INTRODUCTION

A Flesh-and-Blood Historical Figure

What follows is the full, untold story of my quest to do what no one had done before: to identify a real, living figure behind the legend of King Arthur and, ultimately, to discover his grave. When the book King Arthur: The True Story was published in 1992, which I coauthored with Martin Keatman, our claim to have discovered a historical King Arthur created something of a sensation. However, that book was originally intended as a comprehensive guide to the Arthurian legend in general, and only the final section included the last-minute identification of the man behind the King Arthur story, made shortly before the book went to press. As a second book was anticipated but never materialized, the true-life historical detective story leading to that discovery was never told. Since that time an astonishing body of evidence has accumulated to support this theory as to who King Arthur really was. I have brought to light formerly obscure manuscripts, initiated archaeological investigations, and have followed a trail of compelling historical clues. Although my continuing research into the King Arthur mystery has been featured in a variety of newspapers, magazines, and television documentaries over the years, none of it has previously been published or broadcast in anything but its barest outline. Now that I have finally located what I believe to be the historical King Arthur’s grave, it is time for this book to be written.

Before I start I should probably explain why—even before I began my search for King Arthur and his final resting place—I consider him to be worth serious consideration as a historical figure. The Arthurian story we know today is filled with themes and events that seem pure fantasy: magicians, witches, the supernatural, mythical beings, damsels in distress, and all the rest. These tales developed over many years, from the mid-twelfth century to the modern day, each retelling becoming more elaborate and fanciful. This King Arthur of the imagination—the “floaty man,” as I once heard him jokingly described—is not the character I sought. Rather, I was looking for a flesh-and-blood, historical figure upon whom the legends might have been based. Before the romantic Arthurian stories of the Middle Ages were composed, there were earlier accounts portraying the now fabled king in a purely historical context, unfettered by such flights of fancy. One of the oldest such texts is found in a manuscript cataloged as Harleian MS 3859 in the British Library, London, which contains a work attributed to a ninth-century British monk called Nennius. Nennius’s The History of the Britons—which dates from three centuries before the first of the unlikely Arthurian tales were composed—propounds that Arthur had been a powerful British leader who successfully fended off foreign invasions around the year AD 500. It records a number of episodes associated with Arthur, known from both earlier contemporary sources and through modern archaeology to have been genuine historical events. I will be examining Nennius and other such documentation at length, but for now it is important to stress that these sources, together with recent archaeological discoveries, make a compelling case for Arthur’s existence.

Why then, you may be asking, do many historians and other scholars continue to doubt King Arthur was a real, historical figure? Well this is partly because when most people think of the Arthurian story, they recall the medieval and modern fanciful tales. Clearly King Arthur as he is depicted in these elaborate fictions did not exist. More significantly, however, from the academic perspective, no contemporary inscription or historical documentation, or any archaeological find from the period in question, has yet been uncovered bearing Arthur’s name. But this, as I shall argue, is actually irrelevant. There are many historical figures—whose existence academics seldom question—who also lack any surviving contemporary mention: Jesus Christ, to name just one. On the contrary, the latest literary and archaeological discoveries do far more to prove King Arthur’s existence than they do to refute it. In this book I not only hope to persuade you that King Arthur was a historical figure, and that many themes in the Arthurian story were based on real events, but that I have discovered both his true Camelot and his long-forgotten tomb.

As I am writing this book for a general readership, I should also clarify a few points. First, concerning dating terminology: it is said that science books written for a popular readership should always avoid confusing mathematical equations (except Einstein’s E = mc²). In the same spirit I will be keeping certain terms regarding historical periods simple to avoid confusion. Strictly speaking, the term medieval, from the Latin meaning “Middle Ages,” refers to the European period from the final collapse of the Roman Empire in Western Europe in 476 until the fall of Constantinople in 1453. No need to worry about these events or why they are significant at the moment. The important point is that today most people, when pondering British history, tend to think of the terms medieval and Middle Ages as referring to the era of Gothic castles and knights in armor, between 1066, when Saxon England was invaded by the Norman French, and 1485, when Henry VII beat Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field, establishing the Tudor period of Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, and William Shakespeare. For this reason, and for convenience, I shall be following this popular conception. In this book medieval and Middle Ages refer to the period of British history from 1066 through 1485.

Concerning earlier British events historians call the period between the Roman withdrawal from Britain in AD 410 and the Norman invasion of England in 1066 the Early Middle Ages, but most laypeople know it as the Dark Ages, so named because it was a time when civilization struggled to exist. There are many reasons why academics dislike this description, and they are valid, but to keep things simple I will be using the term Dark Ages for the period of British history between the end of the Roman era in 410 and the Norman conquest of 1066. An even earlier period was the Roman occupation itself. Between the years AD 43 and 410, the Romans ruled Britain, and the two centuries after they left is referred to by historians as the post-Roman era, although archaeologists prefer the term sub-Roman. I shall be using the term post-Roman to refer to the period between the Roman withdrawal in AD 410 and the time the invading Anglo-Saxons, from northern Germany, had seized much of what is now England by the mid-600s. I appreciate that this overlaps with the early Dark Ages, but don’t worry, I shall ensure that all dating is perfectly clear.

So here are my terms for the periods of British history we shall be examining:

AD 43–410: Roman

AD 410–660: Post-Roman

AD 410–1066: Dark Ages

AD 1066–1485: Medieval or Middle Ages

AD 1485–1603: Tudor Period

(See Chronology)

Also concerning dating, you will notice that I have been using the abbreviation AD. For those who may not know, it is short for the Latin Anno Domini, meaning “In the year of the Lord,” referring to the time since Jesus is thought to have been born—namely AD 1. The millennium year AD 2000, for example, is said to have been two thousand years since the birth of Christ. The years before Jesus’s birth are referred to as BC, meaning “Before Christ.” The year Julius Caesar died, for instance, was forty-four years before the assumed date of Christ’s birth, and so is referred to as 44 BC. Today academics tend to use the abbreviations CE, meaning “Common Era,” instead of AD, and BCE, meaning “Before the Common Era,” instead of BC. However, as most people are more familiar with the former, and to keep things simple, I shall be using the AD and BC abbreviations for dating.

Finally on the point of dating: something that can often be a source of confusion to the layperson is century numbering. We are living in the 2000s, but we call it the twenty-first century rather than twentieth; the reason being that the years from AD 1 to AD 99 are the first century (following the assumed date of Christ’s birth), and 100 to 199 are the second, and so on. This means that the years 1100 to 1199 are the twelfth century, the years 1200 to 1299 are the thirteenth, and so forth. So when I talk about the fifth century, I am referring to the 400s, and when I talk about the sixth century, I am referring to the 500s. I realize that historians may be wondering why I am bothering to explain all this, but as I said, this book is intended for a general readership, and some people may never have considered it.

I must also make something clear regarding translations. The translating of original medieval and earlier texts relevant to the Arthurian enigma—from such languages as Latin, Old Welsh, Old French, and Anglo-Saxon—often leads to conflicting versions of such works, which can be somewhat confusing for the general reader. (Online, for instance, you will probably find a variety of differing translations of the works we shall be examining.) As I intend to express the content of such manuscripts as accurately as possible, all translations throughout this book are my own, or made on my behalf, taken from the primary source material, unless otherwise stated.

One final point, regarding references: often I have cited the original references used at the time of investigation, although many are more up-to-date publications, concerning the latest archaeological or historical research, or works now in print and still readily available. Anyway, enough of all this: let’s get on with the book.