Senate Member
Posts: 6,091 
April 2nd, 2007, 01:54 PM
The Glastonbury Exhumation
by Sir Egil Njalsson
Statue of King Arthur
"The battle which was now joined between them was fiercer than ever, for almost all the leaders on both sides were present and rushed into the fight at the head of their troops... Arthur himself, our renowned King, was mortally wounded and was carried off to the Isle of Avalon, so that his wounds might be attended to... This in the year 542 after our Lord's Incarnation."1
Thus it was that the man known forever after as King Arthur passed into immortality. His enemy Mordred had been slain, but at great cost. Arthur himself was mortally wounded, and carried off to the mysterious "Isle of Avalon." Some said he died there, and was buried; but the more popular legend claimed that he was nursed back to health through magical means, and that ever since that time he has been awaiting the right time for his triumphant return.
Sir Mordred, King Arthur's enemy
Contemporary records of Arthur's exploits are extremely limited, and incredibly lacking in detail. As the centuries went by, however, details were added to the original tales. Back in the 6th century, for instance, no author bothered to identify just exactly where "Avalon" was. Either it was so commonly known that no explanation was necessary, or it was considered a mythical enchanted place. However, authors eventually agreed that "Avalon" was the place now known as "Glastonbury," the site of a major monastery. Ralph of Coggeshall (c.1187+) claimed that Glastonbury was once surrounded by swamps, and was called the Isle of Avalon because of its direct translation as "the isle of fruit trees." Gerald of Wales (c.1193+), writing at approximately the same time, agreed on the fruit tree reference. He added that the site was once called, in British, both "Inis Avallon" and "Inis Gutrin," the latter meaning "the isle of glass." In the Saxon tongue, the latter reference became "Glastingeburi," since in Saxon, "glas" means "glass," and "buri" means "camp" or "city."
"After the battle of Kemelen... Arthur was mortally wounded there, and a noblewoman, who was his relative and who was named Morgan, had his body conveyed to the Isle of Avalon, now called Glastonbury. After he died, she saw to it that his body was buried in its consecrated burial ground. Because of this, the British story tellers and poets pretended that a fantastic goddess -- the aforementioned Morgan -- conveyed the body of Arthur to the Isle of Avalon to heal his wounds. When his wounds are healed, they say, the King will come back, mighty and powerful, to rule the Britons as he had formerly done. Because of this, even now they await his coming, just as the Jews await their Messiah, but with greater foolishness and disappointment, for they have been deluded by a greater deception..."2
In the year of our Lord 1191, over five centuries after the death of Arthur, rumors began to circulate saying that Arthur had indeed returned, and was roving through the forests of Britain, gathering support for his retaking of the throne. This, as one might imagine, was rather distressing to the current king of England, who rather liked his job, and wanted to keep it. And he was in a position to do something about it.
The king approached Abbot Henry of Glastonbury, "reminding" him of the fact that Arthur's body had now been entombed at the Abbey of Glastonbury for 640 years, beneath two stone pyramids, and that perhaps it was time to re-inter the body with more ceremony.
Therefore, the Abbot had the site surrounded by a curtain, and ordered that the bodies of Arthur and Guinevere be dug up.
Another version of the reason for the excavation is that they were digging to bury one of their deceased monks who had given specific instructions as to where to place his body, and they "accidentally" ran across Arthur's tomb.
This excavation naturally prompted great public interest, and the abbey profited from the increased tourism. The monks continued to work behind a curtain, out of view of the public eye, but with the full blessing and support of the king.
Not too surprisingly, the excavation successfully produced a body (or two bodies, depending on the account). Arthur's death had been proven to the satisfaction of the public, and the rumors of Arthur's return were squelched. The kingdom was safe. Yet to the modern investigator, certain elements of the exhumation simply do not have the ring of truth.
As much as 16 feet down (depending on whose account you believe -- some authors claim he was buried abnormally deep so as to ensure that the body would not be found and desecrated by raiders), the monks of Glastonbury discovered the remains of "Arthur," a surprisingly large man, in a hollowed out tree trunk which had been capped by a stone lid. Inset into the underside of the lid was a lead cross, about a foot long, with a Latin inscription. Oddly enough, though, the cross was set into the stone in such a way that the letters were facing the stone, rather than facing out, so that you had to peel the cross out in order to see the inscription. While odd, this fact in itself is irrelevant to the investigation of the truthfulness of the statement recorded on the cross.
Gerald of Wales claimed to have seen and touched the cross itself, and up to the 16th and early 17th century there were still accounts of eyewitnesses. However, the artifact has since disappeared, and accounts of exactly what the engraving said vary widely in their quoted text. The one I consider most accurate (and the simplest) is attached. I consider it authoritative, since it seems to have been sketched from the original. However, there is always the possibility that the drawing was an educated guess as to what the cross looked like. The text, in Latin, reads "Hic Iacet Sepultus Inclitus Rex Arturius In Insula Avalonia," which translates to "Here lies buried the illustrious King Arthur on the Isle of Avalon." Other references to this cross claim that it mentioned his battles, or his greatness, or his wife Guinevere who was supposedly buried next to him at this same site.
Yet besides the incredible coincidences involved in producing the body of Arthur at this particularly convenient historic point, there is one further bit of evidence that can only make one shake their head in disbelief.
Even back in the 12th century, the general public was aware that languages change over time. (One of the appeals of Latin is that it is now considered a dead language, and therefore has ceased to change as the centuries pass by.) In particular, before the advent of the printing press, the shapes of letters were rather subject to change from one century to the next. The public knew this, and looking at the cross, recognized the letters as "old." That is, those letters on the inscription are not 12th-century letters.
However, they are also not 6th-century letters, as they should be if they were engraved at the time of Arthur's death and burial.
They were 10th-century letters.
The oldest manuscripts at the Abbey of Glastonbury at the time of the excavation dated from the 10th century.
In other words, it is quite evident that whoever carved the cross (in the 12th century) knew that they couldn't get away with "modern" letters, and found the oldest letters available. Unfortunately, they didn't have anything dating from Arthur's time. So they made do with what was available to them at the time.
Oops.
Therefore, although the Glastonbury exhumation of 1191 served its purpose, in squelching a hostile takeover of the throne of England, it failed ultimately to answer the question: what happened to Arthur? It is quite evident that the tomb they "unearthed" was a hoax.
So where is Arthur? Is he lying entombed somewhere else at or near Glastonbury, or another "Isle of Avalon?" Or is he even now rebuilding his strength, and awaiting the time when England will need him most?
Only time will tell.
Arthur and his entourage
The Glastonbury Exhumation
by Sir Egil Njalsson
Statue of King Arthur
"The battle which was now joined between them was fiercer than ever, for almost all the leaders on both sides were present and rushed into the fight at the head of their troops... Arthur himself, our renowned King, was mortally wounded and was carried off to the Isle of Avalon, so that his wounds might be attended to... This in the year 542 after our Lord's Incarnation."1
Thus it was that the man known forever after as King Arthur passed into immortality. His enemy Mordred had been slain, but at great cost. Arthur himself was mortally wounded, and carried off to the mysterious "Isle of Avalon." Some said he died there, and was buried; but the more popular legend claimed that he was nursed back to health through magical means, and that ever since that time he has been awaiting the right time for his triumphant return.
Sir Mordred, King Arthur's enemy
Contemporary records of Arthur's exploits are extremely limited, and incredibly lacking in detail. As the centuries went by, however, details were added to the original tales. Back in the 6th century, for instance, no author bothered to identify just exactly where "Avalon" was. Either it was so commonly known that no explanation was necessary, or it was considered a mythical enchanted place. However, authors eventually agreed that "Avalon" was the place now known as "Glastonbury," the site of a major monastery. Ralph of Coggeshall (c.1187+) claimed that Glastonbury was once surrounded by swamps, and was called the Isle of Avalon because of its direct translation as "the isle of fruit trees." Gerald of Wales (c.1193+), writing at approximately the same time, agreed on the fruit tree reference. He added that the site was once called, in British, both "Inis Avallon" and "Inis Gutrin," the latter meaning "the isle of glass." In the Saxon tongue, the latter reference became "Glastingeburi," since in Saxon, "glas" means "glass," and "buri" means "camp" or "city."
"After the battle of Kemelen... Arthur was mortally wounded there, and a noblewoman, who was his relative and who was named Morgan, had his body conveyed to the Isle of Avalon, now called Glastonbury. After he died, she saw to it that his body was buried in its consecrated burial ground. Because of this, the British story tellers and poets pretended that a fantastic goddess -- the aforementioned Morgan -- conveyed the body of Arthur to the Isle of Avalon to heal his wounds. When his wounds are healed, they say, the King will come back, mighty and powerful, to rule the Britons as he had formerly done. Because of this, even now they await his coming, just as the Jews await their Messiah, but with greater foolishness and disappointment, for they have been deluded by a greater deception..."2
In the year of our Lord 1191, over five centuries after the death of Arthur, rumors began to circulate saying that Arthur had indeed returned, and was roving through the forests of Britain, gathering support for his retaking of the throne. This, as one might imagine, was rather distressing to the current king of England, who rather liked his job, and wanted to keep it. And he was in a position to do something about it.
The king approached Abbot Henry of Glastonbury, "reminding" him of the fact that Arthur's body had now been entombed at the Abbey of Glastonbury for 640 years, beneath two stone pyramids, and that perhaps it was time to re-inter the body with more ceremony.
Therefore, the Abbot had the site surrounded by a curtain, and ordered that the bodies of Arthur and Guinevere be dug up.
Another version of the reason for the excavation is that they were digging to bury one of their deceased monks who had given specific instructions as to where to place his body, and they "accidentally" ran across Arthur's tomb.
This excavation naturally prompted great public interest, and the abbey profited from the increased tourism. The monks continued to work behind a curtain, out of view of the public eye, but with the full blessing and support of the king.
Not too surprisingly, the excavation successfully produced a body (or two bodies, depending on the account). Arthur's death had been proven to the satisfaction of the public, and the rumors of Arthur's return were squelched. The kingdom was safe. Yet to the modern investigator, certain elements of the exhumation simply do not have the ring of truth.
As much as 16 feet down (depending on whose account you believe -- some authors claim he was buried abnormally deep so as to ensure that the body would not be found and desecrated by raiders), the monks of Glastonbury discovered the remains of "Arthur," a surprisingly large man, in a hollowed out tree trunk which had been capped by a stone lid. Inset into the underside of the lid was a lead cross, about a foot long, with a Latin inscription. Oddly enough, though, the cross was set into the stone in such a way that the letters were facing the stone, rather than facing out, so that you had to peel the cross out in order to see the inscription. While odd, this fact in itself is irrelevant to the investigation of the truthfulness of the statement recorded on the cross.
Gerald of Wales claimed to have seen and touched the cross itself, and up to the 16th and early 17th century there were still accounts of eyewitnesses. However, the artifact has since disappeared, and accounts of exactly what the engraving said vary widely in their quoted text. The one I consider most accurate (and the simplest) is attached. I consider it authoritative, since it seems to have been sketched from the original. However, there is always the possibility that the drawing was an educated guess as to what the cross looked like. The text, in Latin, reads "Hic Iacet Sepultus Inclitus Rex Arturius In Insula Avalonia," which translates to "Here lies buried the illustrious King Arthur on the Isle of Avalon." Other references to this cross claim that it mentioned his battles, or his greatness, or his wife Guinevere who was supposedly buried next to him at this same site.
Yet besides the incredible coincidences involved in producing the body of Arthur at this particularly convenient historic point, there is one further bit of evidence that can only make one shake their head in disbelief.
Even back in the 12th century, the general public was aware that languages change over time. (One of the appeals of Latin is that it is now considered a dead language, and therefore has ceased to change as the centuries pass by.) In particular, before the advent of the printing press, the shapes of letters were rather subject to change from one century to the next. The public knew this, and looking at the cross, recognized the letters as "old." That is, those letters on the inscription are not 12th-century letters.
However, they are also not 6th-century letters, as they should be if they were engraved at the time of Arthur's death and burial.
They were 10th-century letters.
The oldest manuscripts at the Abbey of Glastonbury at the time of the excavation dated from the 10th century.
In other words, it is quite evident that whoever carved the cross (in the 12th century) knew that they couldn't get away with "modern" letters, and found the oldest letters available. Unfortunately, they didn't have anything dating from Arthur's time. So they made do with what was available to them at the time.
Oops.
Therefore, although the Glastonbury exhumation of 1191 served its purpose, in squelching a hostile takeover of the throne of England, it failed ultimately to answer the question: what happened to Arthur? It is quite evident that the tomb they "unearthed" was a hoax.
So where is Arthur? Is he lying entombed somewhere else at or near Glastonbury, or another "Isle of Avalon?" Or is he even now rebuilding his strength, and awaiting the time when England will need him most?
Only time will tell.
Arthur and his entourage
- King Arthur
- the Round Table
- Guinevere, wife of Arthur
- Excalibur, Arthur's magicsword
- Uther Pendragon, father of Arthur
- Camelot, Arthur's capital
- Mordred, Arthur's heir and enemy
- Avalon, Arthur's resting place
- Lancelot
- Galahad
- Tristan
- Gawain
- Percival
- Bors
- Geraint
- Gareth
- Kay
- Lamorak
- Gaheris
- Bedivere
- Wallo
- Agravaine
- Sagramore
House Member
Posts: 3,167
April 2nd, 2007, 05:27 PM
I was there during the period. Arthur was brave and beloved but his adventures have been grossly embellished. Nothing in the pictures shown here even remotely attests to his much humbler environs. A great man, a good king. But mortal I'm sure to his dismay.
I was there during the period. Arthur was brave and beloved but his adventures have been grossly embellished. Nothing in the pictures shown here even remotely attests to his much humbler environs. A great man, a good king. But mortal I'm sure to his dismay.
Time Out
Posts: 4,276
Videos: 1
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Videos: 1
Location: Richmond, Virginia
April 2nd, 2007, 05:32 PM
Quoting tamarin
Arent the greatest of kings those that are mere mortals but believe in their own greatness?
I was there during the period. Arthur was brave and beloved but his adventures have been grossly embellished. Nothing in the pictures shown here even remotely attests to his much humbler environs. A great man, a good king. But mortal I'm sure to his dismay.
