On the Authenticity of the Coelbren Alphabet

It commonly claimed that the Coelbren alphabet (a writing system supposedly used by Welsh bards centuries ago) was invented in the 18th century by Edward Williams, or Iolo Morgannwg. But what does the evidence actually tell us?
This video doesn’t argue specifically for the authenticity of the alphabet. But it does point out some important facts that have a large bearing on this subject but which are often ignored.

[@eifionwynwilliams-iffy1288]

Poor old Iolo was so wrongly vilified and for so long. He did so much for Wales and against the slave trade, it's a crime to have labelled him a forger for so long.

[@orgolwg]

Some really good points here. The main objection to the concept of Coelbren must be Iolo's narrative around it, i.e. that the knowledge was transmitted to him through an ancient order of bards.

[@jamesam86]

This is fascinating. Whether or not Coelbren was directly copied from authentic sources or indirectly extrapolated from the known facts, perhaps it would be better than the Latin script we use for written Welsh now.

[@flockthis8392]

Very interesting thank you for posting. i write fantasy novels based on Welsh mythology and other welsh aspects. I intend to use colbren in a future novel (great for a wizard characters spell book 😂) in your expertise is there any relationship between colbren the text and colbren the village? My wizard boy needs an origin story setting 😁

[@dafyddaprhys4166]

There apparently exits a copy of the coelbren alphabet with translation into Welsh in a book written by the Welsh monk Llewellyn Sion from the 16th century... if true this debunks the suggestion of Lolo moraganw creating it. Coelbren could be hoel bren ...marked or imprinted wood... interesting stuff

[@BruceGCharlton]

What did Iolo Morgannwg claim was the source of his knowledge of the Coelbren? I wonder if *that* aspect was what rubbed modern scholars the wrong way, and made them so over-dismissive. I am thinking of the way that so many modern scholars are utterly dismissive of the idea that Geoffrey of Monmouth had a now-lost source book (the one Geoffrey said was given him by Walter of Oxford); which the modern scholars have decided was a lie (or gross exaggeration), presumably because they can't access it anymore!

[@richdj9780]

I agree with the point you make about Geoffrey of Monmouth's source, i think that Wilson and Blackett have proposed that Brut Tysilio is this source although conventional historians interpret Brut Tysilio to have derived from Geoffrey's work.

[@dafyddaprhys4166]

@@BruceGCharlton Perhaps lolos source for coelbren was Llewellyn Sion the 16th century monk who published a cypher into Welsh. Apparently Alan Wilson had a copy of this very book. Also consider that when Welsh nobility were captured and imprisoned they would request their library. On release or death these libraries would be destroyed.

[@mikebarron9364]

Alan Wilson Look him up

[@calebhowells1116]

I am very well aware of the research of Alan Wilson and have read most of his books. 🙂

[@thommathy3007]

very interesting topic!!!

[@Bimfirestarter]

Proto-Sinaitic! 😎✊😉

[@Bimfirestarter]

I believe there's even a Biblical account where a prophet writes on two sticks. 🧐😉

[@calebhowells1116]

Indeed! It really wasn't that uncommon, for obvious reasons. Sticks are easily-sourced materials.

[@Tyler.i.81]

British history has been messed with so much we don't really know are real dark age's history

[@calebhowells1116]

True, there's so much mystery behind it, so it's awfully difficult to work out the truth.

[@dafyddaprhys4166]

@@Tyler.i.81 Read Wilson and Blackett's books they are very well researched. The dark ages refers to England. The same period in Wales is referred to as the age of saints 👍

[@NatSatFat]

How many time need this be told! Iolo Morganwg has got nothing to do with coelbryn, this is an easy excuse to vilify Coelbren and the whole of ideas behind it, yes Iolo did create very good written work, and said it was by a very old famous writer, just to earn some money, as he was down on his luck over 200 years ago, (because his own work under his own name was nothing, but his own work under somebody else's famous name was worth a few pounds or so, the authorities, when they found out much much later, totally said everything he did was a forgery, and that certainly is not the case, he created as I said very good work, but under a different name. Coelbryn was around probably for thousands of years before Iolo, so the authenticity is not up for debate. So a useless vid.

[@calebhowells1116]

Hi, thanks for commenting. 🙂 Would you mind telling me, what do you believe to be my conclusion in this video?

[@NatSatFat]

@@calebhowells1116 Hi Thanks for replying, I viewed your vid again, I tried to view what you say a bit better this time, at the start you used words such as "supposed" which raises hackles, you are coming across as wishy washy middling! when it needs positive'ness when dealing with the "authorities" when what they say about, ancient British History in a very negative way, They have got an agenda (they are saying what they say for a reason, and NOT telling like it is, British History is what it is. You need to be for British History. (oh, it seems you believe what they say about Iolo are rubbish, after a 2nd viewing I give you a thumbs up, I might have slightly misunderstood the first time, because of this wishy washy attitude not positive.