Historians locate King Arthur's Round Table

[Viggen]

Historians claim to have finally located the site of King Arthur

[Ursus]

Fascinating, if true. It would make a lot of sense.

[barca]

Interesting theory, but it seems to me that they're reaching

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...o=feeds-newsxml

[caldrail]

Round Table? Like the supposed 'Holy Grail', the Round Table is not a historical artifact. It was a fictional invention written into medieval arthurian romances. That doesn't mean that a real Arthur didn't hold meetings in an old roman amphitheatre at any time, but rather that this cute theory holds no water and is merely an attempt to give Chester some importance in regrad to the Arthurian mythos.

[Melvadius]

It seems that Dr Chris Gidlow has a book to sell which may explain the documentary this article refers to. One of several Iron Age hillforts is usually touted as a possible Camelot but the alternative suggestion of it being the remains of an old ampitheatre, in my recollection, has been circulating for at least 20 or 30 years so it isn't really a 'new' idea.

 

Like Caldrail I have my doubts about the validity of much of the modern interpretations Arthurian legends. As far as I know; the earliest complete version of the tale is by Geoffrey of Monmouth in the 12th century although Malory's 14th century interpretation is better known there are a numbeer of references dating back to att least the early 9th century which have been linked to the tale.

 

Not having seen the documentary I can only point out that unless the core elements of this 'new' research has made use of the older version(s) of the legends which have been documented, it probably doesn't amount to a 'real' advance in research into the period.

[caldrail]

The earliest partial reference is by Gildas in the mid 6th century, though in fairness he doesn't refer to the man directly and thus De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae ("On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain") remains a vague clue to the origin of this myth.

[stella]

Interesting article and the idea that the 'Round Table' was not a physical table but more of a meeting circle seems logical and plausible. However, despite what the 'camelot historian' says, there is absolutely no proof of this site having any connection with the fabled Arthur. I am surprised that a newspaper like the Telegraph publishes articles such as this without also printing a counter-argument. Reads like a lead-in to a 'sensationalist TV programme to me!

[Melvadius]

..... Reads like a lead-in to a 'sensationalist TV programme to me!

 

Quite correct Stella, as you will see from the 'now' merged thread above the separate Daily Mail article makes clear that there is both a book and TV documentary tie in to this speculation.