Camelot Found?

>>2123793

As Bec Crew explained for us earlier this year:

"Despite the fact that the mythological figure has been wildly popular for centuries, no one’s actually been able to prove he existed.But what makes Arthur so intriguing is the way we can tie certain historical places and events to him."

But if we take a big leap and assume Camelot did exist, where was it?

Previous research has suggested thatit could have been in places like Caerleon in South Wales or Cadbury Castle in England. But so far, there's not been enough archaeological evidence to tie any physical place to the legend.

So Field did additional research based on the historical forts of the timeand compared them to the legend of King Arthur. He says the site that best fits Camelot was the modern-day village of Slack.

Looking at Slack today, you'd be hard-pressed to find a reason why someone would want to build a stronghold in what looks to be a mere clearing, but Field says the location was once of great military importance.

Back in 500 AD, Celtic-speaking Britons held back Anglo-Saxon invaders who flooded into the country from the north and west coasts.

It turns out that Slack, which is seemingly in the middle of nowhere, could have been the ideal spot to set up camp to quickly funnel troops to either coast to defend the nation. Its middle-of-nowhere-ness, it turns out, was important.

To add to Field's hypothesis, in Roman times, the fort at Slack was thought to be named Camulodunum, which researchers think might have changed linguistically over the years to become Camelot.

cont.

>>2123793
that's a bit far north for him isn't it? I thought he was associated with either Wales or Cornwall somehow

>>2123800

And that could explain why the first mention of Camelot only surfaced in literature many years after King Arthur’s suspected rule.
"If there was a real King Arthur, he will have lived around [500 AD], although the first mention of him in Camelot is in a French poem from the Champagne region of France from 1180 [AD]," saidField.

"There is no mention of Camelot in the period between those dates, known as the Dark Ages, when the country was at war, and very little was recorded. In this gap, people passed on information, much got lost in transmission, and people may have made up facts or just messed up known information."

Without some type of physical proof in the form of archaeological remains, we won't be able to confirm if Field is onto something here. But he's not the only researcher seeking out the legendary artefacts.

Earlier this year, a team of British archaeologists uncovered a series of massive walls that appear to be from the Dark Ages at a location thought to be tied to the Arthurian legend.

The researchers suggested that these walls were once part of the palace where King Arthur was born, and they're currently excavating the site to uncover more details.

But while it’s fun to think that the King Arthur of legend - who had a roundtable and hung out with a wizard named Merlin - did actually exist, some experts claim that the Arthurian legend might actually be a hodgepodge of different British rulers coming together into a single, unified story.

So far, Field - who's been researching Slack for the past 18 months - hasn't mentioned taking his idea further into a physical dig at the site.

Buthopefully, his hypothesis will prompt further archaeological studyat this site or others like it, so we can finally getsome real clues into the enduring mystery of King Arthur, or the real-life kings who inspired the legend.

FIN

File: To what end.jpg (22KB, 201x247px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 201x247px

>>2123793
>>2123797

>It's another "retired professor watches too much History Channel and gets delusions of grandeur" episode

File: sherlock_omg.gif (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

>>2123793
I wonder how long before it becomes a mystery as to whether pic related existed.

He has an address, a museum, a grave... Certainly future historians will find evidence that London existed, even if it doesn't for some reason, so, if there's some dark age, what'll be left to say he doesn't exist?

...and Lain has a fucking shrine in Japan, so...

>>2123800
Arthur is just associated with Wales because that's where the Britons are now.

It's possible in the early days of the German invasions, the Britons were in more of what has become England

How can you get ahold of him? I have a bridge to sell him.

Camulodunum was the Roman name for Colchester which some believe to be Camelot since it was an important place in Roman Britain

Cambodunum was the name of the Fort near Slack

shitty article can't even fact check names properly

>>2123793
>hypothesis is yet to be peer-reviewed,
Into the trash it goes then, for now.

File: Winchester_-_Table_ronde_du_roi_Arthur.jpg (549KB, 1438x1572px) Image search: [Google]

549KB, 1438x1572px

I found the round table.

>>2123793
>A retired professor thinks he's found the location of King Arthur's Camelot

Lindybeige isnt "retired" though
He's been fired

>>2123925
seriously this. people seem to buy into the idea that ancient people were unable to create stories about stuff that didn't happen, perhaps in part because it's convenient for your career to "discover" a site related to these stories.