Though it is always said that King Arthur was born at Tintagel, early literary sources only ever actually say that
he was conceived there. The rest is presumed or implied. But is Tintagel Castle really that old?
Tradition: Geoffrey of Monmouth first told us of King Arthur's association with Tintagel Castle in 1139 when he
wrote his History of the Kings of Britain. Duke Gorles of Tintagel lived at the Castle. One day, he brought his
young wife, Igraine, to the court of his High-King, Uther Pendragon of Britain, in London. Uther fell deeply in love
with the beautiful Igraine and determined to have her for his own. Gorles noted the attention paid by the King to his
wife and returned to Cerniw. Upon being summoned back to court, Gorles refused to return and quickly found his
lands invaded by his overlord. Igraine was hidden away in the impregnable Tintagel, while Gorles himself defended
the nearby stronghold of Dimilioc. Uther, meanwhile, persuaded his magician, Merlin, to turn him into the likeness
of Gorles. Using this diguise, he slipped into Tintagel Castle unhindered and seduced Igraine. That night, their son,
the future King Arthur was conceived. Gorles was killed the next day and Uther and Igraine quickly became
husband and wife.
Ancient Propaganda & Patronage: Though the majority of Tintagel Castle was built by Prince Richard, Earl of Cornwall, in the 1230s, it is believed, by many, that an earlier castle was first constructed here by Earl Reginald around 1141. This latter Earl of Cornwall was brother to Geoffrey of Monmouth's patron, Robert, Earl of Gloucester. So perhaps it was included in the story merely to win Royal favour. Modern opinion, however, tends to support a synario whereby Reginald built the castle to cash in on the prestige created by Geoffrey's work. William of Worcester first recorded that King Arthur was born at Tintagel in 1478. It is a simple assumption to step from conception to birth.
Modern Archaeology: Extensive excavations undertaken by Radford on Tintagel
Island in the 1930s revealed that there was indeed Dark Age occupation around Tintagel
Castle. Some twenty plus rectangular stone buildings were uncovered along terraces on
the eastern slopes of this promontory, and on the plateau around the Castle Chapel
(dedicated to St. Juliot). The discovery of huge quantities of 5th and 6th century
Mediterranean pottery amongst these ruins led to their being dated to this period. There
was more pottery than the total haul from all other Dark Age sites in Britain: huge
Tunisian oil jars, Carthaginian dishes, Aegean amphorae and distinctive Byzantine jars.
More recent investigations have redated
these buildings to the medieval period,
though the Castle Chapel appears to have been rebuilt on earlier
foundations. An extensive fire on the Island in 1985 gave the ideal
opportunity to survey the whole area. The contours of perhaps fifty
more buildings buried beneath the landscape have now been
recognised, particularly on across the expansive plateau. Further
keyhole excavations on the eastern terraces indicate that less
substantial stone buildings do exist on a lower level to Radford's
structures. Other buildings may have been of turf. These appear to
have been the original source of the Dark Age pottery.
Possible Interpretations: Radford's excavations of the
30s were explained, at the time, as having revealed the cells
and out buildings of a Post-Roman Monastery complex. This
theory has been swept aside by modern archaeologists. The
name of the place itself, Din-Tagell meaning Fort of the
Constriction, indicates a secular residence. The high levels of
expensive pottery imported to the site from the Eastern
Mediterranean indicate it was under the control of an
important chief with access to large amounts of tradable
commodities, probably Cornish Tin. In fact, these chiefs would have been similar to just such a man
as Gorles, the supposed Duke of Tintagel, or King Mark of
Cerniw who is also associated with the island. One could
easily have followed the other at Tintagel. Such an exposed
Dark Age Palace must surely have been the Summer 
residence of the Kings of Cerniw and Dumnonia. Though
their main feasting hall has not been located, it is thought to lay beneath the ruins of the medieval castle. Thomas
has suggested adjoining areas of high-status, specialist and war-band occupation. Also a marine landing site and
caretaker's residence. The later chapel may originally have been a secular building, though the early dedication to
King Brychan of Brycheiniog's son, St. Juliot (or Iltud) probably indicates it was always the Dumnonian Chapel
Royal.
The stone measures 14 by 20 inches and bears the Latin inscription
"ARTOGNOV.'' It was found on July 4, 1998, as archeologists did further digging at the
site of excavations carried out in the 1930s, said Kevin Brady of the University of
Glasgow, which carried out the dig for English Heritage, a government
conservation agency that manages historic properties.
While there is no evidence linking the stone directly with King Arthur, it does
prove the name existed around the time the storybook hero is said to have lived.
"It is certainly exciting that the name on the stone corresponds to the legend,''
Brady said. "But it is just not possible to link the two from this evidence.''
The excavation also shows that after the Romans left England in 410, some sort
of royal or high-ranking official headquarters existed at Tintagel and that people
there maintained contact with the Roman Empire, Brady said.
"There is no doubt it was a place of great importance,'' he said.
While archeologists hope the stone will fill some of the gaps in Tintagel's history,
devotees of Arthur's legend hope it will lead to proof that he really existed.
