8 ms·

Royal palace discovered in area believed to be birthplace of King Arthur

105 points by curtis 10y ago

empath75 10y ago
> believed to be the birthplace of King Arthur. believed by who? I thought it was pretty widely agreed that he never existed.
- ergothus 10y ago
  As depicted, no, but if take a squinty-eyed view of a "king" uniting squabbling nobles into one land (where "land" == "bigger territory than was normally allied"), and perhaps throw in some level of violent?/sexual?/usurping? family dysfunction, well....you get a lot of "king arthur"s. Much like Count Dracula (the evidence saying he was inspired by Vlad the Impaler is awfully thin and largely rests on everyone assuming an initial theory was correct and then laughing at anyone that wanted to say otherwise because "everyone" knows). If you go looking for nobles in that area that fought the Turks and were notorious...well, take your pick. You can filter by "son of the dragon/devil" (Dracula), but I've heard that "Dracul" was sort of an honorary title that wasn't shy among, you know, nobles that fought Turks, so that filter isn't likely to help much.
  - duaneb 10y ago
    The idea of a historical King Arthur is a silly quixotic quest, at least with current evidence. The point of the story is not historiographical. It's even more hopeless than discerning a historical Moses, where we actually have texts attributed. Solid evidence (that I'd argue is easily debunked just by writing style alone). This means people just project romantic shit without the pain of objectivity.
    - DrJokepu 10y ago
      Yes, sadly, there are not an awful lot of surviving credible written historical records from Anglo-Saxon England. The ones that have survived often have been written hundreds of years later and generally not considered 100% reliable. This means that we have to go by archeological evidence. Hence the joke that we should bury our deceased pets in elaborate military uniforms, in order to confuse future historians.
      - sbmassey 10y ago
        There are quite a few contemporary Anglo Saxon chronicles, especially from the time of Alfred the Great onwards. Arthur is a legend from way before all that stuff, though.
    - golergka 10y ago
      Didn't they say the same about Troy?
      - duaneb 10y ago
        Then they found actual evidence. I'm happy to change my mind if there is something convincing beyond "hey this fits our expected timeline"; there are extremely convincing textual clues matching the location of Troy. We don't even have that with King Arthur. The excavation of Troy also destroyed a lot of evidence in the dude's eagerness to find the "original" Troy, so if anything it's a good argument against eagerly digging around looking for myths. To be fair, The Bosporus isn't short of possible archaeological digs. I would hate being a developer anywhere around there.
        will_brown 10y ago
        >so if anything it's a good argument against eagerly digging around looking for myths. I wouldn't read to far into the article, I don't think they are digging around looking for myths so much as excavating a undocumented, historic site and using the King Arthur story for media coverage or interest. Note how everything related to King Arthur is simply added by the author of the article and all the quotes from the individuals involved in the project don't mention a thing about Arthur, but limited to: items located, potential origins of the items recovered, possible dates etc...
        duaneb 10y ago
        Hah, I can understand the confusion—I meant the reporters were metaphorically digging through looking for a story about the myth.
  - smnscu 10y ago
    I'm Romanian and incidentally I vacationed several times in the close vicinity of the Bran castle. Vlad the Impaler (Vlad Tepes or Vlad Draculea) was very much a real person (and the Bran area is pretty nice, I definitely recommend visiting). While the vampire connotations are indeed mostly fabricated, he was known for more mundane gruesome acts, like affectionately poking people with a stick (see pic). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_the_Impaler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_the_Impaler http://www.livescience.com/images/i/000/071/430/i02/Impaled.jpg http://www.livescience.com/images/i/000/071/430/i02/Impaled....
    - Yuioup 10y ago
      Vlad, the Poker.
      - thret 10y ago
        Next time I play the WSOP main and lose a dress-up bet, I know what I'm going as.
      - golergka 10y ago
        Vlad, the pentester.
    - ergothus 10y ago
      > While the vampire connotations are indeed mostly fabricated, I was specifically talking about the connection to Bram Stoker's Dracula - Vlad was a real person, (with a bloody history) just as whoever built this English wall they found was/were (presumably minus a few gory tales), but that doesn't mean Stoker knew anything about him.
    - duaneb 10y ago
      Vlad is definitely real. There's a legend that Count Dracula (you know, the vampire) was based on Vlad, but there's not much evidence Stoker took anything but the "Dracole" name (though I think that's the German spelling).
  - codeddesign 10y ago
    So they found the U.N. Building
- prawn 10y ago
  For anyone wanting to read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur#Debated_historicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur#Debated_historicit...
- steve19 10y ago
  There is no archaeological evidence, but he is mentioned in a number of books. [0] This is not unlike the Hittites, a great civilization that until recently was believed by scholars to be a Biblical myth (either not existing at all, or a tiny tribe inflated in importance for propaganda reasons) because no physical evidence existed. It was not until 1830 that Hittite ruins were first discovered [1]. We now know they were a great civilization with an Empire which lasted for 500 years (and successor states that lasted a few more centuries) and spanned most of modern Turkey. If an entire civilization can be lost, so can evidence of a minor Romano-British Chief. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_King_Arthur#Early_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_King_Arthur#Ear... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites#Archaeological_discovery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites#Archaeological_discov...
  - duaneb 10y ago
    Arthur is just a name, and there's not much direct evidence the legend was a "Romano-British Chief" except via hand-wavy reasoning about themes. In the same vein, we could call the idea of Atlantis plausible just by being referenced by Aristotle. I mean the evidence could exist, but there's really not much rational reason to look for it. I much prefer explanations built on evidence, not in search of it. There are a lot of things to learn from myths, legends, and folktales. Finding a historical character has got to be one of the more boring things considering the value is in the considerable time the story was orally preserved--it meant enough to the people who told it we can learn about them. Edit: I mean this is a pretty cool archaeological dig, I'm not trying to diminish the work here. I'm excited from an archaeological perspective because we don't know much about the period. But the eagerness in drawing conclusions is baffling--there is literally no evidence worth reporting wrt King Arthur beyond the age.
    - Chathamization 10y ago
      > Arthur is just a name, and there's not much direct evidence the legend was a "Romano-British Chief" except via hand-wavy reasoning about themes. Well, the earliest source we have that talks about Arthur (Historia Brittonum) is talking about a British leader. And the Battle of Badon has more/earlier sources that mention it. Was one of the leaders at the Battle of Badon actually named Arthur? We don't really know, but it does seem more plausible than the story of Atlantis.
bshimmin 10y ago
They believe the one-metre thick walls... "Merlin! I can't get on the damn wifi again!"
- smnscu 10y ago
  This reminded me of this very fun book which I fondly remember reading several times throughout my childhood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Connecticut_Yankee_in_King_Arthur%27s_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Connecticut_Yankee_in_King_A...
- linker3000 10y ago
  "Merlin, the 6ft wide doors for the Great Hall have arrived, but they don't fit the space in the metric-specced walls!"
  - gilleain 10y ago
    On an audio tour around a castle in northern France, they had actors "reconstructing" lines from the past, including one that went: "The tower had to be strong, so we built the walls 1.85 meters thick!...." Soooo authentic.
    - tokai 10y ago
      You wouldn't have been able to understand what they were saying if it had been 100% authentic. And if you translate the language why not translate the units?
      - duaneb 10y ago
        Why not say "make 'em really thick"? Or say "an arm span". The precise units are entirely unnecessary.
    - carey 10y ago
      If it was originally a round number, that would have been 1.95 metres in France, anyway, right?
cyberferret 10y ago
Forget the castle, where is the lake & the Lady?? We want the sword, even though: "...strange women lying in ponds distributing 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..."
- arethuza 10y ago
  Which sword though, aren't the Sword in the Stone and Excalibur different swords? :-)
  - cyberferret 10y ago
    Hmm... I thought it was one and the same... But you could be right... Drawing the sword from the marked him as the true King, but I recall Excalibur was handed to him by the lady in the lake later... I might have to consult Malory's tome again...
    - josh-wrale 10y ago
      Pretty sure he cast Excalibur into the lake and the Lady of the Lake cared for it before returning it to him later. (making the stone sword Excalibur).
      - cyberferret 10y ago
        I do recall Sir Bedevere(?) throwing it back in the lake in the end after Arthur is mortally wounded, but I can't recall the bit where Arthur first throws it to the 'watery bint' before that. Having trouble locating my Arthurian books to research that bit...
        Declanomous 10y ago
        Well, according to the wikipedia page on Excalibur, depending on the story, sometimes the Sword in the Stone and Excalibur are one and the same, and sometimes they aren't.
mrweasel 10y ago
I'm fascinated that the royal palace has a team of archaeologists on staff. That some top notch genealogy from the royal family.
arethuza 10y ago
He fed black ravens on the rampart of a fortress Though he was no Arthur Among the powerful ones in battle In the front rank, Gwawrddur was a palisade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_Gododdin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_Gododdin I can strongly recommend Michael Wood's book "In Search of England" which has a chapter on Arthur. [NB I can see Din Eidyn out of the window as I write this]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Castle#Early_Middle_Ages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Castle#Early_Middle_...

105 points by curtis 10y ago

> believed to be the birthplace of King Arthur. believed by who? I thought it was pretty widely agreed that he never existed.

ergothus 10y ago
As depicted, no, but if take a squinty-eyed view of a "king" uniting squabbling nobles into one land (where "land" == "bigger territory than was normally allied"), and perhaps throw in some level of violent?/sexual?/usurping? family dysfunction, well....you get a lot of "king arthur"s. Much like Count Dracula (the evidence saying he was inspired by Vlad the Impaler is awfully thin and largely rests on everyone assuming an initial theory was correct and then laughing at anyone that wanted to say otherwise because "everyone" knows). If you go looking for nobles in that area that fought the Turks and were notorious...well, take your pick. You can filter by "son of the dragon/devil" (Dracula), but I've heard that "Dracul" was sort of an honorary title that wasn't shy among, you know, nobles that fought Turks, so that filter isn't likely to help much.
- duaneb 10y ago
  The idea of a historical King Arthur is a silly quixotic quest, at least with current evidence. The point of the story is not historiographical. It's even more hopeless than discerning a historical Moses, where we actually have texts attributed. Solid evidence (that I'd argue is easily debunked just by writing style alone). This means people just project romantic shit without the pain of objectivity.
  - DrJokepu 10y ago
    Yes, sadly, there are not an awful lot of surviving credible written historical records from Anglo-Saxon England. The ones that have survived often have been written hundreds of years later and generally not considered 100% reliable. This means that we have to go by archeological evidence. Hence the joke that we should bury our deceased pets in elaborate military uniforms, in order to confuse future historians.
    - sbmassey 10y ago
      There are quite a few contemporary Anglo Saxon chronicles, especially from the time of Alfred the Great onwards. Arthur is a legend from way before all that stuff, though.
  - golergka 10y ago
    Didn't they say the same about Troy?
    - duaneb 10y ago
      Then they found actual evidence. I'm happy to change my mind if there is something convincing beyond "hey this fits our expected timeline"; there are extremely convincing textual clues matching the location of Troy. We don't even have that with King Arthur. The excavation of Troy also destroyed a lot of evidence in the dude's eagerness to find the "original" Troy, so if anything it's a good argument against eagerly digging around looking for myths. To be fair, The Bosporus isn't short of possible archaeological digs. I would hate being a developer anywhere around there.
      - will_brown 10y ago
        >so if anything it's a good argument against eagerly digging around looking for myths. I wouldn't read to far into the article, I don't think they are digging around looking for myths so much as excavating a undocumented, historic site and using the King Arthur story for media coverage or interest. Note how everything related to King Arthur is simply added by the author of the article and all the quotes from the individuals involved in the project don't mention a thing about Arthur, but limited to: items located, potential origins of the items recovered, possible dates etc...
        duaneb 10y ago
        Hah, I can understand the confusion—I meant the reporters were metaphorically digging through looking for a story about the myth.
- smnscu 10y ago
  I'm Romanian and incidentally I vacationed several times in the close vicinity of the Bran castle. Vlad the Impaler (Vlad Tepes or Vlad Draculea) was very much a real person (and the Bran area is pretty nice, I definitely recommend visiting). While the vampire connotations are indeed mostly fabricated, he was known for more mundane gruesome acts, like affectionately poking people with a stick (see pic). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_the_Impaler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_the_Impaler http://www.livescience.com/images/i/000/071/430/i02/Impaled.jpg http://www.livescience.com/images/i/000/071/430/i02/Impaled....
  - Yuioup 10y ago
    Vlad, the Poker.
    - thret 10y ago
      Next time I play the WSOP main and lose a dress-up bet, I know what I'm going as.
    - golergka 10y ago
      Vlad, the pentester.
  - ergothus 10y ago
    > While the vampire connotations are indeed mostly fabricated, I was specifically talking about the connection to Bram Stoker's Dracula - Vlad was a real person, (with a bloody history) just as whoever built this English wall they found was/were (presumably minus a few gory tales), but that doesn't mean Stoker knew anything about him.
  - duaneb 10y ago
    Vlad is definitely real. There's a legend that Count Dracula (you know, the vampire) was based on Vlad, but there's not much evidence Stoker took anything but the "Dracole" name (though I think that's the German spelling).
- codeddesign 10y ago
  So they found the U.N. Building
prawn 10y ago
For anyone wanting to read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur#Debated_historicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur#Debated_historicit...
steve19 10y ago
There is no archaeological evidence, but he is mentioned in a number of books. [0] This is not unlike the Hittites, a great civilization that until recently was believed by scholars to be a Biblical myth (either not existing at all, or a tiny tribe inflated in importance for propaganda reasons) because no physical evidence existed. It was not until 1830 that Hittite ruins were first discovered [1]. We now know they were a great civilization with an Empire which lasted for 500 years (and successor states that lasted a few more centuries) and spanned most of modern Turkey. If an entire civilization can be lost, so can evidence of a minor Romano-British Chief. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_King_Arthur#Early_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_King_Arthur#Ear... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites#Archaeological_discovery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites#Archaeological_discov...
- duaneb 10y ago
  Arthur is just a name, and there's not much direct evidence the legend was a "Romano-British Chief" except via hand-wavy reasoning about themes. In the same vein, we could call the idea of Atlantis plausible just by being referenced by Aristotle. I mean the evidence could exist, but there's really not much rational reason to look for it. I much prefer explanations built on evidence, not in search of it. There are a lot of things to learn from myths, legends, and folktales. Finding a historical character has got to be one of the more boring things considering the value is in the considerable time the story was orally preserved--it meant enough to the people who told it we can learn about them. Edit: I mean this is a pretty cool archaeological dig, I'm not trying to diminish the work here. I'm excited from an archaeological perspective because we don't know much about the period. But the eagerness in drawing conclusions is baffling--there is literally no evidence worth reporting wrt King Arthur beyond the age.
  - Chathamization 10y ago
    > Arthur is just a name, and there's not much direct evidence the legend was a "Romano-British Chief" except via hand-wavy reasoning about themes. Well, the earliest source we have that talks about Arthur (Historia Brittonum) is talking about a British leader. And the Battle of Badon has more/earlier sources that mention it. Was one of the leaders at the Battle of Badon actually named Arthur? We don't really know, but it does seem more plausible than the story of Atlantis.

bshimmin 10y ago

They believe the one-metre thick walls... "Merlin! I can't get on the damn wifi again!"

smnscu 10y ago
This reminded me of this very fun book which I fondly remember reading several times throughout my childhood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Connecticut_Yankee_in_King_Arthur%27s_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Connecticut_Yankee_in_King_A...
linker3000 10y ago
"Merlin, the 6ft wide doors for the Great Hall have arrived, but they don't fit the space in the metric-specced walls!"
- gilleain 10y ago
  On an audio tour around a castle in northern France, they had actors "reconstructing" lines from the past, including one that went: "The tower had to be strong, so we built the walls 1.85 meters thick!...." Soooo authentic.
  - tokai 10y ago
    You wouldn't have been able to understand what they were saying if it had been 100% authentic. And if you translate the language why not translate the units?
    - duaneb 10y ago
      Why not say "make 'em really thick"? Or say "an arm span". The precise units are entirely unnecessary.
  - carey 10y ago
    If it was originally a round number, that would have been 1.95 metres in France, anyway, right?

cyberferret 10y ago

Forget the castle, where is the lake & the Lady?? We want the sword, even though: "...strange women lying in ponds distributing 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..."

arethuza 10y ago
Which sword though, aren't the Sword in the Stone and Excalibur different swords? :-)
- cyberferret 10y ago
  Hmm... I thought it was one and the same... But you could be right... Drawing the sword from the marked him as the true King, but I recall Excalibur was handed to him by the lady in the lake later... I might have to consult Malory's tome again...
  - josh-wrale 10y ago
    Pretty sure he cast Excalibur into the lake and the Lady of the Lake cared for it before returning it to him later. (making the stone sword Excalibur).
    - cyberferret 10y ago
      I do recall Sir Bedevere(?) throwing it back in the lake in the end after Arthur is mortally wounded, but I can't recall the bit where Arthur first throws it to the 'watery bint' before that. Having trouble locating my Arthurian books to research that bit...
      - Declanomous 10y ago
        Well, according to the wikipedia page on Excalibur, depending on the story, sometimes the Sword in the Stone and Excalibur are one and the same, and sometimes they aren't.

mrweasel 10y ago

I'm fascinated that the royal palace has a team of archaeologists on staff. That some top notch genealogy from the royal family.

arethuza 10y ago

He fed black ravens on the rampart of a fortress Though he was no Arthur Among the powerful ones in battle In the front rank, Gwawrddur was a palisade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_Gododdin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_Gododdin I can strongly recommend Michael Wood's book "In Search of England" which has a chapter on Arthur. [NB I can see Din Eidyn out of the window as I write this]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Castle#Early_Middle_Ages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Castle#Early_Middle_...