From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Arthur stone was discovered in 1998 in securely dated sixth century contexts among the ruins at Tintagel Castle in Cornwall, England, United Kingdom, a secular, high status settlement of Sub-Roman Britain. Apparently originally a practice dedication stone for some building or other public structure, it was broken in two and re-used as part of a drain when the original structure was destroyed.

The dating of the stone is arrived at by two methods: firstly, the stone came from a securely stratified context in association with imported pottery of known types dating to the fifth/sixth centuries; secondly, forms of certain letters noted on the slate appear in British inscribed stones from Scotland to Cornwall post-500 and are certainly known elsewhere from 6th century north Cornwall (part of the kingdom on Dumnonia).

A smaller, more lightly inscised inscription runs across the surface below. Its Latin inscription reads: PATER COLI AVI FICIT ARTOGNOV. Dr. Charles Thomas recognised Celtic elements in the Latin, for which he considers a likely translation would be Artognou, father of a descendant of Coll, has had (this) constructed. The name "Artognou" could mean "descendant of Arthur", but the arth- element, signifying "bear" appears in many name contexts aside from Arthur^[1] The Tintagel connection made an association with King Arthur irresistible in the popular press.

According to Arthurian myth, first recorded by Geoffrey of Monmouth, King Arthur was conceived at Tintagel Castle. However, as the current Tintagel Castle had not been constructed at the time of Geoffrey's writing, something had to have influenced his placing of Arthur's conception there. Of further note is the fact that, in his History of the Kings of Britain, Geoffrey lists one of Arthur's relatives as Coel Hen (Old King Cole), and a "Coll" is listed on the "Arthur stone".

Also found in the sixth century fort at Tintagel were numerous remains of expensive pottery, glasswork, and coins from Visigothic Spain and the Byzantine Empire. It would have had to be a powerful state to have sustained trade with the Mediterranean. Before the discovery of the Arthur stone, the fort at Tintagel had been suggested as a possible location of Camelot.

Other than possibly being the powerful ruler of Tintagel, and Cornwall or Dumnonia, and being in the proper timeframe for the "real" Arthur, there is no hard evidence that this "Artognou" was the historical King Arthur. However, the memory of Artognou could certainly have been a basis for the historical king Arthur.

1. ^ "Early Medieval Tintagel: An Interview with Archaeologists Rachel Harry and Kevin Brady".

• Glasgow University: Tintagel Excavations 1998. The archaeological context of the find: "Although Tintagel is often associated with the mysterious and mythical past, we must dismiss any idea that the name on this stone is in any way to be associated with the legendary and literary figure Arthur. Arthur was only associated with Tintagel through the work of Geoffrey of Monmouth in the twelfth century, six hundred years later. As Professor Thomas states, "All this stone shows in the name ARTOGNOU, is the use of this (Celtic) element".
• Arthurian Inscription found at Tintagel
• Tintagel Excavations 1998
• "ARTHUR" Stone Discovered at Tintagel
• "Early Medieval Tintagel: An Interview with Archaeologists Rachel Harry and Kevin Brady"