Central to the author’s thesis is his demonstration that all of the earliest sources derive from the same basic fifth century series of events, but have been modified over time for very logical,. transparent reasons. A practical example of this is given in A Fifth Century Computer Virus.

For example, an interval of 12 years in the Historia Brittonum separates the accession of the ‘Proud Tyrant’ from the first battle or discordia between Britons and their Saxon allies on Thanet, just as it does in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. In the latter work an interval of 69 years separates the ‘Coming of the Saxons’ from the accession of the west Saxon king Cerdic, just as the same interval in the Historia separates the ‘Coming of the Saxons’ from a Roman consular date (that of Valerius) that also originally commemorated Cerdic’s accession.

The key point is that all of the intervals and dates in the Historia can be found in the ASC, and many can be found in Bede and Gildas as well. None of these are direct copies of the other. Rather, they all draw from the same basic chronology, a chronology held in common by fifth century Britons and Saxons, but modified over time for their own purposes.

That scholars have found all of these sources as either fabricated or fatally flawed is of interest. But unfortunately very often these conclusions are based on postulated evidence. The orthodox explanation for the end point of the 69 year interval in the Historia is that Valerius was the last entry in a consular table for which there is no evidence. The ASC is asserted to be constructed from Saxon sagasalthough there is no evidence that any such ‘sagas’ ever existed. At times postulating ‘virtual evidence’ may have its place. But a far simpler explanation for this data set is that all of our earliest sources derive from the same series of fifth century events.