Wednesday, June 10, 2026

THE PROBLEM OF THE 'BADONICUS' PLACE-NAME IN GILDAS

Liddington Castle (Badbury)

For a very long time now Arthurian scholars have been perplexed by a problem with the 'Badonicus' place-name found in Gildas.  Simply put, the problem can be defined thusly:

If Gildas' work is as early as is claimed, and the author knew of a British victory at Badon that happened in the year of his birth, then surely the name of the hill must be British.  Yet, there is no way to prove that claim.  Instead, purely from a linguistic standpoint the name must be English.  The argument in support of this is best summarized by Dr. Graham Isaac in the following blog piece, where it is shown that Badon is the natural and expected British reflection of English Bathum:


But interpreting Badon as Bathum (which would have to be either Bath in Somerset or Buxton in the Peak District) creates another problem, for Welsh tradition places Badon at the Liddington Badbury in Wiltshire.  See


While it is possible that English Bathum (preserved in the Welsh Caer Faddon, a name borrowed from English sources) could easily have been mistakenly substituted for the Baddan- of Baddanbyrig/Badbury, we still find ourselves facing the same problem we encounter with the Bath name: Baddan- is a genitive form of a postulated, otherwise unattested OE personal name, Badda.

Why an English name for the hillfort?

Various etymologies have been attempted for Badda.  I came up with my own idea for the name, and had one of England's top place-name specialists give it a nod:


As I had considered Badda merely a variant of a personal name derived from OE beado, 'battle, war, slaughter, cruelty; pugna, strages', and had tentatively suggested that Gildas' use of strages to describe what happened at Badonicus as a sort of translation of the hill-name, I could then bring in yet another early name from the ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE:


Alas, while this all seemed to make perfect sense, I was aware at the time that this did not solve the Badonicus problem.

Other scholars have suggested a link between Gildas' Badon and some Roman period goddesses found on a dedication in Dacia.  Here is the relevant inscription:

EDCS-30200694
Inscription #1
Badonib(us) /
Reginis /
Sextia Au/
gustina /
ex voto
Dating: 171 – 250
Language: Latin
Categories: tituli sacri (dedicatory inscriptions), tria nomina, viri (men)

Material
lapis (stone)

Evidence
CIL-03, 14471
IDR-03, 05-01, 00037
D-09335
AE-1901, 00029
Localisation
Place
Alba Iulia / Apulum

Province
Dacia

It is conjectured that the female dedicant who worshipped the Badones may have heralded from Britain.  It has even been thought that the pagan temple found at Badbury Rings in Dorset may have belonged to these goddesses.  Professor John Koch points out that the -on- terminal (like that found in the Gallo-Brittonic Epona and Matrona) denotes divinity.  

Victor Watts, in his THE CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY OF ENGLISH PLACE-NAMES, says of the Badbury names:



Unfortunately, no good etymology has been offered for the stem of the divine name Badones.  And other than a superficial correspondence with the British Badon there is no evidence for these goddesses in Britain.  Koch's says merely that

"Whether the identification with one of the places called Old English Baddanbyrig is correct or not,
Old English Baddan- could be borrowed from this British Badon-."

As has been observed before, Badda seems to have been attached to hill-names, and to five fortified hills.  These hillforts can be plotted out on a map, just as Alcock did in his ARTHUR'S BRITAIN:



Note that I have drawn a line through the five Badbury forts.  Why?  Well, that should seem obvious: the line created by connecting the sites would seem to suggest some kind of boundary line or limes.  I'm unaware of anyone noticing this configuration before, which does not seem to be mere coincidence.

If it's not purely coincidence, and the Badbury forts do, in fact, describe border outposts, what, if anything, might this have to do with the Baddan- place-name?

Well, I was reminded of the Anglo-Saxon cemetery range maps found in N.J. Higham's KING ARTHUR: MYTH-MAKING AND HISTORY.  There seemed an astonishing correspondence between the limits of AS settlement shown on these maps during the Arthurian period and the arrangement of the Badbury forts.  Here are the cemetery maps in question, in chronological order from c. 475 to c. 520 to c. 560:





Of course, we have to be careful here.  The Badbury forts are ancient British constructions.  They were not made by the English.  However, they may well have been comandeered by the English for some purpose. 

And I think I may know that purpose. If I'm right, we can finally account for the presence of an English place-name in Gildas.

In my mind, I imagined Roman-style foederati settled along a border. They were defending it for the British against other Saxons. 


"Foederati were warriors recruited from peoples or cities allied with Rome. During the Roman Republic, the foederati mainly consisted of the socii , or allies. Later, in the Roman Empire, the term referred to foreign client kingdoms or allied barbarian tribes that provided military troops. Often, these groups were granted permission to settle within the borders of the empire in return."

I then remembered a Norse goddess (or literary abstraction or Greek-style divine personification of a concept?) named Var, whose name meant "pledge."  Her name was preserved in the Varangians, a sort of Germanic foederati group who eventually became a bodyguard corp of the Emperor at Byzantium.

A pledge involving foederati usually involved hostages. 


"In the context of Roman interstate relations, obses is a technical term used to describe hostages provided voluntarily by one party to another—following the terms of an agreement—to serve as sureties or pignus fidei for their giver’s faith."

For a detailed study of how pledges worked in OE society, I refer my readers to this excellent source:

https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/items/9370a51b-5329-4e6f-b51e-56ed92e7f1f5

The foedus pledge and hostage theme plays out in the story of Vortigern in the HISTORIA BRITTONUM:


The key OE word in the context of our discussion of the Badda name is this:

Bosworth and Toller

bád
noun [ feminine ]
 Dictionary links
oed ned med doe doec pie
 Grammar
bád, e; f. [from bǽdan compellere]
 Wright's OE grammar
§367;
A pledge, stake, a thing distrained; pignus

bǽdan, badian
verb [ weak ]
 Dictionary links
oed ned med doe doec pie
 Grammar
bǽdan, p. de; pp. ed
 Wright's OE grammar
§530;
To constrain, compel, require, solicit; cogere, compellere, exigere, postulare, flagitare

Etymological Dictionary
of Proto-Germanic
By
Guus Kroonen

*baidjan- w.v. 'to force, demand' - Go. baidjan w.v. 'to force', ON beiaa w.v.
'to ask, request', Far. beiaa w.v. 'to request, demand; to trouble', OE bt£dan
w.v. 'to demand; to force', OHG beitten w.v. 'id.', MHG beiten w.v. 'to wait' =>
*bhoidh-eie- (EUR).
The causative to *bfdan- 'to wait' (q.v). The meaning 'to force' is problaby
more primitive than the meanings of e.g. Gr. m:Woμm 'to trust, rely, obey, be
persuaded', Lat. fido, -ere 'to trust', which seem to have evolved in
medio-passive use ('to be persuaded' > 'to confide in').

What I would propose is that Badda is a personification of the foedus pledge and that those English who were at Badbury can be likened to the Gewissei, who were supposedly named from Gewis.

[NOTE: I've elsewhere shown that the Gewissei, in all likelihood, were actually Irish or Hiberno-British federates fighting for the British against the Germanic invaders.]

If Badda as personified pledge accounts for the Baddan- name, then we may explain how it was preserved in Gildas (disguised under a later copyist's Bathum misidentification) in this fashion: 

The Saxons who had established a foedus with Vortigern had become a problem for the British. In the first quarter of the 6th century AD, the Britons inflict upon them a significant defeat at a fort called after those foederati who either inhabit it or at least defend it. As the site in question was pre-Roman, and the Saxon federates may well have been there for some time, we might expect Gildas to refer to it as the mons/"hill" of those of the pledge.





















Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, June 6, 2026

THE ARGUMENT AGAINST CASTUS IN 160S ARMENIA


"At this time, moreover, came the Parthian war, which Vologaesus planned under Pius⁠ and declared under Marcus and Verus, after the rout of Attidius Cornelianus, than governor of Syria.⁠ And besides this, war was threatening in Britain, and the Chatti⁠ had burst into Germany and Raetia.  Against the Britons Calpurnius Agricola⁠ was sent..."


The argument for L. Artorius Castus, prefect of the Sixth Legion at York, leading British legionary vexillations to Armenia in the 160s can be summarized as follows:

1) The British governor Priscus is sent to Armenia to command the army there.
2) ARMENIOS does fit in the lacuna on Castus' memorial stone.
3) The preferred date of the stone allows for the early Severan period (although barely).
4) Shortly after the victory in Armenia, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus militarily reorganize Dalmatia as a buffer zone between Italy and the invading Marcomanni. This reorganization could account for the formation of Castus' province of Liburnia.

I once thought this a very strong case in support of the Armenian theory. But I no longer hold to that view. Many of the reasons why I changed my mind have been expressed elsewhere. In this piece I wish to concentrate on one overlooked fact: the condition of Roman Britain just before and right after Priscus's brief tenure as governor of the province.

The British governors during the period in question are as follows (from A. Birley's THE ROMAN GIVERNMENT OF BRITAIN):

JULIUS VERUS 

"His governorship of Britain is datable to 158 by the Ravenglass diploma and
the inscription from Birrens, north of the western end of Hadrian’s Wall. As
the diploma was issued in February, he must have arrived in Britain at latest in the previous year. But it could well have been even earlier. The inscription from Newcastle reveals the arrival, under Julius Verus, of soldiers from each of the three British legions, who had been ‘contributed to the two German armies’. Coins of 155 show ‘Britannia subdued’, suggesting that there had been military problems there.⁴⁸ What they were is not clear, but it is surely preferable to discount supposed evidence in Pausanias (8. 43) for hostile action by the Brigantes involving an attack on the (otherwise unknown) ‘Genunian district’.⁴⁹ At any rate, it seems likely that Verus, as governor of Lower Germany, was well placed to bring back to Britain men who who had been serving in Germany, perhaps to use their skills at frontier construction at a time when the limes in Upper Germany was being extended to the outer line.⁵⁰ He may have been appointed to deal with the trouble after only a short stay in
the Rhineland. The epigraphic record of his activity extends from the southern Pennines, at Brough-on-Noe, to the outpost fort at Birrens, north of the western end of Hadrian’s Wall. He was also active at Corbridge. Another inscription, not mentioning his name, is dated by the consuls of 158 to his governorship, and records rebuilding work on Hadrian’s Wall itself.⁵¹ The archaeological evidence from the Antonine Wall indicates that it was evacuated at about this time—for good: the second Roman occupation of Scotland had thus lasted at
the most for some eighteen years. Verus’ successor may have completed the withdrawal and one or two outposts may have been retained.⁵² One of his legionary legates, of VI Victrix, was probably Q. Camurius Numisius Junior, who took up the post after commanding another legion, which can be interpreted as an appointment to deal with a crisis (LL 28). Measures taken by Verus or his immediate succcessors may have included the following, all datable to the ‘mid-Antonine period’: the abandonment of all or most of the
Cumbrian system of towers and milefortlets; further replacement of the western, turf part of Hadrian’s Wall in stone; the construction of the ‘Military Way’ as a lateral road just south of the Wall, with a new bridge across the North Tyne at Chesters (Cilurnum); and perhaps also over the Irthing at Willowford; a new fort on the wall at Newcastle (Pons Aelius); the rebuilding of that at South Shields at the mouth of the Tyne; a bridge over the Tyne at Corbridge (Coria); and perhaps new forts at Chester-le-Street (Concangis) and Lanchester (Longovicium). There was no doubt further rebuilding at other forts
as well.⁵³ Quite when Verus was replaced is difficult to establish; his successor is slightly tenuous (28). He disappears from sight for a few years, but reappears in the early 160s, after dramatic developments at the other end of the empire."

On the significance of the Newcastle inscription from The Chattan War, the Brigantian Revolt and the Loss of the Antonine Wall, M. P. Speidel, Britannia , 1987, Vol. 18 1987, pp. 233-237:

"The fact that in the years from 151 to 155 expeditionary armies had come to Germany is of great interest in assessing the move there to the outer limes. The Chatti must have posed a major threat to both German provinces and their allies, and indeed, six years later, in a large-scale attack, they invaded Upper Germany as well as Raetia. In the great second-century drama of the European nations hurling themselves against the frontiers of the Empire, the Chattan war, or threat of war, of 151-155 is thus revealed as the first act. The second act was played in Britain. A part of Pedo's field army had come from Britain, while other British forces had gone to Lower Germany, as the Newcastle inscription shows. Just how large these forces were is, of course, not known but one may argue that with most troops having fixed duties even a draft of two thousand men might be a large part of those in the British army who were actually free to take to the field. Their absence, no doubt, enticed the Brigantes to revolt, thus bringing about the first loss of the Antonine Wall. Then, under Julius Verus the British expeditionary force came back, and a succession of Rome's best generals restored the Antonine Wall in the years 158 to 161. Yet things did not end there. The marshals that were sent to Britain to restore the Wall had brought with them German and Raetian troops as shown by the Ribchester inscription and by an altar set up by Raetian troops at Birrens. From what we know of the strategy of the High Empire, withdrawal of troops from a frontier sector for campaigning elsewhere laid that sector open to attack. Indeed, just then, in 161/2, the Chatti invaded both Upper Germany and Raetia, weakened by the absence of field troops. This, no doubt, brought about the speedy return of most of the German and Raetian troops to their home frontiers and ruled out further reinforcements for Britain, thus leading to the second loss of the Antonine Wall around 163."

STATIUS PRISCUS

"Statius Priscus’ governorship was very brief, not more than a year at most, starting in summer 161. But his career throws a good deal of light on the workings of the military system. The name Statius is fairly common, and the other items in his nomenclature are also too indistinctive to indicate his origin, except for the tribe Claudia, found more frequently than elsewhere in regio X of Italy and in certain communities of the northern provinces.⁶⁸ Northern Italy, where a good many Statii are attested, or one of the cities of the Dalmatian coast look likely areas for his home.⁶⁹ Colchester (Camulodunum) is also just possible: a first-century legionary named Statius, with the tribe Claudia, derived from there,⁷⁰ and Priscus’ first appointment, as prefect of the Fourth Cohort of Lingones, stationed in Britain, would suit such an origin.⁷¹ Equally, the governor who probably gave him his commission, Julius Severus (Gov. 21), was himself from Dalmatia and perhaps offered him the post because he was a fellow-countryman. He was no doubt taken from Britain to the Jewish war, for service in which he received a decoration, by Severus. There is no need to suppose that Priscus took his cohort to Judaea. More likely Severus promoted him to be tribune in the Syrian legion III Gallica, which participated in the war; he probably went on to serve as tribune in a detachment of the Upper Pannonian legion X Gemina, also participating in the Jewish war. Since a third tribunate followed, in another legion of Upper Pannonia, it may be conjectured that he returned to that province with X Gemina and was retained there, as tribune of I Adiutrix.⁷² After this he finally entered the third militia, as prefect of an ala in Cappadocia; and then moved to the procuratorial career with a rather lowly post as sexagenarius, in charge of the vicesima hereditatium, the 5 per cent inheritance tax, in two Gallic provinces.⁷³ Thereafter he changed course markedly by entering the senate. It must be inferred that Antoninus Pius granted him the latus clavus. Priscus may have owed his advance to the patronage of Lollius Urbicus (Gov. 24), whose influence in the 140s was no doubt considerable. But he did not receive any remission (except that he was excused the vigintivirate), unlike many who transferred from the equestrian career to the senate at other periods, such as the reign of Vespasian or during the Marcomannic Wars. This reflects the conservatism of the reign. Priscus must have been well over 30 when he entered the senate as quaestor, and well over 50 when he became consul. Still, once he had held the compulsory Republican magistracies, he had the type of career enjoyed by men like Julius Agricola (Gov. 11), Julius Severus (21), and Lollius Urbicus (24): only two posts, the first a legionary command, between praetorship and consulship. His governorship of Upper Dacia, immediately preceding his consulship, is dated closely by diplomas, to 13 December 156 and 8 July 158, and a dedication he made at Apulum as consul designate can be assigned to autumn 158.⁷⁴ Before that he had commanded the Carnuntum legion XIV Gemina, perhaps when Claudius Maximus, the friend of M. Aurelius, was governing Upper Pannonia (he is attested there in 150 and 154). Priscus’ consulship as ordinarius for 159 was a remarkable honour for a novus homo—only one other man of comparable background, the jurist Salvius Julianus, received similar distinction during this reign. One reason in Priscus’ case was no doubt his military success in Dacia, revealed by inscriptions from that province.⁷⁵ After his consulship he had a brief spell as curator of the Tiber, but before the end of 160 must have become governor of Upper Moesia, where he is attested in office on 8 February 161.⁷⁶ He was still there, not surprisingly, after the death of Pius the following month, as shown by his dedication in honour of M. Aurelius and L. Verus, set up after he had been appointed to Britain. It may have been the sudden death of a recently appointed governor of Britain (Gov. 28), or perhaps just the difficult military situation in the north of the province, that led the emperors to transfer Priscus there soon after their accession. As stated by the HA: ‘a British war was also threatening’ in 161 (M. Ant. Phil. 8. 7) and had to be dealt with by Priscus’ successor (Gov. 30).⁷⁷ Priscus can only have spent some months in Britain when a more serious crisis occurred in the East: the defeat and death of the governor of Cappadocia and the invasion of Syria by the Parthians.⁷⁸ Priscus was chosen to deal with this crisis, and won a major victory, capturing the Armenian capital Artaxata (HA M. Ant. Phil. 9. 1, cf. Verus 7. 1) and founding a new one, which he garrisoned (Dio 71. 3. 1¹). These successes allowed L. Verus to assume the title Armeniacus in 163.⁷⁹ The satirist Lucian alleges that a contemporary historian described ‘how Priscus the general merely shouted out and twenty-seven of the enemy dropped dead’ (How to Write History 20). Hardly serious evidence, but perhaps Priscus had an aggressive style of leadership. The choice of Priscus to be recalled from Britain to deal with a crisis in the East exactly parallels the sending of Julius Severus (Gov. 21) to Judaea thirty years earlier. Severus was described as ‘the foremost of Hadrian’s leading generals’ in that connection (Dio 69. 13. 3, see Gov. 21). Priscus, after his success in Dacia in the late 150s, was no doubt equally highly rated. These two cases underline the high military status of Britain and its governors. He is not heard of again, and may have died soon afterwards. No children are recorded, but M. Statius Longinus, governor of Moesia Inferior under Macrinus, might be a descendant.⁸⁰"


SEXTUS CALPURNIUS AGRICOLA

"The context of the sentence in
the HA which refers to his dispatch ‘against the Britons’ suggests that he wasreplaced in Germany by Aufidius Victorinus and transferred to Britain in
autumn 161 or early 162 at the very latest.⁸⁶ It indicates that there were hostilities in progress in Britain (already referred to in HA M. Ant. Phil. 8. 7, quoted under Gov. 29).⁸⁷ A mention in Polyaenus’ Strategica (6, pr.) of ‘the Britons being defeated’ may refer to this war, since the work was dedicated to Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus in 162. From the inscription at Ribchester it can be
inferred that he took some extra cavalry from Germany with him—unless they had been sent under one of his predecessors. The dedication at Corbridge firmly dates his governorship to the year 163 and has already disposed of the possibility that he was the predecessor of Priscus, rather than his successor.⁸⁸ The distribution of his inscriptions, at
Carvoran on Hadrian’s Wall, and Vindolanda, just south of the wall, as well as at Corbridge, also at Ribchester, and perhaps at Hardknott, in north-west England, indicates that Hadrian’s Wall and the Pennines were occupied at the time. It now seems clear that the Antonine Wall had been given up under Julius Verus several years earlier (see under Gov. 27)."

And the Ribchester inscription as discussed by M. P. Speidel, once again from his The Chattan War, the Brigantian Revolt and the Loss of the Antonine Wall, Britannia , 1987, Vol. 18 1987, pp. 233-237:

"The armies of Germany were nearest to Britain, and so often did drafts of them cross the Channel4 that the 'upper province' of our text surely must mean that of Germany rather than of Pannonia, Dacia or Moesia, none of which is known to have sent provincial drafts to Britain. One will not go far wrong, then, in assuming that horsemen from Upper Germany were stationed at Ribchester.5 The date of the inscription is given by the joint reign of the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus from 161 to 169; hence our text is likely to mention the name of Sextus Calpurnius Agricola..."

It seems reasonable to me to present the following scenario and then ask an obvious question:

War is threatening in Britain at the outset of the Armenian War. This was when Priscus was recalled from Britain and sent to the East. His predecessor was only in Britain a very short time - and was perhaps killed there. Before that Julius Verus had brought troops from the Continent when the Antonine Wall was lost. It is reasonable to assume Priscus, sent to Britain in an emergency capacity, had also taken troops with him. And his successor Agricola probably also took troops.

Given all of the above, can we justify proposing that Priscus is at all likely to have removed three legionary detachments under the command of a prefect of the Sixth Legion and sent them to Armenia? In other words, does it make sense to consider a major troop withdrawal headed by an officer belonging to a legion that was responsible for defending the North at a time when the North was in constant turmoil and was regularly receiving reinforcements from the Continent?

I feel the only proper answer is plainly "No."



Posted by at No comments:

Friday, May 22, 2026

THE DUBIOUS READING OF 'ARMATOS' FOR THE LUCIUS ARTORIUS CASTUS 'ARM[...]S' LACUNA


For years now I've sought to demonstrate, along various lines, that Dr. Linda A. Malcor's proposed reading for the ARM[...]S lacuna of the Lucius Artorius Castus stone simply does not work. This whole time, however, it never occurred to me that the primary reason it doesn't work is simply because it doesn't fit the space.

Ironically, one of Dr. Malcor's most frequently expressed refrains is "Only ARMATOS fits" the lacuna. This is, of course, not true. At least three other proposed readings fit: ARMENIOS (with a N/I ligature), ARMORICOS (with a couple of ligatures, including a C/O ligature - something I was the first to do) and ARM.GENTES (for armatas gentes, with a common abbreviation and a ligature already found elsewhere on the stone).

But her insistence that only ARMATOS fits the space prompted me to look again at the reconstruction of the stone prepared by Dr. Malcor's colleague and co-author of MISSINGS PIECES, Alessandro Faggiani.  

I was immediately struck by something odd that I hadn't noticed before. To make sure I wasn't seeing things (or seeing only what I wanted to see!), I asked my wife to look at it and let me know if she saw anything unusual about ARMATOS relative to all the other words on the inscription.  

It shouldn't surprise me (as she is an accomplished artist with an excellent pattern recognition ability) that she noticed quite quickly the same thing I had noticed: ARMATOS appears to have been unusually widely spaced compared to other words in the lower lines. The line containing the lacuna was otherwise notably compressed/compacted. So much space was being saved on the lacuna line that 3 ligatures are present and one word is abbreviated. Another word is divided in half, its second part being shoved down to the beginning of the next line.

Having consulted my very perceptive wife, it was time to consult an actual epigraphic specialist. I went to Dr. Roger Tomlin and asked what he thought of the Alessandro reconstruction. His response:

"You successfully dismiss the claim that ARMATOS is the only reading that fits. Also, your point is interesting, that it would be the only uncramped word in a very cramped line. Yes, I think you can safely say that ARMATOS is generously spaced, unlike the rest of the line."

Dr. Abigail Graham agrees with Tomlin in seeing ARMATOS on the Alessandro reconstruction as being excessively stretched.

Professor Emeritus Lawrence Keppie told me -

"I haven't been able to work up enthusiasm [for that reconstruction]."

And he hastily added,  "ARMATOS seems an improbable restoration, anyhow."

Dr. Benet Salway:

"Yes, it [ARMATOS] does look uniquely generously spaced in that line."

Dr. Konrad Stauner concluded, after viewing the visual reconstructions for ARMENIOS, ARMORICOS, ARMGENTES and ARMATOS and noticing the unnatural letter spacing of the last, that

"I think ARMGENTES would be the best or most convincing option, with regard to both the context (Britannia) and to the way it fits in the gap with its ligatures."

Now, it is a known characteristic of this memorial stone that the lines at the top of the stone are taller than lines near and at the bottom of the stone. In other words, the lines diminish in height by stages as we drop down the surface of the stone.

This being true, I decided to compare the distance between three identically paired sets of letters found above the line of the lacuna - lines that are taller than that of the lacuna. I've circled the letter pairs in question on this image. They are AT, TO and OS. I've also underlined the corresponding letters of the proposed lacuna reading.


Although, obviously, I've captured this image on a regular sized sheet of paper and we are not here dealing with the actual stone, we are still comparing the relative scale of lines that are to be found on the stone itself.

When I measured the distance between the larger circled letters and compared the measurements from those with the measurements found between corresponding letters on the lacuna line, guess what I found?

The measurements between the two SO sets of letters were roughly the same.  In the case of the TO in ARMATOS, the space is slightly wider than that between the TO of PRAEPOSITO. The same is true of the AT in ARMATOS when compared with the AT in MISENATIUM. 

What does this mean?

Well, the letters of ARMATOS, being considerably smaller letters (that is, they are not as tall as the letters in the lines above the lacuna line), should have proportionately smaller spaces between them. In other words, the distances between the letters in the higher lines and those of the lacuna line should be scaled appropriately.  

THEY ARE NOT.

And merely making sure proportional spacing is correct does not also account for any extra compression of the lacuna line.

Unfortunately, this tells us that Mr. Faggiani has, willingly or otherwise, perpetuated a gross inaccuracy on the academic communitiy (or, at least, on the Arthurian community).  

And it also means that Dr. Malcor would appear to be wrong when she authoritatively asserts that only ARMATOS fits the lacuna.

ARMATOS does not, in fact, fit the lacuna of the Lucius Artorius Castus stone. Rather, it has been made to fit by stretching out the word.
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, May 14, 2026

A Selection from My Revised "MAKING SENSE OF CAMLAN: MY FINAL TREATMENT OF THE PROBLEM"


West and East Wittering


***

Chichester, Cissa and Cymenesora

The Chichester Noviomagus should perhaps be discussed a bit more in the context of Arthur's Camlan.

According to English tradition, Chichester was named for the eponymous Cissa.  Cissa is introduced to us in the ASC as a warrior who fights at a place called Cymenesora near Chichester:

477

Her cuom Ęlle on Bretenlond 7 his .iii. suna, Cymen 7 Wlencing 7 Cissa, mid .iii. scipum on þa stowe þe is nemned Cymenesora, 7 þær ofslogon monige Wealas 7 sume on fleame bedrifon on þone wudu þe is genemned Andredesleage.


I had once considered Cymenesora as a candidate for Camlan. But I dispensed with it in favor of other sites in southern England, like The Cams in Hampshire. I had come up with another etymology for Cymenesora: 


But as Medard of Noviomagus in Gaul was related to Camlan in the Welsh Annals, and Noviomagus was the ancient name for Chichester, and Cissa of Chichester fought at nearby Cymenesora, we might be tempted to favor Cymenesora, i.e. Wittering, on Selsey Bill, as the Camlan being referred to in the Welsh Annals. Whatever the origin of Cymen-, the Welsh may have taken it for their own camen -

[cam2+-en] 

eb. ll. camennau.

1.  Camdra, gwyredd, tro, plyg, dolen:

crookedness, curvature, turn, bend, loop. 

Submit
14g. GDG 194, A ganodd neu â genau / O fawl o’r twrf meistrawl tau, / Gymar hwyl, gem yr heli, / Gamen môr, gymain’ â mi?

c. 1624 CRC 133, ai Daü forddwyd a bortreüwyd / fal dwy gamen kar yr ychen.

1794 P.

Digwydd hefyd mewn e. lleoedd, e.e. Ffridd Camen (Llandrillo) a Camen Fawr (Llanfyllin).

- plus AS ora, 'shore, bank.'

If Cymenesora is the Camlan of the Welsh Annals, does this mean that a real Arthur perished there in 545?

No. As we have actual Camlan names in NW Wales (where the later Welsh tradition places Arthur's death site) and on Hadrian's Wall (the Camboglanna Roman fort), the Welsh Annals entry which employs St. Medard (= Medrad/Medrawd) of Noviomagus to fix Camlan at Cymenesora near Chichester has all the hallmarks of a cleric's Isidorian-style etymological identification.  Such an identification, placed as it is directly across from Cerdic's Isle of Wight, the Wessex founder's last conquest before his death, may well have been intentional.  I have suggested that the chronological bracketing of the Arthur of the HISTORIA BRITTONUM corresponds perfectly with the floruit of Cerdic and that, therefore, Arthur may have been meant to be a sort of counter to the founder of Wessex.

***
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, May 7, 2026

MAKING SENSE OF CAMLAN: MY FINAL TREATMENT OF THE PROBLEM (REVISED VERSION 5/14/2026)




During my recent YouTube talk with Richard Johnson of O'r Golwg (https://youtu.be/ICS0cyB8bqg?si=lxWaM02MwhQlPXJW), we briefly discussed Arthur's Camlan battle.  Time would not permit us to delve into the subject very deeply, and we may dedicated an entire show to that next time around.  But for now I would like to summarize here my current thinking on Camlan - especially in the context of my belief that the original and most famous Arthur was the Roman dux Lucius Artorius Castus.  

I'd like to start off with my treatment of Medrawd, whom I recently (at least to my satisfaction) have proven to be an intrusion into the Camlan entry of the Welsh Annals.  I will then progress to consideration of the localization of the Welsh Camlan in NW Wales, and will finish off by taking a look at Camboglanna on Hadrian's Wall and how - if at all - it may factor into the equation.  

***

It was during my comparison of the Annals Cambriae entry for the year 537 with entries in the Irish Annals that I noticed something peculiar. Where the AC has Arthur and Medraut perish in Camlan during a year that saw plague in Britain and Ireland, the corresponding year entry in the Ulster Annals had the death of Comgall son of Domangart, King of Dalriada.  Yes, the same Dalriada that later saw an Arthur in its royal family.  A later Domangart, billed as this Arthur's brother, dies with him.

That got me sidetracked for awhile.  But only the other day I more thoroughly investigated the strange fact that there is no plague mentioned in the Irish Annal for 537.  Instead, that source duplicates the death of Comgall son of Domangart in 545, and it is there that we are told about the plague. 

T537.2 [538 in Ulster]
Comgall son of Domongort, king of Scotland died in the 35th year of his reign.

U545.1
The first mortality called bléfed, in which Mo-Bí Clárainech died.

U545.2
Death of Comgall son of Domangart, as some say.

I asked myself this question: what if we run with 545 instead of 537 and see what happens?

What happened is something so strange I find it difficult to assign merely to coincidence.

In 545, in Gaul, the famous St. Medard died. He belonged to Noviomagus and, as it happens, there were two places of this exact same name in Britain.  One was at Crayford and one was at Chichester. Allowing for a simple and perfectly allowable metathesis, Medard becomes Medrad and hence Medrawd/Medraut in Welsh.  His folk relocation to one of the British Noviomagus sites would have been an easy matter. 

The mixing in of Medard as Medrad may well have been accidental - indeed, I think it unnecessary to propose intentional creativity in this instance.  Once Medard's Noviomagus was wronly associated with Chichesteror Crayford, it would have been an easy matter to combine annal entries. We might imagine original multiple entries for the same year, something like -

Year X Arthur perishes at Camlan.  Blessed Medard rests.  And there was plague in Britain and Ireland.

A copyist at some point merely assumed Medard died with Arthur at Camlan and shortened the entry.

Or sucessive entries -

Year Xa Arthur perishes at Camlan.
Year Xb Blessed Medard rests.
Year Xc Plague in Britain and Ireland.

Again, combined to read like the AC entry we now possess.

The Domangart bit is interesting, as it hints at a connection of the Dalriadan Arthur's death with the perishing of the Welsh Annals' Arthur at Camlan.  Of course, the Dalriadan Arthur died much later than the Welsh Annal date for Camlan.  But we can't rule out that the Domangart name in the Irish Annals has something to do with the Welsh Camlan entry.  

Chichester, Cissa and Cymenesora

The Chichester Noviomagus should perhaps be discussed a bit more in the context of Arthur's Camlan.

According to English tradition, Chichester was named for the eponymous Cissa.  Cissa is introduced to us in the ASC as a warrior who fights at a place called Cymenesora near Chichester:

477

Her cuom Ęlle on Bretenlond 7 his .iii. suna, Cymen 7 Wlencing 7 Cissa, mid .iii. scipum on þa stowe þe is nemned Cymenesora, 7 þær ofslogon monige Wealas 7 sume on fleame bedrifon on þone wudu þe is genemned Andredesleage.


I had once considered Cymenesora as a candidate for Camlan. But I dispensed with it in favor of other sites in southern England, like The Cams in Hampshire. I had come up with another etymology for Cymenesora: 



But as Medard of Noviomagus in Gaul was related to Camlan, and Noviomagus was the ancient name for Chichester, and Cissa of Chichester fought at Cymenesora, we might be tempted to favor Cymenesora, i.e. Wittering, on Selsey Bill, as the Camlan being referred to in the Welsh Annals. Whatever the origin of Cymen-, the Welsh may have taken it for their own camen -

[cam2+-en] 

eb. ll. camennau.

1.  Camdra, gwyredd, tro, plyg, dolen:

crookedness, curvature, turn, bend, loop. 

Submit
14g. GDG 194, A ganodd neu â genau / O fawl o’r twrf meistrawl tau, / Gymar hwyl, gem yr heli, / Gamen môr, gymain’ â mi?

c. 1624 CRC 133, ai Daü forddwyd a bortreüwyd / fal dwy gamen kar yr ychen.

1794 P.

Digwydd hefyd mewn e. lleoedd, e.e. Ffridd Camen (Llandrillo) a Camen Fawr (Llanfyllin).

plus AS ora, 'shore, bank.'

If Cymenesora is the Camlan of the Welsh Annals, does this mean that a real Arthur perished there in 545?

No. As we have actual Camlan names in NW Wales (where the later Welsh tradition places Arthur's death site) and on Hadrian's Wall (the Camboglanna Roman fort), the Welsh Annals entry which employs St. Medard (= Medrad/Medrawd) of Noviomagus to fix Camlan at Cymenesora near Chichester has all the hallmarks of a cleric's Isidorian-style etymological identification.  Such an identification, placed as it is directly across from Cerdic's Isle of Wight, the Wessex founder's last conquest before his death, may well have been intentional. I have suggested that the chronological bracketing of the Arthur of the HISTORIA BRITTONUM corresponds perfectly with the floruit of Cerdic and that, therefore, Arthur may have been meant to be a sort of counter to the founder of Wessex

***

Camlann and the Grave of Osfran’s Son

The purpose of this essay is to prove, once and for all, where Arthur’s Camlann battle site was located. Or, more accurately, where Welsh tradition happen to place it!

It is fairly well known that the Welsh record seven survivors of Camlann. Yet, to my knowledge, no one has sought to plot these personages out on a map. To do so may help us pinpoint a geographical region in which Camlann was believed to be situated.

One of the seven – Geneid Hir – it a difficult and otherwise unknown name. P.C. Bartram (in “A Welsh Classical Dictionary: People in History and Legend up to about A.D. 1000) suggests the name may be corrupt and offers an unlikely identification with a personage named Eueyd or Euehyd Hir (often rendered Hefeydd). However, I would see in Geneid ‘Cannaid’, “white, bright, shining, pure, clean, radiant,” an epithet substituted for the original title Ceimiad, ‘Pilgrim’, of St. Elian. Elian had churches on Mon/Anglesey and in Rhos, Gwynedd.

Sandde Bryd Angel looks to be a pun for the Afon Angell, Aberangell, etc., places immediately to the south of the Camlan on the Afon Dyfi in Merionethshire.

Morfran son of Tegid is from Llyn Tegid, now Bala Lake in Gwynedd.

St. Cynfelyn is of Llancynfelyn in Ceredigion just below the Afon Dyfi.

St. Cedwyn of Llangedwyn in Powys, while somewhat further removed than the rest, is still in NW Wales.

St. Pedrog of Llanbedrog is on the Lleyn Peninsula in Gwynedd, just opposite the three Camlans in Merionethshire.

St. Derfel Gadarn is at Llandderfel near Bala Lake in Gwynedd.

Needless to say, if we “triangulate” with all these names/places, we find at the center the three
Merionethshire Camlans.

So which one is the right one?

Only one way to know for sure: we must find the Camlann that is claimed as the gravesite of Osfran’s son. This reference comes from the ‘Stanzas of the Graves:’

Bet mab Ossvran yg Camlan,
Gvydi llauer kywlavan…

The grave of Osfran’s son is at Camlan,
After many a slaughter…

[“The Black Books of Carmarthen ‘Stanzas of the
Graves’, Thomas Jones, Sir John Rhys Memorial
Lecture, 1967, Critical Text and Translation.]

While –fran of Osfran looks like Bran or ‘Raven’, the Os- does not look at all right for a Welsh name. I suspected Ys- and after a first search failed, I defaulted to bryn or ‘hill’ as the original of –bran. Thus I was looking for an Ysbryn.

And I actually found him – or, rather, it! [See “An
Inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Wales  and Monmouthshire: VI – County of Merioneth”, p. 98, RCAHMW, 1921.]

On the Mawddach River in Merionethshire there is a Foel Ispri. It used to be Moel Ysbryn and was the legendary residence of Ysbryn Gawr or Ysbryn the Giant. If we go north on the Mawddach we run into its tributary the Afon Gamlan, i.e. the Water of the Crooked Bank.

Conclusion

If an Arthur fought and died at the Afon Camlan, the only candidate worth considering is Arthur son of Pedr of Dyfed.  Yes, once again, the dates are wrong.  Arthur son of Pedr lived well after the floruit of the more famous Arthur of the 6th century.  But geopolitically speaking, we know that Dyfed was often in conflict with its northern neighbor.  A traditional MABINOGION tale, "Pwyll Prince of Dyfed", has Dyfed fighting Gwynedd, and we know historically that Dyfed took Ceredigion (later called Seisllwg) and surrounding kingdoms, combining them all into the Kingdom of Deheubarth. It would thus be logical to see in the death of an Arthur in what had been Meirionydd (the nucleus of Merionethshire) the result of a war between Dyfed and the Merionydd sub-kingdom of Gwynedd.

***
But if Camlan belongs properly to Arthur son of Pedr, albeit in an anachronistic fashion (remembering that the goal of the bracketing of Arthur in the Welsh Annals was to provide a counter for Cerdic of Wessex, whose floruit in the ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE perfectly that given in the Welsh Annals for Arthur), what are we to make - if anything - out of the Roman fort of Camboglanna, modern Castlesteads, on Hadrian's Wall?  This latter site of the only ancient Camlan we know of in Britain, and while we can't prove it, there is adequate justification for suggesting that L. Artorius Castus may well have been at Camboglanna.  Let's take a look at the evidence for Castus at the Castlesteads Roman fort, assuming, for the sake of argument, that I'm right about this officer serving under the Emperor Septimius Severus during the great Roman invasion of northern Britain.

Camboglanna

 Castlesteads Stone to the Emperors Severus, Caracalla and Geta

Alas, the Castlesteads House estate early on, in order to construct their manor and garden, systematically destroyed the Camboglanna fort.  We have precious little remaining from it. One of the stones we do have is pasted above.  Its inscription is described as follows at the RIB page cited:

Primary
Discipu-
[l]inae
[A]ug(ustorum) (trium)
Secondary
Discipu-
[l]inae
[A]ug-
usti

Apparatus

3, 4.  avg …|vsti, Carlisle, &c.; avg⟦gg⟧|vsti, Lys., F.H.

Translation

Primary
To the Discipline of the (three) August (Emperors).
Secondary
To the Discipline of the August (Emperor).

Commentary and notes

Primary: a.d. 209-11 Severus, Caracalla, Geta; secondary: a.d. 212-17 Caracalla.

For Septimius Severus as vindex et conditor Romanae disciplinae see EE vii 353, CIL viii 17870 (ILS 446) Thamugadi.

Fortunately, we do know that substantial work was done by Severus and Caracalla at the neighboring Hadrian's Wall fort of Birdoswald/Banna.  Here are some pages from Tony Wilmott's archaeaological report on the Birdsowald excavations  of 1987-72:


Simon Elliott in SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS IN SCOTLAND also discusses the major rebuilding on both walls - Hadrian's and the Antonine - under Severus:



It does not seem reasonable to object to the notion that similar rebuilding was undertaken at Camboglanna by both Severus and Caracalla.

So might Castus have been at Camboglanna?

Absolutely.  Furthermore, he could even have fought there! From Anthony R. Birley's SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS: THE AFRICAN EMPEROR on the possible rebellion of the Brigantes under Severus:

First, urgent measures were taken in the north-west. Marius Maximus was
made governor of Belgica and Valerius Pudens of Lower Germany, replacing
Virius Lupus, who became governor of Britain. The defeated British legions
were sent back, no doubt heavily reinforced with new manpower, necessary
to restore losses—and their loyalty. Lupus faced an appalling situation. In the
absence of the Roman garrison, the northern part of the province had been
plundered by the Maeatae, probably joined by other tribes closer to Hadrian’s
Wall and some of the Brigantes within the province.

Dio reports how Lupus had to buy off the Maeatae with ‘large sums of money’, receiving ‘a few prisoners back’ in return. Clearly, in the absence of most of the British garrison in 196–7,
Rome’s northern enemies had invaded the province, and the Brigantes of
the Pennines had perhaps risen in rebellion. The Maeatae, whose home
was north of the Antonine Wall, were on the point of being joined by the
Caledonians, from the Highlands beyond, when Lupus arrived.

Thus, there is every possibility that if Castus were serving under Severus he may well have been fighting at Camboglanna or was perhaps involved in the rebuilding process.  Needless to say, the same may have been true at Burgh-By-Sands not far to the west on the Wall, which was where stood the Aballava (variant Avalana, i.e. 'Avalon') Roman fort.  I elsewhere discussed the goddess Dea Latis or 'Lake Goddess' (= the Arthurian 'Lady of the Lake'?) found at Birdoswald near Castlesteads and at Burgh-By-Sands.  As with Camboglanna as Camlan, the Aballava name is the earliest "apple place" name we encounter in the history of Britain.  Its proximity to Camboglanna is difficult to account for merely as a coincidence.

I'd even made a somewhat more fanciful case for a prototypical Grail Castle at Drumburgh just a little west of Burgh-By-Sands (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2024/12/a-new-theory-on-concavata-name-for.html). While I wouldn't push this idea too far, its presence in the region is interesting.

A STRANGE CONFLATION OF PLACE-NAMES

As a final point, it might be be illuminating to look briefly at the strange conflation of place-names found in Cumbria and NW Wales as they pertain to Camboglanna and Camlan. [An entirely separate - but related? - matter is Geoffrey of Monmouth's Avalon and the Cornish Camblam; see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-avalon-of-geoffrey-of-monmouth.html.]

The Cumbrian Camboglanna is on the Cambeck, the Crooked Stream, which empties into the River Irthing.  Dr. Andrew Breeze has etymologized the Irthing as a word stemming from a Cumbric diminutive for the word 'bear.' The Irthing then debouches into the River Eden, an ancient Ituna river.
Near the Eden's estuary is Burgh-By-Sands, Aballava/Avalana/"Avalon".

The Welsh Afon Gamlan empties into an Afon Eden.  The Afon Gamlan is in Ardudwy-Is-Artro, i.e. Ardudwy under the Afon Artro.  While the name Artro does not owe its etymology to the name Arthur, a perceived "bear" name, it may well have been thought to do so in early Welsh tradition. A Welsh medieval MS. places the Arthurian Avalon at Dyffryn Ardudwy just to the west of the Afon Gamlan, where the Coetan Arthur Neolithic chambered tomb was thought to be the king's burial place (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-grave-of-king-arthur.html).

Now, that all strikes me as being way more than simple coincidence. Can we make anything out of it?

Well, again, the Medard mess makes the Welsh Annals' entry on Camlan suspicious from the get-go. And I've long ago dispensed with the accompanying Badon entry, as Arthur's name could merely have been assigned to Badon as he was a famous war-leader, or perhaps because near the Liddington Badbury (identified by the Welsh in two sources - the Welsh Annals and The Dream of Rhonabwy - see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/03/the-final-discovery-of-king-arthurs.html) there was the great Barbury hillfort, literally the "Bear's fort."

The real question then becomes, quite simply, if the Welsh annalist or the tradition he was drawing upon had invented a death-place for the famous Arthur, why choose a Camlan?

While sheer speculation, might we wonder if L. Artorius Castus had been wounded in a battle at Camboglanna, then carried clear of the sphere of action to Aballava to be healed?  

Yes, that is quite a stretch. But a heroic tale featuring Castus fighting rebelling Brigantes at Camboglanna could later have been repurposed to provide a death for the Arthur of the Historia Brittonum via the Welsh Annals' entry. During the usual legend building process, Camboglanna was relocated to NW Wales, where the same place-name existed and where another known historical Arthur, viz. Arthur son of Pedr of Dyfed, could conceivably have fallen.  








Posted by at No comments:

Friday, April 24, 2026

THE NON-MYSTERY OF ARTHUR'S SWORD IN THE ANVIL (NOT SWORD IN THE STONE!)

The Glastonbury Cross

A great deal of ink has been spilt over the years regarding the famous Glastonbury Cross of King Arthur. I myself have contributed to that staining puddle.  But the account of the discovery of the cross at Glastonbury in the works of Gerald of Wales, combined with a couple of other medieval literary works, quite adequately explains where Robert de Boron's motif of the Sword in the Anvil (not Stone!) comes from.

In brief, other than the fraudulent discovery of Arthur's grave recorded by Gerald, we need plug in only two other sources to be able to demonstrate how the Sword in the Anvil story was created.  These sources are Geoffrey of Monmouth's HISTORY OF THE KINGS OF BRITAIN and the LIFE OF ST. EDWARD.

We may begin with the critical line from Geoffrey. It is there that the author tells us King Arthur's sword was forged on the Isle of Avalon:

Accinctus etiam Caliburno gladio optimo, et in insula Avallonis fabricato

 
The whole business of the difficult extraction of the sword from the anvil was taken from an early saint's life (1138), as described in the article The Staff in the Stone: Finding Arthur's Sword in the "Vita Sancti Edwardi" of Aelred of Rievaulx by MARSHA L. DUTTON in Arthuriana, Vol. 17, No. 3 (FALL 2007), pp. 3-30. 




[I have suggested that Kay's involvement in the story of the extraction of the sword from the anvil may come not from a literary source, but from a folktale embedded in an ancient ritual landscape.  For more on this, please see 

Bear in mind Geoffrey of Monmouth's work was compelted ca. 1138. Robert de Boron and Gerald of Wales have the following dates (drawn from THE NEW ARTHURIAN ENCYCLOPEDIA, ed. by Norris J. Lacy):



I think what happened (and this idea first appears in my piece 

Geoffrey of Monmouth said Caliburnus was forged on the Isle of Avalon.  Medieval tradition identified Avalon with Glastonbury.  Robert de Boron places the “Sword in the Stone” in a churchyard, and Arthur’s grave was supposedly discovered in the yard of St. Dunstan’s church.  It is the inscribed lead cross of this grave that holds the clue to unraveling the mystery of the “Sword in the Stone”.  From the account of the exhumation of Arthur at Glastonbury, by Gerald of Wales, c. 1193 (144):

Unde et crux plumbea lapide supposito, non superius ut [nostris] solet diebus, [sed] inferiori potius ex parte infixa, quam nos quoque vidimus, namque tractavimus litteras has insculptas et non eminentes et exstantes, sed magis interius ad lapidem versas, continebat

As this passage has frequented been mistranslated, I enlisted the help of Dr. David Howlett, MA, DPhil, editor of the Medieval Latin Dictionary and author of the “Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, Fasicule 5”, University of Oxford:

“Whence also a lead cross with a stone placed beneath, not further above, as is customary in [our] days, [but] rather infixed [the antecedent is feminine, so 'cross', not 'stone'] from the lower part, which we also have seen, for we have passed hands over these letters, ensculpted and not raised and outstanding, but rather turned inward toward the stone, it contained ...

There is no way one could construe this as implying that the cross was under the stone. Instead, we are to envisage an inscribed lead cross whose lower portion is infixed, i.e. thrust into, a stone.”

We thus have, in St. Dunstan's churchyard at Glastonbury/"Avalon", where according to Geoffrey of Monmouth the sword Caliburnus was forged, an inscribed cross driven into/piercing a stone - a stone which was found above the supposed tomb of King Arthur. 

Although Howlett is authoritative, I aslo checked with the Classical Latinist Dr. Roger Tomlin, himself a notable epigrapher. His take on the passage from Gerald:

I have no difficulty with this meaning of tractare. The Oxford Latin Dictionary (s.v. tracto, 2) translates it as 'To subject to the action of the hands, to handle ... to pass one's hand over, rub, stroke'.

And I agree with Howlett's translation, although I would probably write 'incised' for insculptas and 'standing out' for exstantes. The lettering was cut into the lead, not moulded in relief.

Now, this is okay so far as it goes.  And, regardless how we interpret the description of the cross in the stone, there is ample cause for us to view this account as the root source for the Arthurian sword story.  But let us take my discussion of the sword with Tomlin and Howlett to its conclusion:

Me:

How is the cross attached to the stone? I'm trying to envision a cross thrust into a stone, but with its letters incised inwards towards the stone. Doesn't much sense unless the base of the cross was stuck into the stone to fasten it, then bent over so the rest of the cross was resting, as it were, on the stone.

Tomlin:

The Latin only says that the stone was 'underneath' the cross. A freestanding cross made of lead would not be all that strong or stable, and I wonder whether it was actually set into the stone, i.e. part of the surface, but easier to inscribe than stone.

I think the cross was simply laid flat on the stone – I expect it could have been attached by solder. All this business about 'above' and 'below' refers only to its place on the stone. This would have been a long narrow rectangle, like a coffin slab or the flat top of a sarcophagus. He is saying that we would have put a cross at the top of a memorial stone, over the head, but this cross was at the bottom, over the feet.

Me:

Infix works for something soldered?

Tomlin:

It is the 'crux plumbea' which is 'infixa', which means 'fixed in'. I think 'inferius' refers to the lower part of the stone (don't say 'rock'). We might say 'set into' the stone, meaning that it was firmly attached to it. 'in' may well mean that the forger hollowed out a recess for it.

Howlett:

Shall we suppose that molten lead had been poured into the stone, in which sideways indentations ensured that the metal would not easily be prised from the stone?

Me:

Now that makes perfect sense! But this was done on the lower, rather than on the upper portion of the stone, right? 

Howlett:

When I wrote earlier of the antecedent as cross, not stone, I was thinking of petrus as masculine, but of course in Greek and Classical Latin petra is feminine, so either cross or stone could grammatically have been the antecedent. I think now the latter.

Tomlin:

Yes, it's possible that the stone itself was incised with the outline of a cross which was filled with melted lead. When this had set, level with the surface of the stone, it could have been inscribed with the epitaph.

Swords had cruciform hilts, so it was an easy matter to substitute Caliburn for the Glastonbury Cross. The extraction of the sword from the anvil (of course an anvil, as the sword had been forged in Avalon, after all!) was then concocted by borrowing the staff motif from the Life of St. Edward.  

The staff story takes place at Westminster, the site of the coronation of English kings. Its use, therefore, had implications for the crowning of Arthur as king of all Britain. In the Galfridian tradition, Arthur is crowned at Silchester.

The only other possible influence on Robert de Boron's tale is the St. Galgano sword. In 1180, the medieval Italian knight Galgano Guidotti plunged his sword into a rock when he renounced war and worldly goods to become a hermit. The abbey at Montesiepi near Siena preserves the sword in its chapel. There the hilt and some of the blade protrude from the rock in the shape of a cross. For many years the sword was thought to be a fake, but recent metal testing has determined that the alloys and style of the sword are consistent with a genuine 12th century weapon.  In addition, ground penetrating radar has shown that beneath the sword is a six and a half foot by three foot room, which is quite possibly St. Galgano’s tomb. 

If St. Galgano really dates to the 12th century, this would place a ‘Sword in the Stone” story just prior to Robert de Boron’s Arthurian version, which is dated c. 1200 A.D.  

However, an important detail is missing from the St. Galgano legend: the Italian knight’s sword does not bear an inscription, which is true of Arthur's Caliburn. And, as it all too obvious, Arthur's sword is in an anvil, not in a stone.

NOTE:

When it comes to the Arthurian Sword in the Anvil story, I have not found evidence of influence from the Alanic practice of thrusting the war-god's sword into the earth or into heaps of brushwood, an idea put forward by Dr. Linda Malcor.  Instead, all sources of Robert de Boron's story plainly derive from Britain or the Continent.  

SCYTHIANS AND THE SWORD OF MARS

Dr. Linda Malcor has long sought to associate the Scythian Sword of Area of Herodotus 4:62 with Arthur's sword. Unfortunately, there is no relationship between a sword stuck in variously a pile of sticks or the ground and the taking of Arthur's sword from an anvil on a stone. In the story of Attila and the sword, the great king of the Huns is gien the sword by a shepherd; he does not draw it forth from the cow pasture himself.  

Here is the account of Herodotus:

Such is their way of sacrificing to all other gods and such are the beasts offered; but their sacrifices to Ares are on this wise. Every district in each of the governments has in it a building sacred to Ares, to wit, a pile of fagots of sticks three furlongs broad and long, but of a less height, on the top of which there is a flattened four-sided surface; three of its sides are sheer, but the fourth can be ascended. In every year an hundred and fifty wagon-loads of sticks are heaped upon this; for the storms of winter ever make it sink down. On this pile there is set for each people an ancient scimitar of iron, which is their image of Ares; to this scimitar they bring yearly sacrifice of sheep and goats and horses, offering to these symbols even more than they do to the other gods. Of all their enemies that they take alive, they sacrifice one man in every hundred, not according to their fashion of sacrificing sheep and goats, but differently. They pour wine on the men's heads and cut their throats over a vessel; then they carry the blood up on to the pile of sticks and pour it on the scimitar. So they carry the blood aloft, but below by the sacred building they cut off the slain men's right arms and hands and throw these into the air, and presently depart when they have sacrificed the rest of the victims; the arm lies where it has fallen, and the body apart from it.

Ammianus condenses the account considerably in Book 31:2 -

No temple or shrine is to be found among them, not so much as a hut thatched with straw, but their savage custom is to stick a naked sword in the earth and worship it as the god of war, the presiding deity of the regions over which they range

A still later account is found in Jordanes, where we are told of Attila the Hun finding the weapon:

And though his temper was such that he always had great self-confidence, yet his assurance was increased by finding the sword of Mars, always esteemed sacred among the kings of the Scythians. The historian Priscus says it was discovered under the following circumstances: "When a certain shepherd beheld one heifer of his flock limping and could find no cause for this wound, he anxiously followed the trail of blood and at length came to a sword it had unwittingly trampled while nibbling the grass. He dug it up and took it straight to Attila. He rejoiced at this gift and, being ambitious, thought he had been appointed ruler of the whole world, and that through the sword of Mars supremacy in all wars was assured to him.












Posted by at No comments:

Friday, April 17, 2026

My Talk with Richard Johnson of O'r Golwg

https://youtu.be/ICS0cyB8bqg?si=svRYaSBheG4p39ZK

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)