| Arthurian Archaeology A Short History of ArthurianArchaeology by Michelle L. BiehlWritten for Archaeology of Europe, University of Minnesota, 1991 Introduction: Arthur And at the feast of Pentacost all manner of men assayedto pull at the sword that wold assay, but none might prevail butArthur, and he pulled it afore all the lords and commons that werethere, wherefore all the commons cried at once, 'We will have Arthurunto our king; we will put him no more in delay, for we all see thatit is God's will that he shall be our king, and who that holdethagainst it, we will slay him'. And therewith they all kneeled at once, both richand poor, and cried Arthur mercy because they had delayed him so long. And Arthur forgave them, and took the sword between both his hands, and offered it upon the altar where theArchbishop was, and so was he made knight of the best man there. The above passage is from LeMmorte d'Arthur : the history of KingArthur and his nobleknights of the Round Table, by Sir Thomas Malory, a book that was writtenand published between1469-1470, during the reign of King Edward IV. Prior to this document,the exact origins ofArthurian legend are difficult to trace reliably before the twelfthcentury, when Geoffrey ofMonmouth produced the History of the Kings of Britain, in which he devotesthe last third of thebook to King Arthur, with the first two thirds leading up to this climax.Although Monmouth'shistory contains passages which can be deemed 'mystical' in nature,especially in regards to Arthur,the preceding pages leading up to King Arthur's appearance, read asstraight history as opposed tomythical tale. King Arthur would have lived in the end of the fifth century tothe beginning of the sixthcentury, with his birth most likely occurring around 470 A.D. and hisdeath, as related in the folklore,in the year 539, at the Battle of Camlan. This means that six hundredyears transpired betweenArthur's life span and any surviving written account, history or folklore,of a king named Arthur. Although the majority of the British population in the fifth and sixthcenturies was illiterate, there wasa classically educated, 'Romanized' minority that could read and write, aswell as a literate monasticsociety. In the year 545, a monk named Gilda wrote an account of thedecline of Roman authorityin Britain and the events which followed. Most contemporary scholars andhistorians dismiss thissource as unreliable and in many places entirely wrong, in any event,there is no mention of KingArthur in Gilda's writings. This absence of early written sourcespertaining to King Arthur suggeststhree hypotheses: There is a document or written account that historians havenot found or do not have access to; The history of King Arthur was an oral tale, passed down verballythrough a number of generations before it was recorded in written form; or, King Arthur is solely a creation of Medieval, romanticliterature. In this paper, I do not aim to clearly prove any of thesepossibilities, but to examine anddiscuss some of the archaeological evidence from the time of King Arthurand from associated sitesto see if the history of this king is possible and not refuted by physicalevidence. To accomplish this,I will describe the historical and political environment at the time ofArthur and detail two sites,Tintagel and Cadbury (Camelot) in terms of archaeological content.History: Britain Following the inclusion of Britain into the Roman Empire, thecountry managed to remainfairly autonomous. The educated members of the society adoptedChristianity, brought into thecountry by the Romans, while the uneducated peasants remained pagan.Economically, the islandexported grain, iron, coal, hides, hunting dogs, and slaves. Previous tothe occupation by Rome,there had been raids by the Angels and the Saxons, but under the Empire,forts were erected to guardagainst these raiding forces and the would-be invaders were kept at bay.In 367 A.D., however, theRoman Empire began to dissolve. Britain, without this military backing,became defenseless almostovernight and the Angels, the Saxons, and the Jutes began to gain controlof the countryside and cutoff whole towns. In the book, The peoples of the British Isles: a new history(Lehmberg, 1992) the authortheorizes that some of these invaders from the east were invited into thecountry by the British leader,Vortigern, to aid in the defense of invading Picts from the North, in theabsence of Roman aid. Oncein, however, the Saxon mercenaries found the country agreeable and stayed,influencing others tomigrate into the country. However it happened, the years after 367 inBritain are marked byGermanic invasions and the struggles for power and control between theseinvaders and the nativeBritons. It was a time period marked by violence, pillage, and politicalunrest. It is to this dark agein Britain, that King Arthur belongs. In light of this backdrop, a military leader who fought againstthese invasions, won battles,and was possibly known for his military feats is quite plausible. In theninth century, a member of theWelsh clergy, Nennius, is attributed with the work entitled, HistoriaBrittonum (edited in the 10th century by Mark the Hermit), a document that was discovered in the library of theVatican Palace inRome. In this work, Nennius speaks of Arthur not as a king but as asoldier: Arthur fought against the Saxons alongside the kings of theBritons, but he himself was the leader in the battles (dux bellorum).The first battle was at the mouth of the river which is called Glein. Thenext four were on the banks of another river, which is called Dubglasand is in the region Linnuis...The twelfth was on Mount Badon, inwhich- on that one day-there fell in one onslaught of Arthur's, ninehundred and sixty men; and none slew them but he alone, and in all hisbattles he remained victor (Nennius 1819).Archaeology: Tintagel Merlin came forthwith accordingly, and when he stood in thepresence of the King (Uther Pendragon), was bidden give counsel how theKing's desire might be fulfilled. When he found how sore tribulationof mind the king was suffering, he was moved at beholding the effect ofa love so exceeding great, and saith he: "the fulfillment of thy desiredoth demand the practice of arts new and unheard of in this thy day.Yet I know how to give thee the semblance of Gorlois by myleechcrafts in such sort as thou shalt seem in all things to be his veryself...At last, committing the siege into charge of his familiars, he didentrust himself unto the art and medicants of Merlin, and was transformed intothe semblance of Gorlois. Ulfin was changed into Jordan and Merlininto Bricel in such sort as that none could have told the one fromthe other. They then went their way toward Tintagel, and at dusk hourarrived, swiftly unmade the doors, and the three were admitted. For whatother than Gorlois if Gorlois himself were there? So the king laythat night with Igrene, for as he had beguiled her by the false likeness he hadtaken upon him, so he beguiled her also by the feigned discourse wherewithhe had issued forth of the besieged city for naught save to see thesafety of her dear self and the castle wherein she lay, in such a sort thatshe believed him every word, and had no thought to deny him in aught hemight desire. And upon that same night was the most renowned Arthur conceived, that was well worthy of all the fame he did achieveby his surpassing prowess (Monmouth, 148-9). Tintagel is on the southwest coast of Britain, in Cornwall and issurrounded on three sides bywater. The first mention of Tintagel Castle, as it pertains to KingArthur, is in Monmouth's account in the above excerpt. This book, published in 1149, traces thehistory of British royalty from1200 BC and charts the reigns of seventy-five kings, most of which manyhistorians feel that he madeup. In his preface, he claims that his work is based on a much oldercollection of writings, given tohim by Walter, the Archdeacon of Oxford; such a book, however, has neverbeen found. In Geoffrey's history, the ruler Constantine holds the throneuntil he is murdered, in the earlyfourth century, by Vortigern. Vortigern, needing a puppet, convincesConstane's eldest son,Constans, to assume the throne, which he does until he falls sick and diesafter only a short time asking. Vortigern then claims the throne for himself, at which pointMonmouth incorporates theprophecies of Merlin into his history. Merlin fortells the coming ofAuthur, "the boar of cornwall"when Vortigern seeks his counsel. Merlin also announces that "doom isnear" and that Constantine'sother two sons, Aurelius Ambrosius and Uther Pendragon are coming to claimthe throne. Thiscomes to pass and after the death of his brother, Aurelius, UtherPendragon is eventually made kingand goes on to father Arthur, the seed being planted at TintagelCastle. Vertigern was a real ruler and can be historically traced anddocumented. Monmouth'saccount, however, preoccupied with mysticism and prophecy, can hardly betaken as fact but it ispossible that it is rooted in fact. In 1926, Henry Jenner presented apaper in which he dismissed theArthurian connections to Tintagel as a fraud. He interpreted Tintagel'sfunction at that time as areligious establishment rather than a royal one. It is this theory thatinfluenced the archaeologicalinterpretations about Tintagel from the first excavations in the 1930'suntil the 1970's. C. A. Raleigh Radford was asked bythe British Ministry of works in 1930 to investigate theArthurian history of the Tintagel site. Hisexcavations went on intermittently for thirty tears, the mostimportant aspect of his work, for this paper, beingwhat he refers to as 'Site A' , which is approximately 150 feet north to south and about 60 feet fromeast to west. This site was covered with a numberof structures that he divides into four periodsbased on the walls that he uncovered from thesebuildings. Period I contained only one completestructure, 'Room 9'. Based on the pottery sherds thathe found, Radford dated Period I at 450-700 A.D.Period II is not associated with any material finds andis dated on art historical grounds by an 'interlace'cross slate (Dark, 1985). Period II begins at 700 A.D.and develops into Period III an no one definabletime. Period III is not associated with anyspecific material finds, either. The chronology for Site Abreaks down as follows: Period I: 450-700 A.D.; Period II: 700- +; Period III: after 700 until 1100; and, Period IV: after 1100 until the Norman occupation.In respect to King Arthur, the possible answers lie in Period I. Radford, in his interpretation of the sites archaeologicalcontent, agreed with Jensen's earliersuggestion that Tintagel was the site of a Celtic monastery, during itsPeriod I occupation. One ofthe main reasons for this assessment was the presence of what he perceivedto be a leacht. This isa type of monument that is found at many of the early monastic sites onthe west coast of Ireland. During Radford's excavations, however, he did not find any gravesassociated with this leacht, anormal accompaniment to this religious monument. There were four gravesfound at Tintagel SiteA, but all were empty. More recent interpretations of the Tintagel site suggest a verydifferent function of the site's Period I; one that does not prove the Arthurian connections to belegitimate but a function that doesnot disprove the connection either. In 1981, O. J. Padel began a study ofthe Cornish backgroundof the Tristian stories. In the course of this research, he began toinvestigate Tintagel in medievalliterature, and discovered that Tintagel, in Cornish, pre-Norman folklore,was always referred to asa 'royal palace'. Padel suggested that this could account for the masssupply of imported potteryfound at the site and further surmised that, "Tintagel was the (or a)dwelling of the rulers of Cornwallin the period of the imported pottery" (Padel 1984). Concurrent with Padel's research, archaeologist Charles Thomasbegan re-evaluating the siteand resorting and studying the pottery sherds that were uncovered byRadford. He first dismissedthe leacht as 'atypical' and not very reliable in interpreting the site asa monastery and then suggestedthat the pottery was the only way to accurately date and interpret thePeriod I occupation (Thomas1988). Lynette Olson, in her book, Early Monasteries in Cornwall (1989),is doubtful that Tintagelwas the site of an early monastery, as well, an opinion is based on theabsence of any associatedfunerary remains. If the site was not religious in function, that what was itsfunction? The answer seems to liein the huge amounts of imported pottery found in the Period I layers.This suggests two likely usesof Tintagel Site A: A trading station; or, A high status, secular settlement.If the site were a trading station, mass amounts of valuable, importedpottery would not haveremained at the site. Luxury items would have been transported to royalsites instead of sitting at thestation where they arrived in Britain. In addition, Tintagel is not thebest port in the immediate area,Port William, which is about a half of a mile southwest of Tintagel haseasier access from the harborand would have been the more likely choice for a trading station between450-700 (Dark, 1985). In terms of a secular settlement, during the years of Period Ioccupation, there was a tendencyfor the royal use of hilltop fortification in western Britain (Dark,1985). Tintagel overlooks theAtlantic on rocky cliffs. There is also the rich material evidence ofimported luxury goods, includingClass A, B, C, and D imported pottery, that would have been used by highstatus or royalindividuals. These factors, taken along with Padel's research, indicatethat without contradictory newevidence, Tintagel Period I can be interpreted as a royalsettlement. Does this prove the Geoffrey of Monmouth account of thebeginnings of King Arthur atTintagel Castle? No, but at the same time it is not disproved. Thearchaeological evidence combinedwith historical data suggest that the function of Tintagel, during PeriodI suggest that the right kindof people were inhabiting Tintagel at about the right time.Archaeology: Cadbury (Camelot): At the virgil of Pentacost, when all the fellowship ofthe Round Table were comen unto Camelot and there heard their Service, and the tables were set ready to the meat, right so entered into the hall a full fair gentlewoman on horeseback, that had ridden full fast, for her horse was all besweat (Malory1927). The hill at South Cadbury, has long been associated withArthurian folklore; Arthur and hisknights are eternally sleeping in a cave beneath the hill and on ChristmasEve Arthur and the Knightsof the Round Table ride along top the hill. In 1965, this area wasploughed and a few fragments ofimported pottery, like those found at Tintagel, were discovered. Thisevidence, was enoughjustification for the formation of the Camelot Research Committee, withmembers including Britishhistorians and archaeologists C.A. Raleigh Radford, Geoffrey Ashe, andPhillip Rahtz, under thedirection of Leslie Alcock. From July 15 to August 6, 1966, there was a trial excavation atthe site to see if there wasenough physical evidence to justify a full scale excavation. Three sites,Site A, Site B, and Site Cwere identified and excavated on the eighteen acre hilltop. Theydiscovered several layers ofhabitation at each site, covering a large time span, from the Neolithic(3000 B.C.) to a occupationin the first millennium B.C. which produced mass amounts of bronzes andBronze Age pottery. Thepre-Roman Iron Age was marked by loom weights, weaving combs, and La TaneIII brooches. Thisrich material culture continues until the Roman Conquest. The next layercontained burnt potterysherds, which could suggest a violent end to the settlement around 45 A.D.(Alcock and Ashe 1971).This is followed by a Roman Period occupation, marked by third and fourthcentury pottery. Thenext level of use, at Sites A, B, and C, contained mass amounts ofTintagel class B pottery,suggesting a major occupation of the site during the dark age. Thisprovided a sufficient evidencefor the research committee to get more funding. The excavations at Cadbury continued throughout the summer of1970 and the newinformation that was collected further supported the notion of a dark age,military stronghold. Thecommittee incorporated the use of geophysical prospecting as a means offinding the most beneficialsite to excavate further; an area of 1000 square meters was selected. Oneof the trenches revealedmore than five successful structural phases, at least two of which werepost-Roman. What theydiscovered was that when the hill was re-occupied in the second half ofthe fifth century or slightlylater, that they earlier defences were reconstructed andfortified. This refortification consisted of an unmotared stone wall,sixteen feet thick, with blocks ofRoman masonry on to pf it, in addition to a surrounding earth bank, aninternal drystone wall, and a gate tower with two entrances (Alcock 1968). Area postholes suggestedother buildings and asmall amount of Tintagel-like sherds of class A, B, and some D potterywere also discovered. Basedon these finds, it was suggested that large amounts of imported potteryindicated a peasants hovel,where as the widely scattered small amounts found at Cadbury suggested a"civilized settlement"(Alcock, Ashe 1971). Due to the amount of imported luxury goods, it wasalso surmised that theoccupants of the fortified settlement were people of standing. There are the remains of many hill-forts that were re-occupiedduring the post-Roman years but none were refortified on the same scale asCadbury and none were anywhere as large as that eighteen acre site. Thesite was occupied at the right time, with the pottery sherds and otherfinds dating it at the late fifth century into the early sixth century. The only other fortified site remotely on this scale, in or near Britainwas located in Scotland, at Aldeed, the capital of the Clyde Kingdom,but even that was noticeably smaller than Cadbury. Conclusions Cadbury was inhabited as a military strong hold, in the DarkAges, in Britain. Whether it wasoccupied by King Arthur is not proven, what is proven is that the site[Camelot] was used for whatit was supposed to be used for at the right period in British history.In The Real Camelot, Darrahwrites, "The truth is however, that attempts to identify 'Camelot' arepointless. The name and thevery concept of 'Camelot' are inventions of the French Medieval poets"(Darrah 1981). There is a tendency in our society, to romanticize the past, tomystify it to suit our ownimaginations and to fit our own conceptions of what we thought it musthave been like. DavidLowenthal, an archaeologist, theorizes that this in part, due to theuncertainty of our own future thatwe cling so desperately to the past. Whatever the cause, it is somethingthat we are guilty of andKing Arthur is one of our victims. The archaeological evidence supportsan historical 'King Arthur'figure, his parents could have been Uther Pendragon and Igerne for thatmatter and he could havebeen conceived at Tintagel, the archaeological findings do not contradictit. But, the King Arthur ofCamelot and other popular literary works did not exist; how could heexist, he has been glorified toa point where the concept of King Arthur is not a human; he is a myth, ahero on the same scale ofa deity that will resurrect save and save all of England one day. Based on archaeological evidence, mainly pottery (see AppendixA--forthcoming..I need to learn how to make tables ), the sitesassociated withArthurian legend are plausible. Each site has the 'right' types of findslocated in soil layers andpottery types to the 5th to 6th century AD. Does this prove that KingArthur existed and defendedCamelot, and was conceived at Tintagel? No. Does it prove that he didn'texist and was not at theseplaces? No, it doesn't. What the archaeological remains do are create arecord, a time line based ontangible physical evidence for a mythic, literary figure. What is important to remember, is that the archaeology ofArthurian sites is one thing andArthurian literature is another. The same is true for early 'histories'of King Arthur; they may bebased on fact but there was such a time lapse between the actual eventsand recorded history, thatthese sources are questionable at best. These written sources, both factand fiction, may dissect attimes and compliment the archaeological record, but the characters ofMorgaine le Fay, Lancelot,Merlin, Guinievere, or even Arthur are not going to be buried in the yearsaccumulation of soil,waiting to be discovered, to tell us their tales; but the archaeology ofthese sites, taken as a key to thefactual past of Anglo-Saxon history, can be just as fascinating. BibliographyBack to my page. |
|
