Historians Locate King Arthur's 'Round Table'

[Hardrock69]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7883874/Historians-locate-King-Arthurs-Round-Table.html



Historians locate King Arthur's Round Table
Historians claim to have finally located the site of King Arthur’s Round Table – and believe it could have seated 1,000 people.


By Martin Evans
Published: 11:46AM BST 11 Jul 2010

Researchers exploring the legend of Britain’s most famous Knight believe his stronghold of Camelot was built on the site of a recently discovered Roman amphitheatre in Chester.

Legend has it that his Knights would gather before battle at a round table where they would receive instructions from their King.

But rather than it being a piece of furniture, historians believe it would have been a vast wood and stone structure which would have allowed more than 1,000 of his followers to gather.

Historians believe regional noblemen would have sat in the front row of a circular meeting place, with lower ranked subjects on stone benches grouped around the outside.

They claim rather than Camelot being a purpose built castle, it would have been housed in a structure already built and left over by the Romans.

Camelot historian Chris Gidlow said: “The first accounts of the Round Table show that it was nothing like a dining table but was a venue for upwards of 1,000 people at a time.

“We know that one of Arthur’s two main battles was fought at a town referred to as the City of Legions. There were only two places with this title. One was St Albans but the location of the other has remained a mystery.”

The recent discovery of an amphitheatre with an execution stone and wooden memorial to Christian martyrs, has led researchers to conclude that the other location is Chester.

Mr Gidlow said: “In the 6th Century, a monk named Gildas, who wrote the earliest account of Arthur’s life, referred to both the City of Legions and to a martyr’s shrine within it. That is the clincher. The discovery of the shrine within the amphitheatre means that Chester was the site of Arthur’s court and his legendary Round Table.”

[chefcraig]

Camelot historian Chris Gidlow said: “The first accounts of the Round Table show that it was nothing like a dining table but was a venue for upwards of 1,000 people at a time.

Yeah, I figured as much. Imagine how lousy the table service would be. The nitwits at Red Lobster can never get my order right, even when I'm sharing a table with one other person.

[Seshmeister]

I would take this with a huge pinch of salt.

[Hardrock69]

Of course you would, Sesh! :)

[Seshmeister]

:)

It's just that King Arthur was a story written in medieval times and there is no evidence he existed.

I looked up the 'historian' in the article and he isn't exactly setting the world of academia alight he works as 'A Live Interpretation Manager' at some tourist places.

In other words he's the guy you go to if you want someone to arrange a joust in the park not a professor or even a Phd.

[Seshmeister]

Sorry to be hassling all your threads at the moment, nothing personal. :)

[thome]

There is solid evidence Arthur existed .

[binnie]

Indeed - this sounds like some PR to me.

Although this isn't my period, I've never heard of this guy and I take this to be little more than wishful thinking on his part.

[Hardrock69]

There is solid evidence Arthur existed .

No, there is not. Read below.


No worries, Sesh.

Regardless of the level of employment that history buff dude has, he is not talking fluff. All historians know there is no proof Arthur existed, and there are many theories as to locations of a supposed 'Camelot'. Personally I think the idea of a piece of furniture is a load of crap.
I posted that article as it is supported by archeological finds (the Roman amphitheater in Chester).

Check out this from Wikipedia, which says it best:


The historical basis for the King Arthur legend has long been debated by scholars. One school of thought, citing entries in the Historia Brittonum (History of the Britons) and Annales Cambriae (Welsh Annals), sees Arthur as a genuine historical figure, a Romano-British leader who fought against the invading Anglo-Saxons sometime in the late 5th to early 6th century. The Historia Brittonum, a 9th-century Latin historical compilation attributed in some late manuscripts to a Welsh cleric called Nennius, lists twelve battles that Arthur fought. These culminate in the Battle of Mons Badonicus, or Mount Badon, where he is said to have single-handedly killed 960 men. Recent studies, however, question the reliability of the Historia Brittonum as a source for the history of this period.[6]

The other text that seems to support the case for Arthur's historical existence is the 10th-century Annales Cambriae, which also link Arthur with the Battle of Mount Badon. The Annales date this battle to 516–518, and also mention the Battle of Camlann, in which Arthur and Medraut (Mordred) were both killed, dated to 537–539. These details have often been used to bolster confidence in the Historia's account and to confirm that Arthur really did fight at Mount Badon. Problems have been identified, however, with using this source to support the Historia Brittonum's account. The latest research shows that the Annales Cambriae was based on a chronicle begun in the late 8th century in Wales. Additionally, the complex textual history of the Annales Cambriae precludes any certainty that the Arthurian annals were added to it even that early. They were more likely added at some point in the 10th century and may never have existed in any earlier set of annals. The Mount Badon entry probably derived from the Historia Brittonum.[7]

This lack of convincing early evidence is the reason many recent historians exclude Arthur from their accounts of post-Roman Britain. In the view of historian Thomas Charles-Edwards, "at this stage of the enquiry, one can only say that there may well have been an historical Arthur [but …] the historian can as yet say nothing of value about him".[8] These modern admissions of ignorance are a relatively recent trend; earlier generations of historians were less sceptical. Historian John Morris made the putative reign of Arthur the organising principle of his history of sub-Roman Britain and Ireland, The Age of Arthur (1973). Even so, he found little to say about a historical Arthur.[9]
The 10th-century Annales Cambriae, as copied into a manuscript of c. 1100

Partly in reaction to such theories, another school of thought emerged which argued that Arthur had no historical existence at all. Morris's Age of Arthur prompted archaeologist Nowell Myres to observe that "no figure on the borderline of history and mythology has wasted more of the historian's time".[10] Gildas' 6th-century polemic De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae (On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain), written within living memory of Mount Badon, mentions the battle but does not mention Arthur.[11] Arthur is not mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle or named in any surviving manuscript written between 400 and 820.[12] He is absent from Bede's early 8th-century Ecclesiastical History of the English People, another major early source for post-Roman history that mentions Mount Badon.[13] Historian David Dumville has written: "I think we can dispose of him [Arthur] quite briefly. He owes his place in our history books to a 'no smoke without fire' school of thought ... The fact of the matter is that there is no historical evidence about Arthur; we must reject him from our histories and, above all, from the titles of our books."[14]

Some scholars argue that Arthur was originally a fictional hero of folklore – or even a half-forgotten Celtic deity – who became credited with real deeds in the distant past. They cite parallels with figures such as the Kentish totemic horse-gods Hengest and Horsa, who later became historicised. Bede ascribed to these legendary figures a historical role in the 5th-century Anglo-Saxon conquest of eastern Britain.[15] It is not even certain that Arthur was considered a king in the early texts. Neither the Historia nor the Annales calls him "rex": the former calls him instead "dux bellorum" (leader of battles) and "miles" (soldier).[16]

Historical documents for the post-Roman period are scarce, so a definitive answer to the question of Arthur's historical existence is unlikely. Sites and places have been identified as "Arthurian" since the 12th century,[17] but archaeology can confidently reveal names only through inscriptions found in secure contexts. The so-called "Arthur stone", discovered in 1998 among the ruins at Tintagel Castle in Cornwall in securely dated 6th-century contexts, created a brief stir but proved irrelevant.[18] Other inscriptional evidence for Arthur, including the Glastonbury cross, is tainted with the suggestion of forgery.[19] Although several historical figures have been proposed as the basis for Arthur,[20] no convincing evidence for these identifications has emerged.

[thome]

The historical basis for the King Arthur legend has long been debated by scholars....

Scholars who weren't there are feeding you the truth my brother.

Scholars who have books to write about something that never existed my brother.

Ergo: The Scholars lack a even more complete non-existence my brother.

Ah yes the scientific principal that sais if I speak it it is real.

[Hardrock69]

Scholars who weren't there are feeding you the truth my brother.

You actually believe in the existence of King Arthur? Too bad.


The Scholars lack a even more complete non-existence my brother.

These 'scholars' you speak of.....you are saying they need to 'not exist' even more than they don't exist already? If they do not exist, then what the fuck are you going on about these 'scholars' for?

[thome]

You actually believe in the existence of King Arthur? Too bad.



These 'scholars' you speak of.....you are saying they need to 'not exist' even more than they don't exist already? If they do not exist, then what the fuck are you going on about these 'scholars' for?

I believe more in the existence of a 1500 year old story that has no written proof than I do a bunch of Univesity Homos who can prove beyond a shodow of a doubt with complete conviction and un-debatable COMMUNISM, that it never was.

[chefcraig]

You actually believe in the existence of King Arthur? Too bad.

I've had trouble with just about all of this "Legend" hoohah since seeing this film when it came out in 1975...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8yjNbcKkNY

[Seshmeister]

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn54/Grace_the_Awesome_One/animated%20gifs/holy-grail_rabbit.gif

[chefcraig]

King Arthur: I am your king.
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you.
King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
Woman: Well how'd you become king then?
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.
Dennis: [interrupting] Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.


King Arthur: The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land?
1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
King Arthur: Not at all. They could be carried.
1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: What? A swallow carrying a coconut?
King Arthur: It could grip it by the husk!
1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.
King Arthur: Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your master that Arthur from the Court of Camelot is here?
1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow needs to beat its wings forty-three times every second, right?
King Arthur: Please!
1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: Am I right?