Was King Arthur actually Scottish?

The legend of Arthur is the foundation myth of the English speaking peoples, if not the Western World, writes Adam Ardrey.  Many believe that legend is all there is, but this is only because they insist on looking in the wrong place at the wrong time: that is, in the south of Britain at… well, at any time.

Look in the right place at the right time – Scotland in the late sixth century – and Arthur steps from legend, back into history. Unlike the south of Britain, Scotland has an historical Arthur: Arthur Mac Aedan, son of the king of Scots.

The 'litmus test' for the historical Arthur is Nennius’ list of twelve Arthur-battles, the most famous of which is the battle of Badon. Professor Alcock’s map of Arthur’s battles, in his 'Arthur’s Britain', omits some of the twelve and shows others with several possible locations: he has six possible battlefields of Badon. I believe that none of Professor Alcock’s Arthur-battles are set within a sensible geographical or historical context, far less do they have an historical Arthur attached.

In the age of Arthur, Arthur Mac Aedan, things are different. The earliest historical reference to ‘Merlin’ has him at the battle of Arderydd, fought on the River Esk, the modern Scotland-England border, in 573CE. The following year Arthur, Arthur Mac Aedan was at the hillfort Dunardry, Argyll, two miles south of the hillfort Dunadd, where his father was inaugurated king of Scots in 574CE.
‘Merlin’ and Arthur; 573 and 574; Arderydd and Dunardry: these are not simple coincidences.

The land between the hillforts Dunardry and Dunadd is still, even today, called Badden, which, like Badon is a corrupt form of Baodan, a relative of Arthur Mac Aedan’s.