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.
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.