Is King Arthur a "real" historical chaacter?... Yes!

[James Toupin]

It is beyond any doubt that a real "King Arthur" existed; a High-King or
Warlord who is the basis for the legends. All legends have some sort of
basis in historical fact, no matter how far removed the legends become from
the truth of the matter.

The same can not be said for all Myth. Some Mythology has grown-up around
real persons and events, but much of mythology is the human mind trying to
explain the "Unexplainable" to the people of the time. Still, there is a
remarkable amount of even myth which has proven to be based of some facts:
The Trojan War, Jason's search for the Golden Fleece, King Midas, the
labyrinth containing the Minotaur, Heracles (Or Hercules, if you'd rather),
and many more examples.

It seems to be a long standing human predilection to take their heroes and,
over time, add incredible and unbelievable feats to the originals
accomplishments.

In the case of the reality of King Arthur, I would direct everyone to "The
Discovery Of King Arthur" by Geoffrey Ashe published in 1985. In the book,
Ashe gives an easy to read summery of a one of his more scholarly papers in
a style that appeals to the layman as well as the more initiated students of
Arthurian legend and Dark Ages history. While Ashe cannot pinpoint the exact
person whom the legends of Arthur are based on, he does give the most
convincing evidence of the existence of a British High-King who is acting in
an Arthurian way in an Arthurian venue and time. With the added bonus of
actual references to this "High-King" in letters and written matter that
survives in continental Europe.

So let us all agree that one portion of the debate is settled: there was a
figure in dark age Britain who did some of the thing with which Arthur is
credited and is the basis of the Arthurian legends that sprang-up around him
and his deeds.

James

[Malcolm Martin]

Post by James Toupin
It is beyond any doubt that a real "King Arthur" existed;

Is Tom Green still around?

If not, and if you prefer internet to paper, then (unless you are so
fixated in your own views that you are unable to consider an alternative)
you may wish to consider the alternative position set out by him at:

http://www.arthuriana.co.uk/historicity/arthur.htm

Post by James Toupin
<snip>
In the case of the reality of King Arthur, I would direct everyone to "The
Discovery Of King Arthur" by Geoffrey Ashe published in 1985.

Alternatively, if you prefer paper to the internet, there is Padel OJ "The
Nature of Arthur" Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies 27 (Summer 1994) pp1-31
(normally available through inter-library photocopying services). Ashe
does not interact in "Discovery" with this, although that is probably
because Padel's paper is 1994 compared to the earlier Ashe's "Discovery" of
1985. Then there is the Dumville paper "Sub-Roman Britain: History and
Legend in History Vol 62 No 205 (June 1977) pp173-192, although this is
somewhat disappointing in its lack of detailed argument.

Post by James Toupin
<snip>
So let us all agree that one portion of the debate is settled: there was a
figure in dark age Britain who did some of the thing with which Arthur is
credited and is the basis of the Arthurian legends that sprang-up around him
and his deeds.

If only it were that easy - but then also 75% of the mystery of Arthur
would also be gone.

Kind regards

Malcolm Martin
London, UK

[James Toupin]

Malcolm,

I just wanted to thank you for your kind response to my post. I have
actually only just found the news group and it was my first posting and I
really had no idea what kind of a reply to expect. I have to say that I was
very pleased to find your well-reasoned and helpful post. I certainly
appreciate the suggestions and directions to more information on the
subject.

And while I, personally, feel that Geoffrey Ashe was the latest of a series
of scholars to hit upon the correct line of inquiry to find the basis for an
historical "Arthur", I would certainly not be closed to any other
information of a contradictory nature. I have never been one to believe so
strongly in any one point of view that I'm not willing to admit that I may
be entirely wrong, and it is in the search for the truth and the learning
that the fun really lays.

I also have to agree with you that it is the mystery that helps to make the
subject so facinating and if it were entirely gone it would be missed.

Thanks again;
James

Post by Malcolm Martin

Post by James Toupin
It is beyond any doubt that a real "King Arthur" existed;

Is Tom Green still around?
If not, and if you prefer internet to paper, then (unless you are so
fixated in your own views that you are unable to consider an alternative)
http://www.arthuriana.co.uk/historicity/arthur.htm

Post by James Toupin
<snip>
In the case of the reality of King Arthur, I would direct everyone to "The
Discovery Of King Arthur" by Geoffrey Ashe published in 1985.

Alternatively, if you prefer paper to the internet, there is Padel OJ "The
Nature of Arthur" Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies 27 (Summer 1994) pp1-31
(normally available through inter-library photocopying services). Ashe
does not interact in "Discovery" with this, although that is probably
because Padel's paper is 1994 compared to the earlier Ashe's "Discovery" of
1985. Then there is the Dumville paper "Sub-Roman Britain: History and
Legend in History Vol 62 No 205 (June 1977) pp173-192, although this is
somewhat disappointing in its lack of detailed argument.

Post by James Toupin
<snip>
So let us all agree that one portion of the debate is settled: there was a
figure in dark age Britain who did some of the thing with which Arthur is
credited and is the basis of the Arthurian legends that sprang-up around him
and his deeds.

If only it were that easy - but then also 75% of the mystery of Arthur
would also be gone.
Kind regards
Malcolm Martin
London, UK

[Malcolm Martin]

James

Thank you for your kind words, and welcome to the group. Not exactly the
fastest or most frenetic group on the net, (although sometimes debates can
become somewhat heated!!!.

As for the Padel article, and Tom Green's views which are (or were, as it
is a little time since I last read Tom's work, and his views may have
changed), very much based on based on Padel, it is probably best to
consider them, as well as Ashe, as a hypothesis. There are, to my mind,
various methodological flaws in his argument, as well as flaws in the
detail (or lack thereof) of the information that he uses, all of which
bring me to the opposite conclusion that he reaches - although I still do
not reach the 'beyond reasonable doubt' aspect of the historicity, with
which you started this thread.

Kind regards

Malcolm Martin

Post by James Toupin
Malcolm,
I just wanted to thank you for your kind response to my post. I have
actually only just found the news group and it was my first posting and I
really had no idea what kind of a reply to expect. I have to say that I was
very pleased to find your well-reasoned and helpful post. I certainly
appreciate the suggestions and directions to more information on the
subject.
And while I, personally, feel that Geoffrey Ashe was the latest of a series
of scholars to hit upon the correct line of inquiry to find the basis for an
historical "Arthur", I would certainly not be closed to any other
information of a contradictory nature. I have never been one to believe so
strongly in any one point of view that I'm not willing to admit that I may
be entirely wrong, and it is in the search for the truth and the learning
that the fun really lays.
I also have to agree with you that it is the mystery that helps to make the
subject so facinating and if it were entirely gone it would be missed.
Thanks again;
James

[Ian Weir]

Post by James Toupin
It is beyond any doubt that a real "King Arthur" existed; a High-King or
Warlord who is the basis for the legends. All legends have some sort of
basis in historical fact, no matter how far removed the legends become from
the truth of the matter.

I agree with a kernel of what you're saying -- but disagree entirely
with the conclusion you then jump to. To my mind, it's this Big Jump
that skews the arguments of a lot of those who argue for an historical
Arthur, Geoffrey Ashe very much included.

I'm very willing to admit the probability that some (fairly?) prominent
somebody named Arthur existed in the 6th Century, based on the famous
line in the Gododdin, which loosely translates as: "he glutted the
black ravens on the ramparts, although he was no Arthur." Obviously
that one line doesn't prove anything one way or another, but I'm
inclined to believe that it implies a common knowledge of someone named
Arthur who was a formidable scrapper.

But even if you accept that, it's a huge and unsupported stretch to
conclude that this scrapper was in any sense king-like -- a dux
bellorum, or a bretwalda, or what have you. (After all, you can
imagine a 20th Century poem containing the line: "He laid his opponents
low, although he was no Joe Louis." But would this constitute a
persuasive argument that Joe Louis was in charge of the Allied forces
in WWII?) There simply is no reliable contemporary evidence to suggest
this connection.

Best
Ian

[solitaire]

Post by James Toupin
It is beyond any doubt that a real "King Arthur" existed; a High-King or
Warlord who is the basis for the legends. All legends have some sort of
basis in historical fact, no matter how far removed the legends become from
the truth of the matter.
The same can not be said for all Myth. Some Mythology has grown-up around
real persons and events, but much of mythology is the human mind trying to
explain the "Unexplainable" to the people of the time. Still, there is a
The Trojan War, Jason's search for the Golden Fleece, King Midas, the
labyrinth containing the Minotaur, Heracles (Or Hercules, if you'd rather),
and many more examples.
It seems to be a long standing human predilection to take their heroes and,
over time, add incredible and unbelievable feats to the originals
accomplishments.
In the case of the reality of King Arthur, I would direct everyone to "The
Discovery Of King Arthur" by Geoffrey Ashe published in 1985. In the book,
Ashe gives an easy to read summery of a one of his more scholarly papers in
a style that appeals to the layman as well as the more initiated students of
Arthurian legend and Dark Ages history. While Ashe cannot pinpoint the exact
person whom the legends of Arthur are based on, he does give the most
convincing evidence of the existence of a British High-King who is acting in
an Arthurian way in an Arthurian venue and time. With the added bonus of
actual references to this "High-King" in letters and written matter that
survives in continental Europe.
So let us all agree that one portion of the debate is settled: there was a
figure in dark age Britain who did some of the thing with which Arthur is
credited and is the basis of the Arthurian legends that sprang-up around him
and his deeds.
James

Riothamus was _NOT_ Arthur.

Ashe has his head up his ass.

[James Toupin]

Post by solitaire

Post by James Toupin
It is beyond any doubt that a real "King Arthur" existed; a High-King or
Warlord who is the basis for the legends. All legends have some sort of
basis in historical fact, no matter how far removed the legends become
from the truth of the matter.
<Snip>
In the case of the reality of King Arthur, I would direct everyone to
"The Discovery Of King Arthur" by Geoffrey Ashe published in 1985. In the
book, Ashe gives an easy to read summery of a one of his more scholarly
papers in a style that appeals to the layman as well as the more
initiated students of Arthurian legend and Dark Ages history. While Ashe
cannot pinpoint the exact person whom the legends of Arthur are based on,
he does give the most convincing evidence of the existence of a British
High-King who is acting in an Arthurian way in an Arthurian venue and
time. With the added bonus of actual references to this "High-King" in
letters and written matter that survives in continental Europe.
<Snip> James

Riothamus was _NOT_ Arthur.
Ashe has his head up his ass.

Well, now that is certainly a well-reasoned and thought-provoking reply...
Seriously, I am open to any and all opposing points of view as long as they
are reasonable and are backed-up with some kind of fact or information.

However, we all do have our own opinions on this matter. I will consider
your response a matter of opinion.

Thanks;
James

[Malcolm Martin]

Post by solitaire
Riothamus was _NOT_ Arthur.

Maybe not, but the possibility that Geoffrey of Monmouth transfers the
stories relating to Riothamus to his Arthur, in order to further enhance
Arthur's reputation, is certainly worth seriously considering.

Apart from anything else, it removes (for me) one of the major difficulties
in the issue of the Historical Arthur, that there is no record of such a
Continental campaign post-Badon in any of the continental histories to
which I have had access, although there is one book that I would
particularly like to get hold of (especially if an English translation
exists - my Latin is more than rusty!) _De Morinis et Morinorum Rebus,
etc._, by Jacobus Malbrancq, (3 v., Tournai, 1639-1654). If any of you
know of it, or where it may be found, please let me know.

[James Toupin]

I would just like to issue a public apology to solitaire. Being new to this
news group, and news groups in general, I accidentally forwarded a copy of
my response to his post to his e-mail. For that I am truly sorry. It was not
an intentional act, merely the mistake of a newbie.

Thanks;
James

Post by solitaire

Post by James Toupin
It is beyond any doubt that a real "King Arthur" existed; a High-King or
Warlord who is the basis for the legends. All legends have some sort of
basis in historical fact, no matter how far removed the legends become
from the truth of the matter.
The same can not be said for all Myth. Some Mythology has grown-up around
real persons and events, but much of mythology is the human mind trying
to explain the "Unexplainable" to the people of the time. Still, there is
a remarkable amount of even myth which has proven to be based of some
facts: The Trojan War, Jason's search for the Golden Fleece, King Midas,
the labyrinth containing the Minotaur, Heracles (Or Hercules, if you'd
rather), and many more examples.
It seems to be a long standing human predilection to take their heroes
and, over time, add incredible and unbelievable feats to the originals
accomplishments.
In the case of the reality of King Arthur, I would direct everyone to
"The Discovery Of King Arthur" by Geoffrey Ashe published in 1985. In the
book, Ashe gives an easy to read summery of a one of his more scholarly
papers in a style that appeals to the layman as well as the more
initiated students of Arthurian legend and Dark Ages history. While Ashe
cannot pinpoint the exact person whom the legends of Arthur are based on,
he does give the most convincing evidence of the existence of a British
High-King who is acting in an Arthurian way in an Arthurian venue and
time. With the added bonus of actual references to this "High-King" in
letters and written matter that survives in continental Europe.
So let us all agree that one portion of the debate is settled: there was
a figure in dark age Britain who did some of the thing with which Arthur
is credited and is the basis of the Arthurian legends that sprang-up
around him and his deeds.
James

Riothamus was _NOT_ Arthur.
Ashe has his head up his ass.

[solitaire]

Post by James Toupin
I would just like to issue a public apology to solitaire. Being new to this
news group, and news groups in general, I accidentally forwarded a copy of
my response to his post to his e-mail. For that I am truly sorry. It was not
an intentional act, merely the mistake of a newbie.
Thanks;
James

Apology accepted -- and I'm female, over 50, and a bit cranky when my knees hurt
after a long day on my feet at work, James, so we crossed paths at a bad
moment... my apologies for snapping at you.

[James Toupin]

Post by solitaire

Post by James Toupin
I would just like to issue a public apology to solitaire. Being new to
this news group, and news groups in general, I accidentally forwarded a
copy of my response to his post to his e-mail. For that I am truly sorry.
It was not an intentional act, merely the mistake of a newbie.
Thanks;
James

Apology accepted -- and I'm female, over 50, and a bit cranky when my
knees hurt after a long day on my feet at work, James, so we crossed paths
at a bad moment... my apologies for snapping at you.

No problem, solitaire, I understand. I am a male 42, and often cranky for no
good reason at all. :-)

[Qur'mudjin]

I had cut back in my studies of Arthur a few years ago, when I somewhat
hastily concluded that he never really existed and was likely based on
the god Bran. Much of the whole point of my initial interest had been
to discover the reality behind the legend, and when I thought it was
"myth" and not "legend" after all, I stopped looking for some
historical character.

Lately, I have been reconsidering my position on the matter, and coming
around again to the possibility that there was someone real who
inspired some bardic stories. Later, perhaps, it became entwined with
some earlier myth that was losing steam or wasn't as interesting as
Arthur's story.

I like Ian Weir's example with Joe Louis, which is somewhat how I've
been imagining the truth.
Though the bigger story of WWII and its heroes was going on, there were
songwriters, authors and filmmakers as equally interested in the story
of Joe Louis as Eisenhower's, Patton's, Churchill's or Montgomery's.

Imagine, though, if our 3,000-year old god had been a boxer: would our
storytellers telling the tale of Joe Louis today probably look to the
myth of our boxer-god of 3,000 years ago to embellish their tale and
make it fit the culture?

I doubt very much that the real Arthur was more than a "scrapper" as
Ian put it, but likely one whose particular feat was unrivalled for
quite some time. There have been boxers arguably better than Joe Louis
in just a few decades since, but imagine if his record/stats hadn't
been bettered for more than a century or two? After 200 years of no
better boxer coming along, people would probably still say "... but
he's no Joe Louis" even if an Ali, Frasier or Foreman happened to
emerge.
This does not mean that when Stallone later makes the near-mythic film
"Rocky," that he bases it entirely or even mostly on Joe Louis. He may
nonetheless find better storytelling features, like a love story, in
the life of George Foreman, or in the spiritual quest of Muhammed Ali.

I think the way to go about my research now is to examine as many of
the world's myths and legends where we do know of real persons they
were based on and have a lot of evidence about the real story. Then,
examine how the real events were then shaped into the myths/legends
according to the politics/environment of the time in which they were
constructed.

Then, try going backwards with another legend I haven't studied
(single-blind?) and see if I arrive at the known facts. If I succeed,
then I'd apply the same with Arthur and feel relatively scientific
about my conclusions.

[James Toupin]

Post by Qur'mudjin
I had cut back in my studies of Arthur a few years ago, when I somewhat
hastily concluded that he never really existed and was likely based on
the god Bran. Much of the whole point of my initial interest had been
to discover the reality behind the legend, and when I thought it was
"myth" and not "legend" after all, I stopped looking for some
historical character.
Lately, I have been reconsidering my position on the matter, and coming
around again to the possibility that there was someone real who
inspired some bardic stories. Later, perhaps, it became entwined with
some earlier myth that was losing steam or wasn't as interesting as
Arthur's story.
I like Ian Weir's example with Joe Louis, which is somewhat how I've
been imagining the truth.
Though the bigger story of WWII and its heroes was going on, there were
songwriters, authors and filmmakers as equally interested in the story
of Joe Louis as Eisenhower's, Patton's, Churchill's or Montgomery's.
Imagine, though, if our 3,000-year old god had been a boxer: would our
storytellers telling the tale of Joe Louis today probably look to the
myth of our boxer-god of 3,000 years ago to embellish their tale and
make it fit the culture?
I doubt very much that the real Arthur was more than a "scrapper" as
Ian put it, but likely one whose particular feat was unrivalled for
quite some time. There have been boxers arguably better than Joe Louis
in just a few decades since, but imagine if his record/stats hadn't
been bettered for more than a century or two? After 200 years of no
better boxer coming along, people would probably still say "... but
he's no Joe Louis" even if an Ali, Frasier or Foreman happened to
emerge.
This does not mean that when Stallone later makes the near-mythic film
"Rocky," that he bases it entirely or even mostly on Joe Louis. He may
nonetheless find better storytelling features, like a love story, in
the life of George Foreman, or in the spiritual quest of Muhammed Ali.
I think the way to go about my research now is to examine as many of
the world's myths and legends where we do know of real persons they
were based on and have a lot of evidence about the real story. Then,
examine how the real events were then shaped into the myths/legends
according to the politics/environment of the time in which they were
constructed.
Then, try going backwards with another legend I haven't studied
(single-blind?) and see if I arrive at the known facts. If I succeed,
then I'd apply the same with Arthur and feel relatively scientific
about my conclusions.

I think that you raise some very good points in putting forward your point
of view on the reality of "Arthur".

However, although it may sound like a battle over semantics, myth and legend
are two very different forms. Myth deals with deities, legend deals with
heroes. So where as myth tells the stories of Gods and their actions and the
influence that they have on the world around us, legend tells the tale of
men and women who, while sometimes may having dealings with the
supernatural, remain firmly planted in the reality of the world around them.
Zeus is mythic, Jason is legendary. Hera is mythic, Clytemnestra is
legendary. Wodin is mythic. Eric the Red is legendary. I could go on, but I
think you see the point that I am trying to make.

If you take a look at the earliest sources, "Arthur" is clearly legendary
and is very firmly planted in an actual historical world where the Saxon
invasion of Brittan had waned (perhaps due to his actions, perhaps due to
other reasons that the sources have no interest in) and the disparate
kingdoms of Brittan were briefly united. In fact, if you take Geoffrey of
Monmouth as an example, "Arthur" is not really even very connected to the
supernatural at all. The supernatural elements in Geoffrey's "History"
consist of; a poorly constructed castle foundation, some obvious "hindsight
prophecies" made by Merlin, some fantastical elements to his conception, a
Spanish giant, and a departure to Avalon to be cured of his mortal wounds.
In context this is not a huge amount of supernatural interaction for a
legend. And when you really think about it, a collapsing castle and
abdicating the throne in favour Constantine after being mortally wounded are
not even necessarily all that fantastical! In short, the legends are the
story of a man interacting with the world around him and not of a deity
manipulating the world below him.

There are many examples in history of well-documented, real people who have
had fantastical legends spring up around them; Alexander the Great, El Cid,
Joan of Ark, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy... Heck!
Even Marilynn Monroe, James Dean and Elvis! Where as the "mortalization" of
a mythic deity is certainly far less common place.

Anyway, I guess I let myself stray a little off topic in replying to your
post due to my enthusiasm.

My real point is simply this: your avenue of inquiry sounds interesting and
possibly promising, but when you are looking for figures to study stick to
the legendary and forgo the mythic.

Best of luck in your quest.
James

[Qur'mudjin]

Post by James Toupin
However, although it may sound like a battle over semantics, myth and legend
are two very different forms. Myth deals with deities, legend deals with
heroes.

I do understand the distinction. On the other hand, one can tell a myth (or
parts of a myth) by using very ordinary characters and very ordinary
situations.

It is not Arthur who is mythic, it is Bran. Arthur is only an allegorical
tool to tell the story of a god as a man.

For instance, the film "Cool Hand Luke" tells the myth of Jesus Christ (a
god) through the story of Luke (a fictional, but realistic, man).

Is Luke a character of myth or legend?

--------------
Jim Corveddu * ***@earthlink.net

Quae narravi, nullo modo negabo

[David Tanguay]

Post by James Toupin
If you take a look at the earliest sources, "Arthur" is clearly legendary
and is very firmly planted in an actual historical world where the Saxon
invasion of Brittan had waned (perhaps due to his actions, perhaps due to
other reasons that the sources have no interest in) and the disparate
kingdoms of Brittan were briefly united. In fact, if you take Geoffrey of
Monmouth as an example, "Arthur" is not really even very connected to the
supernatural at all.

IIRC, Padel's argument starts with the observation that in the earliest
sources Arthur isn't connected to the Saxons at all. Note that Geoffrey is not
an early source, from the historical perspective -- he's writing so late,
using unknown source material, that he's not an historical source at all.
Rather, Geoffrey represents the start of the literary, post-historical Arthur.
Even the HB is a late source, and known to have been "fixed up" even later,
making it a very weak source.

To echo a previous poster, all right-thinking historians know that there is
not enough data to determine whether or not there is an historical figure
at the heart of the cycle. :-) There's plenty of room in the tattered
historical record for a real man to step in, but the overall pattern of data
more closely matches similar known-to-be-ahistorical cycles.

Post by James Toupin
Where as the "mortalization" of
a mythic deity is certainly far less common place.

But still common enough. For example, some saints are mortalisations of local
deities (some of whom may have been deifications of (pre-)historical people!).

Post by James Toupin
My real point is simply this: your avenue of inquiry sounds interesting and
possibly promising, but when you are looking for figures to study stick to
the legendary and forgo the mythic.

I thought the point of the exercise is to *determine* whether it's "legend"
or "myth". Also, even the later addition of supernatural elements might
contain clues to help determine the historical reality.

[Heather Rose Jones]

Qur'mudjin wrote:

<snip: on real-people's stories merging into legend>

Post by Qur'mudjin
I think the way to go about my research now is to examine as many of
the world's myths and legends where we do know of real persons they
were based on and have a lot of evidence about the real story. Then,
examine how the real events were then shaped into the myths/legends
according to the politics/environment of the time in which they were
constructed.
Then, try going backwards with another legend I haven't studied
(single-blind?) and see if I arrive at the known facts. If I succeed,
then I'd apply the same with Arthur and feel relatively scientific
about my conclusions

The examples I'm fond of using to illustrate this process
are some of the "story cycles" that have evolved around
particular individuals in the Society for Creative
Anachronism. It helps that this is an organization with a
vibrant oral-history culture and a love of the
well-embellished story, as well as a lot of individuals
prominent in their local social circles about whom stories
will often be told and carried for outside their home area.

Certain individuals -- whether because they're the sort of
people that interesting things happen to a lot, or because
they're good at describing ordinary events in ways that make
a good story, or because they have a "presence" that leads
people to tell stories about them -- have accumulated a
significant body of oral history centered around them.
This, in turn, can lead to those individuals having stories
and events attributed to them that either never happened at
all or happened to an entirely different person. I've heard
of one case where a popular "story-nexus" evolved into the
default protagonist for a particular genre of invented story
... leading to many people doubting that he had ever been a
real person.

This leads to documentable and traceable examples of exactly
the sort of story-accretion and transfer that could easily
explain much of the Problem of Arthur. It also points out
the pitfalls in trying to judge the "reality" of a person
based on the truth or falsity of a particular story. Here's
an example:

A story is told, naming Person A as the protagonist,
involving events that happened to Person B, but presented as
having happened in time/place C. You can prove that neither
Person A nor B were ever in time/place C ... but that
doesn't mean that A and B are fictitious. You can prove
that Person A never did the things described in the story
... but that doesn't mean that the things didn't happen, nor
that Person A didn't do quite similar things. If you rely
entirely on the oral history evidence, you will never be
able to determine exactly what the truth was, especially
because the oral history has shaped itself into the story
that makes the most sense and that fits best with what
people expect to have happened.

And that -- in my opinion -- is why nobody will ever _know_
the historic truth about Arthur. We can come up with more
and less plausible explanations and scenarios, but the most
plausible explanations may have evolved to fit our
expectations of plausibility ... and therefore be just as
suspect as the implausible ones.

Heather

[Qur'mudjin]

Post by Heather Rose Jones
The examples I'm fond of using to illustrate this process
are some of the "story cycles" that have evolved around
particular individuals in the Society for Creative
Anachronism.

<snip>

Hiya, Heather, it's been a long time. You would know me better as Betuiros
mapos Romani. After all, it was you who named me! Still playing, I see. Me
too. Not as intently, but I show up now and again to get my head pummeled.
I imagine you are long since finished with grad school and I hope you've
been doing well.

I get what you're saying and I agree.

In many conversations with Cree, Lakota and Algonquin "elders," I have been
told that they had two types of oral-stories:

One set was entrusted to an elite core of strictly-trained members of the
tribe, and the other set was usually told by adults to children, or between
warriors.

In the first set, the stories never changed. Not one word. Nor were these
kind of stories borrowed from other tribes and changed around. If there were
similar stories between their cultures, it is because those tribes were
interpreting the same phenomenon in their own way.

In the second set, there may have been some confusions between persons,
places and times, but none of it was intentional in order to craft some
legendary status. Many of the natives I talked to added that even these
stories were passed on very carefully, as all members of a tribe were taught
to pay attention to little details and to keep sharp memories.

For example, look at the collective retellings of Little Big Horn by various
members of various tribes. They all overlap and fit together into an
amazingly consistent story. The few differences occur around who killed
Custer and what happened to his body afterward. My theory is that this is
the only area where personal-politics would have come into play, thus
providing an incentive to see things as one wanted to and not necessarily as
they were.
One Lakota told me it was because all of us whites look the same, and that
"Goldilocks" must have gotten a haircut either before the battle or sometime
during it, that made him look like all the other soldiers :-)

There wasn't a lot of freelance storytelling among the native Americans.
Certainly not when it came to stories shared by the whole tribe. And no one
made a living from it or traveled around, like the bards, for the sole
purpose of entertaining strangers.

When I look at Celtic history, however, I see some significant differences.

While it is true that the ancient Celts had the same sort of elite
storytellers who were trained to get every word exact, there appear to be
far more instances where people granted themselves poetic license or simply
made up fables and retold stories with all kinds of embellishments.
Also, the Druids tried for a time to incorporate the many local gods of the
various tribes into a manageable pantheon, inspiring them to find ways of
merging several characters together.

And, it seems, there was already a growing trend toward the storytelling
aesthetic when people are writing about Arthur. That is, people were
beginning to tell stories more for the sake of entertainment, and not so
much to impart a moral lesson, life-instruction, or family history.

I think a lot of Geoffrey was simply his own imagination at play, and while
he purportedly told the story of the kings of Britain for so many reasons, I
believe his genuine purpose was to entertain, and therefore, he was more
willing to make stuff up.

I am sure the bards long before Geoffrey were doing much the same. They were
not so much concerned about accuracy as they were about gaining an audience
and perhaps making a decent living.

I think the more intentional fuddling of stories among the Celts than, say,
with the native Americans or the SCA, makes it a little easier to perform
some kind of teleological approach. Learn the purpose for the fuddling and
you may, with the help of other evidence, have a better chance of figuring
out what really happened.

Then, again, I may be engaging in wishful thinking.

Checkyalater,
--------------
Jim Corveddu * ***@earthlink.net

Arma virumque flavum atque mortuum cano

[3Lllama]

Post by James Toupin
It is beyond any doubt that a real "King Arthur" existed; a High-King or
Warlord who is the basis for the legends. All legends have some sort of
basis in historical fact, no matter how far removed the legends become from
the truth of the matter.

Hello James,

Most people I've read or heard on this subject who are familiar with
the evidence tend to the view that there probably was an historical
figure behind the Arthur legends (and Arthur history), but that it's
not possible to say very much about him; only that he was a Briton, a
warrior, flourished around 500 and was probably called Arthur. Some
authors go beyond this and try to link him with this or that
historical or quasi-historical figure, but I've never been convinced.

I like this 'minimal historical Arthur' because it explains a great
deal without having to assume anything very unlikely. (Nick Higham
thinks it's unlikely, but that's based on a controversial
reconstruction of sub-Roman Britain in which the 'Heroic Age' never
happened, which makes him a spoilsport if nothing else.)

There are good alternatives to an historical Arthur, but they have the
burden of explaining all the evidence (Arthur reference in Y Gododdin,
Arthur generation of princes, etc.) with separate theories - all of
which have to be right. In this contest, the historical Arthur fights
for his existence primarily with Occam's razor.

Maybe Arthur was a literary figure or Celtic god who was later assumed
to have been a real person when the original literary or religious
context was lost? Stranger things have happened, but at least a
superficial glance at the early evidence shows a progression in the
opposite direction - from an historical to a literary figure. And the
idea of post-Christian pagan survival in Britain has lost ground
recently, meaning that any historicisation must have happened very
early.

Anyway, that's just my € 0, 02 worth.

[James Toupin]

And a worthy and valuable two cents it is as well.

Let's all face it; while we all try to study the evidence objectively and
reach a logical conclusion, the evidence itself is sketchy and often
contradictory and a variety of interpretations are possible and even
plausible. When it comes to this field we will all approach the subject with
some personal bias and individual points of view. I happen to think that all
points of view are valuable in this area, and a healthy debate over the
evidence is the best way to really try to come to any sort of understanding
of historical reality of the basis of the "Arthurian" mater.

Thanks;
James

Post by 3Lllama

Post by James Toupin
It is beyond any doubt that a real "King Arthur" existed; a High-King or
Warlord who is the basis for the legends. All legends have some sort of
basis in historical fact, no matter how far removed the legends become from
the truth of the matter.

Hello James,
Most people I've read or heard on this subject who are familiar with
the evidence tend to the view that there probably was an historical
figure behind the Arthur legends (and Arthur history), but that it's
not possible to say very much about him; only that he was a Briton, a
warrior, flourished around 500 and was probably called Arthur. Some
authors go beyond this and try to link him with this or that
historical or quasi-historical figure, but I've never been convinced.
I like this 'minimal historical Arthur' because it explains a great
deal without having to assume anything very unlikely. (Nick Higham
thinks it's unlikely, but that's based on a controversial
reconstruction of sub-Roman Britain in which the 'Heroic Age' never
happened, which makes him a spoilsport if nothing else.)
There are good alternatives to an historical Arthur, but they have the
burden of explaining all the evidence (Arthur reference in Y Gododdin,
Arthur generation of princes, etc.) with separate theories - all of
which have to be right. In this contest, the historical Arthur fights
for his existence primarily with Occam's razor.
Maybe Arthur was a literary figure or Celtic god who was later assumed
to have been a real person when the original literary or religious
context was lost? Stranger things have happened, but at least a
superficial glance at the early evidence shows a progression in the
opposite direction - from an historical to a literary figure. And the
idea of post-Christian pagan survival in Britain has lost ground
recently, meaning that any historicisation must have happened very
early.
Anyway, that's just my ? 0, 02 worth.