BADON AS BATH: A FINAL PROOF

             Little Solsbury Hill, Bath

    

Just a short time ago, I wrote this piece:

          

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2026/07/sulis-of-bath-and-sulis-of-castennec.html?m=1

What I hadn't thought about was something that had been off my radar for many years - Little Solsbury Hill fort at Bath.

The name of this hillfort is believed to preserve the goddess Sulis name. She was the presiding deity at Bath.

Now, while there is some consensus that the Breton St. Gweltas may not originally have been St. Gildas, even if this were true it would be remarkable if a saint identified with Gildas in Brittany had been associated early on with a fortified Sulis hill. For such a hill would be a perfect counterpart to the British Solsbury.

It does not matter that Solsbury has so far failed to show sub-Roman use and appears to have been abandoned in the Iron Age. Any old hillfort might well have been repurposed for a single battle.

Badon and W. Caer Faddon are both Bath, linguistically speaking. They cannot be any other British or English place-name. Amateur historians who have not consulted the world's top Celtic language specialists continue to put forward new or old candidates. A good example is Mynydd Baeddan, which may derive from W. Baedd, "boar." These same amateurs are not aware of the fact that baedd has a diphthong /ai/, not the /a/ we see in Badon (Dr. Simon Rodway) or that even if we suggest that a Baedd-ON that went into Latin could have ended up Badon, ae could not come across as a. We would expect either Latin ae or Latin e (Prof. Peter Schrijver).

If we, then, finally accept Badon as Bath, we have only two problems remaining to consider. 

The first is easy to resolve, and I long ago proposed the solution. Why would Gildas, who addressed King Maelgwn prior to the latter's death in 547, call the British victory by an English name?

Surely his parents would have told him about the battle that was fought when he was born. As the AC date of 516 has to be wrong (given Maelgwn's obit and Gildas's age of 44 years 1 month), and the proper date of Badon was probably between 490 and 500, and Bath was very far to the west, it could not possibly have yet been known by its English name. 

I have suggested the work of Gildas originally had the British name, the hill of Sulis, but that at some point later a monkish copyist who found the pagan goddess name objectionable, substituted what was at his time the then English name of the place: Bathum, which regularly becomes Badon in the British.

Simple enough. Can't be demonstrated, of course, but it is a reasonable explanation.

Of more serious concern to us, of course, is the very early date for a battle against the Saxons at Little Solsbury Hill. And to that I shall return shortly.

But first, a bit on how the location of the AC's Second Battle of Badon (fought in 665) helps support my identification of the first Badon battle as an action at Bath.

The actual year entry for this Second Battle of Badon reads as follows:

665 The first celebration of Easter among the Saxons. The second battle of Badon. Morgan dies.

The "first celebration of Easter among the Saxons" is a reference to the Synod of Whitby of c. 664. While not directly mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, nor the Anglo-Saxon version of Bede, there is an indirect reference to this event:

664 … Colman with his companions went to his native land…

This is, of course, a reference to Colman's resigning of his see and leaving Lindisfarne with his monks for Iona. He did so because the Roman date for Easter had been accepted at the synod over the Celtic date.  

While there is nothing in the ASC year entry 664 that helps with identifying Badon, if we go to the year entry 661, which is the entry found immediately prior to 664, an interesting passage occurs:

661 In this year, at Easter, Cenwalh [King of Wessex] fought at Posentesburh, and Wulfhere, son of Penda [King of Mercia], ravaged as far as [or "in", or "from"] Ashdown…

The regular northern boundary of Wessex in the west was the Bristol Avon. The Thames was the northern bounday farther east. I once used Penda's Ashdown near Liddington Castle/Badbury to identify Badon with the latter. But that ignores linguistics and Bradford On Avon's significance (see below).

I've recently identified Posentesbyrig as "Pascent's Burg". Leading English place-name authority Dr. Richard Coates had this to say when I asked him if this etymology worked:

"I see no absolute barrier to Posent – Pascent. Welsh <sc> is the cluster [sk], which would be rendered in OE as “esh” since OE had no cluster [sk] before a front vowel, even in the earliest times. “Esh” would normally also be spelt <sc>, but that’s a coincidence. It’s possible for “esh” to appear very occasionally as <s>, even before the conquest, as in Ryssebroc for Rushbrooke (Suffolk) in the mid-10th century."

William of Malmesbury seems to suggest that Bradford on Avon was once called Vortigern's Burg.

From https://www.dot-domesday.me.uk/wessex.htm:

"William of Malmesbury, however, writes that Cenwalh: “totally defeated in two actions the Britons, furious with the recollection of their ancient liberty, and in consequence perpetually meditating resistance; first at a place called Wirtgernesburg [meaning “Vortigern’s stronghold”], and then at a mountain named Penne” (GR I §19). This seems to imply that Wirtgernesburg is synonymous with Bradford-on-Avon, and that the enemy was, therefore, the Britons. Æthelweard, though, in his rendition of the event (II, 7), uses the phrase “civil war”, which presumably means that he believed the battle to be an internal dispute, or, at least, against other Anglo-Saxons."

       Bradford On Avon Near Bath

As Pascent was Vortigern's son, it makes sense to see Posentesbyrig or Pascent's fort as another nickname for the Vortigern's fort that was at or immediately adjacent to Bradford On Avon.

It is now thought possible that Vortigern's fort is the Budbury Hill camp at Bradford On Avon (see https://www.bradfordonavonmuseum.co.uk/iron-age).

Obviously, given all that, the best candidate for the Second Badon is Bath.

With Bath now convincingly identified as Badon, we need to return to our consideration of the chronology problem. To state that problem in succinct form, how can we account for a battle between Britons and Saxons at Bath as early as 490-500?

What comes to mind is the Gewissei battle at Dyrham in the ASC at 577. As a result of this victory, Bath was taken in the same year.

Well, I've proven pretty conclusively that the Gewissei were Irish or Hiberno-British federates from NW Wales. As some top historians like Barbara York have recently suggested, they may have been fighting for the Britons, not the Saxons. They might  later have been co-opted by the English and converted into the founders of Wessex.

An alternative interpretation would be to see a high king at Viroconium employing both Saxon and Irish mercenaries against his fellow Britons in the South. Intertribal warfare certainly occurred once the Romans were gone.

I've also shown that the early Gewissei generations are reversed in the ASC. Ceawlin and Cynric of the ASC are to be identified with Cunedda Maquicoline and Cunorix, found on the famous Wroxeter Stone:

https://linkedopenogham.github.io/cisp-recovery/cisp/database/stone/wrxtr_1.html#i1

Cunorix/Cynric son of Cunedda Macquicoline/Ceawlin is dated 460 - 475.

My identification of Ceawlin with Cunedda goes way back, beginning with pieces like this:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-irish-cunedda-selection-from-my.html?m=1

This theory was developed more fully and correctly over several years on this blog. The end result was the published book CEREDIG SON OF CUNEDDA AND THE FOUNDING OF WESSEX:

https://a.co/d/09SegnEU

Now, if Cunorix/Cynric is dated 460-475, and we allow him to have predeceased his father, it is possible for Ceawlin to have fought at Bath c. 490-500. Or at least some member of his immediate family might have done so. Cerdic of Wessex, presented as coming before Ceawlin in the ASC, is Cunedda's/Ceawlin's son in the Welsh sources. Specifically, he is the founder of the Welsh kingdom of Ceredigion.

In this revised scenario, of course, the dates of the ASC are seriously out of whack. But if I'm right about the Wroxeter Stone, we have archaeological proof to support such a contention.

Before I conclude this essay, given that Bath does appear to be Badon and that the battle was fought a decade or two prior to the AC date of 516, might we find a way to allow Arthur to have been at least one of the victors there?

Well, the only way in the past that I managed to place Arthur in the South was to identify him with Cerdic of Wessex. There were several reasons for attempting this, but I ultimately abandoned the notion. Still, there remains a slight possibility that the crippled son of Elafus/Elaphus in the Vita of St. Germanus of Auxerre may still be a reference to Arthur. 

I refer my readers to the following old blog, advising them to ignore the references to Cerdic as Arthur:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/12/why-i-ultimately-decided-on-ceredig-son.html?m=1

And then check out this excellent study on Elafus:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23969887

If Elafus has properly been brought into connection with the ASC's Elesa, father of Cerdic, we are looking at a connection with the Gewissei. As has been known for some time (see Kenneth Sisam's Anglo-Saxon Royal Genealogies, for example), Elesa is a link inserted to bring the Wessex genealogy into accordance with northern AS genealogies. In reality, Cerdic is son of Cunedda/Ceawlin.

But it is not impossible that Elafus is someone else entirely - viz., an actual chieftain somewhere in Southern Britain.

Correcting Dr. Linda A. Malcor's Misstatements Regarding the Relative Size of the L. Artorius Castus Memorial Stone

Note: I have over a dozen queries regarding the following post still out to scholars whose expertise centers on Roman funeral architecture and art. As more responses from them come in, I will add to those to the end of the article.

This vitally important private communication from the late John Wilkes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wilkes_) describes his own excavation of the now famous (or infamous!) L. Artorius Castus stone:

"In the matter of historical context most people would appear to believe that a date in the reign of Commodus proposed for this career by H.-G. Pflaum (catalogue of equestrian procurators) was too early and his career better fits in the the third century AD, not least because of the use of the term dux in what one assumes to be an official description of his status in command of detachments of the legions stationed in Britain. Moreover, since there are several records of Artorii from Dalmatia, it seems probable that his military career was honoured in his native land. In 1962, in company with my old friend Tony Birley, I travelled from Split a few miles south along the coast where we located the two halves of the text still incorporated in the roadside field wall at Podstrana di Jesenice. The part of the stone with the key letters ARM[...] was buried but we managed to excavate it from the grass verge and confirm that there were no traces of further letters to be seen. Since then both parts of the stone have been removed to the Archaeological Museum in Split and subsequently there has appeared a full study of Castus and his career in the Vjesnik za Arheologiu I Historiju Dalmatinsku."

Why is this letter so important?

Because Dr. Linda A. Malcor, proponent of the ARMATOS reading for the ARM[...]S lacuna on the Castus stone, has often presented - as if it were an extant archaeological setting - an imaginary portrait of the tomb of Castus.

For example, at 5:55 in her rebuttal of August Hunt's talk (https://youtu.be/dyLHmqhN5Ak?si=00TpVia1vkEtBSwV), Dr. Linda A. Malcor says that L. Artorius Castus could not have made his stone larger because it was a memorial stone on a tomb, that is was found in a necropolis, and that the stone couldn't be bigger because it would extend beyond the roofline of the tomb.

This entire assessment of the LAC stone is wrong and based on assumptions devoid of an evidentiary context.  

To begin with, the stone (as described by Wilkes) was found built into a modern road's low wall.  There is no necropolis (a term used, in any case, for a large cemetery associated with a city; at Podstrana we are talking about a family tomb or a solitary plaque).  There is no tomb.  And we have no way of knowing how large the tomb was, so to say that its roofline had not been large enough to support a larger stone is an absurd statement.  Dr. Malcor is, literally, conjuring an edifice that we have no evidence for, whatsoever.  She has no way of determining dimensions for any of the structures affiliated with the memorial stone. 

Our first record of the LAC stone (or, rather, it's left half) is found in De' scavi di Salona, 1850, by Francesco Carrara. He is often cited for claiming that an E was ligatured to M, which will fill in part of the lacuna and more easily allow for the reading to be ARMENIOS. But his rendering of that portion of the inscription that he could make out is pretty poor:

Also, he is less than helpful in telling us what the stone was like in situ. In fact, his only reference to the find reads as follows:

"Frammento di un sarcofago, ornatissimo, in marmo bianco, presso la chiesa di San Martino di Postrana alla strada nuova di Almissa.

Fragment of a highly decorated white marble sarcophagus, near the church of St. Martin of Postrana on the new road in Almissa."

It is likely, then, that Wilkes, the excavator of both halves of the stone, preserves more reliable testimony when it comes to whether an E ligatured to the M was visible or not.

What I would like to do now for the remainder of this blog post is to list statements from several leading experts in Roman funeral architecture and art.  Fronting their statements is my original, unedited email query to them, the same query that elicited the statements.

"Dear X:

I'm assuming that sarcophagi of the Severan period in Dalmatia, and specifically in Salona, would be of varying sizes. Size may well be determined by the relative wealth of those people paying to have the sarcophagi made. Although, I imagine other factors could come into play. But, in brief, there was no standardized size?

No standard size for the memorial plaques either, I presume?

Where would a plaque such as the following one for L. Artorius Castus be placed? 

https://lupa.at/24235?query=764015336

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Most sincere best wishes, and respectfully,

Daniel Hunt"

Here is what Professor Michael Koortbojian, M. Taylor Pyne Professor of Art and Archaeology at Princeton and expert on Roman sarcophagi, had to say on the LAC memorial stone:

"No standardized size for sarcophagi. But at least big enough for a body (those for children were often small). 

Not very many sarcophagi were inscribed. The few texts we have are short. In the tomb itself, there was no standardization.

I don’t think that there is any way to know whether the Castus stone accompanied a sarcophagus. It’s a very standard plaque with a commemorative text. The body might well have been cremated. Unless you knew more about the findspot, there is no way to know for sure.

I’m not so sure the diminishing height of the inscription’s letter forms necessarily prove that it was hung up high.  The last line is a convention, and often small; the name is larger for obvious reasons. Again, I doubt it accompanied a sarcophagus.

At the same time, it would not have rested on the ground; too hard to see there. Often this sort of plaque was immured on the outside of a tomb precinct, where passersby could see it."

Prof. Jas Elsner:

"There is no standard size for sarcophagi or plaques.  The plaques are heavy and were not hung but immured — in front of tombs, or over burial spaces within tombs, or as memorials. Could be in association with a sarcophagus directly or not.  Part of the problem is that despite the numbers of such things, their archaeology as a record of specific siting and context (rather than treasure hunt for stuff) has historically been very poor, so we have much less detailed information than you’d expect."

Nino Švonja, Senior curator, Epigraphic Collection, Archaeological Museum of Split:

"The sarcophagi vary in size. This depended both on individual commissions and on the price. In Dalmatia, most sarcophagi are of local production, carved from limestone, although there were also imported examples. These were products of Attic, Roman, and Asia Minor workshops and were carved from marble. This means that they must also have been more expensive than locally produced sarcophagi.

Likewise, the stone slabs bearing other inscriptions do not have standardized dimensions, but rather depend on the wishes and means of the person commissioning them.

As for the inscription of Lucius Artorius Castus, it must have been built into either his mausoleum or the enclosure surrounding his funerary plot (hortus)."

Professor Nenad Cambi:

 "Dear colleague Hunt, there are not standardised size of sarcophagi in the whole Roman world. Normal sizes vary from specimen to specimen. There are vrious dimensions for one or more persons. Local limestone was cheaper than marble one. As concerns the fragments of Lucius Artorius Castus sarcophagus it was made of Proconnesian marble probably cut in Salona.   The bigger plaque also with the similar inscription is from local stone and it was intended for the entrance of the precinct as the main monument in the centre. It was common type of a smaller type of the luxury graveyard. That is the reason why we have two almost identical inscriptions. Anyway the costs of chests depend on the marble and the size."

Professor Carrie Weaver:

"Yes, there would be variation in the sizes of Severan sarcophagi, and much of the variation would be based on cost. A sarcophagus would be a more expensive burial container to begin with, but the greater the size and more elaborate the sculptural embellishments, the greater the cost. There wasn't much in the way of standardization, but the sarcophagi also would not have all been made-to-order. There would be mostly complete sarcophagi in a workshop, and someone could pick one of those out and then pay for additional customization, such as carving a portion onto pre-existing figures or purchasing an inscribed plaque. The plaques would also be varying sizes, so no standardization there either.

The placement of plaques could vary. Because the sarcophagi would be on display in a family tomb, the inscriptions are mostly placed in the center, but I've also seen them in the niches in which sarcophagi sit. Are you sure this is from a sarcophagus? I think it might have been on the outside of a tomb. Also, cremation was still being practiced during this period, so it could have been covering a niche that contained an urn.

Looking closer at the inscription--particularly the end--I think it's from a family tomb and not a sarcophagus. Sounds like you've been in touch with an epigrapher, but "vi/vus ipse sibi et suis [--- ex te]st(amento)" --> "Set this up for himself and his own in [his] will", is the type of statement that typically refers to multiple inhumation. Essentially, he establishes the tomb for his immediate family members and household members (i.e., enslaved people and freedmen) after his death. This was a very common Roman practice and it's commonly seen (or variations of it) in Roman funerary inscriptions."

 

 

 

THE NORTHERN BATTLES OF AN ARTHUR WITH NO KNOWN ORIGIN POINT

The Arthurian Battles (when confined to the North)

My readers will be more than familiar by now with my seemingly futile quest to nail down the origin point of a Northern Arthur.  While all the HB and AC battles can very nicely be found in the North (see map above), and this "arrangement" has always been my "fantasy portrait" of the Arthurian campaigns, it must remain perpetually deficient if we can't find determine where a 5th-6th century battle-leader came from.

Of course, we can default to L. Artorius Castus, the 3rd century Roman prefect of the Sixth legion at York, who may have led legionary vexillations against the Maeatae and Caledonii confederations during the Emperor Septimius Severus' invasion of northern Britain.  But if we want to keep Badon and Camlan in the mix, we must have our sub-Roman/Dark Age chieftain.  

And, as I never get tired of reminding my readers, the list could be a composite one, made up of the exploits of several Arthurs.  I remain very unhappy with the far Northern battles when it comes to seeing them as belonging to a Dark Age chieftain based on the Wall or in Northern England.  They look to be either battles belonging to Aedan son of Dalriada or L. Artorius Castus. Only Castus really works for those battles plus the southern ones, minus Badon.  If Castus fought at Camboglanna (which is quite possible, as Septimius Severus and Caracalla are attested there), he obviously didn't die there.  The idea that an Arthur based in northern England or on the Wall might have been fighting for or in alliance with the Gododdin against Picts is not impossible, but also not particularly attractive. 

I'm quite content letting go of Uther Pendragon, a.k.a. St. Illtud, for the reasons I've discussed in the past (more recently here: https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2026/08/the-terrible-ghost-of-illtud-soldier.html). I think it is highly likely that Geoffrey of Monmouth or a predecessor had merely adopted the Uther name for the sake of poetic assonance or because a splendid story could be made out of Uther's epithet Pendragon.  It is important to note, however, that if this were done it could only be because the father of the famous Arthur was not known.  Had it been known (and, again, we don't find Uther attached to Arthur until we reach the Galfridian material), we would either have a record of it in the Welsh poems, stories and hagiography or someone post-Galfridian would have objected to the identification and sought to set it right.

If for the sake of argument we take out Uther, and we take out L. Artorius Castus, we are left with a group of men generally referred to as the genuine historical Arthurs.  I'm here posting an image of p. 48 in CONCEPTS OF ARTHUR by Thomas Green, wherein these men are described:

The consensus view is that the first of the historical Arthurs is Artur son of Aedan of Dalriada.  I have written about him before, most recently in the following piece, where I bring attention to the alternate father provided for him in the Irish sources, viz Conaing, the Irish form of the English word for "king":

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2026/08/the-fatherless-welsh-arthur-and-case.html

The name Arthur, being British, had to come into the Dalriadan royal family via the Britons, and most likely through Strathclyde.  It is known that Aedan married the niece of a British king (Rhydderch of Alclud, Aedan's contemporary?) and that he had a daughter named Maithgemma ("Bear" in the Irish). We all know that Artur may well have been associated with the Irish art, 'bear", cognate with the British arth.

Now, as always, our real problem here is dating.  The HB and the AC nicely sandwiches Arthur between 488 and 547.  The AC provides dates for Badon and Camlan at c. 516 and c. 537.  This is way too early for any of the historical Arthurs, and way too late for the early 3rd century L. Artorius Castus.  An intentional backdating of Arthur in order to place him at Gildas' Badon is certainly possible (although purists hate the idea, quite naturally!).  But if we want to allow for the Northern battles as they appear on the map above (with Badon = Buxton of Aquae Arnemetia and the Bathamgate and Camlan as Camboglanna/Castlesteads [1]), and we must accept the provided chronology, we are forced to seek another solution to the problem.

It would be wonderful if we could accept the dubious testimony of Nicholson and Burns who, in the late 1700s/early 1800s recorded a local tradition that Etterby hard by the Stanwix/Uxellodunum/Petriana Roman fort on the west end of Hadrian's Wall was known as Arthur's burg.  But the tradition is quite late, and we have no independent confirmation of such a tradition. Improbable that Etter- was wrongly interpreted as a corruption of Arthur. But, the first element of the Etterby place-name (from OFr. Etard) features in Arthurian romance (see ETTARD in Christopher W. Bruce's THE ARTHURIAN NAME DICTIONARY). Thus we must view this potential power center with some suspicion (although, see more on Petriana below). 

I've tried to make circumstantial cases for Birdoswald and Ribchester as well, but both collapsed under a sea of empty suppositions, often based on unreliable Welsh tradition (such as genealogies) and Roman period history and archaeology.

All of these efforts, although they can be made superficially attractive, even compelling on occasion, cannot prove the presence of a Dark Age Arthur in any of the proposed locations.

The real question is: why, prior to Geoffrey of Monmouth, do we not possess a father or a kingdom for Arthur? Why, from the 9th century HISTORIA BRITTONUM on, is he lacking a patronymic? 

Why was this Arthur left as a ghost for so long?  I've been racking my brain over this for some time. None of the explanations offered by other Arthurian researchers stand up to scrutiny. I can resort to the Dalriadan Conaing being mistaken for just the noun "king", rather than being seen as a personal name. But this idea does nothing to resolve our chronological inconsistency.

Well, I keep coming back to this article:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2026/01/stones-and-horses-on-reaching-final.html?m=1

In that piece, I examined two prominent motifs found in the historical and traditional material relating to Dalriada and Dyfed. The first concerned a prevalent equine association, while the second displayed a propensity for rocks.

Now, we have to be very careful here, for the Ala Petriana would have been withdrawn from Uxellodunum in the early 5th century. It is not unreasonable, however, to assume that some relic or attempted preservation (duplication?) of a martial horse culture might have remained at the fort.

The Gallic cavalry's predilection for the worship of Epona is historical fact, and the Petriana was originally formed in Gaul. Most scholars of Celtic religion think that the Dyfed Rhiannon is a manifestation of Epona. If so, then the name of a great sub-Roman war-leader in the North who traced his descent to a member of the Ala Petriana (named for a Petra) might well have appealed to a chieftain of Dyfed named Petrus. This is especially true given the Eochaid and Artchoirp at the head of the Deissi genealogy.

Similarly, a Scottish group whose tribal name (Dal Riada) and ancestor Eochaid bore names related to riding and horses, who had settled in the Kintyre of the Epidii or Horse-tribe, might also find the name Arthur attractive. Especially if the name came from British Petra Cloithe/Alclud/"Aloo".

Yes, it is true there were other Roman cavalry units stationed in Britain over the centuries. And if we wish to see such a horse connection for Arthur (other than the obvious fact that Castus was of the equestrian class), we could look to those.  But if the goddess Epona is significant in this regard, we must confine ourselves, it seems to me, to Gallic groups - like the Ala Petriana.

We would not be talking about the Sarmatian horse at Ribchester, for example.

Sheppard Frere nicely sums up the strategic importance of the Petriana fort in his Britannia: A History of Roman Britain:

“The western sector of the Wall was the most dangerous… both on account of the nature of the ground and because of the hostile population beyond it. It is not surprising to find, then, that at Stanwix near Carlisle was stationed the Ala Petriana… Such regiments are always found on the post of danger; and the prefect of this Ala was the senior officer in the whole of the wall garrison. Here, then, lay Command headquarters, and it has been shown that a signaling system existed along the road from Carlisle to

York, which would enable the prefect at Stanwix to communicate with the legionary legate at York in a matter of minutes.”

Dr. Roger Tomlin commented on this passage (personal communication):

"Stanwix was certainly the base of the ala Petriana, the only milliary ala in Britain, so its prefect would have been senior to the other prefects and tribunes on the Wall. Its geographical location also is significant, as Frere says."

Without knowledge of a 5th-6th century Northern Arthur's father's name, and lacking a point of origin for our theoretical hero, my placement of the HB and AC battles, along with the shared characteristics of the Dyfed and Dalriadan Irish-descended dynasties impels me to point very tentatively to Petriana as the sub-Roman Arthurian power center.

P.S. I won't lie; I rather like the proximity of Petriana to Camboglanna, as well as to Roman Aballava/Avalana (modern Burgh-By-Sands) with its Dea Latis/"Lake Goddess" and Concavata (modern Drumburgh), a possible prototypical Grail Castle.

[1]

Both Badon and Camlan are highly problematic battles. Badon as a decidedly English name does not fit with the otherwise British names of the HB list. And Camlan is made suspect by the intrusion into the AC entry of the Gallic Medard, metathasized into Medrat, as well as the other strand of Welsh tradition which locates the site at the Afon Gamlan in NW Wales.

I've written elsewhere that Maelgwn's death in 547 or 549 forces a chronological shift of the Badon date from c. 516 to the ASC Bieda battle in 501. It is my belief this last (given the variant spellings of Bieda), found preserved at Bedenham on Portsmouth Harbour, was mistakenly replaced with Badon in the Gildas MS. by a copyist.

In any case, there is no reason to suppose that Arthur was at Badon.

Camlan may still be a dim folk memory of LAC's presence at Camboglanna, a site subjected to later relocations in heroic legend.

  

THE TERRIBLE GHOST OF ILLTUD THE SOLDIER

Illtud on the Samson Cross

Now that I've made what I think a very good argument for the Welsh identification of Badon with Liddington Castle and Camlan with either the Afon Camlan in Merionethshire or the Cymenesora of the ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE

[For a few links on these, see

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/03/the-final-discovery-of-king-arthurs.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-second-battle-of-badon.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/04/if-we-respect-welsh-localization-of.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2026/05/making-sense-of-camlan-my-final.html]

I have several parties coming after me screaming once again "WHY NOT KEEP UTHER/ILLTUD AS ARTHUR'S FATHER?"  They love the argument and are willing to sacrifice the Northern battles as a fraudulent construction, a fabulous padding out of Arthur's career.

For those unfamiliar with my Illtud = Uther theory, I will recap it here in brief, then list several links for some of the more salient details.  

I determined, pretty definitively, that Uther Pendragon was a straight-across Welsh rendering of Latin military terms/ranks used in the hagiographical texts devoted to Illtud.  I had come to this conclusion because I noticed that in the early Arthurian poem the PA GUR, Mabon as the servant of Uther P. was placed on the Ely River in Glamorgan.  I found myself asking, if Mabon is there, could his master be there as well?

I found something rather surprising.  The Ely is in the middle of Penychen, which was ruled during the Arthurian period by a chieftain named Pawl.  He ruled either from the known Dark Age citadel of Dinas Powys or from a refortified section of the great oppidum of the Silures at Caerau. I'm shown that the 'Emrys' at Campus Elleti in Penychen was not Ambrosius Aurelianus, but the 'divine/immortal one' Mabon (https://youtu.be/byq_Cojxw_Q?si=g8FoCJhaW4Yp7mFs).

A little research showed me that Illtud had served as captain of the soldiers for Pawl Penychen.  He was called a soldier and a knight, but also a magister militum and a princeps militum, both ranks that perfectly corresponded to Pendragon.  Uther as 'terrrible" was derived from the terribilis miles form assumed by Illtud after his death.  

Additional research then led to me believe that Illtud's Llydaw or Brittany and his father Bicanus were not what/who they seemed.  Instead, they pointed directly at Welsh Bicknor (originally a church of a St. Constantine) and Lydbrook in what had been Ergyng, themselves relocations of an identically named brook and dyke at the Liddington Badbury.  A Liddington/Badbury the Welsh identified as Badon, and which had born a Roman period name of DUROCORNOVIUM.  -cornovium, of course, contains the same name as Cerynw, the Welsh name for Cornwall, where we find major Arthurian associations.

The only thing I had to propose is that Arthur came from the Liddington area, that the Barbury or Bear's fort nearby may have been an English memory of the Arthur whom they encountered there (W. arth = 'bear'), and that our hero won a great victory at Badbury, only to die later at one of the two Camlans.  The Camlan in NW Wales had next to it an early St. Illtud church (Llanelltyd), which was probably built there only when that particular Camlan began taking on legendary associations with Arthur.  It is far more likely an Arthur fighting the English in the south died at Cymenesora (Selsey Bill).  His death almost perfectly coincides with the death of Cerdic of Wessex (534), who had just conquered the Isle of Wight directly across the Solent from Selsey Bill.

Some Illtud links, as promised:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2017/12/uther-pendragon-discovered-at-last.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2023/01/illtud-illtuds-ghost-and-eldad-magister.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2024/05/illtud-saint-who-wont-go-away.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2024/06/a-request-to-review-st-illtuds-military.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/03/illtud-terribilis-magister-militum-and.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2023/01/illtuds-father-bicanus-and-his-llydaw.html

All sounds great, doesn't it?

Until we take a look at the battles of the HISTORIA BRITTONUM list sans Badon.  Then it all seems to fall apart.

I once tried to force the HB battles to conform with the Gewissei battles of the ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE.  My efforts in that direction were clever, but unconvincing - even to myself.  All the HB battles seem to be situated firmly in the North.  This fact forces us to make a choice: either they belong to another Arthur or Arthurs or they have merely been culled from any number of sources and thrown together to make an impressive list for our hero of Badon.  Either one is absolutely possible.

I can go this far with all of this: the only known name for the famous Arthur is Uther Pendragon.  Yes, it may well have simply been chosen by Geoffrey of Monmouth because the hero otherwise had no patronymic.  It is clear from our extant Welsh sources that, oddly, Arthur's father's name is never mentioned. All of his companions have patronymics.  Only his is lacking.  Why?

More importantly, if Uther P. was not Arthur's father, why were everyone after Geoffrey of Momouth silent on this issue?  Why was the mistake - if it were a mistake - not corrected?  No rival claimant for Arthur's father ever came forward, so far as we know.  Everyone meekly accepted Geoffrey's usage of Uther. 

There is no real difficulty reconciling St. Illtud the cousin of Arthur with St. Illtud the father of Arthur.  Once the Uther P. name/epithet was conjured (by the author of the PA GUR or even before), he might very well have come to take on a life of his own until, eventually, he was considered an entirely different person.  This process may have been abetted by the monkish desire to separate out Illtud the soldier from Illtud the saint.  Thus two men were created out of one.  As Uther was Arthur's father, St. Illtud could not have been.  Instead, the latter was made the son of Uther's brother via a chieftain of Ergyng.  

I think we are faced with an almost impossible decision here (assuming I'm right about Illtud = Uther).  Either we can accept Uther/Illtud as Arthur's father, in which case the HB battle list sans Badon is useless, or we see in Uther a creative borrowing by Geoffrey of Monmouth and must grapple with a famous Arthur whose father must remain unknown.

The jury is still out for me, as we had Roman and Dalriadan Arthurs in the North who work great for the HB battle list.  

Is there room in our consciousness for both Arthur son of Illtud and a Northern Arthur(s)?

THE FATHERLESS WELSH ARTHUR AND THE CASE FOR AEDAN OF DALRIADA'S SON AS 'THE' ARTHUR

Dunaverty Castle, Kintyre

The other day I was having an engaging conversation with Prof. Ken Dark regarding his new book TRADERS AND TYRANTS: TINTAGEL, ARTHUR AND THE LOST KINGS 

(https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/tyrants-and-traders-9781350519411/). In this title, the professor reiterated his opinion that Arthur son of Pedr is one of several possible candidates for a historical Arthur who can withstand conventional historical source-criticism. He had first presented his thinking on Pedr's son in "A Famous Arthur in the Sixth Century? Reconsidering the Origins of the Arthurian Legend", Reading Medieval Studies (Volume 26, 2000, pp. 77–95).  

What I came back with in our discussion was this:

If Arthur is son of Pedr, why the subterfuge when it comes to our HB/AC man? Why does Arthur in ALL THE WELSH MATERIALS always lack a patronymic? We don't find Uther attached to him until Geoffrey of Monmouth.  I've shown Uther Pendragon to be a Welsh rendering of the Latin military terms used to describe St. Illtud, and that Uther himself was then identified with the terrible warror of the COMPART MONGAN, allowing for the incorporation of the Arthur birth story.  

So if Arthur doesn't have a father, who is he?  Must we settle on the early 3rd century L. Artorius Castus?

We would think that someone, somewhere, certainly would have corrected the Uther fiction - would have, in fact, screamed to the heavens - that Arthur was Pedr's son.

Instead, Arthur consistently has no patronymic. Not in the poetry, not in the saints' lives, not in stories - nowhere. In constrast, characters in his orbit all have patronymics.

How do we find our way out of this predicament? I mean, it goes without saying that if we're given Arthur's historically attested father, then we'd know who was the real Arthur.

Well, there is an oddity in the Dalriadan royal genealogies which John Bannerman discussed, but never really resolved satisfactorily, in my opinion: Artur of Kintyre is given two fathers.

Artur son of Conaing son of Aedan son of Gabran son of Domangart son of Fergus

Artur son of Aedan son of Gabran son of Domangart son of Fergus

Conaing is an early Irish rendering of the Old English word for "king", cyning.  According to P. C. Bartrum, we find this borrowing in Welsh as well.  From his A WELSH CLASSICAL DICTIONARY:

"CYNIN. See also Conigc, Cunin, Cynan, Cynon. Anglo-Saxon cyning, ‘king’, yielded Welsh Conigc Cynin, and Irish Conaing. See OP II.421, LBS II.262, F.J.Byrne, Irish Kings and High Kings, 1973, pp.111-2."

So, what if we do something like this:

Conaing, wrongly thought to be a personal name, was originally merely a title used by the English for Aedan, inserted into an alternate Dalriadan genealogy.

Could Conaing then have been taken by the Welsh as the noun "king" and so Arthur "son of the king" lost his proper patronymic? And that a different patronymic was only to be supplied by Geoffrey of Monmouth much later in his fictional history?

If we might allow this, THE Arthur, who lacks a patronymic everywhere prior to Geoffrey, may actually have been Arthur son of Aedan "the king".

Okay, that's well and fine as a loose idea, but can we tighten it up any?

Perhaps so.

I've done extensive work recently on Arthur's Camlan battle, and have been able to make a couple of potentially valuable new observations.  First, I've been able to show that the AC 537 year entry for Camlan accords with year entries in the Irish Annals that contain the death of Comgall son of Domangart of Dalriada.  I was, to say the least, surprised that no one seems to have considered this fact unusual, given that we have a historical Dalriadan Arthur.  The Irish entries were even stranger, though, when one remembers that a later Domangart, brother of the Dalriadan Arthur, is said to fall together with that Arthur in battle.

As if that were not enough to cast doubt on the 537 entry, there was another very off-putting element present in the AC account: the death of Medraut.  I was able to demonstrate that the death of Comgall son of Domangart in 537 was re-entered in an Irish annal for 545, where it was paired with the same plague mentioned in the AC Camlan entry.  This pointed to the Gallic St. Medard, who died in this year at Noyens, the ancient Noviomagus.  Medard is easily metathesized to Medrad, which becomes Medrawd quite naturally in the Welsh. 

There were two Noviomagus places in Britain, one at Crayford and one at Chichester - both scenes of battles in the ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE.  The eponymous Cissa, founder of Chichester, is said to have fought at a Cymenesora on Selsey Bill near Chichester, and I've shown how Cymenesora can easily have been brought into accord with the Welsh Camlan.

At the time, that's really all I could do with the mess that was the AC 537 Camlan entry.

But then I remembered that I had done another piece on the Welsh Camlan at its localization in NW Wales:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/02/camlan-as-folk-relocation-of-dalriadan.html?m=1

The idea was pretty simple: that the Afon Gamlan was chosen as the battle-site because it was on the Afon Mawddach.  The Mawddach, in turn, derived from a root word or name Mawdd.  With the help of noted Brythonic place-name expert Alan James, it became apparent that the etymology for and meaning of Mawdd could be related to that of the Maeatae/Miathi.  According to Irish sources, Artur son of Aedan was said to have died either in Circenn or while fighting the Miathi.  

It thus appeared to me that the Afon Gamlan on the Mawddach was a relocation of the Northern Miathi battle.

The Irish sources also have varying accounts of when Artur's brother Domangart died.  I would refer my readers to John Bannerman's STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF DALRIADA for details, but essentially Domangart is said to have died with Artur, but also with Bran, who is thought to have perished in a separate battle with the English.  

Now, Artur son of Aedan's death is said to have happened sometime between 590-596, but probably in 590, according to Bannerman.  The same scholar thinks Bran died fighting the English in 598.  

A backdating of the Miathi battle in 590 to the AC's 537 or 545 means we are looking at a gap of 53 or 45 years, respectively.  If we use the actual annal date of 596, we have a gap of 59 or 51 years.

Just for fun, I decided to use 598 as a starting point.  That yields a 61 year gap.  If we take that 61 one years and add it to the AC Badon entry of 516, we arrive at 577.  That is the year, according to the ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE, that the Gewissei defeated the Britons at Dyrham and took the city of Baðanceaster or Bath.

I'm found of citing Graham Isaac's extensive treatment of the name Badon, which strictly from the linguistic point of view must represent a purely British reflection of Old English Bathum, i.e. Bath.  

Before anyone makes a big deal about that last revelation, let me be quick to say that while it's an interesting numbers game, it's not a necessary piece of my argument regarding Artur son of Aedan as THE Arthur.  It is enough for us to demonstrate that it looks as if the Welsh may have backdated Arthur's death to fit Gildas' Badon battle fought c. 500 and that they relocated the fatal Miathi battle to NW Wales.

If this is what happened, where does that leave the Arthurian battles of the HB (minus Badon) and my belief that these belong properly to L. Artorius Castus?

Well, the Arthur name, which is a British version of Roman Artorius, entered the Dalriadan house when Aedan married the niece of a British king. A daughter of Aedan was named Maithgemma, the Irish name for bear, so it is possible Arthur was chosen for a son because the Britons believed it contained their word for bear, 'arth' (Irish 'art').  Or the opposite may have been the case. 

Best guess makes this British king out to be Rhydderch of Strathclyde.  The Artorius name had to come from somewhere, and my guess is that the Britons at Alclud had a folk memory of a great Roman hero who had been a part of the Emperor Septimius Severus' devastating war against a couple of tribal confederations in Northern Britain.  Castus, if I'm right about the reading of ARM.GENTES on his memorial stone, went against the Maeatae and the Caledonii.  I've always remarked on the similarity of this possibility with the Irish claim that Artur son of Aedan died fighting the Miathi.  In my treatment of the HB battles, I opt for Dunipace as the Bassas, a site directly between two hillforts of the Miathi. But between the Miathi forts on the Forth are pronounced river-bends and Gaelic Cambus place-names.

It is entirely possible, of course, that Artur son of Aedan was a mercenary captain, maybe even a sort of federate in the old Roman sense.  He might well have fought all the HB battles in the North.  Or he fought some of them (we know Aedan and has sons fought against the English more than once) and the others were drawn from the legendary engagements featuring Castus.  But at least this scenario allows us to narrow down the Arthurian battles to just two historical candidates.

Arthur son of Pedr of Dyfed would then not be hard to explain.  As with Dalriada, the Dyfed dynasty originated with an Irish tribal group, in the latter case the Deissi.  Any famous half-British half-Irish Dalriadan Arthur may well have had his name become popular enough to be picked up by the Dyfed royal family.  It is true that both dynasties had strong equine affinities

(see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2026/01/stones-and-horses-on-reaching-final.html), and these may have contributed to the use of the name.  So might the presence in the Deissi pedigree of an Artchoirp.

The hypothesis floated above has the advantage of helping us understand how the famous Arthur could have lost his patronymic, and it allows us to have a valid historical candidate (or two) for that Arthur.  

A NOTE ON POLITICS

It is generally agreed that the HISTORIA BRITTONUM and ANNALES CAMBRIAE were written in Gwynedd. An argument could be advanced that given Gwynedd's long-standing antipathy towards Dyfed, a famous Arthur Dyfed may have been deprived of his patronymic and kingly status for that reason.

Howver, it is my contention that a Gwynedd writer would have deleted a Dyfed Arthur entirely and substituted one of their own heroes - or at least a hero not in any way affiliated with SW Wales.

I do not think merely deleting his patronymic would have been deemed sufficient.

And Artur son of Dyfed is recorded as a king of Dyfed. Artur son of Aedan never achieved that rank. He was merely one of several princes who were out fighting battles. 

A POSSIBLE ASTRONOMICAL CORRESPONDENCE FOR ARTHUR'S SWORD IN THE ANVIL

Orion's Sword

Dr. Linda A. Malcor and John Matthews have recently published a new book on the Arthurian motif of the sword in the anvil (not sword in the stone!).  This book was just discussed on Richard Johnson's wonderful O'R GOLWG YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8X43XfdD8o

Unfortunately, in the co-authors' attempt to trace the mythological nature of the sword in the anvil, they neglected to closely examine the context in which that motif is found in the Arthurian tradition.

Elsewhere, I have shown some of the sources that may have contributed to the sword in the anvil story (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2026/04/the-non-mystery-of-arthurs-sword-in.html).  But I had not delved into any possible astronomical significance of the story for many years, having been dissatisfied with earlier efforts to do so.  

I now feel, though, that is often the case, any underlying astronomical symbolism, while in a sense profound, may not be that complicated. 

Robert de Boron first recounts the story in his MERLIN romance.  There we learn the following:

Kay is knighted on All Hallows or 1 November (the old pagan Samhain).  

The sword first appears at Christmas, 25 December (close to the winter solstice).

The next drawing and replacing of the sword happens at Candlemas on 2 February (1 February having been the pagan Imbolc).

The next drawing and replacing happens at Easter, which can fall on various dates between 22 March and 25 April.

The final drawing of the sword - with it not being placed back in the anvil - happens at Pentecost, which depending on the date of Easter can fall between 10 May and 13 June.

Now, various writers on the subject have chosen to emphasize the medieval significance of the Christian liturgical year with its round of festivals.  And it is true that holy days were often selected for medieval knighting and coronation ceremonies.  

However, what about the possibility that Arthur's sword was related to Orion's weapon?  This may seem on the surface a silly idea, but note below what Orion does during the year when viewed from the latitude of London:

Beginning in October at 51.5°N latitude (the latitude of London, Calgary, and Voronezh), the Orion constellation shifts into its late-night and early-morning viewing window, transitioning from a pre-dawn feature into a classic evening winter fixture. 

At 51.5°N latitude (the latitude of cities like London, Calgary, or Berlin), Orion the Hunter returns to the evening sky in early November, rising in the east-southeast at approximately 9:00 PM local time. By mid-to-late November, it emerges even earlier, becoming clearly visible by 8:00 PM.

At 51.5°N latitude (such as London, UK), Orion is highest in the southern sky around midnight in mid-December. Because the Earth's orbit shifts the constellation earlier by two hours each month, you can see it highest around 10 p.m. in mid-January, 8 p.m. in mid-February, and 6 p.m. in mid-March.

At 51.5° N latitude (the latitude of London, Calgary, and Voronezh), the constellation Orion dominates the southern sky during prime evening hours at the beginning of February. 

At 51.5° N latitude (the latitude of London, UK, and southern Canada), Orion is visible low in the southwestern sky at sunset during Easter, quickly sinking and setting due west by mid-evening. Because Easter occurs in early spring (late March to mid-April), Orion is ending its winter-long dominance of the northern night sky.

At 51.5° N latitude, Orion completely disappears from the evening sky in late April to early May. As spring progresses, the constellation sinks lower into the western horizon and becomes entirely lost in the sun's evening glare.Throughout May and June, Orion is positioned directly behind the Sun from Earth's perspective, making it completely invisible. It remains hidden from the night sky until late July or early August, when it finally reappears just before dawn in the eastern sky.

If we overlap the sword in the anvil's dated events with the movement of Orion's sword, we have this:

1) Kay is knighted when Orion first becomes prominent in the evening sky.

2) The sword first appears in the churchyard at midwinter, when Orion is at its highest in the southern sky around midnight.

3) The sword is drawn and replaced at the beginning of February when Oriion dominates the sky.

4) The sword is drawn and replaced as Orion is beginning to lose dominance in the sky.  

5) At Pentecost (if falling in early May), Arthur draws the sword for the last time, as it disappears in the sky and cannot be returned to the anvil (i.e. it does not set back into the earth).

This arrangement of the sword in the anvil story in accordance with an easily observable celestial phenomenon seems preferable to the tenuous connections Malcor and Mathews have sought to attach to the Arthurian motif.  

SULIS OF BATH AND SULIS OF CASTENNEC: A STRANGE CORRESPONDENCE INVOLVING ST. GILDAS

Castennec Hill (ancient Sulis/Sulim), Oppidum of the Osismii

Hermitage of St. Gildas at Castennec

Whenever we treat of Brittany it is important we bear in mind that it was subject to heavy migration from Britain in the 5th-6th centuries.  And this means that traditions and place-names could be brought from the latter island to the Gallic pennisula.

Still, I appear to have discovered (?) something odd about a well-known Gildas/Gueltas site in Morbihan.

According to legend, in 538 Gildas and a companion monk found an oratory or hermitage in a cave next to Castennec.  Why is this interesting?  Well, Castennec Hill is accepted as the location of a Sulis or Sulim hilltop fortification, thought to be an oppidum of the Osismii tribe.  The name is this hillfort preserves the goddess name Sulis, who was the tutelary deity of Aquae Sulis in Britain.

There are a great many Websites that discuss this location and St. Gildas' connection with it.  What follows is just a quick sampling:

http://marikavel.org/bretagne/bieuzy/castennec.htm

https://www.sahpl.asso.fr/site_sahpl/Caroff%20Sylvie_LA%20VENUS%20DE%20QUINIPILY.pdf

https://www.arbre-celtique.com/encyclopedie/sulis-castennec-bieuzy-les-eaux-7244.htm

https://valleedublavet.bzh/en/discover/must-see-sites/2049-saint-gildas-chapel-in-plumeliau-bieuzy.html

https://www.infobretagne.com/bieuzy-les-eaux.htm

https://www.loquis.com/en/loquis/5636767/Bieuzy

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapelle_Saint-Gildas_de_Bieuzy

https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g1200283-d23362489-Reviews-Chapelle_Saint_Gildas-Plumeliau_Morbihan_Brittany.html

http://www.asciatopo.altervista.org/lugdunensis.html

https://www.persee.fr/doc/ecelt_0373-1928_2003_num_35_1_2153

Now, the British Aquae Sulis became known as Bath to the English, and our best linguists are sure that Gildas's Badonicus = Bathum. [1] The same is true of the later Welsh form of the name, Caer Faddon.  This is so despite an apparent traditional identification of Badon in the Welsh Annals and The Dream of Rhonabwy with the Liddington Badbury, something I've written about elsewhere in considerable detail.  The has always existed the possibility that a Badon/Bathum could have been confused at some point with the Baddan- of Baddanbyrig.  Or vice-versa.

What I'm a bit surprised about is that no one seems to have suggested (?) that given a Gildas at a Sulis site - a site on a fortified hill - that it is quite possible the Bath name from the British Aquae Sulis had at some point in the transmission through the centuries of Gildas's RUIN OF BRITAIN been transferred to the Breton Sulis location.  This would have been a fairly natural legendary development, I would think.  And if this is the way Badonicus came to be, then the original site of the Badon battle was neither Bath nor Badbury in Britain, but Castennec Hill in Brittany.  

I've before suggested that the English name Bathum may have been used in preference to the pagan-charged Sulis.

We may recall that Brittany, like Britain, had been subjected to heavy Saxon raids.  And, indeed, during the later Roman period Armorica comprised the Tractus Armoricanus et Nervicanus under the command of a dux responsible for defending the peninsula against seaborne Germanic invaders. Saxons were the chief foe.

On the map at the top of the page we can see another interesting name next to Gueltas and Castennec - Gamblen.  While the etymology of this place-name is not the same as that of the Camlan of Welsh sources (my research, not yet confirmed, shows it to be from the same initial element, meaning 'crooked', but a second derived from the Celtic word *lindo- for 'pool'), it is interesting to find such a river-bend name so close to what may have been the original Badon hillfort.

Some time ago I had written about an unusual Breton "Badon" place-name in the same region:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/04/badon-was-fought-in-brittany-not-in.html?m=1

When I wrote that piece I had no idea about the presence of the nearby Sulis oppidum.

There is really no "safe" conclusion to draw from all this.  To begin with, the identification of the Breton St. Gueltas and St. Gildas has always been somewhat suspect.  And, again, we have the problem of British immigrants bringing their own place-names and traditional histories or folktales into Brittany.  But it is hard to ignore the obvious correspondence that exists between two confirmed ancient sites dedicated to the worship of Sulis and their connection with St. Gildas.  

[1]

Dr. Graham Isaac with an authoritative discussion of the Badon place-name (via personal correspondence):

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

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

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

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

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

So what do we do? Do we just say that 'Badon' must be Celtic because Gildas uses it? That gets us nowhere.

So what of the relationships between aet Bathum - Badon - Baddanbyrig? The crucial point is just that OE Bathum and the Late British / very early Welsh Badon we are talking about both have the soft -th- sound of 'bathe' and Mod.Welsh 'Baddon'. Baddanbyrig, however, has a long d-sound like -d d- in 'bad day'. Both languages, early OE and Late British, had both the d-sound and the soft th-sound. So:

1) If the English had taken over British (hy-pothetical and actually non-existent) *Badon (*Din Badon or something), they would have made it *Bathanbyrig or the like, and the modern names of these places would be something like *Bathbury.

2) If the British had taken over OE Baddanbyrig, they would have kept the d-sound, and Gildas would have written 'Batonicus mons', and Annales Cambriae would have 'bellum Batonis', etc. (where the -t- is the regular early SPELLING of the sound -d-; always keep your conceptions of spellings and your conceptions of sounds separate; one of the classic errors of the untrained is to fail to distinguish these). 

I imagine if that were the case we would have no hesitation is identifying 'Baton' with a Badbury place. But the d-sound and the soft th -sound are not interchangeable. It is either the one or the other, and in fact it is the soft th -sound that is in 'Badon', and that makes it equivalent to Bathum, not Baddanbyrig. 

(That applies to the sounds. On the other hand there is nothing strange about the British making Bad-ON out of OE Bath -UM. There was nothing in the Late British/early Welsh language which corresponded to the dative plural ending - UM of OE, so it was natural for the Britons to substitute the common British suffix - ON for the very un-British OE suffix -UM: this is not a substitution of SOUNDS, but of ENDINGS, which is quite a different matter. That Gildas then makes an unproblematic Latin adjective with -icus out of this does not require comment.)

To conclude:

1) There is no reason in the world why a 6thcentury British author should not refer to a place in Britain by its OE name.

2) There was no 'British' or 'Celtic' *Badon.

3) 'Badon' does not correspond linguistically with OE Baddanbyrig.

4) 'Badon' is the predictably regular Late British / early Welsh borrowing of OE Bathum.

Final note: the fact that later OE sources occasionally call Bath 'Badon' is just a symptom of the book-learning of the authors using the form. Gildas was a widely read and highly respected author, and Badon(-is) (from Gildas's adjective Badon -icus) will quickly and unproblematically have become the standard book-form (i.e. pri-marily Latin form) for the name of Bath. Again, all attempts to gain some sort of linguistic mileage from the apparent, but illusory, OE variation between Bathum and Badon are vacuous."