Tintagel

It was long assumed that Geoffrey of Monmouth (writing around 1135) selected Tintagel as the birthplace of Arthur to suit his own needs as a writer, or perhaps for some political reason. The remains of the castle on the island, though romantically associated with Arthur, are in fact 12th and 13th century ruins. Excavations did discover evidence of a Dark Age presence on the island, but for many years this was considered to be a monastery rather than a hillfort or stronghold. Until very recently, this theory persisted, and the island's association with Arthur was treated as fictional.

The discovery of large quantities of pottery and glass at Tintagel began to alter the official viewpoint. The finds were varied in style and purpose. There were oil and wine jars, plates and glass bottles from Spain, North Africa, Greece and the Middle East. The finds were dated to the approximate time period during which Arthur was believed to have been alive, and it quickly became apparent that Tintagel had not been simply a monastery. Major trade had taken place with several Mediterranean nations. Furthermore, Tintagel was so important that a defensive wall was built across the narrow passage which joins the island to the mainland.

The remains of over 150 buildings were discovered after a fire in 1983, and established the view that Tintagel, or Din Tagell, was a royal 5th and 6th century stronghold. Archaeology had come to the rescue of the legend, and the possibility of an Arthurian connection re-established itself with the benefits of physical evidence.

In 1998, a remarkable discovery took place on Tintagel during new excavations. A piece of 6th century slate was found with a carved Latin inscription, PATER COLIAVIFICIT ARTOGNOU. The inscription is incomplete, but in translation it is believed to say Artognou, father of a descendant of Col, has made this. Artognou may have been pronounced Arthnou, and may have meant bear. This 'Arthur Stone' is now officially an English national treasure, and it may be the only surviving relic of Arthur Pendragon's reign. It does not provide conclusive evidence that Arthur existed, nor does it confirm that Tintagel was an Arthurian stronghold, but it may be the evidence that draws history and folklore a little closer. It is ironic that in the quest for proof of Arthur's existence, the single piece of evidence draws us deeper into the mystery of the legends.