Print 
PDF
There are stories about the great King Arthur of Camelot, a man of honor, duty, and self-sacrifice. King Arthur and Camelot are a riddle for every age.
(All dates referenced in this article are Common Era [CE] or Anno Domini [AD].)
In order to solve the riddle, first you have to go back to the Late Roman Era. In 410, Honorius withdraws Roman legions from Britain. According to the historian Bede, the Anglo-Saxons came in waves, the Adventus Saxonum, in 449 to 455. In 476, lived the last Roman Emperor of the West, Romulus Augustus. Then, as Dr. Richard Hodges says, “Depending on whom you believe, there was this character, this individual known as Ambrosius Aurelianus who lived 490 to 520, or as I believe until 550.”
With the discovery of potsherds, many dates have been modified. Mediterranean amphorae were discovered in western Britain that date back to 525 to 550. Then, in the 550s Bertha, a French princess, marries Ethlebertht of Kent: this event is significant because this is the first act of Christianity in that part of Britain since the Romans. Nearly half a century later, St. Augustine arrives in 597. During that time, there are all sherds (E wares) in the western Irish Sea zone. Finally, the Sutton Hoo ship burial site completes the timeline at 625/8, which gives us a lot of insight about the archaeology of this mysterious world.
Geoffrey of Monmouth, or Gruffudd ap Arthur, (1100-1155) created the modern story of King Arthur. He was a Mormon but spent much of his life before he became Bishop of St. Asaph (1152-1155) at Oxford. It is probable that he reshaped the story of Arthur and Merlin at Oxford. But, Geoffrey did not create the story. Gildas, who possibly lived in Wales, wrote the first version of King Arthur during the sixth century, De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae. He wrote about the land around him and the magical tale of Ambrosius Aurelianus who confronted two dragons and his fights with the Anglo-Saxons. However, the ninth century chronicler Nennius embellished the story with his work Historia Brittonum, and the introduction of the magical character Myrddin Wyllt, a prototype of Merlin. Geoffrey constructed we know by using Nennius’ version of the Tale of King Arthur.
Raleigh Radford (1900-1999), in 1936 excavated Tintagel Castle. During this excavation, he discovered numerous amounts of imported Mediterranean potsherds. It took him twenty years to publish his discovery, a discovery that he believed linked Tintagel to King Arthur. He proposed that this particular part of western Britain that included Cornwall, Devon, and Somerset was actually home to the Arthurian resistance of the Anglo-Saxons. Christopher Morris went back to the site and discovered a slate inscribed with the name “Artognov” on August 6, 1998. This is the first piece of evidence of a possible King Arthur.
 |
| Tintagel Castle Image courtesy tansyfiredragon.blogspot.com |
Read the original publication about the “Arthurian Inscription Found at Tintagel”
Similar sherds to those in Tintagel are all over western Britain, always in fortified hill sites. These sherds led Radford to Glastonbury. It was believed that King Arthur and his lady were buried at Glastonbury Abbey. Radford hardly discovered anything at Glastonbury except that the site had a very long history that dated back to Roman times.
In 1971, Leslie Alcock published Arthur’ Britain. Alcock believed South Cadbury was Camelot. There are many different beliefs about where Camelot was. Geoffrey of Monmouth believed the City of Legions, Caerleon-on-Usk was Camelot. The Welsh Triads believe Camelot was Celliwic in Cornwall-Callington or Killibury Castle. Then you have William Camden, who wrote Britannia, claim the local people of South Cadbury believed South Cadbury was Arthur’s Palace.
William Stukeley wrote in Itinerarium curiosum (1723), “Camelot is a noted place […] There is a higher angle of ground within, ditched about, where they say was King Arthur’s palace […] Roman coin in great plenty has been found here: I saw vast numbers of Antoninus and Faustina. Selden, in his notes Poluolbion, writes it was full of ruins and reliques of old buildings.”
Small excavations began at the South Cadbury Hillfort. Leslie Alcock decided to call this place Cadbury-Camelot. Two interesting discoveries came up. First, they discovered fortifications across the hilltops with the same dates as the potsherds. The fortified hilltop had been built to defend the people of the era from the Roman conquest. Alcock discovered the insides had been refurbished. The second discovery is a timber palace. The palace is not as many would imagine Arthur’s home after all those magical movie portrayals, but it is the palace of Cadbury-Camelot nonetheless. Mediterranean potsherds appeared yet again inside the palace. Whether Cadubury-Camelot was the mythical Camelot of the stories or not, the site was a very important place.
 |
| Cadbury Castle (Camelot?) |
Since Alcock’s excavation, the potsherds have been redated to 525 to 550 during the time of Justinian. Then there is the very unlikely tale of Adventus Saxonum. According to the Legend of King Arthur, Arthur fought against the Anglo-Saxon Vortigern. The Anglo-Saxons are portrayed as violent warlike people who in reality were very peaceful.
A climate crisis hit Ireland and Britain. By looking at trees, scientists know there was no growth for four or five years. Cloud cover was very likely and probably caused by a volcanic eruption. Anglo-Saxons relocated westward through Selwood Forest. The fortifications are most likely a response to this unexpected clash of cultures.
During this Merovingian Age, there were two trade routes in Britain and Ireland: the eastern trade route and the western trade route. The eastern trade route had items of higher value. The Sutton Hoo burial ship is evidence of this richness due to trade. The most remarkable discovery inside the ship were the Celtic bowls. These bowls prove that at the funerary feast, there were Britains present. The fact that Britains were present means that the Arthurian resistance had ended.
 |
| Original publication of the Sutton Hoo Burial Ship Image courtesy Illustrated News London |
 |
| 1939 Sutton Hoo Ship Excavation: Sutton Hoo Society |
 |
| Sutton Hoo Burial Ship Celtic Bowl, Merovingian Purse Cover, Helmet |
Here are the undeniable facts:
Yes, it is very probable that King Arthur existed; his knights of the Round Table did not. There was an Arthurian resistance in Western Britain that probably began with the clash of cultures during the climate crisis. Time has altered the original story of a great leader in Britain during the sixth century. That leader did not face dragons or have a warlock sidekick. But, he did indeed lead his people and earned himself a fantastic and magical legend based on his actions in the mysterious land of Camelot.
This article is a summary of Penn State's Great Riddles in Archaeology: King Arthur, Camelot, and the Quest for a Holy Grail.
- There was a resistance during the sixth century
- Christianity was just being experienced
- There was a climate crisis
- There was a clash of cultures
What about the Holy Grail? Most likely the Holy Grail was related to the Buddhist idea of magical stones and was “created” because of the evidence of trading with China since the 830s. Did the Holy Grail exist though? That question still has not been answered.
 |
| Image of King Arthur at the Round Table with the Holy Grail at the Center |
This article is a summary of Penn State's Great Riddles in Archaeology: King Arthur, Camelot, and the Quest for a Holy Grail.
About the Author
I'm Melanie, the founder of BermudaQuest and an archaeology undergraduate at the University of New Mexico. I love writing about ancient and modern cultures. My goal is to make information about our origins available to everyone [in simple English!]
2 comments:
Geoffrey of Monmouth was not a Mormon, at least in the 10th century.
Gildas was not responsible for any of the tales you ascribe to him. The tales come from the much later “Historia Brittonum”, sometimes called “Nennius”, or from your own imagination. Myrddin Wyllt does not appear in “Nennius” at all or in any text before Geoffrey of Monmouth’s “Vita Merlini”.
Your Alcock evidence is grossly out of date. Much of his supposed evidence has been revealed to be empty supposition and he ceased to claim that there was ANY evidence that the fortress at Cadbury was Arthurian Camelot.
No medieval story claims that “Arthur fought against the Anglo-Saxon Vortigern”. Sources that mention Vortigern place him a generation and a half before Arthur’s birth.
There is no “land of Camelot”. When mentioned, Camelot is always a city.
The name name “Artognov” is not “Arthur” and is evidence for nothing save that someone named “Argonov” lived in Tintagel. Only the most ignorant sort of reporters and pseudo-scholars have attempted to make any connection between a name that partly resembles Aethur and “Arthur”.
I thought this article was very interesting. @Jallan, some of the data presented may be outdated but it is a summary of a lecture from a few years ago. Perhaps you would like to contribute a list of sources with updated information for all of us to read.
Post a Comment