aim of an encyclopedic article is to tell a verifiable story, in terms suitable for someone new to the matter, from a neutral point of view in any contention. This requires good references, but it certainly doesn't require us to belabor the reader with everything that's ever been said on the subject. One reference each for either side of a debate is usually plenty, and we quote Leland at length and Remfry's interpretation of Leland. We might argue that, actually, it's not worth including any of the traditional attributions of the site of the llys because they're all from at least two centuries after the time of the Princes and are of very dubious relevance to the actual site. But they are mentioned as part of the current argument, and, so long as we've got one story about traditional attribution of the site, we should include another one giving the opposite point of view. No more article text is required, though I suppose that if there are any extra good-quality references to allow verification, further examples could be added to the reference list.


 * Similarly we don't need repeated assertions that the remaining stonework in and around Pen y Bryn is (or isn't) of a particular date. We have one comment from Coflein saying that it's of indeterminate date before c.1700, and another from Remfry saying that, although dating this sort of masonry is a black art not capable of exactitude, he thinks modern Garth Celyn has stonework from the time of the Princes, before 1284. (I will be very surprised if the masonry itself ever allows the development of a scholarly consensus on its exact date - the obvious dates in contention are "before 1284" and 1303/1306 under Edward I, when Remfry documents large-scale building works. Telling the difference between those two possibilities, at this remove in time, can really only be done by an excavation that finds closely-datable material, in context. I do hope that the Trust manages to get such an excavation under way.) Civis Romanus (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I cannot find any evidence whatsover that supports David Longley's 1993 conjecture that the foundation in the centre of the village, is "high status" and that it was "the royal home". Civis Romanus continues to repeat Longley's statements word for word but hasn't produced any documentary or other evidence whatsover that supports the claim. Documents drawn up in the decades following the Edwardian conquest give specific details. It can be demonstrated that none of this information can be seen to apply to the small, industrial complex on the valley floor.

From 1200 until 1283 Garth Celyn was the home of Prince Llywelyn ab Iorwerth (died 1240), Prince Dafydd ap Llywelyn (died 1246) and Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, the Prince of Wales (killed 1282). The site on the valley bottom was anything but substantial or secure: the workshop / barn that has been excavated there is anything but high status.
 * This entire issue extends well beyond the scope of Wikipedia as it is clearly a matter of National concern. I hope that the members of the Welsh Assembly Government who are showing interest will ask for the 1993 files of Gwynedd Archaeological Trust to be reopened and examined in detail as there are definitely questions that need to be answered. Dafydd Ll Jones Dafydd Ll Jones (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of referenced material
At this diff I have reverted:

- Removal of referenced material on the campaign to recognize Pen y Bryn as the site of the llys

- An unreferenced comment about a living person and inaccurate reportage

- A comment irrelevant to Pen y Bryn which replaced a relevant comment

Again I suggest asking for help; the page Neutral point of view may also be very helpful. Civis Romanus (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Garth Celyn
I came across created by User:Metsatalo who obviously hadn't quite sussed how Wikipedia works, I thought it was best to move the text here, delete the cat and I'll leave a note on his talk page.Le Deluge (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am working on a Garth Celyn entry, and I have encountered some challenges with one of the sources, namely the Old Pen y Bryn web site at http://www.abergwyngregyn.co.uk/html/body_old_pen_y_bryn.html The claims in this piece are the strongest against the modern Garth Celyn being the site of the Mediaeval Garth Celyn, yet I am reluctant to use this as a source, as it is an unattributed web site (no known author), and it unclear what its main reference is (RCAHMW 1993 -- what is this?). Do you know of any other attributed sources, other than the GAT reports (e.g., http://www.coflein.gov.uk/en/site/31424/details/PEN-Y-BRYN%2C+BARN%2C+ABER/ ?) Thanks for any information you can contribute. Metsatalo (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't know who's responsible and you're quite right, the site doesn't really meet our requirements as a source. I have removed it as a reference and its associated claims / speculation. I suggest the Pen y Bryn page will be better without them. It might however be appropriate to get access to the original RCAHMW publications on which the comments appears to be based. They don't seem to be available on line and I don't have convenient access to them - I feel that Coflein, which is an official site, presents as much as this article needs. Civis Romanus (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks very much for this feedback. Metsatalo (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Western Mail Letters. Wednesday 20th February 2012 Garth Celyn, Aber, Gwynedd. SIR – An idea has recently been promoted that the 13th century Princes of Gwynedd had a “peripatetic” lifestyle similar to that of the kings of England, constantly moving their household from place to place (Letters, Feb 2).The lens has been distorted and the image has become clouded and confused. Before the Edwardian conquest of 1282-83, each commote in Wales had its own llys – a centre of local administration, justice and tax collection run by officials.There were at least 140 of these llysoedd “courts” including the one at Rhosyr on Anglesey your correspondents mention. Aber Garth Celyn was the commotal centre for Arllechwedd, and remained so after the conquest. It, too, had its own government offices located somewhere in the settlement. However, from 1200 until 1282 the Princes of Gwynedd chose to make the promontory Garth Celyn, overlooking the Menai Strait and the port of Llanfaes, their main home and headquarters. We know from documentary and other evidence that the palace complex itself was substantial. It is that Welsh royal home that we want to spotlight and celebrate. The Garth Celyn project is for the benefit of all. DR JOHN C DAVIES Read more: Wales Online http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/letters-to-the-editor/western-mail-letters/2013/02/20/

Dafydd Ll Jones (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)