But most scholars have dismissed any connection with Arthur beyond the similar names, reasoning that the variants of Artognou are well-attested as their own names, and that there is no real reason to suppose that Arthur, if he existed, was not named 'Arthur' as universally recorded in Welsh/Cornish/Breton. A fragment of a tablet speaking of an apparently powerful man named 'Artognou' in Latin, which would be 'Arthnou' or 'Arthneu' in Welsh/Cornish/Breton, was unearthed in Tintagel in Cornwall (where Geoffrey of Monmouth says Arthur was born) and dated from roughly the correct time period. Another relatively recent find which caused a bit of buzz occurred in 1998. Nowadays, most scholars dismiss the Glastonbury findings as a financially and/or politically motivated hoax, to enrich the abbey and/or to keep the uppity non-Norman native British/Welsh/Cornish/etc. The most famous examples of these are the graves and burial cross of Arthur and his queen Guinevere at Glastonbury Abbey, said to have been unearthed in 1191 by its monks, though this conflicts with older legends about his mysterious disappearance and eventual return.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |