Unlike Roman history or later medieval chronicles, the 5th and 6th centuries in Britain suffer from a severe lack of contemporary written records. Most knowledge about this “Dark Ages” period comes from later, often biased sources.

• Gildas, a 6th-century monk, wrote De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae ("On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain"), describing the Saxon invasions and the social collapse of Britain but never mentions Arthur.
   

• The Annales Cambriae, compiled centuries later, mentions Arthur in passing but gives little detail.
   

• The Historia Brittonum (History of the Britons), attributed to Nennius around 830 AD, gives a longer account of Arthur’s battles but mixes legend and history.
   

These sparse and contradictory sources make it impossible to conclusively prove Arthur’s existence.

Arthur as a Composite or Mythical Figure

Many historians now believe that the character of King Arthur may be a composite of several historical figures or an entirely mythical construct created to embody the ideals of kingship, heroism, and resistance.

The fact that Arthurian legend contains strong Christian symbolism, magical elements (Merlin, Excalibur, the Lady of the Lake), and chivalric ideals suggests a narrative built over centuries to serve cultural, political, and moral purposes rather than a factual biography.

Archaeological Evidence

No definitive archaeological evidence confirms King Arthur as a historical figure. Sites traditionally linked to Arthur, such as Tintagel Castle in Cornwall (his supposed birthplace) or Cadbury Castle in Somerset (claimed to be Camelot), have revealed occupation during the early medieval period but no direct proof of Arthur’s court.

While these sites provide some context about early medieval Britain’s elite settlements, they do not solve the mystery of Arthur’s historicity. shutdown123