A STARTLING DISCOVERY BRINGS BACK THE SAWYL-UTHER IDENTIFICATION

I had only just decided on "keeping" the Northern battles for Arthur, but in dispensing with Sawyl Benisel as Uther.  See my logic behind this conclusion here:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2024/06/the-arthurian-battles-where-arthur-was.html

But before I put away Arthur forever, I decided to check over one more thing that continued to bother me: why does the name Arthur first appear in the royal line of the Irish-founded kingdom of Dalriada, and then later in the Irish-founded kingdom of Dyfed?  When I had proposed Sawyl as Arthur's father, the problem went away, as Sawyl had married a daughter of Muiredach Muinderg of the Dal Fiatach.

So, I combed through what is known about the British connections of Aedan of Dalriada, purportedly the father of an Arthur.  While re-reading Bannerman (STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF DALRIADA), I chanced to bother to consult the footnotes.  The text on p. 89 read:

"... it is said that [Maith] Gemma [from Irish mathgamain, 'a bear'], the saint's mother, was a daughter of Aedan and a niece of a British king which implies that Aedan's wife was of British extraction."

And the footnote:

"This is probably the Maithgemm of Monad [the Dalriadan capital], daughter of Aedan... It seems she married a certain Cairell, grandson of Muredach Munderg, of the Dal Fiatach."

What this means (for those who don't see it immediately!), is that Muiredach marries a daughter to Sawyl Benisel, and then, later, a grandson to Aedan's daughter. A son Arthur of Sawyl and the Irish princess would be roughly contemporary with Gemma and Cairell.  The Dalriadan Arthur would have been named after the famous British one via obvious family connection.  

I will note that there is a problem in the Irish sources regarding the Dalriadan Arthur's father.  He is called both Conaing (an Irish version of the English word cyning, 'king') and Aedan, with Conaing being said to be a son of Aedan.  Bannerman discusses this conflict as follows:

"There remains the problem of whether Artur was Adan's son or grandson.  The combined evidence of Adomnan and AT is strong.  However, it should be remembered that the original compilation of the Senchus, if it is to be accepted as an historically authenticated document, should be dated to c. 650, some fifty years earlier than Adomnan or the Scottish annals underlying AT.  Furthermore, Aedan was in his seventies when he died and it would be strange indeed, considering that he had seven sons, if, towards the end of his life, none of his grandsons was of an age to take a part in the political activities of his time.  Artur, grandson of Aedan, might easily have been twenty years of age, or more, by 590. It is at least possible that Adamnan and the compiler of the Iona Chronicles, when referring to those of Aedan's descendents who died before him, assumed that they were all his sons, especially as some were so in fact." 

Allowing, for the sake of argument, Conaing as the Dalriadan Arthur's father, we can draw out the following comparative genealogies for the two Arthurs:

Sawyl-Dechtire, d. of Muiredach                                

                     Arthur                          Conaing        Gemma-Cairell, gs. of Muiredach

                                                            Artur        

To me, this is incredibly convincing.  And, indeed, it provides the one piece of real evidence I was missing that would allow me to feel confident about Sawyl as Uther.