THE PROBLEM OF ARTHUR SON OF BICOIR: BECCURUS, PETUIR AND THE ISLE OF ISLAY

Islay (photo courtesy Colin Prior)

Sometimes historians accept things at face value - at least in those instances in which they do not feel the need to question the veracity of a source.  I've recently realized there is something I myself have missed: an apparent wrong identification of a 7th century Arthur's patronymic.

In the Irish Annals, we learn of a certain Arthur son of Bicoir "the Briton" who slew the Irish king Mongan off Islay.  It was once thought this Bicoir might preserve a known British name Beccurus.  This name is found on a 6th century memorial stone near Penmorfa in Gwynedd (see https://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/cisp/database/stone/pmrfa_1.html).  Patrick Sims-Williams has this as deriving from *Bikkori:x, 'small king'. Professor Peter Schrijver of Utrecht University says that *Bikko-wiro, 'little man', is also possible.

 

However, prior to 2006 (see http://www.facesofarthur.org.uk/articles/guestdan2e.htm), I showed that Bicoir was, in fact, merely a corruption for Petuir, one of the spellings of the Dyfed king Petr/Pedr who had a 7th century son named Arthur.  What I didn't pause to ask myself at the time - as it didn't seem important, I suppose - is why a Dyfed prince would be fighting a naval battle off Islay.  

My readers can see from the above-posted map that Dyfed is quite a long ways from Islay.  Furthermore, the Dalriada of Aedan son of Gabran, with its royal centers at Tarbert and Dunaverty (see Bannerman, STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF DALRIADA, pp. 112-113),  is immediately adjacent to Islay. 

In early Irish sources , Mongan's father Fiachna is a contemporary of Aedan son of Gabran of Dalriada. The two fight on the same side against the English at Degsastan (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-new-and-certain-identification-of.html).  Aedan had a son named Arthur - and this means that Aedan's Arthur and Fiachna's Mongan were traditionally thought to belong to the same generation.

I would, then, without hesitation, propose that the Bicoir/Petuir patronymic as applied to the Arthur who slew Mongan is an error.  The real father of this particular Arthur being, of course, Aedan. It is generally believed that the mother of Arthur son of Gabran was British.  If so, she was from the neighboring kingdom of Strathclyde, whose capital was Alclud.  This possibility is especially attractive as we know (again, see Bannerman) that Aedan was in conflict with other Irish in the region.  

How might the error have occurred?

My guess is that Adomnan's Latinization of Alclud as PETRA Cloithe may have influenced the decision to utilize Petuir/Petr in the context of the slaying of Mongan by an Arthur.  Note that in the Irish Annal account, Arthur is said to have killed the Irish king with a stone!