A NEW IDENTIFICATION FOR 'VICTOR' OF THE ARTHURIAN NORTH

UPDATE October 3, 2019:

Buadach, 'the Victorious', was an epithet often applied to St. Brigit of Kildare.  See http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/gaeilge/corpus/danta/brigit_buadach.html and other sources.  As the story of Creiddylad seems to have to do with Brigit of Kildare, it may well be that 'Victor' is just a ghost character created from the saint's epithet.  

NOTE: Since writing this piece, I've become aware of another tradition which may have something to do with Nwython the Pictish king and 'Victor.'

Nechtan was associated with a place called Kirkbuddo, supposedly named for a saint Buite.  This Buite was called  búadaig, 'the Victorious.'  See

https://saintsplaces.gla.ac.uk/saint.php?id=32

For the story of this saint and Nechtan, see

https://books.google.com/books?id=xNcKzZwHmnYC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=%22Nechtan%22%2B%22Kirkbuddo%22&source=bl&ots=Gw30GVVuzI&sig=ACfU3U2RuFjyjNbttrMYBOKFmObesP8Ehg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2wOrSxufjAhUpjlQKHXe_DJwQ6AEwB3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Nechtan%22%2B%22Kirkbuddo%22&f=false

There is a Roman camp at Kirkbuddo near Dunnichen, the Fort of Nechtan.  In going back to my earlier idea for Victor, could it be that 'the Victorious' saint next to this Roman fort is a folk memory of the Roman camp of Victoria?

Roman Camp and Buddo Place-Names Just South of Dunnichen

***

In the following article -

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/07/gwythyrvictor-nwythonnechton-and-pen.html

- I tried to make a case for the Gwythur of Arthurian story being a dim recollection of the Roman period Victoria fort in Highland Scotland.  I remained unsatisfied with this identification, however, and have since had an idea that may be vastly preferable.  For it is incredibly unlikely that the fort in question would have been remembered this way in heroic legend, must less personified.

In Welsh, budd- with various terminals came to mean 'victorious.'  The Irish cognate is buiad.  What Welsh does not possess, however, is anything akin to Irish buide, 'yellow.'

Here is the breakdown of these words from the Proto-Celtic:

victory *boudi-, SEMANTIC CLASS: action, OBrit.; Galatian Boudicca; Boudo-ris ‘victorious; victorious king’, Gaulish boudi-, Boudi- ‘profit, advantage, victory’, Early Irish búaid ‘victory’, Scottish Gaelic buaidh ‘victory, virtue’, Welsh budd ‘profit, gain, booty, riches, wealth; blessing, favour, advantage, emolument, benefit, usefulness’, Breton bud (Old Breton) ‘gl. bradium i.e. bravium ‘gain, profit’

yellow *badjo-, SEMANTIC CLASS: sensation, Gaulish Bodio-casses ‘yellow-haired people (?)’, Early Irish buide ‘yellow’, Scottish Gaelic buidhe ‘yellow’

Now, as it happens, Artur son of the Dalriadan king Aedan had two brothers named Eochaid Buide and Eochaid Find.  Find here is the exact Irish cognate of Welsh gwyn, which we find in the person of Gwyn son of Nudd in the CULHWCH AND OLWEN story about Gwythur and Arthur.  What I propose happened in this literary context is that Buide was confused for buaid and the latter "translated" into Victor/Gwythur.

As it happens, Artur and his brother Eochaid Find died in battle together.

https://celt.ucc.ie/published/T201040/text008.html

https://celt.ucc.ie//published/T100002A/index.html

The Irish sources vary as to where this happened.  One places the fateful battle in the territory of the Miathi/Maeatae, while another says they perished in Circenn.  The different accounts have been discussed by scholars such as John Bannerman (in STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF DALRIADA).  See https://www.heroicage.org/issues/1/haaad.htm for a brief discussion of the problem.

Artur's brother Domangart is also present in the CULHWCH AND OLWEN story as Dyfnarth (there wrongly made son of Fergus Mor/Gwrwst).    From the Life of St. Columba:

"For Artur and Eochoid Find were not long after killed in the above-mentioned battle of the Miathi; Domingart was also defeated and slain in battle in Saxonia; while Eochoid Buide succeeded his father on the throne."

And from the Annals of Tigernach:

"The killing of the sns of Aedán i.e. Bran and Domangort and Eochaid Fionn and Artur, in the battle of Circhenn, in which Aodhán was overcome..."

I'm fairly certain that this new theory is valid.  If it is, then the idea that Penn son of Nethawc should be identified with Uther Pen[dragon] is simply an imaginary linking of the two personages in the fiction of the MABINOGION and the "Marwnat Vthyr Pen".  And the story in no way has any bearing on the historical nature of the 6th century British Arthur.  Instead, it represents an incorporation of material derived from the traditions of Scottish Dalriada.

Still, there could be some relatively unknown Buadach or similar in the region.  A few of these names are attested in the later medieval period near St. Andrews in Fife.  See https://books.google.com/books?id=L7Q4DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA166&lpg=PA166&dq=St.+Buadach%2BScotland&source=bl&ots=5ZVKJ6bind&sig=ACfU3U23VZQk3FeH9QuCigIhS5D1ua2CGw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiz6-aMvezkAhXRo54KHUNSDk0Q6AEwC3oECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=St.%20Buadach%2BScotland&f=false.

We should also not forget that Uther is linked in Welsh tradition (at least subsequent to Geoffrey of Monmouth) to Budic I of Brittany, whos name is the Breton equivalent of Gaelic Buadach.  For Budic, see  

https://www.wales.ac.uk/Resources/Documents/Research/BretonPatronymsBritishHeroicAge.pdf.  The Emyr Llydaw or 'Emperor of Brittany' is given a son Madog, as is Uther Pendragon.  The Welsh identified Emyr with Budic.

A similar name is found on the Margam Stone in Wales.  I wrote an article on this quite some time ago, which can be found here: https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-hiberno-british-vortigern-or.html.  We also have Bodvoc on coins of the Dobunni tribe.  

CREIDDYLAD

I've shown that the Cyledyr [1] of the CULHWCH AND OLWEN story is Kildare as found in the Irish sources.  The Pictish king Nechton is said to have established a St. Brigid religious house at Abernethy.  If we may derive Creiddylad from craidd, 'heart', which accounts for Cyledyr being forced to eat his father Nwython's heart, then might not this goddess be Brigid herself?[2]

Her friendship with Saint Patrick is noted in the following paragraph from the Book of Armagh:

"inter sanctum Patricium Brigitanque Hibernesium columpnas amicitia caritatis inerat tanta, ut unum cor consiliumque haberent unum. Christus per illum illamque virtutes multas peregit" (Between St Patrick and St Brigid, the pillars of the Irish people, there was so great a friendship of charity that they had but one heart and one mind. Through him and through her Christ performed many great works.)

In other words, Creiddylad is merely a designation for Brigid.

According to Scottish tradition, Brigid's relics were installed at Abernethy.  As relics can be composed of the physical remains of a saint, the story of Nwython/Nechton and Cyledyr/Kildare may be a confused account of a supposed translation of Brigid's heart from one institution to the other. 

[1] Cyledyr is said to be from *Culidorix < *Con-slii-o-riks 'seizing king' or something, if not from *Culo-dor- 'postern-gate' (figuratively 'defender' vel sim). See Sims-Williams, Celtic Inscriptions of Britain, pp. 46-47, with further references.  However, I don't believe the context of the story supports this etymology.  This is a rare case of my disagreeing with the linguists.

[2] As the story is set in the extreme North, Creiddylad could be a Welsh version of an Irish heroine whose name was spelled Creid, Crede, Credh, Credhe, Creidhe, Creide.  A Cred features in the Battle of Fionntragha or Ventry, the 'White Strand.' Another is the mistress of Cano son of Gartnain, a King of Scotland.

AELIUS DRACO THE DACIAN AND THE BANNA/BIRDOSWALD ROMAN FORT OF UTHER PENDRAGON (A Repost)

NOTE: Since publishing this piece, I have had the following response on the matter from Professor Roger Tomlin:

"I don't really have anything to add to my original publication of the bowl in Britannia 35 (2004). I cite the imperial freedman Aelius Draco there. He would be an important bureaucrat, but Rome-based and unlikely to visit Hadrian's Wall, then commission the Pan and lose it in Staffordshire. Also, as you know, he is 'Antonine', so rather late for the building of the Wall.

The Pan is published by the British Museum on their site (Inv. no. 2005, 1204.1) – britishmuseum.org/collection/object/H_2005-1204-1 – which cites the full publication and discussion by Flügel and Breeze. I don't have this – I only read a draft of it – but they argue that Aelius Draco was a military surveyor, hence the emphasis on rigore.

As I say in my Britannia entry, the name 'Aelius Draco' might well identify an auxiliary soldier called Draco who served on Hadrian's Wall, of which he commissioned a souvenir after being discharged as a veteran in the reign of Hadrian. You can go further if you like, and argue that the name Draco is exclusively Dacian, and thus that he served in the cohors I Dacorum. Since the name is quite widespread, and other people used the draco, I am not entirely happy with this idea. But it is quite possible."

http://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/02/aelius-draco-dacian-and-bannabirdoswald.html

AELIUS DRACO THE DACIAN AND THE BANNA/BIRDOSWALD ROMAN FORT OF UTHER PENDRAGON

Ilam or Staffordshire Moorlands Pan

A few weeks ago I posted an article about the 'aeli draconis' found on a Roman bronze bowl called the Ilam or Staffordshire Moorlands Pan (see https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=1577008&partId=1).  I had pointed out what to me appeared to be a remarkable coincidence.  For this name- Aelius Draco - was found in place of the Banna listed on both the Amiens Patera and the Rudge Cup.  As Banna was garrisoned by the Aelian Dacians, who sported the draco standard and were the only Aelian regiment serving on the Wall, it seemed to me that the presence of this "Dragon" at Banna might have some bearing on Arthur's father, Uther Pendragon.  Unfortunately, at the time I had not gathered sufficient supporting material to make a really strong case.  As a result, I pulled the piece and embarked on additional research in order to prepare it for republishing at an unknown future date.  

Having since engaged in extensive correspondence with Dr. Mark Hassall, a noted expert on things Roman, I'm happy to say that I'm able to put this post forward once again - secure in the knowledge that it can stand up to scholarly scrutiny. I had initially contacted Dr. Hassall because he is listed as co-author of the following study on the Ilam Pan: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/35459/1/4128635.pdf (pp. 344-45, including the lengthy notes). This article is taken from Britannia Vol 35 92004 and, according to Dr. Hassall, was actually written entirely by Professor Roger Tomlin, perhaps the world's top Roman epigrapher. 

The conventional view, as expressed by Tomlin, is that either 1) ael is for Aelian, and is meant to be connected with the previous word, vallum, giving an otherwise unattested 'Aelian Wall' for what we routinely refer to as Hadrian's Wall or 2) ael is for Aelius, and is part of the fuller personal name-form Aelius Draco.  In support of the first idea is the presence of Pons Aelius, a fort at the eastern end of the Wall.  However, No. 2 is thought to be the more likely reading for this portion of the bowl's inscription.

Without my prompting, and merely out of his own curiosity and desire to help me in my own efforts, Dr. Hassall set about actually trying to identify a known Aelius Draco who fits the bill.  And he succeeded in locating an excellent candidate.  I am pasting below his discussion regarding this man, and will follow that with a statement by his esteemed colleague, Dr. John Nandris, who agrees with Hassall's assessment.

"I agree that it is interesting that Dracones - dragons - are a Dacian symbol (and as such appear on the Column of Trajan - the emperor who preceded Hadrian and defeated the Dacians) ,  and it is an interesting coincidence that there was a unit of Dacians  stationed at Banna.  Perhaps it is not after all a coincidence!  Even if as an imperial freedman Aelius Draco lived under Antoninus Pius, it is possible that he originated as a man called Draco in Dacia - perhaps a nickname  - where he was a slave and that he retained this name as his cognomen - Draco - when made free by Antoninus Pius. As an imperial slave he could have come to Britain under Hadrian in the company of the Dacian auxiliaries - all themselves free men -  But what was he himself or his master doing on Hadrian's Wall? Could Draco or his master have been a military surveyor?  And does the phrase rigore Valli Aeli(i) Draconis refer to a survey of forts at the west end of the wall?

Yesterday I went into the Institute of Classical Studies Library to check one or two things raised by your interesting arguments. Basically I still think Aelius Draco was the name of a  person. Roman citizens as you are no doubt aware, regularly had three names  as for example Gaius Julius Caesar where Gaius is the praenomen or forename, Julius is the nomen or family name /surname, and Caesar is the cognomen, or additional given name. In the case of Aelius Draco the prenomen has been omitted - not unusual. Aelius is the nomen and was the nomen of the emperor Hadrian's family  from whom on this interpretation, Draco or an ancestor received Roman Citizenship, and Draco is the cognomen, so there are no problems about Aelius Draco being the name of the man who had commissioned the construction of the vessel and was its owner - especially as the names are in the genitive case. But could Aelius Draco rather be the name of a place as you suggest? Here as again you are no doubt aware, one thinks of the Roman name of Pons Aelius, Newcastle-upon-Tyne 'the Bridge (Pons) of Aelius (=Hadrian). Draco would then be the equivalent of Pons. But why Draco?   I take your point abut there possible being a Dacian connection for Banna - the name for the fort where Cohors I Aelia (!)  Dacorum was in garrison,  but it still seems odd - unless there was a giant statue of a Dacian Dragon there!!!  Doesn't seem likely, and IF it were a place name the equivalent of Banna, why in the genitive when the other place name are all in the nominative?

So much for this but I thought I would also investigate a little about Draco, the name itself. You point out that the name Draco is rare in the western Roman provinces but is found in Italy, Greece Africa and the Balkans.  This is not in itself a probIem because Aelius Draco could have come from outside Britain and either been stationed on Hadian's Wall or visited it.  thought I would look at the examples of the name from Rome in Vol VI of the Corpus of Latin Inscriptions  (CIL = Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.) There I found to my amazement an actual example of the name Aelius Draco!!! - though of course there could be other examples  of the two names together from elsewhere, so this Aelius Draco doesn't have to be the same as the one on the Staffordshire pan, though I personally think it quite likely! The inscription which mentions him was found 'in aedibus Antonini Phrygepani, regione Capitolini - 'in the residence on Antonino Phrygepani (=Frangipani)  in the ares of the Capitol'.

CIL  VI,  part 3 20505                           D  M

                                                     IVLIAE   HELPIDI

                                                   CONIVGI BM FECIT

                                              T. AELIV AVG LIB DRACO                                                    

                                                      ET SIBI ET SVIS

                                                   POSTERIS EORVM

D(is) (Manibus)  Iuliae Helpidi coniugi bene merenti fecit, T(itus) Aeliu(s), Augusti Lib(ertus), Draco et sibi et suis posteris eorum

'To the spirits of the departed of Julia Elpis, well deserving wife, Titus Aelius Draco, freedman of the emperor made this, and for himself  and for their posterity'

Incidentally if he was an actual freedman of Hadrian and got Roman citizenship from him, this would date the vessel to the reign of that emperor - or in theory that of his successor but Hadrian's Wall - or part of it - is  unlikely to have been commemorated on souvenirs after the move to the Antonine Wall.   

If this Aelius Draco is our man what was doing up on Hadrian's Wall? Perhaps acting as some sort of military bureaucrat? And how come that his souvenir ended up in Staffordshire and didn't return to Rome with him?

I realise I made a slip in the email I sent. At the very end I wrote that Ti(tus) Aelius Draco received Roman  citizenship either from the Emperor Hadrian or his successor - Antoninus Pius. In fact it has to be Antoninus Pius because the praenomen of Draco was Ti(tus). The praenomen of Hadrian was P(ublius), and the imperial freedman Draco will have used the praenomen of the emperor from whom he received  Roman Citizenship. The praenomen of Antoninus Pius was Ti(tus) and he was emperor from 138-161.

One thing I can agree on: he may well have been - probably was - a Dacian." [Emphasis mine.]

The following was published in THE TELEGRAPH on 3 October 2003 and was written by Dr. John Nandris:

"I have not handled the fine second-century AD enamelled bronze bowl shown in your report of Oct 1, but it is most unlikely that its owner, Aelius Draco, was a Greek. His Latin name, the link to service on Hadrian's Wall, the date of the bowl and the Celtic style of its decoration all suggest that he was a Dacian. [Again, emphasis mine.]

After the conquest of Dacia by Trajan (103-106), many Dacians served with distinction in the Roman legions on the Wall. Their admiration for Roman culture helped to transmit late provincial Latin into today's Romanian language. Dacians had been in close symbiotic contact with Celts since the fourth century BC, while "Draco" is an allusion to the Dacian battle standard." 

So, what we appear to have here is a Dacian, operating out of Banna, where a Dacian garrison was stationed, who was given the name Draco because of the special significance that monster had for the Dacians in general, and the Dacians at Banna in particular.  

We need only postulate, not at all unrealistically or implausibly, that the dragon and what it represented - both as a Dacian religious/mythological symbol and a Roman battle standard - continued to hold power for the inhabitants of the Banna fort into the sub-Roman period.  This would allow us, ultimately, to trace Uther Pendragon to this military station on the Wall.  I've suggested before that Pendragon may be a literal translation into Welsh of the late Roman military rank of magister draconum.  While this remains possible, and is highly attractive, we could just as easily opt for 'Chief Dragon' as simply an honorific for the leader of the sub-Roman martial elite at Banna.

It was from this Dragon that the famous Dark Age Arthur sprung.  His name, a Roman decknamen, was chosen because Artorius, made famous by the 2nd century dux of York, was likened to the *Arto-/"Bear" name of the river upon which Banna (and Camboglanna) sat.  I've not yet decided where Arthur's power center may have lain.  It could have been one of these two forts in the Irthing Valley or, as I've argued before, at Uxellodunum/Stanwix, the largest cavalry fort in Britain and the command center of the Wall.  Relatively late tradition records an 'Arthur's Burg' at Stanwix (actually, adjoining Etterby, which has no fort or camp).  And given that Pedr/Petrus of Dyfed named a son Arthur, it is tempting to say he did so because the garrison of Stanwix was the Ala Petriana.  The NOTITIA DIGNITATUM calls Uxellodunum "Petrianis".  This has been assumed to be an error, but it may also be a nickname for the fort.  In any case, Stanwix is roughly equidistant between the Irthing Valley, the Carwinley of Gwenddolau and the Aballava/Avalana/"Avalon" Roman fort at Burgh-By-Sands.  My candidate for the Northern Arthur is Ceidio son of Arthwys ('man of the Arth', an eponym for the River Irthing), father of Gwenddolau. Ceidio's hypocoristic name almost certainly originally meant 'Battle-leader', a Cumbric version of the dux bellorum title used to describe Arthur in the HISTORIA BRITTONUM.  So if Ceidio = Arthur, his ruling center should probably be sought at Uxellodunum.  

Dacian or Sarmatian rider with draco from Deva Victrix. In display at Grosvenor Museum.

Photo Courtesy Wikipedia.

NOTE:  In Geoffrey of Monmouth, Uther places one of his dragon standard's in Winchester, the Roman period Venta Belgarum.  I would suggest this might be a reflection of BannaVENTA Bernia, a designation for the Banna Roman fort of the Dacians on Hadrian's Wall.  

A LOGICAL PLACEMENT OF CEIDIO/ARTHUR ON HADRIAN'S WALL (A REPOST)

http://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/02/a-logical-placement-of-ceidioarthur-on.html

A LOGICAL PLACEMENT OF CEIDIO/ARTHUR ON HADRIAN'S WALL

Birdoswald (Banna) Roman Fort, Irthing Valley, Hadrian's Wall

As most of my readers knows by now, my favorite candidate for the famous Dark Age Arthur is Ceidio son of Arthwys.  But I've bounced Ceidio around a bit trying to settle on his primary court.  Three possibilities have been explored: 1) Banna/Birdoswald Roman fort, the birthplace of St. Patrick and site of a sub-Roman and early medieval hall 2) Camboglanna/Castlesteads, where our hero perished along with Modred/Moderatus and 3) Uxellodunum/Stanwix, the largest cavalry fort in all of Britain and the command center of at least the western side of the Wall. It appears to have been known in local tradition as Arthur's Burg.  

To try and narrow these options down,  I've discussed the significance of the name Arthwys in some detail. This is an eponym for a place, in this instance the Irthing River in Cumbria.  Both Banna and Camboglanna are in the Irthing Valley. Arthwys may be compared with Glywys, the eponymous founder of Glwysing in south Wales, from the Romano-British period Glevum used for Gloucester.  It is not, therefore, the name of a real chieftain.  Nonetheless, Arthwys is claimed as the father of both Ceidio and Eliffer of York (who is elsewhere made the son of Gwrwst Ledlum/Fergus Mor of Dalriada, an intrusion into the early portions of some of the genealogical lines of the Men of the North).

While is thus tempting to simply say, "Well, if Eliffer of York can be son of Arthwys of the Irthing, then why can't Ceidio son of the same man/place be of Stanwix?"  But this isn't a simple parallel.  For Ceidio (whose hypocoristic name originally meant 'Battle-leader' or 'Battle-ruler' or the like, which is what doubtless produced the dux bellorum title given to Arthur in the HISTORIA BRITTONUM) would have also born the name Arthur (from Artorius).  And Arthur was associated by the Britons with their word for bear, 'arth'.  So the question we must ask is this: if he were named Arthur because he was born in the Irthing Valley - almost certainly at Banna, where his father's Pendragon title may be a reference to the draco of the Dacians who were garrisoned there - did he also rule from there?  Or was his headquarters located outside of the Irthing Valley?  And, if so, where exactly?

Ceidio is made the father of Gwenddolau, the lord of Myrddin (Merlin).  His name is preserved in Carwinley, i.e. Caer Gwenddolau.  However, even here there is a problem, for Gwenddolau means, literally, 'White dales', and is, therefore, almost certainly yet another personified place-name.  Still, if we allow for Ceidio having been born at Banna and look towards Carwinley, and then triangulate to Aballava/Avalana/"Avalon" at Burgh-by-Marsh, and imagine traveling via the Roman road from, say, Camboglanna to Stanwix and then north to the Roman fort at Netherby hard by Carwinley, that Stanwix really is at the hub of this grouping of forts.  

Stanwix was garrisoned by the Ala Petriana, named for a certain Petra.  Either by mistake or as a sort of nickname, the NOTITIA DIGNITATUM calls Uxellodunum 'Petrianis.' Once again, this was the largest cavalry unit in all of Britain.  I have before very tentatively put forward the idea that the reason Pedr (Petrus) of Dyfed in southwest Wales names a son Arthur was because the earlier, much more famous one had become linked to the descendants of the Ala Petriana of Stanwix.  In considering this possibility a second time, it does not seem so untenable a theory after all.  We might assume that a cavalry force under Arthur had assumed the name of the earlier ala or that a newly raised force patterned after that ala inherited the Petriana designation.  Had Arthur and his horsemen became famous, a prince of Dyfed named Petrus may well have named his son after this great Northern leader of  'the Petriana.'  

While none of the above may seem particularly compelling to someone who wishes to find Arthur elsewhere, I believe that both my placement of his battles as well as the archaeological evidence discussed by the likes of Dr. Ken Dark of Reading (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2018/12/dr-ken-dark-on-fifth-sixth-century.html [1]) make for a valid, and perhaps, strong and convincing argument. 

[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, 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 – 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.”

Rhydderch and the Missing Urien: A New Look at the Battle of Arderydd

Arderydd and the Combatants

The map posted above shows the forces who either came against Gwenddolau at the Battle of Arderydd or who had answered his call as allies.  Bear in mind that Gwenddolau is probably a personified place-name meaning 'White dales'.  So what we are really talking about is someone ruling from Carwinley, the Fort of the White Dales.  

Cynfelyn was of the Cynwyd tribe, and so belongs at Kendal.  Dunawd has been plausibly placed at Dent.  Gwrgi and Peredur were the sons of Eliffer of York.  After fighting at Arderydd in 573, they died in a battle at Carrawburgh on the Wall in 580.  Dreon son of Nudd Hael was of the Selgovae, while Rhydderch was of Strathclyde.  Caer Llywarch, modern Caerlaverock, was probably the home of Llywarch Hen, a chieftain who fought under Urien of Rheged.  According to Welsh tradition. Caer Llywarch was the cause of the Battle of Arderydd.

My problem with the Battle of Arderydd has always been this:  where was Urien of Rheged?  I've previously made what I believe to be a very good case for Urien being of Annandale (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-nucleus-of-uriens-kingdom-of-rheged.html). According to Bartram, Urien was active between 572 and 579, with the earliest death-date for him being 585 or 586.  Given that the fort of Llywarch Hen was the cause of the Arderydd battle, and Arderydd itself was fought just a little to the east of Annandale and was, apparently, an important enough engagement to draw combatants literally from all quarters of North Britain, why is Urien conspicuously absent?

The answer, oddly enough, may lie with Rhydderch. 

On a tributary on the River Annan there is a place called Carruthers.  The etymology of Carruthers has been disputed.  The most useful conversation regarding the name comes from Brythonic place-name expert Alan James.  Note the idea regarding this being from a British 'red water' was initiated by the present author.

***

From Johnson-Ferguson:

Carrotheris 1372, Carutheris 1495

From Black:

John de Carutherys c1320, William of Carruderys 1460

From Hanks & Hodges:

Carrothres 1334, Caer Ruther c1350

local pronunciation /'krɪdɛrz/

-rr- forms predominate, though as you see, -r- occurs in a couple of the earliest. But there can be no doubt that the medial consonant is voiced /ð/ as in Rhydderch or rhudd, not /θ/ as in Uther or rhuthr. 

For the specific, J-F favours Rhydderch, 

H & H 'a personal name probably composed of elements meaning "red and "king"'

AJ in BLITON: ?rūδ- (rhudd) + -ar or -duβr (dŵr), i.e. a stream-name of the 'Rother' type: note Red Cleuch, ‘A deep rugged glen through which a stream runs, this stream rises on Carruthers Fell and falls into Kirk Burn’ (OS Name-Book OS1/10/37/44).

Carrutherstown is a modern name, I'm not sure it's even on the 1st edn OS map, you can check that at the nls site. 

***

So what we have in Carruthers is a place that either means "Caer Rhydderch" or which could have easily been mistaken for such a fort name.

Between Carruthers and Caer Llywarch is Hoddom, site of a 7th century monastery traditionally established by St. Kentigern.  In the past (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2018/09/so-just-who-or-what-was-myrddinmerlin.html) I've shown that the Gwasawg, supporter of Rhydderch, was a nickname for St. Kentigern.  

What it looks like to me, then, is that someone from Annandale/Rheged, perhaps inhabiting the Birrens [1] Hill settlement at Carruthers (itself a mistake for the nearby Birrenswark/Burnswark hillfort?), went against the lord of Caer Gwewnddolau.  In other words, a chieftain of Urien's Rheged was the aggressor in the Battle of Arderydd.  If Caer Llywarch were ultimately the cause of Arderydd, then I would guess that Gwenddolau's king had made a move against a Rheged stronghold.  The attack on Arderydd would be the natural and, disastrous consequence.

The notion that Rhydderch of Strathclyde held sway in the extreme SE portion of what had been the Novantae tribal territory is, in my opinion, absurd.  He did not possess Caer Llywarch and so he could not have been involved in an attempt by Gwenddolau to take the fort of a man who faithfully served Urien of Rheged.

The Burnswark 

When such a war-leader from Carruthers became confused with Rhydderch of Strathclyde, the engagement took on a much grander character.  And as is true of any number of famous ancient battles in heroic epic (from Troy of the Greeks to Bravellir of the Norse), soon any warrior or king within the broader region is drawn to the conflict.  And so a battle of restricted significance becomes a truly important affair, to be celebrated with creative flair in later legend.

The only other battle reported in the extant sources for the same general region is that of Camlann in 537 A.D.  This year marked the death of Arthur.  I've remarked before that Rheged only gained ascendancy after the passing of Arthur. Could it be that the overwhelming victory at Arderydd in 573 opened the way for Urien and son Owain's successes in Cumbria, northern England and southeastern Lowland Scotland? If I'm right about the nucleus of Rheged being Annandale, then this makes a great deal of sense. 

[1]

From Alan James on the place-name birren:

"There's Birrens in Middlebie, Birrens Knowe in Eskdalemuir, Birrenswark in Hoddom and Birronlees in Kirkpatrick Fleming. OE byrȝen is literally 'a burial', so the names may refer to barrows, but the word seems to have been used for features (mounds, cairns etc.) that may not really have been burials. The word itself isn't connected with burh, byriȝ, nor any other word related to fortifications, though there may coincidentally have been forts at all these places. Nor is it a hill word, or only if you count mounds as hills."

Coming Soon - Rhydderch and the Missing Urien: A New Look at the Battle of Arderydd

Arthuret Knowes

Work commencing again on...

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

A LIST OF REASONS FOR PLACING ARTHUR AT BANNA/BIRDOSWALD (A REPOST)

The Goddess of the Lake from Birdoswald

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/04/a-list-of-reasons-for-placing-arthur-at.html

THE ARGUMENT AGAINST PENN SON OF NETHAWC AS UTHER PENDRAGON

Pictish Stone in the Museum of Scotland

Although in recent works I've worked very hard on trying to prove that Penn son of Nethawc might be Uther Pen, Arthur's father, further study of the name has me doubting this possibility.  In addition, while I can try to account to a relocation of the name Nethawc from Lowland to Highland Scotland in the course of story-telling, there is really no justification for doing so.  The context in which Nethawc is found in CULHWCH AND OLWEN plainly shows that he belongs in Highland Scotland and is, almost without a doubt, to be considered merely the pet-form of the fuller name Nwython.  This last is to be found in the same CULHWCH AND OLWEN section and is meant to be a Pictish king Nechtan.

I now feel pretty strongly that Penn son of Nethawc/Nechtan is a borrowing of a legendary character named Cind (the Irish or Q-Celtic form of Welsh P-Celtic Penn) who occurs in stories about the founding of Pictland in Scotland.  An excellent discussion of the relevant sources can be perused here:

https://anthonyadolph.co.uk/the-pictish-king-list/

See most notably Version D:

"The Cruithne came from the land of Thracia; that is, they are the children of Gleoin, son of Ercol.  Agathirsi was their name. Six brothers of them came at first, viz, Solen, Ulfa, Nechtan, Drostan, Aengus, Leithenn…  the Cruthneach later came to Ireland where they had great power, but were expelled by Herimon and the first of their kings in Scotland was Cathluan son of Gub. It then says that ‘the two sons of Cathluan were Catinolodar and Catinolachan. The two champions, Im, son of Pern, and Cind, the father of Cruithne; Crus, son of Cirigh, their soldier; Uaisnemh, their poet; Cruithne, their artisan. Donald, son of Alpin, he was the first,till Britus, son of Isacon, slew him. The clan Neimhidh possessed after Britus, viz, Iarglun. The Cruithneach possessed after that, after they had from from Erin. The Gael possessed after that, viz, the sons of Erc, son of Eachdach."

The Erc mentioned at the end is the ancestor of the Dalriadans, who also feature in the CULHWCH AND OLWEN story.

In all likelihood, then, this Cind, champion of the Cruithne, was linked to the Pictish king Nechtan.

An alternative is to identify Cind with one of the Brude kings who used this word as an epithet or as a element of an epithet.  For a discussion of this use of cind, see

The Brude list. A panegyric to a Pictish king

Nick Aitchison

North American journal of Celtic studies

Vol. 3, No. 1 (2019), pp. 18-46

and

http://heatherrosejones.com/names/pictish/pictishbibliography.html

The ANNALS OF ULSTER mentions a Cinn of the Cruithne in Ireland:

U563.1

Bellum Mona Daire Lothair for Cruithniu re n-Uib Neill in Tuaisceirt. Baetan m. Cinn co n-dib Cruithnibh nod-fich fri Cruithniu. Genus Eugain & Conaill mercede conducti inna Lee & Airde Eolargg.

Sinsit faebra, sinsit fir
i Moin moir Daire Lothair;
adbur comroma do-cert
im righ Cruithne im Aedh m-Brec.
Fichtir cath Cruithne n-uile,
for-loiscset Eilne,
fichtir cath n-Gabra Liphe
ocus cath Cuile Dreimhne.
Berthair giallno iar congail
ass siar im chnuass n-äuch,
Forggus, Domnall, Ainmire,
ocus Nandidh macc Däuach.
Fillsit da macc Maicc Erca
cummai in chetnai;
fillis in ri Ainmere
le selbaibh Setnai,
Is alaind feras a l-luadh
gabair Baetain for in sluagh;
fo-la Baetan fuilt buidhe,
beraid a eren fuiri.

What this means, if I'm correct, is that the Gwythur of the Elegy of Uther Pen may have been associated with Uther only because his epithet Pen was wrongly identified with the Penn son of Nethawc in CULHWCH AND OLWEN.  But, then, there appears to nothing to Gwythur, either. From https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2020/04/creiddylad-not-goddess-welsh.html:

...it is also possible that Gwythyr should not be taken as personal name or epithet at all in this context.  Instead, it could merely be the word  "victory", used of the battle fought at Scone.  From https://books.google.com/books?id=T8k_AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA383&lpg=PA383&dq=%22castellum+credi%22%2B%22victoria%22&source=bl&ots=RJ2rUy_B52&sig=ACfU3U1H5wG7MwpPE1DtLc5JZgHbc8bYeQ&hl=en&ppis=_e&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiL3Y6azdHoAhXPup4KHQ0IDrUQ6AEwAXoECAsQMQ#v=onepage&q=%22castellum%20credi%22%2B%22victoria%22&f=false:

A pun on Gwythyr's name may even be built into the CULHWCH AND OLWEN episode. From http://www.culhwch.info/:

"This was the peace that was made: leaving the maiden at her father's house untouched by either side, and [that] every May Day until the Day of Judgement from that day hence [there should be] a fight between Gwyn and Gwythyr. Whichever one of them was victorious 453 on the Day of Judgement, let him take the maiden."

  453 [g]orffo lit. 'would conquer, would prevail' 3rd pres/fut. subjunctive < gorbot 

The GPC has gorfyddaf: gorfod as meaning "to be victorious; triumph; prevail; to conquer, get the better of, vanquish, overcome, defeat." 

THE STRATHCLYDE NECHTON (NWYTHON) AND PENN SON OF NETHAWC

NOTE: Auchter of Auchter Water is not from uachdar...  The following is from place-name expert Peter Drummond (The Scottish Place-Name Society):

"You will be familiar with W J Watson’s few observations on Nechtan in place-names (CPNS p.239). I do not believe Cambusnethan contains that personal name - the old forms lack the letter c in the medial position.

The first record of Auchter Water is:     ethkar 1193 x 1210 Arbroath Liber i no. 99 ; which may reflect Gaelic àth carr, 'ford or causeway at the bog’, or it may be a Brittonic name of puzzling meaning.

The first record of Auchterhead Moor is Athkarmour 1478, and of Auchterhead 1590s Pont."

The 'Nechtan' Place-Names in Strathclyde

My readers have asked me to deal with the Nechtan personages or place-names of the Dark Age kingdom of Strathclyde, the Roman period tribal territory of the Dumnonii.  Another Dumnonii tribe controlled the Cornwall in which Arthur was often situated.

To begin, the Nwython who is made a king of Strathclyde in the Welsh sources is merely an intrusion of the Pictish king Nechton II into the genealogies of the Men of the North (as was first shown by Molly Miller).  He was brought into the royal pedigree of Strathclyde in the same way as were Fergus Mor and Domangart. This was made possible merely by proximity (as both the Dalriadan and Pictish kingdoms bordered on Strathclyde) and the fame of the non-British chieftains.  The date for Nwython of Strathclyde corresponds quite nicely with a 7th century date for a Pictish Nechton whose obit is found in Irish sources.

There is also a semi-legendary 5th century Pictish king of this name There is good reason for believing that the Nwython of C&O is this 5th century chieftain, whose epithet was Morbet.  His son Cyledyr is, rather transparently, a made-up name derived from the Latinized Irish name for Kildare, 'Cilledara', and is not from a proposed British *Culidorix < *Con-slii-o-riks 'seizing king' (Dr. Simon Rodway) or *Culo-dor- 'postern-gate' (figuratively 'defender' vel sim: Sims-Williams, Celtic Inscriptions of Britain, pp. 46-47, with further references).

From https://anthonyadolph.co.uk/the-pictish-king-list/:

"Necton morbet filius Erip xxiiij. regnavit Tertio anno regni ejus Darlugdach abbatissa Cilledara de Hibernia exulat pro Christo ad Britanniam. Secundo anno adventus sui immolavit Nectonius Aburnethige Deo et Sancte Brigide presente Dairlugdach que cantavit alleluia super istam hostiam. [Necton gave land for the building of a church at Abernethy dedicated to St. Brigid of Kildare.]

Optulit igitur Nectonius magnus filius Wirp, rex omnium provinciarum Pictorum, Apurnethige Sancte Brigide, usque ad diem judicii, cum suis finibus, que posite sunt a lapide in Apurfeirt usque ad lapidem juxta Ceirfuill, id est, Lethfoss, et inde in altum usque ad Athan. Causa autem oblationia hec est Nectonius in vita julie manens fratre suo Drusto expulsante se usque ad Hiberniam Brigidam sanctam petivit ut postulasset Deum pro se. Orans autem pro illo dixit: Si pervenies ad patriam tuam Bominus miserebitur tui: reg-num Pictorum in pace possidebis."

This episode is also alluded to in the Irish version of Nennius's HISTORIA BRITTONUM:

https://celt.ucc.ie//published/G100028/index.html

"Nectan-mor-breac, son of Eirip, xxxiiii. annis regnavit. Tertio anno regni ejus Darlugdach, abbatissa Cille-Dara de Hibernia exulat pro Christo ad Britiniam; secundo? anno adventus sui immolavit Nectonius anno uno Apurnighe Déo et sanctæ Brigidæ, præsente Darlugdach, quæ cantavit alleluia super istam hostiam."

However, all that being said, I would bring up one interesting point.  While the Nechtan of Cambusnethan is said to have been a saint (like the St. Nechtan of Hartland near Arthur's Tintagel), I think this is almost certainly wrong.  Unless, of course, a pagan river deity was "converted" into a Christian holy man.  For not too far south we have the Nethan Water, and this is beyond any doubt a river named for the same water deity associated with rivers in Ireland, i.e. Nechtan.  

So given that the Nethan Water was a major tributary of the River Clyde of Strathclyde, the incorporation of a Pictish king of the same name into the Strathclyde royal line would have been more easily facilitated.  

And, the truth is, even the St. Nechtan of Hartland in Cornwall has often been seen as merely a reflection of an earlier Celtic water god.  In the Life of St. Nechtan, we have the following episode:

"Nectan had two cows which were stolen by robbers. He found them at Neweton [New Stoke], but the robbers beheaded him on June 17. He picked up his head and carried it to the spring near his hut."  - P.C. Bartram's A CLASSICAL WELSH DICTIONARY

The head of Nechtan not only reminds us of Uther Pen/Pen son of Nethawc, but in the context of the saint's death such a head represents the 'head' of the stream that issues from a holy well.  I have wondered whether the 'head' son of Nethawc is actually an error for the head of Nethawc/Nechtan.

A final point on the Nechtan names.  According to Celticist John Koch, Uther derives from a British cognate of Irish uachtar, meaning originally 'lofty, high.'

higher *ouxtero-, SEMANTIC CLASS: measure, Early Irish óchtar, úachtar ‘higher part’, Welsh uthr ‘fearful, dreadful, awful, terrible, tremendous, mighty, overbearing, cruel; wonderful, wondrous, astonishing, excellent’, Cornish euth (??) (Pok.: not cogn.) ‘dread, horror, terror’, Breton euz (Middle Breton), euzh ‘abomination, atrocity, horror’

Between the Nethan Water and Cambusnethan there is a major tributary called the Auchter Water.  In fact, Cambusnethan is on a bend of the Auchter, and Gaelic Cambus- means '[river] bend'. This Auchter is the Gaelic place-name equivalent of Irish uachtar.  Furthermore, the source of the Auchter is called Auchterhead, and exact Gaelic-English hybrid equivalent of Welsh Uther Pen.  English -head may be presumed to have replaced an earlier Gaelic ceann, the cognate of Welsh pen. I happen to see this as a coincidence, but some others may not.  We have already seen above that the head of St. Nechtan of Hartland was the source of a stream issuing from his holy well.

An Irish epithet for the god Nechtain is Scéne, almost certainly to be derived from scén, 'terror, fright, panic.'  This is reminiscent of the Welsh meaning for Uther, 'fearful, dreadful, terrible.'

In closing, I would mention some interesting Nechtans included in the SENCHUS FER nALBAN (see "Studies in the History of Dalriada" by John Bannerman).  First, Conall some of Comgell son of Domangart son of Fergus Mor of Dalriada has a son named Nechtan.  And Conaing son of Aedan (who is also credited with a son named Artur) is said to have a son named Nechtan.  

Strang's Ptolemaic Map of Scotland and the Position of Uxella of the Selgovae (one more time!)

NOTE:  Since doing my work on the Selgovae sites, I've had the following from Scottish Borders archaeologist Dr Christopher Bowles.  He has made an excellent case for Corda being in the Peebles/Lyne area.  Having reviewed his data, including archaeoogical reports on the relevant sites he was kind enough to forward to, I'm now in agreement with him regarding Corda.  This leaves only Uxella as still somewhat uncertain, and someday I will return to my investigations regarding that 'high' location.

"I gave this all a bit more thought over night as I really like the idea of looking for native ‘hosting places’ to associate with Roman activity. It would have made pacification and diplomatic contact that much easier for the army, and Newstead also fits this bill nicely. So, and really I’m not trying to throw another spanner in for your theory…but have you also considered Peebles/Lyne for Corda rather than Carbantorigum? The reason being is that Peebles translates from the Brittonic as ‘the Place of the Tents’, and nearby is the Sheriffmuir which is a traditional meeting place for armies. The fort of East Happrew sits on the edge of Sherrifmuir, and Lyne fort (as well as the now Roman 3 camps) sits directly opposite. In the valley between them, at the foot of the Meldons, there was a large Neolithic/Bronze Age enclosure excavated by Colin Burgess in the 1970s and interpreted as a ritual centre, which was cut by one of the Roman camps. If you’re looking for  hosting places, this one has a very long history as such a place over several thousand years, and benefits from direct Roman archaeology. To put a further twist to this, the Meldon Bridge/Sheriffmuir sites are overlooked by the forts on Black and White Meldon, and the incredible series of three forts and unenclosed settlements on Cademuir Hill. I’ve long thought that this stretch of the Tweed MUST be a tribal centre, possibly becoming the site of a ‘caput’ in the early medieval period. In fact, the early Christian burials at Lyne are possibly a solidification of the special nature of the area in a post-Roman context, and gives a good reason for a ‘Neitano Sacerdos’ being in the area in the 6th century (perhaps preaching in view of the ruined Roman forts?)."

Recreating a possible Flavian map of Roman Britain with a detailed map for Scotland by

Alastair Strang (Proc Soc Antiq Scot, 128,1998, 425-440)

http://journals.socantscot.org/index.php/psas/article/download/10013/9980/

Since reaching certain conclusions in my study of the 4 Selgovae sites in Ptolemy, I've had a chance to look closer at Alastair Strang's papers on the subject.  For the first time I've gained access to the above-posted map.  This has caused me to reconsider ALL my previous identifications aside from the one that is certain, viz. Trimontium at the Eildon Hills at Newstead.

The only way I could think of to resolve the difficulty in placing the various sites was to find a way to bring Carbantorigum and Uxella into near-perfect latitudinal alignment.  None of my previous ideas worked - and neither did those proposed by other scholars.  So it was back to the map and the archaeological databases to satisfy the parameters of Ptolemy's placement.

As it turns out, there are only two sites that work.  The Raeburnfoot Roman fort and the Burgh Hill fort, stone circle and significant satellite settlements.  Strang also shows Uxella just a little above the line upon which he places Raeburnfoot and Bremenium.  This again seems to match Burgh Hill nicely.

While Crawford on the Clyde would still seem to make for a better Corda simply based on Strang's map, I feel pretty strongly the Selgovae center was at Dreva Craig/Louden Knowe on the Tweed, where the god Lugus was worshiped. 

Here is a map of the Selgovae sites plotted out.  I invite my readers to compare this with Strang's.

I had discussed Burgh Hill before in the context of the Catrail, which occurs at the site.  This earthwork/ditch formed a major boundary division, it is thought, between the Britons and the English during the Dark Ages.  It is not impossible that it was roughly the Selgovae boundary long before then.