The search for the real King Arthur has occupied historians for centuries. Often, arguments center on the idea that a real historical person was the inspiration for the legendary king. Once candidate proposed by scholars is Athrwys of Gwent, the son of King Meurig. Since the late 18th century, he has been a popular candidate for the famous ruler of the Britons, but this theory fell out of favor in the early 20th century. What is the evidence that Athrwys could have been the real historical figure who inspired King Arthur, why did the theory fall out of favor, and does new archaeological evidence bring him back into the running?Who Was Athrwys of Gwent? Member of a Powerful DynastyStatue of King Tewdrig, a powerful 5th or 6th century king of Wales, recorded as expelling King Maxentius from his throne in Brittany, Mathern, Wales. Source: Short Walks Long Paths.Athrwys of Gwent was the son of a king named Meurig. This dynasty ruled over much of southeast Wales. Although the borders were not always consistent, their kingdom generally included the historic regions of Glamorgan and Gwent.Athrwys also inherited the kingdom of Ergyng, since he was the eldest son of Onbrawst, the daughter of that kingdoms ruler, Gwrgan the Great. The kingdom of Ergyng encompassed a large portion of what is now Herefordshire and Gloucestershire along the Welsh border. Thus, Athrwys was the heir to a large kingdom covering the entire southeast corner of Wales and some of what is now England.Athrwys father, Meurig, was the son of Tewdrig, a famous, powerful kin and religious figure. He is remembered in Catholic tradition as a saint. The members of this dynasty feature prominently in an important document called the Book of Llandaff. This is a record of various grants of land from the kings of southeast Wales to the church.Who Suggested That Athrwys Was the Real King Arthur?A map of Tewdrigs center of activity, displaying the late date for his death. Source: Wikimedia CommonsFor a long time, Athrwys was an extremely popular candidate for the real King Arthur among scholars who studied southeast Wales. The proposal first appeared in 1747, in Thomas Cartes A General History of England.Carte and other scholars argued that Athrwys was a good geographical fit, as the region he ruled aligns well with the geographical settings for Arthur. For example, Geoffrey of Monmouth, in his Historia Regum Britanniae, placed Arthurs court at Caerleon-upon-Usk, in Gwent.While modern scholarship generally places Athrwys in the 7th century, a century after the traditional Arthurian period, some 18th-century historians argued for a 6th-century date for Athrwys. They used evidence like the Life of St. Cadoc, which connects Athrwyss grandfather, Tewdrig, to St. Cadoc, generally accepted as an early 6th-century figure. If Athrwys could be placed in the 6th century, it would make him a contemporary of the legendary Arthur.The name Athrwys was seen by some as a plausible corruption or variant of Arthur or Arthurus, the Latin form. Others argued for parallels between Athrwyss family and the legendary Arthurian family. Connections have been drawn between Athrwyss father, Meurig, and the legendary father of Arthur, Uther Pendragon.Why Was the Identification of Athrwys as Arthur Rejected?Annales Cambriae in Harleian MS 3859, folio 190r, c. 12th century. Source: British LibraryIn the early 20th century, scholars in general turned away from this theory. There are two main reasons why this identification was rejected as untenable. Firstly, while the name Athrwys is obviously quite dissimilar to the name Arthur, scholars have argued that it actually comes from the name Antres, and should not be considered a substitute for Arthur.A more significant objection to this theory about the real King Arthur is to do with chronology. Although various earlier historians placed Athrwys in the 6th century, it came to be more widely accepted that he lived in the 7th century, specifically 605-655 CE, based on firmer dates for his known descendants. Specifically, the evidence comes from the Annales Cambriae, a chronicle from the 10th century that records the death of Ffernfael, son of Ithel in 775. His father Ithel is widely assumed to be the same as Ithel, the grandson of Athrwys, who did have a son named Ffernfael. With Ithels son Ffernfael dying in 775, Ithels grandfather Athrwys cannot have lived any earlier than the 7th century. This would place him about a century after Arthurs time.Other arguments against also include a lack of evidence of Athrwys being associated with great deeds, at least sufficiently great to inspire the legendary King Arthur. While he seems to have been a figure of regional importance, there are no historical records that attribute to him significant military victories against the Saxon invaders or leadership beyond the borders of his kingdom. In fact, some scholarly interpretations of the sources suggest that Athryws predeceased his father and never actually served as king.Does Recent Archaeological Evidence Change This Assessment?Defensive walls of Dinas Powys, once thought to be Norman, now dated to the 6th-7th century. Source: Wikimedia CommonsRecent archaeological discoveries may provide a new perspective. The hill fort of Dinas Powys is right in the heart of southeast Wales. In recent years, archaeologists have discovered that it was a political and tribute center of immense status. The grand stone walls which look like something out of the Norman era (and were formerly interpreted as such) are now known to have been constructed in the 6th or 7th century. Given that there was only room for a single household to live here, these massive defensive works point to very high-status kings.Regarding the material culture found at this site dating to this era, Andrew Seaman has written that the quality and quantity of the early medieval material from Dinas Powys is thus far unparalleled in Wales. The presence of high-status material culture, as well as the massive display of power in the form of defensive works, is very conspicuous. Given Arthurs legendary high status in Britain in this very era, we are justified in looking for him again in this part of Britain.Revised Chronologies of Athrwys DynastyTewdrigs genealogy in the Harleian MS 3859, folio 195r, 12th century. Source: British LibraryThese archaeological finds warrant another look at the dynasty that ruled this region in the search for Arthur. The names of many members of the dynasty are preserved in genealogical records, and the only one whose name bears any similarity at all to Arthur is Athrwys.Moreover, independent of the issue of Athrwys potentially being connected to the Arthurian legends, some scholars have recently supported a return to the earlier chronology for his dynasty. Welsh historian Brian Davies, in New Welsh Review, supported reducing the dates of this dynasty by about a century. More recently, scholar David Farmer, editor of The Oxford Dictionary of Saints (Fifth Edition), presented a similar chronology, placing Athrwys in the 6th century. Historian Timothy Venning also writes favorably of this chronology, although without any definitive statements one way or the other.Even Patrick Sims-Williams, who favors the later chronology, explained in 2019 that the key foundation for the late dates for this dynasty is far from definitive. The argument assumes that there were no repeated pairs of names. Yet, we know that both Ithel and Ffernfael were popular names in this dynasty. In fact, Harleian MS 3859 (the earliest genealogical record for the kings of medieval Wales) records another Ithel of the same line who lived a few generations later. There is no reason why the Ffernfael mentioned in the Annales Cambriae cannot have been the son of this later Ithel.St Cadocs Church, Llancarfan, Wales. Source: National Churches TrustOther evidence supports an earlier fate for Athrwys. The Book of Llandaff, a 12th-century compilation of documents, suggests that Athrwys was a contemporary of bishop Oudoceus early in his tenure. Oudoceus was the son of King Budic of Brittany, dated by scholar Peter Bartrum and others to about 500. Therefore, Oudoceus is unlikely to have been born any later than 540. If Athrwys was his contemporary early in his tenure as bishop, that places Athrwys in the 6th century.Even more explicit evidence is the fact that the Book of Llandaff presents Athrwys as a king giving grants of land in the presence of clergy who were disciples of bishop Dubricius. Since Dubricius was born in about 465, this would likewise place Athrwys in the 6th century.The Life of St Cadoc, dating to a few decades before the Book of Llandaff, identifies Athrwys grandfather Tewdrig with Cadocs great-great-grandfather Tewdrig. Since Cadoc was definitely born in the early 6th century (as all scholars acknowledge), this would definitely place Athrwys in the 6th century.These pieces of evidence, and more, have traditionally been dismissed as mistakes in the records. However, this interpretation of the evidence has been determined by the accepted chronology. This opens the possibility that Athrwys lived when it was believed that King Arthur was active.Could the Name Athrwys Be Related to the Name Arthur?Book of Llandaff, 12th century, Llandaff, Wales, Source: National Library of WalesWhat about the criticism that the name Athrwys is related to the name Antres and not Arthur? The idea that his name was originally Antres comes from a comparison between a land grant in the Book of Llandaff and a parallel version in the Llancarfan charters. In the latter, the name Andres appears in a list of witnesses immediately after Meurig and his sons. It is assumed that this is Athrwys, who appears in the parallel list in the Book of Llandaff. However, we cannot interpret Andres as being the name of one of Meurigs aforementioned sons, because the name after Andres is made the son of a different person. It would not make sense for the list to mention Meurigs sons, plural, and then name only one of them. More logically, the sons are simply left unnamed, and Andres is someone else entirely. Notably, the narrative leading up to this list of witnesses explicitly refers to a certain Andrus, son of Morgan. This is undoubtedly the Andres who then appears in the witness list.The Modena Archivolt, on which Arthurs name is written as Artus, possibly a Breton form of the name, Modena Cathedral, Italy, c. 12th century. Source: Wikimedia CommonsIf we reject this supposed origin for Athrwys name, what can we conclude? Well, this is not a name that appears in many other records from other dynasties, so there is no evidence that this was a legitimate name in its own right. It might be a corruption in every instance. As it happens, there are some other medieval documents that refer to individuals named Arthwys, with the r before the th. Other individuals appear as Arthrwys. In fact, there is at least one individual who appeared first as Arthwys but then as Athrwys in a later document.With this in mind, it is quite possible that all of these similar names, some of which are directly seen to have been exchanged for each other, were all variations of the same name. Although there is no direct confirmation of it, perhaps they are all evolutions of Arthurus or Arturus, which were common Latin forms of the name Arthur. Alternatively, they could come from the form Artus which is seen on the Modena Archivolt (an early depiction of the Arthurian tales) and which seems to be a Breton form of the name Arthur.Was Athrwys of Gwent the Real King Arthur?Stained glass depiction of King Arthur, Llandaff Cathedral, Wales. Source: Wikimedia CommonsTaken in total, the evidence suggests that Athrwys is a possible candidate for the real King Arthur, though he is not the only candidate currently under scholarly consideration. He was a Welsh king with a very similar name, who probably lived in what was considered the Arthurian age, and whose kingdom covered the area where legend suggests that King Arthurs court was located. New archaeological finds at Dinas Powys indicate that a very powerful ruling family occupied the area during the suggested time of Athrwys rule.The main drawback of this argument is that we do not have any records of Athrwys winning great victories against the Saxons, and this is what King Arthur is principally known for. Therefore, the search for the real King Arthur continues.