His name is synonymous with wisdom and fairness. The names of his wife, magician and knights are household words. His sword symbolizes righteous power. His capital city is an icon for earthly perfection, but with this entire name recognition, we still aren't sure that he ever actually lived. Yes, we are talking about the legendary king, Arthur.
King Arthur, with his sword Excalibur, wife Guinevere, and Sir Lancelot did not really exist, but their names conjure up a romantic image of gallant knights in shining armour, elegant ladies in medieval castles, heroic quests for the Holy Grail in a world of honour and romance, and the court of Camelot at the centre of a royal and mystical Britain.
Roman Britain
Before we begin to talk of Arthur's period, let's go through the history of the Roman Empire and its Northern Province, Britain, and what brought about this situation. The Romans first came to Britain in the late Republican period. Gaius Julius Caesar was campaigning in Gaul (modern France and Belgium) in 59-56 BC, before he decided to cross the English Channel. In 55 BC, he landed with two legions, near Kent and was immediately attack by Britons. Though he managed to repel the Britons, Caesar had to return to Gaul, due to bad weather. Caesar returned the following year, with five legions and a larger fleet. His army crossed the Thames and he captured the British king named Cassivellanus. Caesar returned to the continent before winter arrived. His expeditions to Britain were more of raids than invasions and occupations. Caesar saw that the Britons were like the Celts in Gaul, mostly the similarities in language and divided into tribal kingdoms. He was impressed with Britons skills in the use of chariots in battles. The Gauls had abandoned the chariots before the sacking of Rome in 390 BC.
Britain was not a Roman province, until the reign of Emperor Claudius, in the middle of 1st century AD. Claudius established Camulodunum, as the new capital of the province of Britannia (Britain). Much of the population comes from Celtic race. The Celts known as the Cymic Celts probably arrived in Britain in the 6th century BC. More Celts arrived from Gaul, during the campaigns of Julius Caesar and the early Imperial Rome.
Anyway, these Celts in Britain became known as the Britons under the Roman Empire, who had absorbed and adopted Roman culture and law. Christianity may have arrived in the second half of the 1st century AD, but it was not a universally accepted religion until the reign of Emperor Constantine the Great, in the early 3rd century AD. Even though some of Celts may have converted to the new religion, their Celtic heritage remained strong and the pagan gods still linger in their tales and their arts. In AD 476, during the reign of Romulus Augustus, Rome fell to the Goths. The German leader, Odoacer, ended the Roman Empire in the West. Odoacer became the first king of Italy. The fall of Rome marked the beginning of the Dark Ages in Western Europe and the end of Antiquity.
Britain in the Dark Age:
The Dark Ages was the earliest division of the Middle Ages in Europe, between the fall of Rome in AD 476 and in AD 800, which was the coronation of Charlemagne as the first Holy Roman Emperor (As for those living in Britain, the Dark Age began when the Roman legions withdrew from the island in AD 410. Some also say that the Dark Age didn't end until the Battle of Hastings, 1066. But all this is from the point of view of the British.). So what happened to Britain after the whole Roman army left the island in AD 410? The isles were repeatedly invaded by the Angles, Jutes and Saxons. The Britons who had stayed on the island had trouble keeping the invaders out of Britain. In the 5th and 6th century, large group of Celtic Britons had already fled to Armorica (Brittany), in France, seeking refuge from the invading Saxons. It was at this period that the region was renamed from Armorica to Brittany. The name Brittany means "Little Britain". There has been speculation that the Arthurian legend comes not from Welsh sources, but from Breton sources. This speculation was due to the fact that the name Arthur was much more common in Brittany than in Wales. Several Celtic kingdoms in the north, had tried to resist the Angles in Scotland. These kingdoms were known to the Welsh in Wales as the Old North, and they spoke Old Welsh, not Scottish Gaelic. These kingdoms included the Rheged and Gododdin. Two famous Welsh bards of the late 6th century AD, Taliesin and Aneirin, sung their praises to the warriors of these two kingdoms.
The Legend:
The legend of King Arthur is complex and fascinating. Over the years, countless scholars, writers, poets, and storytellers have contributed to a vast body of work about this extraordinary figure. All of this information about Arthur makes it difficult to write concisely about him. However, since many of us have an interest in this larger than life hero, it makes sense to summarize the major events of his story. Many versions of the legend of King Arthur include the following points:
1. Arthur was born (under somewhat magical circumstances...) the son of a king.
2. As an infant, he was taken by the mage Merlin, to grow up in seclusion from the deadly affairs surrounding the royal court.
3. When he reached maturity, Arthur proved his birthright by claiming the sword Excalibur.
4. By uniting several of the warring factions of Britain, he consolidated his hold on the country, and rose to become High King of the island.
5. Arthur married the lovely Guinevere.
6. The King was influential in organizing the Knights of the Round Table and their Quest for the Holy Grail.
7. After the death of Arthur, there was a mystical promise of his return someday.
King Arthur and the Holy Grail
Someone should have asked the question long ago, why did Cortez expect to find gold in the Americas in the first place? Why did the crew on the boats of Columbus expect to find gold? Why did the marauding Spaniards kill eight million native American Indians looking for gold? The truth is that the royal families of England and Spain had spoken as far back as King Arthur in 530 AD that their "treasure house" was located in the "Mericas".
WAS THERE A REAL ARTHUR? THE POSSIBILITIES
The Sources:
The mentions of Arthur in historically reliable sources are few.
1. Letter to Riothamus, c.470
Fifth century letter from Sidonius Apollinaris, Bishop of Clermont-Ferrand, to Riothamus, thought by some to be the original of King Arthur.
2. De Excidio Britanniae, c.540
Sixth century diatribe written by the monk, Gildas, giving some insight into darkage Britain and the situation that gave rise to the legend of Arthur.
3. The Gothic History, 469 AD
Excerpt from Jordanes' sixth century "Gothic History" telling of a vain attempt on the part of Riothamus, "king of the Brittones," and 12,000 men to help the Roman Emperor, Anthemius, in his struggle with the Visigoths.
4. The Battle of Llongborth, c.480
An English translation of a sixth century Welsh poem, called "Elegy for Geraint," which mentions Arthur.
5. The Gododdin c. 600
A series of Welsh laments about further reverses at the hands of the English, mentions the name 'Arthur' as if Arthur were already the type of the great warrior.
6. Historia Brittonum, c.830
Nennius' ninth century entertaining, but questionable, collection of the facts, myths and fables covering the early history of Britain. Special emphasis on Arthur.
7. Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 9th C.
Fascinating (and massive) 52-part account of history covering the years 1 through 1154 AD from the point of view of the Anglo-Saxons.
8. Annales Cambriae, c. 970
The tenth century Annals of Wales containing two interesting references to King Arthur, which have been taken by some to be proof of his historicity.
9. Legend of St. Goeznovius, c. 1019
An eleventh century Breton work in which Arthur is called "King of the Britons." But, was it really written as early as its date implies?
10. The Exhumation of Arthur's Body, c.1193
Gerald of Wales' two eye-witness accounts, separated by twenty years in time, describing the digging up of King Arthur's grave at Glastonbury Abbey.
11. Ralph of Coggeshall, c.1220
An excerpt from the "Chronicon Anglicanum" (English Chronicle) with an entry for the year 1191 on the opening of Arthur's grave.
12. Margam Abbey Chronicle, c.1300
An excerpt from the chronicle of a Welsh monastery with a unique account of the discovery of Arthur's body.
13. The Dream of Rhonabwy, c.1200
An excerpt from a tale of the Welsh Mabinogion, which refers to Arthur as "Emperor," and mentions the Battle of Camlann.
14. Early Welsh Verse, 7th C. to 14th C.
The mentions of Arthur in Welsh poems and verse are many. Sometimes he is a warrior, sometimes a leader, sometimes a ruffian, but he is almost never a king. Most of these verses are twelfth to fourteenth century copies, but are believed to have been originally composed much earlier.
15. John Leland's "Itinerary," 1530-40
The Tudor scholar's account of his visit to South Cadbury, Somerset, and its association with the legend of King Arthur.
Arthur, the Post-Roman War-leader
The notion that Arthur could have been a post-Roman war-leader has it origins in a study of one of the earliest and most important Arthurian sources, chapter 56 of the Historia Brittonum (written c.829-30AD), in particular the section which says “Arthur fought against them [the Anglo-Saxon invaders] in those days, together with the kings of the Britons, but he was the leader in battles [dux bellorum].” In the most basic and popular form of this theory the above sentence is treated as a literal statement that the historical Arthur was a great warrior and war-leader (with an implication, it is often suggested, that Arthur was not a king himself), who led the fight against the Anglo-Saxon invaders. The rest of the text lists a number of his supposed battles of which the Battle of Badon is the only one that we know from other historical sources (Gildas’s De Excidio Britanniae of c.540AD, which mentions the battle but not Arthur) actually took place in the post-Roman period. This theory is essentially the ‘default’ concept of a historical Arthur for the academic community and is used by those researchers who believe that Arthur probably existed but think that we can know nothing more of him without entering into the realms of speculation. This view takes the Historia Brittonum chapter 56 as (to some degree) evidence of the existence of Arthur and his basic nature and role but frequently doesn’t trust the contents of this chapter to provide reliable evidence with regards to the battles he fought (aside from Badon) or the region he operated in. Proponents of this theory of Arthur as a war-leader include Professor Jackson (1959; 1969), who explicitly rejects any localisation of Arthur on the basis of the Historia battles, and Professor Charles-Edwards (1991), who concluded his recent survey of the evidence for a historical Arthur by saying that it cannot be ruled out a priori that some useful information about the sixth century may, some day, be surmised on the basis of the [Historia Brittonum] text; but, at the moment, the prospects are poor. At this stage of the enquiry, one can only say that there may well have been an historical Arthur [but] that the historian can as yet say nothing of value about him. (Charles-Edwards, 1991)
The advantages of this theory are, of course, that it is based firmly on a critical appreciation of the early Arthurian sources, usually focussing on the Historia Brittonum as the only text worthy of serious consideration as plausible source of useful information on the nature of the historical Arthurthat it recognises the problems inherent in the use of these sources; and that it refuses to go beyond what can be established by correct historical methodology. It does, however, leave us with a somewhat indistinct portrait of the historical Arthur.
Whilst many might accept the above as the most we can legitimately say of any historical Arthur given the quality of the sources available to us, some have sought to expand this through various means. Professor Jones (1964), for example, argues that the notice regarding Arthur’s death at the Battle of Camlann in the Annales Cambriae should be treated as authentic and early and thus added to the above concept of a historical Arthur. Professor Alcock (1971) would argue the same, seeing the Annales Cambriae entries (it also records the Battle of Badon as being fought by Arthur) as the most reliable source of information on any historical Arthur, rather than the Historia Brittonu account, arguing that they derive from 6th-century Easter tables. Both notions, however, have been hotly contested by more recent research into the Annales Cambriae (see for example Dumville, 1977 and Grabowski and Dumville, 1984, which indicate a probably early-mid 10th-century date for the Arthurian annals) and no serious scholar would now accept the Annales notices as witnesses to the historical Arthur that can be relied upon. Other attempts to fill-out the above concept of Arthur have focused on trying to localise this Arthur. The most successful (and perhaps the most methodologically sound) of these is the ‘Northern Arthur’ theory of Dr Bromwich and others, discussed below, which places the war-leader of the Historia Brittonum in the ‘Old North’ of Britain on the basis of a consideration of regional bias in the earliest stratum of Arthurian evidence (both historical and literary: see especially Bromwich, 1975-6). Many other theories try to identify and locate the battles of the Historia Brittonum in a particular region – for example, the south-east; the midlands; southern Scotland – in order to localise Arthur there (something the ‘Northern Arthur’ theory scrupulously avoids indulging in) but these are seriously undermined by Professor Jackson’s (1945-6; 1959) warnings about the impossibility of doing this – such attempts rely mainly on linguistic ‘ingenuity’ rather than sound scholarship: see further the two papers by Jackson cited above – and the general and serious academic skepticism over the trustworthiness of the Historia’s list of battles (see Green, 2001 and the references therein). Lastly, some attempt to argue from identifications of the battles in the Historia that Arthur was not associated with any particular locality but rather fought battles all over Britain from southern Scotland to south-western England (for example, Alcock, 1971 and 1972). This theory runs into major problems, however, with regards to both plausibility and (again) the nature and reliability of the Historia Brittonum list of twelve battles, of which, it is worth noting once more, Badon is the only battle mentioned that we know actually took place in the post-Roman period. The sad fact is that it is now generally agreed that the Historia Brittonum’s account is simply not trustworthy or reliable enough to allow any conclusions about the extent and area of activity of its historical Arthur to be drawn.
Finally, there are those who would return to the Historia Brittonum’s statement that “Arthur fought against them in those days, together with the kings of the Britons, but he was the leader in battles [dux bellorum]” for further inspiration. For them the above statement indicates something more than simple war-leadership and, perhaps, an implied non-royal status for Arthur. It is rather suggested that what is being described by the Historia Brittonum is Arthur being appointed to the control of some kind of combined British army – a general, if you will, appointed by the British kings to lead the fight against the invaders wherever he is required. Professor Alcock (1971; 1972) certainly seems to take this view, having Arthur as a “general commanding a combined British force”, with Arthur and his army riding around Britain and fighting in places as far apart as Bath and southern Scotland. Some would go even further, making the phrase dux bellorum, ‘leader in battles’, not a literal statement but an official title or position and analogous to the known Late Roman Comes Britanniae sees this post-Roman Dux being placed in charge of a roving Roman-style cavalry unit whilst Bachrach (1990) favours – on an analysis of (again) the Historia Brittonum battles – having him in control of the 5th-century version of the Roman naval forces in the north and east of Britain.
Certainly these last suggestions offer a much more ‘colourful’ vision of any historical Arthur but they can be (and have been) accused of going far beyond – sometimes very far beyond – what can reasonably be inferred from the sources as to Arthur’s status and his role in the defence of Britain, and, in conclusion, most serious researchers who believe that a historical Arthur is at least possible have preferred to stick with the concept of Arthur described at the beginning of this section as the most that can be legitimately said (especially given the poor quality of our sources): that is, a concept of Arthur as a late 5th/early 6th-century war-leader, famed for leading the fight against the invading Anglo-Saxons and winning a great victory at Badon, without any of the above speculations about appointed generalships, areas of operation and what-not. To quote J.N.L. Myres (1986), “if we add anything to the bare statement that Arthur may have lived and fought the Saxons, we pass at once from history to Romance.”
The Northern Arthur
The Northern Arthur theory is one of the most respectable theories of a historical Arthur, being supported by such leading Celtic scholars as Professor Thomas Jones, Dr Rachel Bromwich and Professor A.O.H. Jarman, amongst others. This model takes its concept of a historical Arthur from chapter 56 of the Historia Brittonum – that is, it sees him as a late 5th/early 6th-century warrior famed for leading the fight against the invading Anglo-Saxons. It then uses the nature and perceived regional bias of the very earliest stratum of Arthurian sources to argue that these sources imply that this Arthur was originally a hero of Y Gogledd, the ‘Old North’ (that is northern England and southern Scotland), and that his later fame throughout Britain was a later secondary development of his legend. The Arthurian reference in Y Gododdin (a poem from the ‘Old North’) is seen as particularly significant in this theory, as is the concentration of three or four early (c.550-650AD) ‘Arthur’ names in the ‘Old North’(including a prince of the royal house of Dalriada). Other important elements of the evidence for a ‘Northern Arthur’ include a possible northern British origin for chapter 56 of the Historia Brittonum and the Arthurian references in the Annales Cambriae (these elements are controversial). Jarman has commented with regards to the Y Gododdin reference (often seen as the earliest reference to Arthur, dating from perhaps as early as c.600AD) that the poem is a very self-contained and insular work, concerned only with the ‘Old North’, and thus the mention of Arthur in it can be seen as implying that he was of that region. The most detailed examination of the evidence for a ‘Northern Arthur’ is that of Dr Bromwich (1975-6), in which she strongly argues for such an identification and provides a context for Arthur’s later, wider, fame by associating the proposed shift of the Arthurian legend to Wales with the well-established movement of early traditions concerning Northern heroes such as Urien Rheged and Llywarch Hen south to Wales by “at least as early as the ninth century”.
One very major advantage over similar theories of Arthur’s geographical origins that this ‘Northern Arthur’ theory has is, of course, its scholarly rigour and the fact that it is grounded firmly in a detailed and learned analysis of the very earliest Arthurian sources. Another, as Bromwich notes, is its deliberate avoidance of getting tied up in the futile games many authors play in trying to identify the exact location of the battles mentioned in chapter 56 of the Historia Brittonum (Skene, 1868, Jackson, 1945-6). Also counting in its favour is the proponents willingness to admit to problems with their theory (something that less reliable theorists hardly ever do), principally the fact that a member of the royal house of Dyfed in south Wales – who was probably born in the late 6th-century – was named Arthur, and the reference to Arthur in the mid 7th-century East Powys poem Marwnad Cynddylan (Bromwich, 1975-6; Jarman, 1981; Jarman, 1989-90. Bromwich offers possible solutions to both of these issues but these are not really satisfactory and do not resolve the issue: see further for discussion and alternative explanations Chapter II of ‘Concepts of Arthur’, Green, 2001, and Padel, 1994).
Finally, two things must be noted. First, the ‘Northern Arthur’ theory does naturally depend to some large degree upon the dating, nature and interpretation of the evidence mentioned above and in this context it is worth noting the controversies surrounding all this discussed by Green (2001), and the references cited in that article. Second, the ‘Northern Arthur’ theory does have questions to answer with regards to the Battle of Badon if – as is generally accepted – this battle was fought somewhere in southern England against the invading Anglo-Saxons. If this ‘Northern Arthur’ is associated with areas of the ‘Old North’ such as Rheged or Gododdin, then we have to assume that either Badon was not in the south (which causes problems with archaeology and Gildas, though these may not be insurmountable), Arthur ranged widely over all Britain (in which case the highly dubious and methodologically flawed theories of non-localised Arthur – such as Alcock, 1972 – are in fact correct and he was not an originally solely Northern figure as Bromwich et al argue the sources indicate), or Badon was not originally fought by Arthur. If the latter is true then the entire case for Arthur as a historical personage and defeater of the Saxons starts to collapse, as this case (whatever you may think of its merits) is fundamentally based around the Arthur/Badon connection, with Badon supposedly being the reason for Arthur’s fame and renown amongst the Britons and, further, Badon being the only thing that ties the Historia Brittonum account of Arthur to known history, the Historia’s account being the mainstay of the case for a historical Arthur.
One possible solution to this issue (other than being forced to make the difficult argument for a northern Badon) may be to follow Bromwich in associating Arthur with “the south-eastern corner of the ‘Old North’, that is with the East Riding of Yorkshire and possibly with York itself,” (the later Anglian kingdom of Deira) rather than the more northerly regions. This would put Arthur far enough south to fight 5th-century Anglian invaders and it is reasonably close to the most northerly of the candidates for Badon, Baumber in northern Lincolnshire (see ‘The Lindsey Arthur’, below). Then, when this area was lost to the invaders, the traditions of a great defender might have been passed northwards to the surviving ‘Old North’ kingdoms. Overall, this seems to be the most plausible variant of the ‘Northern Arthur’ theory.
Arthur the Emperor
The notion that Arthur was some sort of emperor has its origins firmly in the Middle Ages. For example, Geoffrey of Monmouth, in his Historia Regum Britanniae, has Arthur as the ruler of an empire that eventually encompassed Britain, Brittany, Ireland, Iceland, Gaul and Norway, and even challenged Imperial Rome itself, and there may be traces of this conception in earlier texts such as the Old Welsh poem Gereint fil[ius] Erbin, where Arthur is called “emperor, leader in toil [i.e. battle]”, though the term translated as ‘emperor’, ameraudur, may be better read in this context as ‘general’ or ‘commander’ (Jarman, 1983). In the 20th- and 21st-centuries, however, the notion that the historical Arthur was genuinely an emperor, ruling over all Britain, has not – to say the least – achieved widespread assent amongst academics. In fact the theory had its only serious modern champion in Dr John Morris, who saw Arthur as the dominant figure of his age. Morris made an extensive study of ‘The Age of Arthur’ (as he termed it) and his main conclusions on Arthur’s identity from this research were as follows:
He was the emperor, the all-powerful ruler of the whole of Britain, and the seat of his power was in the lowlands [Colchester, according to Dr Morris, was Camelot]… the government of [the] Roman emperor, equipped with a hierarchy of civil and military officers, on the model of that which had existed in the earlier fifth century… These institutions endured for at least thirty years after Badon… With Arthur died the unity of Britain, and all hope of reviving it under British rule… The rule of Arthur had been an age of order, truth and justice, to be praised in retrospect… Arthur dominates and unites the history of two centuries; his victory was the climax and consummation of the fifth-century struggles; and his undoing shaped the history of the sixth century, the mould wherein the future of the British Isles was formed. He was at once the last Roman emperor in the west, and the first medieval king of the country now called England… He left a golden legend, and he rescued a corner of the Roman world from barbarian rule for a short space.
Unlike some of the other theories of a historical Arthur discussed here, few would now be tempted to describe Morris’s ‘Arthur the Emperor’ theory as a respectable work of scholarship in its totality and especially with regards to Arthur. As has been argued at length by two distinguished reviewers, it is “an outwardly impressive piece of scholarship” which “crumbles upon inspection into a tangled tissue of fact and fantasy which is both misleading and misguided.” (Kirby and Williams, 1975-6). This view is supported to some very large degree by Professor David Dumville in his justly famous attack on both Morris and Alcock (1971), ‘Sub-Roman Britain: History and Legend’, where he demonstrates the utter invalidity of Morris’s approach to the sources which renders his ‘reconstruction’ of events almost completely worthless (Dumville, 1977).
Another reviewer, Professor James Campbell, is slightly more generous, recognizing the good hidden in among the bad, but he too admits that The Age of Arthur is a book so misleading, so idiosyncratic, so full of problems, difficulties, and traps for the unwary, that it should be used only by professional scholars – already familiar enough with the ongoing debates and the primary sources to ignore the many unreliable theories and passages in the book –, and that it is manifestly not a work appropriate for amateurs or newcomers to the subject (Campbell, 1975). Unfortunately, this seems to be just the category of readers who make most use of the book nowadays, with very few professional scholars ever now returning to the tome due to these immense problems.
The South-Western Arthur
The belief that the historical Arthur belongs to the south-west of Britain has been supported recently by authors such as Ashe (1968) and Dunning (1988), but it is an ancient and popular association. Thus, for example, he is called penn kadoed Kernyw, ‘chief of the battalions of Cornwall’, in the c.1150 non-Galfridian poem Ymddiddan Arthur a'r Eryr, and in Herman's De Miraculis Sanctae Mariae Laudensis (‘The Miracles of St. Mary of Laon’), a visit to Cornwall in 1113 by some canons from Laon almost ended in violence and rioting when one of the visitors dared to argue that the people of Bodmin were wrong in their belief that Arthur “still lived”, indicating something of the great strength of interest and feeling of the local Cornish population of the early 12th-century towards Arthur (Coe and Young, 1995 and Padel, 1994). Another south-western association for Arthur is the fact that the entire early native sources – the 12th-century Welsh poets, the non-Galfridian Trioedd Ynys Prydein (the Welsh Triads), and Culhwch ac Olwen (which has been variously dated from the mid 10th-century to the late 11th-century) – agree that Arthur’s court was called Celliwig (‘the forest grove’) and was to be found in Cornwall. Indeed, Celliwig also seems to appear in the Arthurian poem Pa gur yv y porthaur?, which may date from as early as the 9th-century, or even the 8th, and as such there is a strong suggestion that the tradition of Celliwig as Arthur’s court was one of considerable antiquity (in the poem it is not, however, stated where this place was to be found but, given that Celliwig is never located anywhere other than Cornwall in native tradition, a Cornish location can reasonably be assumed). Other evidence for an association of Arthur with south-western Britain includes the mid-late 9th-century poem Gereint fil[ius] Erbin; the Vita Prima Sancti Carantoci (c.1100?), which mentions a dragon-slaying episode in Somerset; the story of Gwenhwyfar’s abduction and imprisonment at Glastonbury (and Arthur’s summoning of the men of Cornwall and Devon to help free her) in the Vita Gildae of Caradoc of Llancarfan (1120s or 1130s); the belief that Glastonbury was Arthur’s last resting place and Avalon; and Geoffrey of Monmouth’s story of Arthur’s conception at Tintagel, Cornwall.
These are the kinds of materials upon which the theory of a south-western Arthur has often been built (for example, Wilson, pp.96-7). The problem with all of this is, of course, that it stems mainly from sources reflecting the Arthurian legend, rather than those, such as the Historia Brittonum, which are generally felt to reflect (to some degree the Arthurian reality. Naturally, this does raise some very important methodological issues. Fundamentally this theory proceeds from the same basis as the ‘Northern Arthur’ theory that is an attempt to locate the war-leader of Historia Brittonum chapter 56 by looking at the regional bias of the Arthurian sources. However, two things need to be noticed here. First, we have to recognize that the above sources for a ‘South-Western Arthur’ are generally far more ‘legendary’ in nature than those used by the ‘Northern Arthur’ theory. Second, whilst there are more of them, they are also largely later – sometimes much later – in date than those used by the ‘Northern Arthur’ theory (especially if the Y Gododdin reference can be dated to before c.638AD, as Professor Koch (1997) has recently argued). Both these features would tend to add weight, especially if we see the development of the Arthurian legend as a general movement from sober history to fantastical (and increasingly popular) legend, to Bromwich’s notion that the presence of the legend in the south-west reflects a secondary development of an originally northern legend and hero, though there are issues with this theory.
Given the above considerations, the case for a ‘South-Western Arthur’ would seem to require further support if it is to be considered plausible. If the supposed discovery of Arthur’s grave in the 1190s by the monks at Glastonbury Abbey (and their claim that Glastonbury was Avalon) could be proven to be genuine then this would obviously significantly alter the situation. C.A. Ralegh Radford (1968) and L. Alcock (1971) have attempted to, at least partially, argue this case but they fail to convince. Another possible link with reality comes from the Professor Alcock’s excavations at Cadbury Castle, Somerset, which showed that this important Iron-Age hill-fort was reoccupied and heavily refortified in the late 5th- or 6th-century by a very powerful war-lord (Alcock), the Arthurian link being Leland in the 16th-century who records that the local people thought that this site was Arthur’s Camelot. Certainly the possibility is interesting but the Arthurian link is based on very late traditions, first recorded more than 1000 years after the historical Arthur is supposed to have lived, which severely limits their value in constructing any theory of a historical Arthur; Cadbury-Camelot most definitely cannot be taken as proof of a ‘South-Western Arthur’.
The question must therefore be asked, is there any good reason to believe that the ‘South-Western Arthur’ theory is worth supporting? we can cautiously answer ‘yes, perhaps’ here, on the following basis. Working with the critical study of the early materials as our foundation, we can say that most serious researchers – if they believe in Arthur at all – would argue that the Historia Brittonum is the only plausible source of information on any historical Arthur that we possess, and that the most that can be inferred from this source with any degree of confidence is that Arthur was a late 5th/early 6th-century war-leader, famed for leading the fight against the Anglo-Saxon invaders and winning a great victory at the Battle of Badon. Now, given that the victory over the Anglo-Saxons at Badon is supposedly the main reason for Arthur’s fame – and the fact that it is the only battle associated with Arthur in the Historia Brittonum (the source of the main academic concept of any historical Arthur) that we know from other historical sources actually took place in the post-Roman period – it does not seem unreasonable to take its location as some sort of a guide to the region of operation of any historical Arthur; it is the only remotely reliable clue that our ‘historical’ sources can provide for us. Of course this does require a degree of assumption, mainly that Badon would have been fought in roughly the region Arthur operated within, but this doenot seem unreasonable either. The notion that any historical Arthur was a general or even an emperor(!) that led a combined British army in fighting battles all over Britain – as Alcock (1971 and 1972) and Morris (1973) make him –, not just his own general region (wherever that might have been), is no longer supported by serious researchers and can be dismissed on the grounds of both plausibility and the nature and reliability of the Historia Brittonum list of twelve battles, upon which it largely rests (as noted in section 1, above; see the other references there for further details, especially Bromwich, 1975-6, p.168ff., and also section 3). One would not wish to claim that an identification of Badon might closely localise Arthur (it cannot be denied that early medieval war-leaders often ranged over a reasonably wide area even if the notion of them travelling all over Britain can be dismissed), but it may give us some idea about the general region that he operated within.
So, where was Badon? Most researchers agree that this battle was fought somewhere in southern Britain, with Professor Jackson writing that “no amount of ingenuity can make Badon, the most probably genuine of [Arthur’s battles], anything but a battle against the Saxons or the Jutes in southern England” (Jackson, 1959, Bromwich, 1975-6). Some dissenting voices have been raised against this consensus, preferring to argue the difficult case for a location of Badon in the north of Britain (Thompson, 1979, Dumville, 1984), but this suggestion is highly contentious and has not received widespread support. Further, the general consensus that Badon probably belongs to southern Britain is supported and supplemented by the archaeology of 5th-century Anglo-Saxon settlement, which indicates that the earliest and most extensive settlements and conquests by the invading Anglo-Saxons occurred in the south and east of Britain, making this the most plausible region for the operation of a British war-leader fighting the invaders. If we can thus say that Badon probably belongs to southern Britain, where in southern Britain was it? There are two main theories with regards to this. The first theory argues that Primitive Welsh Badon would, when it was taken into Old English and if the site was a fortified hill, regularly become the modern English place-name ‘Badbury’ and variants (Jackson, 1953-8). There are a number of ‘Badbury’ names in southern and eastern England that might thus have their origins in Primitive Welsh Badon, including Badbury Rings (Dorset), Liddington Castle (Wiltshire, this site being once known as Badbury Camp), Badbury Hill (Berkshire), and Baumber (Lincolnshire), with Badbury Rings in Dorset often being the favoured above the others. The second theory follows Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae in identifying Badon with Bath, an identification that has been taken up in modern times by Professor Alcock (1971) and the Burkitts (1990) on both philological and archaeological grounds. On the whole it cannot yet be said to be clear which of these competing theories should command our support. However, as the most recent survey of the evidence has commented, we can say on the most general level that the balance of probabilities and scholarly opinion indicates that “the battle probably took place in the south-west”.
In conclusion therefore, if we assume (as it does not seem unreasonable to do) that the location of Badon can be seen as a rough guide to the general region that the Arthur of the Historia Brittonum chapter 56 operated in, then it follows that Arthur was probably a figure from the southern portion of Britain and most probably the south-west. This notion has the major advantage of being based around what can be reasonably assumed from the ‘historical’ sources about any possible genuinely historical Arthur, rather than a perceived regional bias in the ‘non-historical’ material concerning Arthur, and if it is accepted then it does go a long way towards making the ‘South-Western Arthur’ theory the plausible theory that the later legendary material on its own cannot.
There are, naturally, a number of issues with this theory: First, by its very nature in arguing for a ‘South-Western Arthur’, this theory ignores or sets-aside the evidence for a northern bias in the early Arthurian material such as Y Gododdin, as observed by Bromwich (1975-6) and others. To this we can add that there is also early evidence for a knowledge of Arthur and his legends in Wales, including Historia Brittonum chapter 73 (the traditions related here are considered to pre-date the 9th-century: Bromwich and Evans, 1992), the poem Preideu Annwfyn, the mid 7th-century poem Marwnad Cynddylan, and the existence of Arthur map Petr of the Dyfed royal house, born c.570AD (Bromwich, 1975). This is, of course, part of a wider issue which seriously affects the ‘Northern Arthur’ theory too: even the very earliest and most reliable evidence for the distribution of a knowledge of the Arthurian legend – the use of the name Arthur in the mid-late 6th-century by the royal houses of both Dyfed and Dalriada – indicates that this knowledge was extremely widely spread, from south Wales to southern Scotland. The explanation of all this is very difficult, especially given that theories of the historical Arthur as an age-defining figure who fought all around Britain are no longer considered plausible or methodologically defensible, as noted above. Of course, as formulated above, the ‘South-Western Arthur’ theory is primarily based around the ‘historical’ sources, not materials reflecting the growth of the Arthurian legend, but this does not mean that these considerations can be discounted or ignored; the question still has to be asked, if we argue that the historical Arthur belonged to the south-west, what are we to make of this very early evidence for a knowledge of his legend in Wales and southern Scotland?
Second, the above argument for a ‘South-Western Arthur’ is based around an assumption that Badon would have been fought in roughly the same region that any historical Arthur operated within. Whilst this is not at all unreasonable, it is an assumption and it should be remembered that early medieval war-bands could be very mobile, raiding deep into enemy territory. Given, however, that we are only looking for a rough general region for Arthur’s operation, rather than an exact location, this is much less of a concern and an issue than it might have been. And third and finally, we should not forget that Badon has not actually been securely identified. Whilst most agree that it was fought in southern Britain and most probably the south-west, there are dissenting voices and Badon may not, indeed, have been any of the places so far suggested but rather some as-yet-undiscovered site elsewhere in Britain, where perhaps a new English place-name has silently replaced and erased the name ‘Badon’.
Ambrosius Aurelianus
Ambrosius Aurelianus, the second son of the Emperor Constantine, was known to the Welsh as Emrys Wledig (the Imperator) or Emrys Benaur (the Golden-Headed). Geoffrey of Monmouth tells us how he was still a young child when his teenage brother, Constans' short-lived reign came to an abrupt end. With his father executed and his brother murdered, little Ambrosius, along with his brother, Uther, was bundled up and taken across the Channel to the safety of the court of his cousin, Budic I of Brittany. Here he grew up, while the evil Vortigern reigned in Britain, but always Ambrosius planned to return and claim his rightful inheritance. His chance arrived some years later. Ambrosius returned to Britain, landed at Totnes (Devon) and it may be at this point in history that he clashed with Vitalinus (probably Vortigern or a supporter) at the Battle of Guoloph (Nether Wallop in Hampshire) as recorded by Nennius. This may have resulted in Victory for Ambrosius who was, at some point in history, "given all the kingdoms of the western side of Britain" by Vortigern. Ambrosius was, however, unsatisfied with such a compromise and the struggle between the two continued for most of his life. Vortigern's pro-Saxon policies eventually led to his downfall though and, (probably) in the late 450s, the British people finally rallied behind Ambrosius. Vortigern was hounded into taking refuge in his mountain strongholds. While under siege at Caer-Guorthigirn (Little Doward, Herefordshire), the fortress was miraculously struck by lightning. Vortigern and his entire garrison were burnt to death. After Vortigern's death, Ambrosius was conciliatory towards his sons and let them keep their lands in Buellt, Gwerthrynion, Gwent and Powys. Despite this magnanimity, King Pasgen of Buellt & Gwerthrynion later rebelled against Ambrosius and twice attempted to overrun Britain with help from the Saxons and the Irish. The main Anglo-Saxon forces had retired North of the Humber and Ambrosius met Hengist in Battle at Maesbeli and then Conisburgh (Caer-Conan). Later he besieged Octa and Osla at York (Caer-Ebrauc). All were defeated, but Ambroius let them settle their people in Bryneich (Bernicia). Ambrosius is credited, by Geoffrey, with the building of a monumental stone circle, the "Giant's Ring" (possibly Stonehenge or Avebury) on Mount Ambrius as a memorial to those massacred by the Saxons at the "Night of the Long Knifes" during King Vortigern's reign. He was buried there himself after being poisoned by a Saxon at Winchester (Caer-Guinntguic). Ambrosius was certainly an historical figure as recorded by his near contemporary commentator, St. Gildas. In his "Ruin of Britain," the monk describes how the Saxons rampaged through the country before they "returned home". Then: "The remnants (of the British)...take up arms, and challenge their victors to battle under Ambrosius Aurelianus. He was a man of unassuming character, who, alone of the Roman race, chanced to survive the storm in which his parents, people undoubtedly clad in the purple, had been killed. Their offspring in our days have greatly degenerated from their ancestral nobleness. From that time the citizens were sometimes victorious, sometimes the enemy...up to the year of the Siege of Mons Badonicus”. Added to this are the comments of the 9th century chronicler, Nennius, who, in-line with Geoffrey, recorded Ambrosius as one of the chief dreads of King Vortigern. Nennius also describes Ambrosius as a young boy without a father, called to help Vortigern out during the building of his fortress at Dinas Emrys (see Vortigern), a role later taken on by Merlin. He ties the period down by implying that Vortigern's reign had begun by at least 425, and that Ambrosius fought at Guoloph twelve years later. This is most interesting for it poses a bit of a problem. Many people take Gildas' reference to Mons Badonicus to imply that it was Ambrosius, rather than the usually attributed King Arthur, who was the commander at the famous battle of Mount Badon, the decisive British victory over the Saxons around 495-500. In the year 495, Ambrosius would have been at least 74 years old, and it would, indeed, be difficult to imagine a man of this period living to such an age, let alone wielding a heavy sword and leading a mounted charge against the Saxon positions. So what is the solution?
There isn't a definitive one, but some have solved the problem by postulating two men named Ambrosius; the elder, whom Vortigern dreaded, and the younger, the hero of the British resistance of the mid-to-late fifth century and the victor of Mount Badon. This is certainly possible. . .as there seem to have been a number of people with the same name in those days (ie. Maximus, Constantine, etc.). Why not two Ambrosii? The more likely possibility, though, is that there was just one Ambrosius. Arthur may indeed have been the real commander of the victory at Mount Badon; or perhaps as "the great king among all the kings of the British nation," Ambrosius Aurelianus could have been the aging overall supreme commander of the engagement, with the function of front line battle leader going to a younger man, perhaps Arthur.
THE SITES RELATED TO THE LEGEND
TINTAGEL CASTLE
Tintagel castle in Northern Cornwall is the legendary place of King Arthur's conception and birth. According to Geoffrey of Monmouth, near the end of Roman occupation in Britain, the Archbishop of London offered the throne of Briton to Constantine, having lost the power of self- reliance and having been in near ruin due to Pict invasions. Constantine ruled peacefully for ten years and had three sons--Constans, Aurelius Ambrosius and Uther. When Constantine was murdered by a Pictish assassin, the throne was up for grabs. A nobleman, Vortigern, manipulated Constans (the eldest son) and managed to gain control of Britain. Eventually Aurelius Ambrosius, and Uther Pendragon after him, reclaimed their rightful throne. Arthur was born soon after, according to Geoffrey's account.Tintagel was originally identified as an early Christian monastery. This conflicts with Geoffrey of Monmouth's claim that a "Cornish overlord had a stronghold at Tintagel and Arthur was begotten there" (internet interview with Geoffrey Ashe). As Geoffrey Ashe continues, "Archaeology doesn't prove that Geoffrey chose an appropriate location. It points to a tradition of Tintagel's importance at the right time, an authentic tradition which Geoffrey drew upon." Indeed, Archaeological evidence points to a fortified castle more than a monastery.
In the summer of 1983, a series of accidental fires swept through Tintagel island, uncovering "a pattern of completely unsuspected foundations" (Thomas 1988, 425). Most of the newly-exposed buildings were rectangular, not circular (as was typical for Irish monasteries during the 3rd and 4th centuries). Furthermore, a long series of occupations developed from out of the ruins, ranging from potential Roman control in the third century, to the subsequent fall of the castle by the seventh century due to Anglo-Saxon invasion. Each period can be separated due to the unique artifacts associated with them.
Period I at Tintagel is within the Roman period. About 100 sherds of local Romano- British pottery come from the island" (Thomas 1988, 427). The pottery is dated between the 3rd to 4th centuries. What makes this so odd is that no other Roman site is present anywhere in the immediate area with similar architecture or Roman pottery. This can be attributed to either strict geographical isolation or perhaps to the fact that Tintagel was a trading post. The next period of occupation points to this explanation.
Period II (450-600) is marked by the presence of many North African, east Mediterranean and Gaulish imports, mostly pottery of Classes A, B and D, with the absence of Class E (which suggests the site was abandoned before the end of the seventh century when Class E pottery shows up in the Mediterranean area). An Iron Gate also shows up in this period, near the Northeast coastline. This protects Site A and Site B, where most artifacts were uncovered (see map) and perhaps was a minor fortification. Added to ceramic finds, there are bronze artifacts and some "slag, daub, stone and traces of glass vessels [which] were found just outside the Island Ward's curtain wall[map]." There were also late Roman dishes, spiral grooved B.i amphorae (probably to hold wine), huge B.v Africana Grand oil containers and many other Class B vessels (Thomas 1988, 429).
So why was so much trade occurring at Tintagel Castle? The most accepted answer was that it was "a royal citadel, part-guarded by Nature, further embattled by man" (Thomas 1988, 429). This was its function at least in Period II. During Period I, it seems to have served as a sort of Northwest harbor for Roman ships traveling to the mouth of the Camel River. This would explain all the Roman artifacts found at Tintagel. The castle probably served some fiscal function in this trade route. In fact, many Roman ceramic vessels have Roman numerals as graffiti on them. As Charles Thomas explains, this "suggests the intermediacy of middlemen in the Western part of the Late Empire, and Class D ware raises the possibility of Burdigala, Bordeaux" (1988, 430). So Tintagel was a fairly significant site in the British Isles. Whether King Arthur was born there or not is impossible at present to tell, but archaeological evidence does make Tintagel a plausible site for a flourishing kingdom. Its unique artifacts further emphasize its dominance in the area as a royal citadel and Mediterranean contact during the 5th and 6th centuries.
CADBURY HILL FORT
Perhaps the most common element of the Arthurian legend is the Knights of the Round Table at the castle of Camelot. Straight away it is crucial to mention that the historic connection between the Round Table and Arthur is impossible. Camelot was a creation of twelfth century literature, first appearing in the romance, Lancelot le chavalier de la charette, by Chretien de Troyes. Nowhere in early accounts is Arthur said to have established court anywhere in Britain. In 1542, however, John Leland, King Henry VIII's Antiquary, first linked Cadbury hill-fort with Camelot, "drawing on a strong local tradition connecting the hillfort with King Arthur" (McIntosh 1986, 58) (In retrospect, the credence of these traditional tales is strengthened since the fortifications at Cadbury hill were not visible to the naked eye back in 1542. Only recent excavations have proven their existence and strengthened the validity of ancient oral tradition in Britain). Investigation of the site met with few conclusive results. It wasn't until the 1950's when a few sherds of imported pottery were uncovered that the connection seemed to hold any truth.
With revived interest in Cadbury hill-fort, Leslie Alcock studied 1970. Since the area of interest covered over 18 acres, a geophysical survey was conducted which tested for differences in soil temperature and electrical resistance, and indicated the presence of buried features (McIntosh 1986, 58) The results of the archaeological dig were incredible: Cadbury hill did not seem to be a castle, but a heavily fortified headquarters for some great king. Four stone ramparts surrounding the inner structures, while the second, dubbed the "Stony Bank", had a coin built into it which could date no earlier than the fifth century.
The innermost rampart was the most complex. Sixteen feet thick, it incorporated a "stone-and-timber-system", a construction distinctive only to Cadbury throughout the British Isles. This becomes more relevant considering that we are told in the Historia Brittonum that Vortigern (literally means "over-chief" or "high king") built "a fortress in the mountains of Snowdonia. The passage states that royal workmen assembled 'timber and stones', evidently thought of as the proper materials for a fifth century high king's stronghold" (Ashe 1987, 50). Since evidence indicates that Roman pottery sherds were built into the walls of the fortress and it was strengthened before the final wave of Roman invasion overthrew the Britons, it would fall right into the same time period as Vortigern's reign. It is not inconceivable for "King Arthur" to have continued his occupation at Cadbury hill-fort, since it was already the most established fortress in the area.
Further evidence strengthens the importance of Cadbury hill-fort at the time. Eastern Mediterranean pottery, like that found at Tintagel Castle, was discovered in the interior fortress: Among the earth and gravel packed around these posts were two sherds of Tintagel ware, the distinctive late 5th/early 6th-century imported pottery that had served as major dating evidence on other Arthurian sites. (McIntosh 1986, 73) .Either Cadbury fortress was involved in a trade route with Tintagel or the same inhabitants were transporting the pottery from place to place along with themselves. Regardless, the strong connection cannot be overlooked. In addition, a timber hall built between 460-500 was revealed from post holes in the ground, measuring more than 60 by 30 feet in its dimensions. The obvious conclusion from all this evidence is that, since Cadbury hill-fort was such an unusually large fortress for post-Roman-defended-hill-settlements in sixth century Britain, it probably housed more than an individual king and his warbands--it was large enough to hold an entire army. Only a king powerful enough to unite the neighboring kingdoms against the Anglo-Saxon threats could amass such a large army: King Arthur was said to do this before he led the British army to nearby Mount Badon.
GLASTONBURY TOR AND ABBEY
The final crucial sites linked to an understanding of a historic King Arthur are Glastonbury Abbey (the alleged location of Arthur's grave) and Glastonbury Tor (the potential literary basis for the creation of the Island of Avalon). Although the majority of support for both areas is purely speculative, there are some uncanny correlations which connect them with other Arthurian occupation areas. Glastonbury Tor is one of four hills overlooking the flat lands surrounding Glastonbury. As Geoffrey Russel noted in the 1960's, the hill is artificially shaped and has "remnants of a ritual pathway thousands of years old, spiraling up the hill . . . a backtracking septenary spiral, which turns up also in Crete and Italy and Ireland and elsewhere, and is carved on a rock near Tintagel, Arthur's reputed Cornish birthplace" (Ashe 1987, 16). Although it was probably built prior to the third century B. C., it seems to be tied up with a long tradition of mystification. From the Welsh word, "Avallach", "Avalon" translates to "apple-place." The Welsh monk, Caradoc of Llancarfan, also wrote in 1130 that Avalon came from an old Celtic name, "Ynys-witrin" meaning "The Isle of Glass." Both these etymologies point to Avalon as an enchanted place--probably the site of an archaic Celtic Cult.
Besides Geoffrey of Monmouth and Gildas, Caradoc makes the connection between Arthur and Avalon. Recounting a sentence in Gildas' historical account of the sixth century in the British Isles, Caradoc says "Melwas, the ruler of Somerset carried off Arthur's wife 'Guennuvar' and kept her at Glastonbury. Arthur assembled troops from Devon and Cornwall to recover her, but the watery surroundings made it difficult" (Ashe 1987, 18). The tale is close enough historically to fit within the time frame of Arthur. Further archaeological evidence supports that the Glastonbury countryside was periodically inundated with water--the Tor would have indeed been an island during these floods. All these clues make the link between Arthur, the Isle of Avalon, and Glastonbury Tor too tightly-interwoven to be merely coincidental. Glastonbury Abbey is one of the best supported sites for King Arthur, being the legendary location for Arthur and Guinevere's burial tomb, because it may have held a specific grave marker linking King Arthur to the Abbey. In 1191, the monks at Glastonbury Abbey claimed to have found the grave of King Arthur. On the stone burial was an inlaid lead cross with the inscription, Hic iacet sepultus inclitus rex Arturius in insula Avallonis ("Here lies the famous King Arthur, buried on the Island of Avalon"). The claim was not taken seriously until 1278 when Henry II ordered the grave to be exhumed. A man's body was found with a cracked skull from a heavy blow. A female skeleton was next to it, as well as the original lead cross. The remains were transported to the main Abbey church, but all signs of the bodies and cross mysteriously disappeared.
In 1607, William Camden published a drawing of the original lead cross which he claimed to have seen (figure at right) while in the possession of Mr. Hughes, one of the clergy men at a Cathedral in Wells. He also stated that the other side of the cross named Guinevere, but the flipside was never drawn. However, since no physical proof ever turned up, his drawing was pegged as a forgery. Ralegh Radford re-excavated the site of King Arthur's grave in 1958 to try and confirm the stories. All he discovered were the stone slabs used to line an ancient burial. The grave was indeed dug up in the twelfth century and perhaps was old enough to have been in Arthur's era, but was barren and otherwise "speechless."
Overall, the evidence at Glastonbury Abbey is highly suspect. Many critics think the original report of Arthur and Guinevere's tomb was a ploy to increase revenue for the rebuilding of the ancient Glastonbury Abbey (which burned down in 1184). However, it is also possible that the fire allowed the grave to become visible (as was the case at Cadbury hill-fort when accidental fires actually revealed previously undiscovered artifacts). Geoffrey Ashe puts it all in perspective:
We hear of rival Camelots, rival scenes of Arthur's last battle, and so forth. But all the centuries of Arthurian legend-making produced, for practical purposes, only the one grave. (Ashe 1987, 34) As true as this may be, Ashe overlooks an obvious explanation for this phenomenon: the majority of Arthurian legend never even provides for the demise of "The Once and Future King." In fact, many tales transport him on a barge to Avalon and fully expect him to re-emerge at a later date, once again as Britain's liberator. He is never given an earthly resting place because his death, by and large, is ambiguous. Riothamus the most likely basis for King Arthur, was said to have campaigned in Gaul and disappeared around 470 in Burgundy. The Welsh said Arthur died at the "Strife of Camlann" fighting another Briton, Medraunt, in 539. So there are more potential places for Arthur's burial site than Ashe indicates. Relatively speaking, though, his claim is sound in the sense that the literary evolution of Arthur has typically held onto the Isle of Avalon in connection with his burial site. Although few historic locations have been linked with this enchanted island, it has more or less remained a constant element in Arthurian legend. Archaeology has sifted through the literary assertions surrounding King Arthur's lifetime and, while not proving them, has at the very least strengthened their validity. Only time will tell what new discoveries will unfold. Tintagel Castle, Cadbury hill-fort and Glastonbury Abbey seem to be strongly-supported sites in connection with a historical King Arthur, but without more specific artifacts and literary accounts, their importance is at a standstill. For all intents and purposes, archaeological excavations have only produced new hypotheses, but no new proof. Until this can be achieved, King Arthur will remain in the misty Island of Avalon, awaiting the time when he can finally resurface in the British Isles as the "Once and Future King.
Bibliography and Further Reading
* Alcock, L. 1971, Arthur's Britain: History and Archaeology AD 367-634
* Arnold, C.J. 1984, Roman Britain to Saxon England (London)
* Ashe, G. (ed.) 1968, The Quest for Arthur's Britain (London)
* Bartrum, P.C. 1965, 'Arthuriana in the Genealogical MSS' in The National Library of Wales Journal 14
* Bassett, S. (ed.) 1989, The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms (Leicester)
* Bromwich, R. 1975-6, 'Concepts of Arthur' in Studia Celtica 10/11, pp.163-81
* Dumville, D.N. 1994, 'Historia Brittonum: an Insular History from the Carolingian Age' in A. Scharer and G. Scheibelreiter (edd.) Historiographie im frühen Mittelalter (Wien/München) pp.406-34
* Green, T. n.d., 'Hengest, Horsa, Oisc and Octha'
* Hughes, K. 1980, Celtic Britain in the Early Middle Ages: Studies in Scottish and Welsh Sources (Woodbridge)
* Jackson, K.H. 1973, 'Review of R. Barber, The Figure of Arthur' in Medium Aevum XLII.2, pp.188-9
* Jarman, A.O.H. 1989-90, 'The Arthurian Allusions in the Book of Aneirin' in Studia Celtica 24/5, pp.15-25
* Malone, K. 1924, 'The Historicity of Arthur' in Journal of English and Germanic Philology 23, pp.463-491
* Padel, O.J. 1998, 'A New Study of the Gododdin' in Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies 35 (Summer), pp.45-55
* Ross, A. 1992, Pagan Celtic Britain (London)
Comments