The case that has been recently made by Ken Dark of the University of Reading for the sub-Roman (i.e. 5th-6th century CE) re-use of Hadrian’s Wall, as well as of forts along the Wall and in the adjacent tribal territory of the ancient Brigantian kingdom.
According to Dark, from whose paper I will liberally quote:
“… eight fourth-century fort sites on, or close to, the line of Hadrian’s Wall have produced, albeit sometimes slight, evidence of fifth -sixth-century use. Nor is this simply a reflection of a pattern found father north; for no Roman fort site in what is now Scotland has any plausible evidence of immediately post-Roman use. Thus the situation to the north of the Wall is similar to that found in Wales.
What is more surprising still is the character of the reuse found on the line of the Wall. Two sites, Housesteads and Corbridge, have evidence not only of internal occupation, but of refortification; at Birdoswald there are the well known ‘halls’, while at Chesterholma Class-I inscribed stone of the late fifth or early sixth century come from the immediate vicinity of the fort. At South Shields there is also evidence of re-fortification, and there is an external inhumation cemetery. Another Class-I stone was identified by C.A.R. Radford at Castlesteads [I have rendered the inscription of this stone above in Chapter 3].
At Binchester immediately to the south of the Wall, and at Carvoran, Benwell and Housesteads on its line, there are early Anglo- Saxon burials or finds, while at Chestersand Chesterholm (perhaps sixth century) Anglo - Saxon annular brooches come from within the forts, although these may be somewhat later in date than the other material so far mentioned.
At the western terminal of the Wall, a town-site, Carlisle, though not necessarily primarily mili-tary in the Late Roman period, has also produced substantial evidence of sub-Roman occu-pation, with continued use of Roman-period buildings into the fifth, if not sixth, century.
Many scholars accept that Carlisle was part of the late fourth-century Wall-system, perhaps even its headquarters, and at Corbridge, the other town-site intimately connected with the Wall, fifth -and sixth century material has also been found, including, perhaps, evidence of continuing British and Anglo-Saxon use. In the North as a whole, fifth- or sixth-century evidence from what had been Late Roman towns is not common. York, Aldborough, Malton, and Catterick are our only other examples. Two of these sites (York and Malton) were part of the same Late Roman military command as Hadrian’s Wall: that of the Dux Britanniarum.
It is interesting that, of the sites at Manchester and Ribchester– between the Mersey and Carlisle, the only fort-sites known to have possible fifth or sixth -century evidence – Ribchester was not only part of the command of the Dux Britanniarum, but also listed as per lineum ualli in the Notitia Dignitatum. It is, therefore, remarkable that out of the twelve fourth-century Roman military sites in northern and western Britain to have produced convincingly datable structural, artefactual, or stratigraphic evidence of fifth-or sixth-century occupation, eleven were, almost certainly, part of the Late Roman military command.
Eight of these were probably within the same part of that command, and eight comprise a lin-ear group (the only regional group) which stretches along the whole line of Hadrian’s Wall from east to west. The two more substantial late fourth- century settlements adjacent to the Wall – Carlisle and Corbridge– have also produced fifth- and sixth-century evidence and two of the other towns with such evidence were also late fourth-century strategic centres under the military command of the Dux.”
After setting forth these facts, and discussing them, Dr. Dark offers a rather revolutionary idea:
“Although it is difficult, therefore, to ascertain whether the military project which I have described was the work of an alliance or a north British kingdom or over-kingdom, there does seem to be reason to suppose that it may have represented a post-Roman form of the command of the Dux Britanniarum…
This archaeological pattern, however it is interpreted, is of the greatest interest not only to the study of the fifth-and sixth- century north of Britain, but to that of the end of Roman Britain and the end of the Western Roman Empire as a whole. It may provide evidence for the latest functioning military command of Roman deriva-tion in the West, outside the areas of Eastern Imperial control, and could be testimony to the largest Insular Celtic kingdom known to us.”
In another paper, Ken and S.P. Dark rebut P.J. Casey’s argument for a re -interpretation of the reuse and re-fortification of the Wall and its associated forts. His conclusion for this paper reads as follows:
“If one adopts the interpretation that the Wall forts were reused in the later fifth-early sixth century for a series of sub-Roman secular elite settlements, then the associated problems involved in explaining this new evidence of occupation at that time disappear…
So, the interpretation that the Wall became a series of secular elite settlements, discontinuous from the Late Roman activity at the forts within which they were sited, is compatible with the evidence of pollen analysis, while the alternative interpretations are both rendered unlikely by it.
This does not, of course, make the suggestion that this reoccupation represents the sub-Roman reconstruction of the Command of the Dux Britanniarum any more likely, but the pattern on which that interpretation is based has been strengthened, rather than weakened, by the new archaeological data, whilst the evidence also hints at a similar reoccupation with regard to the signal stations of the Yorkshire coast and their headquarters at Malton.
Perhaps, then, at last one is able to see answers to many of the most pressing questions regarding what happened in north Britain, and more specifically on Hadrian’s Wall, in the fifth and sixth centuries…
The answer to all of these questions may lie in the rise and fall of a reconstructed Late Roman military command, unique in Britain, which was organized in a sub-Roman fashion reliant upon the loyal warbands of warrior aristocrats (and Anglo-Saxon mercenaries) rather than paid regular soldiers. The organizing authority of this system, probably a king of the sub-Roman Brigantes, assigned a politico-military role to the defended homesteads of these elites, and (as in the location of churches at disused forts, through land-grants?) positioned these at what had been Roman fort sites, but which were (at least substantially) deserted by the time when they were reused in this way. Thus, the ‘Late Roman’ Wall communities dispersed during the first half of the fifth century, but the Wall – and perhaps the north generally – was redefended in the later fifth and early-mid sixth century on very different lines, yet not completely without regard for the Late Roman past.”
I would add only that it is my belief this ‘king’ of the sub-Roman Brigantes whom Dr. Dark proposes was none other than the dux bellorum Arthur.
***
Birdoswald/ Banna as Arthur’s Capital
The Irthing River and Valley as an English place-name may preserve a form of the Welsh regional designation Arthwys. The ancient Latin form of Arthwys would be *Artenses, ‘People of the Arth/Bear.’ As both Arthur’s Camlan (the Camboglanna Roman fort at Castlesteads) and Banna/Birdoswald with its Dark Age hall was within this valley, we need to look here for the chief ruling center of our hero.
Some remarkable timber structures at Birdoswald continued in use into the first quarter of the 6th century, something which is necessary for a historical Arthur who perished c. 537 at Camboglanna – itself on a tributary of the Irthing.
From Excavations at the Hadrian’s Wall fort of Birdoswald (Banna), Cumbria: 1996–2000 by
Tony Wilmott, Hilary Cool and Jeremy Evans with contributions by: K F Hartley, Katie Hirst,
Jacquline I McKinley, Quita Mould, David Shotter, A G Vince, D F Williams and S H Willis, in H
A D R I A N ’ S WA L L : A R C H A E O L O G I C
A L R E S E A R C H B Y E N G L I S H H E R I
TA G E 1 9 7 6 – 2 0 0 0:
“Periods 5 and 6: sub- and post-Roman
The later 4th century and later periods at Birdoswald have been extensively discussed elsewhere (Wilmott 1997a, 203–231). In summary, Period 5 represented the late-Roman transition between the Roman occupation of Period 4, and Period 6, which may be described as ‘non-Roman’ in character. During this Period, the ventilated sub-floor of the south granary was backfilled and the flagstone floor re-laid. The latest coin from this fill was dated to 348, giving a terminus post quem for this work. Silty layers were succeeded by a re-laid patchy stone floor, incorporating two hearths at one end of the building, around which were found highstatus items such as a gold earring, a glass finger ring and a worn, silver Theodosian coin (388–95).
At the same time, the north granary roof collapsed (terminus post quem 350–3) and the building was robbed of its walling stone and floor flags, the former sub- floor being used as a dumping area. The coinage from these dumps ran on from 348–378, and the finds also included a small penannular brooch of a characteristic sub-Roman type (Snape 1992, 158).
‘Non-Roman’ Period 6 was characterised by the erection of timber structures over the remains of the north granary and over the roads of the fort.
The first major building was post-built with most of the posts placed in shallow postholes located in the tops of the robbed granary walls. A new floor of re-used flagstones over facing stones was laid over the roof tile spread from the building’s collapse. This building was larger than the granary.
A small service building was constructed as a post-built lean-to against the inner side of the fort wall south of the west gate. The second phase of timber buildings saw the erection of a freestanding, framed building founded on postpads.
The south wall was on the site of the former granary, but the north wall on the former via principalis, aligned with the spina of the west gate, thus covering the road inside the blocked south gate portal. This building was surfacebuilt, as were two small structures founded on surface-laid sleeper beams on the intervallum road. Apparently at the same time, the west gate was provided with a new, timber-built outer portal, possibly allowing gates to be hung to open outwards, and thus to be more defensible.
Dating for Period 6 is problematic. The south granary was clearly re-used, possibly as a hall building, with the hearths at the western end provided for the leading figures in the fort community.
If the timber structures were the functional successors of this building, as seems likely, the terminus post quem for the first is c 388–95. As the Theodosian coin was worn, however, this could be assumed to be later, perhaps c 420. An estimated life of 50 years for each building would bring the close of occupation to c 520.
The excavations reported above had little to contribute to knowledge of these phases because the barrack areas within the fort were heavily truncated and activity in the extra-mural areas ended in the later 3rd century. The sole evidence thought to relate to Period 5 to survive in the north-west praetentura was the final phase of Building 803, the officer’s house in the northwest corner of the fort. This building clearly survived in use longer than the adjacent structure to the east. The terminus post quem for the apsidal structure within this building is 330–70, which places it within the same period as the late 4th-century re-use of the south horreum (Wilmott 1997a, 203–6). It is tentatively inte preted as a possible church. Similar interpretations have been advanced for an apsidal structure built at Housesteads on a street in the north-west corner (Crow 1995, 95–6), and at Vindolanda, within the courtyard of the praetorium (Birley et al 1998, 20–1).
At South Shields there is some evidence that the principia forecourt was transformed into a church in the late 4th century (Bidwell and Speak 1994a, 102–3). Also at Vindolanda the early Christian tombstone of Brigomaglos, dated c 500, indicates a late Roman/early post-Roman Christian presence (Jackson 1982, 62), as does other recently discovered artefactual evidence.
Long-cist graves (all empty) have been claimed adjacent to the church at Housesteads, at Sewingshields (Crow and Jackson 1997, 66–7) and east of Birdoswald (Wilmott 2000, fig 16). It is possible that Birdoswald was one of a number of forts that persisted as a Christian centre.”
Mr. Wilmott was kind enough to answer my questions regarding some possible sub-Roman graves found at Birdoswald. From his personal correspondence:
“The long cist found to the east of the fort seems to be a one-off, though admitedly there has been no further work in this area to confirm a cemetery or otherwise.
However I can give you further info. In 2011 we did a small excavation of the known Roman cemetery to the west of the vicus (there was a threat of loss to river cliff erosion). There we found an enclosure containing largely 2nd-3rd century cremations. In the entrance to the enclosure, effectively blocking the entrance, were two inhumation graves. There was no bone in either due to the acid conditions. One appears to have been double. This contained a flat pillowstone in the half which would have held the taller individual. The second grave was pebble lined in the manner of a long cist. One of these cut the fill of the enclosure ditch, from which came Crambeck parchment ware dated AD 375 +. So a 5th century date is the best fit.
Analysis towards publication continues on this project.
I tried, as you will have seen, to summarise some of the thinking in my excavation report in
1987, but this was largely in context with a recent (at the time) book, and also the fact that the moment the hall buildings were found the press invoked Arthur based on the old identification of
Birdoswald/ Camboglanna, disproved, of course by Hassall in 1976. I wanted to get the story of the archaeological findings out without this overlay, as the archaeological community were at first sceptical of the evidence in the ground.
When the exercise basilica was reported I had a phone call from an Irish nun who identified the word 'basilica' with church and asked if I'd found the basilica of St Patrick. It seems that you are going to give a rather more reasoned analysis of the material.”
We therefore have at Birdoswald structures which indicate the presence of someone LIKE Arthur at Arthur’s time.
The name Arthur may have been chosen for a warrior or ruler at this place because in Cumbric arth, ‘bear’, would have been related to the *Artenses/Arthwys of the Irthing Valley. It is not likely that Arthur as the ‘Arth’ gave his name to the Artenses and that the river-name is a back-formation from the tribal name.
Lucius Artorius Castus and the Dacians
In the last Appendix of this book, I will present my argument for the career of Lucius Artorius Castus. We will see that he served in the Legio V Macedonica, which was stationed in Dacia. He may have later fought alongside the V Macedonica in the reconquest of Armenia.
One cannot help but wonder if one of the reasons the Roman governor Statius Priscus took Artorius with him to Armenia was precisely because of his past relationship with the Macedonian legion. In other words, Artorius may have still had valuable connections within the Dacian-based army. Priscus (see Anthony Birley’s A ROMAN GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN) was governor of Upper Dacia from 156-158. This same Priscus had served under Julius Severus, a man who hailed from Dalmatia. Tomlin suggests Statius was born in Dalmatia, where several St. are attested, although Birley disagrees and places him in Italy. In any case, LAC ended up in Dalmatia after he served in the Armenian War.
Did the Dacians of Banna/Birdoswald Worship a Bear God?
While there is great controversy surrounding the figure of the Dacian god Zalmoxis, some ancient authorities - and modern scholars - have seen in him a bear divinity. A good example of the latter is represented by "The Cult of the Sleeping Bear", to be found in the following book by Rhys Carpenter:
https://books.google.com/books?id=QD_O1ocBCXoC&pg=PA112&lpg=PA112&dq=%22The+Cult+of+the+Sleeping+Bear%22&source=bl&ots=3-_OnKMgXT&sig=ACfU3U1kH1z8-UgrdmPiolwy5mRstqg2lg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuh6_1qdLgAhU_CTQIHUbQDmIQ6AEwAHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Cult%20of%20the%20Sleeping%20Bear%22&f=false
Of course, even if we accept that Zalmoxis was a bear god, and that he was worshiped by the Dacians, we cannot be sure if the Dacians serving as Roman troops at Birdoswald/Banna in the Irthing Valley (Valley of the Bear River) honored this deity. To begin, they would have adopted the religion and cultic practices of the Roman state fairly early on. And, in truth, there are a great many dedications to Jupiter Optimus Maximus at Birdoswald. Any worship of a native deity would either have been done in private or according to the usual process of interpretatio romana, in which one's native deity was identified with a Roman one that shared this or that characteristic or function. If Zalmoxis was a sky god, as has been contended, the many dedications to J.O.M. at Birdoswald may be significant in this regard.
But it is interesting to contemplate the possibility that a people whose greatest god was ursine formed the garrison of a fort where Arthur may have been present.
Etterby as Arthur’s Burg (i.e. Stanwix)
Etterby, in the parish of Stanwix near Carlisle, was called Arthur’s burg, according to Joseph Nicolson and Richard Burn’s History and Antiquities of the County of Westmorland and Cumberland, Vol. 2:
“Etterby in old writings is called Arthuriburgum, which seems to imply that it had been a considerable village. Some affirm, that it took its name from Arthur king of the Britons, who was in this country about the year 550 pursuing his victories over the Danes and Norwegians. But there are no remains of antiquity at or near this place to justify such a conjecture.”
Nicolson and Burn may have been correct in their assessment of Etterby as wholly lacking ‘remains of antiquity’. The evidence from excavation has been too slender to confirm a tentative suggestion as to what kind of Roman camp – if any - may once have existed at Etterby. While it has been suggested that there might be a Roman camp at Etterby, no evidence for this has been found.
However, there is some evidence for the neighboring Stanwix Roman fort continuing into the post-Roman period. Thus, if there is a connection with 'Arthur', it should be attached to Stanwix, rather than to Etterby.
The timber features at Stanwix are fairly recent discoveries. Most of the excavations there have been unpublished, so when archaeologists talk about the timber buildings these may be more examples of timber hall-like structures (such as those from the Birdoswald Roman fort). There is always a hope that the Stanwix excavations revealing the late Roman/sub-Roman timber structures will be published, but in the meantime it is interesting to know that the Carlisle Millenium Project excavation report will be available in the near future (the Carlisle Roman fort being just a stone’s throw across the river from
Stanwix), and very late timber structures were also found there.
The truly amazing thing about the 9.79 acre fort of Stanwix, whose Romano-British name was Uxellodunum, the ‘High Fort’, is that it is exactly between the forts of Camboglanna, where Arthur died, and Aballava on the western end of the Wall (see Chapter 7 below for my discussion of
Aballava as ‘Avalon’).
This large fort also housed a force of one thousand cavalry, the Ala Petriana, the only milliary ala (‘wing’) in the whole of Britain. The Petriana’s presence at Stanwix accounts for the name of this fort in the late 4th/early 5th century ‘Notitia Dignatatum’ – Petrianis. Titus Pomponius Petra, a distinguished former commander of the unit, gave his name to the ala.
Roman historian Sheppard Frere nicely sums up the strategic importance of this fort:
“The western sector of the Wall was the most dangerous… both on account of the nature of the ground and because of the hostile population beyond it. It is not surprising to find, then, that at Stanwix near Carlisle was stationed the Ala Petriana… Such regiments are always found on the post of danger; and the prefect of this Ala was the senior officer in the whole of the wall garrison. Here, then, lay Command headquarters, and it has been shown that a signaling system existed along the road from Carlisle to
York, which would enable the prefect at Stanwix to communicate with the legionary legate at York in a matter of minutes.”
The fort lay on a fine natural platform today occupied by Stanwix Church and Stanwix House, a little over 8 miles from Castlesteads (Camboglanna).
To the south lies the steep bank falling to the River Eden, while the land falls somewhat more gently to the north. Little is known about the fort apart from its defences. The south-west angle tower, south wall and east wall were traced in 1940, with the north wall being located in 1984. This was uncovered in the grounds of the Cumbria Park Hotel. A length of wall was subsequently left exposed for public viewing and the line of the wall marked out by setts; the exposed portion of wall lies close to the north-west corner of the fort. This and the south-west corner, a low rise in the churchyard, are the only remains visible today. Brampton Road lies more or less on the line of the south defences, with
Well Lane marking the east defences.
The northern end of Romanby Close lies approximately at the north-east corner of the fort. The northern defences consisted of a stone wall with a clay rampart backing, fronted by two ditches; an interval tower was also found. The north wall was 5 ft 8 in wide with a chambered base course above the footings on the north side; the rampart backing was at least 11 ft 6 in wide.
To the south of the tower lay a feature tentatively identified as an oven. The fort appears to be an addition to the Wall which was located in 1932-4 a little to the south of the north fort wall, with the north lip of its ditch found in 1984 to lie under the interval tower. A few meters further south, a turf deposit, probably a rampart, was recorded in 1997. No other trace has been discovered at Stanwix of a turf-and-timber fort, but the known fort is clearly later than the replacement of the Turf Wall in stone.
The causeway over the south ditch was located beside Brampton Road in 1933. This was placed centrally in the southern defences, but this in itself gives little indication of the internal arrangements, which might have been unusual in such a large fort. Little is known of the interior buildings. A series of four parallel walls, possibly representing two barracks-blocks and lying towards the north fort wall, were examined in the school yard in 1934. A large granary was located further south in 1940.
The Archaeological Evidence for Stanwix as Arthur’s Power Center
Here is yet another summary of sub-Roman findings at Uxellodunum, prepared by the man who was the director of the archaeological group conducting the Stanwix Primary School dig, Dr. Mike McCarthy. The selection may be found in his book ROMAN CARLISLE AND THE LANDS OF THE SOLWAY:
"At Stanwix, Carlisle, little of the fort, the largest on Hadrian's Wall, has been investigated under modern conditions, and it is certain that much will have been destroyed. Excavations in the school playground, however, have provided tantalising hints that activities continued [past the Roman period], with the discovery of at least two phases of buildings represented by substantial post-pits cutting through earlier Roman deposits...
To summarize, modern investigations at several forts have yielded evidence for sub-Roman activity in key buildings. They include the granaries at Birdoswald, the commanding officers' houses at South Shields and Vindolanda, the bath-house at Binchester and the headquarters building at Carlisle. The conclusion one might draw is that important buildings in important locations (forts) continud to have a function at the point where the old-style Roman military command structure no longer had any real force, and the pay chests needed for the soldiery had ceased to arrive; and we can see this at Carlisle where the barracks fell from use. Nevertheless, the continued use of formerly key buildings, as we can see in several forts, might allow us to infer that this is an element in the archaeology of lordship. If so, it is lordship in transition from a Roman command structure to one of sub-Roman leaders emerging as local chiefs or kings with military titles and authority derived from that of the late fourth century. They doubtless formed small private armies or warbands, and established territoria which could supply their provisions and over which they exercised a quasi-leadership role. They were not yet kings or princes, but neither were they members of the Roman army linked into a wide-ranging command structure. Their authority was derived from the former prestige attached to the place, and their dwellings may, as is hinted in the late phases of the Commanding Officer's house at South Shields, be large and imposing, as the central range location of their buildings at Carlisle and Birdoswald may also suggest."
Dr. Frank Giecco, who was also involved with the same excavation at Stanwix, has informed me that,
“Dating is very hard, but a 5th century date seems likely if I had to choose based on evidence. Stanwix had very large stone post pads. A similar building is recorded at Birdoswald. The Stanwix structure was built over the old Roman barracks.”
An Arthur placed at Stanwix makes a great deal of sense when we place these two forts in the context of the Arthurian battles as I have outlined those in Chapter 3 above. These battle site identifications (taken from the list in the HB, supplemented by the Welsh Annals) shows a range of conflict extending from Buxton in the south to a the Forth in the north, with the majority of the contests against the enemy being fought along or just off the Roman Dere Street from York northwards. The site of Arthur’s death is in a fort only a few miles to the east of Stanwix and we will see in the next chapter that the location of his grave is most likely at a Roman fort just a few miles west of Stanwix.
The battle site identifications were made solely on linguistic grounds, but end up revealing a quite plausible geographical and thus strategic scenario for Arthur’s military activities.
More on the Ala Petriana at Stanwix
From Professor Anthony Birley on the Ala Petriana at Stanwix:
That the praef. alae Petrianae at Stanwix was the "senior officer" of the Wall garrison is simply a statement of fact: he was the only prefect of an ala milliaria in the entire province and thus was in the quarta militia, the elite highest grade for equestrian officers, probably only created in the early 2nd century. For the regiment see e.g. M.G. Jarrett in the journal Britannia for 1994. Whether this officer ex officio "controlled" the Wall is another matter; but he no doubt at least had the authority to give orders in an emergency without having to wait for authorization from the legionary legate at York (from Caracalla = at the same time the governor of Britannia Inferior) or the consular governor of undivided Britain further south.
The place-name: this is a conjecture by Mark W.C. Hassall, in Aspects of the Notitia (1976), 112f., edd. R. Goodburn and P. Bartholomew, who convincingly restores [Banna] after tribunus cohortis primae Aeliae Dacorum in line 44 in the Duke's list and inserts [tribunus cohortis secundae Tungrorum] before [C]amboglanna, making Banna the name of Birdoswald and Camboglanna that of Castlesteads; and replacing Petrianis after alae Petrianae in line 45 with Uxel(l)oduno, and Axeloduno in line 49 with Mais. This is now generally accepted, see e.g. A.L.F. Rivet & C. Smith, The Place-Names of Roman Britain (179) 220f. Cf. also in Britannia for 2004 on the Staffordshire pan, with another list of place-names from the western sector of the Wall.
And from M.G. Jarrett's article, cited by Prof. Birley above:
It [the unit] was in Britain in the Flavian period, probably arriving with the other reinforcements brought by Cerealis in 71. A tombstone (RIB 1172) which lacks the titles milliaria c.R. presumably relates to the first occupation of Corbridge or that of the earlier site at Beaufront Red House... An inscription from Carlisle which records a single torque (RIB 957) has no intrinsic dating evidence; but by a date late in the reign of Trajan a second torque had been awarded. We have, therefore, evidence that under Trajan at the latest the unit was at Carlisle; by that time it had become milliaria... In the second scheme for Hadrian's Wall the ala Petriana was probably moved to a new fort at Stanwix, across the Eden from Carlisle. It is not attested on any inscription, though there is a lead seal (RIB 2411.84); the size of the fort is appropriate to an ala milliaria and there was no other such unit in Britain. Nothing suggests that the ala ever left Stanwix... The ala Petriana was still at Stanwix when the Notitia was compiled.
In conclusion, if - as many leading archaeologists now believe - there was some kind of attempt along the Wall by local Dark Age warlords to retain a level of Roman military practice - and Arthur was, as I've theorized, situated someplace on the western end of the Wall, I can think of no better place than Stanwix for such a powerful leader to reside.
Note on Petr/Pedr of Dyfed and the Ala Petriana
How to decide between the two sites, Birdoswald and Stanwix, without direct evidence? Is it even possible to do so? Granted, Arthur may have been born in the Irthing Valley and only later established himself as a ruler at Uxellodunum.
Certainly, it makes sense for us to see the two sons of Arthwys (*Artenses, People of the Bear, in the Irthing Valley), Eliffer and Ceidio, as representing the two power centers of the North. We have a very good sense for Eliffer as the leader at York. That would leave Ceidio, perhaps, for Stanwix. The proximity of Stanwix to Ceidio's "son" Gwenddolau at Carwinley (Gwenddolau means 'white dales') also seems to argue for Ceidio's fort being Uxellodunum.
I once, almost jokingly, suggested that Pedr (Petrus) of Dyfed had named his son Arthur because the latter had come to be associated with the descendants of the Ala Petriana at Stanwix. This group was named for a man called Petra. This did not, however, help me account for why Aedan of Dalriada (or Conaing, depending on which genealogy you go by) also named a son Arthur. Well, I now think I may have an answer to this last question.
Dumbarton was called not only the 'fort of the Britons', but more properly Alclud, the Rock of Clyde. We have Latin forms of the place-name like Petra Cloithe (Adamnan). A ruler like Coroticus was called 'king of the rock' (regis Aloo, regem Aloo).
In addition, the Dalriadans and the Britons of Dumbarton intermarried. For more on this, see the following excellent article on Aedan son of Gabran. I have cited Note 14 from Part 2 of the piece.
https://www.heroicage.org/issues/1/haaad.htm
https://www.heroicage.org/issues/1/haaad2.htm
"Aedan's daughter Maithgemma of Monad married Cairell of the Dal Fiatch. According to the late Acta Sancti Laisriani, a Gemma, probably Maithgemma, was the saint's mother, a daughter of Aedan and a niece of a British king. This would indicate that Aedan had married a kinswoman of a British king (Bannerman 1974:89; Chadwick 1953:169). Laisrin, also known as Molaisse, is also remembered in the Martyrology of Oengus the Culdee on April 18. Stokes (1983:117) gives a further poetic reference: "Molaisse, a flame of fire, with the quires of partnership, abbot of Raithchell, king of the synod, son of Maithgemm of Monad"; Stokes also notes that Molaisse's mother is called a daughter of Aedan mac Gabran, king of Scotland, in the Book of Leinster. Considering Aedan's addition to the Strathclyde dynasty, I would suggest his wife was a kinswoman of Rhydderch Hael, the only king of Strathclyde contemporary with Aedan."
Maithgemma is an Irish word for 'bear' (see the following entry from the eDIL). The name Arthur was commonly associated with the Welsh/Cumbric arth, 'bear.'
mathgamain
Cite this: eDIL s.v. mathgamain or dil.ie/31684
Last Revised: 2013
Forms: mathgaman, matho, mathgamna
n m. (cf. math + gamuin Ériu xix 114 ) a bear : gl. ursus, Ir. Gl. 418. tír i fail m.¤ mall, LL 136a34 . g s. bruth mathgaman , FB 52 Eg. = matho LU. pl. amal bíti mathgamna etir banbraid, RC xiii 456 § 52. gala mathgamna ┐ brotha léoman, BDD 92. mar leoman ic techta fo mathgamnaib, TBC-LL¹ 2163 , cf. 5585 and TBC-I¹ 1949. i n-earball an mhathghamna, TSh. 7431. mathghamhuin, 1 Sam. xvii 34. nuallamuid amhuil mathghamhna, Isaiah lix 11. Often used of a warrior: inmain m.¤ mórglonnach, TBC-LL¹ 5354. an dā mathgamain morghlonnacha, CF 874. as mé an mathgamhain ar menmain, BNnÉ 285 § 273. is mathghamhna meardha . . . a míleadha, Todd Lect. iv 82.21 .
Common as n.pr. m.: Mathgamain mac Cennetigh, AU 966. m.¤ mac Cendetig, Cog. 58.25 . dall Mathgamhna M.'s blind (bard), 96.1 .
There is also a Welsh tradition of animosity between Aedan and Rhydderch of Strathclyde. Rachel Bromwich (note to Triad 54, p. 155), in commenting on Aedan's devastating raid on Alclud, says
"There is indeed some independent evidence for the tradition about hostility between Aeddan and Rhydderch to which it [Triad 54) refers. The poem Peiryan Maban alludes obscurely to cyfrang(c) ryderch ac aedan clotleu ["the encounter of Rhydderch and renowned Aeddan"]. As Professor Jarman suggested in a anote accompanying his edition of the poem, the allusion here must be to a contention between the two famous contemporary rulers of Dal Riada and Strathclyde in the late sixth century."
Notwithstanding Aedan's attack, the fortress of Alclud was not lost to the Britons until Viking times.
What I would propose, albeit tentatively, is that the British name Arthur, from Roman-Latin Artorius, was taken as a princely name among the Dalriadans because a British wife of Aedan knew of the famous Arthur of the Petriana and associated the name with her own Rock of Clyde.
Pedr (var. Petuir) of Dyfed appears in an Irish annal as Bicoir the father of an Arthur (B and P frequently substitute for each other, and c and t are often confused by copyists in MSS.). This particular Arthur is said to have killed the Irish king Mongan with a stone.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.