Worcester. King Ceowulf II of Mercia, defender of England. Move over, King Alfred of Wessex.

Hwaet! An ally of King Alfred of Wessex seeks his time on the stage as a hero of England, against the Vikings.  Co-efforts shown on coins with faces together, equal, as to Alfred and Ceowulf.

Share, children.  Share.  History rewrites by the chroniclers serving the agenda of the king best equipped to chronicle, rule the day, but eventually some do get corrected.

Here, the chroniclers of Alfred the Great, King Alfred of Wessex, who beat back the Vikings at Edington and is therefore a great hero, had help.  Not only help, but perhaps the efforts of the unsung King Ceowulf II, king of Mercia 874-877 were dispositive.  Coins have been found that display Alfred and Ceowulf equally on the face of the coins.  A few of them had been found earlier, but a new discovery shows the widespread dissemination of them and points to a strong alliance between the kings. See support at http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesBritain/EnglandCeolwulf01.htm

Ceowulf is not only written out of history, the few accounts of him are unfavorable. See http://www.archaeology.org/issues/208-1603/trenches/4165-trenches-england-viking-hoard
Ceowulf was dismissed as a "foolish king's thane" holding lands for the interest of the Vikings in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, see historyfiles site, and http://www.anglo-saxons.net/hwaet/?do=get&type=person&id=CeolwulfIIofMercia, for example.  Instead, he was independent, a "shrewd negotiator" (see anglo-saxons.net site), legitimate king, and with friendly relations as to Alfred.

Glastonbury Abbey: Archeology and King Arthur

Archeology at Glastonbury Abbey.  Review of the old, and exploration of the new: Glastonbury Abbey back in the news  Archeology may produce ambiguous results, but continual look-backs are valuable. What was dismissed, or advocated earlier, may be a springboard for new information.  Here, the Abbey site was indeed occupied in the 5th Century, the time of King Arthur, but alleged remains of his body and that of Guinevere?  Not definitive, not really anything.  Just a pit.

Here, the interface of legend and fact, see Legends of Glastonbury at  http://www.archaeology.org/issues/208-1603/trenches/4172-trenches-england-glastonbury-abbey

Timeline highpoints

33-35 CE -- Legend.  Joseph of Arimathea, holder of the Holy Grail (do a search) founds "Christian" church at Glastonbury.  Church?  What institution was in effect so soon after the death?  No mind.

5th Century -- Site is occupied, with "definitive proof" at the Abbey site, and this from the time of the actual King Arthur, see Legends of Glastonbury

600's -- Saxons, now Christian, conquered Somerset county. King:  Ine of Wessex, who built on the Abbey site, see http://www.glastonburyabbey.com/history_archaeology.php?sid=38bbee268aa83067928b28b92614b9ff

1066 -- Norman invasion.  Normans added to the existing structures at the Abbey.

1184 -- Huge fire at the Monastery, see Glastonburyabbey.com site.  Monks rebuild, with some new but old-looking structures, to add to the pilgrimage value, see Legends of Glastonbury site.

1191 -- Monks at the Abbey find a log, hollow but with two bodies inside and a cross with the inscription indicating that here lie "King Arthur and his wife Guinevere."

1278 -- Edward I oversees reburial, bones said to be the royals Arthur and Guinevere

1536-1541 -- Protestant Dissolution of the Monasteries, with Glastonbury Abbey included in 1539.  In 1536, there were 800 monasteries, convents, friaries, reign of Henry VIII.  By 1541, none, with 10,000 religious persons displaced. See Glastonburyabbey site.

1904-1979 --  Era of 36 or so excavations, but unpublished, often misinterpreted

1950's - 1960's -- more excavations, but affirmative evidence for the royals Arthur and Guinevere are contested.