Unusual Deposition of Cremated Remains from Unknown Ring Bar Near Milford Haven (photo courtesy Neil Fairburn).
"After Geoffrey's chronicle, Ambrosius disappeared from legendand romance for some time.
The authors of the Prose Merlin and the Vulgate Cycle renamed him PENDRAGON. He
resurfaces in the seventeenth century..."
- "The Arthurian Name Dictionary"
Christopher W. Bruce
Many years ago, I disappointed - and upset - the Arthurian Community when I proposed that Uther Pendragon was merely a doublet for Aurelius Ambrosius. That the former was, in essence, a character designed to fill the chronological gap between the latter and Arthur.
As this idea was so unfavorably received (and as I myself did not care for it much; I mean, we all want Uther to be Arthur's father!), I shelved it in pursuit of other more palatable theories. Since forsaking the Ambrosius = Pendragon equation, I've put out a 'monstrous regiment' of decent possibilities for Uther, as well as not a few absurdities.
Over the last year or so, I've heavily promoted the notion that Pendragon should be associated with the presence of the draco at the Dacian-garrisoned fort of Banna at Birdoswald on Hadrian's Wall. That Uther had been named for the draco or that Pendragon preserved the late Roman rank of magister draconum was particularly attractive.
Yet while I still think the Irthing Valley is the home of Arthur, my critical reexamination of all sources pertaining to Uther - and most especially that of Geoffrey of Monmouth - has convinced me that we can longer allow ourselves to fall victim to the delusion that Pendragon should be interpreted as '[the] dragon's head.' This is a Galfridian fantasy. Instead, the epithet (based on early Welsh poetic usage of the word dragon) clearly means either 'Chief of Warriors'/'Chief Warrior' (Bromwich) or 'Chief of Chieftains' (Koch).
The selections and links I have posted below appeared originally either on Robert Vermaat's Faces of Arthur site (http://www.facesofarthur.org.uk/articles/articles.htm), my blog site here or in any of several incarnations of my books. I've not taken the time and effort to revise the material, so there may be some overlap, redundancy or even inherent contradictions. If the last are present, hopefully these are minor in nature or the reader can determine which opposing view should have precedence in this context.
The only other alternative that I can come up with (see 'Dinas Emrys and Uther Pendragon' at the bottom of this post) is that U.P. is a title for Cunedda. I pushed this notion in my books THE BEAR KING: ARTHUR AND THE IRISH IN WALES AND SOUTHERN ENGLAND and in THE KING OF STONEHENGE: MODRED AND THE DEFENSE OF DARK AGE BRITAIN. I will be revisiting these projects in the near future with an eye towards establishing whether we should insist on a Northern Arthur (one based in the Irthing Valley, possibly Ceidio son of Arthwys/the *Artenses or 'People of the Bear') or a Southern one (Ceredig son of Cunedda of the Afon Arth, some of whose royal descendants have Arth-/'Bear'- names). Right now, I remain agnostic - and thus will hopefully still be open to the truth, should I be lucky enough to stumble upon it.
I would urge my readers to also access https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2016/12/cerdic-of-wessex-and-arthur-one-more.html. It was here that I suggested that Uther Pendragon may have been a poetic paraphrasis for Cunedda.
The only other alternative that I can come up with (see 'Dinas Emrys and Uther Pendragon' at the bottom of this post) is that U.P. is a title for Cunedda. I pushed this notion in my books THE BEAR KING: ARTHUR AND THE IRISH IN WALES AND SOUTHERN ENGLAND and in THE KING OF STONEHENGE: MODRED AND THE DEFENSE OF DARK AGE BRITAIN. I will be revisiting these projects in the near future with an eye towards establishing whether we should insist on a Northern Arthur (one based in the Irthing Valley, possibly Ceidio son of Arthwys/the *Artenses or 'People of the Bear') or a Southern one (Ceredig son of Cunedda of the Afon Arth, some of whose royal descendants have Arth-/'Bear'- names). Right now, I remain agnostic - and thus will hopefully still be open to the truth, should I be lucky enough to stumble upon it.
I would urge my readers to also access https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2016/12/cerdic-of-wessex-and-arthur-one-more.html. It was here that I suggested that Uther Pendragon may have been a poetic paraphrasis for Cunedda.
***
Having covered the sources dealing with a supposed pre-Galfridian Uther, we must now treat of the epithet itself. In Geoffrey of Monmouth’s account of the comet that appears on the death of Aurelius Ambrosius (the Ambrosius Aurelianus of Gildas), Merlin tells Uther that the dragon star signifies himself. This is NOT in accord with the prevailing medieval view. Simply expressed, a comet heralded the death of the king – something that Geoffrey does start out saying in his account. But such a star DID NOT represent, in any way, the dead king’s successor.
Uther had nothing to do with the dragons of Dinas Emrys (a relocation of the Vespasian’s Fort at Amesbury and nearby Stonehenge; see my book “The Mysteries of Avalon”). Beginning with the account of Emrys Guletic (Ambrosius the Prince) in Nennius, it is ONLY Aurelius who has to do with the dragons. In Geoffrey’s History, Merlin is intruded and here wrongly identified with Ambrosius. Uther is placed in charge of obtaining the stones from Ireland with Merlin Ambrosius’s help, but all this is done by order by Aurelius. In the original Dinas Emrys story it was Emrys/Ambrosius who revealed the dragons under the fort and who was then given the site to rule from by Vortigern. In fact, we are told Vortigern “gave him [Emrys] the fortress, with all the kingdoms of the western part of Britain.” This is omitted, of course, when Geoffrey divides the Dinas Emrys episode from the Amesbury/Stonehenge one.
One more point is important here. According to Nennius (Chapter 31), Vortigern was in FEAR or DREAD (timore in the Latin text) of Ambrosius, who is called the “great king” (rex magnus) “among all the kings of the British nation”. This title is a Latin rendering for his Welsh rank of guletic. In Welsh, uthr is an adjective and has the meanings of ‘FEARFUL, DREADFUL’ (see the Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru). Thus the great king who was the terror of Vortigern could have become, quite naturally, the Terrible Dragon/Pen. Uther Dragon/Pen would then merely be a doublet for Ambrosius. This possibility may gain support from the fact that the late French Vulgate refers to Ambrosius as Pendragon.
Before anyone gets too excited about the notion that Uther Dragon, Arthur’s father, is actually Ambrosius Aurelianus, I would remind everyone of the fact that Ambrosius himself has been anachronistically placed in the 5th century when he actually belongs in the 4th. He is the Roman governor of Gaul of this name; this explains why in Chapter 66 of Nennius, we are told that Ambrosius fights the GRANDFATHER of Vortigern at Wallop. A further confusion occurred when the historical meeting of St. Ambrose with Magnus Maximus/ (Welsh Macsen Guletic) at Aquileia was situated in story in Eryri (“abode of eagles”) with Emrys Guletic (not here the historical Ambrosius, but the “Divine/Immortal One” Lleu, ruler of Gwynedd) and Vortigern
Various Arthurian researchers have sought to correct this anachronism by proposing the existence of a second Ambrosius Aurelianus, but unfortunately there is no justification for doing so. We would have to accept a descendent of the Gallic governor who was serving as leader of the Britons, or someone who had merely taken the name of the more famous Gallic leader. There is no evidence in support of either contention.
This gross anachronism, which took the 4th century Ambrosius Aurelianus and stuck him into the 5th century, is easy to explain. Gildas informs us that this hero’s parents had “worn the purple”. We know the Praetorian Prefect’s exalted position was marked by his purple robe (see J.B. Bury’s “History of the Later Roman Empire”). According to N. B. McLynn’s “Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital” (1994):
“… [St.] Ambrose’s homonymous father was praetorian prefect at the court of Constantine II, who ruled the western provinces from 337 until 340… the elder Ambrose died prematurely; the timing suggests a connexion with Constantine’s disastrous invasion of the Italian territory of his brother Constans in 340 [the battle at which Constantine II died was fought at Aquileia].”
This Flavius Claudius Constantinus II and his brother Constans I are echoed by Flavius Claudius Constantinus III of 407-411 and his son, Constans II. Geoffrey of Monmouth makes both Ambrosius and Uther brothers of Constans II, son of Constantine III.
It has rightfully been objected to that a Praetorian Prefect of Gaul, who held a civil post, would not be fighting a battle anywhere – and certainly not in Britain. So how do we account for Ambrosius’s placement at Wallop in Hampshire? Rather easily, as it happens. Ambrosius is placed at Wallop because of the latter’s proximity to Amesbury, the earlier Ambresbyrig, only 10 or so miles to the WNW. Through the usual aetiological process, Amesbury was associated with Ambrosius’s name. The great Danebury Hill fort overlooks the Wallop Brook. An even shorter distance separates Fittleton just to the north of Amesbury. This is Viteletone or “Fitela’s tun” in the Domesday Book (and also a nearby Fitelan slad in 934). I have little doubt this place-name was wrongly brought into connection with the Latin Vitalinus.
In passing, I would mention the reference in the early Welsh poem “Gwarchan Maeldderw” (recently edited and translated by G. R. Isaac) to ‘Pharaoh’s Red Dragon’. This is a reference to the battle standard of the ‘Fiery Pharaoh’ (Welsh Ffaraon Ddande), a nickname for Vortigern derived from a passage in Gildas. We might be tempted to consider the possibility that Uther Dragon should instead be identified with Vortigern. But in truth, since Ambrosius supposedly took over the leadership of the Britons after Vortigern, and the Red Dragon is the genius of the British people, he would have inherited or wrested away the battle standard from his predecessor. We are here going by the traditional chronology, of course, which has Ambrosius follow Vortigern. The fort of Vortigern atop Dinas Emrys, with its red dragon, was “given” to Emrys by Vortigern.
The Uther Dragon/Uther Ben poem says “I have shared my refuge, a ninth share in Arthur’s valour”. If we assume the speaker is Arthur’s presumed predecessor Ambrosius, then the statement is meant to imply that Ambrosius paved the way for his more glorious successor.
None of this, of course, actually pertains to Arthur’s father, who must have been a different man.
THE GHOST AMBROSIUS or WHY ARTHUR'S PREDECESSOR SHOULD BE STRICKEN FROM THE ANNALS OF BRITISH HISTORY
Over the past several years, I've written a handful of articles on Ambrosius Aurelianus, a geographically and temporally dislocated figure in early British legend. Yet despite the evidence I've presented, Arthurian scholars, professional and amateur alike, continue to mistake him for a real personage of 5th century Britain. The idea that he might even be Arthur is still out there. I feel, therefore, that it is time for a summary treatment of this supposed military hero. The easiest way for me to do this is to itemize the points of my argument.
1) The name of A.A. matches perfectly that of the fourth century Governor of Gaul (whose territo-ries included those of Britain) and his famous son, St. Ambrose. Vortigern's grandfather Vitalinus is said to have fought A.A. at Wallop in Hampshire. Such a battle reference puts A.A. well before Vortigern and negates the possibility that A.A. was a boy during Vortigern's reign.
2) St. Ambrose and his father lived at Trier on the Moselle. The Campus Elleti in Wales where Vortigern's men are said to have found the boy A.A. comes from a Welsh place-name Maes Ilid (see modern Llanilid) and this may be a substitute for the Moselle (Mosella/Mosellae). We also have a Mediolanum in what is now Powys, a town whose name is identical with that of St. Ambrose's Milan.
3) Dinas Emrys is a relocation for Amesbury, the latter thought (wrongly) to contain the name of Ambrosius. Dinas Emrys was placed in Eryri because this mountain range was fancifully connected to the Welsh word for eagle, and both St. Ambrose and Magnus the Tyrant (easily confused with Vortigern) are known to have been at Aquileia, a place-name that could have been incorrectly linked with the Latin word for eagle.
4) Trier was in Gallia Belgica, 'Gaul of the Belgae', and A.A.'s Wallop in Hampshire was in the ancient tribal territory of the British Belgae. Gallia could be used in medieval sources for both Gaul and Wales.
5) A.A. is said to have been given Dinas Emrys and the western kingdoms of Britain by Vortigern. This is impossible, as Gwynedd belonged to Cunedda and his sons. This is obviously a mistake for Amesbury, which was inside of what was to become Wessex, the kingdom of the WEST Saxons.
6) A.A appears to have been identified in folk belief with the god Lleu, styled Lord of Gwyn-edd, who was himself identified by the Welsh with the god Mabon. The Campus Elleti ball-game story is perfectly paralleled in the Irish story of Mac Og, the 'Young Son', the Gaelic version of Mabon.
7) A.A. was further identified with Merlin (Myrddin), himself possibly a form of Lleu or an avatar of that god.
In conclusion, the Ambrosius Aurelianus who first appears in the pages of Gildas is a purely legendary figure, based on the known historical Ambrosii of the Continent. He was mistakenly transferred to Britain during the normal course of folklore development, largely due to a confusion of place-names. There is no reason to believe that either Ambrosius - father or son - ever set foot on British soil. To concoct some famous war-leader of the Britons who happened to have been named after one of the Ambrosii is to ignore points 1-7 above.
THE RED AND WHITE DRAGONS
In Chapter 7 I discussed the nature of the Red and White Dragons of Dinas Emrys. These creatures were shown to have originally been the cremated remains of warriors placed in a double-urn. Over time they came to be identified as Roman genii, which took serpent form. Such genii could be specific to a place or to a people and so the Red Dragon evolved into the genius of the Britons, while the White Dragon became the genius of the Saxons.
By the time we get to the much later Welsh story of Lludd and Lleuelys, we are told the ‘back story’ on how the two dragons came to be imprisoned at Dinas Emrys. It turns out that the god Lleuelys (see the listing for Lleu in Chapter 6) dug a pit at the center of the island, here situated at Oxford. In the pit he placed a vat filled with mead and covered with a silk sheet. The dragons, as was their habit, began fighting on May Eve as monstrous animals – probably oxen, given the Oxford location. The scream of the red dragon during its fight with the white dragon was heard over every hearth in the island of Britain. The hearth in this context points to Roman household deities like the genius, which could be portrayed above or next to the hearth.
The monstrous animals or oxen then flew into the air as dragons. When they wearied of the battle, they sank into the vat as pigs, dragging the sheet to the bottom. There they drank the mead and fell asleep. Lleuelys wrapped them in the sheet and locked them in a stone chest, which he then took and buried at Dinas Emrys.
The first question that must be asked about this account of the origin of the dragons is simply, ‘Why Oxford as the centre of Britain?’
Because within Oxfordshire is found Ambrosden, in Old English, Ambresdone, supposedly ‘Ambre’s Hill’. This place-name is a substitute for Amesbury, Anglo-Saxon Ambresbyrig. Indeed, the Welsh storyteller of Lludd and Lleuelys could not have helped but find more of a parallel in Dinas Emrys and Ambrosden than was obvious with Dinas Emrys and Amesbury. Thus the naval or ‘omphalos’ of Britain at Amesbury’s Stonehenge was relocated to Oxfordshire.
Another new element introduced into the dragon story by the Lludd and Lleuelys author is the precise dating of the conflict of the two monsters: May Eve. This was, of course, the pagan Beltane, the festival that celebrated the beginning of Spring and what had come to be seen as the summer half of the year. For the Romans, May 1st was the festival of the goddess Bona Dea, whose temple contained sacred snakes.
As Oxford or rather Ambrosden in Oxfordshire was a substitute for Amesbury next to Stonehenge, we can be certain that May Eve as the time of the dragon fight was adapted from Geoffrey of Monmouth. In his History of the Kings of Britain, Geoffrey tells us that during the reign of Vortigern, the Saxons (= the White Dragon) slew the Britons (= the Red Dragon) during a truce on May Eve at the future site of Stonehenge.
This slaying of the Britons at Stonehenge reads like a mass human sacrifice. They are killed by having their throats slashed with knives, which is the usual form of execution meted out to sacrificial victims. On another level, this episode could be read as an imaginary capture of the sacred British omphalos by the Saxons.
Geoffrey furthermore tells us that about 460 members of the British nobility were slain at what was to become Stonehenge. Why ‘about 460’? Plainly this number has some special significance. I could find no astronomical cycle that employs the number 460, although Mercury transits (when the planet appears from our vantage point on earth to pass in front of the sun) can occur every 46 years close to 7 May. Now it is true that the god Lugos or Lleu, who plays the role of ‘Emrys’ in the story of the red and white dragons, was identified by the Romans with their own god Mercury. Mercury was not only distinguished by the double-serpent caduceus or wand, but was often placed in or near the same household shrines or lararia in which the snakes or genius loci were depicted. According to Hyginus (Astronomica 2.7), Mercury’s/Hermes’ staff originated thusly:
"At Apollo’s request he [Hermes] gave him permission to claim the invention of the lyre, and received from him a certain staff as reward. When Mercury [Hermes], holding it in his hand, was journeying to Arcadia and saw two snakes with bodies intertwined, apparently fighting, he put down the staff between them. They separated then, and so he said that the staff had been appointed to bring peace. Some, in making caducei, put two snakes intertwined on the rod, because this seemed to Mercury a bringer of peace. Following his example, they use the staff in athletic contests and other contests of this kind."
This motif of fighting serpents reminds us immediately of the fighting of the red and white dragons.
In addition to the snake as genius loci, snake jewelery hoards are found in Roman Britain. Snake rings and snake bracelets of the Romano-British hoards have been associated with Asclepius, the Genius Paterfamilias and Lares, Mercury, Sabazius, Mithras and Glycon (who may have had affinities with both Asclepius and Sarapis). There may also be a link between such snakes and Mother Goddess cults, such as those belonging to Ceres/Demeter, Minerva and Fortuna.
Snakes regularly slough off their skin and so were associated with death and rebirth. For this reason, snake symbolism often features in funerary monuments. The tombstone of Longinus at Colchester includes snakes grasped between the paws of lions, and a stone pine cone encircled by a snake may have formed an independent gravestone at Carlisle. The association of snakes with re-birth also led to snakes being found in cult images and decorations asscoiated with mystery religions that looked to saviour gods.
But to return to the Britons said to have been slain at Stonehenge. Geoffrey of Monmouth’s number of slain Britons – 460 - is also found in Wace. But Lawman has 405, Nennius 300, while Alfred of Beverley, the Anglo-Norman Brut, Robert of Brunne and the Welsh copies have 360. 360 could be a reference the number of days in an ancient year.
However, it may be that the Anglo-Saxon dates for Vortigern supply us with a clue as to what 460 actually represents. The advent of the Saxons, who were invited in by Vortigern, is said to have occurred in 449 CE. He is also said to have fought a battle with the Saxons in 455. Could it be that Geoffrey’s ‘460’ is either code or an error for 460 CE?
I used NASA’s eclipse tables to determine that while no solar eclipse visible from Britain had taken place ‘about 460’ on or close to May 1, there was a total lunar eclipse on May 3, 459. During a lunar eclipse, the moon, which is ordinarily white, can become blood-red in color. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records such an event under the year entry for 734:
“In this year the moon was as if it were suffused with blood…”
The possibility that Geoffrey’s ‘about 460’ was referring to a total lunar eclipse in 459 immediately after Beltane has tremendous ramifications for the nature of the red and white dragons. These ramifications may reveal that the genii of the Britons and the Saxons were at some point subjected to a further mythological interpretation.
Let us begin by viewing the White Dragon as the moon. The White Dragon becomes the Red Dragon during a lunar eclipse. When the eclipse is over, the Red Dragon is gone and the White Dragon has returned. Such a cosmic drama may have been considered a battle between opposing dragons.
The sun is never white, and can only be reddish at sunrise or sunset or when viewed through smoke. Hence it is very unlikely that the two dragons are solar monsters who divide the year between themselves, one ruling the period from Beltane to Samhain and the other the period from Samhain to Beltane. It is true that the division of the year into two solar halves was observed anciently by the Celts, as is proven by the Coligny Calendar (see the Appendix below). We will see that prior to the ‘slipping’ of the calendar, Beltane, now May 1st, fell on midsummer, and Samhain, now November 1st, belonged at midwinter. And neolithic monuments such as the Newgrange and Bryn Celli Ddu passage graves and various stone circles and alignments indisputably marked the summer and winter solstices. But although it is tempting to relate this divided solar year to the two dragons, there is a considerable amount of evidence that prohibits us from doing so.
For example, when we go back to the account of the dragons in Lludd and Lleuelys, we recall that it was the horrifying scream of the Red Dragon on May Eve that caused men to lose their color and strength, women to suffer miscarriages, children to lose their senses and animals and trees and soil and water to become barren. As is well known, the moon was closely associated with the nine month term of pregnancy (as the term ‘month’ comes from the word moon), and with madness, called lunacy in honour of the lunar body.
It has long been known that a snake’s shedding of its skin was associated by the ancients with the moon going from old to new. The sun, on the other hand, does not go through phases of cyclic death and rebirth that could be symbolized by the sloughing of skin.
If the Red and White Dragons did come to be perceived as lunar monsters, Lleuelys’ entrapment of them in the vat, his wrapping them in the sheet and locking them in the chest that was buried on Dinas Emrys may be metaphorical language for the setting of the moon into the earth during a total lunar eclipse.
It would have been poetic genius to describe the dragon of the Britons as being like the eclipsed moon, as the Britons themselves, confronted with the onslaught of the Saxons, were in truth being eclipsed by their enemy.
In passing, it is interesting that two British snake species actually exhibit white and red color patterns, although these are sexual distinctions. The male viper has a grey, creamy white or steely grey background color, while the female ranges from brown and yellow to brick red. In the smooth snake, the female is usually a uniform silver grey, while the male tends towards brown and red. Since we now know that the Otherworld white cattle with red ears that appear in Celtic mythological tradition had their counterpart in the real world, could it be that the white and red lunar dragons had their earthly counterparts in one of these two species of native British snakes?
An alternate version of the creation of Mercury’s /Hermes’ caduceus, found recorded in several ancient sources (Phlegon, Mirabilia 4; Tzetzes, Scholiast on Lycophron 683; Eustathius on Hom. Od. 10.492, p. 1665; Scholiast on Hom. Od. x.494; Ant. Lib. 17; Ov. Met. 3.316ff.; Hyginus, Fab. 75; Lactantius Placidus on Statius, Theb. ii.95; Fulgentius, Mytholog. ii.8; Scriptores rerum mythicarum Latini, ed. Bode, i. pp. 5, 104, 169; First Vatican Mythographer 16; Second Vatican Mythographer 84; Third Vatican Mythographer iv.8), presents one of the serpents as male and the other as female. Instead of fighting, the snakes are described as copulating.
The Greek Agathos Daimon, the Roman Genius and the Lunar Dragon
“The agathos daimon is a creature we know almost nothing about - there are no texts that explain what he was or how he was represented artistically. The artistic representations we have that perhaps are this creature show him as a man, not a serpent. The Roman genius does *not* equal the Greek daimon. They are similar concepts, to be sure, but we cannot say they were the same.”
This conclusion is echoed by other scholars. For example, Professor Alan Shapiro, W. H. Collins Vickers Professor of Archaeology at John Hopkins University (personal communication) has said, “I'm not aware of any visual iconography of the agathos daimon.”
It quickly becomes apparent that there is a tremendous amount of confusion and ambiguity out there regarding the agathos daimon. Many books and Web pages (which often fail to cite legitimate primary and secondary sources) simply identify the agathos daimon as the Greek forerunner of the Roman genius loci. Serpentine form for both is assumed.
We also, however, find the same statements made in works of sound scholarship, like Louise Bruit Zaidman and Pauline Schmitt Pantel’s “Religion in the Ancient Greek City” (Cambridge University Press, 1992), where on p. 81 we learn of “the Agathos Daimon (‘Good Spirit’), a sort of genius loci represented in the form of a snake.” This statement echoes that of Martin Persson Nilsson in “Greek Folk Religion” (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972, p. 73): “… Agathos Daimon, the Good Daemon, the guardian of the house, who appears in snake form.” And again in the same book (p. 70):
[The name Agathos Daimon] is inscribed on one of the house altars from Thera. At the end of the daily meal a few drops of unmixed wine were poured out on the floor as a libation to A.D. He too is represented as a snake.”
Professor Richard Hamilton of Bryn Mawr College relates (again personal communication):
"Robert Parker, one of the top scholars of Greek religion, in the Oxford Classical Dictionary says "like other protective figures he [the agathos daimon] was sometimes represented as a snake". I am sure if you consult the Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (which Parker cites) or Pauly-Wissowa you will find textual support for this."
James H. Charlesworth, in "The Good and Evil Serpent: How a Universal Symbol Became Christianized: (Yale University Press, 2009, p. 141), states:
"Agathadaimon was a snake. the Greek word means 'good god (spirit or genius)'... In Athens he seems to have been a minor household god. he was revered throughout most of Greece. Families had snakes not as pets but as house gods. The snakes were often fed by the family after their main meal... Agathadaimon most likely originated within Greece, perhaps Macedonia, and was brought to Egypt by the Greeks."
Charlesworth, however, then goes on to refer to the snakes on the murals at Pompei as Agathadaimons (p. 142). This despite the fact that he shows elsewhere that he knows well the Roman form of the household serpent was called a genius. We can only assume, therefore, that he rather indiscriminately uses the term Agathadaimon as a sort of synonym for other serpents found in contexts that are not demonstrably Greek.
Professor Cartledge, A.G. Leventis Professor of Greek Culture, Univerity of Cambridge, writes:
"There is plenty of good evidence that the Agathos Daimon ('Good Spirit') was indeed worshipped by Greeks in the form of a snake - http://sites.google.com/site/hellenionstemenos/festivals/agathos-daimon.
But it is quite another matter to equate a Greek divinity with a Roman one. There may well be close similarity but not identity. Thus the Agathos Daimon was often worshipped as a spirit of the home, and the home was by definition a place - 'genius loci' in Latin means 'essential spirit of the/a place', so the two ideas can come to be seen as quite similar.
The Greek Magical Papyri are another thing again - specifically from Egypt (hence on papyri) and containing a combination of Greek and 'demotic' (native Egyptian language) spells. Their thought world is far more exotic than the boring old home/place milieu of the Agathos Daimon/Genius loci..."
But then, in a directly contrary mode, Professor Radcliffe G. Edmonds III, Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Greek, Latin, and Classical Studies at Bryn Mawr College says:
"Well, I fear the evidence from the ancient world is rather confounding, not least because as generic a term as ‘Good Spirit’ was used by different people in different ways at different times and places. Agathos daimon does seem to have been used in classical Greek sources to refer to a divinity like the Roman genius loci that had a domestic cult. Of course, our best evidence is, as so often, a joke in Aristophanes (Knights 105-107), but some such cult identity seems probable. There is no evidence that this type of agathos daimon was ever represented as a snake in Classical Greece, although there is evidence from Hellenistic Alexandria for snake form. In sources from the Roman Imperial period, the term agathos daimon is used to describe various divinities whose power is on a cosmic, rather than domestic scale. Roman emperors such as Nero and Marcus Aurelius are identified with the Agathos Daimon as imperial cosmocrators. In the Greek Magical Papyri, Agathos Daimon is linked not just with the sun god (Helios) but with Egyptian deities such as Pshai and Chnoum."
Professor Andromache Karanika, Assistant Professor of Classics, University of California-Irvine, puts it in simple terms:
"Serpentine forms are usually associated with the earth in Greek religion (such as Erechtheus/Erichtonius), so I don't know of any early sources bringing connections wih the "agathos daimon." Any connections of the "good spirit" and the serpentine form is probably a conflation of late hellenistic/Roman period practices (especially around Egyptian "Sarapis"), hence the Magical Papyri reference that you are thinking of which very likely reflects this. John Gager in his book on Curse Tablets gives the exact reference from the Magical Papyri, and then Fraser in his book on "Ptolemaic Alexandria" discusses (if I am correct), albeit briefly, the hellenistic origins of this thread."
And from Professor Robert Parker of Oxford:
"A quick look at a large reference work (Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae) seems to show that in the Greek world there are anthropomorphic depictions of him that are guaranteed by inscriptions; there are also possible cases of him as a snake that aren't so guaranteed. There wouldn't be anything very strange if he were so shown: Zeus himself as Zeus Meilichios is shown both ways, and the general assumption is that Agathos Daimon like Zeus Meiichios will have had something to do with household prosperity (he's sometimes shown with a cornucopia). In the Greco-Egyptian world, where's he's much more prominent, he's regularly a snake, very likely through syncretism; the magical papyri emanate from that same world. As for genius loci, there seem to be significant differences, at least between the mainland Greece AD and the gl; AD has temples in some places, which I doubt a genius loci did."
Professor Ioannis Mylonopoulos, Greek Art and Archaeology, Department of Art History and Archaeology at Columbia University, states that
"According to the literary sources Agathos Daimon has a serpentine form, although there are versions of the myths surrounding this figure, which address him as if we were dealing with a human being.
In art, Agathos Daimon is usually represented as a mature male standing figure accompanied by a snake (very much reminiscent of Asklepios' iconography). There are, however, references (mainly in Pausanias) to statues of Tyche holding the baby Agathos Daimon (reminiscent probably of the statue of Eirene with the Ploutos child by Kephisodotos).
Personally, I wouldn't put too much weight on the connection "genius loci - Agathos Daimon". This kind of syncretistic approach goes back to Herodotus who had tried to create learned bonds among figures of the Greek and Egyptian pantheon.”
If scholarly opinion differs as widely over the nature of the agathos daimon as it does for that of the genius loci (again, see my online article), then we can be sure that not enough is known about the former to allow us to make any kind of conclusive determination. As Professor Mary beard of Cambridge concludes: "Briefly, you are right to be suspicious. The problem is that we dont have images that come 'named', so the confusion enters when people claim that such and such IS the agathos daimon, when it might or might not be."
Certainly, we do have evidence for the term Agathos Daimon being applied to serpentine deities in the ancient world: the god of Alexandria (whether Serapis or another), called Agathos Daimon, is a good example. Various deities have been identified with Alexandria’s god, and according to the Glossary of Hans Deiter Betz’s book “The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including the Demotic Spells” (University of Chicago Press, 1997, p. 331), the Agathos Daimon or
“… good genius was originally an epithet of a god invoked at Greek banquets. In the PGM the name has become a designation for a god – one, however, who can be identified with a number of different deities [of Graeco-Roman Egypt].”
I now take the assertion that the agathos daimon did not appear as a serpent at face value only in this limited sense: perhaps we don’t have ICONOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE for the ‘good spirit’ appearing in serpent form in the early period of Greek religion. But we do know that the designation agathos daimon, even if only as an epithet, was used for anguiform deities from the time of Alexander onward. The Greek Magical Papyri also mention the agathos daimon in a couple of contexts as being snake-like. As serpentine agathos daimons existed, then, in the Roman period, some aspect of the agathos daimon may, no matter how indirectly, have found its way into the Red Dragon/Genius Loci of Britain.
This is the more probable as there is good reason to believe that in addition to the Red Dragon of Britain being the Genius Loci of the island, the monster had taken on an extra dimension of symbolic significance, becoming in the story of “Lludd and Llevelys” the blood-red moon of a lunar eclipse. At the time of the writing of my book I had not been able to confirm that the translations by Jeffrey Gantz and Patrick K. Ford were accurate in one important respect: that Lludd “watched that NIGHT [emphasis mine] and saw the dragons fighting.”/”He himself stood watch that NIGHT. As he was thus, he could see he dragons fighting.” If ‘night’ was the word in the original Welsh, then we could safely interpret the White Dragon of the Saxons as the white full moon (lunar eclipses can only happen when the moon is full) and the Red Dragon of the Britons as the eclipsed moon, which often appears crimson in color. The dragons then sink into a sheet (= the cloud), dragging that down with them into a vat (= lake or sea, i.e. the body of water into which the moon, after the eclipse, appeared to set).
As it happens, the word for night, ‘nos’, is indeed used in the original text. My guess that the dragons have undergone a development from genii to celestial beings may, then, be correct.
And Ambrosius/Uther Pendragon, who is intimately associated with the Red Dragon of Britain, would have as his celestial counterpart the full moon during eclipse.
DINAS EMRYS AND UTHER PENDRAGON
Segontium Crossed Serpents from the Notitia Dignitatum
In past publications I have detailed my reasons for doubting the veracity of ANY ASPECT of the Dinas Emrys story. I have not changed my mind on this matter. But there is one thing that is very important to bear in mind when reading about Vortigern's "giving" of Dinas Emrys to another king: this is a reflection of an actual historical event, i.e. the transfer of that stronghold, either by conquest and de facto recognition and/or through a federate arrangement, from British authority to that of a chieftain of an Irish fian. The fian in question (see eDIL under the entry for fian, and that for Gwynedd in John Koch's CELTIC CULTURE: A HISTORICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA) is probably the one that gave its name to Gwynedd.
In my book THE BEAR KING, I provided the instances in which dragons/serpents/snakes were associated with Gwynedd in the early sources. These may be summarized as follows:
1) Dragons of Dinas Emrys – with Emrys and Vortigern
2) Crossed serpent standard of Segontium military unit in Notitia Dignitatum. Segontium has strong associations with a Constantine.
3) Maglocunus/Maelgwn as the ‘dragon of the isle’ (draco insularis)
4) The Pharoah’s (i.e. Vortigern’s) Red Dragon (standard? Metaphor for the Britons?) in the Gwarchan Maeldderw
5) In the Gorchan of Tudfwlch, the hero – from Eifionydd in Gwynedd, an area in north-west Wales covering the south-eastern part of the Llŷn Peninsula from Porthmadog to just east of Pwllheli – is called the serpent with a terrible sting, and his place of origin is alluded to as the snakes’ lair. Eifionydd, named for Ebiaun son of Dunod son of Cunedda, is the northern half of the kingdom of Dunoding and is hard by Dinas Emrys in Arfon.
6) Owen Gwynedd is referred to by the poet Gwalchmai as the 'dragon of Mona'
So all of these ‘dragons’ cluster in Gwynedd. And that means that Gwynedd is of potential interest in our search for a valid candidate for Uther Pendragon. Uther is, of course, associated with Dinas Emrys. even though the place was confused/conflated with Amesbury and Stonehenge in Wiltshire.
Long ago, I discussed several different facets of the serpents/dragons motif associated with Dinas Emrys. While the story is complex, there are three primary elements that appear to have come together in the folktale. First, funeral urns containing chieftains, i.e. 'dragons', were discovered in a pool within the fort (a feature confirmed by archaeology). Second, the cloth with which these urns were sealed (or which wrapped the cremated bones of the said dragons) were decorated with the crossed serpents of the nearby Segontium/Caernarfon garrison. [These were perhaps symbolic of the two serpents of the Herakles birth myth - a birth myth which also includes the transformation of the father into the guise of another man's wife, as in the tales of the begetting of Mongan by Manannan Mac Lir and Arthur by Uther. The Hercules Saegon- or Hercules 'the Strong' of Silchester bears a Celtic name or epithet which contains the same root as that of Segontium.] And, three, the dragons "morphed" into the respective genii of the Britons and the Saxons.
Complicating all of this is the storyteller's misunderstanding of the significance of red and white animals in Welsh tradition. The mix of colors designated creatures whose origin lay in the Celtic Otherworld. As far as snakes in Gwynedd are concerned, I provided a naturalist's explanation in an earlier article (see https://mistshadows.
[For those interested in watching a combat between two male adders, watch the last portion of this video: https://www.youtube.
Complicating all of this is the storyteller's misunderstanding of the significance of red and white animals in Welsh tradition. The mix of colors designated creatures whose origin lay in the Celtic Otherworld. As far as snakes in Gwynedd are concerned, I provided a naturalist's explanation in an earlier article (see https://mistshadows.
[For those interested in watching a combat between two male adders, watch the last portion of this video: https://www.youtube.
The association of Ambrosius with this place is due solely to the presence of Lleu at Caer Dathal. I've shown that Ambrosius, the 'divine/immortal one', was used as a poetic descriptor for the god. The historical A. was a conflation of St. Ambrose and his Gallic governor father. Neither were ever in Wales. Nor were they at Amesbury in Wiltshire. Thus, originally, the serpents of Dinas Emrys had nothing whatsoever to do with Ambrosius.
Uther was said to have come from Brittany or Llydaw in Welsh. There are only a couple places called Llydaw in Wales. One is under 6 kilometers north of Dinas Emrys: Llyn Llydaw.
Even better, the Afon Glaslyn starts at Glaslyn and flows via Llyn Llydaw to Llyn Dinas, the 'Lake of the Fort [of Emrys].'
Uther is also said by Geoffrey of Monmouth (and no one disputed this) to be the son of a Constantine - one who seems vaguely modeled on the usurper Constantine III. This brings to mind the fact that Segontium was referred to as Caer Custoeint or the 'Fort of Constantine' in Welsh tradition. Here is Bartram's information on this subject:
"In the Historia Brittonum §25 we are told that the fifth Roman emperor to visit Britain was ‘Constantine son of Constantine the Great, and there he dies and his tomb is shown near the city which is called Cair Segeint [Caernarfon], as letters tell which are on the stone of his tumulus. And he sowed three seeds, that is of gold, silver and bronze, in the pavement of the aforesaid city, that no poor person might ever dwell in it, and it is called by another name, Minmanton.’ From this we cannot doubt that there existed an inscribed tombstone to an imperial person of the name Constantine. Some learned person early “corrected” the Contantinus, Constantini magni filius of the above text into Constantius, Constantini magni filius (Vatican MS.) and at least one learned copyist changed this to Constantius, Constantini magni pater, and there was added to Cair Segeint the words vel Cair Costain (The Cambridge MSS, and Durham MS.). In Hanes Gruffudd ap Cynan we read that Earl Hugh built a castle ‘in Arfon in the old fortress of Constantine, emperor, son of Constans the Great’. (Ed.Arthur Jones p.7). Again in Flores Historiarum (ed. Rolls iii.59) we are told that in the year 1283 ‘at Carnarvon the body of a great prince (var.emperor) father of the noble Constantine was found, and it was honourably interred in the church by the joyful king [Edward I]’. From the above evidence Wade-Evans concluded (1) that on a tombstone near Segontium there appeared the name Constantinus and also forms of the words princeps or imperator, and magnus or maximus (or both); (2) that the format of the epitaph was unfamiliar to the author of the passage in the Historia Brittonum, much more so to the men of the thirteenth century; and (3) that since Maximus (Macsen Wledig), his wife Elen, and his son Peblig are associated with that locality, there is a strong presumption that the Constantinus of the tombstone was the son of the emperor Maximus, that is, Custennin ap Macsen Wledig of the pedigrees. See Arch.Camb., 85 (1930), pp.334-5. It should be noted, however, that Constantine was the name of the eldest son of Constantine the Great. He was emperor 337-340 and received Gaul, Britain and part of Africa at his father's death. He made war on his brother, Constans, who governed Italy, but was defeated and slain near Aquileia (Smith's Classical Dictionary). Of over 1000 Roman coins discovered in the neighbourhood of Segontium there are 12 of Helena, mother of Constantine the Great, 74 of Constantine the Great, and 43 of his son Constantine II. See Cy. 33 p.123, Arch.Camb., 77 pp.314f. R.S.Loomis suggested that the large number of coins inscribed with the name of Constantine was perhaps the reason for the legend concerning the seeds of gold, silver and brass mentioned in the Historia Brittonum (Wales and the Arthurian Legend, pp.2-4)."
In the MARWNAT VTHYR PEN ('Elegy of Uther Pen'), one of the men linked in battle to the dead hero is one Gwythyr or 'Victor.' I once thought this to be the Gwythyr son of Greidiol of CULHWCH AND OLWEN, who is placed in the North [1]. But as Magnus Maximus was also placed at Segontium by the Welsh, we might speculate that the Victor in question is meant to be Flavius Victor, son of Magnus Maximus and another usurping emperor. [I should add that a unit of Seguntienses thought to be from the Gwynedd Segontium served near Aquileia in Italy, where Maximus was executed. Maximus, of course, had dealings with St. Ambrose.]
Owain Finddu (= Eugenius), claimed as another son of Magnus Maximus, fought and was slain by a giant at Dinas Emrys. His grave is called Bedd Owen (see Beudy Bedd-Owen on the map below). The 'Finddu' or "black-lip" epithet may seem strange until we remember that the usurper Eugenius had been a magister scriniorum. Thus his lips were black from licking his quill pen. This particular Eugenius was not in any sense British, so his placement at Dinas Emrys is merely another folktale.
A couple other names in the elegy are worth investigating more closely, as they seem to point to locations in Gwynedd.
Henpen is someone who probably belongs in Gwynedd. Here is the note on the name from Marged Haycock's edition of the poem:
"Henpen is a personal name, or possibly a nickname, as in LlDC 18.219
Bed Hennin Henben yn aelwyt Dinorben (Abergele, Denbighshire), presumably
the same character as Hennin father of Garwen (em.) LlDC 18.217, and Henin
Hen, father of Garwen in Triad 57 (see TYP3 397), and possibly to be equated
with Heinin Vardd, chief poet at the Degannwy court of Maelgwn Gwynedd in
YT line 374, 380; and 200 Henin. See further on §8.24."
If this is the right Henben, then the speaker of the relevant line may be Taliesin himself, and not Uther. But it still an important reference to NW Wales.
The location of pen mynyd may also be important. Here is the note from Haycock:
"Pen mynydd simply ‘on the mountain top’; although a reference to
Penmynydd, Anglesey, a house of the Tudur family in the 14c (see GGM I, 14-
15) cannot be ruled out. Cynddelw refers to Penmynydd in his praise-poem to St
Tysilio who had connections with Anglesey as well as with Meifod in Powys
(CBT III 3.196)."
Henry Tudor is known to have used the red dragon in battle. When we look on a modern map of Penmynydd, we note a curious adjacent place-name: DRAGON. Earlier maps show a cluster of dragon names at the site, including a Dragon-wen and Dragon-goch - the red and white dragons of Dinas Emrys.
A folktale on a dragon exists for this place, one that clearly sounds a lot like the one that much earlier became attached to Dinas Emrys.
There are Norse and Russian parallels to this folktale. But the elegy's pen mynyd must certainly be this place on Anglesey.
Mabon is made the 'gwas' of Uther Pendragon, and this god, though as a 'predatory bird' is said to be of Elei, is also found in death at Nantlle in Arfon. It is at Nantlle that we find Lleu in the form of a death-eagle. This should be considered evidence that Welsh tradition tended to identity the two sun gods.
I've several times treated of the very important, yet very troublesome lines -
Neu vi a elwir gorlassar:
It’s I who’s styled ‘Armed in Blue’:
vy gwrys bu enuys y’m hescar.
my ferocity snared my enemy.
5 Neu vi tywyssawc yn tywyll:
It is I who’s a leader in darkness:
a’m rithwy am dwy pen kawell.
. . . . .
Neu vi eil Sawyl5 yn ardu:
It’s I who’s a second Sawyl in the gloom:
Given the context, Sawyl as an emendation is plainly wrong. The MS. original word kawyl is for kan(n)wyl, a word meaning not only candle, luminary, transf. of star, sun, moon, lamp, but also fig. of leader, hero. Thus "It's I who's a second luminary/leader in the gloom" matches the line "It's I who's a leader in darkness." Gorlassar remains a problem. I've suggested several possible meanings, drawing on the work of previous scholars as well as some of my own original ideas. It's literal meaning is "very blue", "very green" or "very blue/green". The word translated 'styled' here is more generally rendered 'called' or 'named', sometimes 'known as'.
And then there is Line 6, which seems to describe Uther (or Taliesin?) assuming a form or appearance, something that sounds suspiciously like his becoming Gorlois (derived by Geoffrey of Monmouth from Uther's own gorlassar title) through the magic of Merlin.
Here again is Haycock's note to the line:
"6 a’m rithwy am dwy pen kawell G emends am dwy > an Dwy(w) ‘our Lord’,
understood as the subject of 3sg. subjunct. rithwy ‘transform’ etc., but yn adwy
‘in the breach’ or yn ardwy ‘as a defence’ would give a more regular three
syllables in the central section. Kawell ‘basket, pannier; cradle; fish-trap; creel,
cage; quiver; belly, breast’ (GPC) seems unlikely, as do cowyll ‘maidenhood-fee;
clothing, covering’ (with G s.v. coŵyll), sawell ‘chimney, kiln’ (see on §4.246),
or nawell ‘nine times better’. Cannwyll is sometimes a rhyme partner for tywyll
(e.g. AP line 88 cannwyll yn tywyll; CC 18.13; R1056.15), and would yield full
rhyme. ‘May our Lord, the guiding/chief light, transform me’ is a possibility; or
(with yn adwy) ‘May the guiding/chief light (i.e. God) transform me in the
breach’. Or is pen kawell a basket to collect up the heads he cuts off (line 18)? If
Uthr is the speaker, is vb rithaw to be connected with his transformation through
disguise (see introduction)? Obscure."
What Uther tranforms into in this context is not in question; it is the 'second luminary/leader' referred to in the following line. Presumably, God himself is the first or primary light. There are really only two good possibilities for kawell: 1) cawell, i.e. basket, pannier, cradle, fish-trap, creel, cage; quiver; fig. belly, breast or 2) cafell (related to cawell), 'sanctuary, temple, chancel, choir, cell, chamber'. If cawell, we might have Taliesin speaking here and not Uther, for Taliesin with his bright forehead first appeared at night in the hide-covered basket or coracle in the fish-weir of Gwyddno on the River Conwy at Degannwy. If cafell, then the pen cafell would mean 'chief of the sanctuary' and here designates God.
I flirted with the idea that pen kawell was for a Pen Cawell, an actual place-name. But there was only one such place - Kingscavil in West Lothian. Kingscavil as it stands is Gaelic, but place-name expert John Wilkinson thinks it may be from the British. Kingscavil, as it happens, appears to lie in the Manau Gododdin from which Cunedda and his sons were erroneously said to have hailed.
It is not impossible that cannwyll could mean 'star' in Line 7, and this suggested to me that we could be referring here to the dragon-comet of Geoffrey of Monmouth, which was said to represent Uther himself. But, in truth, the earliest Welsh tradition derives the Ddraig Goch or Red Dragon from the monster who appears in the Dinas Emrys story. Geoffrey's story of the comet is, in any case, wrong in a very obvious sense: comets marked the deaths of kings. Thus the dragon-star's appearance on the death of Ambrosius should properly point to Ambrosius as the dragon, and not to Uther. It is worth noting that in the French Arthurian romances, Ambrosius is called Pendragon. I had once tried to make the case that Uther Pendragon was merely a title applied to Ambrosius of dragon fame, especially as Vortigern was said to be in dread (timore) of him. Uthr in Welsh has as two primary meanings 'fearful, dreadful.'
Now, if the red dragon (see the "Gwarchan Maeldderw", G.R. Isaac's translation and commentary in CAMBRIAN MEDIEVAL CELTIC STUDIES 44, Winter 2002) even belonged to Vortigern, we are tempted to dispense even with the Dinas Emrys story and fall back on the more common explanation for the dragon's origin, i.e. that it evolved from the draco standard of the Roman army. But if we do this, what to make of the red dragon of Dinas Emrys?
An important thing to remember is that Geoffrey claimed Uther was buried at Amesbury. As Amesbury was confused with Dinas Emrys, we might reasonably ask whether one of the dragons dug up in the cremation urns at this latter fort was, in fact, the charred bones of Uther himself. This idea may seem strange, but cannot be discounted. Of course, we are talking about Geoffrey here, whose "history" is almost exclusively a work of fiction. For St. Ambrose's exhumation of a saint named Celsus (the meaning of which matches that of the original form of Uther, according to Professor John Koch), see the latter portion of
https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2018/01/st-ambrose-and-exhumation-of-saints.html.
Geoffrey has Ambrosius buried at Stonehenge, as well as Arthur's supposed successor, Constantine, believed to be in this instance the Constantine of Dumnonia castigated in the pages of Gildas. But we have seen that Caernarfon/Segontium with its insignum of two red crossed snakes was thought of as the City of Constantine.
According to COFLEIN (https://www.coflein.gov.uk/
"Excavations [at Dinas Emrys], in 1910 and 1954-6, have produced evidence for Iron Age, Roman and early Medieval (Dark Age) occupation, whilst some of the surviving stone work is also thought to be medieval in date."
Thus we KNOW that there was a Dark Age/Sub-Roman chieftain ruling at the fort. Furthermore, we might reasonably postulate that whoever this was may have dug up funeral bones wrapped in cloth that bore the crossed red dragons of Segontium. With proven Roman use, the command of the fort might well have been entrusted to members of the Segontium garrison. There may even have been descendants of these troops present in the 5th century. But whether through continuity of habitation or reoccupation following the Roman withdrawal, the Dark Age ruler of Dinas Emrys might well be expected to keep or adopt the Red Dragon(s) standard of his predecessors.
As the crossed serpents represented two male vipers locked in a typical battle over a female, it was only natural to separate them out into two warring genii of the Britons and the Saxons. Confusion over the battles of males and the breeding of white males with red females, as well as the Welsh penchant for red and white Otherworld animals, may have contributed to the alteration of the Segontium insignum. So instead of two red dragons we ended up with one.
If this is indeed what happened, it is impossible to disentangle Uther Pendragon from Dinas Emrys. We would not be able to theorize that Uther actually belonged somewhere in the North, and that he had been relocated in legend to Wales. His use of the Ddraig Goch would be proof that he belongs in Gwynedd, and specifically in Arfon.
At the beginning of this blog post, I mentioned that the Irish chieftain who received Dinas Emrys and all of western Wales from Vortigern the High King was leader of the fian for whom Gwynedd was named. The question then naturally becomes, who was this chieftain?
Well, we know historically that all of northwestern Wales came into the possession of Cunedda and his son. Arfon was conquered by Cadwallon Llawhir ('Long-hand/arm'' cf. Lamhfota, an epithet for the Irish god Lugh, whose Welsh counterpart is Lleu of Gwynedd). Cadwallon is the son of Einion Yrth son of Cunedda. This grandson of the great Ciannachta chieftain ruled from Anglesey:
http://www.walesher1974.org/her/groups/GAT/media/GAT_Reports/GATreport_858_compressed.pdf
https://www.coflein.gov.uk/en/site/406088/details/llys-caswallon-near-pengorffwysfa
So what to do with Uther Pendragon at Dinas Emrys?
I would like to make a suggestion. Could it be that Dinas Emrys with its two serpents is simply a relocation for Segontium/Caernarfon?
While we have no evidence that Cunedda or his immediate descendants had a court at Segontium, it would be reasonable to assume that Irish settlers seeking to dominate the region would select as their primary base of operations the most significant coastal Roman fort/town at their disposal. The COFLEIN site says this about Roman Segontium:
"Archaeological excavations have shown that it accommodated a regiment of auxiliary infantry of up to 1,000 soldiers. Coins recovered from excavations show that it was garrisoned until about AD 394. Such a long occupation was unique in Wales, and was possibly due to the strategic position of the fort, controlling access to the fertile and mineral rich lands of Anglesey and by its later role in the defence of the Welsh coast against Irish raiders and pirates. Throughout the Roman period, Segontium was the military and administrative centre of north-west Wales."
Professor John Koch says this of Cunedda and Segontium in his CELTIC CULTURE: A HISTORICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA:
Archaeology has recently found evidence for early medieval occupation of Caernarfon:
http://www.heneb.co.uk/llanbeblig/llanbebligmain.html
Anglesey is not said to have been cleared of the Irish until the time of Cadwallon, so the idea that Cunedda ruled from Aberffraw on the island is not very convincing. It is likely Aberffraw was established as a llys or court only after Cadwallon had cleared competing Irish war-bands from Mon. Cunedda must have ruled from someplace else - and Segontium is the most logical location.
The transfer of the serpents from Segontium, where they belonged with the garrison unit, to Dinas Emrys may have taken place for no other reason than two "dragons"/chieftains were dug up in the cremation urns at Dinas Emrys (where, as I mentioned above, there may also have been members of the Segontium garrison during the Roman period). The actual chieftain who was given western Wales by Vortigern did not, in fact, reside at Dinas Emrys, but rather at Segontium.
And his name was Cunedda.
[1] Gwythyr/Victor competes with Gwyn son of Nudd for the goddess Creiddylad daughter of Lludd Llaw Ereint in CULHWCH AND OLWEN. It has long been recognized that Creiddylad is Geoffrey of Monmouth's Cordelia. While Cordelia is made the daughter of the sea god Lir, Creiddylad's father is the Welsh version of the Irish god Nuadu Silver-hand. In Geoffrey's pseudo-history, Cunedda is inserted into the Cordelia story. From Bartram:
"CUNEDDA ap HENWYN. (Fictitious). (805-772 B.C.) A fictitious king of Britain, called by Geoffrey of Monmouth Cunedagius son of Henuinus, Duke of Cornwall, by Regau, daughter of Leir. He and his cousin Margan made insurrection against Cordeilla, daughter of Leir, when she was queen of Britain, and put her in prison where she made away with herself. The two cousins then divided the island between them, Margan having the part north of the Humber and Cunedda the rest. Margan invaded the lands of Cunedda, but was defeated and slain. Cunedda then reigned over the whole island gloriously for thirty-three years, and on his death was succeeded by his son, Rivallo [Rhiwallon] (HRB II.15-16). Brut y Brenhinedd tells the same story of Cunedda ap Henwyn."
In the MARWNAD CUNEDDA, the chieftain is put in Bryneigh/Bernicia against the English, as well as at Carlisle and Caer Weir (probably Durham). Once again, this is because he was mistakenly said to come from Manau Gododdin, when in reality he came from Drumanagh in Ireland.
P.S. An earlier post on Uther Pendragon as Cunedda:
https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2016/12/cerdic-of-wessex-and-arthur-one-more.html
"CUNEDDA ap HENWYN. (Fictitious). (805-772 B.C.) A fictitious king of Britain, called by Geoffrey of Monmouth Cunedagius son of Henuinus, Duke of Cornwall, by Regau, daughter of Leir. He and his cousin Margan made insurrection against Cordeilla, daughter of Leir, when she was queen of Britain, and put her in prison where she made away with herself. The two cousins then divided the island between them, Margan having the part north of the Humber and Cunedda the rest. Margan invaded the lands of Cunedda, but was defeated and slain. Cunedda then reigned over the whole island gloriously for thirty-three years, and on his death was succeeded by his son, Rivallo [Rhiwallon] (HRB II.15-16). Brut y Brenhinedd tells the same story of Cunedda ap Henwyn."
In the MARWNAD CUNEDDA, the chieftain is put in Bryneigh/Bernicia against the English, as well as at Carlisle and Caer Weir (probably Durham). Once again, this is because he was mistakenly said to come from Manau Gododdin, when in reality he came from Drumanagh in Ireland.
P.S. An earlier post on Uther Pendragon as Cunedda:
https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2016/12/cerdic-of-wessex-and-arthur-one-more.html
