Understanding the story is important to understanding Arthur’s historical importance and the mystery that surrounds his name. There are many different variations about the story of Arthur, but the basic story has stayed approximately the same. Most of this story cannot be proven, so keep in mind that most of this is probably fiction. Igraine, the wife of Gorlois of Cornwall had an illegitimate child with King Uther Pendragon of Britain. The young child, named Arthur, was always hidden in a veil of secrecy throughout his childhood. Arthur only received his status as king after successfully withdrawing a sword from a stone. The magician of the court of Britain, Merlin, exclaimed the true knowledge that Arthur’s father was actually King Uther after Arthur became king. The superior sword Excalibur was used by Arthur, and he proved that he was a miraculously mighty warrior. The two invincible knights of his realm were Sir Tristram and Sir Lancelot, but were both in tragic and dramatic love unions. This was especially true with Sir Lancelot, because of his romantic relationship with the king’s wife, the queen, Guinevere. Arthur’s nephew, Mordred, mortally wounded the great king in battle caused by a rebellion lead by Mordred, but Arthur killed Mordred before Arthur succumbed to his mortal wounds. Today, readers see the stories of Arthur as an excellent example of the ideal of knighthood and chivalry (Encyclopedia Britannica 2006b).

Arthur was present in many writings of the early post-Roman era in England and France. Historically, Arthur was a leader who led the resistance of the Welsh to the advancing Saxons of the middle Thames. Arthur was first recorded in writing by two chroniclers, Gildas and Nennius. Notably, Nennius states in his Historia Brittonum that Arthur fought 12 battles against the Saxons. These battles ended with Arthur’s victory at Mons Badonicus in 516 A.D. In the Historia Brittonum, Nenniss mentioned the Battle of Camlann in 537 A.D., "in which Arthur and Medraut [Mordred] fell." Gildas wrote De excidio et conquestu Britanniae in the mid-6th century and includes the battle at Mons Badonicus. Nevertheless, Gildas does not include Arthur in the decisive battle of Mons Badonicus. These early writers tend to attest to Arthur’s existence (Encyclopedia Britannica 2006a).

Stories about Arthur have been popular since before the 11^th century, especially in Wales (Thornhill 2000). By the 12^th century, writers began to make Arthur seem to be a king of wonders and marvels. Early Welsh literature was especially guilty of this. For example, in the romantic prose Kulhwch and Olwen, Arthur was associated with other heroes, and this leads to the idea of the court of Arthur (Encyclopedia Britannica 2006a). Arthur became famous on an entirely European scale in 12^th century with the writing of the History of the Kings of Britain by Geoffrey of Monmouth. Geoffrey’s story celebrates a glorious and successful king who routed a Roman army in France, but was unfortunately killed during a battle with his nephew, Mordred, during a rebellion. It is fact that some of Geoffrey’s story did contain fabrications, and "certain features of the Celtic stories were adapted to suit feudal times" (Encyclopedia Britannica 2006b). For example, King Arthur was now said to be a great conqueror to the English empire, and was even compared to Alexander the Great and Charlemagne (Encyclopedia Britannica 2006b).

Many archaeologists and historians are factually uncertain over the existence of Arthur. "We do not know where this [Badonicus Mons] was and it may be doubted whether we ever shall, any more than we shall establish whether a man called Arthur fought here," says Professor Sims-Williams. Recent "academic assessments" by heavyweight historians have only concluded that "he may well have" existed. It is true that historical information on Arthur is finite and there must have been a great variety of important people and events during this time period so that we will probably never know about the truth of Arthur (Thornhill 2000).

Arthur has an important link with Celtic mythology and this is well known. He has assumed the role of the ‘culture-hero’ of the Celts, and he has even been given an image as a divine individual in the views of the Celts. The divine role that Arthur has taken can simply be seen as something consistent with his popularity and the popularity of his legend. Although Arthur does have connections to folk-tales of mythological origin, we are unable to explain Arthur’s origin in mythology, because "Arthur has no obvious antecedent" (Thornhill 2000). Not knowing his origins in mythology tends to cause many problems with the story of Arthur as a mythological figure (Thornhill 2000).

The existence of Arthur proves to have more relevance in historical origin. The name Arthur is probably derived from the Latin name ‘Artorius’ and places him with "names of Latin derivation borne by leading Britons in the sub-Roman period" (Thornhill 2000). He is also continually put into historical context. For example, Arthur is included with the battle at Badonicus Mons, and he is also included in the war against the Saxons from the early source of Gildas. His historical context is started by the Historia Brittonum, and is supported by the Annales Cambriae. In addition, there has been so much resonance in Brittany that it suggests independent and comparable traditions there (Thornhill 2000).

Even though that there are many different facts that support the historical origin of Arthur, there is a large problem. His reputation is so excellent in Celtic circles that "if it is to be justified purely by the outstanding achievements of his historical career then we should expect him to figure, somehow, even in the very meager sources that we have for the period" (Thornhill 2000). The fact that Gildas did not include Arthur in the writing of De Excido is very problematic. Nonetheless, we cannot overlook an important character like Arthur. An explanation is needed for the extraordinary success of Arthur’s legend and it will probably be in a context that is separate from his historical accomplishments (Thornhill 2000).

Philip Thornhill has made many attempts to understand the Briton cult traditions that may have left their trace in the toponym, and may be hidden Christian form in the hagiography. Thornhill has discovered a tradition of cult-figures in ‘Ar’ that derives from the pre-Indo-European substrate, which is apparent in sub-Roman British sources from the period. Could Arthur’s name just be a Christian substitution for a pagan name that sounds similar (Thornhill 2000)?

Is it possible that the name of Arthur may have actually come from a toponym? Localized legends about Arthur actually link his name to a toponym, which is used in the earliest sources about Arthur. "Arthur was associated, in an ‘otherworld’ context, with the Sicilian mount Etna, suggests that the links that the legend had with both the toponym and mythology were at least a part of what lay behind its broad appeal and ability to disseminate far and wide (Thornhill 2000)."

There may be a link between Arthur and a etymological background that Thornhill has hypothesized about dealing with the -Ar toponym. Thornhill’s theory states that Arthur’s name may have come from the word ‘kar,’ which has the basic meaning of rock or stone. Nonetheless, the word ‘kar’ is quite common in names for the 5^th and 6^th centuries. For example, Thornhill shows how the name Carutius derives from a local river, the Caron River. The proper name Artemia is derived from the word ‘stone,’ and even the vulgar Latin ‘artuuus’ means ‘knife,’ which is closely related to the word ‘stone’ in Old English. It is additionally thought that -Art, ‘a stone,’ is the root that is apparent in the name ‘Arturus,’ or Arthur. Thus, it is quite possible that Arthur may have been named after a natural entity, such as a rock or stone (Thornhill 2000).

There is a difference between Art- in Old English and in Celtic. To the Celts, the toponym of -Art means ‘bear,’ and this obviously means that it has cult associations. It would be possible that the Celts merged several toponyms together to form a name in the context of a cult. Even though the Latin name for Arthur, Artorius, is a more favored derivation, Arthur’s name could possibly be derived from the Britons. The form ‘Artorius’ has been employed into no writings, but six independent authors around 1200 used the name ‘Arcturus.’ The name Arcturus literally means ‘guardian of the bear.’ This name looks more acceptable to a name related to Arthur, because it sounds similar to ‘Arturus’ and it translates Welsh Arth-. "‘Bear’ not only has cult traditions, but it also has "connotations of strength and ferocity that make it especially appropriate to any kind of ‘deity in martial mode.’ In fact, it is precisely as a kid of ‘superhuman warrior,’ that Arthur is characterized, in the early sources" (Thornhill 2000).

Thornhill has also looked into other ways of explaining Arthur’s existence. The fact that Arthur is not included in Gildas’ De Excidio is a major problem from the existence of Arthur, because Arthur is not included anywhere in De Excidio. Nevertheless, De Excidio tells the story of another character instead, Ambrosius Aurelianus. The type of figure that Arthur is described as is precisely how Ambrosius is described in De Excidio. This fact may or may not be important, because Gildas himself does not explain many people by name. Gildas explains that Ambrosius is "largely responsible for the recovery of the scattered demoralized Britons and the turning of the tables against their heathen Saxon foe" (Thornhill 2000). Just the plain fact that there were two figures that existed during the period stretches credibility, but is not necessarily impossible. Some believe that Arthur actually is Ambrosius and they do have basic reasoning to derive such a conclusion. Ambrosius not only appears in De Excidio, but also appears in the Historia Britonum. In the Historia, Ambrosius is seen has a figure of folk tale, while Arthur takes the role of being the leader for turning the tide against the Saxons. Nevertheless, both Arthur and Ambrosius seem to be written about as amazingly similar characters (Thornhill 2000).

Could Arthur just have been a deity instead of an actual historical personage? If Arthur would have represented a sort of deity role that would have supported and been responsible for Ambrosius’ victories, it may be easier to develop a sense of parallelism between the two. This explanation includes that both figures had lived and had their successes. Additional questions would arise from these facts. For example, why would Gildas make Ambrosius look like the superior leader when, in actuality, it was Arthur (Thornhill 2000)?

In the Historia, Arthur resembles more of a mythological figure than anything else and, Arthur tends to acquire this role in additional early poems in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. In these stories, Arthur is seen as the ‘supreme warrior.’ Arthur seems to be only characterized in terms of martial prowess, and does not truly show any attributes that would be associated with a superb ruler. Arthur could do anything, including killing 960 men in one charge by himself. Killing 960 men by himself is very far-fetched, but seeing Arthur as a war-god or a divine hero is much more easy to believe (Thornhill 2000).

A second theory has been proposed by Dana Huntley. She states that Arthur was actually the historical personage Owain Ddantgywn. He was born around 460 A.D. in the Northern Wales kingdom of Gwynedd, and he was the song of a local king. "Owain grew up to become a battle leader under Ambrosius, the King of Powys" (Huntley 1998). He received extensive battle experience while fighting victorious campaigns in Lincolnshire and in the Scottish lowlands, where he was fighting the Angles and Saxons. Owain succeeded Ambrosius and the Celts called Owain, the new king, "The Bear" (Huntley 1998).

We know that the Celtic word for ‘bear’ is ‘arth,’ but how does the name ‘Arthur’ arise? Huntley believes that Owain received the battle name Arthur, because of the combination of the words ‘Arth’ from the Celtic word ‘bear’ and the Roman word for bear, ‘Ursis.’ Owain united the conflicting parties of Britain, the Celtic national faction and the Celtic imperialist faction, into one to defeat the invading Saxons. The nationalists were interested in Celtic traditions and the imperialists wanted ties with Roman traditions. To balance the power between the nationalists and the imperialists, taking the Celtic and Roman names for bear, and combining them represents a leader of two united kingdoms (Huntley 1998). The name Arthur makes perfect sense.

Huntley, as have many other writers before her, describe Arthur’s downfall as tragic. Around 518, an almost 60-year-old king, Arthur was again in battle against his Saxon foe. He achieved many victories and his campaign was deemed successful. Nevertheless, Arthur returned to Powys, and was forced to face a tragic civil war. The rebellion was lead by Maglocunus (Mordred), Arthur’s own nephew, who had seized the throne of Gwnyedd. Arthur was mortally wounded at the Battle of Camlann, near the west coast of Snowdonia. When Arthur died, his son, Cuneglasus ascended to the throne of Powys, but the fragile alliance between the Celts was destroyed. Due to the destruction of the alliance, the Saxons were able to push the Celts to the extremities of Britain. Arthur is supposedly buried with the other kings of Powys of the sixth century at The Berth, or about a dozen miles northwest of Wroxeter Roman City (Huntley 1998).

Another theory has been created by Bruce Heydt. Heydt took information that has been found by Geoffrey Ashe and applied it to his own theory. Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain has been evaluated, and the writing has been found to be mostly a fantasy. Sifting through and proving which parts of Geoffrey’s story are fact or fiction is a very difficult task. "Even where Geoffrey’s chronicle departs from reality, however, it is likely that he loosely based his story on real events. Reshaped, relocated, and recast as they might be, Geoffrey’s ideas had to come from somewhere." Geoffrey Ashe began a search to find the known historic events that led to Geoffrey’s story in the 1980's. Ashe found that there was a figure that seemed to be like Arthur. Geoffrey includes Arthur’s expedition across the English channel into France. Geoffrey goes on to describe a British king who came to the aid of the Romans to defend against the invading Visigoths. The British king’s name was Riothamus, which likely means ‘supreme king.’ Riothamus was later betrayed by an ally, and was defeated in France. Riothamus retreated to the east with his army. Strangely enough, the last recorded location of Riothamus was at a French town that still exists, called Avallon (Heydt 1998). Avalon was the place that Arthur supposedly fled to recover from his wounds in the story character’s Arthur. Is this a coincidence?

Bruce Heydt continues by explaining that many other details of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s story does not fit with historical fact. For example, Riothamus was an ally of the Romans, while Geoffrey’s Arthur was an enemy of the Roman empire. Inaccuracies are found throughout most of Geoffrey’s story, and they question the reliability of his work. Heydt openly admits that the theory that Riothamus and Arthur are the same person is unproven. Nevertheless, he reminds everyone that Geoffrey most definitely "had Riothamus in mind when he wrote about Arthur’s war in France" (Heydt 1998).

There is not much evidence that could prove Arthur’s existence by archeological means. Practically everything that has been associated or may have been associated with Arthur has been excavated, but people are still looking for explanations today. For example, in 1998, archeologists were searching for evidence at a site where Arthur had supposedly lived. The town of Tintagel is where they were searching and in the summer of 1998, the archeologists had finally discovered something possibly important to Arthur’s existence. The archeology team from the University of Glasgow discovered a stone, facing up, that had fallen from a building. The inscription in the stone was Latin and read ‘pater coliavi facit artognov,’ which means, "Artognou [pronounced Arthnou], father of a descendant of Coll, has had this made." Almost immediately, newspaper reports came out claiming that King Arthur had lived at Tinitagel, which would almost definitely prove his existence. Experts have since stated that the names Artognou and Arthur are different, but do share the common prefix Art-. The extensive amount of imported pottery at the Tintagel site suggests that someone had a lot of influence in that specified area. Was there a connection between the wealth of Tintagel and Arthur supporting the local economy (Menon 1999)?

We will never know whether or not a man named Arthur existed in the fifth or sixth centuries. As a historian myself, we are nowhere near to obtaining any solid, factual evidence to support Arthur’s existence. Every time that we would discover something that could be linked to Arthur’s existence, more questions would arise. These questions would lead to more questions and, in essence, we would be getting nowhere. In the 21^st century, we have no way of proving his existence and the only thing that we know without a doubt is that Arthur was a topic of many stories in Briton’s early ages. He became the symbol of England and was renowned as a national personage, like Charlemagne of France and Alexander the Great of Greece. England had to employ the principle that Arthur had existed in order to obtain and preserve national and cultural pride. New heroes have arisen in the past 1,500 years in Britain, so Arthur does not require an existence in the modern era. It is not necessarily good for such a leader as Arthur to have so much mystery surrounding his name. Arthur could have been so many different characters of history that we may know of, or not know of. Arthur may have actually been Ambrosius or some other character in fifth or sixth century Britain. It is next to impossible to acquire any additional information and thus, I must conclude that Arthur may have existed, but we will never be able to concretely prove of his existence.

Works Cited

Encyclopædia Britannica. "Arthur." 2006. Encyclopædia Brittannica Online. 25 Mar. 2006. <http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9009695>.

Encyclopædia Britannica. "Arthurian Legend." 2006. Encyclopædia Brittannica Online. 25 Mar. 2006. <http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9009704>.

Menon. King Arthnou was here. Discover v. 20 no. 1 (January 1999) p. 30.

Thornhill, Philip. The Origin of the Legend of King Arthur. Mankind Quarterly. v. 40 issue 3 (Spring 2000) p. 227-286.