The Search For King Arthur
Greg Chapman - Research
Excalibur. Knights of the Round Table. The Holy Grail. All of these things come to my mind when I think about the legend of King Arthur--but did he in fact exist? If Arthur existed, does that mean Merlin existed as well? What about the love triangle between Arthur, Lancelot and Guinevere? Did Arthur's best friend really take his girl? If so, that's a made-for-TV movie right there.
Regardless of whether he existed, the legend had to come from somewhere or at least be inspired by some real world events--but from where? No clues, no artifacts and no proof--it's enough to make anyone's head spin trying to solve this mystery. That said, lets start at the beginning.
The legend has its roots in 5th century Britain--makes sense but the first mention of Arthur came almost 300 years later in the Dark Ages! That's a lot of time. Although, I think I have to give the benefit of the doubt to the people in the Dark Ages not being able to keep records about this; I mean c'mon they didn't even have the internet. The next major mention came during the 15th century with Sir Thomas Mallory's book Le Morte Darthur. Here we see the story of Arthur that we read about today. Boy pulls sword from stone, becomes king, assembles the Round Table in search of the Holy Grail then is betrayed by his wife and best friend, which shatters the Round Table and eventually Arthur's kingdom falls. Tragic.
In the 1960s, after a thorough examination of the lands mentioned in the Authurian legend--where he would have lived, fought, and died--no concrete evidence of an actual historical figure was unearthed. No King Arthur. No crown. No Tomb. No Excalibur.
Even if King Arthur did not exist as an actual historical figure, does that mean that the legend can't be inspirational or important? The first mention of Arthur came during a tumultuous time in Britain when their lands were constantly being invaded by surrounding kingdoms. Hope was in short supply. I understand the idea that they needed some type of icon or legend that would lift the British spirit and enable them to defend their homeland. Would the legend of George Washington or Alexander Nevsky be any less influential in their respective countries if they didn't exist? I say no. Both icons allowed their fellow countrymen to draw inspiration from them during a time that they needed to be fearless. People need legends in their lives, real or not, that they can look to for inspiration. It just so happens that this legend has persisted for the past fifteen hundred years.
After watching Is It Real: King Arthur I couldn't get an episode of the Simpsons out of my head. In the episode "Lisa The Iconoclast", Lisa researches town founder Jebediah Springfield and reveals that he wasn't the valiant frontiersman town lore paints him as, but actually a murderous pirate. A town struggle leads to the Springfield's mayor exhuming Jebediah's body to finally solve the conflict. Lisa, armed with proof of a pirate-past, is about to announce to the town that Jebediah is a fraud, but one cartoon epiphany later, she realizes that her desperate town needed this legend. It gave them a source of history--and most of all pride. Is the legend of Jebediah all that different from how the British looked at King Arthur? If you lived in Britain in the Middle Ages, under constant threat of grisly death from war and plague, would you need a source of inspiration? I bet most of us would--and most of us would rather have a king than a pirate.
No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://ngccommunity.nationalgeographic.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/1170
Recent Blog Comments
- I'm not so sure I believe... on 9/11 Science and Conspiracy Director's Diary
- Top international scientists have proven beyond... on 9/11 Science and Conspiracy Director's Diary
- I happen to watch this documentary... on On pursuit to film an extraordinary story in India - Part 2
- I just read Daddy's story. He... on HAPPY 40th BIRTHDAY, Cesar!
- Happy Birthday Cesar. I love your... on HAPPY 40th BIRTHDAY, Cesar!
Monthly Archives
- August 2009 (12)
- July 2009 (16)
- June 2009 (20)
- May 2009 (5)
- April 2009 (10)
- March 2009 (10)
- February 2009 (12)
- January 2009 (14)
- December 2008 (6)
- November 2008 (9)
- October 2008 (7)
- September 2008 (10)
- August 2008 (10)
- July 2008 (19)
- June 2008 (14)
- May 2008 (11)
- April 2008 (16)
- March 2008 (13)
- February 2008 (14)
- January 2008 (16)
- December 2007 (11)
- November 2007 (15)
- October 2007 (12)
- September 2007 (12)
- August 2007 (11)
- July 2007 (3)
- June 2007 (10)
- May 2007 (7)
- April 2007 (4)
- March 2007 (9)
- February 2007 (5)
16 Comments
Yet another unsolved mystery. It isn't uncommon for such legends to have their basis in the actions of real people. The movie Mulan comes to mind. I think that the main character was based on a woman that did some of the things depicted in the film, but not all.
I was fortunate enough to be able to visit Britain and Wales in 1999 and found a book there that discusses in some depth the Arthurian legend. The closest the scholars can come to an actual 'Arthur' is a tribal chieftain of the dark ages who was named or nicknamed Arcturos. They're not sure if that, since it means bear, was his true name or, more probably, a name in honor of his fighting ability. In any case, he was a warrior and leader with substantial ability. Most of the rest of the legend, e.g. the round table, the origins of chivalry, the various knights, is just that...legend. But what a fine legend it is!
Just because we can find no evidence of something that happened hundreds of years ago doesn't mean that this evidence never existed.
However, as stated, that's not the main issue. It's undeniable that the legend even inspired our beloved, martyred President Jack Kennedy.
Amichai
Most of Arthur's history was crafted by FRENCH monks. At best Arthur was merely a tribal chieftain who stood up against the invading Northlanders. At worst, he was no more and no less than a complete myth. But anything beyond existing and standing up against the Northlanders was likely created by the French. Which includes Merlin, Morganna, Gwenivere, Lancelot and on and on. How else could you explain Lancelot (the frenchman) bagging Gwen right under the king's nose? Or that he was Christian, when the dominant religion in the 5th century in Britian was the muddled pagan-roman religion that the Romans created to pacify the brits?
As for "inspiriation" beyond admitting Arthur is no more real than James Bond or Sherlock Holmes, most brits certainly don't need a hero right now - but heck, at the very least, he's more interesting than most countries "founding fathers".
I do not doubt that Arthur existed in some form and besides was it not his honor and the chivalrous way he approached all the issues he faced? He like others have given us a template upon which to live our lives by, yet we wonder if he was real, could it not be enough that if he did live, his legacy , his stories have withstood time and will endure. All men are ceated equal. no one is above the king nor he them. A knight hold true to his honor, and truth be his shield. I for one believe, even if it appears as shadow and mist now.
if arthur realy was in fact realy just an icon, why did they past the story from generaion to generation? have the neighboring kingdoms stop invading already? i mean come on wouldn't you be also bored invading the same kingdom over and over for decades? i'm just saying that my head is already spinning on this mystery, but i'm still not convince that arthur isn't real.
AFTER READING THE ARTICLE "THE BIG THAW" IN THE JUNE ISSUE I WAS INTERESTED IN A COMMENT ABOUT AN ANCIENT CORAL HEAD NEAR FLORIDA. THE AUTHOR INDICATED THAT A GLOBAL WARMING 130,000 YEARS AGO RAISED THE SEA LEVEL 15-20 FEET AND THAT THE CAUSE WAS A SHIFT IN THE EARTH'S TILT AND THE EARTH'S ORBIT. HOW CAN WE BE SURE THAT THE SAME PHENOMENON IS NOT THE CAUSE OF THE CURRENT WARMING CYCLE RATHER THAN MAN'S GENERATION OF GREENHOUSE GASES?
I think ..the effect of the legent is more important the the turth..
Regardless of whether the legent existed..
somebody trust it ..and it's ture..
I think ..the most important thing is not weather the legend existed..
but the effect of the legend..
so ..if you trust it ..like it ..it's ture ..
if not ..though it's really existed ..but you'll say it's not ture..
CANT BEE SPELL??? geee
We've basically grown up on the legend, a legend that has spanned the centuries since the monk wrote about him.
Since then, people have had debates back and fourth on whether or not the guy ever existed, and if so, then what about the sword in the stone and all the rest?
Since the 60's, more and more things come to light giving proof that somebody either named Arthur or something similar or someone lives up to what Arthur was suppose to have done and they try and link him to the Arthur legend.
The way I see it: Either they find definate proof that he did indeed exist or they find proof that its all based on a mythological legend.
Mind, it could take years for anything definate to be unearthed or it could be in five minutes, who knows.
For my money, I reckon he did exist, but all of the sword in the stone and all of that, I reckon there was something to it but not in the fashion we know of today.
Ok, having studied Arthurian legend & literature for over 30 years, I'd like to mention a few facts.
A. No, not 'some tribal chieftain'. Unlike so many think, Roman Britain was fairly sophisticated, and even tho the LEGIONS left in 410, the civilization stayed (& dwindled, to be sure). They remanned the skeleton crews at the forts, traded w/other Roman territories, etc.
B. 'Arthur' is his nickname. He also would have had a Roman name AND a Celtic one. There are several contenders that space forbids me getting into here.
C. The Germanic tribes did not 'invade' Britain. The JUTES were the ones interacting in the South, together w/some British - Cerdic, legendary king of the 'West Saxons' & foe of Arthur, is a CELTIC name, the same as Caradoc.
D. Camlann is in Wales, the battle was actually fought between Owein the Bear and his nephew Maelgwn the Dragon of Gwynedd.
E. As stated in a letter written by Suetonius circa 470, a Rhigothamus, High King of Britain, crossed Ocean to bring 12,000 men to fight the Franks for the Emperor - he was ambushed & lost on the road to Avalon.
Draw whatever conclusions you wish....
BB
Teleri
if any one could help me understand more of the legends that would be great.
There is a Hebrew version of the Arthur from the 13th century. See post on www.projectshalom2.org/WordPress
epic rules !!!!!!!
There is another method but yet to proven by the science, though i'd like to categorize this as Alternative Science.
I'm talking about Past-Life regression. Google this and be ready for a wild ride. Why Past-Life? I met certain person (2 of them) who recognize me as King Arthur. Sounds like an ego project. But, i'd love to learn more the existence of this too-good-to-be-true tale.
Because, i believe most myth rooted from a true story or i have to tip my hat to whoever invent it, its a remarkable story.
Add a Comment