20th April 2004, 1:41 PM
That's a good example. There is very little evidence that he definitely existed... it was written much later, only a few completely reliable references, etc... but still, I definitely think that there was an Arthur. He was a Celtic warlord or king, yes, fighting against the invading Saxons in the late 400s and 500s AD... he was successful for years, then there was a battle where he and his main opponent were killed (530s?). The legend went from there... and in future times he was somewhat transplanted -- see Mallory's Morte 'Artur (I've read it). That mythical King Arthur was Middle Ages, not Dark Ages...
The Great Flood gains legitimacy when you realize that it wasn't just the Hebrews that had a Great Flood. Many Near East peoples had one. That's why the theory that it was the Bosphorous breaking and the great expansion of the Black Sea that was the origin for that story... the whole world wasn't flooded, but to the people there it sure seemed like it! And they scattered bringing the story elsewhere...
The Great Flood gains legitimacy when you realize that it wasn't just the Hebrews that had a Great Flood. Many Near East peoples had one. That's why the theory that it was the Bosphorous breaking and the great expansion of the Black Sea that was the origin for that story... the whole world wasn't flooded, but to the people there it sure seemed like it! And they scattered bringing the story elsewhere...