'King Arthur' Chapel Near Glastonbury Uncovered

Remains of a medieval building which, according to legend, King Arthur visited, have been uncovered for the first time in almost 50 years. Excavations at Beckery Chapel near Glastonbury aim to accurately date buildings of an early Christian chapel.

During an open day on Sunday visitors will be able to see remains which were last excavated in 1967-1968. The trenches will then be filled in and the position of the chapel will be marked on the ground in the field.

Archaeologist, Dr Richard Brunning, from the South West Heritage Trust, said: "Previous excavations in the 1960s suggested that a Saxon monastery may have been present on the site before it became a chapel. The present research aims to get new scientific dating samples to precisely date the monastic cemetery for the first time."
The chapel is connected to legendary visits by King Arthur, who is said to have seen a vision of Mary Magdalene and the baby Jesus there.

The Irish saint Bridget also reputedly visited it in AD 488 and left some possessions at the site, which later became a place of pilgrimage.

Read more at archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com...

Now now this do not mean King Arthur is any more real than Robin Hood ,but finding a chapel connected to the legend is still pretty kool now I want to go in search of knights Templars and the holy grail , some sources said he was a composite of various legends and most put him in Britain warding off the invading Saxons, I especially liked the more elaborate 11th century version by Geoffrey of Monmouth which is slightly multiculti the article above is more of a blurb but klik to see the ruins.

a reply to: Spider879

The very early manuscript: "Y Gododdin speaks of Arthur as if his reputation were common knowledge. This was in approximately AD 600, and well before the more fanciful renditions of the Arthurian legends.

I do believe there was a Chieftain or King who united warring tribes against common foes. The idea of a round table of peers, but who made oaths of loyalty to the commander in chief, makes so much sense in that context. The magician/advisor in a time when Christianity was being introduced and the "old ways" still held equal sway also seems reasonable to me.

So many things in the Arthurian legends seem so rational, especially considering the "mental filters" of the medieval observers reporting it.

I don't have any answers to offer, no-one really does, but I can see how a new kind of political system could come about, built upon high ideals and superstitious beliefs.

Great stuff!

originally posted by: Spider879
Now now this do not mean King Arthur is any more real than Robin Hood ,but finding a chapel connected to the legend is still pretty kool now I want to go in search of knights Templars and the holy grail , some sources said he was a composite of various legends and most put him in Britain warding off the invading Saxons, I especially liked the more elaborate 11th century version by Geoffrey of Monmouth which is slightly multiculti the article above is more of a blurb but klik to see the ruins.

King Arthur and Robin Hood were very real ideals

The Templars are all over the place in the UK. They had an out post in practically every major trading centre in the UK. Very widespread and influencial, and of course, in England they were not rounded up and handed over to the Church and subsequently King Philip of France. The were well respected and well integrated, with many high standing members of the secular and religious communities coming forth to defend their good standing.

In terms of the "Holy Grail", you're more likely to have success with Percival/Peredur and Sir Gawaine and the Green Knight than any of the Arthur derivatives. Although, TH White The Once and Future King is always worth reading (again and again) as it sheds much of the overly romanticised, uptight, Arcadian contaminations and is just one of the most awesome books ever.

That both Brigid and Arthur are reputed to have been there is terribly interesting though, demonstrating a succession of occupiers belief systems with a similarity in basis.

Thanks for posting.

a reply to: Spider879

I believe there were 2 King Arthur's: Arthur 1 of Warwickshire the 4th century son of the Emperor Magnus Maximus and the other, his 6th century descendant and a King of Glamorgan - their careers rolled into one and elaborated upon by medieval poets etc.

There are a few good books about the British Kings, I have the one by Adrian Gilbert coauthored with Alan Wilson and Baram blackett. We lost our line of Kingship to make way for the Hanovarians from Germany and hence all reference to who really is a King of Britain and who are Germanic usurpers who we have parked luxuriously there today has been erased as far as possible.

We are lucky to have the research by these men - and its well worth looking at because if you follow their leads to check some of them - you will see the evidence yourself.

As far as Glastonbury is concerned its a very tourist dependant town, expensive and so needs continual stimulation of finds to keep its claimed validity going etc.

I would urge anyone who is interested in King Arthur and especially the British kingship line to read the Holy Kingdom because it is full of research and poses a lot of questions about things religious that Rome would prefer you not to know.

As chrOnaut rightly says Arthur was dated AD 600 and unified parts of Britain.

originally posted by: Anaana

originally posted by: Spider879
Now now this do not mean King Arthur is any more real than Robin Hood ,but finding a chapel connected to the legend is still pretty kool now I want to go in search of knights Templars and the holy grail , some sources said he was a composite of various legends and most put him in Britain warding off the invading Saxons, I especially liked the more elaborate 11th century version by Geoffrey of Monmouth which is slightly multiculti the article above is more of a blurb but klik to see the ruins.

King Arthur and Robin Hood were very real ideals

The Templars are all over the place in the UK. They had an out post in practically every major trading centre in the UK. Very widespread and influencial, and of course, in England they were not rounded up and handed over to the Church and subsequently King Philip of France. The were well respected and well integrated, with many high standing members of the secular and religious communities coming forth to defend their good standing.

In terms of the "Holy Grail", you're more likely to have success with Percival/Peredur and Sir Gawaine and the Green Knight than any of the Arthur derivatives. Although, TH White The Once and Future King is always worth reading (again and again) as it sheds much of the overly romanticised, uptight, Arcadian contaminations and is just one of the most awesome books ever.

That both Brigid and Arthur are reputed to have been there is terribly interesting though, demonstrating a succession of occupiers belief systems with a similarity in basis.

Thanks for posting.

Yes I was indeed thinking of Percival whose travels took him to Belakane queen of the Moors with whom she had a son name Feirefis, in an almost Solomonesque like story, btw I just now came across some newly discovered ruins of church art in northern Sudan of about the same age of the Arthurian chapel.

Painted Medieval church walls discovered in Northern Sudan Read more at archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com...

In my imagination he simply ended up in Makuria looking for his Grail but found something else, but hey you are the writer , make a story out of it or a screen play..

a reply to: Shiloh7

Cheers for posting about that book, I'll get it ordered as it seems promising. I have always been fascinated with the origins of this land, everything I've read in the past seems to go dead around 500-550AD.

The Romans after all occupied the UK and they had a habit of working with and integrating locals. I personally always figured the kingdoms stood during and shortly after the Romans left. I can imagine the Vatican has tonnes of writing based on the emerald isles.

I'm hoping I will learn more about what we call Northumbria. The Romans mentioned the lands as a kingdom, but again I've never read much or anything I can remember about those lands before 500AD.

a reply to: Shiloh7

The Hanoverians were related to the Stuarts. You have to go back to Harold II in 1066 to find a 100% pure English (well, Saxon really) king.

a reply to: Shiloh7

Wow Two King Arthurs learnt something new today will dig deeper into both thanks..

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Ah, King Arthur fought the Saxons and he was a British King. Most of the information I referred to able comes from the Welsh records which didn't get neutered like the ones closer to London.

The Stuarts came from the Scottish line and united the country but they were nearly 1000 years after King Arthur.

This is pretty neat.

But I wanted to mention Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Chronicals for anyone interested in historical fiction. I read them years ago, and they are still some of my favorite books and likely a more realistic portrayal of the Arthurian legend.

When that atrocious movie King Arthur came out I was super pumped, thinking it'd be similar. I was much dismayed, but shouldn't have been surprised.

a reply to: Spider879

Why the hell not dig it up? Let's get some answers on this grail issue.

a reply to: Spider879

Spider,
Thanks for posting, the Arthurian period is one of my faves.

I'd like to add, when one discusses whether or not Arthur was a real person, one cant forget to look at the legends in a Roman Britain context, and that elements of the story were parts of pre existing Sarmation and Alan mythology.

*
The Nibelungen a Burgundian saga
From this time, the fifth century, date the events recounted in several epics as the Edda and the Nibelungen. The epic of the Nibelungen is first recorded in Passau on the Danube around the year 1200. It recounts the Dutch hero Siegfried (Zegevrijt) of Xanten, who defeated the Snake Dragon (Ribbon Dragon) and by the bath in his blood had become invulnerable.
The ribbon dragon seems to be a metaphor for the drago, the wing- and legless dragon that the Sarmatians had as standard and field character. Sarmatians were encamped in that time on the Rhine near Xanten. Siegfried conquered the land and the treasure of the Nibelungen on the edge of his empire. Regarding Nibelungen is thought to Niviella the current Nivelles.
Siegfried went to the court of Gundahar, king of Burgundy at Worms to marry his Sister Kriemhilde. The father of Gundahar was king Dankwart and an influential uncle was called Hagen of Tronje, which is akin to Traiana, another name for Castra Vetera located near Xanten.
Betrayed by his envious sister-in-law Brunhilde Siegfried is murdered by Hagen. His widow Kiemhilde then marries King Etzel, the Hun Attila, who had in Pannonia. now Hungary his capital. The wedding turned into a massacre between Huns and Burgundians. (11)
*
The Alanian origin of the Legends of King Arthur and his Knights Table
from the Narts saga
In the year 175 AD a treaty was concluded between the Roman emperor and the Sarmatians. One of the stipulations was that the Sarmatians would provide Rome with a cavalry of 8,000 men.
5,500 of them formed the sixth legion Victrix, that was sent to Britain. They are placed at the northern border of the Roman Empire near on Hadrian's Wall, the barrier against the Picts and Saxons. Later they were largely withdrawn from Britain.
One company, the Ala prima Sarmatorum stayed permanently in England and during a long time a great Sarmatian colony of soldiers existed in Bremetenacum Veteranorum, at current Ribchester in Lancashire where veterans were given land and settled with their wives and children in the 4th century. In this region are Sarmatian tombstones preserved. (11a)
Besides these archaeological remains are to date still present their myths and legends. the same as those that survived at other descendants of the Sarmatians in other counties of Europe as in northern France and in North Ossetia-Alania, where live the descendants of the East Alans. In this remote country survived the story Cycle of the Narts.
The hero in the Ossetian tale Batraz lives on in the British King Arthur. The legends surrounding Arthur and his knights are interlard with the myths of the Nart cyclus.

In old English chronicles Arthur is named a Celtic-Roman army chief. It is assumed that he could be the Sarmatian praefect Lucius Artorius Castus.

www.marres.education...

Nearly a decade before that terrible movie, I read an article by some british researcher who was studying the case for the arthurian legends being a composite mythology, comprised of stories that sarmation and alan soldiers brought with them to their posting in britain and over the centuries they got absorbed into more recent lore from the roman abandonment of britain, during the plague of justinian and the mid sixth century climate downturn.

a reply to: punkinworks10

Thanks Punkinsworks I saw an old movie not sure if it was German or Russian?? of Siegfried it was a silent movie with subtitles but with great cinematography, I liked the idea of ex Roman soldiers taking up the roles of chiefs it would make sense since some would have families and would be bound to the land, their expertise as soldiers would place them in the right spot to be valuable especially in times of trouble, and yeah the movie Arthur was kinda sucky they could have done better, my favorite Arthurian flick of all times is the movie Excalibur.

a reply to: Anaana

Well the Sword in the Stone is real so who knows.
www.atlasobscura.com...
www.ancient-origins.net...

originally posted by: Spider879
In my imagination he simply ended up in Makuria looking for his Grail but found something else, but hey you are the writer , make a story out of it or a screen play..

I'm much more of a note scribbler than a writer...but that is super interesting. I don't know enough about this period of African history so excuse my ignorance, but those paintings look Western Christian to me, that surprises me, I was expecting them to be Coptic.

Thanks for that.

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: Spider879

We lost our line of Kingship to make way for the Hanovarians from Germany and hence all reference to who really is a King of Britain and who are Germanic usurpers who we have parked luxuriously there today has been erased as far as possible.

With “we” I suppose you mean a mere handful of people who can track an unbroken genetic lineage back to the Ancient Britons (who by the way also took the land from an earlier population about 8000 years ago)?

I remember taking the subway in the outskirts of London, I sometimes found myself in a car with mostly black Londoners. I don't think they or most other modern British people really care whether the Royal Family is Briton or “Germanic usurpers” as you call it.

Perhaps you should switch to speaking Ancient Brittonic, after all the English language is but a mix of Germanic and Norse, and borrowed most of its vocabulary from medieval French.

I guess you could say that a true king takes the power, rather than becoming King because you're born out of the accepted ruling elite. Arthur of the legends is an usurper king, and he could have been a Roman for all we know. In that sense, the Anglo Saxon and Norse kings that followed earned their right to the throne, because they took it.