APPENDIX I
Cadburys and Badburys
"Right
at the South end of South Cadbury Church stands Camelot. This was once a noted
town or castle, set on a real peak of a hill, and with marvellously strong
natural defences..... The only information local people can offer is that they
have heard that Arthur frequently came to Camelot." John Leland’s
ITINERARY
"The
fact that Baddanburg refers at least in three cases to prehistoric camps is
remarkable and may suggest that Badda was a legendary hero, who was associated
with ancient camps." Eilert Ekwall, THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY OF
ENGLISH PLACE-NAMES
Of
the Devon and Somerset Cadbury hill-forts, we are generally told these are from
a ‘Cada’s fort’. Cada is a presumed English personal name. However,
the British prince Cadwy, Latinized Cato or Catovii or Catovi, son of the
Dumnonian king Geraint, is known to have shared rule with Arthur of a fort
called Dindraethou somewhere in Devon or Somerset. This same fort is
mentioned in the Irish Cormac’s Glossary as Dun/Dinn Tradui/Tredui or the '
Triple-fossed fort ' of Crimthann the Great, son of Fidach, king of
Ireland. Dindraethou, called Cair Draitou in the Nennius list of British
cities, is transparently ‘Fort of the Strands/Beaches. This place has
somewhat haphazardly been identified with Dunster where, however, no fort or
corresponding place-name exists. The only significant fort with a triple
ditch in this region is Cadbury or Cada’s burg, specifically Cadbury Castle in
Somerset. This fort has thus been identified as Dinn Tradui.
The
other candidate for Dun Tradui or Dindraethou is the Maes Knoll fort at the end
of Dundry Hill ridge in Avon. Dundry is a place-name of uncertain
derivation. Mills says simply OE dun + draeg (following Ekwall), but adds
“Alternatively perhaps a Celtic name for Dundry Hill from *din ‘fort’ with
another element.”
The
meaning “fort of the strands or beaches” does not work for Dunster, Cadbury
Castle or Dundry. How do we resolve this difficulty?
Nennius
wrote his History in the latter part of the first half of the 9th
century. Cormac’s Glossary is put in the early 10th. Also, we must
give preference to a British source naming British places over an Irish source
doing the same. Thus there is little reason to trust the Dun Tradui as
the correct form of this place-name. Undoubtedly, Dun Tradui or the
Triple-Fossed Fort is an Irish attempt to render Cair/Din-draitou/draethou.
Where,
then, is this Fort of the Beaches/Strands? Firstly, we must remember that
the sea level has changed substantially from the Dark Ages to the present
time. For example, much of the Somerset Levels were underwater. So
it is distinctly possible that a fort which was once on the beach is now far
from the water.
Cadbury
Castle was not on the water – although in Roman times the sea encroached almost
as far as Ilchester (see Map 1:16 in Rivet and Smith’s AN ATLAS OF ROMAN
BRITAIN). Cadbury Camp at Tickenham in North Somerset was just a bit too
far north to have been considered 'coastal'. However, the Cadbury Hill fort just
north of Congresbury would have been right on this earlier coastline. As
this fits a fort on the beaches or strands, and has the necessary Cadwy name, I
without hesitation identify this fort as Dindraethou.
From
Pastscape on Cadbury Hill Camp:
"A
univallate Iron Age earthwork with steep natural slopes on all sides except the
east. An entrance, with probableguard-chambers, on the south-east. The
ramparts, mostly tumbled down the steep slopes, had been timber-framed. A
quarry pit, abundant pottery, post holes and about 830 slingstones were found.
Two
hearths and an associated rectangular building dated between about 430 AD and
450 AD were uncovered under the ramparts of the fourth phase.
Between
about 450 AD and 480 AD stone-based defences faced with turf and timber were
erected within the perimeter of the Iron Age ramparts and, probably later, a
bastion added.
The
final phase, between about 480 AD and the early 6th century, overlay the
collapsed defences of the previous phase. The remains of eight huts, two
circular, 15m in diameter, and a "longhouse" 8m by 3m were found.
Finds included imported Mediterranean ware, local and Gaulish pottery, Roman
and later beads, glass, bricks, bronze and iron objects, and 3, possibly 4,
type G penannular brooches."
The
Cungar of Congresbury was remembered as a saint, although his origin is
obscure. Some have sought to identify him with Cyngar son of Geraint, but
the feast days are not the same (Bartrum). Given Arthur’s presence at
Cadbury/Congresbury, I would suggest the name was associated with the Congair
(Irish genealogy) or Cincar/Cyngar (Welsh version) that was the son of the
Dyfed Voteporix. This particular Cyngar was born c. 510, and his grandson
was Arthur of Dyfed. This would suggest the placement of the much later
Arthur (b. 560) with Cadwy son of Geraint at this hill-fort.
If
the Cadbury forts in Devon and Somerset were named for Cadwy son of Geraint,
and this name was altered to English Cada, might we apply the same principle to
the various Badbury forts, which are supposedly named for an otherwise
completely unknown English hero Badda?
There
are five Badburys (according to Ekwall), four of which have ancient
fortifications next to them. It has been suggested (see, for example,
Richard Coates, “Middle English Badde and Related Puzzles”, NOWELLE, Vol II,
February 1988) that Badda could be a hypocoristic form (or diminutive, ‘pet’
form) of Beada, a name which is derived from the following:
BEADO,
beadu; g. d. beadowe, beadwe, beaduwe; f. Battle, war, slaughter, cruelty;
pugna, strages :-- Gúþ-Geáta leód, beadwe heard the War-Goths' prince, brave in
battle, Beo. Th. 3082; B. 1539. Wit ðære beadwo begen ne onþungan we both
prospered not in the war, Exon. 129b; Th. 497, 2; Rä. 85, 23. Beorn beaduwe
heard a man brave in battle, Andr. Kmbl. 1963; An. 984. Ðú þeóde bealdest to
beadowe thou encouragest the people to slaughter, Andr. Kmbl. 2373; An. 1188.
[O. H. Ger. badu-, pato-: O. Nrs. böð, f. a battle: Sansk. badh to kill.] -
Bosworth and Toller dictionary
If
so, we would have the remarkable coincidence of the Badbury hill-forts being
derived from a name meaning battle, just as is the case with the Cadbury
forts. However, although with the Cadbury forts we can safely associate
them with a known early ruler of Dumnonia, the Badbury forts cover such a vast
area that to do the same with them hardly seems tenable. I think a
derivation depending on Badda being from Beada is very doubtful. For one,
there is the problem of the –dd- versus the –d-, something treated of by Coates
and others. Coates opts (see bellow) for an early word with the same
basic meaning as our modern English ‘bad’, although the presence of this word
in Old English is not attested, and no etymology for it is known.
I have this on Badda from noted English place-name scholar Professor Richard Coates:
"Badda, if borrowed, and if we take the double <dd> seriously, is difficult to link to a Brittonic etymon.
British */t/ > Britt. */d/ would show up as OE /d/, not as a geminate (double).
British */tt/ > Britt. */θ/ would show up as OE */θ/, written with thorn, but never <dd>.
British */d/ > Britt. */ð/ would show up as OE /d/ or /ð/, depending on the period, for which the spelling <dd> is most unlikely.
British */dd/ seems to have yielded simple Britt. */d/ (Jackson LHEB 428, on credu), and would show up as OE /d/, not as a geminate (double).
So I conclude that Badda cannot be of Celtic origin, particularly because Late British did not have geminate /dd/."
I have this on Badda from noted English place-name scholar Professor Richard Coates:
"Badda, if borrowed, and if we take the double <dd> seriously, is difficult to link to a Brittonic etymon.
British */t/ > Britt. */d/ would show up as OE /d/, not as a geminate (double).
British */tt/ > Britt. */θ/ would show up as OE */θ/, written with thorn, but never <dd>.
British */d/ > Britt. */ð/ would show up as OE /d/ or /ð/, depending on the period, for which the spelling <dd> is most unlikely.
British */dd/ seems to have yielded simple Britt. */d/ (Jackson LHEB 428, on credu), and would show up as OE /d/, not as a geminate (double).
So I conclude that Badda cannot be of Celtic origin, particularly because Late British did not have geminate /dd/."
A
friend has recently asked me about the possible significance of Gildas’s
stragis, ‘slaughter’, used by this author in the context of the Badon
battle. This is, of course, the famous battle of Badon Hill, usually
ascribed to Arthur of legendary fame. We see above that beado does
include in its meanings ‘slaughter’/Latin strages. This does not get us
past the problem noticed early on by linguists (and reiterated recently via
personal communication by Dr. Graham Isaac of The National University of
Ireland, Galway) that Badon must come from English bathum/batham/bathan,
‘baths’, and cannot come from Baddan-. Baddan would have yielded ‘Baton’
in the British. [Pure contextual comparison yields the same verdict, as Badon
is spelled ‘Badonis’ in the Arthurian section of Nennius, and exactly the same
way in the ‘Marvels of Britain’ section, where it is indisputably given as the
name for Bath in Somerset. I’ve shown that Arthur’s Bath is more likely
the batham/’baths’ city of Buxton in the Peak.]
One
important fact has been overlooked in all this: if we compare the line of
Badbury forts from south-central England to east-central England (see p. 62 of
Leslie Alcock’s ‘Arthur’s Britain’) with A) the line that runs through the
Roman period tribal kingdoms of the Durotriges, Dobunni and Corieltauvi to the
west and Belgae, Atrebates, Catuvellauni and Iceni to the east (see. p. 154 of
Jones and Mattingly’s “An Atlas of Roman Britain”) and with B) the line the
runs along the border of late fifth century England, showing the Anglo-Saxon
cemeteries to the east and the British-held territory to the west (see p. 52 of
N.J. Higham’s ‘King Arthur: Myth-Making and History”), a startling
correspondence emerges. All these boundaries or frontier zones match up
almost perfectly.
Is
this a coincidence and thus merely illusory? Perhaps. But it would
be to our advantage to investigate this correspondence more closely, just in
case it helps us untangle the mystery of the etymology of Badda/Baddan-.
First,
to the problem discussed by Coates, viz. the ultimate origin of the word ‘bad’,
which would seem to be related to Badda/Baddan-. If we connect an
unattested Old English precursor of ME badde with the Indo-European root
bhoi-/bhai-/bhi-, ‘to fear’, we can establish a further link to Latin foedus, “foul,
filthy, loathsome, repulsive, ugly, unseemly, detestable, abominable, horrible’
(Lewis and Short Dictionary, via Perseus). I do not think this is an
unreasonable supposition.
The
full Pokorny listing for this root is as follows (http://dnghu.org/indoeuropean.html):>
“Root
/ lemma: bhōi- : bhǝi- : bhī-
(bhii̯ǝ-)
English
meaning: to fear
German
meaning: `sich fürchten'
Material:
Old Indian bháyatē `be afraid' (from *bhǝi̯etai = slav. bojetъ), av.
bayente, byente `they are in fear', mpers. bēsānd `they are in fear' (uriran.
*bai-sk̂-); Old
Indian bibhḗti `be
afraid', sek. to initial Perf. m. Prösensbed. bibhā́ya `I am in fear'
(bibhīyāt, bibhītana, abibhēt, participle bibhīvān = av. biwivā̊`were afraid'); Old Indian
bhiyāná-ḥ`were
afraid'; bhī́-ḥf., bhīti-ḥf. (: lett. Inf. bîtiês) `fear',
bhīmá-ḥ`dreadful',
bhītá-ḥ`were
afraid, horrified', bhīrú-ḥ`timorous,
shy, coward' (if r = idg. l, changing through ablaut with lit. báilė, bailùs);
npers. bāk `fear' (from *bháyaka-); with idg. simplification of āi to ā before
consonant here Old Indian bhā́ma-ḥ
perhaps `fierceness, fury', bhāmitá-ḥ
`fierce, grim'.
Gr.
πίθηκος, πίθων m. `ape' (from *πιθος `ugly', zero grade *bhidh-).
Lat.
foedus (*bhoidhos) `foul, filthy, horrible, disgusting'.
Ahd.
bibēn, as. bibōn, ags. beofian, aisl. bifa, -aða and bifra (these in ending
directed after *titrōn `tremble') to urg. *ƀiƀai-mi;
*ƀiƀōn is probably only after to the other coexistence
from -ōn- and -ēn- secondary verb besides one from the Perfect form developed
grade *ƀiƀēn .
Bsl.
originally present *bhǝi̯̯ō-, preterit-stem *bhii̯ā-, Inf. *bhītēi; Old Prussian
biātwei `fear, dread', kausat. pobaiint `punish, curse'; lit. bijaũs, bijótis
(also not reflexive) `be afraid', lett. bîstuôs, bijuôs, bîtiês and bijājuôs,
bijâtiês `be afraid'; lit. baijùs `dreadful, terrible, hideous'; baidaũ, -ýti
`frighten', lett. baĩdu, baĩdŷt and biêdêt `daunt, scare';
Maybe
alb. geg. mbajt `be afraid', nuk ma mban `I am afraid'
in
addition lit. baisà `fright' (*baid-s-ā), baisùs `terrible, horrid', baisióti `smudge,
besmear' (and Old Church Slavic běsъ `devil', *běd-sъ); lit. báimė `fear';
báilė ds. (bailus `timorous').
Old
ChurchSlavic bojǫ, bojati
sę `be afraid'.
Further
formation *bhii̯-es-,
*bhīs- in Old Indian bhyásatē `be afraid', udbhyása-ḥ`be afraidd', av. Perf. biwivā̊ŋha (i.e. biwyā̊ŋha) `stimulated fright, was
dreadful'; Old Indian bhīṣayatē
`frightens', bhī́ṣaṇa-ḥ `causing fright';
ahd.
bīsa `north-east wind', bisōn `run around madly', bēr `boar' etc lead to a
germ.*bī̆s-, *bī̆z- `storm ahead jumpily'; compare
Wißmann Nom. postverb. 78.
References:
WP. II 124 f., 186, WH. I 522 f., Trautmann 24, Kluge11 under Biese.
Page(s):
161-162”
But
this brings in another important point. The idea that all these forts – a
couple of them being quite beautiful, and very impressive – were all somehow
“bad” does not make much sense. We could say that they were “bad” in the
sense that they belonged to the enemy, but again, this is hardly
convincing. For this reason I would mention another word from Latin that
is spelled EXACTLY the same as the foedus just mentioned: foedus, “a league,
treaty, compact, alliance.”
This
second foedus comes from the following Indo-European root:
“Root
/ lemma: bheidh-1
English
meaning: to advise, force
German
meaning: `jemandem zureden, zwingen', med. `sich einreden lassen, vertrauen'
Material:
Gr. πείθομαι `lets me persuade, follow' (Aor.ἐπιθόμην, hom. πεπιθεῖν, πιθέσθαι; Perf. πέποιθα `trust'), Akt. (sek.)
πείθω, Aor.ἔπεισα
`persuade, convince', πειθώ, -οῦς
`persuasion', πιστός (for *φιστος) `reliable, loyal, faithful, relying', πίστις,
-ιος, -εως `loyalty, reliance', hom.ἐν
πείσῃ `in
reassurance' (*πειθ-σ-);
alb.
bē f. `oath, vow, pledge' (*bhoidhā = Old Church Slavic běda `need'), ostgeg.
per-bej `curse, hex' (in addition neologism bese f. `faith, belief, pact,
covenant, loyalty');
Note:
alb. bē f. `oath' derived from a truncated alb. betim `oath'
maybe
TN illyr. Besoi : alb. besoj `believe, have faith'
lat.
fīdō, -ere, fīsus sum `to trust, believe, confide in' (fīsus is to-
participle), fīdus `reliable'; foedus (*bhoidhos), by Ennius fīdus (*bheidhos)
n. `trusty, true, faithful, sure', fidēs `trust, confidence, reliance, belief,
faith', Dius Fidius `the god of faith, a surname of Jupiter'; umbr. combifiatu
(*bhidhiā-) `you shall trust, confide, rely upon, believe, be assured'; about
osk. Fiisiais, umbr. Fise, Fiso, Fisovio- s. WH. I 494;
Note:
Alb.
alb. fē, fēja `religion', fejonj `perform engagement ceremony (marriage vowsö)'
: AN fed, OFr. feid, feit : lat. fides;
got.
baidjan `constrain, oblige', aisl. beiđa, ags. bædan, ahd. beitten `urge,
press, push, arrogate' = abg. causative běždǫ, běditi `constrain, oblige', poběditi `defeat,
conquer', běda f. `need';
here
probably also got. beidan `wait, hold on', aisl. bīđa, ags. bīdan, ahd. bītan
ds., schweiz. beite = ahd. beitten, but in the meaning `wait, hold on'. basic
meaning `await' from `trust' or `oneself constrain, oblige'.
References:
WP. II 139 f., 185 f., WH. I 493 f.
Page(s):
117”
From
this root comes Old English baedde, a thing required, tribute, baedde,
solicited, baedan, to constrain, compel, require, solicit, bad, a pledge,
stake, a thing distrained, badian, to pledge.
What
I would like to propose for the Badda/Baddan- fort names is that they do NOT
actually come from an AS form of ME badde, our ‘bad’, but instead from the
attested Old English root that may be compared with that which yielded Latin
foedus, fides, etc.
Richard
Coates long ago (“On some Controversy surrounding Gewissae/Gewissei, Cerdic and
Ceawlin”, Nomina 13, 1989-90) showed that the Gewessei of Dark Age Britain “…
look very much like the 'known ones', in the sense of those who are known of or
known about, i.e. the people of whom you have certain knowledge." I
showed subsequently that the Gewessei were, in fact, Irish mercenaries or “federates”
utilized by Vortigern against his various enemies, including other
Britons. As such, these Gewessei were opposed to the other Celts, who
were ‘wealhas’ or Welsh, a Saxon term meaning stranger, foreigner and hence
enemy.
In
the Roman period, the term used for such “barbarian” federates was “foederati”,
from L. foedus. So what exactly am I suggesting here? Simply this: that
Badda as a personal name is a reflection of a foederatus or ‘federated’
mercenary who was stationed along a line of forts which for some time marked
the frontier zone between the Anglo-Saxons and the Britons. I am NOT
saying we are dealing here with the SAME single federated mercenary raised to
hero status, but rather a general personification of the foederati.
Badda,
then, is representative of the foederati, probably Saxon federates who guarded
the border region in sub-Roman England.
As
a comparison to Badda, a name derived (?) from the AS bad, ‘pledge’, I would
point to the Scandinavian Varangian mercenaries of the Byzantine empire.
The root of the name Varangian is Norse var, ‘pledge’, as in the pledge a
foreign Rus/Swedish Viking gives when taking service with a new lord by a
treaty of fealty to him (see H.S. Falk & A. Torp, Norwegisch-dänisches
etymologisches Wörterbuch, 1911, pp. 1403–4; J. de Vries, Altnordisches
etymologisches Wörterbuch, 1962, pp. 671–2; S. Blöndal & B. Benedikz, The
Varangians of Byzantium, 1978, p. 4). Badda would be something like ‘the
pledged one’ or the ‘one who pledged himself’.
Some
might ask why, if the line of Badbury forts was what the Romans referred to as
a limes, there were foederati stationed here. Shouldn't we expect instead
limitanei?
Actually,
no. To quote from Nora Chadwick's "Celtic Britain (New York, 1963):
"During
this closing phase of the Occupation some new officials appear in the records
of affairs in Britain, probably connected with the defensive measures taken on
her behalf by the usurper Constantine on the eve of his departure. Here our
chief guide is the Notitia Dignitatum. This document enables us to watch a
process of devolution at work in Britain analogous in many respects to that
which had already taken place on the Continent since the reform measures of the
Roman Army by Diocletian (286‑305) and Constantine (305‑307). Briefly stated,
this process entails the withdrawal and supplanting of the Roman sedentary
troops massed on the frontier, known as limitanei (L. limes, a 'frontier'), by
a local militia, consisting of foederati or federate native troops..."
POSTSCRIPT:
Since
writing this Appendix, I have been sent an article from Somerset Archaeology
and Natural History Vol 134 1990, pp. 81-93, "The frontier Zone and the
Siege of Mount Badon: A Review of the Evidene for Their Location", by Tim
and Annette Burkitt. This article very nicely details in texts and maps
the frontier zone that existed at the time of the Battle of Badon. My
thanks to Gail Griffith of SANHS for providing me with the piece.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.