by John Devera

Created on: July 19, 2008

King Arthur was certainly a real and historical figure. The difficulty is that there is so much froo-froo that has been added to the actual history, that there is hardly any realisty to the cultural image we now have implanted in our poor, weak intellects.

We can trust the historicity of King Arthur because of the several historical writings which validate his existence. The Historia Brittonum, written in the seventh century, and the Annales Cambriae, composed no later that the tenth century, both provide ample evidence of Arthur's existence.

The Historica, purportedly written by Nennius, is guilty of much of the exaggeration common to historical writings of the period, including how Arthur single-handedly defeated over nine-hundred men in the Battle of Mons Badonicus. The historian Gidas, in De Excidio Britanniae, also mentions the battle of Mount Badon, adding to the evidence of historicity.

The most interesting archaeological evidence for the existence of Arthur was the discovery of the Arthur Stone in 1998. It was discovered at Tintagel Castle, the supposed birthplace of Arthur, and long associated with Camelot. On the stone is the graffiti, "PATER COLI AVI FICIT ARTOGNOV." This roughly translated means "the descendant of Arthur, father of a descendant of Col has had this built. In his History of the Kings of Britain, Geoffrey writes that Coel Hen was in Arthur's family.

So, what do we know of Arthur, what can we deduce about he man, separate from the myths that have grown around him. He was undoubtedly not a real king. In no historical source is he ever referred to as "rex," but rather "dux," or "dix bellorum." That means that Arthur was a war leader, a chieftain. He is notably committed to repelling the anglo-saxon invasions of the fifth and sixth centuries. He was probably at least part Roman, or at the very least, had Roman backing.

There are numerous beautiful conspiracy theories that have attempted to connect the historical Arthur with the Knights Templar, the Holy Grail, the Templar Treasures, the lost bloodline of Christ and other such controversial and spectacular bits of arcana. In spite of the trumped up efforts of various grail scholars and self-promoting writers of fiction, there is no evidence to support these tales. Arthur certainly did not wear late-medieval armor and did not fight with lance on horseback. Arthur wouldn't have known a stirrup if he sat on one, used leather or hide armor, and very likely used a gladius. Guenevere, Lancelot, Bedevere, Morgan La Fey, and the idea of the round table are all provably romantic inventions of the bards and can be blamed mostly on Mallory's treatment of the previous tales. These aspects appear perhaps in the twelfth century, and not much earlier. This includes the connection of Arthur to the Holy Grail. The idea of the Holy Grail being carried by Joseph of Arimathea also comes about at this approximate time. The conflation of the Celtic myths of a magic cauldron with supernatural powers and the cup that caught the blood of Christ at the crucifixion seems to be a probable bit of confusion.

Merlin is an obvious distortion of the Welsh or Gaelic "Merddyn," character of folklore. The name, when latinized refers to excrement, so the name was changed to Merlin. Mordred, the Lady of the Lake, Gawain and much of the earthier "Pythonesque" aspects of the myth come from the Gaelic and Welsh traditions and folklore.

So, in spite of the obvious fictions and myth, the real Arthur shows through, somewhat dirtier and smellier, but no less an important figure.

Learn more about this author, John Devera.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.