• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Reckon There's Truth In King Arthur Legend?

Pointing out that you find certain posts on this subject historically wide of the mark doesn't equate to an irrational nationalist rant Cochise.

History is a subjective subject filled with inaccuracies, still I think it is important not to over generalise and to at least try and be accurate.
 
Well, I agree, and I didn't mean to be understood as accusing anyone posting on this thread of Nationalistic rants, but they are certainly to be found a-plenty out in the wide world.

I did say that my views were conjecture, I just didn't want to to say IMHO :)

It does make sense to me that if the 'saxons' did come in less numbers than were supposed (and their non-use of cavalry is reasonably well attested) that a relatively small number of cavalry might be a shock to a saxon land army (as opposed to coastal raiders who would strike quickly then embark again)

My figure of 100 was slightly irreverent, just that was supposedly the number of knights in the round table, but I do believe quite a small number of mobile but moderatly armoured cavalry in the style of typical Roman cavalry units could have a very significant tactical effect. They wouldn't have been actual knights, of course, or even much like them, but that wouldn't have bothered later narrators.

There is some evidence to support my view, the apparent reactivating of some Roman installations that were used for the training of cavalry, but all the evidence for this period is so thin that I don't suppose the true picture can now be recreated.
 
An interesting sidelight on one of the sources of the King Arthur legend:

King Arthur tales 'penned in Oxford chapel'

A medieval tome which popularised the story of King Arthur is thought to have been written in a lost Oxford chapel.
Researchers now believe Geoffrey of Monmouth's The History of the Kings of Britain was penned at St George's chapel, before it was demolished to make way for Oxford Castle.

Deeds from the time have revealed the Welsh scholar was serving canon there when writing the chronicle in 1136.
Professor Helen Fulton called it an "exciting" find.
Charters and deeds dating from 1129 to 1151 signed by Geoffrey and countersigned by the Archdeacon of Oxford have been analysed by experts.
The chapel was a teaching base for Oxford students, and Geoffrey indicates in the paperwork his profession as a "magister" - meaning teacher.

Prof Fulton, a professor of medieval literature at the University of York and an expert in Arthurian literature, called it a "new piece of the jigsaw in the quest to trace the origins of the Arthurian legends".
"He would have been based there when he wrote his famous Latin chronicle, Historia Regum Britanniae," she said.
"It was Geoffrey who introduced the figures of King Arthur and Merlin to a wide medieval readership and paved the way for the enormous popularity of the Arthurian legends in later centuries, right up to modern times."

According to Geoffrey, his work was based on a secret, lost Celtic manuscript to which only he had access.
It told of Guinevere, Merlin, the sword Caliburn - later known as Excalibur - and Arthur's final resting place in Avalon.

All that is left of the building where Geoffrey is thought to have written The History of the Kings of Britain is the Saxon stone-built St George's Tower and the ancient crypt.
"[He] would have walked the footprint of the crypt whilst penning his notable tome," a castle spokesman said.

Michael Speight, general manager of Oxford Castle Unlocked, said: "[It] has played a role in a number of key historical events in British history.
"We are so excited to have discovered that it is also the site where the legends of King Arthur were written."

------------------------------

Was King Arthur real?

The mythical figure of Arthur as a 5th Century military commander, leading the Britons into battle against the invading Saxons, has proved impossible for historians to verify.
The only contemporary source, The Ruin and Conquest of Britain by the British monk and historian Gildas (c.500-70), does not mention Arthur at all.

Some scholars have suggested Ambrosius Aurelianus, a Romano-British war hero described by the the 6th Century historian Gildas, may have been the real Arthur.
Others say Lucius Artorius Castus, a 2nd or 3rd Century Roman military commander, may have formed the basis of the Arthurian myth.

However, historians such as Michael Wood believe Arthur was an amalgam of heroic figures from Celtic mythology - a basis that has, nonetheless, barely dented his legacy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ox ... e-22311399
 
Glastonbury myths 'made up by 12th-century monks'

A four year study by archaeologists has comprehensively demolished cherished myths about one of the most romantic religious sites in England, Glastonbury Abbey.

Those feet, immortalised in William Blake’s poem Jerusalem, never walked on the green and pleasant land of Glastonbury; the oldest church in England was not built there by Christ’s disciples; Joseph of Arimathea’s walking stick does not miraculously flower every Christmas after 2,000 years. And it turns out that the supposed link with King Arthur and his beautiful queen, Guinevere, is false too – invented by 12th-century monks faced with a financial crisis in the wake of a disastrous fire.

Furthermore the team of 31 specialists, led by Roberta Gilchrist, professor of archaeology at the University of Reading, found that generations of her predecessors working at the abbey were so bewitched by the legends that they either suppressed or misinterpreted evidence that did not fit.

The monks’ greatest ingenuity came after a disastrous fire in 1184 which left them the problem of rebuilding with few resources and no major relics to attract pilgrims. The solution was the increasingly popular legend of King Arthur, creator of the Knights of the Round Table, the identification of Glastonbury as the legendary isle of Avalon where he was buried, and the supposed discovery of the grave of Arthur and Guinevere – together with a helpful lead cross with a Latin inscription naming the king. The cross has been lost for centuries, but Gilchrist says that images suggest it was a careful piece of fakery based on an Anglo-Saxon original.

When the church was rebuilt, she says, it was in a consciously old-fashioned style, giving the impression of a much older building.

“With the other legends there is a possibility of genuine belief or misunderstanding, but with Arthur and Guinevere I’m afraid there can be no question – the monks just made them up."


http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/nov/23/glastonbury-myths-made-up-by-12th-century-monks
 
Sorry to bump an old thread.
I was researching the area where I work, trying to find any reason for our resident 'spook', and I came across a reference on Wiki regarding Arthur and where I am sitting currently. I work at a place in Bardon Hill, Leicestershire. Apparently this is a possible site for Baddon Hill.

Just thought it was interesting..


Kris
 
You're sitting there right now?
You're a night watchman for an extinct volcano?
 
I work night shift for a transport solution company lol

(and, I like to believe, I'm making sure the volcano keeps quiet...you know what they can be like...)
 
Rare 1,500-year-old brooch found close to 'King Arthur' castle
By cg_graham | Posted: August 14, 2016

Archaeologists have stumbled across a "rare and significant" piece of jewellery close to a North Cornwall site linked to King Arthur.
The Romano-British brooch was found in a field at St Mabyn, near Wadebridge - less than a mile from a hill fort which Welsh writers once suggested might have been Arthur's Camelot.
The discovery begs the question as to whether the brooch might once have belonged to Arthur's queen, Guinevere.

The hill fort is today known as Castle Killibury, and although it has itself been the subject of some archaeological exploration the site has for centuries been ploughed. It has therefore yielded little of interest.
The brooch was found in a meadow known as Chapelfield, where developers are now seeking planning permission to build 14 houses.
The piece of jewellery is made of a copper alloy and the archaeologists think it dates from the 5th or 6th centuries – around the time a real King Arthur might have lived.

Although many sites claim to be associated with Arthur, what makes the Castle Killibury hill fort of potential significance is that the connection was first suggested by Welsh writers. Usually claims are made to serve more parochial interests.

The brooch is the first evidence to suggest that the St Mabyn area was home to the wealthy or powerful 1,500 years ago.
The artefact is currently undergoing recording and conservation at the Royal Cornwall Museum.
The owners of the brooch, who also own the field where it was found, live in Malaysia.

But the publicly-available archaeological report attached to Cornwall Council's planning documents says: "The brooch is a rare and significant find, suggestive of a reasonably 'well-healed' [sic] Romano-British farmstead settlement."
The archaeologists were surprised by the discovery, as they had been expecting only medieval finds.
The brooch, and other fragments of imported pottery, and slate game pieces, demonstrate the area was active and important nearly 1,000 years earlier.

"It would seem most likely that the Romano-British activity was associated with a small scale, possibly extended family farming unit of moderately comfortable means.
"This is suggested by the unusual brooch find and the imported fine ware pottery, including a piece of Samian ware from Gaul," says the report.

The limited excavations at nearby Castle Killibury, sometimes known as" Kelly Rounds," have also found fragments of imported Mediterranean pottery, indicating that the site was also used in the 5th or 6th centuries.
The fort is a banked and ditched defensive site, associated with other, smaller earthworks nearby.

Some Arthurian scholars claim that the 11th century Welsh tale of Culhwch and Olwen – thought to be the very first literary reference to a legendary King Arthur – place his headquarters at "Celliwig in Cornwall".
They suggest that the similarity of the name, and the fact that it is a hill fort from the right period in history, place the site at Castle Killibury. Other scholars dispute this, and say the Culhwch and Olwen story places Arthur's headquarters in Wales.

The St Mabyn brooch was found in May and is described in a report written last month. A few weeks ago, archaeologists commissioned by English Heritage found evidence of an important Romano-British castle at Tintagel, long celebrated by poets as King Arthur's birthplace.

cornishguardian.co.uk/rare-1-500-year-old-jewellery-found-in-north-cornwall-village-close-to-king-arthur-castle/story-29613136-detail/story.html
Link is dead. No archived version found.


Photos and other illustrations on page.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does anyone know any more about the story of Derek Mahoney "finding" Arthur's leaden cross in Enfield in 1981?
Probably a hoax but he seems to have gone to jail for a time as a consequence of defending it!
 
Does anyone know any more about the story of Derek Mahoney "finding" Arthur's leaden cross in Enfield in 1981?
Probably a hoax but he seems to have gone to jail for a time as a consequence of defending it!

Here are some tidbits about the Mahoney story, excerpted from a September 1998 presentation to the Enfield Archaeological Society by someone peripherally involved in the affair.
SOCIETY NEWS
Enfield Archaeological Society
December 1998 No.151

THE KING ARTHUR CROSS
Geoffrey Gillam
Friday 18th September

In October 1981, David Pam, then at the Local History Unit, was contacted by Derek Mahoney who claimed to have recovered an artefact from the bed of the lake whilst silt clearance was being undertaken by the Borough of Enfield. ... David Pam rang Geoffrey Gillam to tell him that Mahoney was in possession of a lead cross which he (Mahoney) claimed was the Glastonbury Cross, being about 30cm high and inscribed with the legend “HIC IACET SEPULTUS INCLITUS REX ARTURIUS IN INSULA AVALONIA” (“Here lies buried the renowned King Arthur in the Isle of Avalon”) ...

Meanwhile, Mahoney had taken his lead cross to the British Museum but had only shown the object very briefly to an inexperienced staff member before leaving and refused point blank to allow any further examination of his find. At about this time the story broke in the local press and was front-page news in the Enfield Advertiser. Geoffrey took part in a Radio London programme on the subject and was invited to appear on Canadian television, such was the interest in the “discovery” but another side of the story was now becoming known. Derek Mahoney and his brother had been embroiled in convoluted legalwrangles over a property transaction in Somerset ... The brothers felt considerably embittered against the legal profession and within the EAS we were fully convinced that the whole matter of the cross was a publicity stunt. ... Mahoney consistently refused all entreaties to reveal the whereabouts of his cross and in due course the matter came to court and he was sentenced to two years imprisonment for contempt of court, although he was released after one year since it was considered that his continued incarceration served no useful purpose. ...

Geoffrey then proceeded to put the “original cross” into historic context ...

To return to the story of the cross, in 1184 a fire destroyed Glastonbury Abbey and the death of Henry II in 1189 meant that his funding of the abbey ceased. The monks therefore had to procure funds from elsewhere and in 1190, with the aid of an ancient manuscript of an “X marks the spot nature”, were able to locate and excavate the grave of a large man and a small woman, buried above which had been found an inscribed lead cross. The abbey was thus in possession of a relic that was almost guaranteed to provide a substantial income. No drawing of the cross exists, however, prior to one appears in Camden’s “Britannia” in 1607.

It is difficult to trace the story of the cross after Glastonbury Abbey was again destroyed by fire in 1539. It was said to have been in Wells (nearby) in the eighteenth century and the first supposed connection with Enfield comes at the end of that century when Richard Gough (of the house that bore his name at the foot of Forty Hill – the railings are still visible today) republished Camden. After Gough’s death in 1809 his collection of antiquities and curiosities was sold at Sotheby’s. It was Derek Mahoney’s proposal that Gough had been in possession of the Arthurian cross and that it deliberately or accidentally found its way into the lake in Forty Hall.

At this point the meeting was stunned when the speaker stooped behind the lectern and rose to hold aloft the Arthur Cross! It was only a moment, however, before Geoffrey confessed and ... revealed himself to be a master forger, having cast a fake cross from lead (based upon the drawing by Camden) in order to demonstrate how simply such a task could be accomplished especially if, like Mahoney, one had been a lead pattern maker for a toy company before being made redundant and had had access to a laboratory. ...

Tragically, Mahoney became a bitter and disturbed man, finally taking his own life in 1989. His cross was never found. ...
FULL STORY: https://studylib.net/doc/7345868/december---enfield-archaeological-society
See Also:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140628232122/https://britannia.com/history/arthur/crosshoax.html

https://books.google.com/books?id=TwK4IMXqVQQC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=Arthur+cross+"Derek+Mahoney"&source=bl&ots=GQWXzbLKiN&sig=ACfU3U2bbU_UdcgS1JE0yh-l17AHWy_K0A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjahPXRgN75AhUgpIkEHXNrAnoQ6AF6BQiNARAD#v=onepage&q=Arthur cross "Derek Mahoney"&f=false
 
Last edited:
A Graham Phillips presentation from 2016:
http://www.megalithomania.co.uk/origi.... The story of King Arthur is known throughout the world. The fabled Camelot, Sir Bedivere casting Excalibur into the lake and Arthur’s secret burial at the Isle of Avalon: these are just a few of the enchanting themes in the ancient saga that historians have long considered to be pure fantasy. In his latest book, The Lost Tomb of King Arthur, Graham Phillips presents compelling evidence that such legends were actually based on real events. During a quest lasting over twenty-five years, he has followed a fascinating trail of historical clues showing Arthur to have been a living warrior who led the Britons around the year 500. He has discovered that the legendary Camelot, Excalibur and Avalon were based on a real city, a real sword and a real island. And, most astonishing of all, with the help of archaeologists employing the very latest scientific equipment, Graham has found what he claims to be the location where Arthur was finally buried. Graham Phillips is a British non-fiction author who has investigated historical mysteries since the 1980s. He has investigated such enigmas as King Arthur, Robin Hood, and the death of Alexander the Great, as well as researching various biblical conundrums such as the Holy Grail and the Ark of the Covenant. Phillips has written seventeen published books on these subjects and has appeared in many broadcast documentaries over the years. http://www.grahamphillips.net Filmed at the Origins Conference in November 2016 at Steiner House in London. http://www.megalithomania.co.uk/origi...
 
Back
Top