There is a common mistake of assuming deep antiquity to many parts of later Arthuriana. Excalibur vs The Sword in the Stone is one of those. Excalibur is probably the older of the two, appearing in the Folktale-esque Culhwch and Olwen, which probably dates to the 11th century.
The Sword in the Stone itself dates to the early 13th century, appearing first in Robert de Boron's Merlin. Robert seems to have been heavily influenced by the story of Saint Galgano's sword in the stone, which was extremely popular at the time.
The Prose Merlin, part of the Vulgate-Cycle is clarifies that it was Excalibur drawn from the stone. This is later redacted in the Post-Vulgate cycle which makes them different.
Culhwch shows evidence of drawing from the earlier poetry of Taliesin, specifically in the instance of Diwrnach the Giant's Cauldron, which seems to be a repainted Cauldron of Annwn. Caledfwlch itself appears twice in Culhwch.
The first is in a list of Arthur's possessions, while the second is in the incident with Diwrnach. Culhwch is cursed to only be able to marry, Olwen the daughter of a Chief of Giants, Ysbaddaden Bencawr.
Culhwch enlists the aid of his cousin Arthur at his ailing father's urging. Arthur agree. They storm Ysbaddaden's castle, and upon defeating him he agrees that Culhwch can marry Olwen after completing numerous nigh-impossible tasks, because upon Olwen's marriage he will die.
Not all of these tasks are recorded, but one that is is retrieving Diwrnach's magical Cauldron. After trying to appeal to Odgar and Diwrnach to peacefully give it via messengers, Diwrnach refuses, and Arthur sets out with his retinue.
After a final refusal, Bewyr siezed the cauldron, and Llenlleog, takes up Arthur's sword Caledfwlch and "swung it in a circle" killing Diwrnach and all his men. All of Ireland descended upon Arthur and his retinue, who after Arthur defeated them sailed home loaded with treasure.
Arthur returns after and lays waste to a fifth of Ireland. Ultimately Culhwch and Olwen are wed after Culhwch completes these various tasks.
Interestingly in this earliest reference to Caledfwlch, (a name which Bromwich has determined is probably cognate with Caladbolg of Irish fame, both derived from an older generic term for Sword) the sword is not wielded by Arthur, but by one of his warriors.
Llenlleog Wyddel (The Irishman) makes a few appearances, and combined with the earlier figure Lleminawc, as well as the historical king Llenneac of Elmet may account for the composition of the later Lancelot himself. Leminawc also has roots in the Celtic god Lugh.
Much of the later French material seems to have been influenced by Breton bardic tradition, which derives from a separate tradition of Arthurian tales, and may have preserved many details that the Welsh tradition did not.
Long story short, deep antiquity is often ascribed to certain facets of Arthuriana that are quite young, while others such as Lancelot are handwaved as 'French inventions" while they probably represent deeper roots than even Arthur himself.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Popular perception of King Arthur is often filtered through a lens of current culture. This is not a modern issue, and dates back as far as the earliest romances involving Arthuriana.
As a primer, it is still often parroted that King Arthur never existed, but current philological arguments on the Arthurian content within the Annales Cambriae (Welsh Annals) make a strong case that they are genuine, and date to the 6th century, within living memory of Arthur.
The majority of the earliest evidence of Arthur favors the North, and the earliest corpus of material on the period (exception of Gildas' De Excidio) generally holds a Northern context. However, by the time of Geoffrey of Monmouth Arthur is almost certainly a composite figure.
Interesting approach to looking at Grendel, and other similar human-like entities from European contexts. taken from the book
"MANLIKE MONSTERS ON TRIAL:
EARLY RECORDS AND MODERN EVIDENCE"
The description from the 12th century German Genesis.
This kind of beast, often referred to as Þyrs (a term Grendel himself is called, and later conflated and translated as Demon)
In 1136 Geoffrey of Monmouth published 'De gestis Britonum' later called 'Historia Regum Britanniae' and created what would then be used as the core canonical story of King Arthur. This was the springboard for many 'histories' as well as fiction.
Geoffrey claims to have been translating a "very ancient book in the British tongue" when writing his Historia, and much has been made to try and source said book, though Geoffrey seems to have worked from Gildas, Bede, Nennius, and numerous others in reality.
Much of what Geoffrey presents is not found in these sources however, and he seems to have creatively filled in many gaps, using information gleaned from kings lists and now lost chronicles.
Mordred is always a fascinating figure, and the possibility that he's a composite is present much like the composite Arthur himself.
Medraut doesn't start as a negative figure, and is initially well regarded. Very little of this early tradition survives, his death in 537 as recorded in the Annales Cambriae probably the earliest mention.
"The Strife of Camlann in which Arthur and Medraut perished"
It is only after Geoffrey of Monmouth penned his 'Historia Regum Britanniae" and the subsequent influence of Brut y Brenhinedd that he becomes a negative figure all around.
In the incomplete Arthurian poem 'Pa Gur' one, possibly two of the battles in Nennius' list of King Arthur's battles are corroborated. Nennius' battle list is the earliest 'Historical' document to mention Arthur, and it is interesting to see two of it's battles in Pa Gur.
"In the Mount of Eidin
he fought with dog-heads.
Every group of a hundred would fall.
There fell every group of a hundred.
Before four-sinewed Bedwyr
on the shores of Tryfrwyd
in the struggle with Garwlwyd,
he was fierce in affliction
with sword and shield."
Tryfrwyd immediately stands out, as this is almost certainly the same battle as Tribruit, Arthur's 10th battle in Nennius. Bedwyr is said to have fought Garwlwyd here, 'Rough-Grey' often assumed to be the same figure from a Triad, Gwrgi Garwlwyd
I think there's a very interesting case to be made for three separate high-kingships in the north, The Coeling Prime™, a northern faction led from Alt-Clut, and the Pictish High-Kingship.
The case for the Coeling high-kingship is laid out of course in the article above, but I think that a very similar arrangement was made between the descendants of Dyfnwal Hen of Alt Clut.
Dyfynwal likely began the process spreading influence through marriages and protection pacts amongst the sub-kingdoms between the walls, likely spurred by the slow annexation of territory to the north of Hadrian's wall by the Coeling, starting with Galloway.