[History] The Historic Arthur

[Ragabash]

Author: Agraes
Original Thread: The Historic Arthur

The Historic Arthur

As an introduction, you can read those threads:
Discussion on King Arthur
Merlin/Myrddin

Was Arthur a historic character? Who was he? What role did he play if he ever existed?
Everybody has heard about the legend of king Arthur. But not a lot of people know about the roots of the myth. To answer those questions, I would like to write a little something :wink:

Dan Shadrake portraying a Brythonic warrior
Britannia re-enactment society

I - HISTORICAL CONTEXT - DARK AGES BRITAIN

In the Vth century, Western Roman Empire withdrawed. All legions had left Britain with Maximus Magnus (388 AD) and Constantin IV (408 AD). In 410, the Emperor Honorius told the Britons they can take their weapons to defend themselves. This left Britain vulnerable to Pictish and Gaelic raids. Some leaders emerged, heirs of the Roman power, like Coel Hen in North Britain and of course, Vortigern (I may write an article on Vortigern later on). It was common habit in Late Roman Empire to use barbarians against other barbarians, and Vortigern asked the help of the Jutes of Hengest. He probably also installed Angles in Deira and Bernicia, and if the foederati did firstly a good job against the Picts, they soon decided to rebel against the Britons and called for reinforcements from the continent. Britons were defeated, and legend told us that 300 of their chiefs were slaughtered by the Jutes at Stonehenge, during what was supposed to be a banquet to set peace. Vortigern was captured and forced to give Kent to Hengest. The first Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Britain was born.

Then, a new leader emerged to fight the invaders: Ambrosius Aurelianus. He besieged Vortigern, who finished accordingly to the tradition, burned in his fortress of Dynas Emrys, and won success against the Anglo-Saxons, circa 460-480 AD. A great victory was won against the Saxons: Badon Hill, or Mons Badonicus. Until around the middle of the VIth century, the Saxons stopped their advance in Britain. After this, the Brythonic kingdoms weren't able to unite durably anymore, and at the beginning ot the VIIth century, lot of them had fall to the invaders: Ebrauc in 580 AD, Elmet circa 610 AD, Rheged, Bryneich and Gododdin around 620-640 AD. Were remaining the kingdoms of what will became Wales (from the old saxon wealas, meaning "strangers"), the kingdom of Strathclyde absorbed in Scotland in the XIth century, the kingdom of Dumnonia that will became Cornwall, slowly loosing land to the West Saxons, and Brittany.

But a myth was born: the legend of Arthur.

II - SOURCES OF ARTHUR

1) The De Excidio Britanniae
The De Excidio Britanniae is the only written brythonic source contempory of Arthur, but it has a major problem - it doesn't say anything about him, thus was a major argument against the histority of Arthur. It was written by St. Gildas probably in 542 AD, and consist essentially in an inveigh of the Britons for their cowardice. The most famous part is the attacks against several brythonic kings, Gildas called them "tyrans", for their crimes, murders and other adulteries... They have been identified as Constantine of Dumnonia, Maelgwn Gwynedd, Cynglas of Rhos, Vorteporix (Gwrtipawr) of Dyfed and Aurelius Caninus whos identiy is debated.

Gildas speaked also about the battle of Badon Hill and Ambrosius Aurelianus. But he don't link them clearly, nor he named the winner of Badon. Some scholars believes that Ambrosius was the leader of the Britons at Badon Hill, and some even claim that Arthur is only a surname he was given.





The lifes of St. Gildas, written in the XIIth centuries, tell us that Arthur killed Gildas's brother, Hueil - if this really occures, this might explain why the monk didn't ever named Arthur.

Translation of the De Excidio Britanniae
The life of St. Gildas by Caradoc of Llancarfan
(Sorry, no online text for the Life of Gildas by Vitalis of Rhuys)

2) Nennius and the Historia Brittonum
Nennius wrote his Historia Brittonum in the IXth century, using Gildas work, but also Irish and Saxon annals, Brythonic oral tradition and maybe some writtings that have disappeared since. Here his "apology":



Historia Brittonum contains a lot about Vortigern, Germanus and the Saxon kings. It's actually the first written source to name Arthur, and listing his twelves battles.



Here Arthur is directly linked with Badon Hill, as the warlord of the Britons - not as a king. Arthur has a real aura of hero, and it has often been said that this list is only pure legend, but some other scholars like John Morris saw in this list several campaigns against the Picts, the Angles, and the Saxons, Badon beeing the last victory that brought peace to Britain over 50 years.

Nennius named also Arthur in relation with two of the "wonders of Britain", one beeing related to his dog Caval and the hunt of the mighty boar Twrch Tryth, the other is the tomb of his son Amhar.

Historia Brittonum

3) The Annales Cambriae (The Welsh Annals)
Those annals have been compiled around the Xth century. There is two entries about Arthur.



Badon Hill date here appears too late to compare with Gildas's account. Several studies have been made about the derivation of the date in the annals, and a date circa 490-500 AD (496 AD for John Morris) is more likely.
The account of Camlann and Medraut is the first one. It is to notice that the annals didn't say if they fought each other. However, 537 is a good date for the Justinian Plague that hit Britain, Gaul and Ireland in the VIth century.

The Annales Cambriae

3) Y Gododdin
Y Gododdin is a welsh poem from The Book of Aneirin, a manuscript dated back to the XIIIth century, but linguistic studies proved that some turnures are as early as the VIIIth or IXth century, and it mains have its origin in an earlier oral tradition - eventually composed by the bard Aneirin. It relates the battle of Cathraeth, fought circa 600 AD, where 300 Briton warriors died fighting the Angles of Bernicia and Deira. It contains one reference of Arthur, to compare one of the warriors that died on the battlefield with him.



Translation of Y Gododdin

4) Welsh Texts and Poetry
Several Welsh texts found in manuscripts from the XII to the XIVth century contains references of Arthur. The most famous one is probably Culhwch and Olwen. One of its passage, the hunt of the mighty boar, the Twrch Tryth, was already referenced in the Historia Brittonum. Those texts told us more of legend than history, and led several scholars to argue that Arthur is an entirely mythical character. All those texts clearly origins from the oral tradition, and are not inspired by the Historia Regum Britanniae despite sometimes beeing late, they are known among scholars as "Pre-Galfridian litterature".
Arthur is also praised in several triads.



Culhwch and Olwen

5)Life of Saints
Several lifes of Saints, often written around the XIIth century, contains references of Arthur. He is often showed in those lifes as a violent warrior, trying to rape a woman or to stole something to the saint. Those lifes contains lot of miracles and such, but they are partially based on a real basis.

Life of Saints

6) The Matter of Britain
In the XIIth century, Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote his Historia Regum Britanniae, a major work that was made as a propaganda of the Plantagenet dynasty, but that inspired Europe and created the medieval arthurian myth.
Monmouth had probably access to sources we don't have anymore, but he made Arthur the emperor of Britain, defeater of the barbarians and then conqueror of Gaul and Scandinavia. So his work can't be a solid basis for a study of the historic arthur.

Historia Regum Britanniae

7) Archeology
Dark Ages Britain had let us an important number of archeological sites and founds, and existences of kings such as Vorteporix/Gwrtipawr of Dyfed or Mark/Conomor and his son Tristan/Drystan had been proved.
Lot of sites in Britain and Brittany are linked to Arthur, but no major proof of his existence have been yet discovered. However, here two sites the tradition links with Arthur where important founds have been made:

Tintagel
Tintagel, in Cornwall, is the legendary counception place of Arthur. Excavations have shown that the site was occuped in V and VIth century, as an important trading centre, objects founds includes lot of pottery fragments from Gaul and Mediterannean area, and an inscription was found on a fragment near the foundations of a building:

PATER COLI AVI FECIT ARTOGNOV

There are various translations about this, the first one was "Artognou, father of a descendant of Coll, build this." Identification have been directly made with Arthur, but for the skeptics, Artognou and Arthur are not the same name, so any link with Arthur would be abusive for them.

Cadbury Castle
This hillfort, dating from the neolithic age and reoccuped in the post-Roman period, is often believed to be the fortress of Arthur: in the XVIth century, as recorded by John Leland, peasants living in this area of Dorset were calling the hillfort "Arthur's Palace". Althought this site was probably the fortress of Cado (Cado's Bury), a Dumnonian king of the VIth century.
One of the notable founds in this site was the skeleton of a young man in foetal position just under one of the walls. Britain was mostly christian, but it appears that some celtic sacrifices rites may have been kept.
The general excavation of the site, led by Leslie Alcock, showed that this place was occuped by a powerful warlord.


Aerial view of Cadbury Hill

More about Cadbury Hill

8) Irish sources
A new light may soon be brought by irish texts. The Irish, christianied in the Vth century, had a lot of written records of all sorts. Old Irish is very hard to translate, but new discoveries may help the study of the historical arthur.

That's all for the sources. Of course this list isn't exhaustive, welsh poetry is particulary rich with tons of tons of references about Arthur, showing pretty early on he was well known as a legend among the Welsh. And Cornish and Breton oral tradition contains also lot of tales and songs about him. A work can also be added on the Welsh genealogies, showing pedigrees of sovereigns, sometimes accurate, sometimes propaganda. Arthur himself got a such genealogy, in the Mostyn MS. 117, a welsh manuscript from the late XIIIth century:



The "Cystennin" here can be identified either as Constantin IV, dux britanniarum who left Britain with its troops in 408 AD - its the grandfather of Arthur in the Historia Regum Britanniae, his father beeing Uther and his uncles Emrys (aka Ambrosius Aurelianus) and Constans - but its very unlikely. Other solution is Constantin Corneu, king of Dumnonia. He his sometimes identified with the Constantin of Dumnonia from Gildas's De Excidio, if it is the case then the timeframe don't fit. If it's not, then Arthur would be linked with the royal house of Dumnonia, beeing the cousin of Gereint map Erbin:

Cystennin map Cado map Gereint map Erbin map Cystennin Corneu map Kynwar
Reconstruction of the pedigree of the Royal House of Dumnonia on EBK

Replica of the Sutton Hoo (British Museum)

III - WHO WAS ARTHUR?

There is tons of candidates for the historic Arthur, tons of theories have been proposed, some are really fancy and some are serious work of scolarship. Lot can be eliminated by assuming that Arthur must fit two things: a war-leader and the winner of Badon. There are two factions: those who beleives in a historic Arthur despites the lack of sources, and those who argue that there is no proof of his existence.
By the way, we got records of 3-4 princes named Arthur in the late VIth and early VIIth centuries, one beeing a prince of Scottish Dal Riada, another beeing from Dyfed. There is also records of several characters named Arthuis, Artgen of Arthwys - but scholars tend to say those are different names. However some of them may have contributed to the legacy of Arthur.

In this part I want to sum up the main theories about Arthur's identifications. I won't tell about identifications with Cynglas of Rhos or Cerdic of Wessex, those beeing based on very little evidence, though still interesting to read.

1) Lucius Artorius Castus and the Sarmatians
In the IId century, there was a commandant on the Hadrian wall named Lucius Artorius Castus, and he had among other units, the charge of the sarmatian auxilaries stationned on the wall. The recent King Arthur movie choosed to represent Arthur as beeing a descendant of this Artorius - but this is highly unlikely. The era of Arthur is the late Vth - early VIth century, not the second century. And there wasn't Saxons north of the wall. However, Sarmatians may had an impact on the way to fight of the Britons, and the adoption of the Contus, their great two-handed lance, and the bow, is recorded.

2) The Northern Arthur
Today, one of the most popular theories is that Arthur was a northern warlord. Lot of arthurian characters had origin in the history of northern britain: Peredur/Perceval, Urien Rheged, Gwalchmai/Gawain, Owain/Yvain, etc. The legends of those warrior kings may became popular in Wales around the VIIIth century, with the bards fleeing the Northumbrians, and from here became famous in Cornwall and Brittany. To fight the Germanic invaders, Arthur would probably have been from Ebrauc or Elmet (Yorkshire and Leeds), there was Angles installed early in Linnuis (Lincoln), and lot of the battles recorded in the Historia Brittonum have good candidates in the North - except the most important one, Badon Hill.

3) The South-Western Arthur
This theory is essentially linked to the Arthurian sites in Cornwall and Devon: Cadbury castle beeing identified as a "Camelot", Caerleon, Tintagel and Glastonbury. In Welsh tales, Arthur sometimes hold court at Celliwig in Cornwall, and he is called chief of the battalions of Cornwall in one of them. In another tale, Gwenhwyffar/Guenevere is captured by Melwas and imprisonned in Glastonbury, then Arthur call to arms the men of Cornwall and Devon to deliver her - this passage is also known from the Vitae Gildas where Gildas came to ask the delivrance of Gwenhwyffar.

Melwas and Gwenhwyffar

Arthur is also said in welsh tradition to be the cousins of kings from this area, such as Gereint or Marc of Cornwall. The arguments for this theory essentially came from the welsh myth, and some scholars clearly despises it. But there is also one major argument in favor of this theory: the location of Badon Hill. Badon is for most scholars a battle that have been fought in the south, where at the end of the Vth century there was the most concentration of Anglo-Saxons: the Jutes of Aesc in Kent and the Saxons of Aelle in Sussex. Two major candidates for the battlefield of Badon are Little Solsbury Hill near Bath (Geoffrey's account give Bath as the battelfield) and Badbury Hill, also in the area. Archeological evidence also show that some saxon settlements in Sussex were abandonned around 500 AD and that some Saxons cross the sea to seek refuge near the Franks. A major victory had been won and their advance will be stopped for some decades, and if Badon was fought by Arthur, its very likely he fought it in the South. Badon itself deserves an article, and I may write on it later on.


Little Solsbury Hill, photo Joseph Boyles & Jake Livingston, was Badon fought there?

The Battles of Arthur - Joseph Boyles & Jakes Livingston

3) Arthur the battle-leader or Arthur the Emperor?
Nennius told us that Arthur was a battle-leader, a warlord fighting with the Briton kings to repel the Saxons. One of the opinion was that Arthur wasn't particularry linked to an area of Britain, but campaigned where his help was needed, in the northern forest of Celidon or in the south for Badon - therefore Arthur won't be a king, but a warlord offering his skills to the various petty kings of Britain.

Another theory, popularised by Geoffrey of Monmouth, is that Arthur was the Emperor of the Britons, or the "Amherawddyr". This is the theory John Morris defended in The Age of Arthur, a massive work, but often despised by scholars arguing that Pr Morris interpreted his sources in a wrongheaded way. But the first meaning of the roman title of Imperator is the Supreme commander. Thus Arthur would have been, eventually after Vortigern and Ambrosius Aurelianus, the equivalant of the Ard-Ruire of the Gaels or the Bretwalda of the Saxons, bearing an honory title with for main fonction to gather the armies of the Britons and fight their common ennemies. His autority would have finally been rejected by a rival party, this resulting in the battle of Camlann.

As a conclusion...
There is so much things to tell on Arthur, his legend, and his era, that a life won't be enough. So Im in no way exhaustive here, but I hope I succeeded giving you good informations on the question of Arthur's histority.

For further reading,
Essai sur un Arthur historique (in French)
Vortigern Studies - Faces of Arthur
The Historicity and Historicisation of Arthur
The Monstruous Regiments of Arthur
The House of the Bards (sources)
King Arthur on Early British Kingdoms
The Age of Arthur by John Morris
Arthur's Britain by Leslie Alcock
Arthur and the Anglo-Saxon Wars by David Nicolle and Angus Mac Bride