Arthur in the North
I'm posting my map of Arthurian sites in the North, as well as a link to my treatment of the battle sites, because I feel it is incredibly important to be able to visualize all of this. Until we do, we can't really get a good fix on Arthur - on who he was, what he did and where he belonged.
I've spent (wasted?) a great deal of time chasing the dragon's tail, i.e. trying to identify Arthur's supposed father, Uther. The quest has not been productive, as least as far as I'm concerned. He can be situated in a number of places and identified with several different chieftains (if we choose to interpret his 'name' as a title). It remains a very distinct possibility that he is either a fictional character (created because Arthur's real father was unknown) or was someone who originally had nothing whatsoever to do with our hero. When I'm perfectly honest with myself, I must admit that I simply do not know the answer to the Uther riddle.
Instead of worrying more about Arthur's father, let us consider two things: why our hero was given the name Arthur to begin with and where, based upon the distribution of his battles, might he have had his headquarters. To this I would add my discussion of Dr. Ken Dark's theory on a Dark Age dux-like leader in the North, as drawn from my book THE ARTHUR OF HISTORY. [1] I had followed that up with a more recent summary analysis by the same expert:
On the first point, it is obvious that the name Arthur had to be passed down in the North among the British nobility in the sub-Roman period. Given the notable fame of the Roman period Lucius Artorius Castus, something that will be made manifest upon the near-future publication of a new reading of the LAC memorial stone by Dr. Linda Malcor and colleagues, there is simply no reason to look for a personage bearing this name anywhere else. I can find absolutely no justification for continuing to search for an Arthur of the 6th century in the South.
Arthur's death at Camlann or Camboglanna on Hadrian's Wall is of paramount importance. As is the proximity to that fort of the Aballava/Avalana fort. This last must be the Avalon of Arthur. In a past blog post, I pointed out that Geoffrey of Monmouth's Avalon would appear to be Guerdevalan/Gerdavalan, modern Worthyvale, on the River Camel in Cornwall:
Once again, however, this appears to be merely a relocation of an Arthurian site to the South. The Camel cannot be Camlann; it derives from Cambula, Camble, i.e. Cambull, 'crooked stream' (see Ekwall).
So if Arthur were interred at Aballava's Burgh Marsh of Dea Latis (the Lake Goddess?), he must have been from someplace nearby. If he were instead from, say, York, the Roman period headquarters of Lucius Artorius Castus, and his body had been recovered from Camlann, we would expect for him to have been conveyed home and buried there.
We would have to say the same if he were from Ribchester, which is another candidate I once considered as his home base.
The only remaining possibility for Arthur's power center is the Irthing Valley, which contained not only Camboglanna, but also Banna, where we find a Dark Age hall and the birthplace of St. Patrick. I have made my case before regarding the Arthwys who stands at the head of some of the genealogies of the Men of the North. The name is, indisputably, 'man of the Arth [River]'. Place-name expert Dr. Andrew Breeze has interpreted the Irthing as a diminutive of Cumbric arth, 'bear', while Brythonic place-name expert Alan James has confirmed that this could be an arth/'bear' name with an English river suffix. As British Arthur was routinely associated with the word for 'bear', we might expect for Artorius to have been chosen as the name of a son by a chieftain in the Irthing Valley. We need not even propose that Artorius was a decknamen for an earlier British name or title meaning 'Bear-king.' As Lucius Artorius Castus certainly operated along the Wall, and his name in British became Arthur, that would have been sufficient cause for using Artorius in the Irthing region.
As for Uther Pendragon, well, the garrison of the Banna fort was composed of Dacian troops. We also have a record of Thracians being present, at least for a short period. Both peoples are known for their draco standard. In the late Roman Empire, there was a rank known as the magister draconum, and this perfectly fits with the Pendragon epithet of Uther. Other than Ribchester of the Sarmatian veterans, no other fort in the region could claim to house a military unit to whom the draco was of special cultural significance. So if we must retain Uther, who is associated by the ever untrustworthy Geoffrey of Monmouth with the draco standard, then there is no better place to put him than the Banna Roman fort on Hadrian's Wall.
In my book THE ARTHUR OF HISTORY, I said this about Ceidio son of Arthwys, the 'Man of the Arth':
"This description applied to Arthur in the HB seems to have led to him being referred to in subsequent sources as simply a miles or ‘soldier.’ The idea has often been floated that this means Arthur was not a king and, in fact, may not even have been of royal blood. Truth is, Arthur may not have been king – if he predeceased his father, for instance. We do not have to resort to the 2nd-3rd century Roman soldier Lucius Artorius Castus to account for the 5th-6th century chieftain being considered only a ‘leader of battles.’
But if not a title, could this Latin phrase have designated a secondary, purely British name belonging to Arthur?
Myself and others have pointed out that attested early names such as Cadwaladr, (“Catu-walatros) ‘Battle-leader’, Caderyn (Catu-tigernos), ‘Battle-lord’, Cadfael (Catu-maglos), ‘Battle-prince’, Caturix (a Gaulish god), ‘Battle-king’, could have yielded a description such as ‘dux erat bellorum’. No names of this nature appear to have been known in the North (where I’ve shown Arthur to belong) during the Arthurian period.
However, it has recently occurred to me that my tentative genealogical trace of Arthur to Arthwys, the latter being a name or a regional designation of the valley of the River Irthing on the western part of Hadrian’s Wall, may hold the clue to unraveling the dux bellorum mystery. Arthur died at Camboglanna/Castlesteads on the Cambeck, a tributary of the Irthing.
The son of Arthwys in the genealogies is given as Ceidio, born c. 490 (according to P.C. Bartram), quite possibly the same chieftain whose son is mentioned in the ancient Gododdin poem as ‘mab Keidyaw’. John Koch and others have discussed Ceidio as a by-form of a longer two element name beginning with *Catu-/Cad-, ‘Battle’.
Dr. Simon Rodway was kind enough to write the following to me on Ceidio:
“Ceidiaw is a 'pet' form of a name in *katu- 'ba tle' 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, Cateryn] 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. ”
In other words, this Ceidio would originally have had a full-name of the type Cadwaladr or Cateryrn."
As to where Ceidio belonged, I could only apply what I've come to think of as 'geographical logic' to the question. Ceidio was said to be the father of Gwenddolau, who belonged at Carwinley. His father Arthwys was of the Irthing Valley. And he was (perhaps!) buried at Aballava or Burgh-By-Sands. Directly between these three sites is Stanwix/Uxellodunum, the command center of the Wall and the site of Britain's largest contingent of cavalry. Tradition records that Etterby - which abuts upon Stanwix - was Arthur's burg. I can say, then, that if Arthur did not belong in the Irthing Valley, he must have ruled from Stanwix. Very tentatively, I made a connection between the Ala Petriana garrison there - which gave its name to the fort, either as a nickname or by mistake in the NOTITIA DIGNITATUM - and the later Arthur son of Petrus of Dyfed. The Petriana unit was named for a Petra. The idea is that it was known Arthur of the North ruled from 'Petriana', and was thus of Petra. A king in Dyfed named Petrus then chose to honor the Northern Arthur by giving the name to his own son.
After much reflection and soul-searching, this is really the best I can do for Arthur. I do not know where to go from here without additional information coming to my attention. And that means newly discovered source material which I do not, at present, have at my disposal.
[1]
In this section I will be discussing the case that has been recently made by Ken Dark of the University of Reading for the sub-Roman (i.e. 5th-
6th century CE) re-use of Hadrian’s Wall, as well as of forts along the Wall and in the adjacent tribal territory of the ancient Brigantian kingdom.
According to Dark, from whose paper I will liberally quote:
“… 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 Scotland has 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 refortification; at Birdoswald there are the well known ‘halls’, while at Chesterholma 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 above in Chapter 3].
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 Chestersand 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 Carlislethe 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 Wall from 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 centres 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 another paper, Ken and S.P. Dark rebut 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, thenthe 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 – andperhaps the north generally – was redefended inthe later fifth and early-mid sixth century onvery 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.
Here is yet another summary of sub-Roman findings at the Wall, prepared by the man who was the director of the archaeological group conducting the Stanwix Primary School dig, Dr. Mike McCarthy. The selection may be found in his book ROMAN CARLISLE AND THE LANDS OF THE SOLWAY:
"At Stanwix, Carlisle, little of the fort, the largest on Hadrian's Wall, has been investigated under modern conditions, and it is certain that much will have been destroyed. Excavations in the school playground, however, have provided tantalising hints that activities continued [past the Roman period], with the discovery of at least two phases of buildings represented by substantial post-pits cutting through earlier Roman deposits...
To summarize, modern investigations at several forts have yielded evidence for sub-Roman activity in key buildings. They include the granaries at Birdoswald, the commanding officers' houses at South Shields and Vindolanda, the bath-house at Binchester and the headquarters building at Carlisle. The conclusion one might draw is that important buildings in important locations (forts) continud to have a function at the point where the old-style Roman military command structure no longer had any real force, and the pay chests needed for the soldiery had ceased to arrive; and we can see this at Carlisle where the barracks fell from use. Nevertheless, the continued use of formerly key buildings, as we can see in several forts, might allow us to infer that this is an element in the archaeology of lordship. If so, it is lordship in transition from a Roman command structure to one of sub-Roman leaders emerging as local chiefs or kings with military titles and authority derived from that of the late fourth century. They doubtless formed small private armies or warbands, and established territoria which could supply their provisions and over which they exercised a quasi-leadership role. They were not yet kings or princes, but neither were they members of the Roman army linked into a wide-ranging command structure. Their authority was derived from the former prestige attached to the place, and their dwelings may, as is hinted in the late phases of the Commanding Officer's house at South Shields, be large and imposing, as the central range location of their buildings at Carlisle and Birdoswald may also suggest."
Dr. Frank Giecco, who was also involved with the same excavation at Stanwix, has informed me that,
“Dating is very hard, but a 5th century date seems likely if I had to choose based on evidence. Stanwix had very large stone post pads. A similar building is recorded at Birdoswald. The Stanwix structure was built over the old Roman barracks.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.