THE REVERSAL OF THE GEWISSEI PEDIGREE AND CERDIC'S/ARTHUR'S BADON BATTLE

I have often discussed the problem of the reversal of the Gewissei generations in the Welsh and English sources.  In brief, the Welsh tell us (with one example being in stone - that of Cunorix son of Maquicoline at Wroxeter) that Cerdic was a son of Cunedda Maquicoline/Ceawlin and Cunorix/Cynric a son of the same chieftain.  Yet when we go to the tradition preserved in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, we find Cynric claimed as a son of Cerdic, and Ceawlin as the successor and perhaps son or at least junior of Cynric.

Why the mixup?

Well, archaeology appears to have given us the answer.  In my book THE BEAR KING: ARTHUR AND THE IRISH IN WALES AND SOUTHERN ENGLAND, I state the following:

Archaeology allows for the Thames Valley Gewessei incursion to pre-date that of the influx through Hampshire.  There is now a considerable body of evidence that the battles ascribed to Ceawlin in the north and west of Wessex came before Cerdic's action in the south.  For more information on this, I refer my reader to “The Origins of Wessex” project page at  https://www.arch.ox.ac.uk/origins-wessex.  A good paper on the subject by that project can be found at https://www.oxoniensia.org/volumes/2013/Hamerow.pdf.

If we were to allow for Ceawlin’s/Cunedda’s battles up the Thames to have occurred first, and for those of his son Cerdic only later, we could reconcile the reversed generations in the Welsh and English sources. 

A good discussion of the problem of where Wessex's foundation began is Chapter Seven of Barbara York's KING AND KINGDOMS OF EARLY ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND (1990):

"We can no longer speak as confidently of the origins of Wessex as historians

once felt able to do, but the area which has the best claim to have been the

original homeland of the West Saxons is the upper Thames valley. This is the

area in which Ceawlin, son of Cynric, is shown operating in the Chronicle. The

Ceawlin entries do not suffer from the same problems of credibility which

affect the Cerdic and Cynric annals, although they do seem to have been

subject to some chronological distortion and are not without difficulties in

interpretation. The Ceawlin annals contain more convincing circumstantial

details than those for Cerdic and Cynric and, it has been suggested, could

derive from an oral poetic source. The upper Thames valley was a centre of

Saxon settlement from early in the fifth century. The presence of ‘princely’

burials dating to the late sixth century and other finds of prestige or ‘exotic’

goods is compatible with the upper Thames being the powerbase of an

emergent kingdom. Further support comes from the fact that when King

Cynegils was converted to Christianity in 635 Dorchester-on-Thames was

chosen as the site of the first West Saxon see.

Critical analysis of the accounts of the origins of Wessex suggest that Cerdic

the founder of the West Saxon dynasty was establishing his position in the

530s, probably in the upper Thames valley. Little more that is reliable can be

said until the reign of Ceawlin which we shall look at more closely in a

moment....

In the late sixth century the West Saxons were based in the Thames valley

and seemed ideally situated to expand in all directions, though ultimately the

success of Mercia concentrated their attention southwards and westwards.

Cædwalla’s success in conquering the Jutes and the South Saxons seems to

have been regarded both within Wessex and outside as a turning-point in the

growth of Wessex for it was during his reign that the title ‘king of the Saxons’

replaced ‘king of the Geuissae’. The Chronicle contains the claim that the West

Saxons were entitled to rule the Jutish territories because these areas had been

conquered originally by Cerdic and Cynric who had appointed their kinsmen

Stuf and Whitgar to rule in the Isle of Wight. It is unlikely that such claims are

true, though it is not clear when they were formulated. The West Saxons seem

to have been anxious to justify their advances in south-eastern England which

were brought to their logical conclusion by Egbert’s conquest of Kent and

Sussex.

Ceawlin appears between Ælle of the South Saxons and Æthelbert of Kent as 

the second overlord of the southern kingdoms in the Ecclesiastical History’s 

list. In the Chronicle Ceawlin is depicted as defeating Æthelbert in battle in 568, but the Chronicle is principally concerned with victories against the British. In 571 after the battle of Biedcanford against unidentified British Cuthwulf, who was probably Ceawlin’s brother, is said to have captured Limbury, Aylesbury, Bensington and Eynsham, and in

577 Ceawlin himself is said to have defeated and killed the kings Conmail,

Condidan and Fairnmail at the battle of Dyrham and to have taken Gloucester,

Cirencester and Bath; the Chronicle writer presumably intended it to be

understood that in capturing these seven important central places the West

Saxons were also taking control of the areas dependent upon them. It is

difficult to say without knowing the exact source of the Chronicle’s material how

reliable the information about Ceawlin’s conquests is. Certainly the dating of

events is suspect for the West Saxon Genealogical Regnal List allotted Ceawlin

a reign of either 7 or 17 years (unfortunately it is not clear which reading is

correct) as opposed to the 31 or 32 years in the Chronicle annals. Ceawlin was

a direct ancestor of Alfred and his line and so there could have been reasons in

the ninth century for enhancing his achievements. It seems unwise in the light

of these and other uncertainties to try to construct a detailed narrative of

Ceawlin’s reign upon the basis of the Chronicle account. We must settle instead

for a generalized picture of an energetic leader who sought to expand his power

in all directions from his upper Thames base and who succeeded, on the

testimony of the Ecclesiastical History list, in exacting tribute from some of the

kingdoms already established in southern England.

According to the Chronicle Ceawlin’s reign was ended in 591 by Ceol; he was

the son of Ceawlin’s brother Cutha (probably the Cuthwulf who fought the

battle of Biedcanford in 571)..."

York later observed (‘Anglo-Saxon Origin Legends’, in J. Barrow and A. Wareham (eds.), Myth, Rulership, Church and Charters: Essays in Honour of Nicholas Brooks (2008), p. 23) 

"the claim that the West Saxon royal house was descended from Cerdic (Caradoc) seems to embody a willingness to claim descent from a former British hero and so acknowledge a British contribution to West Saxon identity."

In my book, I have shown how the HISTORIA BRITTONUM'S Arthurian battles cover not only those of Cerdic's in the ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE, but continue on with battles assigned to other members of the Gewissei, primarily those of Cynric and Ceawlin.  In this context, Arthur's battle of Badon can be none other than Cutha/Cuthwine's and Ceawlin's Bath battle in 577 A.D.  And this is despite the fact that our best guess for Arthur's Badon (i.e. that of Gildas) is c. 516 A.D. and for Camlan is c. 537 A.D.  Cerdic is said to die in 534. I urge my readers to see the wall map portrayed above.  There the yellow pins are for the battles assigned to Arthur, while the white pins are for the other Gewissei up to Ceawlin's last battle in 592.

Now, for the Battle of Badon several different dates have been proposed.  I am drawing the following brief discussion of those from John Koch's CELTIC CULTURE: A HISTORICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA:

"Beda, who likewise calls the battle obsessio montis Badonici 

and reveals no knowledge of the battle independent of De Excidio,

understood the passage to mean that Baddon occurred

about the 44th year after the coming of the AngloSaxons to 

Britain, and thus, by his own chronology,

c. ad 493 (Historia Ecclesiastica 1.15–16). Most modern

writers have taken it to mean 43 years before Gildas’s

time of writing; thus, Dumville’s view that Gildas was

writing c. 545 and that both his birth and Baddon were

c. 500+ (Gildas 51–9, 76–83). On the other hand, Ian

Wood interprets the passage to mean that there were

43 years between the early victory of Ambrosius

against the Saxons and Baddon, and that Baddon was

one month before Gildas’s writing; this leads to a date

range of 485×520 for the nearly simultaneous battle

and De Excidio (Gildas 22–3), which accords with the

Annales Cambriae date for the battle at 516/518.

According to McCarthy and Ó Cróinín, the 44th year

refers to an absolute system of dating, i.e. the 84-year

Easter table in use at the time in Britain and Ireland

(see Easter controversy), in which case, ad 482

would be the intended date."

We can ignore any reference to Ambrosius, as I've shown that he belongs to the 4th century, and was wrongly moved to the 5th in tradition.  This doubtless occurred because his contemorary, the Roman emperor Constans I, who visited Britain on a military matter, was conflated with Constans II of the 5th century.

When it comes to the ASC dates for Ceawlin, aka Cunedda Maquicoline, we know these are horribly wrong.  The Irish Ulster and Tigernach Annals have entries for his death in 496 (twice) and 498 (once) A.D. This is a full 97 years after the death claimed in the ASC! 

Anglo-Saxon scholars have long known there are major chronological problems in the ASC.  Here is more material from York's book:

The duplication of a number of the entries for Cerdic and Cynric 19 years

apart has cast doubt on the validity of 495 as a date for the beginning of Cerdic

and Cynric’s conquest of Wessex. David Dumville’s detailed study of the

regnal dates given in the Chronicle and in the closely related West Saxon

Genealogical Regnal List reached the conclusion that the fifth—and sixth

century dates were extremely unreliable and had been artificially extended to

make it appear that the kingdom was founded at an earlier date than was

actually the case. His calculation on the basis of the reign-lengths given in the

Genealogical Regnal List was that Cerdic’s reign was originally seen as

beginning in 538, with the arrival of Cerdic and Cynric in 532.

A further problem with the Chronicle’s account of the origins of Wessex is

that it seems to locate the origins of the kingdom in southern Hampshire and

the Isle of Wight, though unfortunately not all the place-names it cites can be

identified. Bede, on the basis of information supplied to him by Bishop Daniel,

indicates that southern Hampshire and the Isle of Wight were independent

provinces which did not become part of Wessex until after their conquest by

King Cædwalla in 686–8. A number of sources, including Bede and placename 

evidence, affirm that the people of southern Hampshire and the Isle of

Wight were classed as Jutes and not as Saxons. It seems impossible to place

the origins of the kingdom of Wessex in these Jutish provinces...

Critical analysis of the accounts of the origins of Wessex suggest that Cerdic

the founder of the West Saxon dynasty was establishing his position in the

530s, probably in the upper Thames valley."

One thing is clear, at least: Ceawlin, who died in 496 or 498, did not fight at Bath in 577. But if he didn't, who did?

Well, why not Cerdic/Arthur?  There is nothing wrong with the date of 516/18, in this case. That date is 59-61 years before the ASC's 577.  But as we know beyond doubt that Cunedda/Ceawlin had died a full 97 years prior to the 577 date, pushing the Bath battle back to 516/18 must be allowed.

But if Badon was in 516/18, and Arthur's Camlan was in 537 (cf. the ASC's 534 death for Cerdic), what to do about the order of the Arthurian battles, which selectively matches that of the Anglo-Saxon list from Cerdicesora through Bath?  We can't have Camlan falling between Wight and the battle of Bedford (Limbury-Eynsham).  Camlan in such a position would mean that the author of the HISTORIA BRITTONUM merely decided to skip Camlan and add the other battles from the ASC to pad out the Arthurian list.  And, as is obvious, it would mean that Arthur never fought at Badon.

I think what have happened is this: the scholars are correct in that Cerdic has wrongly been placed in Hampshire.  Place-name experts in recent years (see Watts) have even shied away from linking Charford to Cerdic's name.  The most likely explanation may have to do with a confusion of the Hampshire Avon with the Bristol Avon.  If we look on a map, and draw a curved line from the Bristol Avon up through Gloucester and thence through Wiltshire and finally along the Thames Valley, following the various Gewissei battle sites, we have what appears to be a frontier zone between the south and a Wales with its power center at Wroxeter.

This borderland makes a great deal more sense logistically, given that Cerdic was from Ceredigion in western Wales.  I have always had a problem with the notion that he went all the way south around Land's End, then well east to reach Hampshire.  

Unfortunately, while the ASC and the HB (which had, essentially, copied the ASC battles) had the date for Cerdic's/Arthur's death correct, by placing him in the south and then chronologically rearranging (and perhaps reassigning) the battles belonging to Ceawlin and Cynric, we end up with that death in the middle of a battle list.  We are also forced to reconsider the location of Camlan, assuming we refuse to accept the Afon Gamlan site in NW Wales, which was identified as the right place by the Welsh themselves.  There is nothing wrong with the Afon Gamlan, as it lay in Merioneth bordering on Ceredigion.  If we now want one in the Gewissei military theater, we need to look towards either the Cam Brook (ancient Cameler, Camelar) just south of Bath or the River Cam south of Gloucester.  

If we do shift Cerdic north, I would mention once again my idea from many years ago that Barbury in Wiltshire, as the 'Bear's fort', may have been named for Arthur the Bear king.  While it is true the ASC claims Ceawlin/Cunedda fought there, it may be that Arthur did instead.  Or Arthur may have been fighting at Barbury with his father.  

There were two Badburys in the Gewissei battle zone: the Liddingon Badbury not far from Barbury along the ancient Ridgeway track, and Badbury Hill near Faringdon.  However, linguists will not allow Badon to be derived from Baddan-, and even the Welsh use a spelling for Badon that designates English Bath. [1] 

Just a Coincidence?

Despite all of that, I do feel the need to point out that it seems an amazing coincidence for Cerdic and his brother to show up in 495 when we know his father died in 496-498.  The language used by the Chronicle one year before Ceawlin's death* is that he was "expelled" from Adam's Grave (Wōdnesbeorġ) near Alton Priors. 

If at least this sequence is correct, then we can imagine the Gewissei being forced out of the north and redirecting their efforts in the south.  This is not an unreasonable assumption.  It would, however, effectively remove Badon/Bath from Arthur's battles.

Suppose that while Caedwalla had, indeed, taken the Isle of Wight from the Jutes in the 7th century, Cerdic was actually allied with the Jutes who were taking Wight and adjacent parts of Hampshire from the Britons?

* Ceawlin is said to have perished with Cwichelm, and this probably happened in the vicinity of Cuckhamsley.

From Bosworth and Toller:

Cwichelmes hlǽw

(n.)

Cwicchelmes hlǽw , Cwicelmes hlǽw ,es; m. [hlǽw a heap, barrow, small hill: Flor. Cuiccelmeslawe: Hunt. Chichelmeslaue: Hovd. Cwichelmelow: Cwichelm's hill; Cwichelmi agger]

CUCKHAMSLEY hill or Cuchinslow, Berkshire, a large barrow on a wide plain overlooking White Horse Vale ⬩ Cwichelmi agger in agro Berchensi

Entry preview: Æsces dúne to Cwichelmes [Cwicelmes, Th. 256, 28, col. 1: Cwicchelmes, 257, 27, col. 1] hlǽwe and ðǽr onbídedon beótra gylpa, forðan oft man cwæþ, gif hí Cwichelmes [Cwicelmes, col. 1] hlǽwe gesóhton, ðæt hí nǽfre to sǽ gangan [gangen MS.] ne sceoldan

And from Ekwall:

Cuckhamsley Knob Brk, a hill near Wantage, 'Cwichelm's burial-mound'... It has been suggested that the Cwichelm who is buried at C~ was the West Saxon king Cwichelm who died in 593 according to the Chronicle.

A) Fethanleag in 584, Ceawlin's last successful battle

B) Adam's Grave, from which Ceawlin was expelled in 592

C) Cwichelm's Low, near where Ceawlin perished in 593

CONCLUSION

My instinct tells me that we should not ignore the claim of the HB and the AC (Welsh Annals) and exclude Arthur from the Battle of Badon.  We might assume that the battles in Hampshire were contrived by the English source and, unfortunately, utilized by the HB author when he compiled his battle list.  However, if we allow for the Bristol Avon to be the proper sphere of military action for Cerdic, and not the Hampshire one, we can have Cerdic move south and west of the Thames Valley following the death of his father Cunedda/Ceawlin in 497. The battles in Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Avon belonged to Cerdic, not to Ceawlin.  Barbury Castle may well have been called such after Arthur the Bear King.  Badon was fought in 516/18.  Arthur/Cerdic fell either at one of Cam sites I have mentioned above or at the Afon Gamlan on the border of his own kingdom of Ceredigion in Wales.  

Why did the English place Cerdic in Hampshire?  

I suspect it was a clumsy attempt to show that the Jutish areas had been conquered in the very early period, when in reality they remained Jutish until Wight and surrounding districts were properly brought under the dominion of Wessex by Caedwalla.

The HB battle list is, therefore, a confused one.  On the one hand, Arthur was never in Hampshire, as is insisted upon by the ASC. But precisely because he wasn't there, and was instead in the northwest, we can accept the tradition which has him win a great victory at Badon. 

[1]

The Linguistic Argument of Badon as Bath

Badon is a difficult place-name for an unexpected reason. As Kenneth Jackson proclaimed:

"No such British name is known, nor any such stem." [To be briefly mentioned in the context of Badon is the Middle Welsh word bad, 'plague, pestilence, death' (GPC; first attested in the 14th century), from Proto-Celtic *bato-, cf. Old Irish bath. Some have asked me whether this word could be the root of Badon - to which Dr. Graham I. Isaac, of the National University of Ire-land, Galway, responds emphatically, "No, absolutely no. A (modern) W form _bad_ etc. would have been spelt in the W of the ancient period as _bat_ and there can be no connection since _Bad(on)_ is what we find." Other noteworthy Celtic linguists, such as Dr. Simon Rodway of Aberystwyth University, Dr. Richard Coates of the University of the West of England and Professor Ranko Matasovic of the University of Zagreb, agree with Isaac on this point. Matasovic adds: “Professor Isaac is right; since we have references to Badon in Early Welsh sources, the name would have been spelled with –t- (for voiced /d/). The spelling where the letter <d> stands for /d/ and <dd> for the voiced dental fricative was introduced in the late Middle Ages.”]

Graham Isaac has the following to say on the nature of the word Badon, which I take to be au-thoritative.

His explanation of why Gildas's Badon cannot be derived from one of the Badburys (like Liddington Castle, often cited as a prime candidates for Badon) is critical in an eventual identification of this battle site. Although long and rather complicated, his argument is convincing and I have, therefore, opted to present it unedited:

"Remember in all that follows that both the -d - in Badon and the -th- in OE Bathum are pronounced like th in 'bathe' and Modern Welsh - dd-. Remember also that in Old English spelling, the letters thorn and the crossed d are interchangeable in many positions: that is variation in spelling, not in sound, and has no significance for linguistic arguments.

It is curious that a number of commentators have been happy to posit a 'British' or 'Celtic' form Badon. The reason seems to be summed up succinctly by Tolstoy in the 1961 article (p. 145):

'It is obviously impossible that Gildas should have given a Saxon name for a British locality'.

Why? I see no reason at all in the world why he should not do so (begging the question as to what, exactly, is the meaning of 'British locality' here; Gildas is just talking about a hill). This then becomes the chief crutch of the argument, as shown on p. 147 of Tolstoy's article: 'But that there was a Celtic name ‘Badon’ we know from the very passage in Gildas under discussion'.

But that is just circular: ' "Badon" must be "Celtic" because Gildas only uses "Celtic" names'. This is no argument. What would have to be shown is that 'Badon' is a regular reflex of a securely attested 'Celtic' word. This is a matter of empirical detail and is easily tested; we have vast resources to tell us what was and was not a 'Celtic' word. And there is nothing like 'Badon'.

Given, then, that the sources – English and Welsh – agree that Badon is a Bath place-name, and that Celtic and English place-name experts and linguists agree that Badon must be for Bath, I see no reason to continue to consider any of the Badburys as potential candidates for Arthur’s Badon.