An Invitation to Consider a Potential Arthur-figure Memorial Stone

Abstract

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

• An Invitation to Consider a Potential Arthur-figure Memorial Stone
• Guye Pennington

Did King Arthur exist? While many researchers who work in the field of Arthurian Studies today (particularly those who specialize in the many national literary traditions of the Middle Ages, or those who engage with retellings or reimaginings of the legend in modern media) might consider this query to be either unanswerable or indeed, irrelevant, it must be acknowledged that the ‘Arthur question’ continues to fascinate and preoccupy a significant number of scholars of both the academic/professional and the arm-chair/enthusiast type. Indeed, the debate and discussion about the historical Arthur arguably continues with as much (if not more) enthusiasm in 2024 as it did in 1824 or 1524.¹ A persistent difficulty in identifying Arthur is finding something that has survived from approximately the sixth century that names an Arthur-figure as king. The Glastonbury cross, now lost to history, is generally believed to be the sole inscription to identify a King Arthur, but controversy surrounds its authenticity.² Other objects that have been suggested to have an early Arthurian connection include the so-called ‘Slaughterbridge Stone’ in Camelford, Cornwall (attested at least as early as Richard Carew in the 17^th century)³ and the Artogonou Stone found in Tintagel.⁴

Today I would like to suggest that there is another ‘Arthur stone’ that might have some relevance to the debate over the ‘historicity’ of an ‘Arthur-type figure.’ At best, it may add some support to the theory of the existence of an historical King Arthur; at the very least, it may lend support to those who contend that many people in the medieval period (be they the monks at Glastonbury or elsewhere) were invested in ‘proving’ that King Arthur had once existed and that certain key locations were associated with him. Given the geologist’s analysis and report on this particular stone (see Appendix A) it seems almost certain that whatever may be the case, this stone is most likely not a modern forgery.

The stone under discussion—which I have tentatively chosen to designate as the FILI MAVRICIVS Stone—was originally found in the 1980s and its presence was made known with some significant media fanfare.⁵ However, [End Page 61] the legitimacy of the discovery was subsequently discounted as the modern finders—Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett—self-published a number of Arthur-oriented books that propose theories related to Arthur and early Britain that are significantly outside of the realm of conventional scholarship;⁶ additionally, the authors’ proclivity towards self-isolation heightened speculation that their finds were hoaxes. Because the find was ultimately deemed suspect or not-legitimate, the stone had a bill of sale and was transported to the United States and, as of 2017, is held in a private collection by an antiquarian who wishes to remain anonymous for the present.

With recent scientific advances in the fields of geology and archaeology, the private collector began to wonder about the provenance of the FILI MAVRICIVS Stone and to consider if perhaps Wilson and Blackett, despite the cloud over their reputations, might have made a legitimate discovery. While it may be the case that some amateur sleuths obsessed with a particular subject might falsify discoveries in order to support their unorthodox theories, it is also true that amateur sleuths obsessed with a particular topic might look more aggressively and persistently for said evidence; it is equally possible that they might find it. The private collector engaged Scott Wolter (a licensed geologist with a specialty in historical carvings) to examine the stone and offer an expert opinion. That report (see Appendix A) concludes that the FILI MAVRICIVS Stone’s inscription is not recent and certainly not created in the 1980s. I thus offer up that report here—plus photographic and other contextual evidence—to suggest that scholars reconsider the authenticity of the stone, and in doing so, also reconsider the possibility that the 6^th or 7th century Welsh leader Athrwys ap Meurig may have served as the basis for the legendary King Arthur and/or that his name was meant to honor or remind others of the...