In Search of ... King Arthur

You may have seen the movie King Arthur by Antoine Fuqua (2004), John Borman's Excalibur (1981) or the hilarious Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975). Perhaps you have seen the stage play Camelot or read T H White's Once and Future King, the book on which Disney's Sword in the Stone is based. There is a world of creative media dedicated to the reign of the British King Arthur, but who was the real King Arthur and what evidence do we have for his existence?

To find the real King Arthur we have to look back to Roman Britain to understand a little about the historical context from which he arose. The Romans invaded the British Isles in AD 43 across the English Channel from France (then called Gaul) driving the Britons east into what are now known as Wales and Cornwall. The Romans soon conquered Britain but not without resistance, in AD 60-61 there was a fierce revolt led by the famous warrior queen Boudica (later known as Boadicea) but the Romans wanted to stay, and stay they did for almost 400 years. The Romans brought technology, prosperity and culture with them but despite all this the Britons never fully accepted the occupation and those just out of reach of the Romans managed to keep their own culture alive. There is evidence that Germanic warriors and later Saxons were used as auxiliary soldiers to supplement the Roman troops and assist the occupation of Britain.

Just after the turn of the 5^th century the Roman Empire was beset with problems, in mainland Europe on the 31^st December AD 406 the Germanic tribes had crossed the Rhine and overrun the Roman defenses. In Britain the barbarians were attacking from all sides and there was too few Roman troops to mount a defense. Under increasing pressure the Roman troops in Britain rebelled and appointed a soldier Constantine III as Emperor of the Western Roman Empire. Soon after, Constantine III crossed into Gaul where the Emperor Honorius defeated him. It is believed Constantine III took all the mobile troops from Britain with him and it is unclear how many of those troops returned to Britain, if any. Britain was left to fend for itself. With hostile barbarians attacking from the outside and the Germanic and Saxon auxiliaries brought in by the Romans rebelling from the inside Britain was plunged into a series of wars that were to rage until the Saxon defeat of Britain in AD 600. It is in this turbulent age that we begin our search for the real King Arthur.

Written historical records from this period of British history are few and far between. There are no known written historical accounts of Arthur that we can say for certain are contemporary, in fact there is only one that has the potential to fulfill that criteria but it is problematic to say the least. The only potential contemporary account comes from a document called Annales Cambriae, or The Annals of Wales. The Annales Cambriae dates from AD 970 and is believed to be compiled from previous chronicles (mostly Irish) although the entries largely relate to actual known historical figures or events and there are some errors. There are two entries that relate to Arthur, one to Mordred and one to Merlin. The argument used to support these entries is that most of the historical persons who appear in the Annales are genuine so it is reasonable to suggest the Arthur entries are genuine. It must be stated however that there are historians who believe the Arthur entries to be later additions.

While the Annales carries the greatest possibility of being a genuine reference to Arthur it is not the earliest, the earliest text is The Historia Brittonum, or The History of the Britons. The Historia was believed to have been written shortly after AD 833 but only survives in the form of revised and edited editions and so it is much harder to argue for it being a genuine reference.

Neither of these documents refers to Arthur as a King, however the Annales often names Kings without making note of their title and the Historia names Arthur 'dux bellorum' or commander of battles. However it is worth mentioning that at this point in history Britain was divided up into many smaller Kingdoms and there was not one overall King of England until in AD 878 when Alfred the Great was recognized as 'Leader of all free Englishmen' under the treaty of Wedmore.

The next major text to contain reference to Arthur was Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain in AD 1136. While presented as an historical account by the author it is largely fictional and cannot be taken as an actual historical record. In Monmouth's work Arthur's life and reign are told through a fictional narrative. In the History of Kings we are introduced to Uther Pendragon (Arthur's father) and Merlin. Although the figure of Merlin existed prior to Monmouth he was the first to place him at Arthur's side. However, Geoffrey introduces us to the story of Arthur's conception in which Uther uses Merlin's magic to disguise himself and fool Igraine, the wife of the Duke of Cornwall. The story takes place in a castle called Tintagel, which is a genuine castle on the north coast of Cornwall. It is worth remembering this fact as I will return to it later. Arthurian literature is divided into pre and post Geoffrey of Monmouth because following the publication of his history all fictional works about Arthur were to be influenced by his narrative and become more fantastic with every publication.

The next great Arthurian work was by Chretien de Troyes who wrote a series of poetic Arthurian Romances between 1170-1190. The Romances introduced us to Lancelott, Erec and Enide, Yvain and most significantly of all Perceval and the Holy Grail. It is worth noting to all the Dan Brown fans out there that this is the earliest recorded mention of the Holy Grail and that there is no mention of it in history prior to Chretien's poem. In the poem the Grail is not a cup but a finely decorated plate or platter. Unfortunately we never discover the fate of the Holy Grail because Chretien died before he could completed the poem. Perhaps this is the reason there has been so much wild speculation about a fictional object. Whatever Chretien's intentions were for the poem's narrative King Arthur and the Holy Grail would now be forever linked in peoples imaginations.

After the Chretien Romances came the Welsh Romances in the form of the Mabinogion, a collection of prose stories from Welsh medieval manuscripts. The stories are partly based on medieval events but confusingly contain strands of myth that date back to the Iron Age. The stories were complied around 1350 and contain versions of the tales that appear in Chretien's poems. It is debated if the Mabinogion is based on Chretien's poems or if they were both taken from the same Celtic source material, the answer to that is not known.

The next major publication on Arthur was Thomas Mallory's Morte D'Arthur published in 1485. The book is a retelling of English and French Arthurian Romances with some original material by Mallory. This is the definitive story that gives us King Arthur as we know him today and is entirely fictional. Almost all of the media mentioned in the opening chapter are based on the King Arthur found in this publication.

From Geoffrey of Monmouth onwards the historical King Arthur disappears into a fog of fiction and romance, so what archeological evidence is there? Without any written evidence for Arthur and the sites of the battles mentioned in the Annales and Historia long since lost in time it is virtually impossible to locate and identify any archeological evidence for his existence. A few sites have been linked to his name but this is wishful thinking more than hard fact. Most artifacts such as the round table at Winchester Cathedral or the tomb at the ruins of Glastonbury Cathedral are medieval hoaxes designed to increase tourism at the time (and today). There is no real evidence to suggest any of these were ever genuine sites of Arthurian events but this story has a tantalizing twist in its tail.

Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote of Arthur's conception at Tintagel castle in Cornwall and the site does indeed use its connection to Arthur to attract tourists but the castle ruins at Tintagel are 13^th Century and could not possibly have been connected to an historical Arthur, or so it was believed. In 1998 archeological excavations uncovered a 6^th century fort underneath the 13^th century castle. This places Tintagel slap bang in the middle of Arthur's time. The dates neatly match the entries in the Annals of Wales for Arthur (the best contender for most possible contemporary account) AD 516 and AD 537. By itself, this evidence means nothing, there are many 6^th century forts in England and Wales but among the artifacts found at Tintagel was a stone bearing the name 'Artognou'. The fort also relinquished remains of expensive pottery, glasswork, and coins from Visigothic Spain and the Byzantine Empire. It would have had to be a powerful Kingdom to have sustained trade with the Mediterranean. It is known that the name 'Arthur' is a modern interpretation of an older name, possibly Artognou. Tintagel is on the north coast of Cornwall directly due south of the Wales where the Annals were written and furthermore if you carry on inland from where you reach the Welsh coast you come to a town called Camarthen which translates into English as Merlin's Town. The evidence is compelling but not concrete and there is nothing to suggest this Artognou is the historical Arthur, yet there is nothing to suggest he is not. Perhaps Artognou was the inspiration for the King Arthur we find in the records and fiction, whatever the case it raises interesting questions about the dismissal of Geoffrey's claim his story was based on factual accounts.

In conclusion; the evidence for Arthur is rare and where it does exist its authenticity is highly subjective. The best we can hope for is a coming together of enough circumstantial evidence to lead us to a satisfying conclusion but for the moment that is not the case. If he did exist he would most likely have been a successful Romano-British warrior fighting the barbarian invaders. At the time he would have lived it is impossible he would have worn full body armor, it simply hadn't been invented. His weapon could never have been a longsword but is more likely to have been a Roman shortsword or similar weapon. There is no contemporary evidence for any of his companions except Mordred and Merlin. Lancelott, Guinevere, Percival, Gwain, etc were all romantic inventions of the 12^th century.

It is possible that further archeological study will reveal more links between the site at Tintagel and the legends of Arthur, perhaps at some point in the future we will find concrete evidence to link the two. This is pure romantic conjecture on my part but maybe Arthur isn't meant to be found and in the words of T. H. White, truly is the 'Once and Future King'.

Next article, In Search of ... The Holy Grail.