Quest for King Arthur

[Valerie]

Sarmatian connection

In 1978, C. Scott Littleton and Ann C. Thomas expanded on the ideas of Vasily Abaev and Georges Dumezil and published their theory of a connection between the Sarmatian people and the history and later legend of King Arthur. The Alano-Sarmatians were steppe nomads from what is now southern Ukraine, who fought from horseback with a kontus ('lance'), longsword and bow and carried a shield with a tamga marking, similar to heraldry. They wore scale armour and conical helms, and were known in the 2nd century for their skill as heavy cavalry. In 175, Marcus Aurelius hired 8,000 Sarmatians into Roman service. 5,500 of these recruits were sent to the northern borders of Britain. These men probably settled around their base in modern-day Lancashire, where their descendants were still documented as a "troop of Sarmatian veterans" in 428.

The culture of the Sarmatians is also relevant to the legends of Arthur. Apart from their skill as armoured knights, they held great, near religious, fondness for their swords — their tribal worship was directed at a sword sticking up from the ground, similar to the Sword in the Stone motif. They carried standards in the form of dragons, a symbol also used by Arthur and his father Uther Pendragon.

Proponents of the 'Sarmatian connection' theory also look to the legends of the Sarmatians' descendants for evidence. The Ossetians, an Iranian people from Ossetia, a country in the Caucasus, speak the Ossetic language, the only Sarmatian language still spoken. The Ossetian Nart sagas, indigenous epics celebrating the exploits of an ancient tribe of heroes, contain a number of interesting parallels to the Arthurian legends. First, the life of the Nart warrior Batraz is tied to his sword, which must be thrown into the sea at his death. When the wounded Batradz asks his last surviving comrade to do the task for him, his companion tries to fool him twice before finally hurling the weapon into the sea. This is very similar to the tale of Arthur's wondrous sword Excalibur which had to be returned to the Lady of the Lake at his death by his last surving knight, Bedivere. Like Batradz' friend, Bedivere is reluctant to lose such a wonderful sword and lies to his master twice before finally assenting. Additionally, the Nart heroes, Soslan and Sosryko, collect the beards of vanquished enemies to trim their cloaks, which is the practice of Arthur's enemy Rience. Like Rience, Soslan has one last beard to obtain before his cloak is complete. Another similar motif is the Cup of the Narts ("Nartyamonga"), which appeared at feasts, delivered to each person what he liked best to eat, and which was kept by the bravest of the Narts ("Knights") and the magical woman, dressed in white, associated with water, who helps the hero acquire his sword and the Lady of the Lake.

Although they lived hundreds of years too early (the Saxons first came to Britain three centuries later), Lucius Artorius Castus and Sarmatian cavalry may have been remembered in some form, and could have helped to create the basis for the early tales of King Arthur. While most 'Sarmatian connection' supporters tie the origins of the Arthurian legend to Lucius Artorius Castus and his 2nd century cavalry, others suggest that some Sarmatian details, like the Sword in the Stone itself, may have been added later in French romances, possibly entering the tradition as the result of the impact of the Alans on Europe in the fifth century A.D.

However, those who do not accept the Sarmatian connection would argue that the obscurity surrounding Castus makes this identification unlikely, as there seems to be little reason for him to have become a major legendary figure. No Roman historical source actually mentions him, or his alleged exploits in Britain. Nor is there actually any firm evidence that he ever commanded Sarmatians. Also, the greatest resonance of Arthurian tales with Sarmatian ones occur in very late writings, relatively speaking, such as Malory's Le Morte Darthur (when Arthur and his men were already developed into "knights in shining armor") and none appear in the earliest Welsh legends, such as those in the Mabinogion — which lead some to conclude that Sarmatian influence was limited to the development of the tales instead of historical basis, if at all.

The heroes of the 2004 film King Arthur are loosely based on Lucius Artorius Castus and his Sarmatian cavalry. The film's Arthur is a descendant of Artorius and inherits his role of guarding Hadrian's Wall along with a troop of Sarmatian warriors.

[Valerie]

[Valerie]

A pre-Roman Arthur

Darrah and Cumins propose an Arthur who lived in the Bronze Age, circa 2300 BC. Other sources, including Ed Joyce in The Key to Camelot argue that pulling a sword from a stone and an anvil is a metaphor for setting a bronze sword in a stone mould and hammering it into shape on an anvil. Similarly, the return of prized weaponry to the waters appears to have been a British Iron Age funerary practice, as evidenced by the many such items dredged from large rivers and lakes. Geoffrey of Monmouth writes in 'The History of the Kings of Britain' that Merlin built Stonehenge. The fact that the bluestones at the site were placed at approximately 2300BC has led Cummins and others to speculate that parts of the legends reflect a folk memory of historical events. These ideas are disputed by those who point out that the Sword in the Stone is a late medieval embellishment to the legend. Roderick MacLeish's fiction book Prince Ombra includes this metaphor in its retelling of the Arthurian legend.

[Valerie]

[Valerie]

Mythological basis

Some hold that Arthur originally was a half-forgotten Celtic deity or hero that devolved into a personage.

The word arth is modern Welsh for "bear", and among Continental Celts (although not in Britain) there were several bear gods named Artos or Artio. Also, artur (Welsh) and arturus (Latin) meant "bear-man". King Arthur was supposedly referred to by some writers as the Bear of Britain.

It has also been suggested that Arthur was originally a Celtic or prehistoric demi-god, whose legends were gradually adapted to fit historical fact as a means of keeping the Celtic legends alive after Christianity was introduced. An example would be the sea-god Llyr, who became the legendary King Lear.

Arthur's story also bears many similarities to Celtic mythologies, such as the hero's possession of a magical weapon (see Gáe Bulg), the Lady of the Lake having many similarities to Celtic water deities, etc.

Still another theory is that Arthur was a completely legendary person, the hero of Celtic bards meant to inspire and enthrall listeners, similar to the Germanic stories of Beowulf (or, in some stories, Bodvar Biarki). In fact, Beowulf was composed (c. late 8th Century) by Saxon settlers in Britain around the time the first stories of Arthur were emerging, and Arthur and Beowulf share several similarities: both were brave war-leaders who later became king; both carried magical swords; both were betrayed by their men; and both died without an heir. Dragons figure prominently in both stories, and like Arthur, the name Beowulf means "bear" (the alternate name for Beowulf, Bodvar Biarki, means "battle bear").

It is conceivable that Beowulf could have provided at least some influence on the emerging legends of King Arthur, or vice-versa, or both; Beowulf is set in the 6th Century, the time period of the early Arthurian legends. Even if the earliest spoken form of the Anglo-Saxon legends did not influence the early stories of Arthur, the written version — first transcribed by monks (who Christianized it, just as they Christianized earlier Celtic legends) in England in the 10th Century, could have influenced later Arthurian writers such as Geoffrey of Monmouth (who wrote in Wales in the 12th century).

Arthur also may hold influences from Sigmund of the Volsunga Saga. Both Arthur and Sigmund had royal ties. Both drew a sword in order to prove those ties (Arthur drew his from a stone while Sigmund drew his from the roots of a tree). Both of them also had involvement with incest and had a bastard son.

[Valerie]

Title Deutsch: Prinz Arthur und die Feenkönigin
English: Prince Arthur and the Fairy Queen
Artist Füssli, Johann Heinrich

[Valerie]

Other Arthurian characters

The Battle of Camlann, the final battle between Arthur and Mordred, is likely to be fictional; however, it is recorded in the Welsh Annals or "Annales Cambriae" (although this is probably a later addition), and several sites in Britain have been associated with it.

As he is recorded in the Annales Cambriae and other early sources, Mordred may have been a real person. The Annales Cambriae for the year 537 puts them at the Battle of Camlann, although it does not state that they fought on opposite sides. Instead, it refers to: "The Strife of Camlann in which Arthur and Medraut (Mordred) perished" (This has led some historians, as well as fiction authors like Mary Stewart, to wonder if the historical Arthur and Mordred could have fought on the same side, against the Saxons).

Morgan le Fay, Arthur's half-sister of legend, was possibly based on the Celtic goddesses Morrigan or Modron.

The Fisher King may be based on the legend of Joseph of Arimathea or the Celtic god Avalloc. As a matter of interest, in Celtic legend Avalloc was the father of Modron.

As explained above, the Grail Quest may have been largely influenced by the Sarmatian folklore of Batraz and his Narts. However, Celtic and Anglo-Saxon traditions also are filled with quests by heroes, and in Celtic folklore there are tales of a magical cup with healing powers. These tales undoubtedly were adapted to refer to the Holy Grail as Britain became Christianized.

Bedivere is, along with Arthur and Merlin, one of the oldest characters in Arthurian legend, and thus is more likely to have been a real person than newer additions. He appears in the Mabinogion and is connected with the Welsh Finddu dynasty; his father, Pedrod, may have been the historical Welsh monarch Pedr.

Merlin was the name given to two historical figures, Myrddin Wyllt ("Wild Merlin") and Myrddin Emrys ("Majestic Merlin"), combined by Geoffrey of Monmouth into one. The former was a bard who went mad after his king was killed by two rivals (one of whom was the above-mentioned Pedrod) and went to live in a forest. Merlin may also have been influenced by Taliesin. However, both Merlins and Taliesin all lived in the late 6th Century, after the time of most of the above-listed historical Arthurs.

Vortigern, the usurper king who, according to legend, invited the Saxons to land in Britain as mercenaries before being killed by Uther Pendragon, was a historical person, as were Hengest and Horsa, the Saxon leaders who rebelled against him. Vortigern itself (like Riothamus) apparently means "highest king", and he could possibly have been named something else.

[Valerie]

An Archeological Quest for the 'real' King Arthur



 For over a millennium and a half King Arthur has captivated the minds of all those who perchanced to hear the tales of his magnanimous deeds, his chivalric court, and his immortal reign. As each generation encountered the "Once and Future King", they utilized his name to propel their culture forwards. Monarchs like Henry VII (who united the house of York and Lancaster in 1485) justified their reign and lineage through the most grounded and respectable figure British history had to offer--King Arthur. This propaganda was not only accepted by the masses, but served as a remedy in a chaotic world, being viewed as the fulfillment of the prophecy of King Arthur's "Return". People put their faith in Britain's greatest warrior and protector, never questioning the validity of his actions. Nobility and peasants alike needed a flesh- and-blood historical figure, not fairy tales, and they managed to solidify such a man in their minds.

The scholarly world, on the other hand, has held nothing but skepticism towards King Arthur. As folklore began to draw in other stories and lump them together with Arthuriana, the "snowball" of accumulating tales seemed less and less credible: A man, wronged in love and by kin, able to single-handedly lead a decisive final assault at Badon hill which left 900 Anglo-Saxon warriors dead; a king said to rule for nearly 100 years; a fighter of giants and exotic, strange beasts; a ruler led by a red dragon. Indeed it is easy to see how King Arthur could be inundated by so many fanciful conjurings of the literary imagination. Yet beneath all the superfluous tales, there still remains a trace of a concrete individual, connected with a specific place and time. This is the figure scholastic minds have attempted to uncover. Based on historical documents and literary accounts, the "real" King Arthur has been linked to somewhat specific locations throughout Southern Britain, with a moderate amount of chronological success. This is where Archaeology comes in.


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

[Valerie]

Any person, place or cultural object left alone in nature, will eventually be covered up by the ground. If geological fluctuations are at a minimum, then the soil will act as a natural preservative, locking up the cultural remains until they can be unearthed and analyzed at a future date. Obviously there are a lot of problems involved in this whole process. First of all, Archaeology is limited by time and money--there are only so many sites which can be excavated and funded. So the chances of sampling plots reconstructing a total picture of a culture are slim. Second, only certain human-made objects (known as artifacts) survive consistently in the ground. Pottery sherds and stone and metal tools tend to be the most durable elements and subsequently represent the majority of artifacts recovered. Artifacts made of wood or fiber decompose rapidly and end up being lost from the archaeological record. In Britain, during the era of King Arthur (367-734 AD), wood was the most common building supply used, so there is very little archaeological evidence in Arthur's Britain; however, inference is largely able to overcome this obstacle because even though wooden posts have decomposed, the post holes for the foundations are still present in many sites. But once again, what is excavated represents only a small portion of the past culture. Finally, Archaeology rarely deals with specifics. As a field, it incorporates inductive reasoning to create very broad views of past cultures. It usually fails to isolate individual figures in history unless grave markers or other inscriptions are present. Unfortunately, 4th and 5th century Britain was Christianized and grave goods were not used. Furthermore, tombstones were very uncommon. A usual burial consisted of interring the body in a shallow grave and covering it with a pile of stones (known as a "cairn"). Without grave goods, cairns give very little concrete evidence, except for a description of the position of the body in the grave. This again minimizes what the archaeologist can discover.

[Valerie]

There are more archaeological limitations which come into play as well in the British Isles. Southern Britain, like most of the British Isles, is an area covered with swamps and marshes. Its rolling peat and grass hillsides are perfect for absorbing precipitation and they always maintain a high saturation point. This is a curse on Archaeological remains. Flowing water quickly destroys elements in the ground, either by steady erosion processes, or by actually moving the artifacts out of their original context. Without proper spatial placing in the ground artifacts are useless because they become isolated from their prior stratigraphic relationships, making them nothing more than archaic tidbits for treasure hunters. Once artifacts are displaced they are gone for good in terms of their effective contribution to historical knowledge.

Nevertheless, Archaeology still has a lot to offer the Arthurian legend. It has set about uncovering the areas established by Arthurian literature as being associated with historic King Arthur and has attempted to authenticate those literary suppositions. Sites such as Tintagel, Cadbury hill-fort and Glastonbury Abbey become more plausible occupations of a "real" King Arthur when literature and archaeology are combined.




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

[Valerie]

A REAL ARTHUR?

Before pursuing the sites commonly attached with King Arthur's lifetime, it is important to examine exactly who the most likely historic figure is for the colossal Arthurian legend. After several decades of scholastic pursuit, only one theory has managed to name a founding individual consistent with Arthurian literature and the chronological time he would have had to occupy. This man was Riothamus, the "King of the Britons" sent by Leo I in 467 to retrieve the crumbling British Isles from Saxon invasions.

 As Geoffrey Ashe says, Riothamus "Latinizes to the fifth-century British style, 'Rigotamos,'" which can be translated as "supreme-king" or "supremely royal" (Ashe 1995, 15). This may have been his British name, but he probably either was given the baptismal name, Artorius, or two historical figures were lumped into one composite war-leader. This is where confusion starts to arise: Riothamus was said to have campaigned in Gaul and disappeared around 470 in Burgundy; however, the Welsh said Arthur died in Camlann fighting another Briton, Medraunt, in 539. This would place his lifespan at close to one hundred years old! So there is an obvious discrepancy which can be explained in one of two ways: First off, after Riothamus liberated the Britons, he became a legend. Stories of his accomplishments spread far and wide. As is usually the case with oral tradition, his deeds were blown out of proportion and other stories were falsely attributed to him. This would account for the heightened accounts of Riothamus' battles and his long life span. Another explanation is offered by Geoffrey Ashe:

Late Roman times supply instances of military units named after individuals: Theodosiani, Honoriaci. Arthur's man might have been Artoriani. This force could have stayed in being after his death, recruited new members, played a crucial part at Badon, and collapsed through internal conflict at Camlann. (Ashe 1995, 21)
This connection is a bit of a stretch, but it does allow for only one Arthur, which seems more likely than two competing stories coming together as the basis for the legend of Arthur. So for the purpose of this paper, the King Arthur archaeology will be attempting to verify a single historical figure--Riothamus, also known by his baptismal name, Artorius.


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

[Valerie]

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 Grande 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.


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

[Valerie]

Cadbury Hill



Archelogical Information for Cadbury Hill

[Valerie]

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) (Picture at right indicates the valued accuracy and speed of such a technique when the geophysical survey results are compared with actual excavation finds). 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.

[Valerie]

The Tor