- This topic has 5 voices and 6 replies.
-
Posts
-
Historians are claiming they have found Arthur's legendary “Round Table” (or at least the place where it was situated), though it may not be what most people would have expected.
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.
So are we now saying King Arthur really existed?
+1 I have never heard a historian claim any more than that Arthur was a mythical construct of several early English kings. I don't believe he was a true historic figure. If this location is supposed to be Camelot then they need more than one 6th century account to prove it. They can start by trying to prove he existed as a real person in the first place.
I agree with the construct proposition; that said, this could be a relic used by one of the folks that make up that construct… perhaps.[/waffle mode] ::)
I have never heard a historian claim any more than that Arthur was a mythical construct of several early English kings. I don't believe he was a true historic figure. If this location is supposed to be Camelot then they need more than one 6th century account to prove it. They can start by trying to prove he existed as a real person in the first place.
What about the theory that he was not a British king but the Roman soldier Lucius Artorius Castus? I read a few things, and yes, saw the movie, and that story seems more plausible than the rest as Castus was a real, verifiable person and that his legacy grew into legend and thus the Arthur legend...
What about the theory that he was not a British king but the Roman soldier Lucius Artorius Castus? ... seems more plausible than the rest as Castus was a real, verifiable person and that his legacy grew into legend and thus the Arthur legend...
This is my thought too. A major part of the construct in my way of thinking.
So are we now saying King Arthur really existed?
Donnie, check out the following:
Arthur has been in and out of fashion more than denim: one year his veracity is being argued by every archaeologist in Britain, the next he's ignored or derided. In Revealing King Arthur: Swords, Stones and Digging for Camelot, Christopher Gidlow shows how archaeologists over the last 50 years have interpreted the evidence from Dark Age Britain.
