Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ  permalink

Was the Amesbury Archer called Arthur?

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Monday, 27th June 2011

  Musing on the Arthurian legend I'm struck by the significance of the origin and disposal of swords in the tale. Pushing speculation on a few, well quite a lot of, notches, could there just possibly be a distant echo of the Bronze age here?
  If metal workers who could quite literally produce a sword from a stone were an elite, conceivably priestly, caste and the producers of the commodities for the negotiation, achievement and maintenance of power, they would have been enshrined in legend, particularly if they came from far away, and the deposition of swords in water was a common ritual practice. Of course similar points could be made about Iron Age weaponry as well but the production of iron was rather more widespread so likely a bit less magical. Taken to the extreme, polished stone axes were also stone turned into a weapon and only the bravest and fittest could wrest the rock from the crags. They were deposited in water as well.
  
  More wild surmising welcome!
  
  

  Link to this forum: Was the Amesbury Archer called Arthur?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 27th June 2011

  Hi ferval
  
  As I'm sure you know the debate as to whether prehistoric metal workers were technologists or priest-magicians has been going on a long time. I think that early Bronze swords were actually cast in stone molds as well as being 'made' from stone.
  
  I have no problem with the Arthur myth pulling in 1000 year old legends, because I am happy that the stories are myth. Those who are wedded to the historical leader of battles against the Saxons theory are not going to be so happy with bronze weapons.
  
  TP

  Link to this forum: Was the Amesbury Archer called Arthur?

  Report message2

Back to top