Palace of a "Dark Ages" King of the Britons found in Cornwall

Angela

Elite member
Messages
21,823
Reaction score
12,327
Points
113
Ethnic group
Italian
The site is in Tintagel, the traditional place where Arthur was conceived, and the dating is from around the time that "Arthur" is said to have lived, if he in fact actually existed.

"It is likely that the one-metre thick walls being unearthed are those of the main residence of the 6th century rulers of an ancient south-west British kingdom, known as Dumnonia."

"
Some of the buildings were relatively large. Around a dozen have been archaeologically or geophysically located over recent months. Two are around 11 metres long and 4 metres wide."

This interests me more:
"Although eastern and much of central Britain had been taken over by Germanic (ie, Anglo-Saxon) conquerors and settlers from what is now Germany and Denmark, much of the west of Britain (including Cornwall) remained under native British control."

Also, they retained their ties with the Mediterranean world:
"
[FONT=&quot]The people who lived in these well-constructed buildings appear to have been of elite status. The archaeological evidence – scores of fragments of pottery and glass – show that they were enjoying wine from what is now western Turkey and olive oil from the Greek Aegean and what is now Tunisia. What’s more, they ate their food from fine bowls and plates imported from western Turkey and North Africa, while they drank their wine from the very finest, beautifully painted French-made glass cups."

I wonder what implications this has for the genetics of the area.

As to how and when it ended, there's no sign of any military defeat. The researchers speculate that perhaps it fell because the plague reached it from the continent.

[/FONT]
 
Very cool! I am very interested in the Kingdom of Dumnonia and what little of its history has survived.

Some additional background from my understanding of the subject: Tintagel has recently been understood by archaeologists and historians, notably Charles Thomas, as not being the military capital of Dumnonia. It's not quite right to think of Dark Age British kingdoms in the same way as modern nations, with central government capitals. The kings would have been more like warlords, who operated from multiple locations, which would have served different functions. Tintagel would have been a center of art and trade. A contemporary military stronghold, almost certainly also under the territory of Dumnonia at the time, would have been Cadbury Castle in Somerset. That might explain why there were no military attacks on Tintagel, as the fighting was occurring to its east while it was operating.

We can name some of the kings who were staying there. One would have been Constantine, who we know by name because Gildas named (and shamed) him in his writings in the 6th century. Beyond Constantine, there are different ways to date the kings of Dumnonia, but I prefer the later chronology suggested by Susan Pearce, who identifies Constantine mentioned by Gildas with Constantine named in Welsh genealogies. His successors, in order, would have been Erbin, Geraint, and Cadwy. Geraint is probably mentioned in Y Gododdin, and Cadwy is quite possibly the namesake of the aforementioned Cadbury Castle. Geraint would appear in the later poem Geraint son of Erbin, and some of these kings would also get mentions in the very early Arthurian tale Culhwch and Olwen, as I talked about here.
 
many have looked for the ruins of the castle of king Arthur and many places have been proposed for it

as for the genetics, isn't there related info to be found in the Hinxton genome study?
 
@Bicicleur

Yes, it does relate to that; it's just that those Hinxton remains are from a very distant part of the country, which might have been subjected to slightly different gene flows, maybe more Rhine versus more western France, even before the coming of the Anglo-Saxons? It would be interesting if they could get remains from this time period in Cornwall and Wales to see how similar they were to Hinxton, or not. Also, the modern British were found to be more "south" than Hinxton, right? It would be interesting to know if that had already happened or if it was the Normans and/or other more "modern" gene flow that is responsible.

@Sparkey,


Thanks for the link. I never saw that thread

I used to be very interested in the Arthurian legend and literature, and even the fiction and films based on it. It started in high school with "The Idylls of the King", and then moved into "The Once and Future King", and "Camelot" and on and on. I watch all the movies about it too even if they're kind of schmaltzy.

Since you know a lot about it, do you have favorite "re-tellings" of the story?
 
Since you know a lot about it, do you have favorite "re-tellings" of the story?

To be honest, I get bored with a lot of the Romance tales like in Le Morte d'Arthur (although I have a soft spot for "Tristan and Isolde"). I've probably made it pretty obvious that my favorites are old Welsh traditional stuff like Culhwch and Olwen and Preiddeu Annwfn. As far as modern re-tellings go, there's a re-telling of "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" I like (have to find the author) and I also confess to liking the silly Merlin show starring Colin Morgan. As ridiculously unfaithful as it is to history and its source material, it's a lot of fun and it's not like there's anything "historically accurate" out there. The bad Clive Owen film certainly isn't.
 
I suppose that since I mentioned Susan Pearce's late chronology of Dumnonian kings, I should also describe what early chronology would be. That's the chronology suggested by David Nash Ford and some others. It's a bit more complicated to explain. Basically, it takes the Welsh genealogies as being correct, as opposed to being cobbled-together lists attempting to link multiple traditions, like Susan Pearce (I think correctly) takes them. That means that when the genealogies don't anchor correctly to datable sources, like Constantine being mentioned by Gildas, early chronology tends to duplicate names. The Welsh genealogies link the Dumnonian kings to Welsh and Breton king traditions that are, in turn, anchored to events like the Roman withdrawal from Britain. So, taking the Welsh genealogies seriously seems to place the Constantine-Erbin-Geraint-Cadwy king line in the 400s, not the 500s (hence early chronology). But what about Constantine being mentioned by Gildas, or Geraint being mentioned in battles that took place sometime close to 600? Simple: according to early chronology, those were different guys with the same name (Constantine II and Geraint II, if you will). It's not that much of a stretch to imagine multiple kings with the same names; in fact, even late chronology holds there to have been 2 Geraints, as another Geraint is proven by historical sources to have been King of Dumnonia circa 700. David Nash Ford fills in the (legendary?) King Bledric to round out the kings of the 500s.
 
Anticipating one more question: What about King Mark, Cornwall's most famous king? Would he have been one of the rulers staying at Tintagel?

According to my pet theory, yes. I think it's very possible that "King Mark" is to be identified with Cynvor, father and predecessor of Constantine in the Welsh genealogies. I think that he has been incorrectly conflated with a different Cynvor of Brittany, however.

However, if we're going strictly by Susan Pearce, we would be taking a more pessimistic view. If I recall correctly, she understands Mark as legendary; Mark's identification with Cynvor as a later conflation; Cynvor as purely Breton; and the Cynvor-Constantine link in the Welsh genealogies as a fabricated link between Breton and Dumnonian traditions.

Early chronologists tend to allow multiple Marks and Cynvors. David Nash Ford and [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Darrell Wolcott have different ways of resolving it, and Wolcott believes that Mark only ruled elsewhere.[/FONT]
 
If we are going to get first hand accounts to the story, St Gilda's is the man for the job but there were later authors whom edited the Arthurian legend over time; mostly of secondary sources so later works might give either fantasy or facts.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gildas


The Father's name was Uther Pen Draig (Chief Dragon). Uther nicked named himself Cheif Dragon supposedly due to seeing a dragon shaped comet; If this is valid we could possibly be seeing dragon art or figurines in the archeological site pretty soon.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendragon


St. Gilda accused the war leader Arthur of killing his Brother and he had a hard time making headway against the Saxons (weather if this is enemy/civil slander or not is hard to say). So if King Arthur is real, Gilda painted a pretty nasty picture of him compared to later sources.
Here is a list of other early authors of the legend http://www.caerleon.net/history/arthur/page3.htm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nennius
http://www.heroofcamelot.com/history/gildas-and-bede
 
Sorry about the double post ahead of time, having a hard time going into the edits. My edits are based on careful observation to the links provided.

It was the 12th century life of Gilda's book that records that Arther killed Gilda's elder brother. If this Mid-evil book is correct, then it can be assumed that Gilda left the name out and called him "the bear" out of respect for his readers.
 
Right, you're correct to emphasize that the stories involving Gildas and King Arthur were written by Caradog o Llancarfan circa 1140, not by Gildas himself. Going only by Gildas, the only Dumnonian ruler he mentioned by name was one named Constantine, and he never mentioned Arthur (although he did mention the Battle of Mount Badon, thought by later authors to have been won by Arthur). By the time Caradog o Llancarfan was writing, however, we already had Historia Brittonum, Culhwch and Olwen, and Annales Cambriae.
 
Right, you're correct to emphasize that the stories involving Gildas and King Arthur were written by Caradog o Llancarfan circa 1140, not by Gildas himself. Going only by Gildas, the only Dumnonian ruler he mentioned by name was one named Constantine, and he never mentioned Arthur (although he did mention the Battle of Mount Badon, thought by later authors to have been won by Arthur). By the time Caradog o Llancarfan was writing, however, we already had Historia Brittonum, Culhwch and Olwen, and Annales Cambriae.

Thanks ^_^, let's see what further archeology data tells us.
 

This thread has been viewed 5266 times.

Back
Top