4 ms·

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 wa

by 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.
  - duaneb 10y ago
    And who even knows how many Arthurs there were.
- buserror 10y ago
  Well, adding a bit to this, it's also a huge boom for the town and surrounding area. I've been there, and it's quite overrun by tourism, so anything flying around royal-arthur-castle and adding to the local folklore will be milked appropriately. I'm not saying that disparagingly regarding archaeology: is is way cool, but the Disneyland grade treatment this particular find will get will be a bit nauseating.
- balabaster 10y ago
  What I most love about it though is that they've found a bunch of buried walls, which lets face it, Britain isn't exactly short of, what with half of the Roman empire being buried... or still visible... across most of the country; and they immediately know it was King Arthur's palace and the piece of clay pot they found was for distributing food at banquets. What if this was the bar from that other famous myth, the one in separate but adjoining buildings in the town that disappeared one night ne'er to be seen again, where Steve the Blacksmith got drunk that night he caught his wife making out with John the Lesser (who she said was much more than his name suggested) and threw that pot across the room smashing it on the wall in a jealous fit of rage before he got wrestled to the ground by the sweaty un-credited barbarian who was staying across the road with Jeff the Cobbler and was thrown out in the torrential downpour that caused the landslide which buried the town... I mean, shit happens. What I fail to understand is how they reach their conclusions without any real evidence and the media jumps all over it with language proclaiming certainty that this was King Arthur's birth place... a king that while we'd all love to believe in him because he is as much a part of our British heritage as Robin Hood and James Bond largely appears to be a fabrication of our own yearning for a more noble ancestry than we have evidence to support. What's up with that? *This story is entirely fictional and any similarity to the Steve at the top of this thread is purely coincidental
  - jdmichal 10y ago
    The Arthur part is possibly some wishful projection, but the rich people living there part is backed up by the expensive and exotic things found there.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
danieltillett 10y ago
It is still controversial that the Biblical Hittites are the same as the Anatolian Hittites [1]. I have my doubts that anything in Book of Genesis has any historical basis. On the topic of the Old Testament I do find Leviticus 13 rather amusing [2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Hittites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Hittites 2. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Leviticus-Chapter-13/ http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Leviticus-Chapter-13/

by steve19 10y ago

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.
- duaneb 10y ago
  And who even knows how many Arthurs there were.
buserror 10y ago
Well, adding a bit to this, it's also a huge boom for the town and surrounding area. I've been there, and it's quite overrun by tourism, so anything flying around royal-arthur-castle and adding to the local folklore will be milked appropriately. I'm not saying that disparagingly regarding archaeology: is is way cool, but the Disneyland grade treatment this particular find will get will be a bit nauseating.
balabaster 10y ago
What I most love about it though is that they've found a bunch of buried walls, which lets face it, Britain isn't exactly short of, what with half of the Roman empire being buried... or still visible... across most of the country; and they immediately know it was King Arthur's palace and the piece of clay pot they found was for distributing food at banquets. What if this was the bar from that other famous myth, the one in separate but adjoining buildings in the town that disappeared one night ne'er to be seen again, where Steve the Blacksmith got drunk that night he caught his wife making out with John the Lesser (who she said was much more than his name suggested) and threw that pot across the room smashing it on the wall in a jealous fit of rage before he got wrestled to the ground by the sweaty un-credited barbarian who was staying across the road with Jeff the Cobbler and was thrown out in the torrential downpour that caused the landslide which buried the town... I mean, shit happens. What I fail to understand is how they reach their conclusions without any real evidence and the media jumps all over it with language proclaiming certainty that this was King Arthur's birth place... a king that while we'd all love to believe in him because he is as much a part of our British heritage as Robin Hood and James Bond largely appears to be a fabrication of our own yearning for a more noble ancestry than we have evidence to support. What's up with that? *This story is entirely fictional and any similarity to the Steve at the top of this thread is purely coincidental
- jdmichal 10y ago
  The Arthur part is possibly some wishful projection, but the rich people living there part is backed up by the expensive and exotic things found there.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

danieltillett 10y ago

It is still controversial that the Biblical Hittites are the same as the Anatolian Hittites [1]. I have my doubts that anything in Book of Genesis has any historical basis. On the topic of the Old Testament I do find Leviticus 13 rather amusing [2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Hittites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Hittites 2. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Leviticus-Chapter-13/ http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Leviticus-Chapter-13/