The quest for the true King Arthur has filled many books over the years, often focusing on uncovering any evidence of his existence. Some researchers take a different approach by attempting to connect the legendary Arthur with a historical figure. Athrwys of Gwent, who was the son of King Meurig, fits this description. He was a popular candidate for the identity of the real King Arthur from the late 18th century to the early 20th century. So, could it be time to revisit this old theory?
Who Was Athrwys of Gwent?
Athrwys of Gwent was the son of King Meurig, who ruled over much of southeast Wales. While the borders weren’t always clear-cut, this area generally included the historic regions known as Glamorgan and Gwent.
In addition to his father’s kingdom, Athrwys also inherited Ergyng because he was the eldest son of Onbrawst, the daughter of its ruler, Gwrgan the Great. The kingdom of Ergyng covered a significant part of what we now know as Herefordshire and Gloucestershire along the Welsh border. So, Athrwys was set to inherit a vast kingdom that spanned the southeastern corner of Wales and parts of England.
Athrwys’s father, Meurig, was the son of Tewdrig, a well-known and powerful king who later became a religious figure in the region. In Catholic tradition, Tewdrig is honored as a saint. This royal family is prominently featured in an important historical document called the Book of Llandaff, which records various land grants made by the kings of southeast Wales to the church.
Why Has Athrwys Been Rejected as the Real King Arthur?
For many years, Athrwys was a favored candidate among scholars studying southeast Wales as the true King Arthur. This idea first emerged in 1747 in Thomas Carte’s A General History of England. However, by the early 20th century, most scholars began to move away from this theory. But why did that happen?
There are two main reasons why this identification has been deemed implausible. First, the name Athrwys is noticeably different from Arthur. Some have suggested that it might actually derive from Antres, but that’s not the main issue. The more significant problem lies in the timeline. While some earlier historians placed Athrwys in the 6th century, it became more widely accepted that he actually lived during the 7th century, which would be about a hundred years after Arthur’s time. Therefore, it’s clear that he couldn’t have been the real King Arthur.
Recent Archaeological Evidence Demands a Reconsideration
Located in the heart of southeast Wales, this hill fort has recently been recognized as a significant political and tribute center. The impressive stone walls, previously thought to belong to the Norman era, are actually remnants of an earlier time, indicating that they were built by powerful kings during the early medieval period.
Dr. Andrew Seaman has noted that the quality and quantity of artifacts found at Dinas Powys from this era are unmatched in Wales. The presence of high-status items and the grand scale of the fortifications highlight the power dynamics of the time. Considering Arthur’s legendary prominence in Britain during this period, it seems reasonable to explore his connections to this region once more.
Revised Chronologies of Athrwys Dynasty
Recent archaeological studies have revealed some intriguing insights, indicating that the power center in Britain (outside of Anglo-Saxon regions) during the 6th century might have been located in southeast Wales. Among the ruling dynasty of that area, the name Athrwys is the only one that somewhat resembles Arthur, although he is not typically associated with Arthur’s era.
Regardless of any potential links between Athrwys and the Arthurian legends, a number of scholars are advocating for a return to an earlier timeline for his dynasty. Welsh historian Brian Davies, writing in New Welsh Review, has suggested moving the dates of this dynasty back by roughly a century. More recently, David Farmer, the editor of The Oxford Dictionary of Saints: Fifth Edition, has proposed a similar timeline, placing Athrwys in the 6th century. Historian Timothy Venning has also expressed support for this chronology, though he hasn’t made any firm conclusions. Even Patrick Sims-Williams, who prefers the later timeline, noted in 2019 that the basis for the later dates of this dynasty isn’t entirely conclusive.
When Did Athrwys Really Live?
The late dates surrounding the historical figures in question are primarily supported by the Annales Cambriae, a 10th-century chronicle that notes the death of Ffernfael, son of Ithel, in the year 775. It’s commonly believed that Ithel is the same person as Ithel, the grandson of Athrwys, who indeed had a son named Ffernfael. This timeline suggests that Athrwys must have lived no earlier than the 7th century.
However, as Sims-Williams pointed out in 2019, this reasoning relies on the assumption that names were not reused. Yet, we know that both Ithel and Ffernfael were quite common names within this dynasty. The Harleian MS 3859, which is the earliest genealogical record of medieval Welsh kings, lists another Ithel from a later generation. Therefore, it’s entirely possible that the Ffernfael mentioned in the Annales Cambriae could be the son of this later Ithel. A closer look at additional evidence might help clarify this situation.
One significant piece of evidence comes from the Book of Llandaff, which indicates that Athrwys was a contemporary of Bishop Oudoceus during the early part of his bishopric. Oudoceus, being the son of King Budic of Brittany, is estimated by scholars like Peter Bartrum to have been born around 500, making it unlikely for him to have been born later than 540. If Athrwys was indeed a contemporary of Oudoceus early in his tenure, that would place Athrwys in the 6th century.
Moreover, the Book of Llandaff depicts Athrwys as a king granting land in front of clergy who were disciples of Bishop Dubricius. Since Dubricius is believed to have been born around 465, this also supports the idea that Athrwys lived in the 6th century.
Additionally, the Life of St Cadoc, written a few decades before the Book of Llandaff, connects Athrwys’s grandfather Tewdrig with Cadoc’s great-great-grandfather Tewdrig. Given that Cadoc was certainly born in the early 6th century, this further confirms that Athrwys must have existed during that time.
Traditionally, these pieces of evidence have been dismissed as errors in the records. However, this interpretation seems to stem from the established chronology rather than being shaped by the evidence itself. Considering how shaky the foundation of the late chronology is, it would be much better to consider the evidence first.
More Affairs
Was Athrwys Really Called Arthur?
To consider the possibility that Athrwys could be the true King Arthur, it’s not enough to just confirm he lived during the right period; we also need to verify that he had the correct name. So, is this the case, or does the evidence suggest his name actually originated from Antres?
The notion that his name might have originally been Antres comes from comparing a land grant in the Book of Llandaff with a similar version found in the Llancarfan charters. In the latter document, the name Andres appears among witnesses right after Meurig and his sons. It’s believed that this refers to Athrwys, who is listed in the corresponding section of the Book of Llandaff. However, we can’t interpret Andres as one of Meurig’s sons because the name following Andres belongs to a different individual. It wouldn’t make sense for the list to mention multiple sons of Meurig and then only name one. More likely, the sons are unnamed, and Andres is a separate person altogether. Interestingly, the narrative leading up to this witness list specifically mentions an Andrus, son of Morgan, which likely refers to the same Andres.
If we dismiss this supposed origin of Athrwys’ name, what can we deduce? Well, this name doesn’t appear frequently in records from other dynasties, suggesting it may not have been a legitimate name on its own. It could simply be a variation in every instance. There are indeed some medieval documents that reference individuals named Arthwys, with an “r” before the “th.” Others show up as Arthrwys, and at least one person is recorded first as Arthwys and later as Athrwys.
Considering this, it’s quite possible that all these similar names, some of which seem to have been used interchangeably, were variations of the same name. While there isn’t direct proof, they might all stem from Arthurus or Arturus, which were common Latin versions of the name Arthur. Alternatively, they could derive from Artus, as seen on the Modena Archivolt, which is an early representation of the Arthurian legends and appears to be a Breton form of the name Arthur.
Was Athrwys of Gwent the Real King Arthur?
In summary, the theory that Athrwys, son of Meurig, could be the true King Arthur is definitely intriguing. Recent archaeological findings indicate that southeast Wales was home to a prominent dynasty during Arthur’s era, with a level of material culture unmatched anywhere else in Wales. This, along with various legends linking Arthur to that area, lends strong support to the idea that he may have originated from there.
Athrwys stands out as a likely candidate from this dynasty for being the real King Arthur. Although scholarly opinions over the last hundred years have placed him a century later than Arthur, it seems there’s a trend shifting back to an earlier timeline. There’s solid evidence suggesting that Athrwys lived in the 6th century instead of the 7th.
While we can’t definitively say that his name derives from Arthur, it does seem connected to the known forms Arthrwys and Arthwys. Considering this, it could very well be a development from the Latin name Arturus or the Breton name Artus.
