Is This The Real Location Of King Arthur's Tomb? | Myth Hunters
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ต.ค. 2024
- Discover the quest of two archaeologists, one driven by science and the other by the supernatural, as they search for King Arthur's final resting place. Uncover the mystery of the monks of Glastonbury Abbey, the historical debates, and the groundbreaking discoveries that bring us closer to the truth behind the legend.
Welcome to Unearthed History -- the home for all things archaeological! From ancient Roman ruins to buried medieval mysteries, we'll be bringing you award-winning documentaries that explore the remnants of long lost civilizations.
Subscribe so you don't miss out.
Discover the past on History Hit, with ad-free exclusive podcasts and documentaries released weekly and presented by world-renowned historians Dan Snow, Suzannah Lipscomb, Matt Lewis and more. Get 50% off your first 3 months with code 'UNEARTHEDHISTORY': historyhit.com...
To get in touch please email: owned-enquiries@littledotstudios.com.
#UnearthedHistory #Archaeology #Documentary
There are some old communities around Glastonbury: a very old monastic site at just outside of it at Beckary (possibly as early as 400s) and some celtic enclosures nearby that existed into the Christian age. So it may have been a holy place in the early dark ages if not Roman times, attracting high status burials.
Also, there's quite a concentration of Roman villas south of Glastonbury in the north Dorset, South Somerset area. These would have been occupied by an Romanised elite, and it's quite possibly that such as elite would have some martial training and persisted into the early dark age, producing war leaders that held onto the area to at least 650. So there's scope for some sort of Arthur-like figure in the area.
It's a fascinating story. The legend of Arthur and his Queen Guinevere will long enchant people everywhere.
He's probably buried under the car park of the castle visitors centre.
29:30 "A seewees of chawactewistics!" "Mawwiage is what bwings us togever, today!"
Greatness!
At the very least, there was someone who was like King Arthur, and the writers then made it a story. His real name we will probably never know.
I tend to think it’s something like that too. Or maybe it’s something like a fairytale that a famous bard (or whatever the post-Roman equivalent was lol) sang about that became a well known story bc everyone was mad about getting raided all the time 🤷🏻♂️
There's some suggestive evidence that there was a great war leader named Arthur, but the evidence is so scant that that's basically all we know. No details, no other names, no list of battles, certainly no Lancelot or Guinevere.
@@AnastasiaRoseDamrau Something like that seems most likely. A local or regional “hero” who became a legend
Or several men who did similar things and oral histories blended their deeds to come up with Arthur.
Nigel Farage is King Arthur reincarnated...
Britain is weeping in pain..
We do have some problems with Arthur. We have 3 chroniclers who are relevant: Gildas, Nennius and Bede.
Nennius mentions that Arthur was a famous war leader who fought the Saxons and Picts at 12 battle, ending in victory after the battle of Mont Badon around 500 CE.
Bedes also talks about Arthur but are less detailed *(he was the one claiming Arrthur was a king), but both of them lives a couple of hundred years after Arthur.
We only have 1 actual historical account from about the right time, which is Gildas who was born in the year 500. The problem is that while he does talk a lot about raiding Saxons and Picts, he doesn't even mention Arthur who if Nennius is correct would have finally defeated the Saxons when Gildas was born and lived for some more years. That in itself is rather suspicious.
Another problem is that the 12 battles Arthur thought in doesn't fit Nennius time line. Not every battle is identified but those we have happened over a period of 180 years.
Gildas did write with admiration about another famous Roman British War leader named Ambrosius who fought the Saxons but that was far earlier in the 5th century.
So we have 2 sources for Arthur, Bede (around 700 CE) and Nennius (around 790 CE) and a third earlier source that speaks against Arthur and maybe hints towards him being based on Ambrosius . 1 of the sources (the Saxon one) claims he was a king while the Welsh source that he was a war leader or general instead.
So I don't think we can prove beyond reasonable doubts that Arthur existed since our oldest source for him was written around 200 years after his alleged death. But he could have existed.
However, one person we know did not exist is Guinevere, she wasn't invented until a lot later and added into the story. And if Arthur did exist, we don't actually have proof for him being English either. Cornish, Welsh and Scottish are also possible nationalities for him (and Ambrosius was Roman).
Personally, I think Arthur is a mix of several historical and mythological characters. If one (or more) were called "Arthur", I think a war leader was more likely then a king though.
Funny enough do we have better records for Merlin existing then Arthur, even though it seems like he was a soldier turning hermit and not a wizard... There is still not 100% proof for him being a historical person but he probably was, hermits was all the rage at the time. He was either from Northumbria or Rheged if he was real.
I don't think this was Arthur's grave in any case. It might have been from about the right time period but a lot of people died in the early 500s.
We certainly do have problems with Arthur if we think he 'finally defeated the Saxons' yet we 'have no proof he was English'.
Arthur would have been a romanised Briton, fighting the invaders who eventually became the English several centuries later. England and Wales didn't exist until the Angles and Saxons stopped fighting themselves and the Danes in the 10thC under Aethelstan, although Offa of Mercia seemed to think it was worth building a huge dyke between his kingdom and what we now call 'Wales' much earlier.
That said, I agree that Ambrosius Aurelianus is about the nearest thing we can get to a 'real' Arthur; but legends such as 'pulling a sword from a stone' could be metaphorical. Iron ore is stone and one needs to smelt it to produce iron. Perhaps 'Merlin' was the chap who taught 'Arthur' this skill, putting the whole story back to the tail end of the Bronze Age, or even the start of the Bronze Age, when considering copper and tin. Both of which were mined in 'Brittania'. Or Albion, as was.
So I concur. Arthur is a mishmash of heroic stories going back millennia, and in the end we mustn't forget, he lost.
@@DuncanHolland I disagree with one of your conclusions: a bronze sword is literary pulled out of stone when you make it, to someone who wasn't a metallurgy master, it would have looked like magic.
I think that particular myth is far older then the others.
But you clearly know your history. ;)
Wales really was more of a language and cultural identity then a unified country and it included Rheged in Scotland to some degree.
Gildas is really the only historical British source we have from the time that discuss events and the fact that he doesn't mention Arthur is really the problem with Arthur's existence.
Both Bede and Nennius use him as part of their source, Bede uses him to claim the Saxon invasion was a thing but that is not what genetics tells us. The actual numbers of Saxons that moved to England was far fewer then we thought a few years ago so it seems like it was more a cultural "invasion" then we thought.
But I am not sure if Bede didn't tell us what he said on purpose since by his time, Saxon and Angles were the large cultural identities.
In reality, it seems like the Saxon invasion was more a smaller number of elite warriors then a full scale invasion that brought their language and culture since the majority of burials we found are the same genetic people who lived in Britain before the invasion.
And that is something that was just a wild theory by a few people (like Francis Pryor of Time Team fame) 20 years ago but genetics doesn't lie and when we actually read Gildas and not Bede things suddenly fit a whole lot better.
I do enjoy the historical period, we have found a lot more about it due to recent archaeology and new technology.
I don't think we can say with 100% accuracy that Arthur didn't exist. Alexander Moffat for instance claims Arthur was a cavalry leader from Rheged which is plausible but he doesn't really have the evidence to back it up as a fact.
He likely didn't though and unless some new evidence pops up I think we have to consider him as a mythological person based on tales from Wales, Cornwall, Northumbria, Mercia and Scotland.
You can gleam small parts from historical people him like like Ambrosius and Penda but most of the modern myths were added later from people like Mallory.
@@loke6664 That's true about bronze casting too, good point. So that puts the story at the end of the neolithic!
Penda's a curious one. Mercian King of Angles with Brythonic name but a pagan. Still, Bede was nothing if not a saintly propagandist, and Gildas was very cheesed off with, well most everything really.
One thing we can say about Arthur for certain, is that folks will be talking about him in another 1500yrs and being no nearer the truth. 😉👍
@@DuncanHolland Penda is certainly one of the most curios characters at the time.
Bede actually wrote about him with respect which was very rare about a none Christian and the man killed 5 other kings in battle.
He couldn't have been incompetent since he ruled for 40 years. The Staffordshire Hoard was probably connected to him.
But I think we are getting closer to Arthur since we have learnt a lot about the period from 411 - 600 CE recently. Archaeology, genetics and some newly found documents have started to bring light to the dark ages.
We might never find Arthur, chances are high that there isn't anything to find at all but it isn't impossible.
We will continue to learn more about the time of Arthur at least.
The most interesting thing about archaeology and history is that you sometimes find out something you didn't expect, like our changing view of the Saxon invasion to mention one thing. :)
@@loke6664 it shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone to find that the 'Anglo-Saxons' were a ruling elite, just as the Romans were and the Normans were to be and still are. Meanwhile the Britons continued to till the fields, pay their taxes and die in battle for their overlords.
Maybe Geoffrey of Monmouth listened to the legends of the great unwashed, passed from generation to generation by word of mouth, about a leader who one day would rise again to save his people from servitude.
Then he thought 'damn, this will sell millions' and wrote his 'history'.
He wasn't wrong, although the legend so far is, eh?
Loved it all...who knows... thanks nugget.
The books by Wilson and Blackett indicate the truth using documents and a silver cross with Rex Artorium written on it.
Obvious fakery here. The inscription and electrum cross have never been submitted for expert analysis. The latin is also incorrect.
I found Santa's hat by counting backwards from 67 til it equaled the same number as Col Sanders secret recipe spices. Then walked three paces past the holy grail location and there it was.
@@albertbernardcontreras2241 🍻 cheers
😅😅
Oh go away
😂😅😂😅😂
@@Fair_dinkum ...or in the triangle on Skinwalker Ranch?
I'm nowhere near as smart as Bligh Bond, but if I were investigating anything regarding King Arthur, and I had an opportunity to speak with the dead, I wouldn't be chatting with some random monks, Id contact Arthur himself.
Is it my phone are all the you tube videos out of sync with the sound ?
It's funny how they'd doubt the existence of an island simply because they can't find it off their coast.
Forgetting that England was once full of fens, which had islands themselves.
I've heard that Camelot was a silly place.
You heard wrong
We're opera mad in Camelot
We sing from the diaphragm a lot
I've heard they like the name Lance a lot, there
You have to push the pram-a-lot.
Greatness!
Only issue is the actual number of the beast is 616
No, it's actually 999
"Six hundred, 3 score and six" Do the math, genius. I swear, where do people like you come from?
If there ever was a KING ARTHUR I think people should let him rest in peace & live on through what he ACCOMPLISHED in his LIFE that has been passed down through the AGES!!!
Confidence Artist.
It's hilarious to me that so many of us can feel certain about things that are simultaneously impossible to prove ( King Arthur was a real person) and impossible to disprove (King Arthur never existed) I guess we'll never know.......
I hope he existed. Hey we are here. Why couldn't he. No reason he didn't.
Not what the Bruts of England in the Bodlian Library say. They state plainly that Arthur was crowned king in South Wales. And the Charters of Llandaff Cathedral name King Arthur and thank him for his land grants to the Church in South Wales. He was called both Arthur and Arthrwys ( Welsh version) in the Charters. His royal lineage is well known. His father, King Meurig of Gwent, is buried at Llandaff Cathedral and his grandfather, King Tewdrig of Gwent, is buried at Mathern Church near Chepstow. Dubricius, the bishop who crowned Arthuras King of Gwent at Caerleon, is also entombed at Llandaff, and he was Arthur’s uncle. Wilson and Blackett discovered a silver cross with Arthurs name on it at St Peter’s Church near Caer Caradoc marked Pro Anima Artorius ( for the soul of Arthur) and also even his gravestone, marked Artorius Rex Fili Mauricius ( Latin version of Meurig.).These facts have been suppressed by the English Establishment which even got museums to turn down the offer of testing/ displaying these artefacts. You will need to see W and B vids on TH-cam or read their books to find out why. Or Google Pro Anima Artorius to see the silver cross and read about its discovery. Goodness knows why people still push the well known hoax at Glastonbury, carried out by monks there after a fire. They were desperate for pilgrims to visit with money and used the Arthur hoax to achieve that. Glastonbury was not even built until six centuries after the death of Arthur !!.
Arthur's tomb is in Bury St Edmunds.
I believe that there was a Welsh war leader named Arthur, who fought the Anglo Saxons and Vikings, every thing else is romanticism, a good story to tell while sitting round the fire at night.
Exactly the same as Jesus.
I believe that there was a bloke named Jesus , a very common name in those days. I think he was a nice bloke who went round helping people and traveled around giving speeches in market squares. People told stories about him whilst sitting around a fire .
Over the years the truth has been lost due to over exaggerated story telling
Arthur was King of Gwent and was a real as you or I and there is plenty of evidence to prove it. See my longish reply to Jarodmasc, below.
graham Philips has found king Arthur's grave but can't get permission to dig.
No - THINKS he has found King Arthur's grave. But he hasn't
@@angusmurray3767 let him prove his theory
No - thinks he's found it.
Bet it’s at Oak island. 👍🏼
34:40 We're excavating innit? Here lads, take this 'ere skeleton. I dunno, some important lass, queen guinea pig?
😂😂
What about an excalibur did they found the sword?
Explore Golgumbaz Deccan india 🇮🇳
There is no grave in the world that holds Arthur. He was not buried under the name of Arthur. Not in England.
I am pretty certain that King Arthur is a fictional person...
Arthur was king of Gwent in the sixth century, like his father and grandfather. He is very well attested in the Glamorgan king lists and in the Llandaff Charters, where his father is buried in the cathedral and also his uncle, who crowned him at Caerleon. The fictional bit comes in after his death when English and French Romance writers added on lots of nonsense about shining armour, maidens, made up knights and quests etc etc. Arthur was called Arthrwys and Arthur in the charters of Llandaff and is thanked for his land gifts to the Church. The cathedral is the only one in Britain where there is a stained glass window showing both Arthur and his grandfather, Tewdric, who is buried at Mathern in Gwent.
@@petrovonoccymro9063 What am I to believe? We have your claim and then 30 people who say no. Well done, but I am standing on my words, No King A.
@@jasonbrogdon1 the ONLY king in British history who lived at the right time, the late sixth century, who fought the Saxons who were trying to invade Wales, and who was called Arthur, was King Arthur of Gwent. The Bodlian library in Oxford houses the Bruts ( tales) of England. Even they state that “ Arthur was crownede kynge in Glamorgayne.” I have seen this page myself. The king lists of Glamorgan plainly show Arthur as king, as was his father and grandfather. The problem is that much of what we now regard as Arthurian tales came much later after his death and fancified and glorified him. So much so that we now regard him as a legend who never lived. But he did. This was done deliberately by the English state because a German family, the Hanoverians, were on the throne, and the state did not want British people remembering the old royal lines. They wanted and to this day want people in Britain to regard themselves as just British, rather than English, Welsh and Scottish. Read up the works and books of Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett for the truth about the Welsh Arthur. Incidentally, Llandaff Cathedral is the ONLY cathedral in Britain to have a stained glass window that depicts both King Arthur and his grandfather, King Tewdric. I repeat, Dubricius, the bishop who crowned Arthur at Caerleon, is buried at Llandaff Cathedral. You can visit and touch his tomb. I have done so. Arthurs grandfather Tewdric, who died fighting a Saxon raid at Tintern, and keeping them out of South Wales, is buried at Mathern Church, near Chepstow in Gwent. All these historical facts have been deliberately obscured by the Crown and Establishment for the reasons mentioned above. And all of this was taught as history in Welsh schools until the 1920s, when that same Crown and Establishment sacked all Welsh speaking teachers and replaced them with English speaking ones and got rid of all those history books and replaced them with new ones with no trace of the Welsh original kings. Unfortunately, the Welsh have reclaimed their history after Wilson and Blackett researched for years and discovered the truth.
At least those Hanoverians didn't hand out smallpox laden blankets to the Welsh.
I heard King Arthur Camelot. Why?
It's a busy life in Camelot
I have to push the pram a lot
Maybe its 999
Sorry but this is laughable, they would've filled in the holes during clean up after Henry 8th destroyed it lol
Nope
No, because King Arthur NEVER FUCKING EXISTED.
Duke of Edinburgh my tired Daiymo Shogun hands. Sahere sahere. You are like Bolsonaro.
We dine well here in Camelot
We eat ham and jam and spam a lot
Whybdont they leave the dead alone
The dead don't mind - they're dead.
Why not? Discovering history and stories are amazing, without this we wouldn’t know we came from Australopithecus lmao cuz if we have to leave bones buried beneath earth there’s no knowledge of history.
He's buried in Antarctica in the submerged ruins of Atlantis.
Cuz you know... the British came from Atlantis 😉
I feel like King Arthur was just a way some early priest decided to make The Epic of Gilgamesh seem relatable to his fellow Britons lol
Just give the facts, not this post story stealing from Grims fairytales. All I have to see is you guys posting it to give all future posts a thumbs down.
Considering your no real king author or can't be a grave or king author
uh???
What he means is that considering there is no real king arthur there can't be a grave of king arthur. But how can he be sure?
The last part of the title says it all....Myth Hunters....Chasing a Myth,a story...There was NO King Arthur...I'll not bother watching
But you could be bothered to reply you sad guy lol
King Arthur featured in the Placenames of Central Scotland, the home of the oldest Welsh poetry.
Arthur's Seat, Ben Arthur, Arthur lie, Arthur House ad Arthur's O'on, oven described as the most perfect Roman building existing, this was in Larbert parish and demolished to build a mill dam for the Forth & Clyde Canal. A beehive structure 30 yards in circumference with an arched doorway 8 ft in height. No cement used in its construction yet perfectly joined.