Time Team fans can recall many times Dr. Pryor got wound up about a grand romantic fantasy narrative of the place they were digging. We also recall just as many times the rest of the team said some version of "We love you, mate, but you're racing away from the actual evidence so far at high speed".
I think it's also easy for the scholars on Time Team to say something off the cuff, a major thought shortcut - they're just having chats and working and all, so most of the time they don't plan what they're going to say and how - and then it comes out as less nuanced than intended. 🙂 (not saying this was the specific case here as I haven't seen the episode, but I can easily imagine it going this way :-) )
Part of the magic of Time Team is that they're not afraid to bounce wild ideas off each other and then they go to great lengths to find evidence to support or disprove their claims. I didn't see this particular episode either, but I did have a look at the documentation of another dig where the episode included a lot of speculation, and the paper only alluded to some of the theories and pointed out their speculative nature. They do know their stuff and don't pretend that their theories are the truth. And I recently watched an old episode where they were convinced of something on day 2 and had to completely throw their theory out of the window on day 3 due to contradictory evidence.
gotta say, the idea that the origin of the sword being stuck in an object coming from an actual sword stuck in stone that existed at the time the author wrote it down is far cooler than most theories I've heard. Love to learn that the sword was presumably originally stuck in an anvil rather than stone too, even though that has been twisted over time like so many stories gets.
@@roxiepoe9586 I think a common blame-ee is the Victorians, too. Though in this case, I have no idea. There are so many versions of the story. And the only sort-of original one I read was Mallory. And not all of it. And I don't remember that much of it except that it's a pretty trippy experience.
@@beth12svist well if we can suggest bronze age technology inspired a 13th century Myth, then surely Disney is basically the same thing as the Victorians.
I'm not an archeologist, historian, or re-enactor. What I am is someone who deeply appreciates your breakdowns of these subjects. Your sass and sarcasm is always appreciated 🙂
It's so easy to lump everything from 2000BCE to 500CE into one giant category. I appreciate you trying to keep the centuries from touching each other: Bronze Age there! Iron Age here! Stone Age way over there! Not to mention all the ages in between. There are huge differences even between 1700 and 1200 BCE in technology. It's like a giant puzzle with a lot of missing pieces. I also loved your comments on the movies over at Chez BB. It's SO glad to see you doing videos again. I hope you're feeling better!
As someone going to school for prehistory - yes, absolutely!! The lumping gets even worse when you get pre-agricultural revolution - people tend to just go 'oh, banging stones together' when there absolutely is huge differences in technology across the time period. There's a reason we need to differentiate the upper, middle, and lower palaeolithic, after all!
Some bleading into each other are expected however. It is like people suddenly forgot about how to shape flintstones as soon as someone showed them a copper axe. The change are gradual and the need for the old way less but they rarely dissapear completely. Even today, the skill how to form flintstones could still be useful, on occation. Mostely art and survival but there it is.
Personally I reject the BC dating system because it’s silly. A better method of dating historical events is around the establishment of the ancient civilisations around 3,500 years ago in which we have written history.
I think the more nuanced bronze casting argument would be that there may have been some half remembered oral traditions about heroes pulling swords out of stones that traced back to the bronze age that were then later attached to the myth of arthur, given the propensity of oral tradition to recycle and reshuffle story elements. But yeah, given the time scale involved, it's a pretty extraordinary claim, so we should expect extraordinary evidence from the person presenting it. And yet there isn't even any mildly compelling evidence, just wild and baseless speculation.
You could also imagine people finding rocks with sword-shaped indents in them and deciding, since they know perfectly well that swords are forged, this had to be because the sword was stabbed into the stone rather than because someone poured bronze into it. How many things do people find from even a century or two ago today that they have no idea of the function of? And how many of them do people just kind of end up guessing at their purpose due to having no frame of reference for them? But that is a MASSIVE logic leap, and you'd need to have some iron clad reasoning for it before you'd even think about floating it. And it would need to beat "sword stab into hard thing good because sword is just that incredibly sharp and durable" as an idea.
That's basically the explanation I thought this theory was _supposed_ to be. But I know very little about the Arthur stories so I supposed that was the theory because I supposed it was part of the story right from the start. As a late addition... seems far less likely.
@@washipuppy except that metal casting in stone molds is something that would have been still practiced at the time for other uses, so the molds wouldn't likely have been a mystery just antiquated.
@@tiffanyballard6565 Exactly this - it relies too much on the person finding the sword molds being a solid story teller, but not knowing even the most minor thing about mass sword production. Or just bullshitting to children I guess - young Yorik asking his father what that weird rock with the sword shape in it is and getting told it's where an ancient sword was embedded in the stone years ago.
Also, a personal pet peeve of mine is people conflating Caledfwlch/Excalibur with the Sword in the Stone. if I remember correctly, they're two separate weapons, at least when the Vulgate Cycle begins. Before that, I'll admit my knowledge is a bit slim,other than the fact that Excalibur seems very similar to (though not as cool as) the sword Dyrnwyn.
In the various stories, there are at least 2 swords: the one drawn from the anvil, and the one given by the Lady of the Lake. Different writers are inconsistent about which one is Excalibur. As always with any hero who is public property, stories get conflated, mangled, and embellished, with some details borrowed or adapted from other stories. Arthur is a legendary figure, and there is no contemporary evidence that he existed at all. Therefore, any explanation or story about him is, in a sense, equally valid.
that half-second shot of Renee had me spewing coffee everywhere on the first use! I love the dedication to keep having it pop up whenever you say 'French' though. Edit: Fairly sure I've seen another 'historian' discuss the possibility that it might be a reference to the bronze casting, though I do remember that film covered several other options too before dismissing them all... and pointing out that in the original stories, that pulling it from a stone is not at all how Arthur acquires Excalibur. As for the tea, dear sir, you cannot blame your personal failures on a country! That beverage had a very palid pallour, a truly hideous hue, more a mug of translucent dissappointment than a cup of brown joy.
I talked with students about time by using our (USA) history. They can relate to how long it has been from the present back to our 'first' president, George Washington. Then a groundwork was built so they would see just how much we do not know about that era. Rarely, one of them would know their own family tree back that far. Most could not name their own great grandfather. This helped them to understand the meaning of time. So, one of our working questions was "How many G.W.'s is that?" These were high school students (15-19 year olds), so their grasp of many things was tentative. It just helped them begin the journey of which you speak.
Do you think that this may NOT perhaps be an universal experience? That other people growing with so much evidence of history dating back over 500-1000 years around them, if not more, might have a completely different sense of time? That NOT growing up in country that was primarily composed of immigrants over the last 250 years, who then moved about that same country as they resettled, might mean that people who live in other countries might know their family history a bit better that the general US students do? I'm not trying to say that Americans are dumber than other people in the world, but that based on the the US's very specific short and immigrant history some not so universal factors may be typical in the US and in other countries with the same profile, but not in others.
@@karlwilhelmmeinert7592 Given the context "G.W." = George Washington, and so "How many G.W.'s is that?" is using the time between the present and George Washington (around 250 years) as a yardstick by which to measure the age of other historical events. As in, 'there's a lot we don't know about the time of George Washington and the Pyramids were built about 20 times longer ago that than' (or, colloquially 20 G.W.'s ago). Or 'the founding of the first British colony in North America, Jamestown, was nearly 2 G.W.'s ago'
@@a.westenholz4032 I don't know my family history much further back. I do know my country's history much further back, sometimes just by dint of many of the structures still being around and often in use. It depends. The interesting thing was that recently we realised - due to the particulars involved - that an anecdote passed down in the family (though not necessarily involving a family member) must be from the 18th or early 19th century... It doesn't necessarily _say,_ the way it's passed down, but the situation apparently only would have happened then.
I'm so here for the takedown of Francis Pryor. I loved Time Team as a child, but even then I wondered why the other people bothered with him and his endless "it was for rituals". It was clear that he was physically unable to simply say "we don't know".
Just saying "rituals" is such a non-answer. Even when something was done for a ritualistic purpose, it was still done in a consistent manner throughout a community and served a specific purpose to them.
At least in later seasons he was willing to make fun of himself and the whole “ritual” thing. Broken swords in bodies of water? Ritual. Most everything else? “Dunno” or “dunno yet”.
‘Rituals’ is pretty much an in joke amongst historians/archaeologists/palaeontologists these days I believe; if you don’t know what something was for, it was for ‘ritualistic purposes’, and only quacks will say that without tongue firmly planted in cheek.
I dont have time to watch the vid now, just wanted to hop on and say how stoked i am whenever you pop up in my feed. Much love on an “English” day in Southern California (cool and rainy)
I recently found out that self playing Harps as found in various myths is actually a thing when the wind makes the strings vibrate. 🙂 Basically myths are always more fascinating when they have a basis of reality. And I am happy to increase my patreon to pay for you to visit the tomb.
Oh absolutely - my wife plays the harp and learned about this, so she tried it when visiting relatives in the countryside, when a fair wind was blowing. She set the harp in the field, and lo and behold the harp started playing itself. As the wind waxed and waned and changed direction the sounds changed. Tune the harp to an open tuning and you get a melody.. neighbours and children were fascinated. And we, of course.
Indeed so! ..like the Monmouthian mythological idea that there is and was only one 'Arthur'. (There was two, 5 or 6 generations apart, one who who fought Gratian/Graticus in the early 400s, the other who fought the Saxons around the mid 500s, ...after a comet [which led to the later renewed great comet fears in 1065/1066,] was flaming across the Earth in a very shallow trajectoried decaying orbit from Northern Norway over Carlisle, burnt much of Western mainland Britain & Eastern Ireland, that created the denuded wastelands of lore & yore, ...which went on to eventually finally airburst apart & impact in Bolivia at the same general time, leaving semi melted scotched abandoned ruins and left questions of where the people of that city went.)
I love this - your sense of humour in addressing topics like this is great. Also, hilariously, the next video that ticked over after this one was a Time Team one with Francis on it 🤣. Thanks for sharing your research and knowledge with us. I hope this year is infinitely better for you than the previous one. I’d love to hear you explore the topic of Merlin, if you’re ever in the mood… (also, edit, as someone who volunteers at Butser and has a background in (modern) metalworking but has done Bronze Age style casting, the idea of using stone *regularly* as a mould is nuts, when it can explode with very dangerous results because it doesn’t stay as moisture free as clay or sand does, and hot liquid metal and sudden and rapidly expanding water vapour do not mix well)
Having done Fine and Applied Art I found it odd that an age of lower level technology would go to the trouble of carving stone as a mould, given that sand and clay have multiple advantages - widely available, easy/quick to use, workable without tools. Add the physics of heat as you have and there's no sense in it. Not knowing stone can explode is a reason to experiment once for a reusable mould. Stories of exploding stone would surely be carried far and wide though.
@@michellebyrom6551 I had wondered if it might be a mold for the wax part of a lost wax casting process for identical castings? Would that make any sense in your opinion? I don’t have much knowledge of this sort of art technique personally.
Sincere thanks for labelling the sarcasm. Very useful for people like me who sometimes struggle with accurately identifying the tones meant to communicate that sort of thing. Also thanks for introducing an interesting bit of history (saint's tomb sword).
i heard somebody say that the story of arthur receiving a sword from the lady in the lake is an oblique reference to bog iron but that also seems spurious
One of the supposed homes of the Lady of the Lake is Dozmary Pool, on Bodmin Moor. No bog iron, it's not bottomless & despite the efforts of my dad & his mates (who swam there as boys) there's no sword either.
Yay! You're back!! Also, it's hilarious that people forget about the anvil when talking about the sword in the stone. Maybe it's just because I had an English teacher that was a stickler for accuracy but it's one of the few things I remember.
I always enjoyed how both Mick and Stuart would be sceptical of the early narratives of the crew and would insist on looking at the landscape and any historical record.
I've always held to the point that Arthur's blade was made of forged iron. In that, Arthur had to smelt, and forge his own blade, thereby pulling a sword from stone.
@@TheWelshVikingdon’t recall where I read it, but fairly sure I’ve read somewhere that there are some people who think the anvil and the stone have origins in older, separate myths so the reason why in later versions of the Arthur myth we have the sword going through the anvil into the stone is basically to double down so that the Arthur myth conforms with the two older myths (as is often the case in stuff involving prophecies). Doubt it holds water though and wouldn’t be surprised if that’s just a conspiracy theory or pseudo-archaeology/literary history.
Thinking bout smelting iron rich rock to produce enough metal to form a sword, from an uneducated viewer's perspective that is magical. Everything is easy when you know how.
Doubt the leader of a war band would forge his own sword, very specialised skills and a blacksmith wouldn't have made the iron from the ore either or at least very unlikely
12:34 Francis Pryor is a prehistoric archaeologist who distrusts medievalists historians. The quote from his book Britain AD on Kindle section 510 is as you say, Jimmy, really off base because of dates, literary sources and the Welsh stories that reference Arthur. Pryor wrote the book as part of a series on the archaeological history of England. He admits in his book on Medieval archaeology he is out of his league after the Bronze Age (corrected based on feedback from another commenter with thanks). I guess public archaeologists can get carried away on television, hence Pryor’s out there mistaken theory. Thank you for your brilliant interdisciplinary analysis. Maybe Pryor will correct his error.
‘He admits he is out of his league after the Neolithic’ - sorry you are talking utter BS now. Francis and Maisie are primarily famous for excavating and managing Flag Fen, one of the most important bronze age sites in NW europe. Last time I checked the Bronze age came after the Neolithic. I very much doubt he would (or would need to) make such an outlandish admission. Maisie helped me with my under-graduate dissertation and I worked a season at FF, I’ve never heard him say anything like that. Yes, this theory is odd (but which archaeologist doesn’t have a few like that?) but doesn’t justify your clearly made up confession.
@@73North265 I’ve read his books on Seahenge, Flag Fen, Home, and the series on history of England as well as his his terrific book about Stonehenge. I admire Pryor’s work and have chatted with him because my daughter got her MA and worked in Dorset and at Exeter on Romano-British archaeology. I am not an archaeologist but rather have an MA in ethnohistory of the Maya but am fascinated by British history and archaeology. I totally agree that Maisie’s work with wood is brilliant and unique. Someday I really wish to get to Flag Fen Park and see her conservation efforts. Yes, Bronze Age is after the Neolithic. I apologize for my misquote. I believe Pryor was being humble in his book about Medieval British archaeology in his statement about Bronze Age knowledge. It was a sentence in his introduction. I did not mean to denigrate his work. I was responding to those comments that seemed to dismiss Pryor and current theories about ritual landscapes. I respectfully request that you don’t get personal if you disagree with something.
It's always funny to me how people forget that fiction is a genre as old as bread. „La Mort Le Roi Artu“ is not history, it's basically the Netflix adaption of a Welsh legend "improved" with the tropes of the day. It's like people in the year 3020 looking at the comic 300 and debating if 300 spartans ever faced an army of 2 million persian orcs and why they fought in leather thongs.
Yikes, that tea looked like what happens when I forget that I need to use 2 teabags to make lapsang souchong brew properly! Awesome to see you in full on sarcastic debunking mode again Jimmy!
these videos on the welsh origins of king arthur are so interesting. I don't know if it's something you are familiar with or are interested in but i would love to take a look to the more flokloristic and mithical aspect of the legend, and i would especially appreciate hearing it from you, an actual welsh.
I'm glad you made this. I read comments like that and just spit my milk all over the screen. Between the internet and these TV series it's breeding a new type of historian....ones that don't know the basics of history.
This is nothing more than clickbait for history nerds. As a history nerd, I found this thoroughly entertaining, and have thusly subscribed and liked the video.
Again an entertaining and informative clip, thank you! I agree with your theories except for one aspect. "Our idea of the Bronze Age is relatively recent." The popularity of this idea is recent, since the three-age system by Thomsen (1820ies), but the idea itself is written down in De Rerum Natura by Lucretius (c. 99 BC - 55 BC). Another wondrous facet is the anvil. I found this on Reddit: "I remember a sword stuck in a stone, not just from the movie, but from my trip to Disneyland, where they had a real, physical sword stuck in a stone (not an anvil) for people to tug on." When you google for pictures of the sword in Disneyland, one can clearly see the anvil, just as it was in the animated picture from 1963. Funny how memory and history seem to be worlds apart. But that Disney movie bore the title "The Sword in the Stone", like White's novel from 1938 it is based upon! Why don't these titles mention the anvil, when it's present in the story? Because 'The Sword in the Anvil' doesn't alliterate. Or maybe because images of yet another sword in a stone (in a river) already existed: the one that Galahad takes.
As I am a literary historian with a PhD who teaches medieval Arthurian literature: Geoffrey of Monmouth, he who assembled/invented most of the Arthurian myth in the 12th century, has this to say about Excalibur: "Accinctus etiam Caliburno gladio optimo et in insula Auallonis fabricato, ... " (De gestis Britonum, ed. Reeve, Liber XI, l. 111). According to the Medieval Latin Word-List (ed. Latham), "fabricare" is definitely associated with the work of a blacksmith and is in the edition correctly translated as "forged on the isle of Avalon".
I heard that the legend of king Arthur, the round table and excalibur was basically a Welshified version of Charlemagne, his 12 paladins and Joyeuse (his mystified sword). Basically in the 12th century Robert de Bauron mashed together : - The story of Charlemagne, - The story of the norse mythological hero Sigurd (Sigfried and the Dragon) and his sword Gram with which Sigurd had cut an anvil in half, - And the song of Roland (one of Charlemagne's 12 paladins) in which Roland who is mortally wounded throws the indestructible sword Durandal into a cliff's face in which it stays in the stone so the ennemy can't capture it. He then used the name of a famous and ancient Welsh king to create his own story around.
Which version of the Sigurd saga are you referring to? I read multiple ones and I do not remember a single one in which he cuts an anvil made from metall. There is one in which he cuts an anvil made from stone - the very same on which Regnir the Dwarf forged the sword. I do know one version were he easily cuts a chainmail with the sword (in which Sieglind has been "bound") but that is the only occasion I remember in which he cuts metall with Gram.
I prefer the origin being a lot earlier, Caradoc of the Catuvellauni, who the Irish called Carthach or Carthaigh. He was a British King who presided over a prosperous time, ruling from the city of Camulodunum. He regularly defeated his neighbours in battle to spread his rule. His father had already been so powerful that he was called King of the Britons. The young king fought against the armies of an invader across most of southern Britain for eight years before being defeated in a final great battle. He left the scene of the last battle alive and was then betrayed by a Queen who was having an affair with her husband's greatest warrior. The king did not die but went into exile in a far-distant and almost mythical land (Rome) famous for the size and sweetness of its apples. The bards were famous for memorising tales, surely the legend of Caradoc could easily have been the kernel of the myths of Arthur 1,000 years later?
@@pattheplanter The Arthurian legend is already a mash of several different Myths so one author at some point adding an additionnal one isn't too farfetched.
@@atrior7290 Everybody dumps on Geoffrey of Monmouth's _The History of the Kings of Britain_ but he had King Arthur defeating the Romans under the fictional Emperor Lucius Tiberius (or Hiberius) and becoming Emperor himself. The real Emperor Claudius' first name was Tiberius. Of course Geoffrey must be making stuff up because we all know that Arthur is, um well, you know.
I've found the idea that ancient "magical" swords, were in fact extremely advanced swords of their age very intersting. Being early iron and steel swords made by ancient blacksmiths who stumbled onto methods to create such "magical" swords, and the knowledge was either kept secret to a small group of apprentices or taken to their graves until it was rediscovered again. An early iron sword encountering a contemporary bronze sword, or an early steel or spring steel sword encountering a contemporary iron sword would've seemed like magic. The biggest extreme would be lucky blacksmith making a proto-steel sword in the bronze age. Currently, the oldest steel sword we've discovered from 600 BCE, and may be the oldest we can find due to age.
In Glu-Tube’s algorithmic awesomeness, this video is the first time your channel has been recommended to me, despite my lurking in historical channels for years. I thought this was a great presentation and subscribed right away. Looking forward to meandering through your earlier vids and learning what else the TV presenters bolloxed up.
Jimmy I started watching your videos (from Hungary) recently and I am obsessed with them now. Determined to watch all of them :) Please never stop! I really respect what you do regarding all the topics you touch on, especially your openness on mental health, racism and so on while providing all this fascinating content in a fun and approachable way. Amazing. A topic suggestion that is both fitting the Welsh and the Viking in you: what about the dragons? Several cultures seem to have them, but why? Ok, they are facsinating and there are tales and myths and fantasy but where did the idea come from originally?
Hahaha, as soon as I heard you say "bronze cast sword" I was like "noooooo, Francis Pryor's gonna get taken to task for his Arthur sword musings!" (His book on The Fens is great, tho, unlike his sword in the stone, "casting bronze looked like magic to laypeople" take)
I have long said King Arthur was a historic figure that over time was amplified to nearly divine heights and epic lows for dramatic reasons as the centuries went on.
Dia dhuit Jimmy! I'm a new subscriber from Dublin. I've been absolutely binging all of your videos that past few days. You've really sparked an interest in mediaeval and iron Age history with me. So I just wanted to say thanks and that your videos are great! Agus Athbhliain faoi mhaise!
A really cool series by Jack Whyte slowly builds the Arthurian legend from a legion of Romans who stay in Britain to set up their “Camelot”. Excalibur in this series is forged from a Skystone (meteorite). There are many, lovely thick books to this series. The first is called the Skystone. Great read and only tangentially related to the topic, lol
There are references in the Iliad to bronze armor, bronze swords etc. So it’s quite likely that medieval and pre-medieval poets WOULD have been aware that there was a time, before Romulus and Remus, when the primary metal for weapons and tools was not iron or iron alloys. They might not have called it “The Bronze Age,” but they were aware that time progresses and Man develops new technologies all the time. Top video elsewise.
There's a 1994 book by John Darrah called _Paganism in Arthurian Romance_ that may be connected to this line of thinking. Darrah floats the idea that a lot of the Arthurian tales may preserve memories of ceremonies and geography from a much earlier time, maybe even the Bronze Age. He even flirts with the idea that the entirety of the Arthurian legend was originally from long before the Romans, and was later essentially re-skinned with 5th/6th-century trappings for...some reason. It's obviously not to be taken seriously as a scholarly work, but as a new twist on the legend and inspiration for (more) fiction, it's kind of fun reading.
This does seem a pretty silly idea. Francis Pryor is a serious archaeologist but as a specialist in the Bronze Age he seems to be suffering from tunnel vision on this issue.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for debunking this!! I knew it was Francis Pryor! He should have thought that through a bit more, though it was just a theory.
oh i'm so glad you mentioned San Galgano- i visited Italy several years ago and my companion and i happened to stumble upon the town of Chiusdino where the abbey of San Galgano is located. i knew nothing of the sword in the stone there or how it fit into the Arthur myth(s), but it was fascinating nonetheless! i have pictures somewhere, i'll see if i can find them.
Thanks for the video. I think I learned that from the "Britain AD" thing. Actually, it was a while ago when I saw the documentary thing and my impression was that back in the day, in England, swords were forged "in stone" and so saying it was a sword in the stone was a relic of that, even if it was, by the time Arthur was written, it literally meant the sword had been stabbed into the stone. So my impression was that it was a regular steel (or iron, whatever) sword... But the phrasing dated to way back before the Romans. It is a bit disappointing to me that it isn't the case. Because having such old traditions change over time but still exist in some way up to today is kind of neat. Another thing I "learned" from that documentary was about the Lady of the Lake. More specifically why Arthur's sword was thrown into the water once Arthur died. According to the documentary before the Romans (or shortly after the Romans conquered them) they'd throw their useless bronze swords into lakes/rivers. Apparently there was whole riverbed filled with these swords. So... The Arthurian myth of throwing Excalibur into the lake when Arthur was felled was based on that. Which, again, is a neat idea that such an old practice would be preserved, in a new form with new meaning, in much later writings. That one I kind of decided was probably not likely... But I know nothing about these things which is why I like listening to experts explain various theories. It is disappointing if these "experts" are just making things up or pushing things as fact that are very likely not true though.
Well, this just complicated the theory I've had for years that 'He who draws (forges, hammers) the sword from the stone (iron) will be king' simply means that Arthur was a blacksmith
Hey, love your vids, just wondering if you've ever thought about doing a video on Kievan Rus? like its history and origins? connections to the norse? Differences from the norse? critiques of their depictions in media? I know some stuff but I've been interested in them recently and would love to learn more that isn't from wikipedia or "questionable" youtube channels.
I saw the title of the video, and I made an audible, "HUNH?!!" I had not seen those comments. I trust you a little too much, because I clicked this video willing to be convinced of something that I knew made no since.
I've been told by multiple historians never to trust any one source...and then they have gone on to tell me lots of things that conflicted with each other, but in complete confidence
hello Jimmy! Was really excited when I saw this video posted! I know you are the only person running this channel, but would it be possible to have the closed captions include the Welsh when you switch to speaking welsh? I understand if it isn't feasible it would just make things a bit more accessible for me! Awesome content!
My ex is a retired historian. I had to laugh when you dismissed Pryors idea. The strength of feeling behind different ideas is.....legendary itself. I agree with you though, that idea doesn't stand up to reason.
I knew the sword in the stone bit was not part of the original King Arthur legend, but thank you for so much more information! I hadn't heard the idea that it was a bronze age sword, I love it when myths I have not yet encountered are debunked. :) The fact that there's a real sword in a stone and (if I ever had the money for such a trip) I could go see it is very cool! Also: Terrible cup of tea *tastes it again to make sure* Yup, terrible. You give me dinner and dessert, sir.
Hey mate I loved this video. I hope that continuing on with this channel keeps you happy. I bet it your late father would be so proud knowing that you were making other people happy (like myself) with something you create and keeps you happy with yourself. Have a great new and great appreciation from New Zealand.
King Arthur and his knights were actually time travelers from about a thousand years into our future. I know this because I read a whole series of science fiction books about this story. So, it must be true.😵💫
I would also note that in terms of the story, it is the drawing of the sword that is important. Not what it is embedded in. My comparison would be with Barnstokkr, the sword from Norse mythology. This was thrust into a tree by Odin as a gift for whoever can draw it. Sigmund the dragonslayer (a descendant of Odin) eventually does so. The symbolism here is with inheritance.
Hooray! Thank you. The sword in the stone image is found almost everywhere, but is WRONG. I didn't know about the Saint, but I suspect that the basic idea could have been fairly endemic amongst story-tellers for a long time: Theseus found his sword and sandals under a stone; In the Deutsche Heldensagen, which were told during one of the crusades (can't recall which), Wieland der Schmied found Wade's tools buried by a land-slide; He hid them later in a tree-trunk; and in another version they were buried with him in a chamber-grave on Salisbury Plain. So, it's just a trope, like dwarves in mines, or the modern erascible soon-to-retire detective with a young side-kick. It gives a familiar back-story to Arthur, so that the story-teller can move on without describing how the ore was found, the iron forged, and the boy king chosen with his unique and uncanny power and precocious strength. In modern movie parlance, the sword in the stone is just a MacGiffen - a physical plot device around which the plot is built, but which is inconsequential. In 'Allo 'Allo, the MacGiffen was usually the painting of "The Fallen Madonna with the Big Boobies" by Von Klump.
Great video! I think the bronze sword idea is probably just really compelling to a lot of our modern inclinations, and the unfortunate reality is that interesting fabrications travel way better than boring truths.
To be fair in the series Francis Pryor only offers the bronze sword as a "Folk memory". However, a probable later instrument of the Arthurian Legend - the Lady of the Lake; (I don't think it appears before Malory), does have a significant archaeological basis .the offering of swords to water (as at the end of Arthur's life when Percival(?) throws Excalibur into the lake.). is definitely a tradition dating from the depths of the bronze age until the 15th century (at least) eg the Witham swords.
In Search of Myths and Heroes : King Arthur by Michael Wood from 2005 is where I got this story from. They even showed the casting of a bronze sword, which looked very impressive, of couse. He does not claim to present facts and in a series about myths and heroes it is not entirely out of place.
I always "theorised" that Excalibur may have been bronze, but that's literally because of a (relatively) mild psychadelic experience I had while listening to Hawkwind when I was 17 😆 One (brain-based) theory that still makes sense to me is the idea of there having been 2, maybe 3 "Arthurs" throughout the years, who got muddled together the way folk stories tend to. Here's something I just thought: in the iron age, when stabby things were made of iron and that's how it had always been as far as anyone really knew or cared, if someone DID unearth a bronze sword, maybe from a lake or riverbed or something, polished it up and found it all gleaming and still sharp, as we know bronze does and iron doesn't, people would have been interested, to say the least. Especially if the dude who found it went on to some impressive victories, there probably would have been stories about this warrior king who was given a magic sword by a river god or something. Obviously, this is all wild (uneducated) speculation, but it doesn't sound outside the realms of possibility.
I agree with your conclusion, but I want to say that in my lay opinion, it seems plausible to me that there could have been a concept of the bronze age in the oral tradition. My understanding of the Iliad, for example, is that they correctly mentioned bronze armor and weapons being used in the Trojan war, despite living in the iron age.
Happy new year! great to have a new video, I get insanely excited when I see them come up... so you can imagine my pleasure seeing your recent colab with bernadette! some unexpected jimmy content. Wishing you all the best for 2023!
I think the reason why Arthur pops up in France is because of the Breton connection. Anyway back in the day of the Bronze age King Tut had a dagger made from meteoric Iron, so if Arthur had been a Bronze age immortal or whatever, he would have had the best tech possible.
I just wanted to say that I am really enjoying your videos, especially the exhasperated sighs & near face palm moments... glad to have you back. Best of luck in the new year.
Fascinating as always, thank you. I think the concept of the depth of learning which needs to go on really hit me and how important it is to be able to trust the people you listen to - the pre-history of Arthur coming from the Welsh for centuries - I didn't know that - the French writer who added on the sword in the stone idea - I didn't know that - these layers that really can lead you down the wrong hole if you don't pull them back and try to discover the 'pre' of everything.
The impression I got while watching Time Team is that Dr Pryor could take a World War 2 plane crash and turn it into a bronze age religious site. (yes, I'm exaggerating some :p) Thank you so much for the video! Many well-wishes to you and your friends and family.
I've heard that idea and it struck me immediately as a massive stretch to imagine that the memory would be preserved from the Bronze Age - and ignores the fact that when the sword in the stone motif is added to the Arthurian tradition it is specifically intended as a feat that identifies the rightful king, not part of the forging process. It's not the only dubious theory Francis Pryor has promoted - he also repeatedly asserts that the Anglo-Saxon invasions never happened, despite the fact that neither the invaders nor the invaded were in any doubt on that subject. But he'd have us believe that a portion of the Britons just decided to adopt Germanic language, culture and identity (including referring to their own compatriots as "foreigners" and "slaves") presumably after watching lots of Frisian TV.
I can't believe I had this idea still stuck in my head from Time Team, thanks for getting it out. "I blame the English" Look I can see you put the milk in first while making a cuppa builder's, that's your fault not theirs.
putting aside the stuff about the stone, i remember reading about the chance that swords of legend were likely forged from metiorites with funky alloying elements such that they could have been notably better than the plain old steel type
Time Team fans can recall many times Dr. Pryor got wound up about a grand romantic fantasy narrative of the place they were digging. We also recall just as many times the rest of the team said some version of "We love you, mate, but you're racing away from the actual evidence so far at high speed".
I think it's also easy for the scholars on Time Team to say something off the cuff, a major thought shortcut - they're just having chats and working and all, so most of the time they don't plan what they're going to say and how - and then it comes out as less nuanced than intended. 🙂 (not saying this was the specific case here as I haven't seen the episode, but I can easily imagine it going this way :-) )
Part of the magic of Time Team is that they're not afraid to bounce wild ideas off each other and then they go to great lengths to find evidence to support or disprove their claims. I didn't see this particular episode either, but I did have a look at the documentation of another dig where the episode included a lot of speculation, and the paper only alluded to some of the theories and pointed out their speculative nature. They do know their stuff and don't pretend that their theories are the truth. And I recently watched an old episode where they were convinced of something on day 2 and had to completely throw their theory out of the window on day 3 due to contradictory evidence.
Whaaat not mr "It must be a ritual site" Pryor
gotta say, the idea that the origin of the sword being stuck in an object coming from an actual sword stuck in stone that existed at the time the author wrote it down is far cooler than most theories I've heard. Love to learn that the sword was presumably originally stuck in an anvil rather than stone too, even though that has been twisted over time like so many stories gets.
I blame Disney. Of course, when I don't have a real answer, I usually blame Disney.
@@roxiepoe9586 I think a common blame-ee is the Victorians, too.
Though in this case, I have no idea. There are so many versions of the story. And the only sort-of original one I read was Mallory. And not all of it. And I don't remember that much of it except that it's a pretty trippy experience.
@@beth12svist well if we can suggest bronze age technology inspired a 13th century Myth, then surely Disney is basically the same thing as the Victorians.
I really want to go and see it now!
@@roxiepoe9586could’ve sworn the Disney version still had the anvil in it. 🤔
I'm not an archeologist, historian, or re-enactor. What I am is someone who deeply appreciates your breakdowns of these subjects. Your sass and sarcasm is always appreciated 🙂
That’s very kind, thank you!
It's so easy to lump everything from 2000BCE to 500CE into one giant category. I appreciate you trying to keep the centuries from touching each other: Bronze Age there! Iron Age here! Stone Age way over there! Not to mention all the ages in between. There are huge differences even between 1700 and 1200 BCE in technology. It's like a giant puzzle with a lot of missing pieces. I also loved your comments on the movies over at Chez BB. It's SO glad to see you doing videos again. I hope you're feeling better!
As someone going to school for prehistory - yes, absolutely!! The lumping gets even worse when you get pre-agricultural revolution - people tend to just go 'oh, banging stones together' when there absolutely is huge differences in technology across the time period. There's a reason we need to differentiate the upper, middle, and lower palaeolithic, after all!
BC - AD pedantic heathen
Some bleading into each other are expected however. It is like people suddenly forgot about how to shape flintstones as soon as someone showed them a copper axe. The change are gradual and the need for the old way less but they rarely dissapear completely. Even today, the skill how to form flintstones could still be useful, on occation. Mostely art and survival but there it is.
I'm not sure how you can lump 2000 BCE and 500 CE together since BCE and CE are not real.
Personally I reject the BC dating system because it’s silly. A better method of dating historical events is around the establishment of the ancient civilisations around 3,500 years ago in which we have written history.
I think the more nuanced bronze casting argument would be that there may have been some half remembered oral traditions about heroes pulling swords out of stones that traced back to the bronze age that were then later attached to the myth of arthur, given the propensity of oral tradition to recycle and reshuffle story elements. But yeah, given the time scale involved, it's a pretty extraordinary claim, so we should expect extraordinary evidence from the person presenting it. And yet there isn't even any mildly compelling evidence, just wild and baseless speculation.
You could also imagine people finding rocks with sword-shaped indents in them and deciding, since they know perfectly well that swords are forged, this had to be because the sword was stabbed into the stone rather than because someone poured bronze into it. How many things do people find from even a century or two ago today that they have no idea of the function of? And how many of them do people just kind of end up guessing at their purpose due to having no frame of reference for them? But that is a MASSIVE logic leap, and you'd need to have some iron clad reasoning for it before you'd even think about floating it. And it would need to beat "sword stab into hard thing good because sword is just that incredibly sharp and durable" as an idea.
That's basically the explanation I thought this theory was _supposed_ to be.
But I know very little about the Arthur stories so I supposed that was the theory because I supposed it was part of the story right from the start. As a late addition... seems far less likely.
@@washipuppy except that metal casting in stone molds is something that would have been still practiced at the time for other uses, so the molds wouldn't likely have been a mystery just antiquated.
That could also justify the later version of Arthur pulling the sword from an anvil that was in a church
@@tiffanyballard6565 Exactly this - it relies too much on the person finding the sword molds being a solid story teller, but not knowing even the most minor thing about mass sword production. Or just bullshitting to children I guess - young Yorik asking his father what that weird rock with the sword shape in it is and getting told it's where an ancient sword was embedded in the stone years ago.
Also, a personal pet peeve of mine is people conflating Caledfwlch/Excalibur with the Sword in the Stone. if I remember correctly, they're two separate weapons, at least when the Vulgate Cycle begins. Before that, I'll admit my knowledge is a bit slim,other than the fact that Excalibur seems very similar to (though not as cool as) the sword Dyrnwyn.
My understanding is Excalibur was given to Arthur by the Lady of the Lake and returned on his death.
@@AlecFlackie that's how it is in the later legends, I think. Prior to that, there's nothing magical about the sword. It's just a very good sword.
In the various stories, there are at least 2 swords: the one drawn from the anvil, and the one given by the Lady of the Lake. Different writers are inconsistent about which one is Excalibur. As always with any hero who is public property, stories get conflated, mangled, and embellished, with some details borrowed or adapted from other stories. Arthur is a legendary figure, and there is no contemporary evidence that he existed at all. Therefore, any explanation or story about him is, in a sense, equally valid.
that half-second shot of Renee had me spewing coffee everywhere on the first use! I love the dedication to keep having it pop up whenever you say 'French' though.
Edit: Fairly sure I've seen another 'historian' discuss the possibility that it might be a reference to the bronze casting, though I do remember that film covered several other options too before dismissing them all... and pointing out that in the original stories, that pulling it from a stone is not at all how Arthur acquires Excalibur.
As for the tea, dear sir, you cannot blame your personal failures on a country! That beverage had a very palid pallour, a truly hideous hue, more a mug of translucent dissappointment than a cup of brown joy.
"...a mug of translucent disappointment than a cup of brown joy." That had me rolling in laughter about the tea!🤣😂
The origins of these concepts is fascinating. They sound credible if you don't know much about something... until you look into it more.
Excaliber was made of a very special material . Imagination. It's unbreakable .
I talked with students about time by using our (USA) history. They can relate to how long it has been from the present back to our 'first' president, George Washington. Then a groundwork was built so they would see just how much we do not know about that era. Rarely, one of them would know their own family tree back that far. Most could not name their own great grandfather. This helped them to understand the meaning of time. So, one of our working questions was "How many G.W.'s is that?" These were high school students (15-19 year olds), so their grasp of many things was tentative. It just helped them begin the journey of which you speak.
What is a ,,G.W.''?
Do you think that this may NOT perhaps be an universal experience? That other people growing with so much evidence of history dating back over 500-1000 years around them, if not more, might have a completely different sense of time? That NOT growing up in country that was primarily composed of immigrants over the last 250 years, who then moved about that same country as they resettled, might mean that people who live in other countries might know their family history a bit better that the general US students do? I'm not trying to say that Americans are dumber than other people in the world, but that based on the the US's very specific short and immigrant history some not so universal factors may be typical in the US and in other countries with the same profile, but not in others.
@@karlwilhelmmeinert7592 Given the context "G.W." = George Washington, and so "How many G.W.'s is that?" is using the time between the present and George Washington (around 250 years) as a yardstick by which to measure the age of other historical events.
As in, 'there's a lot we don't know about the time of George Washington and the Pyramids were built about 20 times longer ago that than' (or, colloquially 20 G.W.'s ago). Or 'the founding of the first British colony in North America, Jamestown, was nearly 2 G.W.'s ago'
@@jonathan_60503 Thanks
@@a.westenholz4032 I don't know my family history much further back. I do know my country's history much further back, sometimes just by dint of many of the structures still being around and often in use.
It depends.
The interesting thing was that recently we realised - due to the particulars involved - that an anecdote passed down in the family (though not necessarily involving a family member) must be from the 18th or early 19th century... It doesn't necessarily _say,_ the way it's passed down, but the situation apparently only would have happened then.
I'm so here for the takedown of Francis Pryor. I loved Time Team as a child, but even then I wondered why the other people bothered with him and his endless "it was for rituals". It was clear that he was physically unable to simply say "we don't know".
Just saying "rituals" is such a non-answer. Even when something was done for a ritualistic purpose, it was still done in a consistent manner throughout a community and served a specific purpose to them.
@@ragnkja I shall now indulge in my ritual of mid-afternoon coffee. Why do I do it? Who knows? It is a ritual!
At least in later seasons he was willing to make fun of himself and the whole “ritual” thing. Broken swords in bodies of water? Ritual. Most everything else? “Dunno” or “dunno yet”.
‘Rituals’ is pretty much an in joke amongst historians/archaeologists/palaeontologists these days I believe; if you don’t know what something was for, it was for ‘ritualistic purposes’, and only quacks will say that without tongue firmly planted in cheek.
@@lordofuzkulak8308
If it’s not meant to be tongue-in-cheek they’ll presumably be more specific.
I dont have time to watch the vid now, just wanted to hop on and say how stoked i am whenever you pop up in my feed. Much love on an “English” day in Southern California (cool and rainy)
I recently found out that self playing Harps as found in various myths is actually a thing when the wind makes the strings vibrate. 🙂 Basically myths are always more fascinating when they have a basis of reality. And I am happy to increase my patreon to pay for you to visit the tomb.
Oh absolutely - my wife plays the harp and learned about this, so she tried it when visiting relatives in the countryside, when a fair wind was blowing. She set the harp in the field, and lo and behold the harp started playing itself. As the wind waxed and waned and changed direction the sounds changed. Tune the harp to an open tuning and you get a melody.. neighbours and children were fascinated. And we, of course.
I love that so much of the popular elements of King Arthur are fan fiction that accumulated over the years
Indeed so! ..like the Monmouthian mythological idea that there is and was only one 'Arthur'.
(There was two, 5 or 6 generations apart, one who who fought Gratian/Graticus in the early 400s, the other who fought the Saxons around the mid 500s,
...after a comet [which led to the later renewed great comet fears in 1065/1066,] was flaming across the Earth in a very shallow trajectoried decaying orbit from Northern Norway over Carlisle, burnt much of Western mainland Britain & Eastern Ireland, that created the denuded wastelands of lore & yore,
...which went on to eventually finally airburst apart & impact in Bolivia at the same general time, leaving semi melted scotched abandoned ruins and left questions of where the people of that city went.)
I certainly don't. I prefer the real thing.
@@scottdoesntmatter4409 we will never know the real Arthur. It is the nature of myths to evolve.
@@JaylukKhan Nope. I have a book on him, the actual history according to archaeology and historians. He had an interesting sense of humor.
@@scottdoesntmatter4409 oh really. what is the title of this book?
I love this - your sense of humour in addressing topics like this is great. Also, hilariously, the next video that ticked over after this one was a Time Team one with Francis on it 🤣. Thanks for sharing your research and knowledge with us. I hope this year is infinitely better for you than the previous one. I’d love to hear you explore the topic of Merlin, if you’re ever in the mood… (also, edit, as someone who volunteers at Butser and has a background in (modern) metalworking but has done Bronze Age style casting, the idea of using stone *regularly* as a mould is nuts, when it can explode with very dangerous results because it doesn’t stay as moisture free as clay or sand does, and hot liquid metal and sudden and rapidly expanding water vapour do not mix well)
And moist stone is far more dangerous than moist sand when it expands as a result of extreme heat.
@@ragnkja right!
Having done Fine and Applied Art I found it odd that an age of lower level technology would go to the trouble of carving stone as a mould, given that sand and clay have multiple advantages - widely available, easy/quick to use, workable without tools. Add the physics of heat as you have and there's no sense in it. Not knowing stone can explode is a reason to experiment once for a reusable mould. Stories of exploding stone would surely be carried far and wide though.
@@michellebyrom6551 I had wondered if it might be a mold for the wax part of a lost wax casting process for identical castings? Would that make any sense in your opinion? I don’t have much knowledge of this sort of art technique personally.
Also, more Cymraeg please, absolutely love this language spoken out loud.
Sassy Jimmy is the best Jimmy❤️
I also find it hilarious how you decided to depict "French" by using a picture from a distinctly British TV show😂
Sincere thanks for labelling the sarcasm. Very useful for people like me who sometimes struggle with accurately identifying the tones meant to communicate that sort of thing. Also thanks for introducing an interesting bit of history (saint's tomb sword).
i heard somebody say that the story of arthur receiving a sword from the lady in the lake is an oblique reference to bog iron but that also seems spurious
“You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!”
Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Dennis the peasant.
Oh yeah. No. Garbage.
One of the supposed homes of the Lady of the Lake is Dozmary Pool, on Bodmin Moor.
No bog iron, it's not bottomless & despite the efforts of my dad & his mates (who swam there as boys) there's no sword either.
Yay! You're back!!
Also, it's hilarious that people forget about the anvil when talking about the sword in the stone. Maybe it's just because I had an English teacher that was a stickler for accuracy but it's one of the few things I remember.
“It’s frankly nonsense.” I see what you did there. Well played!
*wink*
I am ALWAYS here for sassy!Jimmy.
Mick Aston the 🐐
Francis was always a bit out there on Time Team
Mick is my hero. Absolute dude.
I always enjoyed how both Mick and Stuart would be sceptical of the early narratives of the crew and would insist on looking at the landscape and any historical record.
I've always held to the point that Arthur's blade was made of forged iron. In that, Arthur had to smelt, and forge his own blade, thereby pulling a sword from stone.
Sword on anvil on stone imagery innit. Or it was just St Galgano.
@@TheWelshVikingdon’t recall where I read it, but fairly sure I’ve read somewhere that there are some people who think the anvil and the stone have origins in older, separate myths so the reason why in later versions of the Arthur myth we have the sword going through the anvil into the stone is basically to double down so that the Arthur myth conforms with the two older myths (as is often the case in stuff involving prophecies). Doubt it holds water though and wouldn’t be surprised if that’s just a conspiracy theory or pseudo-archaeology/literary history.
Thinking bout smelting iron rich rock to produce enough metal to form a sword, from an uneducated viewer's perspective that is magical. Everything is easy when you know how.
Doubt the leader of a war band would forge his own sword, very specialised skills and a blacksmith wouldn't have made the iron from the ore either or at least very unlikely
YEAH! ANOTHER ARTHUR VIDEO! FUCK YEAH! Glad you’re doing alright Jimmy, and glad your back; take care of yourself, and remember we’re here for you
I'm welsh and I've not been home in ten years listening to your voice is so lovely. And I blame the English too
12:34 Francis Pryor is a prehistoric archaeologist who distrusts medievalists historians. The quote from his book Britain AD on Kindle section 510 is as you say, Jimmy, really off base because of dates, literary sources and the Welsh stories that reference Arthur. Pryor wrote the book as part of a series on the archaeological history of England. He admits in his book on Medieval archaeology he is out of his league after the Bronze Age (corrected based on feedback from another commenter with thanks). I guess public archaeologists can get carried away on television, hence Pryor’s out there mistaken theory. Thank you for your brilliant interdisciplinary analysis. Maybe Pryor will correct his error.
‘He admits he is out of his league after the Neolithic’ - sorry you are talking utter BS now. Francis and Maisie are primarily famous for excavating and managing Flag Fen, one of the most important bronze age sites in NW europe. Last time I checked the Bronze age came after the Neolithic. I very much doubt he would (or would need to) make such an outlandish admission. Maisie helped me with my under-graduate dissertation and I worked a season at FF, I’ve never heard him say anything like that. Yes, this theory is odd (but which archaeologist doesn’t have a few like that?) but doesn’t justify your clearly made up confession.
@@73North265 I’ve read his books on Seahenge, Flag Fen, Home, and the series on history of England as well as his his terrific book about Stonehenge. I admire Pryor’s work and have chatted with him because my daughter got her MA and worked in Dorset and at Exeter on Romano-British archaeology. I am not an archaeologist but rather have an MA in ethnohistory of the Maya but am fascinated by British history and archaeology. I totally agree that Maisie’s work with wood is brilliant and unique. Someday I really wish to get to Flag Fen Park and see her conservation efforts.
Yes, Bronze Age is after the Neolithic. I apologize for my misquote. I believe Pryor was being humble in his book about Medieval British archaeology in his statement about Bronze Age knowledge. It was a sentence in his introduction. I did not mean to denigrate his work. I was responding to those comments that seemed to dismiss Pryor and current theories about ritual landscapes. I respectfully request that you don’t get personal if you disagree with something.
I saw the TV series related to the book, Britain AD: King Arthur's Britain, I thought it brilliant and well researched.
Excellent! May I now hope for the long-promised episode about Merlin?
Don’t rush, a wizard is never late nor early, he, and a video on him, will arrive precisely when he means to. 🧙♂️
😜
@@lordofuzkulak8308 So sorry, sir. but I have been waiting patiently.
It's always funny to me how people forget that fiction is a genre as old as bread. „La Mort Le Roi Artu“ is not history, it's basically the Netflix adaption of a Welsh legend "improved" with the tropes of the day. It's like people in the year 3020 looking at the comic 300 and debating if 300 spartans ever faced an army of 2 million persian orcs and why they fought in leather thongs.
As an English, I fully accept your blame.
Yikes, that tea looked like what happens when I forget that I need to use 2 teabags to make lapsang souchong brew properly! Awesome to see you in full on sarcastic debunking mode again Jimmy!
these videos on the welsh origins of king arthur are so interesting.
I don't know if it's something you are familiar with or are interested in but i would love to take a look to the more flokloristic and mithical aspect of the legend, and i would especially appreciate hearing it from you, an actual welsh.
I remember Pryor's series. Much of it seemed to be about a lot of things being older than we think. Thanks for setting us all right.
It was a surprise to me when you appeared on Bernadette Banner. I follow you both, so it was great to see the collab.
"I blame the English" I literally loled much to loud at that, it was totally unexpected, thanks for the laugh and the video. :)
I was just thinking, as you introduced the topic, “isn’t it from that sword stuck in a stone somewhere in Italy?” and then there it is. Nice!
I'm glad you made this. I read comments like that and just spit my milk all over the screen. Between the internet and these TV series it's breeding a new type of historian....ones that don't know the basics of history.
Oh Francis Pryor ~~ wonderful enthusiasm and boundless imagination
Really great to hear you knock this bronze ‘theory’ where it belongs😊
Lovely little bit of Sherlockian deduction. So nice that people still care for seeking the truth. Well done, lad!
Happy new year to our myth busting Welshman!
This is nothing more than clickbait for history nerds.
As a history nerd, I found this thoroughly entertaining, and have thusly subscribed and liked the video.
Even Walt Disney remembered to put the sword in an anvil in his film and in Disneyland...
I have to admit that I was worried by the title, but you did not disappoint 💪🏻 it's always annoyed me that people just leave out the anvil 😒
There is also a sword imbedded in stone in a town called Roc Amadour in France.
Ooh
Again an entertaining and informative clip, thank you! I agree with your theories except for one aspect. "Our idea of the Bronze Age is relatively recent." The popularity of this idea is recent, since the three-age system by Thomsen (1820ies), but the idea itself is written down in De Rerum Natura by Lucretius (c. 99 BC - 55 BC).
Another wondrous facet is the anvil. I found this on Reddit: "I remember a sword stuck in a stone, not just from the movie, but from my trip to Disneyland, where they had a real, physical sword stuck in a stone (not an anvil) for people to tug on." When you google for pictures of the sword in Disneyland, one can clearly see the anvil, just as it was in the animated picture from 1963. Funny how memory and history seem to be worlds apart.
But that Disney movie bore the title "The Sword in the Stone", like White's novel from 1938 it is based upon! Why don't these titles mention the anvil, when it's present in the story? Because 'The Sword in the Anvil' doesn't alliterate. Or maybe because images of yet another sword in a stone (in a river) already existed: the one that Galahad takes.
I love any time you want to talk about Arthurian myths, they are some of my favorite things on earth 🥰
Done just lovely. It's so humbug trying to explain to the innocents that so much of the "canonical" Arthur is French, not British.
As I am a literary historian with a PhD who teaches medieval Arthurian literature: Geoffrey of Monmouth, he who assembled/invented most of the Arthurian myth in the 12th century, has this to say about Excalibur: "Accinctus etiam Caliburno gladio optimo et in insula Auallonis fabricato, ... " (De gestis Britonum, ed. Reeve, Liber XI, l. 111). According to the Medieval Latin Word-List (ed. Latham), "fabricare" is definitely associated with the work of a blacksmith and is in the edition correctly translated as "forged on the isle of Avalon".
I heard that the legend of king Arthur, the round table and excalibur was basically a Welshified version of Charlemagne, his 12 paladins and Joyeuse (his mystified sword).
Basically in the 12th century Robert de Bauron mashed together :
- The story of Charlemagne,
- The story of the norse mythological hero Sigurd (Sigfried and the Dragon) and his sword Gram with which Sigurd had cut an anvil in half,
- And the song of Roland (one of Charlemagne's 12 paladins) in which Roland who is mortally wounded throws the indestructible sword Durandal into a cliff's face in which it stays in the stone so the ennemy can't capture it.
He then used the name of a famous and ancient Welsh king to create his own story around.
Which version of the Sigurd saga are you referring to? I read multiple ones and I do not remember a single one in which he cuts an anvil made from metall. There is one in which he cuts an anvil made from stone - the very same on which Regnir the Dwarf forged the sword. I do know one version were he easily cuts a chainmail with the sword (in which Sieglind has been "bound") but that is the only occasion I remember in which he cuts metall with Gram.
I prefer the origin being a lot earlier, Caradoc of the Catuvellauni, who the Irish called Carthach or Carthaigh. He was a British King who presided over a prosperous time, ruling from the city of Camulodunum. He regularly defeated his neighbours in battle to spread his rule. His father had already been so powerful that he was called King of the Britons. The young king fought against the armies of an invader across most of southern Britain for eight years before being defeated in a final great battle. He left the scene of the last battle alive and was then betrayed by a Queen who was having an affair with her husband's greatest warrior. The king did not die but went into exile in a far-distant and almost mythical land (Rome) famous for the size and sweetness of its apples. The bards were famous for memorising tales, surely the legend of Caradoc could easily have been the kernel of the myths of Arthur 1,000 years later?
@@oldoneeye7516 I never said a metal anvil
@@pattheplanter The Arthurian legend is already a mash of several different Myths so one author at some point adding an additionnal one isn't too farfetched.
@@atrior7290 Everybody dumps on Geoffrey of Monmouth's _The History of the Kings of Britain_ but he had King Arthur defeating the Romans under the fictional Emperor Lucius Tiberius (or Hiberius) and becoming Emperor himself. The real Emperor Claudius' first name was Tiberius. Of course Geoffrey must be making stuff up because we all know that Arthur is, um well, you know.
I've found the idea that ancient "magical" swords, were in fact extremely advanced swords of their age very intersting. Being early iron and steel swords made by ancient blacksmiths who stumbled onto methods to create such "magical" swords, and the knowledge was either kept secret to a small group of apprentices or taken to their graves until it was rediscovered again.
An early iron sword encountering a contemporary bronze sword, or an early steel or spring steel sword encountering a contemporary iron sword would've seemed like magic.
The biggest extreme would be lucky blacksmith making a proto-steel sword in the bronze age.
Currently, the oldest steel sword we've discovered from 600 BCE, and may be the oldest we can find due to age.
In Glu-Tube’s algorithmic awesomeness, this video is the first time your channel has been recommended to me, despite my lurking in historical channels for years. I thought this was a great presentation and subscribed right away. Looking forward to meandering through your earlier vids and learning what else the TV presenters bolloxed up.
Well thank you for dropping by! It’s so cool to know this happens :)
Jimmy I started watching your videos (from Hungary) recently and I am obsessed with them now. Determined to watch all of them :)
Please never stop!
I really respect what you do regarding all the topics you touch on, especially your openness on mental health, racism and so on while providing all this fascinating content in a fun and approachable way. Amazing.
A topic suggestion that is both fitting the Welsh and the Viking in you: what about the dragons? Several cultures seem to have them, but why? Ok, they are facsinating and there are tales and myths and fantasy but where did the idea come from originally?
Hahaha, as soon as I heard you say "bronze cast sword" I was like "noooooo, Francis Pryor's gonna get taken to task for his Arthur sword musings!"
(His book on The Fens is great, tho, unlike his sword in the stone, "casting bronze looked like magic to laypeople" take)
Oh so much of his work is great and important and useful! But yeah…
Yeah…
Fantastic video, Jimmy. And what an interesting turn with that Sword in the Stone from Tuscany. Hope you are doing well.
I have long said King Arthur was a historic figure that over time was amplified to nearly divine heights and epic lows for dramatic reasons as the centuries went on.
Dia dhuit Jimmy!
I'm a new subscriber from Dublin. I've been absolutely binging all of your videos that past few days. You've really sparked an interest in mediaeval and iron Age history with me. So I just wanted to say thanks and that your videos are great!
Agus Athbhliain faoi mhaise!
A really cool series by Jack Whyte slowly builds the Arthurian legend from a legion of Romans who stay in Britain to set up their “Camelot”. Excalibur in this series is forged from a Skystone (meteorite). There are many, lovely thick books to this series. The first is called the Skystone. Great read and only tangentially related to the topic, lol
I was thinking about this book! I read the first one about a decade ago; think it's time for a re-visit!
Couldn’t have said it better myself, Jimmy. Francis Pryor (and Graham Philips) have a lot to answer for! People really should do their research.
There are references in the Iliad to bronze armor, bronze swords etc. So it’s quite likely that medieval and pre-medieval poets WOULD have been aware that there was a time, before Romulus and Remus, when the primary metal for weapons and tools was not iron or iron alloys. They might not have called it “The Bronze Age,” but they were aware that time progresses and Man develops new technologies all the time.
Top video elsewise.
I always enjoy your videos. Thank you!
There's a 1994 book by John Darrah called _Paganism in Arthurian Romance_ that may be connected to this line of thinking. Darrah floats the idea that a lot of the Arthurian tales may preserve memories of ceremonies and geography from a much earlier time, maybe even the Bronze Age. He even flirts with the idea that the entirety of the Arthurian legend was originally from long before the Romans, and was later essentially re-skinned with 5th/6th-century trappings for...some reason. It's obviously not to be taken seriously as a scholarly work, but as a new twist on the legend and inspiration for (more) fiction, it's kind of fun reading.
This does seem a pretty silly idea. Francis Pryor is a serious archaeologist but as a specialist in the Bronze Age he seems to be suffering from tunnel vision on this issue.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for debunking this!! I knew it was Francis Pryor! He should have thought that through a bit more, though it was just a theory.
oh i'm so glad you mentioned San Galgano- i visited Italy several years ago and my companion and i happened to stumble upon the town of Chiusdino where the abbey of San Galgano is located. i knew nothing of the sword in the stone there or how it fit into the Arthur myth(s), but it was fascinating nonetheless! i have pictures somewhere, i'll see if i can find them.
Oh that’s so cool! I’d love to go and see it
It's so fascinating that so easily debunked myths can find their way to TV
Thanks for the video.
I think I learned that from the "Britain AD" thing. Actually, it was a while ago when I saw the documentary thing and my impression was that back in the day, in England, swords were forged "in stone" and so saying it was a sword in the stone was a relic of that, even if it was, by the time Arthur was written, it literally meant the sword had been stabbed into the stone. So my impression was that it was a regular steel (or iron, whatever) sword... But the phrasing dated to way back before the Romans. It is a bit disappointing to me that it isn't the case. Because having such old traditions change over time but still exist in some way up to today is kind of neat.
Another thing I "learned" from that documentary was about the Lady of the Lake. More specifically why Arthur's sword was thrown into the water once Arthur died. According to the documentary before the Romans (or shortly after the Romans conquered them) they'd throw their useless bronze swords into lakes/rivers. Apparently there was whole riverbed filled with these swords. So... The Arthurian myth of throwing Excalibur into the lake when Arthur was felled was based on that. Which, again, is a neat idea that such an old practice would be preserved, in a new form with new meaning, in much later writings. That one I kind of decided was probably not likely... But I know nothing about these things which is why I like listening to experts explain various theories. It is disappointing if these "experts" are just making things up or pushing things as fact that are very likely not true though.
Well, this just complicated the theory I've had for years that 'He who draws (forges, hammers) the sword from the stone (iron) will be king' simply means that Arthur was a blacksmith
Hey, love your vids, just wondering if you've ever thought about doing a video on Kievan Rus? like its history and origins? connections to the norse? Differences from the norse? critiques of their depictions in media? I know some stuff but I've been interested in them recently and would love to learn more that isn't from wikipedia or "questionable" youtube channels.
I saw the title of the video, and I made an audible, "HUNH?!!" I had not seen those comments. I trust you a little too much, because I clicked this video willing to be convinced of something that I knew made no since.
I've been told by multiple historians never to trust any one source...and then they have gone on to tell me lots of things that conflicted with each other, but in complete confidence
hello Jimmy! Was really excited when I saw this video posted! I know you are the only person running this channel, but would it be possible to have the closed captions include the Welsh when you switch to speaking welsh? I understand if it isn't feasible it would just make things a bit more accessible for me! Awesome content!
My ex is a retired historian. I had to laugh when you dismissed Pryors idea. The strength of feeling behind different ideas is.....legendary itself. I agree with you though, that idea doesn't stand up to reason.
I knew the sword in the stone bit was not part of the original King Arthur legend, but thank you for so much more information! I hadn't heard the idea that it was a bronze age sword, I love it when myths I have not yet encountered are debunked. :) The fact that there's a real sword in a stone and (if I ever had the money for such a trip) I could go see it is very cool!
Also: Terrible cup of tea *tastes it again to make sure* Yup, terrible. You give me dinner and dessert, sir.
If I had a dollar for every time Francis Pryor attributed a ritual explanation to some random piece of archeology, I'd have a lot of dollars...
Hey mate I loved this video. I hope that continuing on with this channel keeps you happy. I bet it your late father would be so proud knowing that you were making other people happy (like myself) with something you create and keeps you happy with yourself. Have a great new and great appreciation from New Zealand.
King Arthur and his knights were actually time travelers from about a thousand years into our future. I know this because I read a whole series of science fiction books about this story. So, it must be true.😵💫
I love you, Peter, and I want to have your babies.
I would also note that in terms of the story, it is the drawing of the sword that is important. Not what it is embedded in.
My comparison would be with Barnstokkr, the sword from Norse mythology. This was thrust into a tree by Odin as a gift for whoever can draw it. Sigmund the dragonslayer (a descendant of Odin) eventually does so.
The symbolism here is with inheritance.
Hooray! Thank you. The sword in the stone image is found almost everywhere, but is WRONG.
I didn't know about the Saint, but I suspect that the basic idea could have been fairly endemic amongst story-tellers for a long time:
Theseus found his sword and sandals under a stone;
In the Deutsche Heldensagen, which were told during one of the crusades (can't recall which), Wieland der Schmied found Wade's tools buried by a land-slide;
He hid them later in a tree-trunk;
and in another version they were buried with him in a chamber-grave on Salisbury Plain.
So, it's just a trope, like dwarves in mines, or the modern erascible soon-to-retire detective with a young side-kick. It gives a familiar back-story to Arthur, so that the story-teller can move on without describing how the ore was found, the iron forged, and the boy king chosen with his unique and uncanny power and precocious strength.
In modern movie parlance, the sword in the stone is just a MacGiffen - a physical plot device around which the plot is built, but which is inconsequential. In 'Allo 'Allo, the MacGiffen was usually the painting of "The Fallen Madonna with the Big Boobies" by Von Klump.
Great video! I think the bronze sword idea is probably just really compelling to a lot of our modern inclinations, and the unfortunate reality is that interesting fabrications travel way better than boring truths.
That’s true. It’s very appealing to the modern fantasy genre where having a casted sword is seen as higher quality
To be fair in the series Francis Pryor only offers the bronze sword as a "Folk memory".
However, a probable later instrument of the Arthurian Legend - the Lady of the Lake; (I don't think it appears before Malory), does have a significant archaeological basis .the offering of swords to water (as at the end of Arthur's life when Percival(?) throws Excalibur into the lake.). is definitely a tradition dating from the depths of the bronze age until the 15th century (at least) eg the Witham swords.
3 mins in and i had to pause the video to make a cup tea. Because i know this is going to be good.
I love these debunking kind of videos as someone with no education on these subjects
In Search of Myths and Heroes : King Arthur by Michael Wood from 2005 is where I got this story from. They even showed the casting of a bronze sword, which looked very impressive, of couse. He does not claim to present facts and in a series about myths and heroes it is not entirely out of place.
It was me 🙂 the sword in the stone has been a nice bread winner over the years
Why you! Listen, just because I really asmire your work doesn’t mean I’m not extwemely cwoss! 😂
I always "theorised" that Excalibur may have been bronze, but that's literally because of a (relatively) mild psychadelic experience I had while listening to Hawkwind when I was 17 😆
One (brain-based) theory that still makes sense to me is the idea of there having been 2, maybe 3 "Arthurs" throughout the years, who got muddled together the way folk stories tend to.
Here's something I just thought: in the iron age, when stabby things were made of iron and that's how it had always been as far as anyone really knew or cared, if someone DID unearth a bronze sword, maybe from a lake or riverbed or something, polished it up and found it all gleaming and still sharp, as we know bronze does and iron doesn't, people would have been interested, to say the least. Especially if the dude who found it went on to some impressive victories, there probably would have been stories about this warrior king who was given a magic sword by a river god or something. Obviously, this is all wild (uneducated) speculation, but it doesn't sound outside the realms of possibility.
Caption and image game on point this go round. *Chef's kiss*
I tried hard for this one! Thanks!
I agree with your conclusion, but I want to say that in my lay opinion, it seems plausible to me that there could have been a concept of the bronze age in the oral tradition. My understanding of the Iliad, for example, is that they correctly mentioned bronze armor and weapons being used in the Trojan war, despite living in the iron age.
Thanks for more Arthur content! Fascinating stuff.
Happy new year! great to have a new video, I get insanely excited when I see them come up... so you can imagine my pleasure seeing your recent colab with bernadette! some unexpected jimmy content. Wishing you all the best for 2023!
Hey Jimmy! Never thought about that being a possibility. Definitely interesting and good to know at least.
I think the reason why Arthur pops up in France is because of the Breton connection. Anyway back in the day of the Bronze age King Tut had a dagger made from meteoric Iron, so if Arthur had been a Bronze age immortal or whatever, he would have had the best tech possible.
I just wanted to say that I am really enjoying your videos, especially the exhasperated sighs & near face palm moments... glad to have you back. Best of luck in the new year.
Fascinating as always, thank you. I think the concept of the depth of learning which needs to go on really hit me and how important it is to be able to trust the people you listen to - the pre-history of Arthur coming from the Welsh for centuries - I didn't know that - the French writer who added on the sword in the stone idea - I didn't know that - these layers that really can lead you down the wrong hole if you don't pull them back and try to discover the 'pre' of everything.
The impression I got while watching Time Team is that Dr Pryor could take a World War 2 plane crash and turn it into a bronze age religious site. (yes, I'm exaggerating some :p)
Thank you so much for the video! Many well-wishes to you and your friends and family.
Totally makes sense that Galgano's story influenced the Merlin poem it predated the poem by at least 15 years.
Love the quick pix of Renè Artois😄. Nice to see you,Jimmy
I've heard that idea and it struck me immediately as a massive stretch to imagine that the memory would be preserved from the Bronze Age - and ignores the fact that when the sword in the stone motif is added to the Arthurian tradition it is specifically intended as a feat that identifies the rightful king, not part of the forging process.
It's not the only dubious theory Francis Pryor has promoted - he also repeatedly asserts that the Anglo-Saxon invasions never happened, despite the fact that neither the invaders nor the invaded were in any doubt on that subject. But he'd have us believe that a portion of the Britons just decided to adopt Germanic language, culture and identity (including referring to their own compatriots as "foreigners" and "slaves") presumably after watching lots of Frisian TV.
I can't believe I had this idea still stuck in my head from Time Team, thanks for getting it out.
"I blame the English" Look I can see you put the milk in first while making a cuppa builder's, that's your fault not theirs.
putting aside the stuff about the stone, i remember reading about the chance that swords of legend were likely forged from metiorites with funky alloying elements such that they could have been notably better than the plain old steel type
N… not really a thing no. Sadly no.