THE UTHER [PEN]DRAGON TITLE OF SAWYL, FATHER OF ARTHUR

The Chester Draco

My readers will be aware that I've only recently made a case for Uther Pendragon being Sawyl Benisel of  Ribchester/Bremetennacum Veteranorum. As the genealogy found preserved in 'The Dialogue of Arthur and the Eagle' does seem to identify Arthur's father with this man, we might once again take a look at the epithet 'uther pendragon.'

While the Terrible Chief-Dragon could be of native Welsh origin (with dragon meaning simply 'warrior' or the like), it could also be a folk memory of the late Roman rank of Magister Draconum (a perfect Latin translation of Pendragon), the title used for the chief officer of the draco-standard bearing corps.   The Sarmatian veteran settlement at Ribchester appears to have been substantial, and the draco is believed to have been introduced into the Roman army by this group.  

Unfortunately, we don't know much about the rank of M. Draconum.  The following excerpts are from "The Master of the Dragon Standards and the Golden Torc: An Inscription from Prusias and Prudentius' Peristephanon" by M. P. Speidel, Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-2014), Vol. 115 (1985), pp. 283-287:

It is also conceivable that as a Dark Age descendant of the Sarmatian veterans at Ribchester and as the king of the region, Sawyl was simply called the 'chief dragon' in the sense of being the head of the warriors.  But this may still have been a metaphorical reference to the draco standard, carried in battle before his cavalry.  In other words, he was the human manifestation of the Sarmatian dragon, which by its very nature rode - or, rather, flew - before the host.

For an excellent article on the history of the draco standard itself, I would refer my readers once again to Robert Vermaat's excellent essay "The Draco, the Late Roman military standard" (http://www.fectio.org.uk/articles/draco.htm).

To briefly quote from this article:

"The Draco was adopted first into the Roman cavalry during the 2nd century AD, possibly with the introduction of Sarmatian cavalry into the Roman army."

Whether this is true or not (and which "Scythian" group was actually responsible for this introduction has been seriously contended), we can say with absolute certainty that the cavalry unit serving at Bremetennacum, the "n(umeri) eq(uitum) Sar-[m(atarum)] Bremetenn(acensium) [G]ordiani" or 'Gordian's Own Unit of Sarmatian Cavalry' possessed their own draco or dracos.  There is some evidence that a Sarmatian ala was at Ribchester (see RIB 594 and 595), although in the late period the numerus had become a cuneus (see Notitia Dignitatum).

Thus the 'dragon's head' was known at Ribchester from the advent there of the Sarmatian troops.

  

My Final Decision Regarding an Arthur of Sub-Roman Britain

Ribchester Roman Fort

In the past several months, I have concentrated on trying to trace the true identity of Uther Pendragon, the only father to be offered as that of the most famous of the Dark Age Arthurs. I had reached two conclusions: a) that at some point in the evolution of the Arthurian tradition, Uther [Pen]dragon had been identified wrongly with St. Illtud and b) that the only other candidate for Uther, based on the genealogy set forth in the Welsh poem "The Dialogue of Arthur and the Eagle", had to be Sawyl Benisel, who ruled from the immediate environs of Ribchester, Lancashire.  This was the fort/vicus/regio of the Sarmatians.

To be perfectly honest, I was having difficulty even accepting the latter (for a reason I have expressed in a previous blog post). Within the last few days, however, I have been exposed to a revolutionary and quite wonderful idea that has allowed me to, once and for all, commit to a FINAL CANDIDATE FOR ARTHUR.  I do not make this kind of statement lightly, as for roughly a quarter of a century I have been searching for Arthur and was never certain that I had found him.  Now, for the first time, I can say with a fair degree of confidence that I have accomplished my quest.

I've only today been granted the generous permission of Dr. Linda Malcor and her co-authors, Antonio Trinchese and Alessandro Faggiani, to cite a new proposed reading of the Lucius Artorius Castus memorial stone.  While there are many important points raised in their article (publication pending in THE JOURNAL OF INDO-EUROPEAN STUDIES), the most important has to do with a fragmentary phrase.  In the past, the British legions Lucius Artorius Castus (or LAC for short) was said to have been dux over were thought to have been sent against either Armorica or the Armenians. Both of these readings of the damaged stone inscription were fraught with problems. The authors of the paper "Missing Pieces: A New Reading of the Main Lucius Artorius Castus Inscription" (by Linda A. Malcor, Antonio Trinchese and Alessandro Faggiani) seem to have elegantly found a way around this issue. 

They have proposed that the three British legions of LAC were sent against armed men.  In other words, we should see "adversus arm[ato]s in the inscription.  Good arguments are provided for rejecting the theories regarding Armenia or Armorica in the broken section of the inscription.

While 'adversus armatos' is rather nonspecific/vague/obscure for an inscription (which in general are quite terse, though also precise), the idea is actually quite a good one.  The British legions of the LAC inscription would be those brought to bear against various foes who had succeeded in causing great damage to or even taking significant portions of Hadrian's Wall c. 180 A.D..  Around 185 the Romans pushed back, and if LAC were among the forces from York doing so, then he would probably have had Sarmatian troops serving under him.  I have Frere (in his BRITANNIA) referring to the Maeatae, with the Caledonians behind (i.e. north) of them, as well as Brigantian "hillmen" as the parties responsible for this rebellion against Roman rule.  Other tribal groups may also have been involved.  Thus referring to all of these simply as "armatos" is not unreasonable, as brevity was extremely desirable when carving on stone.

In addition, armatos could be used to distinguish a real, professional army from merely a force bearing arms.  We find this kind of distinction mentioned here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=R11VDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA249&lpg=PA249&dq=armatos+armed+men&source=bl&ots=-Njc8Btkxi&sig=ABGbd9WgTkwiqQc6-61F2JafzRw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiq4dOEqbHeAhWL_p8KHZ9jAwkQ6AEwBXoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=armatos%20armed%20men&f=false

A reading of the LAC stone as 'adversus armatos' allows us to have LAC lead two or three legions into battle while still in Britain.  The problem of his leading these legions either to Armorica or to Armenia has been succinctly stated by Christopher Gwinn (http://christophergwinn.com/arthuriana/lac-sourcebook/):

“DUX (OF THE DETACHMENTS) OF THE THREE BRITANNICIAN LEGIONS” (DUX LEGIONUM [TRIU]M BRITAN[N]IC{IAN}ARUM)

Before finishing up his military career, LAC lead an expedition of some note as a Dux Legionum [triu]m Britan(n)ci{ian}arum. Dux (literally “leader, conductor”) was in the 2nd century AD a temporary title accorded to officers who were acting in a capacity above their rank, either in command of a collection of troops (generally combined vexillations drawn from the legions of a province)2 in transit from one station to another, or in command of a complete unit29 (the former seems to be the case with LAC, seeing that the inscription mentions multiple units). Though the inscription does not specify that Artorius led detachments (as opposed to the entire legions), it can be inferred; there are no records of multiple legions being removed from Britain in the mid-late 2nd century." [emphasis mine]

This last problem is eliminated when we allow for the possibility that the inscription can be read literally.  That is, he led two or three legions.  There is no justification for "inferring" that he only led parts of these legions.  As he didn't, therefore, lead them outside of Britain, he must have used them within Britain.  A nice, logical solution to what otherwise appears to be a historical quandary.

But Malcor and her study co-authors did not stop there.  They have clarified, for the first time, the true significance of the dux title as that is applied to LAC on the stone inscription.  In summary, it implies that LAC was actually an equestrian governor, filling the "gap" between the governors Pertinax and Albinus.  If LAC did obtain this position, he was the most powerful man in Britain for the duration in office.  Such a man, with notable military successes in the North, might well be remembered for generations and his name given to noble-born sons in the region.

If Malcor and her co-authors have this reading right, then I can finally proclaim that the name Artorius was famous in the North for a very good reason.  Furthermore, there would be sufficient justification for placing the 6th century Arthur at Ribchester/Bremetannacum, where the Sarmatian veterans were settled.  Given the close relationship that existed between the York of LAC and the probable use of Sarmatians by LAC in the Northern campaign, we can expect that the name Artorius was preserved among subsequent generations at Ribchester and its environs.

It is for this reason that I now declare the Arthur of Nennius to be primarily based on an Arthur who was the son of Sawyl of Ribchester - with the caveat that some of the battles in the Nennius battle list may well have been those of LAC or may have belonged properly to one of the Arthurs subsequent to Arthur son of Sawyl, such as Arthur of Dalriada.  The battle sites as I discussed them in my book THE ARTHUR OF HISTORY: A REINTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE should be consulted for details.  

All of this, of course, is wholly dependent on whether the reading 'adversus armatos' holds up.  If it does not, then we are hard pressed to explain why Lucius Artorius Castus was so famous in Britain as to bestow his name on the royal families of subsequent generations.  

NOTE:  Another point in favor of Sawyl Benisel as Arthur's father is his having married an Irish princess.  I have emphasized over and over again that the Arthur of the 6th century MUST have an Irish family connection.  Otherwise, we cannot account for the fact that all subsequent Arthurs belonged to Irish-descended dynasties in Britain. 

Coming Soon: Announcement of My Final Decision Regarding an Arthur of Sub-Roman Britain

Sarmatian Warriors By Dmitry Alexinsky

BREMETENNACUM AND EBORACUM: A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP?

Ribchester Roman Parade Helmet

So if Arthur belongs to Ribchester of the 6th century A.D., how is it that the name Artorius found its way to that fort in the sub-Roman period?

Much has been made, of course, concerning the Roman period involvement of Lucius Artorius Castus of York with both Bremetennacum and the Sarmatians.  Alas, such involvement is completely speculative in nature and has not been supported by preferred dates applied to 'LAC' and the arrival of the Sarmatians in Britain.

Still, there is some evidence that York and Ribchester enjoyed an unusually close and even special relationship.  The following is excerpted from I. A. Richmond's THE SARMATAE, BREMETENNACUM VETERANORUM AND THE REGIO BREMETENNACENSIS ("The Journal of Roman Studies", Vol. 35, Parts 1 and 2 (1945):

"The Roman fort at Ribchester is one of the important strategic centres of Northern Britain, where a Roman road from south to north crossed the river Ribble, while another went eastwards to the legionary fortress at York through the Aire Gap...It is of some importance to recall that the cult of Maponus [found at Ribchester] is one patronized by legionary officers of the Sixth Legion, from which Antoninaus came, and, in particular, by so senior an officer as the praefectus castrorum [a rank held by LAC], since this stamps the cult as one centred in York rather than in the auxiliary forts... It is thus particularly significant for official policy that successive commandants of the Ribchester fort and settlement, men of education and social standing, both could and did draw generously upon the resources of craftsmanship and religious allegory available or current at the York headquarters in order to establish the shrine and monuments of the regional centre upon the basis of the best conventions that they knew. Indeed, it must be admitted that the policy can hardly have been without direct official inspiration, since it continued over a period of some forty years or more. It is evident that both during their military service and after their settlement in the regio as veterans, the men of the Sarmatian numeri, soldiers of the lowest standing in the army, were subjected to the stead influence of Roman religious culture, always one of the most powerful media of social education in the ancient world."

In other words, not only was Ribchester geographically close to York, it was subjected to a prolonged and intensive program of assimilation.  This being so, we can well accept the preservation of the name Artorius in the region, as Roman personal names would certainly have been borrowed by the Sarmatians and, presumably, by any Britons or Romano-Britons who had engaged in intermarriage with the former.  We might be justified in going so far as to say that names of prominent military officers who had served at Eboracum would have enjoyed a favored status among the settlers at Bremetennacum.  This would be even more true an said officer - say, LAC, for example - really did have something notable to do with the regio Bremetennacensis.

It is not, of course, necessary to postulate LAC's being in charge of the movement of the 5,500 Sarmatians to Britain, nor should we feel compelled to make him the man responsible for dividing these units up once they were removed from their Scythian home.  To quote from Richmond's paper again:

"The entire draft of 5,500 Sarmatae allocated to Britain cannot have lain at Ribchester, which is of a size to hold an ala [cavalry unit] of 500 strong. They were doubtless distributed throughout the frontier land for training, and the total strength of the contingent might suggest a subdivision into eleven units of 500 men apiece."

Conceivably, one or more such units might well have been stationed at the legionary fort at York, where they would have become well-acquainted with LAC.  And, we can further state with complete confidence that no matter where these Sarmatian troops served in Northern Britain, Ribchester as the settlement designated for Sarmatian veterans awaited them at the conclusion of their military service.  Soldiers who had known LAC at York, in other words, would naturally have retired to the lands around Ribchester - like at the Samlesbury I have shown to preserve the name of Sawyl Benisel.

Again, though, I must stress that some very good scholars now hold that LAC was gone from Britain before the Sarmatians arrived.  Christopher Gwinn has this to say on this problem:

"If Artorius did participate in Verus’ Armenian war, this demolishes the popular speculation (which never had any evidence to support it in the first place) that Artorius commanded Sarmatians – in Britain, or anywhere else – as the Sarmatians were not defeated in Central Europe and forced to send a levy of troops to Britain until 175 AD, more than a decade after Artorius would have (permanently) left Britain."  [see http://christophergwinn.com/arthuriana/lac-sourcebook/]

Whether LAC had anything to do personally with the Sarmatians is not really important.  Ribchester's strong ties to York are sufficient to explain the adoption of the name Artorius by the elite at sub-Roman Bremetennacum.  The only way we can directly associate the Sarmatians with LAC is to propose that instead of participating in the Armenian campaign, LAC put down a rebellion in Armorica (Brittany).  Unfortunately, the world's best epigraphers do not allow for Armorica being mentioned on one of the LAC stones.  They insist that the fragmentary word referencing this military action can only stand for Armenia.  I've not yet seen any reasonable argument or evidence that would convince me to disagree with them.

NOTE:  I have thought about 'ADVERSUS[S]ARMATOS' or 'ADVERSU SARMATOS', against the Sarmatians.  But this does not seem to work.  Recently, Dr. Linda Malcor (publication pending) suggested a new reading for this portion of the LAC stone.  She is adopting this reading over that of 'Armoricos', which she previously championed. Her solution is simple, but brilliant, and will allow us to have LAC in Britain with the Sarmatians - and to have him involved in a recorded major campaign in the North.  I am not at liberty at this time to reveal her idea, and so must content myself with this brief, tantalizing and, albeit, frustrating statement.  An incidental effect of her new reading is my being able to more seriously propose Arthur son of Sawyl of Ribchester as THE Arthur of sub-Roman Britain.

ELIWLAD GRANDSON OF UTHER AND MADOG AILITHIR SON OF SAWYL: MY FINAL STATEMENT ON A POSSIBLE ARTHURIAN-SARMATIAN CONNECTION

Maponus Stone From Ribchester

The following post represents some selections from previous studies dealing with the personal name Eliwlad and with Sawyl Benisel of Ribchester.  I've now come to the conclusion that Eliwlad does, in fact, represent a Welsh attempt to render Irish Ailithir. If so, what can be said about Arthur being the son of Sawyl Benisel?

Well, there is one impediment to being able to offer this notion as decent, respectable theory. It is simply this: it is possible that whoever wrote "The Dialogue of Arthur and the Eagle", knowing that Uther had a son Madog (as is declared in one rather obscure poem), and that Sawyl also had a son of that name, may have simply assumed that Uther and Sawyl were the same person.  This would have been a logical conclusion for him to make. Madog is not an uncommon name among the early Welsh.

But if we exclude this error in identification of Uther and Sawyl, I must state publicly that the case for Arthur being descended from a chieftain ruling from Ribchester looks rather appealing.  I cannot say whether other scholars would apply any validity to it.

***

Eliwlad as 'Prince of Eli' or, more literally, Eli-prince, does not yield any corollaries in Welsh personal names.  Simply put, I could not find even one additional example of a place-name (Eli was located in ancient Powys) as an initial component, followed by a descriptor such as gwlad.  This means the proposed etymology is fatally flawed.  The same goes for an 'Elei-prince' or Prince of the Ely [the river or valley in Glamorgan], yet another proposed derivation of mine allowed - although not enthusiastically - on a purely formal basis by Dr. Simon Rodway of The University of Wales. We would have to assume that 1) the name was either hopelessly corrupt 2) it was a false name, one might say a sort of manufactured name or 3) that someone had accidentally joined a phrase reading "Eli (g)wlad" together.  

Technically, there is nothing wrong with Eli Gwlad as a combined personal name and epithet, of course.  We could say that Eli the Prince was the son of Madog son of Uther.  BUT...gwlad is not usually found in this context in the early Welsh sources.  We find instead the very well-attested gwledig.  Gwlad in isolation pretty much always means 'land' or 'kingdom.'  [For some exceptions, see Thomas Charles-Edwards in ‘The Date of Culhwch ac Olwen’ in Bile ós Chrannaib: A Festschrift for William Gillies, edited by Wilson McLeod, Abigail Burnyeat, Domhnall Uilleam Stiùbhart, Thomas Owen Clancy and Roibeard Ó Maolalaigh (Ceann Drochaid, 2010), pp. 45-56.).

All once again seemed lost.  Eliwlad remained unparsable.

But then two facts became known to me which I had not possessed before.  First, I discovered in early Irish sources variant spellings for Ailithir, "pilgrim, foreigner" (literally, aile + tir, 'other land'), an epithet for St. Madog son of Sawyl Penisel (or Penuchel).   One of these spellings was Elithir.  This last example satisfied the requirement of Eliwlad, the first element of which could not directly be derived from the Welsh cognate of Irish aile/eile, i.e. 'all' (although see below under  SCHOLARLY SUPPORT FOR ELIWLAD = AILITHIR/ELITHIR).  Welsh has alltud, 'other people/country', allfro, 'other land', and the late occurring allwlad, 'other country', for "foreigner."   In Welsh, ail/eil is "second."

Here are some of the books providing the spelling Elithir:

https://books.google.com/books?id=FQu0JKB_1gUC&pg=PA355&lpg=PA355&dq=%22elithir%22%2B%22pilgrim%22&source=bl&ots=NSkTwScygL&sig=DZkKzNIi7m98jc8K6cqQAKCcHe8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAjoD50_bWAhVI12MKHSDEAaQQ6AEIKjAB#v=onepage&q=%22elithir%22%2B%22pilgrim%22&f=false

 https://books.google.com/books?id=d8k_AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA558&lpg=PA558&dq=%22elithir%22%2B%22pilgrim%22&source=bl&ots=RlEYVof7wh&sig=Cz54s3ccztT72jCpRGlc1FJEoew&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAjoD50_bWAhVI12MKHSDEAaQQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=%22elithir%22%2B%22pilgrim%22&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=wkVu5aheCCQC&pg=RA4-PA87&lpg=RA4-PA87&dq=%22elithir%22%2B%22pilgrim%22&source=bl&ots=x8V9lOgcHE&sig=COjXKifwiP-FE5yBidMZ_9sZcQs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAjoD50_bWAhVI12MKHSDEAaQQ6AEILDAC#v=onepage&q=%22elithir%22%2B%22pilgrim%22&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=c_gUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=%22elithir%22%2B%22pilgrim%22&source=bl&ots=EfBagwDm-U&sig=-zDj4KGRtim6asEOvnUTjxsMoz4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAjoD50_bWAhVI12MKHSDEAaQQ6AEIMDAE#v=onepage&q=%22elithir%22%2B%22pilgrim%22&f=false

Etc. - including the actual texts alluded to in these sources, some of which are available online.

In other words, I could make an argument again for Eliwlad being 'other land', an exact equivalent of the Irish Ailithir epithet given to Madog son of Sawyl.

Oliver J. Padel in ARTHUR IN MEDIEVAL WELSH LITERATURE states that

“Barry Lewis has pointed out that a sixteenth-century dialogue between a creiriwr [crair + -iwr in the GPC] (‘pilgrim’) and Mary Magdalene of Brynbuga (the town of Usk) is remarkably similar in both form and content to the dialogue with the Eagle…”

As this comparative treatment of the two poems appears to be accurate, and if I am right about Eliwlad being an interpretation or attempted translation of Ailithir, then we have two nearly identical poems featuring characters named ‘Pilgrim’.

SCHOLARLY SUPPORT FOR ELIWLAD = AILITHIR/ELITHIR

"Your proposal to understand Eliwlad as a W 'translation' of Ir Ailithir looks quite attactive. Eli- might well stand for Ir ail(e), and tir is correctly translated as 'gwlad'. The respective range of meaning of both words is, of course, not identical.

If  'pilgrim' really is the "primary meaning" of ailithir, then this word is beyond any doubt a bahuvrîhi compound, designing somebody 'who is characterized by another [foreign] land', obviously in the sense that (s)he has visited a [remarkably] foreign land, is acquainted with it, etc.

We have to remind an alternative, however, viz. that the 'other land' referred to might be the 'Otherworld' , so that the bearer of the epithet may have been named so for assumed / desired magical qualities. Note that Rachel Bromwich, in her invaluable Trioedd Ynys Prydein (3rd ed., p. 428) has a Madawc m. Run y Kynnedvau. By the way, I trust that you have made already ample use of that magnificent book and the references found therein.

The whole story of the red Welsh Dragon (and its mischievous counterpart), including the epithed 'Uther Pendragon', may well be based on post-Roman misunderstandings of reminiscences of the Roman, originally perhaps Sarmatian, standard. But one should not overstress the Sarmatian-Alanian theory in discussing Arthurian matters. In case you read German, you may have seen what I wrote about in 'Die keltischen Wurzeln der Arthussage' (Winter: Heidelberg 2000)."

Professor Stefan Zimmer

"Irish aili- does not have a diphthong ai in the first syllable but a fronted low simple vowel [ae] (approximately as in Engl. back) followed by a palatalized -l´-. I find it quite plausible that this would have been borrowed immediately as W eli-."

Professor Doctor Peter Schrijver

“I don’t disagree with anything Zimmer or Schrijver say.”

Dr. Simon Rodway

“I think that -wlad cannot be anything else but gwlad 'country', and your idea that Eliwlad is a reinterpretation of Ailithir seems plausible to me.  If Eliwlad developed directly from the British, we would expect *Eilwlad."

Professor Ranko Matasovic

“It looks perfectly possible to me that Eliwlad represents British *Aljowlatos 'other land'.  Eliwlad/t is a plausible rendering of Eilwlad. One certainly finds occasional <e> for <ei> in MW, and metathesis is always possible. If it’s not from *aljo-, I have no idea.”

Professor Richard Coates

“First it appears to me that you you must be right in identifying gwlad as the second element. This is indeed the regular cognate of flaith in Irish, but the latter, a feminine i-stem, originally also had an abstract meaning ‘lordship, sovereignty’, and its application to a person is a secondary process in Irish (retaining the feminine gender!) for which there are several parallels, such as techt meaning not only ‘going’ but also ‘messenger’, cerd both ‘craft’ and ‘craftsman’, etc.

Your proposed adaptation of aili- to eli-, on the other hand, would have to have been purely formal, since Irish and British continue two different variants of the same word ‘other’, Ir. aile (also 'second') < *aljo- and e.g. Middle Welsh. all < *allo-. British ail, 'second', is from *aljo-.

But apart from this formal misgiving, I do admit that your derivation would make for a nice contextual fit!“

Professor Jurgen Uhlich

THE ANCIENT ELEGY FOR UTHER AND THE NAME SAWYL

In Marged Haycock's translation of the MARWNAT VTHYR PEN, the 'Death-Song of Uther Pen[dragon],' we appear to find the chieftain actually calling himself Sawyl.   This is what Haycock has in her notes to Line 7 of this elegy:

 7 eil kawyl yn ardu G emends kawyl > Sawyl, the personal name (from Samuelis
via *Safwyl). Sawyl Ben Uchel is named with Pasgen and Rhun as one of the
Three Arrogant Men, Triad 23, as a combative tyrant in Vita Cadoci (VSB 58);
and in CO 344-5. Samuil Pennissel in genealogies, EWGT 12 (later Benuchel),
Irish sources, and in Geoffrey of Monmouth. Other Sawyls include a son of
Llywarch, and the saint commemorated in Llansawel: see further TYP3 496,
WCD 581 and CO 104. Ardu ‘darkness, gloom; dark, dreadful (GPC), sometimes
collocated with afyrdwl ‘sad; sadness’ (see G, GPC).

Initially, I refused to get too excited about Uther calling himself a 'second Samuel' (the first, presumably, being the Biblical prophet of that name).  I mean, this was, after all, an emendation.  However, I asked Welsh language expert Dr. Simon Rodway of The University of Wales about the authority who made this emendation - one that was accepted by Haycock herself.  Our discussion on this matter ran as follows:
"Geirfa Barddoniaeth Gynnar Gymraeg, by John Lloyd-Jones

Cited several times by Marged Haycock in her edition of the Uther poem, and  she adopts many of his emendations.

A trustworthy, well-respected source, in your opinion?  Or is his work somewhat outdated or even obsolete?"

"It’s a very good piece of work, which I often use. It’s much more comprehensive than GPC [Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru, 'Dictionary of the Welsh Language']."

Such an unqualified, professional academic opinion of Lloyd-Jones changed everything!

As for how the error could have occurred, Dr. Rodway suggested the following scenario:

"It can’t be a case of miscopying a letter, but it could be eye-skip - when a copyist’s eye skips inadvertently to another nearby word resulting in an error.  In this case, he would have eye-skipped to the preceding line's 'kawell' to get the /k-/ fronting what should have been 'sawyl'.  Was not an uncommon error, so quite plausible.  Also, kawell and kawyl are unlikely to be the same word.  The poets avoided repeating words in consecutive lines. In cases where this does occur (v rare) it could be scribal error."

THE HOME OF SAWYL BENISEL: SAMLESBURY BY RIBCHESTER

Samlesbury Church on the River Ribble

For a nice history of Samlesbury, see

http://www.britishhistory.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol6/pp303-313.

My own extensive treatment of the place-name’s etymology is as follows:

Sawyl (Samuel) Benisel ("Low-head"), another son of Pabo,  is dated c. 480.  On the Ribble, not far south of “regio Dunutinga”, is a town called Samlesbury. The place-name expert Ekwall has Samlesbury as “Etymology obscure”, but then proposes OE sceamol, “bench”, as its first element, possibly in the topographical sense of “ledge”. Mills follows Ekwall by saying that this place-name is probably derived from scamol plus burh (dative byrig). However, sceamol/scamol is not found in other place-names where a “ledge” is being designated. Instead, the word scelf/scielf/scylfe, “shelf of level or gently sloping ground, ledge” is used.

The complete history of this place-name has been kindly supplied by Mr. Bruce Jackson, Lancashire County Archivist:

A D Mills:  'A Dictionary of English Place-Names'; Oxford University Press, 1991, page 284

'Samlesbury Lancs.  Samelesbure 1188.  Probably "stronghold near a shelf or ledge of land".  Old English scamol + burh (dative byrig).'

David Mills:  'The Place Names of Lancashire';  Batsford, 1976 (reprinted
1986), page 130

'? burh on a shelf of land (OE sceamol + -es (possessive) + burh, in the
form byrig (dative)
Samerisberia 1179 (Latin)
Samelesbure 1188
Samlesbiry 1246

The original settlement was probably around the church which stands by the R. Ribble, at the foot of the 168 foot ridge to which the first element may refer.  The derivation from OE sceamol, however, involves taking as base later forms of the name in 'sh-', such as Shamplesbiry 1246, which, though not uncommon, are far less frequent than forms in 's-'.  If the 's-' forms are original, the etymology is less certain.  There is much variation in the representation of the first element in early records - e.g. Sambisbury c.1300, Sammysburi 1524, Samsbury 1577.  There is today no village around the church; the main settlement moved to the south, to SAMLESBURY BOTTOMS, (Old English botm, 'valley bottom', here referring to the valley of the R. Darwen in which the hamlet stands), where a community grew up around the cotton mill which was built there c1784.'

Eilert Ekwall:  'The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names';
Oxford University Press, 1960, page 403

'Samlesbury La [Samerisberia 1179, Samelesbure 1188, -bur 1212,
Schamelesbiry 1246, Scamelsbyry 1277.  Etymology obscure.  If the name originally began in Sh-, the first element may be Old English sceamol 'bench' &c. in some topographical sense such as "ledge".'

Eilert Ekwall:  'The Place-Names of Lancashire'; Manchester University
Press, 1922, page 69

'Samlesbury (on the Ribble, E. of Preston):  Samerisberia 1179, Samelesbure
1188, 1194, Samelesbur', Samelisbur' 1212, Samelesbiri 1238.  Samelesbiry,
Samelesbiri, (de Samlebir, Samlesbiry, Samplesbiry) 1246, de Samelesburi
1252, Samlisbyri 1258, Samlesbury 1267, 1311 etc., Samlisbury, Sampnelbiry,
Sampnesbiry 1278, Samesbury 1276, 1278, Samlesbur' 1332, Samsbury 1577;
Shamplesbiry, de Schamelesbiry, -byr 1246, Scamelesbyry, Shampelesbyri,
Shapnesbyri 1277.

The old chapel of Samlesbury stands on the S. bank of the Ribble, with Samlesbury Lower Hall some way off on the river.  I take this to be the site of the original Samlesbury.  The etymology is much complicated by the variety of the early spellings.  The forms with S- are in the majority, but there are a good many with Sh-, and it is not easy to see why S- should have been replaced by Sh-, whereas S- for Sh- is easily explained by Norman influence.  If the original form had Sh-, I would compare the following names:  Shamele (hundred Kent) 1275; Shalmsford (Kent); Shamelesford 1285, Sahameleford 1275, perhaps Shamblehurst (Hants):  Samelherst, Scamelherst' 1176, Schameleshurste 1316.  All these may contain Old English sceamol "bench, stool," or some derivative of it.....The meaning of this word in topographical use is not clear, but very likely it may have been something like "ledge, shelf".....In this case the word might refer to a ledge on the bank of the Ribble.  In reality, Samlesbury Lower Hall stands on a slight ledge (c 50 ft above sea level), which stretches as far as the church.

If the spellings in Sh- are to be disregarded the etymology is much more difficult.  The first element is hardly the personal noun Samuel .  It it is a personal noun, as the early forms rather suggest, it may be a derivative of the stem Sam- found in German names.  This stem is not found in English names, but the related stem Som occurs in Old English Soemel and perhaps in the first element of Semington, Semley, Wilts.  Burh in this name, as in Salesbury, may mean "fortified house, fort" or "manor"...’

Henry Cecil Wyld and T Oakes Hirst:  'The Place Names of Lancashire';
Constable, 1911, page 226

'Samlesbury

1178-79     in Samesberia
1187-88     de Samelesbure
1189-94     Samlisburi
1227          Samlesbiri
1228          Samlesbyr
1246          Samelesbiri
1259          Samelebir

The first element is undoubtedly the Hebrew personal noun Samuel.  This does not appear to have been popular amongst the English in early times.....It is not recorded by Bjorkman [Erik Bjorkman:  'Nordische Personennamen in England'; Halle, 1910] as having been adopted by any Norseman in this country, but Rygh mentions a Norwegian place name Samuelrud ["Norske Gaardnavne Kristiana", 1897, volume ii, page 201].  In volume i the same writer records Samerud (pp 7 and 9), but says that this is possibly a Modern name.'

John Sephton:  'A Handbook of Lancashire Place-Names':  Henry Young, 1913, page 23

'A parish 4 miles east of Preston.  Early forms are Samerisberia,
Samelesbure.  First theme is the scriptural name Samuel .  Ancient Teutonic names are also found from the root Sama.....' .

I would suggest as a better etymology for Samlesbuy  “Sawyl’s fort”. There are, for example, Sawyl place-names in Wales (Llansawel, Pistyll Sawyl, now Ffynnon Sawyl).  Richard Coates, of the Department of Linguistics and English Language at The University of Sussex, says of Samlesbury as “Samuel’s Burg”:

“After a bit of extra research, it seems that all the spellings in <Sh-> and the like are from just 2 years in Lancashire assize roll entries (1246 and 1277). That makes them look more like the odd ones out and <S-> more like the norm. I'm coming round to preferring your interpretation, even though Ekwall in PN La (p. 69) simply rejects the idea it might come from "Samuel". Brittonic *_Sam(w)e:l_ (<m> here is vee with a tilde - nasalized [v]) is a good etymon for the majority of the forms, including the modern one, of course.”

Dr. Andrew Breeze of Pamplona, another noted expert on British place-names, agrees with Dr. Coates:

“I finally looked up _Samlesbury_ last night and feel sure you are right. The form surely contains the Cumbric equivalent of Welsh _Sawyl_<_Samuel_. Your explanation of this toponym in north Lancashire is thus new evidence for Celtic survival in Anglo-Saxon times.”

Bremetennacum Veteranorum, Ribchester Roman Fort

Bremetennacum

NEW EXCAVATIONS AT THE RIBCHESTER FORT

An excavation project within the Roman fort at Ribchester has only recently been undertaken by the archaeology department of the University of Central Lancaster:

http://www.uclan.ac.uk/news/ribchester-roman-dig-bbc.php

When I wrote to Dr. Duncan Sayer, one of the directors of the dig, and asked if they had yet found any evidence for sub-Roman use of Bremetennacum Veteranorum, he replied with this exciting news:

“Yes, I believe we have identified some evidence of sub-Roman occupation within the fort at Ribchester. Certainly the abandonment date of AD370 is no longer really tenable and at this early state in the project we are reasonably convinced they have structures and workshops that relate to a later-Roman and sub Roman phase of activity.”

PABO POST PRYDAIN AND HIS SONS (A MAP)

The above map shows the geographical relationship of Pabo Post Prydain (of the Papcastle Roman fort in Cumbria) and his "sons" Cerwyd(d), an eponym for the Carvetii tribe, Dunot of Dentdale and Sawyl of Samlesbury near the Ribchester Roman fort. Sawyl's son St. Asa belongs
at Llanasa just a little to the SW of Samlesbury in Flintshire:

The headwaters of the Rivers Dent and Ribble are literally right next to each other:

THE SETANTII TRIBE

Sawyl Benisel at Ribchester inhabited a region that was once controlled by a Romano-British tribe called the Setantii.  The Setantii tribal territory embraced the Ribble, Samlesbury and Ribchester's Roman fort.

From A.L.F Rivet & Colin Smith’s The Place-names of Roman Britain, p 456-457:

“SETANTII

DERIVATION. This ethnic name is mysterious; there seem to be no British roots visible, and very few analogues anywhere of names in Set-. It is tempting, in view of Ptolemy's variants which show Seg- (Seg-) both for the port-name and the river-name, to suspect some confusion with the Seg- of Segontium, a possibility that occurred to Rhys (1904) 315 with regard to the river, though eventually he seems.to wish to main tain Setantii as a proper form. The strongest argument for so doing is provided by Watson CPNS 25, who points out that the first name of the Irish hero Cuchulainn was Setanta (from an earlier *Setant(os) : 'the Setantii were an ancient British tribe near Liverpool. . . the inference is that Setanta means "a Setantian" and that Cuchulainn was of British origin'. But the relation between these two names has been questioned. There is a full exposition of the problem by Guyonvarc'h in Ogam, XIII, (1961), 587-98, with discussion of views of Mac Neill, Osborne, and others, including Brittonic-Goidelic transferences in both historical and phonetic aspects. The essence of the matter is that it is tempting to see in this name Irish sét ('path'; = British *sento-, for which see CLAUSENTUM), but *-ant- suffix (as in DECANTAE) is Brittonic only, for -nt- does not exist in Goidelic. The name might be based on a divine name *Setantios, not otherwise known, and he in turn might be related etymologically and by sense to the goddess Sentona, perhaps 'wayfarer' (see further TRISANTONA). Clearly there is an additional problem in reconciling the a/e vowels in these forms (Trisantona, Gaulish Santones) if they are indeed connected. There, for the présent, the matter rests; but it is as well to reiterate that one cannot base too much speculation on forms recorded by Ptolemy alone, particularly when, in numbers, the MSS of his work record attractive variants.

IDENTIFICATION. Presumably a minor tribe, but since they appear only as part of a 'descriptive' name in the coastal list (next entry) and not in their own right in the full list of tribes, they probably formed part of the Brigantian confederacy. If the river name seteia is directly connected with them, they should have stretched along the Lancashire coast from the Mersey to Fleetwood.”

UTHER PENDRAGON AT RIBCHESTER WITH THE SARMATIANS?

Could my problem with Illtud/Uther Pendragon as Arthur's father have to do with the fact that I have the wrong Samuel/Sawyl?

Those reading my past posts will recall that an acceptable corrected reading of a line in the early Welsh poem THE DEATH-SONG OF UTHER [PEN]DRAGON refers to the chieftain as a 'second Sawyl.'  I related this to Geoffrey of Monmouth's story, where Illtud refers to himself thus.  While not my best proof for Uther being Illtud, it does lend extra weight to the argument as a whole.

It has only recently occurred to me that I might be missing something here. Once upon a time I had tentatively proposed that Sawyl Benisel of Ribchester might be Uther. Ribchester was the Roman fort where the Sarmatian veterans were settled.  We all know now quite well that the Sarmatians often carried a dragon standard into battle.  Furthermore, both Sawyl and Uther had sons named Madog (or Madoc/Matoc/Madawg).  Madog son of Uther's son was named Eli[g]wlad, and I sought to account for this name as a Welsh form of Irish Ailithir, the latter being an epithet given to Madog son of Sawyl.  Lastly, Sawyl Benisel had an Irish princess as his wife, so the needed Irish connection for Arthur was maintained.

The idea was original, but failed to generate much interest.  

What I want to do in this post is to put forward two possible scenarios.  In the first, Uther Pendragon was originally a poetic title for Sawyl Benisel of Ribchester.  But at some point the title was wrongly associated with the Latin terribilis miles (and other military titles) of St. Illtud. OR... Sawyl was used poetically for Uther/Illtud and, as a result, Arthur as a son of Sawyl Benisel was mistakenly transferred to Illtud.

Here is the entry on Sawyl Benisel from P.C. Bartram's A CLASSICAL WELSH DICTIONARY:

SAWYL BENISEL ap PABO POST PRYDYN. (480)

‘S. Low-head or Humble’. He is mentioned in the ‘Harleian’ genealogies as son of Pabo Post

Prydyn and father of Guitcun (§19 in EWGT p.12). Most later sources change his cognomen to

Benuchel, ‘High-head or Proud’, namely ByS 13, AchS 12, BGG 4 in EWGT pp.56, 69, 73. He was

father of St.Asa by Gwenasedd ferch Rhain of Rhieinwg (ByS 13).

He is evidently the same as Samuel Chendisil the father of Matóc Ailithir and Sanctan by

Deichter daughter of Muredach Muinderg, king of Ulster (MIS §1 in EWGT p.32).

A daughter was the wife of Maelgwn Gwynedd (q.v).

Are either of these ideas at all credible/viable?  Or do they merely represent a last ditch, rather desperate effort to retain Uther Pendragon as Arthur's father?  

I will leave both of those questions for my readers to ponder.

IMPORTANT RELATED LINKS:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2017/11/pabo-post-prydain-and-his-sons-map.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-sarmatian-dragon-rearing-his.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2017/11/a-workable-etymology-for-eliwlad.html

https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/583 [Evidence of Maponus at Ribchester;
cf. Uther Pendragon's "servant" Mabon]

An Early Piece on Arthur and Stanwix from Robert Vermaat's "Faces of Arthur" Website

http://www.facesofarthur.org.uk/articles/guestdan16.htm

King Arthur in the North:

The archaeological evidence and Etterby as Arthur's Burg.

August Hunt

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR ARTHUR’S RULE IN NORTH BRITAIN

When I wrote my various articles on Arthur and the follow-up book _Shadows in the Mist: The Life and Death of King Arthur_ (Hayloft Publishing), I did not have access to some critical information regarding the sub-Roman (i.e. 5th-6th century A.D.) re-use of Hadrian’s Wall, as well as forts along the Wall and in the adjacent tribal territory of the ancient Brigantian kingdom. 

My first step in absorbing this new information came with a brief investigation into the possible significance of Etterby hard by Stanwix as ‘Arthur’s fort’.  During the course of research into Etterby as a reputed Arthurian center, I learned of apparent sub-Roman timber structures at Stanwix.  According to the theory I present in my articles and book, Stanwix (and/or Carlisle) was the chief Arthurian power center in the 5th-6th centuries.

For those not familiar with my work, I have placed Arthur at Stanwix (and/or Carlisle), with his Avalon being Aballava/Avalana or Burgh-By-Sands just a little to the west, and his Camlann being Camboglanna or Castlesteads just to the east.  A second Arthurian center at Corbridge, near where I placed Arthur’s Dubglas battles (= the Devil’s Water at Linnels), was selected as the original ‘Camelot’ (from Campus Alletio, Alletios being the name of a deity attested at the Corbridge fort).  My battle site identifications (taken from the list in Nennius and supplemented by the Welsh Annals) shows a range of conflict extending from Buxton in the south to the Avon and Carron rivers in the far north, with the majority of the contests against the Saxons ( ? ) being fought along the Roman Dere Street from York to the Firth of Forth.  These identifications were made solely on linguistic grounds, but ended up revealing a quite plausible strategic and geographical scenario for Arthur’s activities.  I encourage anyone who might be interested in the hypothetical military pattern I’ve outlined to consult my articles or book and plot the said battles on a map. 

Robert Collins of the Museum of Antiquities at the University of Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne, was kind enough to provide the following regarding Stanwix and its sub-Roman timber structures:

“Stanwix is a tricky one, to be honest.  Most of the excavations there have been unpublished, so when a few of us talk about the timber buildings that may be more examples of the timber hall structures (like those from Birdoswald), we are generally relying on word-of-mouth and the brief accounts provided in a few meager sources."

The references for Stanwix (which will be referred to as both Uxellodunum and Petriana) are:

Mike McCarthy 2002. Roman Carlisle and the Lands of the Solway. published by Tempus

The Stanwix section in Paul Bidwell's (ed.) Hadrian's Wall 1989-1999. published by Titus Wilson and Son

Simpson and Hogg 1935 "Stanwix" in Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Soceity, 2nd series, vol 35, pp 256-258

Simpson and Richmond 1940 "Hadrian's Wall: Stanwix" in Journal of Roman Studies, vol 31, pp 129-130

Britannia section of "Excavations in Roman Britain in ..." for 1994, 1998, 1999, and 2000

David Breeze 2006. The 14th Edition of J Collingwood Bruce's Handbook to the Roman Wall, published by the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle on Tyne.

The timber features are fairly recent discoveries, so I would recommend the summaries of annual excavations found in the back of the journal Britiannia; the Mike McCarthy book of 2002; and a brief mention in David Breeze's 2006 book. 

 There is always a hope that the Stanwix excavations that revealed the late Roman/sub-Roman timber structures will be published, but it may still be some years yet and I wouldn't hold your breath.  In the meantime, you may be interested to know that the Carlisle Millenium Project excavation report will be available in a few months time (the Carlisle fort being just a stones throw across the river from Stanwix), and they also found very late timber structures there.”

Tim Padley of the Tullie House Museum, Carlisle, summed up the evidence for 5th-6th century timber structures at Stanwix in similar terms:

“There is a suggestion of Stanwix fort – Uxellodunum– continuing into the post-Roman period.  Nothing has been published about this other than a mention of timber buildings in the Hadrian’s Wall Pilgrimage Handbook for 1999.  Thus, if there is a connection with Arthur, then it should be attached to Stanwix, rather than to Etterby/’Arthur’s fort’ next to Stanwix.”

While brief mention of the timber structures at Stanwix can be found in some of the publications cited by Robert Collins (and in such sources as Durham University Archaeological Services’ PDF on ‘Stanwix’, English Heritage’s Investigation History of the same site, etc.), the most valuable contribution to a general discussion of re-use of this fort and others along the Wall, as well as several forts in the Brigantian kingdom, is to be found in two papers by Ken Dark of the University of Reading.

In “A Sub-Roman Re-defense of Hadrian’s Wall?” (Britannia, XXIII, 111-20), Dr. Dark begins by saying that:

“… eight fourth-century fort sites on, or close to, the line of Hadrian’s Wall have produced, albeit sometimes slight, evidence of fifth-sixth-century use.  Nor is this simply a reflection of a pattern found father north; for no Roman fort site in what is now Scotlandhas any plausible evidence of immediately post-Roman use.  Thus the situation to the north of the Wall is similar to that found in Wales.

What is more surprising still is the character of the reuse found on the line of the Wall.  Two sites, Housesteads and Corbridge, have evidence not only of internal occupation, but of re-fortification; at Birdoswald there are the well-known ‘halls’, while at Chesterholm a Class-I inscribed stone of the late fifth or early sixth century come from the immediate vicinity of the fort.  At South Shields there is also evidence of re-fortification, and there is an external inhumation cemetery.  Another Class-I stone was identified by C.A.R. Radford at Castlesteads [I have rendered the inscription of this stone in my book].  At Binchester immediately to the south of the Wall, and at Carvoran, Benwell ,and Housesteads on its line, there are early Anglo-Saxon burials or finds, while at Chesters and Chesterholm (perhaps sixth century) Anglo-Saxon annular brooches come from within the forts, although these may be somewhat later in date than the other material so far mentioned.

At the western terminal of the Wall, a town-site, Carlisle, though not necessarily primarily military in the Late Roman period, has also produced substantial evidence of sub-Roman occupation, with continued use of Roman-period buildings into the fifth, if not sixth, century.  Many scholars accept that Carlisle was part of the late fourth-century Wall-system, perhaps even its headquarters, and at Corbridge, the other town-site intimately connected with the Wall, fifth-and sixth century material has also been found, including, perhaps, evidence of continuing British and Anglo-Saxon use.  In the North as a whole, fifth- or sixth-century evidence from what had been Late Roman towns is not common.  York, Aldborough, Malton, and Catterick are our only other examples.  Two of these sites (York and Malton) were part of the same Late Roman military command as Hadrian’s Wall: that of the Dux Britanniarum.

It is interesting that, of the sites at Manchester and Ribchester– between the Mersey and Carlisle the only fort-sites known to have possible fifth- or sixth-century evidence – Ribchester was not only part of the command of the Dux Britanniarum, but also listed as per lineum ualli in the Notitia Dignitatum.  It is, therefore, remarkable that out of the twelve fourth-century Roman military sites in northern and western Britain to have produced convincingly datable structural, artefactual, or stratigraphic evidence of fifth- or sixth-century occupation, eleven were, almost certainly, part of the Late Roman military command.  Eight of these were probably within the same part of that command, and eight comprise a linear group (the only regional group) which stretches along the whole line of Hadrian’s Wallfrom east to west.  The two more substantial late fourth-century settlements adjacent to the Wall – Carlisle and Corbridge– have also produced fifth- and sixth-century evidence and two of the other towns with such evidence were also late fourth-century strategic centers under the military command of the Dux.”

After setting forth these facts, and discussing them, Dr. Dark offers a rather revolutionary idea:

“Although it is difficult, therefore, to ascertain whether the military project which I have described was the work of an alliance or a north British kingdom or over-kingdom, there does seem to be reason to suppose that it may have represented a post-Roman form of the command of the Dux Britanniarum…

This archaeological pattern, however it is interpreted, is of the greatest interest not only to the study of the fifth- and sixth-century north of Britain, but to that of the end of Roman Britain and the end of the Western Roman Empire as a whole.  It may provide evidence for the latest functioning military command of Roman derivation in the West, outside the areas of Eastern Imperial control, and could be testimony to the largest Insular Celtic kingdom known to us.”

In his and S. P. Dark’s paper “New Archaeological and Palynological Evidence for Sub-Roman Reoccupation of Hadrian’s Wall” (Archaeologia Aeliana 5, XXIV), Dr. Dark elegantly rebutts P.J. Casey’s argument for a re-interpretation of the reuse and re-fortification of the Wall and its associated forts.  His conclusion for this paper reads as follows:

“If one adopts the interpretation that the Wall forts were reused in the later fifth-early sixth century for a series of sub-Roman secular elite settlements, then the associated problems involved in explaining this new evidence of occupation at that time disappear…

So, the interpretation that the Wall became a series of secular elite settlements, discontinuous from the Late Roman activity at the forts within which they were sited, is compatible with the evidence of pollen analysis, while the alternative interpretations are both rendered unlikely by it.  This does not, of course, make the suggestion that this reoccupation represents the sub-Roman reconstruction of the Command of the Dux Britanniarum any more likely, but the pattern on which that interpretation is based has been strengthened, rather than weakened, by the new archaeological data, whilst the evidence also hints at a similar reoccupation with regard to the signal stations of the Yorkshire coast and their headquarters at Malton.

Perhaps, then, at last one is able to see answers to many of the most pressing questions regarding what happened in north Britain, and more specifically on Hadrian’s Wall, in the fifth and sixth centuries…

The answer to all of these questions may lie in the rise and fall of a reconstructed Late Roman military command, unique in Britain, which was organized in a sub-Roman fashion reliant upon the loyal warbands of warrior aristocrats (and Anglo-Saxon mercenaries) rather than paid regular soldiers. The organizing authority of this system, probably a king of the sub-Roman Brigantes, assigned a politico-military role to the defended homesteads of these elites, and (as in the location of churches at disused forts, through land-grants?) positioned these at what had been Roman fort sites, but which were (at least substantially) deserted by the time when they were reused in this way.  Thus, the ‘Late Roman’ Wall communities dispersed during the first half of the fifth century, but the Wall – and perhaps the north generally – was redefended in the later fifth and early-mid sixth century on very different lines, yet not completely without regard for the Late Roman past.”

I would add only that it is my belief this “king” of the sub-Roman Brigantes whom Dr. Dark proposes was none other than the dux bellorum Arthur.

ETTERBY AS ARTHUR'S BURG

Etterby, in the parish of Stanwix, was called Arthur’s burg, according to Joseph Nicolson and Richard Burn’s _History and Antiquities of the County of Westmorland and Cumberland, Vol. 2, 1977, p. 454 (information courtesy Stephen White of the Carlisle Library):

“Etterby in old writings is called Arthuriburgum, which seems to imply that it had been a considerable village. Some affirm, that it took its name from Arthur king of the Britons, who was in this country about the year 550 pursuing his victories over the Danes and Norwegians. But there are no remains of antiquity at or near this place to justify such a conjecture.”

This passage was discussed by Joseph Ritson in his _The Life of King Arthur: From Ancient Historians to Authentic Documents_, 1825:

“Etterby [a township, in the parish of Stanwix, in Eskdale-ward, Cumberland], in old writings is called Arthuri burgum [Arthurs-borough], which seems to imply that it had been a considerable village. Some affirm, its name from Arthur, king of the Britons, who was in this country, about the year 550, pursuing his victories over the Danes and Norwegians [r. the Saxons, the ‘Danes and Norwegians’ did not arrive in Britain for three centuries after the death of Arthur]”.

Later on, the various Bulmer directories of the 19th century mention this same tradition of Etterby as Arthur’s Fort. I suspect that the tradition is in error only in so much as it identifies Etterby as Arthur’s Fort, which in reality that designation should be applied to the neighboring Roman period milliary cavalry fort of Stanwix.

Nicolson and Burn may have been correct in their assessment of Etterby as wholly lacking ‘remains of antiquity’: according to Humphrey Welfare, Planning and Development Director, North, English Heritage, “the evidence from excavation has been too slender to confirm a tentative suggestion” as to what kind of Roman camp – if any - may once have existed at Etterby. Durham University’s Project Manager of Archaeological Services, Richard Annis, confirms this, saying that “While it has been suggested that there might be a Roman camp at Etterby, no evidence for this has been found.”

Tim Padley, Keeper of Archaeology, Tullie House Museum and Art Gallery, Carlisle, informs me that:

“The English Placename Society Place-names of Cumberland Volume 1, page 43, states that Etterby is first seen in 1246 as Etardeby or Etard's land. The name is French of Germanic origin. Etterby Scaur is Etterby Scar in 1794 and refers to the river cliff or scar at Etterby. There is a suggestion of Stanwix Fort - Uxellodunum - continuing into the post-Roman period…Thus, if there is a connection with 'Arthur' then it should be attached to Stanwix, rather than to Etterby."

Robert Collins of the Newcastle Upon Tyne Museum of Antiquities states:

“The timber features [at Stanwix] are fairly recent discoveries… Most of the excavations there have been unpublished, so when a few of us talk about the timber buildings these may be more examples of timber hall-like structures (such as those from Birdoswald)… There is always a hope that the Stanwix excavations that revealed the late Roman/sub-Roman timber structures will be published, but in the meantime you may be interested to know that the Carlisle Millenium Project excavation report will be available in a few months time (the Carlisle fort being just a stone’s throw across the river from Stanwix), and they also found very late timber structures there.”

In Book IV, Chapters 20-23 of Sir Thomas Malory’s _Morte D’Arthur_, we are told of a Lady Ettard, who is involved in a tragic love triangle with Pelleas and Nimue, Lady of the Lake. As the “lake” of the Lady of the Lake was originally the marsh that surrounded the Avalon Roman fort at Burgh-By-Sands under a half-dozen miles west of Etterby, it is tempting to associate this very same Lady Ettard with Etterby or ‘Etardeby’ (1246). According to Ekwall, Etard is a French name of German origin (OHG Eidhart). 

In passing, I would mention one other site associated with King Arthur: the drained lake of Tarn Wadling at Hesket between Penrith (near which is the King Arthur’s Round Table henge) and Carlisle. There was once a fort on the edge of this lake called Castelewyne (c. 1272), Castle Hewin (c. 1794), doubtless from a Cumbric Castle ‘Ewain”, i.e. Owain. Excavated in 1978-9, this fort was discovered to be of Romano-British date. According to tradition, Castle Ewain was the headquarters of one Eugenius Caesarius, a king of Cumbria who expelled the Angles and Saxons and re-established British rule. While the title ‘Caeser’ here would suggest a confusion with Owain Finddu son of Macsen Wledig (the usurping emperor Maximus the Tyrant), in all likelihood this is an oblique reference to Owain son of Urien Rheged. The confusion may have come about because Arthur’s battle with a giant at Tarn Wadling in a 15th century ballad at Castle Owain may have reminded someone of the Welsh story of Owain Finddu’s battle against a giant between the fort of Dinas Emrys and Llyn Dinas (“Lake of the Fort”) in Gwynedd, Wales.

Etterby as Arthur's Burg is Copyright © 2008, August Hunt. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

Writing Started on A SCATTERING OF SONG

https://www.facebook.com/darkavalonbooks/

FINALLY starting on 'A Scattering of Song.' I had to make sure which Arthur I was going to go with, so have thoroughly re-explored both my Northern and Southern Arthur candidates. As my Northern candidate brings Arthur's son directly into connection with Myrddin, this theory won out. At least in so far as a fictional representation goes!

ARTHUR PENUCHEL, SON OF ELIFFER OF YORK

Uxellodunum/Stanwix Roman Fort

Years ago, I looked at the Arthur Penuchel of a corrupt version of one of the Welsh Triads.  While it is easy to dispense with such a personage - precisely because his name and title do seem to be corruptions of the original - what I found to be of profound interest was that in this particular corruption the Arthur in question was made a son of Eliffer/Eleutherius of York.

Why of profound interest?  Because the only Roman period Artorius we know of was the camp prefect of York.  This is the well-known Lucius Artorius Castus, whom Dr. Linda Malcor has made much of.  While Dr. Malcor and I disagree quite strongly on LAC, as he is called, in so far as I believe he merely supplied his name to the North Britons and she subscribes to the notion (strictly from the standpoint of her expertise in the field of folklore) that much of the Arthurian legend should be traced to LAC and not to a 6th century personage), I cannot shake the feeling that Arthur must somehow belong to the North.

At one point, I had dared suggest that the reference to Arthur Penuchel was not, in fact, actually a corruption, but instead a correction of the original text. Not even a substitution, but an acknowledgement of the fact that there was a Northern Arthur of the 6th century who was somehow connected to the royal sub-Roman house of York.

My reasoning was pretty simple, even if it was based on a paucity of data.  Any legitimate Arthur candidate should have some stated association with York.  Otherwise, we were forced to try and explain why the rare name Artorius would have been given to a man who had no connection, no matter how distant, with LAC.  I could not at the time - and still cannot - adequately apply the name Arthur to someone in the south or extreme west.  Someone had to have family descent or presumed or desired family descent from LAC in order to bear the name.  This much was plain to me.  When I'm honest with myself, I still cannot account for an Artorius in the South.  I can imagine a sub-Roman Artorius in the North - but only with some caveats.

Before I go further, I'm pasting here all of Rachel Bromwich's relevant passages on Arthur Penuchel. This should be read carefully, and considered as authoritative.  Following her analysis of the corruption problem, I will delve more deeply in the genealogies of the Men of the North and try to come to some conclusion that might further our search for a legitimate Northern Arthur candidate.  Also provided here are some entries from P.C. Bartram's A CLASSICAL WELSH DICTIONARY.

ARDDUN BENASGELL ferch PABO POST PRYDYN. (480)

 She is mentioned in Bonedd y Saint as the wife of Brochwel Ysgithrog and mother of St.Tysilio (§33 in EWGT p.59). The cognomen, Penasgell, ‘wing-headed’, occurs only in a minority of manuscripts. Compare Ceindrech ferch Eliffer Gosgorddfawr. It is said that Dolarddun, a former township in the parish of Castell Caereinion (WATU) was named after her. (MA2 417, LBS I.168).

CEINDRECH BENASGELL ferch ELIFFER GOSGORDDFAWR. (530)

She and her two brothers, Gwrgi and Peredur, constituted one of the 'Three Fair Womb Burdens’

of Ynys Prydain according to a triad (TYP no.70, Pen.50 version). The Pen.45 version

substitutes Arddun. Compare Arddun Benasgell.

PABO POST PRYDYN. (450) [of Papcastle/Deventio Roman fort in Cumbria; note that an attempt was made to connect him to Arthwys as well]

‘P. Pillar of Pictland’. He seems to have been a famous hero of North Britain though little is

now recorded of him, and he is mentioned chiefly as the father of Dunod Fwr, Sawyl Benisel, Cerwydd and Arddun Benasgell, the wife of Brochwel Ysgithrog. See the names. The earliest genealogical sources make him son of Ceneu ap Coel Hen (HG 11, 19, JC 38 in EWGT pp.11, 12, 48). However ‘Bonedd Gwŷr y Gogledd’ makes him son of Arthwys ap Mar ap Ceneu ap Coel (§4 in EWGT p.73). This longer version was copied in late versions of the ‘Hanesyn Hen’ tract (ByA §12 in EWGT p.88). There is little doubt that the earlier version is more correct, being chronologically more satisfactory. Compare Pabo, St.

I wish to now present what might be termed the "genealogical evidence" for Arthur Penuchel - although, I should hasten to add that the scholarly consensus regarding the early Welsh genealogies is that they are probably manufactured and thus utterly unreliable.  Yet in some cases they may preserve accurate historical traditions.  Whether these traditions are themselves of true historical value is debatable.

The following snippets from family trees (see P.C. Bartram for confirmation of details) are arranged vertically.  I have elsewhere proven that 'Mar' is a known variant of 'Mor', and so when we encounter Mar in the genealogies we know this is, in fact, Fergus Mor, the founder of Irish Dalriada in Scotland.

Gwrwst Ledlum (Fergus Mor)                Mar (=Mor, Fergus)                Mar (=Mor, Fergus)

                 Eliffer                                               Arthwys                                   Arthwys

          Arthur Penuchel                                       Ceidio                                       Eliffer

                                                                                                                    Arthur Penuchel

It will be noticed immediately that one ancestry trace makes Arthur Penuchel of the same generation as Ceidio.  In my book THE ARTHUR OF HISTORY (only now posted here to this blog site in its entirety), I made my case for Ceidio being Arthur, as his name is a shortened form of what would almost certainly translate into the 'dux erat bellorum' of Nennius's HISTORIA BRITTONUM [1].  An Arthur Penuchel son of Eliffer son of Arthwys places Arthur a generation too late to make the chronology work. Ceidio is fascinating in another respect, as he is father to Gwenddolau ('white dales', probably a place-name recorded at Carwinley).  Gwenddolau is the lord of Myrddin/Merlin.

Arthwys is 'man of the Arth', an eponym similar to Glywys ('man of Glevensis', i.e. of Glevum/Gloucester).  I had made a case for this place being the valley of the Irthing, where we find Banna and Camboglanna.  However, Dr. Andrew Breeze's etymology for Irthing derives it from a Cumbric word meaning 'little bear.'  This involves i-affection, as a diminutive suffix -yn (Old Welsh -inn) allows arth- to become erth-.  It is hard to hold to the idea that the man of the Arth/Bear had left his name in a river called the Little Bear.

Instead, I now propose a somewhat different etymology for the Irthing.  Could this not, I asked Brythonic place-name expert Alan James, be simply an Arth river to which English -ing (often added to river-names; see Ekwall) has been added?  His response:

"As far as English is concerned, note that a rather similar sound-change, generally called i-mutation or (as in German) umlaut, would have made *arthing > *ærthing, which would normally have reverted to *arthing in ME, but I think could possibly emerge as *erthing."

If this happened, then we could have had an original arth at the Irthing, rather than erthinn/erthyn.  Arthwys would belong to the valley of the Irthing.[2]

Arthwys, of course, can simply be a territorial designation.  He need not be a real man.  A son of his - or merely a chieftain originating from the valley of the Arth River - might well take on a name that was believed to contain an arth- element.  One like Arthur/Artorius, for example.  I've several times pointed out that noted Celticist Stefan Zimmer has provided an excellent treatment of Artorius was itself deriving from an ancient Celtic 'Bear-king' name.  Given the connection York had with Hadrian's Wall (the former was the headquarters of the governor of Northern Britain, and there was a unique relationship between York and Stanwix/Uxellodunum [3] at the west end of the Wall), it would not be surprising for the name of a famous camp prefect at York, passed along through generations of Britons who like to claim descent from the Romans, to be given to a man born on the Wall at the Bear River.  

In THE ARTHUR OF HISTORY, I suggested that Arthur's base of operations might have been Stanwix, the site of the largest Roman cavalry unit in all of Britain.  This was based on a number of factors.  First, a tradition that the place was called 'Arthur's burg.'  Second, I had wondered if there could be a connection between the Uxellodunum name and Arthur's Penuchel title (as Welsh uchel derives from British Uxello-).  Finally, the Petriana unit of the fort reminded me of the Dyfed Arthur, whose father was one Petrus.  Admittedly, these could all simply be coincidental resemblances.  Yet if Arthur really was as famous as he is made out to be in later tradition, there would be no better place for him to have ruled from that a location which in the Roman period, at least, was the headquarters of the Wall.  Uxellodunum was also pretty much exactly between Camboglanna and Aballava (Avalan/"Avalon"), with the Carwinley of Gwenddolau son of Ceidio just a little to the north.  Finally, there is the known strong link between York of the Roman governor and Stanwix - and it is from York that the name Arthur seems to have come.

I don't really have anything to add to this outline of a possible Northern Arthur.  It is at least as good as declaring Cerdic of Wessex/Ceredig son of Cunedda to be a Southern Arthur.

[1] “Ceidiaw is a 'pet' form of a name in *katu- 'battle' with the common hypocoristic ending -iaw (> Mod. Welsh -(i)o) found in Teilo (Old Welsh Teliau) etc., and still productive today (Jaco, Ianto etc.). And yes, it's not possible to say what the second element would have been. But the forms you suggest [Cadwaladr, (“Catu-walatros) ‘Battle-leader’, Caderyn (Catu-tigernos), ‘Battle-lord’, Cadfael (Catu-maglos), ‘Battle-prince’, Caturix (a Gaulish god), ‘Battle-king’] are among the candidates, especially as this man was a chieftain of Y Gogledd [the North] at the head of some of the royal genealogies. ” - Dr. Simon Rodway, The University of Wales

[2] The River Irt in Cumbria could have a "bear" etymology as well.  According to Alan James: "...a minority of early records do have Ert(h)(e), but I don't think a plural eirth, 'bears', is likely in a river-name. A fossilised genitive - *avon eirth - might be more plausible, though this would require rather special pleading."  Note there are other proposed etymologies for the Irt.  None are very satisfactory.  Once again from James:

"Ekwall (ERN 211) points out that irt happens to be a Middle Irish word for 'death'. I hadn't noticed that before, it would presumably be related to Welsh aer < eCelt *agrā < IE *Haeĝ-reHa-, probably present in the r-n Aeron Ceredigion < *Agronā (but not, in spite of never-ending speculation about Aeron in CA, Ayr) Watson CPNS 97 derives Hiort/ Hirta (St Kilda) from irt, though I - and others - would reserve judgement. It's an interesting idea, there's some evidence of Gaelic influence (presumably 10th - 11th ct, maybe - following David Parsons' recent argument - Gall Ghaidheil) in this part of Cumbria. But I'm dubious as to the idea of Gaelic speakers at that date giving such a name.

Watson, discussing Hirta, refers to the opinions of some (unspecified) antiquaries who associated it with the ‘isles of the blessed’ etc., and it would be possible to weave some Celtic-mythological notions around such a name for a river. But I tend to steer clear of such notions (and Watson thought St Kilda was more of a hell on earth!).

PNCmb 18 (followed by Watts CamDEPN) misrepresents Ekwall as giving Welsh ir 'fresh, green' as the origin, though actually he doubts that as the second vowel never occurs in records for Irt or Irthing. All the same, it can't be ruled out,  the suffix -et is reasonably common.

I think *ir-et ‘fresh, green’ or even Gaelic irt ‘death’ (though a bit far-fetched) are possible, but wouldn’t rule out *(avon) eirth."

Irthing and Irt Rivers in Cumbria with Roman Roads

[3] I have this information on the significance of Uxellodunum via a personal communication from Professor Anthony Birley:

Dear Mr Hunt,

That the praef. alae Petrianae at Stanwix was the "senior officer" of the Wall garrison is simply a statement of fact: he was the only prefect of an ala milliaria in the entire province and thus was in the quarta militia, the elite highest grade for equestrian officers, probably only created in the early 2nd century. For the regiment see e.g. M.G. Jarrett in the journal Britannia for 1994. Whether this officer ex officio "controlled" the Wall is another matter; but he no doubt at least had the authority to give orders in an emergency without having to wait for authorization from the legionary legate at York (from Caracalla = at the same time the governor of Britannia Inferior) or the consular governor of undivided Britain further south.

The place-name: this is a conjecture by Mark W.C. Hassall, in Aspects of the Notitia (1976), 112f., edd. R. Goodburn and P. Bartholomew, who convincingly restores [Banna] after tribunus cohortis primae Aeliae Dacorum in line 44 in the Duke's list and inserts [tribunus cohortis secundae Tungrorum] before [C]amboglanna, making Banna the name of Birdoswald and Camboglanna that of Castlesteads; and replacing Petrianis after alae Petrianae in line 45 with Uxel(l)oduno, and Axeloduno in line 49 with Mais. This is now generally accepted, see e.g. A.L.F. Rivet & C. Smith, The Place-Names of Roman Britain (179) 220f. Cf. also in Britannia for 2004 on the Staffordshire pan, with another list of place-names from the western sector of the Wall.

Best wishes,

Anthony Birley

I discuss the archaeological evidence for sub-Roman continuation at Stanwix in my book THE ARTHUR OF HISTORY.