.jpg)
At first glance, the reports out of England make a lot of sense. According to some archaeologists, the Round Table of King Arthur was not a piece of furniture after all. It was, instead, an abandoned Roman amphitheater (pictured in the above drawing at bottom left corner of town square) that could seat as many as one thousand people. They say this because they think they have discovered it in a town called Chester, sometimes called West Chester. It was abandoned by the Romans after the fall of Rome to Odoacer and the subsequent large scale invasions of Britain by the Saxons. But the native Britons of the day held off the invading hordes until well into the sixth century, when the Saxons and some other Germanic tribes finally overwhelmed the former Roman province. But until that time, Chester might have been a major point of defensive operations. A headquarters, if you will.According to the archaeologists making these claims, the amphitheater contains an execution stone, and a wooden shrine to Christian martyrs, as detailed long ago by the Christian monk and later canonized Saint Gildas.
There's only one problem. Gildas, who wrote extensively about this era and in fact was at least a near contemporary-never mentioned King Arthur. Or Camelot. Or the Round Table. The closest he came was a mention of a certain Ambrosius, who is said, by later sources, to have been an elder brother of Arthur's father Uther, and father to Merlin.
This of course does not prove Arthur didn't exist, as Gildas mentions several kings of the era, though not by name. What it does seem to imply is that, if Arthur did exist, he might not have been that big a deal. He might not have even been a king, but a kind of warlord. And of course we can't discount the possibility that he may have been mentioned under another name, possibly one of the five kings Gildas excoriated, the most important of whom was Maelgyn Gwynned, a Welsh king whose name sounds or looks just enough like Guinevere to grab your attention. In fact, that was the name of his kingdom, and Gildas seems to have hated him for some reason that is not completely known or understood, though I suspect it to be for corruption of the clergy-i.e., bribery. Or, it could have been the opposite. Gwynned might not have been sufficiently impressed by Gildas to have patronized his support. Unfortunately, that is probably something else that will forever remain a mystery.
One of Gwynned's fellow kings, who due to his association also earned Gildas's ire, was judging by his name a seeming descendant of the aforementioned Ambrosius.
A more trustworthy source for information about Arthur, however, might be the bard Taliesin, also a near contemporary of the day, who might have mentioned Arthur, or might not have. That depends on whether the alleged oral history by him in which Arthur is briefly mentioned, as written down in the eleventh century, is an accurate reflection of his work, or whether elements were added. Even if the account is accurate, it is not good for much beyond that, as the account is short both in duration and detail. Still, it would prove Arthur existed, as Taliesin's work is generally considered historical, and more than likely accurate.
My own feelings about the Arthurian legend is mixed. I want to believe it. I'm not meaning by this the more obviously fantastical tales of supernatural fantasy, but just the basic facts, if they exist, that might have provided inspiration for the medieval tales.
My objective feelings, however, are that Arthur, even if he really existed, represents as we have come to know him a symbol more of Medieval ideals transposed onto a period of time called the Dark Ages for a good reason. Nobody knows but very precious little about them. Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table provided a historical facade that served to fill in some much needed blanks, and at the same time imposed on the public imagination of the day an idealized personification of the very sort of medieval ideals of chivalry that could not have possibly existed under such conditions as existed during the Dark Ages.
And if Arthur really did exist, we must also realize that most of those who are listed as his contemporaries did not. Lancelot and his affair with Arthur's Queen, for example, are obvious fictions, as is Merlin, Gawain's battle with the Green Knight, Galahad's search for the Grail, etc.
At most and at best, what we have is a brave king, who might have led a relatively small force of desperate allies in a last ditch effort to save their formerly civilized country from invading hordes of savage barbarians, and who may have been lost to history for all his efforts, save for a few sentences strung together almost as an afterthought, and who was for whatever reason made the central focus of a magnificent legend that would have probably been a source of great mirth to the genuine article and to those who actually knew him.
Perhaps we need our King Arthur's, our Robin Hood's, and all our other heroes, and have needed them since long before there was ever a movie or television medium, or even printing press to help us fulfill our need for such inspirational tales of heroism, back in days when the written medium and a few rare traveling minstrel shows were all that served to fill such needs.
And of course, they also might conceivably help you get funding for your next archaeological project.
