Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2013 9:39:23 GMT -5
The legend of King Arthur is one the Holy Grails of British history, so to speak! Surprisingly, there was an 'Artognou[/i]' who built a bath house at Tintagel around 500 AD/CE, so I am more than happy to accept that he was an Arthur. A team from Glasgow University uncovered a sixth-century slab in 1998 with this inscription:
The words have been translated to mean "Artognou, father of a descendant of Coll, has had this [building] made" (qtd. in Castleden, 225). Furthermore, the name "Artognou" was probably pronounced "Arthnou." This stone proves that there was a relatively well-educated and wealthy person there in the sixth century with a name that may have sounded like Arthur. It does not prove that the legendary King Arthur lived at Tintagel; Art and Arth were fairly common prefixes to the names of Dark Age rulers. Mostly, the stone is just another piece of evidence that Tintagel was a wealthy Dark Age stronghold.
There was a long held belief that Tintagel was originally used as a Celtic Monastery. A cluster of burials was found near the chapel, and it was thought that these were the graves of saints that pilgrims came to visit. There was also evidence of extensive agriculture, which is often found in conjunction with monastic sites. Recently, this idea has been rejected by many scholars, since, according to O.J. Padel in Bromwich, et al., "The site has none of the attributes recognized as characteristic of Dark-Age monastic settlements in Wales and Cornwall, such as an enclosed curvilinear cemetery, a place-name suggesting ecclesiastical associations, perhaps a contemporary inscription, or indications in the historical record".
The site has a history as a defensive stronghold. This is evident in the name itself, which, literally translated, means "fort of the constriction", a combination of "din" and "tagell". After the Dark Age occupation evidenced by the Mediterranean pottery, there was a period of inactivity and abandonment. Around 1230, a castle was built probably by Richard, Earl of Cornwall and son of King Henry III. The ruins on the island today are from this castle. Thus, when Geoffrey of Monmouth was writing in the 1100s, this castle would not have been there and legend would be the main association of the island with a stronghold. The prominent feature of the island in his day was probably a large, landward embankment that defended the narrow neck from an attack.
The Dark Age era of Tintagel is interesting in that the fort design is reminiscent of the refortified Iron Age hillforts that appear all over England. Archaeology has shown that these forts were occupied in the pre-Roman years, but Tintagel has yielded no such evidence. So, even though there was no known pre-Roman occupation of the area, it seems to copy the style that seemed to be popular during the time.
orgs.bsc.edu/arthur/arthurslife.html
So I reckon that an 'Arthur' built a bath house at Tintagel in the middle of the first millennium AD/CE, and to the extent that we can attach a historical figure to such a myth or legend, he is King Arthur. What do you reckon, Sydney Grew?
"PATER COLI AVI FECIT ARTOGNOV"
The words have been translated to mean "Artognou, father of a descendant of Coll, has had this [building] made" (qtd. in Castleden, 225). Furthermore, the name "Artognou" was probably pronounced "Arthnou." This stone proves that there was a relatively well-educated and wealthy person there in the sixth century with a name that may have sounded like Arthur. It does not prove that the legendary King Arthur lived at Tintagel; Art and Arth were fairly common prefixes to the names of Dark Age rulers. Mostly, the stone is just another piece of evidence that Tintagel was a wealthy Dark Age stronghold.
There was a long held belief that Tintagel was originally used as a Celtic Monastery. A cluster of burials was found near the chapel, and it was thought that these were the graves of saints that pilgrims came to visit. There was also evidence of extensive agriculture, which is often found in conjunction with monastic sites. Recently, this idea has been rejected by many scholars, since, according to O.J. Padel in Bromwich, et al., "The site has none of the attributes recognized as characteristic of Dark-Age monastic settlements in Wales and Cornwall, such as an enclosed curvilinear cemetery, a place-name suggesting ecclesiastical associations, perhaps a contemporary inscription, or indications in the historical record".
The site has a history as a defensive stronghold. This is evident in the name itself, which, literally translated, means "fort of the constriction", a combination of "din" and "tagell". After the Dark Age occupation evidenced by the Mediterranean pottery, there was a period of inactivity and abandonment. Around 1230, a castle was built probably by Richard, Earl of Cornwall and son of King Henry III. The ruins on the island today are from this castle. Thus, when Geoffrey of Monmouth was writing in the 1100s, this castle would not have been there and legend would be the main association of the island with a stronghold. The prominent feature of the island in his day was probably a large, landward embankment that defended the narrow neck from an attack.
The Dark Age era of Tintagel is interesting in that the fort design is reminiscent of the refortified Iron Age hillforts that appear all over England. Archaeology has shown that these forts were occupied in the pre-Roman years, but Tintagel has yielded no such evidence. So, even though there was no known pre-Roman occupation of the area, it seems to copy the style that seemed to be popular during the time.
orgs.bsc.edu/arthur/arthurslife.html
So I reckon that an 'Arthur' built a bath house at Tintagel in the middle of the first millennium AD/CE, and to the extent that we can attach a historical figure to such a myth or legend, he is King Arthur. What do you reckon, Sydney Grew?
