Modern
opinion as to the whereabouts of King Arthur's Court,
whether it was named Camelot or not, tends to lean
towards the enormous refortified hillfort at South
Cadbury in Somerset. Is this merely due to a massive
amount of publicity and modern propaganda, or is it a
real possibility?
The
Tradition:
The stories of King Arthur at the hillfort of South
Cadbury, near the villages of Queen and West Camel,
are actually not particularly old. The travelling
historian, John Leland, first recorded the association
in 1542:
"Right
at the South end of South Cadbury Church stands
Camelot. This was once a noted town or castle, set on
a real peak of a hill, and with marvellously strong
natural defences..... Roman coins of gold, silver and
copper have been turned up in large quantities during
ploughing there, and also in the fields at the foot of
the hill, especially on the East side. Many other
antiquities have also been found, including at
Camelot, within memory, a silver horseshoe. The only
information local people can offer is that they have
heard that Arthur frequently came to Camelot."
Local
people also believed that King Arthur and his knights
slept in a hidden cave beneath the hillfort. When
archaeological research first began there, an old man
from the village asked anxiously if the excavators had
come to remove the King.
Modern
Archaeology:
Taking their lead from Leyland's writings, in 1965,
the Camelot Research Committee was set up to excavate
large areas of the South Cadbury Hillfort. They soon
discovered that the fort had indeed been re-fortified
in post-Roman times. The ramparts were strengthened
with large quantities of dressed masonry from derelict
Roman buildings and mounted by raised wooden walkways.
These were pierced at the South-West corner by a
sturdy wooden gate-house through which passed a
cobbled roadway (10ft across). The remains of a large
timber feasting hall (63 by 34 feet) with an internal
partition towards the east end were discovered at the
centre of the site. It was easily dated to the 5th/6th
centuries from large amounts of imported Mediterranean
pottery scattered over the floor and in the postholes.
Similar pottery was discovered in a possible kitchen
just to the north. Smaller buildings in the
surrounding area were of uncertain date. The whole
area probably went out of use in the early 7th
century, but there was extensive evidence for the use
of the fort in later ages. The most interesting was
perhaps the discovery of an unfinished cruciform Saxon
Church from the fort's time as one of King Aethelred's
defensive Burghs.
Modern
Publicity:
The very name of the Camelot Research Committee gave
the impression that the excavations at South Cadbury
were specifically looking for King Arthur's Court and
therefore, if anything from the appropriate period was
discovered, obviously that's exactly what it must
represent. Of course, the excavations came up trumps
and the media were very quick to jump onto the King
Arthur band wagon; not to mention the local Somerset
tourist industry which now won't hear of any other
site being suggested as "Camelot".
Possible
Interpretations:
Only an important British chieftain could have
afforded to trade in such lavish imports and build on
the scale discovered at South Cadbury. Surely, the
comparability with the known Royal Deiran Hall at
Yeavering (Northumberland), indicates the builder was
a King. Furthermore, the incomparable size of the
Cadbury fort has led to the suggestion that a
High-King such as Arthur would be the most likely
resident. However, Cadbury lay within the Kingdom of
Dumnonia, and there seems little reason to doubt that
it was the capital of the Dumnonian Kings. Such a
prestigious settlement would warrant the use of the
biggest hillfort in the area. It probably took over
from the nearby deserted Roman Town of
Caer-Pensawel-Coyt (Ilchester). This theory is highly
strengthened by a possible interpretation of the
fort's name. Usually translated as Battle-Fort,
Cadbury may really mean Cado's Fort: Cado
being the name of an early 6th century King of
Dumnonia! Barber
& Pykitt suggest the Arthurian connection
was due to confusion with a, now forgotten,
association with the pre-Roman King Arviragus.
