Is this King Arthur’s castle? New findings hold tantalizing clues!

  • Written by:
  • 1 Reply

Has King Arthur’s birthplace been found? People are asking after new discoveries at a site in Conwall, England. Archaeologists have uncovered thick walls and rich artifacts at Tintagel Castle. This suggests the site was more important than believed.

Many have assumed that Tintagel Castle is the birthplace of the legendary King Arthur, the first king of England.

Until now, there has been little to support this idea, but recent discoveries have resurrected the legend. Archaeologists have uncovered meter-thick walls and remnants of pottery from Africa and the Mediterranean. The finds suggest the location was much more important than recognized.

The site’s history is shrouded in mystery, but the presence of wealthy Britions there has long been assumed. Previous excavations have suggested that about one to three hundred people inhabited the castle and surrounding site. This was possibly a lord of some sort and his entourage of nobles and a warband.

But could it have been more? Could it have been King Arthur himself?

The problem with answering this question is historians can’t decide if King Arthur existed in the first place. He is mentioned in several secondary sources that were composed long after his supposed death. Some of those sources also include improbable claims, such as the fact Arthur himself killed over 900 men in a single battle.

Is this King Arthur Is this King Arthur’s castle? Some think so.

Arthur would have lived in a time following the Romans and the invasions of the Anglo-Saxon people into the country. During that time, native Britons fought outsiders who sought to raid and settle there.

Unless a discovery is made that directly ties Arthur to Tingatel, such as something which bears his name, it is likely the legend will never be proven. It is also unlikely we will know for sure if the castle was inhabited by the legendary king. But we now know the site is more important that previously believed.

Work continues at the site.









wpsd_autopost:
1

1 comment

  1. Patrick Gannon Reply

    “The problem with answering this question is historians can’t decide if King Arthur existed in the first place. He is mentioned in several secondary sources that were composed long after his supposed death. Some of those sources also include improbable claims, such as the fact Arthur himself killed over 900 men in a single battle."
    .
    Yeah, historians have the same problem trying to decide if Jesus existed in the first place. Jesus is mentioned in secondary sources composed decades after his supposed death. All these sources include improbable claims such as walking on water, turning water into wine, and even coming back from the dead. Jesus shares a number of similarities to Arthur and many other mythological beings.
    .
    “Unless a discovery is made that directly ties Arthur to Tingatel, such as something which bears his name, it is likely the legend will never be proven."
    .
    Unless a discovery is made that directly ties Jesus to a physical existence on this earth, it is likely the legend will never be proven. Richard Carrier’s book about the “Historicity of Jesus" is one of, if not the, most exhaustive study of the available evidence, and he faces the same problems trying to prove the existence of Jesus, as do those trying to prove the historicity of Arthur.
    .
    Jesus was a celestial god for Paul, it doesn’t appear that he “became" human until the gospel of Mark, which is why there is no historical evidence for him, although there should be if he really did what is claimed.

Leave a Reply

  1. most read post
  2. Most Commented
  3. Choose Categories