THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THINGS THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN. Kristin Romey’s article says that: “Critics attacked English Heritage earlier this year for “Disneyfying” Tintagel’s Arthurian connections after the charity commissioned a likeness of Merlin carved into the cliffs at the site.”

I disagree with the resistance of archaeologists to having their dig associated with King Arthur, even though he may well be mythical.

Romey says: “The association of King Arthur with Tintagel was already wildly popular in the 12th century.” This landscape was part of the legend of Arthur for hundred of years.

One of the things that archaeologists try to do is to get an idea of how people lived at a site. They try to form hypotheses about their religious beliefs and ways of thinking (consider the speculations about Stonehenge). Evidence or speculation about Arthur may not have a firm foundation at the Tintagel site in the period from 400 to 700, but Arthur had a strong association with Tintagel for hundreds of years after 1200.

This entry was posted in History, Literature. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.