• Tehhund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    4 days ago

    I assume this was a grift — they “found” some bodies and declared them Arthur and Guinevere, and suddenly the site became a pilgrimage destination and lots of money started flowing in from the pilgrims.

    • niktemadur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      In that case, the headline could read instead as:

      Medieval monks were sly
      The faithful were suckers

    • beebarfbadger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 days ago

      Says right there: they dug to find them. Actually finding them might have better chances elsewhere, on account of the bodies being elsewhere, but the light was better here and they didn’t have to walk that far.

    • CitizenKong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Bingo. There is no real historical proof that Arthur existed (that I know of), all historical mentions of him are likely themselves taken from already poetic sources.

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    In a thousand years (if we last that long) they’ll have similar signs in Jerusalem and Rome.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      Arthur probably didn’t exist. Guinevere certainly didn’t. Even if they did, there’s no reason to assume any particular location would be the location of their tombs.

      Plus, according to the legend, Arthur’s supposed to be alive and in the mystical island of Avalon, waiting until he is needed to return and become king again. These guys needed to look up their Geoffrey of Monmouth.

      Basically, it would be like digging to find the tomb of Uncle Sam and his wife.